Language needs new words to survive (2)

Language needs new words to survive (2)

By John Philips

This is the second of two articles on the recent raid on
foreign names in Jakarta.

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Surely, the Indonesian word pasar (market)
has significant cultural implications which are not enhanced by
the use of the word swalayan (self-service). Pasar swalayan also
does not fully capture the cultural meaning of the English word
supermarket, so it fails on two counts.

What these examples point out is that the use of a foreign
language to express ideas is a "tricky" business. Take, for
example, the report in the newspaper about the Governor's plan to
implement this program of linguistic cleaning. According to the
reporter, the governor suggested that there would be four steps,
"persuasion, prevention, repression, and law". This quote points
out the difficulties in using a foreign language to express
precise meanings, since I am sure that the newspaper reporter
meant to say suppression instead of repression, given the
latter's more negative connotation.

Additionally, in my business, we are always struggling with
misunderstandings about the meaning of an adopted foreign word
used to describe a particular phenomenon, which is qualitatively
different in different environments. One example that comes
quickly to mind is the word "seminar". I am sure that most
readers will be puzzled by this example unless they have attended
"seminars" in two different cultures.

In preparing students for overseas study in graduate school in
North America, I can testify that the behaviors one expects to
see in a seminar in the North American context are not the same
as those ones seen in a seminar in Indonesia.

In other words, the same word is used to mean different
things, depending on which cultural context it occurs in. The
problem arises from cross-cultural contexts, in which my students
(and myself) must operate.

In this case, an Indonesian root word, or phrase, which
expresses the concept of an Indonesian seminar more accurately,
would be far more appropriate for expressing the expectations of
the participants, while the word seminar could be reserved for
use in the North American context (or vice versa).

Similarly, I know of no English words that simply and
adequately represent the concept of gotong-royong (community
cooperation). At the root of these problems is "culture". No
matter how expressive a language is, or how many words it has, no
"foreign" language can ever truly supplant a "native" language
without a loss in terms of culture and understanding. This is why
the government's program to instill "discipline" in the use of
Indonesian language is important.

Which brings us to Prince Charles and his comments about the
"misuses" of English by Americans, referred to in part one.
Although he disproved his oft repeated claim on CNBC, that he is
"not a complete idiot", and in the process embarrassed his hosts,
the British Council, on whose behalf he was speaking for their
English 2000 initiative, he nonetheless did bring up a related
problem that has no easy answer.

This is the problem of the adoption, and spread, of a "world
language", and which (or whose) version to use as a "standard".

This problem rests in the very process by which a language
becomes more accessible and, therefore, more acceptable to the
world at large as a common means of communication.

In order to do so, the language must be expandable, flexible,
and accommodating to foreign ideas (and words). The reason for
the ascendance of the English language to the "top of the heap"
in the mad scramble of possible world languages, is that it has
been and continues to be the most accepting.

Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense for the French to rail
against the incursion of English into their world since
approximately half of all English words come from a common root,
Latin.

The problem France has, and so other languages have, in
"protecting their turf" is that by protecting one's language from
impurities, the language will eventually die from trying to exist
in a vacuum.

The pure language will lack the vital nutrients which keep it
alive -- new ideas and new words to express them.

In other words, attempting to purify a language will result in
that language "starving" to death. I might add that I read the
other day that someone from Malaysia was complaining about the
"poor quality" of bahasa (language) in Indonesian newspapers,
which goes to prove that this problem is not a new one here.

In fact, newspaper language is purposively written to be less
formal and more common, in order to be accessible to the widest
possible audience.

Of course, it is also of no small coincidence that the spread
of English was largely a side effect of imperialism with the
British (as in the sun never sets...) and then, neo-imperialism
with the Americans (as in the invasion of Planet Hollywood).

It is this latter means of language spread that I suspect was
the intention of both Governor Surjadi and Prince Charles to
point out, along with the fact that all languages need to retain
some standards, rules, and conventions.

If a language loses these, it loses its comprehensibility. In
other words, a language can not only fail to express adequately
cultural differences, but it can also be too accepting of foreign
influences, so that it loses the power to communicate accurately,
as in the seminar example.

Just as a child will combine all the colors in a paint box,
and end up with black, a language that accepts too much from
other languages and cultures (allowing each one to express itself
uniquely, based on the needs of that particular culture) is in
danger of "blacking out" (i.e., becoming obscured by the many
"colors" mixed together and therefore, incomprehensible).

Alternatively, widely differing variations of acceptable
English, which currently may be thought of as one language
(English) with many dialects, may become many different languages
like spoken "Chinese".

So, the necessity for a language to retain a common core is
all too apparent, but it doesn't solve Prince Charles's problem
as to "whose" language will set the standard?

Unfortunately, for Prince Charles and, perhaps, the rest of us
as well, language flows to power. And, while in the past, power
came "from the end of a gun", now it comes from a rectangle box,
either a television or computer screen. Our entire world is not
just electrified through it, but also vectored, laser-guides,
macro and micro proselytized, RAMmed and RAPped, digitalized,
synchronized, analyzed, and finally, homogenized and sanitized.

If the trend continues, we are all likely to be speaking like
the MTV generation, in a polyglot language which is constantly
changing without any fixed point of reference.

In other words, PC you'd better get PC, do ya hear what I'm
saying, tune in, turn on, and drop into the Internet groove tube
and catch that wave, so you too can surf on the electronic
highways and byways, before it's like too, you know, late man,
and all I can say is "Hasta la vista, Baby!"

Or as the man himself would say, "Beware the Ides of March",
and not to mention "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune".

John Michael Philips is an educator specializing in cross-
cultural communication and language issues currently working in
the University of Gadjah Mada in Yogyakarta for CIPP/WUSC.