Anzaldua...
Anzaldua:
- Anzaldua writes that the "home" tongues are the languages spoken among family and friends; according to Gee, what type of discourse is this? Please provide an example of the differences between your particular "home" tongue and the tongue you most frequently adopt when not at "home".
- Anzaldua argues that language is, essentially, twin-skin to culture; that is to say, that language both instantiates and carries culture. Please discuss what it is that she means by this; and, argue for why you agree or disagree with this argument?
- How can linguistic suppression, or worse oppression lead to negative mis-identification? More specifically, how can linguistic oppression lead to the internalization of pejorative associations for linguistically marginalized groups?
Daniel Seok
ReplyDeleteIn essay “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” the author asserts that language is twin-skin to culture which means that language both instantiates and carries culture. What author is trying to say is that language is the representation of the culture and I agree with his idea. There are approximately 6700 different languages in the world. The diversity of language in the world implies the diversity of the culture. When you look at different countries that speak different language, they always have different culture. Therefore, studying and analyzing the certain language would give an opportunity to grasp the culture of people who speak that particular language. I would like to give you an example with Korean which is my first language. In Korean, there are two kinds of format within the language. There is polite, formal version, and there is friendly, informal version. Whenever people meet for the first time or whenever they talk to people who deserve respect (elders, teachers, parents, etc) they use the polite and formal version of the language. It is cultural taboo to not use this version of the language to elders. But when people are talking to their friends or to someone who is younger than them, they use the friendly and informal version of the language. This differentiation of the language shows the importance of the courtesy and politeness in Korean culture. The main emphasis of the personality education for Korean kids is the respect and courtesy. As this example shows, the language shows uniqueness of the corresponding culture.
Patti Shnell
ReplyDeleteAnazaldua and Gee both write about what Gee has labeled a “primary discourse”. According to the two authors a primary discourse is one that is spoken at home, or in other informal settings, with friends or family. In contrast to this then is a secondary discourse, one which is taught in a formal setting such as a school. Unlike a primary discourse, a secondary discourse is standardized and normalized. It is the dominant language of the society it is taught in and mastery of this language becomes mandatory for an individual’s survival and advancement within the society. As Gee describes, individual’s whose primary discourse most closely matches the dominant secondary discourse are more posed for success. These individuals belong to the dominant social group, race and ethnicity and as such enter formal settings with a natural, as well as linguistic advantage.
Anazaldua discusses this dichotomy between one’s primary and secondary language in How to Tame a Wild Tongue. She speaks of the battle of Chicano Americans to locate their own language, to maneuver space between the two oppressive languages which have been pushed upon them, English and Spanish. This struggle is not one which I can personally relate to. Being an upper-middle class white female growing up to two white, educated, American parents ensured that the discourse I learned at home, my primary discourse, very closely matched the discourse I was assumed to need in school. My modes of expressing myself were concurrent with what is expected in our society and so my language came naturally to me, it was a direct product of my surroundings and completely in keeping with my cultural inheritance. This privileged is one that I was afforded because of the color of my skin and my family history, two factors completely out of my control, and has helped me to navigate my spot in society since the day I was born. This process of a dominant language functioning to promote a particular social group is a self-perpetuating cycle that has served to oppress non native speakers throughout history.
From Anzaldua’s reading:
ReplyDeleteAnzaldua argues that language is, essentially, twin-skin to culture; that is to say, that language both instantiates and carries culture. Anzaldua’s point of view is that, languages changes according to the cultures. That is, languages include cultures so we can get knowledge of cultures by just listening the languages. For example, Anzaldua said in the reading, languages are differ from regions, and users. This is because, the culture of each region and user are all different, and language expresses cultures so languages changes as region or user changes. I agree on this statement. To give explanation by giving some specific examples, In America, people’s English has all different pronunciation, and speed. According to the users, even though they are using same language, English, it is all different. It is because, each user’s characteristic, that is culture, is different and this absorbs into the language, which makes the difference. For example, it includes a lot of slangs in teenagers language, and this represents the disobey culture of teenagers. All dialects also includes its cultures of each region. People who uses language as their second language, their English is strikingly different. In their English, it contains their mother tongue language, which is their culture. In this respect, we can say language includes cultures. When I look into my mother tongue, Korean, we have a lot of dialects vary in locations. I can feel each location’s culture when I listen to each dialects. By looking through such specific examples, we can generalize that language carries culture.
Suppressing one's language and arguably their subsequent culture implies that who a person is, what they speak, and where they're from is wrong. Linguistic suppression, and even worse, oppression often forces the victim to view themselves as inferior. It pushes one to despise who they are and forces them to assimilate to a culture that is, less fitting, but more socially accepted. It creates a divide between home life and everything-else-life. (Rodriquez describes the divide and tension he feels between his home-self and academia-self really well.) Much like the experiences of Anzaldua, I often feel like I have to juggle my identity as both an American and Chinese. Often times I've grown up feeling like attaching myself to my American identity makes me more cool. I listened to American music, watched American TV, and spoke English much more than I spoke Taishanese, my Chinese dialect. Perhaps my language and culture was not formally suppressed but it was known that being American was more high status. My classmates would use "FOB," a derogatory term meaning "fresh off the boat," to refer to immigrant students. There was a sense of pride that came with dressing like and talking like true Americans. (It was how people on TV dressed and talked, how models on magazines looked like, how media portrayed the correct way of looking and acting as.) Fitting in was not possible however because I'm not just "American" (often taken as synonymous with being "White"). I'm Chinese-American and so ethnically and inherently different. I felt and still feel a lot of what Anzaldua describes as a hybridization of both identities, and subsequently not belonging to either. I feel like a lot of my friends and I, (many of which are also American born Chinese) really have an ethnic identity of our own. We are a combination of Chinese and American and neither alone describes us accurately.
ReplyDeleteIn the Anzaldua reading, “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”, she discusses the various tongues that are spoken within an individual’s language. When Anzaldua writes about “home” tongues, the language spoken among family and friends, it makes me think about code switching. Code switching is a term used by people when communicating; it is the practice of moving between variations of languages in different contexts. I code switch all the time subconsciously. My mother told me when I was younger that there is an appropriate way to speak to people and every way is different. When an individual communicates with another, they have to think about the best way to send information with thoughts of how the other person or party will interpret/ understand it. I believe everyone code switches to a certain extent. I officially learned what code switching was in ninth grade, my teacher was talking about the importance of having interview skills, and how the ability to code switch is essential to progression in America. At home I speak a mixture of informal/ relaxed English along with Igbo, at my internship I speak formal English and when I am with my friends I speak African American vernacular. Anzaldua discusses the link between culture and language, being a Nigerian American born and raised in the Bay Area speaking in home tongue is essential to me expressing myself. According to Gee the type of discourse that is most similar to “home” tongue is primary discourse. Primary discourse is spoken at home, with friends, or any informal setting. Opposite of primary discourse is secondary discourse—the standard language.
ReplyDeleteComing from a Chinese family, my grandmother always scolded at me whenever I spoke English in the house. She would always repeatedly tell me that it was not an American house- it was Chinese. She never let me forget my roots, and where I came from. It was hard growing up because I lived next door and saw her everyday during a majority of my life. As china26 said above, I started code switched. It was hard because I did live an American life style, I went to a school that were predominately white people, but lived in Chinatown in Oakland. My Chinese became “chinglish” as people would call it – half Chinese half English. My Chinese was slipping because as I grew older, I spoke less and less Chinese and that caused me to forget a lot of the language. My Chinese words are slowly transforming and merging with other forms of Chinese like Anzaldua discussed about. So I do agree with Anzaldua when she argues that language is twin-skin to culture. Without it, I would honestly not feel like I belong anymore. Language is an essential to every culture because it varies everywhere around the world. There are so many Chinese words that I can think of, that I still to this day, have not found an English word for to substitute.
ReplyDeleteKim Millan,
ReplyDeleteLanguage goes and in hand with culture. Language, in a sense, shapes how we view the world. To take away one's language is to take away their understanding of the world. Our languag gives us names to the things we know and love. To surpress someone's language and force English on them and say for instance, instead of Abuela, replace the words with grandma, will not change that she is Abuela. The English is just a temporary title but in one's mind there is no other name for her but Abuela. Language charcterizes the objects of our culutre. There is no other word for pinata in English. The word only exists in the Spanish paradigm. Furthermore, it is the language that connects us with our blood. It is what sets us apart at the grocery store. It is the anti-language of Americans. It dictates the movement of our mouths where the letters fall on like creamy chocolate. If a language is surpressed or oppressed, it can lead to outcasting or alientation. Not only was that language part of your identity, It can lead to alienation because if you take, for instance, a person who is trying to learn a language and one place refuses to let you speak any other “pervading languages” while the other is used at home on a concstant bases and happily accepted at home. You do not know which to dedicate yourself to working on. For the Americans, you will never shine “USA” anytime soon. From the Mexicans, one gets that they are not Mexican enough.
Anzaldua states, “Ethnic identity is twin skin to Linguistic identity—I am my language” (59). She argues society treats language and culture on the same level, hence, “twin skin”. Acceptance of a specific language also means acceptance of a particular culture, which makes up someone’s identity legitimate. I agree with Anzaldua’s argument because from personal experience, I’ve noticed certain connotations, denotations, and inclusion (or conversely, exclusion) of words vary from culture to culture and from one geographic region to another. Although I am Filipino American, I have a disconnection with the main Filipino language (officially based on Tagalog) and my mother’s dialect Ilocano. Growing up, I’ve heard my parents speak to each other in Tagalog, and I have heard my mother speak Ilocano to her relatives and friends. I was never taught to speak Tagalog or Ilocano. My parents firmly believed that my brother and I must be able to communicate in English without the presence of a Filipino accent. However, I find there’s traces of the Filipino accent/mannerisms present in my “American” language: i.e. I unconsciously say, “Open/Close the lights” or pronounce Mercedes as in Mercedes Benz as Mer-say-des rather than Mer-say-dees because I’m surrounded my parents’ Filipino-American language. I often think that my culture is very “white-washed”—I relate more to American pop culture even though my roots stem from the Philippines, and I am reluctant to verbally speak in the random Tagalog/Ilocano words for fear of being looked down upon for my “American” accent. In addition, I agree geographic location plays a role in one’s culture and language. I am from LA, and I have been influenced by the SoCal-OC culture. I tend to use “like” a lot in my sentences; however, I would never find myself using the words “hella” or “hecka” as my counterparts in NorCal or Central CA do. Language truly does work as a lens to my culture. My language—a mixture of American, Filipino, and SoCal cultural influences—is the mirror reflecting my identity. Thus, I believe Anzaldua is correct in purporting that language is two-skin to culture.
ReplyDeleteAnzaldua discusses battle that cultures have when they are stuck to choose between two languages to speak because they are greatly influenced by both. What come from this are entirely new languages that incorporates the two, like Chicano Spanish. Because there is an entirely new language in exsistance, a whole new culture develops as well. This is because the relationship between language and culture go hand and hand, language being a key factor in the identiy of that culture. Anzaldua shows us this in discussing her experiences with Chicano literature and how it’s development meant a lot to her, she was able to read about what was going in the world around her, and it was in the language she heard and spoke everyday. She saw movies at her local drive in theater that weren’t just imitations of European movies, they were “real Mexican movies” and gave image to her cultural experience. She listened to music like the “Corridos” which was a genre that sang about the Chicano struggle by telling tales of love and hate and rising up against their oppressors. She was unable to identify with the Anglo rock-and-role and country-western music of the 50s and 60s, but was excited by the feelings she got when she listened to the sounds of Chicano grooves. Her culture and the things she loved about it revolved around her Chicana culture.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading Anzaldua's "How to Tame a Wild Tongue," I made quite a few realizations about how similar of a situation I myself was put in and am still in ever since my parents came to the U.S. from Bangladesh.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first came, I had my own way of speaking English. I had an accent but my grammar was usually correct. I remember my teacher always correcting the way I pronounced words in class as we read aloud. It always made my embarrassed and discouraged me from reading aloud in front of people. However, until reading this article, I never quite looked at my teacher in a negative light. Yes, she did embarrass me. But I felt that she was only trying to help me pronounce words the proper way. To me it seemed like the right thing to do. If someone of a different language cannot pronounce my Bengali name, I help them in pronouncing it correctly. I don't just leave them pronouncing it wrongly. That only makes me disappointed and annoyed--as, my parents did not name me that. I believe language is similar. Words are meant to be pronounced in a certain way, and it's not wrong for people to correct one another with the proper pronunciation.
Also, if we had all different dialects it would be so difficult to communicate with each other. Take India for example. There are over 30 dialects being spoken there. People in the north rarely understand people in the south. Thus, to solve this problem, everyone makes sure they know at least a little bit of Hindi, the main language spoken. Our "main language" in the States is standard English. It's necessary for us to learn it so that we may effectively communicate with one another. Whereas, I may pick up slang talk from school and friends, if someone spoke like that to my mother, she would have absolutely no idea what they are saying. She made the effort to learn Standard English since it's not her language either. It's impossible for us to learn everything.
I understand that the author is stating how culture goes with language. However, from my experience, you can maintain your culture while learning about another one. There is no need to restrain oneself to just his or her own culture.
Akther