LINGUIST List 5.1304

Wed 16 Nov 1994

Sum: Linguistics and Imperialism

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. , SUM: Linguistics and imperialism

Some two weaks ago I posted a question on whether linguistics has it's
origin in imperialistic effords. I pointed to cases like arabic
grammar, Latin and Sanskrit. (the sanskrit case quite obviously did
not fit) O.K., I put it in a provokative fashion, formulated more
sharply than I really had it in mind. The reactions were vivid.

The case of India (Sanskrit): It was pointed out that in the Sanskrit
case the concern was to preserve the "correct" language which was in danger of
beeing lost otherwise which would have made religious texts unreadable.
 (Michael Newman, Karl V. Teeter, Mechthild Reh,

European cases: Generally, the intention was more the emancipation
from Latin and/or to give the own country a status as respectable as
the Roman Empire.
 (Michael Newman, Mechthild Reh)
Spanish: The first grammar was published 1492, before the the concest of
America, at the time of the fall of the kingdom of Granada.
 (Michael Newman)
Nynorsk:
 The rise and conception of nynorsk (landsmaal) in Norway in the 1800s was
 part of the nationalist reaction to Danish rule (imperialism). That's a
 long story, but nynorsk never succeeded in dominating Norway, I'm afraid.
 (Jon Hareide Aarbakke)

Linguistics as an Emancipatory Efford: (Mechthild Reh, see GUPTA below,)

The term "Imperialistic":
>I think it is inappropriate to use terms like
>"imperialist" that only make sense once the conquest and
>subjugation of
>other peoples came to be seen as perhaps somewhat unethical.No
>one at the times you were speaking of would have done that, so
>the term is anachronistic.
 (Michael Newman)

Are Linguists imperialists?
 Several people asked wheather I was thinking in that direction. I certainly
 don't!! Linguistics can help to answer lots of questions (See the greek
 sophistic tradition). The question was more to what made any linguistic
 attempt suddenly beeing successful on a national level. Thus, my idea refers
 more to linguistics beeing (mis)used than beeing evil. (actually, I'm a
 linguist as well).

General aggreement:
> Grammar books in English came into being in the
>18th century, together with the early dictionaries, and
>most people say that this is to do with the insecurity
>of middle-class English speakers faced with a language
>that was being Latinised. And interestingly, the
>British ventures to India and North America I think
>also coincided with the period. (I'm afraid I haven't
>really got the actual dates, so what I'm giving is
>from memory.)
> Peter Tan

however, as Anthea Fraser GUPTA points out,

>Spence (18C orthoepist) was a millenarian and an early socialist. He
believed that if
>everyone pronounced correctly, social discrimination based on accent
>would disappear and everyone would be equal. Then the millenium would
>come, etc.
>It seems to me that in general, conditions which favor imperialism
>in a society might also favor the growth of all kinds of studies in
>that society--a society which can afford to work on expansion can
>afford to support people who are functioning as intellectuals.> I also
>think it's natural that when a society goes through an imperialistic
>phase, all kinds of resources which exist in that society are bent to
>the purpose of supporting the imperialist expansion.
Marion Kee

> I'd heard theories that prescriptionist grammar arose in the United
>States as a way of reclaiming the diminishing boundries between the
>social classes. An idiolect today can certainly reflect social class,
>so I was curious about the early works. I found in these early English
>grammars much more reference to religion and to past glories of the
>language/English people than I would have guessed. In the 1700's, it
>appears that the justification of using well-constructed language
>was that language was (1) an hommage to God, since most early >grammarians
>apparently believed that language was a divine gift and the way to
>separate man and beast, and (2) that the earlier idea of Latin or
>Greek being a near-perfectly constructed language had shifted over to
>English; they believe that proper care of English had succeed in nearly
>perfecting it, and the efforts must continue.
 Tom McClive
>When a new science
>is developped, the state always wants to use it in an imperialistic
>way. The origin _per se_ of the science is not imp. but its first
>use (the oldest we can still observe, at least) is for the good of
>the state.
 Marc A. Belanger

Tips for further reading:

 Pennycook, Alastair. 1989. The Concept of Method, Interested Knowledge,
 and the Politics of Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 23:589.

 Transactions of the Philological Society 1974, 33-64 (under the name
 Anthea Frser SHIELDS)

 University of Chicago Press,
 _The Politics of Linguistics_.