Tower of Babel–language division

Narrative

The story is found in Genesis 11:1-9 (KJV) as follows:

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children built. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The phrase Tower of Babel does not actually appear in the Bible; it is always, “the city and its tower” (אֶת-הָעִיר וְאֶת-הַמִּגְדָּל) or just “the city” (הָעִיר).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

language and cultural output/input–quotation from my own diary–I love British accent

“最近挺喜欢和店里新来的Ian聊天的，因为喜欢他的口音，

以及英国佬开玩笑时的还带有的那种小绅士的正经样。

他刚从英国南部过来，有软软的南部口音。

他问我能不能分清英国各地的口音，我说我哪有那么厉害~

我只能听出来，他的口音和Carrie的伦敦+澳洲口音的不同，

他的更柔软些，像是那些英国电影里，乡村的风光这般的。

在温哥华听得最多的自然是中文，然后是印度阿三英语，中式英语，日韩英语和南美洲英语，

所以难得听到英式的，就常常会去故意学他们说话。

之前我在店里接电话他们已经以为我是Carrie了，希望回头也能跟Ian学点糊弄一下人.

其实我也不喜欢听女孩子讲美音，非常聒噪，虽然男孩子讲起来还比较率性。”

Why I have preferance? Why I think British accent is more beautiful than North American accent?

–Because I am dreaming a house in British countryard.

why I like the rural secenary of Great Britain?

–Because of the books and movies adapted from them…

    

When did I begin to read these novels and why?

–I began to read the chinese version in my early teens. And because my teacher said these books were masterworks of world, and reading them was good for my literacy.

Is this an eniquity issue of language…even it is a personal preference?

—language inequity sometimes is unconsciousnessly built up by publishes introduced from foreign countries. We know this as cultural output during the process of globalization, the countries sharing grand power output their sense of worth with their language, while the so called Third World Countries input their culture and started a craze in learning the dominant language. the donimant i refer here is not about the quantity of speaker, but about “if people feel neccessary learning it”.

We can see the inequity between languages while viewing from how people definition the “neccessary”…they think some languages are useful in making life, or providing them a better life, but by learning some other language, they may get no “rewards” with the language skill.

language equity (3)–The language challenge — facing up to reality

A former UN and WHO translator, who is also a psychologist — Claude Piron taught for 20 years at the Psychology Department of the University of Geneva – shares his experience of international communication and discusses the international language Esperanto.

language equity (2)–A stateless language that Europe must embrace

 

Notes to Text
1. The language policy in the European Union is both ineffective and hypocritical, and its ideas of linguistic equality and multilingualism are costly and cumbersome illusions. (Para.2) 欧盟的语言政策是无效的和虚伪的，而且它的语言平等和多种语言主义只是一种幻想，既费钱又麻烦。2. In the name of the high ideal of linguistic equality a time-consuming, expensive and increasingly intractable translation machinery is maintained that is doing its best to translate the illusion of equality into illusions of multilingualism and translatability (Para.2) 他们打着语言平等这一高尚理想的旗号，希望继续维持着一支既耗时又费钱而且越来越难以驾驭的翻译大军，他们正在尽一切努力把平等的幻影翻译成另一种多种语言主义和可译性的幻影。 3. English is no longer “owned” by its native speakers because acculturation and nativisation processes have produced a remarkable diversification of the English language into many non-native varieties. (Para. 5) 英语不再只被看着是把英语作为母语的使用者的“专利”，因为文化同化和移民化过程已经使英语产生了一种明显的分化，演化出许多非本土英语变体。 4. The multiplicity of voices behind English as a lingua franca implies that differences in interactional norms between speakers using English as a language for communication remain unaltered. (Para. 6) 在英语作为通用语言背后所产生的语言多样性表明，用英语进行交流的人们之间相互交流标准上的差异依然未变。 5. And it is this deep diversity in the use of English by speakers with different mother tongues that invalidates the claim that English is an imperialist adversary, an eliminating “killer language” — which English, we may ask? (Para. 6) 而且正是因为不同母语的人在使用英语中所产生的这种深刻差异才否定了如下说法：英语是一个帝国主义，是一种“毁灭性的杀手语言”。—试问，这里的英语指的是哪种英语？ 6. Is it those localised, regionalised or otherwise appropriated varieties of English whose speakers creatively conduct pragmatic and cultural shifts? (Para.7) 是指那些地方化、区域化或换句话说指那些借用英语而产生的变体吗？这些变体的使用者对英语的语用和文化功能进行富有创新的转移。 7. Non-native speakers of English have created their own discourse norms and genres. And they do this out of their own free will, happily ignoring the “linguistic domination” ascribed to them. (Para. 7) 说英语的外国人创造了他们自己的话语标准和语体，而且他们这样做完全出于他们自己的意愿，心甘情愿地放弃这些话语标准和语体所应有的“语言主导地位”。 8. English as a lingua franca is nothing more than a useful tool: it is a “language for communication”, a medium that is given substance with the different national, regional, local and individual cultural identities its speakers bring to it. (Para.8) 作为通用语的英语仅仅是一种有用的工具：它是“交流的语言”，是一种由其使用者赋予了不同民族、地区、地方和个人文化特色的物质媒体。 9. Paradox as this may seem, the very spread of English can motivate speakers of other languages to insist on their own local language for identification, for binding them emotionally to their own cultural and historical tradition. (Para. 9) 虽然这个说法似乎自相矛盾，但英语的普及的确能激励其他国家讲英语的人坚持他们自己的语言，以显示其民族特性，并在情感上把他们自己与他们的文化和历史传统联系在一起。 10. There is no need to set up an old-fashioned dichotomy between local languages and English as the “hegemonic aggressor”: there is a place for both, because they fulfill different functions. To deny this is to uphold outdated concepts of monolingual societies and individuals. (Para. 9) 没有必要在本地语言和作为“侵略霸主”的英语之间建立一个过时的两分法，因为它们实现的功能不同，所以两者都应存在。否认这一点就是坚持一种单一语言社会和单一语言个体的陈旧观念。

full text:

English is already Europe’s lingua franca and it’s time for politicians and educators to acknowledge this.

The language policy in the European Union is both ineffective and hypocritical, and its ideas of linguistic equality and multilingualism are costly and cumbersome illusions. Why have these illusions been kept up for so long? First, because the French with their traditionally superior position in Europe cannot accept the decline of their own linguistic power; second, because the politically-correct ideologies of some sociolinguistsconstantly fuel opposition against the idea of English as a European lingua franca; and third, because powerful translators’ lobbies fight for their raison d’etre. In the name of the high ideal of linguistic equality a time-consuming, expensive and increasingly intractable translation machinery is maintained that is doing its best to translate the illusion of equality into illusions of multilingualism and translatability.

The translations produced in the world’s largest translation bureau are taken as tokens for equality: what counts is that they exist, not what they are like — many EU officials doubt their accuracy and openly prefer to read the more reliable English and French originals. Also, the supposed linguistic equality in the EU is a relative one: some languages are more “equal” than others, and minority languages inside the member states do not count at all.

The EU’s ostensible multilingualism sets it apart from other international organisations. Instead of having optedfor a “workable” number of working languages, all the official languages of the member states were given equal status. For a smooth functioning of the EU institutions, however, whose legislation ordinary people do not understand anyway, the use of English as a lingua franca would be infinitely better.

English is particularly suitable as Europe’s lingua franca because of its functional flexibility and spread across the world, and because English is already “de-nativised” to a large extent: the global number of non-native speakers is now substantially larger than its native speakers (about 4:1). English is no longer “owned” by its native speakers because acculturation and nativisation processes have produced a remarkable diversification of the English language into many non-native varieties.　

The point is that we can no longer say that English is one monolithic, “hegemonic” voice, it is a diversity of different voices. The multiplicityof voices behind English as a lingua franca implies that differences in interactional norms between speakers using English as a language for communication remain unaltered. And it is this deep diversity in the use of English by speakers with different mother tongues that invalidates the claim that English is an imperialist adversary, an eliminating “killer language” — which English, we may ask? 　

Is it those localised, regionalised or otherwise appropriated varieties of English whose speakers creatively conduct pragmatic and cultural shifts? Surely not. Arguments such as the ones brought forward by the anti-English league are simply outdated. The Empire has struck back already. Non-native speakers of English have created their own discourse norms and genres. And they do this out of their own free will, happily ignoring the “linguistic domination” ascribed to them. In other words there is no didactic-linguistic replay of formerly colonial and militaristic means.

English as a lingua franca is nothing more than a useful tool: it is a “language for communication”, a medium that is given substance with the different national, regional, local and individual cultural identities its speakers bring to it. English itself does not carry such identities, and it is not a “language for identification”. And because of the variety of functional uses of global English, English has also a great potential for promoting international understanding. Its different speakers must always work out a common behavioural and intercultural basis.

Using English as a lingua franca in Europe does not inhibit linguistic diversity, and it unites more than it divides, simply because it may be “owned” by all Europeans — not as a cultural symbol, but a means of enabling understanding.

Paradox as this may seem, the very spread of English can motivate speakers of other languages to insist on their own local language for identification, for binding them emotionally to their own cultural and historical tradition. There is no need to set up an old-fashioned dichotomy between local languages and English as the “hegemonic aggressor”: there is a place for both, because they fulfill different functions. To deny this is to uphold outdated concepts of monolingual societies and individuals.

language equity (1)–UN Youth Caucus- Intervention on Language

this is a speech given by Marcus in UN Youth Cancus talking about the dominant position of English and disappearance of many other language. And the speaker shouted for raising consciousness to those language in danger.

link to 青马博客–protecting culture heritage

link to the Riz sister

EDUC 714 Equity Issue in Language and Literacy Education

This is a site I present my concern on Language Equity.

I collect some artifacts to show the different opinions on inequity issues in language.

And I feel that the debate mostly focus on if there is an inequity among languages, and if we should keep the language variety.

From my observation, I feel that both sides with opposite voice, could be defined as pragmatist and idealists.

I am one of the former, who believe in Hegel that “What is rational is actual, and what is actual is rational. “  So I will say language inequity is actual, that some language is nowadays in frquant use, while others are not. I gain my understanding after anylizing from historical reasons, from political power relationships among countris, and other aspects.

But idealists are more humanlism sensitive. It grievees them when some language disappear, so they work to keep the language variety. but there is also another kind of idealist appeal to a universal language to remit the inequity. no matter what way they use, the aim is the same that they want a absolute equity.