The Linguists

How can language oppress a group of people?

Oppression is the state of being subject to oppressive treatment. In the world as of late 2018 there are only 6,500 languages, 2,000 of which have less than 1000 speakers. This is directly influenced by the rise in wide-spoken globalized languages, such as English and Spanish. These select languages depending on the region have been a social norm in many functioning societies, hence it has been accustomed that majority of occupations require one of these multi million languages in order for their success. As such the speakers of languages whom don’t have a significantly large speaker count are going extinct at an alarming rate. To put it simply these speakers of endangered languages are prioritizing their economic gain for themselves and their children by dropping their mother tongue language for one that will guarantee them to assimilate in a modern society and finding a sufficient economic input. In effect oppressing speakers of a language in a way where they won’t have successful economic gain or any power in society if they don’t assimilate with a language that society has chosen for them to speak. Additionally, this has repercussions on the environment of these speakers. As the environment that endangered speakers live on are likely to be far from the city and lacking with advancements that would be seen in more modern settings. It comes to show how stronger languages have repressions and effectively oppresses speakers of endangered languages to effectively assimilate with society and drop their language for a new one.

Endangered Language Personal Response

What did medieval linguist Antonio de Nebrija mean when he told Queen Isabella that: “language is the perfect instrument of empire?” How has language contributed to colonial power? Focus on a specific example

Language is power. One of the examples that is used James Geary in the “Speaking in Tongues” was the method of ‘Russification’ by the Russian empire. Russification was the motion pushed by the Russian monarch that all non-Russians and ethnic groups in her country would have to perform a form of cultural assimilation, in which they would have to give up all forms of their previous language and culture in favor of the Russian one. James Geary comments on the repercussions of this methodology by saying “This policy of linguistic and cultural repression created a generation estranged from its own language and traditional way of life”. Why have all of histories imperialist empires enforced a policy similar if not the same to russification?  It all comes back to the statement that language is power. If you are able to have all the people under your empire abide by the same language and culture, you have total control. As you have the ability to persuade others, teach others, to make yourself understood to both foreign and domestic territory, and to win other to your cause. Russia was filled with multiple ethnicities, languages, and cultures all accumulated into one country. Hence swift control and order of practical foreigner’s was an inefficient task. As such Russification was put in motion in order for absolute control by the Russian Romanov monarchy. The bishop in the quote understands that Language is a tool to take control of unassimilated members of an empire, as an empire will never have full control and efficiency with multiple languages being spoken by its people. Hence, the bishop tells the queen that language is the perfect instrument of creating an empire.