Languages, a tech history
When I was younger, I was fascinated by languages, how the different scripts and syllables work, so I learnt a couple of foreign languages and made some half-hearted attempts at learning some Indian ones. While the driving force was curiosity about the language, I discovered an added side-benefit, language is a window into a culture.
We all know this intuitively. Once you know a language, you can immerse yourself in the art of that language - be it books, movies, songs etc and understand more about the cultural aspects associated with the community.
You might watch Narcos today with subtitles, but if you know the language, the ‘vibe’ is just different.
Why did language come into being?
If you define technology as anything that has the potential to make human life better, language is one of the oldest contenders.
The basic utility of language is communication. Early humans wanted to communicate with each other and they started inventing sounds for the same. Since early tribes were sparsely dispersed, each tribe had its own language and there was little cross-pollination.
This communication was predominantly oral - everything from sermons to secrets were spoken. Written word, then in the form of stone carvings, mainly served as either a book-keeping ledger or a proof or artistic expression.
Then we put alphabets to the phonetic sounds and hence, what was spoken could now be written. This was the first major inflection point in the history of communication, as now, oral communication became a choice, not a mandate anymore.
Then, when the printing press was invented, there was a way to mass distribute written content. And this enabled more and more people take to writing to make their voices reach the masses.
Corollary to the printing press were radio and TV, which were ways to mass distribute audio and video content respectively.
Essentially, every big change in media technology has had an effect on language and subsequently, culture. As people unfamiliar with these cultures get exposed through the books, songs and movies, they also see language as a way to get exposed to that life.
Internet accelerated this trend as now you could not just see professionally generated content (PGC, in media terms) of other cultures (through TV, Radio) but also see the life of and talk to ordinary people (UGC, user generated content).
How has this affected India?
India has had a unique relationship languages, both because of the diversity and also because of the special status given to English here.
The English Class
There was one class of people (myself included) who got educated in English medium schools, was exposed to English content early on through TV etc and even got job in an MNC or an English speaking corporate. For these people, while they grew up with their mother tongue, English had a big influence as a language and as a culture. A part of them also got enamoured by the Western lifestyle shown in these cultural elements, yearned for that lifestyle and saw English as a step towards that. Regardless of the eventual motive, English education has mostly changed their lives for the better, opening them up to different opportunities, local and global.
As they have seen the benefits of English, they also try to impart this to their kids early on and possibly at a higher extent. I’d posit that while these kids might have mandatory Indian languages in schooling, a reasonable portion of them doesnt actually use the Indian language much in common transactions.
The Non-English Class
There was another class of people who didnt have the means to be exposed to such education or jobs early on and stayed with the roots and culture of their local language. However, with mobile internet and global apps, they have been slowly getting exposed to the same.
A key difference between both the classes was the first one got exposed to English predominantly through reading and then through audio/video. Whereas, the second one is getting exposed to the same through video and audio majorly. I’ll circle back on why this is so crucial.
Network Effects & Mimesis
In an era where we debate whether a particular startup has network effects or not, Languages are perhaps the strongest entities with network effects. You cant use a language with another person if they dont know it. And you have to have a critical mass of people using a language for it to be relevant, else people wont invest time in learning the language. On the flip side, the large languages (large defined by the number of people who use it) keep becoming larger feeding off these network effects.
Small languages keep becoming smaller.
Another related force that affects the adoption of languages is mimesis.
We often want to differentiate ourselves from our immediate common group and usually try to do that using some dimension. Eg for the first group mentioned above, English was also a way to differentiate from the second group.
Combine the network effects with mimesis and you see people in native languages gravitating towards larger, aspirations languages like English.
This has multiplier effects - as demand for a language increases, supply, in the form of art, also increases. This demand manifests itself across all forms of media. At the same time, the demand and supply of smaller languages reduces*.
Decadence
This decadence of small languages is not immediately apparent. As you notice in the first group above, the kids still learn the language but lose touch across different senses over time.
Any language can be expressed in three forms
writing
Reading
Speaking
This is also in decreasing order of effort.
So the first one to take a hit is the written subculture. As I write less of Gujarati, I also start losing touch with some elements of the language. Then, reading takes a hit as there’s effort invested in processing the letters and alphabets.
Once writing and reading of a language decline, the only form of communication left is oral, which can survive, technically on its own (like it did in the pre-written ages) but wont spread a lot as the teaching becomes limited.
This also pervades during the learning of the languages itself. If I’ve learnt English (like the non-English class mentioned above) only through video or audio, the written part of the language is closed to me for expression. And that also prevents me from consuming and creating a section of art based on that media.
What can invert this decadence?
While reading this, you might have already come up with counter arguments - haven’t you seen an increasing activity (in some subcultures) in local languages after the internet. Earlier, you could speak to anyone only over the phone, didn’t have as many local language films that are there on OTT or YouTube and also didn’t have enough local language platforms to express yourself.
True, and this is part of the answer.
Any new technology in media gives a rebirth to these languages. Live audio platforms, which were trending a year back, brought a temporary revival to the oral languages.
Another leap in survival of such languages would be if we start processing languages differently. E.g. If you speak over the call in Bengali but I can decipher real-time in Gujarati
Ultimately, the force against small languages is strong. But there are only two factors that can help in survival of this - technology and human inclination to preserve these languages. After all, if you lose a language, you lose a culture forever.
Reposting my post from Linkedin, Twitter -
Some questions that might help in important decisions (but are actually not that easy to answer):
1. Does this feel hard or does it feel wrong?
E.g. If you like a problem and are working to solve it, it will mostly feel hard. But if you like structure and are working in an unstructured environment, it will feel wrong. Wrong is basically a misalignment with what you want. Often very very tough to tell the difference though.
2. Do you like something or the idea of something?
Most people make this mistake with careers and also relationships. E.g you may like the idea of becoming a founder/investor/PM but not actually like being one.
3. Are you collecting data points to decide or to validate your decision?
A lot of times we make the decision even before collecting data (this is not always bad btw). But then we are not honest about it and seek data to validate our choice.
4. Is your image to you about who you are or who you think you want to be?
The number one reason why most psychometric assessments don’t work. It tests for latter than former.
5. Would you rather be the best at something and be called the worst or be the worst at something and be called the best?
This comes from Buffet and is an excellent question to separate out intrinsic vs social motivation.
If you have any such questions you use, would be curious to know :)