The deliberate bastardisation of the African languages.

Written by: Guidance Mthwazi

Language is dynamic, it changes with time they say. Why is it so? In those dynamics, what are the changes necessitated? Can language in this regard really evolve? There is enough reason to trust that every time these questions are posed; it is only a mere justification of debasing the richness of the language in concern. While we can agree that language is born of objects (however one would prefer to denote the physical attributes that are being referred to in this case), it is also born of concepts which are not necessarily objects. The meaning of the above statement suggests that, in order for a language to be, there has to be objects of some type, which later on become subjects of conversations. However, contrary to the idea of languages being formulated from objects we experience or come into contact within our lives, it has also shown that it can be created through conceptualisation or what others may refer to as imaginative creativity. For instance, we have language to describe creatures like a mermaid and a dragon, and these can only be discussed in the language within which they were conceptualised. That being said, this article, without delving deeper into the scientific explications of language origins, will explore the degradation of languages (African in particular) as a result of a baseless argument that language is dynamic. 

Let us discuss language for verbal communication (conversing) and language for written communication. Both these forms have a formal and a non-formal practice. English for instance has got many forms to date and it keeps on devolving (at the least that is what is happening in reality) to furthermore types. It is quite puzzling how Microsoft decided to categorise these types by country and yet the only real differences are actually based on the British and American versions. The only reason for this development I assume, would be to accommodate words which originate from those countries but are then used in English communication, for which there is no effect to that. It would therefore only make justifiable sense if Microsoft was referring to spoken English rather than written (in spoken language one can identify differences in tones and accents). Subsequently, these two major versions have their own subdivisions, for instance in the United Kingdom there is the Queen’s English and the Shakespearean just to mention these two. Likewise, in the Americas there are several dialects born from the variety of native languages spoken on the land. A point to note at this moment, is that while debasement of languages has happened pretty much everywhere else in the world, the British for one have maintained the inventive versions of theirs in text (the Shakespearean literature). 

Consequently, what this means is that, even if the spoken versions are degraded, natives are still afforded the opportunity to learn the original “mother tongue” through preserved literature. To date, the British still study Shakespearean literature in formal education. How then does this link to our ways of living? What is it about the originality and richness of a language that makes us uncomfortable? Are we justified to label a language as archaic, hence change it to contemporary forms? Let us go back to when we discussed the birthing of languages from objects and concepts. This is vital because objects and concepts are coupled by activities and experiences. A language is born when an object intersects an activity or experience. Through gestures first, one may wish to articulate or communicate. Gestures (which are part of activities or action) can range from smiling and raising a hand to frowning and throwing an object (stone) based on the internal feelings one desires to express. Any sound or speech that couples those activities and experiences can be coded to mean similar communication but in this case in verbal form, not non-verbal. A repetition of the same action coupled with same speeches eventually becomes a norm, hence a ritual, then culture. At this point, it is up to the society to agree or disagree if they want that particular culture to continue existing as part of their lives. 

Now that we have established that language is inevitably linked to culture and that culture is decided by a society, it would be important to recognise who society is in your spheres today. In essence, the same societies have decided and influenced your activities, your experiences, gestures, feelings, norms, rituals, culture and last but highly important, your language. This brings us to the epitome of this discussion, that if one loses his language, they have not only lost a way of communicating, but have sadly lost a way of life, lost origins, lost self, lost identity, and most importantly lost relevance of existence. That being said, the bigger issue is, why do Africans then continue to bastardise their languages in an effort to accommodate those who conclude that the languages are incomprehensible? In the first place, if our forefathers used those languages, surely, they were sacred to them, especially in communication with our conceptual supreme powers. Secondly, does it even make sense to keep on changing our languages to “contemporary” forms, if those who do not understand them will not even bother to use them? What then is the problem with preserving our own languages for our own good? 

It needs no scientist, the African has been time immemorial, taught to hate himself and detest his natural being. In the words of, Stephen Bantu Biko, consciousness of being African is a “…realisation that by seeking to run away from themselves and emulate the white man, blacks are insulting the intelligence of [W]hoever created them black.” However, those Africans who have come to consciousness, have a mammoth task to bring their brothers and sisters to the same consciousness because a larger population of African will not accept the truth of their magnificence. “You have to be very careful introducing the truth to the black man, who has never previously heard the truth about himself. The black brother is so brainwashed that he may reject the truth when he first hears it. You have to drop a little bit on him at a time, and wait a while to let that sink in before advancing to the next step,” words by El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, popularly known as Malcom X. As a result, the African Native has cared less concerning the bastardisation of his native languages, he has been told how trivial it is to mind if his name is spelt or pronounced incorrectly, an act I deem profane to our Africanism. If the Oppressor can keep and preserve his language raw and original as it is, then why should the African bastardise his own in the name of making it comprehensible to the people who do not even care to use it. 

Henceforth, the idea of this article is not to resist necessary change, but rather to accept it without tainting our own originality as Africans. It would even be so an uncomfortable truth, that even our own brothers and sisters, who are meant to be custodians of our originality continue to trivialise this issue by insensitively and carelessly misspelling and debasing our languages to a devolved state, case in point on national identification documents. This imbecilic behaviour sadly, has been fostered mostly by adoption of cross-pollinated Euro-centric and Anglo-centric cultural views by Africans. At this point, it is noteworthy to call upon the African self and ask the very simplistic question of self-preservation and self-consciousness, WHO AM I?  

Follow Guidance Mthwazi on social media