LL-L "Language survival" 2003.04.27 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.APR.2003 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

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

Kenneth,

In private communication you asked me to rephrase the following passage
that appeared in my response to your proposal.  I realize that it is
somewhat unfortunately phrased, so I will try to elucidate on the List
for the benefit of others that I may have confused with it.

> Because you have a "flagship" or "figurehead": a standard written
> variety, albeit a loose one.  I guess this is a step in the direction of
> what in traditional German thought has been labeled a _Kultursprache_
> ("culture language"), something through which interregional, national
> culture expresses itself (seemingly implying that regional culture is
> not really culture and unwritten languages are of lesser value).

According to traditional European thinking, a legitimate language is a
national one, nation (i.e., country) and ethnicity should ideally
coincide, and unwritten languages are not really languages, just as oral
literature is not really literature.  This ideal of one language for one
nation (which has rarely been realized but which in many cases is
pretended reality) is one in which a country whose citizens all belong
to one and the same ethnic group and use one and the same language.
Since linguistic heterogeneity is a fact of life in most countries, a
standard variety is created, and everyone can and should use it as a
national standard.  It is this variety that is supposed to be written
and should in many people's opinions be the only written variety.  Some
would go as far as hoping that language standardization in conjunction
with educational standardization on a national scale would eventually do
away with non-standard varieties, thus creating perfect
nationalization.  Those that realize that achieving total homogeneity is
next to impossible, perhaps also those that think that diversity is
acceptable, might tolerate "dialectal" writing, perhaps interspersed for
"color" in direct quotes, or even real "dialect literature" as a
subordinate (usually less worthy, less cultured) category of literature,
subordinate to literature composed according to official standards.  If
non-standard varieties are written, the orthography ought to be based on
the orthography of the standard language.  Everything else would be
considered "secessionist," so to speak.  A language without a standard
variety and without a standard orthography is by many or most considered
not a true language, because it lacks a representative ("flagship" or
"figurehead" above), is merely an amorphous, loose conglomeration of
what most people would call "dialects."  This image as "not really a
language" and "a group of dialects" will likely remain as long as there
is no such official, representative variety and orthography, no matter
what sort of language policies are being legislated.

Thus, in my view, to create a climate in which non-national languages
can survive and thrive calls for convincing everyone of the following:

(1) Ethnic and linguistic diversity is all right, is not a threat to
national loyalty and cohesion.  Similarly, one perceived ethnic group
can use more than one language, just as several ethnic groups can share
one language (i.e., ethnicity and language do not necessarily coincide).

(2) Not all language varieties used within the same country need to be
related.  More than one language can be used by the citizens of the same
country, and the relationship between these languages does not need to
be a competitive one, nor do they need to be viewed in a hierarchical
way.

(3) "Minority" and "regional" languages do not necessarily have to have
a single standard variety.  If need be, more than one standard can be
created, such as in the case of Sorbian (or "Lusatian," a Slavonic
language of Germany), which has two written standard varieties (Upper
Sorbian and Lower Sorbian), although there is one overall united Sorbian
ethnic consciousness, also Norway, which has two closely related
standard languages without any perceived threat to national unity.

(4) Standard varieties and orthographies aid language cohesion and
survival but do not necessarily lead to the eradication of non-standard
varieties.  Non-standard varieties can be written using the same
orthographic principles as the standard variety, and this will aid
interdialectal reading comprehension, will not necessarily weaken
non-standard varieties.

(5) Standard orthographies of languages spoken within the same country
do not have to follow the rules of the nationally common (usually
dominant) language.  People can learn foreign languages and their
orthographies; they thus can cope with different orthographies among the
languages of their own country.  An example is Sorbian, which used to be
written according to German orthographic principles but later adopted
orthographic devices from Polish, Kashubian, Czech and Slovak, its
closest genealogical relatives used outside Germany.  Though this has
come with and aided Slavonic consciousness among Sorbs, it has not led
to any noticeable change in national (German) loyalty.  Bilingual German
citizens in Schleswig can cope with German and Danish orthographies.
Why should they be unable to use a non-German-based orthography for
Lowlands Ssaxon (Low German) which is also spoken there?  If we wrote
the Frisian varieties of Germany according to Westerlauwer Frisian rules
(of the Netherlands), I predict that this would not create any sort of
threat to national German cohesion.  If we decided to write Lowlands
Saxon (Low German) -- which is the closest genealogical relative of
Dutch, Zeelandic/West Flemish and Afrikaans -- according to Dutch
orthographic principles (which is not necessarily what I am advocating),
my prediction is that it would not create any such threat either,
although, at least in Northern Germany, LS speakers are no longer
considered a separate (Saxon) ethnicity but are seen as ethnic Germans.
Using similar orthographic principles for Dutch and LS would, however,
facilitate mutual written comprehension between the two languages and
also between them and the other mentioned languages.

Cheers!
Reinhard/Ron

================================END===================================
* 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.
=======================================================================