Prof. Bhupa P. Dhamala

When I am set to penning some words about the relation between language and civilisation, Orwell's views echo in my mind. He (1946) expressed his anxiety about the decline of English language when he said, "Our civilisation is decadent and our language-- so the argument runs- must inevitably share in the general collapse".
He further said, "It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." This means, "an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form".
He blamed the contemporary English politics for corrupting the English language but at the same time, we can also infer in his explanation of chain effect that if we use neat and tidy language by conscious design instead of slovenly language, then our civilisation is very likely to improve. Let us see how it happens as it does.

Social Hierarchy
Indicators of social hierarchy are many and various. In feudal age the area of land and the number of livestock could indicate social hierarchy. Under capitalism, more specifically in urban space, the amount of money one earns, the type of house they live in, the make of car they ride, and the attire they wear, are some of the most conspicuous indicators of social hierarchy. When time goes by, the indicators of social hierarchy also change accordingly. This has happened since generations. This is the way social structure is commodified in terms of material values.
But often unnoticed is the variety of language that also marks social hierarchy even more intensively. Whereas the people of dominant groups use derogatory terms to the people of subjugated groups, the people of latter groups are accustomed to use honorific terms to the people of former groups.
Those honorific terms used to address the people of dominant groups seem natural because the people of subjugated groups have already internalized those terms since when they are born. This difference is based on culturally constructed social hierarchy being language the prime factor.

Speaker's Universe
In one sense, the universe has physical existence. In another respect, it exists only in imagination. The universe as we know it is physically immeasurable. This is not within the compass of human consciousness either. Yet a speaker begins to make sense of the world in early childhood by means of language. Speakers can build knowledge and communicate their experiences only through language. The range of knowledge of the world and experiences is varied and flexible. It changes at different times and in different geographies and cultures across the world.
One thing is perhaps universal. A child forms a template in their mind and develops an inflexible mindset, a particular worldview, a fixed lens through which they see the world around them and make opinion about the things and people. In that very sense, children can be taught to speak politely and neutrally and build in their mind a template, which would contain the language that would cultivate fair and impartial attitude to others. That would help construct high civilisation and culture.

Thought-Speech Interplay
No matter how much we deny, people essentially belong to two categories-- people with malign interest and those with benign. In the first group lie the people who have an evil intention and the ulterior motive for sordid gain. In the the second lie the people of good intention and the welfare motif to help others in need.
Accordingly, they tend to use different forms of language-- rude and polite, biased and neutral. The first variety certainly begets negativity while the second apparently positivity. The rude and biased language leads to render the ugly world while the polite and neutral language inspires us to create the beautiful one. In this sense, ugliness and beauty can well be linked with the form of language people choose to use in casual conversation as well as formal speech. Like thought, like speech and vice versa.

Language of Politeness
In almost all cultures people use different forms of language to address others. Because the distinction in language use in terms of race, class, and gender is constructed by unequal society, it looks unnatural. But the distinction in terms of age seems to be natural in all cultures. While seniors in age may use common core terms to speak to the juniors, the juniors on the contrary, use honorific terms to address the seniors. Nobody dislikes the way younger people use honorific terms to the elders.
To illustrate this point with examples from Nepali language, the younger people use the honorific pronouns like "tapain" or "hajur" to the elder people while the elders can use "tan" or "timi" to the younger. This is all acceptable. We feel nothing wrong about it. Polite forms of language thus enhance high civilisation. The lack of it causes the opposite of it.

Language as Equaliser
Despite the assumption that language is ideologically loaded and thus it is not neutral, language experts are nevertheless beginning to launch a campaign for consciously using the language of political correctness. In this campaign they prescribe us to use the terms which are politically neutral. That means nobody can demean anybody by using blatantly derogatory terms nor can can they use the terms that unnecessarily eulogise the person of superior social status.
The people of higher social status can no longer use the terms which would insult the people of lower social status. Also, the use of pronoun "they" is used to refer to "somebody" or "someone" instead of "he" or "she" to indicate gender difference based on unequal social hierarchy. If this can really happen, language can become a true democrat. In that sense, language enhances high civilisation, if only to a limited extent. Since language and civilisation are thus inextricably linked, it will not be misleading to argue that there is interplay between them.

(Dhamala is Professor of English at Tribhuvan University)