<doc.id=0165.a2>
<title> To preserve a language </title>
In these times of Anglicisation of languages there are some countries fighting against this development. The best known among these are France and Iceland. In various ways the people of these nations try to protect their languages against the wave of English and anglicised words. I understand the countries defending their languages and I think that what they are doing is right. In this essay I will try to show that they are taking a step in the right direction.

People in other countries think that what the French and the Icelanders are overprotective and too conservative; they say that countries should not be against a natural development of one language - in this case English - becoming a world language. But in some countries the opposition to this development creates a very strong nationalism and feeling of togetherness. In the case of Iceland, a country with a very small population (only 275, 000 inhabitants), this nationalism is very important to keep the language alive. In Reykjavík the government has created a committee charged with making new Icelandic words replace foreign ones. France, on the other hand, is not fighting for the existence of its language, but for a top-ranking on the list of world languages. This also creates nationalism; a "political nationalism" which in some respects is very extreme in not allowing English words in advertisements and other "public texts". Moreover, the television channels must show French films during at least 40 % of their broadcasting time. This may seem very restrictive but I do not think the laws are unusually strict considering the goal: to preserve the language.

Even though some of these measures taken can be seen as overprotective and too conservative I believe that they are necessary in order to preserve the languages and to avoid words like the half Swedish half English 'shoppa' and 'printa'. These half foreign words can, however facilitate the learning of a dominant language like English, because then the learner already has an idea of what the word can mean in the new language. But, of course, if being forced to learn both the foreign word and the word from one's own language one gets a broader knowledge of etymology. This phenomenon of "invented words" in Icelandic and French can be a help when foreigners learn these languages, because if the learner knows a large number of short common words he is more likely to figure the meaning of longer solid compound words. One example of this in Icelandic is the word for 'copying machine' which is 'ljósritari', meaning 'light drawer'. In French there is the word for 'snow-plough' which is 'chasse-neige' meaning 'snow chaser'. These invented words force serious learners to find out the meaning of three words (ljós, ritari and ljósritari), thus learning three words instead of one.

Is it worth while for the countries to struggle? I think there are strong arguments for it. Iceland not only preserves its ancient language, but is also getting attention abroad for the struggling and its success and in this way spreads the message that it is worth the effort if a country really wants to preserve the originality of its language. People in France and the French government's defending against the influx of English - in spite of their perseverance being somewhat more extreme - also gives the wanted result. These two peoples concern about their languages will no doubt bear fruit in the future in passing over feeling of pride to coming generations. One strong argument for trying to preserve one's language is that so much of the national identity is embedded in the language.
</doc>