Linguistic Diversity and Cultural Identity
Vineet Kaul
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The world is becoming more and more intricately multidimensional, both culturally and linguistically. Language is so deeply embedded in culture that cultural identity is defined to a great extent in terms of language. This paper will explore the interconnectedness of language and culture, and how language and culture impact upon one’s identity. This paper addresses some of the key problems of theoretical linguistics, crosscutting the synchronic and diachronic dimensions, such as the nature of linguistic variation, the validity of parametric approaches and the possible alternatives, the application of biological models to the study of language evolution, language transmission and language classification, the role of acquisitional mechanisms in language change, the computational modeling of linguistic diversity, the interplay between different modules of linguistic knowledge in creating the space of linguistic variation.
The paper also presents a review of challenges around the crucial theoretical, conceptual, empirical and practical aspects of linguistic diversity and cultural identity. Language.. Based on this premise, the loss of one’s language contributes to the loss of one’s culture. This is the reason it is essential to maintain one’s linguistic integrity in order to protect one’s cultural identity. It will first define the three constructs – language, culture and identity. This will be followed by an overview of the work of social theorists and educationists. Criticism of essentialist ideas of identity focuses on a variety of levels of linguistic identity in modern societies whose conflicting and complex relationships are sometimes defined by the concept of heteroglossia.
The paper also discusses certain covert arguments and fallacies without shying away from addressing the underlying political, linguistic, psycho-social, relational and communicative dimensions of the issue.
Keywords: linguistic diversity, cultural identity, linguistic integrity, heritage, communication, heteroglossia.
1. Introduction
A language is a part of a culture and a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the significance of either language or culture.’ In a word, culture and language are inseparable. I will start by observing that 20th century anthropological thought that has emphasised the bijective relationship between language and culture. On the one hand culture affects and defines linguistic uses, this being the area covered by the discipline generally known as ‘socio-linguistics’. On the other hand it is language that influences and shapes culture itself, this idea being associated with the label of ‘linguistic relativism’. Language is used to express and sustain culture and cultural associations that exist in a given society. Different ideas result from the use of different languages within a culture.
To some people, language is identity. They feel that language is so important to cultural identity that peoples, governments, and organizations around the world use many different strategies to affirm their language in a globalizing world. An important anthropological tradition of thought holds that this relationship is a bijective one. While on the one hand culture shapes languages, on the other hand it is also formed by them. That is to say those linguistic differences are the basis of important peculiarities of cultures and the world visions that support them. This view, usually called linguistic relativism, completely turns its back on both semantic realism and cognitive universalism, in order to argue: a) that linguistic uses determine perceptive and cognitive structures and not vice versa, and b) that such linguistic uses and relative semantic systems are basically incommensurable. A fundamental difference in the identification of meanings on the cross-cultural level follows from this: the inextricable relationship of language, thought and culture (J. Gumperz , S. Levinson, 1996.) suggests considering each language as being associated with a specific distinct world vision.
Societal life in the 21st century is global, innovative and adventurous. The infusion of people from countries all over the world forces societal members to examine the dimensions of ethnicity. Culture and language are intertwined. Cultural diversity, teaches people to empathize with and be more sensitive to the needs of others; it helps society recognize and become more accepting of persons from diverse backgrounds. Linguistic diversity is the ability to function in one or more languages other than one's own native language. The ability to connect and interact with others from different cultures enhances our society by enabling people to share knowledge and gain greater appreciation of other ethnicities. Culture is transmitted and reproduced through communication, i.e. through language. As a logical consequence, a language is the privileged medium of a culture. Language and Culture Diversity starts from the premise that language diversity is the core component of cultural diversity, as it enables the transmission of fundamental aspects of different cultures to succeeding generations and the interaction of communities belonging to different cultural backgrounds. Language and culture are those elements that have very much reflected the values and particularities of different societies, since they are part of the human intangible heritage.
Cultural and linguistic diversity, while stimulating respect for cultural identity, traditions and religions, is essential to the development of an Information Society based on the dialogue among cultures and regional and international cooperation. Understanding and valuing cultural diversity are the keys to countering racism. All individuals must feel free to explore the uniqueness of their culture and identity while developing understandings of the cultural diversity that exists in the world around them. Denying cultural expression means limiting the expression of unique perspectives on life and the transmission of knowledge from generation to generation. Whatever, accepting the cultural variability of the language, the problem that anthropology raises regards the degree of this variability, whether language depends partly on the context of a specific culture or whether on the other hand it is also linked to universal type cognitive structures that do not vary according to the context. How far, then, are linguistic differences simply variations of a universal meta-language? And, on the other hand, how far does it concern differences that are somewhat incommensurable? This problem has been extremely thoroughly examined in the field of cross-cultural semantics. What happens when we have to translate a language that is deeply rooted in a culture that is anthropologically very different from our own?
2. Language and Cultural Identity
Language and identity are inseparably associated with each other. While language is the medium used by individuals to negotiate a sense of self in different contexts (Pierce, 1995; Norton, 2000), identity construction is a social and cultural process which is accomplished through discursive practices. Therefore, the ability to use a specific language in a specific context influences the development of cultural identity (Trechter & Bucholtz, 2001) by creating a tension between the discourse of the dominant culture and the discourse of the subculture of second language speakers. In other words, the manner in which language, in this case English, is used determines to which social group individuals are allowed entrance. Those who speak English will be admitted to social groups with greater amounts of social and political power than those who do not (Fairclough, 2001). When the English language learner’s (ELLs) first language is devalued and the language of the socially and politically dominant society is imposed on all of the students in schools, the ELL’s identity is threatened, and inequitable social relationships between ELLs and native speakers of the dominant language are produced (Pierce, 1995).
Ignoring or omitting the cultural aspects of the language has been a frequently debated topic in the world of education. According to the results of many researches, it is found out that the issue of failing to expose the students to the cultures of the languages that they are learning makes foreign language education more difficult and less interesting for the students. Besides, these researches prove that including cultural aspects into the foreign language curriculum acknowledges students about the other cultures and enables them to develop empathy towards foreigners. Furthermore, it is also proven that enhancing the language curriculum with the cultural aspects makes language learning more sense and much easier for the learners, especially for the primary school students and for those who have never taken any foreign language courses before. For a long time, educators in many countries have understood the importance of teaching cultural information to the foreign language students and therefore, they included in these information in their curriculum.
It is widely believed that there is a natural connection between the language spoken by members of a social group and that group’s identity. Throughout history, many cultures and races have been destroyed or forced to change by other cultures and races. Until recently, however, many other countries and races have been able to maintain their cultural and racial identities, more or less protected by borders. As Cummins (1996) notes, the unequal relation of power between dominant and minority languages can serve to constrain multiple identities that minority language speakers can negotiate at school and in society. Moreover, because their culture is devalued and their language is not supported through primary language instruction, many second-language-speakers who attend American schools experience the pressure of a predominant English only ideology and lose their language and culture altogether (Norton, 2000). The specific measures to promote the use of regional or minority languages in public life cover the areas of education, justice, administrative authorities and public services, media, cultural activities and facilities, economic and social spheres, and transfrontier exchanges. In sum, the imposition of the predominant English-Only ideology and the devaluation of the ELL’s language and culture force second language speakers to lose their heritage language and native culture. As a consequence, they fail to develop both a strong sense of identity and the cognitive basis for future learning (Sánchez, 1999). Bucholtz and Hall (2004) characterize language as “the most flexible and pervasive symbolic resource” (p. 369) that is at the center of the cultural reproduction of identity. The cultural identity associated with the politically, economically, and socially dominant Western European-American culture is seen as the norm and that to which other social groups in the United States should aspire (Martinez, 2006).
Although it appears innocuous, the dominant Western European- American group possesses pervasive and covert power. For example, the English-Only ideology is seen as a norm in all public schools and institutions. Students are viewed as having adequate knowledge only if they know English. It is also understood that English is the language which should be used in all instructional situations. Moreover, in this time of accountability, the results of mandated, standardized assessments are only valued if they are administered in English. These practices not only send the message that other languages and cultures are not valued in schools, but they also limit English language learners’ opportunities for school success (Crawford, 2008).
From a critical theory perspective, Watson-Gegeo, and Gegeo (1999) explain that language is central to cultural ways of thinking. They argue that “language is essential to identity, authenticity, cultural survival and people’s learning and thinking processes” (p.25). This concept is manifested when English language learners in most American schools must recreate knowledge through a second language, thereby losing their personal cultural identity and their authentication of self. When the link between language, cultural identity, and ways of thinking limit access to knowledge, second-language-learners’ opportunities for literacy development are diminished.
Language is intrinsically related to culture and the world is becoming more and more intricately multidimensional, both culturally and linguistically. Language is so deeply embedded in culture that cultural identity is defined to a great extent in terms of language. Based on this premise, the loss of one's language contributes to the loss of one's culture. Local languages are the repositories of traditional knowledge, yet they are vanishing fast under the pressure of global forces that are also threatening biological and cultural diversity. For the sake of continuity of the diversity of life on earth, we must recognize the role of language in the creation, transmission and perpetuation of local knowledge and cultural behaviors, and accord indigenous and minority languages the same protection and chances for survival as are beginning to be granted to the traditional cultures they sustain. Whatever, these anthropological observations support the linguistic principle of indexicality, according to which the meaning of words or expressions is always determined by the specific, concrete context of the social transactions in which the linguistic practices take place.
Linguistic diversity is closely related to ecological and cultural diversity. The concept of ecosystem is guided by the principle that living entities exist through a network of interrelationships. The domains of biological, linguistic and cultural diversities hold a mutually reinforcing relationship. Human success in inhabiting the earth has been due to human ability to develop diverse cultures and languages which suit all kinds of environments. Now it may be argued that if diversity is a prerequisite to successful humanity then the preservation of linguistic diversity is crucial to humanity. Crystal (2000: 34) argues that “if the development of multiple cultures is so important then the role of languages becomes critical, for cultures are chiefly transmitted through spoken and written languages.” In the powerfully written Vanishing Voices, Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine make an explicit link between language survival and environment issues: the extinction of languages is part of the larger picture of near-total collapse of the worldwide ecosystem (as cited in Yadava and Turin (2007)).
Cultural revitalization is one way for a nation or a people to keep their cultural identity from being absorbed into the “industrial-strength blender” of globalization. The concept of cultural identity, intimately connected with those of cultural diversity, and multiculturalism, has been progressively recognized within the vast category of human rights and more specifically, of cultural rights, in the scientific environment and in the practical ones, as well as in the common language. This could happen also in reaction to the phenomenon of globlisation- not only in economic sense – which on the contrary, aims to build a dominant culture and a consequent homologation. This fact threatens the maintenance of the plurality of cultures.
Could increasing of cultural understanding be the most needed and effective tool for better tolerance and support of language diversity and minorities? Are not the decrease of biodiversity and the oppression of a small human being coming from the same root? If we knew ourselves better and had more holistic and cross-cultural approach to the reality, then maybe we were better equipped for both sustainable development and global peace. That cultural diversity has become a political challenge throughout the world stems from a complex set of factors. One of the major factors of cultural diversification in various societies is globalization. The intensified flow of capital, post-Fordist modes of production and the global spread of Western consumer culture have prompted a variety of social movements that emphasize their own ethnic, linguistic or religious distinctiveness. The emergence of transnational migrant networks, facilitated by growing inequalities in the capitalist world-system as well as by new technologies of transport and electronic communication, is another prominent aspect of such cultural diversification. What all these new social movements have in common, whether based on ethnicity, language or religion, is that they demand full and equal inclusion in society, while claiming the recognition of their particularistic identities in the public sphere. They criticize the assumption of congruence between political unity and cultural homogeneity which was characteristic of the classic model of the nation-state, and thereby contribute to its far-reaching institutional transformation.
Cultural and linguistic diversity is a feature of most nations today as people from different groups live together as a consequence of historical events and human migrations. Within multilingual societies, the maintenance of the languages of the various ethnic and cultural groups is critical for the preservation of cultural heritage and identity. The loss of language means the loss of culture and identity. In many societies throughout history, the suppression of the languages of minority groups has been used as a deliberate policy in order to suppress those minority cultures. As a result a large number of the world's languages have been lost with the processes of colonisation and migration. It has been estimated that approximately 10,000 spoken languages have existed. Today, only about 6,000 languages are still spoken and many of these are not being taught to children. More than half of these languages are unlikely to survive the next century (W. Davis, 'Vanishing Cultures', in National Geographic, vol. 196, no. 2, pp. 62-89, 1999)
India, the largest democracy, is arguably one of the most culturally diverse nations. Although traditionally nations have shared a common ethnicity, religion, language and history, India is a multiethnic, multi-religious, multicultural and multilingual nation of more than one billion people with a history of assimilating various cultural practices from conquering civilizations. . At least 800 different languages and 2000 dialects have been identified in India. The Central government of India uses Hindi and English languages as the official language of communication. India has 23 official languages which are used in different states. Among them, Hindi has been conferred the status of "National Language". India also has a long heritage of some classical languages like Pali and Sanskrit.
Since her independence, just over sixty four years ago, India has had to cope with the internal politics of diversity most particularly concerning language status and use. Thus India is a useful microcosm to analyze the politics of cultural diversity and the ability of states to have an influence on internal and external pressures that impact diversity. Despite India’s attempt to legislate linguistic diversity domestically and promote a “national” identity through the promotion of one particular language, the decreasing diversity of Indian culture as measured through the survival and utility of her languages serves as a warning for the success of the Convention on Cultural Diversity. For several millennia India has been a multilingual, multicultural and multiethnic country. With a population of more than 1 billion, comprising around 250 languages (2001 census) spread over 28 states and 7 union territories; India occupies a distinctly unique position in the cultural, linguistic and ethnic landscape in the world. There is no single state in the country which is completely monolingual, not a single major modern Indian language whose speakers do not employ more than one code and not a single speech-community which has less than at least three distinct linguistic codes in its verbal repertoire. The 22 regional languages recognized by the Indian Constitution enjoy the patronage of the State and lawmakers at the cost of the rest of languages and their speakers.
Further adding complexity to the Indian linguistic scenario is the recent recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) Report 2006 which stress the English language as both a compulsory language and as a medium of instruction. The historical legacy repeats itself in a new avatar which reinforces the ‘appropriateness’ of English in India. In this context, not only do the issues of linguistic and cultural diversity and the situation of Indian languages and especially ‘minority’ languages need to be addressed, but the question of identity and identity formation also needs to be problematized. For the discourse of identity formation located in a particular space is indicative of ideology which is exclusionary and forms a cultural practice which is both restrictive and productive.
3. Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Diversity
From the earliest philosophers to modern neuroscientists, researchers from a wide range of disciplines have explored a diverse range of issues concerning the human capacity for language and the diversity of the world's languages. Linguists work at the intersection of these issues and define linguistics as the science of language and languages. During the last 150 years, linguists have developed a variety of theoretical paradigms to describe and explain language history, dialect variation, cross-cultural similarities and differences, the neurological processing and production of language, and the evolutionary emergence of language. The many different theoretical approaches to linguistics two major ones of which are: (1) formal linguistics and (2) functional linguistics have in common that they try to give linguistic phenomena a theoretical foundation, in particular those phenomena that vary between languages. Such theoretical research would be rather uninteresting if it lacked solid empirical foundation, based on a series of different languages (Bach 1997, 2002, Bakker et al. 1997, Becker-Christiansen & Widell 2003, Bohn 2004a, Bærentzen 1992, McGregor 2002, Rijkhoff 2003, 2004, Vikner 2005). Such empirical investigations, i.e. research in linguistic typology, make up the back bone of comparative linguistics, as they attempt to establish which types of languages exist and why some are more widespread than others.
In formal Linguistics the explicit theoretical approaches may be grouped into formal and functional linguistics. In formal linguistics, it is assumed that only part of the linguistic knowledge of human beings is acquired and that another part of this knowledge is innate. In other words, certain aspects of language are the way they are because the human brain is the way it is. Therefore such theories also have an interesting explanation to offer as to why certain characteristics do not vary between languages: Universal features and lack of variation may be derived from the innate part of the linguistic knowledge of human beings (Vikner 2001, 2004).
And functional linguistics attaches crucial importance to the communicative function of language. The function of linguistic entities is to communicate a content (which does not necessarily exclude that they also have non-communicative functions). The fundamental idea is therefore that language research must be carried out in the light of what we know about how consciousness handles other kinds of impressions from the outside world and that consideration for the possibilities of others to understand what is said plays a crucial role for linguistic form. In other words, functional linguistics is concerned with the connection between linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive processes and with the communicative function of language (Jørgensen 2000, McGregor 1997, Rijkhoff 2002, Togeby 2003).
Our linguistic scientific language enterprise depends on the multiplicity of languages and the knowledge of linguistic diversity. Similarly, our understanding of linguistic typology and our ability to classify languages accurately and reconstruct proto-form depends on the availability of a wide array of languages. There was a time when linguistics was inextricably tied up with the study of non-written, non-western languages, but this is not the case today. The morphosyntactic diversity of human languages raises problems for many commonly held theoretical assumptions. Since the 1990s there has been a developing concern that global linguistic diversity is diminishing and many languages are in danger of dying (Crystal 2000). Equally, there is an acknowledgement that many smaller languages in the world are directly or indirectly under threat from the growing rise and power of dominant languages such as English. It is argued both that minority and lesser-used languages are important elements of cultural identity for many people and are also of enormous intrinsic value to humanity as a whole, since they are the primary repositories of human culture and knowledge (Fishman 1991; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). Consequently there is a growing sense that humanity has an obligation to protect and support languages and many initiatives have been undertaken to protect, strengthen, safeguard or promote languages as elements of this diversity. Literacy has obvious advantages, but it also instills stilted and unnatural patterns into people's speech and helps freeze languages in time, creating grammatical and lexical fossils.
The debate over linguistic diversity and the support for minority or lesser-used languages occurs in a variety of contexts and domains. Diversity is of significant interest where many languages, both official and stateless, are spoken within the broader geo-political and socio-cultural context of developed, late-capitalist economies, and notably within institutions. This geo-political aspect is also evident in many post-colonial contexts, particularly in South Asia and Africa, where language has become an important feature in debates over national identity, political empowerment and cultural representation (Makoni 1998; Errington 2001). In such environments debates over linguistic diversity often occur on complex and difficult terrains, both masking and revealing deeper issues of cultural difference, social inequity and political empowerment. This occurs for example, in the way in which colonial languages such as English and French can serve both as empowering and disempowering forces in the ways they promote development but regulate privilege in the elite classes who have access to education (Pennycook 1994). In Asia and Africa, like the Pacific, the debate over linguistic diversity is also informed by an awareness that these are the parts of the world with the highest rates of linguistic diversity, but that many of these languages are spoken by relatively few people and whose socio-cultural environments are in many cases vulnerable (Mühlhäusler 1996). Whether linguistic practices are based on universal cognitive structures or not, anthropology and the social sciences are deeply concerned with their rich variety for a further reason: language and communication are the main criteria used to describe the differences between human groups. Indeed, it is by referring to linguistic diversities, over and above other cultural elements, that the members of a community identify themselves and are identified by others. In other words, language is a powerful instrument of identity and belonging.
The preservation of linguistic diversity has become a major concern to many researchers, politicians and leaders of linguistic communities. In other circumstances diversity is seen as a question of reviving languages or of performing remedial work on languages that have lost significant numbers of their speakers. This includes the Reversing Language Shift of Joshua Fishman (1991) as well as the work of a number of linguists, including Rob Amery, in Indigenous Australian, North American, and other environments (Amery 1988; Schmidt 1993; Lo Bianco and Rhydwen 2001). In many of these latter cases, such practices involve the documentation of languages that are considered moribund and are unlikely to continue to be spoken in the future.
The theoretical and epistemological terrain of linguistic diversity is therefore extremely complex. It cuts across issues of power and representation, culture, social identity, geography and politics. Language and linguistic diversity, therefore, are never issues that appear in isolation from a broader geo-political context. Because of this, the promotion of languages, as well as of linguistic diversity more generally, is never a neutral act: it is itself always political since it represents a desire to intervene to change the language practices in some way, for particular purposes (Ricento2006).
There are many ways of approaching the issue of linguistic diversity and the promotion of minority or lesser-used languages. Simply put, language represents different things to different people: for some it is an instrument of communication (Bloomfield 1958), for others an intrinsic and affective marker of identity (Skutnabb-Kangas 2004), a field of symbolic power (Bourdieu 1991), or a secret to be guarded (Whiteley 2003:717). The choice of metaphor for describing language contact and shift illustrates the diversity of ways of conceptualising the issue: ‘language safeguarding’, ‘linguistic conflict’, ‘language obsolescence’ and ‘linguicide’ have all been used to describe the situation but from very different theoretical, and political, perspectives (Ar Mogn (2002), Vetter (1999), Jones (1996) and Breton(2001) respectively). Clearly the framework, or approach, that is chosen reflects the specific perspectives of language advocates, but it also serves to reinforce ideas and theories about what language is and how it works in society. For example, employing a rights-based approach to conceptualise language support will most likely lead to specific recommendations for action, whilst seeing language diversity as a question of linguistic conflict, might lead to very different responses.
In order to cover the complexity of this epistemological terrain, it is possible to identify a number of broad approaches within which issues of linguistic diversity and the promotion of minority or less-used languages are frequently contextualised. These approaches to linguistic diversity overlap interject and at times contradict each other and are by no means comprehensive, but they do serve to illustrate the breadth of approaches and contexts within which issues of linguistic diversity are located. They are: an instrumentalist approach; an ethno -cultural approach; an ecological approach; an ethical approach; an economic approach; a political approach; and a post-structural approach. In identifying and discussing these approaches, my intention is not to divide linguistic activism into discrete, classificatory and inevitably somewhat arbitrary subsets, but rather to explore some of the more common ways diversity is articulated within the literature.
There are several main reasons for exploring diversity in this way. Firstly it serves as a kind of sociolinguistic literature review as it relates to language activism on a theoretical level. Secondly, it provides a way of exploring a number of significant similarities and differences between approaches. Different approaches will inevitably lead to different readings of issues relating to linguistic diversity, that in turn may affect the ways in which linguists, activists and speakers respond to these issues; but there is also the question of to what extent all of these approaches may be informed by broader epistemological and meta-discursive contexts (Bauman and Briggs 2003).The third purpose in exploring diversity through an analysis of these approaches is therefore to begin to identify the epistemologies and theories of language informing activists and advocates of linguistic diversity and minority or lesser-used languages. In this sense then, the paradigms people use to conceptualise and articulate issues of linguistic diversity broadly reflect two things: firstly, the theoretical or epistemological background of the language activist – the way they theorise and understand language, and secondly, the way they prioritise the different functional and symbolic roles of language within the context of their activism.
4. A Post-Structural Approach
Structuralism as a concept is grand, controversial and elusive. Structuralism has emerged from linguistics and in literature it finds an object which has itself emerged from language. Post-structuralism offers a way of studying how knowledge is produced and critiques structuralist premises. It argues that because history and culture condition the study of underlying structures, both are subject to biases and misinterpretations. A post-structuralist approach argues that to understand an object (e.g., a text), it is necessary to study both the object itself and the systems of knowledge that produced the object. We can understand then why structuralism should want to found a science of literature or, to be more exact, a linguistics of discourse, whose object is the 'language' of literary forms, grasped on many levels ... In short, structuralism will be just one more 'science' (several are born each century, some of them only ephemeral) if it does not manage to place the actual subversion of scientific language at the centre of its programme ... (Roland Barthes, "Science versus Literature", in Newton (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory, pp. 140-44; 142).
Linguistic post-structuralism describes a varied set of responses to language theory that broadly seek to critically engage with questions of language diversity and identity. The post-structural approaches to language studies, and issues of minority or lesser-used languages, work to problematise the assumption that languages exist as pre-existing and discrete objects that are transcendent of their speakers, but suggest rather that languages are called into being or are produced in a variety of ways though a complex nexus of power, identity, and diverse forms of linguistic and cultural expression. In this sense, language and a language is not a fixed or knowable object or a being, but a form of expression, an emergent effect or a process that is frequently contingent, performative, transgressive, and in a constant state of flux foundational claims. One is that structures are present in all spheres of human activity (from anthropology to economics to religion) and that by understanding such structures we gain a sense of ‘truth’. The other claim is that the structure of the sign (the signifier’s relationship to the signified) as devised by Ferdinand de Saussure is the systemic key to all processes of meaning and communication. Post-structuralism challenges these two concepts on the grounds that there can be no truth or truths (no’ transcendental signifieds’ as Derrida calls them) outside the constructions of such sensibilities; furthermore it is imperative not only to reveal the artifices of such social structures but also to develop a more dynamic model of the sign (Fuery 1995:38).
In this sense then post-structural approaches to language studies, and issues of minority or lesser-used languages, work to problematise the assumption that languages exist as pre-existing and discrete objects that are transcendent of their speakers, but suggest rather that languages are called into being or are produced in a variety of ways though a complex nexus of power, identity, and diverse forms of linguistic and cultural expression. In this sense, language and a language is not a fixed or knowable object or a being, but a form of expression, an emergent effect or a process that is frequently contingent, performative, transgressive, and in a constant state of flux. Post-structural readings of the language diversity issue are surprisingly uncommon and references to the issue of linguistic diversity and difference in post-structural literature are usually oblique and occur in passing. The exception to this is some of the work on post-colonialism discussed above and in particular Alastair Pennycook’s work on linguistic performativity and the disinvention of language (2004; 2006). In this reading, Pennycook critiques the way a Eurocentric, normative view of language as “a prior system tied to ethnicity, territory, birth, or nation” (Pennycook 2004:8) is reproduced axiomatically through the trope he describes as a “foundationalist framework for knowledge” (page 2). In particular he seeks to break down the privileged status of general and applied linguistics as objective and disencumbered tools of linguistic analysis, and rather relocates them within their specific epistemological contexts, as powerful vehicles of language ideology that represent language in specific and highly political ways, with specific and highly political effects.
In critiquing this colonial trope, Pennycook argues for the disinvention of languages, by which he seeks to make explicit the ideologies inherent in language studies disciplines through a critical historical analysis of their production (ibid). In doing so he uses the idea of performativity (Following Austin (1962) and Judith Butler (1990; 1993)), to argue against the “entelechial assumption that languages are real objects waiting to be discovered” (Pennycook 2004:3). He suggests that “…languages themselves are better viewed from an anti-foundationalist perspective. By this I mean that the ontological status of languages and grammars as pregiven objects of study becomes suspect” (ibid). Pennycook goes on to cite Hopper (1998): “…there is nonatural fixed structure to language…. Systematicity…is an illusion produced by the partial settling or sedimentation of frequently used forms into temporary subsystems” (Hopper cited in Pennycook 2004:19, italics in original). In this sense the very notions of grammar, as well as identifiable languages and linguistic identities, are rendered problematic. As Pennycook argues, this may allow us: “… to develop an anti-foundationalist view of language as an emergent property of social interaction” (Pennycook 2004:8)
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari have similarly been critical of instrumentalism and the structuralist language theory that linguists such as Noam Chomsky propose:“You will never find a homogenous system that is not still or already affected by a regulated, continuous, immanent process of variation (why does Chomsky pretend not to understand this?)” (Deleuze and Guattari 1987:103). In A Thousand Plateaus they deconstruct the Saussurian differentiation of signifier and signified to argue against a structural view of language and suggest that difference, through which meaning is experienced, is not structured or structural but radical: language is not a system of differentiation, nor does it represent meaning as the relationship of a set of signs, nor is it external to the individual or society, but is itself a series of events of difference. Meaning emerges from the interactions, the interconnectivities, and the transgressive and liminal spaces between people, rather than simply being located in an external and ideal reality or in the relationship between words, ideas and signs. Language is not prescribed or signified but emergent and immanent (Deleuze andGuattari 1989).
In A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari develop and discuss, among many other things, linguistic difference and the articulation of power in society (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). In critiquing structural theory, they develop the related notions of territorialisation , deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation to describe the ways in which groups, entities and organisms are perceived to form and take on a metaphorical body or substance, and which are then confronted and broken up, only to reform as different bodies or intensities. In the case of language, this can be used to describe the way an uninterrupted flow of difference becomes coalesced around certain ideas or loci of power and which gradually emerge to be perceived as languages. An example of this is the babbling of a baby that is initially an undifferentiated flow, but which gradually becomes territorialised around the language of its parents, as it learns what sounds are linguistically meaningful and which are not. As it implicitly becomes aware of the laws and discursive regimes that prescribe correct usage or behaviour, it becomes territorialised, in the sense that it learns appropriacy and how to behave as a subject of the group.
For Deleuze and Guattari each territorialisation represents a reduction of difference, while each deterritorialisation represents a line of flight, or potentiality for the liberation of difference back into the “intense germinal influx” (Colebrook 2002:36) or undifferentiated flow, where it is consequently reinterpreted, and reterritorialised. Importantly, Deleuze and Guattari seek to highlight the contingent and ongoing nature of this process. So, for example, language is continuously being deterritorialised: the perceived structures and legitimacy of a language being resisted and broken up; only to reform, or reterritorialise, in new and different systems, processes and dynamics. Meaning, linguistic structures and languages are not therefore enduring and transcendent entities but particular events or formations that appear solid only when located in a particular socio-historical context. Languages such as English, French or Breton are therefore ever-changing in how they articulate meaning, how they are spoken, as well as who they represent, what they represent and how they represent people and societies. Languages, such as we perceive them, are not therefore eternal but at best are “a snapshot… at a particular time and place” (Reagan 2004:44) of far more complex flows and confluences and coalescences of sociosymbolic and sociopolitical practice
In order to describe structural and post-structural representations of power Deleuzeand Guattari employ the twin biomorphic metaphors of the arbor and the rhizome (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). Arborescent power structures represent a stable hierarchical sequence. Schematically these relations are represented as branches of order to describe structural and post-structural representations of power Deleuzeand Guattari employ the twin biomorphic metaphors of the arbor and the rhizome (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). Arborecent power structures represent a stable hierarchical sequence. Schematically these relations are represented as branches of a tree, dividing at regular intervals. Examples of this schema include family trees and trees that describe families of languages, genus of species and the like. In such representations relationships and lines of power are clear and unambiguous, producing connections and affiliations, be they family, linguistic or biological that are discrete, clearly differentiated and systematic
However, Deleuze and Guattari take umbrage at the structural order that represents languages as a series of predictable, describable divisions. Rather they argue for arhizomatic metaphor, whereby change and difference occurs unpredictably, spontaneously, sometimes radically and transgressively, in the same way that grass grows as a rhizome, with no source, no trunk and no centre.
Post-structural approaches to language diversity therefore seek both to critique the processes through which territorialisations and reterritorialisations occur, and to open up liminal spaces and new ways of approaching issues of linguistic diversity and difference. For example, rather than contextualising linguistic diversity as a plurality of inter-related yet separate languages, promoting the notion of linguistic diversity as one of difference within, between, across and against these common notions of language can provide new ways of understanding linguistic diversity, for example as linguistic disjunctures, transgressions, subversions, disfluencies and performatives. As Deleuze puts it: “…mobile relationships of force have taken over from the devices of power, cracks have replaced the segregations” (Deleuze and Parnet2002:138). Whilst it might be premature to herald the death of structuralism, hierarchical power structures and the notion of a language, these cracks provide liminal points of entry, or lines of flight, that can potentially provide productive ways for people to represent difference and diversity in new and different ways.
5. Understanding Cultural Diversity
Cultural diversity is seen as part of humanity’s common heritage, which, as a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, is as essential for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. It should therefore be protected for the benefit of both present and future generations and be considered as a basic human right. Cultural diversity has become a household phrase in education, especially minority education. Often, a culturally diverse youth/family coalition is viewed in the negative sense, rather than the positive. It is easy to identify the inherent obstacles and barriers associated with differences in religion, class, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, region of origination, or even educational level. Appreciation and understanding of cultural diversity means not just tolerating differences among individuals or groups, but supporting and nurturing them. A variety of ideas, talents, skills and knowledge is a desirable attribute to any youth or family coalition. Attention to cultural diversity may be the necessary catalyst for making things happens. Coalitions of youth or family agencies that strive to address specific community needs and issues have no chance of success, or even continued existence, unless they mirror, understand and make the most of their community's cultural diversity.
No one is untouched by the impact of diversity. Yet as diverse as diversity is, are too the many different emotions and attitudes evoked by diversity. As a nation, we are not well equipped to deal with the swirling transitions that are converging on us on a daily basis because of the nature of being the most diverse country in the world Thinkers about heritage and cultural landscapes are increasingly recognising the need for cultural and natural elements to be considered together. Both elements are essential parts of the construction of cultural landscape. They are also key components of a sense of place. Landscapes need not be monumental or rare in order to mediate between the natural and the social. If we are to investigate the impact ICTs have on culture, the opportunities and challenges they offer for cultural diversity, we should first understand cultural diversity. Shadid (1980: 108- 120) summarizes the most prominent approaches of international cultural differences under two headings: 1- The dichotomous classification of world cultures, these generally are classifications such as individual versus collective, modern versus traditional, Western versus non-Western. In this respect, the anthropologist Hall (1976) discerns high –context and low – context cultures. In high- context culture (such as Japan, Middle East and China) people use implicit communication messages that cannot be understood by other people from outside the group. People think more in terms of “ in-groups” and out- groups” and they strongly rely on each other. On the other hand in low- context culture, like the USA and Western Europe, the communication messages are explicit and members are more individualistic. One of the more recent contributions in this regard has been made by Francis Fukuyama (1992) and Samuel Huntington (1996), and has been referred to as the debate between the “end of history” and the “clash of civilizations”. (Quoted in Servaes, 2002). (2) The cultural variability theory is the second approach to understand cultural diversity. Geert Hofstede (1980-1991, 1995) identifies four value dimensions that are influenced and modified by culture: (a) individualism –collectivism, (b) uncertainty avoidance, (c) power distance, (d) masculinity and femininity (quoted in Servaes, 2002).
In general, these dichotomies are based on a notion that looks at a specific culture as a cohesive monolithic way of life, an understanding that is unrealistic. As Amartya, (1998, P. 317) states culture is not just one thing, but also a generic name for a diverse set of activities and pursuits. Even within the same country different people may have disparate views of cultural achievements. Also cultures vary radically between different countries and between distinct historical traditions and heritages. This fact was clearly identified by “Our Creative Diversity Report” (1995, p.36). The report clarifies this mistaken stereotyped image about cultures as a coherent whole. It places emphasis on three distinct features of culture. First, cultures overlap because they have partly common roots, build on similar human experiences and have, in the course of history, often learned from each other. Second, Cultures usually do not speak with one voice on religious, ethical, social, or political matters and other aspects of people’s lives. Third, cultures do not commonly form homogeneous units. Within what is conventionally considered a culture, numerous cultural differences may exist along gender, class, religion, language, ethnicity and other fault lines. At the same time, people of the same gender and of similar race or class may share ideas and clusters of beliefs across cultural boundaries, serving as bases for solidarity and alliances between them.
It is my belief that the multicultural world is one, which comprises varied cultures that are continuously engaging in a tolerant cultural dialogue with the internal as well as external differences. It is hard for a culture to claim and defend its tolerance with other cultures unless it practices an internal cultural dialogue, or internal cultural tolerance and opposite quite. A culture should practice external respect and tolerance with cultures outside its boundaries if it is to claim its plurality and diversity.
The extraordinary diversity of languages that humanity has developed over countless centuries is coming under increasing pressure. First, ‘language diversity’ refers to the existence of many different languages. These languages each are emblematic of the culture and the people that spawned them. When a language dies, the cultural and traditional knowledge that had been transmitted in that language nearly always die with it. The value of language diversity is found in this knowledge. Language loss, assimilation, imposition and evolution have always played an active role in the global linguistic composition; however, the intensity of the forces being exerted on local and minority languages and the velocity of their loss are clearly more modern phenomena. Myriad causes for this unprecedented decline in language diversity have been proposed and analyzed. Linguists from universities around the world are actively engaging minority language speakers in an attempt to record and document the world’s languages before they disappear. Minority communities across the world have worked to reinvigorate traditional languages and cultures. Despite all of these efforts, the extinction of languages continues unabated. The linguistic consequences of this phenomenon are caused mainly by the sharp increase in the transnationalization of economies (with a trend towards global free trade and the foundation of large corporations through mergers and take-overs), and by developments in communication technologies.
There is, therefore, a clear need for all levels of public authorities, from planet wide to local, to address the contemporary needs and linguistic problems of mankind. The issue is no longer one of scorned 'minorities', but rather of a culturally-diverse species that wants to live in harmony and solidarity, dealing with any potential problematic situations that could arise.
6. International Cultural Paradox
There is a paradox in the international cultural world today. We wish to re-take the common terrain. We wish to contribute, if possible, to the renaissance of a cultural milieu where intellectuals and serious teachers and writers, as well as curious scientists and public figures, can learn about the cultural and intellectual issues of other countries, and read (if only in translation) the novels and poems of writers in other languages. One looks askance at scholars and observers who underscore the global homogenization of culture or those who see globalization as paving the way for a set of universal values. These scholars, who adumbrate that the essence of globalization is its homogenizing dimension, imply that globalization is motivated by its overarching universal program to legitimize certain cultures and knowledge and suppress oppositional knowledge for the sake of augmenting power. But then, the culture that we perceive around us is more of a celebration of plurality or heterogeneity, rather than of specificities. It is then that we begin to realize that globalization, far from involving a loss of cultural diversity, has the potential to lead to pluralist notions of culture and identity.
Whereas international references and declarations talk about the ideal of cultural diversity, in practice even well-intentioned economists still see the ideal as integrating cultural values into their own growth paradigm or putting such values at the service of technology, rather than putting both technology and economics at the service of the cultural values and goals of local people. Furthermore, many cultures of the world appear to a Western (or Westernized) observer not only as undesirable ways of life, but also, in some respects, as morally unacceptable. They contravene the moral consensus of the developed world as embodied in the idea of universal human rights. This emphasis on the importance of respect for human rights is not in contradiction with the concept of cultural diversity (Change and Continuity Report, 2000, p. 36). A World Link Report stated that humankind, for the first time, has the sophistication to build its future not on the illusion of a one-sided, ill- conceived ideology but on a set of universal values which we all share, even if their optimal balance may differ from people to people, from religion to religion and from individual to individual and where there is great respect for such a difference. Pluralism is not just an end in itself. The recognition of differences is above all a condition for dialogue, and hence for the construction of a wider union of diversity. Ways must be found for combating rejection or exclusion of the “ Other” on grounds of cultural differences and of promoting the cultural rights of minorities and indigenous peoples (quoted in: Change and Continuity Report, 2000, p. 71,73).
7. Digital Divide and Cultural, Linguistic Diversity
The “digital divide”, that is, the unequal distribution of access to digital information sources and services, stands out as one of the key policy issues of the present digital information era. Governments, international agencies, citizens’ groups, corporations and others all seek to take advantage of the promises of lower cost and instantaneous information access by moving many of their communication functions to networked computer media. But if traditional social barriers, such as socio-economic status, education, ethnicity, gender, etc., hamper access to digital information, then policies must be directed to equalizing access for these benefits to be realized Let us now turn to the arguments for preserving linguistic diversity. We should try to preserve linguistic diversity because, after all, human languages are our greatest collective invention. We human beings have probably existed for at least 100,000 years and probably the development of language was one of the factors that made our brain, specifically the cortex, expand in order to hold an increased number of concepts collectively sharable through language. Increased brain capacity and the development of language, probably together had survival value for our species. To become a true global citizen is to celebrate the diversity of humankind while retaining the personal right to celebrate our own traditional cultural heritage. Stepping across the digital divide often means leaving something behind. In the rush to embrace the new, much of what has been important can be cast aside, intentionally or not. This is true for anyone, but for indigenous populations, it has a special impact. They move toward something allegedly better, but to get there, they leave behind a part of their culture, language, values, and identity. The current weakening of many indigenous languages and cultures is well documented. On the other hand the digital and information revolution presents a historic opportunity for developing countries to take a quantum leap forward, develop their own productive and creative capacities, and become integrated into the global virtual economy. However, Internet density (users as a percentage of population) is still much higher in industrial countries, as well as in affluent and educated communities in every country, than elsewhere. The Internet threatens to magnify the existing socioeconomic disparities, between those with access and those without, to levels unseen and untenable. Half the planet’s languages and cultures are held by 5% of its population–370 million indigenous peoples–the most marginalized, fractured and least represented. For every group dispossessed, urbanized or assimilated, a culture vanishes taking with it unique worldviews and ancient knowledge of the environment, irreplaceable skills, artistry and stories–the rich diversity of humanity. The digital revolution, rather than creating a “global village”, accelerates this worldwide cultural demise. Therefore, urgent actions are needed at the local, national, and international levels to bridge the global digital divide. ICTs are creating many opportunities, but because of their uneven distributions and adoption, they are also creating new risks and challenges. For the World Summit of the Information Society to reduce risks, offer concrete solutions for the new challenges and maximize benefits, it would be most useful if we discuss the overall impact of ICTs especially what has been known as digital divide on cultural and linguistic diversity. In this respect the author contends that ICTs can be seen as a unifying and divisive force, a homogenous and heterogeneous actor, and more importantly a tool for cultural imperialism or cultural diversity. “We must also not forget that technology in itself is not a determinant of change, only a facilitator. As with any other technology, it is the social context within which these new technologies are introduced and, more importantly implemented, that determines their usage and impact, in other words ICTs are social products and not an entirely a technological issue” (Paula, 1997, p. 5) and (Arab Human Development Report 2002, p. 73).
Cultural diversity and biodiversity are correlated. Moreover, loss of indigenous culture may directly affect biodiversity. Many indigenous cultures have developed low-impact interdependencies with their land. Traditional interactions with the environment that have less impact on biodiversity are passed on in local languages, but when those languages die the traditional methods die out too. (Terralingua, Maffi et al, 2004) . Minority cultures matter. For every language that is lost a world perspective vanishes. For every group uprooted or assimilated, a culture vanishes, taking with it knowledge of the environment, unique ways of living, irreplaceable skills, artistry and ancient wisdom. Each time a minority culture disappears it is as if a species becomes extinct. We all need cultural diversity just as much as we need biodiversity–humans thrive when there are many perspectives, languages, skills, and ways of living in the world.
Although the nature and structure of the new ICTs and Internet in particular can help support cultural diversity, creativity and thus stability, the ultimate net of digital technologies depends on the effectiveness of the co-ordination of international efforts aiming at closing not only the digital divide between the rich and poor but also the gap between the potentials of ICTs and its actual achievements. ICT access is scant and inappropriate for indigenous people, while content is dominated by the languages, interests and ideologies of the largest economic blocks.
8. ICTs and Cultural, Linguistic Diversity: Two Schools of Thought
Linguistics as a field has often dismissed technology development as “mere engineering,” and hence has little understanding of technology. Computational linguistics as a field understands technology, but focuses on commercially viable languages -- the 1% that are already well resourced. For language documentation to succeed there needs to be a synthesis of a linguistic interest that encompasses all the world’s languages with computational-linguistic expertise in technology. Literacy, or literacies as social practices, as developed over time, have taken different focuses and emphases in response to societal demands. The growing significance of cultural and linguistic diversity and new communications technologies requires a responsibility to consider carefully and precisely what the job of literacy now can be, in a multicultural, multilingual and multiliterate society, increasingly characterised by movement - of people, capital, labour and communications in a variety of languages.
The dawn of the information age is reaching the remotest villages. No traditional culture will be well served by denying the reality of our fast changing world, or the value of more accessible knowledge and education. In many ways ICTs may be viewed as a two-edged sword that has the potential to accelerate the erosion of indigenous culture and knowledge. On the other hand, the new digital technologies offer the potential to empower and support the creation of new culturally responsive learning resources and environments for indigenous children. In terms of the impact of ICTs on cultural and linguistic diversity, there are two schools of thought- the net is a means for the world to homogenize a culture, and the other school says this is a way to spread your culture to the world. If indigenously founded Internet resources and technologies are any indication of Indigenous peoples’ willingness to embrace the technological era, the answer is that many Indigenous communities see telecommunication and computer technologies as a way to improve, rather than hinder, self-sufficiency, preservation of culture, real sovereignty, and general economic conditions. (AJ Johnson, A New Understanding of Culture and Communication: The Impact of Technologies on Indigenous peoples, http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~vlibrary/edres/pathfinders/ajohnson/pathfinder.html (last visited December 11, 2012). As noted in one 1999 Benton Foundation study, “[a]mong the tools recognized by tribes as essential to their future growth are telecommunications and information technology, and tribes are looking for opportunities to acquire the level of technological infrastructure that will ensure their place on the Information Superhighway (James Casey, Randy Ross & Marcia Warren, Native Networking : Telecommunications and Information Technology in Indian Country (1999), available at
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/95/39.pdf.)
Some argue that Internet doesn’t promote imperialism- it eradicates it. A fundamental argument about cultural imperialism on Internet is whether the Net promotes heterogeneous or homogenous culture. If the vote is heterogeneous then the Net is not imperialistic. If the Net is homogenous then it is because a culture willingly adopts the new culture to replace its own. In a report on cultural imperialism by Ina Berlingeri and Selene Brett of Harvard School of Law, the authors feel that Internet promotes heterogony not a dilution of one’s culture. Their reasoning is as follows: 1) Internet promotes heterogeneity not homogeneity. There is no single source of production or dissemination of messages, so why should there be uniformity? The decentralized nature of Internet not only militates against control, it removes the necessity for it, 2) It is inexpensive to become an effective publisher on the Internet, 3) Internet is different from broadcasting. The receiver or viewer of message is not a passive listener but must actively pull information in as opposed to having it pushed at him (Andreamon, 1997, 20). Pierre Levy’s book, “Cyberculture” (1997) also provides one of the most coherent and persuasive expressions of the contemporary technocultural vision. Levy believes, in new information and communication technologies to both expand and enhance human cognition. He also describes the emergence of a new “knowledge space” that is in stark contrast to an older knowledge space that was characterized by its linearity, hierarchy and rigidity of structure. This new space- it is the space of the World Wide Web- is distinguished by its open, fluid and dynamic qualities. What he regards as innovative about the new techno- oral culture is its potential to support direct and immediate contact between its members. The virtual interface is conceived in terms of the return to conditions of face –to-face interaction (Webster, and Robins, 2002, 236).
A language is only alive when it is used as a working language, for communicating with people. The promotion of linguistic diversity in cyberspace should not restrict itself to simply securing the presence of a given language on a site as a language object. That would amount to collecting samples of languages for a virtual museum intended to inform future generations about what the languages of humanity were like before the era of the super-powerful, globalized information society which will have reduced the six thousand languages of the world to a few dozen. No, certainly not! The promotion of linguistic diversity in cyberspace must aim at allowing all languages which have the slightest possibility of entering this space to come alive in it. As a matter of principle, the promotion of linguistic diversity must not exclude any language a priori, even though it is inevitable that certain languages will disappear forever, being spoken only by a few aged speakers who will disappear with them, or because they are forsaken by their native speakers and ignored by the international community. More pragmatically, the promotion of linguistic diversity in cyberspace could espouse the principle of supporting any activity which seeks on the one hand to develop content in languages with relatively little presence on the Web and to promote the use of these languages as working languages, and on the other hand to help cybercommunities to form which are able to communicate in languages which are little used on the Web.
By cybercommunity, we mean all those people who share the practice of a language using communication and information technologies. Such a community exists spontaneously for all the great languages of the world which are already working languages on the Internet. Cybercommunities for the other languages will have to emerge gradually. For that to happen, it seems to us that the first stage consists in developing the languages themselves towards the Internet. A start could be made by providing them with a standardized spelling system if they do not already have one. At the international level, work could be done to solve the many technical problems which handicap standardization by the Unicode consortium of the special characters needed to write all the languages of the world, including the most underprivileged languages.
Also, one could support terminological development in those languages which are least present on the Internet. And finally, one could support actions aimed at teaching those languages, in order to consolidate, or even to increase, the number of the people able to use them to communicate through ICTs. Thus, the very existence of a cybercommunity is essential for any language to enjoy sustainable development in cyberspace.
9. Internet and Cultural, Linguistic Diversity: The Macro Analysis
Language diversity can itself be interpreted in a number of different ways. The difficulty in measuring the use of languages on the Internet is partly due to the lack of regulation and the phenomenal growth. The relationship between languages on the Internet and diversity of language within a country indicates that even with a globalised network nation states have a role to play in encouraging language diversity in cyberspace. Language diversity can be viewed as much within a country as within the Internet as a whole. With the rapid proliferation of the Internet, one of the biggest challenges facing the industry is effectively catering to a wide array of national regional and local markets by providing content and applications that are adapted in accordance with cultural and linguistic needs. Despite being the dominant and most pervasive communications medium and axis of modern economies, the Internet can also be the unwitting vehicle for social exclusion, suppression of vulnerable cultures and language, and penalization of already marginalized communities through the requirement to learn and adopt alien culture and language in order to partake of its promises. Some of the impediments leading to linguistic and cultural marginalization on the Internet include the technical (e.g. lack of set standards of alphabetic characters; lack of e-translator software; lack of necessary keyboard drivers; lack of enough natural language processing research and development; etc.). Other types of impediments are economic (e.g. languages spoken by small groups or economically disadvantaged groups – “Languages do not have economic power”). In its common vision , there is a “common desire and commitment to build a people-centered, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and people[s] to achieve their full potential and improve their quality of life in a sustainable manner.” Without attending to the issue of cultural and linguistic diversity, this vision cannot be attained for the simple reason that culture and language are necessary in the creation, accessing, utilization and sharing of information and knowledge. This calls for the cultural and linguistic diversity across the world to be reflected in the content of the Internet.
Increasingly, information and knowledge are key determinants of wealth creation, social transformation and human development. Language is a primary vector for communicating information and knowledge, thus the opportunity to use one’s language on the Internet will determine the extent to which one can participate in emerging knowledge societies. The beginning of the Internet has brought about diverse opportunities for sharing information and knowledge in various languages. Today, anyone in principle can produce content, share it with the rest of the world and receive feedback. In principle, the Internet is open to all languages of the world when certain technical conditions are met, and when the necessary human and financial resources are in place.
However, many languages are not present on the Internet. There is a vast linguistic divide, which exists in cyberspace today and this will only exacerbate the digital divide. Everyone therefore should have access to the multilingual Internet. Nations, communities and individuals without access to the Internet and its resources will certainly be marginalized with limited access to information and knowledge, which are critical elements of sustainable development. Speakers of non-dominant languages need to be able to express themselves in culturally meaningful ways, create their own cultural content in local languages and share through cyberspace. The digital divide has two important aspects: firstly, everyone should have access to the Internet, and secondly, access to quality content created not only at international or regional level, but locally and in local languages. The Internet is multilingual and culturally diverse where every culture and language has its own space.
As many are convinced that cultural diversity and multilingualism on the Internet have a key role to play in fostering pluralistic, equitable, open and inclusive knowledge societies. They encourage to develop comprehensive language-related policies, to allocate resources and use appropriate tools in order to promote and facilitate linguistic diversity and multilingualism, including the Internet and media. In this regard, they supports the inclusion of new languages in the digital world, the creation and dissemination of content in local languages on the Internet and mass communication channels, and encourages multilingual access to digital resources in the cyberspace.
As we navigate our way around cyberspace, we soon realize how differently languages and cultures are treated on the Internet. First of all, there are working languages, which people use to communicate. This category is dominated by the worldwide lingua franca which is English. The other languages of this category are supported by speaker communities of varying degrees of influence, and aspire to play their full part in Internet-based exchanges. Then there are languages which are spoken about. Among these are a number of languages which have been the subject of linguistic research, and which are only mentioned on the Internet as the subjects of study. Some of these languages are presented quite comprehensively, and indeed lessons in them may even be offered on the Internet, while others are known only by mention of their names. Finally, there is a group of languages which are completely absent from the Internet. True linguistic and cultural diversity on the Internet ought to reflect the diversity of the logosphere. Every language ought to have the opportunity to serve as a vehicle for culture and communication on the Internet, which implies the existence of an active Internet community using each language. Consequently, promoting linguistic and cultural diversity on the Internet implies means working to remove all those obstacles which prevent, slow down or obstruct the use of all languages with ICTs, and, in parallel, to encourage linguistic communities to use their language in order to occupy all the space they want on the Internet.
As one moves around the Internet, one readily notices how the languages of the world are divided into three categories according to the use made of them in cyberspace: namely, languages used to communicate, which we shall call working languages, languages about which one speaks, or language objects, and finally those languages which are never mentioned on Internet and which are the absent languages. Working languages are used as means of communication between Internet users, for example in chat rooms, forums, visitors' books, e-mails, advertisements, in all the diverse forms of Web page content. They are also used by webmasters to give instructions to visitors to their sites, and by software developers for the user interfaces, help pages and dialogue boxes of their software. Mastery of these languages allows Internet users, and more broadly computer users in general, to move around more easily in cyberspace and the information society.
As a matter of principle, the promotion of linguistic diversity must not exclude any language a priori, even though it is inevitable that certain languages will disappear forever, being spoken only by a few aged speakers who will disappear with them, or because they are forsaken by their native speakers and ignored by the international community. More pragmatically, the promotion of linguistic diversity in cyberspace could espouse the principle of supporting any activity which seeks on the one hand to develop content in languages with relatively little presence on the Web and to promote the use of these languages as working languages, and on the other hand to help cybercommunities to form which are able to communicate in languages which are little used on the Web. By cybercommunity, we mean all those people who share the practice of a language using communication and information technologies. Such a community exists spontaneously for all the great languages of the world which are already working languages on the Internet. Cybercommunities for the other languages will have to emerge gradually. For that to happen, it seems to us that the first stage consists in developing the languages themselves towards the Internet. A start could be made by providing them with a standardized spelling system if they do not already have one. At the international level, work could be done to solve the many technical problems which handicap standardization by the Unicode consortium of the special characters needed to write all the languages of the world, including the most underprivileged languages. Also, one could support terminological development in those languages which are least present on the Internet. And finally, one could support actions aimed at teaching those languages, in order to consolidate, or even to increase, the number of the people able to use them to communicate through ICTs. Thus, the very existence of a cybercommunity is essential for any language to enjoy sustainable development in cyberspace.
10. Internet is far from being a Tool for Cultural Diversity
The global digital content revolution, which began in 1980 with the personal computer and is now accelerated by the Internet, is producing content at historic rates by several orders of magnitude. The Internet is the best present the language diversity movement could have had. As the Internet goes global it encounters different cultures which react to it in different ways. It would be far too simplistic to view this process in terms of ‘cultural imperialism’, assuming that old habits can simply be washed away. What actually happens as new users get on-line is that a myriad of new virtual worlds are created. These are a mix of traditional culture and cyberculture, influenced by and adapted to existing communicative practices and value systems. In fact, this is how cultural encounters always take place. The internalization of external influences is a complex process influenced by existing social relations. People interpret new influences according to existing frames of reference, and accommodate or reject them accordingly, the result of which is a fusion of the old and the new, unique to each specific context. In the case of the Internet, one can but expect that responses to on-line behavior will vary from country to country, each context offering new interpretations of and responses to the world of cyberspace.
Such cultural encounters are nothing new in the history of Asia. After all, Asian countries have been exposed to foreign influences over centuries, from neighbouring countries as well as more distant cultures. With rapid modernization, Western influences have perhaps been particularly strong. It would, however, be naïve to think that Coca Cola and MacDonalds could possibly replace centuries of tradition, something which marketing experts, for a start, are painfully aware of. Having observed the modernization process taking place in various Asian countries over the last decade, I can but conclude that Asia has not become ‘Westernized’, just like Europe has not become ‘Americanized’, despite the intensity of intercultural encounters and the changes that have taken place. This is not to say that Asian cultures have not changed. They always have.
As a watershed in the further development of multicultural approaches to education, Internet is to be a truly multicultural medium, it will, however, be important to encourage people in Asian countries to actively use the Internet to express themselves. The only way to ensure that Asian ‘Internauts’ are not merely consumers of information but also producers is to use the medium proactively. Unlike other media, the Internet opens up enormous opportunities for people to broadcast their own news and views to local as well as global audiences. It is, for instance, not particularly complicated to design a Web site, incorporating text and images, which can then be made available to others. And as more Asian people get on-line there will be both a supply and a demand for local information. The Internet can become a mirror of the multicultural world we live in and Asia could play an influential role in this process. Given the enormous wealth of cultural diversity in the Asian region, the transnational worlds of cyberspace would be greatly enriched if more Asian material were on-line; giving the rest of the world a better taste of what Asia has to offer. Few continents contain as many different ethnic groups, multicultural societies and ancient traditions as Asia. The attraction of this to the outside world is already clearly indicated by the growing numbers of tourists who visit the region. Sharing these resources on-line with the rest of the world would not only benefit local economies, but also stimulate Asian cultures.
Without external cultural cues internet-based communications we become divorced from cultural contexts causing misunderstandings that often fail to be acknowledged as cultural. The internet becomes a location of perceived homogeneity that works to invalidate cultural differences leading to misinformation and facilitating oppression and prejudice. Examples from multicultural classrooms and academic collaborations, as well as my own experiences as a non-American White college graduate, have been drawn on to examine these issues and to raise questions about the ability of the internet to be a culturally neutral space when cultural identities are ignored. Further, it is argued that the internet is a multicultural site and that cultural factors play a role in our cognitive processes and those in turn affect online communication practices. In order for cultural factors to be recognized, internet-based collaborations must overcome superficial relationships centered on context and connection and we must cultivate more in depth relationships. This includes making cultural factors explicit and relevant in any cross-cultural context including but not limited to the online classroom. A greater understanding of these cultural factors, including cultural differences as well as the assumptions of one’s own culture, will aid in making the internet a more useful tool for successful communication across cultures
The North- American origin of the Internet is evident in the dominant language of the Net as well as the origin of most existing sites. The Anglophone influence in both form and content could be interpreted in terms of cultural dominance, or cultural homogenization and Internet could be seen as a vehicle for marketing ideas, cultures, and values stemming from a very specific part of the world. If the Internet is to be a truly multicultural medium, it will be important to encourage people in the Third World to actively use it and to express themselves not only in their language, but also in their own frame of references with affordable cost. The fact that only an estimated 5-10% of the content on Internet is of Asian origin, while the Asian population represents almost half of the world’s population indicates how far the Internet is from being true cultural diversity tool (Paula, 1997, 7). By the same token, I can say that Arabs have real concerns regarding the dominance of the English language flow through ICTs. Arab Human Development Report (2002, p. 77) indicates that concern over the future of linguistic diversity in the information age is evident from the currency of such terms as “ language divide”, “ extinction of languages” “ linguistic racism ”, and “ language wars”. Some people have become pessimistic enough to list language among the victims of the information age, along with other entities on the list of victims such as cultural diversity, local values and national sovereignty.
ICTs use by non-English speakers requires localization. Localization entails adapting software written in one language for members of one culture to another language for members of another culture. Translation alone is an exceedingly complex part of localization. Ideally, it is a multistage process involving initial translation, followed by “back-translation” into the original language. But, localization involves more than simple translation. The localizer must not only be an experienced code writer, but must have a thorough knowledge of two languages, ideally, of two cultures (Keniston, 2000, p. 9).
The dominance of English language is affirmed by the World Communication Report 1999-2000: The English language holds a strong dominant position: in 1997, 81% of web pages were in English. However the percentages of English language users as shown in figure (3) does not exceed 36.5% of the total Internet users; 619 million users in September 2002. The question then is: will automatic translations help reduce misunderstanding between languages and promote genuine multilingualism? In the past, research has proved disappointing, and researchers are at present cautious, pinning their hopes on the development of computer- assisted translation systems. Only strong support for translation from producers and authorities responsible for public policy can help to bring about a more balanced flow of cultural works. If this is not forthcoming, English and probably a few more of the most widely spoken languages will eventually dominate the cultural marketplace. There is no doubt that the dominance of the English language is closely related to the issue of emerging a global monoculture. The American –influenced culture with great popular appeal, backed by enormous financial and technological resources is threatening all local cultures (Keniston, 2000, p. 10). It is my belief that efforts to bridge the digital gap through lowering the costs of local telephone connections, and empowering peoples of developing countries to access Internet may eventually perpetuate the hegemony of the global monoculture of English, unless these efforts innovate new solutions to empower users of these countries. These efforts aim at enriching the capabilities of the poor with regard to the complete cycle of knowledge, which includes actual participation in knowledge acquisition, organization, application, production, and consumption among others.
11. Biolinguistic Diversity: Linking Language and Culture
Linguistic diversity and biological diversity are seen as inseparable.“Biodiversity is not an object to be conserved but an integral part of human existence, in which utilization is part of the celebration of life” (Posey, 1999: 7). Over the past decade, the field of biocultural diversity has arisen as an area of transdisciplinary research concerned with investigating the links between the world’s linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity as manifestations of the diversity of life. The impetus for the emergence of this field came from the observation that all three diversities are under threat by some of the same forces and from the perception that loss of diversity at all levels spells dramatic consequences for humanity and the earth. The main foci of this emerging field are as follows: (a) the parallels and correlations between biodiversity and linguistic diversity, the overlaps in the global distribution of languages and biodiversity, and the relationships between language, traditional knowledge, and the environment; (b) studies and assessments of the common threats to biodiversity, cultural diversity, and linguistic diversity and of the sociocultural and environmental consequences consequences of loss of these interlinked diversities; (c) approaches to the joint maintenance and revitalization of biocultural diversity; and (d) development of the related aspects of human rights.
The term language ecology was first coined in 1972 and described as “the study of interactions between any given language and its environment” (Haugen 1972; Mühlhäusler and Fill 2001). In the 1990s the notion of language ecology and eco-linguistics was developed and adapted by the likes of Peter Mühlhäusler (1996; 2000; 2001), Mark Fettes (1997; 1999) Nancy Hornberger (2002) and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (1994, 2000) as a response, in particular, to a growing sense that many languages in the world were being lost, and the links this had with a similar reduction in biological diversity. Biodiversity can be defined as "the total variability among genes, plant and animal species, and ecosystems found in nature" (Skutnabb-Kangas, Maffi & Harmon 2003, Glossary, 55). The number of species has often been used as a proxy for biodiversity. In the same way, the number of languages can be used as a crude proxy for linguistic diversity. The topic of global biocultural correlations has continued to stimulate both further research and critiques in the academic environment as well, contributing to the development of theory, methodology, and data sets for this field of study and to the refinement of research hypotheses and parameters.
Losing a language, irrespective of the number of speakers of that language, deprives humanity of a part of our universal human heritage insofar as the language embodies a unique worldview and knowledge of local ecosystems.An ecological approach to linguistic diversity includes the deployment of environmental or biomorphic metaphors to argue or demonstrate perceived similarities between linguistic diversity and a loss in natural floral and faunal diversity, as well as the use of biological metaphors such as ‘language death’, ‘living languages’ and ‘mother tongues’ to locate languages in the’ natural’ world. A new wave of interdisciplinary studies is yielding a holistic view of diversity and considering how these two worlds of difference, biological and cultural/linguistic, are related and what common factors are at work to diminish them, or conversely, to sustain them (Maffi 2001; Harmon 2002; Romaine, forthcoming b). Nettle and Romaine (2000: ix) use the term ‘biolinguistic diversity’ as a key concept in a holistic approach to the understanding of diversity. It refers to the rich spectrum of life encompassing all the earth's species of plants and animals along with human cultures and their languages.
The biodiversity analogy has engendered the use of metaphors such as language survival, and death and even more emotively, killer languages and linguistic genocide Over the course of about 10 years, the field of biocultural diversity has emerged as an example of an integrated, transdisciplinary field (Somerville & Rapport 2000), spanning the natural and social sciences, as well as linking theory with practice and science with policy, ethics, and human rights. No doubt, at the present stage this field needs an opportunity to better define its theoretical and philosophical assumptions, its research questions, its methodologies, and its overall goals. The increasing focus on the topic of biocultural diversity in academic settings promises to bring to this field the benefit of scientific rigor and critical analysis.We can also hope that the adoption of biocultural diversity as a domain for academic inquiry will foster a transdisciplinary turn in academe, leading to greater communication and exchanges among disciplines, as well as more work by interdisci interdisciplinary teams, and thus to the elaboration of a new synthesis about the connections between linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. A
transdisciplinary approach should also make research more sensitive to real world needs and research findings more relevant for policy and other applications. Above all, a transdisciplinary study of biocultural diversity should contribute to our understanding that, as Harmon (2002) puts it, diversity in nature and culture makes us human. In this resides the hope that greater respect for and stewardship over our shared natural and cultural heritage can be achieved—before it is too late.
The languages of the indigenous communities have a direct link to the cultural explanations and understanding of the natural and social world. Biological diversity is the product of evolution, that is, a complex sequence of chance genetic combinations inside specific ecosystems, linguistic diversity corresponds fundamentally to the socio-cognitive and experiential vicissitudes of a particular biological species – one that appears to have greater brain power than others. Indeed, not only do the two elements differ constitutively, but the conditions of their existence are also very different. If biological objects are controlled fundamentally by genetic chance and the biosphere, linguistic objects are also controlled by the socio-cultural experiences of their speakers; this fact differentiates clearly between the reproductive aspects of the two. In their struggle to survive through history organisms are affected by their natural environments, while linguistic systems are additionally affected by the socioeconomic and politico-cultural conditions of individuals, who are able to decide personally on the language to be transmitted to their successors. Cultural traditions are passed down through language, making language an important factor in the existence of biocultural diversity. In a more formal sense, the notion of linguistic ecologies, or eco-linguistics, has been developed by researchers such as Peter Mühlhäusler to describe the systemic and interdependent relationships languages have both with other languages, and with their broader socio-cultural and physical environments. According to Mühlhäusler, Eco-linguistics is concerned with “the complex interdependence between forms of human communication and the multitude of environmental factors” (Mühlhäusler 1996:8). It includes both an analysis of the ways in which languages can be located within linguistic ecologies or as natural phenomena, as well as the language with which we talk about nature, with specific emphasis on the ways in which specific discourses have profound effects on the environment through the ways they represent the relationship between humans and nature.
The first sense of eco-linguistics seeks to highlight the many ways in which linguistic diversity reflects biological diversity, and highlights the importance of inter-relatedness and symbiosis in the maintenance of healthy ecologies. For Mühlhäusler both languages and the environment operate as ecologies, and elements within these ecologies are interdependent. One consequence of this is that “the change in a single link in an ecological network can precipitate very considerable overall changes, the disappearance of one species [or language] typically leading to that of a dozen of others” (Mühlhäusler 1996:49). It is therefore in the interests of everyone, including a dominant species or language to promote and maintain a healthy, balanced ecological and linguistic environment
Similarly, he argues that there is a direct relationship between linguistic and biological ecologies. In this way changes to the environment will have potential consequences for language use, just as changes to the linguistic ecology can have effects in the environment. For example deforestation in New Guinea might have a profound impact on language use by changing the physical environment as well as social networks and cultural practices of speakers. Environmental changes caused by migratory flows, industrialization, changing farm practices and urbanisation have similarly transformed language practices in Europe and across the world. Clearly, whilst there may not be a direct causal relationship between environmental change and the decline of a language, the two issues are, in many instances, intimately related and occur as elements of a broader socio-political and socio-cultural phenomenon of language change.
As with instrumentalism and ethnicity, Mühlhäusler suggests the destruction of linguistic ecologies and natural ecologies is also primarily an effect of European colonial imperialism (Mühlhäusler 1996:311) and the imposition of a specifically Eurocentric view of both language and nature. Much of Mühlhäusler’s work is focussed on the Pacific region which is rich in linguistic diversity and whose pre-colonial linguistic environments were, and to an extent still are, characterised by multilingualism and “chains of dialectal connections” (Mühlhäusler 1996:5) rather than discrete, definable, standardised languages. He is especially keen to debunk the particularly Anglo-centric, and Franco-centric, notions that monolingualism is normal or that linguists can map discrete languages onto territorial maps as if they were jigsaws to be pieced together (Mühlhäusler 1996:15). For Mühlhäusler “the trend toward monolingualism and monoculturalism is the problem… diversity itself is a necessary precondition of economic and social well-being” (Mühlhäusler andFill 2001:312).
The link between language and culture is an intricate network of knowledge woven together. In this framework therefore what is important is not so much the analysis and promotion of any particular language, but rather an exploration of the functional relationships between people, their environment, and language. Mühlhäusler’s analysis seeks to understand linguistic diversity as an integrated phenomenoninvolving the maintenance or restoration of a healthy system within which languagesand communities operate. In this way, “…the aim of [language] maintenance is toenable the survival of a structured diversity rather than individual languages”(Mühlhäusler 1996:322). Clearly this is quite a different goal from the promotion of specific languages through an approach that seeks to strengthen or privilege particular languages, as is the case in Quebec, or through an RLS paradigm.
Although we are still in the early stages of understanding the ramifications of the loss of diversity in ecosystems, species, cultures, and languages, there is a growing body of factual evidence and supporting theory pointing to an extinction crisis in the realms of both biological and cultural–linguistic diversity. The second sense of eco-linguistics looks at the ways in which languages describe the environment and the effects this has on human behaviour towards nature. Specifically, of interest are the “ways in which languages other than the ones familiar to most Europeans emphasise and de-emphasize aspects of the environment”(Mühlhäusler 1996:3) and conversely, the ways in which, for example, European languages often represent the environment as a resource which can be mined, forested, fished and farmed (for example, the belief that Australia is a country rich in natural resources, or the lack of human agency, and therefore responsibility in terms such as “habitat loss” (Schleppegrell 2001:226)). The metaphors we use to talk about the environment say a lot about us as a community. In this sense, eco-linguistics is the way in which we talk about, and imagine the environment within our own particular discursive systems.
The strengths of the eco-linguistics paradigm lie in the ways in which such agencies are highlighted as contributing factors to language change, as well as the ways in which language diversity and the support for languages is seen in terms of interdependent relationships between language communities, rather than the promotion of specific language varieties in isolation, or in conflict, with other languages. In exploring language change within a post-colonial context, it highlights the ways in which Eurocentric language theories dominate and in which languages are seen as “…monolithic, abstract entities that modern science projects upon the linguistic world” (Fettes 1997:1). In arguing that linguistic diversity is a necessary condition for the well-being of all language varieties in a linguistic ecology, it provides a useful argument for convincing dominant language speakers to become more interested in the plight of their linguistic neighbours, and more conscious about the way their own language influences their perception of the world.
The creation, then, of a 'linguistic' ecology which analogously transfers “the study of relationships between organisms and their environment" (Brown, 1995:18) to the level of the language behavior of humans and promotes the study of the relations between language varieties and their geodemosociopolitical contexts may be illuminating f for linguistics, which is still excessively centered on the code. One potential limitation of an ecological approach to language theory is that in theorising the environment and language as similar phenomena, there is a risk of understating the socio-political aspects of language shift and diversity if this relationship is read literally. Crawford warns that using biomorphic metaphors like ecology, survival, death, extinction and genocide uncritically “…can lead us into semantic traps, and these traps have political consequences” (Crawford 1998:155).
In addition, the dynamic conceptualization of the ecosystems restores the temporal dimension to linguistic phenomena, a dimension often neglected by the mainstream approaches of the twentieth century. In other words, believing that languages are natural phenomena that can be saved may serve to promote protectionist or segregation list views about languages and how they are used within societies. It would be absurd, for example, to think that languages could be put in linguistic sanctuaries along with their speakers and protected from the corrupting influences of modernity. Likewise it would be arrogant to believe that speakers of minority or lesser-used languages have a moral obligation to maintain global linguistic diversity in the interests of, among others, speakers of dominant languages. These speakers have no special obligation to English speakers to maintain their language, however they may well see the importance of doing so for themselves or their own community. One risk is that ineffective or inappropriate strategies may be put in place to protect and preserve languages, underplaying the socio-political and socio-symbolic dimensions of language: for example in seeking to preserve a language in folkloric or ceremonial contexts rather than encouraging its use in a diversity of ways (Fettes 1997:12). Similarly, the belief that a language can be ‘preserved’ might conceivably lead to a belief that it is enough simply to record and describe a community language for posterity; that language support work is somehow separate from broader issues of social equity and access; or the idea that vernacular and oral languages are somehow more natural and therefore primitive, than the developed, written language.
In fact, not only success, but the very possibility of effective intervention in favour of the preservation of the linguistic diversity is far more difficult in the case of humans. While, for example, a majority human group may applaud the adoption of policies to preserve animal or plant species in danger of extinction, the same group may object to action in favour of the maintenance of linguistic diversity in areas controlled by the State in which it forms the dominant part. In parallel to the absence of an ethical awareness(however small) in the domain of language preservation, there exists a predominance of ideologies and interests which, instead of favouring linguistic difference, promote homogeneity and the assimilation of groups other than the predominant one. In the case of language, we may find then that majority groups will refuse to help minorities maintain their language. Against this background, action in favour of creating contexts of cultural continuity may be impossible in spite of the active requests of the subordinate group, which, lacking control of its own social space, may find itself condemned to a slow but irreversible process of extinction as a specific linguistic group.
Ultimately, the most fundamental impetus for the protection and maintenance of biocultural diversity can come, not from top-down efforts, but only from the ground-up action of indigenous and other societies worldwide whose languages, cultural identities, and lands are being threatened by global forces. A perceived link between language, cultural identity, and land (rather than an abstract notion such as nature) is common among many indigenous societies (see, e.g., Blythe & Brown 2003). It is no surprise, then, that many of the most explicit efforts to maintain and revitalize linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity jointly are grassroots efforts, whether entirely endogenous or promoted and assisted by national and international organizations. Learning about and from these efforts and making the lessons as widely available as possible is the goal of some of the ongoing work in biocultural diversity (L. Maffi & E.Woodley, Global Source Book on Biocultural Diversity, in preparation).
12. Language as a Resource: Linguistic Diversity and the Human Potential.
But what comes most strongly in mind is the fact that preserving precarious languages is not just about educating future generations, but also about preserving the human potential for creativity and for expressing other valid realities, as ethnographers say. Questions about the consequences of loss of linguistic and cultural diversity have been raised mostly in terms of ethics and social justice, and of maintaining the human heritage from the past--and rightly so. However, when we consider the interrelationships between linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity, we may begin to ask these questions also as questions about the future--as related to the continued viability of humanity on earth. We may ask whether linguistic and cultural diversity and diversification may not share substantive characteristics with biological diversity and diversification, characteristics that are ultimately those of all life on earth. . The relevant issues relate to the adaptive nature of variation in humans (as well as other species), and to the role of language and culture as providers of diversity in humans. Human culture is a powerful adaptation tool, and language at one and the same time enables and conveys much cultural behavior. While not all knowledge, beliefs, and values may be linguistically encoded, language represents the main instrument for humans to elaborate, maintain, develop, and transmit such ideas.
Linguistic diversity is at least the correlate of diversity of adaptational ideas. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that "any reduction of language diversity diminishes the adaptational strength of our species because it lowers the pool of knowledge from which we can draw." It is true that diversity characterizes languages (and cultures) not just with respect to one another, but also internally, with patterns of variation by geographical location, age grade, gender, social status, and a host of other variables. This internal variation combines with the variation ensuing from historical contact among human populations in propelling language and culture change and all manners of innovation. However, as more and more languages and cultural traditions are overwhelmed by more dominant ones and increasing homogeneization ensues, one of the two main motors of change and innovation--the observation of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural difference--breaks down, or is seriously damaged. The end result is a global loss of diversity.
13. From Mono-Linguism to Heteroglossia.
To offer some provisional definitions, heteroglossia refers, first, to the way in which every instance of language use - every utterance - is embedded in a specific set of social circumstances, and second, to the way the meaning of each particular utterance is shaped and influenced by the many-layered context in which it occurs. The Bakhtinian concepts of dialogism and heteroglossia, of the centripetal and centrifugal forces that constantly shape language, and of language's internally stratified and dialogical nature present a challenging set of tasks for the analyst of language-in-use. Rather than feeling overwhelmed, however, the analyst can confront these challenges by defining carefully and specifically her or his motivating questions, level of analysis, and object of study. Just how much context is needed in order to adequately interpret a particular utterance will depend on answers to a variety of questions, Language permeates our lives, and yet most of us take it for granted. The use of language, an activity that can seem so “natural” and effortless, is made possible by extremely complex neural, social and cultural processes .Bakhtin's (1981) notion of heteroglossia as the social stratification of language serves as the starting point for analysis of the different voices than can be heard, read, inserted, deduced, created, repressed, negated, avoided or anticipated when one engages in any way with the interpretation or production of discourse. The effect of heteroglossia can be used in widely different ways by the presentation of the narration, ranging from a “war of languages” (Barthes 1984) to their tautology (zero heteroglossia). Between these poles we find various ways of incorporating intratextual discourses into the narrator’s text in the manner of quotation, as well as various forms of “textual interference” (Schmid 2003: 177–222) or, as Baxtin ([1934/35] 1981: 304) puts it, “hybrid construction,” namely “an utterance that […] contains mixed within it two utterances, two speech manners, two styles, two ‘languages,’ two semantic and axiological belief systems.” In a world with too many voices speaking all at once, a world where syncretism and parodic invention are becoming the rule, not the exception, an urban, multinational world of institutional transience – where American clothes made in Korea are worn by young people in Russia, where everyone’s “roots” are in some degree cut – in such a world it becomes increasingly difficult to attach human identity and meaning to a coherent “culture” or “language” (Ibid.).
Bakhtin is taking the concept of language and deepening it. Instead of seeing language as a fixed method of describing ideas, he calls it a dynamic guide to the social and intellectual characteristics of the grouping (ranging from an individual to an entire society) that uses it. These "contradictions" are an essential part of language. Words can over time, have not only differing but diametrically opposing meanings; understanding the differences of the meanings can be the crux of understanding a work. To further analyze, Bakhtin sees language as a sum of all the parts of a grouping: their location, their interests, their history, their age, their belief systems, and many other characteristics. Bakhtin views language as a system of unitary languages being utilized by individuals. While individuals may be speaking the same unitary language (for example English), the degree to which they use them and the variations they use can be extremely different (Professionally, casually, medically, literary, etc.). Individuals use this unitary language while adding their own "spin" on it. This evolves the one language into a mixture of dialects, slang uses, professionalisms, lingos, etc. However, languages can work despite heteroglossia: "At any given moment of its evolution, language is stratified not only into linguistic dialects...but also...languages of social groups, 'professional' and 'generic' languages, languages of generations and so forth..." (271-272). He does not see "language" as a concrete thing that can be taught to everyone for absolute mutual understanding. Rather, every language is constantly interacting with other languages both within and without people’s heads. A unitary language forms the basis through which people can communicate, but people develop their own versions to speak within their own group. Languages can even "intersect" on the same "plane:"
The notion of heterglossia both dramatically enriches as well as seriously complicates the work of the discourse analyst. The theory somehow promises and presupposes valuable insights, while practical application in analysis can be a real challenge. If traditional anthropology was obsessed with questions of the authenticity and incommensurability between cultural and linguistic traditions, modern anthropology focuses its attention on ‘heteroglossia’. This word was coined by Mikhail Bachtin when analysing literary texts and means “the simultaneous use of different types of discourse or other signs, the tension that is created between them and the conflicting relationship that revolve within a text” (Ivanov 2001, p. 107). But in modern social sciences the idea is removed from the field of pure textual analysis to describe the interaction between “voices” and discourses that in many parts of the world inextricably intertwine in everyday communication. Hidden within essentialist ideology for two centuries, heteroglossia seems to break out and come to the fore once again in the age of globalisation.
This in no way means that linguistic behaviours cease to be important elements of assertions of identity and to be interpreted and made use of in this way by social actors. However, “identity” should not be understood in the essentialist sense but in a processual sense: an incessant structure in which the actors, from various social levels, behave strategically using the cultural and linguistic “raw material” that is available to them. In globalised society languages, together with religion, are the main instruments to construct and represent an identity for themselves and for others. But, as has been said, this occurs on a variety of levels that in daily use may change continually. The example of a citizen that speaks one single language, that identifies him or her as a member of one single community or nation, is increasingly unlikely. In Europe, which is in the cradle of the Nation-States, the ideal model partly holds fast but here too it is undermined by phenomena that make the language question very much more complex.
Where Bakhtin seems to distinguish between monologized and double-voiced discourses, I would like to argue that no discourse can ever be completely and inherently monological. It is the analyst who chooses the scale of the analysis and allows minimal or maximal consideration for form and context. Opening up to a larger scale can lead to a larger degree of reaccentuation, which forces us to consider more complex social-ideological systems of genres and their heteroglossic relations.We could not be further from the idea of those closed and isolated languages that are so exclusive as to cause methods of thinking that cannot be measured - the great obsession of classical anthropology, which lies at the very heart of the ambiguous problem of linguistic relativism.
Verbal discourse is a social phenomenon. Form and content in discourse operate as one, and when contextualised lead to the formation of speech genres. Genres are constitutive of certain configurations of language use linked to particular social groups and contexts, which leads us back to the notion of social heteroglossia .At this point however the re-examination of the traditional model of relationships between language, culture and identity still lacks one dimension, what can be generally called politics. When we talk about actors and social groups that freely and creatively formulate strategies of identifying structures, and are able to move confidently in a context of heteroglossia, it should not be thought that all this occurs in a sort of political vacuum– like an innocent game between competitors that all start from the same level. On the contrary, the starting points of the “game” are precisely the great, dramatic inequalities in the distribution of recourses (economic and cultural) and of power that characterise modern life, in international relations as in those within individual societies. The formulation of the differences arises from this very fundamental asymmetry of relationships. This means that all politics of difference take place in the confrontation between two aspects that cannot be separated, like the two faces of a coin. In other words, difference, in linguistics too, is on the one hand asserts itself like a marker of belonging, often at least implicitly regarded as being exclusive and superior. On the other hand, it is emphasised as a stigma that marks the ‘others’, the bearers of a lower status. Starting off with the Greeks who called foreigners with no knowledge of Greek ‘barbarians’, the construction of downgrading markers according to linguistic use is a simple widespread cultural mechanism. As has already been said, one only has to think of how common jokes and witticisms are in modern societies about ‘how others speak’ - the lower classes, urban dwelling peasants, immigrants and so forth. Sarcasm that is anything but innocent, that should be understood in the light of what Pierre Bourdieu called strategies of distinction.
A key method of linguistic analysis when considering issues of identity and conflicts of values between different communities or 'social voices of heteroglossia' is to look for distinctive semantic patterns of evaluations .If therefore linguistic peculiarity has never been a cognitive prison, neither has it always been a purely free choice. For those belonging to the lower classes, identity is often not a choice but an imposition. But while linguistic use reflects a lower class, it may at the same time represent an element of ‘rebellion’ against the rules of the dominant classes. In other words, what begins as a stigma, may end up by being proudly asserted in the area of oppositive strategies (or ‘tactics’ of popular culture where the anti-hegemonic resistance is implicit and occasional, as those described by Michel de Certeau; see de Certeau 1990). A case that has been often studied in this area is for example the Afro-American English and its relations with the official language of the United States; but also the relations between Italian and its various dialects or regional varieties has very interesting complex aspects, and is extremely full of connotations with a political meaning.
Finally, if there is a common feature to the great complexities of linguistic and cultural relations in modern Europe and the world, it consists in the constant tension between universal codes of communication and local or vernacular forms of speech (and of life). Long considered a fundamentally human rule, mono-linguism today definitely seems to be an exception.
14. Conclusion.
We live in a world that becomes more interconnected every day. Language is a large part of this interconnection because it is the primary means for communication. Knowing more than one language, or being bilingual, not only connects you to your culture and family heritage, it also provides cognitive benefits. In as much as we support cultural variety and identity, we recognize the enormous value that a diversity of languages has to this effect. A language barrier is the most efficient self-defense of any independent community against wholesale US cultural imperialism. English may serve the purpose of communication between different cultures. But of what pertains to the internal aspects of a culture, as much as possible should be in a language of its own. And not just in a spoken language of its own, but if possible also in a writing system of its own.
Actually, because not every language is equally suited to express certain ideas, the ideologies that make one culture different from another, are, to a certain extend, a direct consequence of the fact that a different language is spoken and written. For in the same way in which our economic interests form our opinions, so a language has its own dynamics of creating ideas. That East Asia is the culturally most diverse corner of the world is in direct co-relation to the presence of more different languages and writing systems than anywhere else. Its rich flora of diverse cultures need to be preserved or else we all will lose identity, soul, and will become no more than 21st-century colonies—zombies or caricatures.
Stronger emphasis needs to be placed on embracing cultural diversity by acknowledging that language and culture promote other forms of dialogue and can, thus, enhance social inclusion in plural societies. Stakeholders and civil society groups must be invited to contribute to policy-making. ECMI’s focus is on obstacles to participation in political and public life that are based on language barriers, and on how governments can help to overcome such obstacles by developing appropriate public policies. For instance, governments can do so by providing educational services in the minority language at the national, regional and local levels, by offering assistance to media outlets that broadcast in minority languages, by supporting efforts by speakers of minority languages to learn the state’s language and by encouraging the employment of members of minority groups in administrative bodies.
Bibliography
Amery, R(1988). Warrabarna Karuna ! Reclaiming Aboriginal languages from written historical sources: Karuna case study, unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Linguistics, University of Adelaide.
Andersen, A.-M. (1997): Interkulturelle Wirtschaftskommunikation in Europa. Deutschland - Dänemark. Tostedt: Attikon.
Arab Human Development Report 2002, Creating Opportunities for Future Generation, UNDP, Jordan.
ar Mogn, O. and D. Hicks (2003). Breton: The Breton Language in Education inFrance 2nd Edition. Leeuwarden, Mercator Education:52
Austin,J. L. (1962): Aboriginal Languages of Australia. Atlas of languages. B. Comrie, S.Matthews and M. Polinsky. Sydney, ABC Book
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991), Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bach, Svend (1997): "Capitoli per una grammatica contrastiva di quattro lingue romanze: Morfosintassi del verbo, le preposizioni, le congiunzioni", (Pré)publications 158-159, 3-123.
Bach, Svend (2002): "Materiali per una grammatica contrastiva di quattro lingue romanze: Ortografia e pronuncia", (Pré)publications 188, 3-61.
Bakker, Peter, Yaron Matras & Hristo Kyuchukov (eds.)(1997): The Typology and Dialectology of Romani, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Barthes([1984] 1986). The Rustle of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Baxtin, Mixail (Bakhtin, Mikhail) ([1934/35] 1981). “Discourse in the novel.” M. M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: U of Texas P, 259–422.
Becker-Christistensen, Christian & Peter Widell (2003): Politikens Nudansk Grammatik, Politikens Forlag, København.
Bohn, Ocke-Schwen (2004a): ”How to organize a fairly large vowel inventory: The vowels of Fering (North Frisian)”, Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34, 161-173.
Bærentzen, Per (1992): "Die deutsche Wortstellung in kontrastiver Sicht", Deutsche Sprache 20, 111-126.
Bucholtz, M. & Trechter, S. (Eds). (2001). White Noise: Bringing Language into Whiteness Studies. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11, (1): 1-21.
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2004). Language and Identity. In Duranti (Ed). A Conmpanion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell Companions to Anthropology. UCLA, CA
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London,Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex'. London,Routledge.
Change in Continuity, Concepts and Tools for a Cultural Approach to Development ( 2000), UNESCO Publishing.
Colebrook, C (2002). Understanding Deleuze. Sydney., Allen & Unwin
Crawford, James. (2008). Advocating for English Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Crystal, David. 2000. Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University PresCummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
De Certeau, M., L’invention au quotidien. Tome 1 : L’art de faire, Paris, Gallimard, 1990
Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism andSchizophrenia. London, Continuum.
Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari (1989). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press
Deleuze, G. and C. Parnet (2002). Dialogues II. New York, Columbia UniversityPress
Errington, J. Joseph, 2001. Colonial Linguistics Annual Review of Anthropology 30 : 19-39.
Fill, & Mühlhäusler, Peter (eds). The Ecolinguistic Reader. Language, ecology and environment. London & New York: Continuum.
FISHMAN, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Fuery, P. (1995). Theories of Desire. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press
Gegeo, D. & Watson – Gegeo, K. (1999). “Adult Education, Language Change and Issues of Identity and Authenticity in Kwara ‘ae (Solomon Islands)”. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly 30,1: 22-36.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture, New York: Doubleday.
Harmon, David. 2002. In light of our differences. How diversity in nature and culture makes us human. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Harmon D, Maffi L. 2002. Are linguistic and biological diversity linked? Conserv. Biol. Pract.
3(1):26–27
Haugen, E. (1972). The Ecology of Language. Stanford, Stanford University Press
Hofstede, G. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent Grammar. The New Psychology of Language. M.Tomasello. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Ivanov, V., “Heteroglossia”, in A. Duranti (ed.), Key Words in Language and Culture, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 107-10.
J. Gumperz , S. Levinson, 1996.. Rethinking Linguistic Relatively, Cambridge, 1996 p.2
Jørgensen, Henrik (2000): Studien zur Morphologie und Syntax der festlandskandinavischen Personalpronomina, Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Århus.
Keniston, Kenneth, ( 2000), Language, Power and Software, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://web.mit.edu/kken/public/papers3.html
Leontovich, Andreamon, (1997), Does Internet Really Breed Cultural Imperialism? Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.teleport.com/~leontova/cippaper.htm
Maffi, Luisa ed. 2001. On biocultural diversity. Linking language, knowledge, and the environment. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Makoni, Sinfree1998. In the beginning was the missionaries’ word: The European invention of an African language. The case of Shona in Zimbabwe. In: Kwesi Prah (ed.), Between Distinction and Extinction: The Harmonization and Standardization of Languages, 157–164. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand Press. Makoni, Sinfree and Alistair Pennycook (eds.)
McGregor, William (2002): Verb classification in Australian languages, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
McGregor, William (1997): Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and LinguisticImperialism in the Pacific Region. London, Routledge.
Mühlhäusler, P. (2000). Language planning and language ecology . Current issue in Language Planning, 1(3), 306-307.
Mühlhäusler, P. (2001). Ecologists, linguistic diversity, ecology diversity. In L.Maffi (Ed). On bioculture diversity: Linking language, knowledge and environment .PP 31-42. London. Continuum.
Martinez, G. (2006). Mexican Americans and Language. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Nettle, Daniel, and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices. The extinction of the world's languages. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Web of Science® Times Cited: 12
Norton, Bonny. (2000). Identity and Language Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Our Creative Diversity Report (1995). The Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development, entitled “Our Creative Diversity Report” was first released in November, 1995
Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. New York, Longman
Pennycook, A. (2004). "Performativity and Language Studies." Critical Inquiry inLanguage Studies 1(1): 1-26.
Pierce, B.N. (1995). Social Identity, investment and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-13.
Posey, Darrell (ed.) (1999). Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. New York: UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) & Leiden: Intermediate Technologies, Leiden University).
Reagan, T. (2004). "Objectification, positivism and language studies: Areconsideration." Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 1 (1): 41-60.
Rijkhoff, Jan (2002): “On the interaction of Linguistic Typology and Functional Grammar”. Functions of Language 9.2, 209–237.
Rijkhoff, Jan (2003): “When can a language have nouns and verbs?”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 35, 7-38.
Rijkhoff, Jan (2004): The Noun Phrase (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory), Oxford University Press, Oxford (ny og udvidet udgave).
Ricento, T. (2006). Theoretical Perspectives in Language Policy. An Introduction toLanguage Policy.
Roland Barthes, "Science versus Literature", in Newton (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory, pp. 140-44; 142).
Romaine, Suzanne. forthcoming b. Biodiversity, linguistic diversity, and poverty – some global patterns and missing links. Language and poverty, ed. by WayneHarbert, SallyMcConnell-Ginet, Amanda J.Miller, and JohnWhitman. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sanchez, Sylvia. (1999). Issues of Language and Culture Impacting the Early Care of Young Latino Children. NCCIC Publications.
Schmid, Wolf (2003). Narratologija. Мoskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj literatury.
Sen, Amartya, ( 1998), Culture, Freedom and Independence, Culture and Indigenous Rights, World Culture Report, Creativity and Markets, UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
Servaes J. (ed) @002. Approaches to developments
SKUTNABB-KANGAS, Tove. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education – or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, Maffi, Luisa and Harmon, Dave (2003). Sharing A World of Difference. The Earth’s Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO, Terralingua, and World Wide Fund for Nature. 56 pp. (ISBN UNESCO 92-3-103917-2).
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2002). Language Policies and Education: the role of education in destroying or supporting the world's linguistic diversity. Keynote Address at the World Congress on Language Policies, 16-20 April 2002, organized by the Linguapax Institute in co-operation with the Government of Catalonia, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. The English version can be found at http://www.linguapax.org/congres/plenaries/skutnabb.html.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2004). ""Do Not Cut My Tongue, Let Me Live and Die With My Language." A comment on English and other languages in relation to linguistic human rights." Journal of Language, Identity and Education3(2): 127-135
Somerville MA, Rapport DJ. 2000. Transdisciplinarity: ReCreating Integrated Knowledge. Oxford: EOLLS
Togeby, Ole (2003): Fungerer denne sætning? Funktionel dansk sproglære, Gads Forlag, Copenhagen.
Vetter, E. (1999). Plus de Breton: Conflict linguistique en Bretagne rurale. Kergluez,An Here
Vikner, Sten (2005): "Immobile Complex Verbs in Germanic ". Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8.1-2, 83-115.
Vikner, Sten (2001): "Verb Movement Variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory". Habilitationschrift, Universität Tübingen.
Vikner, Sten (2004): "Nødvendigheden af en formel tilgang til sprogvidenskab", Magasinet Humaniora 2004.2, 12-16.
W. Davis, 'Vanishing Cultures', in National Geographic, vol. 196, no. 2, pp. 62-89, 1999
Webster, Frank, and Robins, Kevin, (2002), Prospects of a Virtual Culture,Science As Culture, Volume 11, Number 2.
Whiteley, P. (2003). "Do "Language Rights" Serve Indigenous Interests? Some Hopiand Other Queries." American Anthropoloogist 105 (4): 712-722
Yadava, Y.P. and Mark Turin.2007. “Indigenous Languages of Nepal: a Critical Analysis of Linguistic situation and Contemporary Issues. In Yadava and Bajracharya eds. IndigenousLanguages of Nepal: Situation, Policy Planning and Coordination, Kathmandu: NFDIN
Vineet Kaul
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The world is becoming more and more intricately multidimensional, both culturally and linguistically. Language is so deeply embedded in culture that cultural identity is defined to a great extent in terms of language. This paper will explore the interconnectedness of language and culture, and how language and culture impact upon one’s identity. This paper addresses some of the key problems of theoretical linguistics, crosscutting the synchronic and diachronic dimensions, such as the nature of linguistic variation, the validity of parametric approaches and the possible alternatives, the application of biological models to the study of language evolution, language transmission and language classification, the role of acquisitional mechanisms in language change, the computational modeling of linguistic diversity, the interplay between different modules of linguistic knowledge in creating the space of linguistic variation.
The paper also presents a review of challenges around the crucial theoretical, conceptual, empirical and practical aspects of linguistic diversity and cultural identity. Language.. Based on this premise, the loss of one’s language contributes to the loss of one’s culture. This is the reason it is essential to maintain one’s linguistic integrity in order to protect one’s cultural identity. It will first define the three constructs – language, culture and identity. This will be followed by an overview of the work of social theorists and educationists. Criticism of essentialist ideas of identity focuses on a variety of levels of linguistic identity in modern societies whose conflicting and complex relationships are sometimes defined by the concept of heteroglossia.
The paper also discusses certain covert arguments and fallacies without shying away from addressing the underlying political, linguistic, psycho-social, relational and communicative dimensions of the issue.
Keywords: linguistic diversity, cultural identity, linguistic integrity, heritage, communication, heteroglossia.
1. Introduction
A language is a part of a culture and a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the significance of either language or culture.’ In a word, culture and language are inseparable. I will start by observing that 20th century anthropological thought that has emphasised the bijective relationship between language and culture. On the one hand culture affects and defines linguistic uses, this being the area covered by the discipline generally known as ‘socio-linguistics’. On the other hand it is language that influences and shapes culture itself, this idea being associated with the label of ‘linguistic relativism’. Language is used to express and sustain culture and cultural associations that exist in a given society. Different ideas result from the use of different languages within a culture.
To some people, language is identity. They feel that language is so important to cultural identity that peoples, governments, and organizations around the world use many different strategies to affirm their language in a globalizing world. An important anthropological tradition of thought holds that this relationship is a bijective one. While on the one hand culture shapes languages, on the other hand it is also formed by them. That is to say those linguistic differences are the basis of important peculiarities of cultures and the world visions that support them. This view, usually called linguistic relativism, completely turns its back on both semantic realism and cognitive universalism, in order to argue: a) that linguistic uses determine perceptive and cognitive structures and not vice versa, and b) that such linguistic uses and relative semantic systems are basically incommensurable. A fundamental difference in the identification of meanings on the cross-cultural level follows from this: the inextricable relationship of language, thought and culture (J. Gumperz , S. Levinson, 1996.) suggests considering each language as being associated with a specific distinct world vision.
Societal life in the 21st century is global, innovative and adventurous. The infusion of people from countries all over the world forces societal members to examine the dimensions of ethnicity. Culture and language are intertwined. Cultural diversity, teaches people to empathize with and be more sensitive to the needs of others; it helps society recognize and become more accepting of persons from diverse backgrounds. Linguistic diversity is the ability to function in one or more languages other than one's own native language. The ability to connect and interact with others from different cultures enhances our society by enabling people to share knowledge and gain greater appreciation of other ethnicities. Culture is transmitted and reproduced through communication, i.e. through language. As a logical consequence, a language is the privileged medium of a culture. Language and Culture Diversity starts from the premise that language diversity is the core component of cultural diversity, as it enables the transmission of fundamental aspects of different cultures to succeeding generations and the interaction of communities belonging to different cultural backgrounds. Language and culture are those elements that have very much reflected the values and particularities of different societies, since they are part of the human intangible heritage.
Cultural and linguistic diversity, while stimulating respect for cultural identity, traditions and religions, is essential to the development of an Information Society based on the dialogue among cultures and regional and international cooperation. Understanding and valuing cultural diversity are the keys to countering racism. All individuals must feel free to explore the uniqueness of their culture and identity while developing understandings of the cultural diversity that exists in the world around them. Denying cultural expression means limiting the expression of unique perspectives on life and the transmission of knowledge from generation to generation. Whatever, accepting the cultural variability of the language, the problem that anthropology raises regards the degree of this variability, whether language depends partly on the context of a specific culture or whether on the other hand it is also linked to universal type cognitive structures that do not vary according to the context. How far, then, are linguistic differences simply variations of a universal meta-language? And, on the other hand, how far does it concern differences that are somewhat incommensurable? This problem has been extremely thoroughly examined in the field of cross-cultural semantics. What happens when we have to translate a language that is deeply rooted in a culture that is anthropologically very different from our own?
2. Language and Cultural Identity
Language and identity are inseparably associated with each other. While language is the medium used by individuals to negotiate a sense of self in different contexts (Pierce, 1995; Norton, 2000), identity construction is a social and cultural process which is accomplished through discursive practices. Therefore, the ability to use a specific language in a specific context influences the development of cultural identity (Trechter & Bucholtz, 2001) by creating a tension between the discourse of the dominant culture and the discourse of the subculture of second language speakers. In other words, the manner in which language, in this case English, is used determines to which social group individuals are allowed entrance. Those who speak English will be admitted to social groups with greater amounts of social and political power than those who do not (Fairclough, 2001). When the English language learner’s (ELLs) first language is devalued and the language of the socially and politically dominant society is imposed on all of the students in schools, the ELL’s identity is threatened, and inequitable social relationships between ELLs and native speakers of the dominant language are produced (Pierce, 1995).
Ignoring or omitting the cultural aspects of the language has been a frequently debated topic in the world of education. According to the results of many researches, it is found out that the issue of failing to expose the students to the cultures of the languages that they are learning makes foreign language education more difficult and less interesting for the students. Besides, these researches prove that including cultural aspects into the foreign language curriculum acknowledges students about the other cultures and enables them to develop empathy towards foreigners. Furthermore, it is also proven that enhancing the language curriculum with the cultural aspects makes language learning more sense and much easier for the learners, especially for the primary school students and for those who have never taken any foreign language courses before. For a long time, educators in many countries have understood the importance of teaching cultural information to the foreign language students and therefore, they included in these information in their curriculum.
It is widely believed that there is a natural connection between the language spoken by members of a social group and that group’s identity. Throughout history, many cultures and races have been destroyed or forced to change by other cultures and races. Until recently, however, many other countries and races have been able to maintain their cultural and racial identities, more or less protected by borders. As Cummins (1996) notes, the unequal relation of power between dominant and minority languages can serve to constrain multiple identities that minority language speakers can negotiate at school and in society. Moreover, because their culture is devalued and their language is not supported through primary language instruction, many second-language-speakers who attend American schools experience the pressure of a predominant English only ideology and lose their language and culture altogether (Norton, 2000). The specific measures to promote the use of regional or minority languages in public life cover the areas of education, justice, administrative authorities and public services, media, cultural activities and facilities, economic and social spheres, and transfrontier exchanges. In sum, the imposition of the predominant English-Only ideology and the devaluation of the ELL’s language and culture force second language speakers to lose their heritage language and native culture. As a consequence, they fail to develop both a strong sense of identity and the cognitive basis for future learning (Sánchez, 1999). Bucholtz and Hall (2004) characterize language as “the most flexible and pervasive symbolic resource” (p. 369) that is at the center of the cultural reproduction of identity. The cultural identity associated with the politically, economically, and socially dominant Western European-American culture is seen as the norm and that to which other social groups in the United States should aspire (Martinez, 2006).
Although it appears innocuous, the dominant Western European- American group possesses pervasive and covert power. For example, the English-Only ideology is seen as a norm in all public schools and institutions. Students are viewed as having adequate knowledge only if they know English. It is also understood that English is the language which should be used in all instructional situations. Moreover, in this time of accountability, the results of mandated, standardized assessments are only valued if they are administered in English. These practices not only send the message that other languages and cultures are not valued in schools, but they also limit English language learners’ opportunities for school success (Crawford, 2008).
From a critical theory perspective, Watson-Gegeo, and Gegeo (1999) explain that language is central to cultural ways of thinking. They argue that “language is essential to identity, authenticity, cultural survival and people’s learning and thinking processes” (p.25). This concept is manifested when English language learners in most American schools must recreate knowledge through a second language, thereby losing their personal cultural identity and their authentication of self. When the link between language, cultural identity, and ways of thinking limit access to knowledge, second-language-learners’ opportunities for literacy development are diminished.
Language is intrinsically related to culture and the world is becoming more and more intricately multidimensional, both culturally and linguistically. Language is so deeply embedded in culture that cultural identity is defined to a great extent in terms of language. Based on this premise, the loss of one's language contributes to the loss of one's culture. Local languages are the repositories of traditional knowledge, yet they are vanishing fast under the pressure of global forces that are also threatening biological and cultural diversity. For the sake of continuity of the diversity of life on earth, we must recognize the role of language in the creation, transmission and perpetuation of local knowledge and cultural behaviors, and accord indigenous and minority languages the same protection and chances for survival as are beginning to be granted to the traditional cultures they sustain. Whatever, these anthropological observations support the linguistic principle of indexicality, according to which the meaning of words or expressions is always determined by the specific, concrete context of the social transactions in which the linguistic practices take place.
Linguistic diversity is closely related to ecological and cultural diversity. The concept of ecosystem is guided by the principle that living entities exist through a network of interrelationships. The domains of biological, linguistic and cultural diversities hold a mutually reinforcing relationship. Human success in inhabiting the earth has been due to human ability to develop diverse cultures and languages which suit all kinds of environments. Now it may be argued that if diversity is a prerequisite to successful humanity then the preservation of linguistic diversity is crucial to humanity. Crystal (2000: 34) argues that “if the development of multiple cultures is so important then the role of languages becomes critical, for cultures are chiefly transmitted through spoken and written languages.” In the powerfully written Vanishing Voices, Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine make an explicit link between language survival and environment issues: the extinction of languages is part of the larger picture of near-total collapse of the worldwide ecosystem (as cited in Yadava and Turin (2007)).
Cultural revitalization is one way for a nation or a people to keep their cultural identity from being absorbed into the “industrial-strength blender” of globalization. The concept of cultural identity, intimately connected with those of cultural diversity, and multiculturalism, has been progressively recognized within the vast category of human rights and more specifically, of cultural rights, in the scientific environment and in the practical ones, as well as in the common language. This could happen also in reaction to the phenomenon of globlisation- not only in economic sense – which on the contrary, aims to build a dominant culture and a consequent homologation. This fact threatens the maintenance of the plurality of cultures.
Could increasing of cultural understanding be the most needed and effective tool for better tolerance and support of language diversity and minorities? Are not the decrease of biodiversity and the oppression of a small human being coming from the same root? If we knew ourselves better and had more holistic and cross-cultural approach to the reality, then maybe we were better equipped for both sustainable development and global peace. That cultural diversity has become a political challenge throughout the world stems from a complex set of factors. One of the major factors of cultural diversification in various societies is globalization. The intensified flow of capital, post-Fordist modes of production and the global spread of Western consumer culture have prompted a variety of social movements that emphasize their own ethnic, linguistic or religious distinctiveness. The emergence of transnational migrant networks, facilitated by growing inequalities in the capitalist world-system as well as by new technologies of transport and electronic communication, is another prominent aspect of such cultural diversification. What all these new social movements have in common, whether based on ethnicity, language or religion, is that they demand full and equal inclusion in society, while claiming the recognition of their particularistic identities in the public sphere. They criticize the assumption of congruence between political unity and cultural homogeneity which was characteristic of the classic model of the nation-state, and thereby contribute to its far-reaching institutional transformation.
Cultural and linguistic diversity is a feature of most nations today as people from different groups live together as a consequence of historical events and human migrations. Within multilingual societies, the maintenance of the languages of the various ethnic and cultural groups is critical for the preservation of cultural heritage and identity. The loss of language means the loss of culture and identity. In many societies throughout history, the suppression of the languages of minority groups has been used as a deliberate policy in order to suppress those minority cultures. As a result a large number of the world's languages have been lost with the processes of colonisation and migration. It has been estimated that approximately 10,000 spoken languages have existed. Today, only about 6,000 languages are still spoken and many of these are not being taught to children. More than half of these languages are unlikely to survive the next century (W. Davis, 'Vanishing Cultures', in National Geographic, vol. 196, no. 2, pp. 62-89, 1999)
India, the largest democracy, is arguably one of the most culturally diverse nations. Although traditionally nations have shared a common ethnicity, religion, language and history, India is a multiethnic, multi-religious, multicultural and multilingual nation of more than one billion people with a history of assimilating various cultural practices from conquering civilizations. . At least 800 different languages and 2000 dialects have been identified in India. The Central government of India uses Hindi and English languages as the official language of communication. India has 23 official languages which are used in different states. Among them, Hindi has been conferred the status of "National Language". India also has a long heritage of some classical languages like Pali and Sanskrit.
Since her independence, just over sixty four years ago, India has had to cope with the internal politics of diversity most particularly concerning language status and use. Thus India is a useful microcosm to analyze the politics of cultural diversity and the ability of states to have an influence on internal and external pressures that impact diversity. Despite India’s attempt to legislate linguistic diversity domestically and promote a “national” identity through the promotion of one particular language, the decreasing diversity of Indian culture as measured through the survival and utility of her languages serves as a warning for the success of the Convention on Cultural Diversity. For several millennia India has been a multilingual, multicultural and multiethnic country. With a population of more than 1 billion, comprising around 250 languages (2001 census) spread over 28 states and 7 union territories; India occupies a distinctly unique position in the cultural, linguistic and ethnic landscape in the world. There is no single state in the country which is completely monolingual, not a single major modern Indian language whose speakers do not employ more than one code and not a single speech-community which has less than at least three distinct linguistic codes in its verbal repertoire. The 22 regional languages recognized by the Indian Constitution enjoy the patronage of the State and lawmakers at the cost of the rest of languages and their speakers.
Further adding complexity to the Indian linguistic scenario is the recent recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) Report 2006 which stress the English language as both a compulsory language and as a medium of instruction. The historical legacy repeats itself in a new avatar which reinforces the ‘appropriateness’ of English in India. In this context, not only do the issues of linguistic and cultural diversity and the situation of Indian languages and especially ‘minority’ languages need to be addressed, but the question of identity and identity formation also needs to be problematized. For the discourse of identity formation located in a particular space is indicative of ideology which is exclusionary and forms a cultural practice which is both restrictive and productive.
3. Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Diversity
From the earliest philosophers to modern neuroscientists, researchers from a wide range of disciplines have explored a diverse range of issues concerning the human capacity for language and the diversity of the world's languages. Linguists work at the intersection of these issues and define linguistics as the science of language and languages. During the last 150 years, linguists have developed a variety of theoretical paradigms to describe and explain language history, dialect variation, cross-cultural similarities and differences, the neurological processing and production of language, and the evolutionary emergence of language. The many different theoretical approaches to linguistics two major ones of which are: (1) formal linguistics and (2) functional linguistics have in common that they try to give linguistic phenomena a theoretical foundation, in particular those phenomena that vary between languages. Such theoretical research would be rather uninteresting if it lacked solid empirical foundation, based on a series of different languages (Bach 1997, 2002, Bakker et al. 1997, Becker-Christiansen & Widell 2003, Bohn 2004a, Bærentzen 1992, McGregor 2002, Rijkhoff 2003, 2004, Vikner 2005). Such empirical investigations, i.e. research in linguistic typology, make up the back bone of comparative linguistics, as they attempt to establish which types of languages exist and why some are more widespread than others.
In formal Linguistics the explicit theoretical approaches may be grouped into formal and functional linguistics. In formal linguistics, it is assumed that only part of the linguistic knowledge of human beings is acquired and that another part of this knowledge is innate. In other words, certain aspects of language are the way they are because the human brain is the way it is. Therefore such theories also have an interesting explanation to offer as to why certain characteristics do not vary between languages: Universal features and lack of variation may be derived from the innate part of the linguistic knowledge of human beings (Vikner 2001, 2004).
And functional linguistics attaches crucial importance to the communicative function of language. The function of linguistic entities is to communicate a content (which does not necessarily exclude that they also have non-communicative functions). The fundamental idea is therefore that language research must be carried out in the light of what we know about how consciousness handles other kinds of impressions from the outside world and that consideration for the possibilities of others to understand what is said plays a crucial role for linguistic form. In other words, functional linguistics is concerned with the connection between linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive processes and with the communicative function of language (Jørgensen 2000, McGregor 1997, Rijkhoff 2002, Togeby 2003).
Our linguistic scientific language enterprise depends on the multiplicity of languages and the knowledge of linguistic diversity. Similarly, our understanding of linguistic typology and our ability to classify languages accurately and reconstruct proto-form depends on the availability of a wide array of languages. There was a time when linguistics was inextricably tied up with the study of non-written, non-western languages, but this is not the case today. The morphosyntactic diversity of human languages raises problems for many commonly held theoretical assumptions. Since the 1990s there has been a developing concern that global linguistic diversity is diminishing and many languages are in danger of dying (Crystal 2000). Equally, there is an acknowledgement that many smaller languages in the world are directly or indirectly under threat from the growing rise and power of dominant languages such as English. It is argued both that minority and lesser-used languages are important elements of cultural identity for many people and are also of enormous intrinsic value to humanity as a whole, since they are the primary repositories of human culture and knowledge (Fishman 1991; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). Consequently there is a growing sense that humanity has an obligation to protect and support languages and many initiatives have been undertaken to protect, strengthen, safeguard or promote languages as elements of this diversity. Literacy has obvious advantages, but it also instills stilted and unnatural patterns into people's speech and helps freeze languages in time, creating grammatical and lexical fossils.
The debate over linguistic diversity and the support for minority or lesser-used languages occurs in a variety of contexts and domains. Diversity is of significant interest where many languages, both official and stateless, are spoken within the broader geo-political and socio-cultural context of developed, late-capitalist economies, and notably within institutions. This geo-political aspect is also evident in many post-colonial contexts, particularly in South Asia and Africa, where language has become an important feature in debates over national identity, political empowerment and cultural representation (Makoni 1998; Errington 2001). In such environments debates over linguistic diversity often occur on complex and difficult terrains, both masking and revealing deeper issues of cultural difference, social inequity and political empowerment. This occurs for example, in the way in which colonial languages such as English and French can serve both as empowering and disempowering forces in the ways they promote development but regulate privilege in the elite classes who have access to education (Pennycook 1994). In Asia and Africa, like the Pacific, the debate over linguistic diversity is also informed by an awareness that these are the parts of the world with the highest rates of linguistic diversity, but that many of these languages are spoken by relatively few people and whose socio-cultural environments are in many cases vulnerable (Mühlhäusler 1996). Whether linguistic practices are based on universal cognitive structures or not, anthropology and the social sciences are deeply concerned with their rich variety for a further reason: language and communication are the main criteria used to describe the differences between human groups. Indeed, it is by referring to linguistic diversities, over and above other cultural elements, that the members of a community identify themselves and are identified by others. In other words, language is a powerful instrument of identity and belonging.
The preservation of linguistic diversity has become a major concern to many researchers, politicians and leaders of linguistic communities. In other circumstances diversity is seen as a question of reviving languages or of performing remedial work on languages that have lost significant numbers of their speakers. This includes the Reversing Language Shift of Joshua Fishman (1991) as well as the work of a number of linguists, including Rob Amery, in Indigenous Australian, North American, and other environments (Amery 1988; Schmidt 1993; Lo Bianco and Rhydwen 2001). In many of these latter cases, such practices involve the documentation of languages that are considered moribund and are unlikely to continue to be spoken in the future.
The theoretical and epistemological terrain of linguistic diversity is therefore extremely complex. It cuts across issues of power and representation, culture, social identity, geography and politics. Language and linguistic diversity, therefore, are never issues that appear in isolation from a broader geo-political context. Because of this, the promotion of languages, as well as of linguistic diversity more generally, is never a neutral act: it is itself always political since it represents a desire to intervene to change the language practices in some way, for particular purposes (Ricento2006).
There are many ways of approaching the issue of linguistic diversity and the promotion of minority or lesser-used languages. Simply put, language represents different things to different people: for some it is an instrument of communication (Bloomfield 1958), for others an intrinsic and affective marker of identity (Skutnabb-Kangas 2004), a field of symbolic power (Bourdieu 1991), or a secret to be guarded (Whiteley 2003:717). The choice of metaphor for describing language contact and shift illustrates the diversity of ways of conceptualising the issue: ‘language safeguarding’, ‘linguistic conflict’, ‘language obsolescence’ and ‘linguicide’ have all been used to describe the situation but from very different theoretical, and political, perspectives (Ar Mogn (2002), Vetter (1999), Jones (1996) and Breton(2001) respectively). Clearly the framework, or approach, that is chosen reflects the specific perspectives of language advocates, but it also serves to reinforce ideas and theories about what language is and how it works in society. For example, employing a rights-based approach to conceptualise language support will most likely lead to specific recommendations for action, whilst seeing language diversity as a question of linguistic conflict, might lead to very different responses.
In order to cover the complexity of this epistemological terrain, it is possible to identify a number of broad approaches within which issues of linguistic diversity and the promotion of minority or less-used languages are frequently contextualised. These approaches to linguistic diversity overlap interject and at times contradict each other and are by no means comprehensive, but they do serve to illustrate the breadth of approaches and contexts within which issues of linguistic diversity are located. They are: an instrumentalist approach; an ethno -cultural approach; an ecological approach; an ethical approach; an economic approach; a political approach; and a post-structural approach. In identifying and discussing these approaches, my intention is not to divide linguistic activism into discrete, classificatory and inevitably somewhat arbitrary subsets, but rather to explore some of the more common ways diversity is articulated within the literature.
There are several main reasons for exploring diversity in this way. Firstly it serves as a kind of sociolinguistic literature review as it relates to language activism on a theoretical level. Secondly, it provides a way of exploring a number of significant similarities and differences between approaches. Different approaches will inevitably lead to different readings of issues relating to linguistic diversity, that in turn may affect the ways in which linguists, activists and speakers respond to these issues; but there is also the question of to what extent all of these approaches may be informed by broader epistemological and meta-discursive contexts (Bauman and Briggs 2003).The third purpose in exploring diversity through an analysis of these approaches is therefore to begin to identify the epistemologies and theories of language informing activists and advocates of linguistic diversity and minority or lesser-used languages. In this sense then, the paradigms people use to conceptualise and articulate issues of linguistic diversity broadly reflect two things: firstly, the theoretical or epistemological background of the language activist – the way they theorise and understand language, and secondly, the way they prioritise the different functional and symbolic roles of language within the context of their activism.
4. A Post-Structural Approach
Structuralism as a concept is grand, controversial and elusive. Structuralism has emerged from linguistics and in literature it finds an object which has itself emerged from language. Post-structuralism offers a way of studying how knowledge is produced and critiques structuralist premises. It argues that because history and culture condition the study of underlying structures, both are subject to biases and misinterpretations. A post-structuralist approach argues that to understand an object (e.g., a text), it is necessary to study both the object itself and the systems of knowledge that produced the object. We can understand then why structuralism should want to found a science of literature or, to be more exact, a linguistics of discourse, whose object is the 'language' of literary forms, grasped on many levels ... In short, structuralism will be just one more 'science' (several are born each century, some of them only ephemeral) if it does not manage to place the actual subversion of scientific language at the centre of its programme ... (Roland Barthes, "Science versus Literature", in Newton (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory, pp. 140-44; 142).
Linguistic post-structuralism describes a varied set of responses to language theory that broadly seek to critically engage with questions of language diversity and identity. The post-structural approaches to language studies, and issues of minority or lesser-used languages, work to problematise the assumption that languages exist as pre-existing and discrete objects that are transcendent of their speakers, but suggest rather that languages are called into being or are produced in a variety of ways though a complex nexus of power, identity, and diverse forms of linguistic and cultural expression. In this sense, language and a language is not a fixed or knowable object or a being, but a form of expression, an emergent effect or a process that is frequently contingent, performative, transgressive, and in a constant state of flux foundational claims. One is that structures are present in all spheres of human activity (from anthropology to economics to religion) and that by understanding such structures we gain a sense of ‘truth’. The other claim is that the structure of the sign (the signifier’s relationship to the signified) as devised by Ferdinand de Saussure is the systemic key to all processes of meaning and communication. Post-structuralism challenges these two concepts on the grounds that there can be no truth or truths (no’ transcendental signifieds’ as Derrida calls them) outside the constructions of such sensibilities; furthermore it is imperative not only to reveal the artifices of such social structures but also to develop a more dynamic model of the sign (Fuery 1995:38).
In this sense then post-structural approaches to language studies, and issues of minority or lesser-used languages, work to problematise the assumption that languages exist as pre-existing and discrete objects that are transcendent of their speakers, but suggest rather that languages are called into being or are produced in a variety of ways though a complex nexus of power, identity, and diverse forms of linguistic and cultural expression. In this sense, language and a language is not a fixed or knowable object or a being, but a form of expression, an emergent effect or a process that is frequently contingent, performative, transgressive, and in a constant state of flux. Post-structural readings of the language diversity issue are surprisingly uncommon and references to the issue of linguistic diversity and difference in post-structural literature are usually oblique and occur in passing. The exception to this is some of the work on post-colonialism discussed above and in particular Alastair Pennycook’s work on linguistic performativity and the disinvention of language (2004; 2006). In this reading, Pennycook critiques the way a Eurocentric, normative view of language as “a prior system tied to ethnicity, territory, birth, or nation” (Pennycook 2004:8) is reproduced axiomatically through the trope he describes as a “foundationalist framework for knowledge” (page 2). In particular he seeks to break down the privileged status of general and applied linguistics as objective and disencumbered tools of linguistic analysis, and rather relocates them within their specific epistemological contexts, as powerful vehicles of language ideology that represent language in specific and highly political ways, with specific and highly political effects.
In critiquing this colonial trope, Pennycook argues for the disinvention of languages, by which he seeks to make explicit the ideologies inherent in language studies disciplines through a critical historical analysis of their production (ibid). In doing so he uses the idea of performativity (Following Austin (1962) and Judith Butler (1990; 1993)), to argue against the “entelechial assumption that languages are real objects waiting to be discovered” (Pennycook 2004:3). He suggests that “…languages themselves are better viewed from an anti-foundationalist perspective. By this I mean that the ontological status of languages and grammars as pregiven objects of study becomes suspect” (ibid). Pennycook goes on to cite Hopper (1998): “…there is nonatural fixed structure to language…. Systematicity…is an illusion produced by the partial settling or sedimentation of frequently used forms into temporary subsystems” (Hopper cited in Pennycook 2004:19, italics in original). In this sense the very notions of grammar, as well as identifiable languages and linguistic identities, are rendered problematic. As Pennycook argues, this may allow us: “… to develop an anti-foundationalist view of language as an emergent property of social interaction” (Pennycook 2004:8)
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari have similarly been critical of instrumentalism and the structuralist language theory that linguists such as Noam Chomsky propose:“You will never find a homogenous system that is not still or already affected by a regulated, continuous, immanent process of variation (why does Chomsky pretend not to understand this?)” (Deleuze and Guattari 1987:103). In A Thousand Plateaus they deconstruct the Saussurian differentiation of signifier and signified to argue against a structural view of language and suggest that difference, through which meaning is experienced, is not structured or structural but radical: language is not a system of differentiation, nor does it represent meaning as the relationship of a set of signs, nor is it external to the individual or society, but is itself a series of events of difference. Meaning emerges from the interactions, the interconnectivities, and the transgressive and liminal spaces between people, rather than simply being located in an external and ideal reality or in the relationship between words, ideas and signs. Language is not prescribed or signified but emergent and immanent (Deleuze andGuattari 1989).
In A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari develop and discuss, among many other things, linguistic difference and the articulation of power in society (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). In critiquing structural theory, they develop the related notions of territorialisation , deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation to describe the ways in which groups, entities and organisms are perceived to form and take on a metaphorical body or substance, and which are then confronted and broken up, only to reform as different bodies or intensities. In the case of language, this can be used to describe the way an uninterrupted flow of difference becomes coalesced around certain ideas or loci of power and which gradually emerge to be perceived as languages. An example of this is the babbling of a baby that is initially an undifferentiated flow, but which gradually becomes territorialised around the language of its parents, as it learns what sounds are linguistically meaningful and which are not. As it implicitly becomes aware of the laws and discursive regimes that prescribe correct usage or behaviour, it becomes territorialised, in the sense that it learns appropriacy and how to behave as a subject of the group.
For Deleuze and Guattari each territorialisation represents a reduction of difference, while each deterritorialisation represents a line of flight, or potentiality for the liberation of difference back into the “intense germinal influx” (Colebrook 2002:36) or undifferentiated flow, where it is consequently reinterpreted, and reterritorialised. Importantly, Deleuze and Guattari seek to highlight the contingent and ongoing nature of this process. So, for example, language is continuously being deterritorialised: the perceived structures and legitimacy of a language being resisted and broken up; only to reform, or reterritorialise, in new and different systems, processes and dynamics. Meaning, linguistic structures and languages are not therefore enduring and transcendent entities but particular events or formations that appear solid only when located in a particular socio-historical context. Languages such as English, French or Breton are therefore ever-changing in how they articulate meaning, how they are spoken, as well as who they represent, what they represent and how they represent people and societies. Languages, such as we perceive them, are not therefore eternal but at best are “a snapshot… at a particular time and place” (Reagan 2004:44) of far more complex flows and confluences and coalescences of sociosymbolic and sociopolitical practice
In order to describe structural and post-structural representations of power Deleuzeand Guattari employ the twin biomorphic metaphors of the arbor and the rhizome (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). Arborescent power structures represent a stable hierarchical sequence. Schematically these relations are represented as branches of order to describe structural and post-structural representations of power Deleuzeand Guattari employ the twin biomorphic metaphors of the arbor and the rhizome (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). Arborecent power structures represent a stable hierarchical sequence. Schematically these relations are represented as branches of a tree, dividing at regular intervals. Examples of this schema include family trees and trees that describe families of languages, genus of species and the like. In such representations relationships and lines of power are clear and unambiguous, producing connections and affiliations, be they family, linguistic or biological that are discrete, clearly differentiated and systematic
However, Deleuze and Guattari take umbrage at the structural order that represents languages as a series of predictable, describable divisions. Rather they argue for arhizomatic metaphor, whereby change and difference occurs unpredictably, spontaneously, sometimes radically and transgressively, in the same way that grass grows as a rhizome, with no source, no trunk and no centre.
Post-structural approaches to language diversity therefore seek both to critique the processes through which territorialisations and reterritorialisations occur, and to open up liminal spaces and new ways of approaching issues of linguistic diversity and difference. For example, rather than contextualising linguistic diversity as a plurality of inter-related yet separate languages, promoting the notion of linguistic diversity as one of difference within, between, across and against these common notions of language can provide new ways of understanding linguistic diversity, for example as linguistic disjunctures, transgressions, subversions, disfluencies and performatives. As Deleuze puts it: “…mobile relationships of force have taken over from the devices of power, cracks have replaced the segregations” (Deleuze and Parnet2002:138). Whilst it might be premature to herald the death of structuralism, hierarchical power structures and the notion of a language, these cracks provide liminal points of entry, or lines of flight, that can potentially provide productive ways for people to represent difference and diversity in new and different ways.
5. Understanding Cultural Diversity
Cultural diversity is seen as part of humanity’s common heritage, which, as a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, is as essential for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. It should therefore be protected for the benefit of both present and future generations and be considered as a basic human right. Cultural diversity has become a household phrase in education, especially minority education. Often, a culturally diverse youth/family coalition is viewed in the negative sense, rather than the positive. It is easy to identify the inherent obstacles and barriers associated with differences in religion, class, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, region of origination, or even educational level. Appreciation and understanding of cultural diversity means not just tolerating differences among individuals or groups, but supporting and nurturing them. A variety of ideas, talents, skills and knowledge is a desirable attribute to any youth or family coalition. Attention to cultural diversity may be the necessary catalyst for making things happens. Coalitions of youth or family agencies that strive to address specific community needs and issues have no chance of success, or even continued existence, unless they mirror, understand and make the most of their community's cultural diversity.
No one is untouched by the impact of diversity. Yet as diverse as diversity is, are too the many different emotions and attitudes evoked by diversity. As a nation, we are not well equipped to deal with the swirling transitions that are converging on us on a daily basis because of the nature of being the most diverse country in the world Thinkers about heritage and cultural landscapes are increasingly recognising the need for cultural and natural elements to be considered together. Both elements are essential parts of the construction of cultural landscape. They are also key components of a sense of place. Landscapes need not be monumental or rare in order to mediate between the natural and the social. If we are to investigate the impact ICTs have on culture, the opportunities and challenges they offer for cultural diversity, we should first understand cultural diversity. Shadid (1980: 108- 120) summarizes the most prominent approaches of international cultural differences under two headings: 1- The dichotomous classification of world cultures, these generally are classifications such as individual versus collective, modern versus traditional, Western versus non-Western. In this respect, the anthropologist Hall (1976) discerns high –context and low – context cultures. In high- context culture (such as Japan, Middle East and China) people use implicit communication messages that cannot be understood by other people from outside the group. People think more in terms of “ in-groups” and out- groups” and they strongly rely on each other. On the other hand in low- context culture, like the USA and Western Europe, the communication messages are explicit and members are more individualistic. One of the more recent contributions in this regard has been made by Francis Fukuyama (1992) and Samuel Huntington (1996), and has been referred to as the debate between the “end of history” and the “clash of civilizations”. (Quoted in Servaes, 2002). (2) The cultural variability theory is the second approach to understand cultural diversity. Geert Hofstede (1980-1991, 1995) identifies four value dimensions that are influenced and modified by culture: (a) individualism –collectivism, (b) uncertainty avoidance, (c) power distance, (d) masculinity and femininity (quoted in Servaes, 2002).
In general, these dichotomies are based on a notion that looks at a specific culture as a cohesive monolithic way of life, an understanding that is unrealistic. As Amartya, (1998, P. 317) states culture is not just one thing, but also a generic name for a diverse set of activities and pursuits. Even within the same country different people may have disparate views of cultural achievements. Also cultures vary radically between different countries and between distinct historical traditions and heritages. This fact was clearly identified by “Our Creative Diversity Report” (1995, p.36). The report clarifies this mistaken stereotyped image about cultures as a coherent whole. It places emphasis on three distinct features of culture. First, cultures overlap because they have partly common roots, build on similar human experiences and have, in the course of history, often learned from each other. Second, Cultures usually do not speak with one voice on religious, ethical, social, or political matters and other aspects of people’s lives. Third, cultures do not commonly form homogeneous units. Within what is conventionally considered a culture, numerous cultural differences may exist along gender, class, religion, language, ethnicity and other fault lines. At the same time, people of the same gender and of similar race or class may share ideas and clusters of beliefs across cultural boundaries, serving as bases for solidarity and alliances between them.
It is my belief that the multicultural world is one, which comprises varied cultures that are continuously engaging in a tolerant cultural dialogue with the internal as well as external differences. It is hard for a culture to claim and defend its tolerance with other cultures unless it practices an internal cultural dialogue, or internal cultural tolerance and opposite quite. A culture should practice external respect and tolerance with cultures outside its boundaries if it is to claim its plurality and diversity.
The extraordinary diversity of languages that humanity has developed over countless centuries is coming under increasing pressure. First, ‘language diversity’ refers to the existence of many different languages. These languages each are emblematic of the culture and the people that spawned them. When a language dies, the cultural and traditional knowledge that had been transmitted in that language nearly always die with it. The value of language diversity is found in this knowledge. Language loss, assimilation, imposition and evolution have always played an active role in the global linguistic composition; however, the intensity of the forces being exerted on local and minority languages and the velocity of their loss are clearly more modern phenomena. Myriad causes for this unprecedented decline in language diversity have been proposed and analyzed. Linguists from universities around the world are actively engaging minority language speakers in an attempt to record and document the world’s languages before they disappear. Minority communities across the world have worked to reinvigorate traditional languages and cultures. Despite all of these efforts, the extinction of languages continues unabated. The linguistic consequences of this phenomenon are caused mainly by the sharp increase in the transnationalization of economies (with a trend towards global free trade and the foundation of large corporations through mergers and take-overs), and by developments in communication technologies.
There is, therefore, a clear need for all levels of public authorities, from planet wide to local, to address the contemporary needs and linguistic problems of mankind. The issue is no longer one of scorned 'minorities', but rather of a culturally-diverse species that wants to live in harmony and solidarity, dealing with any potential problematic situations that could arise.
6. International Cultural Paradox
There is a paradox in the international cultural world today. We wish to re-take the common terrain. We wish to contribute, if possible, to the renaissance of a cultural milieu where intellectuals and serious teachers and writers, as well as curious scientists and public figures, can learn about the cultural and intellectual issues of other countries, and read (if only in translation) the novels and poems of writers in other languages. One looks askance at scholars and observers who underscore the global homogenization of culture or those who see globalization as paving the way for a set of universal values. These scholars, who adumbrate that the essence of globalization is its homogenizing dimension, imply that globalization is motivated by its overarching universal program to legitimize certain cultures and knowledge and suppress oppositional knowledge for the sake of augmenting power. But then, the culture that we perceive around us is more of a celebration of plurality or heterogeneity, rather than of specificities. It is then that we begin to realize that globalization, far from involving a loss of cultural diversity, has the potential to lead to pluralist notions of culture and identity.
Whereas international references and declarations talk about the ideal of cultural diversity, in practice even well-intentioned economists still see the ideal as integrating cultural values into their own growth paradigm or putting such values at the service of technology, rather than putting both technology and economics at the service of the cultural values and goals of local people. Furthermore, many cultures of the world appear to a Western (or Westernized) observer not only as undesirable ways of life, but also, in some respects, as morally unacceptable. They contravene the moral consensus of the developed world as embodied in the idea of universal human rights. This emphasis on the importance of respect for human rights is not in contradiction with the concept of cultural diversity (Change and Continuity Report, 2000, p. 36). A World Link Report stated that humankind, for the first time, has the sophistication to build its future not on the illusion of a one-sided, ill- conceived ideology but on a set of universal values which we all share, even if their optimal balance may differ from people to people, from religion to religion and from individual to individual and where there is great respect for such a difference. Pluralism is not just an end in itself. The recognition of differences is above all a condition for dialogue, and hence for the construction of a wider union of diversity. Ways must be found for combating rejection or exclusion of the “ Other” on grounds of cultural differences and of promoting the cultural rights of minorities and indigenous peoples (quoted in: Change and Continuity Report, 2000, p. 71,73).
7. Digital Divide and Cultural, Linguistic Diversity
The “digital divide”, that is, the unequal distribution of access to digital information sources and services, stands out as one of the key policy issues of the present digital information era. Governments, international agencies, citizens’ groups, corporations and others all seek to take advantage of the promises of lower cost and instantaneous information access by moving many of their communication functions to networked computer media. But if traditional social barriers, such as socio-economic status, education, ethnicity, gender, etc., hamper access to digital information, then policies must be directed to equalizing access for these benefits to be realized Let us now turn to the arguments for preserving linguistic diversity. We should try to preserve linguistic diversity because, after all, human languages are our greatest collective invention. We human beings have probably existed for at least 100,000 years and probably the development of language was one of the factors that made our brain, specifically the cortex, expand in order to hold an increased number of concepts collectively sharable through language. Increased brain capacity and the development of language, probably together had survival value for our species. To become a true global citizen is to celebrate the diversity of humankind while retaining the personal right to celebrate our own traditional cultural heritage. Stepping across the digital divide often means leaving something behind. In the rush to embrace the new, much of what has been important can be cast aside, intentionally or not. This is true for anyone, but for indigenous populations, it has a special impact. They move toward something allegedly better, but to get there, they leave behind a part of their culture, language, values, and identity. The current weakening of many indigenous languages and cultures is well documented. On the other hand the digital and information revolution presents a historic opportunity for developing countries to take a quantum leap forward, develop their own productive and creative capacities, and become integrated into the global virtual economy. However, Internet density (users as a percentage of population) is still much higher in industrial countries, as well as in affluent and educated communities in every country, than elsewhere. The Internet threatens to magnify the existing socioeconomic disparities, between those with access and those without, to levels unseen and untenable. Half the planet’s languages and cultures are held by 5% of its population–370 million indigenous peoples–the most marginalized, fractured and least represented. For every group dispossessed, urbanized or assimilated, a culture vanishes taking with it unique worldviews and ancient knowledge of the environment, irreplaceable skills, artistry and stories–the rich diversity of humanity. The digital revolution, rather than creating a “global village”, accelerates this worldwide cultural demise. Therefore, urgent actions are needed at the local, national, and international levels to bridge the global digital divide. ICTs are creating many opportunities, but because of their uneven distributions and adoption, they are also creating new risks and challenges. For the World Summit of the Information Society to reduce risks, offer concrete solutions for the new challenges and maximize benefits, it would be most useful if we discuss the overall impact of ICTs especially what has been known as digital divide on cultural and linguistic diversity. In this respect the author contends that ICTs can be seen as a unifying and divisive force, a homogenous and heterogeneous actor, and more importantly a tool for cultural imperialism or cultural diversity. “We must also not forget that technology in itself is not a determinant of change, only a facilitator. As with any other technology, it is the social context within which these new technologies are introduced and, more importantly implemented, that determines their usage and impact, in other words ICTs are social products and not an entirely a technological issue” (Paula, 1997, p. 5) and (Arab Human Development Report 2002, p. 73).
Cultural diversity and biodiversity are correlated. Moreover, loss of indigenous culture may directly affect biodiversity. Many indigenous cultures have developed low-impact interdependencies with their land. Traditional interactions with the environment that have less impact on biodiversity are passed on in local languages, but when those languages die the traditional methods die out too. (Terralingua, Maffi et al, 2004) . Minority cultures matter. For every language that is lost a world perspective vanishes. For every group uprooted or assimilated, a culture vanishes, taking with it knowledge of the environment, unique ways of living, irreplaceable skills, artistry and ancient wisdom. Each time a minority culture disappears it is as if a species becomes extinct. We all need cultural diversity just as much as we need biodiversity–humans thrive when there are many perspectives, languages, skills, and ways of living in the world.
Although the nature and structure of the new ICTs and Internet in particular can help support cultural diversity, creativity and thus stability, the ultimate net of digital technologies depends on the effectiveness of the co-ordination of international efforts aiming at closing not only the digital divide between the rich and poor but also the gap between the potentials of ICTs and its actual achievements. ICT access is scant and inappropriate for indigenous people, while content is dominated by the languages, interests and ideologies of the largest economic blocks.
8. ICTs and Cultural, Linguistic Diversity: Two Schools of Thought
Linguistics as a field has often dismissed technology development as “mere engineering,” and hence has little understanding of technology. Computational linguistics as a field understands technology, but focuses on commercially viable languages -- the 1% that are already well resourced. For language documentation to succeed there needs to be a synthesis of a linguistic interest that encompasses all the world’s languages with computational-linguistic expertise in technology. Literacy, or literacies as social practices, as developed over time, have taken different focuses and emphases in response to societal demands. The growing significance of cultural and linguistic diversity and new communications technologies requires a responsibility to consider carefully and precisely what the job of literacy now can be, in a multicultural, multilingual and multiliterate society, increasingly characterised by movement - of people, capital, labour and communications in a variety of languages.
The dawn of the information age is reaching the remotest villages. No traditional culture will be well served by denying the reality of our fast changing world, or the value of more accessible knowledge and education. In many ways ICTs may be viewed as a two-edged sword that has the potential to accelerate the erosion of indigenous culture and knowledge. On the other hand, the new digital technologies offer the potential to empower and support the creation of new culturally responsive learning resources and environments for indigenous children. In terms of the impact of ICTs on cultural and linguistic diversity, there are two schools of thought- the net is a means for the world to homogenize a culture, and the other school says this is a way to spread your culture to the world. If indigenously founded Internet resources and technologies are any indication of Indigenous peoples’ willingness to embrace the technological era, the answer is that many Indigenous communities see telecommunication and computer technologies as a way to improve, rather than hinder, self-sufficiency, preservation of culture, real sovereignty, and general economic conditions. (AJ Johnson, A New Understanding of Culture and Communication: The Impact of Technologies on Indigenous peoples, http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~vlibrary/edres/pathfinders/ajohnson/pathfinder.html (last visited December 11, 2012). As noted in one 1999 Benton Foundation study, “[a]mong the tools recognized by tribes as essential to their future growth are telecommunications and information technology, and tribes are looking for opportunities to acquire the level of technological infrastructure that will ensure their place on the Information Superhighway (James Casey, Randy Ross & Marcia Warren, Native Networking : Telecommunications and Information Technology in Indian Country (1999), available at
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/95/39.pdf.)
Some argue that Internet doesn’t promote imperialism- it eradicates it. A fundamental argument about cultural imperialism on Internet is whether the Net promotes heterogeneous or homogenous culture. If the vote is heterogeneous then the Net is not imperialistic. If the Net is homogenous then it is because a culture willingly adopts the new culture to replace its own. In a report on cultural imperialism by Ina Berlingeri and Selene Brett of Harvard School of Law, the authors feel that Internet promotes heterogony not a dilution of one’s culture. Their reasoning is as follows: 1) Internet promotes heterogeneity not homogeneity. There is no single source of production or dissemination of messages, so why should there be uniformity? The decentralized nature of Internet not only militates against control, it removes the necessity for it, 2) It is inexpensive to become an effective publisher on the Internet, 3) Internet is different from broadcasting. The receiver or viewer of message is not a passive listener but must actively pull information in as opposed to having it pushed at him (Andreamon, 1997, 20). Pierre Levy’s book, “Cyberculture” (1997) also provides one of the most coherent and persuasive expressions of the contemporary technocultural vision. Levy believes, in new information and communication technologies to both expand and enhance human cognition. He also describes the emergence of a new “knowledge space” that is in stark contrast to an older knowledge space that was characterized by its linearity, hierarchy and rigidity of structure. This new space- it is the space of the World Wide Web- is distinguished by its open, fluid and dynamic qualities. What he regards as innovative about the new techno- oral culture is its potential to support direct and immediate contact between its members. The virtual interface is conceived in terms of the return to conditions of face –to-face interaction (Webster, and Robins, 2002, 236).
A language is only alive when it is used as a working language, for communicating with people. The promotion of linguistic diversity in cyberspace should not restrict itself to simply securing the presence of a given language on a site as a language object. That would amount to collecting samples of languages for a virtual museum intended to inform future generations about what the languages of humanity were like before the era of the super-powerful, globalized information society which will have reduced the six thousand languages of the world to a few dozen. No, certainly not! The promotion of linguistic diversity in cyberspace must aim at allowing all languages which have the slightest possibility of entering this space to come alive in it. As a matter of principle, the promotion of linguistic diversity must not exclude any language a priori, even though it is inevitable that certain languages will disappear forever, being spoken only by a few aged speakers who will disappear with them, or because they are forsaken by their native speakers and ignored by the international community. More pragmatically, the promotion of linguistic diversity in cyberspace could espouse the principle of supporting any activity which seeks on the one hand to develop content in languages with relatively little presence on the Web and to promote the use of these languages as working languages, and on the other hand to help cybercommunities to form which are able to communicate in languages which are little used on the Web.
By cybercommunity, we mean all those people who share the practice of a language using communication and information technologies. Such a community exists spontaneously for all the great languages of the world which are already working languages on the Internet. Cybercommunities for the other languages will have to emerge gradually. For that to happen, it seems to us that the first stage consists in developing the languages themselves towards the Internet. A start could be made by providing them with a standardized spelling system if they do not already have one. At the international level, work could be done to solve the many technical problems which handicap standardization by the Unicode consortium of the special characters needed to write all the languages of the world, including the most underprivileged languages.
Also, one could support terminological development in those languages which are least present on the Internet. And finally, one could support actions aimed at teaching those languages, in order to consolidate, or even to increase, the number of the people able to use them to communicate through ICTs. Thus, the very existence of a cybercommunity is essential for any language to enjoy sustainable development in cyberspace.
9. Internet and Cultural, Linguistic Diversity: The Macro Analysis
Language diversity can itself be interpreted in a number of different ways. The difficulty in measuring the use of languages on the Internet is partly due to the lack of regulation and the phenomenal growth. The relationship between languages on the Internet and diversity of language within a country indicates that even with a globalised network nation states have a role to play in encouraging language diversity in cyberspace. Language diversity can be viewed as much within a country as within the Internet as a whole. With the rapid proliferation of the Internet, one of the biggest challenges facing the industry is effectively catering to a wide array of national regional and local markets by providing content and applications that are adapted in accordance with cultural and linguistic needs. Despite being the dominant and most pervasive communications medium and axis of modern economies, the Internet can also be the unwitting vehicle for social exclusion, suppression of vulnerable cultures and language, and penalization of already marginalized communities through the requirement to learn and adopt alien culture and language in order to partake of its promises. Some of the impediments leading to linguistic and cultural marginalization on the Internet include the technical (e.g. lack of set standards of alphabetic characters; lack of e-translator software; lack of necessary keyboard drivers; lack of enough natural language processing research and development; etc.). Other types of impediments are economic (e.g. languages spoken by small groups or economically disadvantaged groups – “Languages do not have economic power”). In its common vision , there is a “common desire and commitment to build a people-centered, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and people[s] to achieve their full potential and improve their quality of life in a sustainable manner.” Without attending to the issue of cultural and linguistic diversity, this vision cannot be attained for the simple reason that culture and language are necessary in the creation, accessing, utilization and sharing of information and knowledge. This calls for the cultural and linguistic diversity across the world to be reflected in the content of the Internet.
Increasingly, information and knowledge are key determinants of wealth creation, social transformation and human development. Language is a primary vector for communicating information and knowledge, thus the opportunity to use one’s language on the Internet will determine the extent to which one can participate in emerging knowledge societies. The beginning of the Internet has brought about diverse opportunities for sharing information and knowledge in various languages. Today, anyone in principle can produce content, share it with the rest of the world and receive feedback. In principle, the Internet is open to all languages of the world when certain technical conditions are met, and when the necessary human and financial resources are in place.
However, many languages are not present on the Internet. There is a vast linguistic divide, which exists in cyberspace today and this will only exacerbate the digital divide. Everyone therefore should have access to the multilingual Internet. Nations, communities and individuals without access to the Internet and its resources will certainly be marginalized with limited access to information and knowledge, which are critical elements of sustainable development. Speakers of non-dominant languages need to be able to express themselves in culturally meaningful ways, create their own cultural content in local languages and share through cyberspace. The digital divide has two important aspects: firstly, everyone should have access to the Internet, and secondly, access to quality content created not only at international or regional level, but locally and in local languages. The Internet is multilingual and culturally diverse where every culture and language has its own space.
As many are convinced that cultural diversity and multilingualism on the Internet have a key role to play in fostering pluralistic, equitable, open and inclusive knowledge societies. They encourage to develop comprehensive language-related policies, to allocate resources and use appropriate tools in order to promote and facilitate linguistic diversity and multilingualism, including the Internet and media. In this regard, they supports the inclusion of new languages in the digital world, the creation and dissemination of content in local languages on the Internet and mass communication channels, and encourages multilingual access to digital resources in the cyberspace.
As we navigate our way around cyberspace, we soon realize how differently languages and cultures are treated on the Internet. First of all, there are working languages, which people use to communicate. This category is dominated by the worldwide lingua franca which is English. The other languages of this category are supported by speaker communities of varying degrees of influence, and aspire to play their full part in Internet-based exchanges. Then there are languages which are spoken about. Among these are a number of languages which have been the subject of linguistic research, and which are only mentioned on the Internet as the subjects of study. Some of these languages are presented quite comprehensively, and indeed lessons in them may even be offered on the Internet, while others are known only by mention of their names. Finally, there is a group of languages which are completely absent from the Internet. True linguistic and cultural diversity on the Internet ought to reflect the diversity of the logosphere. Every language ought to have the opportunity to serve as a vehicle for culture and communication on the Internet, which implies the existence of an active Internet community using each language. Consequently, promoting linguistic and cultural diversity on the Internet implies means working to remove all those obstacles which prevent, slow down or obstruct the use of all languages with ICTs, and, in parallel, to encourage linguistic communities to use their language in order to occupy all the space they want on the Internet.
As one moves around the Internet, one readily notices how the languages of the world are divided into three categories according to the use made of them in cyberspace: namely, languages used to communicate, which we shall call working languages, languages about which one speaks, or language objects, and finally those languages which are never mentioned on Internet and which are the absent languages. Working languages are used as means of communication between Internet users, for example in chat rooms, forums, visitors' books, e-mails, advertisements, in all the diverse forms of Web page content. They are also used by webmasters to give instructions to visitors to their sites, and by software developers for the user interfaces, help pages and dialogue boxes of their software. Mastery of these languages allows Internet users, and more broadly computer users in general, to move around more easily in cyberspace and the information society.
As a matter of principle, the promotion of linguistic diversity must not exclude any language a priori, even though it is inevitable that certain languages will disappear forever, being spoken only by a few aged speakers who will disappear with them, or because they are forsaken by their native speakers and ignored by the international community. More pragmatically, the promotion of linguistic diversity in cyberspace could espouse the principle of supporting any activity which seeks on the one hand to develop content in languages with relatively little presence on the Web and to promote the use of these languages as working languages, and on the other hand to help cybercommunities to form which are able to communicate in languages which are little used on the Web. By cybercommunity, we mean all those people who share the practice of a language using communication and information technologies. Such a community exists spontaneously for all the great languages of the world which are already working languages on the Internet. Cybercommunities for the other languages will have to emerge gradually. For that to happen, it seems to us that the first stage consists in developing the languages themselves towards the Internet. A start could be made by providing them with a standardized spelling system if they do not already have one. At the international level, work could be done to solve the many technical problems which handicap standardization by the Unicode consortium of the special characters needed to write all the languages of the world, including the most underprivileged languages. Also, one could support terminological development in those languages which are least present on the Internet. And finally, one could support actions aimed at teaching those languages, in order to consolidate, or even to increase, the number of the people able to use them to communicate through ICTs. Thus, the very existence of a cybercommunity is essential for any language to enjoy sustainable development in cyberspace.
10. Internet is far from being a Tool for Cultural Diversity
The global digital content revolution, which began in 1980 with the personal computer and is now accelerated by the Internet, is producing content at historic rates by several orders of magnitude. The Internet is the best present the language diversity movement could have had. As the Internet goes global it encounters different cultures which react to it in different ways. It would be far too simplistic to view this process in terms of ‘cultural imperialism’, assuming that old habits can simply be washed away. What actually happens as new users get on-line is that a myriad of new virtual worlds are created. These are a mix of traditional culture and cyberculture, influenced by and adapted to existing communicative practices and value systems. In fact, this is how cultural encounters always take place. The internalization of external influences is a complex process influenced by existing social relations. People interpret new influences according to existing frames of reference, and accommodate or reject them accordingly, the result of which is a fusion of the old and the new, unique to each specific context. In the case of the Internet, one can but expect that responses to on-line behavior will vary from country to country, each context offering new interpretations of and responses to the world of cyberspace.
Such cultural encounters are nothing new in the history of Asia. After all, Asian countries have been exposed to foreign influences over centuries, from neighbouring countries as well as more distant cultures. With rapid modernization, Western influences have perhaps been particularly strong. It would, however, be naïve to think that Coca Cola and MacDonalds could possibly replace centuries of tradition, something which marketing experts, for a start, are painfully aware of. Having observed the modernization process taking place in various Asian countries over the last decade, I can but conclude that Asia has not become ‘Westernized’, just like Europe has not become ‘Americanized’, despite the intensity of intercultural encounters and the changes that have taken place. This is not to say that Asian cultures have not changed. They always have.
As a watershed in the further development of multicultural approaches to education, Internet is to be a truly multicultural medium, it will, however, be important to encourage people in Asian countries to actively use the Internet to express themselves. The only way to ensure that Asian ‘Internauts’ are not merely consumers of information but also producers is to use the medium proactively. Unlike other media, the Internet opens up enormous opportunities for people to broadcast their own news and views to local as well as global audiences. It is, for instance, not particularly complicated to design a Web site, incorporating text and images, which can then be made available to others. And as more Asian people get on-line there will be both a supply and a demand for local information. The Internet can become a mirror of the multicultural world we live in and Asia could play an influential role in this process. Given the enormous wealth of cultural diversity in the Asian region, the transnational worlds of cyberspace would be greatly enriched if more Asian material were on-line; giving the rest of the world a better taste of what Asia has to offer. Few continents contain as many different ethnic groups, multicultural societies and ancient traditions as Asia. The attraction of this to the outside world is already clearly indicated by the growing numbers of tourists who visit the region. Sharing these resources on-line with the rest of the world would not only benefit local economies, but also stimulate Asian cultures.
Without external cultural cues internet-based communications we become divorced from cultural contexts causing misunderstandings that often fail to be acknowledged as cultural. The internet becomes a location of perceived homogeneity that works to invalidate cultural differences leading to misinformation and facilitating oppression and prejudice. Examples from multicultural classrooms and academic collaborations, as well as my own experiences as a non-American White college graduate, have been drawn on to examine these issues and to raise questions about the ability of the internet to be a culturally neutral space when cultural identities are ignored. Further, it is argued that the internet is a multicultural site and that cultural factors play a role in our cognitive processes and those in turn affect online communication practices. In order for cultural factors to be recognized, internet-based collaborations must overcome superficial relationships centered on context and connection and we must cultivate more in depth relationships. This includes making cultural factors explicit and relevant in any cross-cultural context including but not limited to the online classroom. A greater understanding of these cultural factors, including cultural differences as well as the assumptions of one’s own culture, will aid in making the internet a more useful tool for successful communication across cultures
The North- American origin of the Internet is evident in the dominant language of the Net as well as the origin of most existing sites. The Anglophone influence in both form and content could be interpreted in terms of cultural dominance, or cultural homogenization and Internet could be seen as a vehicle for marketing ideas, cultures, and values stemming from a very specific part of the world. If the Internet is to be a truly multicultural medium, it will be important to encourage people in the Third World to actively use it and to express themselves not only in their language, but also in their own frame of references with affordable cost. The fact that only an estimated 5-10% of the content on Internet is of Asian origin, while the Asian population represents almost half of the world’s population indicates how far the Internet is from being true cultural diversity tool (Paula, 1997, 7). By the same token, I can say that Arabs have real concerns regarding the dominance of the English language flow through ICTs. Arab Human Development Report (2002, p. 77) indicates that concern over the future of linguistic diversity in the information age is evident from the currency of such terms as “ language divide”, “ extinction of languages” “ linguistic racism ”, and “ language wars”. Some people have become pessimistic enough to list language among the victims of the information age, along with other entities on the list of victims such as cultural diversity, local values and national sovereignty.
ICTs use by non-English speakers requires localization. Localization entails adapting software written in one language for members of one culture to another language for members of another culture. Translation alone is an exceedingly complex part of localization. Ideally, it is a multistage process involving initial translation, followed by “back-translation” into the original language. But, localization involves more than simple translation. The localizer must not only be an experienced code writer, but must have a thorough knowledge of two languages, ideally, of two cultures (Keniston, 2000, p. 9).
The dominance of English language is affirmed by the World Communication Report 1999-2000: The English language holds a strong dominant position: in 1997, 81% of web pages were in English. However the percentages of English language users as shown in figure (3) does not exceed 36.5% of the total Internet users; 619 million users in September 2002. The question then is: will automatic translations help reduce misunderstanding between languages and promote genuine multilingualism? In the past, research has proved disappointing, and researchers are at present cautious, pinning their hopes on the development of computer- assisted translation systems. Only strong support for translation from producers and authorities responsible for public policy can help to bring about a more balanced flow of cultural works. If this is not forthcoming, English and probably a few more of the most widely spoken languages will eventually dominate the cultural marketplace. There is no doubt that the dominance of the English language is closely related to the issue of emerging a global monoculture. The American –influenced culture with great popular appeal, backed by enormous financial and technological resources is threatening all local cultures (Keniston, 2000, p. 10). It is my belief that efforts to bridge the digital gap through lowering the costs of local telephone connections, and empowering peoples of developing countries to access Internet may eventually perpetuate the hegemony of the global monoculture of English, unless these efforts innovate new solutions to empower users of these countries. These efforts aim at enriching the capabilities of the poor with regard to the complete cycle of knowledge, which includes actual participation in knowledge acquisition, organization, application, production, and consumption among others.
11. Biolinguistic Diversity: Linking Language and Culture
Linguistic diversity and biological diversity are seen as inseparable.“Biodiversity is not an object to be conserved but an integral part of human existence, in which utilization is part of the celebration of life” (Posey, 1999: 7). Over the past decade, the field of biocultural diversity has arisen as an area of transdisciplinary research concerned with investigating the links between the world’s linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity as manifestations of the diversity of life. The impetus for the emergence of this field came from the observation that all three diversities are under threat by some of the same forces and from the perception that loss of diversity at all levels spells dramatic consequences for humanity and the earth. The main foci of this emerging field are as follows: (a) the parallels and correlations between biodiversity and linguistic diversity, the overlaps in the global distribution of languages and biodiversity, and the relationships between language, traditional knowledge, and the environment; (b) studies and assessments of the common threats to biodiversity, cultural diversity, and linguistic diversity and of the sociocultural and environmental consequences consequences of loss of these interlinked diversities; (c) approaches to the joint maintenance and revitalization of biocultural diversity; and (d) development of the related aspects of human rights.
The term language ecology was first coined in 1972 and described as “the study of interactions between any given language and its environment” (Haugen 1972; Mühlhäusler and Fill 2001). In the 1990s the notion of language ecology and eco-linguistics was developed and adapted by the likes of Peter Mühlhäusler (1996; 2000; 2001), Mark Fettes (1997; 1999) Nancy Hornberger (2002) and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (1994, 2000) as a response, in particular, to a growing sense that many languages in the world were being lost, and the links this had with a similar reduction in biological diversity. Biodiversity can be defined as "the total variability among genes, plant and animal species, and ecosystems found in nature" (Skutnabb-Kangas, Maffi & Harmon 2003, Glossary, 55). The number of species has often been used as a proxy for biodiversity. In the same way, the number of languages can be used as a crude proxy for linguistic diversity. The topic of global biocultural correlations has continued to stimulate both further research and critiques in the academic environment as well, contributing to the development of theory, methodology, and data sets for this field of study and to the refinement of research hypotheses and parameters.
Losing a language, irrespective of the number of speakers of that language, deprives humanity of a part of our universal human heritage insofar as the language embodies a unique worldview and knowledge of local ecosystems.An ecological approach to linguistic diversity includes the deployment of environmental or biomorphic metaphors to argue or demonstrate perceived similarities between linguistic diversity and a loss in natural floral and faunal diversity, as well as the use of biological metaphors such as ‘language death’, ‘living languages’ and ‘mother tongues’ to locate languages in the’ natural’ world. A new wave of interdisciplinary studies is yielding a holistic view of diversity and considering how these two worlds of difference, biological and cultural/linguistic, are related and what common factors are at work to diminish them, or conversely, to sustain them (Maffi 2001; Harmon 2002; Romaine, forthcoming b). Nettle and Romaine (2000: ix) use the term ‘biolinguistic diversity’ as a key concept in a holistic approach to the understanding of diversity. It refers to the rich spectrum of life encompassing all the earth's species of plants and animals along with human cultures and their languages.
The biodiversity analogy has engendered the use of metaphors such as language survival, and death and even more emotively, killer languages and linguistic genocide Over the course of about 10 years, the field of biocultural diversity has emerged as an example of an integrated, transdisciplinary field (Somerville & Rapport 2000), spanning the natural and social sciences, as well as linking theory with practice and science with policy, ethics, and human rights. No doubt, at the present stage this field needs an opportunity to better define its theoretical and philosophical assumptions, its research questions, its methodologies, and its overall goals. The increasing focus on the topic of biocultural diversity in academic settings promises to bring to this field the benefit of scientific rigor and critical analysis.We can also hope that the adoption of biocultural diversity as a domain for academic inquiry will foster a transdisciplinary turn in academe, leading to greater communication and exchanges among disciplines, as well as more work by interdisci interdisciplinary teams, and thus to the elaboration of a new synthesis about the connections between linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. A
transdisciplinary approach should also make research more sensitive to real world needs and research findings more relevant for policy and other applications. Above all, a transdisciplinary study of biocultural diversity should contribute to our understanding that, as Harmon (2002) puts it, diversity in nature and culture makes us human. In this resides the hope that greater respect for and stewardship over our shared natural and cultural heritage can be achieved—before it is too late.
The languages of the indigenous communities have a direct link to the cultural explanations and understanding of the natural and social world. Biological diversity is the product of evolution, that is, a complex sequence of chance genetic combinations inside specific ecosystems, linguistic diversity corresponds fundamentally to the socio-cognitive and experiential vicissitudes of a particular biological species – one that appears to have greater brain power than others. Indeed, not only do the two elements differ constitutively, but the conditions of their existence are also very different. If biological objects are controlled fundamentally by genetic chance and the biosphere, linguistic objects are also controlled by the socio-cultural experiences of their speakers; this fact differentiates clearly between the reproductive aspects of the two. In their struggle to survive through history organisms are affected by their natural environments, while linguistic systems are additionally affected by the socioeconomic and politico-cultural conditions of individuals, who are able to decide personally on the language to be transmitted to their successors. Cultural traditions are passed down through language, making language an important factor in the existence of biocultural diversity. In a more formal sense, the notion of linguistic ecologies, or eco-linguistics, has been developed by researchers such as Peter Mühlhäusler to describe the systemic and interdependent relationships languages have both with other languages, and with their broader socio-cultural and physical environments. According to Mühlhäusler, Eco-linguistics is concerned with “the complex interdependence between forms of human communication and the multitude of environmental factors” (Mühlhäusler 1996:8). It includes both an analysis of the ways in which languages can be located within linguistic ecologies or as natural phenomena, as well as the language with which we talk about nature, with specific emphasis on the ways in which specific discourses have profound effects on the environment through the ways they represent the relationship between humans and nature.
The first sense of eco-linguistics seeks to highlight the many ways in which linguistic diversity reflects biological diversity, and highlights the importance of inter-relatedness and symbiosis in the maintenance of healthy ecologies. For Mühlhäusler both languages and the environment operate as ecologies, and elements within these ecologies are interdependent. One consequence of this is that “the change in a single link in an ecological network can precipitate very considerable overall changes, the disappearance of one species [or language] typically leading to that of a dozen of others” (Mühlhäusler 1996:49). It is therefore in the interests of everyone, including a dominant species or language to promote and maintain a healthy, balanced ecological and linguistic environment
Similarly, he argues that there is a direct relationship between linguistic and biological ecologies. In this way changes to the environment will have potential consequences for language use, just as changes to the linguistic ecology can have effects in the environment. For example deforestation in New Guinea might have a profound impact on language use by changing the physical environment as well as social networks and cultural practices of speakers. Environmental changes caused by migratory flows, industrialization, changing farm practices and urbanisation have similarly transformed language practices in Europe and across the world. Clearly, whilst there may not be a direct causal relationship between environmental change and the decline of a language, the two issues are, in many instances, intimately related and occur as elements of a broader socio-political and socio-cultural phenomenon of language change.
As with instrumentalism and ethnicity, Mühlhäusler suggests the destruction of linguistic ecologies and natural ecologies is also primarily an effect of European colonial imperialism (Mühlhäusler 1996:311) and the imposition of a specifically Eurocentric view of both language and nature. Much of Mühlhäusler’s work is focussed on the Pacific region which is rich in linguistic diversity and whose pre-colonial linguistic environments were, and to an extent still are, characterised by multilingualism and “chains of dialectal connections” (Mühlhäusler 1996:5) rather than discrete, definable, standardised languages. He is especially keen to debunk the particularly Anglo-centric, and Franco-centric, notions that monolingualism is normal or that linguists can map discrete languages onto territorial maps as if they were jigsaws to be pieced together (Mühlhäusler 1996:15). For Mühlhäusler “the trend toward monolingualism and monoculturalism is the problem… diversity itself is a necessary precondition of economic and social well-being” (Mühlhäusler andFill 2001:312).
The link between language and culture is an intricate network of knowledge woven together. In this framework therefore what is important is not so much the analysis and promotion of any particular language, but rather an exploration of the functional relationships between people, their environment, and language. Mühlhäusler’s analysis seeks to understand linguistic diversity as an integrated phenomenoninvolving the maintenance or restoration of a healthy system within which languagesand communities operate. In this way, “…the aim of [language] maintenance is toenable the survival of a structured diversity rather than individual languages”(Mühlhäusler 1996:322). Clearly this is quite a different goal from the promotion of specific languages through an approach that seeks to strengthen or privilege particular languages, as is the case in Quebec, or through an RLS paradigm.
Although we are still in the early stages of understanding the ramifications of the loss of diversity in ecosystems, species, cultures, and languages, there is a growing body of factual evidence and supporting theory pointing to an extinction crisis in the realms of both biological and cultural–linguistic diversity. The second sense of eco-linguistics looks at the ways in which languages describe the environment and the effects this has on human behaviour towards nature. Specifically, of interest are the “ways in which languages other than the ones familiar to most Europeans emphasise and de-emphasize aspects of the environment”(Mühlhäusler 1996:3) and conversely, the ways in which, for example, European languages often represent the environment as a resource which can be mined, forested, fished and farmed (for example, the belief that Australia is a country rich in natural resources, or the lack of human agency, and therefore responsibility in terms such as “habitat loss” (Schleppegrell 2001:226)). The metaphors we use to talk about the environment say a lot about us as a community. In this sense, eco-linguistics is the way in which we talk about, and imagine the environment within our own particular discursive systems.
The strengths of the eco-linguistics paradigm lie in the ways in which such agencies are highlighted as contributing factors to language change, as well as the ways in which language diversity and the support for languages is seen in terms of interdependent relationships between language communities, rather than the promotion of specific language varieties in isolation, or in conflict, with other languages. In exploring language change within a post-colonial context, it highlights the ways in which Eurocentric language theories dominate and in which languages are seen as “…monolithic, abstract entities that modern science projects upon the linguistic world” (Fettes 1997:1). In arguing that linguistic diversity is a necessary condition for the well-being of all language varieties in a linguistic ecology, it provides a useful argument for convincing dominant language speakers to become more interested in the plight of their linguistic neighbours, and more conscious about the way their own language influences their perception of the world.
The creation, then, of a 'linguistic' ecology which analogously transfers “the study of relationships between organisms and their environment" (Brown, 1995:18) to the level of the language behavior of humans and promotes the study of the relations between language varieties and their geodemosociopolitical contexts may be illuminating f for linguistics, which is still excessively centered on the code. One potential limitation of an ecological approach to language theory is that in theorising the environment and language as similar phenomena, there is a risk of understating the socio-political aspects of language shift and diversity if this relationship is read literally. Crawford warns that using biomorphic metaphors like ecology, survival, death, extinction and genocide uncritically “…can lead us into semantic traps, and these traps have political consequences” (Crawford 1998:155).
In addition, the dynamic conceptualization of the ecosystems restores the temporal dimension to linguistic phenomena, a dimension often neglected by the mainstream approaches of the twentieth century. In other words, believing that languages are natural phenomena that can be saved may serve to promote protectionist or segregation list views about languages and how they are used within societies. It would be absurd, for example, to think that languages could be put in linguistic sanctuaries along with their speakers and protected from the corrupting influences of modernity. Likewise it would be arrogant to believe that speakers of minority or lesser-used languages have a moral obligation to maintain global linguistic diversity in the interests of, among others, speakers of dominant languages. These speakers have no special obligation to English speakers to maintain their language, however they may well see the importance of doing so for themselves or their own community. One risk is that ineffective or inappropriate strategies may be put in place to protect and preserve languages, underplaying the socio-political and socio-symbolic dimensions of language: for example in seeking to preserve a language in folkloric or ceremonial contexts rather than encouraging its use in a diversity of ways (Fettes 1997:12). Similarly, the belief that a language can be ‘preserved’ might conceivably lead to a belief that it is enough simply to record and describe a community language for posterity; that language support work is somehow separate from broader issues of social equity and access; or the idea that vernacular and oral languages are somehow more natural and therefore primitive, than the developed, written language.
In fact, not only success, but the very possibility of effective intervention in favour of the preservation of the linguistic diversity is far more difficult in the case of humans. While, for example, a majority human group may applaud the adoption of policies to preserve animal or plant species in danger of extinction, the same group may object to action in favour of the maintenance of linguistic diversity in areas controlled by the State in which it forms the dominant part. In parallel to the absence of an ethical awareness(however small) in the domain of language preservation, there exists a predominance of ideologies and interests which, instead of favouring linguistic difference, promote homogeneity and the assimilation of groups other than the predominant one. In the case of language, we may find then that majority groups will refuse to help minorities maintain their language. Against this background, action in favour of creating contexts of cultural continuity may be impossible in spite of the active requests of the subordinate group, which, lacking control of its own social space, may find itself condemned to a slow but irreversible process of extinction as a specific linguistic group.
Ultimately, the most fundamental impetus for the protection and maintenance of biocultural diversity can come, not from top-down efforts, but only from the ground-up action of indigenous and other societies worldwide whose languages, cultural identities, and lands are being threatened by global forces. A perceived link between language, cultural identity, and land (rather than an abstract notion such as nature) is common among many indigenous societies (see, e.g., Blythe & Brown 2003). It is no surprise, then, that many of the most explicit efforts to maintain and revitalize linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity jointly are grassroots efforts, whether entirely endogenous or promoted and assisted by national and international organizations. Learning about and from these efforts and making the lessons as widely available as possible is the goal of some of the ongoing work in biocultural diversity (L. Maffi & E.Woodley, Global Source Book on Biocultural Diversity, in preparation).
12. Language as a Resource: Linguistic Diversity and the Human Potential.
But what comes most strongly in mind is the fact that preserving precarious languages is not just about educating future generations, but also about preserving the human potential for creativity and for expressing other valid realities, as ethnographers say. Questions about the consequences of loss of linguistic and cultural diversity have been raised mostly in terms of ethics and social justice, and of maintaining the human heritage from the past--and rightly so. However, when we consider the interrelationships between linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity, we may begin to ask these questions also as questions about the future--as related to the continued viability of humanity on earth. We may ask whether linguistic and cultural diversity and diversification may not share substantive characteristics with biological diversity and diversification, characteristics that are ultimately those of all life on earth. . The relevant issues relate to the adaptive nature of variation in humans (as well as other species), and to the role of language and culture as providers of diversity in humans. Human culture is a powerful adaptation tool, and language at one and the same time enables and conveys much cultural behavior. While not all knowledge, beliefs, and values may be linguistically encoded, language represents the main instrument for humans to elaborate, maintain, develop, and transmit such ideas.
Linguistic diversity is at least the correlate of diversity of adaptational ideas. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that "any reduction of language diversity diminishes the adaptational strength of our species because it lowers the pool of knowledge from which we can draw." It is true that diversity characterizes languages (and cultures) not just with respect to one another, but also internally, with patterns of variation by geographical location, age grade, gender, social status, and a host of other variables. This internal variation combines with the variation ensuing from historical contact among human populations in propelling language and culture change and all manners of innovation. However, as more and more languages and cultural traditions are overwhelmed by more dominant ones and increasing homogeneization ensues, one of the two main motors of change and innovation--the observation of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural difference--breaks down, or is seriously damaged. The end result is a global loss of diversity.
13. From Mono-Linguism to Heteroglossia.
To offer some provisional definitions, heteroglossia refers, first, to the way in which every instance of language use - every utterance - is embedded in a specific set of social circumstances, and second, to the way the meaning of each particular utterance is shaped and influenced by the many-layered context in which it occurs. The Bakhtinian concepts of dialogism and heteroglossia, of the centripetal and centrifugal forces that constantly shape language, and of language's internally stratified and dialogical nature present a challenging set of tasks for the analyst of language-in-use. Rather than feeling overwhelmed, however, the analyst can confront these challenges by defining carefully and specifically her or his motivating questions, level of analysis, and object of study. Just how much context is needed in order to adequately interpret a particular utterance will depend on answers to a variety of questions, Language permeates our lives, and yet most of us take it for granted. The use of language, an activity that can seem so “natural” and effortless, is made possible by extremely complex neural, social and cultural processes .Bakhtin's (1981) notion of heteroglossia as the social stratification of language serves as the starting point for analysis of the different voices than can be heard, read, inserted, deduced, created, repressed, negated, avoided or anticipated when one engages in any way with the interpretation or production of discourse. The effect of heteroglossia can be used in widely different ways by the presentation of the narration, ranging from a “war of languages” (Barthes 1984) to their tautology (zero heteroglossia). Between these poles we find various ways of incorporating intratextual discourses into the narrator’s text in the manner of quotation, as well as various forms of “textual interference” (Schmid 2003: 177–222) or, as Baxtin ([1934/35] 1981: 304) puts it, “hybrid construction,” namely “an utterance that […] contains mixed within it two utterances, two speech manners, two styles, two ‘languages,’ two semantic and axiological belief systems.” In a world with too many voices speaking all at once, a world where syncretism and parodic invention are becoming the rule, not the exception, an urban, multinational world of institutional transience – where American clothes made in Korea are worn by young people in Russia, where everyone’s “roots” are in some degree cut – in such a world it becomes increasingly difficult to attach human identity and meaning to a coherent “culture” or “language” (Ibid.).
Bakhtin is taking the concept of language and deepening it. Instead of seeing language as a fixed method of describing ideas, he calls it a dynamic guide to the social and intellectual characteristics of the grouping (ranging from an individual to an entire society) that uses it. These "contradictions" are an essential part of language. Words can over time, have not only differing but diametrically opposing meanings; understanding the differences of the meanings can be the crux of understanding a work. To further analyze, Bakhtin sees language as a sum of all the parts of a grouping: their location, their interests, their history, their age, their belief systems, and many other characteristics. Bakhtin views language as a system of unitary languages being utilized by individuals. While individuals may be speaking the same unitary language (for example English), the degree to which they use them and the variations they use can be extremely different (Professionally, casually, medically, literary, etc.). Individuals use this unitary language while adding their own "spin" on it. This evolves the one language into a mixture of dialects, slang uses, professionalisms, lingos, etc. However, languages can work despite heteroglossia: "At any given moment of its evolution, language is stratified not only into linguistic dialects...but also...languages of social groups, 'professional' and 'generic' languages, languages of generations and so forth..." (271-272). He does not see "language" as a concrete thing that can be taught to everyone for absolute mutual understanding. Rather, every language is constantly interacting with other languages both within and without people’s heads. A unitary language forms the basis through which people can communicate, but people develop their own versions to speak within their own group. Languages can even "intersect" on the same "plane:"
The notion of heterglossia both dramatically enriches as well as seriously complicates the work of the discourse analyst. The theory somehow promises and presupposes valuable insights, while practical application in analysis can be a real challenge. If traditional anthropology was obsessed with questions of the authenticity and incommensurability between cultural and linguistic traditions, modern anthropology focuses its attention on ‘heteroglossia’. This word was coined by Mikhail Bachtin when analysing literary texts and means “the simultaneous use of different types of discourse or other signs, the tension that is created between them and the conflicting relationship that revolve within a text” (Ivanov 2001, p. 107). But in modern social sciences the idea is removed from the field of pure textual analysis to describe the interaction between “voices” and discourses that in many parts of the world inextricably intertwine in everyday communication. Hidden within essentialist ideology for two centuries, heteroglossia seems to break out and come to the fore once again in the age of globalisation.
This in no way means that linguistic behaviours cease to be important elements of assertions of identity and to be interpreted and made use of in this way by social actors. However, “identity” should not be understood in the essentialist sense but in a processual sense: an incessant structure in which the actors, from various social levels, behave strategically using the cultural and linguistic “raw material” that is available to them. In globalised society languages, together with religion, are the main instruments to construct and represent an identity for themselves and for others. But, as has been said, this occurs on a variety of levels that in daily use may change continually. The example of a citizen that speaks one single language, that identifies him or her as a member of one single community or nation, is increasingly unlikely. In Europe, which is in the cradle of the Nation-States, the ideal model partly holds fast but here too it is undermined by phenomena that make the language question very much more complex.
Where Bakhtin seems to distinguish between monologized and double-voiced discourses, I would like to argue that no discourse can ever be completely and inherently monological. It is the analyst who chooses the scale of the analysis and allows minimal or maximal consideration for form and context. Opening up to a larger scale can lead to a larger degree of reaccentuation, which forces us to consider more complex social-ideological systems of genres and their heteroglossic relations.We could not be further from the idea of those closed and isolated languages that are so exclusive as to cause methods of thinking that cannot be measured - the great obsession of classical anthropology, which lies at the very heart of the ambiguous problem of linguistic relativism.
Verbal discourse is a social phenomenon. Form and content in discourse operate as one, and when contextualised lead to the formation of speech genres. Genres are constitutive of certain configurations of language use linked to particular social groups and contexts, which leads us back to the notion of social heteroglossia .At this point however the re-examination of the traditional model of relationships between language, culture and identity still lacks one dimension, what can be generally called politics. When we talk about actors and social groups that freely and creatively formulate strategies of identifying structures, and are able to move confidently in a context of heteroglossia, it should not be thought that all this occurs in a sort of political vacuum– like an innocent game between competitors that all start from the same level. On the contrary, the starting points of the “game” are precisely the great, dramatic inequalities in the distribution of recourses (economic and cultural) and of power that characterise modern life, in international relations as in those within individual societies. The formulation of the differences arises from this very fundamental asymmetry of relationships. This means that all politics of difference take place in the confrontation between two aspects that cannot be separated, like the two faces of a coin. In other words, difference, in linguistics too, is on the one hand asserts itself like a marker of belonging, often at least implicitly regarded as being exclusive and superior. On the other hand, it is emphasised as a stigma that marks the ‘others’, the bearers of a lower status. Starting off with the Greeks who called foreigners with no knowledge of Greek ‘barbarians’, the construction of downgrading markers according to linguistic use is a simple widespread cultural mechanism. As has already been said, one only has to think of how common jokes and witticisms are in modern societies about ‘how others speak’ - the lower classes, urban dwelling peasants, immigrants and so forth. Sarcasm that is anything but innocent, that should be understood in the light of what Pierre Bourdieu called strategies of distinction.
A key method of linguistic analysis when considering issues of identity and conflicts of values between different communities or 'social voices of heteroglossia' is to look for distinctive semantic patterns of evaluations .If therefore linguistic peculiarity has never been a cognitive prison, neither has it always been a purely free choice. For those belonging to the lower classes, identity is often not a choice but an imposition. But while linguistic use reflects a lower class, it may at the same time represent an element of ‘rebellion’ against the rules of the dominant classes. In other words, what begins as a stigma, may end up by being proudly asserted in the area of oppositive strategies (or ‘tactics’ of popular culture where the anti-hegemonic resistance is implicit and occasional, as those described by Michel de Certeau; see de Certeau 1990). A case that has been often studied in this area is for example the Afro-American English and its relations with the official language of the United States; but also the relations between Italian and its various dialects or regional varieties has very interesting complex aspects, and is extremely full of connotations with a political meaning.
Finally, if there is a common feature to the great complexities of linguistic and cultural relations in modern Europe and the world, it consists in the constant tension between universal codes of communication and local or vernacular forms of speech (and of life). Long considered a fundamentally human rule, mono-linguism today definitely seems to be an exception.
14. Conclusion.
We live in a world that becomes more interconnected every day. Language is a large part of this interconnection because it is the primary means for communication. Knowing more than one language, or being bilingual, not only connects you to your culture and family heritage, it also provides cognitive benefits. In as much as we support cultural variety and identity, we recognize the enormous value that a diversity of languages has to this effect. A language barrier is the most efficient self-defense of any independent community against wholesale US cultural imperialism. English may serve the purpose of communication between different cultures. But of what pertains to the internal aspects of a culture, as much as possible should be in a language of its own. And not just in a spoken language of its own, but if possible also in a writing system of its own.
Actually, because not every language is equally suited to express certain ideas, the ideologies that make one culture different from another, are, to a certain extend, a direct consequence of the fact that a different language is spoken and written. For in the same way in which our economic interests form our opinions, so a language has its own dynamics of creating ideas. That East Asia is the culturally most diverse corner of the world is in direct co-relation to the presence of more different languages and writing systems than anywhere else. Its rich flora of diverse cultures need to be preserved or else we all will lose identity, soul, and will become no more than 21st-century colonies—zombies or caricatures.
Stronger emphasis needs to be placed on embracing cultural diversity by acknowledging that language and culture promote other forms of dialogue and can, thus, enhance social inclusion in plural societies. Stakeholders and civil society groups must be invited to contribute to policy-making. ECMI’s focus is on obstacles to participation in political and public life that are based on language barriers, and on how governments can help to overcome such obstacles by developing appropriate public policies. For instance, governments can do so by providing educational services in the minority language at the national, regional and local levels, by offering assistance to media outlets that broadcast in minority languages, by supporting efforts by speakers of minority languages to learn the state’s language and by encouraging the employment of members of minority groups in administrative bodies.
Bibliography
Amery, R(1988). Warrabarna Karuna ! Reclaiming Aboriginal languages from written historical sources: Karuna case study, unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Linguistics, University of Adelaide.
Andersen, A.-M. (1997): Interkulturelle Wirtschaftskommunikation in Europa. Deutschland - Dänemark. Tostedt: Attikon.
Arab Human Development Report 2002, Creating Opportunities for Future Generation, UNDP, Jordan.
ar Mogn, O. and D. Hicks (2003). Breton: The Breton Language in Education inFrance 2nd Edition. Leeuwarden, Mercator Education:52
Austin,J. L. (1962): Aboriginal Languages of Australia. Atlas of languages. B. Comrie, S.Matthews and M. Polinsky. Sydney, ABC Book
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991), Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bach, Svend (1997): "Capitoli per una grammatica contrastiva di quattro lingue romanze: Morfosintassi del verbo, le preposizioni, le congiunzioni", (Pré)publications 158-159, 3-123.
Bach, Svend (2002): "Materiali per una grammatica contrastiva di quattro lingue romanze: Ortografia e pronuncia", (Pré)publications 188, 3-61.
Bakker, Peter, Yaron Matras & Hristo Kyuchukov (eds.)(1997): The Typology and Dialectology of Romani, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Barthes([1984] 1986). The Rustle of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Baxtin, Mixail (Bakhtin, Mikhail) ([1934/35] 1981). “Discourse in the novel.” M. M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: U of Texas P, 259–422.
Becker-Christistensen, Christian & Peter Widell (2003): Politikens Nudansk Grammatik, Politikens Forlag, København.
Bohn, Ocke-Schwen (2004a): ”How to organize a fairly large vowel inventory: The vowels of Fering (North Frisian)”, Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34, 161-173.
Bærentzen, Per (1992): "Die deutsche Wortstellung in kontrastiver Sicht", Deutsche Sprache 20, 111-126.
Bucholtz, M. & Trechter, S. (Eds). (2001). White Noise: Bringing Language into Whiteness Studies. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11, (1): 1-21.
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2004). Language and Identity. In Duranti (Ed). A Conmpanion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell Companions to Anthropology. UCLA, CA
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London,Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex'. London,Routledge.
Change in Continuity, Concepts and Tools for a Cultural Approach to Development ( 2000), UNESCO Publishing.
Colebrook, C (2002). Understanding Deleuze. Sydney., Allen & Unwin
Crawford, James. (2008). Advocating for English Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Crystal, David. 2000. Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University PresCummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
De Certeau, M., L’invention au quotidien. Tome 1 : L’art de faire, Paris, Gallimard, 1990
Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism andSchizophrenia. London, Continuum.
Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari (1989). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press
Deleuze, G. and C. Parnet (2002). Dialogues II. New York, Columbia UniversityPress
Errington, J. Joseph, 2001. Colonial Linguistics Annual Review of Anthropology 30 : 19-39.
Fill, & Mühlhäusler, Peter (eds). The Ecolinguistic Reader. Language, ecology and environment. London & New York: Continuum.
FISHMAN, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Fuery, P. (1995). Theories of Desire. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press
Gegeo, D. & Watson – Gegeo, K. (1999). “Adult Education, Language Change and Issues of Identity and Authenticity in Kwara ‘ae (Solomon Islands)”. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly 30,1: 22-36.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture, New York: Doubleday.
Harmon, David. 2002. In light of our differences. How diversity in nature and culture makes us human. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Harmon D, Maffi L. 2002. Are linguistic and biological diversity linked? Conserv. Biol. Pract.
3(1):26–27
Haugen, E. (1972). The Ecology of Language. Stanford, Stanford University Press
Hofstede, G. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent Grammar. The New Psychology of Language. M.Tomasello. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Ivanov, V., “Heteroglossia”, in A. Duranti (ed.), Key Words in Language and Culture, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 107-10.
J. Gumperz , S. Levinson, 1996.. Rethinking Linguistic Relatively, Cambridge, 1996 p.2
Jørgensen, Henrik (2000): Studien zur Morphologie und Syntax der festlandskandinavischen Personalpronomina, Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Århus.
Keniston, Kenneth, ( 2000), Language, Power and Software, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://web.mit.edu/kken/public/papers3.html
Leontovich, Andreamon, (1997), Does Internet Really Breed Cultural Imperialism? Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.teleport.com/~leontova/cippaper.htm
Maffi, Luisa ed. 2001. On biocultural diversity. Linking language, knowledge, and the environment. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Makoni, Sinfree1998. In the beginning was the missionaries’ word: The European invention of an African language. The case of Shona in Zimbabwe. In: Kwesi Prah (ed.), Between Distinction and Extinction: The Harmonization and Standardization of Languages, 157–164. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand Press. Makoni, Sinfree and Alistair Pennycook (eds.)
McGregor, William (2002): Verb classification in Australian languages, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
McGregor, William (1997): Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and LinguisticImperialism in the Pacific Region. London, Routledge.
Mühlhäusler, P. (2000). Language planning and language ecology . Current issue in Language Planning, 1(3), 306-307.
Mühlhäusler, P. (2001). Ecologists, linguistic diversity, ecology diversity. In L.Maffi (Ed). On bioculture diversity: Linking language, knowledge and environment .PP 31-42. London. Continuum.
Martinez, G. (2006). Mexican Americans and Language. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Nettle, Daniel, and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices. The extinction of the world's languages. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Web of Science® Times Cited: 12
Norton, Bonny. (2000). Identity and Language Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Our Creative Diversity Report (1995). The Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development, entitled “Our Creative Diversity Report” was first released in November, 1995
Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. New York, Longman
Pennycook, A. (2004). "Performativity and Language Studies." Critical Inquiry inLanguage Studies 1(1): 1-26.
Pierce, B.N. (1995). Social Identity, investment and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-13.
Posey, Darrell (ed.) (1999). Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. New York: UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) & Leiden: Intermediate Technologies, Leiden University).
Reagan, T. (2004). "Objectification, positivism and language studies: Areconsideration." Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 1 (1): 41-60.
Rijkhoff, Jan (2002): “On the interaction of Linguistic Typology and Functional Grammar”. Functions of Language 9.2, 209–237.
Rijkhoff, Jan (2003): “When can a language have nouns and verbs?”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 35, 7-38.
Rijkhoff, Jan (2004): The Noun Phrase (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory), Oxford University Press, Oxford (ny og udvidet udgave).
Ricento, T. (2006). Theoretical Perspectives in Language Policy. An Introduction toLanguage Policy.
Roland Barthes, "Science versus Literature", in Newton (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory, pp. 140-44; 142).
Romaine, Suzanne. forthcoming b. Biodiversity, linguistic diversity, and poverty – some global patterns and missing links. Language and poverty, ed. by WayneHarbert, SallyMcConnell-Ginet, Amanda J.Miller, and JohnWhitman. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sanchez, Sylvia. (1999). Issues of Language and Culture Impacting the Early Care of Young Latino Children. NCCIC Publications.
Schmid, Wolf (2003). Narratologija. Мoskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj literatury.
Sen, Amartya, ( 1998), Culture, Freedom and Independence, Culture and Indigenous Rights, World Culture Report, Creativity and Markets, UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
Servaes J. (ed) @002. Approaches to developments
SKUTNABB-KANGAS, Tove. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education – or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, Maffi, Luisa and Harmon, Dave (2003). Sharing A World of Difference. The Earth’s Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO, Terralingua, and World Wide Fund for Nature. 56 pp. (ISBN UNESCO 92-3-103917-2).
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2002). Language Policies and Education: the role of education in destroying or supporting the world's linguistic diversity. Keynote Address at the World Congress on Language Policies, 16-20 April 2002, organized by the Linguapax Institute in co-operation with the Government of Catalonia, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. The English version can be found at http://www.linguapax.org/congres/plenaries/skutnabb.html.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2004). ""Do Not Cut My Tongue, Let Me Live and Die With My Language." A comment on English and other languages in relation to linguistic human rights." Journal of Language, Identity and Education3(2): 127-135
Somerville MA, Rapport DJ. 2000. Transdisciplinarity: ReCreating Integrated Knowledge. Oxford: EOLLS
Togeby, Ole (2003): Fungerer denne sætning? Funktionel dansk sproglære, Gads Forlag, Copenhagen.
Vetter, E. (1999). Plus de Breton: Conflict linguistique en Bretagne rurale. Kergluez,An Here
Vikner, Sten (2005): "Immobile Complex Verbs in Germanic ". Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8.1-2, 83-115.
Vikner, Sten (2001): "Verb Movement Variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory". Habilitationschrift, Universität Tübingen.
Vikner, Sten (2004): "Nødvendigheden af en formel tilgang til sprogvidenskab", Magasinet Humaniora 2004.2, 12-16.
W. Davis, 'Vanishing Cultures', in National Geographic, vol. 196, no. 2, pp. 62-89, 1999
Webster, Frank, and Robins, Kevin, (2002), Prospects of a Virtual Culture,Science As Culture, Volume 11, Number 2.
Whiteley, P. (2003). "Do "Language Rights" Serve Indigenous Interests? Some Hopiand Other Queries." American Anthropoloogist 105 (4): 712-722
Yadava, Y.P. and Mark Turin.2007. “Indigenous Languages of Nepal: a Critical Analysis of Linguistic situation and Contemporary Issues. In Yadava and Bajracharya eds. IndigenousLanguages of Nepal: Situation, Policy Planning and Coordination, Kathmandu: NFDIN