The dead language requirement

Last Sunday, millions of Catholics in the English-speaking world found themselves saying “consubstantial” for what might have been the first time in their life. This was in accordance with the Roman Missal, Third Edition, the biggest change in the English-language Mass since the beginning of the English-language Mass in the 1960s. While the official liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church continues to be in Latin, the translation into English has been updated to be truer to the original Latin. “I believe,” for example, was considered a more accurate rendering of “credo” than was the older “we believe.” Why the Catholic Church waited more than 40 years to correct what any first year Latin student could point out is indeed an intriguing topic. However, this language update has something else to teach us, something about the differences between modern and classical languages that may lead us to rethink Princeton’s language requirement.

This updated translation matters because it affects the very words that are said by practicing Catholics. The written Latin version of the Mass has not changed. But the act of worshiping no longer occurs in the dead language of Latin, instead in living, breathing English. There is a power in the spoken word, one spoken by the community of the congregation, that is simply not present in words on a page. People chat, love, learn and debate as they worship, in the spoken word, with members of the community of fellow speakers.

Princeton’s A.B. language requirement, as it currently stands, fails to recognize the importance of this language community by considering dead languages satisfactory for fulfillment. Students can fulfill this requirement by demonstrating proficiency in Latin or ancient Greek, either by placing out or taking courses. Though these students may choose to study a modern language while at Princeton, they do not have to, and those who do not miss out on what should be one of the goals of the language requirement and therefore a goal of a liberal arts education.

We learn foreign modern languages not just because they are interesting and can help us better study a body of literature. We learn them, in my opinion, to be “in the Nation’s service and in the service of all Nations.” We learn them to become citizens of the world, to cure ourselves of the American disease of monolingualism, to be able to interact with people whose ideas and perspectives are very different from our own.

So in one sense, there is a practicality to learning a foreign language: We live in a globalized world and, no matter what field you go into, you will have to interact with people from countries that do not speak English. But requiring proficiency in a language doesn’t necessarily have to do with being a better businessman if you can talk to the Japanese investors in Japanese. Learning another modern language in America is telling yourself and the world that you are not entirely inward looking. It doesn’t have to be about literally going to a foreign country or speaking to a foreigner in your own country; it’s more about making the statement that you are open to fully engaging with the world.

Learning classical languages simply does not afford you the opportunity to foster international communication and cosmopolitanism. However, maybe this is just one goal of the language requirement. An equally valid goal of a language requirement is to teach a person fundamentally how language works, something that Latin and Greek can indeed accomplish. In this way, it is similar to the other distribution requirements, which all attempt to provide instruction in a particular way of thinking, from quantitative reasoning to ethical thought and moral values. Language is how we interact with the world, so it is right that we should have an understanding of how that works, its theoretical foundations and its limitations.

However, this would imply that a person should not be able to place out of the language requirement simply by being bilingual, since a person who natively speaks two languages does not intuitively know how languages work in an abstract sense. That is something that requires specific study in a language, or even in language in general (i.e., linguistics).

If the language requirement exists so that we can communicate with other peoples and cultures, why accept Latin and Greek? If the language requirement is to learn something abstractly about language, why accept native polyglots?

Put another way, do we learn languages to celebrate Mass with people from different cultures or to understand the theological implications of saying “consubstantial” instead of “one in being with?” If it’s the former, require spoken modern languages. If it’s the latter, require language instruction. If it’s both, which I suspect it might be, require both. No matter what, the language requirement must be restructured if it is to be consistent with its own goals.

Luke Massa is a philosophy major from Ridley Park, Pa. He can be reached at lmassa@princeton.edu.