Language Policy and Identity in Mauritania. El Hacen Moulaye Ahmed
myths about language are deconstructed.
To begin with, some languages are more primitive than others. In his reinforcement of this myth, Mackey wrote “only before God and linguist are all languages equal” (1978, p. 7). However, the following passage seems to state the opposite, for
[a]ll human languages have a system of symbols—spoken languages use sounds, signed languages use gestures—words, and sentences that can communicate the full range of concrete and abstract ideas . . . linguists believe that all human languages are equally expressive—this is called linguistic egalitarianism. In particular, there seems to be no correlation between linguistic complexity and the technological level of a society. Every language can create new words to describe new situations and objects, and every language changes over time. Even relatively new languages, such as the creoles that emerge when languages come in contact, are fully expressive. (Burton, Déchaine, & Vatikiotis-Bateson, 2012, p. 325)
Even though there are linguists who more or less agree with Mackey’s above-stated statement, the majority of them opted for the linguistic egalitarianism, which is expressed in the above passage. Extending the mainstream’s argument, Grady, Archibald, Aronoff, and Rees-Miller (2005) asserted that the reality is that no one language is more primitive than others, for languages have several functions, and all languages perform such functions. They are used as a system of communication, a medium for thought, a vehicle for literary expression, a social institution, a matter for political controversy, and a catalyst for state-building. As such, “all human beings normally speak at least one language” (Grady, Archibald, Aronoff, & Rees-Miller, 2005, p. 1). Such quotation asserts that since all languages have certain functions and all of them allow their speakers to perform them, then they must be equal.
Some linguists, however, pointed out to the primitiveness of some languages based on their functionality in scientific fields. In other words, some languages were classified as primitive because they cannot structurally and lexically function in technical areas. Such claim cannot hold. For instance, even though “German is able to construct clearly defined single words for technical ideas,” French and Italian cannot “do this so readily and instead uses phrases as a way of combining ideas” (Harlow, 1998, pp. 11–12). Furthermore, on the lexical level, there is no single language that copes with the scientific revolution based only on the invention of new terms. In fact, all languages incorporate words that are taken from other languages through a process that is called borrowing. For example, Harlow (1998) stated: “English can discuss nuclear physics because, over the centuries, as scientific thought has developed, it has acquired the vocabulary to deal with the new developments; it has not always been there as an inherent feature of English.” By the same token, “all languages are capable of the same types of expansion of vocabulary to deal with whatever new areas of life their speakers need to talk about” (pp. 13–14). Harlow’s argument unseats the mythical primitiveness of some languages. No language inherited completeness as a feature. Every language is incomplete, and the strategies through which languages cope with today’s needs are available to all of them from borrowing to loaning and the like. As such, every language can fulfill the needs of its speakers. Thus, all languages are equal.
Another myth is that standardized languages are better than dialects. This is a myth that is proclaimed by many people as well as some linguists as the following extract shows:
The vulgar and the refined, the particular and the general, the corrupt and the pure, the barbaric and the civilized, the primitive and the arbitrary, were socially pervasive terms that divide sensibility and culture according to linguistic categories. The baser forms of language were said to reveal the inability of the speaker to transcend the concerns of the present, an interest in material objects, and the dominance of the passions. Those who spoke the refined language were allegedly rational, moral, civilized, and capable of abstract thinking. (Smith, 1984, p. 3)
Such passage along with Mackey’s above-stated statement is stigmatized, and it tends to be viewed as violating the real. The real is unearthed through defining the terms “standard variety” and “dialect.” On the one hand, “a dialect is . . . to be understood as a language system that is found within local, regional, or otherwise defined territorial boundries [sic]—a language system which is unique to a certain geographical area within a national state.” On the other hand, “a ‘standard variety’ . . . is a variety that serves as a norm or ideal standard for larger speech community, usually a national state, and which is often codified” (Auer & Schmidt, 2010, p. 23). It seems that the geographical affiliation marks the difference between the standard variety and the dialect. The difference, nevertheless, is far from implying superiority or inferiority. Another point that was mentioned in the above citation is that standard variety is always codified, written. However, does this characteristic favor a language over another in terms of value judgment? The answer is no. Most of the 6,000 or so languages spoken on the planet are not codified. That is to say spoken language is the primary form of communication. “Writing itself was invented relatively recently in the history of human kind” (Burton, Déchaine, & Vatikiotis-Bateson, 2012, pp. 327–328). Such citation entails that a script is not an inherent part of a language, but rather was developed later by some people. Accordingly, speaking about the superiority and inferiority of languages, based on their codification, is shaky and cannot hold.
It is worth noting that the abovementioned geographical affiliation, which distinguishes dialect from standard variety, mirrors other distinctions such as the social and cultural ones. According to Auer and Schmidt (2010) and Halebsky (1976), respectively, “[t]he very essence of the relation that conventionally exists between dialect and standard is that the latter—compared to other varieties—is the most prestigious variety at the national level, and it is the language that is most likely to be associated with social elites” (Auer & Schmidt 2010, p. 23) and “the occupants of positions in the political and other institutional areas of society” (Halebsky, 1976, p. 66). Just like the above geographical distinction, the social and cultural distinctions between the two varieties of language do not imply the superiority and inferiority labels. In fact, the above definitions of the terms “dialect” and “standard variety” shows that the real difference between the two varieties resides in the minds and constructed through the actions of the elites. For instance, UNESCO spelled out: “Languages . . . [are] equal before policy-makers, in the name of the cardinal principle of democracy, of the equal dignity of cultures, of human rights, of non-discrimination and of equal opportunity” (August 27–28, 2008, p. 46). Elsewhere, UNESCO concluded “in the galaxy of languages, every word is a star” (August 27–28, 2008, p. cover page). Concisely, the views which admix language varieties with superior and inferior labels are unjust.
Furthermore, linguistic diversity provides a fertile ground of mythmaking. Many people, including some linguists, see that linguistic multiplicity forms an obstacle to national unity within states. What is more, it was claimed that linguistic diversity hindered sociocultural, economic, and political development. Pool (1972) summed up the myths related to the linguistic diversity as follows:
Linguistic diversity . . . aggravates political sectionalism; hinders inter-group cooperation, national unity, and regional multinational co-operation; impedes political enculturation, political support for the authorities and the regime, and political participation; and holds down governmental effectiveness and political stability. Similarly it is said that language diversity slows economic development, by, for example, breaking occupational mobility, reducing the number of people available for mobilisation into the modern sector of the economy decreasing efficiency, and preventing the diffusion of innovative techniques. (p. 214)
The negative evaluated myths about language diversity, as properly argued Dua (1990), have been perpetuated by the myth of monolingualism (p. 84). The myths are unseated by the fact that multilingualism is the norm and monolinguallism is the exception. In African countries, for example, “an average of more than 30% of the population speaks at least three languages. Elsewhere, the multiplicity is even greater and becomes a real specter. The number of recognized languages in Africa varies from 1,200 to 2,500” (UNESCO, August 27–28, 2008, p. 47).
Since linguistic heterogeneity or multilingualism is the norm, national development, therefore, has to take place largely in the context of the multilingual settings. For instance,