Language is not some sacred relic that must be preserved. It is a living tool intended to help individuals communicate and collaborate. John McWhorter argues that when a language dies, it is a "symptom of people coming together." However, Anzaldúa sees the death of a language as the death of expression, going as far as to call it a "violation of the First Amendment." While both of these authors provide convincing evidence to support their claim, I believe McWhorter is more successful in proving his opinion.
Anzaldúa recalls the adversity she faced as a Chicano. Speaking a mix of English and Spanish, she feels her language defines her culture. Anzaldúa claims she is being persecuted by having to choose "to speak English or Spanish when [she] would rather speak Spanglish," but seems to have missed the point of speaking a language altogether. If you can't be understood, and cannot convey your ideas to another, then what is the point of speaking at all? Anzaldúa's main fault is in thinking that an attack on her language is an attack on her culture, but the two situations are not mutually exclusive.
As stated by John McWhorter, "When a culture dies, naturally the language dies with it. The reverse, however, is not necessarily true." The rise of a dominant language is one of convenience, not cultural imperialism. The loss of her native language can never take away the memories of the Chicano folk musicians or the Thursday nights at the drive-in theater, it only changes the tongue in which those events are remembered. McWhorter argues that the benefit of a universal tongue to expedite the spread of knowledge far outweighs any sentimental reasons to maintain a dying language. He supports this by looking back at the root of language, and how variations formed as a "result of geographical separation." It is only logical that as humanity comes together as a united people that these languages will also come together. A universal people require a universal language. The domination of the English language may feel like a war against culture as Gloria Anzaldúa believes but in fact it is the exact opposite, bringing cultures together as a bridge to spread ideas.
I agree that culture does not affect the loss of a native language, relatedly, I used to speak Korean quite fluently but I lost track of using the language as my primary source of communication as I was used to when I spoke Korean exclusively with my parents and brother at home.
ReplyDeleteBased on both the post, I too side with the viewpoint of John McWhorter. I find that Anzaldúa’s views are pessimistic and illogical when it comes to the way the system of language works. He sees it as a series of choices or decisions that cause the language to do hence it “being a violation of the first amendment.” Despite his point of view the system exists more naturally, languages enter and leave the world on a natural basis. "When a culture dies, naturally the language dies with it. The reverse, however, is not necessarily true." Stated McWhorter, this gives insight into the life-cycle of language. Languages are constantly being born, dying, and changing all the same because human nature does the same thing. Since language is a product of human nature it fluctuates with us, it morphs to fit the goals of the user rather than to fit the user to the goal.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the domination of English is not a war against culture but rather a building block to culture. I do speak a different language called Gujarati and don't see English destroying my language or my culture but instead I see it as another lifeline or another way to express myself. Also I believe English gives me more options and helps me carry out my ideas and thoughts more clearly to others.
ReplyDeleteLanguage was created for one reason and one reason only— to communicate. I agree with McWhorter, also. When a language dies it is a “…symptom of coming together”, McWhorter states. The death of a language does not mean the death of a culture. Languages dying simply brings us closer to one ultimate language allowing all cultures to easily communicate. The death of language(s) can lead to language unison.
ReplyDelete