The “Spicing local languages with English language is worrying” article was an extremely fascinating report on how the government of Ghana considers the intermingling of English and Ghanaian local languages to be dangerous and harmful. The theme of the conference, "Our roots, our hope for our progress and development" was very telling about the foundation of his comments (URL: http://news.peacefmonline.com/social/201004/41349.php) . It is really interesting how Mr. Khalid sees the furthering of Ghanaian’s own languages as the key to “progress and development.” In contrast, my first reactionary thoughts suggested that engaging with the global world and finding ways to mix one’s roots and the trends of modernity (including dominant, significant languages like English) is beneficial for a culture in the end.
One question the “Spicing local languages with English Language is worrying” article brought up for me is whether a country’s openness to adopting English language components is linked to its political or economic relationship to the United States and other English dominant countries. For example, is the Ghana-United States relationship strained (politically, economically, etc.) in such a way that the leaders in Ghana would actively resist becoming more associated with the country in a linguistic sense? Or, are there simply certain countries that value and emphasize their cultural heritage and want to resist language spread from globalization?
This Australian Journal of Linguistics article also illuminated the ambiguity associated with defining what a singular language is. With the common interplay of various languages, there exists many variations of any given language. This makes identifying any specific language at times very difficult. One fascinating part of this article was the discussion about how some language theorists are advocating for language to only be considered discrete in a socio-political sense. In these theorists’ minds, the concept of “a language” would not exist in other arenas. Rather, linguists would “concentrate on plotting elements of language (words, grammatical patterns) as they develop and recombine ultimately in an individual's speech, but also observe regularities and co-occurrence of elements in the speech of communities.” In today’s world, the complete abolition of the singular concept of “a language” seems unnecessary as I definitely do feel confidence and comfort when I say “I speak English, Spanish, and Japanese.” With these languages, there isn’t yet intense interplay and influence of other languages that leads me to question the individual identity of each. However, while I (and the authors of the journal article) do not agree with the abolition of the concept of “a language,” I think it is an interesting prospect that one day, there may be so much intermingling of language and of culture that one’s attempt to differentiate between various languages may be too complex to complete.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, do you think there are certain cultures who do a better job of using English for governmental, administrative, or trade purposes while also conserving native languages than others? Maybe this is why certain countries are more comfortable assimilating English and others resent and avoid it.
ReplyDeleteI think it could be possible, but based in other issues. My theory is that some countries that hold power and a strong presence in the world do not have to fear their languages becoming extinct. Therefore, in these countries (such as China), bilingual education and the increased presence of another prominent language, such as English, would probably be encouraged. However, there are many languages that are becoming extinct. I think this occurs because there are not enough people, or not enough power, associated with that language. Therefore, while it is possible that some countries may be better at using English in various sectors of society, I think it comes down to how much of a threat English poses to the survival of native languages that largely determines how comfortable a governmental leadership might be in allowing its presence.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/04/07/fyi-to-cctv-no-english-acronyms/
ReplyDeleteThis article is relevant to this discussion about uneasiness surrounding English spreading into other languages. In this article, it is Chinese officials who are trying to avoid the use of English acronyms. This article serves as a counterpoint to my previous post in which I put forth the idea that more powerful languages/countries might be more open to the mixing of languages. In fact, it seems that many countries/languages are attempting to avoid mixing. (Versus languages like Japanese that have openly and actively incorporated significant parts of other languages).
oh wow. that's really interesting. I still think you're first comment is a valid point however. It does seem more likely that countries with fear of losing a native language would be more hostile to English. In China, it could be an issue of pride, as the country gains influence and power in the international market.
ReplyDelete