You forgot Hebrew.
No doubt the Bible was originally written in them. But all those expressions that European languages share are translations from the ones in the Bible. We don't share expressions from the Rigveda or the Tao Te Ching.
Constructed languages
- Thread starter occlith
- Start date
No doubt the Bible was originally written in them. But all those expressions that European languages share are translations from the ones in the Bible. We don't share expressions from the Rigveda or the Tao Te Ching.
Is that so? I find Shakespeare's language quite readily understandable. I sometimes need a dictionary but that has more to do his expensive vocabulary than with the age of his language. Is it maybe the syntax? As a German I may have the advantage that early modern English syntax is closer to German syntax (e.g.: What make you here instead of What are you doing here in the opening scene of As You Like It corresponds to German Was macht Ihr hier).
Correct. Only a few passages in the minor prophets and in the Qtovim, most of them in the book of Daniel, are in Aramaic.
What privilege, exactly?
How does that privilege manifest itself?
What concrete consequences does it have?
So a native Arabic speaker may learn in school that such-and-such an expression has its origins in xyz, whereas others may not know this. So what? In what concrete way is the Arabic speaker privileged here?
Can you give a concrete example of what you mean?
What are they relevant to?
It’s a very important matter. If most native speakers are not aware of the cultural origins of the words they use, how are they privileged compared to non-native speakers?
What’s “real English”? And again, what are some concrete examples of how the lack of neutrality you perceive would consequentially privilege someone over someone else in an unjust or detrimental manner?
I can see native or superior proficiency in a language privileging some people over others. That goes without saying. I don’t get the other stuff about cultural aspects being a source of privilege.
Yes, the 'German' type of inversion is extremely limited in modern English. Modern American students may lack the necessary parsing skills.
Yes, definitely. Whether it’s due to vocabulary or syntax or both (I would say both), Shakespeare is very hard to read for most native speakers of English, including many who are relatively educated. I would say only a small percentage can read Shakespeare with anything that could be called ease, and that percentage is even smaller if we’re just considering high school students.
Christianity shaped English!?
The Authorised Version is necessarily in English. It was "Appointed to be read in Churches" and the Book of Common payer uses the same language. At the time it came out church attendance was compulsory and when it stopped being compulsory continued to be high. Most people got to hear and continue to hear it today. The language was a bit archaic for its time, but that was deliberate to give it authority when it was read out. Even non-regular churchgoers are fond of it. Whatever you think of the Bible it cannot be denied, as the Bible Gateway says, that "its [theAV's] powerful, majestic style has made it a literary classic, with many of its phrases and expressions embedded in the English language". The many phrases and expressions are embedded because people heard them and writers took them up and repeated them. They are not embedded for any religious reason.
The language of Shakespeare also has a powerful, majestic style with many of its phrases and expressions embedded in the English language having entered the mainstream, mainly through other writers repeating them.
No one would say that the theatre shaped English, so why should they say that Christianity shaped English? The AV and Shakespeare have been influential, but many other factors have helped shape English.
The language of the English speaking inhabitants of North America in 1600 was the same as that spoken in England at the same time. So the US and UK pupils are equally advantaged/disadvantaged when they "do" Shakespeare. I am inclined to think that the difficulties attributed to understanding Shakespeare are exaggerated. Pupils may have a problem with Shakespeare because they come to it believing it is boring. It can be tedious "doing" a play whoever wrote it - plays are meant to be performed and watched, not studied laboriously. The vocabulary may need footnotes for a modern reader, but not to the extent that the flow is interrupted. I have out of interest just read the first scene of Hamlet and there are only a few words which some may not know. Not all the syntax is modern, but again I cannot see that that significantly prevents comprehension. People today have no problem with negatives being formed by "not" following the verb because it happens in Modern English with the verb "to be" and with auxiliary and modal verbs, as does inversion when forming questions.
I am thy father's spirit,
Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison-house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combined locks to part
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine:
But this eternal blazon must not be.
I think most people get the drift even if they do not know what "blazon" means.
Sure. Like other European languages is full of words and expressions from Biblical and other Christian stories and teaching. Without Christianity, English would be a very different language, if it existed at all.
I disagree with you. I just read it at an ordinary speed and I didn't even get the drift. I'd have to read it very carefully and very closely to even have a chance at getting the drift. You're right: "blazon" is the only word I don't recognize, so it's not a matter of totally unknown words.
Okay, I just read it again, more closely, and now I do understand more of it, although there are still parts that are unclear, for example, "fast in fires" and the use of "that" in the second sentence. Oh! I just got that. "but that" = "if it were not for the fact that." See? That's not what I call easy processing.
I am positive that most people would not get the drift. I think you may be biased because you're clearly well-educated and far above average when it comes to linguistic abilities. You're telling me most high school students would get the drift? Not a chance.
Wait, "porpentine"? I processed that as "porcupine." I guess that's the meaning? I don't know the word "porpentine."
I'm not sure people would figure out that "start" here means "react to being startled" and not "begin" (which doesn't make sense).
I didn't say cultural aspects were a source of privilege. The cultural aspects have to do with the neutrality of a language, because they shape the language and the way we express and think, regardless of whether the speaker is fully aware of it or not. We can perfectly discuss if that effect is relevant or not, or if consensus is more important than neutrality, and so on, but believing a language has become neutral just because some speakers grown up in a different context have adopted it is simply misguided. It may become so with the passing of time, but it certainly takes time, not a few decades.
The privilege is held by the native speaker of a language which is not neutral. They are two related concepts but are not the same thing. The concept is easy: a final match between A and B is played at stadium C. That's what makes it neutral. It doesn't matter if A is better than B, or if they're both at the same level.
That’s exactly what I want to discuss.
I never said that. I think we all agree that no natural language is neutral in terms of the cultural and historical factors that shaped it. The context of this discussion is the pros and cons of constructed languages. For something to count as an argument for constructed languages, there needs to be a real problem they would potentially be solving. What is the real problem posed by the lack of cultural neutrality in the history of a natural language?
Again, in what concrete way are they privileged?
I can see Team A being at an advantage if the match is held at their home stadium because, for example, it’s easier for the players and their fans to get there. That’s the kind of thing I’m asking about. Other than superior proficiency, which you said is not what you’re talking about, what kind of practical advantages are conferred upon the native speaker of a given natural language used for communication?
Whilst I am prepared to accept that it is not unreasonable to class many native English speakers (as well millions of others) as "cultural Christians", I cannot see how Christianity shaped English more than any other factor.
An example of what we mean by languages not being neutral is the fact that Arabic has many common expressions used with non-religious meanings whose literal meanings are nevertheless religious. The fact that the literal meanings are religious is probably a product of the fact that Arabic is, and has been for many years, the language of Islam. So Arabic is not neutral in the sense that it has some expressions reflecting that history.
I agree with all of that. What I'm having trouble understanding is in what concrete or practical way the fact that Arabic has some expressions reflecting its history privileges native speakers of Arabic when Arabic is used as a means of communication between them and non-native speakers of Arabic.
I agree with all of that. What I'm having trouble understanding is in what concrete or practical way the fact that Arabic has some expressions reflecting its history privileges native speakers of Arabic when Arabic is used as a means of communication between them and non-native speakers of Arabic.
Imagine English without the Norman invasion. European medieval form of government and society would not have happened without Clovis' conversion to Christianity.
The time and money non-native speakers have to invest to learn English is not trivial. Even when we know the language, native speakers will be preferred because their accent is better and their language use is more elegant and has fewer grammar mistakes.
On top of that, English as a lingua franca confers enormous advantages to cultural products in that language. So English-speaking countries have a cultural influence that isn't proportional to their importance.
I am not keen on the use of "privilege", but it's obvious some people start with a huge advantage in that aspect.
On top of that, English as a lingua franca confers enormous advantages to cultural products in that language. So English-speaking countries have a cultural influence that isn't proportional to their importance.
I am not keen on the use of "privilege", but it's obvious some people start with a huge advantage in that aspect.
Consider Thailand. It is bordered by Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Malaysia. It has dealings with China and Japan. Laos is on a dialect continuum with Thai. The main languages of all the other countries and Thai all belong to different language families and are therefore not mutually intelligible. I strongly suspect that there are few individuals in Thailand who speak Burmese, Khmer, Malay, Chinese and Japanese. I also strongly suspect that any business in any of these countries which does business abroad has at least one person (and probably more) in the company with a good command of English. On occasions when businessmen from these countries (few of whom will be Christians) do business and socialise in Thailand and speak English, I have to doubt that they regard English as anything but neutral. Why should Thais feel any different if doing business with Americans, British or Australians?
For many people in the world second language acquisition and use is a wholly pragmatic issue and they are not concerned with how language and culture interact.
For many people in the world second language acquisition and use is a wholly pragmatic issue and they are not concerned with how language and culture interact.
You may find this discussion interesting. Opinions differ, but the consensus leans towards the view that there is no major problem in understanding the language, especially if watching a play rather than reading it.
Students of English generally learn English by using text-books printed in the Uk (Europe) or the USA (the rest of the world?!). Almost all these books are packed with articles focused on the English culture, images of London and other appealing British cities, in addition to general cultural aspects related to the UK and the whole anglosphere at large. Isn't this a cultural privilege?
Are the other languages as studied as English? That's the point. English is the only global language for the time being. In addition, languages are never neutral, in my view.
Last edited:
Preferred for what? I want to make sure I know exactly what you're referring to before responding, but it sounds like you're talking about language proficiency. It goes without saying that native speakers have an advantage over others when it comes to language proficiency, but we've already addressed that. The same thing would happen with any constructed language. Even if you don't have "native speakers," you're going to have speakers who are more proficient than others, and they're going to be "preferred" for performing various linguistic activities (such as giving news broadcasts or doing voiceover for a movie), if that's what you mean.
You have a point there. This is the first culturally based argument I've seen that describes a real, concrete advantage that doesn't have to do with language proficiency.
Yes, exactly!!! I think it's easy to forget that the vast majority of language users in the world don't think about these things and use language as primarily or solely a tool for communication.
It doesn't have to be that way, i.e. that's not ah automatic consequence of English being a lingua franca. You could very easily create textbooks and other learning materials with articles, etc. about other cultures and locations. And in this day and age, I don't even think that would be too difficult to do.
A cultural privilege for who? Who benefits? "Privilege" is a benefit or advantage that some people have. Who gets a special advantage because the book has cultural aspects in it? Who benefits from a book they've never seen?
Yes. I don't think it's a really big deal, people are usually treated for their qualifications and skills rather than their accents. However many studies point at accent discrimination within a country, in which regional accents are penalized, and I wouldn't be surprised this happened on an international scale, penalizing thick foreign accents in English.
Even then, the cognitive effort one has to put speaking English as a native speaker and as a non-native speaker are nothing alike. So even when the non-native has learned English, they still face a disadvantage.
The whole point, however, is this advantage would be earned rather than just happening to be brought up in an English-speaking milieu.
There is some imbalance in conversations between native and non-native speakers. All I'm going to say is when speaking English with a Swede, a Greek or an Italian I have a sense of camaraderie I can't have with an Anglo. It's like playing a match away, if we stay with the football metaphor.
The cognitive effort one has to put speaking <any language> as a native speaker and as a non-native speaker are nothing alike. English is probably more difficult than many languages.
This is just my opinion, but I think that many people who use English as a lingua franca only use a small subset of English, and speak with a pronunciation I would not understand. They don't need fluency in a lingua franca.
In the US, L2 speakers of English are so common that it doesn't matter in most situations. People simply don't expect fluency from friends, co-workers, store clerks, etc.
This happens in the US. People in many parts of the US feel negatively about "New York City" accents, which (to many people) sound harsh, abrupt, rude. Such accents have a bad reputation.
Other US discrimination is probably regional (rather than accent), but your accent identifies your region.
Ive traveled around the U.S. a little bit and I would say that most people are generally understandable, whether an Asian, Middle Eastern, or otherwise. There is the occasional word that can throw one off but usually pretty easy to figure out. I had a cashier of Middle Eastern descent tell me to check out the "Allah-Din" (My ears heard) restaurant, and I paused a second. Alladin, like the Disney cartoon about the magic Lamp. Which then clicked in my head must be tied to Allah, and I had never considered that. Either way, I figured it out quickly with out his aid.
The "Valley" accent of cali comes to mind when you mention accents that some dislike in the U.S. haha specially people from other states realizing their new neighbor is from California haha Looking at you Texas.
As an English speaker though, I do find my spelling tends to flip flop between American and British spelling. I think due to reading novels by British authors and a lot of history books, but who knows. My pronunciation though is not British. Im German and Welsh/Irish by blood and born and raised in Alaska.
That's odd. I wonder why that is.
That could be part of the reason.
To you, does AE seem very different from BE, or does AE just seem like another dialect?
Typo?
Shakespeare's vocabulary was extensive and expansive, but not expensive.I am pretty sure I wrote expansive. Doing so again, I noticed the auto correct if my phone silently changing it into expensive. Only after typing expansive four times in a row would it adapt and leave expansive. The mysteries of technology.Typo?
To me it is a variety and not a dialect because standard language is different as well and not only popular language. But in general, the differences between dialects within England (I purposefully said England and not Britain to avoid opening yet another can of worms) and the US to be significantly stronger than between standard BrE and standard AmE.
I should maybe stress that it is less easy for to follow the language on stage than reading it. It is not easy for me to parse it in real time but we are explicitly talked about reading. If the discussion had been about hearing, my reply might have been a bit different.
Another thing I noticed is that it matters greatly how regularly you read older texts and I do it maybe more often than the average high school student. In my language, the equivalent of the OED is the Deutsches Wörtbuch by the Grimm brothers. The oldest parts are close to 200 years old. In my days at university, I regularly used it in the university library but after leaving university I had no access to it for about 20 years. The printed version has 40 volumes and is, apart from just using too much space, much to expensive to put it into your private book shelf. Then it became available first on CD for a very reasonable price and then even online for free and I started using it again. When I restarted using it, I needed several attempts to parse a single sentence and was totally baffled because I remember having used it without any difficulties at university. Noe that I use it regularly again, I don't understand what problems I ever had.
Could I choose advantage? For whom? For Native speakers of English (as a group) and particularly the British ones, according to my previous example.
This comment was about pictures in a book, not about any other source of privilege.
How do pictures in a book give an advantage to people who never see that book? I don't understand.
Problems are 'real' or not depending on each individual. As we've already mentioned, a natural language has imposed itself upon others in the past. The fact that we Europeans use English 'freely' as a lingua franca too in most cases doesn't change that fact, because we do it from the moment English became a world-wide lingua franca through colonial imposition. We didn't do it out of thinking in the marvelous features of the language or because we though that Shakespeare was a hell of a guy. We did it, in a nutshell, because the US won World War Two. Of course young people will use it 'freely' because of accepting a statu quo and ignore or disregard history, but that doesn't change the fact it cannot be considered neutral. So we go back to the same point: Is the fact that it's not neutral important? And there we should statistically survey what people think.
I think Dymn already addressed it quite well.
Sometimes English speakers think that all Europeans speak English fluently but with an accent, as if everybody was a Dutch or a Swede. In truth, many speak what has been called Euro-English, a more understandable English that leaves native English speakers from the UK or Ireland aside, because their way of speaking is 'fast and complicated' and often 'weird' (by weird I'm referring to native speakers who either speak quite off the norm -say, a Mancunian- or love to use slang). And many others simply have an English level as good as the level of many Americans who say they took Spanish for seven years and they only can say Dónde está la biblioteca.
I already mentioned the time that is spent for culture-related items in the teaching of the language. It is no surprise that many people end up knowing more about aspects from English culture than from any other, sometimes even including theirs. Empires, language and culture always go hand in hand. Take a look at these days. Find me someone who doesn't know what Christmas is.
No. If you don't teach anything from the culture(s) directly related to the language, you're missing a high number of words and expressions linked to that. And if you're applying it just as a cold tool upon cultural items of your surrounding, you're just treating it as some sort of Esperanto, and students notice that's not the real deal. That is a very forced way of trying to make something that is not neutral to look neutral.
Historically, that is true. Many languages have been "the language of the empire" over the last couple of thousand years. English, French, Spanish, Turkish, Greek, Italian (Roman), Persian, Mandarin...I've missed a few since I'm not a history buff.
There might be some exceptions: the US never had an empire. But its culture is seen around the world. Not UK culture: US culture.
That might be true in Europe, but not in most of the world. In recent decades English is popular for one main reason: business. Some guy in Thailand might not know a thing about World War Two, but knows that his company needs someone who speaks English in order to do business in the world-wide market.
That is a holiday all over Europe. It is connected to a religion, not to a language or one country's culture.
But I don't think it proves anything. Find me an American who doesn't know about "Chinese New Year", or doesn't know about "tsunamis" or roughly what "sushi" is. The list is endless. Everybody knows some things about foreign cultures, even if they are stereotypes.
That was Latin, not Italian. Anyhow, Italy had its own tiny empire till the Second World War.
Maybe formally. But you can read a whole wikipedia article about American imperialism (sic).
Sure. My comment was related to previous ones about English being used in Europe and not in a postcolonial territory. Of course everything is connected. English is the first global language because, unlike all other language impositions of previous empires, it has come at a time in which real globalization has taken place in terms of business, communication, etc.
Yes. But it was far from being celebrated in the Americanized way we see these days. You can add Halloween to the pot too, etc.
Knowing is one thing, celebrating it is a different story. Do Americans who are not Chinese-Americans celebrate the Chinese New Year at all?
That is precisely the point I am getting at. We can start off by thinking of any natural language as a collection of elements with expressive potential existing in something approaching a Platonic realm. The speakers of any language, whether native or not, select the elements they need to express what they want to say without any thought of the history of the language. If thought of like that then language is as neutral as mathematics. The real world is not though an ideal realm and it is all in practice rather messy. What is considered oppressive varies from place to place and within each place from person to person. We can though generalise by saying that in many places in the world a significant number of people feel that English serves a very useful function and in doing so look to the future rather than the past. We no longer live in a world where most people only need to talk to people in the same village. Doing what your forbears did is fine so long as it does no harm and so long as no one insists you must do what your forebears did. There is no necessary connection between any of nationality, race, religion, culture or language however you define them.
You can indeed add meanings or change structures by using English for cultural elements you relate to. I myself could end up saying that 'Vilafranca castlemakers loaded an awesome pillar of nine with lining, handcuffs and props'. I doubt anyone would make much sense of it, but I guess I can say it. Yet by doing that, the language doesn't become more 'neutral', but more diverse. Once you'll get fully developed Naija, Singlish, Euroglish, etc, people won't have a 'neutral' language for communication, they'll simply have become languages different from English.