What resonated with me throughout this panel were the various ways in which language is expressed even within this small pool of languages. In the Ganju language, the way a conversation is conveyed is equally as important as the words themselves depending on the social status of the individuals involved. When primarily english-speaking people think of a greeting, we conceptualize it as a casual exchange of one or two words and an off-hand, supposedly ‘universal’ wave. If someone does not respond, it’s off-putting, but reciprocation is not something necessarily expected. However, this is really just our own subjectivity. A greeting in Ganju is a long affair, rather than a simple affirmation of the connection that two people share, it is an intimate exchange where one must deepen their connection with the other by asking questions and investing time in order to invest the respect necessary to maintaining a relationship. More so than simply speaking to each other, a conversation must be maintained in the context of bodily positions that affirm the social dichotomy between individuals, such as lying down in a certain position when speaking to a chief depending on if one can become a chief or not. This not only shows deference to a chief, but also affirms and displays one’s own status. As a result, an introduction must include more details to remember than simply a name. These factors are deeply tied to the cultural history of the language; Gunja was developed alongside a strict caste system, and is spoken between a much smaller group of people than the standardized English, so this intimacy is reflected in these mechanics.
Some of the importance I saw in this discussion lay in the acknowledgement of personal subjectivity with ‘dominant’ language perspectives. English speakers see Mandarin as a difficult language because of the tonal aspects, approach to tense, and different alphabet. However, we internalized the mechanics of English such as our own approach to tense if we are native speakers. A native Mandarin speaker approaching English would see our alphabet and tense structure as different as well. As American native English speakers, we see English as the norm that most people speak, following an alphabet that many dominant languages use. However, even though English is the most spoken language in the world, Chinese languages have the most native speakers. We are simply isolated in our perception due to our environment. Even so, this subjectivity can also be utilized to relate to other cultures and reflect on the cultural dynamics that characterize our own, as the ASL professor demonstrated throughout the panel. This is why language learning is so important to me, it deconstructs the idea that our own personal culture and language is the only path worth pursuing as relevant to our life and interaction with the world. Truly, there is a much wider perspective that can’t be imagined without the cultural exchange facilitated by language learning. As a result, we become more critical, tolerant, and introspective members of our own culture, pushing a more enlightened approach to our native society by learning from the example of other countries.
It is precisely because of my appreciation for this dynamic that I wished we had more time to delve into the social implications of different dialects. Throughout my own language study I have observed the ways in which linguistic differences, especially through dialectical characterizations, can reinforce social structure. In academic Spanish classes in high school we learn and acknowledge the unique pronunciation used in Spain as well as a unique verb tense and way of speaking but oversimplify the importance of dialects in Latin America, minimizing the importance of indigenous languages as well as the cultural implications of linguistic development in a particular environment. Language is fluid, and constantly changing. In the context of international conferences, people who communicate through sign language tend to settle on a more standardized and simplified dialect as the summit proceeds in order to incorporate the community and environment existing in that context. Because China is a highly multi-dialectical country, the written language is constantly adapting to acknowledge colloquial speech through radicals in order to facilitate communication and information exchange. When we assert language domination and the “single story” in that way, we do our larger communities a disservice. Similarly, although we tend to think of China as such a particularly conservative and socially stratified society, many honorifics have been phased out of the language and the language has adapted through feminist activism. There is significant conservatism and oppression present in China, but that is not all there is. These concrete examples from the Chinese language fascinate this more accurate and informed perspective. In fact, the panel made me realize the inherent conservatism baked into the English language through our use of gendered pronouns, which do not exist in Chinese languages and Ganju.
Language learning invites an aspect of self-awareness and humility that is important for cultural exchange. Our deeply-held beliefs on respect cause us to profile the actions of other cultures and people, when this frame that we apply cannot fit over a completely different perspective. For example, in Spanish we do not capitalize the names of languages, whereas in English our capitalization of these nouns represent a way for us to respect and emphasize the legitimacy of these languages. Even so, I wished that we had explored the more negative social messaging embedded in language as in the case of discrimination through the framing of dialects. I know from my study of African American Vernacular in the education system that these techniques of oppression can deeply impact self-image especially in developing children in a way that reinforces the dominant culture and maintains a narrative of inferiority in relation to non-dominant cultures that do not communicate in a way that the privileged dialect does. There is so much complexity there, as African American Vernacular is continuously appropriated to appear stereotypically “cool” as non-black speakers dip in and out of its use without contending with the consequences of inequality. As a result, I wished to learn more about these dynamics in China, where there are many dialects alongside the standardized Mandarin that the professor called ‘artificial.’ The social construction of a language is something that deeply interests me, and I wanted to learn more about that dynamic. However, I struggled to formulate a question because I didn’t want to imply that I was forcing the professor to answer for inequality in China, or speak in a way that would imply moral superiority of my own culture in relation to linguistics. It was difficult to imagine how to convey what I wanted to describe, given my academic perspective on African American Vernacular, but also my identity as a white speaker of the dominant English dialect.
