LL-L "Language politics" 2008.11.13 (02) [A/E]

Thu Nov 13 22:26:14 UTC 2008

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 13 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 Mike,

You wrote:

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.

Oh yes, I'm sure you can. Whether you would be able to do that in Western
Flemish, Limburgish (or even Brabantish) remains to be seen I think. No
matter what orthography you choose, you'd be having a much harder time
understanding the essentials. Mind you, I'm not underestimating your
language skills Mike, quite the contrary, but mutual intelligibility between
Standard Dutch and any of the Southern varieties is much weaker than with
any variety of Afrikaans. Both in speech and in writing. I'm quite sure that
native "Hollanders" also experience much more trouble understanding real
Southern dialect, than they do with Afrikaans by the way.

Are the Southern dialects not Dutch then? Of course they are.

In a broader sense, I'd say that Frankish dialects are spoken in both
Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. No priority here, but as far as I know
there's more people speaking Frankish in Germany than in either the
Netherlands or Belgium. Not that this number matters so much to me,
personally I'm more interested in the historic evolution of a language.

You also wrote:

I liked the fireworks of propositions and counter-propositions, Luc and Ron,
and I read with pleasure. Only one sentence of yours made my eyebrows rise,
Luc, when you suggested that codifying and officializing a language is
equivalent to raping it.

I can see your point, Luc, one loses a bit of color, variation and
variability.

Precisely, that's the price you have to pay in order to get a "working
language".

But would you propose that the hundreds of standardized languages that enjoy
official status, are the result of rape?

Not litterally of course, a language can not be raped. In Dutch, in which I
wrote the original message, the word "verkrachten" also means "geweld
aandoen", in a figurative way. That's the meaning I wanted to come across.
The notion that in the case of a minority language, external forces are
using power and knowledge in a deliberate way to (re)shape this language
from "without", instead of "within", is what brings me to use this term.
Yes, this process doesn't happen overnight, it can be very subtle. Moreover,
the actors are often not homebred.

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

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

Beste Ron,

You wrote:

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?

As always, truth is in the middle Ron *s*. Some languages/dialects are good
enough to write a dissertation in, some aren't. In the end, it's up to the
universities themselves to draw the line. "Sprachaktivisten" can/should have
their say of course, but the bottom line is that the universities should
know how strong market demands are. Same kind of discussion is going on here
these days regarding the availability of non-Dutch courses at universities.
Mandatory or not?

 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.

Is the latter feasible? Singapore?

Is there any country in this world with language policies being enforced and
that yet manages to realize linguistic, cultural and ethnic homogeneity?
Would love to know. Thinking of moving already *s*.

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

PS: Sint-Genesius-Rode (which Jonny mentioned in his mail today) is just
around the block (6 km from here).

----------

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

Hi and thanks, Luc!

As far as I know, in Spain some universities in Galicia and Catalonia have
instated Galician and Catalan as primary languages with Castilian (Spanish)
as a secondary language. There is a lot of language reassertion in those
areas, probably in great part due to what amounted to regional and minority
language prohibition under the Franco regime. I am not sure how this is
handled in detail, but I imagine that at least some people write their
dissertations in Galician and Catalan and perhaps add a Castilian summary.

 Is there any country in this world with language policies being enforced
and that yet manages to realize linguistic, cultural and ethnic homogeneity?
Would love to know. Thinking of moving already *s*.

I'm not quite understanding your question.

If you are asking if there are countries in which language policies (real or
*de facto*) have led to monolingualism, well most countries have been
working on it. Many have prohibited or discouraged use of languages other
than the dominant one (e.g. France, and before the pesky Language Charter
came along other European countries as well. They have been working on it
mostly by not permitting languages other than the dominant ones in education
and the main media. Japan is another example, where Ainu is now virtually
extinct, Ryukyuan languages are becoming moribund, and, due to justifiable
fear of discrimination, young Koreans trying to blend in and abandon their
ancestral language. Mostly due to policies and sentiments in the 20th
century, Greece is pretty close to being ethnically and linguistically
homogeneous now, as ethnic minorities abandoned their languages and
individuals declared themselves ethnically Greek. Although Greece now
(reluctantly) acknowledges the European Language Charter, it may be too late
to salvage some of the minority languages there. The same may be true of
France if France ever does sign and implement the Charter. It might be too
little too late. Centuries of talking about *patois* and such and socially
stigmatizing use of languages other than French have taken their toll.

 Would love to know. Thinking of moving already *s*.

But please don't write "Wish you were here" on your postcards to me. I'm all
for national and international use of *linguae francae* as long as
pluralism, including linguistic pluralism, is allowed to continue and
thrive. Linguistic, cultural and ethnic homogeneity? How boring! But perhaps
it seems like Eden from a Belgian point of view? (Still the old "one country
- one ethnicity - one language" ideal swirling about?)

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.: "*Good* enough"?! Tsk-tsk … *s*

----------

From: ppvaneeden at ziggo.nl
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.11.11 (03) [A]

Beste Ron,

In beginsel is ek nie gekant teen Afrikaans as kultuurtaal nie. Maar met die
koms van Afrikaans as kultuurtaal is Nederlands verdryf. Hierteen is ek
gekant. Die Suid-Afrikaanse grondwet het tussen 1910 en 1983 bepaal dat
Afrikaans en Nederlands sinonieme sou wees. By die een taal was ook die
ander bedoel. Maar in die praktyk het die Afrikaners ons prestige variëteit
afgeskryf. Dit was 'n fout. Kleine Afrikaans kan sy sprekers dus nie
kultureel volledig voed nie. Die Afrikaners wend hulle nou noodgedwonge tot
Engels vir hierdie voeding. Hierdie afskrywing van Nederlands het vir ons
Afrikaners 'n hoop ellende gebring.

As mense Limburgs, Vlaams, Brabant of Laagsaksies as kultuurtaal wil gaan
gebruik het ek daar geen beswaar teen nie. Maar as hulle in die proses
Nederlands wil vervang en Nederlands wil afskryf (soos wat die Afrikaners
gedoen het) sal dit hulle duur te staan kom.

Ron, dit is so dat baie Nederlanders en Vlaminge Afrikaans as dialek van
Nederlands sal beskou terwyl die Afrikaners van vandag nie hierdie siening
huldig nie. Tog het die Afrikaners hierdie siening gehuldig tussen die 17de
en vroeg 20ste eeu. Dit laat 'n mens sien hoe sterk die rol van
persepsie is op die taalpolitieke terrein.

Jy skryf verder dat tale meer beskerming het as dialekte. Ek is dit met jou
eens, maar alle dialekte kan nie tale word nie. In Nederland en Vlaandere
word daar nie 10 dialekte gepraat nie, nie 50 nie, maar seker 'n paar
honderd. Hulle kan tog nie almal tale word nie? Dit is slimmer dat die
dialeksprekers een bovengewestelike kultuurtaal aanwys as onderlinge
kommunikasie-instrument. Dit het al gebeur. Sy naam is Nederlands. Maar ook
ek wil die dialekte nie sien verdwyn nie. Dis pragtige goed. Ek kan my
byvoorbeeld verluister aan Kaapse Afrikaans. Dis pragtig, soos ook elke
ander Nederlandse dialek.

Groetjes,

Petrus van Eeden

----------

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

Dankie, Petrus.

Ek mag met jy saamstem indien jy voorstel dat weens die ou histories bande
tussen die twee tale (die Europiese) Nederlands 'n pligvak in
afrikaanssprekende skole moet wees. Maar die horlosie terugdraai en (die
Europiese) Nederlands weer die "prestige-variëteit" bo Afrikaans noem, dus
Afrikaans soos 'n "low-prestige dialect" terugsit nadat dit nou al ten
mindste *de facto* amper een eeu soos 'n onafhanklike taal mit sy eie
standaard-dialek word beskou en gebruik?!

Turks, Gagausies en Azeri (Azerbaidzjaans) is ook baie naby verwante tale en
is grotendeels wedersyds verstaanbaar. Die tradisionele Turkse credo is dat
Gagausies en Azeri (en ook alle ander turktale) dialekte van Turks en sy
prestige-variëteit Standaard-Turks van Turkye is. Hierdie gesindheid word
deur die meeste sprekers van ander turktale soos verwaand verwerp. Na die
val van die Ystergordyn het hulle die spelkuns van sommige turktale by die
Turkye-Turkse spelkuns aangepas. Maar weens etnologie, kultuur en
geskiedenis bly hulle aparte tale. Daar is ou bande tussen die Turkvolke,
maar 'n verenigde "Groot-Turkse" taal, kultuur en ryk sal waarskynlik 'n
utopie bly. ("Eenkeer 'n taal, ewig 'n taal"?)

Pennsylvania-Duits het as 'n Frankiese dialek van Duits begin, maar
godsdienstig en kultureel verskille, isolasie van Duitsland en Engels
invloede veroorsaak 'n unieke ontwikkeling. Ja, Duits-sprekers kan veel
daarvan verstaan, maar nie baie Pennsylfanish-sprekers kan Standaard-Duits
perfekt verstaan. Die meeste van hulle beskou hulle nie as ware Duitsers
nie; hulle is Amerikaners wat "Deitsch" praat. Die meeste van hul voorouers
het na Amerika emigreer omdat hulle vervolg was en godsdiestige vryheid het
gesoek. Om hierdie rede word hul "Deitsch" in die algemeen as 'n aparte taal
beskou.

Die Skandanawies tale is ook grotendeels wedersyds verstaanbaar. Maar weens
etnologies, histories en polities redes word hulle as aparte tale beskou.

My doel: Moenie die sprekers se gesindhede, bewustheid en vereenselwig
ignoreer nie!

Groete,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20081113/9b769961/attachment.htm>