|
CRITERION |
DEFINITION |
|
ORIGIN |
the language(s) one learned first |
|
IDENTIFICATION a.
internal. b.
external |
a.
the language(s) one identifies
with b.
the language(s) one is
identified as a native speaker of by others |
|
COMPETENCE |
the language(s) one knows best |
|
FUNCTION |
the language(s) one uses most |
(Skutnabb-Kangas 1984, 18)
Some theses
about the definitions (here from my 2000: 108):
1. The same person can have different mother
tongues (MTs), depending on which of the definitions in the Table is used.
2. A person's MT can change during her
life-time, even several times, according to all other definitions listed in the
Table except the definition by origin.
3. A person can have several MTs, especially
according to definitions by origin and identification, but also according to
the other criteria.
4. The MT definitions can be
organised 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.
If the school, for instance, says
that an ITM childÕs MT is the dominant language because that is the language
the child uses most, or knows best, this use of the definitions of competence
or function shows little awareness of the fact that an ITM child in most cases
cannot choose which language to use most or learn best in formal contexts such
as school and other institutions.
Schools often fail to consider that lack of proficiency in the original
mother tongue (= mother tongue according to the criterion by origin) is a
result of not having been offered the opportunity to use and learn the original
mother tongue well enough in those institutional settings where many especially
western children spend most of their day (day care centres, schools, organised
after-school activities). Lack of use leads to lack of competence, especially
with children. A poor competence in the original mother tongue (which is a
result of the neglect of the mother tongue in institutions earlier on, i.e. a
result of earlier oppression) is then often used to legitimate additional oppression.
The child is labelled as a majority language speaker, or she is denied teaching
in the original mother tongue on the grounds that she does not know it well
enough or because she knows the majority language better and therefore does not
'need' mother tongue teaching. Many indigenous people (Saami in the Nordic
countries, Aborigines in Australia etc) may officially not always be counted as
members of the group, if they no longer know the original mother tongue (which
they have been prevented from learning), or if their parents or grandparents
did not know it. The dwindling numbers can then be used to legitimate lack of
services offered in the Indigenous language (see e.g. Aikio 1988 for the Saami),
which then leads to still less use and competence. The same numbers game is
used to deny services in immigrant minority languages. Often denying language
rights to both children and adults (in case of adults, for instance the right
to information or voting or using the mother tongue in the work place) is implicitly
based on a definition of function or competence. For more, see Skutnabb-Kangas
2000, Section 3.2.
Discussion of the definitions
Ó For linguistic majorities (e.g. speakers of Norwegian in Norway,
or speakers of Japanese in Japan) all the definitions usually converge. They
have learned Norwegian/Japanese first, they identify with Norwegian/Japanese,
are identified by others as native speakers of Norwegian/ Japanese, know
Norwegian/Japanese best and use Norwegian/Japanese most. Thus, a combination of
all the definitions can be used.
If linguistic minorities
live and work where the majority language dominates, the majority language
usually becomes their most used language in most formal domains and often also
informally. Therefore it is not fair to use a mother tongue definition by
function – they have not chosen freely to use the majority language most.
The expression Ônot fairÕ here means that the definition does not respect
linguistic human rights, and here especially the right to choose freely what
oneÕs mother tongue is.
If linguistic minorities
get their education in submersion programmes, i.e. through the medium of the
majority language, the majority language often becomes the language they know
best in most more formal domains. Therefore, it is not fair to use a mother
tongue definition by competence either.
Often a combination of
mother tongue definitions by origin and by internal identification is a good
mother tongue definition for linguistic minorities.
But there are exceptions
where not even this is a good, fair and respectful definition. One important
exception is forcibly assimilated Indigenous or minority children. If the
forcible assimilation has taken place already in the parent or grandparent
generation, it is not fair to use a mother tongue definition by origin either, because
the parents have not spoken (or have not been able to speak) the mother tongue
(e.g. Saami or Maliseet or Ainu) to the children. In this case a mother tongue
definition by internal identification can be the only possible fair definition.
Another important exception
is the Deaf. 90-95% of Deaf children are born to hearing parents. If the
children were to get a good education, they would learn Sign language early on,
and get most of their formal education through a Sign language. In this case,
children and parents do not have the same mother tongue. For most Deaf children
the fairest mother tongue definition is: the language that they identify with
(often, at least later on, also in combination with an external identification:
the language that they are being identified as native speakers of by others).
For Deaf children, a Sign
language is the only language that they can express themselves fully in. They
cannot do this in any spoken language, except in writing. Therefore we can, for
them, also add a modified definition by competence: The mother tongue is the
language that they identify with and that they can express themselves fully in.
But what if a Deaf child (or
an Indigenous child) is NOT one of those fortunate ones whose parents have used
the mother tongue by identification from the very beginning, and where the
child has had most of her education through this mother tongue? What if the
child does not know the mother tongue by internal identification? My claim is
the following: It is possible to identify with a language that one does not
know. It is possible to have a mother tongue that one does not have (any or
ÔfullÕ) competence in.
If this were to be accepted
in international law (and it has not yet been tried in court), those few rights
that exist in mother tongue medium education and in learning the mother tongue
as a subject, would also apply to Indigenous children in various revitalisation
programmes, and to Deaf children.
When forcible assimilation
has led to a language being seriously endangered (ÔdyingÕ, ÔmoribundÕ, in need
of revival) or ÔneglectedÕ (endangered, in need of revitalisation), the
strategy could (or should?) be to ONLY use a mother tongue definition by
internal identification, when demanding full Linguistic Human Rights for individuals
and collectivities, regardless of whether the individuals are receptive or
productive users or non-users. In my view, the same might apply to Deaf
children. This certainly requires proper information packages to hearing
parents of Deaf children.
At the same time as we are
working for the right to mother tongue medium education, where the mother
tongue is defined by self-identification, claims for compensation for mother
tongue loss should be raised in courts.Ó
This longer extract comes from pp. 86-88 in the article Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2008). Bilingual
education and Sign language as the mother tongue of Deaf children. In Kellett
Bidoli, Cynthia J. & Ochse, Elana (eds). English in International Deaf
Communication. Bern: Peter Lang, 75-94. The article is the English version of Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2008) (in Japanese).
Bilingual education and Sign language as the mother tongue of Deaf children. In Japan
Deaf Children and Parents Association (ed.). Deaf Children Grow Bilingually. Tokyo: Seikatsu-shoin, 35-77. When I gave the paper in Tokyo
in English, I used a Power Point which clarifies the definitions somewhat
more – it can be downloaded here. My 2000 book has a much longer discussion of the
definitions on pp. 105-115: Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2000). Linguistic genocide in education - or worldwide diversity and human
rights? Mahwah, NJ & London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 818 pp.
(see http://www.tove-skutnabb-kangas.org/en/most_recent_books.html
for a list of contents, and for the new 2008 Southeast Asian version).