My Term Paper: Do we think differently in Serbian and English?

Term Paper
Psych 17N: Language and Society
Nikola Milanovic

Do we think differently in Serbian and English?

If one were to call up their friend, in English, and ask them ‘to meet at restaurant,’ the sentence would be grammatically incorrect and informationally incomplete. However, in Serbian, this sentence would be normal. Why is that, and does it have any impact on the way speakers of the two respective languages think? The general theory of this paper is that differences can exist between languages, which cause people to think differently in those languages. The focus of the paper specifically is on the differences between Serbian and English in information pertinent to communication. The hypothesis of this essay is that, because Serbian lacks the articles ‘a’ and ‘the,’ speakers of the two languages communicate differently, which both causes and is caused by different patterns of thought. This essay will lie out a hypothetical experiment to confirm the hypothesis.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis explains a theory that accounts for why we may have different thought processes in different languages. The hypothesis states that our thinking is determined by language and that people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world differently. (The Sapir) According to linguist Edward Sapir, “No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” (Sapir 1958: 69)
Linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf expands on this theory, commenting that “We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. […] We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.” (Whorf 1940: 213-214)
There are many criticisms of this theory. Modern linguists generally do not accept the notion that language imprisons people into certain patterns of thought. However, the view that language has no impact on how people think is also widely rejected by linguists. (“Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis”) The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis does lend itself to the experiment laid out in this essay to test the differences in thought patterns between Serbian and English, however. Regardless of whether the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is itself correct or false, this essay seeks to demonstrate that, at least in the specific case laid out, language does play a key role in determining how people think.
The definition of ‘the’ states that the word is “used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an.” (Dictionary.com) Conversely, ‘a’ is defined as meaning “not any particular or certain one of a class or group.” (Dictionary.com)
This changes the nature of which nouns are referred to in which ways with the specific articles. Whereas little information is necessary when referring to a general object, such as ‘a house,’ specific, shared information is necessary for communication about a specific object, such as ‘the house.’ In English, when the word ‘the’ is used, such as in the phrase “I lost the game today,” certain background knowledge is necessary between the speaker and their audience in order for the idea of the sentence to be communicated effectively. In Serbian, the sentence would be rephrased as “Ja sam gubio igrati danas” (I lost game today). Though both phrases can communicate the idea of a specific game, the information presented by them is different. By using ‘the’ in the English sentence, it is normally inferred that the two speakers are both referring to one game, which implies that they a) have previous knowledge of the game and b) have previously communicated about it. It at least implies that the speaker believes that his audience knows which game is being referred to. In Serbian, the object in the sentence is less specified due to a lack of articles; the ‘game’ referred to could be any general game because there is no implication in the phrasing that the speaker and their audience a) both know of the game or b) have previously communicated about it. In translation to English, it is necessary for the Serbian speaker to incorporate the articles ‘a’ or ‘the’ in order to indicate whether they are referring to a game that they believe the audience doesn’t know about or one that both parties know about (if I were to say “I lost a game today,” the sentence would require further explanation, whereas telling someone that “I lost the game” would imply that we both know of the game referred to). Thus, when the sentence is translated from English to Serbian and then back to English (word for word), there is less information contained in the phrasing.
What does this mean for thought processes in the two languages? There are multiple possible implications for the impact of this linguistic difference on the thought processes of the languages’ speakers. Firstly, by using the word ‘the’ in English, the speaker forces the audience to bring up a recollection of information in order to establish what is being referred to by the article. Using the word ‘a’ instead would imply that there is no shared knowledge of a specific object between the speaker and their audience, and would therefore not require the audience to browse their memory for information regarding the exact object. Using the already given example, if the speaker says, “I lost the game,” the audience must remember specifically which game in question the speaker lost. By saying “I lost a game,” the speaker implies that the audience has no previous knowledge of the game, and that therefore more explanation is required on the speaker’s part in order to specify which game they are referring to. Because Serbian does not have this distinction, “Ja sam gubio igrati danas” will make the audience automatically think of what game the speaker could assume they both have knowledge of. However, even if the speaker and their audience can communicate about the same game without specifying which one it is, the lack of distinction still exists. This is one way in which the difference in articles can create different thought processes.
A test must be run in order to determine whether this linguistic difference does actually create the different thought processes outlined. The test (which will be referred to in this paper as the Cup Test) proceeds as follows:
1) The tester brings the test subject to a table with many cups (preferably ceramic or glass cups, which will make noise if dropped and broken).
2) The tester proceeds to hold a conversation with the test subject, in which they mention that one of the cups is their favorite of the many, and highlight or show that cup specifically to the test subject.
3) After the conversation, the tester asks the test subject to leave the room.
4) After a short while, the tester comes out of the room and explains that they dropped a cup. Run in English, the tester should say, “I dropped a cup” in half the tests and “I dropped the cup” in half the tests. In Serbian, the tester would say “Ja sam ispustio pehar.” (I dropped cup).
The test should be run so that the test subject is unaware of the true nature of what the test concerns and unaware that the cup has any significance to the test. The conversation should regard a topic unrelated to the cup, and the presence of the cups should be self-explanatory (eg: left over from a previous meal), so as not to arouse suspicion that the cups play a role in the experiment.
According to the hypothesis, the test subjects will have different reactions to the statement of the tester. The test subject who is told, “I dropped the cup” in English should automatically assume that the tester is referring to the specific cup they highlighted in conversation. This is because the use of the word ‘the’ implies that there is a shared knowledge between the tester and the subject regarding which cup was dropped. The test subject who is told, “I dropped a cup” in English should respond by asking which cup was dropped (and possibly whether it was the favorite cup). This response should occur because the article ‘a’ generalizes the cup in question, meaning that the tester is not referring to a specific cup. As such, the phrase lacks sufficient information to inform the test subject which cup was dropped. The test subject of the Serbian version of the test should automatically assume that the cup dropped was the favorite cup highlighted in conversation. This is because the lack of articles to specify which cup was dropped should force the test subject to consult their memory in order to determine whether they can assume a specific cup is being referred to.
It is reasonable to assume that the Serbian test subject will react as noted because Serbian conversation points to such a reaction: Serbian speakers do not always question which object someone is referring to if they can assume the reference is made to a specific object of which both parties have knowledge. If it were the case that Serbian speakers did not make links to specific objects when they were referred to generally (such as in the sentence “I lost game”), the speakers would constantly be asking clarification questions about what is being referred to. As such, the test subject in question should automatically assume that the cup dropped was the favorite, instead of asking the tester to clarify which cup was dropped.
There are, however, limitations and ambiguities present in this test. The first limitation is one of an independent variable that cannot be controlled: whether the information is pertinent enough to the test subject. Because memory functions differently for different people (as exhibited by those with or without photographic memory or by people who can remember longer and in more detail than others), the test subjects will all consider different information in their conversations with the tester to be pertinent. As such, some test subjects may remember that a reference was made to a specific cup, while other test subjects might not.
The second ambiguity is whether or not it is possible to gauge the responses of the test subjects. For instance, though some may remember the specific, highlighted cup and assume the cup in question is the highlighted one, they may not give any indication that they have this recollection. Also, though the test subjects who hear the phrase with ‘a’ instead of ‘the’ might not be able to assume that the cup dropped was the favorite one, they still may not give any indication that they do not know this, and might not question which cup was dropped.
The question to answer now is whether the different reactions of the test subjects actually do point to different underlying thought processes. On the communicative side (the side of the person speaking), the thought process is different when considering how to communicate a thought in the two languages. The English speaker has to recall a) whether they share pertinent information with their audience or b) whether they can assume they do. Based on this consideration, they decide whether or not to use ‘a’ or ‘the’ in their sentence. The Serbian speaker doesn’t have to undergo this consideration. On the receptive side, the use of the word ‘the’ in an English phrase is equitable to the phrase’s Serbian translation, in that the phrases both cause the audience to recollect the specific object of the sentence. The use of ‘a,’ however, in an English phrase creates a different thought process than the Serbian translation of the same phrase. This is because the use of ‘a’ in the sentence implies that the speaker and their audience do not share common knowledge of the sentence’s object, thus the audience doesn’t have to attempt to remember which specific object the speaker is referring to. This difference in memory searching points to the idea that the lack of articles in Serbian causes different thought processes in Serbian than exist in English, because a specific object is always assumed.
It can be argued, however, that no actual distinction exists between the English and Serbian thought processes on the receptive side. The similarity between a Serbian sentence with an object and its English counterpart with the word ‘the’ could imply that this difference in information is just a difference in whether an ‘adjective’ is given in English that allows for clarification of which object is being referred to. As such, it can be argued that the use of the word ‘a’ in English is just an example of an ‘adjectival word’ being employed to specify an object.
However, this view of the articles ‘a’ and ‘the’ as fulfilling the same purpose as adjectives in conveying information is difficult to accept. Because these articles do not exist in Serbian, without sufficient adjectives or description, Serbian speakers are always forced to consider the many possible objects that someone may be referring to, and to either select one object from the many or to question which, if any specific, object is being referred to. As such, the words ‘a’ and ‘the’ do not play the same role as adjectives in that they merely describe words by distinguishing between the specific and the general; they are linguistic tools that exist to create a lighter burden of thought for English speakers. Because of these articles, more information is given in an English sentence than in its Serbian counterpart, which allows English speakers to determine whether they should be attempting to recollect what is being referred to. Therefore, this is where the difference in thought lies: English contains information in its sentence structures that allows its speakers to determine whether they should be recalling a specific object, or whether the object in question is general, and not specific to those engaging in a conversation. Serbian, by not employing these articles, automatically bypasses this initial consideration and forces Serbian speakers to attempt to recall what is specifically being referred to in a sentence before they can determine if a) a specific object is being referred to or b) the reference is only to a general object.
Therefore, on the communicative and receptive sides, it has been shown that there is a clear difference in thought processes regarding how Serbian and English speakers process information. The experiment, for the aforementioned reasons, should confirm the hypothesis that the existence of the articles ‘a’ and ‘the’ causes English speakers to think differently from Serbian speakers.

Works Cited

Dictionary.com. 2007. Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. December 4 2007.
Specific entries: ‘a’ and ‘the’.

Sapir, Edward. Culture, Language, and Personality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1958.

“Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 4 December 2007


The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. 18 September 1995. Aberystwyth University Department of Media and Communications Studies. 4 December 2007.


Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1956.

The Philosophy Of Language

Somehow, this week, there is an article I found which pretty much sums up the subject I was trying to touch upon in my last post. The first paragraph reads "We are symbol makers because we can conceptualize. A symbol is an empty sound until we associate a meaning with that sound, until we fill the symbol with an idea, a notion, a concept. We look at nature and we name things, categorize items, classify types, and define the properties of objects. The symbols become numinous, take on lives of themselves, then spread like viruses from person to person, from generation to generation, from age to age."
The author of the article basically focuses on the premise which I have repeatedly brought up that language can control or shape reality. He focuses specifically on the manipulation of language and the connection between language and past experiences that can bias people when they hear certain phrases. Following his example, we may think of red people wearing animal skins and feathers when we hear the phrase 'Native American.' As he says, our personal experiences shape how we interpret different 'symbols' of communication. I completely agree with the idea that this happens, but in order to evaluate it, it's necessary to consider the counterpoint: do words have a definite, unbiased meaning? I think that our initial education tends to instill in us the belief that language is definite, that words do have a specific meaning. The American school system's stress on the importance of facts to analysis highlights the ability of the dictionary to accurately define what a word represents. Thus, when we chance upon a word in literature that we don't understand, we can look that word up in the dictionary to obtain the exact meaning (this approach obviously wouldn't work for most non-literal meanings or for idiomatic phrases). As such, the general concept of language seems to be that words are concrete symbols which we use when their meaning applies. But does that mean the context of their usage has no effect? Consider the word 'Nazi': in modern society, the Nazi movement is almost non-existent, and instead, American history education is specifically geared to show the harms of Nazism. So would using the word 'Nazi' in 1930's Germany and modern America bring up the same meaning to different people? The standard definitional approach in American grade school education would suggest that these two words would have the same meaning. While it probably can't be argued that the meanings in the two respective contexts would be mutually exclusive, I think that it's possible to assume the two parties involved would not interpret the words in the same manner. Different connotations would arise for both parties: for the German, perhaps one of a better economy, better infrastructure, and national pride (positive connotations). For the American, one of rights infractions, genocide, and war (negative connotations). Note that my analysis here makes rather sweeping generalizations, but they should be justifiable without requiring explanation, given the assumption we're all operating on the same historical and cultural information and understanding (which itself is a heavy assumption).
Thus, when the author of the article asks "Do the meanings that you give to symbols divide you or separate you from others who are just like you? Are the meanings for the symbols in your head accurate definitions or do you react to the connotations (the emotional content) associated with those symbols by past experience or cultural conditioning?," I think the notion he supports has some validity. I think we react to different symbols based in large part upon the past contexts in which we've encountered those symbols. As such, I think it's possible to reaffirm what I was saying in my last post (sorry I didn't step it up and disagree with myself), and to agree with the author, when he says "Language shapes reality because we create symbols that represent objects and abstract concepts."

article: http://www.swans.com/library/art13/gsmith97.html

Warning: The Majority of this is Personal Reflection and Opinion

Based on yesterday's discussion, I'm going to make the focus of this post the quote from the movie Waking Life. I copied the quote in it's entirety at the bottom of the post. Basically, it seems to me that the woman quoted could easily have just graduated from our class (or, as is more likely, a linguistics major). She gives an interesting theory on the development of language, saying that our communication basically started off as a survivalist feature. So we would express those things directly related to our physical needs. As it developed, however, we became capable of expressing more complex and abstract thoughts. Since we've been talking about this in class for months now, I'm not going to elaborate on my or anyone else's theory of how language came about. (Since Lera quite pointedly noted that those theories, while interesting and fun, are just stories, each equally plausible).
Instead, I'm going to concentrate on the problem of whether communication is realistically possible. We perceive language to be a functional form of communication: with our coded system of expression, we can communicate our ideas to each other. Obviously, I don't think anyone views language as a 'perfect' form of communication: there are obviously feelings, ideas, and intangible notions we can never truly express. But language has a method of grouping thoughts and feelings into general categories which allow us to achieve a generalized form of expression. For instance, if I feel a mixture of anger, annoyance, irritation, and impatience, but I can't label that mixture, language directs me to the word 'frustration' (the quote asks what the meaning of this word really is). But does that always mean that language directs us to the most adequate definition possible for our feelings? The idea that language can express our emotions seems to restrict our emotional spectrum to neatly compartmentalized categories, each more-or-less independent. However, I feel personally that this is not really how feelings work. I can feel a mixture of frustration and anguish, or simultaneous despair and joy, and language will never really give me a sufficient symbol to express such feelings. Is this due to a lack of vocabulary on my part or a lack in language to fully encompass my emotional scope? My hypothesis (though it's impossible to prove) is the latter.
Categorization is an inherent linguistic feature that creates a disconnect between how the world is and how we express its existence. In language, we as people need definition in order to differentiate anything. I can define myself through repeated categorization in order to differentiate myself from anyone else; this pyramid structure would look something like this: human -> male -> white -> brown hair -> blue eyes -> American ... (and on and on). This linguistic process is applied in order to differentiate everything: we have base definitions (like 'table') in dictionaries, and then we draw upon specific features in order to define and categories more specific objects.
Two problems arise from this: firstly, without a hugely specific definition, we never fully communicate what we have in our minds. Secondly, this divisive 'us and them,' 'this and that' construct presents a false conception of reality. Let me explain the first problem: if I have a picture in my mind (let's say a specific house or a specific table), and I attempt to describe this picture to someone drawing it, will they ever be able to draw the picture exactly as it is in my mind? If they don't, it's possible to default to the explanation that they have imperfect artistic skills. So what if I went to Da Vinci and asked him to draw what was in my mind? My personal theory is that, even if I were to describe a picture in my mind to someone with perfect artistic ability, they would still fail to recreate the picture in my mind exactly. This points to the idea that language can never fully communicate exactly what we're thinking of. When I say 'house,' the person I say it to gets a completely different idea in his mind of a house than I get in my mind, based on personal experience. This disconnect is amplified in the case of more intangible ideas, such as 'love'. Also, the person will never be able to approach painting the picture in my mind unless I define, redefine, and redefine specifically how the picture looks. Thus, language inherently enforces upon us a system of continuous redefinition in order to draw distinctions.
Now onto the second problem: does this construct give us a false conception of reality? My opinion is that it does. As I have noted, it seems impossible for language to fully encompass the ideas we are trying to express. However, another aspect of language's necessity of differentiation is that it may end up dividing things that are essentially interconnected, overlapping, or even the same. This takes me back to the initial example of emotion: we can never truly know how to express our feelings in an absolutist way that fully represents our specific feeling. We can't even be sure that other people feel emotions the same way (or to the same degree) as us. Thus, it's difficult to conclude that language's differentiation of emotions into categories is ever accurate. Is there really a difference between being 'angry' and 'mad,' between 'frustration' and 'irritation'? I think that, by dividing such feelings into categories, language enforces upon us a false construct of reality.
That's my rant/schpiel for today.

whole script: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/waking-life-script-transcript-linklater.html

Creation seems to come out of imperfection.
It seems to come out of a striving and a frustration.
And this is where I think language came from.
I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation...
and have some sort of connection with one another.
And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival.
Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that.
Or, "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came up with a sound for that.
But when it gets really interesting, I think,
is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate...
all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing.
What is, like, frustration? Or what is anger or love?
When I say "love,"
the sound comes out of my mouth...
and it hits the other person's ear,
travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain,
you know, through their memories of love or lack of love,
and they register what I'm saying and say yes, they understand.
But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert.
They're just symbols. They're dead, you know?
And so much of our experience is intangible.
So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable.
And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another,
and we--
we feel that we have connected,
and we think that we're understood,
I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion.
And that feeling might be transient, but I think it's what we live for.

Introduction to the Initiation of Idioms and their Impact

This week's article that I read was on the origin and development of idioms. According to the article, "An idiom generally is an expression different from its literal meaning. Often, only people in a particular region or class understand it." An example would be something like 'Hair of the dog,' which, according to the article, means "Another drink of the same to help cure a hangover." This comes from the old belief that a bite from a mad dog could be cured if you put hair from the same dog's tail on the wound."
The question I want to explore in this post is whether idioms are a positive or negative force in language. For the purposes of this exploration, "'Idiom' is a very loose term that can mean anything from the colloquial to a metaphor [...] An idiom starts as a phrase, becomes an idiom when it catches on, and then dies as a cliché." (from article)
Do idioms ultimately end up adding to or hurting language? My theory is that idioms help in the pursuit of developing languages, but ultimately hinder people's understanding of these languages. As quoted in the article, "Susan Gass, a professor of linguistics and languages at Michigan State University, believes some of the long-used phrases stem from something real, but sometimes the particular reference disappears over time." Because the reference for idioms disappears (her example being that of someone sounding like a broken record), the inferred meaning of idioms may retain while the literal meaning may disappear (as records have). This ultimately makes idioms more difficult to interpret as they progress through generations. Idioms also present language barriers between geographical areas and cultures. For instance, without the belief in the hair of a mad dog curing the bite, the phrase 'hair of the dog' cannot be tied to any literal significance, thus is much harder to translate. This becomes a significant difficulty when the idiom replaces an alternative way of expressing an idea, so that it is impossible to fully explain or comprehend what is being said with an idiom because no other phrase exists that encompasses the same meaning. This could easily apply to the addage we talked about in class: 'the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak' translating into 'the vodka is strong but the meat is rotten.' Either phrase in the other language doesn't have the same traditional basis, thus is incomprehensible. Taking another example from personal experience, in Spanish class we learned traditional idioms such as 'vete a friar asparago' (go fry asparagus); these obviously have no translatable inferred meaning in English. If they do, I certainly can't understand it.
However, it can also be argued that they add to language by developing it beyond its initial literal phase. Professor of Cognitive Linguistics George Lakoff argues that most language is, essentially, a metaphor. He points as an example to the idea of English equating time with money (eg: spend time, waste time, invest time...). His idea of language as a metaphor has some merit: when we think about language, essentially, it becomes apparent that language itself usually has no intrinsic ties to the ideas and concepts it depicts (apart from exceptions like onomonopia (sorry about that spelling)). There is no connection between the word 'house' and the actual house itself. Furthermore, the word 'house' doesn't describe any specific house: it is a generalization equally applicable to all houses. In the same way, idioms are generalizations based on specific cases (such as the word 'house' must have initially been based on an actual house or at least idea of one). Thus, it can be argued that idioms themselves are just a feature of a language as it extends past its infancy into a more complex development level, which includes expressing ideas as idioms.

Article at: http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-sundaylifeidioms.artnov25,0,2633476.story

Lack of Languages Learnt Lowers following Linguistic Leap

The article I read today dealt with the increase of instruction in foreign languages in the US. The article reveals that "The latest figures from the Modern Language Association of America, released Tuesday, reflect a major push toward internationalization on college campuses, more government support for language study and simply more interest from students. Over four years, total enrollment in language courses has grown 12.9 percent." However, this is not what interested me the most in the article. What I found particularly interesting is that the most prominently growing language is Arabic. "Arabic is the fastest-growing major language, breaking the top 10 for the first time with just under 24,000 enrollments," according to the article. The amount of students taking Arabic and institutions offering it has more than doubled since 2002.
What accounts for this specific increase? The article hints that "Enrollments in languages such as Russian and Arabic have traditionally spiked with world events." This is a pretty direct hint that languages gain prominence and a need for languages develops as those languages become important to people's direction or goals in life: namely, political and business goals. With the Middle East the current focus of American and international peace efforts, with Iraq the current American overseas military target, and with the political issue of terrorism (namely: Islamic extremist terrorism), Arabic is prominent to many people's direction and goals. Students who wish to follow careers in politics, international relations, or diplomacy and peace have a significant impetus to study Arabic. For the same reasons, the number of students taking Russian spiked during the cold war, at a time where communication between Russia and the US, the two world superpowers, was necessary for any students with a focus on international politics.
Schools are now, in fact, specifically offering languages in the context whereby they are considered most useful such as "medical Spanish, Chinese for business." The importance of situations to language gives birth to language dominance and imperialism: as languages are considered more important to career paths and international affairs, they are more likely to gain prominence in education. Thus, languages fluctuate: just as when the Roman Empire or Sumeria conquered surrounding territories, the necessity of being able to communicate with prominent cultures puts smaller languages on the backburner. Only in the modern era, physical domination isn't necessary for language imperialism. The societies that create technology, job opportunities, and political change draw constituents away from other languages in the same kind of competitive environment that leads to language imperialism.

article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7074638,00.html

Quebec's Qualms with Questionable (phone option) Queue

Quebec has once again dissolved into a heated language dispute over the use of English vs. French when calling the government. Apparently, Quebecois activists "don't like the fact that people who phone into government offices are given the option of linking to an English menu before they hear French instructions." When they make calls to any government auto-response pickup, the first message says 'Press 9 for English.' Apparently, this is enough to spark off a protest in the province, as "Michel Morin, a French language activist [...] and other activists have been bunkered down in a call centre, calling government and municipal offices demanding changes."
I've written about the language debate in Quebec before, and the issue is a long-contested one between a French majority proclaiming that it is being marginalized and a government trying not to discriminate against other minorities. According to the CIA World Factbook (always a trustworthy source), "Canada faces the political challenges of meeting public demands for quality improvements in health care and education services, as well as responding to separatist concerns in predominantly francophone Quebec." The language division is representational of a pervasive cultural boundary between Quebec and the rest of Canada. The legal dispute is a long-lasting one, according to Wikipedia, which began soon after 1977, with "the Charter of the French Language[, which] was a legal framework defining the linguistic rights of Quebecers, and a language management policy giving the state of Quebec the power to intervene in many sectors of public life to promote French as the common language of all citizens." This Charter gave the Quebecois government a virtually unlimited justification for restricting the use of English in the territory. Although Supreme Court rulings have prevented Quebec from enforcing French as the only language of instruction or commercials, the province has still been making attempts to institutionalize French in schools and enforce a French-only rule for businesses (which came up in a previous post).
The fear is that this will heavily marginalize and maybe even eliminate the English-speaking minority in Quebec, as well as repulse future immigration from non-French speaking cultures. Referring to the issue of French vs. English in government phone responses, "Lobbyists for minority rights in Quebec say they find the entire debate ridiculous. 'These guys have got way too much time on their hands,' anglo-rights lawyer Brent Tyler told the Canadian Press. 'They must be scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to complain about if that's what they're coming up with.' Minority rights groups in the province say they are being increasingly marginalized, and English is in danger of disappearing in Quebec." This fear is legitimized by recent bills introduced to submit new immigrants to language testing and make French a prerequisite for running in any elections.
However, activists "said it's French -- not English -- that is under assault. [They say] that's why [one activist's] group has teamed up with another hardline language group, Imperatif francais, in the campaign to provide French before English on the phone. 'It's urgent because French is declining in Montreal,' [they] said, according to CP. '"For us it's a crucial question, it allows the integration of newcomers to Quebec's common culture.'"
The point that I'm trying to make in this post is that language has become a tool in the fight for cultural supremacy in Quebec. Obviously, language is very important to the inhabitants of the province, but it seems increasingly to be playing a role only as a means of asserting Franco-cultural supremacy. Without language as a divisive trait, would there still be such a conflict between these two parties? Language here is used exclusively as a dividing force, regardless of the claims of French activists. The distinctions drawn between French and English point to an official policy of exclusion, which would be much more difficult to enact without the language differences. Apparently, language here acts as a line to seperate parties into opposing sides, and thus stimulate the conflict in the first place. I would like to posit the notion that, without a language separation, there would be no legal or overarching conflict between the citizens of Quebec. But the irony is that, in the presence of distinct languages, the conflict is only fought over what those language differences signify, not over the language differences themselves. It's as if a group of homosexual people in Quebec wore pink shirts and the majority reacted against that group, not because they wore the shirts, but because they represented a different lifestlye. The majority here isn't reacting against the shirts, but against the people, yet without the shirts, there wouldn't be any identifier to stimulate conflict. The same applies to language: language is not the goal of the Francophile movement, just the tool they use to advance their claims. Yet, without language, it would be impossible to separate people into cultural groups, thus impossible to wage this conflict.

article: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071109/Quebec_language_071109/20071109?hub=Canada

Rushin' in the Russian

Sorry about the bad pun.
My article for this post is on Russia's official pressure on Latvia to make Russian an official language in the Baltic territory. "We believe that we are justified in pushing to have the status of the Russian language in Latvia raised to the level of a state language," said Alexander Chepurin, the head of the ministry's department on relations with the Russian diaspora. The diplomat said Latvia, where native Russian speakers account for at least 30% of the population, is the only ex-Soviet state to treat Russian as a foreign language.
Of what importance is it to Russia that a former Soviet territory doesn't acknowledge Russian as a state language? The two possibilities are that this conflict is either an attempt by the Russian government to protect Russians in foreign nations or an attempt to maintain Russian prevalence in an dominance of Eastern European territory after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Language can be a strongly unifying or strongly isolating and divisive force. By forcing Latvia to accept Russian as a state language, it is unclear whether the motive is to create unity between the majority of Latvians and the 30% minority, or to create a unifying feeling of Latvians to Russia.
Russia has a case to make for defending the Russian minority against an oppressive majority population. According to the article, "Moscow has repeatedly accused ex-Soviet Baltic states Latvia and Estonia of discrimination against their Russian-speaking minorities [...] Many people from the large ethnic Russian population in Latvia and Estonia have been assigned "non-citizen" status, which denies them a national passport and other rights, and prevents them from voting. The CIA World Factbook also states that "Russia demands better Latvian treatment of ethnic Russians in Latvia" in the section about Latvia's transnational issues. Though ethnic Russians are the second largest ethnic group (after Latvians at 57.7% of the population), they still constitute a minority (albeit one significantly larger than any other ethnic minority). Different languages strongly divide these ethnic groups, as 58.2% of the population speak Latvian, whereas 37.5% speak russian, yet Latvian is the only language listed as an official one. By making Russian an official language, the Latvian government would be acknowledging the existence of a significant ethnic population and 'legitimizing' their status as citizens through doing so. Also, "as a member state that forms part of the EU's external border, Latvia must implement the strict Schengen border rules with Russia," meaning that Latvia must restrict immigration from Russia without passports, which it doesn't do with EU Schengen nations, thus making it appear that Russians are a foreign ethnic group rather than a domestic one.
However, there are also perceived dangers to Latvian sovereignty and independence that come from authorizing Russian as an official language. By accepting such a large ethnic minority as an official group of nationals, Latvia would be strengthening Russian influence in society, and thus making it easier for Russia to make a case for having an increased influence over Latvian foreign and internal affairs. "Russia refuses to sign the 1997 boundary treaty due to Latvian insistence on a unilateral clarificatory declaration referencing Soviet occupation of Latvia and territorial losses," according to the CIA World Factbook, which legitimizes Latvian fears that this move is an attempt to maintain a strong Russian presence in Latvian affairs. "The Baltic nations, now EU and NATO members, deem the Soviet Union's annexation of their territories to have been an illegal occupation," according to the article.
Thus, through defining an official language, Latvia is pursuing a political tactic to prevent recurring foreign domination within her borders, whereas Russia is attempting to legitimize a language as official in order to prevent discrimination against an ethnic minority. Language is obviously both a very strong unifying and divisive force.