Skip to main content

Analytical Blog Post: "Language does not define who we are" Do you agree?

Language, while an important aspect of our identity, does not shape who we are. Language is a form of expressing who we are. We use language to communicate our ideas to one another. A person has the same personality regardless of what language they speak. In the various texts relating to the concept of mother tongue or bilingualism, the people were not shaped by their knowledge of a different language, but rather, their experiences due to their use of their languages. At best, language can only indirectly influence or define who we are.
In “Mother Tongue”, by Amy Tan, Tan’s mother is often treated differently or worse than her daughter, due to the way she speaks. The way her mother spoke also defined her teenage years, with her being ashamed of or thinking less of her mother due to the way she spoke. Her studies of language also suffered in comparison to her studies of science and math, possibly due to the different style of English her mother spoke at home as well. While this may seem to suggest that Tan’s difficulty in English and the treatment of her mother were defined by language, it can be argued that it was the perception of her mother by others that made Tan have a negative opinion of what her mother said. For example, the reason that her mother got subpar service from her doctor and stockbroker may not be how she speaks the English language, but what her English skills imply. The doctors and stockbrokers may have developed an opinion of her that characterised her as being unintelligent immigrant, for example, due to her use of the English language. This may have influenced their actions toward her, and could be the reason they treated her negatively. Not because of her language skills per say, but what they ‘implied’ about her. Whereas when Tan spoke to them, probably with an Americanised accent, and more relatable grammar, they saw her as being more similar to them, and thus treated her more equally than they treated her mother. Not speaking English ‘correctly’ can generate a negative perception of a person or a community, and that negative perception can help define that person or community, but it is the negative perception that helps define them, not the language.
For the bilingual texts, again, language is not necessarily to blame either. In the texts the authors talk mostly about feeling conflicted about their identity, due to having multiple languages in their life: English and their mother tongue. However, their inner conflict, as part of their identity, might not necessarily be caused by language either. At the core of their issue, it seems that perhaps a cultural conflict instead of a language issue might be the case. Migrants may feel different or separated from the native population due to aspects of their life such as culture, family, religion, philosophy, and more. As detailed in the first text by Julia Alvarez, there are various cultural differences that can put a person into inner conflict with themselves. In Alvarez’s case, the differences showed in her name (due to Spanish/Latino naming traditions, she had a long full name) and her large family. Yes, many people she met could not or did not pronounce her name the Spanish way, but it was not only that shaped her identity. At best, her ability to speak Spanish only influenced her identity slightly. What influenced her identity more was her cultural background (she felt more conflicted about her name/s and her family, than about language).

As these examples have shown, language does not define us. It is the choices we make, the choices others make in relating to us, and how the world and/or society reacts to us, that define ourselves better than the language we speak can. Language is not bonded to personality, and personality is not bonded to language, to suggest that they do, only results in stereotyping a nationality or a culture. Not all French are wine drinkers, not all British are imperialists, and not all Russians are communist (a bit outdated, but the point still stands). Language does not define us, only we, other people, and the world around us, can define us.

Comments

  1. This was an insightful post that demonstrated very good understanding of this topic. Your analysis of this prompt was focused and you used good examples from both texts. Perhaps your argument could have been better developed by including a topic and concluding sentence for each paragraph, instead of a generally summary with your conclusion. However, at 700 words this is probably just me being picky. Well done.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Coriolanus and the Theme of Power

Shakespeare develops the theme of power in the play, mainly with the characters of Coriolanus, Volumnia, Aufidius, Menenius, and the Tribunes as representative of different forms of power. The titular character, Coriolanus, is a man from an older form of power, the absolute kind, where rulers did not have to answer to the commoners. He approaches politics the same way he approaches military matters: speaks his mind/heart (i.e. insulting the commoners, but it’s what he genuinely thinks of them), being true to himself, and insulting those he regards as enemies or against Rome (in battle this is the Volsces, but he believes that giving the plebeians a voice is a bad idea). In military, he is successful, because military power is absolute, obey or die type of deal, at least in that time; however, politics requires a surgical approach, and careful consideration of what to say, which the other characters mentioned can do better. Menenius acts as a foil to Coriolanus’ skills, because while h...

Print Advertisement: Nivea Moisturizer

To start off, here's some basic information about the advert. Its target audience is young women, as the main focus of the advert is a young woman, and the product is cosmetic, a product type commonly advertised to this target audience. The cosmetic in question is "Nivea Smooth Milk: Body", a type of moisturizing cream. As the ad is written in English and comes from a German (Western) company, it can be concluded that this advert comes from a Western cultural background. Since Nivea was founded in 1911, it can be inferred that this ad was made in 2011, due to the quote "100 years skin care for life". The ad seems to imply that physical attractiveness is the most important factor in a happy relationship, due to the happy couple featured in the image, and the slogan "For visibily smooth and touchably soft skin" (misspellings came with the ad), which seems to imply to the viewer that moisturizer brought the couple closer together (the image has the...

Summer Blog Posts

Here are both of my Summer blog posts: 1: In Norway, I have visited a cultural history museum in Oslo, and viewed some of the Viking artefacts that they had. They reminded me of Things Fall Apart, specifically the traditional and cultural aspect of the book and Igbo people. Like the Igbo, the Vikings had their own religious faith, featuring famous gods such as Odin and Thor, their own cultural traditions associated with that faith. Furthermore, similarly to the Igbo, the Vikings ended up converting to Christianity. It makes me think that surely there must have been people similar to Okonkwo in views, who would have objected to the Christianisation of Norway. With Norway, Christianisation mainly started under the rule of St. Olav (ruled from 995-1000), with him destroying pagan temples and killing pagans who resisted. The process of Christianisation was continued by following monarchs. I believe that the concept of a radically changing culture and religion, with divisions in societ...