EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

Language is a very powerful tool. It can be used not only to communicate ideas, but also to change and shape attitudes. Language is a form of communication whether or not it’s between mothers to daughter, friends to friends, and so forth. There’s certain form of language that we carry with one another. It can also shape our thoughts and emotions. In essence, determine our perception of what’s around us. Language is not only a vehicle for the expression of thoughts, perceptions, sentiments, and values characteristic of a community, but it also represents a fundamental expression of social identity. Therefore, language is a carrier of culture because it represents the social identity one has in the world.
Language has power. It allows humans to communicate our thoughts and ideas. In a way, it can transmit our cultural and history. Language embodies a certain manner of "worldview" native to its speakers. They expressed them by what distinctions are made among the usage of grammar and the meaning of concepts, or sometimes lack of. To suppress a language is to ultimately rob a culture of its history and unique character.

I feel language is a very big part of culture. Having married my wife who is from a different culture and language, it is very clear to me that culture is carrier of the language. I have had the opportunity to listen to some elders and it is clear that with the loss of language the traditions and values have been lost that once rule the land. My wife's land has been westernized in very much the same way that is talked about in this article. For example, when my wife was growing up they were taught english in school and were suppose to speak it whenever in school. Today in her same school they are teaching kids the local language because it is being lost. I feel that your first language is the basis of your life, all your thoughts begin with your first language and evolve from there.

Language is a means of expression, if you can not express yourself you are being oppress of your emotions. I don't believe you can control people by language but you can create a lot of negative tension towards the opposition. This is what starts civil wars and causes great bloodshed between nations with different views.

Language is definitly a carrier of culture. I noticed when I was in Mexico just the subtle differences in how you address someone whom you have respect for or should have respect for. We don't have that in English...everyone is just there name or "you" or "him." Different languages have a different "flavor" to them. For example, japanese has close to six different ways to talk to someone based on there status, the situation, etc. This expands the possibilities that one has to interpret something in a language (like japanese). Which is interesting because language is usually seen (in regards to English) as pretty black and white in meaning.

Language was "spiritual subjugation" is an interesting point. I agree with in the respect that many of the things we feel we can not verbalize. The closest we can come is through our behavior often without our words. I also liked what Thiong'o had to say about language as a defining factor for a person. This goes along with culture, but just how many judgments we pass when we hear a certain language (Arabic, for example). It's interesting to think about how we are seen when we speak English. It seems to depend on which part of the world one would be in, but for the most part if it's in the "third world" we will probably be seen as colonizers.

Because different languages have different words and different amounts of words that can describe certain things, situations, and emotions; different languages may be able to cause a person to feel differently about something than someone who speaks a differnt language. Sometimes I think that inorder for a new feeling to overcome someone they must define or have that emotion be defined by language. If your language doesn't cover an idea it won't occur to you as easily. I know that in Japanese cultures the language has same idea of respect but they show it differently, so language goes along with body language too. This shows that language is a carrier of culture because japanese show respect, but with downcast eyes instead. I think it is hard to communicate ideas outside of your language, I think it is possible, but hard. It takes more words to describe a single word in another language and it may not fully emcompass the full meaning. Also, in some cases if you aren't exposed to an idea it may not occur to a person, so they may never get a chance to experience it.

There is no doubt in my mind that language is a "carrier of culture." That is the reason why IQ tests are unrealiable measures of intelligence. They way a sentence is formed and the words chosen can have different meanings for different people. Being from a different country, I have found that the only effective way to communicate with people in this area is to change the way I speak. I hide my accent and essentially translate my point from the English I learned as a child to the English I've learned as an adult. Depending on what I am trying to say, this can be a very diffcult task.
I also agree that language can be used to suppress people(s). It can go both ways though. To me, Achebe understood that writing in English is using the same tool that was used against his people. Language is powerful and using it to battle stereotypes, government policies, etc. can lead to change and a better understanding of the topic being discussed. Though it is a shame that much of what is spoken and written in English is not translated into native tongues. That seems to widen the gap between those who do and do not know English; it inhibits the understanding of other cultures.

Wow, this is a thought provoking article! I have to admit that I have been pouring over this text and in places I find myself agreeing and then one sentence later I really disagree. I think that the comments posted thus far are really interesting and this conversation of language as abstract theory is really great and can go on for hours.
The thing that i can say about Ngugi's article so far is that I largely agree with his conclusions but not all of his argumentation, philosopjical points I disagreed with. I really DON'T like his use of Marxian philosophy I think its dangerous, so much of what Marx said was based off of his love for other philosophers like Hegel. There is always an undertone in Marx of "evolution" which is directly related to the eras that these dudes lived. That's culturally dangerous. Besides that aspect, Marx was wrong about so many things, he was wrong because he made a rather rigid typology and since his life there are many examples in history that prove the error of his toutology. Ngugi seems to use this typology in his arguments. p16 he connects the extraction of wealth by colonizers ( of which I agree) directly with the control of language (marx's "real life" language). I don't think that this connection can be made in this way, extraction of wealth does not necessitate control of language though it may have been a by-product or been a modus operandi for extending the time period of colonization and retaining political controll. In many cases this was probably the result of the rediculous ideology that they were actually "saving" people, other times policy of language controll were pursued agressively because of resistance to amalgamation (like many U.S. gov policies against Nat. Americans).
I do agree with his ideas of alienation, internalization, and conditioning. He himself in a way, represents a counter arguement to his own thesis. He and other writers, like Achebe, show that colonialism didn't work on everyone. He doesn't seem to give enough credit to the indigenous mental ability (p17) and doesn't recognize instances were cultural change through force, and through syncretism produced new an damazing things. I think about creoles, and African American arts like jazz, blues etc...
The last thing is that I agree with everyone else that language carries a unique cultural wieght and is very important for giving us all our early world lens. But I feel that English is getting the shaft a little. In america we too have regional differences (southern, west and east coast and mid-west variations) and I would argue that although we don't have the stringent rules of the Japanese language, we do have forms of hello that vary in degree of respect and formality. I think personally that our "American Eng." is undergoing big changes right now as a result of technology and its implications. (just think about this blog)
If I was an author I would first target my audience adn the market that i wanted to reach, especially if I was attemptimg to make a living doing it. In this discussion, it seems that he history and the legacy play a big role in why these authors write in a certain language. my question is: is it too expensive or too hard to have the works translated into multple languages?
Buddhism represents a unique study in translation and spread of culture. It had huge impacts as it spread but the language of the ideology metamorphesized as texts were translated into various laguages. This was done by various authors who then continued creating buddhist writings in their native language. this seems more akin to the Achebe qoute on p8 and Okara p9. This was a strange mix of changing the original culture of buddhism and the culture of the recieving peoples.
This is interesting stuff!

I agree with Thiong’o that language is a carrier of culture. Your language determines the stories you hear, the rules you abide by, the morals you live by, and so forth. Language helps create the culture you live in, but at the same time culture influences language. For example, as a child you may learn a story about a little boy who gets in trouble for saying mean things. As a child, this teaches you to not say mean things, which in turn influences the words/language you use. However, the reason you are told the story to begin with has to do with culture. In your culture it is advantageous to nice words as opposed to mean words and therefore this story is important. Culture and language go hand-in-hand and it almost seems like the chicken and egg argument when you try to figure out which causes which. All I seem to understand is that they build off of each other and you can’t really have one without the other.

Another part of this article that I found particularly interesting was in section III when Thiong’o was recalling his childhood education. Being an elementary education major, I found myself nodding my head as I read, “English became the main determinant of a child’s progress up the ladder of formal education.” When I am in the classroom, I notice how hard it is for some Spanish speaking students to try to keep up to the English standard. This is especially evident with testing. Students are expected to read, comprehend, and interpret a language they are not used to. They need to forget their language and cultural norms to succeed and this is bogus and bias. I also notice how some students try to keep their home culture alive by talking in Spanish to their friends during free time or at recess. I think this is great and should be encouraged. I am not saying that English should not be the focus, because to succeed in the United Stated you need English, but that languages and cultures other than the dominant should be strongly embraced in elementary schools.

I think Thiong'o would say that language "can be" (this is suppose to be italicized...but I don't know how to post words like that) a carrier of culture, but not necessarily. Thiong'o mentions that English is only a means of communication with non-Scandinavians and is not a carrier of their culture. Another example is Swahili, in parts of Africa, Swahili is a means of communication and it is a carrier of culture, but, in East and Central Africa, Swahili is used as a means of communication and not a carrier of culture. My reaction to this was that perhaps the means of communication for the use of language would be stronger than that of a cultural carrier, but I would disagree with Thiong'o and say that language, no matter how much people keep it seperate from the culture, will pull things from it that change parts of their culture (no matter how small). I thought Thiong'o kind of contradicted himself when he was writing about language being a cultural carrier or a means of communication, or both; because the rest of the article seems to suggest that language will affect parts of people's culture (especially looking at the schooling sections of this article).

I think language is described perfectly when the author wrote "Language as culture is the collective memory bank of a people's experience in history." Language defines who someone is and where they come from. "It becomes a way of life distinguishable from other ways of life." Language creates a person and is the "carrier of culture"

I remember my trip to Japan when I stayed with a host family for 2 months. I found it so interesting that every Japanese person I spoke to was so eager to practice their English with me. Of course they were a little shy at first, but after they knew that I was willing to help them, they wanted to perfect their English the best they could. I think that goes along with what Thiong'o was saying with the story when he was at his conference. He said that all African countries were influenced by European countries that spoke English. He also said that any talented writer who wrote their literature in an Afrian language was not thought of in high regards as those authors who used Enlgish. For some reason stories wrote in English from African authors got more credit and were more highly rewarded, than stories written from intelligent African writes, in a non-European language. Why? I dont understand what the author is trying to say. I feel like he is switching his mind to saying that African people are conforming to speak English and live like the Europeans want them to. And then he is saying how language can pass down stories from generation to generation, and people shouldn't conform. Does the author want Africans to confrom, or to not conform? Does he like the use of English in African countries?

I can see Thiong’o’s point that language is a “means of spiritual subjugation” because I’m sure that in many ways language did help imperialism thrve in Africa, but I don’t think that it was the determining factor. By teaching Africans English, European countries were teaching Africans that their customs and culture were bad and that in order to better themselves, Africans needed to adopt western ways, the first step being that of learning English. This emphasis on English being the dominant language certainly makes an impact on different African cultures, but I don’t believe that it was the dominant factor in the success of imperialism as Thiong’o argues.
Language is a “carrier of culture” and by suppressing native languages in Africa, westerners were in a sense suppressing the native culture. When looking at the vocabularies of different languages it is possible to see what is more important to a certain culture simply based on the words they used. An example of this would be in Arab culture where family is extremely important, there are different words for almost every family member, instead of just cousin, aunt, or uncle they use my mother’s brother’s daughter, or the sister of my father, or the brother of my mother – it is much more exact. You can see the importance of different institutions in different cultures through their language and that is part of what defines a culture – by taking away African language, westerners were taking away a piece of their culture and ignoring the importance of certain institutions.

I felt that this was a harder read… possibly because, at times, he used excessively long sentences:
“On the one hand is imperialism in its colonial and neo-colonial phases continuously press-ganging the African hand to the plough to turn the soil over, and putting blinkers on him to make him view the path ahead only as determined for him by the master armed with the bible and the sword.”
WOW!! 6 lines (in the packet vs. 4 here) for one sentence… I got sidetracked easily while reading the intro, but later on, as his actual arguments came out, it was much easier to get through. I didn’t completely buy everything that he said. Some things agreed with hands down, but other points he made had me thinking “is he kidding?” When he quoted Achebe in some instances, I felt myself questioning both Thiong’o and Achebe.

It really hit home when he talked about the schooling in Kenya. My parents faced similar treatment in Guyana, when they were schooled by the British. They were whipped or caned if they were caught speaking their native tongue. I don’t think that my parents or anyone in the area had to wear signs that said “I am stupid” or “I am a donkey” though. I don’t think that their classmates ratted on each other either. I was quite surprised when I read that the school children would squeal on each other with the whole button thing. That kind of confused me as well. Did the first child speak in his mother tongue or was he just given the button to pass along? If the first child had the button, was he punished at the end of the day? If that were the case, I suppose one would squeal in a heartbeat to save themselves.

Language is most definitely a “carrier of culture.” Every language is created by its speakers and the culture in which they indulge themselves. Have you ever really heard or learned a language without having some kind of culture reference right along with? Yes most of us speak English primarily, however, those who do not could very easily, I bet, point out our culture differences even just among U.S. southerners, east coast inhabitants, west coasters, country folk, and city dwellers. There is such a difference even among Americans in language and culture. For instance, accents vary throughout our country and it is most definitely part of both our language and culture. Why do some people say pop while others say soda? Why do some people say bubbler while others call it a drinking fountain? It’s culture differences carried heavily by language. It is undeniable that language is an essential part of cultural background.

I think that language is absolutely a carrier of culture. If a culture does not have a language, everything is harder. Spoken communication, written communication, etc. would be virtually impossible without language. A culture defines a people. Children grow up learning their language and their culture. When traveling, it is very apparent when the local cultures are changing. Traveling from country to country introduces new languages, and even from state to state or city to city, accents and dialects change. The English lanuage is used in multiple places around the world, but each place has its own version of English. Thus defining their own unique culture. Like wa Thiong'o says, "There are American, WEst Indian, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand version of English. All of them add life and vigour to the language while reflecting their own respective cultures." Each different culture brings to the table differences. Language defines cultures.

I think that language is a powerful carrier of culture, if not culture in itself. As Thiong'o's argument on the three tiers of language indicates, the first aspect of language is the ability to communicate with nature. Things like food, shelter, and other necessities became easier to gain with the advent of the 2nd tier of language being verbal communication. I think this is interesting because it shows us how the ancient peoples were able to create language and culture by basic interactions with their environment.

I am still confused as to how much Thiong'o regards the use of English as an offense to his culture if he lives in American and has to use it to communicate with his students about why using English perpetuates the colonialist thought.

I think that language is a powerful carrier of culture, if not culture in itself. As Thiong'o's argument on the three tiers of language indicates, the first aspect of language is the ability to communicate with nature. Things like food, shelter, and other necessities became easier to gain with the advent of the 2nd tier of language being verbal communication. I think this is interesting because it shows us how the ancient peoples were able to create language and culture by basic interactions with their environment.

I am still confused as to how much Thiong'o regards the use of English as an offense to his culture if he lives in American and has to use it to communicate with his students about why using English perpetuates the colonialist thought.

Language is no doubt an important part of culture. There are so many languages in the world that they do not even have all of them recorded and many do not have written language. I am Native American and within my culture like many others, the language is becoming lost and unused in this English speaking society. There is nothing wrong with English but when people are so focused on one language that they lose their own, part of that culture is also being lost. There can be a balance where it is good to know other languages but to be able to embrace both and to keep the original language to maintain the culture as well. Thiong speaks about how hard it is to do that and be successful at the same time. Success is within the western world and English is spoken there so to maintain ones native tongue if it is not English and to gain success without losing that language is hard. He writes in his own language but in order to spread it to the western world (the richer countries) he has to adapt and change his writings to fit for their people. It is hard when more people speak English but you want to keep your language and culture intact.

Language absolutely works as a carrier of culture. In my spanish class we read this exceprt from a book called palabras frasescas, or french words and its about this girl who lives in Argentina, but grows up learning french as the aristocracy of europeans in Argentina. She originally thought that Spanish was a savage language and a language for the poor. Likewise, she was unable to express herself or communicate efficiently because for the longest time at home she read, spoke and wrote in French. Somewhere along the line she has this Epiphany that Spanish is a valuable language and it is a valuable part of her culture as a Argentinian that she was missing out on. On the other hand, language is a great unifier. In order to compete in business or politics, a grasp on a major language is more than necessary, its imperitive. I agree that some cultures can add their own twist to the major languages and make them their own and don't think it is as bad as it sounds. Languages become extinct, that is how it goes. Nobody speaks latin anymore, except for the pope, but more languages have evolved from it. I feel that the evolution of language would continue to take place and its a natural process that is not as bad as things sound.

On page 21, the second paragraph, wa Thiong’o says that the literature armed uprising and awakened political arguments and such. What does he mean when he later talks about blaming people? I got a little confused in this section and I was wondering how other people interpreted it.

Also, did anyone else find it a bit odd that he included the English translations of his works while he was bashing Afro-European writing? And, who is this piece of literature directed towards? He talks about the fate of Kenyan children quite a bit; why not write in his “mother-tongue” about his concerns to the people in Kenya? They could unite and do something about the situation as well. I’m just curious about everyone else’s opinions on this topic I guess.

When Thiong’o states that “Language is the means of spiritual subjugation” I think he’s trying to say that since language is such a vital part to one’s culture and value system that by controlling one’s language you also control their values and spirit. I don’t completely agree with this concept. I do agree with Thiong’o that the context in which a second language was forced upon native people by colonists was a means of gaining power over the people. He writes on page 16 “But it’s most important area of domination was the mental universe of the colonized, the control, through culture, of how people perceived themselves and their relationship with the world.” It was wrong for the colonists to impose and force their language over the people’s original language in order to change their way of thinking to be similar to their own. In a way it sounds like brain washing.
But I can’t help but see the other side of this argument that Thiong’o so boldy proclaims. The optimist in me sees that learning a second language is a very valuable tool. It is not by any means a positive skill if it is meant to take cultural precedence over one’s original culture. If one particular language and cultural values are forced upon a person, it becomes brain washing. But as this college embraces, we learn about many different cultures to become more open minded citizens. We try and see others perspectives and understand and respect one another around the world. I know that I am a very different person with a new understanding and new perspectives than from when I first started college, and so I have changed as Thiong’o says in “how I see myself and my relationship with the world”. My context is however much different than what he is referring to. My new perspectives do not eliminate my original cultural values but merely enlightened me. If the colonists forced young children to embrace a new cultural value system, it divided the generations so profoundly that it created a rift between dominators and the dominated.

I believe that with language there is also an intrinsic way of thinking. I think both go hand in hand, and that with language there is also a way of think that others whom try to learn the language secondarily may never fully understand. There are things in all languages that cannot be fully translated into other languages. I think of languages as if you were looking at centimeters and inches. I grew up in the English system, so I can really only think of centimeters in terms of inches. I think that 2.54 centimeters equals one inch. In language it is the same thing. I think you can only think in terms of your own language. Therefore when thinking in terms of the second language there will inevitably some ideas that will not and cannot be understood.

i consider language to be the vocal identity of a culture. the two go nearly hand in hand for language is the means through which the culture of a particular place is imparted into the people or through which the culture is recognized. the richness of the language portrays the richness of the culture. the conflict between speaking or writing in one's own mother tongue as compared to the dominant 'foreign' language brought about by colonialism is quite interesting. its what a child is taught in the house that makes the path for him to travel. if the family is a strict follower of their native culture, it is bound to make a big impression on the child's mind to revere that culture. as for the part where the author mentions about children being canned for speaking their native tongue in school, i believe it for i have had that experience myself. I studied in a missionary convent school till my junior high and there was actually one such teacher who used to punish anyone she caught speaking in their mother tongue rather than in English as was the school rule. though there were many things which the author said that i couldnt quite comprehend the meaning of, never the less, in the final argument, no one can dismiss the reasoning of the author as baseless for they do invoke us to think about something which we have taken for granted our whole life and that is our language.

I found “The Language of African Literature” somewhat confusing. I had to read some sections over to really understand what Thiong’o was saying. I do agree that language had a strong tie to culture. There are certain things in a culture that can only be expressed in that cultures language. The discussion of this reminded me a similar discuss that was brought up in my adoption class last semester. In that class we discussed the idea of han in the Korean culture and whether or not adoptees felt this even though they were not raised in the Korea. Han in a major part of the Korean culture and has no direct translation to English. There are explanations that somewhat generalized the mean but not true understanding of the concept in cultures outside of the Korean culture. I think this correlates with Thiong’o argument, that feelings and ideas of one culture can never be truly understood by another. I think that people can express themselves in other languages besides their cultures language, but I think it is much more difficult to convey their ideas about the culture.

Language is a very powerful motivational tool, and thats why I find myself agreeing with the article more often than not. Thiong'o repeatedly stresses the importance of national identity and that's why I would think it pragmatic to encourage intellectual thought and development within smaller communities. Would writing in a native language open the doors to more thought and mental stimulation in closer knit communities? To me, it just seems like authors who are closely tied in within a culture would want to work towards others in their groups in hopes of building an intellectual scene. I think its about time "Third World" countries start making names for themselves when it comes to intellectualism as great minds are probably spread across this world in equal parts

Is language is "carrier of culture"? Most definately; however, it is not always the case. For instance, many of my non-white friends do not KNOW how to speak their own language. English is their 1st language -- Mainly, it is because they are born and raised in America. In my opinion, I feel that they have lost a valuable part of their culture of not knowing how to speak in their native tongue. Language is very powerful and expressive in many different ways and resembles deep 'roots' of a particular group in history/culture/people. In this competitive society, for some, they do not really have a choice of speaking their language if they want to succeed. The society has "control" over language, and it is the society/(majority of the people) that establishes/promotes a particular language.

I think Ngugi Wa Thiong'o brings up an interesting point. In class Dorsana had said something about how your language, no matter the negative or positive connotations it poses for you, has everything to do with who you are and how you've come to be that way. From the beginning, we are given words from our languages that represent ideas and ideals that are important to our culture alone. For instance, I've heard that in other languages there are more than ten different ways to say love. Each of these words represents what they feel are significantly different kinds of relationships. It seems like a culture best expresses itself and its values in its own words. I think there is something owed to your mother language, however I'm not sure writing in that language, whether strictly or only sometimes, is always the best way to pay homage. I think an individual needs to decide how they are going to do right by their mother language and culture, and I think there are other ways to enrich these things.

Like many, I completely believe that language is a "carrier of culture." In my own experience, often there are words in certain languages that don't have a translation in another language. This I think is influenced by a societies beliefs, for example an insult in one language holds no gravity in another. Thus, by understanding a language, one understands the priorities or taboos of a society.
The control of language can definitely have an effect on how much control you have on people because you can create a limitation of the things they think or say. If people can not express what they think or believe, that can have limitless influence on the majorities way of thinking. In short, the control of language can influence people into thinking something is right, even though it isn't.

Language can be translated in so many ways even in different regions where it is spoken. In this way, each language carries a sense of the culture of the people who speak it. Language can even be identifies by an accent and that even carries a sense of culture and
exoticness to a foreigner. One question that I had was if you learn a new language and become fluent does that help you in discovering the culture too? I believe that you can try and learn about where this new language came from but the best thing to do is spend time where it really originated. For example, the people that taught Ngugi wa Thiongo English should have done the same with wa Thiongo’s language and learned where it came from.

There are many things that are limited with regards to language. I speak Persian and there are some words that we have in English and not in Persian and vice versa so when I think of a word in English and try to say it in Persian it is not always possible. In this way language is a problem. I do not think it is possible to speak outside of the scope of your language. However, when you know multiple languages I think your ability to fully express what you mean is easier. When works of literature, poems ect are translated from an original language a lot cannot be directly translated and much of the meaning is lost.
I believe that by controls one’s language you can control their being. Language is much more than words. It is a carrier of a society’s culture, values, and norms. If you change this you can change everything about the society. Also, many times when colonizers change language they are not just translating everything into English; they are adding and subtracting words. Religious colonizers introduce a whole new set of words which encompasses an entirely different religion from the society’s original spiritual beliefs.

The language of a culture is essential to who an individual is. I defiently agree that language is the "carrier of culture". If it wasn't for the language of a culture a person wouldn't be able to completly express their individuality. Okonkwo wanted to continue believing in his religion and didn't want to fall into the hands of the white people. Even though others around him were converting to the Christians, Okonkwo didn't want his family to become part of the white culture.

Undisputedly,language is a carrier of culture but is language culture in its totality?There so many other aspects of culture besides language that are a mark of a people's identity!does speaking in Arabic mean that I am practising the culture of the Arabs?Absolutely No!Language is just but amedium through which culture is transmitted from person to person or generation to another.Ngugi's 'farewell to English' does not mean he has been behaving like an Englander, honestly!!His article has too many overtones,in my opinion!!!

Language can be a carrier of culture. Certain words that are quite acceptable in our culture might not be acceptable to others. Another significant example is the body language. There are certain body languages that other cultures use but viewed as an insult to others.

Certain thoughts outside the scope of your language can be expressed through body language. It helps you express more clearly what message you want to convey.

Language is a vital tool. It is the cord that ties that race to its ancestors. It is used by people to effect great changes, be it spiritual, physical or even revolutionary. Mark Anthony, in "Julius Caesar," uses language to whip up sentiments against the conspirators.