Is language not a cultural object?

Interestingly the most numerous groups immigrating to the US, for instance the Italians, didn't give up their religion or their cuisine to adopt the local varieties. This seems to be a generally valid observation: language is the inheritance migrants will most easily give up if they have to give up something. And the reason for this may be that language, although endowed with cultural dimensions, is definitely not a cultural object. Language loyalty does exist, but it seems to me to be a recent phenomenon related to the rise of nationalisms in 19th century Europe, when intellectuals (themselves a new social group) began to view language as a cultural property. Common people (the migrating ones) have a more objective view of language: it is a natural faculty to be used, not thought about. Changing language if it gives you an advantage is thus no big deal.

Can you agree? Is language not a cultural object?

No I cannot! Language is the last bastion of culture that globalization has not yet assaulted, although English is threatening other languages.

People who give up their language give up their culture, it's plain and simple. All those people who call themselves "Irish-Americans" or "Polish-Americans" or Italian Americans are asimilationists. They are simply American and everyone in their mother country would recognize them as so.

Of course when people migrate, for whatever purposes they have, they are already giving up part of their culture. Many migrating people usually tend to have more cultural related objects (related to their origin country) in their house than any native back home though.

They don't give up language because is something intrinsic that you can't just trow away. Migrating people may not be able to use it in the new society, but many keep using it at home and with their children.

Moreover, language is related to the way one thinks, to the expressions he uses to communicate and to who that person is and represents in the society he is living in. Is in every way related to culture.

How can language be an object? It's something you participate in. Yes, the grammar and lexicon can be considerated such, but this is not the language.

People who immigrated to another country are forced to use a new language if they want to participate in the life there.

Consider a Japanese person who has learned to speak English fluently in school like a native Anglo-Saxon does: is his culture still Japanese, or something else? I would guess that he is still of Japanese culture, he will not automaticly start to like porridge ;-)
A language is (relatively) easy to learn, while changing your culture is a fundamental thing - it has to do with ethic values, religion, childhood, education, etc..

This holds for language, too!

<<Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief.<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

A change of language is a change of culture, but immigrants did not abandon their language, it just shifted from public to family use.

nope, language is a communication tool
objects should be in a museum

<< Interestingly the most numerous groups immigrating to the US, for instance the Italians, didn't give up their religion or their cuisine to adopt the local varieties. This seems to be a generally valid observation: language is the inheritance migrants will most easily give up if they have to give up something. And the reason for this may be that language, although endowed with cultural dimensions, is definitely not a cultural object. >>

Well, it's quite simple: if you move to the U.S., there's no incentive to give up your religion or cuisine. Doing so does not remove significant obstacles. But if you keep speaking Italian and not English, you will not be understood and you cannot function well without help. You will have to learn to speak English. And, of course, time you spend speaking English is time you spend not speaking Italian, so you tend to use Italian less and less, particularly if you are not in an area where there are many other Italians who speak the language.

In short, I think "cultural objects" have nothing to do with it. It's just a matter of utility.

- Kef

Kef, so you say, that if an Italian forgets Italian in favor of language, he still carries Italian culture? Is that what is implied from your reply?

Voilà mon opinion, qui n'est partagé par beaucoup de copains de ce forum.

Pour moi, chaque langue reflète une conception du monde. C'est un petit caillou d'un grand mosaïque, l'ensemble des langues du monde. Aussi petit soit ce caillou, le mosaïque ne serait pas compet s'il y manquait.

Il va sans dire que toute langue est un signe d'identité pour le groupe qui la parle. Si elle disparaît, ce peuple ne sera plus ce qu'il était.

Bien sûr, une langue est un outil de communication. Mais elle est bien plus que ça.

Il y a des peuples qui, aparemment, ont renoncé à leur langue d'une façon volontaire. Je n'y croit pas: il y a toujours eu un long travail de remodélage, de changement de quelque chose d'essentiel, de la part du peuple qui leur a imposé leur langue. À la limite, il y a toujours on tréfonds économique.

Il arrive très souvent que des gens dont les aïeux ont renoncé à leur langue, ressentent cette absence de transmission comme un manque grave. Cela explique les mouvements, de plus en plus forts, de "revival" de langues presque éteintes ou même tout-a-fait éteintes.

Parce que, tout compte fait, une langue ne vit pas ni ne meurt pas: elle s'emploie ou ne s'emploie.

Demandez-de aux israéliens. Ils en savent quelque chose. Et ils ne sont pas du tout bêtes, loin de là.

I agree with the guy above

<< Kef, so you say, that if an Italian forgets Italian in favor of language, he still carries Italian culture? Is that what is implied from your reply? >>

I didn't imply anything other than what I said. I'm side-stepping the whole "culture" issue altogether. All I was saying is that comparing language to religion or cuisine in this scenario is comparing apples and oranges.

- Kef

But all of them are fruits, i.e. culture.