Cicero Denounces Catiline by Cesare Maccari, 1889
Languages are not culturally neutral. They possess verbal and grammatical peculiarities that are manifestations of certain aspects of a particular culture. Patterns of speech reflect patterns of behaviour that are common for members of a society. In most cases, speakers are not even aware of this phenomenon.
By learning a foreign language, a person is exposed to a new way of thinking about the world. Therefore, it’s easier to learn a foreign language of a country whose culture seems attractive to a learner than a language that has negative cultural connotations. Language learning involves acculturation. It’s quite natural for language proficiency to lead to cultural literacy although it may not be a conscious process.
Polish-born Australian linguist Anna Wierzbicka writes that
“everyday English words like right and wrong, facts, evidence, reasonable, fair, exactly, precisely, and really (among many others) are important instances of words that are “used automatically” and yet contain “a wealth of history” and pass on a great deal of cultural heritage.”
Wierzbicka discovers a ‘sense of entitlement’ encoded in English grammar in sentences such as “Would you allow me to finish my breakfast?” where the emphasis is on the word “my”. This sense of entitlement seems to be related to a conviction which is quite common among Australians that one has a right to “personal space”, “privacy” and “fairness”. The most common expression used by Australian children is the exclamation “It’s not fair!”. Foreign-born parents may find this expression irritating when it is repeated on every possible occasion. One could speculate that Australians, like Americans and Canadians, are taught from the very young age that they have certain “unalienable rights”. They are not afraid to demand to be respected by everyone. Their attitude to life is pragmatic and optimistic. Where others see obstacles and difficulties, they see challenges and opportunities. They look forwards rather than backwards. On the other hand, Europeans seems to be imprisoned in history. The word fairness has no exact equivalent in, say, Polish because modern history has not been fair to the Poles.
Polish poet Wislawa Szymborska writes in her poem Two Monkeys by Brueghel (translated by Magnus Kryski):
Two Monkeys by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1562
I keep dreaming of my graduation exam:
in a window sit two chained monkeys,
beyond the window floats the sky,
and the sea splashes.
I am taking an exam on the history of mankind:
I stammer and flounder.
One monkey, eyes fixed upon me, listens ironically,
the other seems to be dozing–
and when silence follows a question,
he prompts me
with a soft jingling of the chain.
Arguably, there is no such thing as “global English” or “international English”. The current form of the English language is the result of a long historical process. The Anglo-American English is full of cultural assumptions that are absent in other cultures. The history of England and its empire, and of America, is reflected in the modern grammar and vocabulary of the English language. English is a Germanic pidgin with the Latin vocabulary that had been gallicised. It was “protestantised” in the sixteenth century and infused with empiricism, utilitarianism and pragmatism in the subsequent centuries.
The latest process is its democratisation. Politeness is still important in conversation but honorifics are largely absent. There are no social distinctions among Australians and no-one is socially superior, the only differentiator being money. Everyone is called by their first name, and rarely one is called Madam or Sir. Foreigners may find it puzzling that even Australian prime minister is addressed as a Kevin, Malcolm or Scott in conversations with voters.
In Asia, there are complex rules of the usage of honorific expressions while in Europe one must know when to say du and Sie in Germany, tu and Vous in France, and ty and Pan/Pani in Poland.
Most societies are nowadays secularised but fossils of religious imagination are still present in modern English. Certain words lost their religious denotation in English (they are still being used figuratively) but not in other languages. In Protestant-dominated countries, a confession means simply a disclosure of personal information (I have a confession to make) while in Catholic Poland the word spowiedz retained its religious meaning, with the word wyznanie being its secular equivalent.
Generally speaking, in the West, religious terms have lost their sacredness (revelation or crusades, for example) or are disappearing from modern vocabulary (sin or paradise). One has to be careful with the usage of words of religious origin. The word “crusade” is nowadays used only in the phrase “moral crusade”. For George W Bush, it was a serious political mistake when he referred to the war on terrorism as a crusade, infuriating Muslims.
It’s amusing that pop singer (Phil Collins) is in paradise when he is with his lover (“it’s just another day for you and me in paradise”), while another (Bryan Adams) sings “we’re in heaven.” Paradise is of Latin origin while heaven comes from Old Germanic. In both songs, bliss is secular or rather carnal.
Osman Hamdi Bey Theologian
In the West, language has been almost thoroughly secularised but in other cultures sacrum is still present in verbal expressions. God spoke to Mohammed in Arabic and, therefore, Arabic retained its religious connotations while in the West the words of religious origins are fossils that are used nowadays only figuratively.
Etymologically, the word kufr (unbeliever) means someone who hides, is
ungrateful, and denies God. Unbeliever is therefore one who rejects Revelation which is a gift from God, and tramples upon it. Not to believe is a mortal sin and apostasy requires severe reprobation if not capital punishment. Conversely, a Muslim is someone who is grateful for a gift (Qur’an) received from his Benefactor.
Islam is theocentric as the West is anthropocentric and this fundamental difference finds its expression in language. In Malaysia, non-Muslims are legally banned from using the word Allah (God in Arabic) to denote non-Muslim gods.
Learners of foreign languages must take cultural differences into account lest they be misunderstood by native speakers. Migration has turned cross-cultural communication into a pressing issue. Millions of people must learn a foreign language as quickly as possible when they settle in another country. Their motivation may be strictly practical but if they ignore the cultural aspects of language acquisition, they will not be able to succeed as migrants. The lack of language proficiency and cultural literacy also poses a problem for host societies. It may lead to alienation and withdrawal from society and cultural and physical ghettoisation. In the most extreme cases, the rejection of prevalent social and cultural norms could lead to violent forms of contestation, including terrorism. Experts focus on economic and social issues when analysing terrorism while ignoring theology and language used by terrorists to explain their actions.
And yet language has the power to enslave or liberate societies and its members. National socialists and communists were well aware of that power. Their first step was to acquire the monopoly on the usage of language. In dictatorships, political power rests on verbal persuasion or rather verbal violence. This process is well described by Victor Klemperer in LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: Notizbuch eines Philologen (1947).
It is imperative for everyone to be conscious of the language one uses and to be its master and not a slave.
Ideas 