static/dynamic language

the dominance of the English language in some context may be viewed as a positive and additive language, while in other context it is viewed as a negative and potentially threatening the local language. The controversy over English in Brazil helps to reinforce the notion that "language" cannot and is not separable from identity and culture. Although the fight is over English and Portuguese, due to the dynamic nature of language, if would be naive to think that the existence, usage, learning, teaching, etc. of another language in a particular context serves a neutral function. There is nothing neutral about language. I run the risk of contradicting myself by saying that language, in of itself, is harmless and meaningless. It is the ideologies, emotions, signification, beliefs, etc. that people attach to language that makes "language" loaded with "values." These values can sometimes dictate how we exist with, within, and among language(s). if we have a narrow definition of language and view language as a static element, then it may be easy to "claim" and assume ownership of the language, thus lends room for the struggle for space of existence and prestige. however, if language is viewed as dynamic, any attempts to claim it and own becomes more difficult because in order to claim something that is constantly evolving, changing, growing, etc. implies a certain level of dynamism of the user (both in identity and in number).