Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

General discussion about learning languages
User avatar
aokoye
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1818
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 6:14 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Languages: English (N), German (~C1), French (Intermediate), Japanese (N4), Swedish (beginner), Dutch (A2)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=19262
x 3309
Contact:

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby aokoye » Wed May 17, 2017 5:09 am

Speakeasy wrote:
aokoye wrote: ... the time period you referred to ...
Please refer to my response to mcthulhu's. My supposition is that language has always been used as a political tool. So, there is no particular reference period.

You actually did mention a time period (or in the quote, an "era") in your origional post here:
I do not wish to discuss the geo-political tensions of the era when this course guide was published.
which is what I was referring to. I do, however, agree that there likely has never been a time in which language has been used as a political tool or at the very least as a method of exerting power over another person or group.

Speakeasy wrote:
aokoye wrote: ... I think even answering the question, "why was this included in the language textbook?" is rife for political discussion.
Rife? Hopefully, the forum members will find a means of discussing this topic without sliding down this decidedly slippery slope ... and it is a slope, not a precipice ... while I do not wish to appear overly critical, I find your own comments unnecessarily alarming, if not provocative. If you choose to see evil, then you will see evil!

If you're viewing that as alarmist then I think you're reading a bit too far into my comment. Perhaps way too far. Given that you appeared to like Prohairesis' comment I'd also suggest the book Language and Power by Simpson and Mayr.
1 x
Prefered gender pronouns: Masculine

Speakeasy
x 7658

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby Speakeasy » Wed May 17, 2017 6:10 am

aokoye wrote: ... I'd also suggest the book Language and Power by Simpson and Mayr.
Anecdote: Many years ago, I submitted an application to participate in the Canadian equivalent of the US Armed Forces ROTC programme. As part of the lengthy selection process, I sat several examinations, one of which (to my mind, rather transparently) attempted to ascertain whether or not a candidate might be harbour noticeably paranoid thoughts. While I scored well above the 90th percentile on this evaluation, I consistently replied "positively" to several variations of a question as to whether or not I believed someone had been making persistent, undisclosed attempts at influencing my thoughts. Given my otherwise acceptable placement in the evaluation process, I was invited to elaborate on my "worrisome" responses to the "paranoiac-trapping" questions. While I am sure that I did not express myself as eloquently as have the authors of "Language and Power", it seems that I provided my interviewers with the "nut of the argument." That is, that language is a tool. In the hands of a skilled practitioner, it can be used to inform, to enlighten, to inspire, to manipulate, to deceive, to coerce, to punish, to dominate, to divide peoples, to deny justice, to ..., to ..., to ..., ... language is also a weapon. Oh, by the way, despite my "worrisome" views, I served ten years.
2 x

User avatar
SophiaMerlin_II
Orange Belt
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 6:35 pm
Location: USA
Languages: English (N), Portuguese (0)
x 433

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby SophiaMerlin_II » Wed May 17, 2017 8:03 am

Language enables communication. Communication enables influence, especially subtle or pernicious influence.

For example, someone may be haunted by something someone said to them such as, "You're just like your father" or "You're just like your mother". This can have a long-term negative effect on someone. There are of course more positive examples, but they are less pointed.

There are many famous speeches and documents, as well as books and movies, which have had influence long beyond their own era, in terms of linguistic style, and ideology. Anything that can influence the way people speak and think has the ability to influence governments and their actions.

Of course Language is used as a political tool, and politics sometimes lead to war.
Would anyone deny that some forms of communication are used for political ends, and political positions sometimes lead to war?

I've re-written this so that it is as neutral as possible, mentioning no specific positions. But still I think that perhaps this topic doesn't fit well within the forum rules, even if we restrict it to talking about the idea of politics in general, while not speaking about any politicians, political situations, or political ideas explicitly.
1 x
Please ignore my English, elsewise be kind!

User avatar
zenmonkey
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2528
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:21 pm
Location: California, Germany and France
Languages: Spanish, English, French trilingual - German (B2/C1) on/off study: Persian, Hebrew, Tibetan, Setswana.
Some knowledge of Italian, Portuguese, Ladino, Yiddish ...
Want to tackle Tzotzil, Nahuatl
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=859
x 7030
Contact:

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby zenmonkey » Wed May 17, 2017 9:45 am

It does not seem to me curious at all to see that type of statement on a USAFI manual. If fact, I'd wager that you'll find the same type of statements on many types of educational material of different subjects used by the military of any nation.

It's framing. And it is necessary that young soldiers not only understand why they are studying an esoteric and 'soft' subject like a language and that they are able to explain that interest. Remember that any training competes for both headspace and time to execute for a young soldier among a lot of other activities. Should they pore over Clausewitz or learn French irregular verbs?

When I taught remedial math to high school students - framing the interest of the subject, however obvious it may be that mathematics are important and all around you, to the immediate areas of focus of the students was always important.
5 x
I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 14962

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby Iversen » Thu May 18, 2017 5:33 pm

Language definitely can be a political tool: when populations like the old Gauls, Brits and Scanians were forced to change their language to respectively Latin, Anglosaxon and Swedish this was of course one element in the conquest process. History sometimes stinks but we can't change it. OK, we can misinterpret it or lie about it or choose not to speak about certain events, but the reality is still that it was an ugly affair with few redeeming features. Language is also used by administrators and other politicians to cheat people - like when cuts are presented as reforms - and advertising (including that included political campaigns) is so full of lies and manipulation that it can be hard to see the truth behind the words.

And here in LLorg we may have to avoid certain politico-linguistic topics because it would stir up an unwanted heated debate - which in itself is a proof that history stinks because in an ideal world the discussion wouldn't become heated.
3 x

Theodisce
Orange Belt
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Krakauer Baggersee
Languages: Polish (native), speaks: English, Czech, German, Russian, French, Spanish, Italian. Writes in: Latin, Portuguese. Understands: Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Slovak, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Serbian/Croatian. Studies for passive competence in: Romanian, Slovene, Bulgarian.
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1435
x 471

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby Theodisce » Thu May 18, 2017 5:45 pm

Iversen wrote:Lsnguage definitely can be a political tool: when populations like the old Gauls [...], were forced to change their language to respectively Latin...


Is there any research and/or source material supporting the view that the Romans actually forced the Gauls to adapt Latin? I believe no premodern state had enough resources to enforce massive linguistic changes. Elites assimilated quickly, but the common people didn't. From what I've read, Gauls adapted Latin spontaneously and very slowly and the process was only accomplished in late antiquity. The same goes for inhabitants of Spain, northern Italy, Latin speaking part of North Africa, western Balkans and so on.
1 x
BCS 400+ : 48 / 50
RUS 2800+ : 74 / 100
SPA 1500+ : 128 / 100
CZE 1900+ : 94 / 50

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 14962

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby Iversen » Thu May 18, 2017 7:47 pm

Well, the Gauls did switch - after Cesar had murdered a tenth of the population, enslaved another tenth, mutilated a sizeable portion of the rest and totally razed all their cities and stolen their gold. Even the Roman senators thought that Cesar had been somewhat heavyhanded in his treatment of the Gauls. I have seen references to a few Celtic inscriptions from the ensuing centuries, but nothing seems to indicate that the Gaulish language was in common use anywhere in this period - not even among the illiterate populace (like in the Baltic countries where Estonian and the Baltic language survived while the area was ruled by Danes, Swedes, Germans and Russians in that order). And when the Western Roman empire crumbled you didn't see the reemergence of a Celtic speaking population in modern-day France in the same way as a transformed Anglosaxon reemerged as Middle English in Great Britain. People there all spoke a late variant of 'Vulgar' Latin -only their place names were still Celtic.

I acknowledge that the ensuing use of the carrot permit you to see a semblance of voluntary adoption of the Roman ways, but without the heavy stick used by Cesar during the occupation the change would in all likelihood not have occurred. Dacia (modern Romania) got the same harsh treatment as the Gauls in Gallia, and the same happened: Dacian disappeared almost completely, apart from a few place names. If you treat a population sufficiently brutally and in the same time lure it with freedom and social status if it switches allegiances then you can do big things to the original language and culture of a people, and this can happen in a surprisingly short time.

One area that conserved its language is of course the Hellenic world, but the Romans seems to have had a higher opinion of Greek than than of any other foreign language. And Great Britain to some extent also preserved the Celtic language even in the Eastern and Southern areas, but only until the Anglosaxons took over.
2 x

Theodisce
Orange Belt
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Krakauer Baggersee
Languages: Polish (native), speaks: English, Czech, German, Russian, French, Spanish, Italian. Writes in: Latin, Portuguese. Understands: Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Slovak, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Serbian/Croatian. Studies for passive competence in: Romanian, Slovene, Bulgarian.
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1435
x 471

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby Theodisce » Thu May 18, 2017 8:34 pm

There were at least some Celtic words used as late as the 6th century (see the works of Gregory of Tours. The lexical material does not come from Bretagne, but from more or less central Gaul), although it does not prove that the language was alive at that time. The lack of written texts from the period following the context does not prove that Celtic was not spoken widely, the Gauls may have thought (or may have been encouraged to think) that their language lacked prestige. I'm not saying that the Romanization was an innocent process, but the Roman state lacked the efficiency that, for example, allowed France to linguistically assimilate the South in the course of the 19th century. Plus, neither Spain, nor Western Balkans had been a scene of a slaughter similar to that perpetrated in Gaul by Caesar, but we see there similar developments (that was to a large extent undone in the Balkans after the arrival of Slavs). Much of what was Roman Germania had probably undergone assimilation too and it was only the new wave of Germanic peoples of the late antiquity that shifted the linguistic border again (that's at least what I have read on that subject so far).

While I agree that the conquest of Caesar did very little to ensure continuous use of the local languages, I think that the causes of Gaul's ultimate adoption of Latin have more to do with what was going on in places like Spain and Western Balkans than with the genocide perpetrated by Caesar.
1 x
BCS 400+ : 48 / 50
RUS 2800+ : 74 / 100
SPA 1500+ : 128 / 100
CZE 1900+ : 94 / 50

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 14962

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby Iversen » Thu May 18, 2017 8:53 pm

Maybe there was a silent and largely undocumented undercurrent of Celtic speech in Gallia for at least some time after the conquest, but we can't prove it - the few Celtic words in later sources may be an expression of the knowledge level of a few persons rather than a proof of a connection to a surviving use of Celtic (like when we use Roman quotes for fun in modern English). At the end of the day it probably comes down to your perception of the mindset of the conquered Gauls - and I think they chose the easy way: to become second class Romans - which at least brought them the promise of a safe existance within the framework of a new Roman-style society.

I do however acknowledge that there were some rebels that may have used the Celtic language as one element in their uprisings - see for instance the WIkipedia article about the Bagaudean rebellions in the 3. century:

"In the later Roman Empire, bagaudae (also spelled bacaudae) were groups of peasant insurgents who arose during the Crisis of the Third Century, and persisted until the very end of the western Empire, particularly in the less-Romanised areas of Gallia and Hispania, where they were "exposed to the depredations of the late Roman state, and the great landowners and clerics who were its servants". (...) The name probably means "fighters" in Gaulish. C.E.V. Nixon assesses the bagaudae, from the official Imperial viewpoint, as "bands of brigands who roamed the countryside looting and pillaging". J.C.S. Léon interprets the most completely assembled documentation and identifies the bagaudae as impoverished local free peasants, reinforced by brigands, runaway slaves and deserters from the legions, who were trying to resist the ruthless labor exploitation of the late Roman proto-feudal manorial and military systems, and all manner of punitive laws and levies in the marginal areas of the Empire"

This does however not prove that the participants in the rebellions actually were able to speak the Gaulish language.

Speaking about Wikipedia, the article in the English version about the Gaulish language:

"Gaulish was supplanted by Vulgar Latin and various Germanic languages from around the 5th century AD onwards."

So late? Why switch to a Roman dialect after the Roman rule has ended and a Germanic tribe called the Franks has taken over? This claim is totally absurd, and without a lot of corroborating evidence I simply don't believe it.
1 x

User avatar
zenmonkey
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2528
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:21 pm
Location: California, Germany and France
Languages: Spanish, English, French trilingual - German (B2/C1) on/off study: Persian, Hebrew, Tibetan, Setswana.
Some knowledge of Italian, Portuguese, Ladino, Yiddish ...
Want to tackle Tzotzil, Nahuatl
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=859
x 7030
Contact:

Re: Language as a Political Tool and Weapon of War?

Postby zenmonkey » Fri May 19, 2017 7:49 am

The main drive to change the language probably occurred earlier but 5th Century is where you still see an author (Sidonius) make mention of the language as something the elders spoke and was now lost - so perhaps it is the end-transition period.
1 x
I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nathancrow77 and 2 guests