Hey everyone!
In today’s class, we discussed the issues raised in “Politics and the
English Language” by George Orwell and “Imperialism of Language” by Ngūgĩ wa
Thiong’o in relation to our own writing and experiences. Some of the points that we made during our
discussion include but are not limited to language as a tool of oppression, the
loss of cultural identity through the imperialism of language, the importance of meaning, using lofty language
to prove one’s own abilities, and language as a tool for labeling and
divisiveness. I think we can all agree
that reading Orwell’s piece challenged us to become better writers. What I liked most about his piece, however,
is that Orwell doesn’t simply criticize others for their poor writing, but also
provides tips and advice to improve one’s writing such as avoiding overly-used
metaphors, using the active instead of the passive voice, etc. From our discussion in class, it seems that
many of us identify with the themes and points that Ngūgĩ includes in “Imperialism
of Language”. Some of our experiences
with being forced to learn and speak English or feeling compelled to use fancy
words to keep the status quo is an indication that the imperialistic elements of
language still exist today.
Towards the end of his piece, Ngūgĩ notes the possibility for the emergence of a universal language. He writes, “A language for the world! A world of languages! The two concepts are not mutually exclusive
provided there is independence, equality, democracy, and peace among nations” (Ngūgĩ, 1993, p.40). Because we already discussed elements of imperialism in our respective agencies and lives in general, my prompt is as follows:
What are the costs, benefits, and/or risks of having a world language?
And in your opinion, what are some characteristics of a "good" world language?
In addition, because we didn’t have the time to talk about our visit to Vera last week, I think we should briefly mention what we thought about it. (Which panelist spoke to you the most? What points or issues made during our visit resonate with you?)
Personally, I was most inspired by Ryan’s story
about her trajectory and how she overcame adversity as a homeless teenager to
obtain an education, and eventually, earn her PhD. Although I have never experienced homelessness, I understand as an individual from a
lower-middle class background the everyday struggles that arise from financial
instability. In addition, I was really captivated by Ryan’s point about how the negative/aggressive responses of corrections officers to
defendants is the officer's own trauma being brought to the surface (maybe PTSD,
etc.). From spending time at Central
Booking, I have observed the differences in the ways police and corrections
officers treat defendants, and how corrections, generally, tends to be more aggressive. As a result, Ryan’s
perspective helped me understand possible reasons for the more aggressive
behavior/responses of corrections officers.
Sources:
wa Thiong’o, N. (1993). "Imperialism of Language": English, a Language for the
World? In Moving the Centre (Studies in African Literature) (pp. 30-41).
World? In Moving the Centre (Studies in African Literature) (pp. 30-41).
Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English Language.
14 comments:
I love the double prompt Nick, good idea.
A. To have a world language is crucial in the globalizing world that we inhabit today where to constantly reinvent ourselves in a way that is marketable. I believe that a "good" world language means to learn and utilize many languages. This is inclusive and supports other cultures and histories instead of continuing the cycle of violence or oppression. To be inclusive requires us to be multi-lingual or bilingual at the very least as the creolization of all the world languages isn't pragmatic in our generation. Students should be instructed to learn more than language because it allows them to more actively participate in globalizing world; they can make more friends and have more career paths open to them. The idea of one world language suggests that we are to forget the languages of other people and participates in the same oppression that Ngugi attributes to English. One world language that isn't the unrealistic ideal creolization of all will inherently erase the cultures and histories of many.
On top of this I think it's also crucial that we use language that doesn't harm others. Portland State University has a manual for a training about it (http://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.civil-dialogue-committee/files/Interrupting%20Oppressive%20Language%20Training.Final.pdf)
In this manual they show examples of language that is violent towards other people and ways to navigate safe but effective dialogue.
Here's one of the examples they use:
“Mexicans tend to be really patriarchal. You know they feel like it’s okay to beat their
partners. They also have a higher tendency to have bad tempers.” Explanation: Like several of
the interruption examples, this is stereotyping. Stereotyping is attributing a quality or behavior to
a group of people. Every time a person performs this behavior they reaffirm the stereotype and
whenever they act contrary to the behavior they are the exception (Plous, 2003). Many cultures
are patriarchal, including most Western cultures. What we know about domestic violence is that
it is not culture specific. It affects everyone.
-- Here is an example where an individual uses oppressive language that generalization an entire population of people (Mexican/Mexican-Americans) and attribute them to one --negative-- quality. They explain that this kind of speech is continuing a cycle of oppression. Speaking like this will (besides making you look utterly ridiculous) encode that idea into other folks heads. Making the expectant of the traits you attribute to that identity.
B. Although I was extremely nervous and trembled a bit, I enjoyed our trip to Vera home base. Hearing from people who were just like us not too long ago made me feel as though a world after academia is not so hard to navigate; you just have to be ambitious and persistent. I can't remember the name of my favorite speaker (I believe it was Marcus' mentor). I feel like they spoke to me because they were so real about the visceral reactions they experienced while working in public service. So much so that they had find another space to work (if I'm remembering correctly). They also interested me because gave me a look into the whole law school narrative form applying, to classes, to the boredom they felt while litigating. (I actually want to follow up with them if you could share their email Marcus).
Hi Nick! I think you pose a great question. In my opinion, the negative outweighs the positive of having a world/universal language. The positive would be the obvious: the ability to communicate easier, harvest relationships without boundaries, expand businesses (and laws that eventually follow). Another very positive aspect would be that we would be able to get rid of hateful and ignorant words - I am sure we have all encountered these in our lives. It would be beautiful to communicate in a language that does not tolerate hatred - although I believe that the IDEA of hatred would still be there and thus newer words would be formed to replace our existing words.
The negative would be that we would lose parts of the culture that is tied to language. For example, after the Arab conquest of the Persians the Persian culture was drastically changed. But because the language was thought of as so beautiful parts of it were embedded within the Arabic language, specifically the poetry. The sound of the language was important to the message that was being communicated, and through that parts of the culture were able to survive. The second negative aspect of a world language would be the sacrifices in meaning we would have to make in order to find a one fits all kind of definition. For example, the word I referenced in class was from the Chinese Confucian time period - ren. "en, ( Chinese: “humanity,” “humaneness,” “goodness,” “benevolence,” or “love”) Wade-Giles romanization jen, the foundational virtue of Confucianism. It characterizes the bearing and behaviour that a paradigmatic human being exhibits in order to promote a flourishing human community." I cannot think of one word that is equal to this nor summarizes the power efficiently. In every language we face this barrier between literal translation and the meaning behind the word. This of course is what makes language so powerful, the ability to convey thoughts feelings and ideas. Another issue I told with a universal language is the power dynamics that we discussed in class - HOW would we decide upon a universal language? In a setting like the UN where powerful people hammer out the details? Are English grammatical rules imposed simply because we are more powerful? Ultimately I do not believe we should have a universal language. To truly show acceptance of each other, we should learn the unique and beautiful languages of other nations.
As to answer your prompt about the visit to Vera, I too was very touched by Ryan's story which resonated with me in terms of being aware of our own power in the dynamics of society. As a female I may be disadvantaged, but as a lower middle class person I surely hold more power in the class relations than others. As a college student I certainly am in a better position than those who are not. Of course we who have privilege are not in control of it as those who do not have it are not in control of that either. The only thing we can do is be aware of it, and use whatever modicum of power we have been given to make changes.
Great argument Jasmine! I definitely agree with your assertion that an emerging world language can possibly cause a loss of culture that is ingrained in language. And I do see your point about the difficulty with literal translations. I also think you make a strong argument, Jo, when you mention that a world language can cause people to become detached from their culture and history. I think that this is especially true in a society where people are obsessed with obtaining greater convenience in almost every aspect of life (apps that turn on light switches, faster cars, touchscreen devices, etc.). The emergence of a world language could eliminate any incentive to learn other languages, thus causing a loss of culture and history. Great ideas guys!
I love this discussion, just sayin'
One cost of having a world language is that the cultures of the world are erased. For example, Latin is considered to be a dead language. However, most of the words in the English language have mainly Latin or Greek roots. A major benefit of a world language would be enhanced communication. Trading and most importantly political affairs would be easier to manage, because words won't be lost in translation. We tend to personify language, but what exactly is a living language? Referring to my point about Latin, how does a language die? Is it the cost of colonization, or the loss of culture? Do languages live through culture or vice versa?Some of these questions may go unanswered. In my opinion, there are no characteristics of a good language ( Im sure Orwell would agree with me). No matter what language, there will always be flaws and structure and usage.
I agree with Nick, I found Ryan's story to be very touching and encouraging. She restored confidence in my abilities as a scholar, and as a human being. Her trajectory showed me that you don't necessarily have to have it all figured out,or even have a solid plan. All the panelists at Vera ended up there because of their unique journeys. We truly never know where life will take us, so I hope you like surprises.
I don't like the idea of a world language. One of the costs of a world language would be distinction. Different traditions and cultures that are unique to certain people are what make cultural exchanges interesting. I think language is one of the most important. I use to speak three languages but now I speak two. I'm also in the process of learning a new one. I love when a fellow John Jay student finds out that I'm Haitian and asks me to teach them a few words. Haitian-Creole is only spoken by about 10 million people in the world. So what are the odds that a good portion of them would be concentrated in John Jay instead of spread out worldwide. Having that distinction allows me to teach someone something new followed by the food, clothing etc. Exchanges like this increase cultural tolerance. Being on the opposite side is exciting. Learning Spanish, a language spoken by about 400 million people, can make life easier. A universal language would reduce the frustration people might experience when they visit a place where their the outsider (study abroad survivor). Worldwide communication in one language would make processes of exchanging and sharing more efficient. However, I can't help but think how difficult the transition would be. Would we create a whole new language or choose an existing language? Choosing an existing language might put a single language over others and I can't imagine that being alright with people, which is a potential risk for additional conflict. But if it had to happen, a good world language would have to incorporate all existing languages or none at all. If the latter, the founders of the language would have to be pretty diverse. They would have to represent the population of the world. It would be really problematic if this new world language was created by people from a specific background, race, ethnicity, social class, etc.
Ryan's story definitely caught me by surprise. It was really motivational. We have a tendency to notice the success of a person when they reach a particular point but are unaware of the obstacles they faced beforehand. Her story actually reminded me a motivational speaker I use to follow but somehow lost track of this time last year. His name is Eric Thomas and he was also homeless. He now has a Ph.D and continues to add to his list of accomplishments. I added a video I just found so you all can have an idea of who I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Oxz060iedY
Thanks for the engaging prompt, Nick! In class we have already discussed the myriad ways how Ngũgĩ’s article on language and imperialism resonates to us, both on a personal and a grander (historical) way. Today, we can attest to the fact that the English language has permeated much of our other countries’ cultural and political landscapes. It is what we can say the contemporary world’s “world’s language.” It is the official language of the United Nations, along with French, and serves as the most functional language in that it is considered the gateway for most cultural, economic, and legal transactions between peoples and nations. However, we already understand one of the many reasons behind this. Indeed, we can account the history of the world, with a particular focus on modern history starting from the rise and fall, and the subsequent effects of the British Empire, for the dominance of the English language in today’s world.
I don’t discredit the existence of having a world language, nor the benefits that the world gets from it. Especially in the globalized economy with which the world functions and sustains itself right now, it’s important that there is a set standard for a medium of communication. Having a world language helps stabilize a structure in which many nations and peoples operate. At the same time, to this benefit comes the cost of creating a hierarchy of language. Since one is preferred and chosen among the many, it implies the higher status that the nation, culture, or people with which and whom the language originated and belongs. The question rises as to who gets to decide what would be the world language? What languages can even be considered to begin with? It may sound here like I’m stretching the thought and argument, but it makes me think that the construction of a new language where elements of different (wide-scale variety, not only among a selected few) languages are fairly considered and incorporated to get to a literal concept of a world language. As Ngũgĩ argues in his article, “provided there is independence, equality, democracy, and peace among nations,” (1993, p.40), we can have a world language that is not built upon imperialist and inherently repurposed to systematically manipulate, suppress, and oppress the social, cultural, political, and intellectual discourses among peoples of specific nations and/or languages.
And as for our trip to the Vera mothership, I will go along with my fellow Verons who cite Ryan Shanahan as the one who particularly inspired them. The fact that she struggled through homelessness when she was in undergrad resonates to most of us since, as Monero eloquently puts it, “[w]e have a tendency to notice the success of a person when they reach a particular point but are unaware of the obstacles they faced beforehand.” Whether we try to empathize or understand the concept of home as being singular and literal or with nuances and other contributing factors, the fact that she still was able to set a trajectory in life where she finds herself happy and having survived through obstacles despite her situation is truly inspirational. Also, I thought it particularly refreshing her self-awareness of her “white privilege” and how it helped her get through the obstacles that she faced as a young adult. It’s important to be aware of the aspects or elements or our lives where something is being used as a tool of oppression within a system in which we co-operate and co-exist along with other people, whether it is through subtle or explicit means. Such awareness is critically needed so we don’t get trapped in a tacit complicity with harmful consequences.
I am also not in favor of a world language. I believe that language holds an important role in people's lives and carries on traditions and history. If we commit to one language we lose our culture and what distinguishes one tribe, nation or village from another. Language also affects cognition so the limit in languages, limits the possible cognition of one's mind. There are many organizations that fight hard to preserve languages that are dead, or in the process of becoming extinct. Having one language seems to diminish everyone's identity. Some might argue on the other side that having a universal language makes living in peace easier to accomplish. Everyone would understand each other and the economy would thrive due to the common understanding happening in business with others (trading and globalization).
In my opinion characteristics of a "good" world language include: rules because guidelines to follow always help, flexibility because having more than one way to say something may seem complex but it also has a way of making your pitch more appealing to your audience, the ability to change and adapt because nothing stay the same forever, can include sounds and gestures to mean something and most importantly be be effective, understood by others and can be used to answer questions, ask questions as well as share and experience.
Out of the panelists I find Ryan to relate most to me. During her talk I was able to see little pieces of myself in her story. One thing that really resonated with me was the fact that she created her own major. She found things she was interested in and decided to combined them and make a degree. As a fellow CUNYBA student this exactly my story. Finding something I am passionate about but not finding something that really touches it so instead of settling I went out and created something that made me more comfortable and encouraged me to be excited about my academic journey.
Like most of the Verons already stated there are many risks of having a world language. A great point that Gabby made is erasure of culture of the world language is adopted as the first language. However, I think a world language is a language that the world learns in addition to another language therefore as John notes is crucial because the world is becoming more and more globalized. If the majority of Egyptians didn't learn English in elementary school and improve as they grew older they wouldn't have been able to read about how things around the world works. They wouldn't have been able to see the injustices against Egyptians and they wouldn't have revolted. In terms of Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is written in one language: people who speak English would only be able to understand it. The fact that it isn't (and other UN documents) aren't written in any other language, but English shows that we've already adopted English as the language of the world because it is universally spoken and taught around the world. The cost of having an additional language is that it is easier to communicate across borders, easier to share knowledge, and literature and other great things. The biggest risk though is that the languages of the world become lost as we all move towards English. The most significant characteristics of a good world language is that it's easily learned (Israel when they created Hebrew words to use in everyday language made sure that it was easy to learn since Jews were coming from around the world and had to learn the language to create one unified State).
In my opinion some benefits of having a world language is to be able to start to have an international culture. Being able to express/display interconnectedness can help in establishing better relations amongst the international community. Additionally, this can help improve tourism considering how visiting places outside of your host country can have more of a personal impact due to the fact you are able to immerse yourself in the culture. There will no longer be language barriers for individuals who attend school, look for work, or other opportunities. Being able to relate to individuals can cause a decrease in things such as bullying, racism, and crime. Furthermore, this assists immigrants who come to a country to find better jobs because in order to have certain jobs you need to be able to effectively communicate.
However, having an international language can cause assimilation to the international culture where many people disregard their native culture in an attempt to not feel like an outcast by being rejected for embracing their host culture. Additionally, a potential issue could be that the international language that we inherent can have a history of oppression which can cause a resistance to the international language/culture.
In regards to our site visit to Vera the panelist who resonated with me the most was Diamond from Common Justice because based upon her experiences what was expressed to me was that she wanted to make an impact in the criminal justice field. When she was discussing the vicarious trauma she experienced from working at ACS, this delineated to me that working with child services and the treatment of these individuals can be altered. Additionally, that sometimes the work you sign up for and that you think you are ready to handle expresses to you otherwise. Diamond recognized the value in Common Justice through their innovative alternative to incarceration. Having the opportunity to see Diamond share her testimony and to then to see her in action at the office, it is transparent to see the passion she has in her work mainly because she can see the conducive impact it has on the people she is helping/representing. As opposed to the work at ACS when the cumbersome cases she had to defend went against her morals. Her story ultimately said to me to follow and appreciate my journey and the job/career that is meant for me will find its way to me.
Great prompt Nick and these responses are great.
Like, I believe all of you have said, I am also not in favor of a world language. HOWEVER, I find it interesting how we haven't mentioned a different form of language aside from speech. To be honest, my initial response to reading "universal language" was not associated with speech, but body language, hand gestures, anything that didn't really limit communication to speech. I feel these forms of communications are versatile and can in some way get you closer to communication with someone of a different culture.
I can think of several times when I am on my way to school or traveling back home when someone who doesn't speak English asks me for directions. I can think of one woman in particular who spoke only French and pronounced the "Ronkonkoma" train. She pointed to the track number and gave me a confused facial and hand gesture which signified to me that she did not know which track the Ronkonkoma train was going to be on. I gave a "come" hand gesture so she would follow me onto the track that Ronkonkoma was on. because it wasn't the immediate train that was arriving on the track, but the next one after, I pointed to the sign that said "Babylon" and gave a "NO" hand gesture, then made another hand gesture that meant it was the next train. (This is hard to express via text). Long story short--she understood exactly what I was saying, and thanked me repetitively with a nod and a smile.
With this being said, no, I am not in favor of a world language because of the culture(s) that will be sacrificed, BUT part of me doesn't believe it's absolutely necessary. Like my example above, we can always meet people where they are. It will take more time and patience than if they were to understand our native tonged, but that's a small price to pay and well worth its culture preserving benefits.
I enjoyed Ryan's speech, but to add variety to the discussion, I also related to Aiesha's trajectory. If I remember her story correctly, she did not plan on working at vera or being anything related to a researcher. She just received a series of opportunities that landed her there--this is how I'm sure my life will end up. It makes me not worry so much about my progress.
Dear Verons: Please check this out:
Esperanto a constructed international language
I had really thought I was stretching the idea of having a constructed language that could effectively serve as a world language without much harmful political, social, and cultural ramifications, and so to know that there is this Esperanto language that is in existence and very much functional is exciting! I have a Duolingo in my phone, a language-learning app, and discovered that Esperanto is among the languages that is available for English language speakers! Perhaps this could be a language us Verons could try to learn and apply one day! I sure hope to one day be able to learn this language in the future, among the many. Thank you for the link, Professor Waterston!
Post a Comment