When I was a child, I spent nearly all summer weekends at a campsite near Bautzen, Kamenz and Hoyerswerda – the central area of Catholic Upper Lusatia. I loved the car drive and was impressed by the bilingual street signs and the many crucifixes by the wayside. Both, the public display of religious symbols and the unknown language carried an air of exoticism which was very appealing to me. I knew from my parents that these villages we passed were Sorbian. What I did not know was that the language is endangered and that the existence of the Sorbian people is unknown to an extensive part of the German population.
I took these childhood memories as a starting point for exploring the history of the Sorbian people and their language. Following the example of many other linguists , this paper aims to take a comparative approach and look at the cases of Upper Sorbian and North Frisian as two endangered minority languages in Germany. It will examine the historical context and sociolinguistic aspects to describe how the two languages became endangered. Past and present measures to maintain the languages shall be traced and contemporary perceptions of the Sorbian and the North Frisian people and their culture will be looked at. I consider this reflection particularly important as knowledge about and attitudes towards a minority culture and their speakers influence the public representation of this group. The paper will discuss how the aspect of folklore is one way to raise interest and awareness for a minority people, its language and culture but may affect revitalization efforts negatively. In this regard, the paper will also critically reflect on the role of majority speakers in shaping a stereotyped image of a minority culture and thereby creating and sustaining a difference in status and prestige rather than promoting support.
The two cases might be linguistically, geographically and historically very different. However, the fact that both are minority languages in Germany renders an interesting comparison. We will see how political efforts to protect an endangered language can be of differing extent and result in one country. Reasons for the similarities and differences of both minority languages are worth being discussed.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Language loss
2.1. Historical overview
2.1.1. The Sorbian case
2.1.2. The Frisian case
2.2. Sociolinguistic aspects
2.2.1. The Sorbian case
2.2.2. The Frisian case
3. Language maintenance – Efforts and outcomes
3.1. Looking back – Language maintenance until 1945
3.1.1. The Sorbian case
3.1.2. The Frisian case
3.2. Contemporary initiatives
3.2.1. The Sorbian case
3.2.2. The Frisian case
4. Contemporary perceptions
4.1. The Sorbian case
4.2. The Frisian case
5. Conclusion
6. Works cited
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper explores the causes of language endangerment by conducting a comparative analysis of two minority groups in Germany: the Upper Sorbs and the North Frisians. The central research objective is to examine how distinct historical contexts, sociolinguistic factors, and varying levels of political and state support contribute to the differing survival prospects of these two languages.
- Historical evolution of language loss in Sorbian and North Frisian communities.
- Sociolinguistic analysis of prestige, bilingualism, and community identity.
- Evaluation of past and contemporary language maintenance efforts and policies.
- Impact of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages on minority protection.
- Examination of majority-group perceptions and the role of folklore in shaping status.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.1. The Sorbian case
From the 6th century onwards, Sorbian tribes settled in East German areas with the Milzener around Bautzen (Budyšin) and the Lusizer around Cottbus (Chośebuz) being the most important tribes (Spieß/Steenwijk 2000:186). Near the end of the 10th century, these two tribes were the last to finally lose political independence (Spieß/Steenwijk 2000:188). When Flemish and German settlers came to the area, assimilation processes started to work slowly but continually in the Western and central settlement areas and were intensified by first bans on the Sorbian language (Ibid.).4 From a very early point on, the Sorbs had to fight against suppression and resentment but politics directed to Sorbian speakers differed over the decades and centuries:
The conditions for the maintenance of Upper Sorbian in the “Markgrafentum Oberlausitz” were quite favourable as the Sorbs could count on a more tolerant attitude5 than in Lower Lusatia.6 Even after the Congress of Vienna in 1815, when 80% of the then 250,000 Sorbs were living in Prussian provinces (where language policy explicitly aimed at assimilation), the Saxon parts of Upper Lusatia were still treated tolerantly. One such act of tolerance was to allow reading and religion classes to be held in Sorbian on the basis of §28 of the Education Act from 1835 (Spieß/Steenwijk 2000:189).
In advance of the foundation of the German Reich, anti-Semitic and anti-Slavic discourses arose and Prussia welcomed pseudo-theories portraying Slavs as a primitive and lazy people. Accordingly, the Sorbian culture was labelled as backwards and something undesirable (Glaser 2007: 104). After 1871, the Prussians went on implementing their idea of a strong and homogenous German nation-state by successfully imposing a ban on Sorbian in schools in 1875.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the research motivation, comparing Upper Sorbian and North Frisian as endangered minority languages within Germany.
2. Language loss: Examines historical trajectories and sociolinguistic factors, such as industrialization and prestige, that contributed to the decline of both languages.
3. Language maintenance – Efforts and outcomes: Traces political and institutional efforts to preserve these languages, including the role of schools and the impact of the European Charter.
4. Contemporary perceptions: Analyzes how majority attitudes, stereotyping, and the reduction of minority cultures to "folklore" affect language survival.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes findings, noting that Upper Sorbian has better survival prospects than North Frisian due to stronger institutional support and identity maintenance.
6. Works cited: Provides a comprehensive list of all academic sources and legal documents referenced in the study.
Keywords
Minority languages, Upper Sorbian, North Frisian, language endangerment, sociolinguistics, language policy, language maintenance, assimilation, cultural identity, European Charter, bilingualism, folklore, prestige, Germany, revitalization.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines why certain minority languages in Germany, specifically Upper Sorbian and North Frisian, face different levels of endangerment and what factors influence their potential for long-term survival.
What are the primary thematic areas explored in the study?
The study focuses on historical language loss, the sociolinguistic environment, the effectiveness of political and educational maintenance efforts, and the role of majority-group attitudes and media representation.
What is the core objective of the research?
The objective is to compare the survival strategies and institutional support for Upper Sorbian and North Frisian to determine which factors best facilitate the revitalization and protection of endangered minority languages.
Which scientific methodology does the paper employ?
The author uses a comparative, qualitative approach, analyzing existing literature, historical documents, and official European commission reports to synthesize findings on minority language policy.
What topics are covered in the main body of the work?
The main body covers historical developments, the impact of industrialization on language shift, the role of education and institutional support, and an analysis of how both minority and majority groups perceive these cultures.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include minority languages, language endangerment, sociolinguistics, cultural identity, language maintenance, and political policy.
How does the author characterize the difference between the Sorbian and Frisian cases?
The author identifies that Upper Sorbian possesses a stronger institutional basis, such as the Domowina publishing house, whereas North Frisian lacks such structures and struggles with a much smaller speaker base, rendering it more endangered.
Why does the author critique the use of "folklore" in minority protection?
The author argues that reducing minority culture to harmless, archaic folklore often reinforces stereotypes and prevents these languages from being treated as modern, living, and equal to the dominant language.
- Quote paper
- Thérèse Remus (Author), 2013, Endangered minority languages. A comparison of the Upper Sorbian and North Frisian cases, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/275634
