Do we care about preservation of our mother tongue?

By

Inese Druviete	Viktorija Meiksane

Is your mother tongue vital for your survival? Is it significant to preserve it for the next generations to come? Is a situation when everybody in Europe or even in the whole world speaks only English the worst nightmare you can think of? So why do we all speak different languages if we can communicate without any problems using lingua franca, is there more to our languages than just mere means of communication and, finally, what is the place of mother tongue in our pyramid of values?

These were the guidelines for the interviews that we carried out in Hojskolen Ostersoen Minority Course 1999. The purpose of the interviewing was to find out opinions about the necessity to preserve, and actions to take in order to preserve the lesser-spoken languages in Europe. Out of 6000 to 8000 languages around the world only 250 are spoken by more than a million people. Constantly new ones appear and some of the existing ones vanish.

The main question to which we wanted to find an answer was if the respondent considers it useful and significant to preserve ones mother tongue and / or native language in case when it is not the same one.

Most of the questioned spoke about the preservation of his or her language as unquestionable necessity. When asked for the reasons why they hold such a position no certain answers were given as opinions seemed to be influenced by emotional feelings more than with rational facts. The most frequently mentioned reason was that the language is a very important part of the culture and if one loses ones language, one consequently loses a big part of ones culture. As Konstantin from Byelorussia said, if language dies, culture dies, it just simply looses its meaning. Other most mentioned reason for the need to preserve language was for it forms the identity of a person. The identification of a person by the state the person lives in is very important for identifying yourself and understanding your place in the world, and the language one speaks adds even a broader dimension to ones identity.

However among the respondents there was a view that no language should be artificially preserved and there should be no feelings of sadness or remorse if any language would naturally die out. An interview with a beholder of this view follows later on.

Language policy of a certain state determines the language usage, its prestige and its future. Therefore we tried to find out if the respondents considered that the state they live in takes measures to maintain the languages spoken within it. We could observe a clear distinction between majority and minority languages and between widely spoken languages of high prestige and lesser-used ones. Spain does not need additional effort to ensure the use of Spanish, but as Kadri, the Estonian said, Estonian language preservation is more vital for Estonia than for her personally. A few participants held view that the state should ensure eternal life for the state’s language (the state language meaning either the official language defined by the law or the language spoken by majority of the inhabitants). State languages make countries differ and it can be observed that a wide majority of countries put a considerable effort to promote their languages. Nevertheless, the distinction between the majority and minority languages should be made, as the latter ones generally are not in so favourable situation. As Richard from Wales bitterly admitted, there is no need and incentive for the UK to care for Welsh language. Laszlo has similar sentiments for Hungarian language in Romania. Though no reasons why the states should do it were mentioned.

The third aspect of the significance to preserve these languages was if it is necessary for the whole world to have the lesser-spoken languages saved. The argument of the diversity and variety of the world is the issue here. The more different languages we have, the more different we all are, and the more interesting we make the place we are living in. Peculiarly nobody mentioned conflicts based on language differences.

The answers were even more different when the respondents were asked about practical actions to be taken to preserve their languages. Suggested steps varied from insignificant and relatively easy achievable tasks to more global goals, from actions that are thought to be as compromising as possible to calls for radical intervention. For instance, Laszlo, Hungarian from Transylvania, Romania, thinks that the necessary action that should be taken by the government of Romania concerning Hungarian is establishment of the university with Hungarian as a teaching language. Saskia from Germany who can enjoy previously mentioned privilege daily speaks of language preservation in a much global scale. She draws a kind of supervision of the language that would lead it to the chosen direction, nevertheless, not endangering its development. She sees it to be done in two ways: via opinion delivered to the people stating that it is worth to speak and use their language and via laws that would direct the above mentioned supervision. Speaking about the promotion of the language through the educational systems, views varied a lot. Kadri thinks that although it is very good to start to learn language from as young age as possible, people cannot be forced to do so. Konstantin also shared this opinion. As one of the possible actions, free-to-choose courses and possibility to study in the language one wishes were mentioned. On the contrary, Richard thinks that all the education in Wales should be in Welsh, and even an English person should be taught in Welsh if he/she wants to live in Wales.

To draw a conclusion it can be observed that all participants had something in common as they were for the preservation of their native languages and they all agreed that it will enrich their personalities as well as will enhance the cultural richness of their state and the world as a whole.

Additionally, we would like to offer you unchanged fragments from the two different interviews. At first there is an interview with TWM, a Welshman.

Q: Is it necessary to preserve Welsh language if you could use English as a means of communication?

Of course! Welsh language should remain as a part of the past to be incorporated into modern identity. Speaking English would mean to use a convenience language and lose ones own inheritance, the psychology that has grown over hundreds of years that make sounds that are your language. Society world-wide must be aware that mass culture destroys your culture. It is like a disease spreading, wiping your heritage away. English is the language of convenience, but Welsh is the language of your heart.

Q: Is the preservation of your language necessary for your state and the world?

Will be now. It is one of the oldest languages in the world. It has a thousand years of literature. It is a philosophy and has many lessons for all of us.

In Somali district in Cardiff there was a graffiti writing on the wall saying Independent Tropical Wales. Today being Welsh is perceived sexy because you have got something to offer to the world.

Q: What action should be taken to preserve the language?

First of all, legislative one. Welsh language should be compulsory in schools until the age of 16 for everybody in Wales. Second, the Welsh Language Act should be adopted for the private sector of business to increase usage of the language. Though bilingual public use of language is acceptable. Also new words for spheres like computer science as well as advertising in Welsh is important to keep language up to date.

As previously demonstrated most people are keen to preserve their language. This view is not entirely shared by Petter, who lives in Sweden. He is Meankieli, though this language is not his mother tongue as he speaks Swedish at home. Meankieli is used along with Swedish in public sphere. Petter's mother herself learned Meankieli when he was too old to learn it as his first language. As a boy he asked his mother to speak Swedish to him, though he learned Meankieli later on in life. He likes speaking Swedish now.

Q: Do you think it is necessary to preserve Meankieli language and culture?

It is necessary in many ways only for the people who live now - they will be sad if it disappears. May be my grandchildren will grow up in an environment where it is never spoken. When a language disappears it is sad only for those who live with it disappearing. They who have never had it will never miss it.

Great cultures affect smaller ones and smaller cultures have an impact on the bigger ones - thus a new culture is formed. Some culture is never better than another is. About the importance of language and culture preservation you can look at from two perspectives. One is that diversity is the origin for so many things such as evolution. Having as many cultures as possible is good, because they mix and new, beautiful things arise. The other, which states that no preservation is needed, arises from a viewpoint that nothing really matters.

Q: Should there be any action taken to preserve language and culture?

Only if it can be preserved in a natural mode, as nobody should be forbidden to speak it. It would be good to have lessons in this language in the school, but if it is not so it would not be wise to throw stones at parliament to gain it. There is no point in keeping a language alive artificially.