entry #1: The Creation and Disappearance of Languages

The juxtaposition of the following two news articles creates an interesting question: can the sporadic creation of words (and essentially, language) today even slightly compensate for the rapid disappearance of language steeped in history?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/30/news/edsafire.php “Translating the Lingo of adultalesence”
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7046816?nclick_check=1 “Last Living speaker works to keep NorCal tribe’s language alive”

While reading the first article, I reflected on some things I’ve heard said about colloquialisms in modern society: “kids today don’t appreciate the value of proper English,” or “the reassignment of different meanings to common words (what’s having issues with someone got anything to do with ‘having beef?!’) utterly devalues the original word.” I’m not going to lie: I was once a language purist, that is, I refused to partake in slang talk and was basically a stickler for correct spellings and usage (I went by the book—the big book: the Oxford English Dictionary). I was never one for internet/ AIM lingo: I never caught on to 1337 (“leet”) talk and “like” and “this” were never spelled “lyk” and “dis.” But now in retrospect, I think I’ve come to recognize the cultural implications of tween-talk. Incorrect spellings, absurd usages weren’t displays of immaturity, but instead, displays of a whole new culture. They represented the era of kids who found traditional spellings and definitions bland and unimaginative, they represented a culture that was used to creative formations and expedition. So now that I’ve established (to myself) that the creation of this new language was in fact a reflection of the formation of a veritable culture, I asked myself whether or not this came at the expense of other cultures.

We’ve briefly discussed in class the rapid endangerment of thousands of languages across the world. According to some sources, 5/6 of all languages are in some state of endangerment.* I was honestly taken aback by this astonishing figure, but after some thought, realized that because I was surrounded by a limited number of languages all the time, I never realized how many languages I wasn’t aware of (that sounds a bit like a “duh” statement). This posed the question of whether languages operated on a Darwinian theory. Do languages disappear because they’re “weaker” than others? Does this imply that the endangered culture is also, in a scientific sense, inferior (or merely lacking in man power?)? And if so, according to Darwin, wouldn’t language disappearances be a naturally “good” thing—that is, they promote the advancement of society toward a more…sophisticated level? Although I’ve read several sources that seemed to imply this to be the case, I think that culture and language are exempt of the Darwinian theory. Cultures are not something inherent in individuals, but rather, the amalgamation of a community of similarly minded and spirited people. But, I have wondered if the loss of a language correlates directly with the loss of a culture. I suppose this is the crux of our course: can language or culture exist independent of each other?
So, to wrap up my rather winding ramblings, do you guys think that we’re gaining new cultures at the expense of old ones? If so, was this replacement “worth it” (have we gained from the systematic formation of new languages in today’s society?) or should we instead cling onto pre-existing languages and strive to keep them alive. Or, ideally, is coexistence between the two possible?

* source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2002/0425fast.htm
interesting site that describes the endangerment of languages in such terms: “a language is considered endangered when it is no longer spoken by children, moribund when only a handful of elderly speakers are left, and extinct when it is no longer spoken.” Do check it out!