The Linguist is a languages magazine for professional linguists, translators, interpreters, language professionals, language teachers, trainers, students and academics with articles on translation, interpreting, business, government, technology
Issue link: https://thelinguist.uberflip.com/i/322362
Vol/53 No/3 2014 JUNE/JULY The Linguist 29 OPINION & COMMENT A neutral lingua franca should be used in conflict areas, rather than native regional languages The conflict environment of the 21st century is far more complex than it was during the Cold War. It is true to say that no one conflict is analogous with another. Nevertheless, there are fixed elements that are present in all conflicts. These include history, culture, personalities and actors, politics, economics and demographics. There are also aspects of conflict that, in the methodology of the Independent Conflict Research and Analysis organisation (ICRA), are termed 'factors'. These are aspects of conflict that are not present in all conflicts. And one of these factors is language that is closely linked to the elements of history, politics, culture – and, some would argue, violence. The role of a lingua franca, whereby peoples on opposite sides of a border can communicate in a common language that may not be the ethnic language of either, brings a neutrality in understanding without challenging differences in culture. But when either or both sides impose their own language(s) on their border communities and insist on using that language to negotiate on border issues, mutual understanding often breaks down. In the Ferghana Valley border areas dividing Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan just such a thing has happened, with the added complication of enclaves of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan being located in Kyrgyzstan. These countries were once part of the USSR, with the lingua franca of Russian uniting all ethnic communities. With this common language steadily being removed and new generations growing up in separateness, inter-state and inter-ethnic conflict is emerging. The Kyrgyz government, having previously accepted Russian as the country's first language, has now brought in a law making Kyrgyz the state language; and with it the formal subjugation of all others, including Uzbek. For international organisations working on the inter-ethnic issues that have periodically caused outbreaks of violence in the south of Kyrgyzstan, their work has become more complex at a stroke, and communication with authorities is now more likely to be executed through interpreters and translators with ethnic biases. In Afghanistan, the international forces that entered the country in 2001 were woefully ill- equipped with language skills. This was not particularly surprising given the multiplicity of ethnic groups, each with their own language and dialects. No one would have expected the forces, which were only expected to be in the conflict zone, to have language capabilities across a wide spectrum. However, the situation barely changed over the next 10 or 11 years, and contributed to the lack of understanding of the cultures in Afghanistan that were competing with each other. From the formation of the League of Nations until 1990, the languages of conflict resolution were, broadly speaking, English, French and, to some extent, Russian. In the colonial period, the same languages were used internationally, but the colonial powers normally had a depth of expertise in the languages of their colonies that was lost in the post-colonial era and never regained. Nationalist governments are now increasingly choosing to reject previous lingua francas that were mutually understood means of communication, unlikely to raise emotions, and to adopt sometimes little-known ethnic languages that arouse nationalistic and emotional sentiments. It can be argued that the moment has arrived for the international community to examine ways of promoting a neutrality of language in conflict scenarios. At the same time, international interventions of the type that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan might be considered less wise if carried out without a significant component of in-built linguistic ability and, with it, cultural understanding. www.icra.uk.net In my opinion… Christopher Langton ACIL is Head of Independent Conflict Research and Analysis (ICRA). TL CHRISTOPHER LANGTON © ISTOCKpHOTO CONFLICT Anti-Russian protest in Ukraine