On Mother Tongue Day, we might as well spare a thought for differences within the language.
Editorial: official language and language of officialdom
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
As linguists debate over whether the language we speak does, in any manner, impact they way we perceive the world, or whether speakers of various languages share the exact same reality, the former version seems to prevail. Even in these unique times of so many different languages side by side in large cities – the speakers having to relate and get along in the same space – the variety still does underline the contrasts and the slightly differing impact on thinking.
Our own linguist Uku Masing used to refer to «tongue related truth» created by languages spoken, meaning that a culture’s world view rests on its language. However, a language is not indeed a stable and reliable foundation: it develops and changes. Should Uku Masing and other supporters of linguistic relativism be right, then whatever Masing meant by the «mentality» of a nation should also be slightly reshaped, as the language evolves. Inevitable – and not necessarily bad. However, it would be beneficial to be aware of these possible alterations in a nation’s thinking, to perhaps foresee them and alleviate their impact.
In an opinion piece of today’s Postimees, folklorist Loone Ots writes about two tendencies not in favour of our language’s development – twists in both form and content. The first meaning neglect of linguistic norms in public media, resulting in vulgarisms in journalism, faulty signs on company doors, and error-littered ads in our post-boxes. However, the second and rather more dangerous trend is what comes to us via official state channels: outwardly correct, but detached-from-reality legalese often used by the state when relating to citizens.
That linguistic divide may indeed be a cause of state distancing itself from the people. It seems that we have slowly been moving to a situation where speaking the official language is not enough to do business with institutions or read laws regulating human interactions – one has to master the language of the officials, with its peculiar vocabulary, terms and associations. It is easy for a citizen not quite fluent in the language of the officialdom to be dismissed as unimportant. And that, in its turn, hinders those in power from seeing citizens as partners in dialogue.
And maybe it’s this linguistic divide that is to blame for the notion, now and then expressed, that the people are dumb. Hurting not only communication, but resulting in two worlds: state and people not speaking the same language, mentally. Due to linguistic differences, these two worlds have drifted apart, with the speakers of the language of officialdom seated higher up than those merely speaking the official language. Looking down and giving orders.
In the preface to his book on tongue and mentality (Keelest ja meelest), Uku Masing wrote: «With every new tongue, a man acquires a new mentality.» Should the mentalities of people and those they have elected be torn wide apart, there’s not much hope for relief from the feeling of being abandoned.