Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Inquiry1: Like a Phoenix
In post-colonial Trinidad, Joanna Kilgour Dowdy grows up in a world splintered by language. While the language of English and once Trinidadian oppressors dominates and is held as the educated tongue of the elite, the native Trinidadian language is looked down upon as low class and vulgar. As such it is not used as an official language of business; it is only suitable for “the realm of entertainment” (11). The “good girl” and those in desired positions must learn to speak English and speak it as well as the British, but one must wonder: what does this mean for Trinidadian? Will this language be stamped out and eradicated as settlers have previously done to entire civilizations? Or is it possible that the vigor of people such as Dowdy and her associates could be an unexpected determining factor? They hold the native tongue and culture of Trinidad as something to be embraced because it holds a representation of their country and its proud and glorious ancestry. With these same ideas inspired in others, perhaps the rest of Trinidad will see that it is now free to rule itself in Trinidadian and not English, that the former British rule from which it has been freed is not needed to tell it that it is civilized or intelligent or the good country because it confirms to the British ideology of what a good civilized, intelligent country should be (a reflection of Brittan). In doing this, Trinidadian stands a chance of regaining the throne as the ruling language of its nation. Let it not be forgotten that English was once considered a low class, vulgar language, and Trinidad is living proof that it has risen from such ranks to conquer whole lands and become the elite tongue. Therefore, why should Trinidadian be written off as a language incapable of becoming more that what other people – people not of Trinidad – denounce it to be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This post raises an interesting point: Are languages (or dialects) representative of a culture in a meaningful way, and thereby worth preserving? It is easy to see a dialect like Trinidadian and imagine that it has some sort of cultural value to the people that speak it; it arose in a nation all of its own accord, and its representation of that nation is quite forthright.
ReplyDeleteThe case of Ebonics seems less clear. It is not a dialect that arose as the primary speech of a nation but is rather a dialect of a small subculture. It has arisen not necessarily as a parallel dialect to a generally accepted tongue like Trinidadian seems to be, i.e. it came into existence out of a certain kind of organic, isolationist necessity. Rather, Ebonics arose as a directly competing alternative to the widely spoken dialect. What I mean to say is this: a Trinidadian dialect presumably came to be due to the isolation of a group of English speakers with little exposure to the original dialect. Ebonics, on the other hand, could have developed right alongside a more traditional American English. It arose not out of necessity but out of something else. Does this mean that Ebonics should somehow be judged to be less organic, ergo less valid than Trinidadian?
Most likely, the answer is no.