Should Norn be revived?

[EM]

Indeed there is an interesting argument which proposes that one of the reasons why the English speaking empires became so dominant was because they used English, rather than the theory that English became dominant because of its use by those empires.

 

Reference?

 

I really wish I could locate it, but I've not got a record of the theorist's name. I heard the idea in an interview on the BBC World Service back in the 90s. The guy putting forward the argument explained that English was an ideal language for colonial exploitation due to several factors.

 

Due to the simple grammar it is extremely easy for people to learn basic English, but due to the irregularity of the pronounciation "rules" and general irregularity, it is very difficult for a non-native to become entirely fluent in English.

 

These features meant that the bosses could get the engines of empire and commerce running efficiently at the bottom end of the societal hierarchy, yet mitigate infiltration of foreign spies at the executive level!

 

It was the first time I had heard anyone arguing about the relative superiority of languages from a functionality point of view. I had hitherto assumed that the horribly complicated verb conjugation in non-English languages didn't hamper their practicality. The linguist argued otherwise.

[JustMe]

Well, I was told an absolutely shocking story today.

 

A friend from work told me that the teacher(s) from his child's school(in Lerwick)had phoned his partner at work(because they couldn't get an answer at home)to tell her that their child was "using too many Shetland words at school" and "could they try to get it out of her/get her to stop".

 

As my friend mentioned the bairn is 8 years old and doesn't even know the difference yet.

 

Either way, if true, this is pure racism and discrimination.

 

Or is it?. If you think "school" and "exam" in the same sentence then it sort of makes sense that pupils are discouraged to use dialect words as they will not be able to do that when taking exams. If on the other hand you think that education is more than just exams then maybe it is discrimination.

[DePooperit]

Indeed there is an interesting argument which proposes that one of the reasons why the English speaking empires became so dominant was because they used English, rather than the theory that English became dominant because of its use by those empires.

 

Reference?

 

I really wish I could locate it, but I've not got a record of the theorist's name. I heard the idea in an interview on the BBC World Service back in the 90s. The guy putting forward the argument explained that English was an ideal language for colonial exploitation due to several factors.

 

Due to the simple grammar it is extremely easy for people to learn basic English, but due to the irregularity of the pronounciation "rules" and general irregularity, it is very difficult for a non-native to become entirely fluent in English.

 

These features meant that the bosses could get the engines of empire and commerce running efficiently at the bottom end of the societal hierarchy, yet mitigate infiltration of foreign spies at the executive level!

 

It was the first time I had heard anyone arguing about the relative superiority of languages from a functionality point of view. I had hitherto assumed that the horribly complicated verb conjugation in non-English languages didn't hamper their practicality. The linguist argued otherwise.

 

Hmm. Sounds like a potted theory to me. All languages have easy bits and difficult bits, from an outsider's point of view. That is, all languages are easy to native speakers, and whether they are difficult or not to learners depends largely on how similar they are to their own languages. It all depends on your point of view. Moroever, all languages can be learnt at a simplified level, but are spoken at a higher level by natives and advanced learners.

 

In fact, it's more complicated than that, because the levels of competence you describe exist among native speakers of any language. That is, you get more educated and posher English, as opposed to colloquial, working class or native English, and in the past (no doubt still to some extent) this was used to weed out the lower classes much as you describe colonialists weeding out natives. As all languages have these levels (it's called 'register'), and weeding out natives seems to be only an extension of weeding out the lower classes back home, it seems pretty tenuous that English would be any 'better' in this regard - largely because the dominant class or race would decide what were the acceptable criteria for weeding on the basis of the characteristics of their own language. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that any dominant race or class is bound to think that their language or variety of language is 'better', that those who speak it differently speak it 'worse', and that the whole theory is based on completely circular thinking.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that English is 'better'. I put 'better' in inverted commas, because if the claim to fame of English is its particular suitability for dominating and persecuting natives and lower classes, then I would suggest that that clearly illustrates why some of the minority languages which English, and English speakers, have ground down in the past should be encouraged. Only outright dominionism would recommend a language on the basis of it's suitability for racial and class descrimination. In any case, if that's the purpose of language, why don't we abandon English and adopt Klingon?

 

I've avoided naming any of these 'worse' - or, I should say, less suitable for purposes of discrimination - languages because of their emetic characteristics. I wouldn't like to be responsible for any deaths by dehydration.

[DePooperit]

Well, I was told an absolutely shocking story today.

 

A friend from work told me that the teacher(s) from his child's school(in Lerwick)had phoned his partner at work(because they couldn't get an answer at home)to tell her that their child was "using too many Shetland words at school" and "could they try to get it out of her/get her to stop".

 

As my friend mentioned the bairn is 8 years old and doesn't even know the difference yet.

 

Either way, if true, this is pure racism and discrimination.

 

Or is it?. If you think "school" and "exam" in the same sentence then it sort of makes sense that pupils are discouraged to use dialect words as they will not be able to do that when taking exams. If on the other hand you think that education is more than just exams then maybe it is discrimination.

 

Not necessarily even then. If the purpose of education is to equip children to live in the real world, then surely - as EM argues - it's to their advantage to avoid learning things that have no practical use or status in mainstream society.

 

BTW - re: Kavi Ugl's comments, whatever this is it can't be racism because anybody of any race can speak any language. And Shetlanders aren't a different race from the English anyway.

[Kavi Ugl]

It's racism because they're actively discriminating against the Shetland dialect. I think it might also be called "cultural cleansing".

 

I thought the lairds and ministers had gone - apparently not.

[DePooperit]

It's racism because they're actively discriminating against the Shetland dialect. I think it might also be called "cultural cleansing".

 

I thought the lairds and ministers had gone - apparently not.

 

How does 'discriminating against the Shetland dialect' come to be 'racism'? Is the dialect a 'race'? No. Are the people who speak it a 'race'? No. Then how can it be 'racism'.

 

The word 'racism' doesn't mean anything in this context, because there is no 'race' that it can refer to.

 

'Cultural cleansing' might be a valid point, if it weren't for the fact that hardly anyone is concerned. And you can't really complain about something that a majority of the population isn't particularly worried about. That's called democracy. I don't know of any law against discriminating against dialects.

[Oddrun]

There is quite a diffference between dialects and 'proper' language in all languages.....

Some years ago there was a Swedish teacher that was eployeed by our local school (in Norway).

In one mysterious way or another, she became responsible for the language teaching, (Norwegian and English), for the 5th grades.... ...Swedish is far from Norwegian......and our local dialect is faaaaar from written Norwegian...

I worked as a cleaner at the school at that time, and she had found out that I could speak Swedish !! (learned it when I was peerie ) ....Well, i did not count how often she came to me and asked "What do they mean when they say 'soandso' "

It was many times quite amusing ,....but she never complained to the parents ......

In whatever country you teach, you have to accept that there are local varieties in the language....if not you are not fit as a teacher.....

BUT...and there is a BIG but......

Shetland dialect is f***ing far from Norn, (or Old Norse).......Farther away than Old Norse is from Norwegian, so there is no need to force that into Shetlanders !!!!

[Malachy]

'Cultural cleansing' might be a valid point, if it weren't for the fact that hardly anyone is concerned. And you can't really complain about something that a majority of the population isn't particularly worried about. That's called democracy. I don't know of any law against discriminating against dialects.

 

Well it might be a valid point if it weren't for the fact that the event described is totally unrepresentative of what is actually going on in schools, where dialect is being actively used more and more, and where increasing amounts of dialect teaching resources are being produced and distributed. The event that Kavi described isn't really defensible, but equally it doesn't sound entirely plausible either. I feel rather unconvinced that the story he's told is 'the whole story'. It fits rather too well into this idea of Shetlanders oppressed by ignorant incomers that Kavi continually espouses, and it certainly doesn't tally with what I know of people working in Shetland schools today.

 

Edit: For instance, the implication of Kavi's post is that the child is being stopped from speaking dialect, which would be completely inappropriate; but if, on the other hand, a particular child is showing an unwillingness or inability to ever write in English, that would potentially be a problem. Partly because their exams would be marked by people who wouldn't understand, and partly just because the ability to write in standard English is a pretty vital skill, wherever you live in Britain.

[DePooperit]

'Cultural cleansing' might be a valid point, if it weren't for the fact that hardly anyone is concerned. And you can't really complain about something that a majority of the population isn't particularly worried about. That's called democracy. I don't know of any law against discriminating against dialects.

 

Well it might be a valid point if it weren't for the fact that the event described is totally unrepresentative of what is actually going on in schools, where dialect is being actively used more and more, and where increasing amounts of dialect teaching resources are being produced and distributed. The event that Kavi described isn't really defensible, but equally it doesn't sound entirely plausible either. I feel rather unconvinced that the story he's told is 'the whole story'. It fits rather too well into this idea of Shetlanders oppressed by ignorant incomers that Kavi continually espouses, and it certainly doesn't tally with what I know of people working in Shetland schools today.

 

I hadn't picked up on the 'incomers' connotation until, now that you mention it, I notice Kavi Ugl's reference to lairds and ministers - was it?

 

In my experience, there is little difference between the attitude of 'native' and 'incoming' Shetlanders to 'dialect'. Some more recent incomers are sympathetic and some long-standing ones not. The most negative comments I have heard - such as that the disappearance of the dialect was 'laekly a guid thing' and would 'help da bairns education' came from people who spoke broad Shetland themselves. My interpretation is that there is no appreciable difference in attitude between incoming and - um - inbiggit(!) Shetlanders simply because Shetlanders are a part of the same mainstream British society that most incomers belong to, and share the same spectrum of attitudes. However, while Kavi Ugl may be mistaken in attributing this sort of attitude to outsiders and incomers, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

So although Kavi Ugl's anecdote may be simply anecdotal, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's something behind it. I think EM identified the nub of the problem - if it is a problem - when he distinguished between some (unidentified) aspects of culture which are worth preserving, and language, which is about communication. It's easy to imagine that some teachers would be happy with dialect as long as it stayed within dialect bounds - eg: for winning the dialect writing competition - and didn't interfere with attempts to learn the little blighters to speak proper. There is, after all, no official recognition of 'dialect'.

 

In fact, it's a difficult question. How do you define what a 'dialect' or 'Shetland' word is? Does any kind of non-standard grammar qualify as 'Shetland' or 'dialect'? And if so, how do you teach children to speak standard English if you can't teach them what to avoid?

 

As EM implies, the problem with language - and calling it 'dialect' doesn't alter this - is that it can't be put away in a drawer like a fiddle.

[Oddrun]

This discussion is going miles away from it's start....as Shetland's spoken language is miles away from Norn (Old Norse).......

[EM]

Much to ponder on there.

 

This discussion is going miles away from it's start....

Nevertheless it is all worthwhile.

 

With respect to the changes in school policy over the years I remain amused by an incident back in the 70's at the AHS. During a class my English teacher felt it necessary to enforce the then current policy with respect to several girls who were not knapping appropriately. She came out with the line: "Gjerls, gjerls! You most spik English!" We nearly peed ourselves.

[Oddrun]

You see my point then, EM ...............................

Children SHALL speak their dialect.........

Children shall NOT be learning to read and write a dead language......call it Norn or Old Norse or whatever........

.....think I go back to knitting,,,,,,, or better gardening........

[DePooperit]

To return to the original topic, then, there's an illogicality I'd like to point out.

 

Kavi Ugl justified the revival (although it would actually be reinvention, as we don't know all that much about what Norn was like) of Norn by comparing it to Gaelic. This doesn't follow, because Gaelic is a living language, whereas Norn isn't.

 

But then EM picked up on this:

 

... just as Gaelic is taught and promoted in the Western Isles and other parts of Scotland.

Well, that is enough of a justification in my opinion as to why Norn should be left alone. The whole pro-Gaelic movement makes me want to puke. There are many old cultural things which are worth preserving, and also reviving, but language is about efficient communication. Promoting the use of dead languages in everyday society is at best doomed to failure, and likely to merely piss people off. Study them and preserve them of course, but reintroduce them? Nah.

 

This is a curious statement. Picking up on Kavi Ugl's tenuous comparison, EM uses the fact that the promotion of a living language makes him puke as a reason why we shouldn't promote a dead one.

 

I don't see that this makes sense. EM states that it is promoting the use of 'dead' languages in everyday society that pisses him off. (The use of 'puke' and 'piss off' shows that he feels strongly about this.) So why is Gaelic in this category? It isn't dead.

 

The real reason seems to be the phrase, 'language is about efficient communication.' Once we accept this premise, all differences in language are bad, because by definition they inhibit efficient communication. We should all start promoting World Standard English - not that we need to, of course, because it is doing a very efficient job of promoting itself. In which case, the best thing we can do is leave it to its own devices - in other words, do nothing.

[DePooperit]

Much to ponder on there.

 

 

Oh - something I forgot to mention. If English is the reason the British, and now the Americans, succeeded in dominating the world as we know it, how did the Greeks (logos, loge, logon, logou, logo - and that's just the singular of the word meaning 'word') and then the Romans (mensa, mensa, mensam, mensae, - , mensa - 'table') manage it?

[Guest Anonymous]

Much to ponder on there.

 

 

Oh - something I forgot to mention. If English is the reason the British, and now the Americans, succeeded in dominating the world as we know it, how did the Greeks (logos, loge, logon, logou, logo - and that's just the singular of the word meaning 'word') and then the Romans (mensa, mensa, mensam, mensae, - , mensa - 'table') manage it?

doot its more a brute force n ignorance thing , or in the yanks case ignorance n greed , rather as linguistic skills