McWhorter stated he believed that when all languages die,
then only will everyone come together, and it would have a positive effect on
the world. I believe Anzaldúa would not like the idea of having to rid of all
languages for togetherness, and would disagree with Mcwhorter’s stance.
In his
argument he says that when a culture dies, so will its language. However, if it
were the other way around, the culture will have remained unaffected by its
absence of language. Anzaldúa believes
that there are so many different dialects of a certain language. If she were to
have read McWhorter’s paper, I believe she were to disagree on his point that
without language a culture in itself would fall apart. Her purpose on stating
all the different ways to speak a certain language was to show the variations
of a culture in itself, she emphasizes on the fact that language is vital to
culture. Because of this, the use of different dialects would have been unnecessary
to her explanation if she were to have agreed to the idea of culture surviving
at the cease of language.
In
my opinion, McWhorter’s view on language is arguable. I do not agree with the
fact that he thinks that it takes the absence of language to accomplish unity.
Though there are countless differences in language, those differences are not
what distinguishes our separation in different worlds. I believe language is
what brings us together. If anything, those who know more than one language
seem to have multiple personas, have more to share among those differences and
still remain the same person. Language may not be necessary for communication,
as some of us have argued in the past, but I certainly think that without
language, a culture would cease to exist, as language is one of the truest
forms of a culture’s traditions.
I agree with Irene in that the two authors, John McWhorter of The Cosmopolitan Tongue and Gloria Anzaldua of How to Tame a Wild Tongue would likely disagree on their viewpoints on the subjects of language, culture, and how they intertwine. John McWhorter states that “we must keep as many languages alive as possible, and that the death of each one is another step on a treadmill toward humankind’s cultural oblivion.” He is implying that without these languages all among the many groups of people in this world, that once the language is lost, then the cultures that come along with these groups of people are equally lost. McWhorter is stating the opposite of what Anzaldua is trying to get across in her messages of the culture will never die just because a certain dialect in that language might have. On the other hand, McWhorter also writes at the beginning that “… it is fiendishly difficult to learn any new language well, at least after about the age 15,” which the two can see a common ground on because in the stories both were having to do something not truly wanting to be intended by themselves. The loss of culture was what both could see but John thinks that there is a need for both culture and language to be present in order to still be alive which Gloria disagrees with the fact that language and culture can either/or still represent and without their own. Agreeing once more, language is not a necessary to communicate and it is not necessary to keep a culture alive which is where I find myself agreeing more with Anzaldua’s rather then McWhorter’s.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Irene and Natalie, that the two authors have different viewpoints on language. Also like Natalie says their culture. McWhorter's view on language is that "at the end of the day, language death is, ironically, a symptom of people coming together." He is basically saying that in order to come together you have to get rid of your language. I can kind of see where he is coming from, maybe saying that once all languages are gone we will only have one common language and that is what brings us together. On the other hand, I can see what Irene is saying when she says "those who know more than one language seem to have multiple personas, have more to share among those differences and still remain the same person." That these different languages can bring us together because you have multiple cultures to fit in with. Whereas in Anzaludsas story she tries to keep her language alive and not let it die, because to her language defines her. It reminds her of who she is and where she comes from. For example when she says "we know how to survive. When other races have given up their tongue, we've kept ours." I would agree mostly with Anzaldua because she says, like Irene has stated, without a language our culture would not exist.
ReplyDelete