Wolfestone Translation Blog

I ask the above question for a number of reasons. Firstly, as a translator and interpreter who has been brought up bilingually with English and Spanish, I am fascinated by languages in their own right. Secondly, I grew up in Leicester, which thus meant that I attended school with lots of children who would speak a language other than English at home. Thirdly, living in Swansea, and Wales more generally, constantly brings up the question of whether or not it is worthy to preserve, promote and even expand the Welsh language. Fourthly, and most importantly of all, it is a central symbol in what I believe is one of the defining battles of our times – the battle between those who mainly champion the local and the particular, and those who mainly champion the global and the universal. Although I am personally more in the first of the two camps, I do see value in the latter as well.

It is certainly true that, for all the talk of ‘globalisation’, there are a still lot of languages in the world – 6909, in fact, according to the Ethnologue website, which looks at languages from around the world. However, the other side of the coin is that over half of them are spoken by fewer than 10,000 speakers, often putting them at risk. Of these, around 473 are classified as “nearly extinct”, meaning that “only a few elderly speakers are left”. Particularly large concentrations of such languages are found in the USA, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.

So, we must ask, do humans have the right to preserve their languages, and the cultures that go with them? More crucially, are they important to people’s identities and existences? Here the debate between localists and globalists comes into full being. Localists would answer both questions with a firm “yes”. Globalists, however, express pleasure at the fact that there are fewer and fewer languages in the world, and that more and more people speak a small number of transnational languages, with one in particular dominating – English. They believe that this will create a universal, rational civilisation based on commerce, science and freedom. One such person is the British writer and journalist Kenan Malik. In an essay he wrote for Prospect magazine in 2000, brutally titled Let Them Die, he is highly disdainful and dismissive towards linguistic diversity,

In bemoaning ‘cultural homogenisation’, campaigners for linguistic diversity fail to understand what makes a culture dynamic and responsive. It is not the fracturing of the world with as many different tongues as possible; it is rather the overcoming of barriers to social interaction. The more universally we can communicate, the more dynamic our cultures will be, because the more they will be open to new ways of thinking and doing. It is not being parochial to believe that were more people to speak English – or Chinese, Spanish, Russian or Hindi – the better it would be. The real chauvinists are surely those who warn darkly of the spread of ‘American culture’ and ‘Japanese technology’…

Language campaigners also confuse political oppression and the loss of cultural identity. Some groups – such as Turkish Kurds – are banned from using their language as part of a wider campaign by the Turkish state to deny Kurds their rights. But most languages die out, not because they are suppressed, but because native speakers yearn for a better life. Speaking a language such as English, French or Spanish, and discarding traditional habits, can open up new worlds and is often a ticket to modernity.

What globalists refuse to acknowledge, however, is that the main reason why, in the modern world, a very small number of languages have come to dominate the world, is principally due to conquest and oppression, both within and between countries. The expansion of the British, French and Spanish States, to name but three examples, came about in part through the prohibition and repression of the languages of regions that they conquered and absorbed, in order for them to be replaced by the new ‘national’ language. Therefore, Welsh, Gaelic, Irish, Breton, Occitan, Basque, Catalan, Galician etc. have all suffered in the process.

Another problem that globalists have is that, when they advocate universalism, they do not ask, which universalism? Should the language and culture of California be universal, the language and culture of Saudi Arabia be universal, or the language and culture of south-eastern China be universal? After all, the UN does have six official languages, not just one – English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese and Arabic. Also, why should some languages and cultures be automatically privileged over others in some pointless hierarchy? Let humans be (and speak) themselves, I say.

Of course, the global spread of English in particular has made travel, trade and communication rather easier than before, to the benefit of many people. However, is it not rather disconcerting that, in more and more jobs in more and more countries, the ability to speak English is seen as an end in itself? In the process, this reinforces and even aggravates previous socioeconomic divisions. The people become divided between those who have the money and resources to learn English well, and those who do not. Also, what about the old adage of ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do’? What right do British, American and Australian people have to travel the world without having to learn the languages of their host countries? No other group of language-speakers has such a high sense of entitlement. Ironically, thanks to globalisation, the economic dominance of the world is gradually shifting eastwards. (Although the same is not true in the fields of culture and entertainment). Perhaps, in the next one or two generations, we shall all be rushing to learn Chinese and/or Hindi. Or will English continue to predominate even if its native-speakers do not? Watch this space…

As said above, when it comes to music and entertainment, English very much rules the roost. Even Spanish-language singers, who, of course, speak one of the world’s three biggest languages, often feel the need to start singing in English in order to improve their careers. Think Ricky Martin, Marc Anthony (real name Marco Antonio), Gloria Estefan, Shakira, Thalía etc. Even so, there are around 35 million Latinos in the United States, and many famous Spanish-language singers like Julio Iglesias, Juanes, Carlos Vives, Celia Cruz, Tito Puente and the Buena Vista Social Club manage to maintain large fan bases there even though they only sing in Spanish. That is another irony – it is in the United States itself where English-language monolingualism is being challenged – by Spanish!

In conclusion, I firmly and vehemently believe that yes is the answer to this blog’s title. Languages develop the mind, they carry unique histories and identities, they offer different perspectives on the world, and trying to abolish them is despotic and dangerous.

Visit our website www.wolfestone.co.uk!

This entry was posted on Monday, October 12th, 2009 at 9:15 am and is filed under Wolfestone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.