A few days ago I discussed this article from New Scientist, and I linked the idea of language diversity that emerges from the study to the main topic of this blog, using it as yet another tool in my effort to popularise the task of the translator. By addressing specific differences, and using appropriate examples, we can explain our work without having to resort to that kind of metaphysical lingo that, admittedly, translators use a bit too often and only serves to perpetuate the misconceptions about our profession.
Today I would like to quote another passage from the same article, which is less related to translation proper, but is one that I find extremely interesting and worth thinking about:
In recent years, much has been made of the idea that humans possess a “language instinct”: infants easily learn to speak because all languages follow a set of rules built into their brains. While there is no doubt that human thinking influences the form that language takes, if Evans and Levinson are correct, language in turn shapes our brains. This suggests that humans are more diverse than we thought, with our brains having differences depending on the language environment in which we grew up. And that leads to a disturbing conclusion: every time a language becomes extinct, humanity loses an important piece of diversity.
My mind immediately goes to the Italian scenario. Besides the many minority “foreign” languages spoken in very limited areas (Albanian, Catalan, German, Greek, Slovene, Croatian, French, Franco-Provençal, Occitan) only three regional languages are recognised as such: Friulian, Ladin, and Sardinian. Then we have a long list of distinct regional languages that the UNESCO recognises but that are considered “dialects” by the Italian government. Some of these languages are spoken by extremely small communities, but others have been the native tongues of most Italian people until very recently (Emilian-Romagnol, Ligurian, Lombard, Neapolitan, Piedmontese, Sicilian,Venetian) and they are all listed as vulnerable or endangered.
One of the problems is, of course, about where to draw the line between dialect and language (although, linguistically speaking, it’s not hard to see how the above are all proper languages). But the funny thing is, even when you hear people speaking “standard Italian”, their speech will most likely be full of loanwords and calques from their local regional language. Without those, Italian would be considerably duller. Still another problem for whoever wants to protect regional languages in contemporary Italy is that Lega Nord (a xenophobic, backwards and tradition-obsessed right-wing group, advocating secession of the North from the South) is lobbying for regional languages for all the wrong reasons, and all other efforts to protect them are often seen as passé and backwards, both by the Left and Right. This, if you ask me, is a very, very sad state of affairs. Don’t get me wrong, languages are constantly changes. It wouldn’t make any sense to impose eighteenth-century Genoese on modern Ligurians, but my parent’s generation was already speaking a more “italianised” version of Ligurian, which nonetheless was still a separate language. As a proud sponsor of multilingualism as a way to open one’s mind, I can’t really see the point in losing our extraordinary linguistic diversity without a fight.
I can’t help but think of the Senegalese friends I made in France. Most of them speak Wolof, but some were originally from distinct ethnic groups, in which case they would speak the language of their own ethnic group, plus Wolof as the majority language in the country, plus French, plus some English, at varying levels.
Why does it sound so scary to teach proper Italian to students in schools (something that, judging by some quick googling, we are far from accomplishing), prepare them to speak at least decent English, while also protecting and promoting the cultural richness that regional languages represent?
Smuggled Words 
Hi Beppe,
It’s hard to see how the linguistic diversity problem can be solved without a radical economic solution. Globalisation has sped up the economic solvent action that began with the Industrial Revolution: when peasants left farms for the cities the old ways of life were over. So if we’re talking about protecting cultural richness or diversity we’re really talking about either overthrowing the present globalisating trend – which doesn’t seem possible short of catastrophe – or coming to some kind of accommodation with it, so cultural diversity has a fighting economic chance. But this accommodation only seems to go so far on capitalist grounds alone. We can’t expect people to go on practising ‘the old ways’ if the new cheaper ways have made it prohibitively expensive….. unless we take cost and price out of the equation. In this case we’re talking about replacing one ‘economy’ with another. In other words, if you want someone to go on speaking Ligurian or Catalan or Gaelic there needs to be real, urgent reasons to do so, on its own terms. Tourist money pours into Venice, for example, but how long can the Venetian culture survive the tourist culture? I’m afraid that the age of Venetian culture was over when it lost its mercantile dominance – and unless it achieves a new dominance, how can it return?
Till next time,
Iian
Hello Iian,
Always a pleasure to find your comments.
I have to say, I don’t think the economy is that central a factor in this case. We don’t need to overthrow anything in order for diversity of language to thrive. One can move across continents, integrate in a society and in a completely different economic system, and not lose their linguistic heritage. The point is, your argument is very valid when we talk about people’s way of life, whose changes are obviously about convenience and economics. But while language is a huge part of a culture, the two are certainly not synonyms.
It’s not about practising “the old ways”, only speaking Italian is not “cheaper” that speaking both Italian and Ligurian, for example. If anything, being monolingual can only be a disadvantage when competing globally. So, I think language diversity and multilingualism have more than a fair economic chance. If that wasn’t the case, we would all be speaking Esperanto. Luckily, we are not. 😉
Standard Italian didn’t use to be anyone’s first language, and it still isn’t. It has been imposed – with good reason – because a nation needs a common language. But there are different ways to act on that. In Italy (and many other countries, for that matter) there is a stigma attached to regional languages, seen as “less sophisticated” or as a sign of poor education, because once upon a time speakers of such languages didn’t use to learn Italian, simply because they weren’t sent to school in what was then a poor, rural country. Now we have the opportunity to capitalise and learn a regional and a national language in schools, plus a foreign language. The question really is: why not do it?
The perfect example (especially considering the cultural and political similarities of recent history) would be Spain, where everyone speaks Castilian (what people call Spanish), but in many regions people tend to speak mostly their regional languages – Catalan, Galician, Leonese, Basque, etc. These languages have survived Franco’s language politics and are now protected and promoted by the government, creating a bilingual population which certainly has cultural advantages over a monolingual one.
I really think there is not one good reason not to follow that path. As for the reasons why we don’t actually do it, it’s mainly short-sightedness by politicians and a lack of understanding of the importance of linguistic diversity. Or the fear that it would threaten national languages, which is patently absurd.
Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking comment, it’s as usual a great opportunity to expand and clarify. Cheers!