Social Etiquette Bound by Language? (doesn't really relate to what we've been discussing in class...)

This weekend while I was dancing in Florida, I spent a day at home because my grandparents had come to visit from China and I would not have been able to see them otherwise. However, they only speak Chinese and while I can understand some Chinese, I cannot speak it, so communication with my Chinese relatives is usually very difficult. It was even more difficult because they do not speak Mandarin Chinese (which is what I can understand), but instead speak a rare rural dialect, so only my dad could understand and speak to them, and had to translate for the whole family. Sometimes I noticed that he would be uncomfortable translating certain things that they would say or that my mom and sister and I would say because “they were not appropriate things to say” in the other language. This was especially interesting to me because for my younger sister and me, he would translate into English and back from English, but for my mom, he would translate into and from Mandarin Chinese, and even in the different dialects of Chinese, there were things that he deemed “inappropriate” to translate.

For example, in Mandarin Chinese it is normal for people to tell each other that they look very fat or very skinny when greeting each other, especially within families- and not always as a signal of how wealthy or well-fed you are, but a simply judgment that outright means “you should lose some weight” or “you need to put on some pounds.” While this was also ok in my grandparents’ dialect of Chinese, this is obviously not ok in English. In English, when one asks “how are you?” one expects to hear back “good” or even “tired but happy” but in Chinese a correct response focuses not so much on the self but on how one feels about being around the people or places around them, so a Chinese person would answer something like “happy that you are here-” my dad told me this is what he told my grandparents that I said, even though I actually just said “Good, how are you?” Also, in Mandarin Chinese, as in English, there are certain social boundaries to what you tell people of your opinion- you don’t tell someone if you don’t like their shirt or shoes. But in my grandparents’ dialect, apparently (or maybe just people from their region, which comprises all the people who speak their dialect anyway since it is so rare and rural), you are looked down upon for not being honest and telling people that their shirt makes them look fat and they shouldn’t wear it out.

I thought it was interesting how specific spoken elements of social etiquette seem so bound by the language they are spoken in. Thoughts?

Language and Racism

Let me start by trying to put my soapbox away...


I decided to look at the US English Facebook page in order to understand a perspective different than my own.  The US English website makes some (relatively) fair and honest arguments about the history of English in the US, but what do its supporters say? Surely they have logical, sound arguments as well.


The first post I read: "US law has to be clear to all citizens, therefore all citizens need to know one language."


Oh dear.  There are too many assumptions and logical fallacies for me to describe here...


Further down the page: this picture.


Surely that picture comments on that man's impolite gesture in relation to his language of choice and not the color of his skin, right?


Another gentleman: "I will work hard to recruit members as well as work to make English the Official language of the United States."


He must've accidentally hit shift on that one.  Forgivable mistake.  He's still in high school...


On the topic of Puerto Rico's commonwealth status: "all leeches..."


Or another poster: "If they become a state, they lose their "nationality" and become Americans.... therefore, welcome to hard work and speaking English! You will no longer be able to refer to your heritage as "Puerto Rican" -- that will be gone, because you will be Americans and salute the Stars & Stripes! (BTW, our National Anthem is in English too!)"


And another: "Down here in Texas if two people looking at same job the one that speaks english & spanish will get the job even if he is not as qualified for it.This is why the White male is the one being discriminated against the most. All over the USA."


There we have it.  Finally.  Language and race, intertwined and interconnected.  See, I am not trying to say that the two are always one and the same.  Instead, I am arguing that there is an undercurrent of racism hidden in the "English Only" movement.  Just looking at some of the lovely quotations above, we can see how people connect language to race, to the idea that Puerto Ricans (and possibly all immigrants?) are welcome to learn "hard work" upon achieving statehood, and that non-white, non-English speakers corrupt the moral and/or social framework of the country.  How can you tell that the guy in the picture doesn't speak? Because his skin is darker? How do you know he wasn't born and raised with the English language? Because he makes a vulgar, un-American gesture?


Unfortunately, this is one of the many reasons I cannot support any push for English to be the official language of the US.  I also disagree with the idea that one language equals one nation or vice versa, and that the "White male is the one being discriminated against the most," and that the cost would be too great for the government to bear.  But most of all, I cannot stand by a movement with such racist sentiment lurking below the surface of its arguments.


Oops, did my soapbox sneak out again?

Language policy and migration (Tollefson)

The chapter by Tollefson entitled “Language Policy and Migration” brings up some rather provocative points about language policies vis-à-vis migration. In particular, Tollefson argues that special educational provisions for immigrants, migrants and refugees are inadequate because they are “designed to channel learners into particular kinds of jobs” (104). The kinds of jobs Tollefson talks about are menial labor jobs that essentially no one else wants to do. They are also the jobs that are most vulnerable to shifts in the economy; therefore, these migrants have become welcome buffers to the volatile economy (Tollefson quotes Marshall in this on page 112). Personally, I think federally funded ESL courses structured to teach “survival English” make a lot of sense. To fund full advanced degrees or specialized English training specific to a certain industry would be far too costly. Instead, I think the approach our government should take is to move towards recognizing advanced degrees/professional certification from more countries. I think the governmet should fund booster courses that teach rules and regulations specific to the United States. Some professions are not transferable across nations—lawyers, for example. Another important point Tollefson makes is that fact that restrictive language policy will almost certainly NOT aid in unifying a nation. Rather, it will alienate minority-language communities into insular communities, which will establish the breeding ground for intense discontent. We have read many papers that point to the failures of language policy to truly weed languages out of existence, even under relatively oppressive regimes (as observed with the KMT’s Mandarin-only policies in Taiwan).

After our discussions on immigrants in both the United States and in Europe, I decided to take a quick look for research on Turkish immigrants in Germany. I came across a dissertation entitled “Turkish Language Provisions in Berlin” by Lucy Hottman from the University of Manchester. Hottman states in her abstract that she looked beyond the Turkish community to the Berlin public sector to ascertain if Turkish, and therefore multilingualism, was institutionally promoted in Germany. Her conclusion?

“The observations reveal a clear lack of any linguistic policy at state or federal level other than that of ignoring languages other than German. A host of provisions can be observed but these are rather random measures often initiated by individuals. They are not aimed at promoting multilingualism but rather at facilitating communication for citizens who do not speak German. Furthermore minimal provisions in the area of education appear to be more decorative than substantial. Clearly Berlin's increasing multilingualism is not recognised as something to be protected. On the contrary, in spite of the fact that Germany is obviously an immigration nation, public services reflect the still prevalent monolingual ideology: In Germany we speak German” (Hottman 7).

http://languagecontact.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/McrLC/casestudies/LH.html.

Accessed March 20th, 2011

This echoes the article about whether the U.S. has a language policy, or just civil rights. Essentially, even in the U.S. we don’t have an official policy, and even the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 (and now expired) was instituted “to teach English to children from non-English speaking backgrounds” (Spolsky 100). Thus, in Germany and the U.S., German and English respectively are seen as the languages of success, and while both are multicultural states, the unofficial policy is assimilation through lack of support for foreign/migrant language teaching.

This brings us back to the question of whether or not the state has a responsibility to provide bilingual education. Another complication is at what level? Education in both German and the United States is under jurisdiction of the states. Should the United States and Germany issue federal policies on bilingual education? What would be the pros and cons of such a policy?

Very cool video

I was thinking of something to post then I came about this marvelous video

Minority Language Rights

I think one of the biggest things that we have assumed in this class, and that linguists seem to assume in general, is that everyone has an inherent right to learn and use their language and that every language and thus, language speaker, is equal. Therefore, we shouldn't discriminate against someone just because they speak a different language or especially because they speak a minority language.

But why is this true? I am not contesting that it is true or not- just asking why we assume it to be so. In my view, the reason it's wrong to discriminate against gender or race or sexual orientation is because they aren't conscious choices that people make. They are born with their gender or race or sexual orientation and cannot change it because they are biological features. However, language is not the same deal. People are not born with a certain language, though to some extent it is determined by the family they are born into and where they are born. Also, people have the ability to learn new languages throughout their lives. You do not have to be a baby, learning in an immersive environment, in order to pick up a new language. Therefore, is it really discrimination if employers don't want to hire people who don't speak the same language as the rest of their employees? Or if they can't receive certain political benefits because they cannot understand the language that political documents are written in? After all, they do have the choice to learn that language if they want to.

The universality of language rights, and some other considerations

In thinking about the language rights that ought to be guaranteed, it is important to consider a couple things. First, what rights actually fall under the umbrella of language rights? Is it simply the legal right to speak one’s own language? Or does it extend to the right to be understood? One might equate language rights with the freedom of speech. But really, the freedom of speech doesn’t require that others understand you. The right to use your language, on the other hand, requires help from those on the receiving end. In other words, guaranteeing language right might require that the State and civil servants to use the language and understand it. Second, would language rights be able to address the distributive inequalities that currently exist with official languages? What kind of equitable solution would give people the right to use their own language but not trade of things like efficiency and practicality? Third, do different political systems require different language rights? Certainly, the right to use one’s own language and be understood is more essential in a democratic state than in a totalitarian state. A democracy involves more than just a ballot and the formal right to cast a vote. It is about participating in democratic discussions. Yet to do that, one must have a strong grasp on the language used in the political sphere. Therefore, I think advancing democracy requires us to think deeply about language policy and language rights. Different political systems have different needs for language rights, which makes me think that language rights are perhaps universal human rights.