Langwitches

[Wolfgang Sperlich]

Selamat datang

If a language (claimed to have that status by virtue of native speakers
making that assertion) has not produced any books on quantum physics or even
elementary algebra, is it then a language that misses the branches that
another language can claim to have? Doesn’t such discourse lead to a
seemingly rational assumption that some languages are more ‘developed’ than
others? Why is it that there are still so-called linguists who cannot and
will not understand the simple fact that the functional use of a given
language (e.g. mathematics) has absolutely nothing to do with the language
capacity itself (a la Chomsky et al)?

In answer to such rhetorical questions, one might find signs everywhere that
progress is slow and painful. For example the current discussion bordering
on World Englishes, World Anguishes and Globalisation … to take the title of
the recent Second Malaysian International Conference on Language, Literature
and Culture (MICOLLAC) presentation by Alastair Pennycook of the Sydney
University of Technology … is quite revealing. At said conference in Kuala
Lumpur I encountered for the first time an environment where the majority of
English-speaking presenters were non-native speakers (the distinction
between native and non-native speakers becoming increasingly blurred).
Speakers from Malaysia, the Philippines, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Singapore,
Korea, Japan, Iran, Turkey, Italy, Brunei and Nigeria addressed a wide range
of language related issues. I was struck by the ease with which language
barriers were overcome. It might be the historical equivalent when the world
of academia used Latin as the lingua franca, the big difference being that
whereas the original Latin speakers were not around anymore, in the case of
English we are very much in the presence of the ‘masters’ of the language.
Speakers from the US, Australia, NZ and Britain who were ‘white’ and thus
rather ‘native’ were at pains on one hand to apologize (or at least say
‘very sorry’ a la G.W. Bush) for any linguistic imperialism that might be
inherent in any claims to ‘ownership’ of English, and on the other hand were
insistent that we should all ‘study’ non-standard Englishes (such as
Singlish, Taglish, Konglish and whatever concoctions there are) so that we
lose not sight of the fact that English as an international language ‘must’
retain its ‘native’ standard lest it disintegrates into mutually
unintelligible anguishes (then not serving in the function of lingua
franca). Indeed calling on the international academic community to uphold
English standards is all done in the name of universal science and progress.
Such covert linguistic imperialism encourages many a linguistic imperialist
(including many a non-English speaker, native or non-native) to claim that
some languages are deficient in expressing sentiments (academic or at
so-called ‘street’ level), quite similar to the notion that some races and
some people are deficient in certain mental capacities, and should they
still show any signs of being able to be delivered from this deficiency,
they should aspire to a standard of those who are ‘masters’ of the ring,
even though they don’t really have any hope of ever getting there. Let us
not follow the Animal Farm instance of ‘all languages are equal’ being
subverted by a pig to ‘all languages are equal but some are more equal than
others’.

Kia monuina, Wolfgang B. Sperlich
PS my new e-mail for An-lang purposes is wsperlich at hotmail.com


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.