LL-L "Ethnicity & nationality" 2003.01.17 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 17.JAN.2003 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 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
 Archive: 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: Criostoir O Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Ethnicity & nationality" 2003.01.17 (04) [E]


Ron,

"The data seem to corroborate what I suspected and alluded to: chipping away
at linguistic diversity within each perceived ethnic group."

At best, I think Singaporean language policy might be termed "wrong-headed".
One has to question the mentality behind assigning each population group an
"ethnic language" that is by and large an alien language for that ethnie
(e.g., Mandarin for all ethnic Chinese regardless of home tongue) and then
relentlessly pursuing the alignment of that group with that language.

Either way you look at it - as an homogenising policy or as a protection for
communal heterogeny - the approach is strange, resting as it does on a rigid
correlation of language and ethnicity, and quite aside from the
Anglicisation policy of Singapore (whereby all citizens are encouraged to
learn English as the language of state and inter-ethnic communication) it
seems to place a linguistic burden on a large proportion of the population.

Having said that, if countries such as Ireland could pursue their own
language policies half as successfully as Singapore seems to have done, the
programme itself might be something to admire, or in the very least draw
inspiration from.

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Ethnicity & nationality

Criostóir:

> At best, I think Singaporean language policy might be termed
"wrong-headed".

Well, the Singaporean government, having a well-known track record as being
"pragmatic," would probably defend itself by saying that a country of such a
small size, with such ethnic and linguistic diversity, and with virtually no
natural resources, thus with almost complete dependence on global commerce,
has no choice but to "streamline" (for want of a better term).  At least
this is the general tenet I've been noticing since the early Lee Kwan Yew
era.  My prediction is that the "smaller" languages (i.e., those without
official catch-all status) will eventually die out, including
Singapore-specific varieties of Chinese languages and dialects.  With
similar policies in neighboring Malaysia, "small" languages like Baba Malay,
Orang Selatar and Malacca Creole Portuguese have no chance of survival, and
Singapore-specific English (which is quite distinct, albei rather similar to
Malaysian English) will probably also fade away with globalization.

But are similar things not going on in the Lowlands and surrounding areas as
well?

Until recently, Lowlands Saxon (Low German) and Limburgish were not
recognized, and schooling in German and Dutch respectively diminished the
number of speakers long before official (mostly grudging) recognition (under
European Union pressure) came about.  The speakers are still considered
ethnically German or Dutch by most people, and the "one ethnicity = one
language" model still haunts most European minds.

Reciprocal ethnic minority policies between Germany and Denmark ignored
Lowlands Saxon (then considered "dialect"), pretty much lumped all
non-Scandinavian speakers in Denmark together as "German" and all
Scandinavian speakers in Germany as "Danish."  German schools in Denmark
only teach in German and secondarily in Danish, Danish schools in Germany
only in Danish with German as secondary language.  There has been no
official provision for either Lowlands Saxon in Denmark and for Southern
Jutish (_Sønderjysk_, which some consider separate from Danish) in either
country.  As a result, you only get Lowlands Saxon and Southern Jutish
"dialect" sprinklings.  I believe that this was the death knell for Lowlands
Saxon in Denmark, possibly also for North Frisian in Denmark.  The "Germans"
of what is now Denmark used to be predominantly Lowlands-Saxon-speaking,
certainly those in rural settings.  German domination of the language in
Germany was detrimental enough; in Denmark it was devastating.

Regards,
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>.
 =======================================================================