Recently, I've been giving a lot of thought to something I've observed in several group chats: the inherent discrimination we have towards languages that aren't English, especially on the internet. This observation led me down a rabbit hole of thoughts about language, power, and acceptance. So, I decided to write up an article making a statement on how I feel about all this.
In these places, majoritarian languages isn't just a common/shared language; it's often treated as the only language that matters. This is bad. It's not just about convenience; it's about a deeper, more «evil» form of linguistic imperialism. The same trend appears when wandering in the tourism space (which has its own whole box of problems) and shared geographies, where English becomes the de facto language, sidelining local forms of speech, habits, and cultures.
My own experiences reflect this bias. In my hometown of Altea, Catalan (or Valencian, if you will) has been pushed into the exclusivity sphere of family and home, and has been replaced by Castillian (aka Spanish) on the streets: a victim of historical and ongoing discrimination, stemming from the era of Franco, but still apparent today, in 2023. While not as violent as back in the day, where you were banned from speaking the language at school and in public. The mere idea that people are hesitant to use their town's and family's language when speaking to outsiders is very sad.
A few years ago, someone on Twitter spat over my preference for subtitles over dubbing in movies, which made me realize how deep-seated this prejudice towards non-Spanish languages is, at least in Spain. It was assumed that my stance was from a place of English privilege, where I understand more languages than them. But it's more than that. Cinemas didn't even offer subtitled movies where I lived, and my friends would force me to watch dubbed movies with them (I still love them, don't get me wrong). Somehow, the very same people who dub English media will still watch subbed anime in their original voice, which seems rather hypocritical, lol. I have since then realized this sentiment is not exclusive to postfascist societies.
Erasing minority languages in media is not just a form of disrespect towards the language and culture it overshadows, but also towards the author of the work, —in most cases—. This practice is a clear manifestation of linguistic elitism, where dominant languages are privileged at the expense of others. It's an issue that goes beyond mere preference; it's about undermining the authenticity of content and failing to embrace the richness of knowledge, understanding, and diversity that different languages bring. Often, works that incorporate multiple languages do so to authentically reflect multicultural relationships and to highlight class separation struggles, among other themes.
I'm not suggesting we should segregate people, and eliminate cross-communication. Far from it. Instead, I'm highlighting the power struggle different nation-states have over less powerful ones.
Some advocates for single-language regulations suggest that it's necessary for all of us to speak a common language to understand each other, and I agree with the source problem. People have an inner desire to be understood, respected and accounted for. Additionally, people generally want to socialize and understand the people around them.
With that in mind, we should be wary with taking a single, potential solution as the only possible solution to a problem. What used to be the best solution need not be the best solution forever. This form of prescriptivism is dangerous, and may lead to the stagnation of progress in society (and technology, often called the local maxima in mathematics).
The recent-ish surge in translation tools offers some alternative solutions. Imagine a world where language differences are no longer barriers at all, where we can appreciate content in its original form, regardless of the language. While learning the language of a speaker, in its whole sense —including both the technical rules and vocabulary, but also the cultural aspect of language—, is certainly the most effective way of understanding their ideas; using either real translators to convey the full, intended, meaning of the speaker, or digital translators to make a best attempt translation is certainly a decent compromise.
On this note, I would like to add that the job of translating a message should entirely fall on the listener, and not on the speaker. Firstly, if a speaker translates a sentence through a tool, and doesn't understand the target language, they are throwing blind shots in the air, hoping that the translation is actually representative of their thoughts. This often fails, meaning that you no longer have authority of your voice or message. Of course, if the message was unclear, the listener should ask for clarification —this should also be the case in English-to-English communication—.
Secondly, the listener won't necessarily know the message was translated. If the listener, instead, does the translation, they will take whatever the translation spits out with a grain of salt, and potentially look at all the potential translations to get a more contextual interpretation of what the speaker intended to say. I feel this is much more pragmatic and realistic, as in most cases the way we use language necessarily comes with some pragmatism (and I mean pragmatism here in its Gricean sense).
Oh, and let me not forget to mention: corporations can fuck off with putting translation tools and other forms of accessibility behind premium paywalls. Sharing ideas, knowledge, or understanding should never be limited for the sake of monetary profit. If you're participating, even passively, in the creation, promotion, or advancement of obstacles towards a better place, you're morally guilty. If you disagree with this dehumanisation, stand up for yourself and your fellow comrades. Be the change you want to see.
Let's discuss English for a second. It's a language that's reputable for being overly complicated to learn. Its difficulty stems not just from its vast vocabulary or its love for irregular verbs but from its very essence. English is a patchwork of historical influences, each spicing up the language's structure and usage. One tasty hunter's stew, indeed.
Initially a Germanic language, English has been shaped by a multitude of linguistic influences over its history. The Celtic languages, though often overshadowed by later influences, provided foundational elements in the early stages of English. The impact of Norse invaders introduced a significant Old Norse lexicon, fundamentally altering the language's structure and vocabulary. This transformation continued with the Norman Conquest, which infused English with a substantial influx of French vocabulary. Over the centuries, English continued to absorb elements from languages around the world, reflecting the changing socio-political landscapes.
Sufficient to say, this constant amalgamation of Celtic, French, Germanic, and Old Norse elements has resulted in a language that is stupidly rich with synonyms, varied pronunciation, and riddled with exceptions. While culturally rich languages certainly are fun, and could arguably be a point towards its value as a language, its complexity is certainly not a favourable trait for it to be the lingua franca.
Now, take this messy language, and add the story of colonialism on top of it. Much like Latin during the Roman Empire, English spread its roots all over the world during the British Empire's colonial expansion, which was only reinforced during the globalisation of the modern era of technology
Sticking with the Queen's language in this century is nothing but a thumbs up to the upkept standard of a bygone era of colonialism. Choosing to keep this language as the de facto standard, to me at least, feels like choosing to ignore the slavery and historical slaughter which happened back in the day, instead of valuing the diverse and multicultural world which has to a large degree been swept under a rug.
The idea of a universal language is an intriguing one, especially as a non-imperialist language. Past attempts like Esperanto and Interlingua have fallen short, primarily due to their Eurocentric nature —but also due to some other factors—. Even so, I don't think this utopian idea is entirely out of reach. A successful interlanguage should be neutral, easy to learn, and culturally inclusive. It's a difficult thing to get right, but definitely not a vain effort if you ask me.
If we want to create a more effective interlanguage, we need to understand fundamental linguistic principles regarding how language works, and psychological aspects about how people acquire and understand language and meaning. It's not just about picking words from a random soup of possible words: it's about crafting a language system that's both balanced and inclusive for all learners, and intuitive enough for its speakers to be able to extend their knowledge of it. We're talking about phonetics that are universally recognizable and pronouncable, a set of allophones that don't trip up speakers from different backgrounds, and a syntactical/vocabulary structure that allows for the creation of new words as needed.
Making a language easy to learn often has an important downside: it sets an upper bound to how specific you can get with your sentences. This balance is akin to the trade-off between using a specialized tool for text editing like Vim or Emacs, and a straightforward one like Gedit or Notepad. I've mentioned this video about whether to learn Vim before, but there is an important balance point between ease-of-learning and the ability to express specific ideas.
Ideally, specificity and accessibility should both exist, and go hand in hand. It should allow users to express complex ideas without years of study. It should allow listeners to easily understand these complex expressions. The language should be as intuitive as picking up a basic text editor, yet as powerful and expressive as a fully-fledged programming environment. This balance is crucial in creating a language that can cater to both everyday conversations and specific, complex discussions.
It would be nice if we could be more open to accepting each other, instead of forcing our own standards and viewpoints upon others. This is about more than just language and words; it's about respect, understanding, and exploring the diversity around us. We should strive towards a world where everyone is valued for who they are, and let every voice be heard without bias or filter.
If you're in for a good time, I suggest using and promoting tools which facilitate accessibility, such as translate-shell, stop blaming people for speaking their own language, make an effort to understand the people around you, talk to people around you about what struggles they face. Also, if you're a monolingual person, I really suggest you learn a secondary language. There's literally zero downsides to it, and it comes with both cognitive benefits in how you speak your main language, and it facilitates the exploration of other cultures, which again can help you understand the world slightly better.
Unapologetically, this was mostly a rant, but I hope it brings at least a few sparks around.
Take care. 😊