That language is not just a cultural convention but a part of human instinct has been a controversial and hotly contested idea, sometimes an even reviled one due to the implications of it were it to be true. It was to be expected as it is in itself an inversion and questioning of a lot of the fundamental mythos of the humanities and the social sciences as they are taught and discussed today. A big part of modern intellectual and academic life accepts as an uncontestable dogma that there is no such thing as a universal human nature across cultures and times. The existence of a language instinct challenges that dogma at it roots and forces an uncomfortable re-examination of those premises.
It was cognitive scientist Steven Pinker who spoke about 'The Language Instinct' in those words in his very eloquent book of the same name intended for the general public, but the roots of it lies in the works of Noam Chomsky, especially in his concept of the presence of a Universal Grammar for languages. By and large, scientific consensus seems to be converging to this point of view that language is a uniquely human trait, an innate capacity serviced by perhaps a neuron concentration on the left sides of the brain (try to repeat what someone else is talking and simultaneously try to tap a finger on the left hand, then repeat with the right hand - controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain and find out how much tougher it is). Of course culture affects the specificities of this instinct, as in a child brought up in a Tamil speaking family will speak Tamil, but none of us start with a blank slate which is then painted on by a social sharing mechanism which was an accepted view earlier.
There is a startling commonality among all the worlds languages, across geographies, cultures and times, from Sanskrit and Pali to the 'hinglish', 'manglish', 'bambaiyya', the non-verbal languages of the deaf and even the sms-speak which is bound to become a full fledged creative language in some time however much the oldies hate it. This is a comparatively new discovery primarily due to the assumed, arrogant and ultimately untrue superiority assumptions of the other-language-studiers about their own languages and cultures.
One of the reasons that linguistics does not run into the normal problems of any historical science is that we can see, watch and learn how people create complex languages from scratch. The most interesting example that Pinker gives though, is regarding the people around us who use language but can't use their vocal chords.
"Contrary to popular misconceptions, sign languages are not pantomimes and gestures, or ciphers of the spoken language of the surrounding community. They are found whenever there is a community of deaf people, and each one is a distinct full language, using the same kind of grammatical machinery found worldwide in spoken languages. For eg, the American Sign Language does not resemble English or British sign languages, but relies on agreement and gender systems in a way that is reminiscent of Navajo and Bantu.It was a recent attempt to learn an alien language and a coming across of the concerns and fears among some of the Malayali writers and critics that made me search for the present understanding and debate regarding cognition and linguistics.
Until recently there were no sign languages at all in Nicaragua, because its deaf people remained isolated from one another. When the Sandinista government took over in 1979 and reformed the educational system, the first schools for the deaf were created. The schools focused on drilling the children in lip reading and speech, and as in every case where that is tried, the results were dismal. But it did not matter. On the playgrounds and school buses the children were inventing their own sign system, pooling the makeshift gestures that they used with their families at home. Before long the system congealed into what is now called the Lenguaje de Signos Nicaraguense."
The attempt to learn made me realize how goddamn tough it is to learn a language once you are an adult. How it is a different ball game, something so very, very different from learning, say a new subject in a language known to you. The rules, the learning curves are all so different as to make you struggle in a way which is perhaps unknown to you in adult life. It was made more interesting by the fact that we were learning as a group which was remarkable for its diversity, from kids just stepping into teenages to senior citizens. The trends of the group too - the women bettering the men, the young picking up at a scorching pace compared to the old were all very interesting to watch. Of course, anecdotal generalizations are the biggest shortcuts to bad science but what I found a remarkable reference point for what what I understood from watching my and other's struggle to learn and in Pinker's work.
But what was more intersting was to read the concerns, the fears and the insecurities of some of the Malayali writers as to what will happen to Malayalam in the near and far future. Some of the fears are genuine, like the roots of feelings of cultural rootlessnes which in turn makes some of the non-resident Indians, politically, one of the most retrogressive and reactionary groups anywhere. A generation growing up without knowing the smells, tastes and ways of their lands, let alone being rooted but being critical enough of it to change it for the better is indeed a problem too, something which has supposedly already happened in places like Japan, where a handed-down bastardized version of disney land americana has become a mainstream culture of the young, something which they perhaps consider 'superior' to their own roots. M.Mukundan almost tearfully records a hilarious instance which he says he was unlucky enough to experience - a woman saying 'Thank You, Thank You' to Lord Ayyappan in a temple at R.K.Puram New Delhi as if the lord had forgotten Malayalam after going to a New Delhi convent.
But the screams of Brahmanic pollution of a non-existant purity a la the French seems to be perhaps a reaction which would be much much, worse than the problem, especially considering the history of Malayalam. C.P. Rajasekharan rightly calls out the "all is lost, it was all great in the past" dishonest screams. Malayalam with its roots in Sangha Tamil, has been pollinated by Sanskrit, Arabic, Portugese, Kannada among other tongues. A purity attempt would be even more unsuccessful and even more retrogressive than what has happened to French. But having said that, it is also true that especially the expatriate children should be given the opportunity during the short time when our brains pick up languages in a flash, to learn their mother's tongue. But, it need not be at the cost of other languages which they may need for being productive for the rest of their lives. What they or what anyone does with it later should be left to the wisdom of them and of their generation as in the end language is primarily about reaching others who live at the same times.
While almost all modern languages fear ‘pollution' by English, it is also important to note that the relative openness of English was not always so. Most of the English intelligentsia once thought it was urgent that ‘their' language be protected and its borders be defined. In fact, a ‘liberal' like Jonathan Swift was supposedly made so angry by words like ‘bamboozle' that he called for their outright banning.
A strkn' parlel 2 dis s d h8 of d iL infrmd lngwj gurdians evrywhr 2 d sms lngwj Usd by d yung. D h8Rd s so iMnse, it s :) 2 wtch it n actn. It s du 2 a lck of undRstNdN of how lngwijz r, evlve n r adptd.
One thing can be said for sure, the great-great grandchildren of the readers of this blog will find the language of here quaint, odd and sometimes even incomprehensible. The Malayalam speakers of the time, and another question whether they will exist in large numbers, will also find the Malayalam of our times to be quaint, odd and incomprehensible. And that is natural, bound to happen and most importantly - completely okay.
Let's end with a prayer to the man who supposedly gave the gift of the 'word'. :-)
Old English(C. 1000): Faeder ure thu the eart on heofonum, si thin nama gehalgod. Tobecume thin rice. Gewurthe in willa on eorthan swa on heofonum.
Middle English(C. 1400): Oure fadir that art in heuenes halowid be thi name, thi kyngdom come to, be thi wille don in erthe es in heuene,...
Early Modern English(C. 1600): Our father which are in heaven, hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.
Contemporary English: Our Father, who is in heaven, may your name be kept holy. May your kingdom come into being. May your will be followed on earth, just as it is in heaven.
