As a follow up to a previous article/blog entry I did surrounding the revival of a single language, Sanskrit, in India, "Navigating India's Language Divides" gave me an incredible amount of information and insight into the complexities of having many widely spoken languages in a given country. In the 1961 Census, India had over 1652 spoken languages and dialects, while the 2000 Census showed a simpler statistic that 29 languages are spoken by at least a million people and 122 languages are spoken by at least 10,000 people. Overall, Hindi and English are the most widely spoken 41% of India's population speaks Hindi, while the next most widely spoken language is Bengali at 8.1%).
This article raised the question: What's in a language? The answer seems to be a lot. The language you learn, the language you choose to speak in a given context (like in the court system), and the language you teach your child have significant social implications. For example, one very intriguing anecdote the article gives is how Govinder Singh chose to address the high court in Hindi, rather than English. This action was widely praised and considered extremely groundbreaking, as English had been a language of the courts ever since British colonial days (and its legacy had been preserved until now) until Singh chose to break down that barrier and introduce his own language that reflected Indian pride, identity, and nationalism. This anecdote shows how closely linked language and power is. Since the British possessed the power in colonial days, they implemented a court system (considered very important in a given society) that used English, rather than one of the country's native languages. We see how this decision, which was able to be created and enforced through power, has long reaching effects on certain linguistic aspects in a given society.
It is interesting to me that after India declared its independence from Britain, Hindi became the powerful, widely spoken language that was "treated with suspicion" because of its noteworthy presence. In essence, Hindi overtook the role that English had previously held as the language spoken in most arenas by the largest population. This role came with selected conflict, as the English language had experienced, as well. For example, the article states, "Anti-Hindi sentiments have a long history and regional language activists opposed to its prevalence exist all over India, especially in southern states like Tamil Nadu where efforts to impose Hindi triggered bloody riots in the mid-1960s." I feel as though this discussion shows the power of language in both being linked to identity and being the cause of intense struggle. I never really realized the magnitude that conflict over language could reach until I read this sentence and connected language to identity and history. Since language can be so deeply rooted in and linked to history and culture, I can easily see how the attempt to override native/traditional languages in a given location or community with a newer, more dominant language could be met with intense resistance and violence.
One additional quote the sparked my interest was said by Tamil Nadu state legislator, M.K. Kanimozhi: "I can't speak Hindi but I am no less an Indian or patriotic than anybody else." Again, this quotation shows how even though language and identity can be closely tied, it is a very complex issue that often can be separate. Being "Indian" in a national identity for some people that is completely separate from a language, such as Hindi. At the same time, there are others who consider language and national identity, for example, to be extremely linked. In my personal experience, I have had many people question my ethnic identity as a Chinese individual as I do not speak any dialect of Chinese. People argue that I cannot be "truly" Chinese because language is such an integral part of a given culture. Before, I scoffed at that idea and responded, I am ethnically Chinese, my heritage (my family, my ancestors, etc) are Chinese, therefore I am, as well. I am now starting to question my overarching assumption and beginning to really understand the possibility of how my experience as an ethnically Chinese, non-Chinese speaking individual is markedly different from someone's experience as an ethnically Chinese, Chinese speaking individual. I wonder, because language and culture and experience are so linked in many ways, how can I not have a different reality/experience by being a non-speaker? At the same time, I don't question my legitimacy as a Chinese American person- I believe I simply have a different experience than those who speak the language. I definitely appreciated how this article brought up these questions for me, and probed me to think more deeply about what it means to be part of a community or an identity, and whether there are parameters for self identifying, or simply a multiplicity of possibilities for self identification that can and should be determined by an individual.
Finally, the changing significance of English in India is also fascinating. Previously, English was associated with imperialism, dominance, and privilege. Now, however, that association to Britain has been changing, as globalization has increased. English language skills are now seen as a practical advantage to have when entering the workplace. Rather than worshipping the language of people in power or resenting it for its colonial associations, English is now seen as a practical tool to possess in the modern age. This shift reveals how a community's conception of and emotions surrounding a language can really change with time. Therefore, a language's use and significance in people's lives can largely depend on the current political/historical climate and specific context.
Overall, this article communicated how powerful languages can be in shaping identity, inciting conflict, and reflecting historical and current feelings and realities.
Article Cited: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iSFJzofoZm4Sg223SHcz2S_H-FO
I think the connection between language knowledge and authenticity amongst second or third generation immigrants cannot be ignored. I'm writing my PWR paper about what defines authenticity in American minorities, and I've found that the definitions are man-made and projected on minorities by the white mainstream. For example, they expect real minorities to speak the language, eat the food, celebrate the holidays, and follow the religion of their culture. Essentially, they want minorities to fit into stereotypes. When they do, they call them "authentic."
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting because according to these definitions, people like us are left floating in no man's land. We don't qualify as "authentic" from the mainstream POV because we don't speak our native language, yet its undeniable that our culture still influenced our life experiences, personalities, and interests (in my opinion). The conclusion I've reached is that we are a part of a new unique culture that is a mesh of American culture and that of our families. We don't fully fit in with any group other than that of other Chinese or Lebanese-Americans. It's an interesting predicament! Sorry for this unnecessarily long post, but your blog got me thinking about this issue and I just couldn't stop!