Two years ago, in the dwindling days of December, I
found myself wandering round a bustling marketplace in downtown Cape Town. This
was my first trip to Africa and usually when I visit a new place, I go downtown
to get a feel for the culture, the language. Before my departure, as always, I
did some research and had a feel for the predominant tribal groups, ethnic
minorities and majorities. In South Africa, with its eleven official languages,
I expected to hear some Afrikaans, Zulu, or Xhosa in the streets; yet amidst my
meandering between booths, heavily laden with stylistically streamlined African
artifacts, I heard only English.
English is being described as the new global
language, dominating science, medicine, academics, business, government,
technology, media and most of all, the Internet. One quarter of the planet is
fluent in English, native and non-native speakers, and this number is growing
exponentially (Crystal, 4). Of course, with any global issue, there is a heated
debate as to its advantages and disadvantages. Many individuals view the spread
of English as an inevitable result of globalization. With English as a baseline
mechanism for communication for the ‘global village,’ business runs easier, travel
is less daunting, information can be shared without tedious translation, and
people of many different backgrounds can come together to express ideas in a
common tongue. At the same time, many, including myself, see the domination of
the English language as an expression of cultural imperialism and
homogenization, fearing for a loss of diversity within the realm of human
experience. In this essay I will vouch for the preservation of diversified
language because I believe each human’s identity and culture, both of which are
intrinsically connected with language, contain ineffable value that should not
be suppressed by the powers-that-be.
To critically analyze an issue, one must have an
idea of its roots and mechanisms of maintenance. David Crystal, in his book, English as a Global Language, describes
a global language as one that is recognized internationally for its special
uses and purposes (Crystal, 2). Crystal claims that languages spread, not due
to the inherent nature of the language itself but because of the power of the
people who speak it, particularly military and economic power (Crystal, 7). He
applies this concept to 19th and 20th century politics,
when Britain and America were thriving as militant, economic and technological
superpowers. British colonization and the growth of the United States as an
economic heavyweight spread English around the world. With this financial
padding, Anglo-phonic countries invested more in research and technology,
marketing this knowledge through the multinational corporation and further
entrenching the supremacy of English. This empire was finally consecrated with
the invention of the Internet (8).
Around 72% of Internet pages are in English and
majority of telecommunication infrastructure resides in developed, English
aware countries (Ngai, 2012). Obviously the Internet is a huge wealth of
information, available only to those who speak English. One doesn’t only need
to learn English to be tech-savvy, but to be a member of the global
marketplace, to have a chance at economic and social mobility, to communicate
with younger generations, the list goes on. In the words of Mark Warchauer, a
professor of education and informatics at the University of California, "English has become the second language of
everybody. It's gotten to the point where almost in any part of the world to be
educated means to know English,"(Mydans 2007). It seems in today’s world the mantra rings,
assimilate or perish.
The spread of English and globalization have been
like twisting strands of a double helix, complementing and supporting each
other. As Warchauer comments, “"Having
a global language has assisted globalization, and globalization has
consolidated the global language,” (Mydans 2007). As with globalization, there
have been countless benefits to the ubiquity of this language. For one, a
mono-linguistic comportment has provided a platform for international
communication in the public and private sector. For example in international
business meetings, Saudi Arabian, Chinese and Brazilian individuals could use
English as a common ground of communication instead of hassling with
interpretation. Costs of translation and interpretation within global relations
definitely factor in the promotion of a lingua
franca (The Guardian 2001). Some proponents claim that a global language
would reduce cultural misunderstandings although there is no empirical support
of this notion (Crystal 13). Learning English can be a ticket out of poverty in
developing countries and many families prefer sending their kids to English
schools because they feel it will serve them better in the long run.
There is also an overall sentiment that English
is already a global language and therefore we might as well use it to our
advantage. Some people take the middle ground by promoting a bilingual stance
to linguistic globalization; that is, people should utilize local languages as
well as English depending on the context. This is keenly expressed in an
article written for The Guardian, an online news source based out of the UK, “there is no need to set up an
old-fashioned dichotomy between local languages and English as the
"hegemonic aggressor": there is a place for both, because they
fulfill different functions,” (The Guardian 2001). In other words, many
supporters of a lingua franca believe
that people don’t have to identify themselves, culturally or socially, through
English, but should recognize the language’s relevance in modern society. In a globalized world we need to have a global
language; indigenous languages have no use in the world of blogs and happy
meals.
At first glance, the aforementioned
statements are rendered intuitively sound; unfortunately the relationships
between language, identity and society are not so cut and dry. Individuals are
against making English a global language for numerous reasons: they believe it promotes the homogenization of humanity; it is a
mechanism of cultural imperialism; it will result in a loss of indigenous
knowledge, music, poetry, stories—a loss of culture. But there is a question
that presupposes all of these adverse conclusions, a question linguists and
psychologists have been quarreling over for decades: does language affect
thought?
In his chapter, Babel Revisited, Peter Mühlhäusler, describes two theories through
which to understand the relationship between language and the world: mapping
theory and the linguistic relativity hypothesis (Mühlhäusler 104). The mapping
or labeling theory contends that our world is made up of fundamental units for
which language has different labels. This view is expressed by linguist and
psychologist Steven Pinker, who claims that language is an adaptation; language
evolved out of necessity to label the things around us and communicate
cognitions (Pinker 2003). Pinker expands on Noam Chomsky’s ideas of universal
grammar by claiming that all languages can be broken down into basic cognitive categorizations,
in other words, language doesn’t shape our thoughts (and therefore our
experiences), but language works as it does by virtue of innate, adaptive
biological mechanisms (Chomsky 1977, Papineau 2007). In the words of
Mühlhäusler, "according to this theory, the differences between languages
are only superficial and all languages are fully inter-translatable,”
(Mühlhäusler 104); therefore a global language is neutral because all languages
end up communicating the same universal labels and cognitions.
The second
theory through which to understand the role of language in society is referred
to as the Sapir-Whorf or linguistic relativity hypothesis (Mühlhäusler 104).
The idea of linguistic relativity is expressed eloquently by David Crystal,
during his feature in the documentary, In
Languages We Live: Voices of the World, a film by Janis Billeskov Jansen and Signe Bryge Sørenson,
“the world is a mosaic of visions, and each vision is encapsulated by a
language… every time a language is lost, one vision of the world disappears;”
in other words, language defines how each human experiences the world (Jansen
and Sørenson 2005). In an article for the New York Times, “Does Your Language Shape
How You Think?” Guy Deutscher comments on re-vamped understandings of
linguistic relativity, “if
different languages influence our minds in different ways, this is not because
of what our language allows us to think but rather because of what it
habitually obliges us to think about,” (Deutscher 2010). For
example, English is a gender-neutral language and therefore its speakers are
less focused on gendered dichotomies in their comprehension, whereas a Spanish
or French speaker would view this information as vital to their understanding
of the world (Deutscher 2010).
Deutscher continues to comment on how language demands us to speak,
feel and think about concepts
differently, such as space, color, perception, time, geography etc. Peter Mühlhäusler also describes
the immense diversity between languages with regards to communicating certain
phenomena: specifically with nature, plants, weather, color,
kinship ties, parts of the body, emotions, states of mind, religion, spiritual
ideas, social distinctions, and metaphors (Mühlhäusler 106). For example: some
indigenous cultures having thousands of names for plants, whereas the western
knowledge of nature is quite generalized; the Hopi of North America have no
word for ‘depression’; the Tofa people of Siberia have many terms for
‘reindeer’ similar to the Tuvans who use special names for
colors, body patterns, and head marking of horses, cows, and yaks (Harrison 2007, Sommers-Flanagan 2012). David Harrison in this
chapter, An Extinction of (ideas about)
Species, contends that humanity is at risk of losing an amazing vault of
eco-knowledge with the extinction of languages (Harrison 2007).
There are around 6000 languages left in the world
it is predicted that in 100 years, half of those languages will be extinct. If
this occurs, as David Crystal describes, not only will we lose specialized
knowledge of the natural world, “[but] if we do nothing…half of the world’s
heritage will be gone,” (Jansen and
Sørenson 2005). Crystal’s statement alludes to the idea that we experience
reality through language, we experience ourselves, and this is only so pure in
our mother tongue. The book, Counseling
and Psychotherapy Theories in Context and Practice, written by John
Sommers-Flanagan and Rita Sommers-Flanagan, describes the self as a narrative
concept, birthed in the cultural
parameters of language. Language and
identity are two sides to the same coin; if
our concept of the self is intrinsically linked to our personal narrative, then
taking away that understanding and filtering it through another cultures’
perspective is very undermining and detrimental to psychological and emotional
health (Sommers-Flanagan 2012). As Director Janus Jansen describes, “to lose my
mother tongue would be like being forced into language exile. I would lose my
family’s history and culture,” (Jansen and
Sørenson 2005).
I believe the only way to truly observe issues of
global injustice are through a holistic lens. In the documentary, The Color of Fear, a group of
mixed-ethnicity men explore issues of racism. At one point in the documentary,
a white men comments that he doesn’t understand himself as part of an ethnic
community and is perplexed at why race has to be such an issue, “why can’t we
all just be members of the human race?” Two African American men retort,
“This is the problem with racism…As a white man,
he doesn’t have to think about his position in life, his place in the world.
The history books tell him, as they are written, that this is his world…he
doesn’t have to think of himself as a white person because the way the world is
set up, America in particular, white is a human-being…they step into a world
that is theirs.” (Mun Wa, 1994)
Similarly with language, those who grow up
speaking English don’t understand why globalizing the English language has to
be such a problem, because they are already privileged in that they speak it. I
have noticed this paradigm of globalizing homogenization in which what it means
to be human is to be a white male who speaks English, dresses a certain way,
expresses emotion a certain way, eats certain foods, celebrates certain
traditions, practices a certain religion. This idea of English as global
language, which is supported by many valid points, is just another veiled
expression of white supremacy. What English as a global language is saying to
the marginalized peoples of the world is that their cultural contribution does
not matter; they do not matter unless they assimilate and essentially ‘lose
themselves.’
I am against
promoting English as a global language not only because I support the
aforementioned arguments that there will be a loss of diversity, culture, and
knowledge; I also believe this trend to be another form of Anglo-phonic
oppression on minorities. From the moment I first inhaled, my senses were
inundated with stimuli of privilege. For example: I was born in a sanitary
hospital, with all the necessary accoutrements to meet my medical needs; I was
taken to a warm home where I was fed properly and loved; my genealogical
heritage is such that my skin color is defined as ‘white’; the first words I
heard were English words and English is my mother tongue. All of these things, probably
reminiscent stories of many individuals born in the United States, although
seemingly basic, are flagrant status symbols, laying the bedrock for my certain
success in the world. I agree with Crystal when he claims,
“a global language will cultivate an elite monolingual linguistic class,
more complacent and dismissive in their attitudes towards other languages…[who]
will be more able to think and work quickly in it, and to manipulate it to
their own advantage at the expense of those who do not have it, thus
maintaining in a linguistic guise the chasm between rich and poor,” (Crystal
2003).
The
promotion of a mono-linguistic world disrespects my basic tenet that each human
has something very unique to share with the world and this ability to share is
an intrinsic right that should be protected. With the extinction of language
not only will we lose culture and knowledge, but also we will be affirming a
paradigm that doesn’t respect the inherent value of human beings. Although
there are some advantages to English as a global language, economically,
corporately, communicatively, the advantages seem to favor the privileged. I
believe accepting these veiled rationales without digging deeper into the
perpetual top-down injustices would be an ignorant conclusion. And while those
who speak English can remain linguistically blind to their true advantage and
vouch for everyone to be like them for sake of convenience, I believe that
forcing people to eschew their mother tongue and essentially, their identity for
the sake of a further globalized, homogenized, interdependent monoculture is
not worth the price.
Works Cited
“A Stateless Language that Europe Must Embrace.” The Guardian 18 April. 2001: Web.
Accessed 5 Dec. 2012.
Chomsky, Noam. Essays
on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland, 1977.
Crystal, David. Why a Global Language? New York: 2003. Cambridge University Press.
New York, NY. Print.
Deutscher, Guy
“Does Your Language Shape How You Think?” New
York Times. 26 Aug. 2010: web.
Accessed 9 Dec. 2012.
Harrison, David. “An Extinction of Ideas about
Species.” Oxford University Press. 2007. Print. p. 23-55.
Jansen, Janis Billeskov and
Signe Bryge Sørenson, dirs. In languages we Live: Voices of the World.
Final Cut Productions, 2005. Documentary.
Muelenhausler, Peter. “Babel Revisited.” Print. p.
103-108.
Mydans, Seth. “Across Cultures, English is the
Word.” New York Times 9 April. 2007:
Web. Accessed 5 Dec. 2012.
Ngai, Phyllis. Power Point. Lesson 2: Globalization,
Informatization and Communication. 2012.
Papineau, David. “Caveman
Conversations.” Rev. of The Stuff of Thought, by Steven Pinker. The Independent 5 Oct. 2007. Web:
Accessed 9 Dec. 2012.
Pinker, Steven. “Language
as an adaptation to the cognitive niche.” In: Kirby S, Christiansen M Language
evolution: States of the Art. Language evolution: States of the Art. New York:
Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 16-37.
Sommers-Flanagan, John and Rita Sommers-Flanagan. Counseling and Psychotherapy Theries in
Context and Practice: Skills Strategies, and Techniques. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. Print.
The Color of Fear. Dir, Lee Mun Wa, 1994. Documentary.
i am the permeable membrane. 
