LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.04.28 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 28.APR.2002 (02) * 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: Ole Stig Andersen <osa at olestig.dk>
Subject: Language varieties

I wrote:

>> a lg lower in the hierarchy can
>> be considered a dialect of the lg (group) higher up in the hierarchy. So
>> Bornholmsk is a language that is also a dialect of Danish, and Danish is
>> a lg that is also a dialect of Scandinivian, a language that is also a
>> dialect of Nordic, a lg that is a dialect of Germanic, etc up the ladder.

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

> The "problem" would be where to decide to draw the line.  Would then not
> only what in conventional taxonomy are now considered language families
> qualify as "languages," such as Indo-European, Altaic, Uralic, Semitic,
> Bantu, Na-Dene, Athabascan, Sino-Tibetan and Khoi-San? In less
> conventional, "macro"-models there would be only a handful of
> "languages," such as Nostratic (connecting Indo-European, Altaic,
> Uralic, Semitic and Bantu), and in Proto-World and other such "radical"
> models there would be only one language in the world, the rest being
> dialects of it.

I would decide where to "stop" in the lg hierarchy by practical
pedagogic
criteria, not by principal lingustic ones. In the learning interface
between
any two (groups of) lgs I would stress what they have in common.

As for the nodes of the conventional taxonomy, I think that at the level
of
Germanic, the shared lexicon is so immense that it is wasteful to
overlook
it. I don't think the shared lexicon on the level of Indo-European is
large
and transparent enough to be pedagogically useful. And on the level of
Nostratic the transparency has gone completely and only a few handfuls
of
shared words are left.

In the last analysis I DO consider the Globe enveloped in a single
Linguosphere and all the world's lgs to be versions/dialects" of "THE
Human
Language". They seem to have so much in common, to cut it short.

Here is a "routine" I use in teacher training as a preparation for the
theme: Language Comparison

You put three chairs on the floor, one turning one way, the two other
turning (opening) the other way. And ask the students "Are they
different or the same?"

When you have convinced those who think it is a silly question to play
along, about a sixth think the chairs are wholly "the same", after all
they
are all chairs. A third think they are the same, though somewhat
different,
another third think they are different but somewhat alike, and a sixth
think they are wholly different. (" this one has a scratch, and ....")

Difference/Sameness is a very basic perceptive filter, the answer is not
found in the Real World, where all chairs and lgs are both the same and
different, but Within, where individuals tend to prefer, almost as a
personality trait, Sameness or Difference. In science, too, Sameness and
Difference are not intrinsic qualities of the World, but a result of the
perspective you cast. That's why taxonomies/inventories HAVE to differ
according to purpose.

The world's lgs are not only groupable along genetic-historical lines.
There
are also (at least) two other completely unrelated but just as correct
ways
of grouping lgs:

- typologically (e.g. Chinese and Vietnamese are closely related to
("like")
Danish since they have a very similar word order, which is of great
predictive power for a learner.

- culturally (loanwords and especially alphabets, i.e. religion and
political power).

I have met many Turks and even some Kurds who accept the official
Turkish
propaganda, that Kurdish is a corrupt, backwards version of Turkish,
called
"Mountain Turkish". And a (South) Korean acquaintance of mine is adamant
that Korean is closely related to Chinese and Japanese. He always argues
with alphabet, loanwords and Confucianism, and will not accept that
these
are irrelevant to lg kin.

Like Sandy Fleming experienced

> Incredible though it may seem, when learning Welsh in Wales
> in the 1980s I would sometimes come across people who couldn't
> be persuaded that Welsh wasn't just a particularly degenerate
> dialect of English.

I find this kind of observations very important and anything but
incredible.
They show that people CAN find a lg grouping according to status and
political clout more meaningful than lingusitic difference or
similarity.

In the Mind lgs are not neatly separated in the linguistic sense. People
employ lg according to their intentions, and there is nothing strange
about
employing "different" codes according to whom you are trying to
influence
("communicate with") and consider them all to be socially stratified.
The
status and usefulness of a lg is not at the core of linguistic study,
but it is certainly at the core of people's lives.

That is also why my utopian suggestion of learning all the Germanic lgs
simultateously can not possibly be borne out. It's simple: Everybody
wants
to learn English, some German, and that's it. Nobody wants to learn or
even
know about ALL the Germanic lgs (expect for a few twisted ones among us)
for what would be the use, except for Beauty and Philosophy?

Regards,
Old Stig Andersen
http://www.olestig.dk

----------

From: Ole Stig Andersen <osa at olestig.dk>
Subject: Language varieties

> Subject: Re: Language varieties

I wrote

> In the Mind lgs are not neatly separated in the linguistic sense. People
> employ lg according to their intentions, and there is nothing strange about
> employing "different" codes according to whom you are trying to influence
> ("communicate with") and consider them all to be socially stratified.

But forgot a sentence:

... consider them all to be socially stratified versions of one and the
same "Speech".

Ole

==================================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
=======================================================================