[governance] MSism and democracy

[Paul Lehto]

On 6/20/11, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say that this has been one of the best threads of discussion I
> have ever seen on this list. I am sorry I jumped in late to comment on many
> of the issues regarding multilingualism. But the way that the discussion has
> shifted from one ISM to the other clearly illustrates Parminder´s point
> about the need to improve multistakeholderism.

Agreed, a useful discussion indeed.  I wish to add or emphasize some
points that add nuance and perhaps paradox or contradiction to some
extent.

1.  I have had an international/intercultural marital relationship
since 1997.  I've seen the change from the early years where language
difficulties were more pronounced.  However, there was a definite
relationship-advantage to these difficulties because we could also,
and often did, think that differences were "cultural differences" and
the like and not personal attacks.  As we got to be more and more like
co-native speakers of English, this relationship advantage tended to
go away, and there were therefore more disagreements, usually because
we more easily concluded a personal comment or innuendo was intended,
and not a "cultural difference" in expression.

The moral of this story about multilingualism is that intercultural or
multilingual communication has its advantages in terms of promoting
mutual respect of the parties, as well as disadvantages, many of which
have already been pointed to, with good expression.

2.  Going a little deeper, even among native speakers or fluent
speakers of a given language, there are many sub-languages that are
often not recognized.  I imagine every language is like English and
thus that in every language, the written and verbal forms of the
language can be considered sub-languages.  The evidence of this is
seen when very good verbal communication is reduced to a written
transcript, and we see the "loss in translation" so to speak.  The
reverse is also true, when the written is read out loud, it often
loses a little, and/or the reader has to add pause and emphasis not in
the text in order to make it most sensible.  Lawyers doing
court-related work like depositions learn to be quite conscious of how
the verbal word will translate onto and read on paper. Well, if the
lawyers are any good they become conscious of this difference.

Each technical discipline develops its own specialized vocabulary.
The control of the meanings of words by experts in each field allows
their number of meanings to be reduced, and to have those meanings be
precise.  While most everyone hates to see something expressed in
legal-ese or other technical jargon, there are reasons why this
legalese develops.  If we 'translate' into "plain English", the
shorter words used tend quite heavily to have many more definitions in
terms of numbers, and are thus more ambiguous by quite a bit than
technical speech, even though technical speech or legalese is by no
means always clear, even to people in the discipline who know that
sub-language well.

3.  WHile my third point here does not mean to dismiss any efforts in
this area whatever, we should also be aware of the positive sides of
multilingualism, and the advantages of communication when the parties
are aware of, and respectful of, the limitations of language.  A large
part, but not all, of the positive effects of multilingualism comes
from the awareness of the limitations of speech, which are always
present, but rarely fully acknowledged by speakers who are both either
native speakers or fluent in the language.  These limitations are, of
course, also experienced by native speakers -- especially when talking
across sub-languages of the native tongue -- but very often the native
speakers are totally unaware of the fact that a minor form of
translation is needed within the sub-languages!

On ted.com recently there was a short video presentation from a woman
who taught English in the Middle East.  It ended up being a passionate
defense of the need for multiple languages.  Because we all know
things are lost in translation, or not translatable, we need to
preserve multiple languages in order to preserve certain valuable or
different ways of thinking.  We might still have a common currency or
common language, but it should not be at the expense of losing our
capabilities for whatever things Persian, Spanish, Finnish, Tongan or
other languages have, that English does not have.

I do not think we should yearn for the destruction of all language
barriers.  In fact, the irreducible reality that every time we speak
we speak at least somewhat ambiguously means that in order to have
real conversation we must each yearn or desire to understand the
other.  We can not assume that all meaning is right there at the
surface and at first glance if we truly wish to be civil and to
understand.   So, IF WE ARE CIVIL, then the very ambiguity of language
is a blessing that actually helps bring people together.  It is only
the universal spirit of rudeness or intolerance that doesn't try to
understand the other.  The problem is more one of intolerance than it
is one of multiple languages, or even of being understood.  Put
another way, if all human language were as clear as the clearest
programmers' code, life would be a total bore.

Yours in a salute to [initial] ambiguity, provided the participants
have mutual respect!  ;)

Paul

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t