Language can sometimes be an advantage rather than a barrier.
The idea of always keeping so many languages alive as possible has existed for
a very long time with the expectation of preserving the cultural richness of
our world but, In McWhorter’s essay he has a very interesting notion, that linguistic
death could be a signal of people coming together and that “language itself does
not correspond to the particulars of a culture”. Anzaldua author of How to tame a Wild Tongue would disagree
with this notion. Throughout her essay she connects language to culture where
she presents the term “linguistic terrorism” stating that it is because they “speak
with tongues of fire, we are culturally crucified”. For example, as a Hispanic girl
growing up in the United States and with the expectation and pressure from your
parents to be fluent bilingual in both languages can indeed be challenging sometimes
I have been in the point where I can express myself thoroughly in one language
more than the other. We use language to identify ourselves and others.
McWhorter states that “native American ancestral language is designed to
frustrate someone who grew up with English”. I believe Native Americans
probably think the same concept when speaking English. Moments like these is where
you feel judged or ashamed because you are stuck between your culture and
communicating in the society you live in. He also points out that “English will
become primus and eat up the last 600 languages” this exemplifies that language
represents culture because it represents your identity and soul. Without language
there wouldn’t be anything unique about your identity. I personally don’t agree
with McWhorter although English is a worldwide dominant language, other
linguistic groups aren’t a barrier but an advantage. Language can be a form of
lifestyle and expression and one shouldn’t be dominant over the other.It's up to humanity to help preserve and keep Language Alive.
I agree with your idea that Anzaldúa would not approve of McWhorter’s notion that “… language death is … a symptom of people coming together”. However, after reading McWhorter’s essay, I was leaning in favor of his idea. But, after reading your blog, and after I started thinking about how language “… can be a form of lifestyle and expression…”, I changed my mind and now agree with your idea. McWhorter talks about the embarrassment of not knowing a language or fumbling around with “… anemic vocabularies and paltry grammar...” that are pointless in a conversation, and I agree still. Living in Texas, we have all come across people that speak a different language (mainly Spanish), and after also living in San Pedro, California (which has a large Mexican population), there has been many times that I have felt like an outcast because I couldn’t communicate with my neighbors. Despite this, I agree with both you and Anzaldúa that the moments that “… [we may] feel judged or ashamed…” are outweighed by the fact that “… language [is a representation of] culture… [and is] a form of lifestyle and expression”.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Anzaldua would not agree with McWhorter's notion that the death of a language means that people are coming together as one, but I also disagree with McWhorter. When a language dies, I do not think it is a people coming together. It is a people being reduced and forced into something they are not-- they are being forced to adapt in order to survive. Language is not present in our world in order to make one culture feel inferior to the other, or in order to make one culture feel superior to another. Speaking a different language is embracing your culture. McWhorter cannot expect one language to dominate all when the human race as a whole faces multiple lines of demarcation which causes different languages and cultures. Language is embracing those differences and shows that that group of people overcame obstacles to get where they are in the world today. Therefore, I agree with you and Anzaldua.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete