Gloria Anzaldua gave a powerful argument of the violence
that is set out when any group tries to suppress another’s language. In her
statement, “We are your linguistic nightmare, your linguistic aberration…” Gloria
is saying that others fear the thought of having a language that isn’t perfectly
derived from its origin. She does a very good job in getting her point of the
beauty of many languages and the culture behind it across through disgust and
anger, but I believe that John McWhorter argues his point of the death of a
language being a good thing better. At first I could not believe that anyone
would argue for the death of the language. I was naïve in thinking that
language was too beautiful to die. However, McWhorter reminded me that “the
aesthetic delight is mainly savored by the outside observer… there are so many
languages in the world no more interesting
than I would find a list of all the makes of Toyota.” Beauty is in the
eye of the beholder. I realized that there are plenty of languages out there
that have already died or that are dying that I know nothing about. I guess it wouldn’t
really matter how many languages die because I don’t know enough about any of
them to appreciate them. By the number of languages dying, it is just bringing
us closer to all of us having a universal tongue. What would be better than
everyone being able to communicate with one another?
i agree with you so much. Language is meant to different people all over the world. Its meant to bring people closer if they know the same language. Imagine this, everyone in the world spoke english, spanish, or whatever you want them to speak. Now you travel to Iran, you wont need to translate anything because you know the same language, and you can get close to people there. I like it when he said "death language, like how you stated at the end of your post about it, "by the nummber of languages dying, it is just bringing us closer to all of us having a universal tongue". I totally 100% agree with you on that. Its a matter of time until everyone can speak the same language.
ReplyDeleteI completly agree with you Gloria Anzaldua makes a great reason why we should keep our cultural backings and to not be ashamed of who we are round any body. But she also goes to say that they start to kind of own these different regional dialects that they have and that ends up seperating them even more then before. So i do agree that John Mchorter goes a better route of explaininng why its ok for a language to die, just because the language is dieing doesn't mean the culture it came from is to. All it means is that we are gettig closer and closer to a singular language so we can all communicate and underatnd each other bringing everyone closer.
ReplyDeleteI not only agree with you in saying Gloria Anzaluda makes a great reason for cultural background but it also highlights the gender side of it. With the Puerto Ricans and Cubans use of feminine terms it allows to single handedly express a female voice. "Language is a male discourse" and " We are robbed of our female being by the masculine plural." says Anzaldua. I say this is breaking leaps and bounds of language and by the creation of female voice in a language it is a great way to not only identify but to bring equality. I do agree with you as well in saying Mchorter has a valid theory to his madness. The language dying out can actually be more of a solution to our communication problems. By combining and unifying one language, one voice, one sound we could understand each other much more sufficiently. There would be no need for confusion in translation because we would be alright with each other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement very much so because I as well felt as though my eyes were being opened and I could really understand where McWhorter was coming from. He makes a point stating, "Assuming that we can keep 6,000 languages alive is the rough equivalent of supposing that we can stop, say, ice from developing soft spots." meaning that any language is capable of dying out and there really is nothing we can do. It takes many people for one language to stay alive because ultimately we are the ones who spread it from one to another whether it be through peers, family, parent to child. No matter how it will still be spread and this happens through coming together. As McWhorter sums his argument up he says, "At the end of the day, language dying is ironically a symptom of people coming together." this is such a powerful statement because it sounds demeaning but holds a deeper meaning, and that's we as a group are what keeps language going.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this post and have had my eyes opened by McWhorter as well. The death of a language sounds like such a horrible term that would have a negative correlation. However, McWhorter lets us see this term in a different light. While having the skill of knowing several languages, there is no way for someone to be able to learn all of the languages. With roughly 6,500 Known language in today's world, it is nearly impossible for us all to find a way to communicate. The author states that ironically, "language death is a symptom of people coming together." I've analyzed this statement to mean that the less language barriers we have, the more unity we can attain. This doesn't mean that we have to "bury" certain languages. In fact, McWhorter says "dying languages become museum pieces." We can still appreciate these languages while we stop using them so that we can all become more connected. The world should start viewing the term "death of a language" as a more positive term because it certainly does not mean that it is the death of a culture.
ReplyDelete