In Praise of the Garrulous Read online

  In Praise of Garrulous

  By Allan Cameron

  A polemic in which a garrulous and sceptical author discourses at length on the wondrous nature of our languages, our words, our uttered sounds or phonemes, and pauses to consider the terrible destruction thereof by dark and perhaps unconscious forces and foolishly knowledgeable persons solely bent on the aggrandisement of their power and the elimination of all that is diverse and all the beauty of that diversity. An appeal to parliaments everywhere and in particular to the one in the prosperous, genteel and historic city of Edinburgh, capital of Scotland, nation of talkative drunks and prim, pursed-lipped, straight-backed and morally outraged savants, often the same people at different times of day.

  For Margaret

  In Praise of Garrulous

  Contents

  Cover

  Title page

  Dedication

  Introduction

  1. Silence, like gold, is the currency of the powerful

  2. The birth of language

  3. Words are a gift from the dead

  4. The creation of the social mind

  5. Big is not beautiful, but merely more profitable

  6. Register

  7. The need for a lingua franca and its inherent dangers

  8. Conclusion

  Endnotes

  Copyright

  Discourse cheers us to companionable reflection. Such reflection neither parades polemical opinion nor does it tolerate complaisant agreement. The sail of thinking keeps trimmed hard to the wind of the matter.

  Martin Heidegger, The Thinker as Poet (1947)

  (The publisher added this quote as a kind of excuse: he feels that the author never was a good sailor and is likely to luff and to gybe, and then veer off in all directions)

  Las lenguas, como las religiones, viven de herejías (Languages, like religions, thrive on heresies)

  Miguel de Unamuno, “Contra el purismo”, Revista Nueva, I, 8 (1899)

  Introduction

  Of what could all this lively world consist,

  if not our well-intended intents to

  fulfil ourselves in all we say and do.

  Let these attempts to let my passions rip

  fulfil ambitions of my clouded brain

  which bring such sweetness to a life of pain

  and plain monotone.

  This is a book about language and above all about the value and essentiality of language in our lives. It might therefore be called a book on the “ecology” of language, because human language is in danger of being permanently damaged by the way modern technology has developed over the last century, and this will affect not only our competence in organising ourselves socially and politically, but also our inner selves. In other words, the process of homogenisation we call globalisation is not only damaging our external environment, but our internal one as well. At the same time, we are collectively accumulating an unprecedented mass of scientific and technological knowledge, which in a way we can be proud of, but only if individually and socially we retain our skills to deal with it. I believe the maintenance of our linguistic skills is essential to this task, and therefore the linguistic problem takes its place alongside all the other problems we face – problems with which any reasonably informed person is already fully acquainted.

  Language is under attack on two fronts. Firstly, our language diversity is crumbling, and this is a problem that goes back perhaps even millennia, but the pace of language death is accelerating and is now no longer driven solely by imperial or bureaucratic realities. This particular aspect of the problem has been covered by many writers over the last decade or so. I was particularly impressed by David Crystal’s Language Death (Cambridge: C.U.P., 2000) and Daniel Nettle’s and Suzanne Romaine’s Vanishing Voices (Oxford: O.U.P., 2000). Because this is a fairly well-trodden path, I have restricted myself to one fairly short chapter (Chapter Five), but nevertheless I think this is still the most important point in the language debate.

  Secondly, our individual language skills are collapsing. This is partly the result of the previous point about the disappearance of language diversity, because monolingualism is not our natural state. This will seem counter-intuitive to many people living in Europe and particularly the Americas, because we have become so used over the last two hundred years to the idea of territorially homogeneous units called nation-states. Sub-Saharan Africa probably provides us with a better idea of a “natural” linguistic environment, in which people typically speak three or four “local languages” plus a lingua franca (often these languages have wonderfully intricate grammars and are occasionally very different from each other). Naturally such people are very accomplished linguistically, and it is not a strain for them because our brains are designed to cope (or rather the brains of young children are). But this is not the only force acting upon our linguistic skills, because early nationalism, the driving force behind linguistic homogenisation, was at least accompanied by a massive rise in literacy rates and assisted by the continuing presence of some linguistic diversity. The rise of cinema and television has displaced both reading (an artificial act well suited to our mental framework) and conversation (along with walking, the most natural of our activities for which we have been designed by evolution). These core arguments run counter to most of the prevailing academic beliefs, and this book has to be placed within the context of that debate. To some extent, the question of the naturalness of language has been resolved by Chomsky, whose work constitutes a common departure point for moving in very different directions. A child is born with an instinct to learn language, or rather to learn languages. However, an ultra-Chomskyan line has been developed (Stephen Pinker), and its principal thesis is that all languages do the same things and are effectively interchangeable. A massive loss of our linguistic diversity might be a pity, but it will not affect us – the speakers of dominant languages. Fortunately other, mainly European, sociolinguists have carried out experiments that indicate that languages do indeed do things differently. Linguists call this argument the Sapir-Whorf thesis, and it was more popular before and just after the war. This is not some tiresome academic quibble, as it affects important matters of language policy and planning.

  The naturalness of language and our potentially phenomenal linguistic skills mean that we ignore their cultivation at our peril. Just as our tendency always to take the car is affecting our physical health, so our tendency to remain confirmed monoglots, to read less and less, and to flop in front of the television instead of conversing between ourselves is damaging our intellectual and perhaps our mental health. I realise that this is entirely speculative at the moment and requires a more scientific approach from those who have the financial and academic resources to do so.1

  Who am I then to argue this case and with what authority do I speak? Well, first let me say that I wish to open or re-open a debate and not close it down. I have never written and I believe I never will write a book with such passion as this one. My passion on this subject has also made it a necessary book for me to write, but not an easy or perhaps even enjoyable one. It will always be my most autobiographical work, a kind of intellectual autobiography. My childhood homes were in Nigeria and what is now Bangladesh, but from the age of six I was sent to boarding schools. For our family holidays we sometimes went to the Highland village where my mother grew up. At the time Gaelic was losing ground, but still very much there. I was therefore at home in situations in which I could hear languages that I did not understand. And they fascinated me. Although proud of her Highland roots, my mother was not particularly interested in her linguistic ones. She came from a generation in which many people wished to divest themselves of a language they perceived as holding them back
, and her parents tended to speak to her in English to help her “get on in life”. Not everyone took this view: her cousin’s family on the adjoining farm would only speak Gaelic in the home. But enough people were abandoning the language to make its future viability doubtful, and in fact mainland Gaelic was dying (although new urban pockets are now being created in Glasgow and Edinburgh, rather like “Dublin Irish”). In Bangladesh, I discovered I could learn Bengali and could sound reasonably convincing (in reality my pronunciation and sentence formation were better than my comprehension, and conversations tended to peter out because of this limitation; I did however take buses – take any bus going anywhere – just in order to meet up with Bengali-speakers who knew no English; I was showing the first symptoms of the obsessive language-learner). This discovery came as something of a surprise, as I was a complete failure at learning French in school, and sadly this inability or mental block has remained in spite of my enduring Francophilia. This, I believe, was partly due to the teachers I encountered and partly to the fact that some people retain a child’s ability to learn languages for a bit longer – something that has nothing to do with the classroom situation. I joke that I have not learned more languages than anyone else, and I have certainly tinkered with several, while often being most interested in just seeing how they work.

  This might not look a very distinguished linguistic background for anyone who wishes to speak authoritatively about language, but I did achieve one success: at the age of nineteen, I gave up my job working off-shore in the North Sea and bought a one-way ticket to Florence. I was thinking of travelling around Italy for six months and then returning to my former job. Instead I remained in Florence and put down roots perhaps deeper than I have ever put down elsewhere. It wasn’t the sun, the wine, the food, the architecture or the art that I loved about Italy – although I much appreciated all those things – it was the language, particularly the language as I heard it in the streets with its Florentine directness and vulgar wit. This opened the way to Italian literature, which gave me another life (because I had already been an extremely well-read teenager). And most importantly for this justificatory passage, it led to my present situation: for the last fifteen years I have been translating books from Italian to English, and every day experiencing the problems of transferring one way of thinking into another. No book translator needs convincing that languages affect the way we interpret the world; he or she will struggle incessantly with the problems this undoubted fact creates for the profession, and fail, because translation can never produce an exact copy.

  Although I believe that translation qualifies me more than any other factor to write this book, I do not discuss it within these pages. Perhaps it is simply that I want to escape from work – from an activity in which I make judgements principally on the basis of long experience and therefore in a sense instinctively. However, the fact that the translation debate has been done to death by highly competent classical, Renaissance and modern writers means that I have little to add other than the anecdotal, which can be excessively dull for those not of the profession. In fact, I have attempted to keep all specific linguistic examples to an absolute minimum in order to make this book accessible to the non-specialist.

  The only other language in which I have had a certain success, albeit a lesser one, is Gaelic, my mother’s native tongue. But I did not learn it as part of some ethnic homecoming (when I was living in London in my twenties, I learned passable Welsh); I learned it because I was living in Glasgow for a few years and had always had an interest in minority languages. Gaelic is like Latin’s cousin or second cousin perhaps. A case-based language with a vocative and no single word for “yes” and “no”, it is a more ancient language than Welsh and the rest of the Brythonic group. Its elegant syntax makes it very different from other modern European languages (other than Irish, of course, which could be considered the same language). This experience has taught me something about the politics of minority languages.

  I am very interested in how writing and printing have altered the way we speak and think, and this theme is an essential part of this book. I intentionally omit a detailed examination of how the internet, texting, e-mail and chat-rooms have affected language, although it would not surprise me if their influence turned out to be far-reaching. They are, in my opinion, the final stage in the centuries-long process whereby the written and spoken language have converged. Text will become as instantaneous and unstructured as speech; it will lose those characteristics that have made it such a potent force in the development of our societies over the last five hundred years since the advent of printing. But of course, the structured written word will remain, possibly in the hands of an elite, and this is precisely the kind of development we must consciously attempt to avoid. On the whole, I have concentrated my arguments on the relative merits of telling stories in words or telling them in images. The latter being by far the most significant development and challenge to our linguistic competence.

  Unsurprisingly I have found that this book is much better received by polyglots, while monoglot intellectuals, with some notable exceptions, resist it and perhaps take it as a blow to their amour propre. If they do, then they are very mistaken, because all arguments of this kind concern populations and not individuals. It is like the argument of the self-made man who in a society of huge inequalities uses his own case to claim there is equality of opportunity. The brilliance of some monoglot intellectuals is not in question: In Praise of the Garrulous is concerned with the general effects of expanding monolingualism and linguistic uniformity and conformity.

  I hope in this book to encourage people to explore language more fully through both the spoken and the written word, and to consider the various types of speech within their own language and beyond it. This is a process that requires a great deal of energy, but not a great deal of expenditure – it is a non-consumerist activity. We need to get back to “linguistic health” by exercising our linguistic abilities with the same obsessiveness that we currently apply to trimming up our bodies. For millennia we have been oppressed by work; now we are oppressed by our redundancy in relation to a technological economy that provides for us and entertains us in accordance with an alien logic. I am not a Luddite, but I believe we have to learn to live with modern technology in a more modest manner that suits our natures and our planet, not business or technology itself. Our children’s linguistic education in the school and at home has to become more demanding, and this will produce more balanced adults capable of dealing with our tremendous challenges. Language and politics are inextricably mixed. But I do not wish to imply that the monoglot adult has no hope, and language learning is certainly not the only way to develop our linguistic abilities – but it remains an extremely effective one.

  Let me end then with an anecdote from my childhood which may have affected my thinking or perhaps illustrates how that thinking had already been changed. At some stage in my early boarding career, there were a few French boys over briefly as part of a school exchange, and I can very clearly see them now in a huddle as they happily chattered in their native tongue. My own school companions grumpily complained that the visitors didn’t need to speak French, as they spoke English very well, and I seem to remember that they did in fact have a serviceable although halting command of the language. In monoglot England of the late fifties and early sixties, English was the natural language of humanity and speaking anything else a kind of affectation. I failed in my attempt to explain that that was their language, the one they were at home in. I understood this not because I was more intelligent than the other boys, but because I too had stood in a place where I didn’t belong and felt the exhilaration of being amongst difference, which for me had been a challenge not a threat. I understood what the French boys were experiencing and was even a little envious. Learning languages as a child is a simple and natural process; learning languages as an adult is an extremely difficult and humiliating experience that initially reduces you down to a command of language that is
worse than childlike. But the pain is worthwhile, as it brings rewards that cannot really be explained to those who have not experienced them. It brings you parallel lives and a fuller sense of what it means to be human.

  Allan Cameron, Sulaisiadar, Isle of Lewis, 2007

  Chapter One

  Silence, like gold, is the currency of the powerful

  The nurse entered the children’s ward and put her straightened and upright index finger to her pursed lips. The children, although sick, were linked by a chain of hushed discourse and suppressed giggles. “Silence is golden,” she said. Their natural exuberance slowly died, like a suffocation. Heads crashed down on pillows by an act of will. Some puffed their disapproval as they turned on their sides. Her act was the expression of a smug culture that believes it already possesses every truth that is of any worth and has nothing else to say. Talking is for time-wasters and troublemakers. Silence is for stability and for the knowledge that everything is in its proper place and everybody at their proper rank. She switched the room into darkness.

  Talkativeness is something that varies greatly from one culture to another, but throughout all cultures there appears to be a tendency for the wealthy and powerful, in spite of their greater leisure, to talk less than the poor and powerless. Men too are generally more silent than women, and adults more silent than children. The only cases in which the powerless go silent are those in which the powerful decide to batter them into the muteness of beasts. These are the extreme cases of the army, the prison and the concentration camp. This is the shuffling misery of regimentation, but however much they attempt to mangle and mould the mass, its constituent individuals always manage to mutter their way back to their human origins. They utter their uniqueness under their breath, which condenses in the cold air of the parade ground or prison yard. Words, which are given to us by history and society, are the means by which we distinguish ourselves from history and society, and they allow us to become individuals. Individuality, then, is the product of a mass convention, a shared system of signs called language. Individuality, so often contrasted with society, is in fact its product. Or put most simply, without society there is no individuality, whereas the modern concept of economic individualism which is supposed to transcend society is in fact no more than consumerist conformism.