LL-L "Language politics" 2008.11.12 (01) [A/D/E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 12 November 2008 - Volume 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
===========================================


From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics"

Beste Ron,



You wrote:



Luxemburgs word ook in die media gebruik. Dis die nasionaaltaal en een van
drie offisieël tale van Luxembourg. Alhoewel dit as 'n Duits dialek beskou
sou word het dit die status van taal en dit word offisieël nie ondergeskik
onder Duits of Fraans nie. In werklikheid mag baie mense steeds in sekere
konteks Duits of Fraans verkies. (Snobisme? Duits en/of Fraans indoktrinasie
dat Luxembourg nie 'n kultuurtaal kan wees?) Maar Luxemburgs het ten minste
die toestemming, die potensiaal om in die toekoms in almal konteks op die
selfde of 'n hoër vlak te wees. As 'n dialek sou dit hierdie toestemming en
hierdie potensiaal nie hê nie.



Wat is het toch fijn om advokaat van de duivel te spelen hé? *s*



Het is precies de sterkte van een dialect dat het in relatie tot een
standaardtaal een geuzenrol kan spelen. Being substandard has its merits.
Kijk maar naar de punkbeweging, "outlaws" als Robin Hood, martelaren, ghetto
speak... Ook voor underdogs moet er ruimte blijven. Als je dialect
daarentegen verheft tot officiële status, dwing je het in een keurslijf
zodat het zijn plastische spankracht en wetteloosheid verliest: dan heb je
door formalisering een dialect verkracht. Oneigenlijk gebruik heet dat. Je
hebt het zijn natuurlijke organische voedingsbodem ontnomen, want officieel
worden, brengt nooit alleen rechten maar ook plichten mee. En zelfs al zou
het alleen maar rechten opleveren, dan nog heb je het ingekapseld. Dialecten
groeien spontaan uit tot standaardtaal...of niet. So be it. Promotie kan
gebeuren door bewezen diensten: die moeten eerst komen, niet omgekeerd. En
als die "bewezen diensten" er zijn, dan mogen voor mijn part taalarchitecten
hun spelletje naar hartelust spelen.



Als iemand een wetenschappelijk paper of dissertatie opzettelijk in een taal
schrijft die maar door twee man en een paardenkop gesproken wordt, dan gaat
hij/zij volledig voorbij aan het eerste doel van publicatie: gelezen worden.
Het hermetisch karakter van dergelijk schrijfsel zou bij mij onmiddellijk
een reflex oproepen van: Wat heeft die man/vrouw te verbergen? Voor die
persoon lijkt vorm belangrijker dan inhoud. Dat kan in wetenschap nooit een
hoofddoel zijn.



Als in een gezelschap van 5 mensen er twee steevast onder elkaar hun eigen
dialect blijven praten terwijl ze weten dat de anderen dat niet verstaan, en
terwijl ze alle vijf toch gemeenschappelijke belangen en een
gemeenschappelijke taal bezitten, dan is "taalparticularisme" helemaal niet
iets om fier op te zijn, maar eerder een vorm van "extremisme". Een taal
officieel maken is eerder de verschillen dan de overeenkomsten benadrukken:
ik dacht dat zo'n discriminerende mentaliteit in onze 21ste-eeuwse
holistische wereld niet meer kon? Tussen haakjes, voor mij is de 21ste eeuw
in 2008 begonnen.



P.S.: Ek hou heeltemal nie van die hiërargies gebasseer Europies konsep
"kultuurtaal" nie.  :-( Almal tale is gebasseer op kulture.



Klopt. Ik hou ook niet van het begrip "kultuurtaal"...maar...een dialect tot
officiële taal verheffen betekent precies een structuur aanbrengen binnen
een verzameling talen. Al is die hiërarchie niet-piramidaal toch blijft het
een hiërarchie. Dan ben je nog beter met het Amerikaanse systeem van geen
officiële taal te hebben...om ruzie te vermijden. Al blijft het op mij zeer
kunstmatig overkomen dat de VS Engels niet als officiële taal heeft...en
Israël wel. *s*



Vriendelijke groetjes,



Luc Hellinckx



PS: Zojuist een liedje van Alain Stivell gehoord in het Bretoens...for some
reason, deed de klankkleur mij erg aan Hebreeuws denken.

PPS: Van zodra het establishment een beweging integreert is die bijna per
definitie mak...en op sterven na dood. Als ze die niet kunnen of willen
integreren is het vaak omdat de beweging nog veel te wild en levensvatbaar
is.


----------

From: Mike Wintzer <k9mw at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.11.11 (03) [A]

Hoi allemaal,

 Good reading that, Ron and Petrus.

I see a realist arguing with an idealist.



Ron feels - and emotionally I tend to side with him - that as soon as a
"dialekt" has acquired sufficiently distinct characteristics supporting a
distinct cultural identity, it should be preserved.



But how far should that go? In vernacular areas in particular, it can be
argued that each village has a distinct cultural identity supported by a
distinct language variety, (vocabulary etc..)



Petrus argues that the more languages is splintered like that, the more its
parts are weakened, threatened by extinction. With a common roof each part
is much stronger. Ron fears that this would tend to wash out the individual
dialekt traits losing the richness of varieties.



But how far should roofing go? How far can languages be apart and still fiit
under a

common roof?



The case at hand (ABN vs. Afrikaans) seems to me to be a borderline case.
The layman that I am I can only state that with my knowlwdge of ABN I can
fluently read Afrikaans without the slightest hesitations. Does that make
the two come under the same roof`?



Maybe we should resign to the fact that regrouping or splitting, all smaller
languages are bound to disappear in the long run.



Sadly, Mike Wintzer


----------

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

Thanks, guys, especially for the English summary, Mike.

My main argument has been that an officially recognized language enjoys more
protection than does a dialect, that the borderlines between standard
dialect and non-standard dialect tend to be blurry and easily movable,
whereas a language tends to have or to aspire to its own, independent
standard.

Directly or by implication I have been arguing that for a number of reasons,
and notwithstanding a high degree of mutual intelligibility with Dutch,
Afrikaans has acquired and formalized its own grammatical and written
standards as well as a rich Africa-specific terminology. While
Dutch-speaking Europe may think of it as a subset of Dutch, the majority of
Afrikaans speakers in Africa do not share this view. They much rather view
Afrikaans as an African sister language of Dutch whose standard and quality
ought not be judged by Dutch.

Much of this has to do with self-identity and with pride in "Afrikaners"'
own, mostly European-descended but meanwhile thoroughly non-European-colored
heritage. Much of this is rooted in their historical struggle for survival,
first under immediately European-directed Dutch colonial power (headed by
the Dutch East India Company), then during struggles with various Nguni
nations during migration treks north (seeking refuge from Dutch power), then
under British power and oppression during which their supposed Dutch
brethren offered them no protection, a situation which fired up "Boer"
nationalism amongst them and eventually led to the establishment and rise of
an extremist nationalist regime. Now that most "Afrikaners" are willing and
trying to be an integral, equal part of Southern Africa they find themselves
discriminated against again in various ways, and the currently partly
lawless situation in South Africa makes life very hard for them (and for
most others). In Namibia, their language is no longer official. In South
Africa it is but tends to be neglected. Yes, the Netherlands government
occasionally appeals to the South African government on behalf of Afrikaans,
but those are diplomatic token attempts, and I have seen nothing come of
them.

It doesn't matter what you and I think, the argument I am trying to make
here from a compassionate standpoint is that, considering the above and much
more, it is not surprising that there are attitudes among "Afrikaners" that
are influenced by a feeling of being both beleaguered and victimized by
hostile forces and neglected by those that profess to be their European home
nation. You must also consider that a large portion of early European
settlers (especially the *voortrekkers*) in Southern Africa were fiercely
independent people that sought refuge from the injustices (such as religious
discrimination and persecution) they had encountered in Europe, much like
the "Pilgrims" of eastern North America and descendents of convicts in
Australia (many of whom had really been deported as political prisoners).
Furthermore, many of those early settlers that came to be integrated into
the emerging Afrikaans-speaking nation where not Dutch speakers or even Low
Saxon speakers but were French speakers (Huguenots, another population that
was persecuted in Europe), Malays (former slaves), indigenous Khoi-San and
many others that had no reason to feel Dutch, people that influenced
"Afrikaner" language and culture further by helping to develop a rich
inventory of Africaans-specific terminology as well as Afrikaans-rooted
neologisms not adopted by Dutch; e.g.

*baber* 'African catfish' (*Clarias gariepinus*)
*baster-haak-en-steek* '*Acacia luederitzii*'
*bougenootskap* 'mortgage bank' (< German *Baugenossenschaft*)
*bruismeel* 'self-rising flour'
*drukkie* 'hug'
*fliek* 'movie'
*grondboontjiebotter* 'peanut butter' (< English)
*halfmens* '*Pachypodium namaquanum*'
*hysbak* 'elevator'
*indaba* 'council', 'powwow' (< Zulu)
*kaf* 'nonsense'
*kameeldoring* > 'camel thorn', 'giraffe thorn' (*Acacia erioloba*)
*kameelperd* 'giraffe'
*kasaterwater* 'weak brew'
*katjiepiering* 'gardenia' (< Malay *kacapiring*)
*klapper* 'coconut' (< Malay *kelapa*)
*kontrapsie* 'contraption' (< English)
*kopvel* 'scalp'
*langarm* 'free dance style'
*malva* 'geranium'
*melkskommel* 'milkshake' (< English)
*mielie(s)* 'corn', 'maize'
*muggie* 'midget'
*opelyf* 'bowel movement'
*oupagrootjie* 'great-grandfather'
*padda* 'frog'
*pata(a)t* 'sweet potato' (< Portuguese?)
*piesang* 'banana' (< Malay *pisang*)
*plaashuis* 'estate residence', 'farmhouse'
*plonk* 'bad wine' (< English)
*pomelo* 'grapefruit' (< Portuguese?)
*pynappel* 'pineapple (< English)
*rak* 'rack', 'shelf' (< English)
*ruskamer* 'restroom' (< English)
*sangoma* 'shaman', 'witchdoctor' (< Nguni)
*seekat* 'octopus'
*seekoei* 'hippopotamus'
*sokkerspan* 'soccer team'
*spanspek* '(sweet) melon'
*sypaadjie* 'sidewalk' (< English)
*takbestuurder* ;branch manager' (< English)
*tjaila* 'to quit'
*tjops* 'chops' (< English)
*treffer* 'hit (song, performance)' (< German *Treffer*)
*trekklavier* 'accordion'
*varktjop* 'pork chop' (< English)
*verbruiker* 'consumer' (< German *Verbraucher*)
*verkleurmannetjie* 'chameleon'
*waarborg* 'guarantee', 'warrantee'
*wegnemetjies* 'take-away food' (< English?)
*witblits* 'special type of strong liquor'
*witgatboom* 'shepherd's tree' (*Boscia albitrunca*)
*X-strale* 'X-ray' (< English)
*ystervark* 'porcupine'

And it is not really just a matter of vocabulary but also one of idiomatic
usage and style. While it is fairly easy for those that know Dutch to read
Afrikaans texts on "neutral" topics such as this one, I invite everyone to
read and listen to Afrikaans narratives dealing with life in Southern
Africa, especially in traditional settings such as rural areas, and I
guarantee you that you'll be wondering about many an expression and will be
asking for a dictionary.

More than half of today's ca. 6.5 million Afrikaans speakers are only partly
of European descent and a small portion is of purely African descent. Many
of them are not Christian. For various reasons, many South Africans are now
emigrating to other parts of the world (and some of them are only partly of
European descent). Sure, many go to the Netherlands, and it is only to be
expected that many of those try to seek to reconnect their language with
Dutch. I have spoken and corresponded with some that emigrated to the USA,
Canada, Germany and Australia, and all of those, while acknowledging the
closeness with Dutch, see Afrikaans as its own entity and they do not
consider themselves overseas Dutch. In this light, I say that it is not
important what you and I think, but what counts is what the majority of
Afrikaans speakers thinks. As far as I am informed, the majority of them
embraces the idea that Afrikaans is uniquely African despite its European
roots.

It would be an unprecedented act of demotion to turn back the clock by
making Afrikaans a dialect of Dutch, thus ignoring the fact that it has
developed its own standard variety (whatever you may think about it).

Without having learned it I can understand Luxembourgish very well, and,
yes, linguistically speaking there's a strong argument in favor of it
"merely" being a Moselle Central Frankish dialect of German. However, the
people of Luxembourg have decided to make it one of their official
languages. Given a system in which there are language policies, who are we
to argue with that? Most Luxembourgers are happy with it. In actual fact,
though relatively few books are published in Luxembourgish, it predominates
in broadcasting, simply because it is the predominant everyday language of
the country. For this reason it has been given the status of national
language, German and French being co-official languages. My argument has
been that, while especially German currently predominates in "serious"
discourse and in the printed media, Luxembourgish, thanks to its official
status, has at least in theory the potential of coming to predominate in all
areas in the future. Realistically speaking, it would not have this
potential if it were considered "merely" a dialect of German. This is what
you see in the German-speaking part of Belgium where originally predominant
Meuse-Rhenish Central Frankish has no official status under Standard German
and the number of dialect speakers is dwindling.

Luc, are you suggesting that theses and dissertations should be written only
in English and perhaps a handful of other languages with international
currency? Would that not be elitist (considering that active command of a
foreign language does not necessarily determine one's degree-worthiness)?
What would that say about languages that are not part of this, and what
would it do to their status and image? German might be on the edge, and
Dutch would have to be labeled "obscure" then. But theses and dissertations
are written in those and in many other languages without the authors
intending to "hide something." "Obscure" is very often in the eye of the
beholder. Some may consider Chinese obscure seen from where they are
sitting, or Hindi and Bengali although they are used by very large numbers
of people. Technical writing should be at least within the potential of any
language, and what is better to prove this than a thesis or a dissertation?
This may be one of the reasons why many universities prefer them to be
presented in the main languages of their respective countries with summaries
in English, French or such. Being used by ca. 6.5 million people and being
one of the officially used languages in certain South African universities,
Afrikaans is used in theses and dissertations. Besides, those who know Dutch
can read those texts with relatively few problems. Theses and dissertations
are presented for example in Croatian (6.2 mil. speakers), Slovak (6 mil.),
Danish (6 mil.), Norwegian (4.5 mil.), Slovene (2.4 mil.) and Icelandic
(0.33 mil.). So why not Afrikaans (6.5 mil.)?

Luc, I think there is something to be said for and against both systems:
language policies and no language policies. If you have no language policies
(as in the US) you have a clear case of survival of the fittest. If you do
have language policies one would hope that they are fair and do not afford
status and protection to favored languages only, a tactic usually used to
bring about linguistic, cultural and ethnic homogeneity.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language Politics"

This information I got from Piet Bult:



OLDEBERKOOP - De Stellingwerfse streektaal is als Nedersaksische taal hard
op weg onder deel III van het Europees Handvest terecht komen. Hiermee komt
het op hetzelfde niveau als het Fries al regionale taal. Dit maakte
burgemeester Gerard van Klaveren maandagavond bekend tijdens de
raadsvergadering, waarbij de begroting werd besproken. Het Europees Handvest
voor regionale talen of talen van minderheden is in 1992 vastgesteld om deze
talen te beschermen en promoten en het gebruik ervan te stimuleren.

Het Nedersaksisch valt al onder deel II van het verdrag en is daarmee erkend
als regionale taal. Het Fries is de enige regionale taal in Nederland die
ook onder deel III valt, waarmee het de hoogste erkenning heeft die een
streektaal kan krijgen. Volgens Van Klaveren wordt er momenteel flink
gelobbyd om het Nedersaksisch ook deze status te geven. 'Het ziet er zeer
gunstig uit', liet hij weten. Mogelijk is er over een half jaar meer
zekerheid.

Gerard Van Klaveren is borgemeister van Stellingwarf-Westaende.



Jonny Meibohm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20081112/2b597c5a/attachment.htm>