In this essay the various ways through which colonials imposed imperial languages are presented followed by examples of how postcolonial responses on the issue of language might have varied but shared the goal of declaring resistance and reclaiming indigenous identities.
In colonial and postcolonial discourse, language has a central role since language has the power to shape people’s perception of the world. Language was used during colonization as a tool which could influence knowledge and understanding in many significant aspects of life such as politics, economics and social environment. However, language has been used by both colonials as a means for establishing their domination but also by post-colonial individuals in order to reclaim their cultural identities after emancipation.
The politics of Language in Colonial and Postcolonial discourses
E. Agathokleous 2020
In colonial and postcolonial discourse, language has a central role since language has the power to shape people’s perception of the world. Language was used during colonization as a tool which could influence knowledge and understanding in many significant aspects of life such as politics, economics and social environment (Ashcroft et al. 283). However language has been used by both colonials as a means for establishing their domination but also by post colonial individuals in order to reclaim their cultural identities after emancipation (Ashcroft et al. 283). In this essay the various ways through which colonials imposed imperial languages are presented followed by examples of how postcolonial responses on the issue of language might have varied but shared the goal of declaring resistance and reclaiming indigenous identities.
Since colonial language had the capacity to establish colonial domination and to reinforce it, in not only a forceful way but through establishing colonial culture, colonials promoted the use of colonial language at the expense of the native languages of colonized people. In Ngugi wa Thiong’o‘s words “Language was the means of the spiritual subjugation” (9). Colonials realized the power of language as a tool of subjugation and as a means that could establish their superiority and make the cultural subversion of the colonized possible. The spread of colonial languages was a likely result of the forceful presence of foreign cultures in colonized individuals’ lives since it was the only way for people to achieve a common way of communicating in colonized environments (Ravishankar, 2). However colonial languages did not only spread because of their role as common languages of communication but also because they were perceived by colonizers as a way of establishing their domination more thoroughly. Imperialism, in addition to forceful domination, also required a social domination in which the colonizers’ culture would assume a superior place and would create a stratification of people with different statuses and rights (Migge and Leglise, 5). In order to control language use, colonial policies about language gave a prestigious status to colonial languages and turned them into a way for colonized subjects to advance in the colonized environment (Ascroft et al. 283). Colonials marginalized native languages, establishing the colonial language as the standard and deeming all other languages inferior to it (Ashcroft et al. 283). Imperial languages first spread to the higher classes of the colonized and soon they became the prestigious languages that were used in the administration and in economic matters and thus offered opportunities for advancement and social participation in a colonized environment (Migge and Leglise, 6).
Colonials also consistently targeted the promotion of imperial languages through education and at the same time through the banning of local, native languages (Ashcroft et al.283). Language policies in education had used language as a tool for cultural imperialism, subjugating this way indigenous people through imposing western ideals, beliefs and knowledge which were spread through the education system (Evans, 293). Not only language promoted a foreign culture but also created colonized individuals that saw their own language and culture as inferior and were eager to progress in colonial language learning in order to advance in a colonized environment becoming this way more compliant with their lower positions in a colonized society (Evans, 294) These individuals bridged the gap between colonial and colonizer and mediated between them aiding colonizers in more practical issues and issues of administration. In some cases native languages were banned from use and in other cases like for example African languages, they became secondary languages denied of any linguistic development (Migge and Leglise, 6). Through language and colonial discourse the colonizers appeared as culturally, historically and mentally superior to the colonized and their language acquired more significance than native languages which were considered as uncultured or savage and were refer to with negative terms such as dialects or vernaculars or bad and broken language (Migge and Leglise, 6). Those who insisted on the use of native languages were seen as ignorant and people who resisted civilization in contrast to those who embraced colonizers’ language and were perceived as modern individuals with upward perspectives (Migge and Leglise, 7). This led to the demise of indigenous languages, with some falling completely out of use like for example Australian aboriginal languages, Native American languages and Hawaiian Creole languages (Migge and Leglise, 7).
Language is a particular issue since the end of colonization did not mean that the language automatically stopped being used. Language has more lasting results than any other form of dominance on the colonized since its effects remain and persist long after independence (Ravishankar, 1). Postcolonial responses on the issue of language were varied however all aimed at the revival of native languages and the reclaiming of former colonized people’s cultural identities. These responses came either as complete rejections of colonial languages or aimed to adapt the colonial language in a way that would express attitudes against colonialism and would regain a proper status for native cultures (Ashcroft et al.283). According to personal beliefs but also because of circumstances several writers saw the use of colonial language as necessary in order to express their experience and regain their own voice however there were also instances were colonial language was rejected entirely.
Ngugi wa Thiongo, a leading Kenyan writer, completely rejected the use of English as the language for writing as a refusal to accept the language’s associations with imperialism and oppression (Ashcroft et al.284). Viewing the English language as a tool against native cultural identities he proposed a turn towards the exclusive use of native languages, a way which would reverse the dispersion and the marginalization they suffered due to colonization (Ashcroft et al. 284). In his book Decolonizing the mind Thiongo stated that the book would be the last thing he would ever write in English and that he chose to only use Gikuyu and Kiswahili languages for his writing from then on (Thiongo, xiii). Thiongo argues that the most effective way that imperialism yields colonized people is by diminishing their cultures, destroying their beliefs and their language making them this way feel incompetent and viewing their own cultures as inferior to imperial ones (Thiongo, 3). He supports that imperialism’s effects have not been diminished after independence but still have control over significant aspects of African life such as politics and economy and continue to affect African cultures (Thiongo, 5). For Thiongo language has the most significant role in the struggle for reviving historical identities and redefining the African identity in a liberated context (Thiongo, 5). In his own words, “Language is communication and communication creates culture” and expresses “through orature and literature; the entire body of values by which we come to perceive ourselves and our place in the world.” (Thiongo, 15-16). Language could not be excluded from a struggle to regain self identity, an own distinct culture based on history and culturally specific values (Thiongo, 15). Thiongo thus views English as the language of the destroyer and by rejecting it completely he aims to contribute in the defeat of imperialism and the creation of a collective African consciousness which can only be done through the use of African native languages.
However, there were instances where there was no other choice than to use English as the language of oral and written communication like for example in the Caribbean islands where there was a need for a lingua franca that would allow communication between slaves of different backgrounds and also between slaves and their white masters (Sindoni, 21). Language was essential for survival in the Caribbean environment and thus pidgin languages were formed and later developed into Creoles when they acquired second generation speakers (Sindoni, 221). Brathwaite speaks of the Caribbean Creole as “English in a new sense” (259) a common language of communication formed from the imposed imperial language, the Creole English of Caribbean and other imported languages (260). Brathwaite names the Caribbean Creole “National language” (266) in order to disassociate it from the deprecating overtones of the term dialect (266). “National Language” varies from the Standard variety of English in that it differs in syntax, rhythm and tone it varies in form and only its vocabulary remains English (Brathwaite, 266). The language was negatively perceived by the colonizers who characterized it as a failed attempt in acquiring the standard language (Sindoni, 221). Caribbean Creole was deemed culturally inferior and even its speakers did not proudly admit that their native language was Creole due to the language’s low prestige and association with colonial oppression (Sindoni, 222). As the only choice of expressing cultural identity Caribbean languages are now considered as a tool for reclaiming cultural identity and to establish the resilience of colonized people (Sindoni, 222). Brathwaite stresses that even if the language is based on English, it is not language that makes a rebellion but the people who use it (266). Through works written in Creole, Caribbean writers seek to express a distinct, shared identity using features such as using modes of narration characteristic of oral tradition, with repetitions, loose structures, exemplary characters, digressions and also colloquialisms, idioms and informal speech (Sindoni, 233). However, they also remain close to Standard English in order to address a wider audience and be understood from the general public (Sindoni, 233). From this perspective the use of Caribbean Creoles in written works will empower people, promote cultural values and assign a new status to these languages. According to Brathwaite, written texts become a form of resistance to colonial cultures and give a voice to indigenous people, their traditions and values in the only available language, Creole (Sindoni, 220). By refusing to accept the diminished status of the Caribbean Creole these writers fight back against imperialistic propaganda and open a way towards a postcolonial future of autonomy and independence. Reclaiming language by adopting and adapting colonial language leads to the creation of a distinct postcolonial identity.
[...]
- Citation du texte
- Elena Agathokleous (Auteur), 2021, The Politics of Language in Colonial and Postcolonial Discourses, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1007713
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X.