There are two issues in his last posting:
- lingua francas for the native peoples of Canada, and the
influence of lingua francas on the survival of native languages;
- is Esperanto in any way superior, or inferior, as a lingua
franca?
Since I've worked with Canada's largest native organization, the
Assembly of FIrst Nations, on language retention, and seen how
they run their meetings, I'd say that English works pretty fairly
as a common medium. Monolingual Elders are accompanied by a
translator from their own community, and everyone else gets by in
English with a smattering of formulaic phrases of greeting,
thanks, etc. in their respective languages. (I have the
impression that Ojibway and Cree, as easily the largest and most
widespread languages, have a certain "lingua franca" status, so
that the AFN uses them as symbols for Aboriginal languages in
general - but not as practical means of national communication.)
The situation is beginning to be complicated by the shift to
French in some Quebec communities; however, English works.
Now of course there is a lot of irony in the foremost native
political organization using a European language for its
business, all the more because it is replacing Aboriginal
languages as the daily language in most communities (two out of
three according to AFN surveys). But the situation isn't going to
change for the foreseeable future: English is the primary lingua
franca of native Canada, like it or not. What some people do
believe can be changed is the steady loss of native languages.
Lingua francas, even English, don't always replace mother
tongues: a great deal depends on people's attitude towards the
languages they speak, and towards multilingualism. The single
greatest threat to native languages in Canada is the fact that
many parents have absorbed English Canada's belief that one
language is better than two - and it's obvious which one that is!
If that belief can be changed - since it actually runs counter to
the evidence on bilingualism - then, many believe, it will be
possible to establish and maintain stable bilingualism in the
communities where the language hasn't yet faded beyond recall.
John's comments suggest that he doesnUt understand why people
might want to maintain a language with no "survival or economic
advantage", but I find it hard to believe that any responsible
Aboriginal linguist would miss the essential point: that
languages are also important for identity, for preserving and
transmitting knowledge and values, and for spirituality (perhaps
an unfashionable concept among academic linguists?). Sure, if you
take a crass materialist standpoint, all Aboriginal languages are
doomed, but by the same token so is the whole of Western
civilization, since weUre living beyond sustainability. The hope
that inspires my Aboriginal friends is also the hope that
inspires the environmentalists and anyone who has any kind of a
vision of a better world.
Which brings us to Esperanto. It too has little "survival or
economic advantage" (though I can think of a couple of examples
of both), but people have been learning and using it anyway for
over a century. Why? Because they're inspired by a vision of a
world where all people are truly equal, able to stay rooted in
their local culture and still take part in the development of a
global society. The point about Esperanto as a lingua franca is
that it is just that and no more. No Esperanto-speaking parent is
going to decide to teach their children nothing but Esperanto; in
fact, they'll probably encourage them to be trilingual. (I know
several children who are trilingual, with Esperanto being one of
the languages: the closest such family lives in Montreal, with
the children also speaking Quebec French and Croatian.)
One can debate about the Europeanness of Esperanto, that's fair
enough (and a real debate, which has traditionally been pursued
with some vigour by Japanese Esperanto speakers), but it is
clearly more friendly to a stable multilingual society (or world)
than English is. That's the basic motivation behind suggestions
that it would be appropriate as a lingua franca even between
people with no European heritage. In fact it works very nicely in
that role between Japanese, Chinese and Korean Esperanto
speakers; so why not?
As for JohnUs assertions that "Esperanto is essentially a calque
of English and French" and "Esperanto only looks like a genuine
abstract of human language in general if you are only familiar
with European languages", they do him no credit as a linguist.
Esperanto is simply one human language among others, with some
striking similarities to European languages (not just English and
French, but German, Latin, and particularly Russian), but
equally, some striking differences (e.g. invariant morphemes).
Its semantics are defined by its speech community, with language
contact playing a part, as for other languages. Anyone interested
in the linguistics of Esperanto can consult the following
English-language works:
Schubert, Klaus (ed.). 1989. Interlinguistics. Aspects of the
Science of Planned Languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter:
Trends in Linguistics 42.
Janton, Pierre. 1993. Esperanto: Language, Literature, and
Community. Edited with notes by Humphrey Tonkin. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
I take up these issues, among many others, in my
work-in-progress, "Language on a Small Planet", funded by the
Explorations program of the Canada Council. I'll be looking for
comments on the manuscript this fall, and welcome contacts with
anyone interested.
-- Mark Fettes | Ech guto malgranda, konstante frapante... 695-B King Edward Ave. | (progresas, ho Dio! - tre lante!) Ottawa, Ontario | - S. Urban Canada K1N 7N9 | (with apologies to L.L. Zamenhof)