LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.10 (04) [E]

Sun Apr 10 17:45:07 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 10.APR.2005 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.09 (01) [E]

Ron wrote:
"I am sure that this is further strengthened by the European obsession with
the concept "one language, one ethnicity, one nation"..."

I have been following this debate from the sidelines, having been too busy
otherwise to jump in, as much as I have wanted to.

Two points:

Firstly, English is absolutely _not_ a neutral language. From the point of
view of someone whose ethnic languages (Cornish and Irish) have been largely
extirpated it, the "English is a neutral economic necessity" only lends
weight to those who would oppose the strengthening of Cornish and Irish. In
Ireland especially, there has been a vocal movement against Irish, basing
their argument on a supposition that Irish is not only uneconomic, but that
the adoption of English by the Irish has in effect been a godsend.

Secondly, notions of "one language, one ethnicity, one nation" is hardly
European. Americans and increasingly Australians are the ones who confuse
"nation" with "state". Hence Americans talk of "the nation" where they mean
state structures. They were the first to refer to "one nation [under God]".
Regardless of the origin(s) of Americans, more and more refer to themselves
as "American" on census forms (as do Australians and Canadians) - clear
signs of "one ethnicity". I do not even have to describe in depth the fact
that both the United States and Australia have utterly monolingual
English-only policies (California banned bilingual education, remember),
even though their is no official language in either.

English is a killer language. Don't let its utility deceive any of you
otherwise.

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.08 (08) [E]

Mark Williamson wrote:
"...the problem with your suggestion about Letzebuergesch is that the common
viewpoint in Luxembourg will most likely be that it isn't economically
viable (although it really is; it's just going to be hard for people to
fathom an international business haven in Luxembourg
with such restrictions)."

Of course. Every language (even the like of Livonian) is economically
viable. Money doesn't care which language uses it. Economic arguments are
excuses for no change. Ironically enough, where the change is substantial,
businesses - at least in Europe - are usually enthusiastic drivers of the
process. In Wales after the Welsh Language Act 1993, businesses soon adopted
limited bilingualism as a form of corporate social responsibility.

Mark also wrote:
"Re the French interior ministry's comments on "patois": The entire
post-revolutionary French government should be shot. Seriously, these people
care more about national unity than the concerns of their constituents."

I wholeheartedly agree. The same can be said of English in the United States
and Australia. "Anglais est la langue de la peuple, et l'état."

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Mike <botas at club-internet.fr>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.08 (08) [E]

Mark wrote:

hard for people to fathom an international business haven in Luxembourg
with such restrictions

which restrictions? Having a national language of its own?
At the international crossroads, LX will always have to deal
with, and be conversant in, other languages.

Or were you referring to "having to learn the language or leave"?
This obviously would not apply to a business, but it would only
be fair to apply it to those of its agents who seek resident status.

What´s your view, Mark? What´s your view, Lowlanders?

Mike Wintzer

----------

From: Mike <botas at club-internet.fr>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.08 (08) [E]

Ron, you wrote:

...as of next Monday afternoon...

Is there reason for congratulations?!

Mike Wintzer

----------

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

Críostóir,

You points are well taken.  Bear in mind, though, that my critical remarks
about European attitudes ought not be taken as endorsing other existing
attitudes, American, Australian or whatever.

Having said this, please remember that, while they have conventions, the
United States have *no* language policy, certainly nothing enshrined in the
constitution as it is in France and other European countries, thereby, at
least in theory, leaving the door open for another language to take the
lead.  This is why some groups want to introduce a federal "English only"
policy, decried as fundamentally racist by many in the opposition.  Changes
in California are within educational policies on the *state* level, favored
by a succession of conservative-dominated governments.  The federal
government has no say in this, though the federal supreme court will be able
to endorse it or strike it down when it is brought before it.  However,
school districts in "liberal" areas (such as the San Francisco Bay Area) are
finding ways around the conservative-lead political changes.  Furthermore,
bear in mind also that Spanish as a second language, at least, is being
forcefully pushed throughout the States, and is a requirement for a large
percentage of job positions especially in the southwestern states.  This is
rarely the case in European areas in which minority languages are used, not
even in administrative positions.

The United States, Canada and Australia used to pursue intregration policies
that were hostile to linguistic and cultural survival in indigenous and
immigrant communities.  They all changed this in the 1960s and 1970s.
Canada and Australia put a lot of money into their diversity support
policies, and many immigrant languages do very well in those countries, also
in the United States.  Maltese and Timorese, for instance, had a lot of
speakers in Australia and, with government support, had media representation
even when they did not do well in their countries of origin.  Cantonese,
Hokkien and Mandarin are doing extremely well in all three countries, being
represented strongly in the media, as is Spanish in the United States.  For
decades now, Canada Day and Australia Day have been celebrated with the
strong message of encouragement for maintaining various family-heritage
languages and cultures as Canadians and Australians.

The point is that being American, Canadian or Australian is not seen as
belonging to a certain ethnic group, while nationality and ethnicity, and in
extension language use, *is* widely considered as "ideally" coinciding in
conservative European views.  Being different (which includes belonging to
any indigenous minority) is still widely considered alien, problematic,
obstinate and even "foreign" in Europe, while this is far less so in
American, Canadian or Australian societies.  Despite my "accent" and my
"weird" ways and opinions, Australians and Americans always tend to err on
the side of assuming that I am a citizen of their respective countries just
by virtue of living there.  In Europe this tends to be the opposite.  People
speaking "foreign" languages and having non-mainstream cultures, religions
and dress are by default assumed to be foreigners, even for generations and
centuries, as I mentioned before.

Críostóir, I can understand that English is by no means neutral to
linguistic minorities of Britain and Ireland.  However, it is my impression
that it is becoming so in the rest of the world.

> Economic arguments are excuses for no change.

Right-o, daddy-o!

> Ron, you wrote:
>
> ...as of next Monday afternoon...
>
> Is there reason for congratulations?!

Thanks, Mike.  That's entirely up to you and your views.  Let's just say
that I am gaining something without giving up anything.  Furthermore,
nothing will ever change my cosmopolitan status, though there's no piece of
paper for that (yet).

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.
=======================================================================