Referring to "Speaking the language where you live" (http://www.progressiveu.org/170641-speaking-the-language-where-you-live)
I have some definite objections to the tone of the article, the supposition that there is one form of English is "proper", and the feeling that language should be based around her convenience, but none of those is my real concern.
HOW DID SHE MAKE GOOGLE LANGUAGE POSTS?!?
I just don't understand it. (If you are reading this, dolphinqt, congratulations.)
Dolphinqt does seem to have a general distaste for learning new languages, as expressed in her final question:
Sometimes I believe I need to learn the languages people speak to get by. I do not think I should have to.
Should I?
I would almost suggest she learn a new language for a new perspective, maybe to understand what is like to try and present yourself and communicate in a second language. She seems to have little respect for those struggling in their new tongue, even those who are genuinely making an effort to learn a new language.
Also, 'succeeding in life and business' is not so simple a thing as just learning the language of the majority, certainly if it is a second language picked up later in life. To express oneself solely in a foreign tongue can put a person at a natural disadvantage in competition with native speakers. (Not to mention the taboo topics of underlying racism and stereotypes still present, subtly and overtly, in many parts of daily life in America) As we discussed in class, if a person speaks a language too well, in a manner that seems contrary to what their appearance would suggest, they often are often not fully trusted, seeming like a spy or poser.
I do agree that there is something to be said for knowing the primary language of where you live, but as I have previously mentioned, I do respect the rights and choice of a person who decides not to learn a new language. In doing so, that person does give up certain language-based opportunities, but that is their free choice.
It is interesting what dolphinqt seems to think are inherent language rights, or that even such things exist.
She implies that:
A person speaking the language shared by the majority of residents of a country has a right to easily understand and
be understood in business and their daily life in that country.
Is this a fair statement? I'm curious what some of the members of our class where many different languages cover their countries of origin would think about this idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Also, here's another intersting post I found on the same site.
http://www.progressiveu.org/142415-i-didnt-flunk-because-im-behind-the-school-labeled-me-as-behind
The discussion in the comments brings a lot of interesting perspectives.
I wrote a response to her post too, and I agree that she should try to think from others' perspectives. (I also wonder how she got her post on the Google Alert.) Anyway, most of what I thought is on my blog, but I just wanted to respond to your last statement of her assumption. I agree with what you stated that she implied; a person speaking the majority language does have a right to easily understand and
be understood in that country. However, I don't think that's her full assumption. The problem with what she implies is that she thinks ONLY those who have learned the majority language deserve to be understood, and those who haven't mastered it can be dismissed. This is wrong, as I argue in my blog post. :)
Post a Comment