A Future Babel?

If English of the cyber or non-cyber variety is poised to take over the world, then are we facing the prospect of inhabiting a world where there is but one language? Does this reflect mankind’s desire to communicate without the hindrance of mutually incomprehensible languages? Cronin terms this desire as “neo-Babelianism” which sees “linguistic diversity per se as an obstacle and argues for the speaking of one language, preferably English” (Translation and Globalization, 60). The danger with this is that it is smuggling in a cyber language which is US-oriented. Cronin quotes Timothy Brennan who sees his country’s “unprincipled expansionism masquerading as cultural pluralism” in symbols that are highlighted as celebrating cultural hybridity like “Nike trainers to Simpsons T-shirts to McDonald’s restaurants” ( Translation and Globalization, 53).   

This linguistic and by extension, cultural homogeneity spells disaster for linguistic plurality. If all tongues were to be chiseled down to the sameness of cyber English, then what is the future of our languages like Manipuri or Sindhi or Kannada? The minority languages or powerless languages can think of translation as a “guarantor of diversification”, or a means to retain their identity through difference (“Minority”, 171). But the tendency in translation studies was to consider these minority languages only in the context of literary translation, under the impression that they are not developed enough for scientific and technical translation. However, a growing awareness of the issue, thanks to the development of fields like postcolonial studies, has led to the recognition that minority languages also function in the fields of science and technology in their own ways.

Cronin points to an important aspect of translation with respect to minority languages, which is that of the symbolic function of language. Language is used as a marker of cultural identity and very often has a symbolic value which exceeds the communicative value. “That is to say, for political or other reasons speakers of minority languages may have a perfectly good knowledge of a dominant language (Catalans knowing Spanish) but still insist on translation from and into that language” (“Minority”, 171).  Translation in this context is not primarily about communication, but about asserting one’s cultural and linguistic identity. In the Indian context, a comparable case would be that of Tamil with its aggressive refusal to assimilate the official language of Hindi. This also becomes an act of resistance to the linguistic hegemony of a powerful language.