By JM
I’m writing this as a mostly loose follow-up to my initial blog post on the ethics of language learning—that is, if language is an extension of culture, then could learning another language be seen as cultural appropriation? I think I’m closer to my own understanding of this, which is that, yes, it is arguably cultural appropriation; however, I’m also now thinking that perhaps not all cultural appropriation is intrinsically negative. I know this is an extremely fraught proposition, but consider the following.
Let’s say a white English speaker (who only speaks English) doesn’t learn another language lest it be seen as cultural appropriation. This person then travels to a non-English speaking country, and because they don’t speak language x, English, then, might well be imposed as the default language of communication. In this sense, the ensuing communication in English might be perceived as a micro-realization of linguistic imperialism. So what is the lesser of these two evils? Or is it a false binary (legitimately asking)? Would it be better for this English speaker to learn language x, and arguably be guilty of cultural appropriation instead? And how helpful, if at all, would it be to consider the function of (cultural) language appropriation? Meaning that, if the function is utilitarian (e.g., getting a job, travelling), does that make it less egregious?
There seems to be much more of a consensus (i.e. categorical admonishment) when the function of the language appropriation is for an aesthetic which results in material and/or symbolic capital. In Hill’s The Everyday Language of White Racism, she describes linguistic appropriation as “a kind of theft” in which “speakers of the target language (the group doing the borrowing) adopt resources from the donor language, and then try to deny these to members of the donor language community” (p. 158). Hill goes on to argue what has been said in the comment sections of other posts, which is that “speakers use appropriated words and ways of speaking to make claims on a wide range of desirable qualities: learned, cosmopolitan, regionally grounded, cool, hip, funny, street-smart, tough, masculine, laid-back, rebellious, etc.” (pp. 160-161). Boylorn (2015) adds:
This cultural ‘borrowing’ of black language and phraseology happens regularly, allowing non-black folk to ‘try on’ black culture through the use of AAVE and slang without having to ‘put on’ the cultural consequences of actually being black in a culture conditioned to devalue and dismiss it.
To my mind, this is precisely the issue and speaks directly to the asymmetry of risk involved with certain language use. Given that Canada and America were, and continue to be, underpinned by white supremacist ideologies, it is not surprising that anti-black racism allows whites to sound ‘cool’, while BIPoC are further marginalized and discriminated against in schools and the work place for so-called inappropriate language use.
This is obviously a hugely complex issue that requires the root of the problem (white supremacy) to be addressed, not just one of its symptoms (language appropriation); however, Professor of Linguistics at Pomona College, Nicole Holliday, suggests that (1) acknowledging where words and customs come from, and (2) listening to marginalized groups without getting defensive are both good places to start. She adds, “when words from marginalized communities enter the mainstream, we should elevate the voices of their creators, instead of just taking their words.”
Very interested to discuss any of these points with you in class or in the comment section below.
References:
Boylorn, R. (2015, January 14th). Now that white people have declared ‘bae’ over, black people can use it in peace. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/14/white-people-declared-bae-over-black-people-can-use-it
Dukes, V. (2016). I’m not your ‘boo’: The politics of language. Retrieved from: http://newyorkschooltalk.org/2016/12/im-not-boo-politics-language/
Hill, J. (2009). The everyday language of white racism. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Holliday, N. (2017). When is lexical innovation cultural appropriation? Retrieved from:
The way that I’ve heard this topic explained is that there is a significant difference between borrowing words without considering their usage in the original culture and learning a complete language. Learning a language is perhaps better viewed as cultural appreciation than appropriation, as it intrinsically entails learning about the language’s culture(s), while picking up a few random words to sound cool most likely does not. Being able to speak a country or region’s language is generally seen as a positive thing as it demonstrates a desire to fit in with the host culture. For instance, in the Japanese context, many people there will assume that most non-Japanese people they encounter do not speak the language due to the country being a tourist hot-spot and the emphasis on English as a lingua franca. As a result, the most frequent reaction I have personally experienced to being able to speak Japanese is relief as it takes the pressure off of them to speak English in a country where English is not a first language. The reputation of Americans and by extent all Westerners as being “bad tourists” arguably stems partially from a lack of willingness to attempt to speak the destination country’s language, so I’m not convinced that calling language learning cultural appropriation holds water.
However, I do think it’s important to remember that there are, for instance, religious organizations that send missionaries and/or linguists to areas to learn the local language but with the goal of translating the Bible into that language and subsequently converting the population. In the context of Japanese, for example, there is very little risk to the population and its language with people choosing to learn the language, but for some smaller linguistic communities in danger of being forcibly assimilated or colonized, the motivations for language learning should be scrutinized. This sort of language learning with self-serving motivations is deeply troubling to me, and while I’m still not sure that it’s strictly cultural appropriation (what about cultural annihilation?), it is something worth thinking about.
I also think it’s important to think about the powers of languages when considering linguistic appropriation. For instance, with AAVE, black people are often labelled “ghetto” for using it, the claim being that AAVE sounds uneducated, but when white people appropriate it, it becomes fashionable and fun, much like how dreads on a black woman may be negatively framed (ref: Guiliana Rancic making a comment that Zendaya, while wearing dreads, probably smelled like patchouli oil and weed) while a white woman might be described with more positive words (ex. free spirited, bohemian, etc.). This disparity can understandably lead to resentment, as the speakers of languages of differing powers are logically also differently empowered. For instance, several years ago while studying in Japan, some friends and I paid to be dressed in kimonos to visit a temple during the springtime, and the thought of cultural appropriation crossed my mind, as some would say that wearing cultural costume while not being of that culture is appropriation. When I asked the woman dressing me her opinion, she stated that being dressed properly by a Japanese person and respecting the clothing made it okay, since I wasn’t trying to assume that I knew better how to do it. She added that recently, it has become fashionable for young people to wear mini versions of yukatas (a light cotton kimono worn in the summer) often not tied correctly, and she found that much more of an issue than some Westerners wishing to experience an element of Japanese culture by seeking out natives of the country for help. The issue is nuanced and complex!
tl;dr I don’t believe that languages shouldn’t be shared or that people should segregate themselves into their own separate camps, but I do think that we need to be conscious of whether or not we are being invited to share in something or are simply taking it for our own gain.
-Victoria
Hi Victoria,
Thanks for your reply. I’m inferring from your post that you think all cultural appropriation is intrinsically negative, which is certainly not unreasonable. I also take your point about needing to differentiate learning/using a language and learning/using select items from a language—though I’m not convinced that the dichotomy you’ve made between good and bad tourists is one that ipso facto absolves the ‘good’ ones of appropriation.
I’m also wondering about the term “cultural appreciation”, especially how it’s used (not necessarily by you) almost as a counter argument to, or defence against, “cultural appropriation”. In that sense, it seems (discursively at least—and I’m not trying to claim equivalence) that it’s almost the call and response of black lives vs. all lives. I have a sneaking suspicion that cultural appreciation could be a not-so-veiled white liberalism. Or, maybe it’s a necessary word to keep cultural appropriation negative so it doesn’t get so ambiguous as to be vacuous?
Ouf, this discussion is going into deeper waters than I know how to swim in! Going back to work by sociolinguist/linguistic anthropologist Jane Hill (she was extraordinary), James will remember the paper, assigned for the Monday evening class on Indigenous languages, in which she tells this story:
“A linguist who had learned to speak an indigenous language was conversing in it on the sidelines at a dance. he was assaulted by a…local man who threatened him…saying, “You white people have stolen every single thing we ever had, and now you’re stealing our language.” (Hill, Jane H. (2002). “Expert Rhetorics” in advocacy for endangered languages: Who is listening, and what do they hear? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 12, 119–133. http://www.rnld.org/sites/default/files/Hill%202002.pdf , p. 122).
Suzette Haden Elgin wrote a science-fiction story with exactly the same message—she is a bit of an acquired taste for some, but I go back to this often: http://www.sfwa.org/members/elgin/Story-Panglish.html
Elgin died in 2015 and Hill just last year. I for one want their work to live on! The arguments are COMPLEX. And nothing, NOTHING, is going to stop people from using whatever bits of language they feel like using. We are linguistic magpies…let’s at least try to be thoughtful and reflective magpies who try not to peck our fellow users of language in places where it will cause pain.
In reference to stealing language, in the state of language loss that my community is in I feel that the more people how are willing to learn, regardless of race, the better for us in terms of language preservation. I’ve also found that my non native colleagues make it a conscientious effort to learn our language than most of my community members.
Another great post by JM! thanks for your thoughtfulness and commitment to discussion! I have witnessed many instances of this type of appropriation of dialect over my years in NL. This has taken the form of: the appropriation of NLE dialectal items (that have become stereotyped) by a Torontonian attempting in-group membership socially at work (in fact he was misusing, constantly, the complex phrase “yes b’y” to mean yes, which it actually never does – more on this if you’re curious – it is fascinating!) ; the repeated use of certain NLE turns of phrase by Irish workers who, it was clear when Newfoundlanders were out of earshot, were actually mocking them ; my use of terms such as Nan for Grandma, which are not part of my own English dialect but which create an efficiency when I am working with primary school students. All of these instances must be read in the context of a country which has a longstanding class-based and linguistically-stereotyped relationship with its easternmost province. Indeed a McGill classmate only recently employed a (poorly rendered) accent and used the term “Newfie” to refer to the place in conversation with me.
I was shocked to learn that some of my S-LP colleagues correct phonetic characteristics such as ‘h-dropping and h-addition’ (ex: air for hair and hair for air) in students, presumably as a symptom of this bias against non-standard Englishes being adopted by speakers themselves. The CBC still sometimes subtitles video of Newfoundlanders’ speech. While most Newfoundlanders I have met are impressively bi-dialectal and their navigation of more standard forms is not appropriative, it has felt very appropriative to me to witness the ways in which we “mainlanders” have pillaged the language as it suits us, given that, as you point out, we needn’t live with the consequences for any longer than they appeal to us.
Amelia