changes in language
Individuals acquire language in various social environments since birth. The language changes as the individual develops. Such languages are never exactly the same across two or more individuals. Individual differences in some sense always exist.
Both expression and understanding through language can only exist as individual actions. It is difficult for a speaker and a listener, who are two different individuals, to agree on the intended expression and the content understood. People try to minimize the gap. Even if he tries to accurately express what he sees and what is in his mind, and even if he tries to put himself in the shoes of the other person and understand what the other person is saying, the discrepancy will only get smaller. It will never go away.
In this way, language itself is always subject to change. ”(P.157)
A perspective is presented that seeks changes in language based on the ``characteristics of individuals'' and ``characteristics of communication.''
Migration and language transformation
By immigrating, you will come into contact with a ``different language'' that is different from that between individuals. The main topic is migration (settlement) to "Colonial Hokkaido" (P.159). We are investigating language changes from the first generation to the fourth generation. I'm probably about the fifth generation now.
It is thought that the language of the Tohoku and Hokuriku regions became the basis of the language used by people who immigrated to Hokkaido. (P.159)
In this way, the direction of change can be placed in two directions: ``decrease (extinction of dialects)'' and ``increase (increase into a common language)'', and each can be interpreted as four types. (P.178)
What used to be a variety of dialects changed into the ``Hokkaido regional common language,'' which then changed into the ``common language (standard language).'' When I was a student (that is, around the time this book was published), there were students from various prefectures in my boarding house. Most of them spoke the common language, but the students from Kyoto did not stop using the Kyoto dialect. It was pretty cool and was popular with girls. I thought I was speaking the common language, but it wasn't until the person pointed out to me that I realized that my words were mixed with a dialect. I once heard a student from Tohoku call his parents home, but he didn't understand what he was saying. I remember being surprised that I could hardly understand the language of the students from Yamaguchi.
I think the difference between those who correct their dialect and those who do not correct their dialect is the difference between whether or not they have love for the region in which they were born.
Whether it is in contact with dialects within the Japanese language, contact between Japanese and foreign languages, or contact between various languages, the degree of language transformation is ultimately influenced by a sense of cultural superiority, and In other words, a sense of pride and love for one's mother tongue seems to play a large role. (P.195)
dual language life
Students who usually speak common language will be using different words between the words they use in conversations with their fellow students and the words they use at home.
When a person migrates to a land where there are indigenous people, contact occurs between one's own language and the language of the indigenous people. At that time, three situations are envisaged. The first is the eradication of the indigenous language, the second is the full acceptance of the indigenous language, and the third is the case where both coexist while influencing each other. Immigration to Hokkaido would be the first example, and migration to Hawaii and Brazil would be the second example. (P.193-194)
It would be impossible for a country to bring its own language and continue to maintain it, completely unrelated to the language of the indigenous people. (P.194)
The Japanese language education that Japan carried out overseas during the war, and in countries other than Russia within the Soviet Union, was unable to eliminate local languages. In the colonies of Western Europe, the situation seems to be slightly different between Africa, the Americas, and Asia. A special case is Israel. This is because it revived a word that had not been used as a spoken language for over 1,700 years.
There will be differences in language transformation depending on whether a person immigrates as a worker or assumes a position of ruler.
People of various backgrounds came to Israel by immigrating, and they revived Hebrew and started using it as a daily language. (P.192)
Causes of language transformation
The possibility of transformation lies in what I wrote at the beginning, but what is the actual cause of transformation? One of them is ``migration,'' which is the theme of this paper. Other things written are political things such as "colonization". Others may be "economic".
Furthermore, it is ``education'' and ``mass media'' that push this forward.
Today, throughout the country, the common language continues to be bombarded by mass media, especially television. This dual language life involves the process of becoming a common language: dialect -> regional lingua franca -> national lingua franca.
In other countries, as well as dual-language lives that result from migration, there are also dual-language lives that do not result from migration. (P.195)
At school and in the media, we are taught to use the common language (dominant language), and we are taught that speaking dialects is "redneck" and "uncool." Therefore, I believe that the findings of this paper were expected even before the study. Still, in addition to this kind of research, it is also necessary to record dialects.
On the other hand, why did each region have its own dialect? Just as humans spread from the African continent to all over the world, there is a theory that languages also originated in one place and spread all over the world. However, I believe that languages arose in each region, and I do not believe that humans spread from Africa to all parts of the world. It's not something that can be proven, so either is fine. Even if words spread from one place, they are rooted in the climate and culture of that region. This is because communication is not only achieved through language. Language is created based on various (or all) backgrounds, such as the culture and history behind it, the experiences of speakers and listeners, and the place, climate, and time of utterance. Scholars tend to think that ``sentences written in books'' are ``words.''
That's why I think it will work even if you change. It transforms while always containing something ``vernacular'' somewhere. Education and mass media (as well as politics and economics) try to destroy that vernacular thing more and more. They are "power". I think it is difficult for the weak and powerless to eliminate power. That's why I think it's important to find something vernacular in what we currently have. That is the "power to live".
