I had always considered myself as part of the universalist camp, a Chomskyan by heart. I still appreciate and value the ability to map and break down language into its finest parts, but I have started to wonder if that activity is so important.
When I first got into linguistics, I saw the concept of generative grammar, defined as an innate set of linguistic principles shared by all humans, as the great equalizer. I still strongly believe that humans are born with the innate ability to learn language. We are hard-wired to absorb the language around us in a very short amount of time. You might want to think of generative grammar as a bird nest resting in the part of our brain dedicated for language. It is already constructed and waiting for a bird, or birds, to start a family and fill it up. The nest represents the structure of language, kind of placeholders for the nouns, verbs, adjectives, and so on, waiting to be activated. The bird (monolingual) or birds (bilingual/multilingual) represent the language/s that we hear as babies. We all have the basic building blocks of language, and no matter what language, French, Swahili, or Finnish, we will acquire it. Equally, if we hear a combination all three, as child, we will acquire it with little effort (note: it is common for multilingual children to start speaking later than their monolingual counterparts, but will quickly catch up later). If one doubts my statements, one only needs to look towards their own child and reflect in their rapid language advancement despite little to no formal instruction.
However, what generative grammar revealed about language acquisition also impacts how we view language itself. Yes, we can show, by boiling down language and demonstrating that it is composed of parts that it is all the same. However, the fact is, we have fewer languages to do that with. By 2100, more than half of the current languages spoken will disappear (National Geographic). It seems to me that we are working ourselves out of a job. So, should our primary duty as linguists be to simply classify and break down language? If we view languages as all equal, does it matter when one dies? Does it matter that some languages classify knowledge, such as varieties of medicinal plants, differently than we do in English? A pure Chomskyan would say no, it does not matter; but I am starting to think it does.
So, now that I have started to question the view of universal grammar and find myself attracted to linguistic diversity rather than simplification, which kinda makes me feel like I am leaving a church, where do I go? I have found a home the areas of language planning and ecology.
Language planning refers to the methods, macro or micro, that happen to support a language or languages. Some language planners adopt the concept of linguistic human rights (LHR), which basically states that humans have the right to access to their mother tongue, the ability to fully develop it, and the right to speak it. In addition, LHR includes that people have the right to access the official language of a state. A final part of LHR is related to language planning where there should be no forced language-shift, rather a government does not have the right to force people to speak one language over another. Linguistic Ecology (LE) creates ties between linguistic diversity and biodiversity.
There are strong opinions about language and what languages are acceptable. We as individuals suggest language policies and how to regulate language all the time. We only have to look at local chat-rooms to see people complaining about having language options between English and Spanish for automated telephone services to scratch the surface of our emotional response to language. “Why should I have to push “1” for English? Isn’t this America?” So, what are the arguments for linguistic diversity, and why should we reject the concept of monolingualism?
As put forth by Mulhlaulser (a champion of language ecology) there are four points to take into consideration when thinking why we should preserve language diversity. The first two are moral and scientific. If we accept the significant decline of linguistic diversity we are severing future generations from the knowledge embodied in the world’s lesser-known languages. By allowing languages to die, we are loosing medicinal knowledge and theoretical knowledge that could lead to potential scientific discoveries. For example, the study of some Australian Aboriginal languages concept of environment would “could contribute significant insights to its understanding by white mainstream scientists” (Mulhlaulser, 333).
The last two are economic and aesthetic. Many will suggest that it is economically smart to reduce all administrative tasks into one language; however, people who only consider short-term solutions tend favor this perspective. How many people can get jobs speaking Japanese or German? “ In a country with a population of 20 million, there may be room for 10,000 leaders with fluency in Japanese but perhaps not 100,000” (Mulhlaulser, 334). Finally, as with any area, we should value diversity going beyond “need” and “profit” adding an aesthetic appreciation for languages.
Further things to look at and read:
National Geographic’s Webpage on Disappearing Languages
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/mission/enduringvoices/
Terralinga: Organization that focuses its efforts on lingustic and biological diversity. http://www.terralingua.org/html/home.html
Language Account: A webpage I created where you can learn about language diversity through articles and videos as well as share your language stories http://languageaccount.wetpaint.com/
Muhlhausler (2000). Language Planning and Language Ecology. Current Issues In Language Planning, 1 (3) 306-367
