Linguistic Elitism

Audre Lorde`s take on English: ``We will use the master`s tools to dismantle his house``, an idea Edward Said has echoed.

English is just a language.

If we treat language for what it was originally meant to be - a tool of communication - usually there is no problem. Most individuals simply pick the one that suits the purpose at hand the best. However, as soon as we start thinking of the language as a vehicle of culture, all kind of defensive mechanisms kick in, leading to the problems you so well capture in your article!

Although I understand the points being raised here, I kind of disagree with them. Yes, economic imperialism existed in the past and would usually be followed by domination of the “ruling” language. However, that stuff (domination through language) is now history! It began to die in the South Asian subcontinent (in my view) after the regional language movements of the mid-60’s (to oppose imposition of Hindi in the south) and especially after the separation of Bangladesh from (Western) Pakistan primarily based on the language.

In the U.S. context (and I am no expert on this, either) for many, many decades, there existed widespread differences in how spoken “American English” varied over different regions of the country. More recently, however, this language has really become MORE homogeneous across the country, primarily driven by the school systems and commercial ties. At the same time, in many parts of the country, Spanish has increasingly become the language of a significant minority and sometimes the majority segment of the regional population. This has led to sporadic, but inconsistent and half-hearted efforts to impose a “National” language (English) which appears unlikely to go anywhere – since commercial interests continue to predominate all other considerations.

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

English ruled most of the world, thus their language dominates the world. What do you expect, Swahili or Urdu to be the world language or lingua franca?

Punjabi, as spoken today, has about 50% words of Arabic/Persian...in E Pb. many words from Hindi.....this is the collateral damage of subjugation. Next time fight harder....and defend yourself against invaders.

Anniqua:

english is much more than.....

in addition to a being an axe in the hands of arms-length colonisers it is also a chisel in the hands of gritty survivor-victims

lve

t

I find it rather ironic and funny that this article is written in English. An interesting read Anniqua.

I disagree with your assertion that speaking English necessarily means adopting its cultural baggage. Yes, the culture is part of it, but not the entirety of language. Also, which English-speaking culture is being adopted? England? USA? Australia? English speaking Canada? Scotland? Ireland? Surely you don`t mean to say that all these cultures are monolithic and uniform and are defined simply by their language? That they are all the same?

Second, while I agree that we are dealing with the aftermath of colonialism and that English is often used as a tool of the elite, I do think English has one major strength. It adapts, it changes and those who speak it change it every day in so many ways. Each country that speaks English makes the language its own. So Indian English, for example, while similar to English English is also its very own vibrant and evolving language. And we are richer for it.

Historically there has been colonialism of one way or the other. Whether it was the Roman empire or the Ottoman, the victors did impose their language and culture on the conquered. English is no exception. It is the dominant language in the age we live. And perhaps there is at least a bit of subversion in different cultures taking it in and producing a language that is very much its own, while retaining enough of its structure and grammar to be able to compete in our global world.

A good write!

I think I would agree that the dominance of language brings with it a lot of aspects of the foreign culture as well, but I think its just a matter of time before English language would evolve into some other form.

Remember when Mughals invaded India, they brought Farsi with them and everyone had to succumb to the rule of Farsi . I would say the people of that time pretty much had the same reasons to learn farsi as we have to learn english today. Survival.

Moreover, I don`t think this accultration is a bad thing. Allows you to explore more and improve some aspects of your culture that should`ve been obsolete by that time anyways.

Anniqua,

The Third Language War (in support of Tamil) has been announced in Tamil Nadu.

Would you care to volunteer for the war?

The occupational hazard would be self-immolation. I understand those who do this actually don`t feel much pain; it seems that the oxygen is consumed by the flames and so the person dies of oxygen starvation to brain, resulting in brain death, rather than the burns. One might argue that brain death had preceded even the act of purchasing a can of kerosene!

The majority of the participants would be named Sudalikkannu, Veerashanmughamoni, etc. An Anniqua would be a nice addition ;-)

As the world comes closer and increasingly reinforces globalisation, there is a need of a common language understood by all. Aside from the history of the language, it is actually a very convenient mode of communication. And as long as the western world has dominance on literature, history, economic and commercial development, then I’m afraid we have to use the English language as a way of communication.

There are other colonial languages to whom this applies, not just English. French for eg has always had grandiose plans of global dominance and I strongly suspect the Frenchman in your opening paragraph is more saddened by the strangulation of the Francophone world by the Anglophone movement than of any threat posed by English to the French language, which would be fantastical indeed when you consider the pride the French possess in their language and the contempt they direct to the British and whatever they do.

Also, while I agree that language is linked with culture, I can`t agree that it`s an either/or scenario on the subcontinent at least. Most of us are used to switching between cultures, between languages without it affecting native linguistic loyalties. And as for one affecting/changing the other - I dont think thats a bad thing. There have been some very exciting works coming out of the vernaculars written by authors who have access to world or English literature.

wasn`t it rushdie who said something about ``the empire writes back to and from the centre. . .`` and there have been writers who`ve written back with a vengeance. i think jawahara refers to this in her post somewhat.

we may have had english imposed upon us, but it doesn`t necessarily follow that we lose our own culture, whatever that means, in the process.

Hi....I new member to this website but have been reading articles for some time..found this an interesting and different topic from the usual politics and religion themes. I come from quite a mad varied background in that english is not my mother tongue but certainly has become my preferred language of choice in most situations. Honestly languages have always been identifiers of cilivilisations and the popularity of languages globally have coincided with how far respective civilisations spread. Normally speaking the depth, the range of vocabulary and expression can also be linked with the geographic spread of a civilisation and its language. By that mean as authors like Khuswant Singh have mentioned, the strength of english is its absoulute bastardisation. The modern english language reflects more multi-cultural absorption than any other language in the history of mankind. As someone has mentioned below, english itself is so diverse that various regions like South Asia, the Caribbean, North America and Australasia have all come up with their quite uniqye derivatives of the english we know as general standard english.

Hi....I new member to this website but have been reading articles for some time..found this an interesting and different topic from the usual politics and religion themes. I come from quite a mad varied background in that english is not my mother tongue but certainly has become my preferred language of choice in most situations. Honestly languages have always been identifiers of cilivilisations and the popularity of languages globally have coincided with how far respective civilisations spread. Normally speaking the depth, the range of vocabulary and expression can also be linked with the geographic spread of a civilisation and its language. By that mean as authors like Khuswant Singh have mentioned, the strength of english is its absoulute bastardisation. The modern english language reflects more multi-cultural absorption than any other language in the history of mankind. As someone has mentioned below, english itself is so diverse that various regions like South Asia, the Caribbean, North America and Australasia have all come up with their quite uniqye derivatives of the english we know as general standard english.

It is not unusual for many to speak appologistically about enlgish. After all, we have invested a lot of energies to learn it, have taken pride in being proficient in it and now we are sort of `involved` in it. At least, for the sort of people this website is about, english has become a part of their veryc culture. It is important to know the perspective from where to judge this issue.

My case against english would be that of communication. Over the course of my life, I have known many people and almost all of them have had urdu/hindi as their birth language. Later on, some of them have learnt english and some havn`t. In this way, our communication has become two pronged which is simply irritating. As if, my soul`s exposure to the cultural aspect of language would have been a lot purer than this, had I possessed only one langauge at my disposal.

When I want to talk about Ghalib or Faiz over here, these same size characters do not offer me much help.

Saminashah

[[Audre Lorde`s take on English: ``We will use the master`s tools to dismantle his house``, an idea Edward Said has echoed]]

Who was Audre Lorde? Why should you want to dismantle a house? That makes you a vandal and a nihilist. Dont you think a better analogy would be to extend the house, re-arrange and re-decorate the house to make it big enough to shelter all?

Blasph,

Google Audre Lorde.