LL-L "Language policies" 2003.01.23 (07) [E/S]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 23.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: Andy Eagle <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language policies" 2003.01.22 (09) [E]

Ian James Parsley wrote:

<snip>

> However, there are certain questions that have to be
> answered about the contention that 'Ulster Scots' is a
> language in its own right. What research illustrates
> that there are certain linguistic markers used
> consistently in a Scots dialects in Ulster but not
> in Scotland? How does one define 'Ulster Scots', if it
> is not part of 'Scots'? What purpose does
> distinguishing 'Ulster Scots' from 'Scots' actually
> have?

> Or is this a just a power game? I daresay that if it
> helps distinguish 'Ulster Scots' from 'English', the
> proponents of the 'Ulster Scots is separate' line will
> be the first to steal an archaic word from NE
> Scotland!

I have, over the last few years done a lot of reading-up on Ulster Scots,
especially its phonology and of course connected to this, its
vocabulary. I was surprised how close it is to Scots in Scotland,
especially central varieties. Ulster Scots seems to have kept some
features (both phonological and grammatical) which are now archaic in
Scotland
but this is to be expected of varieties at the fringe of a linguistic
continuum.
It has also acquired a few other features from Irish and Ulster English,
both of
which it has had close contact due to settlement patterns. Beyond that
it is clearly Scots. Even in Traynor's Dialect of Donnegal I come across
turns of phrase
and idioms I know from Fife - and as far as vocabulary goes (excepting
Irish loans) nothing unusual there either. As far as distance between Scots
speakers
go, Donnegal and Fife are as about as far apart as you can get.

This problem of "mini me" languages is not particular to Ulster. Scots
is often approached from a local viewpoint and 'language planning' is
often founded on this. The local variety is then, in written form,
simply a modification of English spelling conventions in order to
represent the local pronunciation. To me this approach is caught in
the 'dialect trap'. It simply underpins the assumption that (varieties
of) Scots is a 'deviation' from an English 'norm'.  It also hinders
developing Scots as a 'functional' language because the "mini me"
language is only of use locally - further underpinning the
marginalisation Scots suffers anyway.  Tied into this is a desire to
consider highly Anglicised varieties Scots. Of course there is a
linguistic continuum with Scots at one end and SSE (Scottish Standard
English) at the other. Somewhere on this continuum English influenced
Scots becomes Scots influenced English and in my opinion  Scots
influenced English is not Scots but simply that - Scots influenced English
(this is not a value judgement!). I would assume attempts to establish
 a literary 'standard' would be based on the most traditional (ie. the
 least Anglicised) varieties. Is that not what language maintenance is
 about? Of course the socio-linguist points out that language change
 is normal - but this isn't language change its language suicide. Slow
 but ultimately fatal - Scots grammar, vocabulary (phonology) and idiom
being
 replaced by English. If one then defines Scots influenced English as
 Scots the logical outcome is to define English spoken with a
 Scottish accent as Scots.

Whether or not this is a 'power game' or 'empire building' I have no
idea. But what I do know is that language planning that fails to see
and take into consideration the whole picture will achieve very little
for the revitalisation of Scots. Resources (ie. money) is scarce and
wasting it on a multitude of "mini me" languages - differentiated on
the whole only orthographically (depending on how Anglicised in
grammar, idiom etc. they are).
If one accepts the concept of a polyphonemic orthography that
can be used for all varieties, plus a small dose of toleration of
local grammatical and vocabulary differences - a written form that
serves all varieties could be developed and duplication of resources
avoided and subsequently more resources for all concerned produced.

> I daresay also that this is a familiar experience
> elsewhere in the 'Lowlands'?

R. F. Hahn Wrote:

> Ian (above):

>> I daresay also that this is a familiar experience
>> elsewhere in the 'Lowlands'?

> Possibly the case of "Low Saxon" in the Netherlands vs. "Low German" in
> Germany.  Most of the establishment of the latter keeps pretending that
the
> former is not a part of the latter, pretending to be dealing with two
> separate languages that just happen to be divided at the German-Dutch
> border.  My hunch is that it is mostly their way of keeping things
> "manageable," i.e., in the country, so hairy problems can be avoided (such
> as orthographic reform on an *international* basis rather than on the
> current German basis), and you can continue treating the language as an
> appendage of German as was done before official recognition, aside from
the
> understandable reluctance to give up one's more convenient position of
being
> a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

With Scots its not so much the 'Establishment' but parts of the Scots
language movement itself that "keeps pretending that the former is not a
part of the latter"
objecting to the concept of a 'Pan-Scots' orthography on the grounds
that it would be unfamiliar to Scots speakers, who on the whole are
illiterate (One can argue whether or not there is A (as in one)literary form
at all)
in their own language anyway and when most venture into writing Scots
it is often English modified to show their local pronunciation.
Many of the same of course vehemently wish to "pretend" that Scots
influenced English is included in Scots.

So the argument is that A 'Pan-Scots' orthography is unsuitable because
speakers
are unfamiliar with it - and of course they are unfamiliar with it
because they haven't been taught it - and they can't be taught it
because they are unfamiliar with it - and because they haven't been
taught it they are unfamiliar with it - and they can't be taught it
because they are unfamiliar with it...etc.

And all the while Scots remains marginalised.

It must be pointed out that 'language planning' is not something done
by government in Britain. In Scotland school curricula are decided by
whoever controls the schools locally. Its not the job of the
Establishment to develop Scots but interested parties. Government can
recommend that Scots is included in the curricula but in the end its
more to do with parent's demands than anything else.

Surely its better to be a big fish in a bigger pond?  More to eat,
more room to move, develop etc.

Andy Eagle

----------

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

Andy,

"Mini me languages" ... Bravo! That's knackie, an A gree wi awthing ye wrate
abuin.  It aw applees tae the Laich Saxon seetiation an aw.  Ye git a gowden
starn fer makin ma day, pal!

> With Scots its not so much the 'Establishment' but parts of the Scots
> language movement ...

All right.  So "establishment" isn't the happiest of choices.  I was
referring to long-standing, vocal and influencial factions of the movement,
and this happens to include a few well-known academics, which tends to give
those factions and their opinions added "weight" in the eyes of many.  I
still think the two cases are very much alike, and your opinion fits nicely
in both cases.

Lowlanders, incidentally, Claus Schuppenhauer (whom I mentioned in my
previous message) sent me and the other twelve surviving holders of the
Freudenthal Literature Prize
(http://www.sassisch.net/rhahn/low-saxon/freudenthal.htm) a request.  For a
paper he will present at a seminar about regional literature he wishes to
know if and how receiving the prize has made a difference to us as writers
of Lowlands Saxon (Low German), and he will share the findings (i.e., his
paper) with us, which I look forward to.  Of course I will oblige, for I
have much respect for him and his work, certainly can think of no one
contemporary who has done more for the language, both in terms of research
and in terms of promotion.

However ... I have a problem with the term "regional literature"
(_Regionalliteratur_), and I would welcome anyone's input before I respond.
I have been thinking long and hard about it, and currently my inclination is
to reject the term "regional literature" and to inform Dr. Schuppenhauer of
this in the nicest possible terms.  I do not think of myself as a "regional
writer" but as a "writer."  I use Lowlands Saxon to write about *anything*,
not only about life, culture and events in the area in which the language
happens to be used most commonly, in which I grew up but do not live.  I
write about things anywhere in the world, and so far I have translated texts
from Dutch, Yiddish, Sorbian, Scots, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese
and Chinese into Lowlands Saxon.  I do not see several other Lowlands Saxon
writers as "regional" either, e.g., Waltrud Bruhn.   My contention is that
using a language that has been labeled "regional" by Germany, the
Netherlands and the European Union does not make me a "regional writer."
Does a writer who uses Frisian, Sorbian, Romany, Catalan, Ladin, Scots,
Gaelic or Occitan produce "regional literature"?  What *is* "regional
literature"?  Is there such a thing?  If so, is it not rather a matter of
subject matter than of language, and can it not also be produced using a
"power" language like German, English or French?  Am I being oversensitive
in my quest not to allow Lowlands Saxon (or Scots, or Limburgish, or ...)
and its creations be "belittled" by labels that, intentionally or not, limit
it, marginalize it, hold it down?

Thanks for thinking about it.

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>.
 =======================================================================