|
CRITERION |
DEFINITION |
|
ORIGIN |
the language one learned first |
|
IDENTIFICATION a. internal. b. external |
a. the language one identifies with b. the language one is identified as a native speaker
of by others |
|
COMPETENCE |
the language one knows best |
|
FUNCTION |
the language one uses most |
(Skutnabb-Kangas 1984, 18)
Discussion
of the definitions
” For linguistic majorities
(e.g. speakers of Norwegian in
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 ‘not fair’ here means that the
definition does not respect linguistic human rights, and here especially the
right to choose freely what one’s 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 ‘full’) 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 (‘dying’, ‘moribund’, in need of revival) or ‘neglected’
(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.”
This extract comes from pp. 86-
Downloaded from: http://www.tove-skutnabb-kangas.org/