[lg policy] Language wars: practicability and politically correct choices

[Harold Schiffman]

Language wars: practicability and politically correct choices

Language wars are found on every continent and some of the people
leading them are national leadersPlain Speaking | V.R. Narayanaswami

Whenever there is a protest or demonstration on the issue of language
on our political stage, we tend to think of it as a futile exercise;
it must be the handiwork of some neglected politician desperately
trying to stay in the limelight by unleashing a horde of lumpen into
the streets. But this may not be true. Language wars are found on
every continent and some of the people leading them are national
leaders. Take, for instance, a person of the eminence of former French
president Jacques Chirac, who walked out of a meeting of the Unice
(Organization of Employers) because a Frenchman addressed the group in
English. In 1989, Slobodan Milosevic exhorted Albanians to speak
Serbian. They refused. This aggravated the conflict in the region.

Linguistic conflict can take various forms. Newly independent nations
define their identity in terms of their language; it is the repository
of their culture and they try to promote it as a symbol at the expense
of other languages. Secondly, in countries where there are large
groups of immigrants, the language of the region may face a challenge.
California has gone through many postures in its attempt to balance
the claims of Spanish and English.

Also Read V.R. Narayanaswami’s earlier columns

Alaska presents an interesting picture of a conflict between English
as the majority language and the aboriginal languages of the region.
There are at least 225 federally recognized tribes in Alaska and they
have their own languages. In 1998, the state passed an English-only
law, requiring civil officials to use English when communicating with
the public. The law had the support of Alaskans for a common language.
It required local government officials to use English in speaking to
people in rural Alaska, even when the latter do not speak English. In
1999, the US superior court suspended enactment of the law. In the
meantime, an association called Alaska Natives challenged the law in
court. Their attorney said the law would lead to “cultural genocide”.
The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. In November 2007,
the highest Alaskan court struck down the English-only law. The court
found that the law violated the fundamental constitutional rights to
free speech.

Canada was witness to a major battle between two titans, French and
English. In the 19th century, schools in Quebec were run by French
Catholics and British Protestants, each group supporting its chosen
language. In 1977, the state of Quebec passed Bill 101, known also as
the French Language Charter. In the 1970s, nationalist groups had been
demanding measures to give French its rightful place in the province.
In 1976, Parti Quebecois came to power and the next year, the
government passed Bill 101. All children were required to attend
French schools. Likewise, all newcomers were to choose French schools
for their children. There were also rules restricting the use of
English in business. In March 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled
that linguistic majorities have no constitutional right to demand
education in the minority language. French-speaking Quebeckers were
thus prevented from choosing English schools.

In 2000, the government appointed a commission under Gerald Larose to
study the status of French in the province. The report found French
was in sound health in the state. Larose said, “French is no longer
the property of the majority. It has become the language of
everybody.” He even recommended that the teaching of English should be
improved. The language policy in Quebec has been successful and can be
a model for countries having large minorities and facing the problem
of accommodating a minority language.

In India, there is a kind of triangular conflict involving mother
tongue as icon, Hindi as a token of national identity, and English as
the vehicle of knowledge. These languages should be left alone to play
these roles. With the present-day explosion in knowledge, the
decisions that we take have to be practicable and not dictated by
sentiment. At the national level, English continues to be the dominant
language of higher education, mass communication and business. It is
this hegemony of English that the states are protesting against. For
Indian students and scientists, access to knowledge of developments in
medicine, technology and business can only be found through English.
Most parents see English as the language of opportunity and,
therefore, to success in life. They are not interested in politically
correct choices.

V.R. Narayanaswami, a former professor of English, has written several
books and articles on the usage of the language. He looks at the
peculiarities of business and popular English usage in his fortnightly
column. Comments can be sent to plainspeaking at livemint.com

http://www.livemint.com/2009/08/30220021/Ask-Mint--Language-wars-prac.html?h=B
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal.
(H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list