Brian Olsen Anth 220 Professor Harvey 2-28-05 Essay Question #2 Writing is so ingrained in our culture, as well as in other

cultures, that it can often seem as natural as the speech that it represents. Ones own writing system is often seen as the best for accurately conveying ideas and all others are somehow less clear or concise. This idea stems from the inherent belief that ones culture is superior to others. In our culture, our orthographic and verbal universes often do not extend beyond the languages and writing systems with which we are familiar. Our egotism for our own culture and its linguistic systems (by no means a unique feature in the world) only becomes apparent when we choose to, or are forced to interact with other cultures. At a basic and reactionary level, these other cultures with which we interact often feel the same entitlement to chauvinism as ourselves. To objectify and quantify the superiority of ourselves over the other, we compare features of other languages with our own. Any feature present in our language but absent in another, is a deficiency in the other language, and any feature it possesses which our language lacks, is seen as superfluous, or an aberration. When we use autometry to measure other languages against our own, those most similar to ourselves inevitably appear better than those that are more dissimilar. If a culture is missing an entire category such as a written language system, then we assume that their deficiencies must be quite fundamental. The anthropological ideas of cultural relativity and linguistic relativity allow us a new perspective. (Duranti,

1997, p. 60)

According to cultural relativism, the behaviors and patterns, such as

writing, of other cultures can only be examined in their own terms, and not by the qualifications of another culture. This does not mean that writing systems cannot be compared; it only means that differences should not be equated with value judgments. This is because inherent differences separate each language and the two will never be equal. The inequality between two languages is simply a lack of exact correspondence, and does not leave one greater and the other lesser, as the mathematical analogy seems to imply. In this case, for two writing systems to be equal, they would have to be identical, and then the comparison would be pointless. An extension of this idea is Sapir and Whorfs linguistic relativity principal, where users of markedly different grammars are pointed by the grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluation of extremely similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world. (Whorf [1956c]: 221, as cited in Duranti, 1997, p. 60) An interesting circumstance arises under this principle. Ones own system does become superior to others, because it is once again being judged within its own context. English is better for expressing the modes of thought and worldview of English speakers than is French, in the same way that French is superior to English for expressing the modes of thought and worldview of a French speaker. This is because thought and worldview serve to shape language, which in turn serves to shape the thought and worldview of those who are a part of the language community. This can be further divided to speech communities with individual needs and ideals that make distinct use of the language. When one tries to orthographize these language systems, the complexity increases and problems quickly arise.

If spoken language were as easily quantifiable as value judgments made it appear, then transforming it into a written symbol system would pose no problems. Each word in a language is a sign. A sign is an arbitrary signifier or sound image that is bound to the signified, which is the actual object to be represented by the signifier. (de Saussure, 1966, p.66) Only when the meaning is attached to the signifier does a word become a sign. How can one language be more meaningful and capable of conveying meaning than another language when the very vessels of meaning, the sign, are arbitrary? Entire languages also undergo organic change over time and signs and signifiers can often be reassigned. These changes do not reflect a constant state of change toward a state of perfection and are therefore at least partially arbitrary. A language that was already the most effective means of transferring ideas would have no need for change: why would one need to change what was already the most effective system? After we have attached the arbitrary signifier to the designated signified, a process that can be completed only through collective agreement, we begin to attach further meaning, and social importance to our word. When we begin to create a written language, we are once again picking arbitrary signifiers, but this time they are representative of the already arbitrary sound images that we have created. The arbitrary meanings attached to both the symbols used to represent the spoken words, and to the spoken words themselves create trouble, as in the case of Haiti. For many years in Haiti, French existed as a language written and spoken by a small but powerful portion of the population, where as the rest used Kreyol as an almost exclusively spoken language. This situation continued until political changes made it possible for poor children, who lacked communicative-competence in French, to go to

school and the system could no longer ignore the needs of this speech community. Each speech community had its circle drawn around it, and instead of the two naturally overlapping, the overlap was going to be imposed. By this time, there were several written versions of Kreyole, and one needed to be decided upon for standardization purposes. The simple fact that there were several different versions attests to the complexity of orthographizing a spoken language. Part of the complication was the social and linguistic relation between French and Kreyole. Although both were separate but related languages, people disagreed on how French should relate to the written version of Kreyole. Part of the reason that Kreyole took so long to become written in any form was the predominance of French. Although both languages were similar collections of arbitrary symbols with different syntax, French was seen as superior because it was the language of the powerful. Kreyole was the result of interaction between French masters and African slave. Because Kreyole belonged to the slaves, it was looked down upon as a lesser language, fit only for amusement. Through oral tradition, Kreyole did serve to preserve important parts of Haitian history, even though it long lacked a written component. The written version of Kreyole developed by missionaries was disliked because it used French accents to represent different sound images than were represented by the same accents in written French. The goal at the time was to use written Kryole as a gateway to teaching French and creating bilingual children, and the misuse of French accents would serve to confound this purpose. (Bambi, 1994, p. 184) When the focus later shifted away from having children learn French as well, another debate appeared. Which of the dialects was the written language going to phonetically describe?

There were many different dialects reflective of different regions and social status levels. The smooth French sounding form was favored by some because of its association with the upper classes, even though very few people spoke this dialect. Some favored the more vulgar form because more of the people spoke it, and it was closer to the African roots from which the language had originated. In the formation of written language, separate biases of different speech communities were vying to have themselves expressed. We can see that the objective nature with which one language or speech group attempts to establish superiority over another is problematized by the subjective nature of language itself. The situation grows yet more complicated when we encounter a culture that lacks a written tradition. In our culture, the written tradition is given a greater reverence than the oral tradition and is assumed to be a prerequisite to knowledge, learning, and understanding. We support this supposition by citing how all other comparable civilizations have always had writing, and even cultures very different from our own, such as those in Asia, have also had a system of writing. If our assumptions of intelligence are so closely tied to writing, when we encounter a culture without writing, the only view we are afforded is that they are not intelligent. This has historically been the case with the Yekuana of South America. They were initially regarded as in a low state of development, because they not only lacked writing, they showed open disdain for it. (Guss, 1986, p. 414) In our culture, ignorance is often patronized, but willful ignorance and hatred of knowledge is often loathed. We must look again to linguistic relativity. We are assuming writing as one of the quintessential benchmarks on the path to cultural development. Each language is a universal perspective unto itself, with the

right to different values. The Yekuanas mindset and language do not value writing. Their only need for writing would be to function within the framework of western society, and a value set that is not their own. Some would argue that their way of life precludes a strong sense of history and limits their communication with the world. Their numbers are relatively small, so they do not need to disseminate information to great numbers of people. Where history is concerned, they have a very strong oral tradition that is capable of incorporating new ideas, concepts and events into their worldview. This incorporation does tend to alter events in their favor, but they simply merge new information into their existing knowledge and beliefs. (Guss, 1986, p. 426) This metaphorical incorporation also takes place when we encounter the Yekuana and decide their place on the mythical chart of human progress. Ultimately, we see that although the Yekuana differ greatly from us, no difference can be so great as to allow us the right to judge them harshly by our own beliefs. When examining other cultures, we must always remember that linguistic and cultural relativity cannot be suspended for the criteria of our choosing. One who begins to judge the ways of other cultures based on themselves is only deceiving them self into a false sense of objectivity and superiority. . Language is not an abstract universal concept. A cultural construct varies as much as any other cultural trait. When comparing other cultures and languages to our own, no two will come out equal, but inequality in this case does not equal injustice or fault on the part of another. Autometry is not done out of malice. It occurs because before examining other cultures, we must examine our own preconceptions about subjects like language and writing, and make sure we do not create new misconceptions on the foundations of old ones.