Ndaba Nkomo, a regular opinion contributor to the Botswana newspaper Mmegi, recently wrote an editorial discussing the status of native languages versus European languages. In general, his editorials reflect a populist point of view and utilize a pseudo historical, pseudo factual style typical of political pundits like Glenn Beck. For example, in another editorial he decries the loss of moral standards in Botswana and states that women have the ultimate ability to maintain moral standards because men are unable to contain their sexual urges. Despite his obvious lack factual rigor and reliance on widely criticized cultural assumptions, Nkomo's arguments for what language represents can be seen as representative of widely held beliefs.
Nkomo, like many others, views language as a key to a people's culture and history. As we have discussed in class, this is a very popular point of view and one that is not without merit. People often feel that their native language allows them to understand how their ancestors thought.
However, he also uses fatalist arguments about the inability of Botswanans to learn proper English. He claims: "I have heard parents speaking to their children at home in English, a language they can never get right no matter how hard they try. Unless you are born in Britain or in an English-speaking country, you can never claim knowledge of English in its truest sense." He later points out that American news outlets often use subtitles when people from Botswana are interviewed even though they are speaking English because their accents are too difficult for Americans to understand. All of this means, he says, that Botswanans are learning a form of English that is not even respected by speakers in "English-speaking countries".
Nkomo's argument completely ignores the concept of local dialects and the organic development of language. Though people may be speaking what they consider to be the same language, dialects and vocabularies can develop to accommodate local ways of life. His assumption that the only proper forms of English comes from English-speaking countries is arbitrary and perpetuates the cultural imperialism he seems to advocate ending. With respect to news organizations like CNN placing subtitles under people from Botswana speaking English, he does not consider a much easier and more neutral explanation. Americans are not accustomed to the accent of people from Botswana. If they were similarly unfamiliar with British or Australian accents, they would probably need subtitles for speakers from those places as well. Furthermore, the need for subtitles shows that the form of English is sufficiently distinct in Botswana that it cannot be easily understood elsewhere. This only further proves that people from Botswana are not just blindly speaking an alien language, they seem to have at least somewhat adapted it.
In all, Nkomo claims that if people in Botswana lose their native language skills and only speak English, they will lose their culture as well. While this may be true to some extent, Nkomo ignores the experiences of other former colonies. Often, they have preserved aspects of their cultures and remain significantly distinct from the place their language comes from. Also, as previously stated, language can be adapted to change to reflect the needs of its speakers. This is not to say that there is no cultural value to preserving a native language. Throughout this course, we have discovered that the language we speak significantly affects how we think. If we are not thinking in the same way our ancestors did, then part of our culture will probably be lost. However, many of the simplifications and generalizations Nkomo makes reflect widely held assumptions about the link between language and culture. Though it is true that there is a significant link between language and culture, the post colonial world should be proof enough that the use of imperial languages does not necessitate adoption of that language's accompanying culture.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment