Essay on Multilingualism and Multiculturalism
It has been estimated that approximately six thousand languages are in active use across the globe; it is further estimated that ninety percent of these languages will die out within the next hundred years (Hale et al. 1992). These estimates may have an alarming effect on linguists, as well as on those who would like to ensure that their cultural legacies are preserved in years to come.
When a language dies out, it does not necessarily mean that the people who speak it perish. Most commonly, the language that dies is only one of the languages spoken by a given culture. The dominant language eventually eradicates the use of the less dominant tongue. ‘Language death’, asserts Aitchison, ‘is an extreme form of language change, but ultimately, it is based not on any defect in the dying language, but on the prestige of the “takeover” language’ (2001: 103).
The attempts to revive these dying languages are the topics addressed in the scholarly pieces written by Nancy Dorian and Joshua Fishman. Both of these scholars attempt to answer, to a greater or lesser degree, such questions as: What attempts are being taken to preserve the language? Why are these attempts taken? And, finally, are these attempts really worth the effort? Fishman takes the topic even further, offering strategies culled from a variety of other sources and integrating them into a potential plan that will enable a language to remain viable.
Comparison/Contrast: Titles
The first and most obvious difference in these articles is suggested by their respective titles. ‘The value of language-maintenance efforts which are unlikely to succeed’, the title of Dorian’s piece, implies a foregone conclusion. It seems as though Dorian has resigned herself to the fact that Gaelic is dying out, and that she is trying to determine what, if any, the positive aspects of attempting to preserve it will be. She is aware of her own negativity, however, and addresses it herself. She writes in her introduction that she presents her findings ‘at the risk of casting a dark shadow over a subject already rendered gloomy by the sheer number of languages know to have died or acknowledged to be in the graves danger of doing so very shortly’ In acknowledging this issue directly, she defuses potential criticism from those who have already given up hope.
Fishman, on the other hand, starts off on a positive note, entitling his article with an up-beat and open-ended question: ‘What is reversing language shift (RLS) and how can it succeed?’ His opening tone, and the tone throughout, reflects a sense of optimism that may or may not be convincing to the reader. Dorian presents her own research to support the points she makes, and it is well documented and thorough. On the other hand, it seems that many of Fishman’s assertions are based on theories and ideas that, though not lacking in substance, are difficult to prove with any solid data. In that light, the solid and extensive research of Dorian’s piece seems much more persuasive.
Comparison/Contrast: Length
The second point that must be mentioned is the fact that each of these articles is of different length. While quantity is not necessarily an indicator of quality, it is clearly important in terms of the amount of information one can expect to find. Therefore, the fact the Fishman’s piece is approximately three times as long as Dorian’s merits some attention. Fishman goes into much more detail than Dorian does, perhaps because he has the space in which to do so. He presents a cogent and persuasive model as a viable way to keep dying languages alive. In contrast, Dorian’s article is closely focused on providing an explanation of the factors that have led to Gaelic’s endangered status. The length of her article does not allow for much hypothesizing; furthermore, it is not clear that this is what she has set out to do.
Comparison/Contrast: Methodology and Concepts
Whereas Fishman’s sense of optimism is engaging and encouraging, when seen in the light of Dorian’s well-documented findings, it seems less realistic. Dorian, after all, has spent over fifteen years observing attempts to preserve Gaelic. One of the main methods employed by those who wish to preserve the language is teaching. On this, Dorian writes that ‘the effect of these efforts to promote Gaelic by teaching it can be seen overall to have been alienating rather than reinforcing’ (1987). The problem, according to Dorian, seems to be the authoritarian air that the instructors take. This alienates would-be learners from continuing their studies. They not only drop out of programsthey are also less inclined to resume them at a later date.
Further, Dorian explains, ‘Languages struggling to survive have often had to make heroic efforts to bridge dialect differences in creating written forms which could be promoted without prejudice to one or another region and could therefore enlist the sympathy of the speaker population as a whole’ (Dorian 1987). The fact that regional antagonisms can flare up and adversely affect the efforts that have been made is certainly an issue that must be considered. This a cogent point, and one that is clearly based on research and experiences that Dorian has undertaken over the course of fifteen years.
Finally, Dorian discusses the political climate as an influence that will affect the linguistic future of a given culture. ‘Still the question remains whether large-scale changes in the political climate (), especially if accompanied by favorable economic developments, could work enough magic to bring a struggling minority language back from the brink’ (Dorian 1987). The political climate necessarily affects the development of a community, and is something that must be considered by any individuals who would try to effect change within that community. Interestingly, this does not seem to be a compelling issue for Fishman, whose plans for change seem to focus primarily on the positive aspects.
Fishman does not deny that these negative aspects existbut he does not dwell on them, either. Instead, he focuses on programs that he believes have been successful at reviving ancestral languages. Reversing language shift (RLS) is presented by Fishman as a viable method that will help speakers of minority languages to keep the language alive and to pass it on. He stresses that RLS must be approached correctly, and well planned, if it is to be effective (and to avoid exacerbating already fragile linguistic communities). Fishman’s uses the term RLS to refer to a multi-faceted plan of language rejuvenation as a means to revive languages that are in danger of becoming obsolete. Specifically, Fishman’s model involves the entire community: families, neighborhoods, schools, social service providers, and other local organisations.
Some of the ideas Fishman suggests include concepts that sound good in theory, but which may not be quite so easy to put into effect. For example, Fishman suggests employing social workers who are well versed in the minority language, and by having these workers do home visits (1990). This is something that sounds good in theory, but may prove to be difficult in reality. Another of Fishman’s ideas is to actively engage the parents in the community so that parents with more experience pass on knowledge to those who are less knowledgeable. Again, an idea that sounds as though it might have potential, but it would take time, energy, and resourcesas well as interested and willing parentsto form and maintain such a program.
This is an ambitious model; in addition, methods of implementation are likely to be costly in terms of both financial and human resources. Fishman’s ideas, however valid, lack the cogency that marks Dorian’s many years of experience. Dorian writes persuasively and sincerely of her experiences in East Sutherland. Fishman’s article, though wider in scope, and arguably more in-depth, has a detached style. Further, Fishman’s ideas are a bit unrealistic, since he seems convinced that all community members will be completely devoted to the preservation of a language that is, after all, dying due to lack of interest.
Conclusion
As stated in the introduction, of the six thousand actively used languages in the world, only a small portion of theseroughly ten percentwill make it to the next century (Hale et al. 1992). Dorian and Fishman both stress the importance of the connection between language and culture. In this light, the estimated loss of language a distressing prospect. Linguists are not the only individuals who are concerned about the implications of this loss; those who would like to ensure that their cultural legacies are carried on to future generations are alarmed as well. It is not just the loss of spoken words that is a cause for worry; the loss of valuable aspects of the culture will necessarily take place. Even if the language is revived at some future point, it will not be precisely the same as it once was. As Fishman puts it, ‘if ethnic identity is retained, notwithstanding all of the dislocation and disruption that an ethnic group undergoing relinguification must experience, that identity does not really pertain to the same culture that was initially associated with that identity’ (Fishman 1991).
In order to keep minority languages alive and strong, they must be revitalized. Dorian and Fishman seem to be in agreement on this point, although their approaches and attitudes are different. The minority languages are languages of ‘low prestige’, according to Aitchison, and will be destined to take a back seat unless active efforts are made to keep them alive: ‘the language with high prestige gradually encroaches on the other, and the low prestige variety fades away’ (Aitchison 2001: 103).
Fishman’s is ambitious model, and one that will likely be expensive in terms of both financial cost and human resources. Further, Fishman’s article seems at times to be overly optimistic. He glosses over some of the major drawbacks that are part of the reason that languages find themselves on the endangered list in the first place. He seems convinced that all community members will be completely devoted to the preservation of a language that is, after all, dying due to lack of interest. We know from Dorian’s considerable and direct experience in this field that efforts to revitalize a language may just as easily backfire, alienating those who would, ideally, be those most likely to be successful at carrying the language on.
Tags: Fishman, language, minority, multiculturalism, multilingualism, takeover
