Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages: Volume 2: Western and Eastern European Papers

cover

title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:

next page >

Fourth International Conference On Minority Languages Multilingual Matters (Series) ; 70-71 Gorter, D. Multilingual Matters 1853591114 9781853591112 9780585181783 English Linguistic minorities--Congresses. 1990 P119.315.I5 1989eb 305.7 Linguistic minorities--Congresses.

cover

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i

Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages Vol. II: Western and Eastern European Papers

< previous page

page_i

next page >

< previous page

page_ii

next page > Page ii

Multilingual Matters Aspects of Bilingualism in Wales COLIN BAKER Bicultural and Trilingual Education MICHAEL BYRAM and JOHAN LEMAN (eds) Bilingualism and the Individual A. HOLMEN, E. HANSEN, J. GIMBEL and J. JØRGENSEN (eds) Bilingualism in Society and School J. JØRGENSEN, E. HANSEN, A. HOLMEN and J. GIMBEL (eds) Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities TOVE SKUTNABB-KANGAS Citizens of This Country: The Asian-British MARY STOPES-ROE and RAYMOND COCHRANE Community Languages: A Handbook BARBARA M. HORVATH and PAUL VAUGHAN Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages Vol. I D. GORTER, J. F. HOEKSTRA, L. G. JANSMA and J. YTSMA (eds) Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education COLIN BAKER Language Distribution Issues in Bilingual Schooling R. JACOBSON and C. FALTIS (eds) Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective JOSHUA FISHMAN Mediating Languages and Cultures D. BUTTJES and M. BYRAM (eds) Migration and Intercultural Education in Europe U. PÖRNBACHER (ed.) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle T. SKUTNABB-KANGAS and J. CUMMINS (eds) Minority Education and Ethnic Survival MICHAEL BYRAM Minority Language Conference: Celtic Papers G. MacEOIN, A. AHLQVIST, D. O'hAODHA (eds) Minority Language Conference: General Papers G. MacEOIN, A. AHLQVIST, D. O'hAODHA (eds) Our Own Language GABRIELLE MAGUIRE Papers from the Fifth Nordic Conference on Bilingualism J. GIMBEL, E. HANSEN, A. HOLMEN and J. JØRGENSEN (eds) The Use of Welsh: A Contribution to Sociolinguistics MARTIN J. BALL (ed.) Please contact us for the latest book information: Multilingual Matters, Bank House, 8a Hill Road, Clevedon, Avon BS21 7HH, England

< previous page

page_ii

next page >

< previous page

page_iii

next page > Page iii

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS 71 Series Editor: Derrick Sharp

Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages Vol. II: Western and Eastern European Papers Edited by Durk Gorter, Jarich F. Hoekstra, Lammert G. Jansma and Jehannes Ytsma

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

< previous page

page_iv

next page > Page iv

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data International Conference on Minority Languages (4th, 1989, Leeuwarden, Netherlands) (Multilingual Matters: 71) Vol. 2: Western & Eastern European papers 1. Minority languages I. Gorter, Durk 400 ISBN 1-85359-111-4 Multilingual Matters Ltd Bank House, 8a Hill Road, Clevedon, Avon BS21 7HH, England. & 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA 19007, USA. Copyright © 1990 D. Gorter, J. F. Hoekstra, L. G. Jansma, J. Ytsma and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. Typeset by Editorial Enterprises, Torquay. Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Longdunn Press Ltd, Bristol.

< previous page

page_iv

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_v

Page v Contents Preface Durk Gorter, Jarich Hoekstra, Lammert G. Jansma and Jehannes Ytsma 1 The Reformation and the Vernacular Anthonia Feitsma

vii

1

2 Characterising a Minority Language: A Social Psychological Comparison Between Dutch, Frisian and the Ljouwert Vernacular Reitze J. Jonkman

11

3 Sweden Finnish Development or Deterioration? Jarmo Lainio

21

4 Flemish Primary Schools in Brussels: Which Prospects? Kas Deprez and Armel Wynants

43

5 Language Conservancy, or: Can the Anciently Established British Minority Languages Survive? Wilf Gunther

53

6 Language Maintenance and Viability in the Contemporary Scottish Gaelic Speech-Community: Some Social and Demographic Factors 69 Kenneth MacKinnon 7 Migrant Pupils: Welsh Linguistic Implications Thomas Prys Jones

91

8 Minority Languages in Spain Robert Comet i Codina

103

9 A Demolinguistic Analysis of the Basque Autonomous Community Derived from the Census of 1986 115 M. Karmen Garmendia and Xabier Aizpurua 10 'Our Dialect Sounds Stupid': The Importance of Attitudes to SoCalled Sub-Standard Language Codes as a Factor in the (Non)Retention of Slovene in Carinthia, Austria Tom Priestly

< previous page

page_v

135

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_vi

Page vi 11 National Minority Languages in Media and Education in Poland Alfred F. Majewicz and Tomasz Wicherkiewicz

149

12 The Siberian Estonians and Language Policy Jüri Viikberg

175

13 The Use and Integration of Hebrew Lexemes in Israeli Spoken Arabic Immanuel Koplewitz

181

Contents of Volume I

196

Index

197

< previous page

page_vi

next page >

< previous page

page_vii

next page > Page vii

Preface Durk Gorter, Jarich F. Hoekstra, Lammert G. Jansma and Jehannes Ytsma Fryske Akademy, Doelestrjitte 8, 8911 DX Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, The Netherlands The Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages (4.ICML) was held from Monday 19 to Saturday 24 June 1989 in Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. The conference was organised by the Fryske Akademy. The general theme of this fourth conference was 'comparative research on minority languages and development of theories'. This series of international conferences has a tradition of dealing mainly with the indigenous minority languages of Northwestern Europe, in particular The Netherlands, Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia. That focus has been maintained for the fourth conference. However, as becomes clear from this volume, the contributions cover more than 'the old Viking areas'. The field of research into minority languages is prospering and it has attracted many new persons over the years. As a consequence, the field of minority language studies has become quite heterogeneous. The diversity in approaches can be seen as a weakness for a coherent programme of research. It can also be used as an asset, because there is a great underlying similarity in research problems. The diversity of the field and the similarity of problems comes about clearly in the papers selected for publication here. The productivity in the field has grown enormously over the last ten years. The proceedings of the international conferences on minority languages give a clear indication of that growth. The proceedings of the first two conferences were published in one volume (Haugen et al., 1981; Molde & Sharp, 1984). With the 3.ICML there was a special issue of the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development as well as a second separate volume of (Celtic) papers (MacEoin, Alqvist & O'hAodha, 1987a, 1987b). In the case of 4.ICML we would have had a sufficient amount of material to publish at least three volumes, if we had gone ahead with publishing all the papers submitted. For several reasons we decided to make a selection, and quality was our prime, though not only arbitrator. The first selection of papers is published as a special number of the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (Vol. 11, 1 & 2). The table of contents of that volume is found at the back of this one. One of the criteria we applied for inclusion of papers in the second volume is the presence of new material, especially on relatively less well-known cases. Our intention was also to add to the empirically based, statistically sophisticated research on the better known cases. Moreover, we have tried to put together a more or less balanced book by representing many different areas and various

< previous page

page_vii

next page >

< previous page

page_viii

next page > Page viii

perspectives. This volume emphasises the inventorial or descriptive approach, whereas we included more theoretically oriented papers in the first volume. The collection opens with an article by Feitsma, who, along an historical dimension, compares the position of Welsh, Frisian and Low German in the religious domain during the Reformation. The languages of Ljouwert, the town where the conference was held, are the object of an ongoing study by Jonkman. Here he wants to characterise Frisian in this trilingual context from a social psychological point of view. A contribution from Scandinavia is given by Lainio. He presents the results of a sociolinguistic study of immigrant Finnish in Sweden. He shows that the Sweden Finnish development has its own ordered characteristics. The paper by Deprez & Wynants makes clear that Dutch in Brussels is reversing its minority position and compared to French is becoming more and more important in primary schools. The popularity of Flemish schools was an unexpected consequence of earlier language regulatory measures. Useful comparative overviews of developments of minority languages in larger states are provided by Gunther and by Comet i Codina, respectively of the United Kingdom and Spain. Both contributions have a special interest because they contain detailed information on some of the smallest languages, e.g. Channel Island Norman French and Aragonese, languages which are relatively less wellknown. These broader articles are followed by articles on one particular language community. MacKinnon reports on language loss, language maintenance and regeneration from a sample survey and census analysis on Scottish Gaelic. Jones has studied the influence of non-Welsh-speaking children moving in to areas with Welsh medium education. Aizpurua & Garmendia present the first published account of the Basque language census through a demolinguistic analysis of trends at municipality level. Priestly deals with the influence of attitudes in the choice between dialect Slovene and Standard Slovene in Austria. We are glad that we can also include two contributions from Eastern Europe: a sign of the recent changes in Europe. Those papers contain basic information about languages and language communities of which thus far little is known among students of minority languages. Majewicz & Wicherkiewicz provide us with an elaborate account of an hitherto unknown number of nationalities in Poland. An outline of the language policies vis-a-vis the Estonian language communities in Siberia is presented by Viikberg. Finally, outside Europe, Koplewitz gives a linguistic overview of the use and integration of Hebrew lexical items in everyday in-group Arabic speech of Israeli Arabs. We thank all active participants they have been an obvious condition for the success of the conference. We are proud that the Fryske Akademy was allowed to host this conference. The Fryske Akademy has already for over half a century occupied itself with research relating to the province of Friesland, its inhabitants and their language. Its three main disciplines are linguistics, social sciences and history. The Fryske Akademy realises the special relevance of the activities for autochtonous lesser used languages in Europe. Publications in international journals are stimulated and relevant meetings organised. As a research institute the Fryske Akademy wants to give its international activities a more enduring base by participating in the recently established MERCATOR-network for information, documentation and research of lesser used languages in Europe.

< previous page

page_viii

next page >

< previous page

page_ix

next page > Page ix

The conference organisers gratefully acknowledge financial assistance from the Commission of the European Communities, Task Force on human resources, education, training and youth and from the Fryske Akademy. We are indebted to the Hotel Management School for providing us with the premises for the conference and to its director, staff and students for the unsurmounted hospitality. For their enjoyable reception of the participants we also thank the Municipality of Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, the Municipality of Dokkum and the Provincial Government of Friesland. Assistance in kind was also received from Multilingual Matters, and moreover the stimuli from Mike Grover and Derrick Sharp was invaluable. As researchers in the field of linguistic minorities, we have many different special interests, but we also share a common goal. We are not just the neutral, indifferent spectators merely watching the processes and developments that go on in those language communities. All of us are engaged in one way or the other, many of us being members of the very communities we study. In other words, we are involved in the future of these languages and language communities. And we hope that the work we do can and does make a difference. References Haugen, E., McClure, J. D. and Thompson, D. (eds) (1981) Minority Languages Today. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [Updated edition reprinted in 1989]. MacEoin, G., Alqvist, A. and O'hAodha, D. (eds) (1987a) Third International Conference on Minority Languages: General Papers. Special issue of Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 8 (1 & 2), 1229. MacEoin, G., Alqvist, A. and O'hAodha, D. (eds) (1987b) Third International Conference on Minority Languages: Celtic Papers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Molde, B. and Sharp, D. (eds) (1984) Second International Conference on Minority Languages, June 1983, Turku/Abo, Finland. Special issue of Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 5 (34), 193349.

< previous page

page_ix

next page >

< previous page

page_1

next page > Page 1

1 The Reformation and the Vernacular Anthonia Feitsma Free University and Town University at Amsterdam, De Boeijer 23, NL-9001 JJ Grou, The Netherlands Abstract The article deals with the position of 'minority languages' in the domain of church and religion during the Reformation. Welsh, Low German and Frisian are compared with respect to some factors which seem to have been important in this respect. The following factors are discussed: the strength of the current written tradition of the 'minority language'; the permission or support for the vernacular in the domains of church and religion from government or other authorities; the linguistic distance between the dominant language and the 'minority language' and their mutual (un)intelligibility; the dependence of the Bible translation upon translations in the dominant language, and the importance of the Bible translation for the language standard. In the long run, however, political and economic factors seem to have had the greatest impact. Introduction In the medieval Roman Catholic mass, Latin was the liturgical language. The vernacular (i.e. the non-Latin language) was used in the sermon and in the less formal parts of religious life. There was a certain allocation of tasks between Latin and the vernacular: Latin was used in the official and learned domains, whereas the vernacular functioned as a means of communication with ordinary people. Consequently, one might presume that the vernacular which was used had a rather informal character; the more so, because the language standard, even for the written vernacular, was less elaborate in those days. When during the Reformation Latin was replaced by the vernacular in the protestant churches, the function and the character of the vernacular would undergo change, since it had to be used in divine services, as well as in the Bible. The language required in the new situation was more formal than that used in the Roman Catholic church, and it was based on the new written norm of the language which was currently being developed in society in general. This new vernacular had to compete with the status of Latin and had to conquer the domains in which, originally, only Latin could be used. Latin and the (non-Latin) vernacular had become rivals.

< previous page

page_1

next page >

< previous page

page_2

next page > Page 2

The Reformation [ . . . ] was a religion of conversion and, like others of its kind, it was a 'religion of the book'. It laid particular emphasis on the need for a return to the Word and its true interpretation. (Williams 1979: 130) In short, the vernacular especially the written vernacular had an important and elevated task in the protestant churches. At the same time there was a certain break in the tradition of the vernacular and its literature. The medieval tradition was replaced by a new linguistic, literary and cultural tradition. In countries where a less influential vernacular (nowadays called a 'minority language') was spoken, this new tradition usually had as its medium the dominant language, not the 'minority language'. The 'minority language' had lost its power and often even its written tradition and therefore represented the old and old-fashioned cultural tradition. In general, only the vernacular which was supported by social, political and economic power, which had a current written tradition, and which functioned as a vehicle for higher culture among educated people, survived as a church language during the Reformation. Usually, the Reformation had a negative influence on the use of 'minority languages' in the protestant churches. Some 'minority languages' however, which, in the sixteenth century, were still used in political administration or had a rich literature and a continuing written tradition, could also be used in the church. Even though their written tradition was declining and they did not represent power and modern culture, in favourable circumstances they were able to survive in the church for a longer or shorter period and could thus take part in modern cultural developments. If, however, a vernacular no longer had a current written tradition, it could not meet the requirements necessary for the use of the vernacular in the churches. We will illustrate these developments, using Welsh, Frisian and Low German as examples of 'minority languages'. These three cases have been chosen because they are extensively documented, and because they show rather different developments as to the points in question. Welsh In the sixteenth century, Wales became more and more dominated by England. The Act of Union of 1536 confirmed this development: hierarchically, Wales and the Welsh language became inferior to England and the English language. In such a situation, even neutral technical inventions like the printing press worked in favour of the most powerful nations. Nevertheless, amidst all the developments which tended to break the continuity of Welsh power, culture, and language and which favoured the power of England and the English language, the Welsh language maintained, to a certain extent, its rather strong written tradition, also in the religious domain (Williams, 1979: 12933). In 1567, Salesbury's translation of the English Book of Common Prayer and of the New Testament appeared, and twenty years later, in 1588, the whole Bible, translated by William Morgan, was published. These Welsh translations of the Scriptures would not have been possible 'unless the venture were backed and authorized by Crown and Parliament'. This permission was obtained by the Act of 1563 (Thomas, 1967: 63).

< previous page

page_2

next page >

< previous page

page_3

next page > Page 3

This Act even ordered the Welsh bishops [ . . . ], to see to it, 'for the Soul's health of the Flocks committed to their charge within Wales', that the whole Bible and the English Book of Common Prayer were 'truly and exactly translated' into Welsh, that a copy of each of these books was placed in every church before 1 March 1567, that from that day onward Welsh was the language of the service in the Welsh-speaking parts of the five dioceses and that, meantime, the ministers declared or read 'the Epistle and Gospel' in Welsh at every communion service. (Thomas, 1967: 65) In the case of Welsh, the distance between the 'minority language' and the dominating language was rather great, and this was another reason for the use of the Welsh vernacular in religious matters. In the struggle against Roman Catholicism, it was apparently considered important that people actually understood what was said and written in religious matters. The advocates of catholicism made use of the Welsh language as well. Thus, the intelligibility of Welsh (and the unintelligibility of the dominant English language) favoured the (oral and written) use of Welsh. The necessity of saving the souls of the Welshmen seems to have outweighed the policy of unifying Great Britain linguistically. As a rule, Bible translations in 'minority languages' were much influenced by Bible translations in the 'correspondent' dominant languages, and such was also the case of Salesbury's Welsh translation of the New Testament, which was especially influenced by the Calvinistic and strongly Hebraising English Geneva Bible of 1560 (Bruce, 1970: 89). Also in another respect, English was there to stay: the above-mentioned Act of 1563 not only commanded that the Bible and Prayer Book should be translated into Welsh, it also stated that the Welsh editions should be accompanied by the English Bible and Prayer Book in all churches so that the people might, 'by conferring both Tongues together the sooner attain to the knowledge of the English Tongue'. (Brinley Jones, 1970: 38) Nevertheless, the Welsh Bible was very important for the Welsh language and its standard. Morgan's Bible translation of 1588 is said to have saved the old Welsh literary standard language. It gave the nation a standard tongue superior to any dialect. In a country which lacked a university or any cultural institution to act as a centre for its literary vitality and to foster that enlightened conservatism which is indispensable to the continuance of a tradition, there would have been a risk that the language might degenerate into a number of disconnected dialects, as happened in Brittany, and the speech of one part of the country would have been so awkward to another part as to make it impossible to get a means of expression dignified and acceptable enough for the requirements of fine poetry. Hitherto the strength of the aristocratic social structure, the unity of the Catholic Church, and the oppressiveness of English law had helped to preserve the uniformity of Welsh literary production. Now there were forces at work which tended to loosen the old bonds the English law was no longer an obvious and conscious oppression, the gentry were beginning to forget their old loyalty, the Catholic Church had become

< previous page

page_3

next page >

< previous page

page_4

next page > Page 4

the Church of England, and that before long was splitting into a number of sects. When the gentry should have become finally anglicized, and the strict poets have fallen silent, there would be nobody left who knew the pure Welsh which was once the common heritage of the whole country. The Bible came, and it came just in time, when the dignified tongue was still alive, and when there were Welsh priests sufficiently master of it to be able to use it appropriately. (Parry, 1970: 196) Thus, the Welsh Bible played an important role in maintaining the Welsh character of the language. Some General Conclusions from the Welsh Case By means of the example of Wales, we have seen that, as a consequence of the political and economic importance of a country and of the speakers of its language, linguistic, sociolinguistic, literary, and theological factors play a part in the position of a 'minority language' in the domain of church and religion. We have treated: (1) the strength of the current written tradition, (2) the permission or support for the vernacular in the domain of church and religion from government or other authorities, (3) the linguistic distance between the dominant language and the 'minority language' and their mutual (un)intelligibility, (4) the dependence of the Bible translation upon translations in the dominant language, (5) the importance of the Bible translation for the language standard. Keeping in mind the factors just mentioned, we will look at the position of Frisian and Low German during the Reformation. Frisian 12. In the Middle Ages, Frisian had been used as a written language, particularly for legal documents in Friesland, along with Latin and Dutch. During the fifteenth century, written Frisian decreased, even in legal documents. The loss of Frisian liberty, in 1498, reinforced this development, but was by no means the cause of it. The administrative language in Friesland became Dutch, and Dutch was considered the language of culture, literature and civilisation. Dutch was the new language, Frisian was the old one which was still spoken by the rural population. The disappearance of written Frisian from administration and culture, completed in the course of the sixteenth century, naturally led to the almost complete neglect of the Frisian language in the religious domain. There was scholarly interest in the old Frisian language, but the language hardly functioned as a written medium. Since the Reformation was a 'religion of the book', the lack of a current written tradition was sufficient for the exclusion of Frisian from the domain of the Church in that decisive period. In the Reformed Church, Dutch replaced Latin as the religious language.

< previous page

page_4

next page >

< previous page

page_5

next page > Page 5

In this situation, it was hardly necessary to promulgate acts prohibiting the use of Frisian, so it is not surprising that such prohibitions have not come down to us. The written and official use of Frisian had disappeared by itself. 3. In addition, Frisian was much less different from the dominant language than was the case in Wales. In this connection, we should keep in mind that the language spoken in the pulpit was not the western variant of Dutch, spoken in the province of Holland, but (the civilised variant of) Urban Frisian, a kind of Dutch, influenced by Frisian, but stripped of several characteristic Frisian elements, and thus in a way a more or less 'neutralised' variety of Frisian: a language of its own in an intermediate position between Frisian and Dutch. The Frisians in the country who still spoke the old Frisian language, must have understood Urban Frisian more easily than the western variant of Dutch. However, two remarks have to be made. While the official Reformed Church undoubtedly used Dutch, it is probable that the situation with the Mennonites was different. The Mennonites were less 'high church' than the official Reformed Church; they did not even call their congregation a church. Accordingly, their language use, even in the pulpit, must have been more informal. Presumably, the Mennonite lay preachers often used more or less the language or one of the languages which they spoke in everyday life, and consequently, this language could also have been Frisian. A certain tradition of Frisian sermons in the Mennonite congregations in Friesland is therefore probable. Of the Mennonite congregation in Balk it is reported that, in the beginning of the nineteenth century, the more informal parts of the service (not the sermon and the hymns) were done in Frisian (Blaupot ten Cate, 1839: 3702), while, according to Joast Halbertsma (1843: 369) a certain lay preacher still gave his sermons there in Frisian. One may wonder if, and to what degree, ordinary people in the country actually understood the Dutch church language. The Frisian clergyman Vitus Ringers (1686: 1889) observed that a number of Frisians were only able to speak Frisian and could not speak Dutch. One wonders, therefore, if these people were able to understand the Dutch sermons. In the nineteenth century, the clergyman Van Borssum Waalkes and the Sunday school teacher Frederike Rutgers both held the view that the children could not understand Dutch well enough, so they considered it necessary that the teaching of religious matters to children should take place in Frisian (Feitsma, 1982: 201; Brouwer-Prakke, 1960: 256, 111). 45. Due to the lack of a current written tradition, it is not surprising that Frisian did not get a Bible translation during the Reformation. Frisian clergymen took an active part in the Dutch Bible translation of 1637 (the so-called Statenvertaling, the Dutch Authorised Version). It was only the clergymen from Drente in the eastern part of The Netherlands who did not participate in this Dutch translation. According to them, this was due to their lack of knowledge of Dutch. In the sixteenth century, however, the so-called eastern variant of Dutch perhaps better considered a variant of Low German had functioned as the principal written language in the eastern part of The Netherlands, and it is possible that in the seventeenth century this eastern dialect was still in competition with the western variant of Dutch (which was to become the standard Dutch language) as a written language in Drente (Muller, 1921: 1701).

< previous page

page_5

next page >

< previous page

page_6

next page > Page 6

From the seventeenth century onwards, some religious literature was written in Frisian, especially hymns and rhymed versions of psalms. These songs were probably not used in divine services in the church, but perhaps they were used in services which were held at home. This religious literature was very important for the development of Frisian literature, but it hardly had any impact on the language of the church and of the religious domain in general. When talking about religious matters in Frisian, people still tend to prefer Dutch words and expressions. On the whole, the church language in Friesland was detrimental to the Frisian language. It was only in 1943 that the first Bible translation in Frisian was completed, and that was too late to have any serious impact on the kind of language used in religious affairs. The fact that, from the seventeenth century onwards, the Frisian language more or less regained its position as a language with a written tradition, must be ascribed to such factors as the existence of Friesland as a sovereign province with its own stadtholder, the survival of a strong sense of Frisian identity, and the modern works of the Frisian Renaissance poet, Gysbert Japicx, in the seventeenth century. The combination of the medieval Frisian tradition of (some) political power, its weakened continuance afterwards, and the new literary tradition accomplished, to some degree, what the religious tradition had not been able to do for the Frisian language. Low German 12. When the Reformation emerged in Germany, Low German had a rich literary tradition. It was generally used in political administration in northern Germany, and it was spoken not only in rural areas but also in the trading centres in the region. However, it was not used as a vehicle of aristocratic culture; at most princely courts in northern Germany, High German, and not Low German, was the language of culture. In the Middle Ages, the Hanse had been a very powerful trading organisation, and in its wake, Low German even spread to many trading centres in Europe outside Germany. At the onset of the Reformation, however, the power of the Hanse had already diminished, and at the same time, the influence of Low German was waning. As already stated, the Reformation coincided with a break in the linguistic and literary tradition. For 'minority languages', that break involved a loss of the old norms for the language and an increasing role for their dialects, while in literature it brought about either the more or less successful establishment of a new modern tradition or simply the disappearance of the old written tradition. As in Wales, the Reformation seemed to come to Germany just in time to save the Low German written tradition. Luther's High German translation of the Bible was translated into Low German very early and very quickly; the Low German version appeared before even the High German 'original', and Low German played a large part in the religious debate of those days. However, whereas the Welsh Bible confirmed the old Welsh language norm which was about to disappear, the Low German Bible followed Luther's High German language norm. The Welsh Bible is said to have saved the old language of the Welsh bards for the future, but Bugenhagen's Low German translation of the Luther Bible is considered to have contributed a great deal to the decline of Low

< previous page

page_6

next page >

< previous page

page_7

next page > Page 7

German and to the replacement of Low German by High German in northern Germany (Bellmann, 1975: 334; Sanders, 1982: 162). This is no doubt exaggerated, the High German language norm in the Low German Bible translation (and in other Low German written texts) being rather a symptom of the general development in the direction of High German. Other factors had a much greater impact on this development: because of the decline of the influence of the northern German trading towns and the expanding power of the German princes who even promoted the use of High German the increasing contacts between High and Low Germans worked to the advantage of the High German language. In addition to this (and perhaps because of this), Low German did not represent a special German national identity. High German already had this function. These developments affected both the number of domains where written Low German was used and the Low German character and quality of the language itself (Gernentz, 1980: 546). Nevertheless, the Low German written tradition was still flourishing in the sixteenth century. The Reformation confirmed this tradition, and thereby interfered, to some extent, with the progress High German was already making. In the long run however, Low German had to lose the battle; not only in the church, but also in other domains. In Wales, the Welsh tradition and the old Welsh language norm continued to be important in the churches; the reinforcement of Low German, on the contrary, was temporary. In the course of the seventeenth century, the Low German language disappeared from the churches altogether (Gernentz, 1980: 568). In Frisian, with its much smaller medieval written tradition, a (rather small) modern literature developed, giving Frisian culture a more or less modern appearance, whereas in Low German, the oldfashioned literature continued. 3. The distance between High and Low German was much smaller than that between English and Welsh. Yet, we are told several times that Low German speakers protested against the use of High German because of its alleged unintelligibility, especially when a clergyman who spoke only High German was appointed in a Low German parish. This could be a real inconvenience for ordinary people who wished to understand the sermons of their clergyman, but it is not quite certain that this inconvenience was the main reason for the protestations. In this connection, the unintelligibility for ordinary people could play a role of a certain importance, but a possible political background also has to be taken into consideration. In any case, it is clear that some conflicts about the use of the language outside the church occurred in political contexts. It is worth noting that, as far as I know, such protestations have come down to us only in the case of 'minority languages' with a written tradition. In Friesland, for example, it was never reported that ordinary Frisians protested against a clergyman's use of the Dutch language which they did not understand. The fact that ordinary people did not understand a clergyman was not likely to be a sufficient reason for protestations. The opponents should have a linguistic alternative and a political background in a language which was known and practised as a written language. The non-written languages 'did not exist'. This was the case for Frisian. Another example is the situation in Slesvig: generally, ordinary people spoke a Danish dialect throughout the country, but the Danish standard language was the cultural language in the north and Low German in the south. After the

< previous page

page_7

next page >

< previous page

page_8

next page > Page 8

Reformation, the division between Danish and Low German divine services took place in accordance with the division between the two cultural languages; the dialect spoken by ordinary people was hardly taken into account, if at all. The division of Slesvig along the lines of the cultural languages which at the same time became the church languages has turned out to be of decisive importance for the later political development towards the present-day frontier between Denmark and Germany (Gregersen, 1986: 2289). Because of these circumstances and the possible political background of the language conflicts (as a symbol of certain political dissensions) I think that the 'democratic' signification of the protestations against High German speaking clergymen should be relativised. 45. The Low German Bible strongly depended upon the Luther Bible, and, in this way, as already stated, it did not contribute much to maintain the Low German language norm. The paradox is that Luther, himself, emphasised the importance of a Bible translation which would be comprehensible for ordinary people. The language should be based on their spoken language; it should be German, not Latin or Greek. In other words, the High German translation should not be a literal translation, whereas, in the preface of the Low German translation, it was said that this translation was intended to be just the opposite: a word-for-word translation of Luther's High German 'original'. For the Low German translators, Luther's High German Bible appeared to be a sort of new Holy Scripture, every word of which had been written down by divine inspiration (Bellmann, 1975: 34, 36). It is a pity that the Low German Bible translation was made in this way, but it is not surprising. Speakers and writers of 'minority languages' during the Reformation had to take into account the overwhelming power and the language of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities. If Bible translators wanted to translate the Bible into their own, less influential language, they had to conform to the power and the norms of the established authorities, both theologically and linguistically. Often, they belonged to these established authorities themselves. All Bible translations in 'minority languages' which have come down to us, bear the marks of this conformity. For that matter, it is not only the Low German Bible translation which was very much dependent on Luther's Bible. This also applied to several Scandinavian translations, but because of the independence of these countries, the character of the translation did not affect the Scandinavian languages as much and as decisively as it did Low German. There is even a linguistic or sociolinguistic reason for the dependence of the Bible translations in 'minority languages'. Joseph (1987: 93102) describes the elaboration of a vernacular as a process of transference of elements from the standard language and the subsequent nativisation of these elements. A lower vernacular always has to borrow elements from a higher standard language when it has to function in new domains which hitherto were only appropriate to standard languages. Latin had to borrow from Greek, the West European vernaculars from Latin, and the 'minority languages' from the dominant vernaculars. This need for adaptation of the vernacular to new domains was clearly manifest in the sixteenth century when a new linguistic and literary tradition was starting, in the religious domain, among others. Therefore, the impact of Bible translations in dominant languages on translations in 'minority languages' was, in fact, a matter of course.

< previous page

page_8

next page >

< previous page

page_9

next page > Page 9

More surprising than the literal Low German Bible translation, is the fact that there is so much Welshness in the Welsh Bible. I assume that there is a large degree of dependence on English in Morgan's Welsh Bible too, but perhaps the great distance between English and Welsh gave better chances for a Bible translation which at the same time could become a Welsh masterpiece. Concluding Remarks Summarising, it may be said that the Reformation was a positive factor, not only for great and powerful vernaculars, but also for 'minority languages'. Yet, in order to take advantage of the new state of affairs, a language still had to be so powerful and up-to-date that it had a current written tradition. Even languages with a declining (but still current) written tradition, could be promoted by the new developments. However, even though the Reformation was a positive factor, this could not prevent the fact that, in the long run, political and economic factors had a greater impact. Of the three 'minority languages' dealt with here, it was perhaps Low German which had the most favourable conditions during the Reformation. Nevertheless, its decline in the church was completed in the course of the seventeenth century, whereas in Wales, the Church has been a stronghold for the language up to the twentieth century. The decline of Welsh in the Church seems to run parallel to the decline of the Church itself. As to the survival of Frisian, in the course of the last five centuries, most circumstances were detrimental, others favourable to Frisian. In any case, Frisian owes nothing to the Reformation. References Bellmann, J. D. (1975) Scriptura semper est transferenda. In J. D. Bellmann (Hrsg.) Kanzelsprache und Sprachgemeinde. Dokumente zur plattdeutschen Verkündigung (pp. 3240). Bremen: Institut für niederdeutsche Sprache. Blaupot ten Cate, S. (1839) Geschiedenis der Doopsgezinden in Friesland. Van derzelver ontstaan tot dezen tijd, uit oorspronkelijke stukken en echte berigten opgemaakt. Leeuwarden: W. Eekhoff. Brinley Jones, R. (1970) The Old British Tongue. The Vernacular in Wales 15401640. Cardiff: Avalon Books. Brouwer-Prakke, A. I. (1960) Hja libben foar de neiste. Koarte skets fan it laech Rutgers Yn't bisûnder oer libben en wurk fan Johanna Frederika dy't yn mannich ding de foarstap naem. Assen: Van Gorcum. Bruce, F. F. (1970) The English Bible. A History of Translations From the Earliest English Versions to the New English Bible. London: Lutterworth. Feitsma, A. (1982) De Markus-oersetting fon Waalke van Borssum Waalkes. Freonen om ds. J. J. Kalma hinne. Stúdzjes, meast oer Fryslân, foar syn fiifensantichste jierdei (Ljouwert), 1933. Gernentz, H. J. (1980) Niederdeutsch gestern und heute. Beiträge zur Sprachsituation in den Nordbezirken der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Rostock: Hinstorff (2. völlig neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage). Gregersen, H. V. (1986) Reformationen i Sønderjylland. Aabenraa: Historik Samfund for Sønderjylland. Halbertsma, J. H. (1843) De Doopsgezinden en hunne herkomst. Deventer: J. de Lange. Joseph, J. E. (1987) Eloquence and Power. The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. London: Pinter.

< previous page

page_9

next page >

< previous page

page_10

next page > Page 10

Muller, J. W. (1921) De uitbreiding van ons taalgebied in de zeventiende eeuw. De Nieuwe Taalgids 15, 16193, 24560, 298309. Parry, T. (1970) A History of Welsh Literature. Translated from the Welsh by H. Idris Bell (3rd edn; 1st edn, 1955). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ringers, V. (1686) Stichtelijk Sang-prieel, belommerd met Het Hooge Lied Salomons, ende andere Heilige Gesangen, op Neder-duitsche dicht, met bi-gevoegde sang-letteren. Franeker: Hans Gyrelaar. Sanders, W. (1982) Sachsenprache, Hansesprache, Plattdeutsch. Sprachgeschichtliche Grundzüge des Niederdeutschen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Thomas, I. (1967) William Salesbury and His Testament. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Williams, G. (1979) Religion, Language, and Nationality in Wales. Historical Essays. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

< previous page

page_10

next page >

< previous page

page_11

next page > Page 11

2 Characterising a Minority Language: A Social Psychological Comparison between Dutch, Frisian and the Ljouwert Vernacular Reitze J. Jonkman Fryske Akademy, Doelestrjitte 8, 8911 DX, Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, The Netherlands Abstract In the first half of the sixteenth century Dutch came to be used as the sole language for official affairs in Fryslân. It also became the language of the higher class in this period. Before the end of that century a mixture of Dutch and Frisian came into being in the relatively bigger cities of Fryslân, spoken by the classes below the upmost class: Stedfrysk (City Frisian). Its syntax, morphology and phonology is mainly Frisian, its lexicon mainly Dutch. Although it is termed City Frisian, it is considered a Dutch dialect. Until World War II Dutch remained the only high status variety, Frisian and City Frisian being the low-status varieties. After the War the revival of Frisian as a high(er) variety, as it is considered nowadays, started. Today the vernacular of the Frisian cities is almost exclusively concentrated in the lower strata. Several social evaluations have been made between Dutch and Frisian by means of the matched-guise technique. In the latest study, with a variant of this technique, the evaluation of the vernacular of the Frisian capital Ljouwert was included. The results of this study provide a means to characterise a minority language (Frisian) in comparison with both a majority language (Dutch) and an urban dialect, another 'minority language' (Leewarders). This characterisation will be given by comparing the mean scores on personality and linguistic traits as well as the rotated factor matrices of status and solidarity variables. Some Introductory Remarks In this paper I would like to present some preliminary results of my sociological and ethnographic study on the trilingual situation in the Frisian capital, Ljouwert. Dutch, Frisian and the Ljouwert vernacular are spoken here.

< previous page

page_11

next page >

< previous page

page_12

next page > Page 12

The description of the communicative function of the Ljouwert vernacular in relation to the other two languages is intended to be a contribution to the sociology of language in the tradition of Bilingualism in the Barrio by Fishman et al. (1971). The German studies in Frankfurt am Main Stadtsprache Stadtmundart of Brinkmann to Broxten (1986) and in Berlin Stadtsprache Berlin of Schlobinski (1987) are examples of recent developments in which research is concentrated on the variation and function of urban varieties. One special aspect of the study in the Frisian capital is that the state language (Dutch), the language which is mainly spoken in the countryside (Frisian) and the urban mixture of those two languages (the Ljouwert vernacular) are studied. Another special aspect is that those varieties are studied by means of a combination of several quantitative and qualitative research methods: in-depth interviews, survey, matched-guise technique and participant observation. In this paper, in this particular case of the conference's theme, I concentrate on Frisian as a minority language. I want to present a comparison of Frisian with Dutch, the majority language, and the Ljouwert vernacular as measured by a variant of the matched-guise experiment. I would like to answer the question of how a minority language can be characterised from a socio-psychological point of view. By this I mean the following: is Frisian as a minority language evaluated lower or higher than Dutch, the majority language, and lower or higher than the Ljouwert vernacular in terms of social attractiveness and social prestige? Before I go into that question I will give a brief historical and linguistic introduction of the situation in Ljouwert. The question raised in this paper will be formulated more precisely after a short discussion of the concepts of High and Low variety. Subsequently the matched-guise technique is explained and illustrated by the results of a former study. Then I come to the presentation of the social evaluation of the three varieties in Ljouwert by native speakers of Frisian. This evaluation is very tentatively linked to the outcomes of several factor analyses of Frisian and Dutch varieties. At the end of this paper I will summarise and discuss all presented results to come to a characterisation of Frisian, which might be considered as a characterisation of a minority language in general. Historical and Linguistic Introduction It was towards the end of the fourteenth century that (old) Frisian was introduced for official purposes as one of the vernaculars, next to Dutch. Before that time only Latin was in use for written affairs. About 150 years later, in the first half of the sixteenth century, Dutch came to be used as the sole vernacular for those affairs. It also became the language of the urban upper class from that time on. Before the end of the same century, so towards 1600, a mixture of Dutch and Frisian came into being in the relatively larger towns of Fryslân, spoken by classes below the upmost class. This variety is called Stedfrysk, in English 'City Frisian'. The variety of Ljouwert is called Leewarders. Its syntax, morphology and phonology are mainly Frisian, its lexicon mainly Dutch. For a few examples I refer to Scheme 1.

< previous page

page_12

next page >

< previous page

page_13

next page > Page 13

Scheme 1 Contras five linguistic comparison of English, Frisian, Leewarders and Dutch. English:

The little man

said to

the girl,

Frisian:

It lytse mantsje

sei tsjin

it famke,

sei teugen

ut meiske,

Leewarders: Ut kleine mantsje Dutch:

Het kleine mannetje zei tegen

het meisje,

English:

that he would ask

what his father had done.

Frisian:

dat er freegje soe

wat syn heit

dien hie.

Leewarders: dat er frage sú

wat syn fader deen had.

Dutch:

wat zijn vader had gedaan.

Syntax:

dat hij zou vragen Frisian/Leewarders

<>

Dutch

freegje soe / frage sú

<>

zou vragen

dien hie / deen had

<>

had gedaan

man+tsje

<>

man+etje

fam+ke/meis+ke

<>

meis+je

0+deen / 0+dien

<>

ge+daan

sei

<>

zei

syn

<>

zijn

fader

<>

vader

Frisian

<>

Leewarders/Dutch

lytse

<>

kleine

famke

<>

meisk (/j)e

heit

<>

f(/v)ader

Morphology:

Phonology:

Lexicon:

Although the variety is termed City Frisian, it is considered a Dutch dialect, mainly because of the lexicon. From the seventeenth century until World War II Dutch remained the only high status variety in Fryslân, Frisian and City Frisian being the low status varieties. After the War the breakthrough of Frisian as a high or higher variety, as it can be considered nowadays, began. Today the urban vernacular of the Frisian capital is almost exclusively concentrated in the lower strata. In the city of Ljouwert about 20% of its 80,000 inhabitants are native speakers of the Ljouwert vernacular, about 25% of Frisian and about 50% of Dutch (5% are speakers of other dialects or foreign languages). This situation is quite different from the Frisian countryside, where Frisian is the mother tongue of around 70% of the people. In the sociology of language many multilingual situations can be characterised by diglossia (Fishman, 1972). In such a society there is a functional distribution for two (or more) language varieties: the High variety is in use in and appropriate for the formal domains, the Low variety is in use in and appropriate for the informal domains. The term 'appropriate' indicates that diglossia is not just a description of language use, but also means an evaluation of the languages used in certain situations. An important source of information about the relative status of varieties lies in their public treatment (Ryan et al, 1988: 1,068). In several bilingual speech communities, however,

< previous page

page_13

next page >

< previous page

page_14

next page > Page 14

there is not a clear functional distribution for the languages; for instance when a minority language is in use next to a majority language in both types of domains, as is the case in Fryslân. Because of its majority status Dutch is more frequent in the formal domains than Frisian is. The position of Frisian as a minority language is not equal to the one of Dutch; the social position of Frisian is partly an H and partly an L language. So, also the evaluation of Frisian is less clear. Of course, in general it is possible to make a dichotomic division: every variety which is less in use than the other variety as an H variety is an L one. In this way you create a very heterogeneous collection of L varieties (minority languages, rural and urban dialects), in which no distinction in evaluation is made either. I have tried to come to another, a more discriminating distinction. I will show how I did so on the basis of the social evaluation of the varieties spoken in Ljouwert. Social Evaluation of Varieties by the Matched-Guise Technique For the socio-psychological evaluation of Frisian I use the results of the attitude measurement of Frisian, Dutch and the Ljouwert vernacular by a variation on the matched-guise technique. Some figures of a former study in Fryslân first will illustrate the original technique and the division of the evaluation into two dimensions. Those figures also make it possible to see the results for Ljouwert in the provincial context. The experimental procedure most widely utilised for investigating speakers' views on speech is known as the 'matchedguise technique' (Lambert et al, 1960). The procedure is as follows. Judges are told that they are going to hear the voices of different speakers on tape, reading or telling the same passage of verbal material, and are asked to evaluate the speakers on rating scales or bipolar adjective scales (the so-called 'semantic differentials'). The speech is actually produced by one person using realistic guises of different languages. So the judgements are about the languages spoken (or better, the speech groups) and not about the presented speakers and are therefore an indication of the attitudes towards those languages. For my matched-guise study (Jonkman, 1985) 88 first-year students of all teacher training colleges in Fryslân (44 native speakers of Frisian and 44 of Dutch or Dutch dialect) made an evaluation of a Frisian and a Dutch speaking male (26 years old, student) on tape, actually guises of the same person. He is explaining to someone how to find a place the person asked for. Most of the 44 students with Frisian as their mother tongue are literate in both languages. The mean scores of this Frisian speaking are shown in Table 1. As you can see the Frisian guise is evaluated higher than the Dutch one on 'sociable'; the mean score 3.30 for Dutch is significantly lower than 4.39 for Frisian. Frisian is also judged higher on 'attractive', 'tolerant', 'easy talking' and 'cordial'. The difference between the means of the traits 'intelligent', 'ambitious', 'businesslike' and so on are not significant. So Frisian is evaluated higher than Dutch on the former traits, those which are called solidarity traits. They are called so, because features such as 'attractive' and 'cordial' can be characterised as being attributed to a person who is similar to the perceiver and is marked by frequent interaction, self-disclosure, and intimacy. The latter traits, on which no important differences are made, are called status traits, because they reflect the

< previous page

page_14

next page >

< previous page

page_15

next page > Page 15

Table 1 Mean scores and t-values for the comparison of Dutch and Frisian guise evaluated by the Frisian speaking group (N = 44) Mean score Dimension variable Dutch Frisian t-value Solidarity sociable 3.30 4.39 -4.62*** attractive 3.11 3.84 -3.36** tolerant 3.86 4.73 -3.73*** easy talking 3.68 4.43 -2.64* cordial 2.77 3.59 -2.98** decent 5.77 5.82 -0.51 civilised 5.93 5.86 0.37 honest 5.36 5.38 -0.15 reliable 5.58 5.63 -0.22 Status intelligent ambitious businesslike leadership independent tenacious

5.64 5.14 6.37 5.52 5.77 5.60

5.30 5.16 6.16 5.34 5.57 5.28

1.68 -0.10 1.04 0.77 0.82 1.68

Degrees of freedom 43 * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed test) relative socio-economic status of the speech groups represented (Ryan, 1979). Statistical validation is found by factor analysis of the scores of 88, Frisian and non-Frisian, students. The factor analysis is, because of the high number of data needed, also based on scores of native speakers of other varieties. This analysis identifies a relatively small number of factors or dimensions which can be used to represent relationships among sets of interrelated variables. So, traits which are highly correlated with the same factor have something in common. (Nie et al., 1988: B-41.) A Social Psychological Comparison between Dutch, Frisian and the Ljouwert Vernacular After this introduction of the historical and linguistic situation and of the research technique, I now return to the question of how Frisian as a minority language can be described in another, a more discriminating way than is possible in the dichotomic division of a High and a Low variety. I will try and show this on the basis of the social evaluation of the varieties in Ljouwert. The results of the study on the three varieties of the capital provide a means to characterise a minority language (Frisian) in comparison with both a majority language (Dutch) and an urban dialect (Leewarders). This characterisation will be given by comparing the mean scores on linguistics traits as well as the output of the factor analyses with respect to some variables on the status and solidarity dimension. The representation of the

< previous page

page_15

next page >

< previous page

page_16

next page > Page 16

scores given here are of the group most concerned with the minority language: the native speakers of Frisian who are inhabitants of Ljouwert. The factor analysis is, just as in the 1985 study, also based on scores of native speakers of other varieties (N = 282; 74 Frisian, 153 Dutch and 55 urban vernacular), because of the high number of data needed. In this study judges, who were selected at random by computer out of the municipal registration as a sample of the population of Ljouwert, made an evaluation of the concepts of the languages, namely Nederlands (Dutch), Frysk (Frisian) and Leewarders (the Ljouwert vernacular); these are conceptual 'guises' (so, no real guises but comparable labels). Note that they did not form their judgements by means of voices on tape; these are personal guises. The personal guise experiment is more realistic, and for that reason preferable, but pragmatic reasons forced me to use this variant. The evaluation was on linguistic traits. For the results I refer to Table 2. Dutch is evaluated higher than Frisian on the first three status traits: 'distinguished', 'educated' and 'businesslike' and the in between trait 'easy talking'. Table 2 Comparison social evaluations of Dutch, Frisian and the Ljouwert vernacular by the Frisian speaking group (N = 74) Varieties compared Dimension variable Dutch > Frisian Dutch > Leewarders Frisian > Leewarders Status distinguished + + + educated + + + businesslike + + + civilised 0 + + elaborate 0 + + Status/Solidarity easy talking + + + Solidarity pleasant + + intimate + + beautiful + + colourful 0 + natural 0 + personal 0 + cordial 0 + easy going + funny 0 p+ and p- < 0.05 (two-tailed test) + = mean score of variety A is significantly higher than variety B 0 = no significant difference between the mean scores - = the hierarchy A > B is just the other way around

< previous page

page_16

next page >

< previous page

page_17

next page > Page 17

Frisian is evaluated higher than Dutch on all solidarity traits: 'pleasant', 'intimate' and so on. Note that the evaluation on some status traits Dutch evaluated higher than Frisian is in contrast with the outcomes of that former study carried out in 1985, when there were no significant differences. It cannot be decided yet what might be the explanation: is it the different procedure (the evaluation of personal guises vs conceptual guises) or is it the different judges (the evaluation by first-year students vs urban inhabitants)? Frisian is evaluated higher than the Ljouwert vernacular on both types of traits, except 'funny'. The superiority of Frisian on solidarity traits is confirmed very clearly. In addition to that, you can see that Dutch is evaluated higher than Leewarders on all status traits but only on the solidarity traits 'pleasant', 'intimate' and 'beautiful'. Summarising these results with regard to the characterisation of Frisian as a minority language, I can draw the conclusion that it is evaluated lower than the majority language Dutch and higher than the urban vernacular of Ljouwert on status traits. On solidarity traits Frisian is considered higher than both Dutch and the Ljouwert vernacular. Perhaps I should stop now to stay on the safe side, but I want to add something that struck me in the output of the factor analyses I carried out on data of my former matched-guise study (Jonkman, 1985). I don't want to get into statistical details too far here, I will only try to come to yet another way of characterising a minority language. In the output of those factor analyses, the so-called rotated factor matrices, I arrived at patterns which were opposite with respect to both varieties. As I have said before, traits which are highly correlated with the same factor have something in common: solidarity traits with one (or more) factor(s) and status traits with (an)other one(s). Besides a hierarchy is given in the rotated factors: first factor, second factor, third factor and so on. It accounts for the percentage of variance which is explained by the factors. It appeared that with regard to the Frisian speaking guise solidarity traits had high loadings on the first factor and status traits had so on one of the next factors. With regard to the Dutch speaking guise the factor pattern was reversed: status traits got high loadings on the first factor and solidarity traits on the next ones. For the factor analyses of the 1985 study see Table 3. For my Ljouwert study I tried to find a balance between the number and impact of status and the number and impact of solidarity variables to test my hypothesis that the status items would load highly on the first factor with respect to Dutch varieties (Dutch and the Ljouwert vernacular) and the selected solidarity items would load highly on the second factor. For Frisian the pattern in the rotated factor matrix would be reversed. I present to you the rotated factor matrices of the 6 selected (out of 15) variables on the status and solidarity dimension of the Ljouwert study in Table 4. The factor pattern of Dutch and the Ljouwert vernacular are more or less the same. The variables on the status dimension like 'educated' have high loadings (>0.50) on the first factor and the variables on the solidarity dimension like 'personal' have high loadings on the second factor. For Frisian it is just the other way around: solidarity variables are highly loaded on the first factor and status variables are so on the second factor. The hypothesis is confirmed, but it is clear that because of the small number of variables left after the selection, it cannot be

< previous page

page_17

next page >

< previous page

page_18

next page > Page 18

Table 3 Comparison rotated factor matrices Dutch and Frisian Dutch Frisian Factor hierarchy Trait Loading Trait Loading factor 1 social position 0.75 cordial 0.84 ambitious 0.66 sociable 0.80 ntelligent 0.64 easy talking 0.74 leadership 0.63 tolerant 0.71 tenacious 0.60 attractive 0.69 independent 0.51 factor 2 sociable 0.83 reliable 0.80 cordial 0.75 honest 0.76 easy talking 0.68 civilised 0.56 tolerant 0.65 attractive 0.54 factor 3 honest 0.87 tenacious 0.76 reliable 0.66 independent 0.72 leadership 0.62 factor 4 civilised 0.68 businesslike 0.77 Total percentage of variance 65.2 66.1 Only loadings higher than 0.50 are presented. Varimax Rotation Kaiser Normalisation. Table 4 Comparison rotated factor matrices Dutch, Leewarders and Frisian Nederlands Leewarders (Ljouwert Frysk (Frisian) (Dutch) ver.) Traits 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd educated 0.76* 0.19 0.78* 0.16 0.26 0.66* distinguished 0.74* 0.28 0.76* -0.01 0.01 0.77* elaborate 0.53* 0.45 0.41 0.49 0.18 0.65* businesslike 0.62* -0.28 0.59* 0.31 0.67* 0.19 personal 0.01 0.79* 0.07 0.83* 0.81* 0.06 pleasant 0.16 0.77* 0.12 0.80* 0.82* 0.20 Dimension: status.solidarity status.solidarity solidarity.status Total percentage of 56.7 57.0 56.7 variance * > 0.50 Varimax Rotation Kaiser Normalisation.

< previous page

page_18

next page >

< previous page

page_19

next page > Page 19

a strong confirmation. It is the change of just one variable ('businesslike') as a status trait into one of solidarity that causes the reversal. Still this reversal points in the same direction as the 1985 study. My derivation from this different matrix patterns or reversed hierarchies of factors is that Frisian is evaluated primarily in terms of solidarity. Only secondarily is it evaluated in terms of status. Dutch and the Ljouwert vernacular are evaluated first of all on the status dimension and secondarily on the solidarity dimension. Summary, Discussion and Conclusions In this paper I have presented some results of my study on the three varieties of the Frisian capital. I wanted to compare Frisian, the minority language, with Dutch, the majority language, and the urban vernacular as measured by a variant of the matched-guise experiment. The aim was to characterise a minority language not in diglossic but in sociopsychological terms. After an illustration of the original technique by the outcomes of a former study (Jonkman, 1985) I presented the social evaluation of the three varieties of Ljouwert by the native speakers of Frisian in 1989. The results of both studies are summarised in Table 5. Table 5 Overall comparison Frisian/Dutch and Frisian/Leewarders with regard to the solidarity and status dimension Dimension Comparison guise/label Solidarity Status Frisian > Dutch (1985) + 0 Frysk > Nederlands (1989) + Frysk > Leewarders (1989) + + We saw that on the solidarity dimension native speakers of Frisian evaluated the Frisian guise higher (+) than the Dutch guise (1985) and the label Frysk higher (+) than the label Nederlands (1989). On the status dimension the 1985 evaluation showed no difference (0) between the two guises, but the comparison on the two labels was negative (-) for Frisian. My general conclusion from the outcomes of both studies is that Frisian as a minority language is evaluated higher on the solidarity dimension and not higher on the status dimension with regard to the majority language. Frysk received a higher (+) evaluation than Leewarders (1989) on both the solidarity and the status dimension. Frisian as a minority language is evaluated higher than the Ljouwert vernacular on both dimensions. So, in contrast with the description on basis of the dichotomic division High and Low variety, Frisian can be described in a more discriminating way by the division on dimensions.

< previous page

page_19

next page >

< previous page

page_20

next page > Page 20

This evaluation was tentatively linked to the outcomes of several factor analyses of Frisian and Dutch varieties. The solidarity traits of Frisian varieties have high loadings on the first factor and status traits on one of the next factors. For Dutch varieties it is just the other way around. Based on both types of outcomes I would now like to discuss the characterisation of Frisian, which might also be taken as a characterisation of a minority language in general. The characterisation with regard to the native speakers themselves is that Frisian as a minority language which exists as a linguistically separate entity is socially categorised primarily in terms of solidarity and is evaluated high on that dimension. Only secondarily is it categorised in terms of status and evaluated not higher than the majority language on that dimension. This characterisation differs from the Ljouwert vernacular which does not exist as a linguistically separate entity (a Dutch dialect) and is, just like the majority language Dutch, first of all categorised in terms of status and is judged lower than both the majority language and the other minority variety. Only secondarily is it categorised on the solidarity dimension and is evaluated not higher than the other varieties. As the final overall conclusion, and a suggestion for further reflection and research, I derive from the Frisian case the next hypothesis for other minority languages: a minority language (which exists as a linguistically separate entity) is socially categorised in a different way than the majority language; first of all in terms of solidarity and evaluated higher than the majority language on that dimension, and only secondarily in terms of status and evaluated not higher than the majority language. References Brinkmann to Broxten, E. (1986) Stadtsprache Stadtmundart: Studie zum Gebrauch und zur Funktion mundartnaher Sprachvarietäten in Frankfurt/Main. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Fishman, J. A. (1972) Societal bilingualism: Stable and transitional. Section VI of The Sociology of Language (pp. 91104). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Fishman, J. A., Cooper, R. and Ma, R. (1971) Bilingualism in the Barrio. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications. Jonkman, R. J. (1985) Skaadwizers: in lykskeakele-opnameûndersyk nei taal- en taalgedrachshâlding yn Fryslân. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Groningen. Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R., Gardner, R. C. and Fillenbaum, S. (1960) Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60, 4451. Nie, N. H., Bent, D. H. and Hadlay Hull, C. (1988) SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics tm V2.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc. Ryan, E. B. (1979) Why do low-prestige language varieties persist? In H. Giles and R. St Clair (eds) Language and Social Psychology (pp. 14557). Oxford: Blackwell. Ryan, E. B., Giles, H. and Hewstone, M. (1988) The Measurement of Language Attitudes. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar and Klaus J. Mattheier (eds) Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik (Second Volume/Zweiter Halbband) (pp. 106881). Berlin New York: De Gruyter. Schlobinski, P. (1987) Stadsprache Berlin. Berlin New York: De Gruyter.

< previous page

page_20

next page >

< previous page

page_21

next page > Page 21

3 Sweden Finnish Development or Deterioration? Jarmo Lainio Department of Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Uppsala, Box 513, S-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden Abstract The paper deals with the results of a sociolinguistic study of immigrant Finnish in Sweden. One phonological and one morphosyntactic linguistic variable exemplify the results of dialect and language contacts of two adult generations. Dialect origin in Finland, sex and age are shown to correlate with linguistic use. Traditional dialectological descriptions, anecdotal characterisations of Finnish in Sweden and contrastive analysis-based views on language learning ability are criticised. The picture emanating from the analyses indicates that the Sweden Finnish development has its own, ordered characteristics and that a main factor at work in the emigrant situation is the varietal development of Finnish in Finland. The impact of nationalistic linguistic purism during the nineteenth century in Finland is argued to influence present-day Finnish varietal development and attitudes about language use also among Sweden Finns. Swedish linguistic impact cannot be directly observed for the variables studied. Introduction During the whole of the existence of the Swedish kingdom both minor and major populations of Finns have been living within its borders, e.g. the so-called 'forest Finns'. They moved above all from Savolax in Finland and settled in the central provinces of Värmland and Dalecarlia from the sixteenth century and onward (Broberg, 1970: 947). No speakers of Finnish of this speech community remain. Another important community of Finns that was the result of internal migration was that of Finns in Stockholm. The Finnish parish of Stockholm celebrated its 450th anniversary in 1983 (Carlsson, 1984: 19). In present-day Sweden there are two main categories of speakers of Finnish. One is the autochthonic minority of Tornedalen in the north-east border area of Sweden. This area remained a part of the Swedish kingdom in the compromise peace treaty between Sweden and Russia in 1809 when Finland became a Grand duchy under the sovereign of the Russian empire (cf. Wande, 1984). The six hundred years of being a province within the Swedish kingdom were ended. The number of Finnish-speaking persons in this area is estimated at about 20,00025,000 today (Wande, 1984: 229). The other is the post-war immigrant

< previous page

page_21

next page >

< previous page

page_22

next page > Page 22

population of Finns in Sweden. The size of the latter minority, which is the topic of this paper, is estimated at about 300,000 people, including the naturalised Swedish citizens (Allardt & Starck, 1981: 846). More than 90% of these immigrants, which henceforward will be called Sweden Finns, live in urban areas (Majava, 1981: 243). A majority of the immigrated Sweden Finns have their roots in the rural northern and eastern parts of Finland. The immigration from Finland to Sweden peaked in the years 196970, when about 30,000 immigrants constituted the yearly net immigration from Finland to Sweden (Majava, 1981: 2323). During the 1980s the number of Finns immigrating to Sweden has been steadily decreasing. In 1986, for the first time since the announcement of the common Nordic labour market in 1954, the Finns were surpassed by another group, the Iranians, as the largest single immigrant category (Hammar, 1987: 8). According to fairly recent prognoses (1987) the number of persons born in Finland will decrease in the future: in the year 2015 about 156,000 persons born in Finland are estimated to be living in Sweden (Reinans, 1987: 49). The Finns traditionally constitute a labour immigration, which has headed for production industry in the southern and central parts of Sweden. A social diversification is taking place and women, who earlier were also mainly occupied in this sector of the labour market, are now more inclined to look for employment within health care, the service sector and children's day care (SOS, 1984: 847). Compared to many of the other early European labour immigrant groups, the length of schooling was relatively high for Sweden Finns. The majority of Sweden Finns earn their living within the production industry (mining, manufacturing, construction, trade): for Finnish citizens 83% compared with 39% for the whole workforce in Sweden (Majava, 1981: 245). This difference is diminishing and the social situation of the naturalised Sweden Finns resembles more than that of Swedes. If the Sweden Finns can be said to be fairly homogeneous according to social group criteria, the opposite is true regarding their linguistic origins and their command of Swedish and Finnish. In any Swedish municipality with a high concentration of Finns, most Finnish main dialect groups are represented. The degree of bilingualism differs within the Sweden Finnish language community from, on the one hand, almost monolingual Finnish-speaking first generation immigrants to, on the other hand, almost monolingual Swedish-speaking descendants of the second and third generations. These two categories are to be seen as non-representative extremes at the moment. In towns which have recently had little fresh immigration from Finland, Finnish is not passed on to the second and third generations to any high degree (cf. Boyd, 1985: 21012). But also among the second generation there can be expected to be differences: two thirds take part in Finnish language instruction and may at least postpone a language shift (Hammar, 1987: 28). There are further signs of a growing bilingual and bicultural identity among the second generation (OuvinenBirgerstam, 1987; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1987). As regards the clash between real language use and attitudes concerning it, the Finns face four main attitudinal pressures: (1) the written language has for a century and a half served as a static model for decent, 'good' language use, also for spoken language;

< previous page

page_22

next page >

< previous page

page_23

next page > Page 23

(2) the use of foreign elements in Finnish, especially those of Swedish origin, has been looked upon as condemnable linguistic deterioration, a situation that is highlighted in a minority situation; (3) the view of historical dialectology that present-day speakers of dialects do not use 'pure' or 'good dialect', has set through even in laymen's attitudes about their own dialectal speech, which is of importance for spoken Finnish; (4) the Finns have been stigmatised as being poor learners of foreign languages, a view that is frequently shared by Finns themselves. The generalisation made by Halliday regarding Labovian sociolinguistics that while language attitudes in urban societies are becoming more homogeneous, real language use shows an increasing tendency to diverge and to function as signals of social class (Halliday, 1978: 1559) is hypothetically and impressionistically a strong factor at work also for Sweden Finns. As compared to more stable speech communities with little migration there is one main difference: the heterogeneous language use is present from the beginning. However, the question is whether it will remain as diverse as at present considering the attitudinal factors. In brief, there are in this minority situation several, at times opposing, normative pressures directing language use. For any ordinary speaker the demands of these pressures seem difficult to fulfil. Earlier Studies of Sweden Finnish Language Use Finnish in Sweden is both nationally and internationally best known from the semilingualism debates of the 1970s and the early 1980s, following observations by Nils-Erik Hansegård (1968) about the situation for bilingual Tornedalen speakers. In various psychological, social psychological, educational and sociological studies the problems of especially schoolchildren were penetrated also for Sweden Finns (Toukomaa & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1977; Ekstrand et al., 1981; Toukomaa, 1983; cf. Virta, 1983, for a review). The impact of language contact, identity development and deficits in the language development of these schoolchildren were discussed from the point of view of behavioural sciences, in terms of pros and cons of different educational programmes aiming at active bilingualism. Few, if any, of these studies contained data from factual language use the debate concerned the question of competence. Martin-Jones & Romaine (1987) summarise the semilingualism debate as a 'half-baked theory of communicative competence'. They see it as a conflict between culture-bound prescriptive norms and speech community norms. Since competence is notoriously difficult to separate from performance, it is striking that no linguistic study on language in use was carried out. Recently, an attempt to evaluate two of the three existing educational programmes aiming at bilingualism has been finished. The conclusion of this study was that irrespective of which educational programme the children took part in, they had the same results in Finnish. Further, competence in Swedish was concluded to be comparable to that of socially matched Swedish schoolmates (Sjödoff, 1989). There are, however, several weaknesses in these conclusions, for example that the same marks from different educational programmes cannot be directly compared with each other and that the educational programme does not tell about practice (how many hours in reality are used for

< previous page

page_23

next page >

< previous page

page_24

next page > Page 24

the languages, what qualifications the teachers have and so on). This evaluation will not solve the discussion concerning which educational programme is the best one (for a critique of Sjödoff's conclusions, see Lainio, 1989b.). Neither have attempts in a Bernsteinian tradition, where the language use and sociolinguistic behaviour of parents could be compared with that of their children, been carried out. Even if the hypotheses of Bernstein have been too complex to verify on the linguistic level, it is not only a truism to argue that the language performance of the parents influences that of their children during the initial formative years. The increasing knowledge of the gap between standard languages and attitudes concerning the correctness of the language that is used in interaction, on the one hand, and spoken language actually used in interaction, on the other, was one impetus to the present FIDUS project (FIDUS is short for Swedish Finsk dialektutveckling i en svensk industristad, 'Finnish dialectal development in an industrial Swedish town'). It is not known to what extent the lack of understanding about the differences between spoken, factual language use and standard language norms may have influenced earlier studies. The FIDUS Project A Description The FIDUS project aimed at making a prediction or at least at indicating a general direction for the development of spoken Sweden Finnish. Since knowledge about Finnish as used in Sweden was more anecdotal than systematic in character, a collection of original linguistic data was necessary. This need has become more obvious during the 1980s, when the new mainstream research direction of second language acquisition has been shown to lack other descriptions of Finnish than those available about standard Finnish from contrastive structural analyses, grammars and older dialect descriptions. The importance of studying what is actually used in language contact situations and not only the projections of the ideal standard language structures had been already pointed out by Weinreich (1953: 667) and Haugen (1972: 3025, 323). The contrastive analyses between various languages have been of great importance for the understanding of the effects of language contact, but additional understanding can best be reached by the study of performed language use (Hyltenstam, 1981: 55). The ideal would be to study both parents and children of the same family empirically, but thus far this seems to have been done to a limited extent both here and elsewhere (for a review, see McLaughlin, 1985). A starting-point for the project was that the spoken language varieties of a majority of speakers should be included. The majority of Sweden Finns have their linguistic origins in the rural northern and eastern regions of Finland (Häggström, 1978: 36; Korkiasaari, 1985). Even if many have moved from an urban western or southern municipality, they have often started off from the rural regions. The north-western province of Ostrobothnia may be seen as a separate major emigration area. For practical and theoretical reasons it was impossible to study a cross-section of all Sweden Finns and thus of all dialect groups. Two dialects and regions representing the majority of rural immigrants and two dialects representing the more prestigious urbanised southern and western regions were selected to be studied in a Swedish municipality which had experienced labour immigration from Finland from the 1950s to the end of the 1970s. A

< previous page

page_24

next page >

< previous page

page_25

next page > Page 25

judgement sample was selected according to seven basic criteria. The sample will be discussed below. The term 'dialect' will be used to refer to geographical, rural speech varieties, whereas 'variety' also covers sociolects and urban speech varieties. The term 'variety' has a more general meaning. The municipality of the study, Eskilstuna in central Sweden, as well as the four dialect areas involved are indicated in Figure 1. Eskilstuna is a town of about 90,000 inhabitants. The town was earlier predominantly industrial in its character. The amount of inhabitants of Finnish descent is about 8,500 (1987), of which an estimated 500 have Swedish as their first language. The number of Finnish citizens is decreasing, mainly due to the fact that a large proportion of early Finnish immigrants have become Swedish citizens: in 1987 there were about 4,800 Finnish citizens among these 8,500 Finnish descendants. In earlier years the immigration pattern to Eskilstuna almost exclusively concerned labour immigration from the other Nordic countries or from some of the traditional emigrant countries of southern and central Europe: Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy and to some extent from Turkey and West Germany. An exception to this were the political refugees from Hungary after the events in 1956. The Sweden Finns constitute the most dominant immigrant group in Eskilstuna also today, when immigrants of other origins settle down, e.g. Vietnamese. Two of the four dialect groups selected to represent the Finnish spoken language development (Figure 1), the Southwest Finnish and the Häme dialects, represent West Finnish in the traditional division of Finnish dialects. One group, the North Karelian, represents the East Finnish dialects. Still in our days there is a discussion whether the North Finnish dialects are to be counted as West or East Finnish (cf. Paunonen, 1987), even though a consensus has developed to refer to them as mainly West Finnish in their origins during this century. The question of West vs East Finnish refers to their historical linguistic origins. The judgement criteria used in the selection of informants were supposed to create representative and fairly homogeneous social and demographic groups of Sweden Finns. The criteria defining the sample of the FIDUS project (KINF = key informant) were the following: KINFs should have been born in one of the four dialect areas chosen to represent urban' western (SFi, HFi) and rural northern and eastern (NFi, EFi) dialects, and should have spent enough time in the birth dialect area to have had a chance to develop the dialect, i.e. up to age 1011. KINFs should have arrived in Sweden in 1976 at the latest. The recordings for the study were made in 1981, which means that the KINFs had been resident in Sweden for at least five years this provides abundant time for their language to adapt to prevalent local intralanguage usage and norms. KINFs should belong to a common social group, i.e. to the majority of manufacturing workers, or have corresponding working class occupations. KINFs should have spent some time at FiFi schools (10 years minimum emigration age) in order to develop the grammar of Fi and to have internalised general skills in the use of their mother tongue.

< previous page

page_25

next page >

< previous page

page_26

next page > Page 26

Figure 1 The four dialect areas and the Swedish municipality studied in the FIDUS project KINFs should have basically the same level of schooling, in practice no academic education. KINFs were not to be married to a Swedish-speaking spouse, if married at all (cohabitance was equated with marriage). KINFs were supposed to be 2030 or 4060 years of age, to facilitate comparisons and to make it possible to include two generations of a family. Some of the criteria indicate that it is possible to study the sample from a language internal point of view, e.g. the endogamy criterion of marriage, but also the position of Finnish as the almost exclusive language used in the private domains for the first generation makes this feasible (Lainio, 1984: 1223; 1987). Studies of Finns in other emigrant target countries have to consider their selection criteria and linguistic variables, according to the demographic and social characteristics of the population in the country in question. As a comparison, the approximately 11,000 Finnish immigrants in West Germany constitute a quite different population from the one studied here: 80% of the Finns in West

< previous page

page_26

next page >

< previous page

page_27

next page > Page 27

Germany are women, more than half of the cases have graduated from a university level education, they are in most cases married to Germans and they live scattered around in different cities (Tuomi-Nikula, 1989). Also the most famous expatriate Finnish-speaking speech community, the American Finns, would require different criteria to study them: the origin of the majority of American Finns was at periods to be found in Ostrobothnia and the western parts of Finland; a large proportion of the men worked within forestry and mining, whereas women frequently worked as domestic servants; there were generally more men than women among the American Finns; they settled not only in rural surroundings, which could develop to Finnish-speaking villages, but also in cities, where Finnish-speaking townships could develop; by 1960 more than half were 66 years old or more (cf. Hoglund, 1981; Virtaranta, 1981). The Sample of the FIDUS project A questionnaire was sent to 249 respondents living in the central parts of the municipality and who corresponded to the criteria according to official registers. Half of these answers, 124, were returned. The respondents were also asked in the questionnaire to participate in the tape-recorded group discussions, for which they themselves were to find their partners. This may have contributed to the fairly small amount of returned questionnaires. All of the participants, unknown to me before the recordings, were asked to answer a questionnaire as well. Among these other participants some speakers were found who qualified to be used as key informants. After the direct sampling by me and the indirect sampling via these group discussions, the final total sample included 54 key informants, classified according to dialect origin, age (2030 and 4060 years old) and sex as in Table 1. As can be seen in Table 1 two subgroups, namely the ones representing the younger South-west Finnish and Häme dialects, have been excluded. In these subgroups only single speakers, who both corresponded to the selection criteria and were willing to take part in the study, were found. One reason for the smaller number of emigrants in these subcategories of speakers is that they have been Table 1 The final FIDUS sample Subgroup SFi (South-west) N Younger women = A (SA = -) Younger men = B (SB = -) Older women = C SC = 6 Older men = D SD = 4 N= 10 SN= 54

< previous page

HFi (Häme) N (HA = -) (HB = -) HC = 4 HD = 3 7

NFi (Kemi) N NA = 5 NB = 4 NC = 5 ND = 2 16

EFi (North Karelia) N EA = 3 EB = 6 EC = 4 ED = 8 21

page_27

next page >

< previous page

page_28

next page > Page 28

inclined to emigrate to the larger cities, since they in many cases lived in urban municipalities already in Finland. The pressure to emigrate has also generally been smaller in the urban areas in Finland than in the rural ones. The rural dialect groups are thus represented by two generations, the urban by only one. It should be remembered, however, that all of these speakers belong to the first generation of immigrants, since they arrived after the age of 1011 years some of them during late adolescence but most in adult years. (For a discussion on the choice of criteria and the data collection, see Lainio, 1984, 1989a.) The Linguistic Data Collection As in most studies of 'normal speech', an attempt was made to elicit a spontaneous speech style, i.e. one which could be characterised by a high degree of informality according to the following criteria: (1) the linguistic forms were not predestined to be close to the standard variety; (2) the choice of linguistic items was not decided by context-bound preset linguistic rituals; and (3) the interactional patterns could not be said to be connected to communicative roles to any large extent. The points mentioned refer to the code, discourse and interaction, respectively (Nordberg, 1986). To avoid influencing the speech styles and the linguistic behaviour of the informants during the recordings, I had to eliminate these three points characterising me as a speaker: first, my own stylistic variation between a South-west Finnish dialect and Standard Finnish (=StFi) with possible Swedish transfers; second, the fact that I am a male speaker; and third, that I probably represented a well-educated social category. This despite the fact that I have spent my childhood in the town and could be counted as an ingroup member. In accordance with these requirements, I let the participants of the groups discuss on the basis of written statements or questions given to them in the shape of a pack of cards read aloud by themselves. A topic was finished when nobody felt like continuing, which was when a new topic was read and discussed. Since I did not myself take part in the recorded situation, the discussions were spontaneously directed into other topics as well. Those utterances and quotations that were obviously reading sequences were omitted from the present linguistic analyses. Thus, the pack of cards served mainly to elicit speech, but some of the information gained from the discussions was useful for understanding speaker attitudes on relevant matters, e.g. attitudes about the language use and the life situation of Finns in Sweden. The use of written topics was further aimed at solving the paradoxical problem of being present as an observer but physically absent. I was listening to the discussions via earphones from another room, making notes. It was not possible to give the project an anthropological approach (cf. Gal, 1979; Milroy, 1981). The participants were informed in fairly general words that the reason for recording their discussions was that the study aimed at finding out about their views on their present life situation and about their views on some minority language topics. The fact that the recordings were to be used also for explicit linguistic analyses was not revealed in advance. The material comprises about 60 hours of group discussions with 161 participants. The amount of individual speech of the key informants (N = 54) is estimated at about 1,0008,000 tokens/words. The length of the recordings varies

< previous page

page_28

next page >

< previous page

page_29

next page > Page 29

between 30 minutes and two hours. In the light of the stigma concerning Finns that they are 'silent speakers', it deserves to be mentioned that the discussions were vivid and most key informants unexpectedly talkative. No attempt has been made to clarify the role of interlocutors, speech dynamics or the role or status of the key informants within their groups on the speech variation of the key informants. However, a separate study on the influence of prosodic and pragmatic features on the use of a personal pronoun clearly revealed that these levels are relevant to the results of a variational study of this kind (Lainio & Wande, 1989). Since the key informants had chosen their partners themselves, it was assumed that these would help to create a situation which could be said to represent the speech of everyday life, especially with regard to the key informants. This is a great simplification, and it does not imply that the speech of the key informants is the only style or variety of which they have a command (cf. Gal, 1984; Lavandera, 1984). Needless to say, stylistic variation occurs during the discussions as well. Even if the direct impact of Swedish was not subject to study, the overall impression from the recordings is that almost no code-switches and very little transfer occurred among the key informants. This is in accordance with the findings of Poplack et al. (1987; cf. Poplack, 1987) of Finns in Canada: that they do not code-switch in similar ways as do for example, the Puerto Ricans in New York. The normative attitudes of Finns against mixed language use favour monolingual codes (Karttunen, 1977; Martin, 1981; Savolainen, 1987). On the phonological and morphological levels, Swedish impact was almost untraceable, despite the fact that many of the key informants had spent more than 20 years, some even 30 years, in Sweden. The Impact of Nineteenth Century Standardisation of Finnish on Present-day Sweden Finnish In order to understand internal Finnish language development and the hesitation to use foreign elements in Finnish, some comments on the processes that created present-day, unified Standard Finnish are necessary. In Einar Haugen's terms (Haugen, 1972: 2878; Hansegård, 1988: 5961), the basis of standard Finnish was selected by the translation of the New Testament in the mid-sixteenth century by the Archbishop Mikael Agricola. Literally speaking, he created a written language. The basis of this writing was the South-west Finnish dialects of the Turku area. Even if changes took place later in the writing, e.g. by the translation of the whole Bible in 1642, the substratum remained heavily West Finnish, in which the impact of Swedish has been more obvious than in many other Finnish dialects. This translation could further be seen as the codification of Finnish. During the nineteenth century a nationalistic purification of primarily the written language evolved. For a century these ideas have been profoundly executed. Major ideas in the standardisation process of Finnish were, among others, that if Finnish society was to take a step into the so-called civilised Western cultural sphere, the Finnish language needed an extension of its vocabulary, but also that the developing Finnish nation needed a purified language based on Finnish heritage to function as a national symbol (e.g. Klinge, 1985; Lainio, 1989a: 418). This development is similar to the ones described for other European

< previous page

page_29

next page >

< previous page

page_30

next page > Page 30

countries (e.g. Edwards, 1985: 124, 23 ff.). The attempts to unify the linguistic varieties in France and Germany in the post-revolutionary years had preceded the Finnish strive (Edwards, 1985; Pabst, 1989). Particularly the publishing of the several editions of the folk epic Kalevala had a decisive impact on this development. Kalevala was written in East Finnish dialects, and East Finnish dialectal features were introduced en masse in the written language. This recodification of standard Finnish affected all levels of grammar. Thanks to influential spokesmen such as Elias Lönnrot, the editor of Kalevala, the work on restructuring the Finnish language resulted in a preservation of quite a few of the traditional characteristics of the written language. The result could be said to be a successful compromise between West and East Finnish dialects, but also to consist of a large amount of innovational constructs based on simplifications of grammatical structures and freshly created vocabulary. For example, a word list was published that consisted of about 4,000 construed Finnish lexemes to replace mostly Swedish loan words that were in general use in informal speech in the homes, the so-called kyökkisuomi 'kitchen Finnish' (Paunonen, 1976: 3589). The recodification did, however, concern all levels of language, from phonology to syntax. In many of the new standard Finnish novations, old dialects served as sources, e.g. dialect words received new meanings and dialectal morphemes were generalised into the written language in order to make the grammar of Finnish more regular. This use of both West and East Finnish features in standard Finnish is of direct importance for the outcome of dialect contacts. The attitudes that took root during the nineteenth century and the propagation (Haugen, 1972: 24652) of these via intellectuals and later via the social internalisation in school has influenced the study of language and the teaching of the mother tongue until our days (Hansén, 1988: 1256, 2934). The adult Sweden Finnish immigrants are likely to have internalised the normative view that only the use of the written-like standard variety is good language use. Whereas in earlier decades this had been motivated by the idea that Finland, in order to remain an independent country, needed a firm attitude about its language, the symbol of national freedom, later generations have not perceived this motivation as strongly. For the first generations of Finns growing up in independent Finland, language has had the characteristics of a core value (Clyne, 1985: 32). Normative attitudes may have decreased in strength. From comments among the present informants, however, it is obvious that the written-like standard variety still is a main norm target. The fact that language has had a symbolic function also for the first generation of Finnish immigrants, and that this symbol has been one of the few apparent ethnic markers of Finns in Sweden, makes it understandable that questions concerning the language have been intensely debated (cf. Savolainen, 1987). A Presentation of the Linguistic Analysis I will try to exemplify the complexity of the linguistic process by giving the data of one of the phonological variables of the FIDUS project, the (d) variable 'the correspondences in the dialects of written '. In the case of (d) the present-day impact of spoken Swedish is a probable but non-verifiable factor to count on in the minority situation. The variable is crucial for the

< previous page

page_30

next page >

< previous page

page_31

next page > Page 31

Finnish consonant gradation, since in older Finnish vocabulary its variants are the result of morphological alterations: /t/ in open syllables becomes /d/ in closed syllables, e.g. katu: kadun 'street: of the street'. It is crucial for the phoneme structure of Finnish traditionally /d/ has not been included in the Finnish phonotax, but it fulfils the criteria of a phoneme (Karlsson, 1983: 667). The voiced plosive has been considered a difficulty of pronunciation for Finns in general. This is one main cause why Finns have been seen as poor learners of foreign languages: many Finns underdifferentiate between /t/ and /d/ in other languages since /t/ normally is slightly voiced and unaspirated and thus very close to /d/ for those speakers who have it in their idiolect. Variants of what is here included in the (d) variable have frequently been studied in both historical dialectology and sociolinguistics (e.g. Virtaranta, 1958; Nuolijärvi, 1986). I will also use one morphological, or rather morphosyntactic variable, (l. P Pl) (first person plural verb conjugation), to indicate changes on this level as well. Only group values are used in the results below. The (d) Variable According to a traditional view, none of the voiced plosives /b/, /g/ or /d/ belong to Finnish phonotax. The present-day standard Finnish variant for the (d) variable is, however, a voiced d (more alveolar as in English than dental as in Swedish). It was introduced in cultivated language use during the nineteenth century. Its origins are to be found in writing, which took over the grapheme from Swedish. It was partly due to educated bilinguals with Swedishspeaking backgrounds and the developing Finnish-speaking educated class who learned to write by strict letter/grapheme pronunciation in the nineteenth century, that the variant got a foothold in standard Finnish. The use of the voiced plosive was supported by language cultivators from the onset of the purification of Finnish, despite the fact that it was traceable to Swedish impact (cf. Pulkkinen, 1972; Paunonen, 1980). As a dialect variant it has occurred in the regions which have had a close geographic contact with Swedish, i.e. in the south-western and north-western parts of Finland. The dialect variants have been successors to the historical *d (a voiced dental spirant), which in the West has been represented by d (voiced dental spirant, as in English this), r (a vibrant [r]), the one-flap ð (in IPA [ ) and in Häme dialects also by the lateral l. In the East Finnish dialects and in the North Finnish dialects the representation is originally believed to have been Ø, which later has been replaced by hiatus sounds assimilated to the adjacent vowels, e.g. StFi syödään = EastFi *syyØään > syyv(v)ään 'one eats, it is eaten; we eat'; StFi taidan = EastFi *taiØan > taij(j)an 'I may'; but also by h in some cases, e.g. StFi saadaan = EastFi *saaØaan > saahaan 'one gets, may; we get, may'. The position following /h/ in words like StFi kahden 'of two' (Gen) and lehden 'the newspaper's' (Gen) are in the present-day EastFi dialects almost exclusively followed by Ø, i.e. kahen and lehen. In many dialects and in specific words the voiceless dental plosive t occurs. Since this variant does not show gradation, it has in traditional studies been omitted from further studies it has mainly been notified as an exception to the ideal grammar rule of gradation. Traditionally the variation of the (d) variable is presented in specific contexts

< previous page

page_31

next page >

< previous page

page_32

next page > Page 32

Key: StFi = d, WestFi = ð, r, EastFi = Ø, j, v, h, Intervarietal = t. SC N = 6, SD N = 4. n =464. Figure 2 (d) variable, varietal distribution. South-west Finnish (SFi) group, older women (SC) and older men (SD). Means

Key: StFi = d, WestFi = ð, r, EastFi = Ø, j, v, h, Intervarietal = t. HC N=4, HD N = 3. n = 183. Figure 3 (d) variable, varietal distribution. Häme (HFi) group, older women (HC) and older men (HD). Means

< previous page

page_32

next page >

< previous page

page_33

next page > Page 33

Key: StFi = d, WestFi = ð, r, EastFi = Ø, j, v, h, Intervarietal = t. NA N = 5, NB N = 4, NC N = 5, ND N = 2. n = 758. Figure 4 (d) variable, varietal distribution. North Finnish (NFi) group, younger (NA + NB) and older (NC + ND). Means

Key: StFi = d, WestFi = ð, r, EastFi = Ø, j, v, h, Intervarietal = t. EA N = 3, EB N = 6, EC N = 4, ED N = 8. n = 1,056. Figure 5 (d) variable, varietal distribution. East Finnish (EFi) group, younger (EA + EB) and older (EC + ED). Means

< previous page

page_33

next page >

< previous page

page_34

next page > Page 34

such as the position following the (short) first main stress syllable, i.e. VdV, after a long V, VVdV, and after h, but for the purposes of this paper it is enough to classify the dialect variants and compare them to the variants used by speakers originating from the four dialect areas chosen. The picture is complicated by the fact that the speech of the capital of Helsinki has received a high prestige position. Helsinki speech in its turn has had several sources for its own development, both dialectal mainly West Finnish influences in the speech of migrants and the written standard. To some extent, Swedish has had an impact on Helsinki speech (Paunonen, 1980, 1981; Paunonen & Sorsakivi, 1988). For the (d) variable Helsinki speech has adopted EastFi variants in some linguistic contexts and in some specific words. The diffusion of these EastFi variants is thus supported by Helsinki influence. The subgroup symbols in the figures are explained in Table 1. One overall tendency is that West Finnish speakers (SFi, HFi; Figures 2 and 3) to some extent have started using EastFi variants, and that East Finnish speakers have started using WestFi variants (Figures 4 and 5). For all dialect groups the impact of StFi is weak, but the first ones to start using the voiced d variant (=StFi) are the women. Men in three of the dialect groups (SFi, HFi, EFi) have in common that they use the WestFi variants (r, ð) more than women do. This could mirror a delayed reaction to the high status this variant had some decades ago in the WestFi dialects and in Helsinki. Another probable cause is that a male covert norm is developing; thus it would be the result of present linguistic contact. The variant that has been termed Intervarietal here is the voiceless plosive t. Since its variation seems to be ordered extralinguistically, both dialectally [+NFi, +EFi] and according to age [+older] and to sex [+men], this variant should no longer be explained by the inability of Finns in general to pronounce voiced plosives, nor to lack of structural pressure of gradation the use of the voiceless and the voiced plosives is connected to external factors and it is apparently sociolinguistically ordered. Such conclusions can be drawn from recent sociolinguistic studies in Finland as well (Lainio, 1989a: 11620, 121, 128, 137, 147). This explanation receives support from the fact that also the voiced plosive d seems to correlate with changes in the external factors. The marked dialect variants seem to give way to more general variants, which have in common that they receive support by their similar status and use in several dialects or in prestigious varieties in Finland. A levelling seems to take place, but it is not the one expected the rural dialect variants that could be expected to spread by their support from a majority of Sweden Finnish speakers are used to a limited extent. There is, however, clear individual variation, which is not revealed by these figures. On the one hand, the development could be said to be specifically Sweden Finnish, since speakers of WestFi dialects end up using other EastFi variants and EastFi speakers end up using other WestFi variants to different degrees than do corresponding speaker groups in Finland. On the other hand, the superregional development in Finland is largely parallel to the one among Sweden Finns, which shows that the latter are in contact with the attitudinal and linguistic changes in Finland. Such a development differs partially from the processes revealed in studies on emigrant dialects overseas (e.g. Haugen, 1972: 1518; Hasselmo, 1974; Tosi, 1984; Pauwels, 1987; Kanazawa & Loveday, 1988;

< previous page

page_34

next page >

< previous page

page_35

next page > Page 35

Martin, 1989: 27681). This is explained by the frequent contacts of Sweden Finns with Finland via mass media and annual visits to Finland. Still, it is contrary to what has been a general belief in evaluations of Finnish as spoken in Sweden. The (1. P Pl) variable the First Person Plural Concordance The StFi form of the 1. P Pl is (me) mene+mme 'we go', where the subject person is signalled by the person ending of the verb. The pronoun can be omitted if the person is not stressed for contextual reasons. The Passive form, which has long been the exclusive variant in the Imperative of the 1. P Pl in most dialects, has spread to be used as a finite form of the 1. P Pl, e.g. me mennään 'we go', instead of the congruent StFi forms. The use of the Passive forms comes from the EastFi dialects, according to the view of traditional dialectologists (Lainio, 1989a: 311ff.). The StFi forms have, however, been used in EastFi dialects as well as in Häme dialects. In both NorthFi and EastFi dialect variants that are congruent, like the one in StFi, are used, but with other vowels in the person ending, e.g. (me) mene+mmä ~ -mä (the pronoun varies as well). The change to the Passive could further be said to reflect a large-scale typological change towards the more analytic Germanic languages in the neighbourhood of Finnish pronouns are used to signify the subject person without the stress functions attributed to them in StFi (cf. Lainio & Wande, 1989). Since the Passive forms can be found in most varieties today, the variant has been termed Intervarietal in Figures 6 to 9. The EastFi variant overlaps with the NorthFi one. For the (1. P Pl) variable the results show an astonishing homogeneity (Figures 69), which reflects the development in the Finnish dialects and the superregional development of the variable in Finland. It would probably be correct to call the almost exclusive use of the Passive form in the 1. P Pl a Sweden Finnish variant, but since the general tendency is similar for the whole of spoken and even informal written Finnish, this may only be a reflection of changes initiated among these speakers already in Finland. The only dialect group of the ones studied that makes use of another variant to any notable degree is the Häme group, where the StFi variant overlaps with the dialect variant. This is a general tendency of the FIDUS study: a dialectal variant is inclined to be used when it receives support from the identical variant of a prestigious variety, in most cases StFi and in some cases by a superregionally observed diffusion in Finland. This, in turn, is often supported by the high status speech of the Helsinki area. The tendencies toward a use of less marked variants and a levelling could be seen as well in the separate study of a pronoun variable (1. P SG): the markedly dialectal variants such as mie 'I' are abandoned and the StFi minä variant 'I', the West Finnish mää and the superregionally used shorter mä, are spreading (Lainio & Wande, 1989). The diffusion of the Passive forms may, however, in another respect contribute to a gap developing between Sweden Finnish and Finland Finnish. In StFi the Accusative (=Acc) Sg object following the regular Passive is identical to the Nominative it has no ending and lacks gradation, e.g. luetaan lehti+Ø 'the newspaper is read' (=to the end), whereas 1. P Pl takes the Acc Sg object ending {-n} in similar clauses: me luemme lehde+n 'we read the newspaper'.

< previous page

page_35

next page >

< previous page

page_36

next page > Page 36

Key: StFi = -mme, Intervarietal = passive form, EastFi = -m(m)A. SC N = 6, SD N = 4. n = 275. Figure 6 (1. P Pl) variable, varietal distribution. South-west Finnish (SFi) group, older women (SC) and men (SD). Means

Key: StFi = -mme, Intervarietal = passive form, EastFi = -m(m)A. HC N = 4, HD N = 3. n = 123. Figure 7 (1. P Pl) variable, varietal distribution. Häme (HFi) group, older women (HC) and men (HD). Means

< previous page

page_36

next page >

< previous page

page_37

next page > Page 37

Key: StFi = -mme, Intervarietal = passive form. EastFi/Inherent = -m(m)A. NA N = 5, NB N = 4, NC N = 5, ND N = 2. n = 283. Figure 8 (1. P Pl) variable, varietal distribution. North Finnish (NFi) group, younger (NA + NB) and older (NC + ND). Means

Key: StFi = -mine, Intervarietal = passive form, EastFi = -m(m)A. EA N = 3, EB N = 6, EC N = 4, ED N = 8. n = 515. Figure 9 (1. P Pl) variable, varietal distribution. East Finnish (EFi) group, younger (EA + EB) and older (EC + ED). Means

< previous page

page_37

next page >

< previous page

page_38

next page > Page 38

When the Passive becomes the general verb variant there is an analogical spread of the Passive verb object to the 1. P Pl: me luetaan lehti+Ø 'we read the newspaper'. This is apparently the case among speakers of Finnish in Finland as well as in Sweden. In Finland, the correct use of the written norm (me luemme) with an object followed by {-n} is taught to school children, who become capable of using it in formal language use. This adverse development has been noticed in the use of other morphological features among Finnish schoolchildren (Sorsakivi, 1981). In Sweden, the impact of StFi is smaller and the use of Swedish, which lacks object endings, is imposing its structural pressure on Finnish. This may cause a change in the treatment of the Acc objects, not only for the 1. P Pl, but also for the other grammatical persons. This tendency has been stated in some reports already (Nesser, 1983; Huss, 1985; Lainio, 1989a: 3267). This StFi use of the Acc ending is not a trivial, linguistically interesting issue the non-idiomatic use (as understood by Finland Finnish speakers) of the object endings is a strongly stigmatising feature. Another linguistic consequence seems to be that the Finnish copula and auxiliary, which in StFi and the old dialects have identical forms of the verb olla 'to be; to have', have a tendency to be used with different forms of olla, when the Passive is used in the function of first person plural (Lainio, 1989a). However, this aspect has not been studied for Finland Finnish thus far. (For a discussion on the causes of changes in a similarly complex language contact situation, see Priestly, 1988.) Summary The result of the dialect contact in this urban immigrant municipality is that marked dialect features are avoided and features that are common to several varieties are slowly spreading. There is, however, individual variation and most speakers are still fairly easily recognised by some dialectisms. The impact of Swedish on the features studied can only be detected as an indirect support for some of the developments and is probably more easily found among second and third generation speakers. For the phonological variable (d) it is still difficult to distinguish the dental Swedish plosive from the alveolar Finnish one it could possibly be detected in longitudinal or repeated quantitative comparisons (cf. Trudgill, 1988). The morphosyntactic variable studied, the verb conjugation of first person plural (1. P Pl), shows that the strong pressure from various directions to use the Passive variant has resulted in an exclusive use of this variant among all dialect groups. This is in accordance with the development in Finland, but its use may have other grammatical consequences for Sweden Finnish than for Finland Finnish. The smaller impact of standard Finnish in Sweden may lead to a diverging way of treating clauses containing objects in the Accusative. The pressure of Swedish may contribute to such a difference. External factors like sex, age and dialect origin are mirrored in the present use of the (d) variable, but also in other phonological variables (Lainio, 1989a). This suggests that the first generation of Sweden Finnish speakers are in the midst of recreating their linguistic profiles of Finnish in fairly ordered ways. This takes place seemingly monolingually but not monovarietally even if stylistic variation was not subject to study, it was obvious in the group discussions arranged.

< previous page

page_38

next page >

< previous page

page_39

next page > Page 39

Since both the phonological variables, of which the speaker is presumably less conscious, and morphological ones indicate similar patterns, one could hypothesise that for the first generation immigrants a levelling is taking place with regard to their informal Finnish. However, marked dialectal features and low prestige (in Finland) dialect variants of the rural regions are not the ones that will be generally used. Instead, it seems that prestige varieties in Finland are important for the outcome; the levelling seems to follow largely the same direction as Finland Finnish varietal developments, somewhat delayed and less distinctly. It may be that this Sweden Finnish development is restricted to the favourable Finnish-speaking surroundings of the towns that have a large proportion of Finns, as was the case for these informants living in Eskilstuna. The evident answer to the question in the heading would thus be that development and ordered changes are taking place. There is an increasing impact of some prestigious Finnish varieties on the other ones, but also some borrowing between the dialects which can best be explained by present linguistic contacts. The patterns according to which these changes take place can be traced to the ones observed in Finland. The Finnish of these first generation immigrants shows no obvious signs of Swedish impact for the phonological and morphological variables studied. References Allardt, E. and Starck, C. (1981) Språkgränser och samhällsstruktur. Finlandssvenskarna i ett jämförande perspektiv. Stockholm: AWE/Gebers. Boyd, S. (1985) Language Survival. A Study of Language Contact, Language Shift and Language Choice in Sweden. Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 6. Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg. Broberg, R. (1970) Invandringar från Finland till Sverige före 1700-talet i verklighet och tradition. In Migrationen mellan Sverige och Finland, Nordisk Utredningsserie 14/70, 91112. Stockholm: Nordiska Rädet/Nordic Council. Carlsson, S. (1984) Stockholm som finnarnas huvudstad. In S. Huovinen (ed.) Mitt sa'finnen om Stockholm. Glimtar ur finnarnas historia i Stockholm (pp. 1328). Stockholm: Kulturfonden för Sverige och Finland. Clyne, M. (1985) Multilingual Australia. Melbourne: River Seine Publications Pty. Edwards, J. (1985) Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ekstrand, L. -H., Foster, S., Olkiewicz, E. and Stankovski, M. (1981) Interculture: Some concepts for describing the situation of immigrants. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 2, 26995. Gal, S. (1979) Language Shift. Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. London and New York: Academic Press. (1984) Phonological style in bilingualism: The interaction of structure and use. In D. Schiffrin (ed.) Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 290301). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Häggström, N. (1978) Migrationen mellan Finland och Sverige åren 196874. Forskningsrapport 10/1978. Nordiska Muséet. Stockholm. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978) Language Use as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Hammar. T. (1987) Immigration to Sweden in 1985 and 1986. In SOPEMI Report Immigration to Sweden in 1985 and 1986 (pp. 137). Center for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations, Report 4. University of Stockholm. Hansegård, N. -E. (1968) Tvåspråkighet eller halvspråkighet? Stockholm: Aldus/Bonniers. (1988) Språken i det norrbottensfinska området. Arbetsrapport 3/1988, Lärarutbildningarna. Högskolan i Luleå. Hansén, S. -E. (1988) Folkets språk i folkets skola. Studier i modersmålsämnets måloch innehållsfrågor i den svenska folkskolan i Finland 18661927. Åbo: Åbo Academy Press.

< previous page

page_39

next page >

< previous page

page_40

next page > Page 40

Hasselmo, N. (1974) Amerikasvenska. En bok om språkutvecklingen i Svensk-Amerika. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska språknämnden, 51. Stockholm: Esselte Studium. Haugen, E. (1972) The Ecology of Language. Essays by Einar Haugen. Selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Hoglund, A. W. (1981) Finns. In S. Thernstrom (ed.) Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, (pp. 36270). Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press. Huss, L. (1985) Finska, svenska eller båda? En studie av sverigefinska förskolebarns språkliga vardag. Rapport 4, 1985/86. Styrelsen för Uppsala högskoleregion. Uppsala. Hyltenstam, K. (1981) Tröskelnivån i ett språkinlärnings- och språkundervisningsperspektiv. In Tröskelnivå. Förslag till innehåll och metod i den grundläggande utbildningen i svenska för vuxna invandrare, (pp. 4087). Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen/Board of Education. Kanazawa, H. and Loveday, L. (1988) The Japanese immigrant community in Brazil: Language contact and shift. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9:5, (pp. 42336). Karlsson, F. (1983) Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. Porvoo, Helsinki and Juva: Werner Söderström OY. Karttunen, F. (1977) Finnish in America: A case study in monogenerational language change. In B. G. Blount and M. Sanches (eds) Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Change (pp. 17384). New York, San Francisco and London: Academic Press. Klinge, M. (1985) Finska språket i Finland under 1800-talet. In De Nordiske skriftspråkenes utvikling på 1800-tallet 2 (pp. 724). Nordisk Språksekretariats Rapporter 6. Oslo. Korkiasaari, J. (1985) Returnees from Sweden to Finland in 198081. Migration Reports 18. Helsinki: Ministry of Labour, Planning Department. Lainio, J. (1984) Finsk dialektutveckling i en svensk industristad (FIDUS) Slutrapport l. Språksociologisk del. FUSKIS/FIDUS 8. Uppsala universitet. (1987) Language Use of Finns in Sweden. Implicational Patterns in Four Domains. Scandinavian Working Papers on Bilingualism 7, 128. (1989a) Spoken Finnish in Urban Sweden. Uppsala Multiethnic Papers 15. Centre for Multiethnic research, University of Uppsala. (1989b) [Review of] Sjödoff, Inga-Liese. (1989) Med svenska som mål. Effekter av två undervisningsprogram på invandrarelevers svenska i skrift. Skrifter utgivna av institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet, 23. Uppsala. Invandrare & Minoriteter/Scandinavian Migration and Ethnic Minority Review 45/1989, 929. Lainio, J. and Wande, E. (1989) Pronominet minä 'jag' i urban sverigefinska. Fenno-Ugrica Suecana 10. Uppsala. Lavandera, B. R. (1984) The variable component in bilingual performance. In D. Schiffrin (ed.) Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 391409). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Majava, A. (1981) Finns in Sweden: Characteristics and living conditions In M. G. Karni (ed.) Finnish Diaspora I: Canada, South America. Africa, Australia and Sweden (pp. 23153). Papers of the FINN FORUM conference, held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 13, 1979. Toronto: The Multicultural History Society of Ontario. Martin, M. (1981) Finnish as a Means of Communication in Thunder Bay. In M. G. Karni (ed.), Finnish Diaspora I: Canada, South America. Africa, Australia and Sweden (pp. 11729). Papers of the FINN FORUM conference, held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 13, 1979. Toronto: The Multicultural History Society of Ontario. (1989) Amerikansuomen morfologiaa ja fonologiaa. (Unpubl. lic. diss.) Department of Finnish, University of Jyväskylä. Martin-Jones, M. and Romaine, S. (1987) Semi-lingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence? In E. Wande, J. Anward, B. Nordberg, L. Steensland and M. Thelander (eds) Aspects of Multilingualism. Proceedings of the Fourth Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism, 1984 (pp. 87104). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Multiethnica Upsaliensia 2. Uppsala. McLaughlin, B. (1985) Second-Language Acquisition in Childhood: Volume 2. School-Age Children (2nd ed). Hillsdale, New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Milroy, L. (1981) Language and Social Networks. Language in Society 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Nesser, A. (1983) Subjekt, objekt och predikativ i sverigefinska barns uppsatser. FUSKIS/FIDUS 5. Uppsala universitet. Nordberg, B. (1986) Formalitetsbegreppet i sociolingvistiken. En liten betraktelse. In C. Anderson Östman and A. Malmberg (eds) Svenska i tid och otid. Vänskrift till Gun Widmark från doktoranderna (pp. 15267). Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet.

< previous page

page_40

next page >

< previous page

page_41

next page > Page 41

Nuolijärvi, P. (1986) Kolmannen sukupolven kieli. Helsinkiin muuttaneiden suurten ikäluokkien eteläpohjalaisten ja pohjoissavolaisten kielellinen sopeutuminen. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Ouvinen-Birgerstam, P. (1987) Identitetsutveckling hos barn. En jämförelse mellan finska, jugoslaviska och svenska barn. In E. Wande, J. Anward, B. Nordberg, L. Steensland and M. Thelander (eds) Aspects of Multilingualism. Proceedings of the Fourth Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism, 1984 (pp. 265281). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Multiethnica Upsaliensia 2. Uppsala. Pabst, K. (1989) Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt in napoleonischen Frankreich. Eine amtliche Bestandsaufnahme der Sprachen und Dialekte im französischen Kaiserreich 18068. In P. H. Nelde (ed.) Historische Sprachkonflikte (pp. 722). Plurilingua VIII. Bonn: Dümmler. Paunonen, H. (1976) Kotikielen Seura 18761976. Virittäjä (pp. 310432). (1980) Finskan i Helsingfors. In Helsingfors två språk (pp. 541). Rapport 1. Meddelanden från institutionen för nordiska språk och nordisk litteratur vid Helsingfors universitet, Serie B, 4. Helsingfors universitet. (1981) Anmerkungen zur Erforschung der Stadtdialekte in Finnland. In H. Leskinen (ed.), Heutige Wege der Finnischen Dialektologie (pp. 11938). Studia Fennica 24. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. (1987) De finska dialekterna på Nordkalotten och deras förhållande till de andra finska dialekterna. In K. Julku (ed.) Nordkalotten i en skiftande värld kultur utan gränser och stater över gränser (pp. 21137). Studia Historica Septentrionalia 14:2. Rovaniemi: Societas Historica Finlandiae Septentrionalis. Paunonen, H. and Sorsakivi, M. (1988) Äänikuvia Helsingistä. Helsingin kouluvirasto. Helsinki. Pauwels, A. (1987) Immigrant Dialects and Language Maintenance in Australia. The Cases of the Limburg and Swabian Dialects. Topics in Sociolinguistics 2. Dordrecht, Holland, and Providence, R.I.: Foris Publications. Poplack, S. (1987) Contrasting Patterns of Code-Switching in Two Communities. In E. Wande, J. Anward, B. Nordberg, L. Steensland and M. Thelander (eds) Aspects of Multilingualism. Proceedings of the Fourth Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism, 1984 (pp. 5177). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Multiethnica Upsaliensia 2. Uppsala. Poplack, S., Wheeler, S. and Westwood, A. (1987) Distinguishing language contact phenomena: Evidence from Finnish-English bilingualism. In P. Lilius and M. Saari (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics in Helsinki (pp. 17398). The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 6. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Priestly, T. (1988) Accelerated Grammatical Change in Carinthian Slovene: Dialect Mixture or 'Linguistic Decay'? Revue Canadienne des Slavistes XXX:1, 6280. Pulkkinen, P. (1972) Nykysuomen kehitys. Katsaus 1800-ja 1900- luvun kirjakieleen sekä tekstinäytteitä. Tietolipas 72. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Reinans, S. A. (1987) Immigrants in Sweden twenty years after immigration. A demographic prognosis and a Swedish language ability survey. In SOPEMI Report Immigration to Sweden in 1985 and 1986 (pp. 3961). Center for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations, Report 4. University of Stockholm. Savolainen, M. (1987) Jag skäms inte för att jag är finne. In Y. Lithman (ed.) Nybyggarna i Sverige. Invandring och andrageneration (pp. 80119). Carlsson Bokförlag. Sjödoff, I. -L. (1989) Med svenska som mål. Effekter av två undervisningsprogram på invandrarelevers svenska i skrift. Skrifter utgivna av institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet, 23. Uppsala. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1987) Are the Finns in Sweden an Ethnic Minority - Finnish Parents Talk about Finland and Sweden. Research project: The education of the Finnish minority of Finns in Sweden, working paper 1. Institute VI. Roskilde University Centre. Sorsakivi, M. (1981) Muuttuva infinitiivijärjestelmä. Helsinkiläislasten puhekielen tarkastelua. (Unpubl. laudatur diss.) Muoto-opin arkisto. Helsinki. SOS (1984) Sveriges Officiella Statistik/Official Statistics of Sweden. Tema invandrare/Theme Immigrants. Living Conditions, Report no 38. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden/LiberFörlag. Tosi, A. (1984) Immigration and Bilingual Education. A Case Study of Movement of Population, Language Change and Education Within the EEC. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Toukomaa, P. (1983) Education through the medium of the mother tongue of Finnish immigrant children in Sweden. In L. Dabène, M. Flasaquier and J. Lyons (eds), IV. Status of Migrants' Mother tongues/Le Statut des Langues d'Origine des Migrants (pp. 1818). Contributions to the ESF workshop held in Granada on 235 November 1981. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.

< previous page

page_41

next page >

< previous page

page_42

next page > Page 42

Toukomaa, P. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1977) The Intensive Teaching of the Mother Tongue to Migrant Children at Pre-school Age. Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Tampere. Trudgill, P. (1988) Norwich revisited: Recent linguistic changes in an English urban dialect. English World-Wide 9:1, 3349. Tuomi-Nikula, O. (1989) Suomalaisena Saksassa. In T. Korhonen and M. Räsänen (eds) Kansa kuvastimessa. Etnisyys ja identiteetti (pp. 23852). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Virta, E. (1983) Språkligt tänkande, tvåspråkighet och undervisning av minoritetsbarn. Ds U 1983: 17. Stockholm: Ministry of Education. Virtaranta, P. (1958) Pääpainollisen tavun jälkeisen soinnillisen dentaalispirantin edustus suomen murteissa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. (1981) Finnish dialects in America: Some experiences and problems. In M. G. Karni (ed.) Finnish Diaspora II: United States (pp. 30316). Toronto: The Multicultural History Society of Ontario. Wande, E. (1984) Two Finnish minorities in Sweden. In B. Molde and D. Sharp (eds) Second International Conference on Minority Languages, June 1983, Turku/Åbo, Finland, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 5: 34, 22541. Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact, Findings and Problems. The Hague and Paris: Mouton Publishers.

< previous page

page_42

next page >

< previous page

page_43

next page > Page 43

4 Flemish Primary Schools in Brussels: Which Prospects? Kas Deprez* and Armel Wynants** *University of Antwerp, UIA and University of Louvain, KUL **University of Liege, ISLV Abstract After one and a half centuries of decline, the Flemish kindergartens and primary schools of Brussels began to make rapid progress in the beginning of the 1980s. This progress is due largely to the bilingual and the unilingual francophone families which have increasingly made use of the re-introduced 1971 liberté du père de famille to send their children to . . . Flemish schools. No one would ever have foreseen this development in 1971. This development will be described and the motives of the different categories of Belgian and foreign families investigated. The ever growing numbers of non-Dutch-speaking children have caused a number of problems, however; problems of a pedagogical nature and identity problems. More substantive policies of the Flemish Community toward the Flemish schools in Brussels are demanded. This is the ideal moment to reconsider the matter since (1) education in Belgium is now federalised and (2) Brussels as the third region now has its own institutions by which the Flemings in the capital wield considerable power. In addition to immigration by Walloons, education has undoubtedly been the main Frenchifying factor in Brussels. Flemish parents used to send their children to francophone schools in the hope that this would improve their chances for the future. Consequently, the history of Flemish schools in the capital has been one of continuous decline for one and a half centuries. The Flemish Movement had but one response to this phenomenon: the Flemings in Brussels had to be protected from themselves and from the francophone Brussels authorities. In 1932, the year of the first major linguistic compromise in Belgium, they succeeded in passing a law in this sense. The freedom of school selection was terminated and replaced by the principle that education in the now officially bilingual capital was to be given only in the mother tongue. At the registration of a child the head of the family was to sign a declaration in which he stated which language was spoken in the home; in cases of doubt this declaration could be checked (cf. Van Velthoven, 1989). The new law did not work; Flemish parents got around it and continued to send their children to francophone schools. Yet, the Flemish Movement, for want of an alternative, stuck to its defensive strategy. With the next major linguistic compromise in 1963, the system of compulsory language declaration

< previous page

page_43

next page >

< previous page

page_44

next page > Page 44

was even strengthened in that some technical improvements were added, allowing for more sufficient control. To no avail, as Flemish schools went further downhill. Francophones, for their part, seized every opportunity to protest against such a degree of language compulsion (cf. Swing, 1980). In 19701, in response to the constitutional reform, the Flemings eventually gave in and in Brussels the head of the family was again given the right to decide on the language of education of his child. The Flemish negotiators could still extract some compensation: day-care centres, lower splitting norms, etc.; furthermore, the newly created Netherlandic Culture Commission (NCC) was granted the authority to supervise Flemish schools in Brussels (as for the NCC, see Parmentier, 1988). Yet, at that time these compensations did not impress the Flemings or the francophones. The complete Frenchification of primary education in Brussels was predicted (cf. Ruys, 1979: 201). As a matter of fact, between 1971 and 1979, the number of pupils continued to decline heavily by more than one third in primary schools and some 20% in kindergartens. Progress However, in 1980 the trend was reversed and for the first time the absolute number of children in Flemish kindergartens increased. From then on, it continued to increase every year: from 4,347 in 1979 to 6,282 in 1988. In primary schools progress was less spectacular and began only in 1984. But there too, it re-occurred every year: from 7,867 pupils in 1983 to 9,235 in 1988 (Source: NCC-censuses). This progress was all the more surprising for several reasons. (1) In that same period francophone primary education began to decline, for the first time in its history (from 1976 on in kindergartens, and from 1972 on in primary schools Source: Ministère de l'Education Nationale et de la Culture Française). (2) Since 1968 the total population of Brussels has been decreasing almost yearly. In the 1970s it was due both to a falling birthrate and to an urban exodus; today only the second factor is still relevant. (3) As is the case in other Western European metropolitan cities, a true demographic revolution has taken place in Brussels since the 1960s in the sense that the number of foreigners (mostly migrant workers) has increased from a low percentage to more than a quarter of the population in some twenty years (cf. De Lannoy, 1987: 173). Even in recent years their number has continued to grow, whereas the number of Belgians has continued to decline. Because the decline in the Belgian population has been stronger than the increase in the foreign population, the total population of Brussels has shown further decline as well (figures on 1st January 1987: 721,230 + 252,269 = 973,499; on 1st January 1988: 717,339 + 254,010 = 971,349). Flemish schools attract relatively few children of foreign nationality. Foreigners appear to send their children mainly to francophone schools in Brussels: in 1985, for example, in francophone education the percentage of foreign children was 44.36% in kindergartens and 44.61% in primary schools. In

< previous page

page_44

next page >

< previous page

page_45

next page > Page 45

the Flemish schools these percentages are much lower: 11.09% in the kindergartens and 6.64% in the primary schools in 1985. But they are increasing (see below). Yet, in spite of growth, the Flemish share of the Brussels educational market remains very modest. In 1984, for example, the number of infants in Flemish kindergartens still amounted to only 15.41% of the total number of infants in the Brussels kindergartens, and in the primary schools their number was even limited to 10.65%. (The difference between those two percentages illustrates in its way the balance of power, although it should be noted that in recent years the situation has changed here as well. In 1978, for example, only 50% of the children moved on to a Flemish primary school after having completed Flemish kindergarten, or, when things began to matter, French was favoured. Today, this percentage has risen to 85%.) Finally it may also be of interest to point out that in 1988 only 73% of the children in the Flemish schools actually originated from the 19 Brussels communes. We do not know what this percentage is in the francophone schools. Recovery? If the growth of Flemish kindergartens and primary schools in Brussels is not, or at least not in essence, due to foreigners, then it must be Belgian children who are behind it. Crucial data with regard to the Belgian children is their language background. In this respect we have extensive statistics at our disposal. First, there are the results of the censuses organised by the NCC in all Flemish kindergartens and primary schools at the beginning of every school year. These were set up to gain some basic information on the children and their parents in a quick and efficient (but perhaps not too precise) way. Traditionally in these censuses, a question regarding the family's home language was also included. A distinction was made between four sociolinguistic categories: homogeneous Dutch-speaking families, mixed families (Dutch-French), homogeneous francophone families and families speaking other languages. In all likelihood, the families speaking other languages were almost all foreigners, whereas most of the families speaking the Belgian languages were undoubtedly Belgians; the NCC reports have never been very clear on this. Anyway, there can be no doubt about the direction the trend is taking. The number of children from homogeneous Dutch-speaking families is decreasing constantly (cf. Deprez & Wynants, 1989: 42). So, if the Flemish kindergartens and primary schools in Brussels have been making progress during recent years, this is exclusively due to the growing contribution of the other categories (the bilingual and the homogeneous francophone ones, and also the ones speaking other languages). Also, there are the results of a large-scale investigation set up by the NCC between 1984 and 1986 (Deprez & Wynants, 1988). In a first stage a team of fourteen researchers attempted to contact all families with one or more children in a Flemish kindergarten or primary school in Brussels and provided them with a structured questionnaire. More than 90% of the families co-operated. Regarding language background, four questions were asked: (a) What was the parents' mother tongue? (b) What was the parents' school language? (c) What is

< previous page

page_45

next page >

< previous page

page_46

next page > Page 46

the family's home language, i.e. which language or languages do parents and children speak with each other? (d) What is the subjective identification of the family? (Does the family view itself as Dutch-speaking, French-speaking, bilingual or speaking other languages?). Let us first compare the results of this investigation with the 1984 NCC-census for home language; as stated above, home language was supposedly the criterion in NCC-censuses. It then appears that the numerical ratio between the four different categories poses even more problems than has been assumed so far. In the investigation the percentage of children from homogeneous Dutchspeaking families was 14% below the results of the NCC-census in kindergartens and 16% in primary schools. In the end, only 34% of the children in kindergartens and 54% in primary schools came from a homogeneous Dutchspeaking family (45% of the total school population). Also, if the other language criteria (parents' mother tongue, parents' school language or parents' subjective identification) are taken into account, this percentage does not grow. Quite on the contrary! (See tables 3 to 6 in Deprez & Wynants, 1989.) Why is it that the category of homogeneous Dutch-speaking families scores much higher in the NCC-censuses than in the 1984 investigation? The NCCcensuses were carried out by the headmasters of the schools under the authority of the NCC. Obviously, these individuals were easily able to find out the total number of children attending their schools; indeed, in the past their total results differed only slightly from the official figures issued afterwards by the Ministry of Education (Ministerie van Onderwijs). But to classify children and families into different language categories is clearly much more difficult than to count the total number of children. Obviously, the headmasters do not have enough information; they rely on their personal impressions, on knowledge from hearsay, etc. It is also very likely that they handle various sociolinguistic variables without much distinction, which as we are dealing with Flemish schools tends to favour Dutch; this would mean that as soon as some trace of Dutch is discovered in the family or in its past, the family is labelled bilingual or even homogeneous Dutch-speaking. That is, we are confronted here with a cumulative effect. So, whatever statistics are put forward, it is the three non-homogeneous Dutch-speaking categories which are on the increase. Above all, the rise in the number of children from homogeneous French-speaking families is striking. In the 1984 investigation their relative share was seen to grow from 7% in the sixth form of primary school (i.e. the oldest group) to 24% in the first year of kindergarten (i.e. the youngest group). Also the percentages of children from bilingual families and from families speaking other languages continue to increase, but not to the same extent. Additionally, one should realise that it is certainly not only the homogeneous francophone families who speak French at home. Whoever is familiar with Brussels knows that also in so-called bilingual families French is used more often than Dutch; and that in the homes where non-Belgian languages are spoken natively, again French is better known than Dutch. It may therefore be more realistic to consider these categories as non-Dutch-speaking as well. This then would mean that in 1984, of the total population in the first year of kindergarten, two thirds had to be called non-Dutch speaking!

< previous page

page_46

next page >

< previous page

page_47

next page > Page 47

The trends observed in 1984 have been re-affirmed by the results of the NCCcensuses that have been carried out since then. According to these censuses, from 1984 till 1988 the children from homogeneous Dutch-speaking families further declined from 48.31% to 38.49% in kindergartens, and from 69.56% to 55.50% in primary schools. Each of the other three categories, on the contrary, continued to rise. (That in the NCC-censuses carried out after 1984 the children from homogeneous Dutch-speaking families again scored much higher than in the 1984 investigation, is a consequence of the fact that after 1984 the NCC-censuses were executed in the same manner as before. It is clear that these scores again were too high. In fact one may wonder whether the number of children from homogeneous Dutch-speaking families in kindergarten is still above the 30% today.) In recent years, the NCC has mainly tried to conduct a policy of recovery in an attempt to regain for Flemish schools those families which are wholly or partially Dutch-speaking and which send their children to francophone schools. The NCC has repeatedly stated not to be interested in children from homogeneous francophone families whom they believe had better attend a francophone school. Yet, as was shown above, it is in this category that the greatest gains have been made. Why the number of children from homogeneous Dutch-speaking families in the Flemish schools has decreased so strongly in recent years, we do not know. There are two possibilities: either (1) there are still as many Flemish children in Brussels as before, but increasingly fewer of them go to Flemish schools which would mean that they attend francophone schools in Brussels, or that they attend Flemish schools outside Brussels; or (2) the number of Flemish children in Brussels is further decreasing. This explanation would seem to agree with Van der Haegen's (1988) estimates according to which young Flemish families with children in particular have left the Brussels agglomeration in recent years. Motivations Why have so many other parents preferred Flemish schools in Brussels in recent years? In the second phase of our investigation, the matter was discussed with a sample of 444 families, in which nine categories were represented. Among the Belgians, 120 homogeneous Dutch-speaking, 163 mixed and 58 homogeneous francophone families were questioned (almost three times as many mixed families were involved in this phase as were homogeneous francophone ones because of the NCC's interest in the former group). They were selected on the basis of two criteria from the first phase, namely home language and subjective identification; for example, a family qualified as mixed only if it had declared that both languages were spoken at home and if, additionally, it considered itself bilingual. In order to guarantee the representativeness of these three (Belgian) sub-samples in terms of social status, geographical spread (within the agglomeration) and educational level (kindergartens vs primary schools) the sample was also stratified on the basis of these three independent variables, with the different proportions taken into account. As a matter of fact, the subdivisions in the foreign population were based on nationality. The following groups were selected: Dutch and French citizens as speakers of the Belgian languages (16 Dutch families and 14 French ones were

< previous page

page_47

next page >

< previous page

page_48

next page > Page 48

actually reached); Italian and Spanish families as representatives of the older immigrant groups (a total of 23 families); Moroccans (27 families) and Turks (23 families) as the two most important recent immigrant groups. For obvious sociological reasons, among the Dutch and the French only middle-class families were interviewed, whereas among the other four nationalities the enquiry was limited to lower class families. Let us now summarise the results (see also Table 1). The homogeneous Dutch-speaking Belgian parents who send their children to Flemish schools consider this choice to be self-evident: being Flemish, it is obvious that they would prefer a Flemish school. (Why it is that for (many?) other homogeneous Dutchspeaking families in Brussels it still seems equally self-evident to prefer francophone schools, we do not know; this question has not as yet been investigated.) With the two other Belgian subgroups, the matter is more complicated since that one overriding motive is lacking. Among the mixed families many refer to their Flemish forbears (parents, grandparents, etc.); even among the homogeneous francophone families one out of three emphasises this fact. Yet, for neither group is this the main reason. Much more important are the benefits which may result from fluent bilingualism; the children speak French at home and learn Dutch in the Flemish school so that they might become truly bilingual. Also important are some specific pedagogical attributes of the Flemish schools (in general): their small-scale set up (small classes), the quality of second language teaching (which is said to enjoy a higher standard in the Flemish schools than in the francophone ones). Table 1 Reasons for preferring Flemish schools Reasons for preferring Flemish schools over francophone ones, in general HD Belgians Dutchmen DF Belgians HF Other foreign Belgians nationalities we are Flemings/our children's motherbenefits from fluent bilingualism tongue is Dutch Flemish forbears connections with Flanders small-scale set up quality of second language teaching limited numbers of immigrant children Reasons for preferring a particular Flemish school a school which can easily be reached a 'good' school: solidness and discipline, commitment, small-scale organisation, parental involvement additional educational initiatives: second language teaching, sports, extracurricular activities services to the families: pre-school and after-school care, hot meals, playground activities during holidays attractive buildings and favourable location a fully established school (different levels) limited numbers of immigrant children

< previous page

page_48

next page >

< previous page

page_49

next page > Page 49

Another feature which is appreciated, especially by the mixed and homogeneous francophone families, is the limited attendance of immigrant children in the Flemish schools. For the Belgian subgroups, these are the main reasons for preferring Flemish schools over francophone ones, in general. As for the choice of a particular Flemish school, other factors are decisive. The great majority look for a school which can easily be reached. Of course, they also want a 'good' school, but clearly this is defined in many different ways. The following criteria are often mentioned: solidness and discipline, commitment, small-scale organisation and parental involvement. The school may also try to promote itself by taking additional educational initiatives (for example with respect to second language teaching, sports and extra-curricular activities), or by providing services to the families (preschool and after-school care, hot meals, organisation of playground activities during holidays). It goes without saying that attractive buildings and a favourable location are additional assets. Finally, a fully established school (containing kindergarten and both primary and secondary sections) arouses more confidence than a local neighbourhood school. Especially with regard to the choice of a particular Flemish school, it is striking how large concentrations of immigrant children are avoided. Though the francophone children are much more numerous they are clearly seen as less problematic, also by the homogeneous Dutch-speaking Belgian parents. Among the foreigners, the Dutch obviously do not use the same arguments as the other nationalities to justify their preference for Flemish schools over francophone ones. They rather argue like the homogeneous Dutch-speaking Belgians, and in their turn call their choice of Flemish schools a self-evident one. The other foreign groups, on the contrary, mostly refer to the growing impact of Dutch in Brussels, i.e. they behave like mixed and homogeneous francophone Belgians. Besides, just like the latter, some of the foreigners also point to their connections with Flanders (for example, they may have lived there for a number of years). As to their further appreciation of the Flemish schools in Brussels in general, the various foreign groups seem to differ little amongst themselves. The high quality second language teaching and small-scale set up are attributes indicated by all groups to the same high degree. It is very striking that the foreigners also say they appreciate the low number of immigrant children in the Flemish schools, and this to the same extent as do the Belgians. At the same time, however, 35% to 45% of the Moroccans and Turks point out the existing tolerance in the Flemish schools. (When the foreigners say that they prefer schools with few immigrant children, they mean schools with few children of nationalities different from their own.) When choosing a particular Flemish school, the same wishes as those of the Belgians prevail. Foreigners also prefer a school which can easily be reached, and they want a good school. The same educational requirements are made: smallscale organisation and high quality second language teaching, but also seriousness and discipline, sports, etc. Material aspects are also important, even more so it would seem than for the Belgians. Again it is preferable for a school to be complete (in the sense of offering a full secondary as well as primary programme). Finally, some services are valued as highly by the foreigners as by the Belgians: pre-school and after-school care, hot meals and playgrounds.

< previous page

page_49

next page >

< previous page

page_50

next page > Page 50

(For more details on the motivations of these various groups, see Deprez & Wynants, 1988: 3360.) The arguments put forward reflect a three-way Brussels reality. First, there has been the progress of Dutch, and therefore of bilingualism, in Brussels over the last twenty years, as a result of the economic and political rise of Flanders; Flemish superiority in the country also weighs inevitably on the language relations in the (bilingual) capital. Second, there is the flow of migrant children to the francophone schools which not only deters some Belgian parents, but also a number of foreign ones. Third, there are the organisational and educational qualities of the/some Flemish schools, which, to a certain degree, are the results of the 19701 compensations. Twenty years ago, nobody would have imagined that the re-introduction of the head of the family's freedom of choice would have led to such an outcome. To be sure, the economic revival of Flanders had already been going on for more than ten years, but also in 1971 the FDF the new radical francophone language party in Brussels achieved its best electoral results. Problems (Pedagogical and Other) The presence of (relatively) large numbers of non-Dutch-speaking children in a number of Flemish schools entails considerable problems. These problems have been discussed with some forty randomly selected school directors. The difficulties which they specified do not only involve the children themselves, but their parents as well. The greatest language problems present themselves in the kindergarten classes, in which the majority of the children are not Dutch-speaking. Consequently, the needs of the Dutch-speaking children are not properly met. This becomes a particularly difficult problem for the teachersit often happens that children go for weeks, if not months, without understanding what is being said in the classroom. For the sake of those (non-Dutch-speaking) children, considerable amounts of time and resources must be spent on the teaching of basic vocabulary which the Dutch-speaking children already control. Several school directors had been inclined to state that non-Dutch-speaking children could attend the first elementary school year in a Flemish school, on condition that they had already been through three years of Flemish kindergarten (from the age of four until the age of six, that is). Naturally this would help; yet it has been demonstrated in recent research by Van Buggenhout (1989) that even then many of these children begin elementary school with a serious deficit vis-à-vis the Dutch-speaking pupils. A number of formal tests were taken of 225 children (Dutch-speaking, francophone and allophone) from the third class of kindergarten in fourteen Flemish schools. In particular their receptive knowledge of Dutch was investigated (phonological discrimination, sentence comprehension and passive vocabulary), but also aspects of their productive knowledge were considered (active vocabulary and word formation rules). Both the francophone and allophone children scored considerably lower than the native Dutch-speakers. The only exceptions were the phonetic discrimination test, where no differences were detected, and the sentence comprehension test, where they were minimal. But in both the vocabulary (active but also receptive!)

< previous page

page_50

next page >

< previous page

page_51

next page > Page 51

and the word formation tests, the discrepancies assumed truly dramatic proportions. In addition, the francophone children scored only very slightly higher than the allophones and the latter scored only half as high as the native Dutchspeakers. Finally, in an analysis of variance, linguistic background appeared to have been a much more significant variable than either socio-economic background or gender. The presence of large numbers of non-Dutch-speakers also creates identity problems in some Flemish schools, to the extent that the Flemish character of these schools is threatened. In some playgrounds, one hears much more French than Dutch. This leads to frustration for Flemish parents, who are then less likely to send their children to such schools. Francophone parents, for their part, certainly do not always make an effort to accommodate themselves to the Flemish school environment, which creates additional tensions. Policy Questions Under the pressure of these developments, the NCC has attempted in recent years to adjust its policy. It has therefore explicitly declared that, in its opinion, children from homogeneous French-speaking families do not belong in Flemish schools. Of course, legally it could not refuse these children, but it did want to make clear to French-speaking families that it would be more appropriate for them to send their children to a francophone school. For this point of view, the NCC could undoubtedly count on approval from some Flemish circles in the capital, but there were also strong reactions against it from well-known Flemish politicians. R. Garcia and R. Grijp, for example, claimed that the NCC was going beyond its range of responsibilities by concerning itself with policy questions which only the administrative forces of the different networks are entitled to handle. Besides, for the time being one cannot afford to refuse them since these children are badly needed in some schools. It was within the responsibilities of the NCC to provide logistic support to the Flemish schools, and in this respect little has been achieved by the NCC over the years, at least as far as educational content and materials are concerned. Of course, the educational service of the NCC was completely understaffed, but was this not the responsibility of the NCC itself? In recent years the Flemish schools have become the showpiece of the Flemish community in Brussels. Yet the Flemish government has never substantially invested in them, beyond funding publicity campaigns. As a result, what one has ended up with is a purely defensive policy that amounts to a denial of further growth. If outgroup members want to acquire one's language, this is proof of one's group's power of attraction. This is certainly the case if it is one's former masters who are doing so. It would not be in one's interest to reject them. With regard to the immigrant children, some Flemish schools in Brussels have taken meaningful steps in the way of bicultural programmes (cf. Leman, 1988; Smeekens, 1989). This was made possible thanks to the EC directives 77/468 of 25th July 1977 (yet those directives only concern immigrant children from EC member countries directly; children from other countries are subject to bilateral agreements). The EC, however, cannot interfere with Belgian linguistic legislation. In Belgium itself, radical changes of the

< previous page

page_51

next page >

< previous page

page_52

next page > Page 52

language laws with regard to education in Brussels are completely out of the question, since they would disturb fundamental political balances. The only way out is for the Flemish authorities to make more resources available to Flemish schools in Brussels. This is the appropriate period in which to reconceive Dutch-medium education in Brussels, now that with the present revision of the Belgian constitution, (1) the entire Belgian educational system has been federalised, and (2) Brussels has become the third region of Belgium, so that new political structures have been created for the Flemings as well as for the francophones in Brussels. If it is necessary to attract francophone and allophone children, it will also be necessary to indicate to their parents that they must take an active role in their children's educational integration, facilitating rather than inhibiting their children's exposure to Dutch-medium culture outside the classroom. Dutch is a minority language in Brussels, and non-Dutchspeaking children will come into contact with it too infrequently unless they are encouraged by their parents. If not, these children will experience great difficulties as shown by the research mentioned above. Research into the knowledge of Dutch of the various subgroups in Flemish schools is an excellent means of making this clear to parents. This research must be elaborated and the results must be given the necessary publicity. References De Lannoy, W. (1987) The Brussels urban region in the 20th century; a socio-geographical analysis. In E. Witte and H. Baetens Beardsmore (eds) The Interdisciplinary Study of Urban Bilingualism in Brussels (pp. 16794). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Deprez, K. and Wynants, A. (1988) Onderzoek betreffende de recente vooruitgang van her Nederlandstalig basisonderwijs in Brussel. Brussels: NCC (Internal Report). (1989) Minority problems: On the progress of Netherlandic primary education in Brussels. In K. Deprez (ed.) Language and Intergroup Relations in Flanders and in the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, TSL 6, 2944. Leman, J. (1988) Het bicultureel onderwijs in Vlaamse basisscholen te Brussel. Ons Erfdeel 31, 836. Parmentier, S. (1988) Vereniging en identiteit. De opbouw van een Nederlandstalig sociaal-cultureel netwerk te Brussel (19601986). Taal en Sociale Integratie 10. Brussels: VUB-Press. Ruys, M. (1979) The Flemings, a People on the Move, a Nation in Being. Tielt: Lannoo. Smeekens, L. (1989) Migrants' children in Flemish schools in Brussels: A matter of options. In K. Deprez (ed.) Language and Intergroup Relations in Flanders and in The Netherlands. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, TSL 6, 4556. Swing, E. (1980) Bilingualism and Linguistic Segregation in the Schools of Brussels. Laval: Centre International de Recherche sur le Bilinguisme, Publication B-95. Van Buggenhout, D. (1989) Nederlandse taalvaardigheid van kleuters in Vlaamse of in biculturele scholen in Brussel. Thesis, University of Antwerp, UIA. Van der Haegen, H. (1988) Brussel ledigt zich verder. De Brusselse Post 38, 7/8, 1516. Van Velthoven, H. (1989) The relationship between Flanders and Brussels from 1830 to 1980. Mechanisms of power in a historical context. In K. Deprez (ed.) Language and Intergroup Relations in Flanders and in the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, TSL 6, 1128.

< previous page

page_52

next page >

< previous page

page_53

next page > Page 53

5 Language Conservancy or: Can the Anciently Established British Minority Languages Survive? Wilf Gunther Dept. of Cultural Studies, Lancashire Polytechnic, Preston PR1 2TQ, UK Abstract In today's world few minority languages have a realistic chance of survival unless they are actively and systematically supported. These support measures, here termed 'language conservancy', i.e. official preservation measures, will have to be so radical that they can be implemented only with the active co-operation of the conational majority group. By analysing the state of decay in the extant minority languages indigenous to the British Isles, i.e. Irish and Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, and Sark-Guernsey-Jersey Norman French, and by scrutinising the history of the recently extinguished Cornish, Alderney Norman French, and Manx, an attempt is made to distil a number of indispensable minimal support measures to prevent language death. The measures proposed are: nativisation; establishing viable speech communities through stable bilingualism; a territorial base; immigration control; and improving the status and image of these languages. Why Language Conservancy? It is naive to assume in today's world of high mobility and Anglo-American world culture with its accompanying multimedia dissemination that any minority languages (ML, pl. MLL) have a realistic chance of survival unless something is actively and systematically done for their preservation now. This is perhaps more the case with the MLL of the British Isles since they are subjected to the immediate influence of the most prestigious dominant language of this century: English. Ironically most people clearly see that Nature can no longer fend for herself in the face of the onslaught of modern technology and therefore applaud conservancy, i.e. official preservation measures yet few people seem to see that linguistic minorities are now in a similarly vulnerable position and only official support can ensure their survival. This comprehensive support will have to be so radical that it can ultimately only be implemented with the active help of the co-national majority group who

< previous page

page_53

next page >

< previous page

page_54

next page > Page 54

determine the legislature of the state. At first this must seem absurd in the light of the usual majority-minority animosities. However, co-operation rather than confrontation is the more successful strategy for minority speakers. Though they will have some convincing to do, I firmly believe that they can succeed in winning over majority opinion, for they have a good case. Active ML support is by its nature a multi-faceted thing and here the linguist can offer only somewhat theoretical advice. Where (s)he can best help is to: (1) establish through observations, analyses and research the indispensable minimal measures to ensure the survival of a threatened ML and surely it cannot be beyond human ingenuity to find these; (2) try to persuade others to implement these measures which is much more difficult and confines the linguist to an advisory role with the main actors being politicians. Yet this implementational side of language conservancy is of tantamount importance since only practical work on the ground will aid language survival. The measures to be proposed must necessarily be a very divergent package reflecting the complexity as well as the urgency of the situation. Method One method of eliciting the principles for minimal support measures to ensure ML survival is by comparison: the world over there is a vast array of MLL whose different circumstances can be seen as ranging along a continuum from 'thriving' to 'dying' with all manner of status bestowed from first official language to full denial of existence; here is a huge data-bank of vastly divergent situations which offer a considerable corpus somewhere in which must lie buried the clues for the desired guidelines for successful ML preservation. These minimal support measures can be arrived at by detailed analyses and comparisons of widely different linguistic minorities with special appraisal of the successes (e.g. Catalan) and, more to the point, the failures (e.g. Irish) of the relevant policies and politics rather than through elaborate theory formation. Similar analyses with at least some practical implications are found in many sources (Gregor, 1980; Fennell, 1980; Durkacz, 1983; Edwards, 1984; George, 1986: 4259 to name but a few). Naturally every minority situation is ultimately unique but it is obvious to me that certain conclusions can be drawn with some confidence as long as the researcher is not too ambitious. Scope Although our conclusions should be based on the analyses of a wide range of sample MLL my own limited knowledge restricts me largely to the British Isles although the absence of a single case of successful ML maintenance in these isles will force us to go further afield to find suitable examples. Since the envisaged measures are ultimately aimed at Westminster these limitations need not be detrimental. These limitations do, however, force a rather parochial approach upon this investigation but I believe that clearly there is a more universal side to my

< previous page

page_54

next page >

< previous page

page_55

next page > Page 55

attempts and that with the appropriate changes very similar measures could and should be applicable to many other minority situations. We shall proceed by briefly outlining the ML situation at present in the British Isles and scan the history of decay apparent in these languages; then analyse in greater detail all cases of recent language extinction searching for parallel phenomena possibly indicative of impending language death; and from there formulate effective measures to reverse ongoing language shift in these isles. The Extant MLL Indigenous to the British Isles and the Channel Islands (Cf. James, 1986; Lockwood, 1975; Price, 1984; Trudgill, 1984.) The British Isles have always been a mosaic of different languages yet in the last two centuries English which had been the majority language for a long time has gained more and more ground to the detriment of Welsh, Scottish and Irish Gaelic and Channel Island Norman French, the only surviving anciently established MLL. In this twentieth century alone two MLL died out in the British Isles: Manx and the Norman French of the island of Alderney, while Scottish Gaelic was all but wiped out along the East Coast and now leads a precarious existence on the Western Isles with enclaves on the western mainland. To put this linguistic disaster into perspective it must be understood that today no single ML is any longer the day to day medium of the majority in its traditional territory: the 1981 census shows that 19% of Welshmen, i.e. less than one in five, can speak Welsh; Scottish Gaelic is spoken by 1.6% of the total population of Scotland, i.e. one in 62. In addition, these figures rely on self-assessment and make no distinction between native speaker and late learner and therefore represent an over-optimistic picture, often far removed from reality. This is particularly obvious in the Southern Irish censuses where in 1971 28.84% claimed to be speakers of Irish yet Fennell (1980: 36) plausibly argues that only 29,000 i.e. less than 1% or one in 109 use it as their daily medium of communication. The situation in Northern Ireland, where no official census figures on language exist, is even more desperate: a survey carried out in 1985 by the commercial company Ulster Television showed that 20,000 people 'spoke' Irish and a further 20,000 'wished' to have some fluency in it, yet in a report by Breathnach (1988: 4), an investigator is quoted as saying, 'Irish is spoken by a minority of a minority . . . only thirty families use the language as a sole means of communication . . . '. Translated into speaker numbers this must mean that few more than 200 people are truly conversant native speakers. Similarly for the Channel Islands, no reliable figures exist at all and we can only make do with the roughest of estimates as expressed e.g. in Stephens (1976: 22132), Price (1984: 20716), Spence (1984: 345), and Birt (1985: 1). Suffice it to say that all authors agree: in the three originally Norman French speaking islands of Jersey, Guernsey and Sark considerably less than 20% of their respective populations still speak the vernacular, with widely differing proficiency. Sadly most authors also state quite explicitly that few or no children at all are conversant in the indigenous language. The erosion of speaker numbers that leads to the marginalisation outlined above is, of course, the outcome of a not so long historical process which

< previous page

page_55

next page >

< previous page

page_56

next page > Page 56

in some cases is well documented and described (cf. Gregor, 1980: 272346). It can be sketched briefly for the individual languages. Irish (Cf. Edwards, 1984.) 1600

English exists only in small enclaves.

English becomes the regular medium for half the 16001800population. 1851

Census indicates 23% as Irish speakers.

1911

(Last census before partition) 17.6%.

From now on all censuses show an 'increase' in the number of Irish speakers, largely due to wishful thinking, cf. Fennell's (1980) estimate above. The figures for Northern Ireland even exceed the language shift in the South, (cf. Price, 1984: 3947). Scottish Gaelic (Cf. Price, 1984: 4870; Withers & McKinnon, 1983; Withers, 1984.) 1100

Gaelic was probably spoken over most of Scotland.

1200

Lowlands anglicisation begins slowly.

15001600Lowlands become anglicised. 1808

Estimated Gaelic speaking population 22.9%.

1881

Census shows only 6.2% Gaelic speakers.

1911

3.9%

1951

1.8%

1961

1.5%

Welsh (Cf. Price, 1984: 94133; Stephens, 1986: under 'Welsh Language'.) 1536 and 1542

Acts of Union make English the official language.

1800

Welsh still spoken by 80% of the population.

1911

43.5%

1931

28.9%

1961

20.8%

Channel Islands (Cf. Price, 1984: 20716; Stephens, 1976: 22132.) Very little documentation is readily available about the linguistic history of the Channel Islands. No doubt all through the Middle Ages and until very recently the different Norman French dialects of the respective islands and parishes served as the only medium of expression of their total populations with (Parisian-derived) Standard French serving in a few functions to this day as the official language.

< previous page

page_56

next page >

< previous page

page_57

next page > Page 57

Sark 1787

A Methodist missionary tells John Wesley that not a single family on Sark understands English.

1835 and onwards Importation of English miners. 1850

Growth of English tourism.

1935

Frank Le Maistre finds Sercquiais 'alive and well' (cf. Price, 1984: 211).

now

Price (1984:211) estimates that out of a total population of c. 600 no more than 100, and perhaps only 60, i.e. 10%17%, speak it.

Guernsey NineteenthThe anglicisation begins with trade and tourism from the mainland century increasing. 1926

Albert Sjögren, a Swedish linguist, visits the island and finds Norman French already seriously threatened in the Northern parishes.

World War II

Some speakers are still reported as being unable to express themselves in English.

1981

Harry Tomlinson, quoted in Price (1984: 212) estimates that there are 6,000 Dgernésiais speakers left, i.e. 11% of the total population.

Jersey Early Anglicisation begins even earlier than in Guernsey: some 2,000 workers nineteenth are brought in and numerous Napoleonic war veterans settle here: century tourism increases all through the century. 1863

A French writer states that mainly English is used in commerce and society in Jersey.

1947

Frank Le Maistre estimates that only a few elderly inhabitants of St Helier are able to speak Jèrriais though the language is better preserved in the Northern parishes.

1982

Frank Le Maistre estimates the number of Jèrriais speakers to be 10,000, i.e. 13% of the population.

Recently Extinguished British MLL Those indigenous MLL of the British Isles that became extinct only relatively recently, i.e. Cornish, Alderney Norman French and Manx, must constitute the most revealing corpus of events to analyse. Here in a 'post-mortem' analysis the best lessons can presumably be learnt for our purpose, i.e. the development of effective measures to counter language death.

< previous page

page_57

next page >

< previous page

page_58

next page > Page 58

Cornish (Cf. Ellis, 1974: Chapters 4 & 5; Price; 1984: 134ff.) Description Cornish was the Brythonic Celtic language spoken in the extreme south-west of what is now England. Price (1984: 134) mentions that Wakelin had concluded on the evidence of place-names that as early as 1100 English was predominant as far as Bodmin and by 1500 the linguistic border ran west of Truro. During the seventeenth century several writers commented on the weakened state of Cornish although William Scawen as late as 1680 reported that a few old people still did not understand English. Around 1700 Nicholas Boson comments: 'We find the young Men to speak it less and less, and worse and worse' (quoted in Price, 1984: 135). At about the same time the great celticist Edward Lhuyd was still able to list a few parishes in the extreme west where Cornish was spoken, but he hastens to add that all Cornishmen knew English very well (cf. Price, 1984: 136). The often misrepresented case of the last (?) native speaker of Cornish, Dolly Pentreath, who died in 1777 concludes the life-span of the Cornish language. Reasons for the Demise of Cornish Price (1984: 1378) mentions: from c. 1500 onwards there was immigration of English speakers in connection with tin mining; growth of commerce in the Cornish ports; Cornwall becomes strategically important for England's military enterprises; early loss of status for Cornish; during the Reformation English had already gained so much in importance as the Tudor trade language that no serious Bible translation into Cornish was attempted. Norman French of Alderney (Cf. Price, 1984: 20716.) Description Little and somewhat conflicting information makes this the worst documented case of recent language extinction. However, anglicisation clearly began with large-scale immigration of Irish and other English speaking labourers for the construction of military and naval installations between 1845 and 1864. After that a large English speaking garrison remained on the island until as recently as 1930. c. Spence (1984: 345) estimates that the language became extinct (as a 1900 community-based language?). Frank Le Maistre (cf. Price, 1984: 211) reports that some 30 people are still 1930sconversant (as native speakers??) in Auregnais. c. 1960 the last native speaker dies (cf. Price, 1984: 211).

< previous page

page_58

next page >

< previous page

page_59

next page > Page 59

Reasons for the Demise of Auregnais I have not come across any detailed analysis of this particular event but it seems obvious to me that immigration of English speakers and the stationing of an English-speaking garrison must rank as the prime factors for the death of the language. Spence (1984: 346ff.) gives a brief analysis of the decline of all Channel Island dialects: the presence of many English monoglots, the rural character of French speaking communities and the ensuing low prestige which leads to low motivation to learn the ML. Manx (Cf. Price, 1984: 7185, which is an excellent account.) The death of Manx is the best documented case of language death in the British Isles, mainly since it happened most recently, but also because an unusually large number of scholars and shrewd observers witnessed the demise of the language. Description Manx, a member of the Goidelic branch of Celtic, had been spoken on the Isle of Man ever since its introduction in the fourth and fifth centuries. From the beginning of the fifteenth century English became the language of government and its administrators, yet the majority of the population remained monoglot Manx speaking until well into the middle of the seventeenth century. But in 1695 Edmund Gibson mentions that 'not only the Gentry, but likewise such of the Peasants as live in the towns, or frequent the town-markets, do both understand and speak the English language' (cf. Price, 1984: 73). The eighteenth century saw the publication of several Manx books including a translation of the Bible and the Common Prayer Book, which must indicate that the language was still alive and well at the time. Bilingualism and English monoglots came to Man in the next century, when J. G. Cumming wrote in 1848 (cf. Price, 1984: 77), 'Manx is spoken generally in the mountain districts . . . and in the north-western parishes. There are however few persons (perhaps none of the young) who know no English', and from now on authors generally observe that the language is dying. In 1874 the celticist Henry Jenner conducted his own private census on the state of Manx and estimated that out of a population of 41,084 (excluding the town of Douglas) 12,340, i.e. 30%, would habitually speak it, with 48.5% in the northern parishes and 17.5% in the south. Jenner also included questions on the language use of children and these results are revealing: English + Manx:

3 parishes

English + a 'little' Manx: 3 parishes English only:

11 parishes.

The final phase of decline is documented by official census figures: 19019.1% claim to be Manx speakers, but by the number had dropped disastrously to 19211.1%. 1931529 claim to speak Manx,

< previous page

page_59

next page >

< previous page

page_60

next page > Page 60

1951

355 and

1961

165.

The figures from 1951 onwards are definitely vastly inflated since several scholars were unable to trace native speakers in any numbers, e.g. in 1947 not more than twenty, in 1950 only ten, and in 1957 only four. Ned Maddrell, the last native speaker, died in 1974. Reasons for the demise of Manx We have to thank Henry Jenner for a shrewd analysis of his findings in 1874, quoted in Price (1984: 779): Discontinuation of the use of Manx in church, although it is questionable as to what was cause or effect; Jenner himself observed that even older people hardly ever used Manx after church in conversation. No territorial core. It ceased to be taught at school. Only older people still spoke it: 'Those who speak it now are all of them old people, and when the present generation has grown up and the older folk have died off, it will cease to be the mother tongue of any Manxman'. Low status: ' . . . there is a decided feeling . . . especially among the Manx speakers themselves, that the language is only an obstruction, and that the sooner it is removed the better'. Interestingly Jenner notes striking parallels between his report on the state of Manx in 1874 and Edward Lhuyd's report on Cornish of 1709 and he equates the states of decay of the two languages. In addition, the eminent celticist John Rhys * (cf. Price, 1984: 801) visited the island several times between 1886 and 1893 and confirmed the continued decay of the language: Low status: very few people spoke Manx habitually; he 'surprised' some fishermen speaking it amongst themselves yet they would not use it in their homes with their wives and children. Only older people used it: there was only one single incident where he encountered a Manx-speaking child on the island, a teenager who lived with her octogenarian grandmother in a remote village. Anyone reading through the descriptions and analyses of the demise of the recently extinguished MLL of the British Isles and the outline of the decline of those still alive must be struck by the chilling parallels. One cannot escape the impression that at least Irish and Scottish Gaelic and possibly the Channel Island Frenches seem to have entered the terminal stage in the process of language death. Observation of Parallel Phenomena The three cases of recent language extinction in the British Isles seem to allow the following observations of parallel phenomena: (1) Language shift occurs in inter-generational transmission. The ML is no longer automatically passed on by the elders with the result that fewer and fewer

< previous page

page_60

next page >

< previous page

page_61

next page > Page 61

children learn it. This is clearly witnessed by several Cornish observers, e.g. Nicholas Boson at around 1700, who says that young men speak it less and less (cf. Price, 1984: 135). Similarly Jenner's private census of 1874 on Manx, (Price, 1984: 13545), shows the vast majority of children as monoglot English speakers in 11 out of 17 parishes and with only a 'little' Manx in a further three parishes. Also John Rhys' * observation that during his visits between 1886 and 1893 he could find only one Manx-speaking child is most revealing (Price, 1984: 81). This shift from the weak ('X') to the strong ('Y') language is schematically captured by Denison (1977: 21) thus: X > XI/YII > YI/XII > Y. A more detailed description is found in George who states that this shift: can happen alarmingly quickly, in four generations spanning 75 years: (A) This generation speaks only the old language. (B) This generation are native speakers of the old language, but during the course of their life, they learn to understand the new language, and to speak it to some extent. They are bilingual, but their competence in the new language is influenced by the old. Because the new language has a higher prestige than the old, the latter is seen as a barrier to social advancement; this generation do not, therefore, pass it on to their children. (C) This generation are native speakers of the new language, but they grow up to understand the old language, because they hear the grandparents using it to each other and to their parents. They are bilingual, but their competence in the old language is influenced by the new. (D) This generation speaks only the new language (George, 1986: 424). (2) Widespread bilingualism occurs, ensuing from (1). George's description is very helpful to understand the different types of bilingualism that foreshadow language death and which are generally not distinguished in censuses. Depending on personal circumstances different families follow the pattern earlier or later so that consequently most ML speech communities have simultaneously (A), (B), (C) and (D) type speakers. Differentiation between (B) and (C) type bilinguals could prove diagnostic of the advanced decay of a ML speech community. Lhuyd's remarks in 1707 (cf. Price, 1984: 136), that the still Cornish speaking parishioners all know English very well could be describing (B) but, more likely, (C) type bilinguals. For Manx, large-spread bilingualism (of probably (B) type) is attested by Edmund Gibson (cf. Price, 1984: 73), as early as 1695, but Cumming's 1884 statement (cf. Price, 1984: 77) that only few persons knew no English probably describes already (C) type bilinguals. (3) Catastrophic decline of native speakers, ensuing from (1). A catastrophic collapse in the number of native speakers occurs in the last stage of decay, i.e. the step from (C) to (D) speakers in George's description, from bilinguals to monoglots. This is clearly shown by the Manx census figures of 1901 (9.1%) and 1921 (1.1%). The only reasonable explanation is that most of the 1901 Manx speakers belonged to the oldest generation and would naturally have died off in the next twenty years.

< previous page

page_61

next page >

< previous page

page_62

next page > Page 62

(4) A language dies long before its last native speaker. In the case of Cornish we have reports of the last viable speech communities, consisting of mainly (B) type speakers, from c. 1700, i.e. Lhuyd's list of parishes, yet Dolly Pentreath died in 1777; on Man according to Gregor (1980: 277) the last Manx community was found in 1920, but Ned Maddrell, the last Manx speaker, died in 1974. This shows very clearly that a language without viable speech communities and we will have to say more about that later is doomed two or three generations before the death of the last native speaker. (5) Shrinking of territorial base. Geographical shrinking of the speech territory of the ML occurs in many different ways, ultimately scattering the last communities to the remotest and most isolated areas. The most obvious types of retreat can be termed: (a) Adstratal retreat, this is typical of relatively slow penetration as in mediaeval Eastern Cornwall where the linguistic border moved inward from English speaking Devon; cf. also the retreatment pattern of Welsh, Scottish and Irish Gaelic. Adstratal retreat is typical of older, i.e. pre-industrial, language contact. (b) Civic retreat, with the ML retreating from cities, then towns, then villages, then hamlets; invariably it is the remoter rural areas where MLL survive longest. It is interesting to mention Jenner's correct prediction (1874) that Manx would hold on longest along the West Coast between Peel and Spanish Head; in fact, Gregor (1980: 277) states that Cregneish near Spanish Head was the last town 'at which we can find a Manxspeaking community in action in 1920'. The English dialects of Cornwall reflect to this day strong Devon-imported West Country dialect features in the (early) adstratal Eastern retreat areas whereas the (later) civic retreat in its Western parts has produced archaic 'RP' features, (cf. Wakelin, 1984: 75). (c) Functional retreat, i.e. loss of functions, which deserves special treatment further below. However, there are geographical consequences in that functional retreat destroys the last hide-outs since even in the remotest areas higher and successively lower functions are executed in the dominant language. Needless to say that (a), (b) and (c) are often acting simultaneously, especially in modern ML situations. (6) Loss of functions. The dominant language is the natural medium of communication used by the representatives of the majority's government. Gradually the use of the ML becomes more and more restricted, a process which is reinforced by the dwindling number of ML monoglots. In George's opinion: The critical point for the weaker language is that where the percentage of monoglots is so small that no special provision (such as church sermons) is thought necessary for them. Thereafter, practically everyone can converse in the stronger language, and the weaker is doomed, since in one sense, there is no reason for its continued existence (George, 1986: 45). George (1986: 45) also observes that in Manx as well as in Cornish 'the death of the last native speaker occurred at about 100 years after the preaching of the last sermons'.

< previous page

page_62

next page >

< previous page

page_63

next page > Page 63

The introduction of the dominant language as the medium for schooling is the final blow, depriving the ML of any public function, and confines it to 'home and hearth'. The languages at the lower end of the prestige scale retreat from ever increasing areas of their earlier functional domains . . . until there is nothing left for them appropriately to be used about (Denison, 1977: 21). (7) Loss of status. . . . there comes a point where multilingual parents no longer consider it necessary or worthwhile for the future of their children to communicate with them in a low-prestige language variety, and when children are no longer motivated to acquire competence in a language which is lacking positive connotations such as youth, modernity, technical skills, material success, education (Denison, 1977: 21). Although Cornish and Manx children might have looked for somewhat different connotations, nevertheless there are numerous eye-witness reports mentioning the low prestige of Cornish, e.g. Nicholas Boson writes that his parents had not taught him any Cornish 'the reason I conceive to be a nicety of my mother's forbidding the servants and neighbours to talk to me otherwise than in English' (Ellis, 1974: 85). Concerning Manx, Jenner's report of 1874 is often quoted: . . . but there is a decided feeling on the part of the people, especially among the Manx speakers themselves, that the language is only an obstruction, and that the sooner it is removed the better (Price, 1984: 79). (8) Language decay. It is not clear at this stage whether language decay is of itself diagnostic of impending language death. At any rate, a number of interesting investigations have come up with promising insights, e.g. Dorian (1977) and her concept of the 'semi-speaker', an imperfect terminal stage speaker whose language displays reduction and loss, and who is a special type of (C) bilingual. In Celtic languages semi-speakers show typically strong modification of initial mutation rules. Other characteristics often mentioned are: stylistic shrinkage, excessive borrowing and calquing, phonetic/phonological intrusion of the dominant language, etc. (see IJSL, 12, for further reading). There are reports on the decay of our sample languages from contemporary sources, e.g. Nicholas Boson's remark of c. 1700 that 'young Men . . . speak it less and less, and worse and worse' (Price, 1984: 135). At the present state of our knowledge we will, however, still have to await the outcome of further investigations into the phenomenon of language decay before any deeper conclusions can be drawn. (9) Large-scale immigration. This is seemingly the most obvious factor that contributed to the extinction of the three sample languages. Indeed, it seems that large-scale immigration must be considered the most destructive force in the process of language substitution. We shall have to bear this in mind when we proceed to the formulation of conservancy measures. Of course, few of these observations are new and Gregor and Durkacz have recently attempted similar analyses. Gregor (1980: Chapter 13) attributes the decay of the Celtic languages to: disunity, loss of status, shortage of reading

< previous page

page_63

next page >

< previous page

page_64

next page > Page 64

matter, lack of instruction in school and university, disuse in religious life, immigration, emigration, impact of modern media, and linguicide; while Durkacz (1983: 21426) in his detailed and probing investigation sees the market-place and trading, deruralisation and urbanisation and concomitant economic advantage for English speaking as the main causes. The question now must be: what lessons can be learnt from all this? Minimal Support Measures for the MLL of the British Isles The measures to be taken to ensure the survival of the MLL of the British Isles must be designed to counteract and, if possible, reverse the destructive trends outlined above. Reversing the Erosion of Native Speaker Numbers by Nativisation Nativisation, the learning of a language as mother tongue, has been inexcusably undervalued by ML speakers. It seems that bilingual road-signs and some schooling in the ML are seen as substitutes for parental or other early-childhood language learning. This is particularly the case with Irish where the burden of language 'revival' has been conveniently passed on to the schools with disastrous consequences. If a child learns the ML as what is in fact a second and 'foreign' language we cannot expect any better results than are achieved in the school teaching of French, German, etc. Yet we all know few of the children learn anything at all and perhaps only 5% will at best achieve a low degree of fluency which is easily lost after very few years. But this is not just the result of laziness or lack of motivation on the part of the children, nor can it be put down to bad teaching methods alone. No, the problem is deeper than that: there is a fundamental difference in the competence of native and non-native speaker as the psycho-linguist René Coppieters has shown, as reported by Quirk (1989: 15, 18). Working with two comparable groups of French native speakers and non-native long-time residents, all of whom were highly skilled speakers using French as their working language, Coppieters found that in a series of sophisticated elicitation tests all non-native participants scored spectacular failure rates, e.g. in the correct use of certain tenses 41.5% against native 2%! What chance then has a Welsh child got with two hours of instruction weekly and no further occasion to speak the language? In the light of these results nativisation must be regarded as indispensable for the survival of any language since there is a principal difference in the competence of native speaker and L2 learner. Regrettably we must come to the sad conclusion that late learners do not constitute any important factor in the survival of any ML. This has, of course, been well observed before by shrewd commentators like the Rev. R. S. Thomas, here quoted from the Western Mail, Wednesday, 11th January (1989: 6) under the reproachful headline: 'Poet Thomas ridicules Welsh learners'. He says: 'There they are in the classes; after five years they can say 'Diolch yn fawr' (i.e. Thanks a lot) and 'Bore da' (i.e. Good afternoon)'. Unfortunately the Reverend is only saying the truth and though this may be a bitter pill to swallow for minorities they had better swallow it.

< previous page

page_64

next page >

< previous page

page_65

next page > Page 65

Suggestions Concerning Implementation (a) The ML must be nativised in crèches, kindergartens, play-groups, etc., which should be offered as a facility by the local authority or through private initiative. This would make the learning process nearly effortless and natural, with long-lasting results. It cannot be a coincidence that Catalan, one of the few successful cases of ML normalisation, has always exclusively relied on nativisation for transmission; similarly the Israelis, perhaps instinctively, put greatest emphasis on nativisation right from the start. (b) Schools, colleges and media coverage, so often seen as the be-all and end-all of activist minority policies, are in fact only effective as an institutional back-up to provide the immersed environment for the native speaker to process and expand his/her language skills. (c) Virtually all members of the generations over the age of ten who are English monoglots must be seen as lost for the cause and their ML education can only be for sentimental or edifying reasons. Nativisation would as a bonus also solve a number of problems that typically arise in ML territory, e.g. all ML speakers almost everywhere in the British Isles find themselves today outnumbered by English speaking monoglots who regularly feel very apprehensive about any attempts at supportive ML legislation. The recent Welsh referendum on devolution is often said to have floundered because of monoglot fear of radical Welsh language polices. However, through nativisation the use of MLL would be phased in naturally, gradually, and unobjectionably through bilingual children. Furthermore, this most unnatural question: 'What good is learning Welsh?' (or any other ML) simply does not arise with, or is ever asked by, native speakers. Establishing Viable Speech Communities Viable speech communities in which the ML is the normal means of communication are in a sense even more important than speakers since language is social behaviour. As could be seen in the case of Cornish and Manx, the end of viable speech communities signalled the end of these languages. To achieve this type of community certain linguistic, political, economic and psychological measures must be implemented. Bilingualism Total bilingualism today practically the norm anyway ensures that the ML speaker has full access to the whole of the state territory, a privilege all minorities need. There is little realism in the unnecessary aim of deliberately creating monoglot ML speakers who would be severely limited in their aspirations. However, the envisaged bilingualism must also be stable, i.e. every speaker is competent in both languages. Yet day to day occurrences are habitually processed in the ML and the dominant language would be used only in dealings with co-nationals who do not share the ML. This provides the immersed background for continuous expansion and adaptation of the ML a process which is vital for any real language survival and would automatically restore the ML to multi-functional use. In schools the majority of subjects would be taught

< previous page

page_65

next page >

< previous page

page_66

next page > Page 66

in the ML, and at least the immediate local authority would be communicating in the ML too. All this would require in many cases majority group subsidies for e.g. TV programmes, books, etc. Territorial Base Viable communities must be within a 'protected' territory for without it MLL seem to be ultimately doomed as is shown by the Danish minority in Schleswig-Holstein, West Germany, who are quite privileged compared with what most minorities have to endure. In spite of this though for other reasons as well their numbers are alarmingly dwindling. I believe this is due to the absence of territorial provisions. On the other hand, Switzerland which is 'fiercely' territorial in its linguistic minority definitions has been for a very long time one of the most stable multilingual states. Naturally, a protected area in itself does not solve all the problems as the Irish Gaeltachtaí show, but they probably constitute the only positive measure that prevented Irish from dying out long ago. Scotland will have to think about an official Gaidhealtachd and Wales about y Fro Gymraeg. Immigration Control This measure always causes great controversy, but there is no doubt about it as was apparent in all cases of our extinct sample MLL immigration is the single most disruptive factor in minority communities. Here the majority group will have to make a decision between two conflicting goods: (1) free mobility for all its citizens throughout the whole of the state territory, or (2) the upholding of the right of some of its citizens to their mother tongue and culture. This may be the place to point out that most conservancy measures require some sort of constraint on the public, and extra effort; so why should it be any different in language conservancy? The thought is not as absurd as it seems, which is proven by existing examples: The Aland Islands, a Swedish speaking autonomous part of Finland, impose restrictions on Finnish immigration. And to anticipate bizarre caricatures no, there won't be customs barriers at which every person entering Wales is checked as to their knowledge of the vernacular. It is perfectly possible to keep immigration open to any UK citizen who is willing to give an undertaking to learn Welsh and have his/her children educated in the medium of Welsh. This undertaking ought to be checked in official language tests, possibly by the local authority, as is done in parts of Switzerland. We simply have to get it into our heads that moving into a Welsh or Gaelic speaking area is different from moving from London to Dover, and just as nobody who moves into France would expect the locals to shift to English we should adopt the same attitude when moving into non-English speaking areas within the British Isles. Improving Status and Image Minorities tend to internalise the bad connotations imposed on them by the majorities. Although we are mainly dealing with mildly sarcastic yet benevolent

< previous page

page_66

next page >

< previous page

page_67

next page > Page 67

stereotyping in the British Isles except for the two Irelands it is nevertheless important to get away from the dusty image of the 'old language', ruritania and crofting. No wonder that often majority group members adopt a patronising attitude and ML issues are not taken seriously and are pushed into the quaintness corner. There is nothing wrong with publicity campaigns or marketing techniques on behalf of the MLL to clear up old prejudices and further the cause of these languages. Summary The state of decay of our MLL in Britain and of the world if we are to believe Kloss (1969: 239ff.) is so advanced that only radical measures can now help. These proposed measures can be implemented only with the full cooperation of the co-national majority group, the monoglot English speaker. There is no other choice to my mind since doing nothing now to preserve these languages means actively aiding their destruction. References Birt, P. W. (1985) Le Jèrriais Pour Tous Jersey: Le Don Balleine. Breathnach, D. (1988) Study Visit Programme: Extracts from reports of visits . . . to Northern Ireland. Contact Bulletin 5, 1, 35. Denison, N. (1977) Language death or language suicide? International Journal of the Sociology of Language 12, 1322. Dorian, N. (1977) The problem of the semi-speaker in language death. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 12, 2332. Durkacz, V. E. (1983) The Decline of the Celtic Languages. Edinburgh: John Donald Publications Edwards, J. (1984) Irish and English in Ireland. In P. Trudgill (ed.) Languages in the British Isles (pp. 48098). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, P. B. (1974) The Cornish Language and its Literature. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fennell, D. (1980) Can a shrinking minority be saved? Lessons from the Irish experience. In E. Haugen, J. D. McClure and D. Thomson (eds) Minority Languages Today (pp. 329). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. George, K. (1986) The Pronunciation and Spelling of Revived Cornish. Cornish Language Board. Gregor, D. B. (1980) Celtic. A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Oleander Press. IJSL = International Journal of the Sociology of Language (1977) 12 Language Death. The Hague: Mouton. James, C. (n.d. but 1986) Indigenous non-English language communities in the United Kingdom. Contact Bulletin 3, 1 and 2, 14. Kloss, H. (1969) Grundfragen der Ethnopolitik im 20. Jahrhundert. Vienna: Bad Godesberg. Lockwood, W. B. (1975) Languages of the British Isles Past and Present. London: André Deutsch. Price, G. (1984) The Languages of Britain. London: Edward Arnold. Quirk, R. (1989) Separated by a common dilemma. Times Higher Education Supplement of 10th February: 15, 18. Spence, N. C. W. (1984) Channel Island French. In P. Trudgill (ed.) Languages in the British Isles (pp. 34551). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stephens, M. (1976) Linguistic Minorities in Western Europe. Llandysul: Gomer. (1986) The Oxford Companion to the Literature of Wales. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trudgill, P. (ed.) (1984) Languages in the British Isles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wakelin, M. (1984) Rural dialects in England. In P. Trudgill (ed.) Languages in the British Isles (pp. 7093). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Withers, C. W. J. (1984) Gaelic in Scotland. 16981981. Edinburgh: John Donald Publications. Withers. C. W. J. and MacKinnon, K. (1983) Gaelic speaking in Scotland, demographic history. In D. Thomson (ed.) The Companion to Gaelic Scotland (pp. 10914). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

< previous page

page_67

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i

Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages Vol. II: Western and Eastern European Papers

< previous page

page_i

next page >

< previous page

page_69

next page > Page 69

6 Language-maintenance and Viability in the Contemporary Scottish Gaelic Speech-community: Some Social and Demographic Factors Kenneth MacKinnon Hatfield Polytechnic, Lesser-Used Languages Research Unit, Wall Hall Campus, Aldenham, nr Watford, Herts WD2 8AT UK Abstract The paper reports on a sample survey and census analysis undertaken by the Hatfield Polytechnic Lesser-Used Languages Research Unit between 1985 and 1988, and funded by the United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council and Highland Regional Council. The survey investigated Gaelic language-loss, maintenance and regeneration by questionnaire surveys in Skye and the Western Isles. Results were analysed in terms of the sociological characteristics of Gaelic speakers, their migration and family-formation patterns, language-usage profiles, and attitudes towards their language and culture. Census analysis identified localities and age-groups within which numerical and proportional decreases and increases of Gaelic incidence occurred between 1971 and 1981, and sought to explain these changes chiefly through education and economic activity. The paper distinguishes the social characteristics of Gaelic languageusers, -loyalists, -maintainers and -abandoners, and outlines a model of Gaelic language-revival, -maintenance and -shift. The paper concludes that such models are important in public debate and policy-making, both within Gaeldom and other minority speech-communities, in understanding and providing for present-day societal pluralism. Geographic Distribution of Gaelic Speakers The Scottish Gaelic speech-community today numbers about 80,000, and comprises about 1.6% of the Scottish population. Although the present heartland of the speech-community is conventionally regarded as the North-West Highlands, and more particularly the Hebrides, the majority of Scotland's Gaelic speakers are

< previous page

page_69

next page >

< previous page

page_70

next page > Page 70

today usually resident out with this area in the rest of Scotland especially in the urban centres of Lowland Scotland. As may be seen from Figures 1 and 2, this process over the past century has resulted in a situation whereby fewer than one Gaelic speaker in three today lives in a predominantly Gaelic-speaking locality. The remainder live in areas where Gaelic is a minority language a situation very similar to that of the ethnic minorities in our larger cities.

Figure 1 Gaelic speakers in 'Highland' (black) and 'Lowland' (hatched) counties 18811981

Figure 2 Gaelic speakers in areas of differing incidence 18811981 (In clockwise order: areas of 75%+, 50%+, 25%+ and above national rate of incidence of Gaelic speakers.)

< previous page

page_70

next page >

< previous page

page_71

next page > Page 71

Only about 23,500 of Scotland's Gaelic speakers are usually resident within the Western Isles Islands Area, the presentday stronghold of the language, with smaller numbers in other traditional but now much weaker Gaelic areas: about 16,500 in Highland Region, about 6,000 in Argyll & Bute District, and about 500 in the Highland area of Perthshire. These areas, which approximate to the traditional Gaidhealtachd, or historic Gaelic-speaking area of the 'Highland Counties', thus contain about 46,500 or about 58% of present-day Gaelic speakers. The remainder live within the rest of Scotland, mainly in the Lowlands, 15,000 of them in the Central Clydeside Conurbation centred upon Glasgow. The present geographical distribution of these Gaelic speakers is shown in Figure 3, and a historical comparison can be made with the situation a century ago in Figure 4. In the 1981 Census, the usually resident population of Scotland totalled 5,035,315, of whom 4,843,553 were aged 3+. Of these, 82,620 were able to read, write or speak Gaelic, amongst whom were 79,307 speakers of the language, comprising 1.64% of the national population aged 3+. Of these only 20,345 resided in local neighbourhoods (census enumeration districts) in which 75% or more of whose inhabitants spoke Gaelic. (Almost all these areas were in Skye and the Western Isles, but also included the Isle of Canna, western and north-eastern enumeration districts in Tiree, the Kilninian enumeration district in Mull, and the Tormisdale enumeration district in Islay.) Thus only 25.65%, or just over one in four of Scotland's Gaelic speakers could have been said to live in a truly Gaelic local environment. A further 7,471 Gaelic speakers lived in enumeration districts which were between 50%75% Gaelic-speaking. These areas were chiefly in remaining areas of Skye and the Western Isles, but also included the rest of Tiree, four enumeration districts in lslay and one in Mull. So in total there were only 27,816 Gaelic speakers normally resident in predominantly Gaelic-speaking neighbourhoods. This represented 34.92% or just over one in three of all Gaelic speakers at the 1981 Census. In 1981, virtually every parish in the traditional Gaidhealtachd still had a proportion of Gaelic-speakers greater than the national average and within this area, comprising the Western Isles, Highland Region (less Caithness District), Argyll & Bute District, and the Highland area of Perthshire, there were 46,410 Gaelic speakers or 58.52% of Scotland's total. In 1981 there were thus 32,897 Gaelic speakers, or 41.48% of the national total, normally resident in areas which could not be described in any sense as Gaelic in either present-day or recent historic character. It cannot therefore correctly be said, as it sometimes is, that Scotland's Gaelic speakers are to be found mainly in the Hebrides and north-west coastal fringes. Today, the majority are in fact to be found elsewhere in Scotland. Their numbers are sufficient to liken them to a Gaelic Archipelago more populous than the Hebrides but set in a Lowland 'sea'. Age and Social Distribution of Gaelic-speaking Abilities The Gaelic population is on the whole an ageing sector of the population but the increase in Gaelic speaking abilities amongst older children and young adults has produced a 'bulge' in the population profile. This is a feature only of the most strongly Gaelic-speaking areas, and this feature is also shown amongst

< previous page

page_71

next page >

< previous page

page_72

next page > Page 72

Figure 3 Size and location of Gaelic populations: 1981 Census

< previous page

page_72

next page >

< previous page

page_73

next page > Page 73

Figure 4 Size and location of Gaelic populations: 1881 Census

< previous page

page_73

next page >

< previous page

page_74

next page > Page 74

Table 1 Areas with bilingual teaching schemes 1981 structure of Gaelic population

Sources: Census Scotland 1981: Small Area Statistics, Special Emuneration Districts Civil Parishes, SASPAC, p. 22, Table 40; Gaelic Report, Table 2, pp. 49. *Estimation: Partition of over-75s is proportional to age-group totals in constituent districts.

< previous page

page_74

next page >

< previous page

page_75

next page > Page 75

Table 2 Areas where Gaelic taught as second language 1981 structure of Gaelic population

Sources: Census Scotland 1981: Small Area Statistics, Special Emuneration Districts Civil Parishes, SASPAC, p. 22, Table 40; Gaelic Report, Table 2, pp. 49. *Estimation: Partition of over-75s is proportional to age-group totals in constituent districts.

< previous page

page_75

next page >

< previous page

page_76

next page > Page 76

Table 3 All areas with Gaelic teaching schemes 1981 structure of Gaelic population

Sources: Census Scotland 1981: Small Area Statistics, Special Emuneration Districts Civil Parishes, SASPAC, p. 22, Table 40; Gaelic Report, Table 2, pp. 49. *Estimation: Partition of over-75s is proportional to age-group totals in constituent districts.

< previous page

page_76

next page >

< previous page

page_77

next page > Page 77

Table 4 Areas without Gaelic teaching schemes 1981 structure of Gaelic population

Sources: Census Scotland 1981: Small Area Statistics, Special Emuneration Districts Civil Parishes, SASPAC, p. 22, Table 40; Gaelic Report, Table 2, pp. 49. *Estimation: Partition of over-75s is proportional to age-group totals in constituent districts.

< previous page

page_77

next page >

< previous page

page_78

next page > Page 78

teenaged groups in other areas with primary Gaelic teaching schemes. These demographic profiles are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The situation in Table 1 corresponds with the most strongly Gaelic areas of the Western Isles, and the islands of Skye and Tiree, in which over 50% of the population are Gaelicspeaking, and where various forms of bilingual education have been in operation in primary schools since the late 1950s and more thoroughgoing schemes since the late 1970s. The situation shown in Table 2 illustrates the position of the Gaelic population in areas where Gaelic is taught as a second language in primary schools, but where Gaelic has ceased to be the predominant community language. Table 3 represents all areas with primary Gaelic teaching schemes. The population profile of Gaelic speakers in the Lowland area, which is greatly attenuated in the age-ranges of childhood and youth, closely corresponds to that shown by Table 4. (For the location of these schools and areas in 1981, see MacKinnon, 1986: 66.) However, a new approach commenced in 1985 with the establishment of Gaelic-medium primary units in Glasgow and Inverness, shortly followed by units in Skye and Lewis. Further Gaelic-medium units have been established in the Western Isles, Highland Region, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, where in 1988 Gaelic-medium stream entered the secondary stage. There are within the present-day Gaidhealtachd a number of areas in which the proportion of young people (aged 524) speaking Gaelic matches or exceeds the proportion in the older age-ranges. These areas may be said to demonstrate some viability in their maintenance of the language. At the 1981 Census, these areas comprised some 30 of the 140 enumeration districts of the Western Isles, chiefly in western Lewis, southern Harris, the Uists and Barra, and some 9 of the 50 enumeration districts in Skye, chiefly in its northern and southern extremities. In some other areas Gaelic maintenance in the 524 age-range was within 12 percentage points of the older generations, as in the Western Isles communities of Barra and Vatersay, or within 34 points, as in the remainder of Harris, Scalpay and remoter parts of Lewis (See MacKinnon, 1987a). In the Isle Ornsay postcode sector of Skye, the incidence of Gaelic was stronger in the 324 age-range than amongst the older population the likely result of the policies of the local estate, Fearann Eilean Iarmain, which uses Gaelic as the language of business and daily administration (MacKinnon, 1985b). In the most strongly Gaelic communities, supportive attitudes and usage of the language seem less well represented amongst younger women compared with other age and gender groups. Analysis of the 19878 questionnaire survey of the Western Isles is discussed below. Its results resemble those of the 19867 Skye survey (MacKinnon, 1988). Census returns indicate differential migration of younger women compared with younger men from the most strongly Gaelic areas (MacKinnon, 1977, 1984a, 1986). Other research suggests that within the occupational spectrum of Gaelic communities, Gaelic is best conserved within the semi-skilled agricultural group, which includes the crofting 'core' of these communities. Supportive attitudes and Gaelic-speaking abilities weaken away from this core in both directions towards the skilled technical and commercial occupations on the one hand, and towards the unskilled and non-crofting manual occupations on the other (MacKinnon, 1977, 1985a, 1986; MacKinnon & MacDonald, 1980).

< previous page

page_78

next page >

< previous page

page_79

next page > Page 79

The Gaelic Upturn Stabilisation, Regeneration or Respite? As has been noted, the decade 196171 marked an upturn for Gaelic in numbers of speakers. This increase, of almost 10%, from 80, 978 to 88, 892 speakers, was a feature of Lowland rather than Highland Scotland. The numbers of Gaelic speakers in the Highlands and Hebrides actually continued to decline. However, in 1981, although some small overall contraction occurred, back to 79, 307 (or 82, 620 depending on definition), there were for the first time ever actual increases, both numerical and proportional in Gaeldom's core heartlands: the Western Isles and parts of Skye (MacKinnon, 1987a). These are indicated in Figures 5 and 6. Some of this variation might be explained by changes in census question, and change in definitions of population. But there have clearly been actual changes in the numbers of children and young adults being returned as Gaelic speakers in these areas. Such changes, as have been seen, also occurred in other Highland areas with supportive Gaelic educational practice. In any process of language-shift, there are of course factors which are promoting the abandonment of one language for another, stabilisation of the status quo and actual reversion to an anterior state. The situation at any given time represents the resultant of these factors. Thus for Gaelic in the later twentieth century, there have been very clearly a number of stabilising and regenerating factors sufficiently effective to overcome the processes of attrition which have operated during the modern period. The Gaelic communities have over long periods been subjected to migration chiefly of younger people, and more especially women (MacKinnon, 1986). Lack of employment facilities at home has been the spur, opportunity for further education and employment in the services and industrial centres has been the magnet. Gaelic communities have probably been adequately reproducing themselves biologically, but the haemorrhage of population has continued to reduce the size of the speech community. Within the speech community changing patterns of societal diglossia have reduced the domains within which Gaelic has predominated. After 1872, the supersession of the Gaelic Society schools by Board Schools in which English held sway typified the process. In the twentieth century, commerce, public administration, and broadcasting represent other, adventitious, processes. More recently the slippage of the church as a predominantly Gaelic domain represents an anglicising factor operating within the community (MacKinnon, 1985a: 735). These have been amongst the most important historic social factors prompting English-Gaelic language-shift within Gaeldom over the past century. Crofting has been one of the chief stabilising factors for Gaelic. Its survival as community speech can be readily correlated with the incidence of crofting within the local community, (as shown in MacKinnon, 1987b). Without the crofting legislation of 1886, there would probably be no crofting community today nor Gaelic as community speech either. Arran, for example, was excluded from crofting legislation, and today there is hardly a single native Gaelic speaker left. Nevertheless, within the counties in which the Crofters' Commission operates as a 'gatekeeper', the numbers of crofts and crofters gradually dwindles, month by month. Crofting, as at present constituted, can only secure for Gaeldom some stabilising effect in instituting an official domain within which Gaelic was able

< previous page

page_79

next page >

< previous page

page_80

next page > Page 80

Figure 6 Highland parishes: proportionate change in incidence of Gaelic speakers 19711981 to survive. But Highland administration was firmly in the hands of the local landed proprietors, a class either ethnically English or English-educated. The factors which have engendered some measure of language-regeneration for Gaelic have been chiefly educational. In the late 1950s both Inverness-shire and Ross-shire instituted policies for the use of Gaelic as an initial teaching medium up to about age eight years in primary schools in the Gaelic areas. In the late 1970s a more through-going bilingual primary project got under way in the Western Isles, which was extended to all schools in the early 1980s and similar provisions were made in Skye by Highland region. In 1981 a voluntary Gaelic playgroups organisation commenced, and by 1989 had established 44

< previous page

page_80

next page >

< previous page

page_81

next page > Page 81

Figure 5 Highlands and islands parishes: numerical change in incidence of Gaelic speakers 19711981 cròileagain or Gaelic-medium playgroups and 20 parent and child groups, about half in Gaelic areas, and half in urban centres elsewhere. The success of this movement attracted funding enabling full-time and part-time paid staff to be appointed. This in turn stimulated the establishment of Gaelic-medium primary education with some 12 primary units to date. Delays in extending the Western Isles' bilingual policy to the secondary sector in 1979, meant that funding was unforthcoming as the result of a change in government. However the present government funded an evaluative study of the primary scheme which reported favourably in 1987. A special grants scheme for Gaelic commenced in 1986 now running at about £850,000 annually and

< previous page

page_81

next page >

< previous page

page_82

next page > Page 82

a new six-year secondary for the Uists and Barra opened in 1988 and provided an opportunity for a new start. Until 1988 it was possible to undertake both primary education, and since 1983 at Sabhal Mór Ostaig, also tertiary education through the medium of Gaelic but not the secondary stage, even bilingually. A final factor which has been regenerative in effect has been commercial. In 1971 a Highland entrepreneur and Gaelic learner, Iain Noble, bought the former MacDonald Estate in Sleat and commenced to operate a series of business enterprises through the medium of Gaelic, attracting young and able Gaelic speakers at all levels of employment. These businesses comprising Fearann Eilean Iarmain have prospered, and their effect can be seen in census returns both in the demographic and linguistic revival of the local community. The education authority has even had to build a new school and institute a new policy as a result. The promotion of Co-chomainn (multipurpose community producer cooperatives) by the Highlands and Islands Development Board has gone hand-in-hand with a much more liberal and supportive social and linguistic policy. These attempt policies similar to Fearann Eilean Iarmain and promote some degree of local enterprise culture in a Gaelic context, to date with only one business failure. The coming of oil-related industry to northern Scotland may also have had some effect in Gaelic languageconservation. Although there was a numerical decline in Gaelic speakers between 1971 and 1981 back to the 1961 level, numbers of Gaelic speakers increased in areas where oil-related industry had developed. Gaelic speakers were obviously being attracted to work in these areas. The Amish fabrication yard in Lewis seemed to be attracting migrants back and for the first time ever there was an intercensal increase in numbers and proportions of Gaelic speakers. This occurred principally in Lewis, and amongst young adults and children. The sociolinguistic and historic interest in the Gaelic speech-community today lies in its capacity to survive. That it does so is truly remarkable, given the power of forces which are operating against it. The factors which are stabilising and regenerative in effect are not particularly powerful in comparison: the crofting way-of-life, a modest place in the media, pre-school and primary education, and some local business enterprise. Nevertheless, they could form a new policy basis for Gaeldom to survive and prosper even in these unfavourable times. It is now relevant to consider the social factors which associate with Gaelic language-maintenance and -shift. These will be examined in terms of data from the Western Isles survey, which closely parallel results from the previously reported Skye survey (MacKinnon, 1988). As in that report, language conservation will be considered in terms of language abilities, language usage levels in family and community life, and language attitudes in terms of support for language policies and language loyalty-levels. The Skye survey was carried out between 1986 and 1987 by means of a 1 in 25 systematic survey of currently registered electors, and produced 145 respondents. The Western Isles survey was undertaken similarly between 1986 and 1988, but in a random half of the polling districts of the islands' area, producing 269 respondents. Gaelic Language Abilities and Language Conservation The incidence of Gaelic speakers in the Western Isles was 80% at the 1981 Census but with some local variation: highest in the more remote and

< previous page

page_82

next page >

< previous page

page_83

next page > Page 83

smaller-scale communities, and lowest in the urban centre of Stornoway and the military base on Benbecula at around 50%. Gaelic literacy was highest in the more Calvinist rural areas of Lewis, Harris and North Uist approaching similar levels to English literacy at least for Gaelic reading ability. Gaelic literacy was lowest in Catholic South Uist and Barra an aspect of the traditional religious culture and the neglect of Gaelic in education until the present generation. Respondents were asked to assess their ability in speaking, understanding, reading and writing Gaelic on five-point scales representing nil, minimal, limited, moderate, and full ability. The results indicated that mean Gaelic speaking ability and understanding levels were fairly uniform and high, but significantly lower amongst Stornoway respondents. Mean Gaelic reading and writing ability levels were also lower amongst Stornoway respondents and markedly so amongst South Uist and Barra respondents, whose religious culture had not traditionally emphasised Gaelic literacy. There were naturally significant differences in Gaelic ability levels between respondents born in different areas, but it was significantly the case that even taking Gaelic speakers separately, that the highest ability levels were claimed amongst respondents born in other Gaelic areas that the local island or parish similarly amongst Gaelic speakers naming another Gaelic area in terms of identity. In terms of age and gender, neither proved significantly different in any of the Gaelic language abilities. However, amongst Gaelic speakers the younger women under 45 did prove significantly lowest for Gaelic writing ability. Amongst parents and especially Gaelic speaking parents this group also reported the lowest mean levels of Gaelicspeaking ability amongst their children and the highest rates of intergenerational decline of Gaelic speaking ability between themselves and their children and their own parents and their grandchildren. There was a strong relationship between all Gaelic language abilities and education. This relationship was complex. Mean speaking and understanding levels were highest amongst those who had attended elementary school only (the oldest respondents), and the smallest and atypical group who had most gained higher education. Gaelic literacy was highest amongst all who had attended any form of further and higher education even though these levels typically give little attention to the language. In qualification terms, respondents with highers had higher Gaelic literacy levels than those with O-grades, and similarly those with university and teacher qualifications compared to those with other professional, technical and vocational qualifications. This was reflected in occupational terms whereby the professional and intermediate group significantly profess the highest Gaelic writing ability. For all Gaelic language abilities crofters were significantly higher than non-crofters (although among Gaelic speakers where the differences were less, not significantly so). Gaelic speaking ability was significantly highest amongst downwardly mobile Gaelic speakers a reflection of its association with lower social prestige. Language abilities were not on the whole significantly differentiated in terms of political allegiance. However, Gaelic literacy was highest amongst Alliance and Conservative voters a reflection of higher occupational and social prestige.

< previous page

page_83

next page >

< previous page

page_84

next page > Page 84

For the sample as a whole, Gaelic language abilities were highest amongst Free Presbyterians and least amongst those with no religious allegiance the latter almost entirely comprising non-Gaelic-speaking incomers. Amongst Gaelic speakers there were no significant differences for speaking and understanding, but for reading and writing the Free Presbyterian and Free Church respondents were significantly more literate in Gaelic than the Catholics, reflecting literacy in religious practice. Gaelic Usage Levels and Language Conservation Gaelic usage was assessed by means of respondents reporting their usage of Gaelic always or mainly, both languages equally, or English always or mainly in 15 typical speech-situations within their present-day and original families, and 19 typical speech-situations in community life. A further measure was comprised of extent of frequency of usage in seven Gaelic entertainment and print media. The family usage patterns were also used in order to derive a measure for intergenerational change. These measures were all expressed on a +/- 100-point scale. Gaelic usage levels paralleled language ability levels for area of residence of respondent. Stornoway respondents evidenced significantly the lowest levels of Gaelic usage in almost every respect. Intergenerational decline of family usage was highest in the rural areas of eastern Lewis, adjacent to Stornoway and the next highest levels of decline were in South Uist and Barra, which were marginally greater than Stornoway itself. Rural Lewis, Harris and North Uist respondents reported the highest usage levels in original and present-day family, community and in entertainment and print media, with South Uist and Barra respondents consistently lower. In terms of birthplace, locally born respondents reported the highest usage levels and the lowest intergenerational decline, although in terms of identity respondents maintaining identity of another Gaelic area claimed the highest Gaelic usage levels in present-day family and demand for Gaelic in entertainment and print media. Age was a significant factor in usage levels with highly significant differences between older and younger respondents. Although ability had not been significantly age-related, usage most definitely was, indicating that language-shift is potentially incipient intergenerational decline being greatest amongst the under-45s. The younger women reported the lowest usage levels of all age- and gender-groupings for Gaelic usage in original and present-day families and in the community. The younger Gaelic-speaking mothers reported significantly the lowest personal Gaelic usage levels in both presentday and original family and in the community. Intergenerational decline in family usage was thus more strongly marked amongst fathers than amongst mothers since the contrast between original and present-day family usage levels was greater amongst the middleaged and older men. In terms of educational level, all the measures of Gaelic usage showed a tendency within the sample as a whole, and which amongst Gaelic speakers was a quite consistent pattern: usage levels were highest amongst respondents whose education ceased with elementary school (and who were of course the

< previous page

page_84

next page >

< previous page

page_85

next page > Page 85

oldest respondents) and amongst the higher education groups. The lowest levels were amongst respondents educated at senior secondary and comprehensive schools (who were amongst the younger respondents) and at further education colleges. Intergenerational decline followed a consistent pattern, being smallest amongst the elementary school and university educated groups and greatest amongst the intermediate groups but differences were not at the level of statistical significance. In qualification terms there were similar tendencies. Amongst Gaelic speakers the highest levels of present-day family usage were amongst those with no formal qualifications and those with teaching certificates. For community usage the highest levels were amongst those with teaching certificates and degrees, and the next highest those with no formal qualifications. Demand for Gaelic in entertainment and print media was highest amongst respondents with degree and postgraduate qualifications, and next highest amongst those with teaching certificates. Across the occupational spectrum Gaelic usage was low amongst the professional category. The lowest group was quite consistently the Skilled NonManual category (Registrar-General's Category III (N)) within the sample as a whole. Amongst the Gaelic speakers this was virtually also the case except that the lowest usage of Gaelic in entertainments and print media was amongst the Skilled Manual group (R. G. Cat. III (M)). Semi-Professionals (R. G. Cat. II) were comparatively high. This group contained teachers and nurses often of local origin who had returned to the community after professional education. Highest in terms of family usage were the Semi-Skilled respondents (R. G. Cat. IV) amongst whom had been coded those giving their main or joint occupation as 'crofter'. Respondents involved in crofting in any way were very significantly higher in Gaelic usage than those not involved. (This was so also amongst the Gaelic speakers although the differences were not at the level of significance for community, entertainments and print media usage levels.) Intergenerational decline was very Significantly less amongst the crofting group. Significantly Gaelic usage levels amongst Gaelic speakers in both family and community were highest amongst the downwardly mobile, and lowest amongst the upwardly mobile. Amongst Gaelic speakers Gaelic usage levels were not significantly related to political support, nor in family or media usage to religious allegiance. There were significant differences between the religious identities in terms of community usage, with the highest levels claimed by Free Presbyterians and next highest by Free Church respondents. Church of Scotland and Catholic respondents registered intermediate to low. Lowest were the two adherents of other denominations. Gaelic Language Attitudes and Language Conservation Attitudes towards language were assessed by two contrasted measures. A 'Policy Support Score' was calculated on the basis of support for ten potential or actual policies relating to Gaelic (covering official recognition, use of Gaelic in public life, education and the media). Extent of support or opposition were taken into account in constructing the measure which was expressed on a +/- 100point scale. A 'Language-Loyalty Index' was also devised to be a more discriminating measure between levels of support. It comprised a Likert-type scale of

< previous page

page_85

next page >

< previous page

page_86

next page > Page 86

five questions amongst ten relating to specifically language attitudes. (These had originated in a pilot study involving 26 such questions. See MacKinnon, 1988.) As with the other language-related attributes there were marked differences between respondents in the different areas of the survey. Respondents in Stornoway, the area with lowest incidence of Gaelic speakers, evidenced the lowest mean policy support score. Respondents in Barra evidenced the highest. Stornoway respondents were also low in regard to language-loyalty, although South Uist respondents were marginally lower. North Uist respondents registered the highest mean language loyalty, closely followed by Barra. Amongst Gaelic speakers support scores were not significantly different, but for language loyalty South Uist respondents were lowest, and North Uist the highest. Birthplace was not a significantly distinguishing factor either in general or amongst the Gaelic speakers. Local or national identity did significantly associate with policy support both in the whole sample and amongst Gaelic speakers. The highest scores were evidenced by those who atypically identified themselves as 'Highlander' or 'Gael' or who maintained an identity of a Gaelic area other than present residence. Those stating 'British' identity scored lowest. In age and gender terms there was a similar pattern to other language attributes, with the younger women under 45 years evidencing the lowest scores of all age- and gender-groups on both scores. Within the sample as a whole, attitudes were age-related: older respondents scoring higher, younger scoring lower; and also gender-related: men scoring higher, women lower. Amongst Gaelic speakers the age and gender pattens were similar but not at a significant level. Amongst parents the younger mothers evidenced the lowest policy support (although for Gaelic-speaking parents this was not statistically significant). Fathers were more supportive of Gaelic public policies than were mothers on both scores. Respondents proceeding to higher education at college, central institution and university were highest on policy support, closely matched by the older elementary educated group. The lowest scorers were those ceasing education at senior secondary/comprehensive level. Language loyalty was similarly patterned. Highest scorers were the university and college of education group, closely matched by the junior high and elementary school levels. Lowest on this measure were respondents proceeding to central institution level. Neither qualification levels nor occupational categories (including occupational mobility) significantly associated with these attitude measures. Those involved in crofting were more supportive on language policies but very questionably significantly. Attitudes were not significantly associated with religious and political identities, except for language-loyalty amongst Gaelic speakers. Highest were those supporting minor parties such as the Greens, and lowest those having voted Alliance, closely matched by non-voters and 'don't knows'. There were very definite associations with Gaelic speaker status and Gaelic language abilities. The highest scorers on both measures were Gaelic learners: those committed enough to learn the language not unnaturally evidenced highest regard for it. Non-Gaelic speakers had the lowest scores. For Gaelic speaking, reading, and writing abilities respondents with nil ability scored least and those fully able the highest on both measures within the sample as a whole and amongst Gaelic speakers. It could thus be maintained that there is

< previous page

page_86

next page >

< previous page

page_87

next page > Page 87

a significant association between support for and loyalty towards the language and Gaelic literacy. A Model of Gaelic Language-maintenance and Shift Census results seem to indicate that a place in the education system has been a strong factor influencing the numbers and proportions of young people returned as Gaelic speakers (MacKinnon, 1984b, 1986). Economic factors also indicate that where there has been a sufficiently healthy local economy young people will stay and raise families. Others will return and there is reason to suppose that they will have sufficient confidence and loyalty towards their language to use it in the family and everyday life (Prattis, 1980). There is however a pronounced tendency towards differential migration, and more young women than young men leave the Gaelic communities for further education and work. There is a tendency for attachment to the home communities to overcome purely economic considerations and more highly qualified women return to these Gaelic communities even without employment prospects (MacKinnon, 1987b). The survey results indicate a strong general process of Gaelic-to-English language-shift. It is not evenly distributed between the various social identities, and analysis of the questionnaire results has revealed some interesting contrasts. The stronger language-maintainers appear to include residents in the more remote, rural areas, and amongst these the Calvinist areas more so than the Catholic areas. In this regard, literacy may be the influencing factor. Education seems to be another strongly influencing factor, with higher education associating strongly with Gaelic language-abilities, usage patterns, and attitudes. The older, elementary-educated group however forms the true Gaelic-maintaining 'core' of the local speech-community. Birthplace, local/national identity and Gaelic-speaker status are also associated with maintenance-patterns. Those locally-born and identifying with their home area registered particularly highly on all measures. Even higher though were Gaelic speakers born in other Gaelic areas and still identifying with them, and Gaelic learners as compared with native speakers. These more marginal identities seemed to outdo the locals and natives in using and supporting the language. Children of older Gaelic-speaking parents had significantly higher levels of Gaelic speaking ability than the children of younger parents indicating definite intergenerational language-shift. This was also reflected in parents' usage levels and language-loyalty. Occupationally, the high prestige semi-professionals, who were often returning natives, maintained Gaelic well in all respects again their more marginal status might be prompting a 'hyper-correction' response. The semi-skilled and crofting groups comprise the community 'core', and it was amongst these that Gaelic was best maintained. The factor of religious allegiance is well-marked amongst the protestant groups. Free Presbyterians are the strongest in Gaelic language-maintenance, followed by Free Churchers. Church of Scotland followers are significantly less pronounced in language-maintenance terms a clear result of the cultural and ecclesiastical history of Gaeldom: religious identity functioning in some measure as an ethnic or 'core-cultural' marker.

< previous page

page_87

next page >

< previous page

page_88

next page > Page 88

The social identities associating with Gaelic-to-English language-shift and associated usage levels and attitudes were in large measure the obverse aspects of the above factors. In addition to this, a very definite pattern emerged in age and gender terms. Younger respondents were very definitely and consistently weaker on all measures of language-abilities, usage levels and attitudes than older respondents. This was not always at a significant level (e.g. for languageabilities in the sample as a whole), but it was particularly the case amongst Gaelic speakers, parents and Gaelic-speaking parents. Amongst age- and gender-groupings a clear consistency emerged, consonant with previous studies, of the younger women and younger mothers and in particular the Gaelic-speakers reporting the lowest personal and children's Gaelic speaking ability levels, and family and community usage levels. This was often to the extent of rendering women's overall mean levels significantly lower than the men's. This pattern was also manifest for policy support and language-loyalty in the sample as a whole, and for policy support amongst parents (although not significantly so amongst Gaelic speakers). The other field in which Gaelic-to-English language-shift is advanced lies in the relationship of education and occupation. Both the 'crofting core' and the more highly-educated native 'semi-professionals' conserve Gaelic well. Language-shift is more strongly associated with (especially younger) respondents whose education did not proceed beyond secondary level, and in qualification terms gained school leaving, technical and vocational certification. Occupationally this group corresponds to the Registrar-General's Category III: Skilled Non-Manual and Manual workers. A recent study in Wales drew attention to the instrumental attitudes towards language manifested by this group and to the fact that its Welsh-speaking mothers were less likely to transmit the language to their children than either Welsh-speaking professionals, semi- or unskilled occupational groups (Harrison et al., 1981). It would also be interesting to know whether similar processes may be operating in our adventitious ethnolinguistic minority speechcommunities. It may be possible therefore to suggest a dynamic model of language-shift whereby population movement draws young adults and more especially the women away from the Gaelic areas for further and higher education and work opportunities, with a reverse flow of educated semi-professionals strengthening the language, and mixed couples whose presence weakens the language. Whichever of these processes is the stronger is greatly influenced by economic opportunity. There may also be a value-related process whereby instrumental attitudes associated with commercial and technical identities promote English community usage, and depresses intergenerational transmission of Gaelic within the family. This may be counteracted by the growth of the Gaelic playgroups movement, and the expansion of Gaelic both as a second language and as a teaching medium in schools. The return of more highly educated local women even without employment prospects as is evidenced in census data may to some extent counteract the less supportive younger women who remain and marry within these Gaelic communities. The prospects of an applied sociology of language being brought to bear in order to reverse language-shift will need to take account of these various

< previous page

page_88

next page >

< previous page

page_89

next page > Page 89

factors and their relative strengths. This is an aspect which the present study is yet to evaluate. There needs also to be a more effective dialogue between researchers, policy-makers, politicians and public if the results of research are to be appreciated and applied. The importance of this may also extend to developing models for the understanding of the relationships of minority and majority speech-communities in our society in general, and in promoting awareness of its increasingly multilingual and culturally plural character. Acknowledgements This paper has arisen out of recent work on the 'Language-Maintenance and Viability in the Scottish Gaelic SpeechCommunity Project', funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (Ref. GOO 23 23 28), whose assistance and that of the Hatfield Polytechnic for secondment, media services, computing facilities and research support is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due in large measure to Cathlin Macaulay and Peter Morgan, the principal researchers on the project, and to its 30 local interviewers. Permission to use Census Small Area Statistics (SAS 1981 and RSAS 1971) is acknowledged with thanks, in that material from Crown Copyright Records made available through the General Register Office (Scotland) and the ESRC Data Archive has been used by permission of the Controller of H. M. Stationery Office. The assistance in making available census small area statistical material of ESRC Data Archive (per Dr N. Walford), Highland Regional Council Department of Planning (per M. Baldwin), Comhairle nan Eilean Department of Planning and Development (per R. MacKay and D. McKim) and the Highlands and Islands Development Board Library (per R. Ardern) are all gratefully acknowledged, as is the assistance of the Crofters' Commission for crofting registration statistics (per Mrs D. M. Urquhart). References and Bibliography Harrison, G., Bellin, W. and Pierre, A. B. (1981) Bilingual Mothers in Wales. University of Wales Board of Celtic Studies Social Science Monographs No. 6. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. MacKinnon, K. (1977) Language, Education and Social Processes in a Gaelic Community. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (1984a) Gaelic in Highland Region the 1981 Census. Inverness: An Comunn Gàidhealach. (1984b) Gaelic Language Regeneration Amongst Young People in Scotland 19711981 From Census Data. Hatfield: Hertis Publications. (1985) The Scottish Gaelic speech community: Some social perspectives. Plenary address to the First International Conference on the Languages of Scotland, University of Aberdeen, 28 July 1985. [Published in conference proceedings issue of Scottish Language No. 5, Autumn 1986. Edinburgh: Association for Scottish Literary Studies.] (1986) Gender, occupational and educational factors in Gaelic language-shift and regeneration. (Paper to Third International Minority Languages Conference, University College of Galway.) In G. MacEoin, D. ó hAodha and A. Ahlqvist (eds) (1987) Third International Conference on Minority Languages: Celtic Papers pp. 4771.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. (1987a) Language retreat and regeneration in the present-day Scottish Gàidhealtachd. Paper to First International Seminar on Geolinguistics, Stoke-on-Trent, May 1987. Hatfield: Hertis Publications. (1987b) Occupation, migration and language-maintenance in Gaelic communities some social and demographic aspects. Paper to Ninth International Seminar on Marginal Regions, Sabhal Mór Ostaig, Isle of Skye, July 1987. Hatfield: Hertis Publications.

< previous page

page_89

next page >

< previous page

page_90

next page > Page 90

(1988) Gaelic Language-Maintenance and Viability in the Isle of Skye. Hatfield: Hertis Publications. McKinnon, K. and MacDonald, M. (1980) Ethnic Communities: The Transmission of Language and Culture in Harris and Barra. Hatfield: Hertis Publications. Prattis, J. I. (1980) Industrialisation and Minority-Language Loyalty: the Example of Lewis. In E. Haugen et al. (eds) (1981) Minority Languages Today. Edinburgh: University Press.

< previous page

page_90

next page >

< previous page

page_91

next page > Page 91

7 Migrant Pupils: Welsh Linguistic Implications Thomas Prys Jones School of Education, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Wales Abstract A study of the inward and outward migration of Primary School Children in the Nantlle Valley, North Wales, and the resulting linguistic implications of this movement within the schools. General Background For some years the influx of non-Welsh speaking pupils into the schools of the indigenous Welsh areas has been a problem; however the schools of the County of Gwynedd have dealt with it positively and effectively. In recent times the problem has become more acute throughout the communities as more and more English-speaking families move in, and some communities that seemed immune have now been swamped by inmigration. The pressures on the local schools which result from the flood of non-Welsh speaking children into their ranks is only one aspect of the problem of English inmigration. In the past the schools, the peripatetic (second language) Welsh teachers and the special 'language centres' for inmigrants have proved themselves quite successful in introducing the newcomers to the Welsh language and the Welsh cultural heritage. At any rate, the children became Welsh speakers. It is a contentious issue whether they became assimilated into the indigenous Welsh community. The County of Gwynedd Education Authority has had an effective language policy, and that policy has been revised and strengthened in recent years. The present Language Policy document states (p. 1) that The original language policy of Gwynedd Education Committee for primary and secondary schools was published in 1975. This policy proved extremely effective . . . Because of the linguistic changes and developments which have taken place in schools, the time was opportune to re-structure the original policy and give further advice on its implementation. Since 1975, there have been a number of social changes especially as new families move into the county, resulting in more non-Welsh-speaking children attending our schools. In the district where the study took place as in the majority of districts by now the fabric of the indigenous Welsh communities is being eroded by several forces and trends not the least of which is inmigration which is

< previous page

page_91

next page >

< previous page

page_92

next page > Page 92

fuelled by the outward migration of the area's youth. This is a trend which is slowly contributing to the extinction of the indigenous communities. Whereas inmigration is the subject of discussion and enquiries, comparatively little attention is given to the emigration aspect of the problem, and as Carter (1988: 11) notes in the content of an emigration graph produced by the Gwynedd Planning Department, that graph shows 'an absolute dominance of young people and young adults'. However, this is a trend which has been evident for generations. Although the schools have been successfully teaching Welsh to the inmigrants as the extract from the Language Policy document suggests yet one cannot ignore the fact that there is a growing feeling of frustration amongst the teachers, especially as they have to respond to another social phenomenon which is closely linked to inmigration, namely the fluidity of the school population, and an awareness that many of the newcomers will not be staying in the area for long. This view is also upheld by many community leaders. However, there was very little evidence available to support or disclaim this observation. It is quite common also for people to regard inmigration as something which affects all communities. It is obvious in some communities that there is, and that there has been a flood of inmigration to their midst; but there was no statistical evidence that that is so in each individual locality. It was not clear therefore whether the linguistic problems were comparable from community to community, nor was it clear whether the inmigrants were likely to move away after a brief stay or not, and what were their migratory patterns did they stay within the county, within Wales, or did they return to England (assuming that they came from England initially)? To get as accurate a picture as possible of the nature of the inmigration as it affects the primary schools, as well as gathering some information about the outward movement of children of primary school age, the inward and outward movements of primary school children in the catchment area of Ysgol Dyffryn Nantlle (the Nantlle Valley Comprehensive School) were studied over a specified period of time, and I am indebted to the County's Director of Education for his permission to use the schools' documents and to the headteachers of the nine primary schools for their assistance and co-operation. The Survey's Background There are nine primary schools within the catchment area of Ysgol Dyffryn Nantlle, and they vary in size and background. Nantlle and Bronyfoel are villages with small two-teacher schools (having 30 and 29 pupils respectively in September 1988). Brynaerau and Nebo are two-teacher rural schools, with 40 and 32 pupils. The village school at Carmel has three teachers and 51 children, whilst the majority of the children in the survey were being taught in the schools of the four larger villages namely Y Groeslon (90 pupils), Penygroes (125 pupils), Llanllyfni (88 pupils) and Talysam (99 pupils). All the schools (except rural Brynaerau) serve communities which grew during the last century with the expansion of the slate quarrying industry. That industry has been extremely prone to recessions due to the uncertainties of the slate market. Today hardly a slate is produced in the area, and the communities have suffered an economic decline as well as rural depopulation in the hinterland as it was common for

< previous page

page_92

next page >

< previous page

page_93

next page > Page 93

many of the quarrymen to supplement their wages with subsistence farming. There has also been an outward migration of young people from the area for generations, education being regarded as an escape route from the hardships of the local industry. In an attempt to discover the mobility patterns of the pupils it was decided to trace the movement of the primary school pupils who registered at the schools between September 1980 and October 1988. Although records were available, the transfer of pupils to the comprehensive school (aged 11+) was ignored as this was regarded as natural practice. In the small schools it was common to accept children from the ages of three and four at various times of the year (but usually at the beginning of a term), whereas the larger schools restricted their intake to a single annual intake (of four year olds) in September. This is now becoming the accepted pattern in most of the schools. As every child in the area started school at three or four, it was decided that five+ should be recognised as the lower threshold for inmigration, with 11+ being regarded as the higher parameter. This is in line with the general attitudes of the schools towards immigrant children. The schools do not regard the three and four year old children as a linguistic problem (unless large numbers arrive simultaneously at one school), and the schools are able to cope with the younger children who become bilingual with comparative ease. However, these parameters do not give an accurate indication of the nature of the inmigration and the movement of the three and four year old children, even though an attempt has been made to include them as inmigratory children if they arrived in the area when they were ready to start school. Information was also collated regarding children who came from Welsh-speaking homes, linguistically mixed home backgrounds (where English is usually spoken), and from English speaking homes, even though the children might be fluent in Welsh. From this information emerges a rough linguistic analysis of the three and four year old children who registered at the schools. From the school documents a record was made of the number of children of various ages who arrived in each school during the course of each educational year (September-August), showing the number registering at the beginning of each term as well as during term time. If a child moved out during his primary school career, this was recorded, using the age of entry to the school as the bench mark. Hence for each school, information was documented regarding the number of children who were of a particular age when they moved in, and who later moved away from the area before attaining the age of transfer to the secondary school. The age of the child when migrating out was not specifically recorded, but it would be possible to deduce that age in the majority of cases. If the information is available in the schools' documents, it is easy to trace the geographical origins of each inmigrating family as well as the actual locality they move out to when they leave. However, the social background of many of the families is such that no record of their movements is available. It was not the aim of the exercise to attempt to analyse the nature of the inmigrating population, but it is evident from unofficial information gleaned in the various localities that family difficulties and social and economic problems have a lot to do with the inmigration. It is also a well known economic fact that house prices in the area as in most parts of Wales in general are much lower than in most regions of England,

< previous page

page_93

next page >

< previous page

page_94

next page > Page 94

notably the South East, and in the present economic climate it is more pleasant to be unemployed and living out in the country than in an urban conurbation. Such socio-economic factors are not evident in all the communities in general, but it is evident that some communities are targeted by a particular brand of inmigrants. It also appears that some communities are more prone to inmigrants than others, and so the density of the inmigration is seen to vary from community to community. The area studied can be roughly divided into two in this respect, namely (1) the small villages and rural communities; (2) the larger villages. Up to now, it appears that relatively the larger villages (except Talysarn) have suffered less from inmigration than the other communities. Until 19856 about 75% of the children attending the school at Talysarn came from Gwynedd (or Wales), but since then the pace of the inmigration has accelerated. The other 'large' villages have not suffered to the same extent even though Penygroes saw a flood of people moving in during 19823 (21% of the annual intake of new children), and again during 19867 (28.6%). However, within the whole catchment area there has been considerable fluidity in the child population. A Statistical Perspective Pupils Registering in the Schools A total of 1,022 children have been registered as new entrants in the schools of the area between September 1980 and the end of October 1988. Of these, 773 came from Gwynedd (or Wales). However, in actual fact, many of the three and four year olds admitted were inmigrants but they had not registered previously at any school. A total of 249 pupils were recent inmigrants corresponding to 24.4% of the total child population studied (Table 1). Since it is usual for children who start school to register at the beginning of term, some indication of the fluidity of the child population is given by the fact that 260 pupils were registered during term time. This shows that at least 25.4% of the total school entrants moved during term-time. Others had moved during the school holidays, and were registered in their new schools as the new term began. Thus the actual number of pupils who moved into the area stands at 350 for the age range 511 alone. It is evident therefore that over one-third of the child population registering with the schools moved into the area during their primary school careers, and that only 65.7% of the pupils were registered with the schools when aged three Table 1 Children registering in the schools September 1980-October 1988 Total registering From Gwynedd/Wales Recent inmigrants (from England) 1022 773 249 (100%) (75.6%) (24.4%)

< previous page

page_94

next page >

< previous page

page_95

next page > Page 95

and four. The fact that so many children moved into the schools has obvious implications, on the curricular, linguistic and social fronts, and imposes severe strains upon the schools in general, and it is a credit to the schools that they have up to now managed so well. Collating linguistic statistics was not a priority of this exercise, but it is evident that studying the inward and outward movement of pupils has obvious linguistic implications. Information was gleaned from each school regarding the children who came to school from a Welsh speaking home, those who could be labelled as Welsh learners, as well as those who had no Welsh. Of the 1,022 who registered, 585 (57.2%) were Welsh speakers, 188 (18.4%) were Welsh learners and 249 (24.4%) had no Welsh at all, and the actual number of non-Welsh speakers corresponds exactly with the number of pupils who inmigrated during the period. In general there could be some discrepancies in the way the individual schools interpret the term 'learner' (and Welsh speakers) depending on how the child's background is perceived e.g. a child might be labelled a Welsh speaker if one parent speaks Welsh, or if both parents have learnt Welsh fluently, or if a child has learnt Welsh at a Welsh pre-school play group. However, such discrepancies are irrelevant in this case, since it is a fact that 249 pupils nearly a quarter of the children admitted to the schools came from England, and were therefore unable to speak Welsh. From the schools' interpretation of a Welsh learner, it appears that almost one in five of the pupils fall into this category, while less than six out of ten of the children came from Welsh speaking homes. This is a bewildering fact in a region which until recently was one of the most Welsh areas of Wales, where, according to the 1981 Census, about 80% of the population spoke Welsh. The schools are therefore having to adjust to a variety of social pressures and linguistic variables, while trying to plan the curriculum to meet the needs of a rapidly changing social background. Added to this is the extra burden of having to interpret and deliver the National Curriculum, as well as adjusting to the various demands of the recent Education Acts which have been rushed through by the Government. New power has been given to parents and the school governors. Up to now the changing social pattern has not been reflected in the constitution of the schools' governing bodies, nor for that matter in the local government councils, and so the Education Authority has been able to stengthen and to implement its enlightened (bilingual) language policy in the schools. The resources available from central government do not meet the actual needs of the schools given the problems they face. There is some consolation in the fact that it appears that the Welsh Language is safeguarded in the proposed National Curriculum. It will be a core subject alongside Mathematics, Science and English in the schools of Gwynedd, who have up to now taught mainly through the medium of Welsh. This statutory requirement might be a much valued bulwark once the immigrant population finds its feet and find themselves in a majority (as is now the case in some areas). Up to now the immigrants have exhibited latent support for the Welsh language. Children Moving out of the Area Inmigration is only one aspect of the complexities which result from a mobile population. The other facet which has to be taken into account is the

< previous page

page_95

next page >

< previous page

page_96

next page > Page 96

outward migration of pupils, and it was a known fact that a substantial number of inmigrants were likely to move out of the area before being transferred to the secondary school at 11+. The survey focused on 350 511 year old pupils who moved into the schools, and found that 102 of them (29.1%) had moved out before completing their primary school course. Another 109 (16.2%) of the pupils who began their school careers at three and four also moved from the schools. On average therefore, the schools lost over one-fifth (20.6%) of their registered pupils. It is another matter where these children moved to. Quite often as was mentioned earlier, such information is not forthcoming. However, it is possible to glean some information about the children's whereabouts if they moved in from England, but left to another school in Wales. The information available is given in Table 2. It appears that 18.9% of the children who moved in from England (aged between 5 and 11 years) also moved out of the area. Only 4.3% of them moved within Wales. This information confirms the general observations made, namely that there is a substantial number of children moving about, with at least 18.9% of those moving into the locality from England moving away during their primary school careers. However, this information, although it highlights the nature of the children's movement, does not present a complete picture of the extent and nature of inmigration from England. When the data is analysed in an overall context for all age groups it is evident that 77 pupils out of a total of 249 recent immigrants moved out which represents 30.9% of that total. Of these 24.1% moved back to England, with only 6.8% moving within Wales. These facts uphold the general view that a substantial number of recent inmigrants are likely to move out of the area, with nearly one-third of them likely to move. This fact alone raises important policy issues regarding the provision made by the Education Authority in providing special facilities in an attempt to assimilate the newcomers, and in easing the burdens placed on the schools in promoting and delivering the county's bilingual ideals. Such facilities include a system of 'Athrawon Bro' peripatetic teachers of Welsh who visit the schools to give special language tuition to the newcomers. Up to now this strategy has been quite successful but presently the services they are able to offer is hardly adequate in the face of the acute problem which is further complicated by a lack of funding from Central Government to meet the growing needs. Another strategy pioneered by the Authority is centralising the teaching of Welsh to the newcomers at designated Table 2 Movement of children Admitted (A) From England (B) From England (C) moving From England (D) 511 year old but moving out back or moving elsewhere staying in Wales 350 66 51 15 (B) as a % of (A) (C) as a % of (A) 14.6% (D) as a % of (A) 18.9% 4.3%

< previous page

page_96

next page >

< previous page

page_97

next page > Page 97

centres where groups of children are immersed in an intensive Welsh atmosphere, and where they receive tuition for a number of weeks. When they are relatively fluent in Welsh the children return to their local schools and continue their education bilingually. However, these centres are now unable to cope with the increasing demands foisted upon them, and new centres are urgently required and the area studied is high on the priority list for such an establishment. It is evident that a point will soon be reached when the question will be asked which (and whose) language is the majority language. Some people are also likely to question whether it is worth pursuing the ideal of teaching Welsh to the newcomers (with the consent of their parents, whose attitudes are mainly positive) when such a proportion of them are likely to move out of Wales. On the other hand it would be difficult to justify a negative attitude towards the inmigrants and deny them an opportunity to learn Welsh and partaking in a bilingual orientated education when over two-thirds of their numbers are likely to settle in the area. The effect of inmigration is two-pronged: (1) If a number of families migrate into the area before the children are of school age, their children are counted as 'local', and are registered at school when they are three or four years old (according to each school's admissions policy). This trend is reflected in the school's statistics by the number of children registering who come from 'English-speaking homes'. (2) If the families have recently moved in from England, the children of school age will be regarded as 'recent inmigrants', and recorded as such. Comparing two four-year periods September 1980August 1984, and September 1984August 1988 shows that during the first period (19804) 89 inmigrant children were admitted to the schools, out of a total of 453 pupils. This corresponds to 19.6% of that total. During the second phase (19848), out of the 483 pupils registered, 142 were recent arrivals, which corresponds to 29.4% of the total number. The actual increase in the number of pupils registered at the schools during the second period was 30, but the increase in the number of immigrant pupils was 53. This accounts for a marked change in the ratio of inmigrant pupils to 'local' pupils, viz: (1) between 1980 and 1984 inmigrant pupils: 'local' pupils 89 : 364 1 : 4.1 (2) between 1984 and 1988 inmigrant pupils : 'local' pupils 142 : 341 1 : 2.4 Expressing this in the context of a group of 35 children (which might be the total number on the books of a small school) shows that during the first phase, seven of the 35 pupils would be inmigrants, but during the latter phase ten pupils would be in that category. Linguistic Trends As mentioned earlier, a linguistic dimension was evident in such a study, and the linguistic trend in the wider community in general is reflected in the home language of the pupils in each individual school. Even though the schools might differ in their precise interpretation of who should be labelled as a Welsh 'learner', there

< previous page

page_97

next page >

< previous page

page_98

next page > Page 98

are no misconceptions about who come from Welsh-speaking homes, linguistically mixed homes, and Englishspeaking homes. It is obvious from the schools' responses that they are wrestling with a much deeper issue than merely teaching Welsh to inmigrant children namely teaching Welsh to: (a) children from linguistically mixed families (where English is usually the language of the hearth), (b) the offspring of parents who settled in the locality before they were of school age. Therefore, as indicated before, hand in hand with the increase in English speaking inmigrant pupils there is also an increase in the number of 'local children' who come from non-Welsh speaking homes, and a decrease in the number of children whose home language is the vernacular. Comparing a two year period in the early eighties (19802) with the last two year period of the study (19868) illustrates this trend. During the latter period there was an increase in the number of children who were new entrants in every school except one, but every school showed a percentage decrease in the number of children coming from Welsh homes. During the first two year period, 127 children came from Welsh homes out of a total of 199 which corresponds to 63.8%. The numbers for 19868 were 260 and 109, giving a percentage of 41.9%. This heralds a severe decline in the number of children coming from Welsh-speaking homes. Even though there was an increase of 61 in the total number of pupils registering during the second two year period, there was an overall decrease of 18 in the number coming from Welsh-speaking homes. In actual fact, the total number of pupils registering at school for the first time increased by 130.7%, and if a corresponding increase had been shown in the number of children coming from Welsh homes, 166 Welsh pupils would have been registered. The actual number however was 109 hardly two-thirds of the total required to avoid any percentage decline. An increase of 21 'local' non-Welsh pupils admitted during 19868 represents a percentage increase of only 4%, whereas the corresponding increase in the number of recent inmigrants (from 36 to 94) represents a percentage increase of 18.1% (from 18.1% in 19802 to 36.2% in 19868). Because of this, the communities are much more aware of the increase in the number of recent inmigrants than they are of the increase in the number of children who come from non-Welsh speaking homes in the area. It is evident also that the increase in the ranks of local non-Welsh speakers is more common in some communities than others. Summary and Discussion It is evident that over a third (34.4%) of all pupils aged between 5 and 11 admitted to the schools moved during the course of their primary school careers and over a quarter of all pupils registered (25.4%) arrived at the schools during term time. Of all pupils registering between September 1980 and October 1988 nearly a quarter of them were inmigrants. This represents 249 pupils out of a total of 1,022. Hence at least 24.4% of the children admitted had no knowledge of Welsh. In reality, the percentage of children unable to speak Welsh coming to the schools is higher than 24.4%, as many come from linguistically mixed families

< previous page

page_98

next page >

< previous page

page_99

next page > Page 99

where English is the language of the hearth, while others are the offspring of parents who inmigrated before the children were of school age. The substantial decline in the number of children from Welsh-speaking homes reflects this trend, and is shown by the fact that 58.3% of the children admitted during 19802 were from Welsh-speaking homes, but the corresponding (unweighted means) percentage for 19868 was only 38.1%. A substantial proportion of the pupils who move into the area also move out. Of the 511 year old pupils who registered, 29.1% moved out again. The children who entered school aged three and four years are a little less likely to move out, compared to the others, but even so, 16.2% of them did move before attaining secondary school age. Of the recent inmigrant children from England, 18.9% leave the area while they are at the primary school, and it appears that on average their length of stay is somewhat less than two years, and, although the number of children admitted increased during the second four year period studied (19848), there was no corresponding increase in the number of 'local' pupils registered, and of those a substantial number came from non-Welsh speaking homes. The change in the linguistic background of the children entering the schools has social and educational implications. Although the schools have a very Welsh ethos, if the present trends prevail, those children who are natural Welsh speakers will be a minority in the near future. That is true of some schools now, and is evident from the playground language. The communities are only now becoming aware of the impact of the demographic, linguistic and cultural impact of inmigrants. The increase in the number of 'local' children from non-Welsh speaking homes stems partly from the effect of inmigration in previous years, and the fact that the vernacular is not the first language of a number of village children is a new phenomenon. This linguistic fluidity is also complicated by the outward migration of a considerable proportion of the inmigrant population. The problems facing the schools are to some extent ameliorated by the efforts of the existing Welsh pre-school play groups, but a more extensive and intensive programme should be resourced to ensure that every 'local' pupil has some knowledge of Welsh before he starts school. Otherwise, the schools have to deal with a variety of linguistic abilities ranging from the natural monoglot Welsh speakers to the monoglot English newcomers. It must be accepted that continued inmigration and its resulting effects upon the social fabric of the local communities is likely to have additional implications both educationally and socially if the inmigrants' latent goodwill towards the Welsh language is not positively harnessed and utilised. As things are, the present linguistic and cultural trends have not yet been reflected in the composition of the schools' governing bodies. Since recent educational legislation gives parents greater powers in the running of schools including curricular matters any hostility or opposition towards the Welsh language and its teaching to newcomers could have a devastating effect upon the language. It must be acknowledged however that for some communities the future of their village schools could be in the balance were it not for the influx of inmigrants. Generally, at present there is a fairly strong Welsh awareness in the area studied, but the impression given is that the indigenous Welsh population who have been the stalwarts of social and cultural activities are an ageing group whose numbers are decreasing, and that many of the traditional Welsh

< previous page

page_99

next page >

< previous page

page_100

next page > Page 100

domains (e.g. the Chapel and its peripheral activities) are becoming irrelevant to a majority of Welsh families. For them, the school and the home are the only Welsh domains remaining. Hence for the inmigrant children and those of mixed linguistic homes, the school is the only Welsh domain. This does not augur well for the future unless suitable resources and activities are available within the local communities to enable the young people, as well as the adults, to pursue their leisure activities through the medium of Welsh. Without such support, the work of the schools will be wasted, and the burdens imposed upon them will be even greater. Creating conditions that will enable people to live a full life through the medium of Welsh in their localities has social and community planning implications. (1) Such strategies would give credibility to the efforts being made to teach Welsh to the inmigrants, and would foster a more positive, and less inferior attitude towards the Welsh language amongst those from mixed linguistic backgrounds. (2) Positive language strategies within the community would help to create favourable conditions which would foster and strengthen a Welsh identity amongst the local non-Welsh speaking parents. Resources should be available to enable parents of young children to learn the language alongside their children, and a liaison fostered between the adult learners of the language and the various social and cultural groups which use the vernacular, so that the 'learners' will be able to practice and use the language, and be assimilated into the indigenous community. To enable such an assimilation to take place guidance should be given to the leaders of the Welsh cultural and social movements on how to bridge this linguistic and cultural hiatus before it is too late. This era of social and linguistic transformation should be researched into on a socio-economic basis. The problems which the schools face only reflect the changes which appear to some extent inherent. There is a need to study the attitudes of the Welsh people themselves towards the communities in which they are brought up. Unemployment is one factor which dictates an outward migration, but it is not the sole factor. A substantial number of people brought up in the communities observed chose to move away and live in neighbouring towns so creating a social and demographic vacuum into which the inmigrants pour. The Explanatory Draft Planning Document (January 1989) prepared by the Gwynedd Planning Department hardly touches upon the language issue as far as the planning regulations are concerned. It stresses that any policy must reflect the will of the local community to insist that the language will have a future. But since the factors which have an effect upon language maintenance can be broadly summarised as those of status, demographic, institutional support and the cultural factors of similarity and dis-similarity (Appel & Muysken, 1987) it is evident that an awareness of language should be central to any future planning, and that the state of the language across the whole county should be taken into account. Favourable conditions for language maintenance should be created in all walks of life, so as to change the image and prestige of a minority language not only amongst those who speak it but also amongst those who have given up

< previous page

page_100

next page >

< previous page

page_101

next page > Page 101

using the vernacular with their children. There is a hollow ring to the statement in the Draft Planning Document when it notes that 75% is a key figure for language maintenance when that figure is considered in the context of the schools within the area covered by this study. In the past, the Welsh language has been most virile in the rural areas. It is a linguistic fact that scarcely populated areas are more successful in language maintenance than urban areas. The rural areas covered by this study lose their indigenous Welsh speakers and strangers move in. This does not augur well for the future, as it is likely that these settlers will be able to maintain their own language, and though the weaker language will be taught to their children, it will be irrelevant to the day to day activities of their families and friends. It is important therefore that the Welsh language is given institutional and bureaucratic status to strengthen the concept of bilingualism amongst the inmigrants. At present the impression is given that bilingualism is something passive. The cognitive advantages of bilingualism should be stressed, as well as the advantages of bilingualism in general. This observation again stresses the need for creating favourable conditions at each level of social interaction, so that individuals become aware of the language, and regard bilingualism as a way of life rather than as an additional burden, or as something relevant only to the Welsh speaking population. The demographic changes, as well as changes in the linguistic structures of the communities might have long term implications for local government and its resulting policies. What language provision will be possible at a local or county level will to some extent depend upon the representatives on the County Council and on the school governing bodies. In future, if these bodies reflect the prevailing social and linguistic trends, attitudes towards the language and the resources allocated towards its use and maintenance might change (unless Welsh is safeguarded within the National Curriculum). This fact also underlines the importance of the Welsh language being regarded as the norm within all communities. It is evident from the resources allocated (although they are insufficient), and the efforts being made to teach Welsh to the inmigrant children, that they have special privileges. These pupils represent a substantial section of the schools' population. However many of them also move away from the area. It is not surprising therefore that some individuals ask whether it is worth directing scarce resources towards the inmigrants. However, they now represent a too substantial proportion of the school population to be ignored. Perhaps it is only fair to ask what corresponding privileges come the way of the Welsh speaking children and the fluent Welsh learners. Something must be done to improve the image of the Welsh language amongst the inmigrants and the uncommitted local Welsh people, or more of them will question the purpose of learning Welsh. A useful stock answer to 'Why learn Welsh?' is 'To be able to live a full Welsh life amongst the majority within the community'. Such an answer however does not hold in some of the schools of the Nantlle Valley at present, and it is doubtful whether that will be the case in the others for long if the present linguistic trends continue.

< previous page

page_101

next page >

< previous page

page_102

next page > Page 102

Bibliography Appel, R. and Muysken, P. (1987) Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold. Carter, Harold (1988) Inmigration and the Welsh language. Court of the National Eisteddfod of Wales. Gwynedd, Cynllun Fframwaith, Ionawr (1989) Drafft o Femorandwm Esboniadol, Gwynedd County Council Planning Department. Gwynedd, Pwyllgor Addysg, Polisi Iaith. Gwynedd Educational Committee, Language Policy.

< previous page

page_102

next page >

< previous page

page_103

next page > Page 103

8 Minority Languages in Spain Robert Comet I Codina 41 route de Cartigny, 1236 Cartigny/Geneva, Switzerland Abstract The period covered is from 1975 with emphasis on the important changes that have taken place after the adoption of a new Constitution (29th December 1978). Prominent among these changes is the recognition of 'the other Spanish languages' that are official in the respective autonomous communities (Basque, Catalan and Galician). To these can be added the official recognition, in some respects, of Aranese and Asturian. The analysis of analogies and differences in the various linguistic communities brings about a comparative picture of the sociolinguistic situation in each of them. The autonomous governments aim at bringing back to normal a linguistic state that had been disturbed a policy of 'language normalisation' is followed in favour of these 'other' Spanish languages. However, the attitude of the central administration and of some Castilian-speaking intellectuals is unfavourable to the recovery of the minority languages. In addition, the differences outnumber the analogies between Basque, Catalan and Galician. As regards minority languages in Spain, the future is uncertain and problematic. The Situation from 1939 to 1975 Although the title of this article is extremely wide without any temporal restriction, it mostly deals with the sociolinguistic developments that have taken place in Spain since 20th November 1975, when the death of the Dictator, General Franco, opened an era of political transition towards the establishment of a democratic régime. Most political commentators, Spanish and foreign, consider that the basic element of the new structure is the Constitution of 29th December 1978. Indeed, one of its provisions, its Article 3, is the comer-stone of the Spanish linguistic policy and deserves to be quoted in full. Before that, it is necessary to go back for a moment to the situation that existed in 1939, just after the terrible Civil War of 19369, the belated consequences of which are still felt in our times. To have an idea of the conditions and the spiritual climate prevailing in 1939, it is enough to quote from a handbook of civic training written by the Jesuit Father Ignacio Menéndez Reigada. The handbook, Catecismo patriótico español, was published in Salamanca in 1939. Question Are there any languages spoken in Spain besides the Castilian language? Answer It may be said that in Spain only the Castilian language is spoken, for besides it, only Basque is spoken, which is used as the only language in a few

< previous page

page_103

next page >

< previous page

page_104

next page > Page 104

Basque hamlets alone; it is reduced to the functions of a dialect because of its linguistic and philological poverty. Question And what are the main dialects spoken in Spain? Answer They are four: Catalan, Valencian, Mallorcan and Galician. (Cited in Mollá & Palanca, 1987: 756 and in Woolard, 1989: 289.) Obviously, what is said in this handbook of civic training, the author of which was a close adviser of Franco, is a representative résumé of the official policy at that time of severe censorship and totalitarian guidance of public opinion. The aim was to reduce the other languages spoken in Spain to the status of dialectos, the Spanish equivalent of the French patois. In more hopeful times, in 1978, the new Spanish Constitution was adopted. But let us not forget that during forty years or more (the Civil War started in July 1936), the other languages spoken in Spain were kept in a state of subordinate position, evolving from total proscription at the beginning of the dictatorial period to reluctant tolerance at the end. These are two examples of the consequences of the official suppression in the linguistic field: speakers of the other languages spoken in Spain were not taught to read and write in their native language, and no language teachers were trained except those who learned their trade privately with many difficulties. The Constitution of 29th December 1978 Franco's policy of ethnocide is happily a thing of the past. However, it would be naïve to think that the adoption of a new constitution is enough to solve all the problems in the linguistic field and to change deeply-rooted ideas and beliefs. The new Constitution provides in its Article 3: (1) Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State. All Spaniards are obliged to know it and have the right to use it. (2) The other Spanish languages (las demás lenguas españolas) will also be official in their respective autonomous communities, in accordance with the Statutes. (3) The wealth of the distinctive linguistic modalities of Spain is a cultural heritage that will be the object of special respect and protection. The Other Spanish Languages At this point, it may be useful to make a comparison with the Constitution of another plurilingual State, Switzerland. Article 116 of the Swiss Constitution lists the four national languages (German, French, Italian and Romansh) as well as the three official languages of the Swiss Confederation (German, French and Italian). No equivalent list exists in the Spanish Constitution. In addition to Spanish, the Constitution was published 'in the other Spanish languages' as stipulated in its last provision. Although it was nowhere said which languages were meant, it is a fact that the Constitution was published in Basque, Catalan, Galician and Valencian. These are the languages mentioned in the Catecismo of Menéndez Reigada. As regards Valencian, which most linguists consider a Catalan dialect, Professor Julio Fernández Sevilla (1986: 44) pointed out that 'the Valencian text

< previous page

page_104

next page >

< previous page

page_105

next page > Page 105

of the Constitution of 1978, published in the official gazette, hardly differs from the Catalan text except in a few minute details'. Which, then, are the languages spoken in Spain? Perhaps the dialectologists will be more helpful. Professor Gregorio Salvador, holder of the chair of Spanish Language at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid and a member of the Royal Spanish Academy, has this to say about the matter: As a linguist, I count that there are eleven languages, that is to say, Castilian and ten more. ( . . . ) In addition to Spanish, the native languages that may be distinguished in Spain, according to the descriptions and reports of reputable linguists, are the following: Galician, Biscayan, Guipuzcoan, Upper Northern Navarrese, Upper Southern Navarrese, Lower Western Navarrese, Lower Eastern Navarrese, Labourdin, Catalan, and Aranese, which is a dialect of Gascon. (Salvador, 1987: 934) The Portuguese-speaking Minority In their book España: un estado plurinacional, Carles Gispert and Josep Maria Prats (1978), had a sociopolitical approach. They refer to the Spanish minority of Portuguese language: some villages along the border Alamedilla in the province of Salamanca, Eljas, San Martín de Trevejo and Valverde del Fresno in the province of Cáceres, and Olivenza (Olivença in Portuguese) in the province of Badajoz. The area of Olivenza is peopled by some 10,000 inhabitants. The other Spanish areas of Portuguese language have over 6,000 inhabitants, which makes 16,000 Portuguese-speaking Spaniards altogether. (Gispert & Prats, 1978: 601.) This minority has never been recognised officially, either at the administrative level or at the school level. The Aranese The Aranese community is smaller in number, but it has official recognition. Thus, paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Catalan Statute of Autonomy establishes: 'The language of the Aran Valley shall be taught and shall receive special respect and protection.' The Law of Linguistic Normalization in Catalonia (Law No. 7 of 18th April 1983) contains a section (Section V) concerning the normalisation of the use of Aranese. This section expands the basic provision of the Statute of Autonomy. Article 28 (1) Aranese is the native language of the Aran Valley. The people of the Valley have the right to know the language and to use it in everyday life and public activities within the territory. (2) The Catalan Government, together with Aranese institutions, must take the necessary measures to guarantee knowledge and normal use of Aranese in the Aran Valley and to stimulate its normalisation. (3) Place-names in the Aran Valley officially have the Aranese form. (4) The Catalan Government has to supply the means to ensure that Aranese is taught and used in the schools of the Aran Valley.

< previous page

page_105

next page >

< previous page

page_106

next page > Page 106

(5) The Catalan Government must take measures to ensure that Aranese is used in the communication media of the Aran Valley. (6) Any subsequent regulations arising from this Law (of Linguistic Normalisation) must take into account the use of Aranese in the Aran Valley. This Valley, situated in the north-west of Catalonia, is the only Catalan district on the northern side of the Pyrenees. The river Garona (Garonne in French) has its source in this Valley. The Catalan linguist Teresa Climent (1986) estimates that of its 6,000 inhabitants 80% understand and speak Aranese. It should be noted that the above-quoted legal provisions are becoming effective reality in Aran. School-books are published in Aranese; the local language is taught in the schools; the Centre of Linguistic Normalization promotes its use in the administrative field. It is interesting to see how a French linguist, Alain Viaut (1987), evaluates the present situation and the future prospects of the Aranese language: L'Aran constitue, depuis ces dernières années, le premier exemple d'une reconnaissance officielle du fait linguistique gascon et occitan. Cette reconnaissance s'assortit d'une série de mesures concrètes qui visent à permettre un usage public de cette langue. (Viaut, 1987: 8) The Aragonese Aranese is a language with few speakers. Aragonese is a language spoken by a greater number of people, but it does not receive the protection that the Catalan institutions accord to the minority language of Catalonia, that is, Aranese. The Statute of Autonomy of Aragon (Law No. 8, of 10th August 1982) establishes in its Article 7: 'The various linguistic modalities of Aragon will be protected, as they form part of its cultural and historic heritage.' According to Article 35, point 23, the Autonomous Community of Aragon exercises exclusive competence on 'cultural matters, with special reference to the specific expressions of Aragon and its linguistic modalities, taking care of their preservation and promoting their study'. What these linguistic modalities are is nowhere defined. Ricard de Vargas-Golarons (1988) estimates that Aragonese is spoken nowadays by some 30,000 inhabitants of the Aragonese highlands along the Pyrenees. Within the whole territory of Aragon 87.73% speak Castilian, 7.59% Catalan, and 4.68% Aragonese. The same author denounces the indifference of the regional authorities who have nevertheless published three books on Aragonese themes. Radio Huesca broadcasts two programmes in Aragonese. On the other hand, the regional station of Spanish Television has never broadcast in Aragonese. The defence and promotion of the Aragonese language is in the hands of a private organisation and of individual enthusiasts. The Consello d'a Fabla Aragonesa (Council of the Aragonese Language), founded in 1976, publishes six times a year the bulletin Fuellas d'informazión and operates as a publishing house for the writers of poetry, fiction, theatre and essays in Aragonese. A group of members of the Council published in 1977 a valuable account of the language (Conte et al., 1977).

< previous page

page_106

next page >

< previous page

page_107

next page > Page 107

Paradoxically, says Ricard de Vargas-Golarons, Aragonese writing is going through one of its best periods while, at the same time, the spoken language is in full regression. People (farmers and shepherds) move out from the mountainous areas and settle in the towns where Spanish has been spoken for centuries. The Asturian The Asturian language, also called Bable, enjoys some sort of official recognition in the Principality of Asturias, the autonomous community situated to the east of Galicia between the Cantabrian range of mountains and the sea. According to data published in 1986 by the Asturian Office of Linguistic Policy, out of a total population of 1,112,000 inhabitants, 26.2% speak Asturian. More than 300,000 inhabitants are, therefore, everyday speakers of the language. The legal status of Asturian is peculiar. The Statute of Autonomy contains two provisions dealing with it, but in spite of this recognition Asturian, considered by some as a dialect of Spanish, is not co-official with Castilian. According to Article 4 of the Statute: Bable, the specific language of Asturias, will enjoy full protection. Its use will be promoted, both in the mass media and education though respecting at all times each local variety and the free will of citizens to learn it. Article 10 states: The Principality of Asturias is responsible for the promotion of Bable in its various forms as they are used in the different areas of the Asturian territory. The existence of a minimum official recognition has given to the autonomous authorities the possibility of establishing a service of language planning. The promotion of Asturian has advanced at official level and by private initiative. A very modest degree of teaching in Asturian started in 1984. Both the Administration and the Academy of the Asturian Language are releasing surveys, reports, textbooks, and literary works. These are some examples of the work done in Asturias recently. The report on the Asturian language issued in 1987 by the Academia de la Llingua contains a remarkable chapter by Ramón D'Andrés on the social situation of Asturian (La situación social de la llingua asturiana). One book that has to be mentioned on Asturian sociolinguistics is Llingua y sociedá asturiana by Professor Xosé Lluis García Arias (1984). In the view of a British observer, Alan Rees, there can be no doubt that great progress has been made in the last decade with respect to the defence and promotion of the Asturian language with a notable increase in its usage both in mass media and the arts. (Rees, 1988) Basque, Catalan and Galician Each of the languages mentioned so far is spoken by less than half a million people. In Spain three more languages can claim a number of speakers exceeding the half-million mark: Basque, some 500,000; Galician, about 3,000,000; Catalan, around 7,000,000. As all three languages have been thoroughly researched by eminent linguists, it seems unnecessary to describe them in detail at the present time.

< previous page

page_107

next page >

< previous page

page_108

next page > Page 108

Those figures are very rough approximations. There are no exact figures as to how many people speak each of these languages because the Spanish census avoids inquiring into the matter. The official view has long been that the language of Spain is Spanish and that there is no need to probe the issue further. (Wardhaugh, 1987: 119) The three languages are official in the following communities: Galician in Galicia; Basque in the Basque Country and in the northern part of Navarre; Catalan in Catalonia, in Valencia (with the name of Valencian), and in the Balearic Islands. As the administrative boundaries do not coincide with the linguistic borders, the Galician spoken in Asturias and in the provinces of León and Zamora, as well as the Catalan spoken in the Aragonese provinces of Huesca, Zaragoza and Teruel, have not the status of official languages. We will consider the three languages together and see what they share and what separates them in the legal and sociolinguistic fields. Historically, all three of them have been the object of bad treatment by the Spanish State and can produce long catalogues of grievances and complaints against the discriminatory policy to which they have been submitted. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the authorities, following the French model imported by the Bourbon dynasty, have tried to impose Castilian as much as possible, to reduce the usage of the non-Castilian languages as much as possible, and to bring about the disappearance of these languages if possible. Total suppression was not achieved because there was some resistance in the way. Nevertheless, the oppressed languages have vanished from whole areas of social life, and the quality of the languages has suffered considerable degradation all round. This policy of complete elimination culminated during the forty years of the Franco dictatorship when it was applied fairly systematically. And there has never been any compensation for the damaged caused. Analogies and Differences By way of considering the analogies and differences among the three communities (the Basque country, Catalonia and Galicia), it is possible to have a comparative picture of the sociolinguistic situation in each of them. The employment situation is different in the three language communities. One of them Galicia has to send many of its people out into the world to find work, to other parts of Spain or abroad, while the other two the Catalanspeaking area and the Basque country are at the receiving end. The scale of internal migration within the Spanish State in recent times is illustrated by the following figures: To fill the need for manual labour in expanding industries, Castilian-speaking workers, primarily from the impoverished south of Spain, immigrated to Catalonia in a flow that began in the 1920's and became torrential in the 1960's. While the total population of Spain increased by 50 percent between 1940 and 1980, that of Catalonia increased by 110 percent. The destination of the vast majority of immigrants was Barcelona. (Woolard, 1989: 2) Woolard adds:

< previous page

page_108

next page >

< previous page

page_109

next page > Page 109

These immigrants and their descendants now constitute nearly half of the Catalonian population. The Catalans themselves are an unusual territorial-based minority, since they form the greater part of the propertied, managerial, and professional sectors of their community, with economic power over laborers speaking a dialect of the language the central state has attempted to impose from above. (Woolard, 1989: 3) Another writer, Ronald Wardhaugh, makes the following remark about immigration into the Basque country: Other Spaniards who move to the Basque area and there is considerable migration to this the wealthiest part of Spain with its shipyards, steel mills, and manufacturing centres do not learn Basque. (Wardhaugh, 1987: 124) There appears the distinction of social class. In Galicia the native language is spoken by the peasants, the workers and the fishermen by most of the population in fact. The social prestige of Galician is low, but the percentage of speakers is very high. A new development is the support that the Galician intellectuals (university lecturers, teachers, young writers) are now giving to the recovery of the language. Their main task in the field of status planning is to promote the 'dignification' of Galician and, in the field of corpus planning, to solve the problem posed by the existence of conflicting norms: the officially-adopted norm; the one proposed by the lusistas, who favour linguistic union with Portuguese; and those who are partisans of a middle-way norm of compromise and concord (Pena & Rosales, 1987: 109). Whatever the prospects and the short-term developments, it is clear that Galician has moved away from the catastrophic state described by Xesús Alonso Montero (1973) in pessimistic terms. Altogether different is the situation of Catalan in Catalonia, where the language with social prestige is Catalan. In fact, there seems to be among most of the immigrants the desire to integrate and to assimilate into Catalan society, if not themselves, at least for the sake of a better future for their children. That is, of course, a social movement to which the españolistas are strongly opposed. The supporters of this school of thought are vehement defenders of the linguistic rights of the immigrants. For them, to promote inside Catalonia the shift from Castilian to Catalan is cultural genocide. Such are the views of the intellectuals who signed in 1981 the Manifiesto por la igualdad de derechos lingüísticos en Cataluña (reproduced in Mollà & Palanca, 1987: 403) and of Federico Jiménez Losantos (1979) in his celebrated book Lo que queda de España. A subgroup within the opponents to Catalan becoming the normal language of Catalan society is made up of State officials who consider discriminatory to demand the knowledge of Catalan in the case of civil servants who are to deal with Catalan taxpayers and Catalan citizens in the course of their duties (Tolívar Alas, 1987). We are indeed far from Switzerland, where linguistic assimilation is considered a moral obligation and a civic duty, and where the territorial principle applies at the cantonal level while the citizen can address himself to the federal institutions in any of the three official languages. There have been in Catalonia some attempts to give Castilian the consideration of language of social prestige. Catalans have used the arm of ridicule to oppose this move. A writer of comedies, Santiago Rusiñol, satirised lan-

< previous page

page_109

next page >

< previous page

page_110

next page > Page 110

guage adaptation as a means of social advancement in the bourgeoisie. In Gente bien ('The Right People'), he chronicles the efforts of a newly ennobled manufacturer to convert his Catalan household into overnight aristocrats. The Count insists on the shift from Catalan to Castilian whenever familiar intimacy gives way to polite public conversation. His mother, who speaks Castilian with difficulty, protests. He replies: 'Of course we will suffer and we will suffer greatly! When I speak Castilian for a few hours, my throat becomes as dry as toast. But it is the fashion, so we must speak it.' (McDonogh, 1986: 119) The situation of Basque differs from that of the other two languages. As the centuries-long process of Romanisation has advanced, its geographical area has diminished and the number of Basque speakers has relatively gone down. Nowadays, out of a population of over 2,000,000 inhabitants, a fraction of 20%30% use it as everyday language. In addition to mass immigration, the existence of dialects is another obstacle to social diffusion. It might be that the adoption of a unified norm, the euskera batua, will contribute to the solution of the dialectal division. Besides, there are writers who affirm that the Basques have always regarded ethnicity and their claim to a territory as their key identifying characteristics. They regard themselves as a separate group of people with a long historical association to a particular piece of territory. To many Basques language is a secondary issue. (Wardhaugh, 1987: 126) That is definitely not the view of a French expert, Jacques Alliéres. For him, le fait linguistique est en l'occurrence fondamental: c'est par sa langue qu'un Basque se définit lui-même en se désignant comme Euskaldun, puisque le terme signifie 'qui possède l'euskara' ou langue basque et de la même façon Euskal-herri 'Pays basque' s'analyse en euskal + herri 'pays', c'est-à-dire 'pays de la langue basque'. (Allières, 1986: 3) Language Normalisation The aims of the laws of linguistic normalisation are, among others, the promotion of the use of the native language in the judicial field, in public administration, in education, in mass media and in the registration of documents. With reference to Catalonia, Modest Reixach (1988) comments that: In the years passed since the promulgation of these laws (Constitution, Statute of Autonomy, Law of Linguistic Normalization) a remarkable progress has been made, but large gaps have appeared both in the contents of the legal norms and in their application. (Reixach, 1988: 141) In spite of the many lacunae still existing, explicable but not acceptable, it must be recognized that the attitude and practice of the local and autonomous administrations is entirely favourable, generally speaking, to the restoration and normalization of Catalan. (Reixach, 1988: 142)

< previous page

page_110

next page >

< previous page

page_111

next page > Page 111

Attitude of the Central Administration The attitude of the central administration and of its services is, on the contrary, unfavourable to the recovery of the minority languages. All the services that have not been transferred to the autonomous communities form the 'peripheric administration of the State', that is, the institutional structure through which central government is administered at a local level through a system of delegated administration (Donaghy & Newton, 1987: 78). It is necessary to bear in mind that the services of the peripheric administration are numerous and important: dependencies of the central administration, military offices, police forces, courts of justice, state enterprises, etc. Towards minority languages, the attitude of these bodies is almost always one of indifference, of despise in some cases. Some incidents involving police personnel have recently been talked about. This is the treatment that was given to a citizen of the Catalan town of Granollers who went to a police station to ask for a copy of the police report concerning the theft of his motor bicycle. The police agent said to him: 'En castellano o nada' ('In Castilian or nothing') and refused to deal with his request. On 9th June 1988, the director-general of the Spanish Police, José María Rodríiguez Colorado, dismissed in the following terms the complaint that the citizen of Granollers had sent to the Minister of the Interior in Madrid: 'En este caso concreto no me siento obligado a darle explicaciones., ('In this particular case I do not feel that I should give you any explanation whatsoever.') This arrogant attitude is not without precedents. Years ago when speaking Basque, Catalan or Galician, it was common to be told 'Habla en cristiano' ('Speak Christian') and 'No ladres' ('Don't bark'). Just after the Civil War, the command was 'Habla la lengua del lmperio' ('Speak the language of the Empire'). That last command was amazing, not to say preposterous. The whole country was in ruins after the devastations of the war. Other Attitudes The attitude of some Castilian-speaking linguists is particularly difficult to understand. One would think that, by inclination and trade, they, of all people, would tend towards comprehension and respect for the other languages spoken in Spain and for languages in general. Professor Gregorio Salvador, 'cuando me pongo utópico y soñador', dreams of a day when the languages of the world will be reduced to half a dozen. Naturally, he counts on Spanish being one of them (Salvador, 1987: 19). In this connection, one should perhaps have in mind the enormous influence that Ortega y Gasser exercised and still exercises on Spanish intellectuals. It was Ortega who said in España invertebrada: Spain is a thing made by Castile and there are reasons to believe that, in general, only Castilian minds have the appropriate organs to grasp the great problem of integral Spain. (Ortega, 1921) (España es una cosa hecha por Castilla, y hay razones para ir sospechando que, en general, sólo cabezas castelianas tienen órganos adecuados para percibir el gran problema de la España integral.) Of course, he was a Castilian himself.

< previous page

page_111

next page >

< previous page

page_112

next page > Page 112

Final Remarks We can easily agree with Ortega that Spain is a thing made by Castile. And yet, the recognition of the linguistic diversity of Spain and the establishment of a new cultural and political structure able to accommodate the various identities are absolute necessities in a modern Spain. For the minority languages in Spain, starting from 1975, the situation has changed, is changing, and may still change in the future. The obstacles to linguistic normalisation are enormous. Historical inertia, the sheer fact of uniformism having lasted so long, is a tremendous obstacle against change and in favour of immobilism. The vested interests of the civil servants in the maintenance of unilingual communication within the State administration are in contradiction with the linguistic rights of the taxpayer citizens who speak another language. For police officers, it is easier to be rude than to make the effort of learning another language. Some sectors of the Defence establishment are very reluctant to accept that in Spain linguistic pluralism is a fact. It was encouraging to learn in 1988 that in Barcelona military officers would be following courses of instruction in Catalan. It was disappointing to read in El País (16th June 1989) that in 1989 the Mediterranean Command had denied leave to 23 civilian employees of the Navy in Catalonia who desired to attend a free-of-charge course of Catalan organised by the Catalan administration for the benefit of civil servants. Traditionally uniformist attitudes, both private and public, are strongly against the acceptance of a territorial solution for the language question. If in some future day, which seems far away, the Castilian-speaking schoolchildren are objectively taught about the cultural diversity of the country, it will take a very long time before a change makes itself felt in the mental outlook of the linguistic majority. For this linguistic majority, it is a firm and unalterable belief that, while the Castilian-speaking area is the domain of a single language, Castilian speakers have the divine right to be linguistically at home in the whole country. (See, for instance, García de la Concha (1986).) On the side of the minority languages, the situation is extremely complex. It would be difficult to apply a linguistic typology for describing multilingualism in Spain such as the one proposed by Professor Robert Chaudenson (1988) for the francophone area. If one single conclusion has to be reached, it will be that the differences far outnumber the analogies between the 'great' minority languages Basque, Catalan and Galician. Even within the Catalan-speaking area, the differences are major elements in any sociolinguistic analysis. Bibliography I General Chaudenson, R. (1988) Propositions pour une grille d'analyse des situations linguistiques de l'espace francophone. Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique & Institut d'études créoles et francophones. Paris/Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence. Donaghy, P. J. and Newton, M. T. (1987) Spain A Guide to Political and Economic Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Femández Sevilla, J. (1986) Algunos aspectos y problemas del multilingüismo. In Manuel Alvar (co-ordinator) Lengas peninsulares y proyección hispánica. Madrid: Fundación Friedrich Ebert & Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana.

< previous page

page_112

next page >

< previous page

page_113

next page > Page 113

García de la Concha, V. (ed.) (1986) El castellano actual en las comunidades bilingües de España. Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Gispert, C. and Prats, J. M. (1978) España: Un estado plurinacional. Barcelona: Blume. Jiménez Losantos, F. (1979) Lo que queda de España. Barcelona: Ajo Blanco. Mollà, T. and Palanca, C. (1987) Curs de sociolingüística Vol. 1. Alzira: Bromera. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1921) España invertebrada. Obras completas (Vol. III) (5th edn, 1962). Madrid: Revista de Occidente. Reixach, M. (1988) Consideracions sobre la normalització a Catalunya. In R. Alemany (ed.) Els processos de normalització lingüística a l'Estat espanyol actual. Alacant: Universitat d'Alacant. Salvador, G. (1987) Lengua española y lenguas de España. Barcelona: Ariel. Tolívar Alas, L. (1987) Las libertades lingüísticas. Alcalá de Henares, Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública. Wardhaugh, R. (1987) Languages in Competition. Oxford: Blackwell. II. Aragonese Conte, A., Cortés, C., Martínez, A., Nagore, F. and Vázquez, C. (1977) El aragonés: Ldentidad y problemática de una lengua. Zaragoza: Librería General. Vargas-Golarons, R. de (1988) L'aragonès, una ilengua més escrita que parlada. Diari de Barcelona 24th October. III. Aranese Climent, T. (1986) Realitat lingüística a la Val d'Aran. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament de Cultura. Viaut, A. (1987) L'Occitan gascon en Catalogne espagnole: Le Val d'Aran. Bordeaux: Maison des sciences de l'homme d'Aquitaine, Université de Bordeaux III. IV. Asturian D'Andrés, R. (1987) In Informe so la llingua asturiana/Rapport sur la langue asturienne (bilingual Asturian/French). Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. García Arias, X. L. (1984) Llingua y sociedá asturiana (2nd edn; 1st edn 1976). Uviéu: Comuña Lliteraria. Rees, A. (1988) Asturian: An unofficial language of Spain. Contact Bulletin 5 (2, September 1988). Dublin: The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. V. Basque Allières, J. (1985) Les Basques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. VI. Catalan McDonogh, G. W. (1986) Good Families of Barcelona. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Woolard, K. (1989) Double Talk. Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. VII. Galician Alonso Montero, X. (1973) Informe dramático sobre la lengua gallega. Madrid: Akal. Pena, X. R. and Rosales, M. (1987) Manual de galego urxente. Vigo: Edicións Xerais de Galicia. VIII. Reports of the Frisian Academy (EMU-project) As part of the project on European Minority Languages in Primary Education, the Frisian Academy has published the following reports on primary education in Spain: On the Basque Language in the Basque Country, by Uri Ruiz Bikandi (No. 16), on Galician in Galicia, by Santiago Esteban Radío (No. 17), and on Catalan in Catalonia, Valencia, and the Balearic Islands, by Joaquim Arenas i Sampera (No. 20).

< previous page

page_113

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i

Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages Vol. II: Western and Eastern European Papers

< previous page

page_i

next page >

< previous page

page_115

next page > Page 115

9 A Demolinguistic Analysis of the Basque Autonomous Community Derived from the Census of 1986 M. Karmen Garmendia and Xabier Aizpurua Secretariat General for Language Policy, The Basque Government, Duque de Wellington, 2, 01011 Vitoria-Gasteiz, The Basque Country, Spain Abstract The subject of the paper lies in the presentation of the 'Demolinguistic Analysis of the Basque Autonomous Community', derived from the census of 1986. This analysis has been carried out by the Secretariat General for Language Policy of the Basque Government from the information of the census provided by the Basque Institute of Statistics, as it was published in April 1989. The analysis has been elaborated from the description of two basic variables, i.e. mother tongue (Basque, Spanish, both, or others) and language competence (Basque speakers, quasi-Basque speakers, and Spanish speakers). On this basis a typology of municipalities, consisting of the following 6 types, has been set up: (1) Basque speaking, (2) Spanish speaking, (3) Fast recovery, (4) Slow recovery, (5) Slow regression and (6) Uninterrupted regression. In order to interpret the processes that are taking place with regard to the Basque language, the two basic variables have been used to construct the following indices: (A) Indices related to the population whose mother tongue is Basque: (1) Loss index-1 (mother tongue Basque), (2) Loss index-2 (mother tongue Basque and Spanish), (3) Retention index, and (4) Elaboration index. (B) Indices related to those whose mother tongue is Spanish or a language other than Basque: (1) Index of oral active incorporation, (2) Index of written active incorporation, (3) Index of active incorporation, and (4) Index of passive incorporation. Main data about the Basque Autonomous Community (both variables and indices) are presented according to the provinces (historic territories), age groups, professional situation and qualification levels. Introduction The Basque Country, 'Euskal Herria' in Basque language, is situated on both sides of the occidental Pyrenees, up to the Adour river in the north and the Ebro river in the south (see Figure 1).

< previous page

page_115

next page >

< previous page

page_116

next page > Page 116

Figure 1 Euskal Herria in Europe From an administrative point of view, Euskal Herria belongs to two states. The continental Basque Country, consisting of three provinces, is located in the north of the Pyrenees and is included within the Department of the Atlantic Pyrenees of the French state. The peninsular Basque Country, consisting of four provinces, is located to the south of the Pyrenees and, belonging to the Spanish state, is divided into two autonomous communities, namely: The Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) and the Foral Community of Navarre. Spatially, the whole area is 20,644 square kilometres, with 2,871,704 inhabitants, 92% of which belong to the Spanish state. The average density of population is 139 inhabitants per square kilometre. The range of mountains that cross the Basque Country from east to west constitutes a natural border, which divides two worlds (the Atlantic and the Mediterranean). This explains the diversity of climate, landscape, population density, as well as cultural and linguistic diversity. Euskera and Spanish are the official languages of the Basque Autonomous Community. A basic bibliography on demography, geography, history and some other aspects of the Basque Country is given at the end of this paper. The Census of 1986: Variables and Indices The subject of this paper will lie in the presentation of the Demolinguistic Analysis of the Basque Autonomous Community, derived from the census of 1986. The term 'demolinguistics' has been used as an extension of the analysis carried out in Canada. As a matter of fact, this is an analysis of the data provided by the census from the standpoint of Euskera. It should be pointed out that this is a first approach to an analysis of this sort. Therefore, this is a step towards a further research, as will be mentioned at the end of this paper. The goal of this paper is to analyse 240 municipalities with regard to Euskera. The analysis has been carried out by the Secretariat General for Language Policy of the Basque Government from the information of the census provided by the Basque Institute of Statistics, presented in April 1989.

< previous page

page_116

next page >

< previous page

page_117

next page > Page 117

The research is focused on the description of the Basque language, Euskera, in the Basque Autonomous Community, as well as on informing about the processes that are taking place so as to design and adopt measures or strategies of language policy. Euskera in the Census of 1981 For the first time in the history of the Spanish state, the census of 1981 asks a series of questions about the original languages of the autonomous communities of Cataluña and the Basque Country. As regards the Basque Autonomous Community, the four questions included referred to understanding, speaking, reading and writing. Within each question three levels of proficiency were distinguished, namely: 'well', 'with difficulties' and 'no competence at all'. We are conscious about the fact that the meaning of these three levels differs in the Basque speaking and the Spanish speaking areas. In terms of those questions, three groups were defined, summarised as follows: (1) Basque speakers: people who understand and speak Euskera well and who read and write it well, with difficulties or not at all. Needless to say that Basque speakers also master the Spanish language, except for some elderly people and children under three. (2) Quasi-Basque speakers: people who understand Euskera well or with difficulties, and speak it with difficulties or do not speak it at all, and who read and write it well, with difficulties or neither read nor write it at all. (3) Spanish speakers: people who neither understand nor speak Euskera. In addition, the census of 1981 also provides some information about the global knowledge of Euskera with regard to the variables described as follows: (1) Euskera and characteristics of the zone of residence (urban or rural zone, size of the municipality, province); (2) Euskera and characteristics of people (age, sex, marital status, original autonomous community, studies, qualification level, profession, etc.); (3) Euskera and characteristic of family (size, etc.). It should be pointed out that the census is based on subjective answers given by respondents and this self-assessment cannot be verified objectively. This characteristic, inherent in all censuses, has to be borne in mind when reading and interpreting the data. Euskera in the Census of 1986 Despite the fact that the census of 1986 gathers the same information as that of 1981, it should be pointed out that two fundamental novelties have been introduced. First of all, a new question related to mother tongue is added, i.e. what is the first language acquired during the first three years. And, in addition, a validation survey has been carded out through collecting data from 16,000 families.

< previous page

page_117

next page >

< previous page

page_118

next page > Page 118

From the two already mentioned basic variables (mother tongue as a starting point and language competence as the present-day situation) we attempt to show certain ongoing language processes that exist. To that end, Mr Zalbide, head of the Euskera service of the Department of Education, University and Research of the Basque Government, has defined the following indices. (A) Indices referring to the present linguistic competence of the inhabitants whose mother tongue is at least Euskera: (1) Retention index: percentage of the population whose mother tongue is at least Euskera and who speak Euskera correctly. (2) Development index: percentage of the population whose mother tongue is at least Euskera and who speak and write Euskera correctly. (3) Loss index-1: percentage of the population whose mother tongue is Euskera and who have lost language competence totally in this language (they cannot speak Euskera). (4) Loss index-2: percentage of the population whose mother tongues are Euskera and Spanish and cannot speak Euskera. (B) Indices of the present linguistic situation of people whose mother tongue is a language other than Euskera: (1) Oral active incorporation index: percentage of the population whose mother tongue is not Euskera but who can speak it correctly. (2) Written active incorporation index: percentage of the population whose mother tongue is not Euskera but who can write it correctly. Those who show an index of active oral and written incorporation are called 'new Basque speakers' (new Euskaldunes). Both the basic variables and the indices have been analysed in the light of other variables. For example by 'geographic distribution' (in the Basque Autonomous Community, by Historic Territories, by local areas and by municipalities), 'age' (by age groups and year by year) and 'socio-professional situation' (by professions, qualifications and employment situation). In addition, a typology of municipalities was set up that takes into account the fact that the evolution suffered by Basque speakers by age groups on the one hand, and those whose mother tongue is Euskera, on the other hand. The typology contains six different types of municipalities: (a) Spanish speaking municipalities. (b) Basque speaking municipalities. (c) Fast recovery municipalities. (d) Slow recovery municipalities. (e) Slow regression municipalities. (f) Uninterrupted regression municipalities. As a result, a municipality may be included in different types depending on the variable taken into consideration. It is understood, of course, that the linguistic situation of every municipality included in a certain type is not exactly the same. There are places which do not exactly fit in with a given type they would be variants within a type and as such they will show tendencies which will result in very different percentages

< previous page

page_118

next page >

< previous page

page_119

next page > Page 119

of Euskaldunes. In order to make this variety obvious we have differentiated, within each type, the municipalities with more than 50% Euskaldunes from the municipalities with a lower proportion. Spanish Speaking Municipalities In this type, percentages of mother tongue as well as language competence are lower than 10% in all the age groups. The municipalities of the BAC included in this group are numerous. Nevertheless, some municipalities in which just the old age group is situated between the 10% and 20% have also been included in the group (see Figure 2, the example of Agurain). Basque Speaking Municipalities This type is the opposite of the former and the value of variables (percentage of mother tongue Euskera and Basque speakers) go beyond 80% in all the age groups. In this type, as it was in the former, there are cases that do not fulfil all the characteristics mentioned. Municipalities that do not reach the established percentage in some age groups, show no significant differences (see figure 2, the example of Getaria). Fast Recovery The characteristic which defines this type is the presence of a strong recovery following an important loss. Intermediate age groups often show a stable situation after a loss such as mentioned above, with a considerable recovery in the lower age groups. It should also be noted that those municipalities in which there is a strong recovery in lower age groups, although the percentages in higher age groups are similar to those in intermediate age groups, are included in this type as a variant (see Figure 3, the example of Lezama and Gorliz). Slow Recovery In this type, although we find the same tendency as in the last type, the differences between extremes are less marked: or, in other words, neither the loss in relation to older persons nor the recovery of younger persons are as marked as in the previous type. There are municipalities which do not exactly match the characteristics which have been described above, but they have been included in this type because the process is similar (see Figure 4, the examples of Zumaia and Donostia-San Sebastian). Slow Regression The type which corresponds to slow regression areas has two main characteristics: a spectacular decrease, of more than 20% of the variables analysed for the older age groups, and a very slightly marked variation in adults and young people.

< previous page

page_119

next page >

< previous page

page_120

next page > Page 120

Figure 2 Spanish speaking municipalities (Agurain) and Basque speaking municipalities (Getaria). Full line shows mother tongue Euskera or both: dolled line shows Euskaldunes

Figure 3 Fast recovery. Full line shows mother tongue Euskera or both; dotted line shows Euskaldunes

< previous page

page_120

next page >

< previous page

page_121

next page > Page 121

Figure 4 Slow recovery. Full line shows mother tongue Euskera or both; dotted line shows Euskaldunes

Figure 5 Slow regression. Full line shows mother tongue Euskera or both; dotted line shows Euskaldunes

< previous page

page_121

next page >

< previous page

page_122

next page > Page 122

Figure 6 Uninterrupted regression. Full line shows mother tongue Euskera or both; dotted line shows Euskaldunes This regression becomes especially obvious in the three older age groups, i.e. the over 45s; the regression continues, but to a lesser extent, in under 45s, and the least important decrease corresponds to the youngest age groups (see Figure 5, the examples of Atxondo and Galdakao). Uninterrupted Regression The difference between the values of the higher and lower age groups is more pronounced because the loss process has not stopped. Almost all the cases included in this type have a strong decrease in the older age groups, the lowest alterations in the intermediate stages, and again a strong decrease in the case of the youngest age groups. Although this type is generally represented graphically by a two stage scale, in some cases it may be depicted by a three level cascade (see Figure 6, the examples of Leintz-Gatzaga and Laukiz). Results From an overall geographical point of view in the Basque Autonomous Community, the percentage of the Basque speakers is 24.66, whereas quasi-Basque speakers are 17.47% and the Spanish speakers are 57.86%.

< previous page

page_122

next page >

< previous page

page_123

next page > Page 123

Figure 7 Distribution of the population according to the results By provinces or by supramunicipal areas a close relationship between the linguistic and geographical situation is recorded. Local areas have been divided into the following four groups (see Figure 7). Group one: Basque speaking. In these municipalities those whose mother tongue is Basque as well as the Basque speakers are more than the 75% of the population. This group in percentages is 4.2% of the total population. The retention and loss indices are very positive for the conservation of the language. Group two: Non Basque speaking areas, the opposite to group one. This new group consists of municipalities that do not reach 25% with regard to mother tongue Euskera and Basque speakers. These municipalities include more than half of the population (57.4%) of the Basque Autonomous Community. The effect of those areas on the present linguistic situation and the process of language evolution is decisive. In addition, a vast majority of municipalities of more than 20,000 inhabitants are included. In these big urban areas an important process of recovery is taking place with a corresponding increase in the number of Basque speakers. Group three: Consisting of the municipalities which maintain, at present a majority of Euskaldunes. The basic variables (mother tongue at least Euskera and language competence: Euskaldunes) are situated between 50 and 75%. making 15.8% of the population. The retention indices (those who speak Euskera well and whose mother tongue is Euskera) are high, around 90%, although the loss indices are above average, both those whose mother tongue is Euskera (2%) and whose mother tongues are Euskera and Spanish (610%). There are differences in the development indices between Gipuzkoa (6065%) and Bizkaia (3133%). Group four: Finally there is the group of local areas that today are clearly castilianised, with 22.6% of the population. These are areas which have suffered a severe linguistic erosion during this century.

< previous page

page_123

next page >

< previous page

page_124

next page > Page 124

Figure 8 Basque speaking areas in the Basque Autonomous Community. Municipalities with more than 25% Euskaldunes

Figure 9 Basque speaking areas in the Basque Autonomous Community. Municipalities with more than 50% Euskaldunes

< previous page

page_124

next page >

< previous page

page_125

next page > Page 125

Figure 10 Basque speaking areas in the Basque Autonomous Community. Municipalities with more than 75% Euskalclunes The retention index in these areas is lower than the previous group. The loss index, on the other hand, is somewhat higher: from 23% for those with mother tongue Euskera and 711% for those with two mother tongues. On the other hand, starting from the definition of the Basque speaking area (Basque speakers more than 25%) and castilianised area (less than 25% Basque speaking) it is appropriate to draw attention to the following points (see Figures 810). In the Basque speaking areas the percentages of Euskaldunes, generally descends as the population size increases, whereas in non-Basque speaking areas this percentage increases with the population. It must be emphasised that 77% of the active new Euskaldunes in the Basque Autonomous Community are located in big urban areas. A further analysis of the maps leads to the following deduction. In geographical terms the Basque speaking area is compact, with the exception of some municipalities. Donostia is the only municipality of more than 100,000 inhabitants which has more than 25% Euskaldunes. In any case, the situation of the different municipalities within the Basque speaking area is not homogeneous, as we can observe in these maps of areas with more than 50 and 75% the absence of industrial belts and axes as well as the touristic municipalities on the coast. To complete the commentary concerning the situation of Euskera in the Basque Autonomous Community according to the geographic variable, it must

< previous page

page_125

next page >

< previous page

page_126

next page > Page 126

Figure 11 Typology of municipalities according to language competence be added that from the comparison of the six types of municipalities according to the criteria of language competence or mother tongue, the following phenomena are clearly observed (see Figures 11 and 12). In general, in those cases in which the types of the municipalities according to mother tongue or language competence do not coincide, the type corresponding to the latter is seen to be more dynamic and more favourable from the standpoint of language cooperation, either because the loss has been slowed down or because the recovery of Euskera has been more intense. Finally, it is noticeable that quite a lot of the castilianised areas go from the Spanish speaking type or slow regression type to the fast recovery type as there are more than 20% Euskaldunes in the youngest age group. This must be emphasised since in these municipalities Euskera has not been spoken from early times, the 16th century. The distribution of municipalities by Historic Territories (BAC, Araba, Bizkaia and Gipuzkoa) and of the inhabitants according to the types, in relation to the basic variables is indicated in Table 1 (page 130). In conclusion, although it must be pointed out that there are no local areas in the whole of the Basque Autonomous Community without any

< previous page

page_126

next page >

< previous page

page_127

next page > Page 127

Figure 11 (continued) Euskaldunes, it should not be forgotten that the nature of the Basque speaking area is heterogeneous and the existence of only small groups of Euskaldunes in certain areas creates serious problems for the knowledge, use and transmission of Euskera (see Figure 13). Using the age variable, three main groups have been considered: young people, adults and elderly people. The youngest age groups, the under 35s, have the highest development and retention indices. In the comparison between those whose mother tongue is at least Euskera and Euskaldunes according to language competence in all age groups over 30, the percentage of those who have at least Euskera as their mother tongue is higher than that of the Euskaldunes, whereas in all the under 30 age group the situation is reversed. This indicates the achievement of the campaigns for the literacy and Basquisation of adults, started in 1965, and also the achievement of the Basquisation of the educational system, coming from 1979 (see Figure 14). In continuation with the comments above on Euskera as mother tongue, it may be observed that starting from the oldest age groups, the percentages progressively decrease until the age of 12. In fact, among the youngest of this age group the figures for those whose mother tongue is Euskera and Spanish

< previous page

page_127

next page >

< previous page

page_128

next page > Page 128

Figure 12 Typology of municipalities according to mother tongue do not decrease, but actually increase to a certain degree. If this phenomenon were to persist in the years to come, it would mean that Euskaldune families are undergoing a behavioural change, that is, the family transmission of Euskera to the children has increased. On the other hand, and as a characteristic of this transmission, it must be pointed out that although, at present, Euskera dominates as mother tongue over Euskera and Spanish together, the joint transmission of the two languages is progressively gaining strength (see Figure 15). Considered as a whole, the youngest age groups are linguistically the most active, not only for the high retention index, but also for the indices of development and incorporation which are highest among these age groups. People between the age of 30 and 75 are included in the group of adults. This brings together, from a demographic standpoint, the highest percentage of the population and the linguistic situation of the Basque Autonomous Community is conditioned by it. The lowest percentages of those whose mother tongue is Euskera and of Euskaldunes are found in the subgroup of 3050 years olds. This subgroup refers to the part of the population born between 1936 and 1956 (Civil War

< previous page

page_128

next page >

< previous page

page_129

next page > Page 129

Figure 12 (continued) and subsequent repression) and also includes the highest percentage of citizens born outside the Basque Country who have immigrated, mainly between 1955 and 1975. In the group of elderly people we have included those citizens over the age of 70. In general, this group has a very high retention index and a very low loss index. The development index as well as the incorporation index are considerably below average. This is a group of people that have mostly limited themselves to conserving their knowledge of the spoken language. By professions, more than half of the farmers and fishermen speak Euskera (54%); the retention index is almost 100%; loss index 1 is 0.7% and loss index 2 is 16.6%. The lowest percentage of Euskaldunes, on the other hand, are found among service personnel (20%) and retailers and sales personnel (22%). Other professions are between 20 and 30%, with the exception of management staff, for whom the basic variables are between 35 and 40%. This data is to be emphasised. On the other hand, despite the fact that the highest proportion of Euskaldunes is found among farmers and fishermen, they also have the lowest percentage in development, oral incorporation and written incorporation indices. High percentages among professional and technical staff also stand out in the

< previous page

page_129

next page >

< previous page

page_130

next page > Page 130

Table 1 Population and number of municipalities in each historic territory, according to the language typology Mother tongue Euskera or both Number of Municipalities Type Population BAC Araba Bizka. Gipuzk. Spanish speaking (B) 981,270 68 48 20 0 Basque speaking (G) 61,581 72 1 33 38 Fast recovery (K) 11,783 5 0 5 0 Slow recovery (P) 495,261 31 1 5 25 Slow regression (A) 547,786 46 1 28 17 Uninterrupted regression (E) 13,800 11 0 8 3 Unclassified (EG) 4,166 3 0 3 0 Total 2,117,257 236 51 102 83 Language competence: Euskaldunes Number of Municipalities Type Population BAC Araba Bizka. Gipuzk. Spanish speaking (B) 605,794 59 40 19 0 Basque speaking (G) 82,656 69 1 30 38 Fast recovery (K) 269,775 45 8 14 23 Slow recovery (P) 817,948 16 1 8 7 Slow regression (A) 255,441 29 0 17 12 Uninterrupted regression (E) 34,598 12 0 10 2 Unclassified (EG) 6,762 6 1 4 1 Total 2,072,974 236 51 102 83 Note: The municipalities that in language competence (Euskaldunes) and mother tongue (Euskera or Euskera and Spanish) have a zero value in all age groups are included in the table in Spanish speaking type (see Figure 13). development, oral and written incorporation indices. Similar figures to the above also apply to literate Euskaldunes: the highest percentages are among professional and technical staff, 80.3%. The data shows that there is a tendency among professional and technical staff as well as among elites, for Euskera to become strengthened by literacy courses for native speakers of Euskera and language courses by which non native speakers of Euskera have come to master spoken and written Euskera. As this pattern gets stronger there will undoubtedly be a change in the quality of the social environment of Euskera, traditionally linked to rural and fishing ambits. By qualifications, those who have high educational studies reveal the highest percentage in the elaboration, oral and written active incorporation indices. There is a high percentage of literate Euskaldunes among Euskaldune university students, the average being 81.64%. Euskaldun university students can be found in every university department. There are a total of 27,300 literate Euskaldunes with university qualifications.

< previous page

page_130

next page >

< previous page

page_131

next page > Page 131

Figure 13 Distribution of the population according to models

Figure 14 Percentage of those in the Basque Autonomous Community whose mother tongue is Euskera or both (thin line) and of Euskaldunes (thick line), year by year Future Studies We will present some ideas to progress in the elaboration of future studies that allow the adoption of several performance measures. Once the first analysis of the knowledge of Euskera within the Basque Autonomous Community (from data provided by the census of 1986) is concluded, there are three relevant aspects towards the design of new steps to progress in the sociolinguistic study for language planning in the Basque Autonomous Community. These are the following:

< previous page

page_131

next page >

< previous page

page_132

next page > Page 132

Figure 15 Mother tongue year by year in the Basque Autonomous Community. (a) Spanish, (b) Euskera, (c) Euskera and Spanish (a) As regards the quality of the information available, information about language competence must be handled with caution since we are speaking about a census. (b) The census shows an important recuperation of the absolute and relative knowledge of Euskera, above all for the under 25 population group. (c) In terms of rates, the highest number of Basque speakers is located in the big urban areas. From the three points mentioned above, the following is proposed. Validation of the information available and elaboration of multivariable analysis that will integrate, among others, variables related to levels of knowledge, attitudes and use, a measure recommended by J. A. Fishman since 1986. These analyses should be predictive in nature and should especially focus on the population between 2045 years as well as on the big urban areas. Bibliography Atlas of the Census. A Portrait of New York City from the 1980 Census. City of New York: Department of City Planning (1985). Cartwright, Don. (1986) Language related data from the Census of Canada: Benefits and limitations to analysis and planning. Department of Geography, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada: (a) Geolinguistics in the context of status language planning. (b) The impact of minority on language policy and the impact of language policy on minority in Quebec (1983). (c) Bilingual districts: the elusive territorial component in Canada's languages act. Conseil de la Langue FranÇaise (1985) Contribution à la demolinguistique du Québec. Michel Paillé. (1986a) Les aspects demolinguistiques de l'evolution de la population du Québec. Bibliothèque Nationale du Québec. (1986b) Aspects demolinguistiques de l'avenir de la population du Québec. Euskaltzaindia (1978) El libro blanco del euskera. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia. (1979) Conflicto lingüístico en Euskadi. Bilbao: Ediciones Vascas.

< previous page

page_132

next page >

< previous page

page_133

next page > Page 133

Garmendia, Carmen (1985) Approche de l'histoire basque. Les ikastolas en Pays Basque d'Espagne. Les questions du bilinguisme scolaire. These pour l'obtention du doctorat de 3è cycle en psychologie présentée le 18 Janvier 1985 à l'université Louis Pasteur Strasbourg I, U.E.R. des sciences du comportement et de l'environnement. Gobierno Vasco (1983) La lucha del euskera. Una encuesta básica: conocimiento, uso, actitudes. Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones. (1984) Atlas Lingüistico Vasco. Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones. Lamy, P. (ed.) (1977) Language Maintenance and Language Shift in Canada. New Dimensions in the Use of Census Language Data. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

< previous page

page_133

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i

Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages Vol. II: Western and Eastern European Papers

< previous page

page_i

next page >

< previous page

page_135

next page > Page 135

10 'Our Dialect Sounds Stupid': The Importance of Attitudes to So-called Sub-standard Language Codes as a Factor in the (Non) Retention of Slovene in Carinthia, Austria Tom Priestly Department of Slavic and East European Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E6, Canada Abstract This is an examination of the role played by attitudes towards 'dialect' in the linguistic decisions made by Carinthian Slovenes. In Carinthia, the general European negative attitudes to 'dialect' are reinforced by a specific set of beliefs, based on a construct called the Windischentheorie according to which speakers of Carinthian Slovene dialects are not only (typically) poor and illiterate peasants, but have lost the ethnic and cultural identity that they originally shared with other Slavs. The interrelationship of this theory with various components of widely-held linguistic attitudes is traced, and then some of the effects of these attitudes are discussed. Introduction: The Carinthian Bilingual Area Along the northern slopes of the Karawanken/Karavanke mountains in Carinthia/Kärnten/Koroska *, Austria, lives a minority language group which makes the news seldom outside of its own province, and virtually never outside Austria: the Slovenes. Dialects of Slovene, the most north-westerly of the South Slavic languages, have been spoken in this area for about 1,500 years, i.e. longer than German; but the German-speakers have been in political power for the last 1,000 of those years, and have been for centuries numerically superior in Carinthia as a whole. The Slovene-speaking area has been shrinking for many generations, and only in a few villages are unashamedly 'open' speakers of Slovene in a majority.1

< previous page

page_135

next page >

< previous page

page_136

next page > Page 136

The pressure of German, the use of which has swamped Slovene in extensive areas of the formerly bilingual part of Carinthia including the capital (Klagenfurt/Celovec) itself and is supplanting Slovene in all the larger towns and many of the villages, is apparent in even the most remote hamlets; but there are some areas where German cannot yet be said to have gained much of a foothold, in the sense that its use is very restricted. Nevertheless, all Carinthian Slovenes born since the war (and many of their elders) are fully bilingual, and a few of the younger speakers even in the least Germanised areas appear to show signs of being 'uneven bilinguals', i.e. to know Slovene appreciably worse than German. This part of Austria is ideal for studying the interplay between social, economic, political and cultural factors and language use. This is an excellent example of a 'language-and-culture contact zone': here Germanic, Romance and Slavic speakers are in geographic contact that has lasted (more or less) twelve centuries (indeed, this is the only autochthonous such area). Here, as much as or even more than elsewhere, language is considered to be closely linked to ethnic identity. 2 The equation of 'language' and 'ethnic group' which received its fair share of attention in Carinthia during the nineteenth century, became exacerbated in the 1910s and 1920s by bitter political disputes; this province most fervently embraced National Socialism in the 1930s and nowadays appears to house a disproportionate number of extremist right-wing organisations, many of which vociferously equate language with nationalism.3 The bilingual area in Carinthia is far from uniform. Cities vary markedly from villages; some districts are much more Germanised than others; and some towns and villages appear to be much more ethnically conscious than others, even when these others are Germanised to a similar degree. Moreover, the differences in language-usage between generations vary from place to place. My own observations relate in particular to three communities: a village (population: a little under 1,000), which is about 98% native Slovene-speaking and located in an isolated valley; a busy market town (population: about 10,000), about 10% native Slovene-speaking; and Klagenfurt/Celovec (population: about 100,000), about 1% native Slovene-speaking; but my general remarks apply to the whole bilingual area. It should also be emphasised that the relative stability of the language situation which characterised earlier centuries has given way to typical twentieth-century turbulence, exemplified by the excesses of the Nazi period (when the use of Slovene was often equated with adherence to the Yugoslav-based antiNazi partisans) and more recently by quite sudden changes, apparently depending to a marked extent on economic factors, in linguistic uses in border areas. Language Choices Since both in German and in Slovene there is a range between local dialect forms and the literary standard, there are altogether four alternative extremes: on the Slovene side, Standard Literary Slovene [SS] and the local Carinthian Slovene dialects [DS]; on the German side, the 'High' variety, Standard Hochdeutsch [SG] (in its Austrian variant), and the 'Low' Kärntnerisch dialects [DG]. In this paper I ignore the question of when one or another variety of German is used, and restrict myself to the choice between SS and DS: the lefthand side of the following:

< previous page

page_136

next page >

< previous page

page_137

next page > Page 137

HI:

SS

SG

LO:

DS

DG

In other words, once bilingual Carinthians have (consciously or subconsciously) chosen to speak Slovene rather than German, what determines their use of their dialect rather than literary Slovene, or the reverse? 4 First, a few remarks on the background. In localities with preponderant Slovene-speaking and 'ethnically-conscious' populations, DS is the normal medium and SS is taught, and used as a medium of instruction, to all who opt for it in the primary schools5; those who go on to the Slovene Gymnasium in Klagenfurt/Celovec continue to be taught SS, and taught partly in SS, regularly until they graduate; while those who go instead to the other schools available (the local Hauptschulen and various technical schools) may choose to have instruction in SS, but this is not extensive. In some localities, SS is also used at all the church services, and at various cultural events, and is available in periodicals and on radio (and, depending on the topography, on TV). Localities with smaller and/or less 'ethnically-conscious' minority populations have somewhat less, or much less, opportunity to speak and hear either DS and SS. As for German, the extremes of dialect and standard also obtain: DG is spoken in all non-formal circumstances by those who cannot or do not choose to speak Slovene; and SG is taught in school, used as the instructional medium in all schools, and available to all who want to listen to and/or read it in the media. In both Slovene and German various intermediate varieties, in between the two (dialectal and standard) extremes, may be used in specific contexts.6 The question that I ask is: why do individuals speak what they speak when they speak it? In considering this question, I try to distinguish 'automatic' from 'deliberate' linguistic choices. My comments here refer primarily to the more isolated and ethnically conscious communities. Automatic Language Choice Once the decision to speak Slovene (rather than German) has been made, bilingual Carinthian Slovenes do not have to make very many conscious linguistic choices: DS is automatic in some situations, and SS is automatic in others. A joke among neighbours in the village inn in SS is as unlikely as a sermon in DS. If one's interlocutor does not speak SS (and this is true of a number of less educated members of the older generations), then there is no choice: DS is used unquestioningly. Moreover, virtually every familial situation, and almost every agricultural and forestry situation, acts as the locus for the use of the dialect. On the other hand, SS is used 'automatically' in ecclesiastic contexts, i.e. in those churches where and whenever German is not used; and it is the first and apparently the only choice for all 'cultural' uses thus, meetings of local 'Cultural Societies', the weekly newspapers, radio and TV programmes, and so on i.e. all institutions where the standard language bears a symbolic 'cultural' value. Non-automatic Language Choice There are very few situations where bilingual Carinthian Slovenes may be said to deliberately choose one of their native Slovene varieties rather than

< previous page

page_137

next page >

< previous page

page_138

next page > Page 138

another. I have indeed noted only the following three rather trivial examples: (a) the village council in one small village will switch between SS and DS in their deliberations: SS is the written language for the minutes (protokol) and DS is the normal oral medium; if they are being officially visited by Slovenophone dignitaries from the provincial capital, they will switch to SS; (b) among all the Slovene literature that has been and is produced in Carinthia, only two pieces (to my knowledge) have been written in DS rather than in SS: a political satire by one author, Janko Messner (1974), and a handful of rustic verses by one poet, Milka Hartman (1977). It is noteworthy that in the latter case, Hartman has written no fewer than 26 poems in SS for every one that she has written in her own local DS; (c) it does not always appear easy to predict what variety of Slovene will be used by one of the many small local choirs; some songs are sung in SS and some in DS, while others are sung in a kind of indeterminate (and linguistically not otherwise occurrent) intermediate variety. Factors Involved in Choice of Code I do not discuss how many of the beliefs and superstitions that underlie the attitudes to the High and Low varieties are based on facts; and I dismiss the question whether any such facts can perhaps be changed. It is enough that, as will be seen (and as might be expected), there is such a battery of weapons ranged on the side of SS: what is believed (not what ought to be believed) is what matters when it comes to questions of linguistic use. Before listing the factors involved, let me mention some of the available evidence. Carinthia: Some Data Applications of the 'Matched Guise Technique' in Carinthia provide some clues. In an experiment carried out in 1979, students in the Slovenska gimnazija (Slovene High School) in Klagenfurt/Celovec showed, among other results, that they rate speakers of DS as compared to speakers of SS as higher on the scales drucaben * [sociable] and simpaticen* [friendly], and lower on the scale razumen [intelligent].7 Students at the Universität für Bildungswissenschaften in the same city, i.e. a mixture of Germanophones and Slovenophones with the former predominant, showed the same kind of results with respect to their attitudes towards LG and DG: thus, in a series of experiments between 1978 and 1983, Dialektsprecher were judged higher than Standardsprecher on the scale Vertrauenswürdigkeit [reliability], and much lower on the scales sprechfertigkeit [congeniality], and beruflicher Status [professional status].8 Results disagree in part, but agree in rating dialect-speakers lower on scales relating to status. Anecdotal evidence: In 1978 I was carrying out interviews in one locality, trying to find something out about the variation in one particular morphophonemic alternation, which obtains (variously according to lexical and grammatical factors) in nominal declensions. Armed with a questionnaire, I went from house to house and from farm to farm, asking the startled villagers to talk to me about pharmacies, about various birds, about oranges and sprucetrees, flies and fleas . . . 9 And I came one evening, weary and thirsty, to a certain inn. The beer and the cooking were, as always, very good, but I left unsatisfied: I had tried out my questionnaire with one more villager who, to

< previous page

page_138

next page >

< previous page

page_139

next page > Page 139

my chagrin, kept responding without any of the local dialectal forms. Finally I prompted him with a cue in answer to which every single other informant had used their local dialect response, and he (again) responded with a form close to the standard. In exasperation I asked him why he didn't talk like all the other villagers. He replied: 'Because it sounds stupid.' I left, discouraged and disappointed (such unimportant things can upset linguists!): I had been defeated by the SS, whose influence had penetrated to this Alpine inn and interfered with my research. Looking back later on this incident, I realised that I could have asked: 'Why d'you think that your dialect sounds stupid? ' But, on reflection, perhaps I would not have found out very much. There are so many reasons for the prejudices against DS, and many of them are only vaguely understood. Did this villager avoid the dialect forms because he shared some of the pan-European negative attitudes to dialects? Had he been imbued with some of the common Carinthian attitudes? Was he avoiding DS and cultivating SS for cultural, political, or economic reasons? There were probably many factors involved, factors that he himself was quite unaware of: and my question would probably not have yielded a useful response. Factors in Favour of DS There are a few factors that might influence the choice of DS over SS, but they carry very little weight, even among those Carinthian Slovenes who indeed recognise them as valid. They are, first, (a) the fact that DS is the mother tongue and therefore easier to learn than any other language-variety; and (b) the fact that the mother tongue forms an indispensable foundation for learning other languages. Beyond these practical benefits, there are the no less important advantages discussed at this conference by Joshua Fishman: (c) the potential for self-actualisation, and (d) the expression of the right to self-definition. Factors in Favour of SS These are more numerous, weightier, and directly affect people's attitudes. Background It surely goes without saying that the general European attitude to dialect is a negative one, 10 and is part of the legacy of European political and cultural history. Apparently, it is not equally negative in all parts of Europe, and the specific details of these negative attitudes vary from place to place.11 In any case, we can expect Carinthians to have inherited these common attitudes. In addition, as already mentioned, there have been periods of intense political pressure, during which some of the attitudes to certain language varieties have been strengthened; I deal with this aspect of the question separately below. The components of the negative attitudes to dialect, as they obtain in Carinthia today, can be described as follows:

< previous page

page_139

next page >

< previous page

page_140

next page > Page 140

Cultural Even if the vernacular in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, differs to some extent from SS, it does not differ as markedly (for the Slavist, indeed, as startlingly) as do most regional Slovene dialects; and in any case, DS is avoided by virtually all cultured persons; and so it is believed that DS is something that ought to be avoided. In addition to all the usual attributes of a standard language, SS has two specifics which enforce its cultural sacredness: (1) it serves as the common medium for speakers of extremely varied dialects, with very low levels of mutual comprehensibility, and this gives it particular importance; and (2) it has virtually never been the standard language of a fully independent state (the exception being a short period under Napoleonic rule when its linguistic status was far from well-established) and has thus had the additional cachet of being under constant threat. For Carinthians, moreover, SS is not only the language of an extensive literature, the language of the cultural centres of Slovenia; it is also (and Carinthians are especially aware of this, since it involves such a perceptible and important consideration as religion) the language of the Church, and the Church was for extremely long periods linked to education. In addition, most people believe that DS does not have the scope, the potential, the competence of SS after all, nobody has taken the trouble to enrich it with new derivations, with literary traditions, or with prescriptive dictionaries: it is culturally deprived. 12 Superstitional DS is a 'dialect' and therefore bad: SS is not a 'dialect', because it is a 'language', and is therefore automatically something preferable. Carinthians forget or, more likely, they have never been told that 'a language is a dialect with an army'; they do not know how unnatural, how artificial, how prefabricated most standard languages are; they believe that dialects smell of pigs because dialects are spoken by farmers.13 Puristic DS is also a priori believed to have so many Germanisms in it that it is automatically suspect, even tainted, as a communicative vehicle for those who do prefer to demonstrate their ethnic allegiance. SS, on the other hand (even if it has more lexical borrowings from non-Slavic languages in it than most Standard Slavic languages) has since its cultivation in the nineteenth century been cleansed of a number of obvious German lexical and syntactical influences (see Lencek, 1982: 2758). Political DS is regarded by some Carinthian Slovenes as die Sprache der Assimilanten, i.e. the language-variety cultivated by those who do not make the effort to be 'ethnically conscious Slovenes'. This aspect of the negative attitude towards DS is understandable, for Carinthians tend to be especially aware of it; it involves a political consideration which is almost as 'perceptible' as the ecclesiastical one just referred to: for DS is the language of that segment of the population called vindisarji*, viz. those ethnic Slovenes who openly cultivate the link with right-wing German nationalists and avoid any connection with Yugoslavia and hence with any of the standard languages of that nation those who avoid SS because it is the language of the 'reds under the beds'.

< previous page

page_140

next page >

< previous page

page_141

next page > Page 141

Socioeconomic DS has the traditional reputation (based on normal historical evolution) of being the language of the lowest social strata, and therefore of being something to be shunned by all who want to 'better themselves'; SS, on the other hand, is the language-variety traditionally spoken by the educated and therefore the professional classes within the Slovene community: the priests, the teachers, and others. Summary These factors not only guarantee a positive attitude towards SS; they also make it appear that the choice between standard language and dialect is a once-and-for-all choice that one can survive without the other (which is of course pure nonsense; but this fact eludes most Carinthians). 14 The Windischentheorie Those ethnically conscious Carinthian Slovenes who cultivate SS and underuse DS are, like it or not, accepting many of the basic theoretical tenets of what is known as the Windischentheorie. This quasi-academic theory was developed and promulgated by Germanophone Carinthians in the 1920s and 1930s, and although its roots go back to the nineteenth century, it received an explicit formulation not only in popular publications with right-wing political aims but also in academic publications, which provided for it an apparent authentication.15 In brief, it may be characterised as the linguistic theory that: the modern Carinthain descendants of speakers of Slavic dialects now speak a variety of language ('WINDISCH') which can no longer be categorised as Slavic, because it has been so heavily Germanised,16 but it involves a number of non-linguistic theoretical accretions. In what follows, I cite enough of its basic tenets to demonstrate that many of the commonly-held attitudes of Carinthian Slovenes towards their native dialects derive from the viewpoints so eloquently argued by the authors of this theory; i.e. that many of these attitudes are alike, whether the people who hold them think of them as 'Slovene' dialects, or as new pidginoid mutant language-styles. Presumably, Carinthian Slovenes agree with neither the starting-point nor the basic aim of the proponents of a theory which became so popular under National Socialism; but by implicitly assuming some of the attitudes with respect to the worthlessness of DS, they accept many of the arguments made by these so-called scholars. Let us look at a few, just as examples: First According to the Windischentheorie, DS is full of Germanisms (from which it follows that to avoid it is to be 'more Slovene'): cf.17 Under these circumstances cultural and linguistic mixture obviously had to thrive [better] than almost anywhere. And as the way of life of the Slovenes, their customs, their architecture, their folk beliefs, their folksongs even, are full of German elements; so also their language (and I mean their local language) . . . (Lessiak, 1910: 277) and:

< previous page

page_141

next page >

< previous page

page_142

next page > Page 142

The centuries of culture and habitation shared by the Windisch Carinthians with the German Carinthians had a fundamental influence on their Windisch dialect also. Not only did innumerable expressions for professions, and especially for various trades, for household utensils and farming tools, articles of clothing, parts of houses and farm buildings, for foods, abstract concepts, time and space, plants and animals, even German verbs and adverbs, enter Windisch as borrowings; but also Windisch word-derivation and syntax imitate German in many ways, with the result that Windisch can correctly be considered a mixed language. (Wutte, 1943: 1516) Consequently, DS is very different from SS (and hence, it is believed that to speak DS is to be 'less Slovene'): But the original language of the Carinthian Slovenes is by no means the recently and in part artificially created New Slovene Literary Language, but rather the well-known Carinthian Windisch, which differs in many ways from Carniolan Slovene and from New Slovene . . . Winidisch, therefore, developed historically, whereas New Slovene was created by borrowing numerous words and expressions from the other Slavic languages into the Lower Carniolan dialect which served as its base. As a result, New Slovene was just as difficult for the Carinthian Slovenes to understand as Carniolan Slovene . . . (Wutte, 1930: 323) and: [Windisch] differs fundamentally from Literary Slovene, which was formed only in the last century by borrowing numerous words and forms from other Slavic languages and was therefore called New Slovene. (Wutte, 1943: 16) Second According to this theory, DS is the language spoken by the people who accept their 'mixed' status, those who are not ethnically conscious: i.e. it is the 'Sprache der Assimilanten': For the 'patriotic' or 'Germanophile' Slovenes are, in essence, not really Slovenes. Rather they form an intermediate grouping which stands in contrast to the national Slovenes; by their descent and language they represent a mixed type, whereas they belong ethnically much more to the Germans than to the Slovenes by the fate, life and culture that they have shared with the Germans, through their intuitive outlook and their consistent attitude to Slovene national aspirations, an attitude which has been visibly negative since the beginnings of the national question in Carinthia . . . (Wutte, 1930: 37) and: But the Carinthian Slovenes have assimilated in many ways to the Germans, not just in their language. Thus a German- and Windisch-speaking intermediate grouping has evolved which calls itself by the old name 'Windisch'; but this in no way represents a separate nation, but rather one that by its descent and likewise by its shared abode, life, fate and culture is closely

< previous page

page_142

next page >

< previous page

page_143

next page > Page 143

bound to the Germans and acknowledges itself as part of the German ethnic community. (Wutte, 1943: 16) Third DS is the language of the lowest social level, i.e. the superstition is correct: it is a lowly (and, by extension, an odorous) dialect: Indeed part of the farming population in its intimate daily life speaks Windisch, whereas the cities and market towns, the businessmen and officials in a word, the so-called 'better' people (apart from some trivial exceptions) speak German only. The Windisch people themselves only resort to German when they use higher social registers. In bilingual Southern Carinthia a Windisch-speaking farmer is a surprise to no-one; but a respectablydressed person would excite much attention if he were to speak Windisch; for he is duty bound to the higher social registers and hence to the use of German . . . The language of the home, which in comparison with the language of business is considered, in and of itself and by people on both sides, as something second-rate if not actually coarse, is gradually assimilating to the superposed model. (Kranzmayer, 1937: 2667) Summary It is clear that the general attitudes to Low varieties of Slovene, as described above, reflect the overall negative feelings towards 'dialects' that typify Europe since the time of Herder, with in addition specific local attitudes which may have some of their origin, and must have been at least encouraged, by the Germannationalist theories excerpted here. There is much more on this subject in the literature on the situation in Carinthia; 18 the specifics of the Carinthian attitudes may add something of interest to technical writings on language attitudes.19 Effects of These Attitudes I now briefly sketch the most striking effects of these negative attitudes to the Slovene dialects in Carinthia. Evidence for these remarks is mostly from my own observations and is anecdotal rather than strictly 'scientific'. First, ethnically-conscious Carinthian Slovenes cultivate SS and (deliberately or not) underuse DS; this is the immediate effect of the 'puristic' attitude which, like all attitudes, may be and often is taken to excess. Holders of this attitude (implicitly) assume the 'worthlessness' of DS and thereby (unwittingly) accept the consequences of the LessiakWutte-Kranzmeyer theories outlined above. In particular, this attitude leads to avoidance of native Slovene dialects not only in public (which is the general rule in most parts of Carinthia) but also (in some places) in the home. Wherever this extreme kind of attitude obtains, the inevitable consequence is that some children grow up without access to the language structure of their parents' speech and hence unable to speak any language properly. This brings me to the paradox (an obvious one to me, but I fear not obvious to all Carinthians) that a negative attitude towards DS will sooner or later result (and in some instances, has already resulted)20 in its not being spoken

< previous page

page_143

next page >

< previous page

page_144

next page > Page 144

enough; and that insufficient use of their mother tongue will deprive Carinthian Slovenes of the necessary foundation for learning SS, for learning SG, indeed for learning any other language. Second, the natural concomitant of disrespect for the Low variety is an exaggerated respect for the High variety, SS, among those who do not allow themselves to be linguistically assimilated. In my strictly linguistic fieldwork in Carinthia and especially during the first few years of my visits I frequently had to battle against my informants' preference to speak SS rather than DS with me, even when they knew I was trying to learn their dialect, and even when I (with some truth) disclaimed an ability to speak SS. There is one immediate consequence of the high respect in which SS has been held: namely, that since 1948 it has been the standard language of the Yugoslav Republic of Slovenia, those who cultivate it may become associated with pro-communist sympathisers. This association was, at least until the early 1980s, a very easy target for mockery on the part of Carinthian Germanophone extremists who wished to denigrate ethnically-conscious Carinthian Slovenes; all they had to do was equate Slowenischsprecher (note: now, mendaciously, differentiated in an exaggerated way from Windischsprecher!) with Titokommunisten. This aspect of the question has recently faded into the background with the liberal and capitalist developments in the Slovene Republic. Thirdly, Carinthia has witnessed the almost automatic consequence of what has just been described: the polarisation of its minority Slovene-speaking community into those who speak their native Slovene only when they cannot be overheard, and those who regard its use as a proud symbol of ethnic allegiance. This polarisation can be observed macroscopically and microscopically. First, when different geographical regions of Carinthia are contrasted, it is clear that population centres of equal size and equal ethnic, social and economic composition may differ primarily in this respect: for example, villages of equal size and composition in the west and in the east of the minority region will be audibly different to the visitor precisely because in the former almost nobody will speak Slovene (of any kind) in the presence of an unknown bystander, whereas in the latter almost everybody will speak Slovene (normally, DS) and not care one whit for the consequences, whoever is listening. Microscopically, even within single families, the same polarisation may be observed. Conclusion As a brief conclusion, I make some points that range from known facts through near-certainties to speculation. The factual point de départ is the demonstrated retreat of Slovene in Southern Carinthia over recent centuries and especially since World War I, and the corresponding advance of German. Also certain is the fact that the minority Slovene speakers have extreme negative attitudes to the dialects they speak, much more negative than any disrespect, disregard or disinterest they feel towards Standard Literary Slovene. Certain, too, is the fact that these negative attitudes mirror, in many particulars, components of the German-nationalist and National-Socialist policies towards the non-Germans in Carinthia and the varieties of Slovene that they speak.

< previous page

page_144

next page >

< previous page

page_145

next page > Page 145

I consider a near-certainty a cause-and-effect connection between the negative attitudes of the Slovene minority to their own dialects and the rapid Germanisation of large parts of Southern Carinthia. Since such a small proportion of the Carinthian Slovenes had, for so long, only a passive command of Standard Slovene, I think it obvious that it was, as a general rule, Dialect Slovene (rather than the standard language) which was rejected in favour of German. In other words, and referring to the chart below, I suggest that German was preferred to Slovene under the two complementary sets of contextual circumstances. On the one hand, in those contexts where the High variety was the normal choice, language-switch to German occurred among those speakers the great majority who did not have a sufficient command of Standard Slovene; Standard German, or the nearest approximation thereto, was therefore used. On the other hand, in those contexts where the Low variety was the normal choice, language-switch to German also occurred: speakers who accepted that Dialect Slovene was a greater object of scorn than dialect German would switch to the latter; speakers who felt that any dialect was 'worse' than a standard would switch to a more standardised form of German:

I admit as speculative, on the other hand, two hypotheses; these must serve as subjects of further study: First, I do not think it proved (although it may appear probable) that these Deutschfreundlich and specifically Nazi policies actually had this depreciative effect: perhaps the glottophagic (and the linguistically self-inflicted) developments in Slovene Carinthia were quite natural and required no impetus from Germanophone elements inimical to the minority? Second, I wonder to what extent the authors of the Windischentheorie hit upon this specific linguistic policy deliberately with, so to speak, malice aforethought. It certainly appears to be the result of a well-conceived and wellexecuted plan. Were the links obvious to them between, on the one hand, the argument that Windisch was no longer really Slavic and therefore something quite acceptable to Germanophones; and on the other the (implicitly and explicitly argued) view that the same Windisch deserved an extremely low status? Or was the policy more the result of what they would consider happy chance? Notes 1. For an objective history of Carinthia, see Barker (1984). Estimates of numbers of 'native Slovene-speakers' given here are very approximate estimates of those that can speak the language. This number falls in between those who can understand, and those who not only can speak Slovene, but will openly do so. The three figures may differ greatly: the author heard, e.g. the following reliable estimate for one village: population, 1,150; people with passive knowledge of Slovene, 800; people with active knowledge of Slovene, 500; people willing to speak Slovene openly, 80. Census data differ enormously from estimates by 'ethnically conscious' Carinthian Slovenes, and from objective measures: cf. a scholarly survey in which 75% of the population of Velikovec/Völkermarkt admitted to understanding 'some Slovene', and 55% admitted to 'understanding Slovene well' (Flaschberger & Reiterer, 1980: 735) and the figures of the 1971 census, in which only 7.6% of the same city were reported as 'Slowenen': and of

< previous page

page_145

next page >

< previous page

page_146

next page > Page 146

the 1981 census with only 3.1% of the total reported as speakers of Slovene or 'Windisch' (see below) (Unkart, Glantschnig & Ogris, 1984: 1067). Note too that between 1976 and 1982 Velikovec schoolchildren registered for Slovene instruction ranged between 1.3% and 2.4% (Unkart, Glantschnig & Ogris, 1984: 125). 2. On the overriding salience of language as the carrier of ethnic identity, see, e.g. Fishman (1977: 25), Bourhis (1979: 118), Ross (1979), Giles & Johnson (1981). 3. E.g., Galanda et al. (1981: 171225) list 11 extreme right-wing organisations in Carinthia. This is an excellent example of St Clair's (1982: 165) observation, ' . . . the more conservative a nation becomes, the more it uses language as a constraint against . . . minorities in order to deny them access to the mainstream culture'. 4. Cf. Priestly (1989), an effort to make a similar distinction in analysing bilinguals' choices between German and Slovene; for a different approach to Slovene-German bilingual situations, see Minnich (1988). 5. The choice of language of instruction is now under review, following a campaign to restrict bilingual education in the primary schools by some right-wing organisations, with the outcome not yet final. All but the most recent developments are documented: see, e.g., CEDRI (1985), Gstettner & Larcher (1985), Gstettner (1988). 6. For an example of 'mini-switching' between DS and SS, see Priestly (1980a). 7. See Priestly (1983) for details. 8. Braunstein, Köberl & Stückler (1979), Köberl & Stückler (1984). 9. See Priestly (1980b) for the linguistic details. 10. To take one topical example: Boelens (1987) takes pains to prove that Frisian is not a 'dialect' but a 'language' and cf. Jo Daan's paper at this conference and Trudgill & Giles (1978). The historical background to these attitudes are generally but not precisely known; see Smith (1981: 4568) and Steinberg (1987) for two approaches to this question. We should pay more attention to the history of these ideas (' . . . the odd thing about the questione della lingua is how rarely historians ask it', Steinberg, 1987: 199). Cf. Paul (1968) for a useful discussion, though now over a century old. 11. For examples of differences in attitudes to dialects, see Edwards (1982) re the United Kingdom and Ireland, Diederen et al. (1984) re The Netherlands, and Carranza (1982) re different varieties of Hispanic; and, for a general discussion, see Giles & Powesland (1975), Ryan (1979). 12. See, for example, Deprez (1984) on the generally unchallenged view of the high social status of General Netherlandic, with the prime reason being the belief in its greater social utility than that of 'Low' dialects; and cf. Van Hour (1984) on the class correlates of varieties of Netherlandic. 13. See Trudgill & Giles (1978) on 'aesthetic' judgements about language varieties and the bases therefore. In 1880 Hermann Paul pointed out the basis for prejudice (see Paul, 1968: 418). 14. Also important is the (reported) opinion that another Austrian Slavic linguistic minority, the Croats of the Burgenland, have had their language eroded because of the deliberate Germanophone policy to encourage the use of separate village dialects and hence to emphasise the differences among these communities; in this view, this 'divide and conquer' policy has been very successful and the local dialects are now encumbered not only with the negative attitudes described here for Carinthian Slovene, but in addition a notoriety for mutual unintelligibility and lack of community feeling. I have no evidence on this question, one way or another, but would point out that the historical and geographical circumstances of these two Slavic minorities in Austria differ enormously (cf. Flaschberger & Reiterer, 1982). 15. Bochman (1985) points out how little the linguistic politics of National Socialist fascism have been studied, a surprising state of affairs. 16. For more detailed treatments of the Windischentheorie (but without the precise quotations given here) see Flaschberger (1974: 1522). Fischer (1980: 3941), Pohl (1984), Barker (1984: 2236). Domej (1988) has now demonstrated how some of the roots of this approach can be traced to the mid-eighteenth century in Carinthia (i.e. to the time of Herder). 17. My translations from the original, TMSP. 18. The references to the varied treatments of the Carinthian Slovene minority elsewhere in these notes are a small fraction of the total literature. 19. For further general discussion, see Ryan, Giles & Sebastian (1982). St Clair (1982), Burke (1987), and Gal (1987). 20. Generally speaking, the westernmost third of the original Slovene-speaking part of Carinthia, the Ziljska dolina/Gailtal, has now become overwhelmingly Germanised, as have most of the original Slovene-speaking areas north of the Drava/Drau river. See, e.g. Moser (1982), Pohl (1982), Barker (1984: 24069).

< previous page

page_146

next page >

< previous page

page_147

next page > Page 147

References Barker, T. M. (1984) The Slovene Minority of Carinthia. Boulder CO: East European Monographs. Bochman, K. (1985) Pour une étude comparée de la glottopolitique des fascismes. In A. Winther (ed.) Problèmes de Glottopolitique. Symposium International Mont-Saint-Aignan (203 Septembre 1984) (pp. 11929). Rouen: Publications de l'Université de Rouen. Boelens, K. (1987) The Frisian Language revised D. Gorter and K. Zondag. Ljouwert/Leewarden: Provinsje Fryslän. Bourhis, R. Y. (1979) Language in ethnic interaction: A social psychological approach. In H. Giles and B. SaintJacques (eds) Language and Ethnic Relations (pp. 11741). Oxford: Pergamon. Braunstein, W., Köberl, J. and Stúckler, J. (1979) Vorurteile gegen Dialektsprechern. Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 5, 119. Burke, P. (1987) Introduction. In P. Burke and R. Porter The Social History of Language (pp. 120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carranza, M. A. (1982) Attitudinal research on Hispanic language varieties. In E. B. Ryan and H. Giles (eds) Attitudes Towards Language Variation (pp. 6383). London: Arnold. CEDRI [Comité européen pour la défense des réfugiés et immigrés] (1985) Gemeinsam oder getrennt? Die Situation der slowenischen Minderheit in Kärnten am Beispiel der Schulfrage. Basel: Atelier Populaire International. Deprez, K. (1984) Why do Antwerpians consider Netherlandic language varieties as 'cultured', 'pleasant', 'beautiful', 'rich'? In K. Deprez (ed.) Sociolinguistics in the Low Countries (pp. 23785). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Diederen, F. Hos, H., Munstermann, H. and Weistra, G. (1984) Language attitudes of future teachers in The Netherlands. In K. Deprez (ed.) Sociolinguistics in the Low Countries (pp. 21336). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Domej, T. (1988) Slowenisch als Unterrichtssprache in der Frühzeit des Karntner Pflichtschulwesens. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 22, 33344. Edwards, J. R. (1982) Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. In E. B. Ryan and H. Giles (eds) Attitudes Towards Language Variation, (pp. 2033). London: Arnold. Fischer, G. (1980) Das Slowenische in Kärnten. Eine Studie zur Sprachenpolitik. Klagenfurt: SIC. Fishman, J. (1977) Language and ethnicity. In H. Giles (ed.) Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations (pp. 1557). London/New York: Academic Press. Flaschberger, L. (1974) Die Windischen. Assimilation bei den Kärntner Slovenen Kärnten: ein Alarmzeichen (pp. 1522). Vienna: Informations- und Pressedienst der österreichischen Widerstandsbewegung. Flaschberger, F. and Reiterer, A. F. (1980) Der tägliche Abwehrkampf. Kärntens Slowenen. Vienna: Braumüller. (1982) Am Rande Österreichs. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie der österreichischen Volksgruppen. Vienna: Braumüller. Gal, S. (1987) Codeswitching and consciousness in the European periphery. American Ethnologist 14, 63753. Galanda, B. et al. (eds) (1981) Rechtsextremismus in Österreich nach 1945. Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag. Giles, H. and Johnson, P. (1981) The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. C. Turner and H. Giles (eds) Intergroup Behaviour (pp. 199243). Oxford: Blackwell. Giles, H. and Powesland, P. F. (1975) Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press. Gstettner, P. (1988) Zwanghaft Deutsch? Uber falschen Abwehrkampf und verkehrten Heimatdienst, Klagenfurt/Celovec: Slowenisches wissenschaftliches Institut. Gstettner, P. and Larcher, D. (1985) Zwei Kulturen, zwei Sprachen, eine Schule. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Slowenisches wissenschaftliches Institut. Hartman, M. (1977) Pesmi z libuskega * puela. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Mohorjeva zalozba*. Köberl, J. and Stückler, J. (1984) Sind Dialektsprecher dümmer? Grazer Linguistische Studien 21, 13141. Kranzmayer, E. (1937) Deutsches Sprachgut jenseits der Sprachgrenze in den Alpen, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Rätoromanische des Grödnertales. Deutsches Archiv fur Landes- und Volksforschung 1, 26386. Lencek, R. L. (1982) The Structure and History of the Slovene Language. Columbus OH: Slavica. Lessiak, P. (1910) Alpendeutsche und Alpenslawen in ihren sprachlichen Beziehungen. Germanischromanische Monatsschriften 2, 27488. Messner, J. (1974) Iz dnevnika Pokrznikovega* Lukana. Klagenfurt.

< previous page

page_147

next page >

< previous page

page_148

next page > Page 148

Minnich, R. G. (1988) Speaking Slovene Being Slovene. Verbal codes and collective self-images: Some correlations between Kanalska dolina and Ziljska dolina. Slovene Studies 10/2, 12547. Moser, M. (1982) Sprachliche und soziale Identität der Slwenen in Kärnten. In W. I. Holzer et al. (Arbeitgemeinschaft Volksgruppenfrage) Kein einig Volk von Brüdern. Studien zum Mehrheiten-/Minderheitenproblem am Beispiel Kärntens (pp. 1634). Vienna: Verlagfür, Gesellschaftskribik. Paul, H. (1968) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (8th edn; 1st edn 1880). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pohl, H. D. (1982) Linguistische Aspekte der Zweisprachigkeit in Kärnten. In W. I. Holzer et al. (Arbeitgemeinschaft Volksgruppenfrage) Kein einig Volk von Brüdem. Studien zum Mehrheiten/Minderheitenproblem am Beispel Kärntens (pp. 3553). Vienna: Verlag für Geselischaftskritik. (1984) Einführung. In O. Kronsteiner Die slowenischen Namen Kärntens. Slovenska imena na Koroskem * (pp. 204). Salzberg: Osterreichische Gesellschaft für Namenkunde. Priestly, T. (1980a) The influence of topic and other factors on language selection. Grazer Linguistische Studien 11/12, 21020. (1980b) Variation on an alternation: The fate of the 'kasna palatalizacija' in Sele Fara, Carinthia. Slovene Studies 2, 6377. (1983) Attitudes to language among German/Slavic bilinguals in Southern Austria. In M. L. Kovacs (ed.) Roots and Realities among Eastern and Central Europeans (pp. 8398). Edmonton: Central and East European Studies Association of Canada. (1989) Cultural consciousness and political nationalism: Language choice among Slovenes in Carinthia (Austria). Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 16, 7997. Ross, J. (1979) Language and the mobilization of ethnic identity. In H. Giles and B. Saint-Jacques (eds) Language and Ethnic Relations (pp. 113). Oxford: Pergamon. Ryan, E. B. (1979) Why do low-prestige language varieties persist? In H. Giles and R. St Clair (eds) Language and Social Psychology (pp. 14557). Oxford: Blackwell. Ryan, E. B., Giles, H. and Sebastian, R. J. (1982) An integrative perspective for the study of attitudes toward language. In E. B. Ryan and H. Giles (eds) Attitudes Towards Language Variation (pp. 119). London: Arnold. St Clair, R. (1982) From social history to language attitudes. In E. B. Ryan and H. Giles (eds) Attitudes Towards Language Variation (pp. 16474). London: Arnold. Smith, A. D. (1981) The Ethnic Revival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steinberg, J. (1987) The historian and the 'Questione della Lingua'. In P. Burke and R. Porter The Social History of Language (pp. 198209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, P. and Giles, H. (1978) Sociolinguistics and linguistic value judgements: Correctness, adequacy and aesthetics. In F. Coppieters and D. L. Goyvaerts (eds) Functional Studies in Language and Literature (pp. 16790). Ghent: Story-Scientia. Also in P. Trudgill (1983) On Dialect, Social and Geographical Perspectives (pp. 20125). Oxford: Blackwell. Unkart, R., Glantschnig, G. and Ogris, A. (1984) Zur Lage der Slowenen in Kärnten. Die slowenische Volksgruppe und die Wahlkreiseinteilung 1979 eine Dokumentation. Klagenfurt: Verlag des Kärntner Landesarchivs. Van Hout, R. (1984) Sociolinguistics in the Netherlandic language area. In K. Deprez (ed.) Sociolinguistics in the Low Countries (pp. 141). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wutte, M. (1930) Deutsch Windisch Slowenisch. In J. F. Perkonig Kampf um Kärnten (pp. 1740). Klagenfort: Artur Kollitsch. (1943) Kärntens Freiheitskampf (2nd edn; 1st edn, 1922). Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger.

< previous page

page_148

next page >

< previous page

page_149

next page > Page 149

11 National Minority Languages in Media and Education in Poland (A Preliminary Report) 1 Alfred F. Majewica and Tomasz Wicherkiewicz Institute of Linguistics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan*, Poland Abstract Majewicz's (1987) sketch on 'National Minorities in Poland', enumerating as many as 18 of them, met with considerable interest of specialists on Poland and Slavonic domain but simultaneously revealed how little is actually known on this subject. The paper concentrates on those national minorities that constitute also language minorities and especially on the presence and functioning of their languages in media (especially print), religious life and in education. The discussed minorities include Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Lemks, Lithuanians, Jews, Gypsies, Czechs, Slovaks, Tatars, Kashubians, Greeks. The presented material is based primarily on first-hand information either from people directly involved in what we describe or from source documents (from ministries, publishing houses, minority organisations, parishes, dioceses, etc.). Introduction Throughout most of its over one thousand years old history the territory of Poland varied from a vast powerful kingdom to a political nil. For a considerable part of the country's existence as an independent state, regions predominantly inhabited by non-Polish population constituted more than half of its territorial possession. In the period between the two world wars (191839), approximately one third of the entire 36 million population of Poland consisted of non-Polish minorities, the largest of them being Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Lithuanians, Jews, Germans and Russians. Jews alone constituted 10% of that population and up to 30% of city inhabitants. There were towns (e.g. Pinsk), however, in which over 80% of the population were Jews. After World War II the allied powers reduced Poland to what was labelled as its 'ethnic borders'. Consequently, eastern regions with the predominantly Ukrainian, Byelorussian and Lithuanian population were incorporated into the USSR. The lot of the Jews is well known almost all of them perished in what

< previous page

page_149

next page >

< previous page

page_150

next page > Page 150

is now called the holocaust. Of the 150,000 Jewish population of the city of Lwów (Lemberg, now in the Ukrainian SSR), only some 500 Jews are believed to survive. As for the Germans, most of them were forcibly removed to postwar Germany also from territories that before 1939 were in one or another form German (i.e. from the so-called 'recovered lands') and most of the rest of them who resisted that deportation have been until today sparing no efforts to be resettled to West Germany here the economical factors play the decisive role. The famed German-minority-inPoland issue embraces also Masurians, a folk in Poland's north-eastern Mazury Lakeland who in the past underwent a process of strong Germanisation for being 'too much Polish' and later, after the communist takeover, experienced another wave of oppression for being 'too much German'; finally, 95.8% of them were given one-way passports to leave the country by communist officials eager to capture the Masurian land to build dachas in that beautiful region now spreading as a symbol of communist hypocrisy, corruption and utmost acquisitiveness. The 1945 'return' of Poland to its 'ethnic borders', however, left an astonishingly rich mosaic of about 17 ethnic minorities soon enriched by another one (Greeks) or actually two (if Aegean Macedonians are treated separately) minority nationalities. Disputable is the very existence and status of some groups of Russians considering themselves or considered a national minority in Poland. At present, the entire minority population of Poland would not exceed 5% of the total (approximately the same as in 1939) population of the country. Thus, perhaps for the first time in Poland's history the term 'minority' is very adequate. The exact statistics are not available as consecutive population censuses totally neglected the nationality question. Not all of Poland's minorities simultaneously are language minorities. Table 1 enumerates these ethnic groups that can be labelled minority nationalities in post-War Poland, indicates estimated population figures, localises them territorially as well as provides selected information on the language situation of particular groups naming their mother tongue and/or providing other essentials on this matter. Table 1 Minority nationalities in Poland overview Ethnonym Population Territorial Mother tongue/Language English/Polish (approx.) localisation situation in thousands Ukrainians/Ukraincy180200 Koszalin, Olsztyn, Ukrainian * Szczecin, Wroc´aw, Rzeszów regions. Byelorussians/ 170200 Bialystok, Biala Byelorussian Bialorusini Podlaska regions. Lemks (= Lemkos, Officially Till 1945 Beskidy Lemkish dialect of regarded as mountains; after Ukrainian, regarded by [wemki]/ Ukrainians, forcible resettlement some as a separate Lemkowie, their at present in language named Rusnak; Olsztyn, the linguonym (table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_150

next page >

< previous page

page_151

next page > Page 151

Table 1 (continued) Ethnonym Population Territorial Mother tongue/Language English/Polish (approx.) in localisation situation thousands Lemki, Rusnacy population Gorzów, Zieiona 'Lem(kish) language' started incorporated Góra, Wroclw, appearing in Lemk in the figure Szczecin, Koszalin publications recently. for regions; also in Ukrainians. Nowy Sacz and Krosno provinces. Lithuanians/ 1015 Sejny region in Lithuanian Litwini north-easternmost corner of Poland, also dispersed (Warszawa, Wroclaw). Jews/Zydzi * 15 Dispersed, mainly Yiddish, in prayer Hebrew, in Warszawa, but mainly Polish. Kraków, Silesia. Gypsies/Cyganie 1520 Nowa Huta, Lowari and Feldytka varieties Warszawa, Tarnów, of Gypsy (Romani) language. Plock, Konin, Podhale regions. Slovaks/ 20 Spisz-Orawa Spisz-Magurian dialect of Slowacy regions. Slovak, considerably differing from literary Slovak. Czechs/Czesi 2 PolishCzechoslovak Czech border regions, Zelów (Piotrków province). Karaims/Karaimi0.250.4 Warszawa, Karaim, but almost extinct Kraków, Opole, among the living generations. Gdansk*, Wroclaw. Tatars/ Tatarzy, 3 Bialystok region Since seventeenth century Lipkowie (esp. villages of Polish, elder generations use Bohoniki and Polish-Byelorussian hybrid Kruszyniany), dialects, in liturgy Arabic Gdansk, Warszawa, with Turkic (esp. Tatar) loans Gorzów, Trzcianka, used; numerous manuscript Elblag, Szczecin. books in Polish and/or Byelorussian written with Arabic characters still preserved. Armenians/ 15 Kraków, Polish; liturgy in Grabar Ormianie Warszawa, roughly, the language of Old Wroclaw, Bielsko- Armenian scriptures. Biala, Gdansk, Recently, due to intensifying Silesia. import of spouses especially from Soviet Armenia, Modern Armenian strives to take root among Armenians in Poland. It is in use also among pre(table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_151

next page >

< previous page

page_152

next page > Page 152

Table 1 (continued) Ethnonym PopulationTerritorial English/Polish (approx.) localisation in thousands

Russian Old ? Believers/ Staroobrzedowcy, Starowier(c)y, Filiponi 'Flemings'/ ? Flemingowie, Flamandowie, Wilamowiczanie

Kashubians/ Kaszubi

200300

Mother tongue/Language situation

war emigrants from Armenia. Among Polish Armenians, those who before World War II lived in Kuty in Pokucie region still remember their own variant of Modern Armenian. Suwalki Two groups, one using an interesting region hybrid of Archaic Russian and Polish (Augustów with linguistic elements from the forests), few Polish-Byelorussian dialect boundary villages in area, the other using 'most eagerly' Mazury . . . German. Lakeland. Wilamowice, Polish among younger generations; Oswiecim * till World War II a Germanic region. ethnolect specific to this town (labelled as 'deutsche Mundart von Wilamowice') was commonly in use among all generations. In the last century the ethnolect was allegedly sporadically used in school instruction. It was also used in writing by the seemingly only writer in the language Florian Biesik (18491926, pen name Flora Flora) whose stories were published in 1933 in Kraków and whose novel in the 'Wilamowice language' in manuscript has recently been revealed to scholarship. A number of songs are also still remembered. Pomerania Kashubian, by many defined as 'the region, most distinct dialect of Polish', by between others and more correctly as a Gdansk* and separate language; many Slupsk, with representatives of younger important generations lose the language in the centres in course of acquiring school education Wejherowo, in Polish. By far, the most widely Kartuzy, used in print at present from among Koscierzyna*,all Poland's minority ethnolects. Wiele.

(table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_152

next page >

< previous page

page_153

next page > Page 153

Table 1 (continued) Ethnonym PopulationTerritorial Mother tongue/Language situation English/Polish (approx.) localisation in thousands Slovincians/Slowincy 0.05 (?) Lake Leba Slovincian, often defined as a * Note a region variety or dialect of Kashubian, Slovincian practically extinct at the turn of the National last century; later German. Park, Kluki open air museum. Greeks/ Grecy 5 Note b Wroclw, Greek Legnica, in dispersion in other regions. Aegean 0.5 Note b same. Macedonian Macedonians/ Grecy, 6 (1949) Macedonczycy* Germans/ Niemcy Note c Wroclaw, German, Polish, younger Opole, generations mainly Polish; there are Walbrzych German-speaking enclaves where regions, Polish is little known. In southern earlier also Wielkopolska there is a village Pomerania, named Koza Wielka inhabited esp. Slupsk entirely by Catholic Germans who and have little or no command of Polish Koszalin the parish priest there had to learn regions. German to be able to provide confession services. Masurians/ Mazurzy 6 Mazury Polish; in older generations German Lakeland. possible. Russians/ Rosjanie Note d dispersed. Russian a Slovincians shared their lot with Masurians in being persuaded to leave for Germany, cf. above. b The population of both in 1949 was 12,000; in 1956, about 21,000; in 1957, 3,725 children of both nationalities. c Officially, German minority in Poland does not exist but less official sources from time to time provide figures ranging between 2,000 and 3,000 and these figures remain miraculously stable for years in spite of the sky-rocketing number of those already 'reunited' with their families in West Germany and prospective resettlers in Germany's 'resettlement centres'. Some partial statistics are available from church sources. According to such sources, for example the Wroclw Archdiocese is inhabited by about 1,000 Catholic and 5,000 Evangelical Germans. According to the data from the now non-existent Wroclaw Regional Office of the Cultural Society of Germans in Poland (NTSK), some 39,000 Germans inhabited in 1956 the area of the Wroclaw NTSK region only. The whole NTSK associated 700 members in 1957 and 825 in 1960. d The statistics here range from 5,000 to 100,000. The former figure seems to be related to descendants of the pre-war Russian minority in Poland, the latter seems to tend to embrace also Soviet military servicemen and their families and is then probably too low.

< previous page

page_153

next page >

< previous page

page_154

next page > Page 154

A short characteristics of these ethnic groups together with bibliographical hints has been provided in Majewicz (1987). For pre-war period, see esp. Tomaszewski (1985a, 1985b), Fuks (1979), Milosz (1978), Kolberg (1961 ff), also Gross & Grudzinska *-Gross (1981, 1983). Schooling Practically, all of them have some form of organisation, i.e. institutions that associate their representatives and in turn represent them in some or other way in contacts with outsiders. These institutions serve also as instruments of manifestation of the national self-identification and consciousness of ethnic, often also linguistic, unity and separateness of respective groups from other folks. In most cases, the institutions in question exist as so-called 'cultural' (or, more precisely, 'socio-cultural') societies (in Polish: Towarzystwo Spoleczno-Kulturalne, abbreviated to TSK) created for their most part in the post-Thaw years 19567. There exist such Ukrainian (UTSK since 1956), Byelorussian (BTSK, 1956), Lithuanian (LTSK, 1957), Jewish (TSKZ, 1949), Czech and Slovak (TSKCiSwP, 1956), and German (NTSK, 1956) cultural societies. In the case of the latter, only its Walbrzych filiale still exists. Similar in character is perhaps the most powerful and most active of all Poland's minority institutions, the Kashubian-Pomeranian Society (Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie, ZKP, since 1957). In the years 195060, a Russian such society (RTKO) was active in Poland; in 1960 it was replaced by a new organisation (RSK) which is said to survive only in Lódz*. Other nationalities were associated either in political (Greeks and Macedonians), professional (e.g. a union of Jewish journalists), regional or religious (Karaims, Tatars) societies. Some of them (e.g. the Jews, Germans) had more than one association. A relatively recent development is the process of foundation of new ethnic-oriented societies among younger generations, especially students in this respect, only the Kashubians seem to have had a long tradition. And among the most recent developments are the foundation and official recognition in April 1989 of the Union of Macedonians in Poland (Zwiazek Macedonczyków* w PRL they separated from the Greek organisation) and the Society of Lemks in Poland (Stowarzyszenie Lemków w Polsce, after 35 years of endeavours they managed to become independent of the UTSK). In spite of serious, sometimes justifiable accusations of being instruments of propaganda and mouthpieces of the authorities, the enormous contribution of all of these organisations to the preservation, sometimes the survival, of the ethnic minority element in Poland cannot be neglected. Their impact on the preservation of minority languages in education, in publications, in the cultivation of respective folkloristic traditions, in religion, is evident. The institutions in question have had their obvious share in education even though the entire schooling system (except religion for most of the post-war period) in Poland was under tight control of the authorities. The following nationalities were provided school education in minority languages in post-war Poland: Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Lithuanians, Jews, Slovaks, Czechs, Russian Old Believers, Greeks, Macedonians and Germans. Till spring 1946 education in Ukrainian was provided in a number of schools from the pre-war and war periods. In the period 19526 487 children received

< previous page

page_154

next page >

< previous page

page_155

next page > Page 155

education in Ukrainian, but it was impossible to establish where and how. Since 1956 regular education in Ukrainian was provided by two (19567) to nine (195860) primary schools and the Ukrainian language was taught additionally in 27 (19812) to 186 (19656) schools. At present, there are two secondary schools (in Legnica and in Górowo Ilawecki) with about 215 pupils and two primary schools (in Bialy Bór and in Banie Mazurskie) with about 143 children with education provided in Ukrainian, and 56 schools where Ukrainian is taught (in the latter case, 1,418 children are involved). So far, about 4,000 graduated from Ukrainian schools in which about 250 teachers were teaching. University-level education in Ukrainian is possible at Warsaw University since 1953, and it was provided also in Szczecin (195765) and Olsztyn (19657) with the aim to educate teachers for the Ukrainian schools. Eighty students graduated from the Szczecin programme. Soviet-created Byelorussian schools were in operation till 1946 when it was decided that Byelorussian minority ceased to exist in Poland. Schooling in Byelorussian was resumed in 1948 and in 19523 it reached the level of 66 schools in which education was provided in Byelorussian to 5,742 pupils and 87 schools where Byelorussian was taught to 5,972 children. In the 19889 school year there were no primary or secondary schools with Byelorussian as the language of instruction but Byelorussian as the native tongue was taught in 50 primary schools to 3,477 children and in two secondary schools (in Bielsk Podlaski and in Hajnówka) to 657 students. University-level education in Byelorussian is possible at Warsaw University. In 19512 the authorities licensed the introduction of additional classes in Lithuanian to schools on territories inhabited by 'people of Lithuanian extraction'. Four schools provided education in Lithuanian to 164 children and 15 schools ran classes in Lithuanian for 362 children in 19523. At present (19889), there are four primary schools teaching in Lithuanian 197 children and six such schools teaching Lithuanian to 370 children. Besides, there is one secondary school with Lithuanian as the language of instruction (in Punsk *, with over 100 students) and one such school with classes in Lithuanian (in Sejny). University education in Lithuanian is provided at Poznan* University. The Jewish school network active since 1945 existed till 1968 (or 1969). The number of schools ranged from 33 to seven (19567) with the number of pupils reaching 2,550 in 195960. There were also four Jewish secondary schools (in Wroclaw, Legnica, Lódz* and Kraków). Apart from subjects taught in all other schools, Hebrew, history of the Jews and naturally Yiddish were taught. Between 1944 and 1950 there were also schools run by Jewish political parties (especially the Zionist Ha-shomer Ha-tsair) and religious schools. In 19478 there were 13 Zionist schools with Hebrew as the language of instruction. There were also over 40 Talmud Tora (lowest level) religious schools, two Talmudic secondary schools (Yeshibot, in Kraków and in Wroclaw) and one university-level Rabinic school in Lódz, the latter with over 100 students. In 1947, about 1,000 pupils attended 36 Talmud Tora schools, the largest of them in Lódz providing education to 80 pupils. Schools providing professional training in various crafts were also developed. At present, Yiddish can be acquired in a special Seminar of the Jewish Language and Culture affiliated with the Jewish Theatre in Warsaw, in the

< previous page

page_155

next page >

< previous page

page_156

next page > Page 156

Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw, and at Warsaw University. Universities (Warsaw, Poznan *) provide also courses in Hebrew. The education in Slovak was in 19523 provided in 33 schools to 2,471 children and 50 children were taught Slovak as a mother tongue additionally in one school. In 19567 the number of Slovak schools reached 50 (with 2,093 pupils). In 19889, there are two Slovak language schools with 127 pupils and Slovak is taught additionally in 20 primary schools to 388 children and in one secondary school to six students. Between 1951 and 1968 a Slovak secondary school in Jablonka (Orawa) was in operation with 67 students in 19612 and 21 students in 19678. In 19613, post-secondary school education for prospective teachers in Slovak schools existed. At present, such persons are sent to study in Bratislava. Slovak education in Poland met with serious difficulties because of the considerable gap between the local dialect spoken by children and the literary language taught at school. Czech schooling was very limited in Poland. In 19523 there were three Czech schools in Zelów with 130 children, and in the following year the schooling was abandoned. In 1950 in a number of primary schools in villages inhabited by Russian Old Believers in the Olsztyn Province Russian-language education was introduced to be abandoned after some time when Russian became a compulsory subject in all schools of the country. Organisation of German school education started in post-war Poland in 1950. In 19523 there were 134 Germanlanguage schools with 7,760 pupils, 214 teachers of German and 50 teachers of Polish nationality. Since then the number of schools kept diminishing (132 in 19545, 126 in 19556, 127 in 19567, 67 in 19578, 5 in 195961, 3 in 19612 the latter with 73 children). In 196970 only 50 children were taught German as mother tongue in schools all over Poland. Apart from primary schools, there was one German gymnasium-type secondary school in Slupsk preparing teaching cadres, German mining schools in Walbrzych and Boguszów and one agriculture mechanisation post- primary school in the Koszalin region. German education in Poland ceased to exist in the mid 1960s. In 194850 Poland absorbed a considerable number of orphaned children from Greece and organised for them special education-and-dormitory centres. After reorganisation, Greek and Macedonian children were concentrated in five centres of which one (in Szczecin) existed between 1952 and 1969. The largest of these centres (in Zgorzelec) gathered 2,940 children and was equipped with a kindergarten, three primary schools, one technical post-primary school and one gymnasium-type secondary school for future teachers. Macedonian schooling ceased to exist in the early 1970s; Greek, in 1984. Whereas this latter language was in 19778 still taught in ten schools (with 126 pupils), this has declined sharply to only one school (with seven pupils) in 19834. A conference on the education of Greek and Macedonian children in Poland the first ever is to take place in Lódz* in October 1989. Other minorities most probably did not have institutionalised schooling of their own. Constant motions of Kashubian activists to introduce Kashubian to schools in their region have so far always met with the authorities' opposition the grounds apparently are political. An obligatory course of lectures on the

< previous page

page_156

next page >

< previous page

page_157

next page > Page 157

Kashubian language and literature is to be introduced to fourth-year students of Polish philology at the Gdansk * University. There exist handbooks of current Kashubian orthography, Kashubian grammar and a number of dictionaries. Lemk children make use of either Ukrainian (more and more rarely) or Polish school facilities. In the early 1980s certain attempts were made to introduce some instruction in Lemkish to sohools in Gladyszewo and Gorlice. The Lemks are currently petitioning the authorities to allow them to introduce their own ethnolect to their schools. 'Underground' teaching of Lemkish took place within the framework of Orthodox catechisation. School education for Gypsies most probably never existed in Poland and in fact the attitude of Gypsy communities towards schools has been utterly negative reflecting thus the explicitly negative attitude of virtually all towards Gypsies. Nevertheless, the Gypsy Cultural Society (SKOR, in existence since 1966) in Tarnów plans to organise additional classes in Gypsy (Romani) and one such class aiming at helping Gypsy children to overcome difficulties they meet with in Polish schools is already active in the Gypsy cultural centre there. On the other hand, voices are heard postulating the abandonment of the obligatory primary school education requirement in relation to those Gypsy children who promise neither success nor progress. Attempts to organise some form of language education for the Karaims were made in pre-war Poland but they proved to be short-lasting and abortive. To our best knowledge, no such attempts were made after the war and the language is virtually moribund. Some seemingly unrealistic hopes are connected with requests of the Karaims in Lithuania to introduce Karaim lessons in selected schools of Vilnius and Trakai (Troki). Publishing Books School education requires handbooks and this in turn requires publishing institutions. Of all the enumerated minorities, only Jews had their own publishing houses 'Nidershlezye', 'Dos Naye Lebn' (both existing 194656) and 'Yiddish Buh' (existing till 1956 or even according to some other informants till 1963). During their existence, they released over 400 titles. Comparable to this impressive figure is only the publications production of the Kashubian-Pomeranian Society, also counted in hundreds of titles. Other ethnic 'cultural societies' managed to produce relatively few, if any, books often barred from doing it by officialdom (in Poland in accordance with law all publications must be licensed). Sporadic minority language publications have been released by professional publishers e.g. the Warsaw-based Communist Party Publishers 'Ksiazka* i Wiedza' printed a number of books in Yiddish mainly for export purposes, the 'Pojezierze' Publishers from Olsztyn released a number of bilingual Polish-Byelorussian and Polish-Lithuanian volumes, the Peasant Party Publishers 'Ludowa Spóldzielnia Wydawnicza' printed at least one book in Kashubian. Minority publications come also from religious institutions and regional museums and cultural centres. Almost all of minority language school handbooks have been released by the state 'School and Pedagogical Publishing

< previous page

page_157

next page >

< previous page

page_158

next page > Page 158

House' (Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne WSP, formerly Panstwowe * Zaklady Wydawnictw Szkolnych PZWS) in Warsaw. In the years 195079 and 19828 the production of primary school handbooks in minority languages in Poland was as follows: Ukrainian, 21 publications; Byelorussian, 74; Lithuanian, 18; Yiddish (195064), 21; Hebrew, one; Slovak, 59; Greek (195676), 16; Macedonian (195668), 14; German (19528), 55. School handbooks imported from other countries (USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia) were also used. No handbooks in Czech, Lemkish and Gypsy were published in post-war Poland. Czech schools existed too shortly (till 1954) and the number of their pupils was too small for any handbook preparation and publication programme. The only two Lemkish primers Lemkivshki bukvar and Persha lemkivshka chitanka were published in Lwów (Lemberg) respectively in 1933 and 1934. Gypsy school handbooks (especially for the language education) published abroad (e.g. in Budapest, Oslo, Stockholm) are to be found in the Gypsy cultural centre library in Tarnów. The astonishingly high number of printed copies in the case of Greek and Macedonian handbooks can be explained by the fact that on the basis of international agreements Poland was obliged to publish books for the Greek and Macedonian political refugee population in all communist countries. Not only school handbooks but also a number of novels, scholarly monographs, and other books were published in these two languages by the said school handbook publishers. With at least 22 such books in Greek (including e.g. a two-volume novel translation from Rumanian and a translation of Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper from . . . Russian!) and five in Macedonian, the GreekMacedonian minority in Poland is high on the list arranged according to the number of minority language publications in the country. The leaders on the list are unquestionably the Jews. Zeichner and Szechter's Bibliography of Hebrew and Yiddish Publications in Poland Since 1944 (Kelman, 1987) enumerates 462 titles of books and booklets in Yiddish and 16 titles in Hebrew. The only minority that can compete here are the Kashubians with perhaps as many as over 300 titles, some 50% of them entirely in Kashubian. Some 40 titles of books often small poetry collections, but also huge volumes as e.g. the Byelorussian translation of the Polish national epos Pan Tadeusz by the Romantic poet Adam Mickiewicz, a very important step in the development of the literary Byelorussian language have been published in post- war Poland in Byelorussian, both in its current as well as in Polish orthographies. The Ukrainian Cultural Society published at least 17 titles, two of them in Lemkish. Since 1983 Lemkish publications started appearing from a new small publishing house in Nowy Sacz*; so far, some eight such books have been printed, some of them in a very attractive way. The Russian Cultural Society promoted as publisher at least 11 titles released between 1959 and 1974. Numerous other Russian-language publications from Poland were primarily aimed at a foreign audience and should hence be disregarded here. In 1982 the 'Pojezierze' publishing house in Olsztyn started publishing bilingual PolishLithuanian editions of Lithuanian literary works (so far poetry); the second publication in the series appeared in 1987, the third one has been announced for 1989.

< previous page

page_158

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_159

Page 159 1956 marked the appearance of the bilingual book of poetry by a Gypsy poetess Papusza until today the only book in Romani to be published in Poland. The publication had been made possible by the then leading and influential Polish poet Julian Tuwim, himself a Jew. Polish texts in the book are translations of the Gypsy texts. Following the discovery of the mentioned novel in the old Wilamowice ethnolect, we plan to try in some or other way to force it into print. The republication then of the stories published in 1933 can be as well taken into consideration. Press Minority press and periodical publishing in post-war Poland is summarised in Appendix III. Representatives of ethnic minorities to a varying degree make use also of publications from abroad, especially the USSR, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. Some Jews and Jewish institutions receive periodical publications from Israel, USA and USSR. Gypsy-language periodicals from Hungary, France, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, West Germany, Brazil, Yugoslavia, USA and Czechoslovakia find their way through to the Gypsy community cultural centre in Tarnów. Libraries Among institutions of crucial importance in helping to preserve the distinctness of ethnic minorities and their mother languages one must enumerate libraries, broadcasting, song and dance groups, theatrical groups, folkloristic festivals, Table 2 Libraries LibrariesFilials Ukrainian Byelorussian Lithuanian Jewish Gypsy Czech Slovak Greek

9 8 8 1 32 2

Location

Approx. volumes in thousands 4

Sejny region

6 8

17 1 Tarnów Zelów Wroclaw, Kroscienko * (Krosno Province)

German 7 Russian (Russian Cultural Society) Specialist university and private libraries are excluded here.

< previous page

page_159

0.6 3 6 3 150

next page >

< previous page

page_160

next page > Page 160

regional museums and churches. An incomplete information on libraries is shown in Table 2. Radio, TV, Movies The presence of minority languages on radio and television in Poland is unfortunately very weakly manifested. Here again political factors play some role and programmes rather about than by ethnic minorities are preferred. Between 1958 and the end of the 1970s, a developed network of stations (Olsztyn, Koszalin, Rzeszów, Lublin) broadcasting in Ukrainian existed. Currently, every two weeks 25-minute programmes are broadcast from Olsztyn and Rzeszów. The radio station in Bialystok emitted daily programmes in Byelorussian till 1958; since that year, only a 20-minute programme once a week. At present, the programme allegedly lasts 90 minutes. Warsaw Radio broadcast daily a four-hour programme in Greek entitled Fonitis Alitios, which later (1953) was shortened to 70 minutes and ceased to be emitted in 1958; at the same time Turkish- and Serbo-Croat-language broadcasting from Warsaw was also abandoned. The station in Wroclaw broadcast for some time a programme in Greek Alitia Voitia ('The Voice of Truth'). At present, Greeks make use of programmes broadcast from Budapest and Thesaloniki. Since the 1980 Solidarity movement upheaval, religious broadcasts for minorities started; e.g. a special religious programme broadcast all over the country has marked since that time every important Jewish holiday. An increasing amount of Kashubian-language material is also smuggled into musical and poetical programmes broadcast from Gdansk * since 1980. A number of TV documentaries of varying value have been produced on Poland's minorities, including the whole series on religious minorities, worth recommending. There was one Kashubian feature film made and a Ukrainian mobile cinema showing movies from Soviet Ukraine was in operation between 1965 and the end of the 1970s some 250 pictures were shown. Performing Arts, Museums Choirs, folkloristic groups, song and dance groups, etc. are numerous. Specimens of their performances have, however, in but a few cases been recorded (Ukrainian, 2 Lemk, one Jewish, 4 Gypsy and 19 Greek records were on sale). Some ethnic groups organise festivals of their culture (e.g. Greeks), of their songs (Byelorussians), etc. Special mention is deserved here for the professional State Jewish Theatre in Warsaw, the Gypsy folkloristic group 'Romen', the Ukrainian choir 'Zhuravli', the folk group 'Lemkovyna', the Warsaw Synagogal and Orthodox Cathedral choirs, Greek pop groups 'Elleni' and 'Prometheus'. Most minority groups have their own culture centres (so-called 'culture houses' Domy Kultury). From among regional museums, the following deserve special attention here: museum of Kashubian literature and music in Wejherowo, open air museums in Wiele (Kashubian) and Kluki (Slovincian), regional museums in Sokólka (Tatar), Zyndranowa and Bielanka (Lemk), Punsk* (Lithuanian), Kartuzy

< previous page

page_160

next page >

< previous page

page_161

next page > Page 161

(Kashubian), museums of Jewish art in Warsaw (affiliated with the Jewish Historical Institute) and in old synagogues in Kraków and Tykocin. Religion The Ukrainian minority is in its major part of the Greek-Catholic (Uniat) denomination officially not recognised by state authorities although, at least recently, also not harassed. A prayer-book for them (Khvalim Hospoda) was published by the Basilian order in Warsaw in 1985, in use are also prayer-books published abroad (e.g. Otche nash, Toronto 1951). Catechisation is in Ukrainian, Ukrainian clergy seminaries are in Warsaw and Lublin. Byelorussians in their majority belong to the Orthodox church. Religious service is in Old Church Slavonic, sermons and catechisation in Byelorussian. A small number of Byelorussians belong also to two Neo-Uniat parishes in the Siedlce Diocese; in the latter case, sermons are sporadically in Byelorussian, catechisation in Polish. Both Ukrainians and Byelorussians make use of Polish-language catechisation materials (Katechizm dla mlodziezy * 'Catechism for the Youth') published in Rome. Lemks belong to either Greek Catholic or Orthodox denominations, in western Poland (on the 'recovered lands') also to the Roman Catholic church. In Tarnów and Przemysl* Dioceses in Lemk Greek-Catholic parishes sermons and catechisation are in Lemkish. There are three Lithuanian parishes (Punsk*, Sejny and Smolany) in the Lomza* Diocese. The mass in Lithuanian is provided in five churches. Lithuanian missals printed in Rome are in use. Catechisation is in Lithuanian with no printed aids. Lithuanian priests and religion teachers receive their special education in the Theological Seminary in Lomza. The Jewish Religious Union possesses six synagogues and ten 'prayer houses'. The service is in Hebrew. Religious education is provided sporadically in Warsaw. Judaic calendars seem to be the only religious publications in this respect in Poland. Gypsies in their majority are members of the Roman Catholic Church and a specially founded body Duszpasterstwo Koczowników ('Priesthood Ministry for the Nomads') provides religious education among them. Few minor leaflets with prayers (e.g. the rosary Te odmangen sodyves ruzanco*) have been printed in Romani and books like the Bible, Psalter or Gospels in the language, printed in Rome or Scandinavia, are in use. Slovaks are Roman Catholic. In a number of parishes in the Spisz and Orawa regions the service is in Slovak from books printed in Rome. Czechs are Protestants; service for them was provided in Polish; in recent times, however, in order to meet the constant and intensifying demand for Czech-language services, their parish priest started travelling to Prague to study the language and certain devotions are already run in Czech with imported Bible and Psalter books. Karaim religious events are probably the only occasions left during which the Karaim language is used. All religious prints in use are pre-war editions published by the Mardkowicz printing shop in Troki probably the most meritorious institution for the preservation of the language ever and anywhere. A small choir exists to sing at more important ceremonies.

< previous page

page_161

next page >

< previous page

page_162

next page > Page 162

Polish Tatars are Hanific Sunnite Moslems using a variety of Arabic in praying. Prayer-books are usually hand-written with Roman characters and Polish orthography and Polish translations. On the other hand, the Tatars preserve and cherish Polish- and Byelorussian-language manuscript books written with Arabic characters. Religious instruction is conducted in Polish, prayers are learned by heart in Arabic. The teachers are imams who are often assisted by students from Arab countries. Some pre-war aids are still copied and used. There are two Armenian-Catholic centres in Poland: in Gdansk * and in Gliwice. The liturgy is in Grabar, a missa prayer-book in Armenian written in Polish orthography with parallel Polish translations printed in Rome is in use. Some other imported liturgic texts are also sometimes used. The Wilamowice Flemings are Roman Catholics; it is remarkable that their original ethnolect was never used in church, even in the times when it was commonly used in everyday life. Kashubians are also Roman Catholics. Church services in the vernacular are a rather recent development. No catechisation is provided in Kashubian but parts of the Kashubian translation of the New Testament were published in 1987, the publication of the complete translation has been announced and work is conducted on the translation of the Old Testament as well. Materials for a Kashubian-tongue prayer-book are being prepared by Kashubian students at the Theological Seminary in Pelplin. Greek religious life centres in Orthodox churches in Wroclw, Szczecin and Dzierzoniów*. Polish Germans have largely been members of the Protestant (Augsburgian) denominations. Church services in German are still provided among others in Wroclaw, Walbrzych, Swidnica*, Klodzko, Wejsuny (near Ruciane-Nida in Mazury Lakeland). Wroclaw masses are attended by some 150 persons. Religious education is mainly in Polish, Germanlanguage missals and prayerbooks are imported from West Germany. The German language is also used by the Mazury Lakeland group of Old Believers even grave marks of a very recent date have inscriptions in Old Church Slavonic and German. In liturgy the Old Believers as well as all members of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland (Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Lemks) use Old Church Slavonic. Orthodox liturgic books in Old Church Slavonic are printed in Poland. All liturgic and prayer books and catechisms used by the Old Believers come from the pre-war period, most of them were printed in German Prussia (Ostpreußen). They are hardly ever shown to outsiders. In Russian Orthodox churches the sermons as well as catechisation are served in beautiful archaised Russian deprived of all newspeak features characteristic of the Russian used elsewhere. Conclusion To conclude this but a preliminary survey of facts, most of which would undoubtedly sound quite exotic even to the majority of Poles, may we signal the existence in the region of Jelenia Góra of villages inhabited by Poles resettled there from Yugoslavia: there, one speaks in Polish (the language was retained throughout their stay away from the Polish soil) but one sings in Serbo-Croat

< previous page

page_162

next page >

< previous page

page_163

next page > Page 163

(they had no opportunity to learn Polish songs while abroad). We have not been inclined to classify this group among national or language minorities but we would be inclined to imply that as far as Poland's minority groups are concerned new discoveries are still possible. Appendices Appendix I Minority language schools in Poland 1952/31955/6 Language Schools (1)a Schools (2)b Pupils German 134 3 7,800 Byelorussian 66 87 11,000 Slovak 33 1 1,787 Czech 1 2 128 Lithuanian 4 15 536 Ukrainians 487 a Schools (1) implies schools with the indicated language being used as the language of education. b Schools (2) implies schools with Polish as the language of education in which the indicated languages were taught additionally as native to children. Appendix II Schools providing education in minority languages in Poland, see page 170 Appendix III Ethnic minority press and other periodical publicatios in post-wat Poland NationalityTitle Language Circulation Remarks Ukrainian Nashe Ukrainian 12,0008,000Official paper of the Ukrainian Slovo with one Cultural Society, since 1956, 'Our page in weekly, about 1,660 issues till now, Word' Lemkish published in Warsaw. Nasha Ukrainian Since 1956, monthly supplement to Kultura the former, about 370 issues so far. 'Our Culture' Svitanok Ukrainian Since 1960 bi-weekly supplement for children to Nasha Kultura. Zustrykhy Leaflet of students of the Ukrainian philology at Warsaw. Ukrainian Ukrainian 8,00010,000Official publication of the calendar Ukrainian Cultural Society since 1958. (table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_163

next page >

< previous page

page_164

next page > Page 164

Appendix III (continued) Nationality Title Language Circulation Tserkovny Ukrainian 2,000 kalendar(Ukrainian Orthodox calendar) Hrekokatolytski Ukrainian 2,000 tserkovny kalendar (Greek Catholic Church calendar) ByelorussianNiva Byelorussian4,0006,000

Remarks Published since 1986 by the Diocese office in Sanok. Published since 1987 by the Basilian Order in Warsaw.

Weekly, since 1956 published in Bialystok, official paper of the Byelorussian Cultural Society, over 1,720 issues so far published. Zorka Byelorussian Supplement for children to the former. Byelorussian Byelorussian4,00010,000Published by the calendar Byelorussian Cultural Society since 1957. Bielavezha Byelorussian Literary almanac, so far and Polish three issues appeared (?) (1965, 1972, 1980). Lemk Lemkivska storinka Lemkish Since November 1959 'Lemkish page' one page in Lemkish in Ukrainian-language Nashe Slovo, cf. above. Holos Vatry Lemkish Irregular leaflet. Lithuanian Ausra * 'aurora' Lithuanian 2,000, now 196073 irregularly 4,000 published in Warsaw, later a quarterly published in Sejny (a monthly since 1990). Varsnos Lithuanian 2,000 'Scholarly and cultural monthly', 19713 published in Warsaw. Susitikimai Lithuanian Published approximately once a year since 1984 by (table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_164

next page >

< previous page

page_165

next page > Page 165

Appendix III (continued) NationalityTitle

Jews

Language CirculationRemarks students of Lithuanian extraction at Warsaw University. Folks-Sztyme Yiddish & 5.51,600 Since 1946, published initially 'People's Voice' Polish worldwide as a communist party paper in Lódz * four times a week, since 1961 a weekly, official publication of the Jewish Cultural Society; highly political; at present three pages in Polish, nine in Yiddish, so far almost 5,000 issues published. Yidishe Shriftn Yiddish Published 194669 in Lódz, 'Yiddish later Warsaw; altogether 250 Writings' issues. Dos Naje Lebn Yiddish Official Jewish paper 19459. 'New Life' Folks Cajtung, Yiddish The Kelman (1987) Arbejter Cajtung, bibliography enumerates Befrajung, etc. altogether 48 titles of papers and periodical in Yiddish published in Poland since 1944. Bleter far Yiddish 400 The scholarly journal of the Geszychte with Jewish Historical Institute in 'Historical summaries Warsaw published since 1948, Leaflets' in English so far 26 volumes appeared. and Polish Biuletyn Polish 500 Quarterly, since 1950, 150 Zydowskiego* volumes so far. Instytutu Historycznego w Polsce 'Bulletin of the Jewish Historical Institute in Poland' Kalendarz Polish & 7,000 Official publication of the Zydowski* Hebrew Jewish Religious Union in (the latter Poland, published in in

(table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_165

next page >

< previous page

page_166

next page > Page 166

Appendix III (continued) NationalityTitle Language CirculationRemarks 'Judaic Calendar' Hebrew Warsaw since 19834 with char. and in prayers and strictly religious Polish material in Hebrew, rest in orthography) Polish virtually a very good and informative cultural and literary almanac; prior to it, very small religious calendars were circulated among members of the Religious Union. Glos Bundu 'The Polish Publications of various Bund Voice' Nasze Jewish political parties Slowo 'Our Word' between 19458. Przelom 'Turning Point' Opinie 'Opinions' Mosty 'Bridges' Gypsies Devel Sarengro Romani Three issues (1980, 1981, Dad 'God is our 1982) each in a very small Father' number of copies were mimeographed; religious in character. calendars for Romani Issues for 1980, 1982, 1988 Gypsies appeared. Slovaks Zivot * Slovak 3,000 A trilingual monthly, and Czech published since 1957 as the Czechs Polish official publication of the Cultural Society of Czechs and Slovaks in Poland. Karaims Mysl* Karaimska Polish Continuation of the prewar 'Karaim Thought' journal; two last issues appeared in 19467 in Wroclaw. Tatars Zycie* Polish with 500 Since 1986, so far three Muzulmanskie* summaries books appeared embracing /Al-hayat alin English & eight issues. 'islamiyyat/ Arabic (table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_166

next page >

< previous page

page_167

next page > Page 167

Appendix III (continued) NationalityTitle 'The Muslims Life' Kashubian Zrzesz Kaszëbskô

Greeks

Language Circulation Remarks

Polish & 1,00010,000Published 19457, initially thrice Kashubian a week, later irregularly, liquidated by administrative decision. Chëcz 'Hut' Polish & Supplement to the former. Kashubian Pomerania Polish & 4,500 Published since 1963, currently Kashubian the official monthly of the Kashubian-Pomeranian Society (ZKP), literary in character, specially touchy on social problems. Bazuny Polish Published in Chojnice by the &(?) regional office of the ZKP, so Kashubian far 12 issues. Kaszëbe Polish & Published 1957-end 1961, 104 Kashubian issues. Zwônk Polish & Published by Kaszëbsczi Kashubian Kaszubiansstudents of the 'Kashubian Bell' Theological Seminary in Pelplin, mimeographed, since 1986, so far 15 issues. communications Polish & 300 Irregular, 12 issues so far. of the ZKP Kashubian Switk Polish & Irregular leaflet of the Kashubian Kashubian Students' Union Pomorania. Dimokratis Greek 1,200 as a Since 1949 published in weekly Zgorzelec, in 195084 in Wroclaw, first as a daily, later as a weekly and finally as a monthly, official paper of the Union of Political Refugees from Greece in Poland. Dimokratis Greek Supplement to the former. Mathiton

(table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_167

next page >

< previous page

page_168

next page > Page 168

Appendix III (continued) Nationality Title Aegean Demokrat Macedonians Germans

Arbeiterstimme

Language Circulation Remarks Macedonian Supplement to the Greeklanguage Dimokratis, cf. above. German 80,000 A daily published in 19518 in Wroclaw, allcountry circulation. German Supplements to the former.

WochenendMagazin and Am Sontag Die Woche in Polen German

Der PGR Arbeiter German Wir bauen auf

Russians

German

Tserkovniy vestnik Russian 'Church Herald'

Zveno 'Link, Group' Russian Russkiy golos 'Russian Voice' Zveno

Russian Russian

Golos russkoy Russian molodyozhi 'Voice of Russian Youth' Literaturnaya Russian stronitsa

13,0005,000Continuation of Arbeiterstimme as a weekly, published in Wroclaw till 1960. A paper for agriculture co-operative workers, published in Koszalin. A paper for mine workers, appeared in Walbrzych and Nowa Ruda. 2,000 Official monthly of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland, published in Warsaw since 1954. Published in Warsaw in 19523, 19567. A monthly published in 195767 in Lódz * . Supplement to the former 195860. 195860 supplement to Russkiy golos. 195860 supplement to Russkiy golos.

(table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_168

next page >

< previous page

page_169

next page > Page 169

Appendix III (continued) NationalityTitle 'Literary Page' Galchonok 'Young Daw'

LanguageCirculationRemarks Russian

195860 supplement for children to Russkiy golos.

Note The paper has been prepared for presentation at the Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages in Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, the Netherlands, 204 June 1989 and in part financially supported by the grant from the Alexander von HumboldtStiftung in Bonn to which due gratitude is expressed. This is a slightly abridged version of the text handed in by the authors. The Polish translation is published in full in the Kashubian monthly Pomerania. References and Selected Bibliography Almost all the material presented in this paper is based on first-hand information either from people directly involved in what we described or from source documents. Nevertheless, we feel that some selected bibliographic indications would elegantly complement the data quoted throughout this paper. The bibliography which follows is a classified one, arranged according to the treatment of particular minorities in the paper. General Gross, J. T. and Grudzinska-Gross I. (eds) (1981) War Through Children's eyes. Stanford: Hoover Institute. (eds) (1983) W czterdziestym nas matko na Sybir zestal . . . -Polska a Rosja 193942 (In 1940 They Sent Us To Siberia Poland and Russia 193942). London: Aneks. Kolberg, O. (1961 ff.) Dziela wszystkie (collected works), vols: 36, Wotyn *; 39, Pomorze; 52, Bialorus*-Polesie; 53, Litwa; 545, Rus* Karpacka; 567. Rus Czerwona (3 vols); 2932, Pokucie (4 vols). Wroclaw-Poznan*: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Muzyczne & Ludowa Spóldzielnia Wydawnicza. Majewicz, A. F. (1987) National minorities in Poland. Hoppo* Bunka Kenkyu* Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of North Eurasian Cultures Hokkaido University 18, 279300. Milosz, C. (1978) Rodzinna Europa (Native Europe). Paris: Instytut Literacki. Tomaszewski, J. (1985a) Ojczyzna nie tylko Polaków (Motherland Not Only for Poles). Warszawa: Mlodziezowa* Agencja Wydawnicza. (1985b) Rzeczpospolita wielu narodów (Res Publica of Many Nationalities). Warszawa: Czytelnik. Nationalities Ukrainians Chrzanowski, T. (1981) Poblask lun (The reflection of glows). Tygodnik Powszechny 38, 5. Lewandowski, J. (1982) Kwestia ukrainska* w II Rzeczpospolitej (The Ukrainian question in Poland between world wars). Aneks 28. 27122. Mokry, W. (1981a) Dzisiejsza droga Rusina do Polski (Ukrainians in Poland today).

< previous page

page_169

next page >

< previous page

page_170

next page > Page 170

Appendix II Schools providing education in minority languages in Poland (i) Primary schools School yearUkrainianByelorussianLithuanianYiddishSlovak CzechGreek/MacGerman Total 1955/6 -/60/4,090 5/182 6/1,64231/2,0801/38 -/125/5,488228/13,520 1960/1 6/283 39/2,643 10/478 2/86 22/1,402-/- 5/170 5/140 89/5,202 1965/6 2/152 33/2,286 9/480 -/6/261 -/- 2/100 -/52/3,279 1967/8 2/190 30/2,276 9/510 -/5/275 -/- -/-/46/3,251 1968/9 2/185 30/2,082 9/497 -/5/282 -/- -/-/46/3,046 (ii) Secondary schools School year Ukrainian Byelorussian Lithuanian Slovak German Total 1955/6 -/2/464 -/1/135 1/89 4/583 1960/1 2/143 -/1/50 1/91 -/4/284 1965/6 -/-/1/127 1/30 -/2/157 1967/8 -/-/1/95 1/21 -/2/116 1968/9 -/-/1/86 -/-/1/86 (a) The above figures indicate: number of schools/number of pupils. (b) Data for these tables are quoted after Rocznik Statystyczny Szkolnictwa 1968/9 (Statistical Yearbook of Education 1968/9).

< previous page

page_170

next page >

< previous page

page_171

next page > Page 171

Tygodnik Powszechny 46, 12; 47, 45. Zofia S. (1984) Sytuacja Ukrainców * w PRL (The situation of Ukrainians in Commnunist Poland). Kultura (Paris) 441, 836. Byelorussians Janowicz, S. (1987) Bialorus*, Biakorus. Warszawa: Iskry. Skaradzinski*, B. (1981) Glos Bialorusinów (The voice of Byelorussians). Tygodnik Solidarnosc* 31, 14. Lemks Bartoszuk, A. (1939) Lemkowie zapomniani Polacy (Lemks Forgotten Poles). Warszawa. Brykowski, R. (1986) Lemkowska drewniana architektura cerkiewna w Polsce, na Slowacji i Rusi Zakarpackiej (Lemk Wooden Church Architecture in Poland, Slovakia and Trans-Carpathian Russia). Wroclaw: Ossolineum Dobrowolska, M. (1938) Z badan* nad osadnictwem Lemkowszczyzny (Studies on Settlements in the Lemk Country). Warszawa. Kopernicki, I. (1889) O góralach ruskich w Galicji (Russian Highlanders in Galicia). Kraków. Kozlowski, M. (1981) Lemkowie (The Lemks). Tygodnik Solidarnosc 20, 11. Kroh, A. (1981a) Rekolekcje lemkowskie (Lemkian retreat). Tygodnik Powszechny 43, 4. (1981b) Kim sa* Lemkowie (Who are Lemks). Tygodnik Powszechny. 47, 5. Lemkowie. Kultura sztuka jezyk* (The Lemks culture, art, language; symposium materials). Warszawa: Kraj. Madzelan, S. (1986) Smak doli (A Taste of Fate Memoirs). Nowy Sacz*: Sadecka* Oficyna Wydawnicza. Mokry, W. (1981b) Rusini, Lemkowie Ukraincy* (Russians, Lemks Ukrainians). Tygodnik Powszechny 46, 2. Reinfuss, R. (1948) Lemkowie jako grapa etnograficzna (Lemks as an Ethnographic Group). Lublin: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze. Wicherkiewicz, T. (1989) Bibliografia publikacji poswieconych* Lemkom (Bibliography of publications on Lemks). Duplicated typescript. Lithuanians Makowski, B. (1986) Litwini w Polsce (Lithuanians in Poland). Warszawa: PWN. Rymkiewicz, J. M. (1984) Rozmowy polskie latem 1983 (What Poles Were Talking About in the Summer of 1983). Paris: Instytut Literacki. Jews Balaban, M. (1925) Historia i literatura zydowska* ze szczególnym uwzglednieniem* historii Zydów* w Polsce (History and Literature of the Jews with Focus on the History of Jews in Poland). Lwów: Ossolineum. Bartoszewski, W. and Lewinowns Z. (eds) (1966) Ten jest z Ojczyzny mojej Polacy z pomoca* Zydom* 19391945 (Poles Helping the Jews 19391945 An Anthology of Testimonies). Kraków: Znak. Bersohn, M. (1905) Slownik biograficzny uczonych Zydów polskich (Biographical Dictionary of Polish Scholars Jews). Warszawa: Laskauer. Fuks, M. (1979) Prasa zydowska w Warszawie 18231939 (Jewish Press in Warsaw 18231939). Warszawa: PWN. Fuks, M., Hoffman, Z., Horn, M. and Tomaszewski, J. (1982) Zydzi* polscy dzieje i kultura (Polish Jewry History and Culture). Warszawa: Interpress.

< previous page

page_171

next page >

< previous page

page_172

next page > Page 172

Kelman, J. M. (ed.) (1987) Bibliografishe reshime fun hebreishe un yidishe oysgabes in Poyln anheybndik fun 1944 Bibliography of Hebrew and Yiddish publications in Poland since 1944 collected by D. Zeichner and A. Szechter. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Krajewska, M. (1982) Zeit der Steine. Warszawa: Interpress. Niezabitowska, M. and Tomaszewski, T. (1987) Die letzen Judan is Polen. Schaffhausen: Edition Stemmle. Raczka *, J. W. (1982) Krakowski Kazimierz (old Jewish district Kazimierz in Kraków photo-album). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie. 25 yor yidisher meluha*-teater in Folkspoyln (25 years of the Jewish State Theatre in Poland). (1975) Warszawa: Arkady. Vincenz, S. (1977) Tematy zydowskie* (Jewish Themes). London: Oficyna Poetów i Malarzy. Wiesel, E. (1984) Souls on fire & Somewhere a master. Penguin Books. Gypsies Ficowski, J. (1985) Cyganie na polskich drogach (Gypsies on Polish Roads) (3rd edn). Kraków-Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Literackie. (1986) Demony cudzego strachu wspominki cyganskie* (Recollections Concerning the Gypsies). Warszawa: Ludowa Spóldzielnia Wydawnicza. (1989) Cyganie w Polsce-dzieje i obyczaje (Gypsies in Poland History and Customs). Warszawa: Interpress. Karaims Dubinski, A. and Sliwka*, E. (eds) (1987) Karaimi (Karaims). Pienieno*: Seminarium Duchowne Ksiezy* Werbistów. Zajaczowski*, A. (1961) Karaims in Poland History, Language, Folklore, Science. Warszawa: PWN, The Hague-Paris: Mouton. Tatars Borawski, P. and Dubinski*, A. (1986) Tatarzy polscy dzieje, obrzedy*, legendy, tradycje (Polish Tatars history, rituals, legends, traditions). Warszawa: Iskry. Konopacki, M. (1972) Pod bialostockimi minaretami (Under the shadow of Bialystok Minarets). Bialystok: WOIT. Kryczynski, S. (1938) Tatarzy litewscy. Próba monografii historyczno-etnograficznej (Lithuanian Tatars an attempt at a historical-ethnographical monograph). Roczsik Tatarski 3. Warszawa. Lapicz, C. (1986) Kitab Tatarów litewsko-polskich (paleografia, grafia, jezyk) (a Kitab of Polish-Lithuanian Tatars; paleography, graphics, language). Torun*: Uniwersytet Mikotaja Kopernika. Miskiewicz*, A. (1990) Tatarzy polscy 19181939 (Polish Tatars 19181939). Warszawa: PWN. Talko-Hryncewicz, J. (1924) Muslimowie* czyli tak zwasi Tatarzy litewscy (Muslims or the So-called Lithuanian Tatars). Kraków: Orbis. Armesians Baracz*, S. (1856) Zywoty* slawnych Ormian w Polsce (Biographies of Famous Armenians in Poland). Lwów: W. Maniecki. Gromnicki, T. (1889) Ormjanie w Polsce, ich historia, prawa i przywileje (Armenians in Poland, Their History, Rights and Privileges). Warszawa. Hanusz (1886, 1888) Sur la langue des Arméniens polonais. Kraków.

< previous page

page_172

next page >

< previous page

page_173

next page > Page 173

Mojzesowicz, K. and Chodubski, A. (1988) Ormanie w Polsce (Armenians in Poland). Warszawa: Koto Zainteresowain Kultura * Ormian (Circle of persons interested in the Armenian Culture, affiliated with the Polish Ethnological Society). Roszko, K. (1959, 1962). Les contes des Arméniens polonais de Kuty, parts 12. Folia Orientalia 1, 27495; 4, 17185. Old Believers Grek-Pabisowa, I. and Maryniakowa, I. (1980) Slownik gwary starowierców mieszkajacych* w Polsce (Dictionary of the dialect of Old Believers Living in Poland). Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Iwaniec, E. (1977) Z dziejów staroobrzedowców* na ziemiach polskich XVIIXX w. (Old Believers in Poland in the Seventeenth to Twentieth Centuries). Warszawa: PWN. Wilamowice Flemings Anders, H. (1933) Gedichte von Florian Biesik in der Mundart von Wilamowice. Kraków: Poznan* University. Kleczkowski, A. (19201) Dialekt Wilamowic w Zachodniej Galicji (The dialect of Wilamowice in Western Galicia) Vol. 1. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejetnosci*. Vol. 2. Poznan: University Press. Latosinski, J. (1909) Monografia miasteczka Wilamowice (A Monograph of the Town of Wilamowice). Kraków. Mojmir, H. (19306) Wörterbuch der deutschen Mundart von Wilamowice Vols. 12. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejetnosci. Zareba*, Z. (1977) Jezyk* poszedl w spania (The language's gone to sleep). Literatura 47, 6. Kashubians Borzyszkowski, J. (1982) Istota ruchu kaszubskiego i jego przemiany od pol. XIX w. po wspólczesnosc* (The Essence and Core of the Kashubian Movement and Changes in it Since the Mid-nineteenth Century Till Today). Gdansk*: ZKP. Breza, E. and Treder, J. (1981) Gramatyka kaszubska, zarys popularny (Kashubian Grammar, An Outline). Gdansk: ZKP. Bukowski, A. (1950) Regionalizm kaszubski ruch naukowy, literacki i kulturalny (Kashubian Regionalism The Scholarly, Literary and Cultural Movement). Poznan: Instytut Zachodni. Drzezdzon*, J. (1986) Wspólczesna literature kaszubska 19451980 (Contemporary Kashubian Literature). Warszawa: Ludowa Spóldzielnia Wydawnicza. Katalog wydawnictw Zrzeszenia Kaszubsko-Pomorskiego 19571981, 19811987 (The Catalogue of Publications of the Kashubian-Pomeranian Society ZKP, 1981, 1987). Gdansk: ZKP. Kirsten, W. and Roppel, L. (1958) Piesni* z Kaszub (Songs From the Kashubian Country). Gdansk: Prezydium MRN. Labuda, A. (198182) Slowôrz kaszebsko-polsczi & slownik polsko-kaszubski (Kashubian-Polish and Polish-Kashubian Dictionary). Gdansk: ZKP. Lorentz, F. (192737) Gramatyka pomorska (Kashubian Grammar) Vols 18. Poznan; reprinted 195862 in 3 vols. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Lorentz, F., Fischer, A. and Lehr-Splawinski, T. (1934) Kaszubi kultura ludowa i folklor (Kashubians Folk Culture and Folk Lore). Torun*. Neureiter, F. (1978) Geschichte der kaschebischen Literatur Versuch ether zusammenfassenden Darstellung. München: O. Sagner; Polish translation: Historia literatury kaszubskiej próba zarysu. Gdansk: ZKP.

< previous page

page_173

next page >

< previous page

page_174

next page > Page 174

Ostrowska, R. and Trojanowska, I. (1978) Bedeker kaszubski (Concise Kashubian Encyclopaedia).Gdansk *: Wydawnictwo Morskie. Ramult, S. (1893) Slownik jezyka* pomorskiego czyli kaszubskiego (Kashubian Dictionary). Kraków: Akademia Umiejetnosci*. Samp, J. (1985) Poezja rodnej mowy (Poetry of the Native Tongue). Gdansk: ZKP. Spolecznosc* zrzeszona 19561971 (Booklet Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the Kashubian-Pomeranian Society). 1971. Gdansk: ZKP. Stieber, Z. and Popowska-Taborska, H. (196478) Atlas jezykowy* kaszubszczyzny i dialektów sasiednich* (Kashubian Linguistic Atlas) Vols 115 (each in two parts). Wrocklaw: Ossolineum. Sychta, B. (196776) Slownik gwar kaszubskich na tle kultury ludowej (Dictionary of Kashubian Dialects Against the Background of Folk Culture) Vols. 17. Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Slovincians Badkowski*, L. (1956) Slowincy* (Slovincians). Warszawa: Sport i Turystyka Bolduan, T. (1953) W krainie Slowinców* (In the Slovincian Country). Warszawa: Ludowa Spóldzielnia Wydawnicza. Hilferding, A. (1862) Ostatki slavyan na yuzhnom beregy Baltiyskogo morya (Remnants of Slavonic Population on the Southern Coast of the Baltic Sea). St Petersburg. Polish translation by O. Kolberg appears in Kolberg's (1965) Collected Works Vol. 39 Pomorze (pp. 305528). Wroclaw-Poznan*: Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze. Warszawa: Panstwowe* Wydawnictwo Muzyczne & Ludowa Spóldzielnia Wydawnicza. (cf. the beginning of this bibliography). Lorentz, F. (1903) Slovinzische Grammatik. St Petersburg. (1905) Slovinsische Texte. St Petersburg. (190812) Slovinzisches Wörterbuch. St Petersburg. Rogaczewski, F. (1975) Wsród* Slowinców pamietnik nauczyciela (Among Slovincians Memoirs of a School Teacher). Gdansk: ZKP. Rudnicki, M. (1913) Przyczynki do gramatyki i slownika narzecza slowinskiego* (Contributions to a Grammar and a Dictionary of Slovincian). Kraków: Akademia Umiejetnosci*. Slowincy, ich jezyk* i folklor (Slovincians, Their Language and Folklore). Zeszyty Problemowe Nauki Polskiej 23. (1961) Warszawa. Slowinska* wies* Kluki (The Slovincian village of Kluki) (1958). Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznanskie*. Germans Paradowska, M. (1975) Bambrzy mieszkancy* dawnych wsi miasta Poznania ('Bambergers' Inhabitants of Old Villages Which Now Constitute Parts of the City of Poznan). Warszawa- Poznan: PWN. Masurians Wroblewscy, A. and A. (1989) Zgoda na wyjazd (Consent to Leave). Warszawa: Iskry. Fragments printed in the Literatura monthly, starting from issue 76 (1989: 611). Greeks Wojecki, M. (1989) Uchodzcy* polityczni z Grecji w Polsce, 19481975 (political refugees from Greece in Poland). Jelenia Góra. The reader is also referred to the bibliography printed in Majewicz (1987: 2927) (cf. this bibliography, general) as well as to publications (newsletters, bulletins, press, etc.) mentioned in the text of the present paper and published by the minority organisations in Poland.

< previous page

page_174

next page >

< previous page

page_175

next page > Page 175

12 The Siberian Estonians and Language Policy Jüri Viikberg Lauristini 6, Tallinn 200106, Estonia, USSR Abstract The Estonian settlements in Siberia were established in the middle of the nineteenth century (by expulsion) and by the end of the nineteenth century (by migration). In particular Estonian evangelical priests went to great lengths to establish schools in the mother tongue, and a cultural and organisational life. These traditions continued under the conditions of Soviet power (i.e. separated from the Estonian Republic): teachers were trained, newspapers printed, literature published, etc. The Stalinist repression (in particular 1937) hit the Siberian Estonians in the middle of flourishing language and cultural activities. Since then the Siberian Estonians live under conditions of forced bilingualism. The possibilities to use the mother tongue are restricted, the prestige of the language has withered. The developments of today lead to Russian unilingualism. The language life of Siberian Estonians reveals both the colonial politics of Czarist Russia (the conquered areas were populated by loyal subjects) and the over-ideological centrocracy of the Soviet Union (supremacy of the centre over the borderlands) which has involved Russification of the minorities. In Stalin's times the Russification policy was openly and brutally carried out, while later it has become more concealed by demagogy. Until today a number of Soviet sociologists (Y. Desheriev, N. Korletjanu, K. Hanazarov, M. Guboglo, a.o.) have uncritically supported the Party's policy of national assimilation. In European and more distant countries the Soviet Union is usually identified with Russia, but there are 127 languages in the Soviet Union (counted in 1970). Considering the nationality groups whose motherland is elsewhere but who are permanently living in the USSR as Soviet citizens (e.g. Germans, Finns, Koreans, Jews a.o.), the number totals 162 (Kulinchenko, 1976: 63; Holmogorov, 1981: 111). Non-Russians constitute over 50% of the whole population. As the mother tongue and nationality are not reflected in the official citizenship of the USSR, they are very important from the point of view of national identity. Language usage and language relations have until now not been regulated in the Soviet Union. There is no official language and Russian has been propagated as the language of communication between nations (a kind of lingua franca). Under the conditions of centralised power such a propaganda means that all languages are equal, but Russian is the most equal of them. The

< previous page

page_175

next page >

< previous page

page_176

next page > Page 176

old traditional policy of conquest and colonisation and the Russification of weaker nations have not ceased during the Soviet period. In 192679 the number of national languages, counted during censuses fell from 194 to 123, while in 1970 information was given about only 104 nationalities, and in 1979 about only 101 (Bruk, 1986: 145; Lallukka, 1982: 188). In the following I will deal with the language life of Siberian Estonians and show how the functioning of their mother tongue has been restrained by extralinguistic factors and how the official Czarist/Soviet language policy has (unofficially) served to attack and suppress the minority languages. Estonians settled in Siberia in the mid-nineteenth century when they were sent into exile, and at the turn of the nineteenth century when they voluntarily left Estonia. In 1897, 4,202 Estonians lived in Siberia, but in 1918 there were already about 40,000 Estonians in more than 100 villages. Craving for their own piece of land and farmstead, the Estonian peasants migrated to Siberia. It was encouraged by the government (the migrants were given financial support). In 18919 the Siberian railway was built for that workers were needed. In 1896 the Emigration Office was opened. Especially favourable for the migration was the agrarian reform of Prime Minister P. Stolypin, which gave peasants the opportunity to have their own land. In 190618 at least 40 Estonian villages were founded in Siberia (Nigol, 1918: 3961; Viikberg & Vaba, 1984: 1459, 210212; Viikberg, 1986: 39; Viikberg, 1988). Yet, in the colonisation of Siberia the role of the Estonians, when compared to the others, was relatively unimportant. In the nineteenth century many criminals were sent to Siberia from the whole European part of Russia, e.g. 6,667 in 1823, 10,776 in 1866, and 20,482 in 1876. But the number of settlers in general (Estonians included) was considerably bigger: 45,138 in 18857, 227,785 in 18913 and 516,201 in 18979 (Kolesnikov, 1978: 4; Viikberg, 1986: 7). It has to be kept in mind that such resettlements were officially planned and arranged in Czarist Russia. New territories were to be populated and natural resources were to be exploited. When, in the mid-nineteenth century Estonian villages were founded in East Siberia near Minusinsk and in West Siberia in the Omsk distict, the native peoples (Kamassians, Koybals, Tartars, a.o.) had already been driven to farther places. Estonians got the wrong impression that vacant lands were just waiting for them. But in 1899, when the Liiviküla (Lifljandia) village was founded near Vladivostok in the Far East, the natives were still living there. Plots were measured for the Estonians from the lands that had belonged to the Chinese and Koreans so far. It was all according to plan. Colonisation policy of Russian prescribed that some nations were to be displaced with the help of others. (In Liiviküla village money resolved the matter Estonians leased some land to outlawed Chinese and Koreans.) Estonians adapted themselves to new conditions relatively quickly. Continuing emigration from Estonia kept the Siberian settlements alive and nationally compact. On the initiative of Lutheran pastors Estonian schools and churches were founded. Joint economic actions were taken and cultural life arose from the cultural potential of the ethnos itself. Connections with the home country were maintained, newspapers and books were subscribed. In their own village Estonians lived as an Estonian community. Elsewhere, when the Russian language was needed (in offices, at the market, at the doctor's), the help of other people was used. Estonians in Siberian villages were monolinguals mostly. For

< previous page

page_176

next page >

< previous page

page_177

next page > Page 177

example, in 1922 in the Tomsk gubernia 3% of Estonians knew Russian well, 16% knew it satisfactorily, 26% knew it to some extent, and 55% did not know it at all (Maamägi, 1980: 31). Estonian cultural life in Siberia was continued in the Soviet period, but there was no contact with the independent Republic of Estonia. Estonian teachers were prepared in Leningrad, newspapers, journals, schoolbooks and other literature were published in Leningrad and Novosibirsk. Soviet reorganisations gave great hopes to people. Cultural life of the minorities became more lively, 52 small nations got their alphabets and literary languages (Smirnov & Dulichenko, 1982: 627). Estonians believed that the Russian chauvinism would be restricted and a union of really equal nations would be established. Unfortunately, their expectations did not come true. With the forming of collective farms in 192930 the Soviet power reached Siberian Estonians in all its reality. The Stalinist government named those who resisted collective farms kulaks, and the best of the peasantry were liquidated. The most insubordinate were tamed very easily: their harvests were confiscated and their granaries were wiped clean. The grain was sold abroad (notwithstanding the great famine in the Ukraine, South Russia and Kazakhstan), to give the other countries an impression that the Soviets lived in abundance. Purges in the party, mass arrests and executions followed. To stamp somebody as a 'spy' or an 'enemy of the people', any arbitrary pretext sufficed (e.g. a letter from Estonia or a contribution to the Estonian-language newspaper). Generally, the accusations were most absurd (people were accused of blowing up bridges, poisoning the crops of collective farms, spying for Japan, Germany or USA). About 10%15% of the inhabitants of Estonian villages in Siberia were arrested, it was obviously considered enough to frighten the others. In the Far East the village of Linda was entirely liquidated it seems that the whole village consisted of the kulaks and enemies of the people. In 192639 the number of Estonians in the Soviet Union decreased by 11,083 persons (7.2%). The fundamentals of national culture (vernacular church, schools and societies) were destroyed. Fighting atheism denounced national traditions, because many holidays were connected with Lutheran creed. In 1937, when the people were brought to their knees, the Estonian schools were made Russian, the Estonian publications and cultural activities were banned. Intellectuals were killed, books, newspapers, documents and the like were burnt (Viikberg & Rannut, 1988: 234). At a blow the developed literary language was degraded into a colloquial language spoken only at home and in village streets. The domain of the Estonian language was sharply restricted, which meant compulsory bilingualism for the Siberian Estonians. So in 1938 the Siberian Estonians were faced by the fact that they suddenly had no Estonian schools and societies, no Estonian books and schoolbooks. Such overnight changes can be explained neither by any logic of language development nor by any linguistic theories. It was linguacide, result of the persistent policy of repression. Considering the unfair and illegitimate means by which the power of the Soviets was turned into the dictatorship of the Communist Party to be more exact, of Stalin and his company it is evident that the creation of new literary languages and alphabets in the USSR in the 1920s was only temporary tactics. New ideology had to be introduced to the minorities in their own

< previous page

page_177

next page >

< previous page

page_178

next page > Page 178

languages. When that goal was achieved, the mission of the minority languages was concluded. Loyalty and Soviet patriotism could very well be expressed in Russian only. By now the Siberian Estonians have moved from Estonian-Russian bilingualism to Russian-Estonian bilingualism and are on their way to language shift or mother tongue displacement. The Estonian nationality groups have declined and mixed with other nations. In post-war years a great number of Siberian Estonians have come to live in Estonia. (See Table 1). The sources for the figures in Table 1 (Raun, 1958; Maamjägi, 1977: Mereste, 1981; Lallukka, 1982; the ESSR Board of Statistics) do not exactly reflect the present situation, but the tendency is evident. We might add that in 1970, outside Estonia 45,963 persons spoke Estonian as their mother tongue and for 11,959 persons it was the second language, while in 1979 the numbers were 33,954 and 9,184 (Mereste, 1981: 662). So the percentage of Estonians who did not speak Estonian at all in the Soviet Union was 32 and 40, respectively. The Estonian language has lost its significance in social spheres, while the Russian language has attained more importance in the social and cultural life of Siberian Estonians. Russian came with social, technical and cultural innovations, and its prestige is high. All has been done to make Estonians change their nationality. There are no Estonian-language institutions any more and the teachers have forbidden their pupils to speak their mother tongue even at home. They say that Estonian prevents the acquisition of Russian at school. The attitude towards the Estonian language is disdainful (they say that it is nobody's language and that in Estonia nobody would understand it). In towns the speaking of Estonian has drawn attention and it has been insisted that Russian should be used. The Estonian linguist Ilse Lehiste has written (1976: 10) that for the minorities their language is a symbol of their cultural heritage, so that to retain the latter, the former must be retained. When the parents demand that their children should speak their mother tongue, it is symbolic they want their culture to survive. The Estonian children's knowledge of their mother tongue in Siberia exclusively depends on their parents. Often the children are taught Russian at home, because their parents have sensed the assimilative power of the Soviet society. It is necessary to describe also the background of the language policy in the post-Stalin period as it directly influenced the language life of the Siberian Estonians. The official standpoint was that the flourishing Soviet nations Table 1 Number of Estonians in other nations Number of Estonians In the USSR (Estonia excl.) In Russia 1926 154,666 150,378 1939 143,583 130,498 1959 95,963 78,566 1970 82,199 62,980 1979 72,039 55,539

< previous page

In Siberia 32,317 33,577 31,551 ? 21,869

page_178

next page >

< previous page

page_179

next page > Page 179

would draw closer to one another and in the end their languages would fuse into one universal language. Proceeding from the interests of industry and central authority, it was stressed that Russian was the language of communication between Soviet peoples and as a civilised language it enriched the other languages. It was proclaimed that the Soviet people were unitary and the Russian language was the second mother tongue of all Soviet nations. So the equality of languages in the Soviet Union remained only a declaration. In the 1960s and 1970s the politisation of all life spheres and emphasising of the exceptionality of the Soviet Union took place. It was said that the assimiltion and death of languages occur only in the bourgeois states, but in the Soviet Union all the languages are blossoming (Päll, 1961; Korletjanu, 1969; Desheriev, 1976; a.o.). At the same time, it has been considered highly recommendable that the Soviet peoples and languages draw closer to one another and Russian be used, because only in such a way can national isolation be surpassed. It so seems, as if the renouncement of national languages were extensive and voluntary (Desheriev, 1966; Zakiev, 1969; Rashidov, 1979; Guboglo, 1984; a.o.), including conscious self-assimilation (Hanazarov, 1977). So the policy of Russification that Stalin officially and forcibly carried out has later been camouflaged and justified by demagogy. By now the latest steps to give more privileges to the Russian language on account of the others were made in 1978 and 1984. The protests and warnings of conscientious linguists (e.g. Mati Hint, Helle Leemets in Estonia) have not essentially reduced the influence of such policy. The linguistic and cultural situation of the minorities in the Soviet Union, their fragile and endangered existence is exceptional in the whole world. The expansion of Czarist Russia by brutal policy of conquest can be compared to the colonisation of Indian lands on the continent of America. In the Soviet Union the Russian chauvinism has been increased by Bolshevist dictatorship and terror. Unpunished, the authorities have manipulated the fate of whole nations and that has happened on the one-sixth of the territory of the world! Were we to compile a Red Data Book of the Soviet peoples, considering some of the many indicators of critical situation (e.g. decrease of population, small concentration on large territory, minority on its basic territory, absence of publications and schools in mother tongue), we should include in it about a hundred nations. No positive changes of the national policy can be expected in the Soviet Union, before it becomes a democratic state of justice. References Bruk, S. I. (1986) Naselenie mira. Etnodemograficheskij spravochnik. Moskva: Nauka. Desheriev, Y. D. (1966) Zakonomernosti razvitija i vzaimodeistvija jazykov v sovetskom obshchestve. Moskva: Nauka. (1976) Problemy dvujazychija. In Razvitie nacional'no-russkogo dvujazychija (pp. 56). Moskva: Nauka. Gubogio, M. N. (1984) O roll nacional'no-russkogo dvujazychija v formirovanii duhovnogo oblika sovetskogo cheloveka. In J. Vypusk Aktual' nye problemy nacional'nogo i internacional'nogo v duhovnom mire sovetskogo cheloveka (pp. 20216). Baku: Elm. Hanazarov, K. H. (1977) Reshenie nacional'no-jazykovoi problemy v SSSR. Moskva: Politizdat. Holmogorov, A. I. (1981) Nauchnoe upravlenie jazykovoi zhizn'ju naradov SSSR. In Teoreticheskie problemy social'noi lingvistiki (pp. 11031). Moskva: Nauka.

< previous page

page_179

next page >

< previous page

page_180

next page > Page 180

Kolesnikov, A. D. (1978) Sostav pereselencev v Sibir'. In Voprosy formirovanija russkogo naselenija Sibiri v XVII nachale XIX vv. (pp. 316). Tomsk. Korletjanu, N. G. (1969) Nekotorye voprosy razvitija i vzaimoobogashchenija nacional'nyh jazykov SSSR (na materiale moldavskogo jazyka). In Vzaimodeistvie i vzaimoobogashchenie jazykov narodov SSSR (pp. 11921 ). Moskva: Nauka. Kulichenko, M. I. (1976) Rascvet i sblizhenie nacij v SSSR: Problemy teorii i metodologii. Moskva: Mysl'. Lallukka, S. (1982) Neuvostoliiton suomalais-ugrilaiset kansat uusimpien väestönlaskentojen valossa. Virittäjä 2, 187205. Lehiste, I. (1976) Keelekontakt keelekonflikt. Mana 42, 514. Maamjägi, V. (1977) Estonskie poselency v SSSR (19171940 gg.). Tallinn. (1980) Uut elu ehitamas. Eesti vähemusrahvus NSV Liidus (19171940). Tallinn: Eesti Raamat. Mereste, U. (1981) Muutusi eesti keele valdajaskonnas 19709. Keel ja Kirjandus 11, 6618. Nigol, A. (1918) Eesti asundused ja asupaigad Venemaal. Tartu: Postimees. Päll, E. (1961) Keele arenemisest sotsialismilt kommunismile ülemineku ajajärgul. In Keele ja Kirjanduse lnstituudi Uurimused VI (pp. 920). Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus. Rashidov, Sh. R. (1979) Jazyk nashego edinstva i sotrudnichestva. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury. Raun, A. (1958) Eestluse statistikat Nôukogude 1926. a. rahvaloenduse andmeil. Mana 4, 5560. Smimov, S. and Dulichenko, A. (1982) Tegeliku keelepoliitika pôhijooni Nôukogude Liidus. Keel ja Kirjandus 12, 623 32. Viikberg, J. (1986) Estonskie jazykovye ostrovki v Sibiri (Vozniknovenie, izmenenija, kontakty). Preprint KKI-41. Tallinn. (1988) Vanematest eesti asundustest Siberis. Keel ja Kirjandus 5,2848. Viikberg, J. and Rannut, M. (1988) Istoricheskij aspekt statusa jazyka (na materiale estonskogo jazyka). Preprint KKI52. Tallinn. Viikberg, J. and Vaba, L. (1984) Siberi pôhjaeestlasi kônetamas. Keel ja Kirjandus 3, 14556; 4, 21023. Zakiev, M. Z. (1969) Nekotorye voprosy vlijanija dvujazychija na razvitija rodnogo jazyka. In Vzaimodeistvie i vzaimoobogashchenie jazykov narodov SSSR (pp. 16776). Moskva: Nauka.

< previous page

page_180

next page >

< previous page

page_181

next page > Page 181

13 The Use and Integration of Hebrew Lexemes in Israeli Spoken Arabic 1 Immanuel Koplewitz 20, Bet Ha-Kerem Street, Jerusalem 96343, Israel Abstract Israel's sizable Arab minority, with its strong language loyalty, maintains its native Arabic language (the second official language of Israel) in speech and writing. Most Israeli Arabs are fluent in Hebrew as well as in Arabic, and thus are almost completely bilingual. This study examines the use and integration of Hebrew lexical items by Israeli Arabs in everyday in-group Arabic speech. About 3,000 tokens of Hebrew lexemes current in Arabic speech were collected, which yielded a corpus of more than 1,000 types. An attempt is made to assess the depth of integration by six partial indicators: (a) the borrowed lexemes are analysed morphologically, mainly in relation to the means of plural formation of nouns; (b) semantic analysis shows shift, restriction and differentiation; (c) an analysis of translatability indicates that the widespread borrowing from Hebrew is not necessitated by the lack of an Arabic equivalent, but stems mainly from language economy and the sub-conscious search for shades of differentiation; (d) consistency of usage; (e) speakers' awareness of using a foreign word; and (f) the use of borrowed words in children's speech. A 'Combined Index of Integration' is suggested and applied to the material collected. Introduction Hebrew and Arabic are both official languages in Israel. Hebrew is the language of the Jewish majority; Arabic is the native language of the Arab minority, which makes up 18% of the country's population. Israel's Arabs have a strong language loyalty; the use and high standard of Arabic in Israel are maintained by means of the comprehensive network of Arabic education provided by Israel's government, and by a variegated press in Arabic and copious radio and television programmes in Arabic. Most Israeli Arabs are fluent in Hebrew as well as in Arabic, and thus are almost completely bilingual. Naturally, the two languages they use are influenced by each other. This study aims at presenting one aspect of this mutual

< previous page

page_181

next page >

< previous page

page_182

next page > Page 182

influence, namely the use and integration of lexical items from Hebrew in the Arabic spoken by bilingual Arabs of Israel. The study is based on a corpus of 3,017 tokens, containing 1,035 Hebrew word types, used in the everyday speech of Arabs talking Arabic among themselves. The material was collected during the year 1988 by 133 volunteer observers (most of them teachers) from all over the country. The material contains 42 brand-names and names of institutions, and about 550 words appearing only once; and some 80-100 non-Hebrew words current in Modern Hebrew which pass for Hebrew words in the process of lexical borrowing into Arabic. Since most of the borrowing of Hebrew words in Arabic speech occurs in day-to-day speech, Arabs quite naturally pick up a large number of slang words and expressions, without being aware that this or that word commonly used in everyday speech is a 'slang word'. 77% of all types are nouns, and 6.3% are interjections. A list of the 62 most frequent types (down to the frequency of 9) is given in Appendix A, and a list of the 61 'most integrated' words is given in Appendix B. Taken together, these lists may convey an idea of the nature of lexical borrowing from Hebrew into spoken Arabic. Measures of Integration The use of 'foreign' words (or other speech components) may be due either to interference or to integration. Mackey (1976: 308) defines the two concepts as follows: Interference is the use by a person speaking or writing one language of elements belonging to another language or dialect; it is a phenomenon of speech (discourse). Integration is the incorporation into one language or dialect of elements belonging to another language; it is a phenomenon of the language (or code). (For a different distinction between borrowing and interference, see Haugen, 1957: 589.) Every 'foreign' element integrated into a language was at one stage of that language's historical development introduced by way of interference. The process is gradual and ongoing, and it is nearly impossible to determine the exact stage (let alone date) when the borrowing of a word ceases (or ceased) to be due to interference, and becomes (or became) integrated into the receiving language; in other words, when the 'Fremdwort' became a 'Lehnwort'. The question may be one of historical linguistics, but it is equally pertinent (and perhaps even more interesting) with regard to the process of borrowing and integration going on at this very moment in the full view of sociolinguists, especially in bilingual situations. There is (so far) no single measure of integration, except the verdict of linguistic history on words absorbed in a language generations ago. Mackey (1970, 1976 chap. 12) endeavoured to define measures of integration, but admits (1976: 335) that his 'method does not perhaps provide the sole answer to the problem, but at least it does show that a problem exists'.

< previous page

page_182

next page >

< previous page

page_183

next page > Page 183

If we want to judge the extent or the stage of the process of integration of a borrowed word in the living language, we must examine different aspects or partial indicators (or measures), and may then try to combine the results obtained into a 'Combined Index of Integration'. Some such indicators of integration are the following: Phonological adaptation of the borrowed word to the sound inventory and phonological rules of the borrowing language. Morphological adaptation of the borrowed word to the grammatical rules of the borrowing language (L1). Semantic modification, which 'estranges' a word in its new sense to its 'home language' and thus makes it a 'citizen' of the borrowing language. (In)translatability of the borrowed word into the borrowing language. Acceptability the extent to which a word or idiom originating in L2 sounds acceptable to speakers of L1. Availability the extent to which a borrowed word occurs naturally to a speaker of L1. Consistency and exclusivity of usage. Speakers' awareness of using a non-native word. The use of a word in the speech of L1 monolinguals. Some of these indicators lend themselves more easily than others to quantification, and therefore are more readily usable as measures; but this does not necessarily mean that they carry more weight as indicators of integration than the inherently unquantifiable indicators. In the following sections, some of these indicators will be examined in the light of the lexical material of our study. With the figures thus obtained, a 'Combined Index of Integration' will be suggested, and applied to our corpus. Morphological Adaptation The degree to which a foreign lexical item is adapted to the morphological characteristics of the borrowing language (L2) is one of the main indicators of the degree of that word's integration (Mackey, 1970: 199). It is interesting to see that this idea was expressed in very modern language over 80 years ago by an Arabic scholar, 'Abd el-Qadir al-Maghribi. In his remarkable book Derivation and Arabisation (1908: 77), he discusses the question whether loanwords should be considered 'Arabic words', and explains: Non-Arabic words which have turned into Arabic words have [thereby] become Arabic; they receive the [Arabic] grammatical case-endings, and are rendered definite by the [Ar.] definite article al-; they can be combined into 'status constructus'; and they undergo plural formation. All these are some of the most obvious indications that loanwords are indeed Arabic words.

< previous page

page_183

next page >

< previous page

page_184

next page > Page 184

The integration of Hebrew words into spoken Arabic is facilitated by the fact that the two Semitic languages are very similar to each other in respect of syntactic construction, morphology and phonology. (cf. Gumperz, 1969: 242, 244) Various degrees of integration can be observed in the use of the definite article with compound nouns and in the conjugation of verbs. We have a few instances of verbs formed from three-radical Hebrew roots according to purely Arabic rules of conjugation, such as: ajarrid (from the Hebrew agarred, including an instance of phonological adaptation: g > j); azman (
< previous page

page_184

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_185

Page 185 Some words appear in an Arabised dual form, the syllable -en being affixed to the Hebrew singular form; e.g. mahlakten = two departments. This may be an indicator of integration, but it should be remembered that the Arabicspeaker has no other way available to express the concept of dual. A breakdown of the 263 nouns examined gives the following picture: Grades 1 and 2 no plural attested or Hebrew plural forms only. These can (a) be regarded as entirely unintegrated. 74% Grades 3 and 4 the 'sound' Arabic plural forms appears. This may be (b) regarded as incipient integration.

19%

Only with grades 5 and 6 do we come to palpable integration: the (c) formation of a 'broken plural' form.

7%

The morphological evidence of plural formation thus shows a low degree of integration of Hebrew nouns into spoken Arabic. Semantic Modification One of the most important causes of lexical borrowing is the lack, in the borrowing language, L1, of a word to denote a concept newly 'imported' from another culture. Words thus borrowed have been called 'necessity loans' (Kaufmann, 1939: 43; Baetens-Beardsmore, 1982: 49). This kind of 'necessity' is an important cause of borrowing from Hebrew into Arabic, though not the main one, as will be shown in the next section. Some of the words in our corpus surely denote a concept material or abstract which is novel to the Arab population of Israel. The domains in which this is most apparent are those of foods and drinks, social services and welfare, labour relations, education, and modern technology. In some cases, lexical borrowing is prompted by the (generally unconscious) need felt by the speaker to express a semantic differentiation. For instance, bitu' ah means 'insurance'; the Hebrew term is generally used by Arabs for benefits from the Institute of National Insurance. Car insurance is generally called by the Arabic word ta' min. The need for differentiation may be extended further to nuances of meaning, 'for the sake of nuanced expressivity' (Baetens-Beardsmore, 1980:12). Oksaar (1980: 48) stresses the prosodic, stylistic and associative values of a word; Poplack et al. (1988: 60) mention 'a desire for synonyms to distinguish registers'. Haugen, however, remarks (1957: 588) that 'the division between ''necessity" and "emotional need" is not a true dichotomy'. An examination of the Arabic equivalents offered by my observers for the Hebrew words which they collected has yielded about 20 terms of which it seems clear that one of the reasons (if not the main one) for their borrowing into Arabic is this need for a nice distinction of shades of meaning. Generally speaking, Hebrew words are used in Arabic speech more or less in the sense they have in spoken Hebrew. Even so, there are some interesting cases of semantic extension, shift,.and restriction. For example, ashkoliyot [grapefruit] (with the phonological adaptation e > a) and tapuzim [oranges], have come to mean the juice of these two kinds of fruit, respectively, and not the fruit itself, for which the Arabic word is used; gan in Hebrew means 'garden', and is used also for 'kindergarten' or 'nursery school'. In Arabic it is used for 'kindergarten' only. Semantic restriction is particularly noticeable in the domain of football

< previous page

page_185

next page >

< previous page

page_186

next page > Page 186

vocabulary: the Hebrew word halutz [a pioneer] has come to mean, in Arabic usage, only a forward in the football team. The use of gol [goal] in the sense of a football game is a case of extension. It may be argued that the more a borrowed word, as used in L1, grows apart from its original sense in L2, the more it has become integrated in the borrowing language. Such 'distancing' is hard to quantify, and the material in our corpus is not sufficient to verify this thesis. Translatability Translatability is the ease or difficulty of translating a lexeme borrowed from L2 into the borrowing language L1. If the denoted concept does not exist in the borrowing language at all, the translatability of the L2 term is nil. In this sense, translatability or rather the lack of it may be regarded as one of the causes of borrowing. But translatability may also be viewed as a measure of integration. 'If the testee cannot provide an L1 equivalent for the L2 word, it may be assumed that the foreign word belongs to his code' (Mackey, 1970: 207). Translatability is not an absolute and monolithic feature, but may be variegated and graded. If you ask an individual for the L1 translation of a certain L2 word which he has just used or is in the habit of using, you may get an indication of whether the borrowed word has become part of that individual's linguistic repertoire or 'code'. But if you ask the same question of a number of people, their accumulated answers may indicate the availability of an L1 equivalent in that language. You may for instance find that the word offered as a translation is a good classical, Standard Arabic word, though not much used in Colloquial Arabic; e.g. mustanbat [greenhouse], for which Hebrew hamamah is substituted. In some cases, the L I equivalent of an L2 word takes up two or three words combined, or is a paraphrase and not a translation at all. This certainly indicates the lack of a one-word accepted equivalent in L1. In such cases the speaker of L1 will tend to use the shorter word, even if it is foreign. Oksaar (1980: 48) calls this 'language economy'; Poplack et al. (1988: 60) speak of 'a psychological preference for morphologically simple lexical items over more complex ones to express the same referent'. There are several examples of this phenomenon in our corpus, where the Hebrew word used has only two (or three) syllables, as against two or three words and six (or even eight) syllables in the Arabic equivalent. You may also find that you are offered more than one translation up to seven! none of which is an exact and adequate equivalent of the L2 word. The different translations may be given by different observers, or even by one. Now this, too, is an indication of 'intranslatability'; and the more equivalents are offered, the stronger is the incentive to use it, and the more it can be regarded as intranslatable and integrated. The most extreme kind of intranslatability is that where the observers (one or several of them in each case) write explicitly: 'This word has no Arabic equivalent'. On the basis of these degrees of (in)translatability, each word was given a rating on a scale of six grades. There were 276 types for which sufficient notations were available. The translatability ratings for the 60 'most integrated' words are given in Appendix B. The breakdown of these ratings shows significant, and

< previous page

page_186

next page >

< previous page

page_187

next page > Page 187

perhaps somewhat surprising, results: over half of all words have a perfectly usable and current Arabic equivalent; only 15% are untranslatable. The rest (about one third) are in between. In other words, if in some multilingual situations lexical borrowing is caused first and foremost by 'necessity', the sheer absence of a suitable term in the borrowing language this is not the case in the linguistic situation of the Arabs in Israel. Poplack et al. (1988), analysing English borrowings in the French of OttawaHull, have reached the same conclusion: The number of borrowings that can be ascribed to lexical need in Canadian French is negligible in comparison with those for which such motivation is absent. (Poplack et al. 1988: 61) The norms of the community override individual abilities. This striking finding, not previously reported in the literature, must be interpreted as showing that behavior with respect to use of borrowing is acquired and not merely a function of lexical need. (Poplack et al. 1988: 98) In the present context it may be said that in so far as (in)translatability is a measure of integration, Hebrew words borrowed in Arabic speech show a rather low level of integration. Frequency and Consistency of Usage An analysis of all types in our corpus by frequency of occurrence gives the distribution shown in Table 1. It will be noted that more than half of all types occur only once, and another 20% only twice; only 119 words occur six times or more. It may be assumed that only these latter words have been absorbed in Israeli spoken Arabic to some degree; clearly a word which appears frequently in a large collection of tokens carries more weight than a word of low frequency, and can make a better claim to be 'on the way' to becoming a loanword in the borrowing language. Mere frequency of a borrowed word, however, is not its most important feature, and is not, in my view, a valid indicator of integration. For frequency is a function not only of the word's integration in the borrowing language, but also Table 1 Distribution of types by frequency Frequency Number Accum. total 1 550 1,035 2 194 485 3 79 291 4 47 212 5 46 165 6 33 119 7 to 10 50 86 11 to 19 30 36 20 and above 6 6

< previous page

page_187

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_188

Page 188 of the frequency of the occurrence of that concept in day-to-day life. As Mackey (1970: 202) puts it: 'The occurrence of an item from the other language depends largely on the topic of conversation'. Cooper (1979) distinguishes between two kinds of frequency, in the following words: Usage [which Cooper views as the fourth stage of Adoption] is the actual frequency of the use of the innovation. Usage can be described in terms of absolute or relative frequencies: a how often the innovation is used for a given context, b how frequently it is used compared to other alternatives available to the adopter [i.e. the speaker]. (Cooper, 1979: 31). This distinction may be observed in our corpus: a Hebrew word may be used quite frequently in Arabic speech, and yet its Arabic equivalent may be in much wider use. The word ba 'ayah [problem], for instance, is attested in our list eight times but the Arabic mushkile is far more usual. On the other hand, a Hebrew word may be attested only two or three times, while its Arabic equivalent is in much less use. Such is the case of bet arizah [packaging hangar], which is attested in Hebrew from a 12-year old boy who probably does not even know an Arabic equivalent. One of the measures of the integration of a foreign word in the borrowing language is the degree to which it is used consistently, to the exclusion of the L1 equivalent (cf. Mackey, 1970: 203). In order to provide the basis for an assessment of this consistency of usage, the observers were asked to note, for every Hebrew word they included in their Registration Forms, 'the Arabic equivalent, and which of the two words is in wider use, and in what proportion'. The form did not specify how this 'proportion' was to be expressed. Some observers wrote: 'the Hebrew word is more usual' or: 'the two words appear equally' and the like. In some cases, observers gave, on their own initiative, some more detailed and originally-worded information on this question. Most observers, however, replied to the question by giving a' percentage. This must in most cases be rather subjective and impressionistic, and most observers did not give any notation on this score to those words which are (in their view) low on consistency. All the same, these notations do have some indicative value. The information thus gathered was classified in six grades, seen as representing six progressive degrees of integration. The results can be summed up as follows: All or most observers note that the Arabic word is in wider use, and the 1+2. Hebrew word is rare 45% 3.

Opinions are balanced

7%

Most observers say that the Hebrew word is more widely used,'60% of 4+5. the time' or more 33% 6.

All observers agree that the Hebrew word is used 80100%

15%

Only 46 Hebrew words (out of about 300 included in this count) were said by all observers to be used to the exclusion of their Arabic equivalents. It would seem that this consistency test reveals a rather modest degree of integration.

< previous page

page_188

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_189

Page 189 Awareness of Borrowing As has been mentioned before, it is generally agreed that the ultimate proof of the absorption and integration of a loanword into the borrowing language is that it is no longer felt by the native speakers to be a foreign word. This development can go so far that the speaker of L1 may come to take the L2 word he uses freely for a native word of L1, and to believe that the native L1 word (which he no longer knows) is foreign. A kindergarten inspector visiting the village of Tamrah asked a woman about the raudah (Arabic for nursery school) her child was attending, but the woman did not understand what she wanted. After repeated questioning the inspector reformulated her question and asked about the gan (the Hebrew word). Said the woman: 'Why don't you speak plain Arabic, and ask about the gan?'! (For a similar story about a visitor from Spain invited to give a lecture at the University of Puerto Rico, see Nash, 1970: 226.) The unconsciousness of using a foreign word does not, of course, always extend that far. It generally grows gradually. The difficulty, then, is how to determine whether and when this process has reached its culmination (cf. Mackey, 1970: 197). In order to collect data on this question, our observers were asked to note 'whether the speaker senses that he is using a foreign word'. The determination of awareness vs. unconsciousness of borrowing poses three difficulties. First, there must be a difference between the intercalation of a single L2 word 'or short frozen idiomatic phrase' (Gumperz, 1982: 66) and the switch into L2 for a longer 'chunk of speech' (Baetens-Beardsmore, 1982: 42). I suppose that the awareness of such a shift is minimal for single words and increases with the length of the 'chunk of speech'. Secondly, I think several stages of awareness should be distinguished. In rapid speech and dialogue, Arab speakers intercalate Hebrew words probably without being aware of how they are speaking, in the way described by Gumperz (1982: 6). But if for any reason they pause to think how they are talking, or if they are asked about this specifically, they would certainly recognise for such most of the Hebrew words they use. This is probably equally true for what the speaker senses about his own speech and for what he may observe in the speech of others. This 'duality' of awareness was vividly and succinctly defined in the words of one of my observers, a school headmaster from Galilee: 'If you draw the speaker's attention to it, he senses that the word is foreign'. The third difficulty is that of objective assessment of a feeling; and moreover of somebody else's feeling. I suspect that in some cases the answers provided relate not so much to what the speaker felt (or said he felt), as to what the observer felt or imagined he felt when listening to the speaker being observed; and I have no means of knowing whether the observer asked the speaker about his 'feeling' or relied on his own intuition. In counting the answers to this question, only those types were taken into account for which our material contains at least two notations from different observers. This gave a total of 151 types counted in the break-down, as follows: All or most speakers are reported to be aware of the word's being (a) foreign

24%

(b) Testimonies are balanced

33%

(c) All or most speakers are unaware they are using a foreign word

43% 100%

< previous page

page_189

next page >

< previous page

page_190

next page > Page 190

If this kind of unconsciousness of borrowing can be taken as a measure of integration, it might be said that on the whole, integration has proceeded slightly beyond mid-point. Children's Speech The ultimate test of whether a foreign word has been completely integrated into the borrowing language, is whether it is used by monolingual speakers of that language. Now in the present circumstances of the Arab community in Israel, it is very difficult to find Arabs entirely ignorant of Hebrew. The only group which might be called Arabic-monolingual is that of small children before they come into contact with (Hebrew-speaking) Jews, before they visit the cities, and above all before they start learning Hebrew in school; that is, before the age of eight or nine. Even this is only relatively true, for even young Arab children view Israeli television programmes in Hebrew. The information about Arab children's use of Hebrew words, in the framework of the present study, is rather meagre: only 24 observers noted the use of Hebrew words by children, and only 41 words carried notations to that effect. An attempt to collect Hebrew words used by small children, aged four to five, through their kindergarten teachers, proved equally disappointing. The result of these enquiries was a list of 56 'Children's Words', of which 21 can be regarded as more 'salient' (that is: more widely attested) than the remainder. Most of these more salient children's words are also attested with high frequencies in the Main Word List. We can draw up a classification (or rating) of these 'Children's Words' on the basis of their occurrence in the admittedly very restricted corpus of 56 types; but beyond this, the paucity of our material precludes drawing any conclusions. This method of pinpointing L2 words completley absorbed in L1 is certainly worth pursuing. A Combined Index of Integration We can now try to combine our findings into a Combined Index of Integration (CII). The preceding sections have furnished us with a number of ratings of the borrowed words for five aspects of integration: morphological adaptation (essentially only plural formation, designed by MO in Appendix B); translatability (TR); consistency and exclusivity of usage (EX); the speaker's awareness of using a foreign word (AW); occurrence of the word in children's speech (CH). Phonological adaptation and availability were not included in this study. [The method of detecting and measuring availability as developed by Mackey (1976: 31735), has been applied to Hebrew (and English) words in Israeli Spoken Arabic by Amara & Spolsky (1986).] Semantic modification is an important indicator of integration, but does not lend itself easily to quantification. Frequency is not regarded as an indicator of integration, as has been explained above. In an attempt to facilitate the combination and comparison of the five quantifiable indicators mentioned, their ratings have all been assessed on a scale of

< previous page

page_190

next page >

< previous page

page_191

next page > Page 191

six grades. These are not, of course, measurements of any strictly measurable quality, but only ratings which at best permit comparisons between different types, and perhaps the detection of dependences and correlations between the indicators. The various indicators are probably not all of equal importance for judging the integration of a word, but at the present stage I do not see any way of 'weighting' them statistically. Therefore the simplest way to compute a Combined Integration Index for any word on the basis of our material, seems to me to be just to add up the five ratings which that particular word has received. Theoretically, the highest CII figure for any word would be 30 six points for each of five indicators. In fact, we find only one case of 29 points, the next highest rating is 24 points. It is perhaps permissible to say that any lexical item with a CII of 20 and above (that is, two thirds of the maximum) may be said to be well on its way to integration in the borrowing language, spoken Arabic. Most words in our corpus do not have sufficient ratings to permit of determining a CII figure. However, in some cases the absence of a rating or verbal notation is in itself a rating; this is true mainly for morphological adaptation, where only cases of adaptation were noted by the observers. Similarly, adding the rating for children's speech only to those few words which do have such a rating, seems justified because this fact in itself indicates that the word is more integrated than those other words for which no such information has been given. Taking into account only those types which have ratings for at least three indicators, we come up with a total of 80 words. Of these, 52 types have 15 points (that is, half the maximum number of points) or more. Twenty-eight words have a CII lower than that, the lowest CII for any of these being 11. All the remaining words (about 400) do not show any signs of integration at all. A list of the 61 'most integrated' words will be found in Appendix B, with the ratings for each of the five indicators, the Combined Integration Index, and each word's frequency. It is interesting to compare this list with that of the most frequent words in Appendix A. (Both lists have been 'cut off' at 612 words, so as to facilitate the comparison.) We find only 27 words that appear both in the integration list and in the frequency list, as against 34/5 words that are included in either of the two lists only. There is thus a rather low correlation between these two aspects of lexical borrowing. The correlation within the group of 27 words included in both lists is still lower, as can be seen from a comparison of the figures in the first and last columns of each of the two appendices. A similar absence of correlation between morphological adaptation and frequency was noted by Forgue (1980: 71) in his analysis of Anglicisms current in French. The CII here suggested can claim no more than possibly to point a way towards a satisfactory measurement of the process of lexical integration. In order for it to become a really valid measure, it needs to be expanded and complemented at least in the following directions: (a) finding a method of assessing and quantifying phonological adaptation; (b) devising a method of quantifying semantic modification and adaptation;

< previous page

page_191

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_192

Page 192 Quantification of these (and other) indicators may be in respect of the linguistic phenomenon itself, or in respect of the population observed or persons reporting these phenomena, or two-dimensional, as in the ratings of consistency of usage above. (c) exploitation of the possibilities provided by the investigation of availability, on the lines proposed by Mackey (1970, 1976); (d) full investigation of the language use of children and other L1 monolin-guals; (e) collection of more material, which will widen the basis of tokens and may increase the number of types, will lend more credibility to percentages, and will facilitate (f) computation of correlations between the various indicators of integration, which, in its turn, will make it possible to determine a differential weighting of the indicators; (g) the investigation of differences in language use and integration on local-regional and on socio-economic lines. Appendix A List of Most Frequent Words Following is a list of the 62 most frequent types (down to the frequency of 9), with their translation, part-of-speech (PS), and Combined Index of Integration (CII): Frequency 69 50 28 25 22 20 19

18 17

15 14

Type besseder kupat holim monit shalom hofesh ramzor ulam mahshev makhshir mass-'erekh tahanah dokh tofes missrad gan menahel te'oriya tlush yoman migrash bitu'ah lakhmaniyah sslikhah shikun

Translation all right, O.K. health clinic taxi hello! day-off, leave traffic lights hall computer instrument V.A T. bus stop, station report, ticket form(ular) office kindergarten foreman, director driver's examination salary slip classroom register football field insurance (instit.) bread roll excuse me! housing scheme

PS int n n int n n n n n n n n n n n np n n n n n n int n

CII 21

17 19 20 13 17 17 19 22 17 29 24

(table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_192

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_193

Page 193 Appendix A (continued) Frequency Type 14 (continued) tahanah merkazit 13 deshe 'ugah tokhnit 12 ishur kartiss le-hitra'ot mitz pinkess tik 11 khomer shomer 10 hanyon manah mass-hakhnassah mishtarah mishmar-gvul kaffe' shofet shalat glidah 9 bet-holim do'ar hamamah tov! kaduregel madrikh mah-pit'om! makolet mass me 'onot ma 'alit nakhon! naknik 'ozer(et) kablan sho'er mahlakah

Translation central bus station lawn cake(s) plan, scheme certificate, permit (bus) ticket see you later fruit juice membership card folder, file material watchman parking lot portion income tax (dept.) police frontier police coffee (football) referee remote control ice-cream hospital post office greenhouse good, fine! football instructor why on earth! grocery store tax dormitories lift, elevator correct! sausage assistant contractor goalkeeper hospital ward

PS n n n n n n int n n n n np n n n n n n n n n n n n int n np int n n n n int n np np np n

CII 20

15 18 19 21 17 15

17

19 16

15

16 17 13 15

Appendix B List of Most Integrated Words CII = Combined Index of Integration MO Morphological Adaptation Rating CH Childrens' Speech Rating AW Rating of Awareness of Borrowing EX Consistency and Exclusivity Rating TR Translatability Rating CII Word 29 lakhmaniya

Meaning roll

MO 6

EX AW CH TR Freq 6 6 5 6 14

(table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_193

next page >

< previous page

page_194

next page > Page 194

Appendix B (continued) CII Word Meaning 24 shikun housing 23 desheh lawn 22 kibbutz kibbutz tlush salary slip gumi rubber band shamenet cream 21 shomer watchman zannak leapt besseder fine, O.K. supermarket supermarket 20 makhshir instrument keren corner tiyul outing 19 'ugah cake menahel foreman mahshev computer test car test pinkess member card hamamah greenhouse 18 mekhal container 'avaryan offender mitz fruit juice kuppah cash register kurs course rakevet train 17 shofet referee bank bank gan kindergarten manof crane yoman class register 'ozeret assistant ramzor traffic-light hanyon parking tofess form(ular) mishkanta mortgage 16 mahssom road block naqniqiyot sausages ssak shenah sleeping bag matzil lifeguard tov! good! minus overdraft tissroket hair-do 15 manah portion marak soup mix makolet grocery kartiss bus ticket hizmin ordered po'el workman argaz crate sho'er goalkeeper taltalim hair locks

MO EX AW 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 3 6 6 2 6 5 5 5 6 5 3 6 2 5 5 4 6 5 2 6 5 3 6 5 5 5 5 2 6 5 3 5 5 2 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 5 6 6 5 6 6 2 5 6 6 5 5 3 5 5 5 6 5 2 5 5 4 6 3 3 6 5 5 5 2 3 6 3 1 6 5 3 4 5 2 6 6 3 6 5 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 3 5 3 6 4 5 4 1 1 4 5 5 4 1 2 6 6 3 5 6 2 5 3 2 5 6

CH TR Freq 3 6 14 5 4 13 6 5 6 17 5 8 5 5 15 6 1 11 5 2 6 6 69 3 6 4 2 5 19 2 2 20 2 4 5 6 1 7 3 1 17 4 2 19 5 6 4 12 6 9 5 6 5 7 6 1 12 1 5 1 8 1 5 3 1 10 1 5 3 1 17 1 5 3 2 15 4 9 3 20 5 10 5 18 5 7 4 8 2 9 2 5 1 5 5 9 5 5 5 8 4 10 5 7 5 9 5 12 5 5 1 4 1 6 3 2 9 2 2

(table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_194

next page >

< previous page

page_195

next page > Page 195

Appendix B (continued) CII Word Meaning 14 dme avtala unemploym. compensation mifra'ah advance pay keren fund tiftuf sprinkler 13 mefager retarded mash'evah pump tsad shlishi 3rd party kablan contractor mass 'erekh V.A.T

MO EX AW CH TR Freq 2 6 5 1 2 2 5 6 1 3 6 6 2 3 1 6 5 2 4 2 4 6 1 5 1 6 5 1 6 6 6 1 4 4 5 3 1 9 6 6 1 19

Note 1. Abridged version of a paper presented to the 4th International Conference on Minority Languages, Ljouwert/Leeuwarden (Netherlands) 2024 June 1989. References Amara, M. H. and Spolsky, B. (1986) The diffusion and integration of Hebrew and English lexical items in the spoken Arabic of an Israeli village. Anthropoligical Linguistics 28, 4354. Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (1980) On the similarities between bilingualism and unilingualism. In P.M. Nelde (ed.) Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt (pp. 1117). (Zeitschrift fuer Dialektologic und Linguistik, Beiheft 32). Wiesbaden. (1982) Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters No. 1. Cooper, R. L. (1979) Language planning, language spread, and language change. Georgetown Univ. Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (GURT) (pp. 2350). An enlarged version of this article appears as: A framework for the study of language spread. In R. L. Cooper (ed.) (1982) Language Spread, Studies in Diffusion and Social Change (pp. 536). Washington: Indiana Univ. Press and Inst. for Applied Linguistics. Forgue, G. J. (1980) Le 'Franglais' dans Le Monde. In P. H. Nelde (ed.) Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt (pp. 6974). (Zeitschrift fuer Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 32). Wiesbaden. Gumperz, J. J. (1969) Communication in multilingual societies. In S. A. Taylor (ed.) Cognitive Anthropology (pp. 43548). New York: Holt. Repr. in Gumperz (1971) Language in Social Groups. Essays selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil. (ch. 14, pp. 23050). Stanford University Press. (1982) Discourse Strategies. London: Cambridge Univ. Press. Haugen, E. (1957) Review of L'Emprunt linguistique by Louis Deroy. Language 33, 5879. Kaufmann, E. (1939) Der Fragenkreis ums Fremdwort. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 38, 4263. Lehiste, I. (1988) Lectures on Language Contact. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Mackey, W. F. (1970) Interference, integration and the synchronic fallacy. MSLL 23, 195227. (1976) Bilinguisme et contact des langues. Paris: Klincksieck. Maghribi, A. Q. (1908) Kitab al-lshtiqaq wal-Ta'rib (The Book of Derivation and Arabisation). Cairo: Al-Hilal Press. Nash, R. (1970) Spanglish: Language contact in Puerto Rico. American Speech 45, 22333. Oksaar, E. (1980) Mehrsprachigkeit, Sprachkontakt, Sprachkonflikt. In P. H. Nelde (ed.) Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt (pp. 4352) (Zeitschrift fuer Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 32). Wiesbaden. Poplack, S., Sankoff, D. and Miller, C. (1988) The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26, 47104. Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact. New York: The Linguistic Circle of New York Repr. The Hague, (1963).

< previous page

page_195

next page >

< previous page

page_196

next page > Page 196

Contents of Volume I Durk Gorter, J. F. Hoekstra, L. G. Jansma and J. Ytsma: Introduction Joshua A. Fishman: What is Reversing Language Shift (RLS) and How Can It Succeed? Howard Giles, Laura Leets and Nikolas Coupland: Minority Language Group Status: A Theoretical Conspexus John de Vries: On Coming to Our Census: A Layman's Guide to Demolinguistics Tove Skutnabb-Kangas: Legitimating or Delegitimating New Forms of Racism The Role of Researchers Germen de Haan: Grammatical Borrowing and Language Change: The Dutchfication of Frisian A. B. Anderson: Comparative Analysis of Language Minorities: A Sociopolitical Framework John Edwards: Notes for a Minority-Language Typology: Procedures and Justification Francois Grin: The Economic Approach to Minority Languages Anders Ahiqvist: Summing Up List of Participants Overview of Speakers and Titles Contents of Volume II Index

< previous page

page_196

next page >

< previous page

page_197 Page 197

Index A Arabic, Israeli-spoken 181-195 Attitude 135-148 B Basque 115-133 Bilingualism 103-113 Brussels 43-52 C Carinthia 135-148 Channel Island Norman French 53-67 D Demolinguistics 115-133 Dialect 135-148 contact 21-42 E Education 43-52, 149-174 Estonian 175-180 F Factor Analysis 11-20 Finnish 21-42 Flemish Schools 43-52 Frisian 1-10 G Gaelic 69-89 H Hebrew, borrowing from 181-195 I Immigrants 21-42 Integration, measurement of 181-195 Intergroup Relations 43-52 L Language competence 115-133 conservancy 53-67 death 53-67 history 1-10 legislation 103-113 maintenance 53-67, 69-89 policy 91-102, 175-180 shift, reversal of 53-67 Lexical borrowing 181-195

Linguistic rights 103-113 Low German 1-10 M Matched-guise technique 11-20 Media 149-174 Minorities 149-174 Minority languages 11-20, 103-113 of the British Isles 53-67 Migration 91-102, 175-180 Morphological adaptation 181-195 Mother tongue 115-133 Multilingualism 11-20 P Poland 149-174 R Reformation 1-10 S Schools 91-102 Scotland 69-89 Slovene 135-148 Social categorization 11-20 Sociolinguistics 21-42, 69-89, 103-113 Spain 103-113 Speech community 69-89 Standardisation 21-42 T Translatability of loan words 181-195 U Urban dialect 11-20 W Welsh 1-10, 91-102

< previous page

page_197