Translator: Reiko Bovee Reviewer: Denise RQ
Leaving London on a commuter train
a British politician finds himself surrounded by people,
none of whom are speaking English.
He says he feels awkward and uncomfortable.
Recently an American website ran a competition
to find the America's ugliest accents.
Think about the way you speak, the way you pronounce certain words,
the expressions that you use.
(Laughter)
How do you feel when you hear someone speaking differently from you?
These tend not to be views about language;
these tend to be views about immigration, or socio-economic status, or ethnicity.
But we can't ignore the fact that these are the statements about language,
language prejudice remains a socially acceptable form of discrimination.
Language is also what unites us.
My interest in language probably started as a child,
growing up in a multilingual environment.
Perhaps you did, too.
Maybe you lived in other countries, or learned to speak other languages.
For me, it was linguistics that helped change the way I view language
and the way I look at the world.
Many linguists like myself are interested in language structure;
we look for patterns,
patterns in individual languages, and patterns across languages.
We try to understand not only how languages are different from each other
but how they are the same, what they share in common.
Examining similarities like these leads us to think about language
in a more conceptual way.
It helps us understand what languages and people share in common,
and ultimately, what is at the heart of the human experience.
Some people embrace all languages in the ways that linguists do.
Others speak strongly against linguistic diversity,
or feel that the speakers of their shared language are ruining it.
What I'd like to explore today is the idea
that appreciating similarities across languages
leads us to value diversity,
diversity of languages, of dialects, and of people.
So what is about linguistic diversity that makes us feel so uncomfortable?
Well, languages can seem vastly different from each other.
They sound different, the order of words in a sentence is different,
and they express things in different ways.
Let's take the expression of time for an example.
In English, to express an event in the past,
a special form of the verb is used,
"The man laughed."
If we remove '-ed' the part of "laughed" that we would call the past tense,
speakers of English would typically say
that "The man laugh" is no longer well-formed.
Sḵwx̱wú7mesh snichim, the Squamish language
is a Salish language spoken on the west coast of British Columbia.
Now, in Squamish, the past tense is not required to express a past event.
So this sentence, roughly "Laugh the man,"
- no past tense - means "The man laughed."
Actually, this is ambiguous between a past and present interpretation,
so this sentence also means, "The man is laughing."
Differences such as these can make languages unlike our own seem strange.
It can even lead to negative judgments about those languages,
that they have no grammar, they're inadequate or primitive.
But speakers of Squamish, and Yukatek Maya, and Madarin,
- by one count, half the world's languages don't require a past tense -
are not confused about time.
Say we add the expression 'yesterday, '
then this Squamish sentence, "Laugh the man yesterday,"
can only refer to a past event.
So while it may seem as though Squamish is underexpressing the past,
speakers are rarely, if ever, unsure of when the event took place.
Let's go back to our English sentence, "The man laughed."
Notice that when we add 'yesterday, ' it still requires the past tense,
"The man laughed yesterday."
In another words, if we say, "The man laugh yesterday"...
We wouldn't say, "The man laugh yesterday"
even though we understand what was intended.
So this makes it seem as though English is overexpressing the past.
So, what? Are we overcompensating for something?
(Laughter)
Would we say that English speakers were inferior
because they say more than they need to?
Of course not.
Even in English,
we sometimes don't use the past tense to express a past event.
(Laughter)
Once we start appreciating that languages share the same concepts,
that for example, all languages express the concept of time
and can do so with equal success,
then we can start to celebrate,
even marvel at the diversity of ways in which they do so.
Now, what if we were comparing languages
but we were comparing different dialects of the same language?
So, have you figured out which dialect of English I speak?
(Laughter)
Not only do I pronounce things in certain ways,
I also use certain expressions that are different from other dialects.
But just for the record, I say /əbʌwt/ not /əbut/.
(Laughter)
I've been gently teased about the way I speak
but generally, I am understood.
Speakers of some dialects are, however, harshly judged about the way they speak.
Keeping with this concept of time, let's look at another example.
In so-called standard American English or mainstream English, if you will,
when we say, "He is happy,"
this can mean "He is happy right now," maybe he just ran into an old friend,
or that in general, he is a happy person.
In African American English,
the dialect that has received much negative attention,
these two meanings are expressed in different ways.
So to express that he's happy right now, we say, "He happy,"
but to convey that he is in general a happy person, we say, "He be happy."
African American English
and other non-standard varieties of English,
have often been wrongly considered
inferior or degraded versions of the standard.
Even worse, people are sometimes labeled uneducated.
But if any notion can be expressed in any language or any dialect,
if the same meanings can be conveyed and understood by their speakers,
then, all dialects should be revered.
And by the way, would we say
that Spanish is inferior because it too can express these two meanings
of "He is happy," with two forms of the verb to be?
Probably not.
How about an example from Montana English?
Some Montanans say, "My car needs to be washed."
Others say, "My car needs washed."
In what way is one better or more accurate than the other?
Both are used by speakers
to imply that "My car is dirty," and washing will likely solve the problem.
So where does this leave us?
Well, if we can start appreciating the fact
that languages and dialects share things in common,
if we start appreciating that at the abstract level
they are expressing the same concepts,
we can begin to value diversity.
We can begin to celebrate the numerous ways
in which languages and dialects express those concepts.
And if we value linguistic diversity,
then we're likely to understand the importance
of preserving and revitalizing endangered languages.
We are less likely to negatively judge dialect variations,
and we may also be less resistant to language change.
I told you earlier that linguistics changed the way I viewed the world.
I proposed to you that next time
you hear somebody speaking a language other than your own,
or you hear somebody speaking your language, but in a different way,
take a moment to think about the fact
that they are expressing the same concepts that you do.
By doing so, you are reflecting on what it means to be human.
Shared experience on a shared planet,
shared among each other in a multitude of ways.
That's an idea we should all be spreading.
Thank you.
(Applause)