Abram de Swaan:
World of words (Cambridge: Polity, 2001)
Woorden van de Wereld (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2002)
In the world of sociolinguistics he may be a newcomer, in social science Abram De
Swaan (AdS) has a well-established reputation. He is Distinguished University
Professor of Social Science at the University of Amsterdam and held the chair of
sociology from 1973 until 2001. He was co-founder and dean of the Amsterdam
School for Social Science Research (1987-1997) and is currently its chairman. He
has published on a wide range of topics. With Words of the World (WotW) he has
broadened this range from sociology to the field of sociolinguistics.
In a special issue of the Dutch journal “De Gids” AdS wrote that he wanted to show
three major points with this book: (1) although the languages of the world differ
extremely from each other, the speakers are tied together by bilinguals in a tightly
organized system. (2) The position of individual languages in the world system can
be expressed by their Q-values (a measure of communicative value). (3) The cultural
value of a language is closely related to the total of texts that have been recorded:
the collective cultural capital. (De Swaan, 2002)
At first sight, WotW presents a refreshing view on the role and history of
languages of the world, from a socio-economic point of view. From a sociolinguistic
perspective, however, some critical questions can be asked as will become clear in
the course of this review article.
The book consists of nine chapters. In the first three chapters languages “…are
studied from a general social science perspective and it is in this vein that ideas
taken from economics have been applied: as part and parcel of a general science of
society.” (p. 57)
In the first chapter the basic concept of global language system is explained.
Starting point is the vision on multilingual speakers as people who are able to bridge
the gaps between communities that otherwise could not have been in contact.
“Multilingual connections between language groups do not occur haphazardly, but,
on the contrary, they constitute a surprisingly strong and efficient network that ties
together (…) the six billion inhabitants of the world.” (p. 1)
The language scheme is strictly hierchically ordered as in a tree-structure.
About 98% of the world’s five or six thousand languages are situated in the lowest
part of the tree. Those are the “peripheral”, oral languages, used by not more than
10% of humankind (p. 4).
Horizontally any two peripheral Languages can be connected by bilinguals.
This is becoming scarcer when speakers of peripheral Languages don’t learn each
other’s languages anymore but in stead, they acquire a common second language.
Globalization includes vertical in stead of horizontal contacts. Several peripheral
language speaking communities may center around one common (and for them:
second) language. The second lowest position in the language-tree sketched above
is therefore occupied by those central community languages, used in (mainly
primary) education and used (both orally and written) by 95% of humankind. Those
are often national languages.
Language learning occurs upward: speakers of peripheral languages learn a
language higher up in the tree, not the other way round. This illustrates the
1
hierarchical nature of the world language system. Both peripheral and central
languages (level one and two from below) have native speakers. Native speakers of
a central language may learn another L, higher up in the hierarchy. This third level is
constituted by the socalled “supercentral” languages, used for long-distance and
international communication. Examples of such languages are Arabic, French,
Spanish, Hindi. These languages have more than one hundred million speakers each
and they connect the speakers of a series of central languages.
There is one level higher than the supercentral languages. This level is
occupied by only one language, English, that connects the supercentral languages.
The position of English is now very strong, but nobody knows how long that will last.
It certainly won’t be forever. The global language system, described above, is also
called the “galactic model” elsewhere in the book.
In later chapters examples of language constellations are discussed (India,
Indonesia, Sub-Saharan Africa, South-Africa and the European Union).
The world system has a political and an economical dimension (nations and
markets). A global society in terms of politics and economics has been recognized for
some time; according to the author a linguistic global society has not been described
before. In this book, rivalry and accommodation between language groups are
explained in sociological and economical terms like language jealousies, exclusion of
the unschooled, language as a tool in upward mobility, etc.
AdS supposes that languages in isolation and in absence of written texts may
have changed rapidly. Linguists believe the opposite: in isolation, languages are
conservative. AdS is right if he belongs to the group of people who believe that
change can only come from inside a language, he is wrong if externally motivated
change (through contact) is stronger (as most sociolinguists do).
AdS is a sociologist and therefore looked at with some scepsis by
sociolinguists who feel that they are the specialists pre-eminently when language is
concerned. Unfortunately, in the Netherlands we are not used to interdisciplinarity on
this scale. It is a good thing that AdS deliberately is moving to the field of (macro-)
sociolinguistics. He brings in knowledge that sociolinguists traditionally don’t have.
However, the other side of the picture is that AdS is not familiar with all
relevant fields of sociolinguistics, as illustrated above, and that might be irritating.
Had he explained this somewhere in his book, nobody would have a reason to hold
that against him.
WotW is about competition and compromise between language groups. It combines
sociological and economic theory with data from sociolinguistics. The perspective is
from a language political sociology and economic angle. This –for sociolinguists
unusual- perspective is visible in the use of terms from fields outside sociolinguistics:
(Semi-)periphery and core in a world system are macro-sociological terms. Terms
like state, nation and citizenship have their origins in political sociology.
Generally, exchange between language groups proceeds on very unequal
terms. Whether a language gains or loses speakers depends on its position in the
language constellation. A dominant language is not the equivalent of a collective
good since many people are excluded from learning it.
Crucial throughout the book is the communication potential of a language, expressed
in the “Q-value”, which is “the proportion of those who speak it among all speakers in
2
the constellation and the proportion of multilingual speakers whose repertoire
includes the language among all multilingual speakers in the constellation. People
will prefer to learn the language that most increases the Q-value of their repertoire.”
(p. 20) The higher the Q-value, the better, the more chance this L will “win”. But I
think there is a lot that the Q-value does not cover. For example, it does not say
anything about the contradictory values that L1 can have. People can be very proud
of their L1, like the Turks in the Netherlands, or they can look down upon it, as used
to be the case with Berbers for a long time.
The tem value is used frequently in this book. In the index, I saw no references
to the term attitude that is closely linked and probably the socio-psycholinguistic
counterpart of the more socio-economic term value. AdS admits that exact Q-values
are different to obtain since we don’t know languages skills in many languages. I
would say: we don’t know that from any language; just like we don’t know exact
numbers of speakers of most languages. Q-values based on the number of speakers
of a certain language “would do no right to this measure” (p. 39). But even that is
impossible to carry out or to calculate for most languages. How hypothetic is the Qvalue?
In a reaction, René Appel (Appel, 2002) criticizes the extreme instrumental
view on language. I think that this touches the heart of sociolinguistics and it is
therefore a serious shortcoming of WotW. Of course, language is to its speakers
much more than an objectively measurable economic tool. It has affective value. The
author is well aware of this shortcoming but when asked about this he replied that he
simply misses the tools to describe affective aspects of language. Every sociolinguist
could have told him so before he started.
In the second chapter, the political economy of language constellations is discussed.
Languages can be seen as hypercollective goods. Economic goods are “consumed”
and as a consequence, the more they are used, the less there is left of them. For
languages the opposite is true. The more you use it, the more valuable it becomes.
Languages have a lot in common with socalled “free goods” (no tickets, stamps etc
needed).
The more users a language has, the more valuable it becomes, also from and
for each individual user. Languages are no one’s property. But does that make them
collective goods? If so, there are four conditions that have to be obeyed: 1- nobody
can be excluded (true for languages) 2- Maintenance: collaboration of many but not
all is required (true for languages) 3- The efforts of a single person are not sufficient
(true for languages) 4- Utility does not diminish as new users are added (true for
languages). Consistently, AdS consideres language as a “hypercollective” good.
A particular language may get more and more learners and speakers, it
increases as the number of speakers increases until it is the only spoken L left. The
reason why there is quite some stable mulitlingualism is, according to AdS caused by
the fact that it is a lot of trouble and effort to learn a new language. I think that there
may be other reasons as well, like different levels of importancy. There may be an
outside-value attached to the new language, like social mobility or career, but the
inside-value may be different; it may have no affective value. It may not be fit to use
for stories or jokes. It is the well-known difference between solidarity and power. To
sociolinguists and socio-psychologists, these concepts are familiar from the field of,
e.g., attitude studies. Again, as was the case with the Q-values, most attitudinal
aspects are not considered. AdS concentrates on power and seems to neglect
solidarity arguments.
3
The central theme in the third chapter is the conservation of collective cultural capital:
the totality of available “texts” in a given language. Texts are ”language-bound
products” (p.43) Texts are said to be both oral and written. But the way text is used in
this book it mostly refers to written texts like books.
In the discussion, two types of strategy are considered: A cosmopolitan (use a
widespread language and audience) and a local strategy (restricted language and
audience). Use of the minority languages is often defended while use of the majority
language is implicit and does not need defence. We are supposed (by AdS) to see
the advantages of the wider used L, like globalization, universalism etc.
The basic questions that are discussed here are (a) “Under what conditions do
authors and speakers prefer free exchange of language-bound products?” and (b)
“When will they start to protect their own L-community; when will they resort to
collective measures to protect their language?”
Authors writing in the prestigious other language may damage the native
language by forcing people to read in the other language. The reaction may be
protectionism. But protectionism may have the opposite efffect: Disney is more than
popular in France, where they tried to keep Anglosaxon influence out; and in Eastern
Europe western culture was worshipped in the Soviet period, although it was
forbidden.
AdS makes a distinction between high and low languages and cultures.
Low language is an identity marker while high language is seen as cultural capital (in
terms of Bourdieu). Unequal relations of power and prestige between languages in
the constellation are the same within a language between formal, informal styles,
vernacular, dialects, standard, etc.
According to the author rivalry between languages has had little attention. I
would say that there is quite some attention for rivalry in studies on language shift
and loss. But also in newspaper reports on the position of the majority vs the minority
language. It is a very hot topic indeed.
Chapters 4 through 8 illustrate the theoretical framework set in the first three
chapters. In the illustrations large parts of the world are covered: from India,
Indonesia, the African continent, South-Africa and Europe, respectively.
these chapters are highly informative in the first place.
In chapter four (“The rivalry between Hindi and English”), the author uses Bernsteins
concepts of restricted and elaborate code to describe the Indian situation: Restricted
code is context-bound language use and found in rural areas,. Elaborate code is
more context-free language use by the elites. AdS uses the terms elaborate and
restricted codes in his own interpretation. From Bernsteins work, however, we know
that every elite uses a restricted code as well; elaborate codes, on the other hand,
are not used by “lower” social classes, or, to use AdS’s words: in rural areas. It also
has to do with formality; the more formal one can speak, the more elaborate the
code. It is a kind of terminology that is strongly associated with stigmatization of the
group. For this reason, the terms are not used anymore in language/education
contexts (where it was used mostly).
The French unitary nation-state served as an example for Asian and African
countries, and for India, too, after World War II. The national language has two
4
important functions. The first one is symbolic: it is meant to express nationality and
the second function is practical, it is used for communication.
For colonizers and nationalists it was clear that one language should be chosen as
the national language. But in practice, the choice for one language was difficult or
even impossible. Before British colonization, language policy was not an issue in
India. More recently, English meant both personal promotion and technological
development for the local population. On the other hand, Hindi became the symbol of
Indian nationalism in the 20th century, since the other major language, Urdu, was
allowed by the British colonizers.Mahatma Gandhi, in his struggle for indenpendence
and unification, promoted the use of Hindustani as a unifying language, a popular
vernacular with low social status, used for trade, and shared by both the hinduistic
Hindi and islamic Urdu speakers. But Hindi purists were too strong and Pakistan
became a separate state where Urdu is spoken. Finally, in 1965, Hindi and English
became the main languages in India. English is the language that is spoken
everywhere in India. Hindi is dominant in the North, while in the South English is
more important than Hindi.
Like in so many other places in the world, mutual jealousy among groups
caused the choice for English as the official language in large parts of the country.
Chapter 5 is dedicated to the linguistic situation in Indonesia and the historical
developments that lead to the current linguistic state of affairs.
Bahasa Indonesia (a modernized version of Malay), the use of which has
increased tremendously, bypassed a most important other language: Javanese. Why
did Indonesia do so and why did India, on the other hand, reject Hindustani, or did
Kenya refuse Swahili as its official language? Aren’t the situations in the three postcolonial countries quite alike?
Another question is why Dutch, the former colonial language in Indonesia,
disappeared so easily. Contrary to English in India, or French in Central Africa, Dutch
was never forced upon the local population. Learning Dutch would make the
Indonesians more equal to their rulers. An increase of the Q-value of Dutch was not
worth the effort.
The rejection of Javanese was not self-evident. It had a long literal tradition
and was spoken by about sixty percent of all Indonesians. But Javanese culture had
been devaluated as a consequence of centuries of cooperation with the Dutch.
However, that happened elsewhere as well (Hindi). Why did they choose Bahasa
Indonesia? Javanese is pragmatically a highly complicated language for secondlanguage learners. Changing Ngoko (the low version of Javanese) into a vernacular
with national value and abolish Krama (the high version high) would be a revolution
but introducing Bahasa Indonesia was a revolution, too! An important reason is the
fact that Malay is a relatively neutral trade language. The conclusion of the chapter
on Indonesia is that once there is a slight preponderance of one language, its Qvalue will increase exponentially.
Like in the other chapters, in chapter 6 (“Africa: the persistence of the colonial
languages”) the socalled galactic model is used again to describe the language
situation.
In the description of the Belgian Congo, it is argued that differences between
the languages on the lowest level, the peripheral languages, are exaggerated, in
order to hinder the emergence of a unified nationalist movement. What I found
striking and unnecessary is the following passage: “The Africans themselves did not
5
mind this distortion too much, as it tickled their narcissistic sense of small differences
and allow them to boast their great fluency in languages that after all may well have
been, for the greater part, dialects of one and the same language.” (p. 97-98). AdS
should know that the difference between dialects and languages often is based on
political considerations; linguistically, dialects are not more or less than languages.
This is not the only place in the book where the term dialect is used in a rather
stigmatizing way, like on page 70 where Hindustani was called a “vehicular, popular
language” and later, in the same sentence, probably therefore also “a dialect”.
A leading question in the chapter about Africa is: Why have former colonial
languages maintained their positions in Africa? The author discusses and illustrates
in a very readable and schematic way three types of language constellations:
1- the colonial language is the official medium while more than 75% of the population
speak one and the same mother tongue (examples are French and Kinyarwanda in
Rwanda; English in Botswana);
2- at least 75% of the population speak the same domestic language which is not
always their first language, and the colonial language is the official language
(examples are Wolof and French in Senegal; Swahili and English in Tanzania).
3- some countries have several indigenous languages, which never are spoken by a
majority (an example is Nigeria, where English is the official language, and Zaire
where French is official).
French possessions overseas have almost exclusively remained
Francophone. From outside this may look like linguistic imperialism but according to
AdS, the persistance of French is in each inidividual case due to characteristics of
the language constellation. De Swaan suggests here implicitly that the language
constellation emerges or exists out of the blue. But to me as a reader the opposite
may just as well be true: the current linguistic constellation is the consequence of
linguistic imperialism!!
In all those countries described in the chapter about Africa there are potential
domestic languages but only in Tanzania Swahili has “won”, serving as a national
language. In most cases the choice for a neutral language like French or English was
based on language jealousy among indigenous languages.
The next chapter (7) gives a description of the language constellation in South-Africa.
The situation during Apartheid is described, and the changes that took place when
Apartheid was abolished.
The two most influential languages during Apartheid were English and
Afrikaans. Speaking Afrikaans meant to associate with the oppressive regime. Under
Apartheid home languages were explicitly considered inferior in all respects. They
were taught in the homelands but not meant to get any form of prestige. Missionaries
learned and codified the local languages and thus established some kind of standard
for those languages.
Now, after Apartheid, Afrikaans is loosing its position but to the advantage of
English and not the local languages. For obvious reasons, the black and coloured
populations don’t want to learn Afrikaans.
The line of thought within the ANC is that the choice of one local L would
cause jealousy. Therefore, a continuation of the use of English is much safer. It was
suggested that Nguni and Sutu be used, artificial languages and both combinations
of existing languages. However, the idea did not succeed. English is the preferred
language for careers. For local language speakers, their own L has such low status
that they prefer to speak English to their children which they don’t master enough. A
6
negative consequence is that children master a very poor version of English when
they enter school.
In 1993, there were eleven official languages. But there is no practical support
to ease translating, there is no actual equal status. The consequence is that the
position of English is getting stronger than it already was.
The last illustration of a language constelllation, Chapter 8, is the European Union.
The subtitle is: “The more languages, the more English”, which is quite revealing
Originally, French was the main and most important EU language. From the very
beginning, there was a strong rivalry with German. This was particularly the case
when the EU consisted of only six countries. But in the end, when the UK and Ireland
joined the EU, English won.
A very important difference between Europe and other parts of the world
described in earlier chapters is that the average speaker in Europe is relatively rich
and educated. According to AdS languages in Europe are robust languages. I want
to add, however, that we should not forget that there are many languages in Europe
that don’t have an official status and therefore lack most advantages associated with
official languages, like prestige, standardization, a function in education. Such
languages are both indigenous and imported like Basque, Roma, and Berber.
In the European language constellation four levels of communication can be
distinguished: first the level of domestic communication of which the peripheral
(beside other) languages form part. The second level is the level of transnational
communication, where English competes with French and German. At the third level,
the level of the European Parliament and the European Commission, all official
languages of the members of the Union have the same status. The fourth level is the
level of the Commission’s internal bureaucracy where there are more or less
informally adopted a few working languages. The lower in the hierarchy, the more
informal the meetings, and the fewer the languages used. This is where we can see
the meaning of this chapter’s subtitle: the more languages spoken, the higher the
need for a unifying language which is English increasingly.
Although some countires officially are multilingual, like Belgium, societal
monolingualism is the rule in Europe, while it is the exception in other parts of the
world. State = nation = national language, so it seems in Europe. States are the
protectors of the official languages. Law, regulations, administration, education,
business, prestige and mass media are all associated with that single language.
According to the calculated Q-values, English is the connecting language of
the European Union. French and German take the second and third positions in
terms of Q-values. Again, as I mentioned earlier, only “hard” considerations are taken
into account. Language preference or attitudes are not considered. Dutch children for
example, have to learn German and French in Secondary School, beside English.
But if they would have had the opportunity to choose, they might choose differently.
Languages like Arabic, Turkish and Spanish would turn out to be more popular (cf
Extra et at. 2001).
According to the author, the Dutch prefer French slightly better than German
as a second language. Contrary to what he suggests, I think that has nothing to do
with communicative value. France is considered a beautiful language, and France a
beautiful country; values that German and Germany are not associated with to a
lesser degree by the average Dutch citizen.
7
The linguistic dilemma that Europe has to deal with is: maintenance of all
those languages versus successful communication. AdS predicts that the languages
will stay separate. But English has become the lingua franca.
In Chapter 9, (“Conclusions and Considerations”) it is stressed once again that all
languages are linked together by bi- and multilinguals as an unevitable consequence
of globalization. One of the messages of the book is that the more languages are
competing and fighting for equal rights, the better the chances for English to end up
as hypercentral language beside and not in stead of all those other languages. In a
multilingual country English stands more chances that in a country with a twolanguage system. As long as this is the case, a small language like Dutch is not in
acute danger. English is the hypercentral language.
Some of the starting points of WotW are questionable, and I would like to
discuss some of them. One is that the Q-value of a language increases when it is
taught at school. Just to give an example: although most Dutch citizens learned
French and German at school, they don’t watch French and German channels on tv
because their command of those languages is insufficient. University students have
major problems reading French or German texts although they all finished the highest
levels of secondary schooling. This illustrates the gap there is between learning a
language and actually using it. Its communicative value exists oly in theory.
Another thing is that learning a new language always should be worth the
effort, otherwise the language will not be learned. But learning English in the
Netherlands is no effort: teenagers watch MTV with pleasure and learn English form
watching.
Taking it all together, WotW is more descriptive than anything else. The choice for Qvalues to describe relations between languages may be questioned, but for the
largest part the book consists of highly informative descriptions of language
constellations in different parts of the world from a socio-economic point of view,
which is refreshing. At least it will provide us with a new perspective to include in
ongoing discussions. The information is not new, though, and the author does not
pretend to provide the reader with new facts. Although the choice for a purely
instrumental description of the language constellation is far from objectve, the author
overtly presents his opinion in the final part of the book (“Considerations”, the second
half of Chapter 9). English is the language that serves global communicative needs
more than any other language.
Elsewhere, AdS argues that sociolinguists are people who want to protect
small indigenous people against the extinction of their language do more harm than
good: they inhibit the local people to profit from the advantages of globalization by
maintaning that old peripheral language, associated with a primitive way of life.
Although AdS does not stress this vision in WotW, it can be read between the lines
and knowing this, it explains his irritation about protectionism over small and
threatened languages. I think, however, that it is rarely the case that sociolinguists
defend smaller languages without being asked for it by indigenous people.
On the final pages of the book a summary of arguments against English as a
hypercentral language is given. To mention some of them: Language experts “plead
the cause of the ‘smaller languages’” (p. 188) for reasons of linguistic curiosity, and
because no language can be superior to another language. Another argument is that
learners of English as a second language always have a disadvantage compared to
native speakers of English. But this argument is refuted by the author by pointing at
8
the growing majority of people who speak English as a second or third language
who enjoy another advantage, i.e. “access to many more people than any other
language could ever afford them” (p. 189).
References:
Appel, R. (2002): “Kleine talen – grote belangen”. De Gids 165-1: 34-58
Extra, G., T. Mol & J. de Ruiter (2001): De status van allochtone talen thuis en op
school. Tilburg: Babylon.
Swaan, A. de (2001): Words of the World. Cambridge: Polity.
Swaan, A. de (2002): “Natalen”. De Gids165-1: 83-89.
9
Reactie van René Appel in De Gids (165e jrg, nr 1, jan 2002, 34-58):
Kleine Talen – Grote belangen
(Moeder-)taal is essentieel voor mensen. Er worden oorlogen om gevoerd. Een zaak
van leven en dood. Politiek conflict is vaak taalstrijd.
Taalverandering: intern of extern gemotiveerd
Taalverschuiving: (daar gaat het vaak om in WotW) kan instrumenteel (taal =
kruiwagen) of sociaal-cultureel (taal = symbool, identiteit) worden bekeken.
Waarom heeft taal zo’n sociaal-culturele functie? Relatie taal/cultuur (Cultuur). En
taal is direct uiterlijk waarneembaar, i.t.t. ethische waarden of gedeeld historisch
erfgoed/gebeurtenissen.
 Q-value: alleen instrumenteel; communicatieve potentie (maar dat ontkent AdeS
ook niet; hij hecht er alleen geen belang aan). In mijn interpretatie is Q-value maar
één aspect in het boek.
Revival: meestal goedbedoeld maar niet succesvol
 Faeroisk, Iers en Hebreeuws zijn uitzonderingen.
Taaldood: naarmate mobiliteit, gemengde huwelijken en onderwijs toenemen en
isolatie afneemt meer taaldood. Volgens de instrumentele benadering geeft taaldood
niks. Tant pis mais domage. Dat is min of meer de benadering van AdS. Maar: neem
je aan dat taal eencultuuruiting is dan ligt het anders. Vgl met omhalen van
kathedralen of kunstwerken, of met het verdwijnen van dier- en planstoorten.
 Volgens RA loopt het Nederlands gevaar. Ik ben het daar niet mee eens.
Afijn zo babbelt het maar door over de invloed van het Engels op het Nederlands en
het gevaar van overschaduwing dat op de loer ligt en waar wij allemaal dapper aan
mee doen. Engels wordt steeds vaker gebruikt en het Nederlands ondervindt op
lexicaal en ander niveau invloed van het Engels.
 In dit stuk van het debat ben ik eerder geneigd het met AdS eens te zijn dan met
RA.
AdS en anderen: tweetaligheid ideale situatie.
Taalverandering als autonoom proces? Nee natuurlijk.
Behoefte aan taalbehoud moet uit de sprekers zelf voortkomen.
 Tot mislukking gedoemde experimenten zoals bij Onze Taal (kom met goedNederlandse equivalenten) werken wel in Noorwegenen IJsland. Daar is de
bevolking ook superpuristisch.
 Ik vind eigenliik dat RA niet reageert op het boek van AdS maar meer zijn eigen
hangups volgt.
 Kortom: ik ben het eens met Appels kritiek op de eenzijdig instrumentele
benadering van taalverschuiving en ik ben het niet eens met de angst dat
Nederlands ten onder gaat aan de invloed van het Engels.
10
NRC artikel:
Er zijn maar weinig sociolinguïsten die zich met kleine talen in geïsoleerde gebieden
bezighouden. Ik ken nauwelijks voorbeelden; zendelingen in Nieuw Guinea met
taalkunidge achtergron (van de VU of Leiden), bijbelvertalers in Afrika (SIL, die
linguïsten van GG huize prachtige banen aanbiedt).
Het heeft weinig zin om in het Bretons te schrijven als je ook mensen buiten die
gemeenschap wil bereiken. Overigens bestrijd ik dat het nooit mensen uit de
gemeenschap zelf zijn die zich voor behoud van de kleine talen inzetten.
Integendeel. De Friezen strijden voor het Fries, de Basken voor het Baskisch, en de
Schotten voor het Gaelic. Onderling is er tussen die groepen (begrijpelijk) solidariteit.
De linguïstiek heeft naar mijn weten helemaal niet als taak om taal voor te schrijven
maar linguïsten moeten BEschrijven, dat is wat anders.
Is het zo dat linguïsten kleine groepen “verbieden” om hun taal te verliezen? Geloof
ik niks van. Linguïsten leggen de taal vast, en de angst voor verdwijning komt van de
sprekers zelf, in de eerste plaats.
Hoe kan je nou zeggen dat multiculturaliteit en meertaligheid los van elkaar staan?
Je ziet het toch dagelijks voor je?
Het pleiten voor het gebruik van de moedertaal is wat mij betreft vooral door
praktische of pragmatische redenen ingegeven: als je ouders dwingt thuis
Nederlands te gebruiken terwijl ze alleen een krom soort Nederlands spreken, is dat
vragen om problemen. Voed kinderen op met een taal waarin je volledig alles kan
uitdrukken wat je wil. Leer kinderen dat ze trots kunnen zijn op wat ze van huis uit
hebben meegekregen, of dat nou Nederlands of Berber is. Onderzoek heeft laten
zien dat het gebruik van Nederlands thuis succes in het onderwijs in de weg kan
staan. Zie de verschillen tussen Turken en Marokkanen in hun prestaties, in hun
sociaal al dan niet aangepast gedrag!
Kijk naar taalverlies in Australië, Nieuw-Zeeland, Canada: Nederlanders zijn het
snelst, omdat spreken van Ndls niet wordt gezien als kernwaarde van etniciteit.
Inderdaad: je kunt Nederlander zijn zonder Nederlands te spreken. Maar dat kan je
niet van elke (etnische) groep zeggen. Je kunt geen Vietnamees zijn zonder
Vietnamees te spreken. Groepen kennen aan taal verschillende statussen toe.
11