The Heritage of Our Language and Culture - Essay Example

Critical Evaluation: Dorian vs. Fishman The heritage of our language and culture ified our past, molds our present and structures our future. Conflict develops when society at large overlooks the needs and desires of all its members. With a move towards modernisation and the ever shrinking world, cultures are bound to clash. This however does not need to foretell the demise of a language or dialect but merely its progression to its next level - or does it In discussing two divergent opinions regarding the decline of languages and their cultural underpinning an evaluation of this debate will be investigated. Fishman in his 1990 article discusses the implications of reverse language shift (RLS) with respect to the broader social implications. In an attempt to preserve minority languages, linguists in their pursuit are generally ignored according to Fishman. "Social sciences as a whole and sociolinguistics in its own right have sliced up their treatments of social movements in general." (Fishman 5) His use here implies that social sciences and sociolinguistics in general are mainstream Western Culture controlled entities with little concern for dying languages. Further, "RLS never clearly appears as the distinctive phenomenon that it is" (Fishman 5) alludes to what is to come in his support of his arguments. RLS is, more or less, an 'afterthought' in the sociolinguistic world. It does not fit into the perceived patterns of important work and therefore is minimized and often ignored. RLS is grudgingly acknowledged as falling into the sphere of status planning within the linguistic field. However, with the strong western dominance in our modernized society and its control over the linguistic theories of present, RLS research and endeavors towards language preservation are largely ignored. The dominant theory of the current western culture relegates the status planning of linguistics to mark the demise of minority languages rather than embrace RLS attempts to preserve century old languages and dialects. Fishman's metaphoric illustration of the 'gomers' or 'crocks' brings simplistic understanding to his rather complex views of linguistics; RLS is a bitter reminder to mainstream scholars of their inability or unwillingness to embrace RLS in principle. Instead of supporting the scholarly work of those dedicated few to preservation of dying language, they are viewed as wasting their time and impinge on the scant resources of the masses. The primary fear of mainstream ideology is found in the knowledge RLS evokes a passion by its proponents. Fishman details that although the movement can be individualized typically because of the underlying beliefs and shared commonality in goals the movement grows and is heightened by this shared belief system. Rather than the mob mentality where an individual feels a sense of anonymity which justifies, in his own mind, his behaviour, the RLS movement is typified more by a synergistic modality where members of this minority movement by virtue of their shared beliefs lift each other to increasing levels of immersion in the collective movement. The passion and self-sacrificing nature of RLS proponent is not understood by the mainstream body. They can not comprehend the willingness to exert so much of one's energy and passion into what they view as a meaningless cause with little hope of success. (Fishman 7) Of course, their definition of success is based on the premise of material gain and social standing rather than on pure altruistic endeavors. The fact that there are those who pursue these altruistic aims frightens those who follow the mainstream notion of 'forge' ahead regardless of the cost. In Fishman's explanation of the Western views of preservation of culture and language by the minority, he referred to Linton's analysis of 'nativistic movements' (Linton in Fishman 8) This perceived theory was that the overrunning by western culture would lead to the desire by a minority of the resident population to want to preserve the heritage, culture and language. However, what Linton and mainstream western influence, typically referred to as America, did not foresee and anticipate was the growing movement within the Western Culture itself to preserve the uniqueness and colloquialism of their own languages. That view from 'outsiders', the conquered, was distasteful but expected; however, from pockets of mainstream Western culture itself it is not understood, nor deemed important or necessary. Rather than seeing such attempts as rational moves to preserve heritage and culture RLS movements are viewed by mainstream mentality as grasping in the dark and clinging to hope with unrealistic, misguided hope. In referring to the American Indian and the Ghost Dance Movement in the late 1800's when forced from their homes and their way of life, mainstream ideology viewed the Ghost Dance movement as nothing more than mysticism and a reaction to despair. The fallacy in this thinking is the short sighted and short history of modern Western culture itself, particularly America. It can not fathom hundreds if not thousands of years of mores, culture and evolution of sociolinguistic patterns. AS it does not fit in with its thinking patterns and knowledge base it and those that wish to retain its purity are discounted as 'gomers' and 'crocks' - pests to minimized and persecuted for their belief in saving a way of life, a sense of belonging and a cultural and linguistic past. RLS is part of a bigger pattern and can not exist in a vacuum. Fishman elaborates that life is not static, but rather is a cyclic entity, ever changing. He equates RLS not to stubbornness or living in the past, but rather to persistence and the desire to retain what is best from the past, not to become bogged down and lost in it. Modernism tends to look forward to change seeing only what can be. The challenge, however, is to understand that change in and of itself is impossible without the catalyst of change persistence, hence RLS. The modernization attributed to change in accordance with Fishman is "really the interaction of persistence and changepersistence helps provide the direction and generate the resultant of the total dynamics that are operative at any time or place." (Fishman 11) Likewise, the language of a culture is intertwined with that culture and becomes inseparable and ever evolving. For RLS proponents ensuring its survival and directing focus on that goal is not an attempt to hold onto the past but to strive towards the future. That future is defined by the boundaries of the given culture which have at the cornerstone their language. Rebutting the notion that RLS embraces the same belief structure as the movement in the 1960's and 70's counter culture. While this movement showed disdain for the establishment by embracing a culture diametrically opposed in principle; in fact in the attempt to be different and stand out the proponents of this counter culture established, albeit short lived, a parallel culture with similar goals and aspirations. Attempting to be different, this movement became nothing more than the same established culture, no uniqueness, no individuality. In contrast, RLS strives to move forward embracing its past while preserving its ever evolving present as it moves towards the future. Fishman's main point of contention lies in the fact that mainstream society fails to examine or even contemplate the unique ethnicity of divergent groups of the subculture. In an attempt to gain acceptability in western perceptions governments have forsaken their roots in an attempt to gain legitimacy by mainstream thinking; RLS asks us to immerse ourselves, if at least conceptually, within the cultural patterns of the masses expected to go along with these perceived 'improvements'. It is not, nor should it be, on or the other. They can coexist with understanding and acceptance by both sides of the spectrum - mainstream society and it's pursuit of modernism and RLS with its pursuit of modernization of its evolving culture and linguistic boundaries - not the reinvention of a 'new' culture. Rather, an evolutionary process of advancement and change through understanding ones past. Having set the framework for the basic areas of contention Fishman leapt into his theory of how to make RLS and mainstream social science studies peacefully coexist. "The importance of ideological clarification and awareness for the process of directed cultural change can be easily exaggerated but it can not be denied." (Fishman 17) The plan for the future from a RLS perspective lies in the planning. There is no assured path free of bumps but sound planning in conjunction with understanding will yield the best results. The emerging culture caused by the effects of western culture on the subcultures is part of that evolutionary process demonstrating the adaptability of RLS movement and its ties to the cultural and linguistic maintenance and planning for tomorrow. The difficulty in launching a renaissance is not for the timid as Fishman explains. Depending upon the level of embedded western culture, the struggle for legitimacy will be compounded in direct proportion. It becomes imperative to for members of the culture to see the legitimacy of the endeavor as a means to compliment mainstream modernism not work in opposition to it. As Fishman explains these are but the framework for the theory. Much more is required to achieve a "model of intergenerational transmission of language, culture, society and identity." (Fishman 18) The next steps are crucial according to him and involve the wise use of resources, both in terms of human endeavor and materialistic ventures. The second involves remaining true to the principles and not becoming lead through "fashionable technology" (Fishman 18). Foremost the RLS movement must embrace the notion that self help and reliance is its greatest asset and ally. The next crucial step is the cornerstone of the RLS movement - reintroduction of the language and all its subcomponents including "grammar, phonology, intonation and prosody, ideomaticity andsemantic typologies." (Fishman 19). Depending on the outside influence of western culture these may no longer be present in the geographic location. If that is the case they must be imported Vis a Vis outside experts. If that is not available then the reintroduction must proceed via a "new non-native local variety" (Fishman 19) which will evolve as well. This is the point where the linguist needs to embrace as well the strengths of others committed to the endeavor to move the social movement to its next level. This leads to the push towards further acceptance and embracing of the reintroduction by the community at large. This stage is critical to moving forward. If the local society does not embrace the RLS movement the reintroduction becomes stymied. To that end, all the remaining phases hinge on the legitimacy of this commitment. The introduction of the formalized language comes next along with the social implications and interwoven cultural aspects it embraces. The critical point here is understanding when to push forward to the more 'legalized' mainstream and knowing when to hold back. With this stage, timing is imperative - too soon all is lost anyway and too late the momentum gained may have been lost forever. Methods of mainstreaming intergenerationally include the formation of specialized schools which still meet the state requirements educationally but offer additional training within the RLS endeavor. A good example of this is the reintroduction of Welsh into many of the schools in South Wales. As the RLS movement continues through this stage to the next "it pervades and colors all of social life." (Fishman 24) Entering the workforce of the mainstream culture and becoming more embedded in the mainstream is the primary goal. However, Fishman cautions that with the ever shrinking world and emergence of multi national corporations this becomes even more challenging. Once work place barriers come down, low level government agencies become the focus. Although these may be in effect private enterprises they are important to gain RLS legitimacy. Capturing the media and other forms of mass communication in addition to acceptance by local governmental agencies and offices will continue the synergistic development and reemergence of the RLS. The final stage Fishman refers to as "cultural autonomy." (Fishman 25) These last stages are a continuing cycle never static and never assured. Building or rebuilding an "ethnic ideal" (Fishman 32) is a long arduous struggle and like Fishman's RLS theory itself are constantly changing and evolving, yet well worth the effort. Change, in and by itself, is difficult. The scope of a sociocultural reformation such as this requires patience, dedication and a passion for the past and a vision of the future. Dorian in her essay immediately takes the stance that although so many languages have been lost or are in danger of extinction, she eludes to both her Irish and Scottish exposure, too often "maintenance programs are too easily and comfortably invoked as a solution to the decline of any speech form." (Dorian 57-58). She goes on to stress that reality, however, is never as simple as theory. In the example of the East Sutherland Gaelic language Dorian notes that as appealing as the thought of the re-emergence of the language would be, the possibilities are slight. Even if the British government devolutioned Scotland leading to more autonomy and their own solid economic base the RLS would not be successful for numerous reasons. Firstly, the language has no written form as it is just oral in practice. Additionally, those who still posses the ability to speak the language are by and large elderly and do not possess the qualities necessary to reintroduce the language to the mainstream population. Also, the locale for this Scottish dialect is in a geographical void. There are no areas close by that speak a similar dialect. Lastly, the dialect has declined to the point where its re-emergence is next to impossible. As early as the 1960's there were only about 200 people remaining who had the linguistic base of the language. (Dorian 38) Further trying to introduce standardized Gaelic tends to alienate the resident population familiar with their own dialect which is counterproductive to the intended purpose. (Dorain 39) Often this attempt to introduce similar dialects leads to more frustration and awareness by the minority dialect speaker which results in the opposite of what the RLS attempts to facilitate. Generally the mass, popular linguistic form dominates the cultural and does not have much regard for little known dialects especially if no written form is available. Although Dorian acknowledges that the re-emergence of dying languages has been documented and she does not deny some past successes, she stresses that the reality is that some languages and dialects pass the point of sustainability - that is are beyond hope of recovery. That is, she feels a reality that RLS proponents fail to acknowledge. Dorian uses the example of Gaeltacht in Ireland as an example of the inability to save the language. The government in this case tasked private enterprise with saving the language, but failed to recognize that the language, any language, will only be as strong as the cultural embrace of it. The people were not asked, consulted, nor enjoined with the plans or implementation of the restoration process. Dorian, like Fishman, in this one point is in agreement. Language is not an isolated entity. It evolves with the culture and is a part of and becomes entwined with it. The populous of the cultural region need to embrace it if it is to survive. (Dorian 62) The other major failing the Irish experiment was the nullification of the populous with respect to the re-educational process of the schools. Within Ireland itself, the language was only taught to specific socio-economic classes entirely neglecting the lower class segment of society. Additionally, there was no sense of neighborhood with which to infuse the culture. Those taught were geographically dispersed. Again this demonstrated a failure on the part of the government to see the interdependence of linguistics within the broader social spectrum. Lastly, the language was competing against the 'killer' language - English. All surrounding countries embraced and still do embrace English. Without the cultural sphere being addressed and the outside demands the project was doomed for failure. Dorian in closing raised the point that although Ireland has a rich past which is largely available to its residents the cultural climate has not embraced Gaeltacht as an equal co-language although there has been a decade's long push by the government for its rise. Her point remains that unless the cultural wants to preserve a language, the effort of linguists no matter their level of ability, monetary backing or perseverance of nature will be to no avail if the culture is unwilling to embrace it. Works Cited Dorian, Nancy." The Value of Language-Maintenance Efforts which Are Unlikely to Succeed." International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68 (1987): 57-67. Fishman, Joshua. "What is Reversing Language Shift (RLS) and how Can it Succeed" Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 11 (1990): 5-36. Read More