I didn't want to pick a fight with Tun.He probably heard them all, anyway, on this language issue esp. on using English for Maths and Sci (which I don't agree with). But I will raise the issue on "we are still the same person" thingy with Prof Y (who will be at the Dept for another month).The whole discussion took me back to a lecture I once heard from Prof Naguib Alatas who said whatever changes one has (even other creations of Allah) would make one a different person.I asked his 'disciple', Prof Wan, what theoretical f/work is this.Prof Wan text-ed me back:
His framework rests on God's continuos creation of similar but not the same creation. Every instant new creation is being created, annihilated and recreated, it is not the same but similar object.
The question is: are we the same people when we know of another tongue (which sometimes is spoken more often than our own mother tongue).Tun and our Prof said we are.I argue we are not.Even the Quran says "Adakah sama orang yang berilmu dan tidak?" Language is ilmu (and this is Tun's argument but he seems to think ilmu comes ONLY in English which is the point of contention for most nationalists and intellectuals). For most post-colonial critics, we are concerned with the argument raised by Philipson who had for so long argued in his book Linguistic Imperialism on how English is packaged as a language of modernity, language of knowledge especially language of science and technology, etc.Most third world countries bite this bait and English teaching/learning becomes an industry.I'm not saying stop learning and teaching English (it's also my periuk nasi).What I don't like is we are marginalising or limiting our opportunities learning new languages (which include Mandarin, German, French, Turkish and ESPECIALLY Arabic).It's our loss if we are so besotted with just one global language.
If, according to Prof Wan, argument is made based on cultural-pragmatic lines and done in a narrow econ-political sense and that it's all made on a platform of power...huff and puff..intellectuals of this country still have a long way to go.
4 comments:
I agree.
We do not need one global language. But the World needs a common international language, which everyone througout the World should be able to understand, and communicate in.
The language Esperanto intends to be a common, second language for everyone.
If you have time can I ask you to see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8837438938991452670 or http://www.esperanto.net
Hi Brian.Thanks for visiting my blog.
While I applaud the effort done by Dr.Zamenhof for the birth of a new (planned) language, I still feel we have not resolved our key problem: our inability to handle human relations.Just becos' we cannot get on with the 'other', I don't think we should blame any one language for such a failure.Language is just a means for world peace.Any language can do that.But it is us, our worldview which shapes hatred, love, peace..worldview does not come from language per se but from religion, culture.Language is just a means to express all these.
In Malaysia (where we have different ethnic groups of different religions), a language was planned in the same way Esperanto was planned.It was called Engmalchin (English, Malay and Chinese).It didn't work.How can anyone throw away one's mother tongue (with it comes their whole being or sense of existence) for something totally alien? Can any language be totally neutral? I think not.Even Esperanto sounds very European to me.If and when it becomes 'the' language of the world, will there be any guarantee that it will not be guilty of what other dominant language is doing?
The question is: are we the same people when we know of another tongue (which sometimes is spoken more often than our own mother tongue)
picking up another language might bring about a few differences to us but nothing significant that can totally change who we are in the inside.
can u say that by knowing how to speak a different language than the mother tongue, one will be less moraled or has different ethics and beliefs from before. can u even prove the otherwise?
and EVEN IF there are differences, if its a good one there is no problem in that. or is there? human civilisation strives on the basis that we humans continue to be better and different from before, to become more knowledgable so progress can be brought forward.
while english shouldn't be the only global language, i don't see the truth in the argument that 'a language will not make us the same person'.
because deep down inside we are still who we are no matter what language we use to express ourselves. after all like u said, language is just an expression of religion, culture etc.
it's not a true reflection of who u r on the inside thus it is not proven that languages will have a significant difference on one.
OK Z,I see your point and I won't quarrel with you (after all I was the one who bought you the Learn French kit, sent you to Turkish classes, etc)But my argument is not about the advantages of learning another language but how dangerous it is to be stuck with only one language especially when it is not your mother tongue.This is equally dangerous with getting stuck with your own mother tongue!
I wish there are more scientific research on proving that we are indeed different people when we embraced another tongue.Like you know how we are often told that if we read the Quran daily, we would have better vision/memory/health in general.
Post a Comment