Tuesday, September 20, 2016
John McWhorter vs. Anzaldua
John McWhorter believes that when language dies, it brings people together,and language death is good however, Anzaldua would not agree with this notion. She takes great pride in her language and where she comes from because it is a part of her and if her language were to die off so would a part of her. Whereas McWhorter thinks it's easier to have a universal language because you don't have languages within languages for example, "Iraqi Arabic is actually one of several "dialects" of Arabic(429)". By having different languages in the world it creates diversity and culture so were not all the same. If we have just 1 language that existed imagine how boring that would be? I am glad we have so many different languages because it shows how unique each individual person is. Language has certain beauty about it the way different pronunciations and syllables roll off a persons tongue. Not to mention the history behind it and how it connects a community with something as simple as language. Furthermore, I do not think that Anzaldua would agree with McWhorter's beliefs because they contradict each other's belief of language. I believe in Anzaldua's statement about language showing who you are and where you came from.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In John McWhorter’s article he claims that considering only one language could be the way to be more unified. But I agree with you Rachel on how Anzaldua took pride in her language and on how everything would be so monotonous if we all were to speak one language. Anzaldua valued her language and did not allow it to vanish within her even if she had to face the fact that she would be called “un-American”. I believe if we were to follow McWhorter’s point of view, we wouldn’t value our language as much as Anzaldua did. Also from generation to generation as McWhorter mentions in paragraph 8 “these children will not know the indigenous languages of their grandparents, and thus pretty soon they will not be spoken”, which seems to be unfruitful. Although communicating through one language could maybe facilitate our lives, where would the learning take place at? While we are riding the bus or walking down the street and we hear other people communicating in another language, we wouldn’t be able to ask ourselves what could they possibly be they talking about? I wonder if they have any trouble communicating in English? Even though English is maybe the easiest language to learn without having to include “three genders, fiercely subtle and irregular verb marking, and numbers...” as McWhorter daunts about in paragraph 26, it limits us from educating ourselves about other cultures and languages. It restrains us to learn about who we really are, and who we can potentially be if we challenge ourselves to learn from different people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on what you said about Anzaldua. I do not think she would agree with McWhorter's essay mainly because she is against the death of languages. She sees it as a culture dying and an era coming to an end, whereas McWhorter sees it as globalization. The reason a language dies is because another language has become more prominent, usually a more global language, such as English. So when people stop speaking a certain language, it is because they have adopted a new, more ubiquitous one. McWhorter says in his paper that he does not rejoice when a language dies, meaning he is not supporting the death of languages to have a single spoken language all over the world. Instead, he sees the positive side. Anzaldua on the other hand was for the preservation of languages to save history and culture. She felt that languages represent different values of culture, while McWhorter states that languages are just a means of communication, they are not always representations of culture. Personally, I think it would be very sad to only have one language. There are always thoughts or ideas that can be portrayed directly in one language that cannot be in another. I also agree with what you said about the beauty of language.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree on what you mention Anzualdua disagreement about McWhorter’s belief about the death of language. For the reason being that we live in a world that is multi-cultural in different countries that speak different languages. The way you explained “diversity” for individuals to have their own identities, which the languages we learn and speak gives us the opportunity to be ourselves and communicate with other people. Like the example about “Iraqi Arabic is actually one of several “dialects” of Arabic” that is true and also other countries like Nigeria, India, Indonesia that have the most dialects in the world and the reason why is because to have to opportunity to communicate with other people. So for McWhorter’s statement that she wants to stick with one language is ridiculous in my opinion. Also I have to agree learning and have multiple languages gives everyone to be unique in way that everyone can express their languages to one another. Sticking with one language isn’t benefiting us to have the experience and interaction with other languages. So if continue to just sticking with one language will actually die a language that we used to know, but have to change your language for other people perspective.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. Anzaldua would not agree with John McWhorter’s discussion saying language dying is a good thing. Anzaldua is hurt from the very beginning when she is told that she can’t speak what she wants or ho she wants, so there is no way that she would agree that language dying would be a good thing. Anzaldua sees not being able to speak how she wants as part of her culture dying. Not only would Anzaldua’s culture be dying, but according to McWhorter’s essay, 5,500 other cultures would be dying. To some, McWhorter mightbe right about dying languages being a good thing, but not to Anzaldu. I would agree with McWhorter, he explains that the reason languages die out is because cultures split, and merge with other cultures that speak different languages, and then the original cultures come back together speaking completely different languages. One group of people adapt to other people’s way of life, and way of language. And eventually several different languages converge together. So yes, languages die out, but that is mainly because people are coming together. All this being said, I still agree that Anzaldua would hate the idea that the death of languages is a good thing. She wanted her culture, and the culture of others to live on forever, but the fact is, that is nearly impossible in the growing world we live in today.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement of Anzaldua not agreeing with John McWhorter. She values her language because it is how she would identify herself. The fact that it made her feel like her rights were being violated when she was told to speak English without an accent lets us know that she took pride in her language. For language to die out would not satisfy her because Spanish is the language that unifies her culture. However, John McWhorter’s article lets us know that having only one language would bring people together. He speaks of English being the language that will “eat up the last remaining 600 languages” (pg. 434) simply because it is the language that is predominantly spoken with one another; however, this could not only impact cultures and languages but society as a whole. It is limiting society and not allowing us to diversify our country. It is hurting cultures and it can hurt our learning. Yes, one language could unite us, and it would cause little to no difference in our environment; however, having different languages can allow us to be diverse. As a bilingual speaker, learning French as a third language was fascinating and I would not wish for this language to die out. There’s a beauty in these different languages spoken, it may not unite us but it helps us appreciate the different cultural backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your claim that Anzaldua would disagree with John McWhorter on his idea that the death of language brings people together. Anzadula believes that language unites a group of people into a cultural identity, as proven by her experiences with her Chicano dialect and lifestyle; while McWhorter claims that the death of language unites people and creating language has the opposite effect. For example, John McWhorter states in his essay, “When the culture dies, naturally the language dies along with it. The reverse, however, is not necessarily true.” In this part of his essay McWhorter claims that language follows the death of a culture, but that the death of language does not mean the death of a culture. On the other hand, Anzaldua argues, “For a people who are neither Spanish nor live in a country in which Spanish is the first language; for a people who live in a country in which English is the reigning tongue but who are not Anglo; for a people who cannot entirely identify with either standard Spanish nor standard English, what recourse is left to them but to create their own language?” Anzulda pushes for the idea that language emerged from the need of a group of individuals to identify culturally and socially. To Anzulda if language were to die so would the cultural groups affiliated with it. On one hand McWhorter claims that language has no tie to cultural identity and that the death of language has no effect on any cultures; on the other hand Anzulda argues that language is essential in establishing cultural identities.
ReplyDeleteI think what you said about Anzualdua is correct. She would not call erasure of certain languages unifying, but conforming. I agree with Gloria Anzualdua more that John McWhorter because Anzualdua’s experiences as a child. She recalls times in her childhood when she would get disciplined for speaking Spanish at recess, and how many other people were required to take a speech class if English was not there first language. In Anzualdua’s experience, she did not feel like she was connecting with new groups of people or a coming togetherness in the slightest bit, but more shamed. McWhorter does not seem to see the disappearance of language like this, but as a gradual event in which eventually a wise old woman dies somewhere in Alaska, taking the language with her. When people are forced to stop speaking their languages, they don’t feel unified with others but rather distanced from people of their culture. Like you mentioned the Iraqi dialect, and how less beautiful language would be without different dialects. These dialects are formed from spending time with one another and gradual changing words among a region, not by punishing children when they speak their native language and forcing them to speak English.
ReplyDeleteWonderful post Rachel! I would definitely have to say that I agree with your stance on how Anzaldua would disagree with John McWhorter's belief that the death of a language is a good thing. The reader can infer that Anzaldua withholds a lot of pride when it comes to her language and her culture. In fact she believe's that one's language makes up their identity, who they are as a person, a piece of their blood, and something that goes hand in hand with one's culture. In "How to Tame a Wild Tongue" Anzaldua writes, "So, if you want to really hurt me, talk badly about my language" (par.27). This statement exhibits the ardent feelings that she has for her culture and the language associated with it. In her eyes robbing someone of their language is basically the same as degrading their whole entire self-hood and making them feel somewhat worthless and not being as worthy of a person. On the other hand, in John McWhorter's piece, "The Cosmopolitan Tongue: The University of English", he believes that the death of a language is a catalyst for individuals to come together and encounter the aspects found in people's different cultures. Also, in opposition to Anzaldua's perspective, he doesn't believe that language corresponds to one's culture, which he describes as he writes, "However, a language itself does not correspond to the particulars of a culture but to a faceless process that creates new languages as a result of geographical separation" (par.14). Another thing to note, McWhorter doesn't associate the death of a language with something that is negative. For example, in paragraph 21 he writes, "As 5,500 languages slowly disappear, the aesthetic loss is not to be dismissed. And in fact dying languages become museum pieces". Essentially, he believes that even after the demise of a language, it can still be preserved-- it's not completely dead or forgotten about. All in all, Anzaldua would cringe at the idea of the death of a language being a good thing-- she supports the idea of having a language thrive, with that the culture thrives also and people of generations later on will have a stronger tie to their culture and live like some of their ancestors did.
ReplyDelete