# Learning a regional language before the national



## panjabigator

Greetings to all,

My query stems from what I witnessed of immigrants to Catalonia who have no prior knowledge of Spanish.  I lived in Vic, Catalonia for a short duration this year and I was relatively close to a neighborhood populated mainly by Moroccan immigrants.  Because of the clustering of Moroccan owned and shops and grocery stores in certain areas, the group is able to function in society using their various languages (Berber, Arabic, etc), however, there are plenty who opt to enroll in free Catalan courses to encourage integration.  I was told that they often were forced to use Catalan to speak with each other, Berber and Arabic speakers being the main example.  I met many adults (of various heritage: some Polish, some Arab) who spoke advanced/near fluent Catalan but struggled with Spanish, and this initially seemed so odd to me.  This was especially curious because of my own experience; my Catalan level fluctuated on a day to day basis, so often when my accent was poor, people would converse in Spanish with me, despite my correct grammar and intelligible sentences.  I envisioned a group of confused Catalans conversing in Spanish with a group of new Catalan speakers, replying with a smattering of Spanish.

My question is for people who live in countries with prevailing regional dialects and languages.  What is your experience with immigrant language learning?  How often is the local language acquired before the national one?  Can the same tendency be said of Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and France (to name a few countries with local populations)?


----------



## federicoft

Unlike Spain, local languages in Italy are mostly relegated to unofficial contexts, e.g. at home, amongst close friends or to do business in an informal way. They are usually not taught in schools, they are not used with strangers, people from other regions, let alone immigrants. In most cases they don't even enjoy official recognition.

BTW I'm referring to the so-called "dialects of Italian", which are in fact languages on their own right.
I don't know how things work in the German speaking part of the country, although I presume immigrants mostly choose to learn the Italian language.


----------



## sokol

In Switzerland migrants are encouraged to learn Swiss German dialects: there exist courses for those dialects, and it is nothing out of the ordinary for migrants speaking Swiss dialect perfectly (or at least quite good). As to wether they first learn standard language or Swiss dialect, that's one I can't answer. 

In Austria the situation is different: even though regional language (Austrian dialects) differ vastly from standard language there exist no courses in Austrian colloquial speech for migrants.
So those migrants who take a course will learn standard German (Austrian standard language, true, but this still isn't the language people use in everyday communication).
And those who don't most likely will learn colloquial Austrian (more or less dialect, the variety their colleagues speek at work).
Many migrants of the first generation = not born in Austria (especially those from "former Yougoslavia") speak colloquail Austrian (not standard language) quite well but are not very proficient in standard language: many of those never took a German language course and only ever learned language by speaking.

So, in Austria there is no clear-cut policy (what rules in Austria is chaos ), while in Switzerland there is.


----------



## Joannes

The situation in Flanders is comparable to the one in Austria sokol described. Some time ago I read about popular courses in which the city dialect of Bruges was taught, though. This dialect quite differs from (Belgian) Standard Dutch and West-Flanders is a province where many people from all social backgrounds speak dialect (exclusively).

As to the code-switching (Catalan to Spanish) you refer to: I think this happens in Belgium too, often people would switch to English or French.


----------



## Sepia

In Germany this would be almost unthinkable. Especially now where a good deal of our government members want a constitution change defining "German" as the language of our country. Since they do not define which "German" - like "High German" - it seems to me that they are either ignorant of regional languages or even want to ignore them on purpose. 
I have no real idea how many languages are spoken in Germany - or how many are only dialects of High German - but in the region where I grew up Platt, Nord-Friesisch (Low German, North Frisian ....) and Danish were spoken long before High German were introduced here. 

But we would be more than surprised if we heard immigrants speak any of these.


----------



## trance0

In Slovenia, at least in Ljubljana, I can say that immigrants learn a colloquial variant of the standard language spoken in the capital. There are some though, who never learn to speak it, but have a solid passive understanding of colloquial Slovene.


----------



## Sepia

trance0 said:


> In Slovenia, at least in Ljubljana, I can say that immigrants learn a colloquial variant of the standard language spoken in the capital. There are some though, who never learn to speak it, but have a solid passive understanding of colloquial Slovene.



Colloquial variant? Could you explain that further? Is there a big difference between the socalled standard and the socalled colloquial Slovene, like simplified grammar and such? If one only knows one, would he understand the other?


----------



## trance0

Colloquial version of Slovene is in fact standard Slovene with some changes in pronunciation, some  special(usually local in origin) vocabulary and some more or less minor changes(sometimes also mild simplifications) in grammar(usually influenced by the speaker's dialect). Except for journalists on radio and TV nobody really speaks standard Slovene, everyone in Slovenia speaks either a so called "knjižni pogovorni jezik" or "standard(literary) spoken language", which is as described a modified version of the standard literary language, or one of the many dialects. This is quite different from the situation in Germany for example, where in the north some very good Standard German is actually spoken in the big cities(like Hannover). The differences between colloquial Slovene and standard Slovene are nowhere near as profound as for example in the case of different versions of colloquial Arabic vs standard Arabic, where one can speak of dyglosia. If an immigrant learns only colloquial and not also the standard Slovene, he might have some problems when listening to the news on a radio, but he would find it easier to understand casual conversations among people. Reading books or newspapers without some proper standard Slovene knowledge may also prove a bit difficult, although not impossible if one has a good proficiency in colloquial Slovene. Since the differences between colloquial Slovene and "standard literary Slovene" are not too big, it is not that hard to learn the other if one already has some knowledge of one of them.


----------



## clipper

Unless I am mistaken Panjabigator's original example is quite different to the others quoted so far in this thread.

Catalan and Basque (to quote the two main regional languages of Spain) are official languages. I believe that this should be recognised by immigrants to these areas and then their choice of which language to learn (or which to learn first) would be dependant on this. I understand that in order to find work, for example, some regional companies insist that the regional language is spoken by their work force (unfortunately I think it is taken for granted that Spanish would also be spoken to a reasonable level by the worker, therefore effectively obliging an immigrant to learn two additional languages).

I know of "Spanish" children living in the Basque country for whom Spanish is their third language, Basque and English being the first two in that order. While I find this perfectly acceptable, I wonder if in the long term this strategy will help or hinder the child as he/she grows up.


----------



## Sepia

clipper said:


> Unless I am mistaken Panjabigator's original example is quite different to the others quoted so far in this thread.
> 
> ...


 
Not quite. 

He did in fact also mention dialects. I think the slovenian example is a good one. If I took a job as a construction worker in Slovenia, it appears to me that I'd better learn the colloquial dialect first, in order to be accepted by colleagues.

What I mentioned in my thread were regional languages that, however, do not have the same recognition under the law as regional languages in Spain have.


----------



## trance0

Sepia said:


> Not quite.
> 
> He did in fact also mention dialects. I think the slovenian example is a good one. If I took a job as a construction worker in Slovenia, it appears to me that I'd better learn the colloquial dialect first, in order to be accepted by colleagues.



I think this would be a good idea. Especially because the differences between the standard and colloquial Slovene are not too big anyway.


----------



## ernest_

The notion of "language" is not a scientific one, but the notions of "regional" and "national language" are even less so. Can somebody explain what a "regional language" is (and how it differs from a "national" language), please?


----------



## chics

For example, in the case of Bere-bere and Arabian, which is "regional" and which is the "national"?


----------



## .Jordi.

ernest_ said:


> The notion of "language" is not a scientific one, but the notions of "regional" and "national language" are even less so. Can somebody explain what a "regional language" is (and how it differs from a "national" language), please?


 
Yes, that's the question!
As far as I know Catalan language if also national language of Spain, so how could it be a regional language being also a national and official language? 

En fin, estoy completamente de acuerdo con Ernest: estaria bien que alguien fuese tan amable y nos explicara que entiende por "national language" y que por "regional language".


----------



## federicoft

.Jordi. said:


> Yes, that's the question!
> As far as I know Catalan language if also national language of Spain, so how could it be a regional language being also a national and official language?



The sole official language through Spain is Spanish.
Catalan is a recognized regional language, and it is co-official just in a few Autonomous Communities (namely Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Valencian Community and Aragon). It is not official for instance in Andalusia.

As regards Italy, Sardinian and Friulian are recognized as regional languages and are co-official in their respectives regions, so their official status is comparable to that of Catalan in Spain.


----------



## .Jordi.

federicoft said:


> The sole official language through Spain is Spanish.
> Catalan is a recognized regional language, and it is co-official just in a few Autonomous Communities (namely Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Valencian Community and Aragon). It is not official for instance in Andalusia.



Yes, I'm so sorry, you're absolutely right, however, in the Spanish Constitution we can read:



> Las demás lenguas españolas serán también oficiales en las respectivas Comunidades Autónomas de acuerdo con sus Estatutos.



I cannot see here any mention about denominating these languages "regionals". Segun Estatuto de autonomia de Cataluna:



> El catalán es la lengua oficial de Cataluña. También lo es el castellano, que es la lengua oficial del Estado español



Aqui tampoco veo que digan algo sobre las lenguas regionales. Entonces la pregunta sigue siendo sin contestar.
*
*


----------



## panjabigator

Lo que quería decir con regional es que dicho idioma solamente se habla en tal región, así que sería regional para el país.  Ahora entiendo mejor lo que indicáis, y lo redactaré de nuevo.


----------



## ernest_

Hola Panja,



panjabigator said:


> Lo que quería decir con regional es que dicho idioma solamente se habla en tal región, así que sería regional para el país.  Ahora entiendo mejor lo que indicáis, y lo redactaré de nuevo.



Yo el problema que veo es que es una clasificación arbitraria. Por ejemplo, en el ámbito del Estado español, se podría decir que el castellano es una lengua "nacional" y que el gallego, el vasco o el catalán son lenguas "regionales". Pero esta clasificación solo sirve para ese determinado ámbito geográfico arbitrario, en este caso España. Ahora bien, si cojemos otro ámbito geográfico, por ejemplo Galicia, ya no podemos decir que el gallego es una lengua "regional", puesto que se habla en toda la geografía de Galicia. Del mismo modo, si cogemos como referencia el conjunto de Europa, entonces el castellano sería una lengua "regional", puesto que sólo se habla en una pequeña parte de Europa. Creo que hablar de lenguas "regionales" y "nacionales" es un error, porque lo que hace es establecer una jerarquía entre idiomas, "este idioma es importante, y este otro no lo es tanto", basándose en un criterio arbitrario.

The problem that I see with this definition is that it's a bit arbitrary. For instance, within the geographical scope of Spain, one could argue that Spanish is a "national" language, and Galician, Basque and Catalan are "regional" languages. But this is only true for this particular geographical scope. If we take another territorial scope, for example, Galicia, then Galician would be a "national" language, as it is spoken throughout the whole territory. Likewise, if we take the European Union, then Spanish would be a "regional" language, as it is spoken only in a certain European region. That's why I think is not wise to talk about "regional" and "national" languages, because it only serves to create a hierarchy of languages, "this language is "national" (ie, important), and this other one is only "regional" (ie, not as important), on the grounds of an arbitrariness.


----------



## Sepia

ernest_ said:


> Hola Panja,
> 
> 
> 
> Yo el problema que veo es que es una clasificación arbitraria. Por ejemplo, en el ámbito del Estado español, se podría decir que el castellano es una lengua "nacional" y que el gallego, el vasco o el catalán son lenguas "regionales". Pero esta clasificación solo sirve para ese determinado ámbito geográfico arbitrario, en este caso España. Ahora bien, si cojemos otro ámbito geográfico, por ejemplo Galicia, ya no podemos decir que el gallego es una lengua "regional", puesto que se habla en toda la geografía de Galicia. Del mismo modo, si cogemos como referencia el conjunto de Europa, entonces el castellano sería una lengua "regional", puesto que sólo se habla en una pequeña parte de Europa. Creo que hablar de lenguas "regionales" y "nacionales" es un error, porque lo que hace es establecer una jerarquía entre idiomas, "este idioma es importante, y este otro no lo es tanto", basándose en un criterio arbitrario.
> 
> The problem that I see with this definition is that it's a bit arbitrary. For instance, within the geographical scope of Spain, one could argue that Spanish is a "national" language, and Galician, Basque and Catalan are "regional" languages. But this is only true for this particular geographical scope. If we take another territorial scope, for example, Galicia, then Galician would be a "national" language, as it is spoken throughout the whole territory. Likewise, if we take the European Union, then Spanish would be a "regional" language, as it is spoken only in a certain European region. That's why I think is not wise to talk about "regional" and "national" languages, because it only serves to create a hierarchy of languages, "this language is "national" (ie, important), and this other one is only "regional" (ie, not as important), on the grounds of an arbitrariness.


 

I totally agree with you. I just see one problem: We don't really have an alternative term for "regional language", do we? Even in several other languages we don't seem to have a different term than the direct translation of "regional language".

In some cases we hear about "minority languages", but that only applies to minorities and at least one of the regional languages is spoken by more people than there are speakers of several single national languages in the EU. I think, no 2. after Català would be Swedish and then comes a number of other national languages including Danish, Finnish, Estonian, Irish Gaelic and few more.

But after all, there is a hierachy, whether we like it or not. Even if I were elected into the Schleswig-Holstein Parliament I'd be required to speak High German, in the European Parliament I could speak Danish, but only because this happens to be the official language in Denmark, and if you were elected into the Spanish Parliament you'd have to speak Castellano and in the European Parliament at least you wouldn't be speaking Català. 

So the terms themselve do not create the hierachy. It is already there.

But if you can suggst term that are more appropriate it would be nice.


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally Posted by *ernest_*
> The notion of "language" is not a scientific one, but the notions of "regional" and "national language" are even less so. Can somebody explain what a "regional language" is (and how it differs from a "national" language), please?


 
For the sake of clarification:

A national language is the official language of an independent country.

A regional language is the language (official or not) of a region, community, province, state, city, whatever it might be, that is not an independent country. 

Now I´ll wait for the crucifixion brigade.


----------



## PABLO DE SOTO

Exacto, Alexa, tan sencillo como eso. Naturalmente ello no implica que tal o cual lengua sea mejor o peor, simplemente el ámbito donde cada una es oficial es distinto.
El catalán es lengua nacional en Andorra, pero en España no lo es porque sólo es oficial en una parte de la nación española (fuera del ámbito de esta discusión está el tema de si España es un estado plurinacional o no)

En cuanto a la pregunta inicial de Panjabigator. Si yo fuera un inmigrante en Vic, Cataluña, también pondría todo mi empeño en aprender primero el catalán por varias razones: Vic es mayoritariamente catalanohablante, el catalán es necesario en Cataluña para trabajar en la administración y en las empresas locales es un plus conocerlo, aparte de que la población local iba a agradecer mi interés en la lengua local y tendría más posibilidades de integración.
Una vez conocido el catalán, o quizás al mismo tiempo, y debido a la cercanía entre los idiomas, no sería muy difícil aprender castellano, más interesante desde un punto de vista global.
Igualmente si fuera un inmigrante en el Gaeltacht, la zona de Irlanda donde se habla gaélico, haría un esfuerzo por aprender el gaélico a pesar de que obviamente, desde una perspectiva global, me interesaría más el inglés.


----------



## Sepia

Anyway, Spain is a very special case, at least within Europe - there may be similar cases elsewhere.
From people who moved to the Balaric Islands I hear that their children - at least when going to public schools - are required to learn both languages because tuition is divided about 50/50 between Catalan and Castellano. So there it is not even a question of one or the other.
(If that's too tough they should have learned befor moving there, I think.)

I couldn't think of a similar case - except maybe Greenland - so far similar that it has autonomy but is still a Danish protectorate. So in that sense Inuit is a regional language, seen from a Danish point of view. However, as Greenland is almost on its own, with some right one can consider Inuit a national language.


----------



## Xiroi

clipper said:


> I know of "Spanish" children living in the Basque country for whom Spanish is their third language, Basque and English being the first two in that order. While I find this perfectly acceptable.


Well, I don't, I can't find acceptable not to learn the country's official language (and also official in that region, even if there's another one) and instead learning English. Unless we're talking about expatriates' kids, which is a completely different case. Learning Spanish if you are Spanish and were born and raeised in Spain is not a question of choice

I mean, I dont' think it would ever be acceptable in Britain that a family would raise his kids to speak Welsh and say Italian as first and second languages and English as a third (which means, less fluent than in the other two). If you mean trilingula, that's just perfect but first second and third language doesn't seem to deliver that idea.

As for foreigners, which is a different case, I think it may depend on how that region is. Not too many foreingers bother to learn Valencian, probably because the language is not such a big issue there as it is in Catalonia.


----------

