10/2: The languages of animals

If you’ve studied a language and then traveled to a place where that language is spoken, you’ve certainly had the experience of observing—and experiencing—the disconnect between how the language is taught, and how it’s spoken in reality. It’s no secret that the pragmatic and cultural nuances of a language require immersion and time to understand—something we try to cultivate, in a small way, at Open Hours each week.

Usually, when I discuss or think about the gap between academic language study and actual usage, it’s with a frustration: frustration that despite years of studying a language, there is still difficulty understanding its nuances, slang, or day-to-day usage. However, recently I have been wondering about whether formal study of a language can also shield you from certain aspects of its usage—namely, elements of social structure, hierarchy, and bias that are built into the language.

What does that mean? Here’s an example from my first language, English. Many linguists and writers have researched or observed the linguistic phenomenon in English of hedging, or using hedge words, and often take note of a tendency of women to use them than men, at least in certain English-speaking populations. Hedging means using word choice, tone, and other linguistic features that weaken the overall certainty or directness of speech, used to express, among other goals, uncertainty, politeness, or humility. 

For example, while presenting research on a topic, I could say: The research supports X conclusion. Or, I could say: I believe the research seems to support X conclusion, weakening my assuredness about the conclusion, in order to sound less assertive. Even writing this article, I’m tempted to scan through my words for places where I’ve hedged my meaning.

The explanation that appears repeatedly for why women hedge more than men, or at least are perceived as hedging more, and makes the most sense to me, is this: We hedge to avoid appearing overly confident and risk being seen as aggressive or bossy, as well as to try to seem ‘likable’ or please both sides on an issue—and we do this because of the historical social context that women were valued for charm, appearance, and precisely the lack of a strong opinion, over assertiveness or intelligence. And while more recent discourse on hedging has questioned the narrative that it is inherently “weaker” language, this small English linguistic habit is still a factor that can lead to women underselling themselves across all aspects of life, from interpersonal relationships to job applications.

This is just one example, deserving its own discussion and rigorous study, but every language has its own versions of this type of speech pattern, reflective of the social structures that are intertwined with the use of the language. Returning to my original question, it makes me wonder: Do learners of English as a second language tend toward the same type of gender divide in hedging as native English speakers do? I haven’t been able to find a research study on this, though it may exist. And while English could be a unique case due to its almost unavoidable prevalence in global media and classrooms, this type of question could be applied to all languages and their students. Small linguistic habits don’t get taught alongside vocabulary and basic grammar; they are learned through a lifetime of exposure to others’ speech. Could it be possible that more formalized language study ‘protects’ students from the linguistic habits that reinforce existing unequal social structures or concepts?

Of course, there is also the possibility that the unspoken 'biases' of a language become just as engrained in language curricula as grammar and vocab. And, on the other hand, perhaps attaining any level of actual fluency requires understanding these linguistic features. In my current Mandarin course, we have studied the relationship between women and the Chinese language/writing system—beginning with the fact that the modern character for “women” evolved from a pictographic one which depicts a woman... kneeling in submission. Even though it was difficult to listen to the way idioms, character structure, and linguistic history have mistreated women, it feels like a necessary step to fully understanding the language, and the culture—just like purposefully thinking about the way English reinforces existing social structures helps me better understand my community and our society.

Finally, I would add that immersion beyond the language classroom won't only expose you to the existing social structures and those linguistic habits that enforce them — it will also expose you to the many ways speakers of that language question its social structures, resist the use of restrictive linguistic features, and also creatively use the language itself to invent new ways of talking about and understanding the world. Language itself, paired with the creativity of humans, can be a tool to break past its perceived limits.

Finally—and I mean this in the most literal way, no hedging intended—I’m not an expert on language pedagogy or linguistics, so if you have thoughts or corrections, I would love to hear them!