Riassunto esame Inglese, Prof. Corrao Maria Francesca, libro consigliato English for diplomatic purposes, Friedrich

Cap. 1 - Toward a nonkilling linguistics

The age-old question is: are we humans naturally violent and always searching for peace, or are we peaceful but sometimes fall into aggression?

In his book, «Nonkilling Global Political Science», Paige:

• Questions if a society without killing is possible, and what it would take to build it. He describes a nonkilling society as one with no human killing or threats, no lethal weapons, or reasons to use them, and no societal conditions that rely on killing or threats for stability or change.
• Says that the answer to this question depends on one's personal experiences, training, culture, and context. If one believes that such society is possible, its creation would require everyone's effort and skills to promote a nonkilling mindset. Our role would be the responsible use of language and the social power that comes from it.

In a nonkilling society, we would want languages to be used for peace-making. Although language can be used to harm, such as by choosing hurtful words or excluding people with different languages, we believe it's crucial to emphasize its positive uses. By promoting respect for human dignity and inclusion, we could foster a nonkilling mentality.

Language significantly influences how we perceive and shape the world, as it has the power to transcend and transform.

Paige argues that language often reflects and reinforces violence, making it seem natural. In our world, there is a noticeable indifference towards violence, which has influenced language users to become somewhat desensitized to it. This supports the idea that humans can be highly destructive. However, we should also consider how to list examples of humans being constructive.

The prevalence of violence is also evident in other contexts, such as movie titles. Finding an equal number of movies with peace-promoting titles could be an interesting challenge, promoting activities that enhance constructive vocabulary and humanizing language. Language plays a crucial role in both maintaining peace and pursuing violence. Effective diplomacy through peace talks can be the difference between peace and war. Public peace dialogue, as researched by Saunders, exemplifies the growing effort to achieve agreement and understanding through peaceful means.

Despite its importance, it took a long time for linguistics to be recognized as a key element in promoting peace and fair social institutions. Now, Peace Linguistics is part of Peace Studies, along with Peace Psychology and Peace Education, contributing to the goal of building a nonviolent society. However, much work remains for linguists, educators, policymakers, and language users. Language is deeply connected to all areas of life, yet people often take it for granted and overlook its power. They may avoid peace-building dialogue or fail to recognize when constructive language could prevent conflicts.

In a nonkilling society, language must be a key tool for peace. Language users should be empowered, and constructive dialogue should replace violence.

Languages are not independent entities; they exist to meet the needs of the societies that create them. They can be used as tools or weapons, depending on their users. Languages themselves are neither good nor bad, but they can be used for good or evil by the people who speak them. Each person impacts language by modifying, using, rejecting, or embracing it.

Understanding the diversity of language users, the contexts in which languages are used, the range of proficiency levels, and the various educational backgrounds is crucial for building a peaceful society. People will exhibit different linguistic features based on their situation, education, location, gender, and age. We should recognize and appreciate this diversity and avoid using it to discriminate against others.

In a nonviolent society, various linguistic expressions coexist peacefully, allowing people to reach their full potential regardless of their language or dialect.

There is a potential disappearance of thousands of languages by the end of the 21st century. Austin and Simpson (2007) note that this loss of linguistic diversity represents a significant social and cultural loss, affecting not just the speakers of these languages but humanity and science as a whole. Scanlon and Singh (2006), referencing Maffi (2001), attribute the disruption of linguistic diversity to factors such as colonization, the rise of nation-states, globalization, and environmental degradation (see also Mühlhäusler, 2003).

While many languages are naturally fading away, some sociolinguistic phenomena contributing to their disappearance are beyond our control. However, this does not mean we should accelerate their decline. In a society that values nonviolence, the threat of one language displacing another is reduced, as respect for linguistic diversity promotes multilingualism (Phillipson, 1992). This approach allows languages used for broader communication to coexist with efforts to preserve local languages and cultures. The term «preserve» can be tricky. Some preservation efforts aim to catalog and document a language as it was last spoken, usually when a language is near extinction and has only a few elderly speakers left. Another approach is to preserve a language's ability to continue evolving and being used by a community. Effective policies, including sound educational practices, are crucial for this type of preservation.

Smith argues that recognizing all linguistic heritage should be the goal, as lack of respect for linguistic diversity can lead to social unrest. This idea is relevant to both widely spoken languages and those used by smaller communities, establishing a link between disrespect for linguistic diversity and social conflict.

To support a nonkilling society, which extends to preserving languages, we should take measures to save dying languages, counteract forces that lead to linguistic homogenization, and support the use of both lingua francas and local languages. In a nonkilling society, there is no effort to intentionally eradicate languages or the cultures they represent through education, politics, or military actions.

Galtung’s negative peace

(1964) concept of Galtung’s «negative peace» means the absence of war. Efforts to maintain peace in post-conflict situations fall under negative peace, often achieved through diplomacy. In a nonviolent society, diplomacy is crucial for resolving differences without resorting to conflict. Effective diplomatic communication, as outlined by Gomes de Matos (2001), includes:

• Avoiding dehumanizing language.
• Handling differences constructively.
• Using language that promotes peace rather than strategic interests.
• Focusing on agreement rather than debate.
• Avoiding pompous language that separates people.

Gomes de Matos also emphasizes the importance of diplomats upholding the ideals of diplomacy and striving for peace through honorable means.

Galtung’s positive peace

Galtung’s idea of «positive peace» can be understood through language use. Positive peace involves creating strong social institutions to prevent war. Language, as a key human institution, plays a significant people’s linguistic rights are respected, they are less likely to engage in violent conflict. role in this effort. If To build a strong language institution, it is important to provide education that promotes peace, teaches rights and duties, moral values, ethics, and strong linguistic skills. A robust linguistic structure also requires that speakers of different languages and dialects have access to resources, information, and opportunities.

In a society without violence, people are encouraged to use their language skills to help develop society and uphold human dignity. Peace educators, psychologists, linguists, and others involved in nonviolent language education should be creatively communicative for peaceful purposes. They should adapt and refine practices to fit specific cultural contexts, aiming to enhance nonviolent communication skills.

Learning nonkilling vocabulary and adopting a critical nonkilling linguistics framework could educate people to avoid violent language and promote peaceful communication. To achieve this, curricula must incorporate nonviolence and peace education. Such a curriculum should cover communicative aspects of peace, linguistic ecology, peace linguistic terms, and language that fosters peace. Crystal emphasizes the importance of integrating peace education into early grades, including linguistic ecology and rights. Gomes de Matos advocates for a «humanizing pedagogy» that expands communicative competence to include communicative peace, promoting language use that respects linguistic rights and participants in communication.

Linguistic choices have become political. Deciding to be monolingual, bilingual, multilingual, or to use a language other than one’s native tongue has social implications and is often viewed in terms of group membership rather than personal decisions. Linguistic imperialism, as argued by Phillipson (1992), is a debated issue where the global use of English is seen as a result of imperialistic actions by countries like the US. Critics say people in countries where English is a second or foreign language are victims of this.

In a society without the fear of language being used for domination, these choices become easier. Human beings have an infinite capacity for language acquisition. If we could eliminate the fear of linguistic domination, people would be free to choose languages based on their needs and interests. This would also help us move away from terms like «killer languages» (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000) and focus on how languages can unite people while preserving linguistic diversity.

Languages naturally evolve over time, experiencing birth, change, and death. Often, a language «dies» when it changes so much that it gives rise to new distinct languages. For example, Latin evolved into Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, and Romanian due to geographic spread, regional influences, and different historical developments. Geopolitical factors also contribute to the development of new languages, as different societies and external influences shape them. Languages can die out when they are no longer used, have no new native speakers, and stop evolving.

In such a society, people are not punished for participating in the natural evolution of language. Change is seen as a normal and healthy part of linguistic development, driven by social changes and contributing to societal transformation.

Many cultures do not prioritize education, leading to a lack of resources and support. This results in teachers working with inadequate materials and facilities. Even where infrastructure is sufficient, educational decisions are often made for political reasons rather than educational ones.

In a nonviolent society, educators are highly valued because ignorance is seen as a root cause of violence. By empowering individuals through education, we help them feel secure and in control of their future, reducing the likelihood of violence. In such a society, language teachers and all educators are supported with safe, clean working conditions and fair wages. They are encouraged to make decisions based on their expertise, not politics. Supporting teachers positively impacts students and the broader social structure. Classrooms can become places for peace education and discussions on ecological concerns related to language. A society that undervalues education risks ignorance, violence, and underdevelopment. Conversely, one that prioritizes education promotes social justice and inclusion, moving towards a more peaceful society.

People with language-related disabilities also have the right to education and communication. We can provide them with tools and support to help them express themselves and contribute to their communities. In a nonviolent society, the rights of all language users, including those with disabilities, are respected and upheld.

Language evolves both to reflect social changes and to drive them. For example, we invented the word «computer» because society needed it. Revising our metaphors to focus on peace is crucial for a nonviolent society. Instead of using terms like «killer languages», we should adopt peace-promoting language. We should replace phrases like «fight for human rights» with «educate about human rights» and avoid alarming terms like «war on the middle class».

By shifting from fear-based tactics to positive communication in politics and advertising, we can foster a sense of harmony rather than danger. Fear incites violence, but careful language choices can help us act more sensibly and compassionately towards each other.

Despite ongoing efforts by linguists to detail the aspects of language, they have often overlooked its humanizing power. Gomes de Matos (1994) highlighted this gap, arguing that simply labeling language as human fails to capture its potential to humanize. Humanizing language involves recognizing it as a shared system among humans and striving to use it in a humane way.

Humanizers are individuals dedicated to the ideals of human rights, justice, and peace, applying these values in everyday communication. Language users can be seen as either humanizers or dehumanizers based on how they use language. While much linguistic research has focused on the negative impacts of language, such as cursing and its harmful psychological effects (as discussed by Jay in 1999), there is a need for more focus on the positive aspects of language.

Understanding the importance of creating a society without killing not only highlights the necessity for a language that promotes peace but also guides us towards actions that can foster what we can call «Applied Peace Linguistics». From our initial exploration of nonkilling linguistics, we can draw five main points:

• Nonkilling linguistics emphasizes using language in ways that promote peace and humanity, from personal interactions to global communication.
• It should collaborate with various fields to develop an interdisciplinary approach to peaceful communication suitable for different societies.
• Training in nonkilling linguistics requires understanding both constructive and destructive communication patterns, whether face-to-face or online.
• Nonkilling linguistics aligns with Applied Peace Linguistics, contributing to the broader field of Applied Linguistics, as outlined by Kaplan (2002).
• Given the increasing global conflicts, it's urgent for individuals and organizations to embrace nonkilling actions to protect human life and linguistic well-being.

Cap. 2 - Softening or intensifying your language

In today’s globalized world, mediators aiming to advance national interests in diplomatic negotiations often encounter conflicts and disagreements. Language plays a crucial role in peace-keeping efforts to resolve or avoid these conflicts. To maintain amicable relationships, trust, and openness in diplomatic negotiations and to further peaceful conflict resolution, negotiators must develop:

• Openness to different cultures.
• Acceptance of various points of view.
• Tolerance for alternative histories.
• Willingness to engage with diverse cultural and professional practices.

Diplomatic language needs to balance directness with indirectness (e.g., Bjørge, 2012), assertiveness with empathy, and persuasion with compromise. Verbal and nonverbal language are crucial for negotiators to be contextually and interculturally tactful. Diplomats must be both persuasive and constructive while understanding their counterparts' intentions, which may be conveyed non-literally and be culturally nuanced.

1. Face and (im)politeness

In diplomatic negotiations, the concepts of face and (im)politeness in pragmatics are important. According to Goffman, face refers to the positive social value or public identity that we try to maintain for ourselves and others in interactions, similar to respect or dignity. Brown and Levinson argue that participants in an interaction generally want to respect face, but because it is always at risk, constant attention and cooperation are needed from all participants (i.e., facework). Face is something we protect, defend, save, and possibly even threaten or aggravate. Facework involves various strategies language users employ to negotiate their place in social interactions, maintaining dignity and integrity.

Goffman distinguishes between positive and negative politeness, where positive and negative are not related to good and bad. To address an interaction partner’s negative face wants, which include the need for independence and freedom, we use negative politeness strategies. These strategies often involve showing deference, emphasizing the importance of the other’s time and freedom, or apologizing for an imposition or interruption.

For instance, to ask for a ride, we might say, «Ms. Miller, I’m sorry to be a bother, but you couldn’t possibly give me a ride on Wednesday, could you?» This example includes a formal term of address (Ms.), an apology (I’m sorry), a negative and courteous outlook (couldn’t possibly), a question form, and a tag question (could you), all manifestations of negative politeness. When expressing oppositional views like disagreements, challenges, denials, or accusations, negative politeness strategies help minimize potential face threats (such as discomfort, embarrassment, or humiliation) through various mitigating devices and stance markers.

To satisfy others' positive face wants, which include the need to belong, to be connected, and to share a common goal, we use positive politeness strategies. These strategies show solidarity and emphasize that both speakers are close and share a common goal.

As a result, language may often be optimistic and forward-looking, as in: «Hey, pal, what if I rode with ya on Wednesday?» or «Jen, you wanna pick me up then?» Here, positive politeness is demonstrated through informal terms of address like "pal," casual attention getters, positive outlooks, informal word choices, and contractions.

In oppositional talk, disagreement can threaten positive face needs by suggesting disapproval. To counter this, speakers often stress common opinions and inclusiveness to preserve face through positive politeness strategies like jokes, partial agreement, and inclusive pronouns such as