Lingua Franca: Chimera or Reality?, Sintesi del corso di Lingua Inglese

Scarica Lingua Franca: Chimera or Reality? e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity! Lingua Franca: Chimera or Reality? INTRODUCTION The intensification of exchanges in our globalised world has dramatically increased the need for a common language. More and more often this common language is English, considered by many to be today’s lingua franca and only secondarily the mother tongue of specific communities of speakers. Lingua franca is “a language used as a means of communication between population speaking that are not mutually intelligible. LINGUA FRANCA AND LINGUE FRANCHE Aramaic: the first example of lingua franca in the ancient world, before Greek and Latin, was Aramaic, the language of Persian Empire and the original language of large sections of the Bible and the Talmud. The first traces of which date back to the 12th century BC and was originally spoken by the Middle East Aramaeans. Aramaic was adopted as the official language of the whole empire and from that period on a very uniformed standardised variety known as imperial Aramaic was in use. It was clearly distinguished from the local varieties and a powerful weapon for the strong administrative apparatus which held the empire under control. After Alexander the Great’s conquest, Aramaic slowly gave way to Greek, which finally overtook it as the common language in Egypt and Syria in the early 2nd century BC. Aramaic, however, continued to be spoken widely, from Judea down to Arabia and Parthia, and is generally believed to have been the first language of the Jews in Judea i the 1st century AC. Since 12th century, Aramaic has lost its status as a lingua franca, but it is still spoken by a small community of about 400.000 people with different religious adherences, scattered throughout the Middle East. Greek: in the 2nd and 3rd century AC, Greek started to emerge as the second great lingua franca of the ancient world, which would acquire an undisputed role as the language of literature and philosophy and the original language of the New Testament. Before Alexander, Greek didn’t exist as a uniform standardised language, but when he launched his campaign with armies composed of people of different origins, speaking different Greek dialects, a common language allowing for inter-comprehension became essential. It was after Alexander’s death that it became established in the various Hellenistic kingdoms which flourished on the territory of the former Macedonian Empire. The Hellenistic koine continued to be spoken in the Roman Empire and subsequently develop in the Medieval Greek of the Byzantine Empire. Throughout the Roma period, Green kept its role as lingua franca in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the Near East, where Latin was confined to the Roman army and administration without any significant impact on the linguistic landscape of the area. Following the dissolution of the Roman Empire in the 4th century AC, Greek became the official language of the new Byzantine Empire. When the Empire was swept aside by the Ottomans in the 15th century, the status of Greek changed radically. It lost definitely its status as official language but it survived ad the language of the Christian Orthodox Church and population tolerated by the Ottomans. No longer a lingua franca, Greek has played a major role in shaping the Greek national identity and consolidating the bond between nation-state and its citizens. Latin: for several centuries Greek shared the role of lingua franca with the Latin. The expansion of the Roman Empire made Latin the dominant language in continental Western Europe. Latin kept its role as a lingua franca for centuries after the collapse of the Roman Empire and remained the rule in academic and scientific domains well into the 17th and 18th centuries. It’s being adopted as official language by the Catholic Church and the vehicular language of the 10 scholarly community of Western Europe. As concerns the Catholic Church, it was not until the 1960s that it officially recognised the use of vernacular languages in liturgy. Latin, however, has never been abolished and today it is still the official language of the Holy See, together with the Italian. After the end of the empire, the literary language remained close to the old Classical Latin. Gradually, another language developed along completely different lines: Vulgar Latin, the oral speech of common people which was not under control of any school, that would diverge in various dialects and would give birth to the Romance languages. Over time, these new languages started to be used in domains where the supremacy of Latin had never been questioned, without however completely replacing it. In the 16th and 17th centuries many scholars started to use both Latin and local languages. The language was not a mark of ethnic identity, but rather an instrument of communication which allowed exchanges among people belonging to the same cultural milieu. Examples are the Italian Alberico Gentili who left Italy for England where he held important functions as counsellor for Queen Elizabeth I and pursued his academic career in Oxford where he held the same teaching post that he had in Italy. An other example is Copernicus (born in Poland, spoke fluently Polish, German, Latin, Italian and Greek and studied and taught in famous universities like Krakow and Bologna). French: in the 18th century, however, the perception of language was changing. The evolution of French had already begun in the 17th century when France had established itself as one of the main political powers and the centre of intellectual life in Europe. Figures like Voltaire, who spent long periods in Berlin as a counsellor to the Prussian King Friedrich II, or Diderot, who was in Russia at Catherine II’s court, are cases in point. The influence of French culture was such that in many areas French became the language of the educated: in Russia the aristocracy adopted French as the language of conversation and correspondence, reserving Russian for communication with the lower classes. Following the colonial wars, French spread in Africa and the Middle East, as well as in the Far East. It was the only language of international institutions and diplomatic exchanges until the creation of the League of Nations at the end of World War I, when the USA emerged as a world power and president Wilson was able to impose the use of English, together with French and Spanish. Since the end of World War II, French has progressively lost ground to English in the international arena. However, it’s still used as a working or official language in all main international institutions and in some cases, work is carried out solely in French. Besides France, Belgium, Switzerland, Quebec and Luxembourg, French is still widely used in the former colonies which belong to the Francophonie (the organisation of French speaking countries created in 1970). Other European lingue franche: although the predominance of French was undisputed for centuries, other languages emerged as lingue franche in limited areas. German, for example, was widespread in much of Central and Eastern Europe, where it remained an important second language after the dissolution of the Austro Hungarian Empire. Later on, political developments in Germany had a strong impact on the adoption of German as a language of choice: during the World War II it became a major foreign language throughout the territories under German influence, where many people made an effort to learn and use it but abandoned it immediately after the end of the war. Voyages and discovery were the starting point for the creation of the first two great colonial empires: the Spanish and the Portuguese. They brought their religion and their language to the people they colonised. Spanish has established itself as the first language in all Latin American countries except Brazil. Spanish is now the second most spoken language in the USA and is formally recognised in some states. As for 10 In those years a large number of constructed languages, based on extremely diverse criteria, were proposed. The first to raise attention was Solresol, devised by Francois Sudre in 1817 and based on musical notes. However, being largely based on German and English, after initial success it disappeared to be replaced by other constructed languages. Among these attempts it is worth mentioning Latino sin Flexione, proposed in 1903 by the Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano. He therefore developed a simplified form of Latin, with the same vocabulary but regularised grammar and no inflection. Among these experiments, the most successful is Esperanto, invented in the late 1870s by a Polish linguist. Esperanto is highly regular, uses a modified Latin alphabet, a predominantly Romantic vocabulary, and makes the extensive use of prefixes and suffixes. Up to now Esperanto hasn’t succeeded in attracting a wide community of users. However, there is a well organised network of convinced supporters actively promoting the language: the World Esperanto Association has official relationship with the UN and UNESCO, and in San Marino one university uses Esperanto as its first language of teaching and administration. Two main differences should be highlighted between the Mediterranean lingua franca and the other natural languages used as lingue franche on the one hand, and constructed languages on the other. The first is the genesis - the former develop spontaneously while the latter are consciously devised - and the second their purpose - the former are meant to fulfil a contingent and concrete need for communication. Even Esperanto is confined to a restricted community of staunch supporters., without any real impact on political, cultural or economic exchanges at a wider level. On the contrary, the actual communication among people not sharing the same language has always been ensured by natural languages or their ad hoc varieties. ENGLISH AS LINGUA FRANCA English is a work language. Besides the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, most countries belonging to the former British Empire have adopted it as their official language and new countries are promoting its use. It’s also the main language of international business and is chosen even more frequently as the corporate language in multinational corporations and in academic, technological and scientific contexts or in sports events. Its prestige is unchallenged in the media and in the entertainment industry worldwide: the number of music bands singing in English instead of their mother tongue clearly shows the appeal of English. Starting mainly from the 60s and 70s, through popular music, English has become in many countries a symbol of freedom and rebellion and in serious crises it still proves a powerful weapon against cernorship. As the main language of new communication channels, it has often allowed the opponents of totalitarian regimes to make their voices heard worldwide in spite of the harsh cernorship put in place by such governments to crush and silence them. Even those who fight its supremacy recognise it as a powerful medium to make themselves heard. A few years ago during a march in support of Hindi against English organised in India, demonstrators carried banners in English to reach a wider public. On the one hand, the more English develops, the more fears are voiced that it propagates a new form of imperialism. According to this view, together with their language, English speaking countries impose their cultures and values, as well as their economic and political supremacy. On the other hand, the global reach of English is claimed to have a negative impact on English itself, as standards fall and mistakes and local idiosyncrasies increase, leaving native speakers feeling dispossessed of their own language. Linguistic and sociolinguistic features 10 A new polycentric world Both those who favour the adoption of English as the global language and those who oppose it acknowledge that English is currently the main world language. It’s spoken as a first language by a declining portion of the world population but by an increasing number of second language speakers and even more by speakers of English as a foreign language (EFL). The number of speakers of English as a second language (ESL) is estimated at between 300 and 500 million, while the number of those who speak English in some form as a foreign language is believed to range between 500 million and 1 billion. The most successful model to describe English as a world language was devised by the Indian Raj Kachru, who also coined the term ‘world English’. He classified English as a world language consisting of three circles: The Inner Circle - it refers to the traditional bases of English where it is spoken as the mother tongue (USA, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The Outer Circle - it includes nations where English as a key role in institutions (it includes about 50 countries, mainly belonging to the former British Empire, notably India and Singapore). The Expanding Circle - it denotes nations where English is acknowledged as an important international language, but doesn’t compete for the role of official language (it includes countries which haven’t been colonised by speakers of the Inner Circle, and where English is taught as a foreign language, from Mexico to Germany, Brazil to Japan) Inner Circle communities are norm providing, for ex. they have their own varieties of English that are traditionally regarded as the correct ones. Outer Circle communities are norm developing, meaning that they have now developing their own varieties on the basis of the conflict between linguistic norm and linguistic behaviour which characterised these communities. Speakers in the Expanding Circle are norm-dependent for ex. they aren’t recognised the right to develop new varieties, since all deviations from native speakers standard are regarded as mistakes. The concept of ELF has emerged, mainly to replace the concept of “English as a foreign language”. In Kachru’s model, EFL concerns exclusively speakers in the Expanding Circle who learn English with the goal to acquire native speakers competence. The concept of ELF, on the contrary, ‘dethrones’ the native speakers (NS) and defines the goal of English learning as the ability to communicate successfully with other non-native speakers (NNS). The first step in the transformation of English into an international language was similar to the process undergone by the French language, with various Englishes developing in the territories of the former British Empire as varieties in their own right. As in the case of French, in the English-speaking world the language of the colonisers has not been radically rejected. On the contrary, influential voices support the idea that the populations of the former colonies can attain final liberation only appropriating it. Compared to French, English has gone one step further. It has also become the preferred language for international exchanges among people who use it as a vehicular language. English as a lingua franca: a new discipline In the 80s linguistics and sociolinguistics started to focus on English as used in international contexts by people for whom it is not their mother tongue, as a separate field of study. Before defining new teaching methods, the features of ELF and its pragmatic implications must be clearly defined. Though most issues are still strongly debated numerous studies have highlighted recurrent features in ELF speech acts. Similar studies have been conducted on morphology and syntax with similar results. “Errors” which appear regularly in ELF communication 10 often comprise deviations from features regarded as ‘most typically English’ such as the 3rd person -s, tags, phrasal verbs and idioms, tends use with a preference for -I gotta forms. Since, however, these deviant uses don’t detract from successful communication, they should not be regarded as “errors” in the ELF context. The studies undertaken on pragmatics in the ELF context offer precious indicators to evaluate the impact of the use of English in intercultural communication. First of all, based on assumptions that ELF communications occurs between NNS, the great shift in perspective is “from treating... ‘non- nativeness as problem’ to viewing ‘non-nativeness’ as a resource of ‘non- nativeness’ as unattended (because irrelevant)”. Secondly, ELF scholars focus on the communicative efficiency of English in ELF communication. Those to whom ‘English’ serves on a daily basis as a lingua franca for conducting their affairs...as the most useful instrument...for communication that cannot be conducted in the mother tongue, be it in business, casual conversation, science or politics. One of the most interesting conclusions drawn from studies using these data is the goal-oriented and cooperative attitude of ELF speakers, who strive to attain Thor communicative goal and create meaning together, offering mutual help and encouragement when faced with linguistic deficiencies. To this end, several techniques were found to be regularly employed. Goal-orientedness and creativity in ELF The goal-focus of ELF and the fact that it is used to fulfil specific communicative needs may lead to perceive it as an artificial and dry tool for communication on specific subjects, stripped of any personal contributions. Contrary to expectations, however, the available data show that it can be a supple and creative tool through which speakers express their personality, culture and emotions. The creative use of English can be seen as a sign of the confidence acquired by speakers, who have appropriated the language and the feel entitled to and capable of reformulating and recreating it outside the confines of the NS model. Idioms are an interesting indicator here. They are usually one of the worst stumbling blocks for English learners, but mastering them is traditionally regarded as an essential step in attaining NS competence. However, for ELF, idioms are superfluous. Communities of practice ELF speakers cannot be studied as members of one community with common lingua-cultural references, as is normally the case in sociolinguistics. It is more appropriate to use the concept of ‘community of practise’. They are groups composed of members who get together for a specific purpose, be it business, study, or other, and build clearly targeted relationship. The shared repertoire is a consequence of the shared goal which bring together the people in question and is needed to negotiate meaning within the community. Those elements highlight the extreme fluidity of communities of practice which gather around a specific goal, compared with speech communities that are based on common cultural values and linguistic references. The shift from the speech community, as a stable and homogeneous community where beliefs are shared, to the fluid and activity-based community of practise as the context of ELF interactions justifies the distinction between ‘language for identification’ and ‘language for communication’. The language of a speech community as usually defined in sociolinguistics carries with it a whole cultural and makes the belonging to a community with shared beliefs and affective-emotive qualities which allow for identification. In ‘Language for communication’, ELF is not meant to compete with national or local languages, nor endanger their survival or integrity. On the contrary, the use of ELF may encourage speakers of minority languages to use their local languages. 10 assessing the economic efficiency of English. On this basis, Grin rejects the claim that the choice of English as a global langue is as sound and fair as we are generally led to believe. In Grin’s perspective, multilingualism may even not be more cost-efficient but it does ensure a more equitable distribution of costs and does not make non-English speaking countries pay for English speaking countries. For this reason it appears to be a fairer option, at least in the short -to medium- term. Peter Ives The need to take into due consideration the cultural and symbolic values conveyed through language is at the heart of the work of Peter Ives, who aims to contribute to “debates concerning the polities of global English from within political theory”. If the decision to abort English as a lingua franca results from forces outside democrats will formation, it will only exacerbate the democracy deficit. He believes that ‘rather than providing insight into how language relates to questions of political community and cultural identity, most political theory treatments side-step these issues by dividing the communicative or instrumental functions of language from what is often labelled the ‘expressive’ or ‘symbolic’ dimensions. Based on these assumptions, he judges the current EU linguistic policy positively, especially its focus on translation, in contrast to the views expressed above, which regard the EU’s linguistic policy as a chaotic refusal to make clear and effective, though difficult decisions. A multi-faced linguistic landscape for a multi-faceted world The views presented so far either support or reject English as today’s lingua franca in rather harsh terms. A more moderate and balanced stance is taken by two other experts who have investigated the international dimension of English and its relations with other languages: Crystal and Graddol. David Crystal He examined in-depth both the status of English as a world language and the risks connected to “language death”. He develops an ecological approach according to which languages are like living organisms with unique peculiarities, and, should be protected in order to prevent their disappearance. Together with a language, a whole world view and system of knowledge are lost. He lists 5 reasons why we should care about language death: We need diversity in the field of language as in all other fields, because ‘the strongest ecosystems are those which are most diverse’ Languages are important for shaping identity, because ‘language is the primary symbol of identity They are repositories of history Languages contribute to the sum of human knowledge They are interesting in themselves as a ‘unique encapsulation of a world view’. In this context where the role of English has to be accepted and language diversity must be safeguarded for the harmonious and well-balanced development of human society, complementarity, rather than competition, between the world language and the local languages should be emphasised. Bilingualism should therefore be promoted so as to benefit from the lingua franca as a tool for communication and mutual intelligibility and from local languages as tools to foster identity and social and historical links. David Graddol David Graddol also emphasises the need for flexible and multi-faced responses to the present hunger for communication tools. Graddol maintains that ‘the new language which is rapidly ousting the language of Shakespeare as the world’s 10 lingua franca is English itself - English in its new global form...this is not English as we have known it, and have taught it in the past as a foreign language. It’s a new phenomenon, and if it represents any kind of triumph it’s probably not a cause of celebration by native speakers’. As the numbers of English learners keeps increasing, their ages decreasing and the popularity of the language keeps growing, a clear understanding of the qualitative change that English losing control of these developments, ‘it’s native speakers who should be more concerned’. He draws attention to the transitional stare we are living in, which may lead to radical change compared to the situation as we know it today. Multilingualism is becoming increasingly the norm, even in traditionally monolingual countries like the US and the UK as a result of immigration, while languages like Mandarin Chinese, Hindi or Spanish start challenging English and threatening its supremacy. Whether it’s because English will lose its competitive advantage from being universally known, or because, no matter how mush it spreads, a large proposition of the world’s population will still be excluded from it, multilingualism is on the rise and spreading in domains once exclusively reserved to English. Another medium where the tension between multilingualism and ‘Englishisation’ is particularly high is on the internet. The supremacy of English, though still undisputed, is more and more challenged with increasing work to localise content. CONCLUSIONS In our globalised world, where communication is the big issue, language strategies though often ignored, play a major role. The lingua franca question is currently at the centre of a heated debate. Lingue franche are nothing new and can be seen as a constant in history, as are their essential features. Whether they emerge as mere contact languages or are the mother tongue of a given group, their purpose is to facilitate communication among people who don’t share the same mother tongue. They are transitory and unstable, but they are always connected to power and prestige, and their status invariably changes when the power relations on which they are based change. This change is not yet complete. It still evokes very strong (positive and negative) reactions both among scholars and decision#makers, and in the media. At the development of International English as the new lingua franca is seen as an absolute disaster and English as little more than an imperialistic tool which reflects today’s balance of power without adding any value in terms of improving the quality of communication and foresting mutual understanding. At the other extreme, it is seen as the one and only solution to our communication needs, capable of bringing about social justice and equality and overcoming social and political exclusion. The 2 extremes, though, need to be qualified. Learning and speaking English as a lingua franca can even be an incentive to learning other languages. The same dynamics is frequently observed among people who go abroad to work. Many companies choose English as their corporate language. These people, who are recruited and go to work abroad precisely because they speak English, need to become reasonably competent in the local language quite rapidly if they want to settle and participate in local life: when you go to a bar or a club with a group of people who all speak the local language, English is pretty useless. As all the lingue franche in history, ELF is not and cannot become a fully- fledged language. It is a mere tool for communication, and as such limited and unstable. It can easily be abandoned or replaced as soon as it no longer serves its purpose. When it ceases to be convenient, it will be dropped, without ceremony, and with little emotion. So ELF is providing an effective linguistic tool in certain contexts, but cannot be the one and only pathway to communication and mutual understanding in our complex world. Its limits and shortcomings 10 should not be overlooked. First of all, we should not underestimate the risks connected with compartmentalising linguistic functions, which would be a consequence of the generalised adoption of the lingua franca: the lingua franca would be used for public communication and the local language for more private uses or as a marker of identity. Even if we don’t assume that the use of lingua franca inevitably leads to the death or decline of other languages, we have to be aware that, if one language spreads massively at the expense of the others, it’s not only those languages that risk being downgraded, but also the cultures and values which are expressed through them. After all, language always conveys values, even when it is used as a practical tool and not as a medium for cultural identification. Diversity is one of the great assets of Europe, nurtured by all those who move to Europe for various reasons, bringing their cultures and values with them. So if we are out to promote genuine integration, we need to forest the idea that multiple identities, including multiple linguistic identities, can and should coexist harmoniously. This doesn’t mean refusing to embrace the kind of common ground represented by a lingua franca. Lastly, a common justification for ‘English is enough’ is the spread of English. The champions of this view maintain that virtually everybody knows English, especially among the younger generations, and that this trend will quicken in the future. This means that, if we want to build an exclusive society (particularly relevant in Europe) we must be careful not to embrace policies and strategies which marginalise large strata of the population. The level of knowledge of English still differs markedly according to age, group, geographical location, social class etc. For this reason, we cannot rely entirely on a lingua franca to the detriment of other strategies, like in primis translation and interpretation. One conclusion we can draw is that we are experiencing right now a transitional phase, marked by extreme fluidity, with the demand for efficiency communication tools soaring. On the contrary, a wide panoply of strategies should be used to adapt to the disparate needs and tackle these new challenges efficiently with an open and pragmatic attitude, mindful of issues that impinge on democracy and open and free access to information. To this end, all the available linguistic resources and strategies should be used with determination and creativity. One of them is the use of English for intercultural communication. The supremacy of English may be temporary but it’s highly likely to go unquestioned in the short/medium term. ELF cannot therefore be ignored. 10