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. Anonymous9 October 2016 at 19:09

    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

Okonkwo as a Tragic Hero (Things Fall Apart)

           Taking the cultural context of Things Fall Apart into account, there are a few reasons for why Achebe would characterise Okonkwo using the tragic hero archetype. The character of Okonkwo could be an allegory for the Ibo people as a whole, for example, since throughout the story we see various parallels between Okonkwo’s situation and the situation of the Ibo people and culture. In Part One of the book, both Okonkwo and the Ibo people are well established; Okonkwo has wealth, family, and stability, and the Ibo society is functioning as it has been in the years before. However, in Part Two, we see this begin to unravel, as Okonkwo is exiled, and the colonisers begin to arrive, introducing Christianity, slaughtering a village; bringing great change, and shaking up the cultural stability. At the end of Part Three, we see the full breakdown of both Okonkwo and the old Ibo culture. Okonkwo, of course, kills a court messenger, and then kills himself wh...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is Shakespeare’s larger purpose in his characterisation of Coriolanus in Act I?

               One of  Act one’s main purposes, in terms of the characterisation of Coriolanus is to showcase the aspects of Coriolanus’ personality and the context that it brings up. Shakespeare portrays Coriolanus as a decisive and effective battlefield commander in the battle scenes, by having Coriolanus give rising and encouraging speeches, “Now put your shields before your hearts, and fight With hearts more proof [strong] than shields” -Act 1 Scene 4, lines 33-34 and in lines 58, where Coriolanus calls on his men to follow him. The fact that Coriolanus is able to capture Corioles and hold his own against Aufidius is contextual proof of his skill as both soldier and commander. Shakespeare also details both the inner and physical strength of Coriolanus, through quotes such as: “The blood I drop is rather physical Than dangerous to me.” -Act 1 Scene 5, lines 20-21 and “…why cease you till you are so?” (context is Coriolanus is asking if th...
1 comment
Read more

Market Analysis: Why we should we invest in online advertising?

            Advertising as we know it is dying. Less and less people are buying and using traditional media (TV, magazines, newspapers, cinemas, radio, etc.), in which the traditional types of advertising are present. The age of television, radio, and paper will eventually come to a close; already the Internet is showing itself to be a dominant player in media, in countries that have developed their internet infrastructure to a satisfactory level. We and other companies have tried to keep up with the rise of the internet, by placing banner ads, pop-ups, and video ads, but people are getting around the ‘inconvenience’ or ‘annoyance’ of these ads via ad blocking software, making our adverts useless (since not enough people view them). However, there may be another, less overt way.             To the average person, having to sit through an advert before viewing a video/article, or view a site littere...
Post a Comment
Read more