TIL that some languages apparently have words inherently differentiating one's status as a citizen or resident of...
TIL that some languages apparently have words inherently differentiating one's status as a citizen or resident of the entity versus a member of a particular ethnic or cultural group? I don't quite grasp the whole thing, although I heard the point being made. What's interesting to me is a) that there is such a thing, which seems very revealing of something about a culture that would need such concepts built into the language, and b) that there seem to be people who think it's inaccurate to interpret the word choice as meaningful.
Firstly, since languages have all sorts of concepts built into them, many very specific to their primary culture of use, it seems reasonable that such a thing could exist. Not that I would have thought of it before, since I'm not from a culture where that sort of subtlety functions.
Secondly, if that is, indeed, the subtlety of the word choices, where one essentially and inherently includes people, and the other excludes, then I'd kind of have to think there's every reason to go with the direction of interpretation that's been brought up. Considering world history, with the suggestion that it should be of concern, as well.
Firstly, since languages have all sorts of concepts built into them, many very specific to their primary culture of use, it seems reasonable that such a thing could exist. Not that I would have thought of it before, since I'm not from a culture where that sort of subtlety functions.
Secondly, if that is, indeed, the subtlety of the word choices, where one essentially and inherently includes people, and the other excludes, then I'd kind of have to think there's every reason to go with the direction of interpretation that's been brought up. Considering world history, with the suggestion that it should be of concern, as well.
This would be the Russki/Rossiski thing?
ReplyDeleteI didn't know until a few days ago either, but now that I think about it, it's probably the norm after a multi-ethnic empire stands for more than a few generations.
ReplyDeleteEnglish v British. WASP v American. Hollander v Nederlander. Deutsch versus bayerisch/preussisch/etc.
ReplyDeleteMost languages have that, I think?
Except that WASP is usually (at least mildly) derogatory.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding was that it would be closer to say just anglo-saxon versus American, but still not quite the same. Interestingly, I've never been under the impression that wasp was particularly insulting, just elitist/exclusivist. Unless elitist is an insult, in which case, there you go.
ReplyDeleteJasper Janssen 's points are interesting. I never thought about it, but I really just thought of things like being Prussian as a sort of geographic indicator, same thing with Welsh, or what have you, and I assumed Hollander and Nederlander, and English and British were synonymous. Apparently, I was missing some pretty important subtext there.
No true Scotsman would appreciate being called English — it's one of those "common things you should not do to avoid being seen as an ignorant American" list items. Actually, holland versus the Netherlands is in there as well ;)
ReplyDeleteHolland was the foremost province of the Dutch Republic of Seven Provinces back in the seventeenth century, and really Holland is the historical core of our country — it holds the three largest cities (Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam), and it's from holland that the various parts became a country. But I'm still an Utrechter and not a Hollander, even though we're all Nederlanders. And of course all that interacts with the modern xenophobia/immigration angle these days.
Edumacational! Of course, it's interesting that it would possibly be ignorant as opposed to simply uninformed. Those really are concepts that just don't have an exact equivalent here, because nobody is from here in that same way. I know the concepts are not well explained in standard language textbooks, at least not basic ones. Just shows how you cannot separate a language from its context and how important it is to teach a language with its context.
ReplyDeleteIs there a difference between ignorant and uninformed? I'm pretty much using them as synonyms — ignorant comes from the Latin verb for not-knowing.
ReplyDeleteThere are degrees in this sort of thing, obvs — also depending on the degree of interbreeding and dialect usage. I saw a study the other day showing that in Britain, the upper class Eton Schoolboy type is genetically speaking still very close to Normans, the lower working classes to anglosaxons, and the middle class is more of a mix. Not sure how reliable that is, seems a bit pat.
Between Utrecht and Holland, we mostly all live in the randstad — the urban agglomeration consisting of the aforementioned three cities, Utrecht (together the Big Four of the country), and everything in between. The differences there are more geographical and sports team based than they are really genetically or language based (Amsterdam and Rotterdam is the worst local football derby in terms of hooliganism), but when you move out to The Province you get dialects aplenty, which will tend to keep people in place long enough for a significant fraction to get nationalistic feelings about the region.
I'm not as think as you drunk I am, BTW.
Jasper Janssen Last sentence, lols! I didn't know any of that about the Netherlands. It kind of sounds like the east coast megalopolis in the US. There's kind of one big continuous city from Boston to D.C.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. The two words are, I think, considered synonymous. But ignorant can carry the implication of not wanting to know or not caring to know, versus uninformed can suggest simply hasn't pursued the knowledge, or known it was there to pursue.
It makes me think of two specific past experiences. The first was in Venice, where I went into a little place to get a sandwich. Coincidentally, in line behind a sort of stereotypical American tourist couple. Unfortunately, there was a significant language barrier, and one of them decided the way to deal with that was to get loud and pushy, in a way that would have been obnoxious in the US, too, but you see it happen here. Thing is, I watched it happening and knew it was being regarded as just fulfilling a stereotype. That is something I would have described as more ignorant than uninformed. They didn't care.
(Not the first time I was grateful I spoke other languages, nor the only time I felt awkward about being American.)
The second was on the train between Italy and Austria. I was dozing in a compartment when several other people came in and were chatting about their experiences traveling around the world. At one point, they started talking about being in the US and Americans in other countries. It was interesting, because they seemed to have concluded that most Americans were decent, just didn't have much in the way of experiences with anything different than they lived with at home, partly because you had such a large area that shared a sort of general language and culture. I'm probably not communicating this well, but it left me with the impression that they pretty much thought a lot of people were clueless more because of being uninformed than ignorant. They didn't know they didn't know. I suspect that is probably not a perspective that seems reasonable in a great many places in the world, but it was interesting to hear.
That does seem about right, although by far the most visible are the "typical American tourists" stereotype of a middle aged couple in Hawaiian Bermuda shorts & shirt, big camera around the neck, doing the "repeat it louder and slower and they might suddenly speak English" trick, and saying to each other when they're convinced nobody does speak English how much better everything is back home.
ReplyDeleteThe decent Americans probably get taken for Canadians — I've even seen that as part of some travelogues, Americans actively pretending to be Canadian to avoid getting stuck under above mentioned stereotype.