| TekstiTämä on erikoisominaisuus.
|
<P align="justify"> The mother tongu … <P align="justify"> The mother tongue(s) is/(are) the language(s) one has learned first (provided it is a language one can express oneself fully in) and/or (voluntarily) identifies with. </P> <P align="justify"> Discussion The former Director of the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Debi Prasanna Pattanayak: 'Places are not geographical concepts; they exist in people's consciousness. So does the concept of "mother tongue". It is not a language in the general sense of the word, neither is it a dialect. It is an identity signifier waiting to be explained' (1992). </P> <P align="justify"> In the literature there are several different ways of defining mother tongues. I have distinguished between four different criteria for the definitions: origin, identification, competence and function (for details, see Skutnabb-Kangas 1984, Chapters 2-4; 2000, chapter 3). </P> <P align="justify"> Definitions of mother tongue <TABLE BORDER="1"> <TR><TD>CRITERION</TD><TD>DEFINITION</TD></TR> <TR><TD>1. Origin</TD><TD>the language(s) one learned first (the language(s) one has established the first long-lasting verbal contacts in)</TD></TR> <TR><TD>2. Identification a. internal b. external</TD><TD>a. the language(s) one identifies with/as a native speaker ofb. the language(s) one is identified with/as a native speaker of, by others</TD></TR> <TR><TD>3. Competence</TD><TD>the language(s) one knows best</TD></TR> <TR><TD>4. Function</TD><TD>the language(s) one uses most</TD></TR> </TABLE> </P> <P align="justify"> Four theses about the mother tongues and the definitions: <OL> <LI>The same person can have different mother tongues, depending on which definition is used. <LI>A person's mother tongue can change during her life-time, even several times, according to all other definitions listed except the definition by origin. <LI>A person can have several mother tongues, especially according to definitions by origin and identification, but also according to the other criteria. <LI>The mother tongue definitions can be organized hierarchically according to their degree of linguistic human rights awareness. This degree in a society can be assessed by examining which definition(s) the society uses in its institutions, explicitly and implicitly. The definition which shows the highest degree of awareness of linguistic human rights is a combination or definitions of origin and internal identification:the mother tongue(s) is/(are) the language(s) one has learned first and identifies with. </OL> </P> <P align="justify"> The definition by function is the most primitive one: many people in powerless situations (speakers of indigenous or minority or numerically small languages) cannot choose which language(s) to use most, in daycare, schools, work, official contexts. Lack of use leads to less competence. </P> <P align="justify"> Some problems with the definitions: </P> <P align="justify"> A definition combining origin and internal identification implies that the language(s) identified with is/are the same as the original mother tongue(s), the language(s) learned first. It also presupposes that others accept the internal identification of a person. Therefore there are a number of exceptions to seeing this definition as an optimal one. Two additional theses are needed: </P> <OL start="5"> <LI>It is possible to claim a mother tongue by identification, even if one knows very little, or sometimes, next to nothing, of the language, and even when native speakers do not identify one as a native speaker, or even when there are no native speakers. Mother tongue definitions have to be rethought so as to allow for situations where parents and children may not have the same mother tongue, especially by origin; for situations where the mother tongue by origin may not be learned in infancy and may not be taught by the primary care-takers; for situations where lost languages are being reclaimed as mother tongues by identification; and for fluid multilingual situations where multilingualism is the mother tongue , rather than one or two discrete languages. <LI>What is accepted as somebody's mother tongue is crucially dependent on who has the right to define it. Mother tongues are relations to be negotiated, not (only) characteristics that people possess, and relations depend on who has more power. </OL> <P align="justify"> It seems that the criterion of origin has to be left out in several cases. This leaves us with the self-identification criterion only. </P> <P align="justify"> Firstly, there is the situation of deaf children. Since most deaf children (90-95 per cent) are born to hearing parents who in most cases are not competent signers when the child is born, the child may not learn Sign language in infancy. Sign language (see entry SIGN LANGUAGES) may in some views not become the child's mother tongue according to the criterion of origin. But we also have to consider whether the child learns any other language, or whether Sign language, even if it comes only later, is the first natural language that the child learns properly. In any case, Sign languages are the only languages that Deaf children and adults can express themselves fully in. </P> <P align="justify"> Secondly, there is the case of indigenous and other peoples who have not had an opportunity of learning their parents' or grandparents' or ancestors' mother tongue(s), and in extreme cases, where there are no native speakers (or no competent speakers) left. We can have cases with individual reclamation or revival (see entries RECLAMATION and REVIVAL) of the language (the person wants to learn, or relearn, or learn more of the language and/or use it more and there are native speakers to learn from) or collective revival or reclamation. In these cases, the person/group may identify with a language they do not 'know' or know well. </P> <P align="justify"> The last thesis can be exemplified with situations, where there is a conflict between internal and external self-identification of a mother tongue (or two). If a Deaf person (see entry Deaf versus deaf) says that Sign language is her mother tongue (endo-definition, her own definition) while some people in the surrounding society say that the deaf person does not have any language (exo-definition, an outsider's definition), the two definitions collide. The Turkish Law 2932/3, annulled in 1991, stated that 'The mother tongue of Turkish citizens is Turkish'. The vice-chair of the Danish ruling Social Democratic Party, Lene Jensen, says (August 2000): 'If one is born in Denmark and intends to stay, the mother tongue is Danish. Full stop'. Kurds in Turkey and Turks in Denmark claim that their mother tongues are Kurdish and Turkish, respectively. Whose definition is valid? People in powerless positions have to negotiate about the validity of their internal identification, their endo-definition. Many countries still have laws which invalidate deaf peoples' own definition of their mother tongue. Outsiders (even hearing parents of deaf children) might claim that the child's mother tongue is (or at least should be, or become) the oral language that the parents speak, or a manually coded form of it (see entry SIGN LANGUAGES). </P> <P align="justify"> We might say that it is the person herself who in a human rights oriented view has the right to decide about her identity, and others have to accept this. Only endo-definitions should be valid. But this is naive in the real world. Just like 'ethnicity' and statehood are not (only) characteristics that an ethnic group or a state possess, but relations to be negotiated (Palestine 'is' not a state if the Palestinians proclaim it - endo-definition - but the statehood needs to be accepted by other states - exo-definition), a mother tongue too is not (only) a characteristic that a person possesses. A mother tongue is also a relation. And relations have to be validated by both parties, i.e. a mother tongue needs external validation. If those whose languages are already somehow accepted as languages do not accept that Sign language is a language (which can fulfill all the same functions as other mother tongues), Sign language is invalidated, delegitimised. An invalidated language cannot be a mother tongue, on a par with other mother tongues, and it does not get the same protection as other mother tongues in international law. A similar invalidation of other minority or dominated mother tongues is also common in several ways. </P> <P align="justify"> In societies with institutional and cultural linguicism (see entry LINGUICISM) and discrimination, not all indigenous and minority children are allowed to identify positively with their original mother tongues and cultures. Many are being forced to feel ashamed of their mother tongues, their parents, their origins, their group and their culture. Many internalise the negative views which the majority society has of the indigenous/minority groups, their languages and cultures. Many disown their parents and their own group and language. They attempt, mostly under pressure, to shift identity, including linguistic identity, 'voluntarily', and want to be German/ Dutch/ Anglo-American/ British/ Swedish/ Turkish etc, instead of, respectively, Turkish/ Moluccan/ Mexican or Navajo/ Pakistani/ Finnish/ Kurdish etc. Wanting to change identity can also be a result of lack of linguistic and cultural competence in the original mother tongue and its concomitant culture, caused by a neglect of these by the school. </P> <P align="justify"> In order to accommodate the last two theses, we redefine the mother tongue: The mother tongue(s) is/(are) the language(s) one has learned first (provided it is a language one can express oneself fully in) and/or (voluntarily) identifies with. </P> <P align="justify"> Still, this definition presupposes that people's endo-definition of their mother tongue is validated by others so that endo-definitions and exo-definitions coincide. This is what many 'ethnic conflicts' (see entry 'ETHNIC CONFLICT') are about. </P>y 'ETHNIC CONFLICT') are about. </P> +
|
