Why should language be taught at all?
Language changes. This much is obvious and is a chief point of interest for any linguist. How does language change, and why, and for whom? No person, no matter how conservative, can argue that language must be stopped from changing, or that English speakers should return to the Old English that is their roots- vocabulary, case endings, and all.
However, when we begin to teach grammar, when we begin to assign rules to words and to writing, and even when we standardized spelling, we essentially are prescribing that language change stops and growth is stunted. The seemingly inexplicable spellings of many words in Modern English are a result of the standardization of spelling in the Early Modern English period, and as pronunciation and usage change, spelling and silent letters do not, and we are left with words preserved in their “useless” etymology.
But are there reasons to preserve language? I personally would argue that etymology is not always useless, and that just as there is nothing wrong with change, there is nothing wrong with doing things the way we’ve always done them. But there are other reasons to preserve language as well.
Teach African languages in the UK as part of reparations
by Deborah Gabriel
This week the African Union (AU) called for Kiswahili to be adopted as a Pan African language throughout the continent. But Africans in the Diaspora should learn it too, to restore their cultural heritage denied through slavery.Speaking at the African Union Summit this week, Alpha Oumar Konare, Chairman of the African Union, called for a universal African language to be adopted as a means of integrating the continent. Hailing Kiswahili as the favoured language he said that it is “not only a language of a tribe but a language of Africa.”
Black Britain News Online recently discussed the value of language preservation. Though they aren’t talking about preserving English specifically, I am interested in the perspective they give on teaching languages (both as first and as second language acquisition), and more importantly I am interested in their viewpoint on linguistics. Click here for the article.
Why are people protective of their language? How protective is too protective? First one must make certain that his or her native language is not in mortal peril. English by no means is in danger of being eradicated very easily, but as globalization continues, so does the borrowing , blending, and mixture of languages. Language really is a symbol of a culture, and the vocabulary and idioms of a group of people are as culturally significant as any traditions or customs the people may have.
There has been precedent set for language preservation; France is known for trying to keep all “English-y” words out of the French lexicon. Hebrew was a dead language for centuries before cultural, political, and religious motivation revived it in the 20th century.
I support the AU’s desire to retain Kiswahili as a living language because I think it is important to keep the cultural signigicance and the richness of global diversity. (Of course, I also heartily support second… and third… language acquisition and bilingualism…. Let’s keep, learn, and speak as many languages as possible!)
But how much is too much? What is a valid reason for preserving vocabulary, rules and constructions when they have outlived their usefulness? I think this article explains one good reason for language preservation, but I wonder if there are others.
I really do think that you’ve got an interesting point here. It’s important to preserve a language. Without language preservation, there can be no continuation of a language (or rather, limited continuation), but rather, that language would slowly die over the course of a given amount of time. I think that people strive to preserve their particular language in fear of another language taking it over or outdoing it in some manner. While many people may not speak English, I have a feeling that some of those people may realize that English has adapted many words from many languages over time. I think that, internally, they might realize that English could “adopt” their language into it, and thus providing almost no reason for that language to exist at all.
As to your question about why people keep fighting to preserve their language, I don’t think the answer necessarily lies with education or with linguistics at all. I think the answer lies with the pride of being a certain nationality. As myself being someone from a historically suppressed culture, I won’t hesitate to argue that Scotland is not part of Britain, that we are the proud and the few who still remember how things were before English became the dominant language (even though I, obviously, can’t possibly have been there). It’s the pride of one’s nation (nationalism) and the determination to have one’s language survive that causes one to want to preserve a language. Many people are afraid that if they do learn another language, they may even start to forget their own, or they may like the other language better than their own. I’m not sure what the right answer to your questions is here, but that’s my take on the subject!