By
Obododimma
Oha
The year,
2019, was declared International Year of Indigenous Languages. Those who have
been fighting for the protection of indigenous languages, those engaged on
research on language death, dis-empowerment of small-population language
speakers, and language planning generally, should be happy about it. One could
be sure that at many congresses on
language coming up this season, issues about indigenous languages,
especially their preservation, will be one of the major themes. This may
sound like a “predictable” prophecy, much like somebody predicting that he
would die when he is old! Would he remain here and turn to a lizard?
That
“prophecy” made, one would like point out that it is surprising to find people
who still think that knowing and speaking the other’s language in a
multilingual setting is just a favour to the other. Granted that language, a
signifying system, is one of the chief means through which humans narrate and invent their group
identities. That is one reason we have language groups like the Igbo, the Yoruba, the Izon etc. The names
are not merely a reference to individuals who
share a culture but also people who
speak a particular language. Even the
language, which may have borrowed from other languages, is also one of
the means of creating a distinct culture. Linguists even go to the extent of
telling us that other components of culture are partly articulated,
transmitted, and preserved by language. Well, they accept that this "transmitter" changes, and so do the things transmitted!
Knowing and
speaking the language that the other is identified with or which helps the
other to narrate the uniqueness of self is also a penetration of the other’s
world, to know what the other knows and is pursuing. In other words, knowing
and speaking the language of the other is more of a gain for the outsider than
just a favour to the insider. Yes; in a world where competition seems to have
shifted to the site of the sign (precisely language), it would seem that the
outsider is merely helping the other to gain visibility or to promote the
other’s linguistic-identity interests. But, beyond that, the speaker who is an
outsider helps the self in so many ways: first, it could be a security
apparatus, a helper of the security needs of self. It also suggests an approach
strategy and could increase the liking of self by the other! Furthermore,
knowing and speaking the language of the other is a way of mastering and
comprehending the life of the other (that is, an indirect means of "ruling" the other!). On the other note, it can solve
inter-group comprehension problems that arise sometimes, like where the
polyglot features as an interpreter for both parties. There are, of course, other
advantages we can identify, like those of targeted unity of the diversity, relative peace, etc..
Let us first
take up this issue of security advantage. One who understands the other’s
language would know what the other thinks or is saying that is not to own advantage. It could be a serious
circumstance, a matter of life and death, and so getting the message in the
language is like a salad being enjoyed by a spy after a successful operation.
Meaning is very important and could endanger as well as save lives. The person
who gets the correct meaning expressed in the other’s language, through maybe interception and decoding, can alert a group in time about an impending danger.
If it is only one person involved, that person would then be able to plan a
counter or an escape.
In this case
on security, one needs to pity those who cannot speak even their indigenous languages, not to talk of local dialects! The only language they
came speak is a “fractured” form of English,
which identifies them as the real colonial slaves trying to ape the
master and hoping they would climb higher and gain prestige. People who cannot
speak their indigenous languages immediately become outsiders, seriously
disadvantaged outsiders in sensitive situations. Even if inability to write
those languages could be overlooked, inability to speak them could make the insider
mistaken for an outsider and victimized multiple in deeply divided societies.
If one says that one is Yoruba but cannot respond to a simple “E kaabo” to an
immigration officer at Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos, that initiates the
person’s documented crossing problem when the passport is scrutinized, even mischievously. Worse still in a crisis
situation. The person who is not even Yoruba but is able to respond appropriately to
the greeting in Yoruba obviously cancels out any possible sentiment or dislike and services fellowship
face, especially if the immigration officer is a Yoruba who is conscious of the
identity needs of the language in Nigeria. So, you see, it is to one good that one is able to speak those other languages.
Similarly, a Yoruba who understands and speaks Igbo very well (like some that I know) is at great advantage when caught in
the midst of a protest by aggrieved members of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra. Such a speaker could
be seen as sharing, at least, some ethno-linguistic interest and is at that point
defined as an “indigenous person of Biafra,” at least by virtue of a
generalization of the speaking of the same common tongue (even though there are some identifiable saboteurs who speak that language also).
The point,
then, is that speaking the other’s language is first of all the speaker’s
advantage. We may, due to the spreading ignorance, feel that if we refuse to
learn the language of the other, we are fighting the other. The truth is that we are
fighting ourselves really! Abraham Maslow was right in listing security needs
among the basic needs of individuals. We may not follow Maslow’s ranking
religiously, but it says something worthwhile about the key issues in our
survival in our troubled world!
Perhaps one
needs to say more about how knowing and speaking the language of the other
could be a servicing of the fellowship or solidarity face wants of an
individual. speakers makes the outsider a like individual, a welcomed fellow, and if the person wants to act as a spy or is carrying out an operation, the linguistic penetration is a good beginning. Fellowship face, some linguists (Lim and Bowers who critiqued the distinction made by Brown and Levinson that explored the thoughts of the anthropologist, Erving Goffman) is the desire to be accepted as an ingroup member Since language is used in inventing identity, identifying with the
group of speakers makes the outsider a like individual, a welcomed fellow, and
if the person wants to act as a spy or is carrying out an operation, the
linguistic penetration is a good beginning. Do you see why some politicians in a
multilingual context like giving an impression that they identify with a
particular linguistic group by making some effort to speak their language when
they need their support badly? They may even go to the point of extending this deception to other semiotic
means of identification, like dressing. A politician under whom an area is
almost turned to a huge cemetery may pretend that he means well by putting on the
dressing or copy a style of dressing associated
with the ethno-linguistic group made the
victim. If you ask me, if this semiotic deception succeeds, the
victimhood of the group has increased geometrically! It is a victimhood
performed at the level of signification which characterises the life of human
beings. So, it is a serious matter, serious because it is their expression of
humanity.
I would, in
this political exploitation of code, like to point out Olusegun Obasanjo’s clever speaking of Nigerian pidgin to a crowd of Nigerians who came to welcome him
when he went to Libya as president. Obasanjo addressed the crowd in raw
Nigerian pidgin, easily winning applause. He obviously wanted to identify with
them, to draw them closer, by speaking a shared code (pidgin is understood in Nigeria as the language of common people; so, Obasanjo might be reconstructing himself as just a common person who shares the code!). It was like stepping down from the presidential rostrum and walking on the path of the common people's howdy! a very clever way of minimising the social distance between him and the Nigerian audience). Moreover, Nigerian
pidgin seems to be naturally designed for humour. Obasanjo himself was a
leader given to humour and so his selection of the code seemed to sweep off the
Nigerian audience off its feet and to make his pursuits to be in tandem with
that of the audience through linguistic identification.
In another
related respect, the disposition to know and speak the language of the other is
an important input to mastery (and rulership) of the other. When Americans pay
attention to your indigenous language,
help to develop it, or provide grants for
it, they are not really doing it for you the so-called owner of the language. They are doing
it for America, a nation that
understands that you can master and rule a people through their language. When
they learn the language, they try to understand you better and try to have
total control over you, not to talk of the fact that the comprehension of the
other helps the country’s security and protection of its global interests.
Furthermore,
the ability to speak many languages (and
therefore the language of the other) is a great advantage in interpretation and
translation. The comprehension or mastery of the other discussed above is
facilitated by the ability to reign in and speak many world languages. In fact,
such a polyglot is the nerve centre of globalization (through language),
helping the citizens of the world not to remain prisoners of their indigenous
languages, even in cognition of the world, not just expression.
Those who
know and can speak the language of the other in a multilingual context
represent the idea of not being purely one thing, which Edward Said brings up
in Culture and Imperialism. They are the new type of individuals created by
Babel. They own the future.
Comments