Language shit
Language shitThe Present Situation.
At the present moment the island of Krivalia is linguistically divided into two halves, due to its history. In East Krivalia, because of French colonial rule, the official language used in administration, in issues of law, and in education, is French. West Krivalia, however, once was annexed to the ‘Crown’ of Britain, and so with the exception of primary education, (up until the final year) and evangelical work by the missionaries, English is the dominant language. For the previously mentioned times, Krivalian is used.
The object of this essay is to act as language planners and discuss the possibilities open to the Krivalian Government in issues of language to be used in areas of public life.
There are many options open to the government. The first would be to create a monolingual society. The main problem, which arises now, is which of the three languages should become the national one; French, English, or Krivalian? According to Holmes, a successful national language needs to serve a variety of functions. The first is to be of a unifying nature. The chosen language ideally should unite the nationals as well as offer advantages to the speaker over their native dialects. It should distinguish the nation from other surrounding nations, and be a symbol of a separate national identity. It needs to be recognised as a ‘real’ language, and have a higher status than local dialects. Finally the standard variety must serve as a yardstick for correctness and therefore other varieties will be regarded as nonstandard.
The primary functions of the language, (to unify and unite) are surely the most important for the masses. The situation faced by Norway is a good illustration for this. In 1814 Norway gained independence from Denmark after being ruled by them for almost four centuries. This left the government with a diglossia situation. Danish was the H language and a range of Norwegian dialects as L varieties, but there was no standard Norwegian language. What then should be the official language of Norway? The choice was between Danish and the standardisation of one of the local dialects. Danish would have been the most logical choice due it already having been codified in dictionaries and grammars, but it was the H language that represented the oppressors, from whom Norway had just gained independence. While it would present less linguistic problems for the planners it would mean that they had no independent language to that of their recently departed rulers. In Krivalia either French or English would be linguistically easier to implement but they would have no real unifying qualities and may not linguistically distinguish Krivalia from its neighbours. Finally, either language would serve as a constant reminder of the oppressors with whom they had fought so valiantly for their independence. Just as Danish was to the Norwegians. This leaves the more palpable choice of Krivalian. A language which has survived for over three centuries. It is unique; no other countries, surrounding or otherwise could share it and it would unify the nation, bringing them together: one language on nation.
Great. There are still some difficulties in implementing Krivalian as the national language. Just as in the Norwegian case there would be a lack of linguistic resources. Another problem would also be that, from the figures shown in the brief, Krivalian seems to have been almost wiped out in the former French half. This is the problem that the Academy of the Hebrew Language in Israel faced. They had to revive an ancient language to serve as the daily colloquial needs of the people. They chose Hebrew and as it was already a highly codified language spellings and grammars existed making the implementation easier. As Krivalian is taught in primary schools in the west up until the final year, the assumption can be made that spellings and grammars also exist for this language. If Hebrew could be resurrected and infiltrated into a modern society to the extent that it became part of everyday usage, then surely so could Krivalian.
This is easy to say but there will always remain one obstacle and that is the people themselves. Planning to change a language is one thing, but without the agreement of the masses it will stay merely a plan. Implementation would be easier in the west where Krivalian has been kept alive and in the educational system; but much harder in the east where it has been replaced by French.
Krivalian might be the right language to promote solidarity and patriotism, but is it the right language to extend throughout the whole of the public sector?
When implementing Swahili as the national language in Tanzania, the government increased the use throughout all areas of public life; except in secondary and tertiary education. Why? The answer lies in the fact that materials were more readily available in the former national language English, for teaching at these levels. It would also be cheaper to use these than trying to develop materials in Swahili. As a commonly used language, English gives the students a wider informational base. It would seem that these considerations had already been taken into account in West Krivalia, explaining why teaching in Krivalian stopped after primary level. Is this however, the wisest choice? Superficially ( and of course financially) yes; but it is not without its drawbacks. The arguments against this policy delve into the problem of linguistic competence in a language, which is necessary, before it is possible to learn effectively. In Tanzania it was found that most natives identified strongly with Swahili and are fluent in it by the end of primary education. The switch to English is likely to create a barrier for some, as not all master the language enough to gain the benefits it offer.
So if English is such a great language, why not just take that on board as the national language? As previously mentioned English would serve as a constant reminder of colonisation, as would French. It could prove to be harder to accept the language of the conquerors as a national and unifying language. English does have the benefit of being the language which is widely used as the carrier of information. (I.e. on the Internet). Making English the dominant, national language in all areas of public life would lead to a decrease in the amount of Krivalian spoken and eventually the language would die out. This would not be a good thing as language is after all an important part of a nation’s identity and culture. In allowing a language to die like this, the government would be effectively killing off part of the identity and culture of their own nation. Look at the example of Oberwart, a Hungarian town which became part of Austria just after world war one. To begin with the citizens spoke German only with outsiders or government officials and Hungarians with everyone else. Then slowly German started creeping in to everyday life. Parents spoke it to children; colleagues s to each other. As each generation grew up they spoke German more and more in daily life until in 1979 Hungarian tended only to be used in praying and in speaking to older generations. If the figure continue in the patter they had up until that point then by now (twenty years on) Hungarian must be almost extinct in that part of Austria, and German the widely accepted language. This is what could conceivably happen in Krivalia if either French or English was chosen as the only national language. While it is impossible for French or English to die out completely simply due to Krivalia’s refusal to take them as their languages, for both are widely spoken else where. Krivalian on the other hand is not and could easily become extinct. Precautions must be taken to ensure its survival,
These are just some of the advantages and disadvantages of trying to create a monolingual society from a multilingual country. It would seem wiser to steer away from this course of action and to look at the alternative; a multilingual society. If Krivalia is to be an untied nation it must be accepted that there are three languages in use on this island. If Krivalians want a united national language then Krivalian would be the best. It could be used in public domains such as law and administrations, and even in education. It could be introduced slowly into a dual system so that citizens have the right to speak either of the languages. Eventually, as the example of Oberwart shows, one language, in this case Krivalian, can take over. Or if this was undesired then it could remain a dual or even triple language system.
As far as education is concerned, West Krivalia already use Krivalian in primary teaching and so it could be brought into the regime of East Krivalia. Perhaps, however they could follow the welsh system and have complete bilingual schooling. This involves a technique known as ‘immersion’. Children are immersed in a language and not taught it. Children could continue through secondary education and choose to learn in Krivalian or English/French or both. This way they would have access to the plentiful resources of the French and English languages as well as being able to keep up with the study of the new national language Krivalian.
Whatever the government decides it must make sure that it is in the best interests of as many people as possible. They must be careful not to make one group feel either superior or inferior to another, if it can be helped.
Good luck to them.