The tired and unquestionable adage that “history is written by the victors” fails to mention two pivotal themes in this biased authorship: namely, that history is written by and for the victors, in their own language and vocabulary. My research project this summer was an unconventional look into the manner in which former colonizing nations have kept smaller cultures under their thumbs long after granting them political independence. Specifically, I completed a comparative analysis of the impact that imperialism has had on the linguistic and cultural development of Ireland, Lebanon, and the former Trucial States (the UAE). What I sought to do this summer, and hope to continue to do next summer, is target three regions with vastly different colonial experiences as a way of illustrating the shared struggle that post-colonial nations continue to face in maintaining their rich local identities.
To briefly touch on my linguistic work, I spent the first few weeks reading through and compiling much of the existing research on the specific manner in which the local languages have been degraded. What I found from the start was that each population exhibited a fascinating but dangerous pattern: codeswitching, or switching back and forth between the native and imperial languages in a single conversation. The reason for this phenomenon can best be understood as a struggle to convey concepts, words, or feelings which have been borrowed from the imperial power, and therefore, since their native language lacks the specific vocabulary to express these thoughts, speakers must rely on English or French. This is tied heavily to the second most important shared trend: borrowing. Though all languages borrow vocab from each other, Irish and Arabic share the unfortunate habit of simply adapting new, popular English words to look more like traditional Irish and Arabic by putting their own endings on them. In each language, this is most evident in vocabulary pertaining to science, tech, industry, government, and transportation. The danger of this is that any and all thoughts of modernity are linguistically tied to English, meaning that Irish and Arabic plainly are not evolving in a sustainable way. Taken further, though linguistic purism is a topic which has been debated for over a century, the danger of speakers deferring to English vocabulary, in theory, is that it could someday make their own languages simple vessels for the English language. I also found that the diglossic nature of Arabic (forcing students to learn both their own dialect and Modern Standard Arabic) in both the UAE and Lebanon is discouraging students from each region to learn either dialect, with many students instead opting to learn foreign languages.
I then spent time examining educational policies, finding that, though policies are largely insufficient in revitalizing the natural use of Irish, the Irish government is still taking active steps to encourage the study of its native language. In stark contrast, the Emirati and Lebanese governments, partly due to American universities, are prioritizing that their students learn English (and French) as a way of ensuring their future economic success. As a result, recent studies have shown that several Emirati University students are beginning to lose their Arabic entirely, and Lebanese students, constantly switching between French, English, and Arabic, are lacking proficiency in all three languages.
Finally, I spent the last two weeks of my project examining the economies of each country, finding that, though the Lebanese economy is in a downward spiral, the Emirati and Irish economies might not be long after it. As tax havens, the UAE and Ireland rely heavily on large transnational corporations to bring money into their economies. In fact, in 2020, for the first time in recent history, the GVA (Gross Value Added) from foreign-owned multinational corporations to the Irish economy exceeded that of all other sectors, meaning that foreign money -- not domestic endeavors -- was the backbone of the Irish economy. This clearly dangerous trend has in recent months come to a head, with the G7 countries agreeing to mandate a minimum 15 percent global corporate tax. What this means is that many postcolonial countries like Ireland and the UAE -- who have only over the past few decades been able to achieve a steady flow of foreign investment by keeping their corporate taxes low -- will no longer be able to attract large corporations. In other words, though many companies with established headquarters may very well remain in the countries, without the incentive of a relatively lower corporate tax, the next few decades will likely see a decline in new foreign direct investment in the Irish and Emirati economies. At any rate, as the ongoing pandemic proves the link between economic success and preparedness for the dangers of the decades to come, these funds may someday prove vital to the countries’ well being.
For more information on the topic, please view my reflective video, wherein I discuss in greater detail both the subject matter and the path I took that led me to these findings.