In using regional
languages, India is able to express its idea to its whole population, including
those that are not usually catered to. Having an outlet through more than one
language allows a person to see a broader perspective on issues. “I have an everyday lived access to
imaginations of the world, aesthetics, personhood, sensibilities, practices of
civility and the good life that are not necessarily universal but that do
challenge someone else’s version of a universal world.” On the other hand the
idea of monoliguality is appealing to people because they view the world
through the eyes/lens of one language. For example Bengali has been under
suspicion for not being a pure language because of its English base. To combat
these accusations, Chakrabarty says, “If anyting, translations and borrowings,
one could argue, were their way of making their “monolinguistic tradition”
deep.”
Being
multilingual has more global upsides when it comes to communication. You are
able to address a broader population and this helps spread ideas and culture,
but I do understand the ability to focus in on one set of people when
monolingual. This establishes a more intimate and stronger connection between
people. Do you agree with the idea that there as an impurity within certain
languages or those that are multilingual? Does this effect
communication/relations?
Robe Dipesh Chakrabarty. “Notes toward a
Conversation between Area Studies and Diasporic
Studies.”
http://alessandravita.com/head-bilinguals-interpreters/
No comments:
Post a Comment