LL-L "Language promotion" 2010.01.07 (03) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

===============================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 07 January 2010 - Volume 03
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===============================================

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

Lowlanders,

A couple of days ago I responded to Marlou's query regarding differences in
Low Saxon and Welsh language activism. (Please see below.) I take the
liberty of adding a few notes.


   - Of course there is the aspect of relative closeness. Welsh is a Celtic
   language, is thus related to English only on an Indo-European level and is
   thus not at all mutually intelligible with English. There is no doubt about
   its separate language status. Scots and Northumbrian, however, are closely
   related to English on a "sister language" level. This makes it fairly easy
   to "dismiss" them as being dialect groups of English, especially when they
   show various degrees and types of English influence. This latter case is
   similar to that of Low Saxon *vis-Ã -vis* dominant Dutch and German. In
   other parts of Europe it is similar to cases such as Kashubian and Slavic
   Silesian *vis-Ã -vis *dominant Polish (the latter also
*vis-Ã -vis*dominant Czech), Ruthenian (Rusyn)
   *vis-Ã -vis* dominant Ukrainian, Jamtlandic *vis-Ã -vis* dominant Swedish,
   Võrõ *vis-à -vis* dominant Estonian, and a good number of "regional"
   Romance languages *vis-Ã -vis* dominant Portuguese, Spanish (Castilian),
   French and Italian.

   - The cases of Catalan (including Valencian and Balearic) and Galician in
   Spain may be seen as a case in between the above and that of Welsh.
   Andalusia, Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque Country are considered
   "historical nationalities" of Spain. There is a fairly strong sense of
   separate ethnicity, and Catalan, Galician and Basque respectively are
   co-official with Spanish within these official regions. During the era of
   fascist rule this idea ran counter to the ideology espoused at that time,
   and the use of indigenous languages other than Castilian was prohibited.
   However, especially Catalan ethnic, linguistic and even national
   consciousness has endured and is going pretty much full steam nowadays, even
   though the Catalan-speaking regions are not separate countries. Catalans
   have simply never internalized the view that theirs is a language inferior
   to Castilian or to any other language for that matter. Of course, it helps
   that Catalan is the official language of an independent, albeit tiny
   country: Andorra.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

Hi, Marlou!

You wrote:

The Welsh seem to take themselves and their language seriously, while many
of the Plattdüütschen still think theirs is just the buffo version of a
language, or something extra, not necessary, and therefore they should not
be a nuisance... If we knew how this could be changed...

I have a type of hypothesis about this. It doesn't really take a genius to
figure it out if one is willing and able to consider history and in the
process deal with the odd, usually unnamed sacred cow.

As you probably know, the Saxon ancestors were extremely independent and
were good at defending their independence, even keeping out the Romans which
was no mean feat. They absolutely abhorred the idea of a monarchy and even
more that of an empire, and for decades they fought tooth and nail against
the introduction of Christianity. It is clear that even after the Franks
under Charlemagne finally baptized them by means of the sword (beginning
with a mass beheading) and incorporated Saxony into the Holy Roman Empire
the Saxons remained unwilling Christians and grudging imperial subjects, as
did the westernmost Slavs that suffered a similar fate.

I believe that this reluctance and this resentment against the empire and
the all powerful Roman Catholic church that represented it have been fading
away only very slowly. The Saxons acquired a measure of quasi-independence
by creating and running their medieval commercial empire, the Hanseatic
League, and thereby amassing independent and hitherto unequaled wealth as
well as trade colonies and thus power abroad. They missed that opportunity
by not separating themselves as an independent country. When the Low
Frankish people later surpassed the Saxons in overseas trade they did take
advantage of this opportunity by becoming the Netherlands, the area of
today's Netherlands, Belgium and French Flanders. Had they not done so they
might today be a part of Germany.

I go as far as hypothesizing that the success of the Christian Reformation
in what used to be (the real) Saxony - thus in Northern Germany and the
Eastern Netherlands - is at least in part due to remaining feelings of
ethnic and subliminally national independence as well as remaining
resentment regarding the Roman Catholic church in whose name the Saxons had
been beaten down not too long before that. However, following the eventual
collapse of the Hanseatic League and thus of the North's economic clout,
German education, institutions, power and language encroached in the North,
as did the Dutch equivalents in Saxon-speaking parts of the Netherlands. The
descendant of the Saxon language came to be pushed aside and led a
precarious existence mostly in rural and low-class communities, and the
equivalent names of "Low Saxon" shifted more and more to the equivalent
names of "Low German" on the German side of the border. Another blow to the
language was when, beginning in earnest in the 18th century, use of the
language came to be prohibited in certain contexts, especially in schools.

Northern resistance and independence had been sufficiently worn down by
1871, when Germany as we now know it came into existence as a nation state.
However, as most of us know that grew up in Germany, there remains a sense
of "Northern pride," an often romanticized feeling of being different from
the rest of Germany. For many, the Low Saxon ("Platt") language is the
ultimate, albeit fading, expression and symbol of this. But the descendants
of Saxons in Northern Germany and the Eastern Netherlands have been made
into German and Netherlandic nationals, and a sense of their own, separate
ethnicity has all but faded away. Add to this the emotional repercussions of
required loyalty to the emperor in WW I and to the Nazi government in WW II
on the German side, and any talk of separate ethnicity now has a
distinctively unpatriotic, disloyal and even rebellious, secessionist ring
to most. (This is where one of the main sacred cows lies and chews her
dinner over and over.) I believe that this is where this type of ambivalence
comes from, the supposedly "lame" responses to organizing anything that
seems to go too radically in the direction of "independence" (such as
"independent language" and "independent TV station"), even talk about the
Old Saxons.

Wales, on the other hand, has always remained a country in its own right,
not a vaguely defined region like that of the Low-Saxon-speaking area. I
don't think anyone in their right mind has ever doubted that Welsh is the
unique language of Wales and the Welsh. Even English-speaking Welsh people
embrace that and many of them learn Welsh as a second language. So what you
have here is a strong sense of distinct ethnicity, culture, language and
nationhood. When London was not supportive of Welsh language needs, it was a
matter of ethnic and national rights, not a matter of regional and minority
rights. It is much easier to stand up under such circumstances.

In my opinion, the case of Low Saxon is more akin to that of Scots in
Scotland and Northumbrian in Northern England. Both Scots and Northumbrian
are descendants of Old Northumbrian. Scots has been traditionally considered
the poor, uneducated relative of Scottish English. Northumbrian happens to
be spoken in England and there has been traditionally considered a dialect
group of English, even though linguistically it is arguably connected with
Scots on the other side of the border. I am told that even many Northumbrian
speakers are not fond of making this connection, in part because they have
to be conditioned to be loyal to England.

Anyway, some of the above may be worth considering when you wonder what you
are up against and why you are up against it.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

•

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

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20100107/b2825cc8/attachment.htm>