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

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.

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.

link to 青马博客–protecting culture heritage

link to the Riz sister

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.