A Trilingual Sign
Reflection — By Aled Edwards on April 4, 2010 7:00 am
Three crosses at Golgotha mark the place of trilingualism
AT EASTER time, the preacher in me reflects on the intimacy shared between faith and language. I’ll get to the particular issue of the recently published Welsh Language Measure in good time. I have a new if not radical suggestion to place into the public arena for debate. First, some broader considerations around Easter.
Faith communities frequently have an acute appreciation of the importance of language. Languages are rarely enjoyed as mere means of communication. They are always far more than that. They are the carriers of all that belongs to the richness and diversity of human behaviour. They gravitate around themes of belonging and of relating to others. For communities defined by faith, languages are also very much the purveyors of belief.
Wales now has an array of migrant Christians who increasingly choose to worship through the medium of their own languages. That is a natural choice and is surely understood by the host community. The Welsh have done likewise. The continent of Europe is peppered with English speaking congregations and the world has hardly suffered from a shortage of Welsh chapels. A community defined by faith is frequently the first place to give birth to a new linguistic community and the very last place to let a language go.
To the discerning eye, issues of faith are still shaped by linguistic identity and experience. As a Welsh Christian at Easter, I note that in an act of deadly political power, a vicious Roman Procurator called Pilate ensured that a certain Jesus of Nazareth from a small nation on the periphery of a vast empire was condemned to death in three languages. Latin was the official language of military and political power. Greek belonged there as the common language of the bright and the learned throughout the ancient world. It would become the language used by the multilingual writers of the New Testament.
Translating the third language has been interesting to observe over the centuries. The good old King James Bible has ‘Hebrew’ as have many modern English language translations. So, by the way, does the Welsh Bible of 1588. On the whole, that’s what the dominant eye chooses to see: the national language of the Jews. Some, showing a certain linguistic awareness, such as the New International Version, have Jesus’ own mother tongue, Aramaic: the daily language of those who belonged to that nation.
Showing all the distinctive sensitivities of a minority linguistic group, the scholars who translated the New Welsh Bible chose to discern ‘the language of the Jews’ – whichever one the original writer meant. I like those who have the ability to allow the rest of us to see what we did not expect to see and to understand a different perspective. The truth of it is that the toss-up between the two languages will always remain spinning in the air because the meaning of the original isn’t beyond interpretation. Life around languages is frequently just like that.
Pilate ridiculed the Jews by reminding them of what sort of meagre kingship was available to them as a people. In the process, he poured scorn on the crucified but gave a part of him – that part which belonged to his language – a kind of status: even if that was unintentional. This king on a cross, stripped of everything else, was at least allowed the dignity of being condemned in his own national language.
Since the recent publication of the Proposed Welsh Language (Wales) Measure there have been renewed calls for the Welsh language to be granted official status in Wales. I struggle a little with the argument that calls for the Welsh language to be granted a ‘special status’. There may be a better way of promoting the use of the Welsh language. Clearly, the Measure, as it stands, is not good news for those who would prefer not to see or hear Welsh. It doesn’t hold a great deal of comfort either for those whose approach to those who do not speak Welsh is less than inclusive. Seeking to ensure that individuals are granted the freedom to use the Welsh language in a manner that is ‘reasonable and proportionate’ will however, be welcomed by those of good will.
I won’t comment further here on the need to ensure that the proposed Welsh language Commissioner is accountable to the National Assembly as a whole or of the need to distance the role from hands-on political management, although these things are important. I’m also still not clear what the difference is between a standard and a scheme. My particular focus rests on ensuring that Welsh speakers have a right to use Welsh in a ‘reasonable and proportionate’ manner. Here, I press an argument for consideration initially explored during my term of office as Wales’ Commissioner for Racial Equality following the Thomas Cook Affair, when it was alleged that staff had been prevented from speaking Welsh to each other. It relates to faith.
The inclusion of religion and belief within equality legislation now raises an interesting question regarding language. Faith and language have a great deal in common as equality concerns. Both are frequently forged by geography and family upbringing: both can also be acquired anew through personal choice. Both faith and language are nonetheless deeply held, intimate aspects of a person that cannot just be dropped or put aside. For many, they are bedrocks of who we are as individual human beings.
Religion is now a ‘protected characteristic’ covered by equality legislation, like disability, sex or race. This is the language of the new Equality Bill which Parliament is expected to adopt this coming week just before the General Election is called. Individuals who have a protected characteristic (and under this new Act all of us will have several of them) are then protected by the law from being the target of discrimination, harassment and victimisation because of that characteristic. It will mark a major step forward in the decades-long work of bringing the law of the land, and so peoples’ behaviour, to a much better place.
Crucially, there are two types of discrimination that the law deals with: that which is direct (straightforwardly refusing someone a job because they are a woman, for instance) and that which is indirect (putting down a condition that someone has to pass before they can get a job, like something that might prevent most women getting the job, such as height). Discriminating directly is never justifiable: it’s always against the law. However, discriminating indirectly may be acceptable if it involves what the law terms a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. An example of this might be the need to ensure that people working in the PR department of a major public body in Wales should have good written English and Welsh. Many would agree that such a job could not be done effectively without those skills. It might keep some people out, but it could well be a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.
Here, I press a personal case for consideration. Granting a similar degree of protection from the specific ‘prohibited conduct’ of ‘indirect discrimination’ could be a particularly valuable route in the context of the Welsh language. It would not provide absolute rights held unreasonably over others but could offer protection where the effect of some requirements, conditions or practices imposed by others have an adverse impact disproportionately on ‘Welsh speakers in Wales’.
To achieve such an end, three things, in my view, would need to happen. Speaking Welsh in Wales would have to become what the law terms a ‘protected characteristic.’ A ‘legitimate aim’ would also have to be clearly stated. The current duty to ‘promote the use of the Welsh Language’ may already have provided such a ‘legitimate aim’. It would also have to be shown that the granting of such a protection was indeed for a ‘legitimate aim’. In Wales, four out of 10 people still believe in the myth that Welsh speakers have an unfair advantage in accessing jobs, particularly in local and Assembly government. In reality, Welsh speakers are massively underrepresented at around 12% of the Welsh Assembly Government’s staff complement. What is suggested here wouldn’t turn one particular myth into a reality. The sheer asymmetry between English and Welsh is just so overwhelming.
Beyond that, I wouldn’t wish to enjoy any right that is held unreasonably against another. The joy of it is in our modern and diverse Wales: most of us don’t. That’s why this possibility is at least worth debating.
Tags: Easter, equality, religion, Welsh Language
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
15 Comments
Interesting and thought out.
I observe: ‘Reasonable and proportionate’ is unreasonable in and of itself and certainly non-rational. It has no meaning apart from the meaning lawyers will ascribe to it through the courts. So why not spell the detail out now? For instance “PR department of a major public body in Wales should have good written English and Welsh”. 80% of the population of Wales immediately excluded. This is neither reasonable nor proportionate and supports “the myth that Welsh speakers have an unfair advantage in accessing jobs.”
Sometimes saying a thing is reasonable shows how unreasonable it is. The figure of 12% at the Assembly has no comparative figure in society. Competence in both languages to equal ability is probably more rare than many would like to admit. My experience as a local peacher among what would be described as ‘Welsh speaking congregations’ is that although many could speak both Welsh and English with equal ability, they could not always translate effectively from one language to another. And I have sat and listened to Welsh preachers literally translating their thoughts from Welsh into English with lesser effect.
I am opposed to the concept of a ‘truly bi-lingual wales’ simply because it will never happen. It is also divisive. I support a duality of languages with one more used. That can change if the people want to change it. You can’t legislate for that, and we don’t need too.
Is it really ‘a myth’ that speaking Welsh advantages employees in the Welsh job market? I’d have supposed if it had some truth to it, it would be a fairly cogent incentive to anyone living & working in Wales to learn Welsh, or ensure their children are taught and encouraged to speak it. (Or indeed for the language to be given such prominence in the Welsh National Curriculum.)
An article in The Economist (albeit written in 2005) sets out that it is not a myth at all:-
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4275132
It charts the economic incentives to learn Welsh within modern Wales (post Welsh Language Act of 1993) that have fuelled a resurgence in the Welsh language; that between various surveys it seems fluent Welsh speakers in Wales earn between 6-10% more than their English monoglot counterparts and that they’re significantly less likely to be unemployed.
(Although I appreciate it may be more to do with the wider impacts of Welsh medium education, or the socio-economic class of pupils who attended Welsh medium schools. – It’s clearly more complicated than that people who happen to speak Welsh, happening to earn more or being less likely to be unemployed – the collapse of various industries which once thrived in the primarily English-speaking, industrialised S. Wales areas will doubtless have an impact which skews these statistics. Also, I’d suppose more rural areas where Welsh is still strong (simply by looking at rural housing stock & house prices there) have a larger middle-class demographic than the South Wales areas which were once vast expanses of industrial working-class people; I’d suggest the Economist’s findings gloss over such issues, but it’s an interesting read.)
George Monbiot has also made some compelling arguments in an article in Feb ’09 that services in the medium of Welsh cannot be outsourced, while those in English can, and readily are as the proliferation of Indian callcentres catering to Anglophone customers attest.
Re Len Gibbs’ point; “I am opposed to the concept of a ‘truly bi-lingual wales’ simply because it will never happen. It is also divisive. I support a duality of languages with one more used. That can change if the people want to change it. You can’t legislate for that, and we don’t need too.
What would be truly divisive would be to assert speaking just one language in a country in which two languages, are commonly spoken (when both have legal rights of usership). Nothing could be more insular than a monoglot in a polyglot environment.
Personally, my problem with the Revd.’s notion of ‘indirect descrimination’ in the work place in this instance is in my belief that the present facilities and resources aimed at assisting non-Welsh-speakers to learn Welsh are currently underfunded and inadequate. The Promotion of Welsh is one thing, but assisting the working population, who should deserve an equal right of access to these jobs and therefore to acquire the language required by them, is entirely another.
I believe a bilingual Wales IS possible, but Wales needs to take an empirical stock of the processes and best practices/methodologies by which the language can be acquired – and to refine the courses & resource materials it makes available to reflect that.
Certainly there are arguments for limited acts of positive discrimination to help a minority language community and many liberal thinkers like Will Kymlicka would agree with you. The problem however is that an Anglo-centric British or Welsh State may not treat these issues in a fair way.
Part of the problem in Wales on language is that we have not yet decided when the rights of “English speakers” should be treated as “reasonable and proportionate”. It is assumed that the rights of English speakers are absolute and this then frames the debate on the rights of Welsh speakers as somehow being secondary.
I have never believed this: if Monmouth Town Council is not required to provide services in Welsh, then why should Llanaelhaearn Community Council provide services in English? After all, there are no “local” residents of Monmouth who cannot speak English, and no “local” residents of Llanaelhaearn who cannot speak Welsh.
If language becomes a “protected charateristic” might it not be used to argue for the “rights” of the English newcomer who refuses to learn Welsh in Llanaelhaearn, while the Welsh speaker who has just moved to Monmouth is denied the same rights for his language, on the basis of “proportionality” – i.e. he can communicate in English anyway?
There is a real problem that equality legislation normally ends up being used against the minority community itself in cases such as the above. How would one defend against this?
Simon Brooks: “How would one defend against this?”
By not doing so. Treating language in a legal way is not natural. People use language to communicate. It was wrong to force people not to speak Welsh and to speak English, mostly because it didn’t work. People continued to speak Welsh.
The times have changed and there is a move back to speaking Welsh. It might continue until as many, or even more, speak Welsh than English. That is unlikely because American (to use its modern name) has such a strong influence that, as with other minority languages, Welsh will struggle to overcome its powerful effect.
There are many that resist the Americanisation of English. It causes me no difficulty. Spelling and pronunciation has never been uniform and gradual change is continual. Trying to put the clock back to a pre-determined time of a language is impossible. The fact is that legislation will fail because people will continue to use language differently. How can one defend against this? You can’t, so let happen how people want to use language.
Aled Edwards refers to Biblical languages. The Hebrews in Egypt translated some of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek. The New Testament mostly uses this Greek translation when referencing the Jewish Scriptures and not Hebrew. The Greek in the New Testament is a ‘playground’ or ‘marketplace’ Greek with only four hundred words. There are much ‘better’ languages but none were so useful. American is useful and it will prevail, with or without law.
I like Amercian, it is plain, direct, simple and expressive. And there is no defence against it.
Len Gibbs says “Treating language in a legal way is not natural.”
Were the laws of Edward Longshanks which persecuted Welsh-speakers in the 1284 Statute of Rhyddlan ‘natural’?
Were the laws which sought to ‘extirp’ Welsh-speakership out of the entire legal, political and otherwise bureaucracic administration of Wales in Henry VIII’s 1535-1543 Laws in Wales Acts ‘natural’?
Was it even ‘natural’ for Welsh school children to have been forcibly schooled entirely in English, when the Elementary Education Act of 1870 (“Forster’s Education Act”) was passed?
Really Len, through the Welsh Courts Act of 1942 & the Welsh Language Act of 1967 and after the UK ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 1992 and passed the Welsh Language Act of 1993 – were any of these acts really doing anything other than merely repealing the harsh anti-Welsh language laws which had been in place for centuries?
Anything which in addition to that legally secured the new rights of usership of the Welsh language was surely merely a redress of longstanding injustice.
Perhaps it would suit your convenient conceptions of what is ‘natural’ to have left all that grotesque anti-Welsh language legislature in statute!
Of course it’s natural, Ceri. It’s natural for us to doff our caps to our conquering overlords, to Queen and Union Jack. It’s natural for us to know our place, down the pit or in the steelmill. It’s natural for us not to ask for more, or even question the system that has been imposed on us. It’s natural for us to perpetuate the brainwashing of former generations. How dare you suggest different… it’s positively unnatural… :p
@Len: “American” isn’t a language at all, it is a series of spelling mistakes :p
Ceri Y.
“is not natural”
I think you have missed the point I made. I expressly stated “It was wrong to force people not to speak Welsh and to speak English…” Anything legislative that had that intention was wrong and any legislation that removed the imposition was right. If recent law has been of the order to “merely a redress of longstanding injustice” then it is right. It is a wholly unfair and unfounded comment to allege “to have left all that grotesque anti-Welsh language legislature in statute.”
However, past bad law doesn’t justify modern bad law.
Al
“doff our caps”
“know our place, down the pit or in the steelmill”
Is absolute nonsense! Having a great grandfather who was an under manager and manager of a number of mines, the family took a positive step away from mining and my generation of males were only to glad not be involved in a rather nasty industry. We did other things and some of us travelled the world on various business activities. Doffing the cap to no one. Living in Port Talbot among steelworkers ‘doffing caps’ isn’t done. Here In PT ‘Jack is as good as his master’ and that is because he is. The steelworkers in PT do a remarkable job and this has been recognised by industrial leaders ever since 1980. They do what they do as well as any other steelworkers in the world and we should be proud of that. I am! AND SO SHOULD YOU. IT IS WHO WE ARE.
“American” isn’t a language”
It is the largest learnt version in the world. There are more people in China learning American (that’s their description) than there are people who speak the older version in the UK. My experience of writing business documents in the USA is that the way they use the language is more efficient. They have developed the use of language more effectively than we have. It is the dominant cultural force in the way the current generation in the UK use language. American is going places language hasn’t been before!
Indeed, Al.
It looks like Len Gibbs has hoisted his true colours up the mast for all to see, then. He’s clearly not only against the popular sovereignty of the Welsh nation expressed via his True Wales convictions, but he clearly also stands opposed to any legal protections of the Welsh language too – even when they only sweep aside ancient, ethnocidal dictats of the English crown, imposed by rights of their brutal, military annexation of Wales.
*Imperialist* *Cough* *Cough*
It only serves to highlight that the Unionist v. Welsh National Sovereigntist debate in Wales can so readily be summed up by the ideals of colonisers, and those of the colonised. It’s a plain and simple dialogue of Decolonization; those who stand for it and for the liberation of the nation, and those who stand against, and for the extra-national rights of imperium that go with it.
Sorry Len, I hadn’t refreshed my page to be able to see your latest post, before posting mine.
You say “However, past bad law doesn’t justify modern bad law. “
Even when the original ‘bad laws’ inflicted consideral damage and cultural alienation to a conquered ethnicity? Considering the past ‘bad laws’ have done at least 726 years worth of damage to the Welsh language, I’d say there’s a strong case that any legal measures passed to redress that would be perfectly justified in statute to sustain at least another 726 years of repair in return.
Surely any legal redress of sustained ‘damage’ must sustain ‘repair’?
Ceri Y
“True Wales convictions”
I am currently working on a draft of TW campaign material that is wholly inclusive of everyone whatever language they speak. There will NOT be a single word in it that has any negative references to either language.
“opposed to any legal protections of …… language”
I am opposed to any legal protection of a language.
I’m against attempts in the USA to make American the only language. Fifty percent of the people who fought for the establishment of the Republic of Texas spoke Spanish. California was Spanish until relatively recently and so were the States of New Mexico and Arizona.
“conquered ethnicity”
Henry Tudor – the nasty Tudor – was Welsh by any and every definition of ethnicity. Blame him if you want someone to blame.
“762 years:”
If we rolled the clock back 762 years in every country the political consequences would be enormous. The USA would be handed back to the native people and fifty million Irish Americans returned to Ireland and about one hundred and twenty people returned to England, Scotland and Wales. And we get all the Ozzies back as well. Not to mention New Zealand (I have), RSA, Canada and any and everywhere else our genes have flowed. Reparation can mean forgiveness both now and into the future. We cannot undo the wrongs our fathers did but we can avoid repeating their mistakes.
I always get confused when an article about language comes up in the media. I dont see how ‘equality’ and ‘the promotion of the Welsh language’ fit side by side. The latter is in effect social engineering and has nothing to do with equality whatsoever. It is also the latter that I see more of in the part of Wales I was born and live in and for that reason I am extremely suspicious of some of the motives.
yeah, but everything is SO biased towards the English medium that the Welsh medium needs all the help it can get.
To keep the equality thread, lets think of a similie: I dunno, say black and white people : if 90% of people are white, and 10% of people are black, why do we need equality laws? To give rights to black people would be “in effect social engineering and has nothing to do with equality whatsoever” – sounds ridiculous, right? And it sounds just as ridiculous when you say the same thing about the Welsh language. If the minority doesn’t have laws protecting it/them, then there is no equality, and never will be.
You’re missing my point, Al! I don’t like this similie at all and furthermore it does not relate to the situation of social engineering using language because of this simple fact:
You can’t force or teach a black person to be white.
To Henry R
What is it about the promotion of the Welsh language that you see as bringing about inequalities?
Do you think the Welsh language is being forced on you and if so in what ways?