I was reading a fine article on the BB of C website about language DEATH. Well, about endangered languages, mainly. I don't know the exact figures, but I think most languages in the world (and there are a lot) are endangered. It's like wealth (but the other way around) in that a ludicrous number of the global population speak a fraction of the world's languages. And English, the juggernaut that it is, is taking over. (I don't regard Spanish or Chinese in the same way, because almost all (relatively speaking) of those languages' speakers are natives, whereas English is an international language).
So the question is: is language death a good thing? The obvious argument for that is that languages have to evolve and change and if they can't then they die. One could argue that some languages never die and that French, Italian and Spanish are all what Latin has become - just like Shakespeare's English evolved into the language in which this eloquent specimen is written, so did Caesar's language become the words of M. Sarkozy. Anyway, this is drivel. But the point is that English has adapted, so that half of Chaucher's work is indecipherable to the layman, and that's what keeps it going (although, again, is it the same language or has it changed so much as to merit the name of a different language?). So you could argue that natural selection and survival of the fittest apply to languages too. As I said in my A Level French oral (in which I got a C), si une langue n'évolue pas, elle meurt.
The argument against would be that each language is part of history and culture, and losing it would be a waste. I personally believe the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states (essentially) that language affects thought. For example, there are some languages that only use absolute directions (i.e. directions that are always the same, like North, South, etc. as opposed to right, left, etc.). This means that you couldn't say that traffic drove on the left-hand side of the road. It would drive on the North side on some roads and the South side on others. And if you wanted to give someone directions, you'd tell them to go North and take the second road on the West-hand side (hehe), etc. Studies have shown that when these people are blindfolded and taken to darkrooms via really complex routes, they can still remember where North is (or at least they can remember it up to a point far beyond what 'normal' Westerners could). If it is indeed the case that different languages represent different ways of thinking (easier to distinguish in non-Indo-European languages), then every time a language dies, an entire thought system goes with it.
Even if language doesn't affect thought, culture is linked very closely to language. And in any case, I would argue that even regarded on its own, a language is an amazing thing. Language is so clever and yet so fundamentally human that to lose an entire way of communicating, an entire complex system, is a horrible thought. Like a fire at an art gallery, or something. It doesn't keep me awake at night, but it's still a bit sad.
I think that languages should be well documented, if possible. Native speakers should be recorded and filmed, the language should be studied, etc., but I think that it is inevitable that some languages will die. Humans die all the time - that is very sad, but it is, as Mr. Franklin said, one of life's only certainties. You can't keep someone alive indefinitely, but you can make sure that when they're gone you have lots of memories and evidence - pictures, possessions, videos, etc. The same is, I believe, true of language. They can be protected from extinction and publicised and studied, but if natives are not teaching their children to speak the languages any more, then it is right that they should disappear (the languages, not the natives or their children). People will remember it (and maybe even learn to speak it) in the same way as Latin or Sanskrit now (although I think there may be some native speakers of Sanskrit...).
Some languages have been reconstructed. Cornish, I believe, is one of them (a Celtic language spoken in parts of Great Britain), as is, of course, Hebrew. The latter in particular now flourishes (among Jews), which is quite a remarkable feat in my opinion. So maybe languages can be brought back. But I generally think that it's a bit of a circle of life.
David Mitchell speaks about this issue in his SoapBox. He refers to Scots Gaelic and Cornish, I think, although it's months since I watched it (unlike most of his stuff - I've been in a bit of a Mitchell and Webb phase for the past few weeks).
On the subject of languages having to change, part of me thinks that grammar and punctuation should not be as strict as it is. Infinitives should sometimes be split (if it sounds better), sentences should end with prepositions (if it sounds better), etc. People shouldn't get worked up about the (mis)use of apostrophes, plurals, 'less' and 'fewer'. If you know me well, you'll know that I'm one of the biggest pedants around, but I'm trying to get over that, because languages do change. Grammar should be descriptive (i.e. used to describe how people speak) rather than prescriptive (i.e. used to tell people how to speak). I'm usually such a hypocrite about this. I'll complain about signs saying, "1o items or less" but as soon as Mr. Torrie tells me off for saying, "My family are annoying", I shout at him about evolution and stuff. Anyway, I would recommend the following on this issue:
On a final note, what do people think to the use of 'they' to mean 'he or she'? Like "every student will receive their results on 1st August", for example. I like it, because I think it's natural (i.e. it comes naturally to me and a lot of other English speakers) and it saves writing "he or she" or "s/he" or anything else, or being 'racist' and assuming that everyone's a man (or indeed a woman). And, just to aid my argument, Austen, Twain and Shakespeare (who has arguably done more than anyone to develop the English language) have all used the singular 'they' in their work. So who is more entitled to comment on the use of the English language? People who study it and prescribe rules, or people who use it (and use it well) and actively play a part in its development?
No comments:
Post a Comment