Most of us speak languages that are spoken by millions of people, such as English, Spanish, Chinese or Arabic. The idea that these languages might disappear anytime soon is beyond imagination - they are so widely spread that their disappearance may not even be possible. On the other hand, though, in class we talked about a lot of languages that have already disappeared or are on the verge of disappearing. Some of these languages are only spoken by 200 people, whereas today the number of English speakers is estimated to be 450 million people. Looking at these numbers, it is reasonable to argue that English, like any other dominant language, is not going to disappear anytime soon. So, it is difficult for dominant language speakers to empathize with people who are losing their own language. It is difficult for them to put themselves in shoes of minority language speakers. Thus, dominant language speakers may indeed feel indifferent to the problem of language loss.
In my paper, I acknowledge the reasons that lead to this indifference, but I also argue that these should not stop us, dominant language speakers, from realizing how important each and every language is to us and how much they mean for humanity - no matter how widely spread they are. I personally believe and argue that each language is a manifestation of human intellect and embodies ideas that humans have been inheriting and developing for centuries.
Although I felt very passionate about the topic, advocated the importance of every language and strongly argued that the loss of any language means a greater loss for humanity, an article that I have recently read showed me that I may have, after all, ambivalent thoughts on the issue of language death. I have recently read an article called "Turkey's fading linguistic heritage" by Anita McNaught in which the writer mentions the linguistic diversity in Turkey and how it is disappearing at an alarming rate. According to the article, UNESCO recently reported that there are 15 endangered languages and dialects in Turkey. The Turkish government and the Turkish society, however, are not concerned about the decline of language diversity, as "many Turkish speakers view any diversification of Turkey's 'Turkishness' as a threat to the integrity of the nation state."
After I read the article, I realized that I am one of those many Turkish speakers threatened by the language diversity in Turkey. There are many ethnic groups in Turkey, and in the past few years, a couple of them caused a great amount of tension in the country, such as the Kurdish population. Kurds, for instance, now have a national channel in their language, Kurdish, and this channel is endorsed by the Turkish government. Like many people in Turkey, I refuse to see this as an action to preserve the Kurdish language. I actually think of this as a threat to the national unity of Turkey and as an action to undermine the official language of the country, Turkish. Thus, sadly enough, I personally do not see any problems with ethnic languages in Turkey disappearing and the Turkish language being the only language spoken in the country. I am doing the exact opposite of what I am arguing in my paper: ignoring the richness and wealth of knowledge and intellect that every language possesses, and advocating for one common language in the case of Turkey.
I am not sure whether I am falling prey to a nationalistic sentiment, thereby having no problem with having languages that threaten my native language disappear. My reaction might also be a way to respond to the recent tensions we have had in Turkey regarding several ethnic groups, their cultures and languages. Still, while I can talk about why languages, especially minority and different ethnic languages, should be preserved, I see no problem with letting those that threaten Turkish go. I certainly see the minority languages as a threat to the Turkish languages, unity and culture.
How can I be alarmed by the loss of languages, and at the same time have no problem with the death of minority languages in Turkey? Do I confuse my ideas regarding the loss of languages with a strong sense of nationalism? Or is it actually not entirely possible to isolate ourselves from the society we live in or the language we speak and think about language death objectively? Is there a way to think objectively about language death when we are already influenced by particular languages and cultures?
Link to article: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/05/201051695350717990.html
Link to map: http://lingvarium.org/maps/18-turkey.gif
Begum, what an interesting dilemma!
ReplyDeleteI think that your nation's interests triumph over your desire to preserve endangered languages. Political stability often wins as a more important goal than satisfying the minority groups. Furthermore, it is important for a nation to be united under one language (as I have mentioned in the case of Ukraine). I am not sure how we can fairly judge which languages should be protected, or whether they need to be protected at all (from the tyranny of the masses).