Yang Zhen

Abstract：Toni Morrisons Nobel lecture--The Looting of Language， is one of the greatest lectures in contemporary American literature. This paper attempts to analyze this lecture from the perspective of post-colonialism. Tony Morrison implies the event of colonization and its corollary in her lecture. She uses the “bird-in-hand” to imply the language of the colonized writers， the old blind woman to imply a colonized writer and the group of young men to imply the colonizers. The only way out for saving the language of the colonized writers from oppression， as she puts forward， is the joint efforts of the two cultures， combining both advantages of white culture and black culture， and advancing towards their “bird” in unison.

Key words：the “bird-in-hand”； colonized writers； oppressive language； unison

中圖分類號：H315.9 文獻標識碼：A 文章編號：1672-1578（2016）05-0004-02

1 Introduction

Postcolonial critics concern themselves with literature written in English in formerly colonized countries. It usually excludes literature that represents either British or American viewpoints and concentrates on writings from colonized cultures in Australia， New Zealand， Africa， South America， and other places that were once dominated by， but remained outside of， the white， male， European cultural， political， and philosophical tradition. Often referred to as“Third World Literature” by Marxist critics—a term many other critics think pejorative—postcolonial literature and its theorists investigate what happens when two cultures clash， and more specifically， what happens when one of them， with its accessory ideology， empowers and deems itself superior to the other （Bressler， 199）. Tony Morrison implies the event of colonization and its corollary in her lecture—The Looting of Language， for Nobel Prize for Literature in 1993.

2 A Post-colonialist Analysis of the Lecture

Tony Morrison opens her speech by referring to a tale of two young people who are trying to disprove the credibility of a wise old woman. In this allegorical story， the colonizers present themselves in the form of some young people， while the colonized writers present themselves in the form of an old wise woman. In the story， the old wise woman has a reputation of good clairvoyance， which implies that the colonized writers are born in a deep and long culture. Though it is plain truth， the young people just cannot believe it，which indicates the colonizers overpowering ambition of oppressing the colonized writers in order to exploit the wide and fertile areas they are aiming at. The young men hold a bird in their hands and mock the wise blind woman by asking her whether the bird is living or dead. The bird-in-the-hand might signify the language of a colonized writer. The colonizers are questioning the colonized writer the nature of the language he uses in his writing. But how could a blind woman distinguish whether a bird is live or dead？ The old wise woman does not answer the question and keeps silent for a long time. This colonized writer is thinking about the nature of his own language， the one that is given at his birth but withheld from her for certain nefarious purposes. He is considering how he should handle his own language in the process of his writing. The young people cannot hold their laughter and laugh at the old woman. Maybe they are making fun of the colonized writers embarrassing situation： do the colonized writers still have their own language？ Is their language a mixture of native and foreign languages in which foreign language dominates the major part？ The colonizers cannot help deeming in this way and revealing their pleasure of dominating and exploiting other country subconsciously. The colonized writer knows the colonizers motive， which accounts for the old womans long silence.

Finally， the old woman speaks in a soft but stern voice， “I do not know whether the bird is dead or live， but what I do know is that it is in your hands. It is in your hands.” The meaning of the old womans words is quite clear here： the colonizers have the final say of the language of the colonized people—the colonizers are controlling the language of the colonized； they can define it at their own will， be it dead or alive； they can also treat the language at their own will， too， either badly or well， which is a matter of their own will as well； but the final responsibility lies in the colonizers. Here we can see the bitter conditions of the colonized people： even language， the essence of their national spirit， falls into the hands of the colonizers. The colonized people have no right to keep their own language， not to mention to protect it from invasion and destruction. The root of this bitter condition comes from the colonizers overpowering ambition of conquering and exploiting weaker countries. Here the old woman shifts attention away from the colonizers assertions of power to the instrument through which that power is exercised. She is reprimanding the colonizers atrocities and fights back these atrocities with undertones.

Morrisons speech leads us to a central concept of postcolonial theory： the othering， the division of the world between “us”， the “civilized” or the “colonizers”， and “them，” the “savages” or the “colonized.” Homi k. Bhabha， one of the leading voices in postcolonial studies， raises the concerns of the colonized. What of the individual who has been colonized？ On the one hand， the colonized observes two somewhat distinct views of the world： that of the colonizer （the conqueror） and that of himself or herself， the colonized （he or she who has been conquered）. To what culture does this person belong？ Seemingly， neither culture feels like home. This feeling of homeliness， of being caught between two clashing cultures， Bhabha calls unhomeliness， a concept referred to as double consciousness by other postcolonial theorists. This feeling or perception of abandonment by both cultures causes the colonial subject （the colonized） to become a psychological refuse. Further， because each psychological refuse uniquely blends his or her two cultures， no two writers who have been colonial subjects will interpret their cultures exactly alike. Hence， Bhabha argues against the tendency to essentialize third world countries into a homogenous identity. One of Bhabhas major contributions to postcolonial studies is his belief that there is always ambivalence at the site of colonial dominance （Bressler， 203）.

Generally speaking， a writer thinks of language partly as a system， partly as a living thing over which one has control， but mostly as agency- as an act with consequences. However， a language can be imperiled or salvaged by a stronger ones will. If the colonizers exert too much power on the language of the colonized people， they can easily throttle this language， by which means， the colonizers thwart the intellect and stall the conscience of the colonized areas at the same time. The oppressive language the colonizers leave behind serves to menace and subjugate the colonized people， too. It slaughters the colonized citizens in various places， supports various kinds of criminal activities， and incurs inferiority and hopelessness among the colonized people no matter what kind of mutants it displays. Such kind of oppressive language can only languish the colonized people and facilitate the colonizers untold and nefarious purpose and bring the colonized to the sense of homelessness. This sense comes from the process of othering. The colonized can only reminisce the unmolested language that they used to have before the colonizers invasion. They want to find their shelter in the past glory of their own language. Their unmolested language， be it grand or slender， burrowing， blasting， or referring to sanctify， surges toward knowledge instead of destruction. It is a language of generative power which makes meaning and secure differences. However good it is， they do not possess it right now. Is there a way out？

3 Conclusion

There is a way out. The old woman is not tricked by the young visitors though she is blind. She keeps her own opinion and gnomic pronouncements. She keeps her distance， enforces it and retreats into the singularity of isolation in “sophisticated ， privileged space.”The colonized writer chooses to keep away from the oppressive language the colonizers impose upon and keeps his own individuality using his own words. He will ignore the mediocrity and cruelty the colonizers bring in and change it with his efforts. The colonized writer stands out from the unhomeliness and takes the initiative to fight back the oppression. He will not let the colonizers trivialize his patriots and his language that is not in his hands. This writer will describe his own particular world in his characteristic language with his passion and skill. He will believe in his country firmly and exert his full efforts to free his country. The old woman heartens the writers in the colonized areas with her courage to see pictures with blindness and guides them to find a way of saving their country in the process of writing.

The old woman not only implies to the writers in the colonized areas what to do to save their country but also implies to them how to survive in the margin. The old woman trusts the boy and the girl who will have strength and warm heart in the near future. The old woman knows the struggle of driving the invaders out of their homeland is a long one and it needs the continuous efforts of several generations. She is confident that the younger generations will definitely become powerful and stronger with the encouragement of the oppressed writers combined efforts. As long as the younger generations strive persistently， they will certainly make it and regain the“bird”， which is the aim that the colonized people aspire and struggle for. We are really glad to detect that both the old woman and the younger children are advancing towards their “bird” in unison at the end of the speech. It is a suggestion that the colonized writers are gradually writing their culture and life in their own independent language rather than in a mutant language that cater to the taste of the colonizers. Lets congratulate them on their regain of their own bird”！

References：

[1] Bressler，Charles E. Literary Criticism： An Introduction to Theory and Practice[J]. Higher Education Press & Pearson Education，2004.

[2] Zhu Gang.Twentieth Century Western Critical Theory[M]. Shang Hai Foreign Language Press， 2004.

作者簡介：楊振（1984-），女，山東棗莊人，碩士，講師，研究方向：英美文學(xué)。