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

This is Water and Alice Munro Short Stories

Alice Munro’s short stories are usually about women and families from a suburban and or rural setting. She discusses topics such as gender roles and interpersonal relationships, usually from a woman’s perspective. What David Foster Wallace’s theory on education can do with this, is that it allows us, the reader, to adjust our perspective, to be sympathetic to the characters. Although I personally am not a girl growing up in a post-WWII Canadian small town, I can still relate to or at least empathise with the characters and their emotions that Munro has created. In Munro’s stories, her characters tend to have personal flaws or defy the tradition character ideals, for example the narrator in “Boys and Girls”, despite her desire to keep her role helping her father and dislike of the role women are designated for in her family, she ends up subconsciously transforming, until she starts to fit the mould of what her family and society says a woman should be. While we, the audience, may expec...
4 comments
Read more

Ibo Background Assessment

Note: Written from a non-Ibo person perspective, however the person has knowledge of what the Ibo culture is and what their achievements are and is speaking on behalf of it at the Royal Colonial Institute’s annual dinner. Set in the Late Victorian era, as the assignment suggests. Words in-between this: [ ], are explanations of phrases, and would not be said in the actual speech.             Greetings, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Royal Colonial Institute. As you all know, this is a time of great change in this world. In the span of 100 years we’ve gone from walking on foot and horseback, to being able to get to Edinburgh from London in only 8½ hours whilst sitting, in relative comfort. Despite losing America a century ago, the British Empire has grown immensely since then, acquiring massive territories in Africa. Truly, the Sun never sets on the British Empire. But despite your dominance and hegemony over the world, the human...
3 comments
Read more

Podcast Assignment

In class we had to do a podcast about an endangered language. My group, Lingo-radio, featuring Azim, Seo Jung, and myself, did a podcast on Romansch, one of the four official languages of Switzerland. We went for a conversational/natural type of podcast, and based our dialogue on bullet-points, rather than a strict script. Here is the file:
2 comments
Read more