Language Game

I came across an interesting radio programme by BBC Radio 4 called “Do You Know What You're Saying?” which investigates the evolution of the English language and introduces a “language analysis” machine. Feeding any piece of written English to the machine, one can come up with the percentage of “everyday” English being used and words with different linguistic pedigrees. By doing so the machine offers a “scientific” method to those who want to deliver highly “communicable” messages – copywriters, PR executives, journalists, and even hip-hop singer/song-writer.

While I was trying hard to recall what I have learned in my journalism and communications degree when listening to the programme, a classmate sent me an article called “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell about what he considered to be “good style” English. It was given out as a reference material for the dissertation proposal workshop at UC Berkeley and what seems to be the common thread among this article, the BBC radio programme, and what I could finally remember from my journalistic training is that “simplicity” appears to be the most desirable element in effective communication. George Orwell’s paragraphs about the virtue of clear English are truly inspiring:

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.

... [O]ne ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy."

George Orwell is dismissive about the use of such phrases as with respect to, having regard to, the fact that, by dint of, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that, which were, insofar as I was taught in one of those intensive English courses targeting at public examinations, exactly valued in the marking scheme and strongly encouraged to be memorised and used. Together with metaphors, idioms and intellectual jargons, our society (at least our education system) has been regarding these as indicators of “good English”. I was astonished to connect what I’ve just found with what our respectable cultural critic, Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has said in one of her enlightening articles “Why doesn’t the light bulb work? - The 'internationalisation' of Hong Kong in my view. (為什麼燈泡不亮？¬—我看香港的「國際化」)”

In her aricle, Lung says:

"There are indeed many people with visions who have been stressing the importance of 'internationalisation [of the city and its people].' However, whether it is Taiwan, China, Singapore or Hong Kong, 'internationalisation' has always been simplified without much thought as an 'English learning campaign'; Universities debate over turning English to be the official teaching language, secondary schools worry about teaching with native languages would hinder the progress of internationalisation [of their students?], meanwhile, 'English campaigns' overwhelm every city concerned; Infants who have yet to master their skills to speak and write Chinese are sent to intensive and demanding English classes. The underlying logic is that with good English, one is also endowed with an 'international vision', and with such vision, one can 'connect' to the rest of the world."

However, as Lung clearly points out, whether one has an “international vision” and can “connect” to the world does not depend on if one can speak fluent English but if one has a complete and profound set of “civic awareness on a global scale”. How much do we know (and care) about the world? How many of us capable of reading and communicating in English would read the news from foreign media? How often would global issues such as global warming, nuclear war, the ever expanding gap between the advanced and the third world and the future of mankind, would be raised over dinner tables, inside karaoke rooms, in glossy magazines and phone-in programmes?

While English is being highly valued as a “must-have” cultural capital had one aspire to stay competitive in the labour market and eventually climb up the social and economic ladder, pathetically negligible attention has been paid to what is underneath its dominance:

"It is those who thought in English who have also written ‘Magna Carta’, invented steam engine and light bulb, initiated successful revolutions, conquered the world with fleets and arms, beat the rest in trades, laid the foundation of democracy, led the advancement in technology, and excelled in the fields of arts and philosophy. It is the profundity in thoughts and creativity that creates the hegemony of the language, not the other way round. ...

From a tender stream to a gigantic river, water collects itself and is then transformed into power which goes through countless complicated procedures and finally enables the light bulb in one’s living room bright and warm. Yet what is the source of that light? It is not the light bulb nor the plug, but the very process that begins with the tender stream that lies in the deepest of the mountains. To nurture 'international visions' and ability to 'connect to the world', we have to start with that very origin of power, the original creativity of our own culture, that means, we have to look into our own language, to understand it, master it, rather than simply to buy a light bulb and stick it onto the wall."

Here we find ourselves facing two serious problems: one with the misperception of English (what is good English after all?) as well as its mythical power to help one get “internationalised”, and the other, more critical one: the undermining of the importance of our own culture (for example, our language). While years ago experiment to teach in Chinese has started in secondary schools, years after parents are still desperately hoping their kids could go to an English-based school. It seems not to be a matter of language but the value of society as a whole. Who are we and who do we want to be? Can we have our edge simply because we can speak English? Can we speak and act with more sense if we understand what we, together with the rest of the world, are facing at this very moment? Can we do our people and culture more good if we can tell the world (with good English) what lies in our thousands of years of tradition that might contribute to the salvation of human race?

Do we, after all, know what we are saying?