Takeaway 5

Polinsky, Maria, and Olga Kagan. "Heritage Languages: In the ?Wild? and in the
Classroom." Language and Linguistics Compass Language Ling Compass 1.5 (2007):
368-95. Web. 22 May 2015.
I think it's interesting how the maintenance of language is changing so drastically
that there are many different terms and types of definitions for these terms
(narrow vs. broad and even a spectrum) in order to categorize these different
cases. I suppose it makes me wonder where I stand, but according to their
definitions, if I learned Japanese as a child and not as an adult, then it's possible
that by these terms that I'm a heritage speaker.
Just today in class we saw this, but this article made the interesting point that it's
naive to determine the "baseline" for languages due to the different dialects, just
as how some heritage students today in the heritage panel stated that they took
Vietnamese at the University of Washington because they spoke the southern
dialect rather than the standard northern dialect normally taught at institutions.
With every language I suppose we should always take with a grain of salt, what
the baseline is because there are many varying dialects (just as there is Mandarin
and Cantonese - one totally incomprehensible to the other but both coupled under
the "Chinese" label).
This article states that exposing a minority language child being exposed to a
majority language before the age of 5 puts the heritage language for the child at
risk, but there are many children who grow up bilingual, so what part of this
exposure makes it risky for the child? Is it age-specific or is this due to influence?
Sohn, Homin. "Intercultural Communication in Cognitive Values: Americans and
Koreans." (1983): n. pag. Web. 22 May 2015.
I thought it was interesting how this article stated how language somewhat dictate
social constraints and forms of communication. Just today, with the heritage
panel, I remember hearing one of the professors say during our small group
sessions that in Indonesia that it's okay to ask someone of their religion whereas
in the United States, it can be a sensitive topic, and I found that interesting how
different languages or even cultures could be different based on their forms of
communication.
I like how this article addresses that we can't relate one generalization of one
culture to the whole unless there's comparison available with another culture.
Today as well, this topic was brought up by the heritage panel in which it was said
that we can't associate one bad experience with a certain race with the whole, and
I think that this is a very important concept to grasp as we expand our
communities to other cultures.
This article kind of brought up this question, but I wonder why there's such a
distinction between interactions in Korean and English. Why is it the norm to use
deferential speech whereas in English it could be awkward to do so in certain
situations, or why is it impolite to say thank you after receiving a compliment?
Does culture have a role in shaping language, or is it the other way around?