LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.04.23 (04) [E]

Wed Apr 24 00:16:46 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 23.APR.2002 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.04.21 (02) [E]

Stig Ole Anderson wrote:

>> Whether Soenderjysk SHOULD be considered a separate lg, is quite another
>matter. Using the best of criteria - ask the natives - it is NOT. They
>consider themselves to be Danes (some of them Germans), and their lg to
>be a
>more or less clearly distinguishable variant of Danish, not of German.
>IMHO
>self-designation is a rather better criterion for distinguishing lgs
>than
>the ³linguistic² definition of Œinherent intelligibility¹.

But which natives do you ask? And when do you ask them? Most of the
Scottish contributors to this list consider Scots to be a language, but
if you were to ask many Scots speakers, they would probably reply that
it was a dialect, or even 'slang'.

Also, when do you ask them? If you ask natives whether their native
tongue is a language when it does not have language status then most of
them will obviously reply that it is not. Svabo - one of the early
Faroese lexicographers - considered Faroese to be a corrupt form of
speech, and recommended that the Faroese forget it and adopt Danish
wholesale. The fact that Faroese is now considered a language is because
they have given it the status of a language - but this, like all such
enterprises, was not done without controversy. I bet that you would have
been able to find Faroese at this time who would have told you that it
wasn't a language. Then take the case of Low Saxon. Ron complains about
an official website (I forget which one - is it EBLUL?) which does not
include it as a language of Germany simply because the German committee
does not regard it as such, even though it is included as a language of
the Netherlands in spite of being linguistically closer to Dutch than to
German. Probably they would cite native opinion too.

What this all means is that definition of language and dialect is
usually a function of ideology, and native speakers' ideas of whether
what they speak is a language or a dialect is usually an opinion foisted
on them by education in the standard language of the country which
traditionally set out to belittle local speech forms and create
inferiority complexes towards them. Many Scots and Shetlanders find the
writing of their native tongues particularly offensive, because it
challenges their learned impression of it as a sub-language. Opinions
which have been inculcated in a procedure of linguistic normalisation do
not seem to me to be adequate criteria.

To put it concisely, 'language' is largely a status word, and the
speakers of tongues which do not have status will therefore typically
not regard them as languages. The argument that native perception is a
reliable criterion of language status is thus intrinsically circular.

>I find it somewhat disturbing that a widely used reference source as
>Ethnologue is so misleading on matters I DO know about. I can't help
>wondering about the quality of their information on countries and lgs I
>know
>less or nothing about. I do use Ethnologue, though, but with caution,
>aware
>of their taxonomic bias and shaky statistics.

Again, we can apply the same arguments. Doubtless the German committee
in question would say they know that Low Saxon is not a language, and
they _ought_ to know, it being on their turf. What is 'known' about
languages and dialects - even our own - may, again, be a function of
ideological interpretation.

I am not disputing that the Ethnologue is not reliable. What I would
question is whether the arguments put across by Ole Stig are any more
reliable. In particular, there is the question of what is meant by the
word 'language'. Does the Ethnologue, when it is listing 'languages',
mean the same as Ole Stig means by that word? Or do they simply mean
speech forms which may be distinguished from the dominant language of
the country? Furthermore, have they been informed about these speech
forms by native speakers of them - perhaps people such as myself, who
are interested in heightening the  perception of our own native tongues
against a history of negative evaluations?

John Magnus Tait.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

John Magnus, you wrote above:

> Then take the case of Low Saxon. Ron complains about an official website
> (I forget which one - is it EBLUL?) which does not include it as a
> language of Germany simply because the German committee does not regard
> it as such, even though it is included as a language of the Netherlands
> in spite of being linguistically closer to Dutch than to German.
> Probably they would cite native opinion too.

I've got to tweak that just a tad.

The EBLUL (European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages) tends to be in
step with the policies of the European Union.  Let's put this more
precisely: it tends to be a couple of steps ahead of the EU, i.e.,
mentions also language varieties that have not yet been officially
recognized, including those of countries that refuse to ratify the
European Language Charter.  So, if the European Union and/or a member
country recognizes a language, then the EBLUL should be assumed to do so
anyway.  The EBLUL says it leaves it up to the national chapter
committees to represent the languages.  Germany *has* ratified the
Charter.  As far as I know, the following languages, besides German, are
official (nationally or regionally): Danish, Frisian, "Low German,"
Sorbian and Romani/Sinte.  This means that the German chapter committee
of the EBLUL ought to be considered obligated to represent all of the
aforementioned.  My complaint is that it has not really done so,
certainly not at the EBLUL website.  They told me a long time ago that
they would.  I have no idea if this long delay is because they do not
have their act together or because they are stalling.  Mathieu suggested
I send them the information and ask them to post it.  I don't see why
*I* should be doing so.  It's not like I have been appointed to the
committee.  Writing and posting a brief blurp about each language should
not take them much more than a couple of hours.  If they don't have
certain data, such as number of speakers, all they need to do is say
something like "unknown" or "currently unavailable" -- just put
*something*.  Well, maybe I should appreciate the baby steps,
considering that now they do list the language at least (though have not
listed others).  -- Ah, well ...

Good point that, about native speakers of minority varieties often
having a low opinion of their own languages, even feeling offended at
seeing them "elevated" to written language status and/or used in
contexts other than parochial ones.  I come across this a lot.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 * Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================