By Anonymous (EW)
There was an interesting article by Ravindranath (2015) about language contact that we read this semester. According to this article (which is backed up by research of course), languages in contact don’t always necessarily change each other. Languages also evolve internally over time, and if contact does cause a change in the languages, it may be hard to tell if it is because of the amount of time the languages have been in contact or the similarities between them. The article examined many social and linguistic factors to examine to determine whether a change is due to internal evolution or contact with other languages. It ends with a discussion of how globalization is both creating new multilingualisms and at the same time resulting in massive language extinction which has implications for culture and society at large.
This was a good article to preclude the other reading that was assigned for that week about Facebook as a platform for Mayan language revitalization in Mexico by Cru (2015). Youth are using Facebook as a platform for a grassroots movement for the advocacy, destigmatization, and promotion of their ancestral languages while developing multilingual literacy skills that draw on their full repertoire of linguistic resources. It is a resource that adolescents perceive as cool during a critical period of personal language choice, it has the potential to create an ideological shift by reaching a wide audience via the worldwide web, and it is part of the young people’s process of social identity formation. I found this article fascinating, because I have been interested in Indigenous language revitalization since the start of my master’s program at McGill, and because I love the internet… almost too much. The amount of time I spend on it is a bit alarming, even to myself, and YouTube is my greatest weakness.
This reminds me of another article I read for a class last year about the internet and its effects on concentration and socialization. Turkle (2011) wrote in the chapter entitled “Growing Up Tethered” that research suggests that internet usage may negatively impact one’s ability to concentrate for long periods of time. Furthermore, it can result in dangerous behaviors such as texting while driving, surfing the internet while walking down the street, and running into things out of lack of attention to surroundings. The writer also argues that while it connects people from around the world, it can also be isolating and is not a substitution for real face-to-face social interaction and quiet down time. Although I agree with this, I don’t think that Cru (2015) was trying to argue that the internet is perfect or that it can substitute for face-to-face social interaction, family time, community involvement, or cultural activities. The writer mentioned that these things are important, and referenced some related articles.
Almost two years ago I read an article (that wasn’t referenced) about how community involvement and cultural activities were two of the strategies that helped Hawaiian language revitalization efforts succeed (Luning & Yamauchi, 2010). These things are clearly important and cannot be substituted. However, Facebook and perhaps other sites present a powerful tool for the promotion of Indigenous languages. I’m looking at all of these articles, and I’m thinking, “Globalization creates new multilingual communities and destroys languages and cultures. The internet is both a useful tool and addictive. How can these conflicts be reconciled?” Like we discussed in another course last year, people need to be taught responsible internet use and it should be treated as a tool, not as something that controls lives. With this viewpoint, Facebook and other sites can be used as a tool to promote Indigenous language revitalization without necessarily turning into addictive behavior. As for the globalization paradox, I don’t know the answer. If globalization creates new multilingual communities and destroys languages and cultures simultaneously, how do we keep the former and stop the latter?
References
Cru, J. (2015). Language revitalisation from the ground up: Promoting Yucatec Maya on Facebook. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(3), 284-296.
Luning, R. and Yamauchi, L. (2010). The influences of Indigenous heritage language education on students and families in a Hawaiian language immersion program. Heritage Language Journal, 7 (2), pages 46-75.
Ravindranath, M. (2015). Sociolinguistic variation and language contact. Linguistics and Language Compass, 9(6), 243–255.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together. New York: Basic Books. [Chapter 9, “Growing up tethered,” pp. 171-186]
Hi,
Thank you for sharing your readings and ideas about the Internet. I remember in one of Erin’s presentations, she showed us a video clip of an Indigenous girl using facebook as a tool for spreading Indigenous language and culture. And I expressed my skepticism whether this girl, growing up in urban surroundings, is an authentic source for doing so. I agree that growing up in an urban area doesn’t mean disconnection, however, Indigenous peoples living in urban areas surely have different understandings of Indigenous language and culture from those growing up in Indigenous communities, who are experiencing and living their cultures. As for social media as a tool for maintaining and revitalizing Indigenous language and cultures, of course they have their huge potentials since they’re such an essential part of our daily life now, however, firstly, hopefully it’s done by “authentic” people (Indigenous peoples and researchers); and furthermore, hopefully it’s done right, which means that people doing this know that it’s a serious cause, and are not doing it for obtaining more likes or establishing personal identity or fame. In a word, we should avoid circulating misconceptions and misunderstandings of Indigenous language and culture.
Yiling