LANGUAGES AS WEAPONS

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 9817, 22 February 1936, Page 17 (Supplement)

LANGUAGES AS WEAPONS

(Christian Science Monitor.)

THE PROFESSOR sat on the verandah of his favourite hotel and glared angrily at the hotel writing paper. The word “Hotel” had been crossed -out, and “Gasthaus” (guest-house) laboriously and patriotically put in its place. The professor was a good Conservative and always had said “Hotel,” even if it did have a slightly foreign ring. He was therefore naturally put out at being corrected, and said so to the judge who sat opposite and did not commiserate. With dignified resignation the Professor pushed the despised paper away from him: “Heuta ist mir das Telefon kaputt gegangen,” he began. (To-day my telephone broke down). “Das was?” questioned the judge. “Das Telefon,” snapped the Professor. “Aoh, Sie meinen Fernsprecher." (You mean farspeaker.) The Professor shrugged his shoulders and forced himself to agree. But further conversational openings were equally unfortunate. He stated that he was going out in an “auto,” and was told that he meant “Kraftwagen” (power-wagon). He began to lose patience, to say that he supposed he also had the right to “kritisieren” (criticise) —“verurteilen,” interjected the judge—op must he bow on all questions to the superior knowledge of a master of “Jurisprudent)”? “Reichtswissenscroft,” deprecated his friend. This was too much. Abruptly the Professor rose from his chair and stretched out his .hand. “I must go—adieu,” he said. “Leb’ wohl,” corrected the other. * * * * * The Professor, as a German, was however by no means unique. In fact- -he was less badly placed than some of his fellow mortals, since he was at least forced to speak, though with pedantic purity, a language of international importance, a language spoken by perhaps 80,000,000 people in Europe and many thousands more outside. If he had been an Irishman, a South African, a citizen of one of the post-war Baltic republics or even an Italian, he might conceivably have found himself in similar difficulties. For everywhere there has sprung up an irresistible respect for “the vernacular,” the Pure Speech of the People, undiluted with Internationalisms and short cuts to intelligibility. In Ireland “the Gaelic” is being revived. Now, in the West there are “mountainy men” who “have the Irish” and precious little else. To encourage this independence of spirit Jt was decided to build a fine Irish College at Galway. The other day an Irishman on being asked about its progress, replied, “It was shtarted before the lasht election; it is expected that work will be reshtarted before the next.” So much lor the burlesque side. But In reality the Irish Republican Is utterly serious about his Gaelic. The signposts in the Free State have the names of the plaoes in Gaelic first—and then in English. A post office is primarily an Olflg and Phulst and only secondarily a post office. And intending -civil servants have to satisfy the examiners as to their knowledge of Gaello before being admitted to the public service. The feelings of the patriotic Irishman are shared by patrlotio Welshmen. Only lately a society in North Wales, finding that English was penetrating farther and farther Into the Welsh community as the one common language, issued an appeal to teachers and local authorities to aid In bringing up a new generation on Welsh as its native language. Again, If we look at the continent of Europe we find struggles no less bitter to preserve native languages from Invaders and to purify those languages which are in current use and in no danger of extinction. In Belgium the Flemish element has made strenuous attempts to turn the University of Ghent into a purely Flemish institution, and the Flemish Parliamentary group Is apt to dissooiate Itself from views expressed publicly In French alone. In Spain the Catalans take a similar line, a professor at Barcelona having informed a friend of the writer's that he was giving up research work for two years to reorganise the University on separate lines. Again the Italians, quite apart from the thorny question of the Germans in South Tyrol, are anxious to Cultivate Their Own Language, and frown on words which are obvious adaptations of foreign forms. A typical rule Is that which forbids premieres of foreign films In foreign languages; the first presentation must always be in Italian even If the synchronisation may be poor and spoil the effect, and even if the mouth of Wallace -Beery, while framing the phrase "Let’s go,” should produce the word “Andiamo.” And so the tale goes on. There are tussles between states and minorities In Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Rumania. The Baltic States Insist upon retaining their native dialects whatever the practical disadvantages. Farther south, the Greek Government is trying to cultivate the national conscience by eliminating the teaching of foreign languages In the lower forms of the primary schools. The pupils thus concentrate on imbibing pure Greek Instead of “demotild” (the popular speech) or a foreign tongue. In Persia schools and public Institutions are being thoroughly Persianised. In Turkey a committee of experts has been working on a dictionary of purely Turkish words which the public is to be urged to use in writing and conversation to the exclusion of all others. Meanwhile the Koran Has Been Translated from attend the mosques may understand the teachings of the Prophet. The nationalist-linguistio movement has. it will be observed, two distinct aspeots: the desire to make the

TREND TOWARDS NATIONAL VERNACULAR.

people within a given group speak the language of that group, and the effort to secure that the language adopted by that group shall be pure of its kind, unadulterated by foreign forms. The main obstacle to the second process Is Inertia—if it is comfortable and usual to say “garantleren,” why bo'ther to spend unnecessary energy on “gewahrleisten”? Why trouble to invent a correct circumlocution for “le smoking," “high life,” “le foxtrot, “le turflste”—all of which expressions, be it noticed, it would be only too easy to translate If desired. It takes a heavy bureaucratic hand to guide the progress of a language; an Academic Franchise can merely record progress and shake a regretful head at the milestones. The propagation as opposed to the purification of a language breaks down when two groups clash within one administrative unit. Sometimes the difficulty is solved by the admission of two official languages, Finnish and Swedish in Finland for instance, and English and Afrikaans in South Africa. Logically there need be no limit to the number of official languages, and a proposal was recently mooted and received wide acceptance to allow three official languages In what was formerly German South West Africa; namely, English, Afrikaans and German. But apart from the administrative difficulty—a Finnish subordinate -railway official can hardly be expected to know Swedish —there is the more obvious fact that the minority i-s not often sufficiently important to warrant the adoption of Its language as official. Then the Trouble Begins. It usually centres round the -schools. The building of a minority school proceeds perhaps quite placidly. Then may it be opened for instruction in the minority language? Well, yes, but there Isn’t enough demand. (Usually it has to be shown that there are some 40 children who will attend regularly before any grant from State funds will -be available.) It is then proved that there is sufficient demand, whereupon, the authorities decide perhaps that there is insufficient air' space. By the ti-me the air -space is passed, three children have left the neighbourhood and there are no longer enough to qualify. This description implies no reflection on any one nation; it is only the expression of one side of that nationalistic -spirit, which appears to be still In the ascendant, although Its wisdom is universally doubted by those who take two minutes to think the matter over. There are innumerable occasional causes for such policies. But to arrive at an understanding of the fundamental causes, -one must inquire for a moment into the nature of language itself. Language is the vehicle of thought: as such It Is somewhat In-elasti-c. That is to say there are certain English and American modes of thinking which French and German people cannot express- “To like,” for instance, is translatable by “aimer bein,” “plaire,” “gefallen,” etc., but only approximately and not exactly. If, therefore, a person is given -a'system of methods of expression which corresponds to a particular type of mind, his mind is bound to be influenced to -some extent by that system; the language thus helps unconsciously to develop the ‘national consciousness.” And such a thesis May Explain the Failure of Esperanto to spread with any great rapidity, 6ince as an artificial, synthetic type of language, it corresponds to no natural type of thought. Of course thought does transcend language if you think hard enough; but exchanges of thought, be., -speech, are limited by its resources. There is thus some truth in the fatal doctrine that a good speaker of a given language will be a good citizen of the country’ whloh talks the language. It was the theory on which the Germans proceeded before the war, when they tried to root out the speaking of Polish. It is a theory whloh some nations have an inclination towards using still. There is a phase of nationalism, sometimes indeed an exalted nationalism; but when, as in some cases, the struggle is partially rooted in an ancient political quarrel, the campaign may become bitter in its pettiness. The national movement In languages is perhaps 150 years old. Certainly In the middle of the eighteenth century there existed a lackadaisical Internationalism about language which allowed Frederick the Great, one of the greatest national heroes that ever lived, to speak and write Frenoh as a natural habit and to designate the highest Prussian military honour by the French name which it bears even now, “Pour le Merlte-’’ But at the end of the -century came the racial and romantic movement. People looked back to their own pasts, resurrected their own legends, their own customs and their own languages. The Slav race of the Austrian Empire and the -Balkans and the Rumanians led the way; for a whole century subject races strove to accomplish a political freedom which would give outward expression to their cultural liberty. The Italians, the Rumanians, the Serbs, the Bulgarians all in turn Ridded Themselves of Foreign Domination and fn 1918 the turn of the others, Poles, Finns, Czechs, Lithuanians, etc., came too. Freedom has been won; but consciously or unconsciously this freedom still goes In fear of its life. And in order to strengthen itself it turns sometimes to purification of the language and sometimes to intolerance. But language is not a weapon that can be controlled in the last instance by executive order or legislative act. Those languages which are elastic, expressive and simple —or capable of simplification—must persist; those languages which contain immortal literature and those with commercial value will persist also. When the railroad was invented there were certain towns which refused to allow its presence in their neighborhood; but it was not the railroad which suffered. Nor if languages -of real value are cold-shouldered by Isolated groups, will it be those languages which lose in the‘ end.