- Email: [email protected]
Tower of Tudjman
Language &Communication, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 67~9, 1997 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0271-5309/97 $17.00+ 0.00
Pergamon
Pll: S0271-5309(96)00024-9 TOWER OF TUDJMAN PAUL TREANOR Saying language is for communication is like saying soldiers give free bullets to the enemy: formally correct, but not the whole truth. The question: Why is there language on earth? is the same as the question: Why are these languages on earth? and the answer to that also answers the question: Why are there many languages on earth? There is no need to guess at the origins of language in a far past, when the whole process is visible and audible in Zagreb. The Croat-ising policies of President Franjo Tudjman have introduced perhaps 10% of neologisms in the basic vocabulary of Croatian. If he is not shot or deposed, it is not impossible that Tudjman will make Serbian and Croatian mutually incomprehensible in 20 years time. Tudjman is creating TudjmanCroatian, and why should the origins of specific languages n o t be the origin of language? There is language origin, for all to see: made by nationalists. There is the purpose of language, for all to see: to be different from other national languages, while being, like them, national. A national language is like a national flag: language is like a flag. The real first question about language on earth is: What is the order of languages on this planet? The answer is: The order of languages on this planet is national. World order determines language order. And if language is innate then so too is the world order which produced it. And why not: if the grammar of a so-called natural language can be innate, why not the far less complicated Charter of the United Nations? The world order o f nations is a very special world order. The world is divided into a minimum number o f minimally different nation states with a maximum of internal unity. This was true before the modern nation state emerged: the national world order intensifies the preceding ethno-national and ethnic world order. It would be true if the number of nation states fell to one, for the order is nothing more than the best possible current approximation to a world state of total cultural uniformity. The point about nations is not their diversity, but the diversity they exclude. There are no non-national states any more, and there were very few in the past. A world order of nations is a nationalist world order: it excludes the non-national, regardless of how many nations there are. Correspondence relating to this paper should be addressed to Paul Treanor, Postbus 6230, 2001 HE Haarlem, Nederland. (E-mail: [email protected]) 67
68
PAUL TREANOR
A world order of national languages excludes non-national languages. By being different as nations, nations form the same kind of state. By being different as national language, all languages are nationalist languages. So too by being ethnic, for an ethnic group is the core of all nation states. On this planet they speak national. On other planets, if there are any, they might speak gender. They might speak age. They might speak religion. On earth, they might have spoken these too, but obviously humans do not want to. The language possibilities are there: in gender difference, in sociolects, in age differences, and in a few religious languages (all originally languages of an ethnic group). However, none ever challenged the ethnic order successfully. On earth there are around 5000 ethnic languages. The explanation for this is not internal: you will not see it on the page in the atlas with the m a p of languages. Turn the page to the m a p of religions, however, and you will see a potential world order which lost out to the nation state. So too an order of languages which lost out to the ethnic order of language, and its nationally codified successor. N o atlas even has a m a p of age groups, for they live so closely intermixed that there is no point in a map, at least not on a large scale. So too with genders: no separation, no state formation, no world order of gender states. So therefore no dual-language order of Andrese and Gynese. (Even these mock names have to be borrowed from Greek.) N o state formation on the basis of class, and so no dual-language order of Proletarese and Capitalese either: if the workers wanted to have no fatherland, they would first be silent. Language in a plural world order is there -
-
-
-
-
-
to communicate with those in one of that order's components, to discommunicate with those in the other components, and to exclude other forms of discommunication.
There are vast possibilities for dividing the earth, and for state formation. That no other language order was ever known shows that the world has progressed uninterrupted toward the modern world order, the world order of nation states. N o other complete state order was ever known either. At no time did humans ever decide to abandon being ethnic, and so too, they never abandoned ethnic language. T h a t is why there is no world language. In a world order of nations, there will be a world language when there is a world nation. That is, when the o p t i m u m number of nation states required, to effectively limit the possible, has fallen to one. Some day it might. H u m a n s do not want to speak one big language, not yet. However they do not want to speak a lot of small ones either, otherwise there would be m a n y more than 5000 languages. H u m a n s want to speak a certain number of languages, related to the exclusionary function o f the world order: on this planet they speak not just national, they speak national-5000. T h a t is why no world language has succeeded so far. Why take the trouble anyway? Everyone already speaks national. There is no real origin of language: only the origin of specific orders of language. Looking for the first national language is like looking for the original chessboard with one grey square. Origin does not mean singularity. In a plural language order, there were first languages, in the plural from day one. That is the way the world order works: it is unified in its plurality. There is nothing mysterious about this formula: all nation states, after all, form a single nationalist world order. If they were conquered by an Islamic theocracy, there would then be a non-plural Islamic world order. It is in the nature of a
TOWER OF T U D J M A N
69
Caliphate that there is only one of it, assuming no heresies. It is in the nature of nations to be plural, so too with their languages, at least for the present. H o w can there be such a world order, what does it do, and what evidence is there that it exists? N o n e of these are specifically linguistic questions, although perhaps they should be. In any case, here is the world order explained, in ten easy steps: 1. The national world order is distinct from, and in opposition to, other world orders. It claims, and effectively controls, all land surface. 2. It is an autonomy-minimising world order. 3. States are historically linked to one territory, so minimising territorial conflict. 4. State formation is limited to one type of group: 'nations' or 'peoples'. 5. These groups have distinct characteristics. They are: permanent transgenerational - - internally convergent around a core culture. 6. In consequence, states in this order show: - - permanence transgenerationality - - uniformity over territory, intensifying with time. 7. Population distribution is stable: migration rates are very low in relation to infrastructure capacity. State formation by migration is rare. 8. The inhabitants determine the goals of a state and not the other way round. These goals are the collective goals of the nation or people, primarily its continued existence. In effect, therefore, the goal of these states is to project a segment of the past into the future. 9. Inhabitants are obliged to have an identity and a culture, preferably corresponding to one existing nation state. 10. The national world order is functionally equivalent to a world state with a nationalist administration. It is best seen as the best current approximation to a single state with the characteristics of a large nation state. -
-
-
-
-
-
F r o m all this, it is obvious that some assumed language characteristics are only characteristic o f the current order of languages. That language, for instance, is passed on from generation to generation. Why, when it is no problem to change it inside a generation, as Tudjman demonstrates? And why should parents pass on their own language to their children, when they can learn another and pass that on equally well? They could change their allegiance as well, but that would be treason. W h a t loyal parent would raise children as traitors? The world order makes the order of languages: but neither will last for ever. Unfortunately, that order will last so long as it is taken as given. So too with the order of languages. Nations are worthless in themselves, and they are holding back other world orders: so are national languages. The sooner they disappear the better. The question is not how to find a universal language, just as the question is not how the world can become one large nation. Only nationalists think like that. The question is: where are the new orders of language?
Pergamon
Pll: S0271-5309(96)00024-9 TOWER OF TUDJMAN PAUL TREANOR Saying language is for communication is like saying soldiers give free bullets to the enemy: formally correct, but not the whole truth. The question: Why is there language on earth? is the same as the question: Why are these languages on earth? and the answer to that also answers the question: Why are there many languages on earth? There is no need to guess at the origins of language in a far past, when the whole process is visible and audible in Zagreb. The Croat-ising policies of President Franjo Tudjman have introduced perhaps 10% of neologisms in the basic vocabulary of Croatian. If he is not shot or deposed, it is not impossible that Tudjman will make Serbian and Croatian mutually incomprehensible in 20 years time. Tudjman is creating TudjmanCroatian, and why should the origins of specific languages n o t be the origin of language? There is language origin, for all to see: made by nationalists. There is the purpose of language, for all to see: to be different from other national languages, while being, like them, national. A national language is like a national flag: language is like a flag. The real first question about language on earth is: What is the order of languages on this planet? The answer is: The order of languages on this planet is national. World order determines language order. And if language is innate then so too is the world order which produced it. And why not: if the grammar of a so-called natural language can be innate, why not the far less complicated Charter of the United Nations? The world order o f nations is a very special world order. The world is divided into a minimum number o f minimally different nation states with a maximum of internal unity. This was true before the modern nation state emerged: the national world order intensifies the preceding ethno-national and ethnic world order. It would be true if the number of nation states fell to one, for the order is nothing more than the best possible current approximation to a world state of total cultural uniformity. The point about nations is not their diversity, but the diversity they exclude. There are no non-national states any more, and there were very few in the past. A world order of nations is a nationalist world order: it excludes the non-national, regardless of how many nations there are. Correspondence relating to this paper should be addressed to Paul Treanor, Postbus 6230, 2001 HE Haarlem, Nederland. (E-mail: [email protected]) 67
68
PAUL TREANOR
A world order of national languages excludes non-national languages. By being different as nations, nations form the same kind of state. By being different as national language, all languages are nationalist languages. So too by being ethnic, for an ethnic group is the core of all nation states. On this planet they speak national. On other planets, if there are any, they might speak gender. They might speak age. They might speak religion. On earth, they might have spoken these too, but obviously humans do not want to. The language possibilities are there: in gender difference, in sociolects, in age differences, and in a few religious languages (all originally languages of an ethnic group). However, none ever challenged the ethnic order successfully. On earth there are around 5000 ethnic languages. The explanation for this is not internal: you will not see it on the page in the atlas with the m a p of languages. Turn the page to the m a p of religions, however, and you will see a potential world order which lost out to the nation state. So too an order of languages which lost out to the ethnic order of language, and its nationally codified successor. N o atlas even has a m a p of age groups, for they live so closely intermixed that there is no point in a map, at least not on a large scale. So too with genders: no separation, no state formation, no world order of gender states. So therefore no dual-language order of Andrese and Gynese. (Even these mock names have to be borrowed from Greek.) N o state formation on the basis of class, and so no dual-language order of Proletarese and Capitalese either: if the workers wanted to have no fatherland, they would first be silent. Language in a plural world order is there -
-
-
-
-
-
to communicate with those in one of that order's components, to discommunicate with those in the other components, and to exclude other forms of discommunication.
There are vast possibilities for dividing the earth, and for state formation. That no other language order was ever known shows that the world has progressed uninterrupted toward the modern world order, the world order of nation states. N o other complete state order was ever known either. At no time did humans ever decide to abandon being ethnic, and so too, they never abandoned ethnic language. T h a t is why there is no world language. In a world order of nations, there will be a world language when there is a world nation. That is, when the o p t i m u m number of nation states required, to effectively limit the possible, has fallen to one. Some day it might. H u m a n s do not want to speak one big language, not yet. However they do not want to speak a lot of small ones either, otherwise there would be m a n y more than 5000 languages. H u m a n s want to speak a certain number of languages, related to the exclusionary function o f the world order: on this planet they speak not just national, they speak national-5000. T h a t is why no world language has succeeded so far. Why take the trouble anyway? Everyone already speaks national. There is no real origin of language: only the origin of specific orders of language. Looking for the first national language is like looking for the original chessboard with one grey square. Origin does not mean singularity. In a plural language order, there were first languages, in the plural from day one. That is the way the world order works: it is unified in its plurality. There is nothing mysterious about this formula: all nation states, after all, form a single nationalist world order. If they were conquered by an Islamic theocracy, there would then be a non-plural Islamic world order. It is in the nature of a
TOWER OF T U D J M A N
69
Caliphate that there is only one of it, assuming no heresies. It is in the nature of nations to be plural, so too with their languages, at least for the present. H o w can there be such a world order, what does it do, and what evidence is there that it exists? N o n e of these are specifically linguistic questions, although perhaps they should be. In any case, here is the world order explained, in ten easy steps: 1. The national world order is distinct from, and in opposition to, other world orders. It claims, and effectively controls, all land surface. 2. It is an autonomy-minimising world order. 3. States are historically linked to one territory, so minimising territorial conflict. 4. State formation is limited to one type of group: 'nations' or 'peoples'. 5. These groups have distinct characteristics. They are: permanent transgenerational - - internally convergent around a core culture. 6. In consequence, states in this order show: - - permanence transgenerationality - - uniformity over territory, intensifying with time. 7. Population distribution is stable: migration rates are very low in relation to infrastructure capacity. State formation by migration is rare. 8. The inhabitants determine the goals of a state and not the other way round. These goals are the collective goals of the nation or people, primarily its continued existence. In effect, therefore, the goal of these states is to project a segment of the past into the future. 9. Inhabitants are obliged to have an identity and a culture, preferably corresponding to one existing nation state. 10. The national world order is functionally equivalent to a world state with a nationalist administration. It is best seen as the best current approximation to a single state with the characteristics of a large nation state. -
-
-
-
-
-
F r o m all this, it is obvious that some assumed language characteristics are only characteristic o f the current order of languages. That language, for instance, is passed on from generation to generation. Why, when it is no problem to change it inside a generation, as Tudjman demonstrates? And why should parents pass on their own language to their children, when they can learn another and pass that on equally well? They could change their allegiance as well, but that would be treason. W h a t loyal parent would raise children as traitors? The world order makes the order of languages: but neither will last for ever. Unfortunately, that order will last so long as it is taken as given. So too with the order of languages. Nations are worthless in themselves, and they are holding back other world orders: so are national languages. The sooner they disappear the better. The question is not how to find a universal language, just as the question is not how the world can become one large nation. Only nationalists think like that. The question is: where are the new orders of language?