Language, culture, and identity

the earth. Their claim ignores future generations. But the latter, too, have a right to survive.

10.3.4. Linguistic diversity

We now turn to the issue of linguistic diversity, discussed in 10.2.4.6. One factor that is said possibly to hinder the maintenance of linguistic diversity - i.e. the cost - was discussed, and dismissed, in 10.3.2-[3]. There is another potential-ly hindering factor: it may be argued that linguistic diversity constitutes an ob-stacle for national unity. Pawley ( 1991: 10) points out that "ethnic identity (of which language is an important emblem) often brings political problems for na-tions". This seems to be the case in many nations in Africa (Brenzinger 1998a:

92). Recall also the situation in the former Yugoslavia.

However, this argument does not apply to every country. Consider Switzer-land and India. They are multi-lingual, but this does not seem to split the coun-tries. This shows that, when considering such an issue, we need to look at not just the languages but also the surrounding socio-political environment. That is,

the language may play an important role, but it is not decisive.

10.4. Language, culture, and identity

10.4.1. Introduction

Some community members are of the opinion that their language contains irre-placeable cultural knowledge, and that it is a conveyor of their culture (10.2.2.4).

This view is shared by linguists (10.2.4.4), and, no doubt, by language activ-ists as well. Thus Miyaoka (2001: 9) argues that "the disappearance of any lan-guage represents a loss of intellectual heritage not only for the people but for humanity as a whole". It is important in this context to make the following re-lated inquiries:

(a) What is lost when a language is lost? What remains after a language is lost?

(b) Is it still possible to retain a culture after the traditional language associ-ated with it is lost? This question may be rephrased as follows: Is it possible to be Xmen without Xish? (The terms "Xish" and "Xmen" are taken from Fish-man 1991: 11. The former stands for the name of any language and the latter for the members of the community.)

We shall look at each of these two questions.

It is useful in this context to look at a definition of culture. Marvin Harris (1997: 88) defines "a human culture" as follows: "the total socially acquired life-style of a group of people, including their patterned, repetitive ways of thinking, feeling, and acting". Then, according to this definition, a culture will include the language, as well as many other components such as (i) patterns of behavior, (ii) practices concerning food, clothes, child rearing, (iii) myths and other beliefs. The definition of culture by Harris is in fact one by a researcher, but it does not seem to contradict the concept of culture as entertained by com-munity members.

It is also relevant to recall the distinctions of the function or value of lan-guage (cited in 10.2.2.1): (i) integrative vs. instrumental, and (ii) symbolic vs.

communicative.

10.4.2. What is lost when a language is lost?

What remains after a language is lost?

An obvious fact is that, when a language is lost, it is lost. Also, the loss of a lan-guage is bound to entail the loss of aspects of the culture that were conveyed by the language, e.g. (i) knowledge of ceremonies, mythology, environment, tech-nology, language skills, and (ii) songs, linguistic artifacts (10.2.2.4, 10.2.2.5, 10.2.4.4, 10.2.4.5).

However, Trudgill (1991: 67) argues: "It is not inevitably the case that when a language is lost, a culture is lost with it". Fishman (1964: 51, 1972:

123-124, 1991: 16) points out that components of a culture such as self-identi-fication, patterns of behaviour and group loyalty may remain long after the tra-ditional language was lost. Similarly, Edwards (1984: 281, see also 284, 289) notes: "communicative language, distinctive dress and ornamentation, and other public manifestations of group identity tend to disappear; aspects of do-mestic life, the symbolic significance of language and religious observations may remain".

Woodbury (1993: 108) observes: "Patterns of language use may persist in a community even when the code matrix undergoes change". This is probably what Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977: 327) term "ethnic speech style".

Eades (1982, 1988) painstakingly argues that a culture may be retained even after the language has been lost. Specifically, on the basis of her observation of certain groups of Aboriginal Australians of southeast Queensland, who now speak a variety of English, Eades proposes that the traditional culture is retained in aspects such as (i) the way English is used by them (an example of ethnic speech style), and (ii) patterns of behavior, such as avoidance behaviour.

10.4. Language, culture, and identity 163 (a) Use of English. "While the chosen language code is frequently English, there are important continuities in the ways language is used" (Eades 1988: 97) and this is reflected in aspects such as questions and information seeking. Ac-cording to Eades, these Aboriginal Australians employ a different strategy from that of middle class white Australians. She lists the following three differences regarding questions and information seeking (Eades 1982: 73-75).

(a-i) Direct questions such as Were you very young then? tend to be avoid-ed (Eades 1982: 65). Instead, a declarative sentence with question intonation (or a following interrogative tag) is used, e.g. Grandfather used to live at Tir-roan? Basically the questioner presents some proposition for confirmation (or correction).

(a-ii) Direct questions are also used, though much less frequently.

(a-iii) Interjections and repetitions are used to encourage a speaker who has given some information to give some further i n f o r m a t i o n- y e a h , mm, oh, what?

and the like.

Additional examples of reflection of an Australian Aboriginal language in English are Me belly no good, (meaning Ί am sad', etc,) and Me belly good (meaning Ί am happy', etc.); see (10-3) and (10-4) and comments on them.

(b) Avoidance behaviour. As noted in 8.3, in traditional Australian Aborig-inal communities certain kin members are in a taboo relationship to each oth-er. Thus, a man and his mother-in-law should avoid close contact and may not address each other directly. Eades points out that this pattern of behaviour is still retained among the people in question. An example (Eades 1988: 103) con-cerns "a man in his sixties with a bad leg who often walks about two kilome-tres to town. On the way he often passes his mother-in-law's house where he sometimes rests. However, he never enters the house, but rests in the shed out the back".

To sum up, it seems unjustifiable to say that when a language is lost, the culture is lost entirely. Woodbury (1993: 109) concludes carefully: "Interrupt-ed transmission of an integrat"Interrupt-ed lexical and grammatical heritage spells the di-rect end of some cultural traditions and is part of the unraveling, restructuring, or réévaluation of others".

10.4.3. Is it possible to be Xmen without Xish?

As seen repeatedly, a given language provides an important clue for understand-ing the culture. Then, is the language the most important component of the cul-ture? This question may be reformulated as follows: Is it possible to be Xmen without Xish? There are two opposing answers to this question:

(a) No, it is impossible to be Xmen without Xish, and;

(b) Yes, it is possible to be Xmen without Xish.

This question is extremely controversial both emotionally and politically. The opinions are divided among language groups, among communities, among community members, and also among linguists. We shall first look at commu-nity members' opinions, followed by linguists' opinions.

[1] Community members' opinions

The answer to the question "Is it possible to be Xmen without Xish?" may vary from one language group to another (see Giles, Bourhis, and Taylorl977:

327; Thomason 2001: 240, 243). Furthermore, it may vary among communi-ties within one language group, and among members even within one commu-nity. Then, what is behind this variation in the answers to this question? This is examined below.

Although this is not always explicitly mentioned in the literature, the answer to the question posed above seems to be generally though not always -related to the degree of the endangerment of the language in question. That is, the answer seems more likely to be "No, it is impossible to be Xmen without Xish" if the language is healthier, but it is more likely to be "Yes, it is possible to be Xmen without Xish" if the language is less healthy. Furthermore, within one and the same community, the answer seems to correlate with the person's personal knowledge of the language. That is, the answer seems more likely to be "No, it is impossible to be Xmen without Xish" if the person is more profi-cient in the language, but it is more likely to be "Yes, it is possible to be Xmen without Xish" if the person is less proficient it. Examples of divided opinions follow.

Some community members hold the view "No, it is impossible to be Xmen without Xish". See Dorian (1999b: 36) and Florey and van Engelenhoven (2001: 212) for examples. However, opinions may be divided among com-munities, and among community members. Thus, Jocks (1998: 230), a Mo-hawk person of the USA, reports: "In traditional circles one frequently hears the assertion that language and culture are inextricably linked, and the loss of an Indigenous language prefigures loss of distinct culture and identity. But one also hears the opposite assertion: that Native people can and do live tra-ditional lives without speaking or understanding their tratra-ditional languages. I agree". The same kind of split in opinion is found in Wales as well (Crystal 2000: 120).

A parallel division in opinion is reported by Dorian (1998: 20) from Scot-land: "I found that when I asked speakers of Scottish Gaelic whether a knowl-edge of Gaelic was necessary to being a 'true highlander', they said it was;

10.4. Language, culture, and identity 165

when I asked people of Highland birth and ancestry who did not speak Gael-ic the same question, they said it wasn't". Note that the answer correlates with the person's proficiency in the language. Similarly, Langan (1993: 1) reports regarding K'iche' speakers of Chichacastenango of Guatemala that more pro-ficient speakers tend to say that they cannot really be K'iche' if they do not know the K'iche' language, but that less proficient speakers tend not to share this view.

One single person may entertain both possibilities. Thus, Jocks (1998: 219) states as follows: "I and most Native people I know hesitate to embrace the rad-ical ... view ... that without our languages we are no longer Native people - but on the other hand, I fear that without our languages it is all too easy for us to be-come cartoons". (For "cartoons", see 10.2.2.4.)

[2] Linguists' opinions

As is the case with community members, linguists' opinions are divided. A stance very close to that of "No, it is impossible to be Xmen without Xish" is vehemently argued for by Miyaoka (2001: 8): "once an ethnic group loses its own language, even if some fragments of its material culture (e.g. ethnic cos-tumes, crafts, or whatever) live on, they may represent little more than a lin-gering twilight; the culture may possibly have been lost or, at least, may not be functioning as an organic whole any longer. In this sense language may be said to be the last stronghold of a culture". For a similar stance, see Tovey, Hannan, and Abramson (1989: 34) regarding Irish.

There are, however, linguists who maintain the view "Yes, it is possible to be Xmen without Xish". Thus, Rigsby (1987: 370) argues that it is neces-sary to distinguish between (i) external traits, such as speech, dress and appear-ance, and (ii) the inner values and principles that guide people's lives and make up the real substance of their social and personal identity, and he challenges the view that "one cannot be a real Indian unless one can speak an Indian lan-guage". Similarly, Woodbury (1993: 108) argues: "Language and cultural iden-tity are logically independent". See also Dimmendaal (1989: 28). As alluded to in 10.4.2, Edwards, Fishman, and Trudgill seem to share the view "Yes, it is possible to be Xmen without Xish".

A view intermediate between these two views is held by Nancy Dorian (p.c.): a person who does not speak Xish is still an Xman, but is an impover-ished Xman by comparison with his fluent grandfather or grandmother. See also Dorian (1994d: 114, 1999b: 31).

We have seen various answers to the question "Is it possible to be Xmen without Xish?".

If, for the sake of argument, we accept the view that a given culture can be retained after the loss of the traditional language, then is it pointless and

worth-less to document endangered languages and to revitalize extinct ones? The an-swer is emphatically "No!" An example from Australia is cited. In 1972 the writer was able to record only eight words from the late Alec White, the last speaker of the Gabilgaba language, which used to be spoken in the Townsville area (Tsunoda 1996b). More than a quarter century later, the late Alec White's descendents are trying to recover their ancestral language. Lyle Johnson, his grandson, said to the writer, "Even just one or two words, or 20 words are im-portant". So, the people are not content just to say, "We can retain our culture without our language". Every bit of the language is sought after. They want to regain their traditional languages as much as possible, although this may only be partial.

To conclude this discussion of the link among language, culture, and iden-tity, the following remarks are offered. We have seen two apparently opposing views. One asserts that almost all the culture is gone once the language is gone, namely, that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to be Xmen without Xish. The other maintains that the culture and identity can be retained after the language has been lost, i.e. it is possible (and not difficult?) to be Xmen without Xish.

These two views may look polar-opposite, but perhaps they emphasize different aspects of the same spirit. That is, the former stresses the importance of a lan-guage in the retention of the culture, while the latter points out the value of any lingering elements. The former may be taken to be an alarm directed at a com-munity whose language is still alive, while the latter may provide people whose language is extinct with little documentation, with a foundation on which to construct their identity. Even in cases where the traditional languages no longer have an instrumental and communicative function, they certainly have an inte-grative and symbolic function.