Christina's Response Paper

[Christina S.]

Response Paper: Language and Ethnicity
To be completely honest, the relationship between language and ethnicity had not occurred to me until I read this chapter. In general, the term “ethnicity” for me has always been kind of slippery, as it is also stated in the chapter. I guess I was aware of the fact that many different (linguistic) variables are related to ethnicity but it still was abstract for me and therefore difficult to imagine. Back in Germany, I would say that I belong to the ethnic majority so that I can definitely relate to the feeling of having no specific ethnicity. So, during the last couple of years, I did not really consider myself having an ethnicity. Since I am here in the United States for my study abroad, that feeling has obviously changed. As the chapter made clear, many clearly different ethnic groups may share the same mother tongue. The English language is one appropriate example for that. Most ethnicities with English as their mother tongue would not consider themselves the same ethnicity as another one just because they speak English as well. Would Australians think they are part of the same ethnicity, that they are part of the same group as Americans, or Scots? I am sure they would not. According to the text, many factors go into ethnicity. It is a complex concept, entailing self-identity, shared experiences in a specific community or community segment, at various levels, and many other factors. Thus, language is only one factor in the ethnolinguistic description of people, or an ethnic group.
One thing that struck my attention while reading the chapter was that an ethnic majority is generally seen as unmarked, as the “norm”, while the term “ethnic” tends to be reserved for groups that are thought of as marked “the other”. These groups, which are often minority groups, at the same time are considered to not generally be afforded positions of power in the social hierarchy. From my point of view, the distinction between the “unmarked”/ the “norm” and the “marked”/ the “other” already seems to be the basis for all ongoing racist thoughts. Why do some people think that nations should be ethnically and linguistically homogenous, why do they think that a community of broken language/English is no community, when, in reality, that is very rarely the case?
Reading this immediately made me think of the situation Germany is in right now. Since 2015 there have been more than 800.000 refugees who have come to Germany. People call them outsiders, strangers, foreigners, and even criminals not only because of the language barrier. There is also a sizeable Turkish minority living in Germany, many of who are temporary migrant workers and who do not have a very good reputation among German citizens. Over the years Germans came up with the derogatory term “Kanacke” which can be compared to the N-word in the English language. Like the N-word, that term is considered as a racist term when a person from the out-group uses it, but it can also serve as a positive identity marker when used by the group itself.
Another point I also would like to refer to is the negative attitude a lot of English speakers have towards African American English or generally towards certain dialects. The German language, just like the English language, has numerous dialects and many of those variations are found all over the country. The two main dialects of German are High German and Low German, then High German is divided into further sub-groups. Nonetheless, nearly all German speakers understand each other as all dialects are mutually intelligible. However, when it comes to applications or job interviews, it is well-known that people who speak the so-called High German, that is also taught in school, have not only better chances to finally get the job but are also considered to be more intelligent and more educated. This goes so far that there are even classes available for people who have a dialect to learn High German.
In my opinion, this seems to reflect a hierarchical idea of human speech and language that was also addressed in the chapter: people tend to judge and to rank different varieties of one language from worse to best, or from lowest to highest. For me it is odd that, with all the information that is available nowadays, people, when using the word "dialect", still refer to a substandard form of language, or a language of a more "primitive" culture. The question that comes to my mind when thinking about this is what does it take for people to finally come to the conclusion that no variety of a language is inherently inferior to another one.
Some ethnic groups identify themselves with their language in a very tight way. They say: “You speak that language, so you are a member of that ethnic group.” This is often the case in some countries in the central and eastern part of Europe. Other ethnic groups perceive the relationship in a different way. A couple of years ago, a friend of mine met a group of tourists from Finland. They told her that they speak Swedish at home and mostly at work, but that they feel Finnish deep inside. That was difficult to understand for me because it showed how complex the concept of ethnicity is and by how many factors it can be influenced.
A couple of years ago, I visited Austria, a small German speaking country, located directly next to Germany. There is no Austrian language, but there is a large number of dialects of the German language which are used in some - often small - areas of the country. Some of the people I know who live in Austria say they feel to be members of German ethnicity, others strongly disagree with this concept. They feel their ethnicity is Austrian although they speak German, and they can come up with a large number of reasons why Austrian people cannot be compared to German people. This emphasizes that the relationship between language and ethnicity is complex, and that “different” from the norm can mean different things in different areas, dependent on the way people have been upbrought and taught and how the relationship is perceived in their family, among their friends and in their culture.

[Haiyan C.]

Hi, Christina !
To be honest, I do not notice the relationship between ethnicity and language until I saw your article. What you mentioned in the article is completely an unfamiliar field for me. I can say that I don't know anything about it. But this is indeed a good learning opportunity. With it, I can breifly learn about it.In my opinion, the Chinese seem to have no obvious ethnic distinction. They may be mainly based on people of different skin colors or people from different countries, such as Mongoloid，Caucasoid，Australoid and Negroid.Or judging them from different minority ethnic groups, such as Yi, Bai, Yi and so on. The Yunnan province where I am located is the province with the most ethnic minorities in China. It has 25 ethnic minorities except the Han nationality. And each nation has its own language, or a written language, or a oral language. They form a national culture, each of which is indispensable.
American Black English is a most typical case for illustrating the relation between language and ethnicity. Although there is no need to have a distinct variety to differentiate the Black people from the majority group in the United States, a distinct dialect of English has developed in the US known as Black English and other features which occur in standard dialect. These linguistic differences act as symbols of the African-Americans.
Black English is heard especially in the northern cities of the United States. One of its most distinctive features is the complete absence of the copula verb be in some social and linguistic contexts. In most speech contexts, speakers of standard English use shortened or reduced forms of the verb be. In other words, people do not usually say She is very nice but rather Shes very nice. They reduce or contract the is to …s.
Many ethnic groups use a distinctive language associated with their ethnic identity. Where a choice of language is available for communication, it is often possible for an individual to signal their ethnicity by the language they choose to use. Even when a complete conversation in an ethnic language is not possible, people may use short phrases, verbal fillers or linguistic tags. For example, when Chinese come across people of Asian origin in other countries, it is often the case that they tend to signal their ethnic background with Chinese linguistic features which can help easily find out whether they are of the same ethnic background.
Different races may use the same language, and the same race may use different languages. This is normal. Language should be a bridge, not an obstacle.
And these are my thoughts.