Social and Epistemological Role of Languages - Essay Example

Language Introduction Language is a dynamic and living creature. Our lives are connected with it. We gain knowledge, share our experiences and develop our lives in terms of language. Language connects our lives and once this bound is violated, we come across a problem of a challenging choice: whether to live or not to live. The question of life and choice of the way we want to exist is challenged by the option of language oppression. Ethnic minorities are often prevented from a proper existence and their usual way of life in case their languages are suppressed and assimilated in accordance with “white standards” of European languages. On the basis of essays on languages and challenges of its functioning on the borderlands, we will focus on the important social and epistemological role languages play in our lives. Authors’ views on language Navarro Scott Momaday in his essay “Personal reflections” (1987) intends to show Native Americans and their attitude for language and the role it plays in their lives. Europeans and Native Americans show different attitudes in their story telling and these reflections are seen in the way they use language. He tries to show different world perceptions between Europeans and Indians. For example, he shows the way Native Americans use the verb “to live”. Very often it is used in a metaphoric way. This writer grew up in the Indian reservation near Oklahoma State and he realizes the Indians perceive the world. Thus, when they say that the sun “comes back to the Earth” they underline that the Earth is their homeland. The concept of time is endless and illusive for Native Americans. There is an essential linguistic diversity between Native Americans and white people. There is a well-developed oral tradition among the American Indians. There is a great respect shown towards the speaker. Consequently, the listener should be very attentive and comprehend every word, which is uttered when the story is told to him. The words are means for carrying liberty and the language reflects the nature of deep respect in the life of Native Americans. Gloria Anzaldua in her essay “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” (1987) discusses cultural differences, which are reflected in language as well. She talks about borderlands, where two or more cultures exist. There are essential linguistic differences not only between Spanish English or Standard English, but also between different dialects. If the native speakers are prevented from an opportunity to speak their native languages, this can be considered as violence. The author describes numerous controversies, when she was made to speak American language otherwise she had to go back to Mexico, where she belonged. At Pan American University the student had to get rid of their accents and speak American English language. Mother tongue becomes dry and people forget their speech. Chicano Spanish, she claims, is considered by the purist and the most Latinos a mutilation of Spanish. It is impossible to remove Chicago Spanish language, because it occurred in a natural way. People are heterogeneous creatures and it is natural of them to speak different languages. Pachuco is positioned as the language of rebellion. These varieties of Spanish languages are full of anglicisms. Therefore, we can see a clear tendency of language interference. A poor Spanish is positioned as illegitimate and a bastard language. The author also talks about books and films, which are created by Spaniards or Mexicans. For example, she mentions the novel “City of Night” written by John Rechy. There is a clear mixture of Spanish and English words. Moreover, in the films of Mexicans or about Mexicans, she claims, there is a clear sense of alienation and at the same time she feels like coming home. There is a great ambiguous feeling about pop art of the Mexicans. At least, the glimpses of native language are pleasant for the Native Speakers. Les Chiconos are people, who have Indian roots and they have their own tongue. Toni Morrison in his essay “Nobel lecture” (1993) in a metaphoric way discusses the controversies between two cultures on the example of the story about a woman and two children, which want to know whether a bird they are holding in their hands is alive or dead. The author shows that the life of a bird or language depends on people only. If they have enough power and wisdom and care, then the language will survive for sure. A wise woman is presented by the author as a practiced writer. Language is presented as a living thing, which experiences a constant control from within. Oppressive language extends the limits of violence it limits knowledge and there is no exchange of new ideas among people. The oppressive language is depicted as the one, which prevents women from a proper speak. The bird is dead means that there is no language anymore and the road for knowledge is closed. It is unnatural for language to develop different barriers for knowledge gaining. Language is a mediation of narrative and information. There is no chance to oppress it and prevent it from a proper functioning. The metaphoric parable used by the author is clear for the readers. Her in-depth analysis is rather confusing, because it seems like she discards the existence of the language on its own. She positions language in dependent relationship with human activity. In accordance with her, it is on behalf of people to oppress language and prevent the process of knowledge gaining or information enrichment. Language discussion Basically, all three authors underline the importance of language as the indicator of cultural similarities and differences between different nations. They talk about language assimilation and removing the borders between the native languages and dialects and Standard English or the language of the country, where the native speakers live. It is rather challenging for native languages to survive under oppression of the main language, which is spoken by the majority of people in the country of their living. Thus, the authors show that the governments are interested in removing peculiarities between the small native cultures and languages and the target culture. It is a tendency of uniformity and language linearity. There are no options for language branching, there is a tendency resulting in one common language root. These authors in their essay underlined an integrative social function of language. Knowledge development and mediation of information between different groups of ethnic minorities is prevented in case they are not allowed to speak their native languages. Moreover, it is even claimed that the modern people are placed in the vacuum of language oppression; they feel like their teeth are taken out; like their throats are oppressed and they have no chance to reflect their feelings and emotions. Therefore, language oppression is an intimidating factor for a sound development of an individual. The whole nations are suppressed and prevented from the process of sound and healthy development. Native Americans when having no opportunity to develop their native language are restricted from their usual way of being, because their oral tradition of narration is very well developed. The words are like birds, they have their wings and when these wings are cut, the sky turns grey…The Native Americans have their roots in land and with the help of words they eradicate their centennial wisdom out of the roots of their lands. To take away words from them means to take away their lands from them. In such a way, they will not have an opportunity to feel free and experience their liberty. Gloria Anzaldua reflects language oppression and its destructive power exerted on Chicano Spanish. This language has natural roots and it is interesting the way the author illustrates the process of this language removal. There were enforced measures oppressed on the Native speakers, when they were enforced to remove their accents, though it seemed too hard for them. The author claims that the native speakers do not mind enrichment of their language by the words from the Standard English. This author underlines a failed attempt to remove Chicago Spanish language. In spite of oppressive strategies to remove this language, it is impossible to take it out of native speakers’ hearts and minds; it is a kind of violence and linguistic racism, which is tending for conformity and unification of languages. The world is diverse and to remove differences among people and similarities among them is impossible. Oppressive language extends the limits of violence it limits knowledge and there is no exchange of new ideas among people. The oppressive language depicts as the one, which prevents women from a proper speak. The bird is dead means that there is no language anymore and the road for knowledge is closed. The essay by Toni Morrison is more integrative and comprehensive, because the numerous metaphors the author uses are helpful in showing a diverse nature of language. There is a direct opposition between people, language and the ability of the former to take control over the latter. It would be better to consider language as an independent verbal and creative social phenomenon, which cannot be removed or eradicated. It exists in spite of the way people want to position it or to take control over it. Therefore, we can claim that it is no need to oppress or take control over language. It should develop in a free manner without external influences or different attempts to eradicate it. We can illustrate ethnic minorities’ language oppression by the poem by Marilyn Dumont "The Devil's Language". She describes Standard English as the "great white way," which "by its / lily white words / its picket fences sentences / and manicured paragraphs" prevents existence of other languages (White, 2006). The authors of the Native Literature are mocked at by the majority of white authors. The Native Literature writers are “shelved” in the special sections in the libraries and also are labeled as “a dumb Indian / dumb, drunk or violent" (White, 2006). A huge, unpredictable standard is moving in the direction of different languages of ethnic minorities and very often this "great white standard" enforces its rules of pronunciation and accents and in case the language speaker cannot reproduce all these manicured peculiarities correctly, he should be removed at once. Conclusion We can claim that language has no bounds and it violates its nature to oppress it or eradicate one language in the name of others. Our lives are diverse and different people live on the Earth. Every nation has a right for existence and every language has a right to serve in the name of its native nation. Oppression of language is a challenging question of a philosophical and social nature. Therefore, we should better treat our knowledge and the means we can mediate our knowledge and information among other members of the global society. Our world is a bright and a diverse patchwork sewed together by color lingual threads. Works cited Allison, Sherry R., and Christine Begay Vining. "Native American Culture and Language."Bilingual Review (1999): 193. Questia. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. Anzaldua, Gloria. “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”. 1987. Momaday, Navarro Scott. “Personal reflections”. 1987. Morrison, Toni. “Nobel lecture”. 1993. White, Frederick H. "Language Reflection and Lamentation in Native American Literature." Studies in American Indian Literatures 18.1 (2006): 83+. Questia. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. Read More