Kimberly M. Craig
SUNY Binghamton
ANTH 517: Linguistic Anthropology
Dr. Sabina Perrino
December 2018
ABSTRACT
In this article I focus on the linguistic challenges that are specific to romantic couples whom do not speak a mutual native language. I explore common misunderstandings and repair procedures, the ways in which technology is utilized to help facilitate understanding, and how love is expressed when there are barriers of language or distance. I argue that language ideologies play a large part in choices of romantic utterances. While there has been much work done on both cross- cultural communication and the relationship between gender and language, this research attempts to marry the two subjects. Pun intended.
KEYWORDS
cross-cultural communication, misunderstanding, digital communication, language ideologies, second language, romance
INTRODUCTION + INSPIRATION = LOVE
All relationships have problems. There is a multi-million-dollar self-help industry attempting to guide people through their relationship woes. A majority of these struggles are rooted in difficulties in communication (Ahearn, 2017). If these problems are abundant in relationships where both partners speak the same language, imagine dynamics where the parties come from completely different cultural backgrounds. Many would consider these burdens too much to bear and might wonder why anyone would ever put themselves in such a difficult situation.
Some people specifically seek out these kinds of arrangements. As the late Maya Angelou once wrote, "Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope.” (Hillin, 2014). One Korean man, Jinuk, who was interviewed for this research, admitted that he is only interested in dating foreign woman, claiming that the struggles are exciting. In his opinion, the language barriers and miscommunications make everyday life more interesting.
As the world becomes more interconnected and more cultures collide, these types of relationships are becoming commonplace. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2015, one in every six newlyweds were married to partners of a different ethnicity (or race) which accounts for about 17% of the marriage that year (Livingston, 2017).
This is actually how I fell into this topic. I was having endless misunderstandings with my new partner who did not speak English as his first language. As someone who, like Jinuk, also gets a thrill from the complicated mess that is intercultural dating, I found that my struggles were largely rooted in language. Having dated several people from different cultural backgrounds, I noticed certain patterns emerging in the kinds of communications errors that were occurring. Having developed my own set of strategies to combat misunderstandings, I became curious what other couples in similar partnerships were doing to facilitate understanding in a dynamic riddled with linguistic landmines. I wanted to know how they were using technology to overcome these obstacles and if the expressions of love were used equally between the two languages.
I <3 GUMPERZ BAILEY SILVERSTEIN GERSHON : A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Just as Norman Rockwell’s sailor (Rockwell, 1944 - fig. 1) has been inspired by many woman, so too has this research been inspired by multiple linguists. Straddling numerous types of communication requires references from multiple bodies of work.
John Gumperz, being the authority on interactional communication, was important to consider while thinking about the ways in which couples communicate and how understanding is co- created. This was especially important when considering that these couples not only come from differing language backgrounds, but also different cultures, each with their own conventions. According to Gumperz, these conventions “affect all levels of speech production and interpretations from the abstract cultural logic that underlies all interpretations to the division of speech into episodes” (Gumperz, 1982).
It goes without saying that interlocutors that don’t have full knowledge of the others language rely on more than just words to communicate. When conversation breakdowns occur, prosody, context cues, code-switching, and code-mixing are used to steer mutual-understanding in the same directions. While perfect understanding is an impossible achievement, in his 1979 classic, Discourse Strategies, Gumperz states “It is easier to get things done when everyone concerned has the same background than when backgrounds differ“ (Gumperz, 1982). Unfortunately, couples from this study will never have that luxury and will forever need to fight the unassailable obstacle of language.
Benjamin Bailey built off Gumperz’s work in his 2005 research on misunderstanding. Bailey argues that no two people can share identical understandings of a situation. He challenges the notion that understanding as the default in communication and argues that some level of misunderstanding will always be present (Bailey, 2005). This is especially apparent in cross cultural misunderstandings. By using Bailey’s framework of dividing a misunderstanding into three levels (1) sign, (2) person’s meaning of the sign, and (3) significance of the signs use in that particular context (Bailey, 2005), I attempt to deduce common roots of miscommunication that occur between couples that don’t share a native language.
After the communication breakdown events, I also look at the repair procedures, or how the miscommunication was rectified (Schegloff, 1992 via Bailey, 2005). These procedures range in techniques and can be accomplished through different modes of communication.
Another key concept that was important to this research is Michael Silverstein’s work on language ideologies, which he defines as “a set of beliefs about a language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (Silverstein, 1979 via Kroskrity, 2009). Couples’ attitudes and opinions of each other’s language heavily affect their preferences in expressing romantic sentiments. The option to express “I love you” in one language over another isn’t always rooted in dominance or proficiency, but the ideas that certain languages are viewed as more meaningful or romantic.
Lastly, due to the frequency that most of these couples are subject to being long-distance, choices in telecommunication platforms are of interest. Building from Silverstein's language ideologies, Ilana Gershon coined a similar concept that applies to media platforms. She defines media ideologies as a “set of beliefs about communicative technologies with which users and designers explain perceived media structure and meaning” (Gershon, 2010). Couples preferences to use email vs Facebook messenger, for example, can be swayed by the functionality as well as limitations of each platform. In her book, Break Up 2.0, Gershon argues that “Medium is part of the message” (Gershon, 2010).
SKYPING ABOUT LOVE: METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION
The video chat application, Skype, was used to conduct interviews with the ten couples who are in intercultural relationships selected to participate in this study. All pairs were in heterosexual partnerships hailing from a total of nine countries. Seven different languages were represented, and participants had varying degrees of acquisition within their second languages. Relationships varied in both status and duration, with the average couple being married for more than five years. Most of the pairs live together in either Asia or the USA. All couples had spent a least a portion of their relationship long distance. The participants are listed by pseudonyms that they have chosen and will be referenced throughout this report by either their couple number when referred to as a unit or pseudonyms when referred to as individuals. The names in bold indicate the partner who was interviewed.
Audio was recorded during the Skype interviews amounting to roughly eight hours of material. The interviews were semi-structured, and all participants were asked the same eight questions. In two of the interviews both partners were present, while the other eight, only one member of the pair was represented.
On top of the interview, all participants sent screenshots of text messages from communications with their partners. Samples involved either a miscommunication or another factors of speech that were mentioned during the interview, such as expressions of love or emoji usage. These samples are analyzed below.
THE PROBLEM WITH LITERAL TRANSLATIONS: “SOMETHING HAPPENED”
The misunderstanding event submitted by couple number one took place during a text message exchange. At the time of incident, the couple had only been dating a few months and predominately used English as their main language of communication (90% English and 10% Mandarin). Dawen, a PhD student from China, had been living in the USA for over five years and had a firm grasp of the English language, but still struggled with idioms and nuanced connotations of everyday expressions. The text message was initiated by Holly, also a PhD student but native to the US, who was expecting Dawen to arrive at their agreed time of 9pm.
This exchange, though short, went through a range of tones that hinged on the misunderstanding of a single phrase used in line 3, “something happened”.
The conversation begins with Holly pointing out that Dawen is late in a passive aggressive tone that could be interpreted as annoyance (this was confirmed in line 25 of the resulting conversation listed below). After she still doesn’t hear from him for more than ten minutes, she sends a follow- up text asking if he is “still planning on coming over” implying that she’s wondering if the date is cancelled. The tone of the conversation then changes once Dawen responds in line 3 with the key phrase “something happened”. Holly’s response in line 5 denotes worry which is accentuated in line 6 with her questioning his safety coupled with the use of multiple question marks.
Dawen uses contextual cues, defined as “the means by which speakers signal and listeners interpret what the activity is, how semantic content is to be understood and how each sentence relates to what precedes or follows” (Gumperz, 1982), to correctly recognize Holly’s concern by assuring her that he is safe with his immediate response (sent within the same minute) in line 7. Dawen also indicates that the severity of her response was a least somewhat unwarranted which can be gleaned by his use of the acronym “LOL” (laugh out loud) at the end of his sentence in line 7.
I was fortunate enough to capture the repair procedure, which Schegloff defines as “the range of techniques used by both parties in interaction to resolve what they perceive as some problematic aspect of the talk” (Schegloff, 1992 via Bailey, 2005) during the audio recorded interview as the purpose of their 9pm meeting was for this interview. This portion of the conversation happened an hour into the recording after all the questions were asked and speech was more naturally occurring.
The couple establishes that the event causing Dawen to be late had to do with him needing to give his neighbor a ride somewhere. It’s clear that is situation was not dramatic enough to merit Holly’s concern for his safety, but Dawen’s lack of knowledge regarding the nuanced connotation for the phrase “something happened” in English lead to this misstep in mutual understanding. During the repair event, Holly defines her sense of the phrase and provides Dawen alternative expressions to use in the future when he encounters this sort of situation.
J. K. Chick has a great metaphor for this type of miscommunication involving unsynchronized ballroom dancing who are out of step and trampling on each other’s toes (Chick, 1990 via Bailey, 2005). Had this couple had the same cultural knowledge of the language (dance steps), they would have been able to communication (dance) fluidly (gracefully) and with understanding (coordination).
Using Bailey’s levels of miscommunication, we can identify (1) the sign as the phrase “something happened”. But to determine (2) Dawen’s meaning of the sign, and (3) the significance of him using it in this particular context, more information is needed, specifically how this phrase is used in Dawen’s native language of Mandarin.
The example of “something happened” came up in a later interview with Ava, a Scottish woman living in China who is married to a Chinese man and fluent in Mandarin. She revealed a possible explanation for the use of this phrase to which Dawen later agreed in a follow up interview.
What’s made clear in this from this explanation is that Dawen’s use of “something happened” was from a literal translation from a Chinese expression, 有事儿 - yŏu shìr, that would be used had Dawen been speaking Mandarin with Holly rather than English. While this expression is appropriate to use for the same situation in Chinese, its common translation doesn’t cover the same variety of situations in English.
To get back to Bailey’s model, we can now see the Dawen’s (2) meaning of the “something happened” was literally that “something” (serious or not) has happened that was causing him to be late. The (3) significance of him using the phrase in this context was to give reasoning as to why he hadn’t arrived yet.
Without prior knowledge of the subtle differences in this literal translation, Dawen relied on, what Edward Sapir called habitual grooves of expression (Sapir via Robert K Herbert & Stephen Straight, 1989), by using a translation of a phrase that he had a habit of using in order to respond to a situation that in this case wasn’t culturally appropriate.
This common mistake of using literal translations, which are often a source of great humor, can also lead to more consequential misunderstandings. Most participants in this study had a least one example from their own relationships like this. This phenomenon is a humanized equivalent of using Google Translate to communication - which is never a good idea.
WHAAA?: OTHER COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS
The couples in this study provided a plethora of examples of misunderstandings that they have experienced over the course of their relationships. Common themes included errors in pronunciation, lack of cultural knowledge, and differences in understanding of cultural politeness. Some examples are listed below.
• Multiple participants cited misunderstandings that had to do with troubles with pronunciation due to phoneme differences between the two languages. Couple number two struggled with differentiating the words “copy” and “coffee”. Jinuk, a photographer in his 30s, used the Korean phonemic understanding of the pronunciation of the two words, which lead to the couple ending up in a “coffee” shop as opposed to his German girlfriend, Mila’s, desired destination of a “copy” shop. Mila then showed Jinuk a map on her phone of the “copy” shop she wished to go to along with hand gestures to mime the word “copy”.
• There were also examples of gaps in shared cultural knowledge. Marie-France, a French artist, from couple number four thought that she was headed with her American boyfriend, Cliff, on a road trip to Las Vegas, NV, but ended up instead in Las Vegas, NM (unaware that the city even existed). The miscommunication resulted in her failing to pack the appropriate cold-weather apparel that was needed for the high-altitude mountainous environment of Northern New Mexico. This error was only corrected once the couple arrived at their destination.
• Several couples also cited miscommunications due to differing opinions of cultural politeness. Most examples referenced conflicting opinions of appropriateness when discussing their partner’s appearance. Often it was the female who felt criticized by their male partner’s comments about their body, specifically their weight. In these situations, the male partners claimed their comments were intended to be helpful. These situations were often remedied with a look that signified displeasure, usually followed by a longer conversation where the partners explained their feelings.
TECHNOLOGY AS A SOLUTION
Most of the above-mentioned conversations errors were corrected using contextual cues made possible by speech elements such as intonation, tone, stress, and rhythm, called prosody (Gumperz, 1982). These hints at emotions were only able to be recognized due to interlocutors sharing the same space. This may leave one to believe that face-to face communication would always be the preferred method of communication between couples who encounter daily miscommunications. Jinuk explains how digital messages can be difficult to decipher in any language, especially languages in which you are not completely fluent:
“{I prefer to communicate with my partner} face-to-face because text message have a Limit. I... can’t read the emotion so ... even {in Korean} I really don’t know what’s going on there. (.) Something happen? It’s okay? Not? (.) But in my other language {English} it’s more hard....“Fine. Okay.” (.)That means a little bit mad?... is she mad at me?... I don’t really know.(.) And after I check. “Oh it’s totally fine. I didn’t mad it. I just busy.” So face-to-face I can understand more.” --Jinuk
While many of the participants of this study agreed that they generally prefer face-to-face communication, there were certain circumstances in which text-based communication was preferred. I found a large portion of these preferences were based on abilities in the different subcategorized of language skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. Just as the ability to speak a language does make one literate, competency across these four skills are rarely equal. Depending on where and how participants acquired their second language and their level of fluency, they may be more comfortable with text-based modes of conversing which cater to those with stronger reading and writing skills.
Text-based communication has the luxury of time: time to formulate thoughts, correct errors, or even look up translations if unsure how to express something in a second language. This is particularly desirable in interactions where mistakes can detract from desired meaning as in the following examples:
• Sophie, a Turkish graduate student living in the USA, noted that she prefers to fight with her American boyfriend, Paul, via text message. Texting allows her to correct her grammar mistakes that may otherwise minimize from her anger. She also noted that she felt more comfortable swearing in written form, so she didn’t have to say the taboo words aloud.
• Marie-France also used text-based forms of communication when she wanted to express anger out of fear that her grammatical mistakes would make her look stupid in the types of conversations where sternness is essential to the message:
“I think when it was serious,(.) text was better because I could take all the time I need to structure my ideas (.) And look for the good wo::rd and not being interru:pt ... {but if I had to confront him directly}... I would have draft ideas in English before confronting him so that it’s clear in my head. How to say it and everything...I had 20 notepad with HOW many angry letters {and} break up letters” -- Marie-France
• Michiko, a Japanese designer living in the USA uses text to navigate emotional conversations. The written format allows her to use her dictionary to look up vocabulary words she wasn’t sure of.
• When it comes to romance, Holly thought it was less embarrassing to flirt in Chinese via text than vocally.
“...especially with all the tones in Chinese.(.2) I could be trying to say something super sExy. And get a tone wrong (.) and the conversation quickly veers into a coMEdic event.“ --Holly
What’s made clear by these examples is that text-based communication should not be seen purely as obstacle, but rather as a mode of communication that has equal benefits and disadvantages.
MEDIA IDEOLOGIES - LINE
It should be noted that even within the realm of text-based communication there is an overabundance of options to choose from. Each platform comes with its limits in functionality and socially-constructed uses. In Illana Gershon’s book, The Break Up 2.0, her students discuss their opinions of how different digital platforms should and should not be used. She notes that they found email to be very formal whereas text messages are more informal and therefore inappropriate for interactions such as breakups (Gershon, 2010).
These kinds of media ideologies are made apparent in the platform choices couples use during times when circumstances force them to be long distance. Most couples from this study agreed with Gershon’s students that email was too formal and was only used when discussing formal matters such as details in travel plans or logistics after a breakup. As mentioned earlier, email was also a good format for long-winded sentiments of anger that might be otherwise interrupted in a medium that allowed for instant back-and-forth communication such as text message or Facebook messenger.
Platforms have the ability to simulate different forms of intimacy as represented in this illustration depicting the levels of closeness in a modern friendship where the closer the center, the stronger the intimacy.
While international texting and phone calls can be extraordinarily expensive depending on the service provider (See Fig. 5 ATT), there are several free messaging applications that allow couples to stay connected while they are separated by distance. Of the sample interviewed, Whatsapp and Line were the top favorites. Whatsapp was used more among the relationships where at least one partner was European, while Line was more likely to be preferred when at least one partner was Asian.
Line is a Japanese platform that is attempting to blur the lines between social media and messaging. Participants seemed to unanimously agree that their choice to use Line over other apps is based on one thing: the adorable emojis. The company itself refers their famously cute images as “stickers” and highlights them as their main selling point. Line is currently ranked within the top 50 social networking app on the Apple Store and boosts that it provides “tons of adorable virtual stickers {which} give your messages added spark...” (Apple, 2018).
This spark was certainly recognized by Marie-France of couple number four. During her interview she revealed that the last six months of her relationship, when Cliff was living in Japan, and she was at home in France, were only made possible due the level of intimacy the Line stickers were able to convey.
“I’m SURE that the relationship lasted for so long because of the CUTE Line emoticons.(.) The range of feelings that you can express using cute emoticons is incCREDible. And it opened a whole new languages possibilities. And moreover (.) it’s also always cute or nice or or (.) it convey nice feeling. And and and (.) good things when you receive it. (.) So I’m SURE that it nurture the ilLUsion of the relationship we were having. And the connection we were having (.) when it was just about how well the emoticon were designed.” -- Marie-France
She went on to say that while she was disappointed with any conversation that they had via telephone or video chat and would only look forward to their sticker conversations. Marie-France credits the stickers to inciting feelings of intimacy that were not being conveyed by vocalize speech events.
“I remember this feeling. But because when you are at the end of the relationship (.) you don’t get along well. And so on MY side I wasn’t feeling the connection when talking with hi:m. Or I was BORED or not interested then (.) viola. Whereas when I received a LINE thing ... a bonne (.) I had feelings cause it was cute! U:h (.) I will feel stuff!” --Marie-France
Had Marie-France and Cliff have chosen another platform would their relationship have lasted through those last six months?
EMOJIS :)
Emojis were a common theme during these interviews and most participants brought them up without being prompted. Interviewees commented how picture-based messages could function as a mutually intelligible language. This was especially useful for partners who had limited language overlap. Couple number five had the least mutual understanding of each other’s languages when they first started dating. Brittany was studying abroad in France when she met Pierre. He spoke no English and she was struggling with the most basic level of French. In early face-to-face interactions, they relied on google translate for even the simplest conversations.
Facebook messenger was their platform of choice at the time, as Brittany didn’t have a data plan that allowed for texting. During her interview she recounted how important emojis were during that first year of their relationship while she was learning French because she found that they were quickest way to convey feelings. Because they don’t require proficiency of any specific language, using emojis evens the playing field in relationships where one language dominates causing one partner to be at least mildly disadvantaged.
CODE MIXING(KO)
But even couples that are completely fluent in each other’s language benefit from the added value that emojis bring to a conversation. The following is a Line conversation between couple number seven, who have been together for 12 years.
The stickers in this interaction are only used for added nuance and enjoyment, and do not need to be relied on for understanding. Michiko, a Japanese designer and her husband James, an American meditation instructor, are equally fluent in each other’s language, which afford them the luxury of switching back-and-forth between Japanese and English as they please. Having been together for so long, they have created their own patterns of speech that would be difficult for any outsider to discern.
In the couples Line conversation from figure 7, multiple languages are at use.
• English
• Spanish
• Romaji (Romanized Japanese)
• Jinglish (mix of Japanese + English)
• (Emoji)
The message is transcribed below with the languages noted.
This conversation transpired while the couple were long distance for month while James was away for work. Michiko is checking in with her husband to see how his day went. The conversation begins with her asking what he ate for dinner, weaving together multiple languages.
While there is a mix of languages throughout the conversation, only line 5 would qualify as what Gumperz calls code switching, or “the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems.” (Gumperz, 1982). Instead, the dialogue from figure 7 contains more examples of code mixing. In a recent lecture linguist, Dr. Stephen Straight, playfully summarized code mixing as “two languages in a blender”. Both concepts involve hybridization of the two languages, but code switching is used to serve a particular purpose, often to change the type of speech event, whereas code mixing does not (Khullar, 2018). In the conversation between couple number seven, the move from one language to another does not define the onset of a new speech event. The couple continues to stay on the same topic with no marked shift in tone or content.
Within the first sentence three languages are used. In line 1, “dinko” is a mix of the English word “dinner” with the Japanese word “ko”. Ko (子) literally translates to “child/baby”. During a follow- up interview the couple explained that adding “ko” to the end a noun is a way to make a word sound cuter. This could be seen as the English equivalent of adding the letter “y” to the end of word to infantilize or soften it as in “dad > daddy”. Michiko explained:
“That’s why you see so many Japanese girls names with -KO. Even my name has a -ko. It’s cuter that just {Michi}.” --Michiko
This softening of the word “dinner” is followed by the Spanish word “papi”, meaning “daddy”, which Michiko regularly uses as a pet name for James. She explained that in Japanese culture it’s common for wives to call their husband’s “daddy” especially, once they have children. While couple seven does not currently have kids, they have adopted this practice and put an Americanized spin on it. Living in a large US city has exposed Michiko to an abundance of Spanish, some of which she has incorporated into her daily vernacular. So, the first line would roughly translate to “What was your dinner, daddy?”
The same principle of adding “ko” to part of an English word was reciprocated by James in lines 2 and 5, demonstrating his clear understand of the code mixing that Michiko performed. James lists the items he had eaten implying that they are not healthy options in line 5 where he constructs a sentence using English, Jinglish and Japanese.
The word “bonko” (ぼんこ), while Jinglish, would not be intelligible to anyone else fluent in both Japanese and English. This is because “bonko” is a word that Michiko has created herself which has gained regular use in communication between the couple. Michiko explained that she likes to call James “Boom Boom” which at some point became shortened to “boom” which then became “bon” because she thought that it sounded more Japanese. The adding of the -ko was an obvious softening to make the nickname even cuter. The word “bonko”, is the couple’s shorthand for “Cutie Boom Boom”. The nonsensical nickname would not be automatically decipherable to anyone fluent in the two languages without background and context.
“Naru” (なる) is the Japanese verb for “to become”. So, line 5 would translate to, “Cutie Boom Boom will become fat.” This is the single sentence that might fall into the category of code switching, as James moves from the English grammatical format (SVO) to the Japanese structure (SOV). It’s impossible to deduce his intentions for this switch, especially without seeing the rest of the conversation.
The uses of multiple nicknames, -ko endings, and Michiko’s extended “aw” (with six double-us) all indicates the level of tenderness this couple is attempting to communicate with one another while they are temporarily separated by distance. It’s clear that they are expressing affection without actually saying the words “I love you”.
HOW DEEP IS YOUR LOVE?
What became obvious during this research is that the ways in which couple expressed love varied greatly. Even the actual utterance of “I love you” was used differently. While the expression has a one-for-one translation in all the languages represented in this study, the couples do not always use them interchangeably.
ENGLISH I love you
FRENCH Je t’aime
GERMAN Ich liebe dich
JAPANESE 愛してる (ai shiteru)
KOREAN 사랑해 (sa lang hae)
MANDARIN 我爱你 (wǒ ài nǐ)
TURKISH Seni seviyorum
Although these phrases all had the same literal meaning, the connotations varied causing certain phrases to feel heavier than others. When asked which translation of “I love you” felt more meaningful, the results were as follows:
My original hypothesis was that one’s native language would always feel stronger, as participants would have the most experience and familiarity with their mother tongue. In most cases this was true.
Of the 14 people interviewed 11/13 agreed that their own native language felt stronger. This predicted majority all cited similar reasoning
“Maybe {earlier on in the relationship} I would have not say “je t’aime” but I would have feel comfier to say “I love you” because it doesn’t hold the same meaning it’s not a::s u:::hhh (.) oui (.) meaningful as it is in French. Because it’s in other languages. So you can play with wo:rd and it’s not as deep as your own language.” --Marie-France
“When I say for example “I love you” in Russian to someone, (.) I wouldn’t feel like I could express myself. So I would say “seni seviyorum” so I can feel like I can express my feeling to that person.” --Sophie
While these sentiments accounted for 85% of participants, two people found the foreign language felt stronger:
“For me (.) when we said it in FRENCH (.) I feel like it has more meaning and weight...because when I say it in English it sounds almost strange...because I’m so used to putting the importance on knowing what “je t’aime” means to US (.) that if i say “I love you”...I feel like it doesn’t have the same meaning to US” -- Brittany
“So (.)“I love you is a very serious thing. And “salanghae - 사랑해” (.) not so much. I mean “salanghae - 사랑해” is a serious thing, but in Korea we can say like anytime.“ --EunKyeong
It should be noted that in both cases, both women are living in a foreign country where their male partners are unable to speak the female’s native languages. Brittany and Pierre live in France and only use French, and EunKyeong and Carl live in the USA and only use English. This led me to believe that maybe the local language (the dominant language of the culture in which one is living) affects which feels stronger. This was true 62% of the time.
Jinuk, a Korean man living in Korea, felt that “I love you” in his own native language was stronger. Even though he mostly uses English in his relationship with his German girlfriend, Mila.
“I think English is more instant, common greeting. (.) German - I don’t really know. (.) And Korean is a little bit more serious. Very carefully we use that.” --Jinuk
Jinuk hit on a sentiment that seemed to be shared cross culturally among many of the participants, that the English “I love you” was used too liberally and therefore lacked meaning. At one point he equated the English version to a handshake, whereas he regarded the Korean “사랑해 (sa lang hae)” a something sacred that should only be used on very special occasions. His ideologies of usage are made apparent in this Line exchange he had with Mila a few months into their relationship.
Jinuk begins the conversation attempting to expression his love in a poetic metaphor, but Mila mistakes his sentiments for drunkenness. This is followed by an explanation in line 4 where he tells Mila that he “super loves” her. What’s interesting here is that while he believes that the Korean “사랑해 (sa lang hae)” is stronger than the English “I love you” he’s reluctant to use the Korean even when it’s clear that he’s trying to express a weightier sentiment indicated by his use of super”. It could be argued that he doesn’t use “사랑해 (sa lang hae)” because the conversation is in English, but we know from the Mila’s use of “ᄏᄏ” (which is the Korean symbol for laughter, the English equivalent of “ha ha”) that she at least has a basic understanding of Korean and would probably understand a basic expression like “사랑해 (sa lang hae)”. There is no way to know Jinuk’s true intention of using the English over the Korean in this event, but I think it’s safe to say that language ideologies around the use of the different expressions of “I love you” at least partially factor in.
Michiko had a similar opinion.
“We don’t say “I love you” that much in Japan...it feels a little bit embarrassing .... because I don’t kno:::w. (.) People usually say “I like you”, “I like you” all the time Instead of like (.) “loving you”. Uhh...”愛してる (ai shiteru)” is like (.) too heavy and like (.) too strong word in Japanese (.) But like, in English, you know, it’s like su:per casual. You know “I LOVE YOU”. It sounds cuter. But ”愛してる (ai shiteru)” sounds more heavy. And (.) like too much. Ao we don’t say that a lot” --Michiko
I was curious, then, to look that the data to see how often this idea that the English “I love you” wasn’t as meaningful was shared.
Of the participants interviewed in this study, 69% agreed that the Non-English version was stronger, some of whom, as we’ve seen, were native English speakers.
There clearly isn’t one single reason why one language’s “I love you” feels heavier than another, but it’s evident that ideologies, language use within the relationship, as well as surrounding language environments are influences.
LOVE, KIMMY: A CONCLUSION
These kinds of intercultural relationships are equally exciting and frustrating: (A) exciting in that there is always more to learn about the other’s language and culture and (B) frustrating in that that there is no possibility of ever reaching absolute comprehension the other’s language and culture. Because of this mixed blessing, misunderstandings are inevitable.
A. Schultz writes that intended meaning is “subjective ... and without access to another's stream of consciousness, perfect understanding is essentially inaccessible” (Schutz, 1967 via Bailey, 2005). This is to say that no matter what we mean to convey, it will never be 100% understood. By accepting this as fact, we can use misunderstanding to our advantage and reframe them as educational opportunities (Bailey, 2005). Technological forms of communication can help aid in understanding but ultimately patience and the ability to anticipate misunderstandings is the best way in which to mitigate error.
Whether we say “Ich liebe dich”, “Seni seviyorum” or simply send a “<3” the basic meaning is all the same. Love is love is love across cultures, but the ways in which we decide to communicate that love is complex.
<3 = LOVE: TRANSCRIPTION AND MARKED LINGUISTIC FEATURES
REFERENCES CITED
Ahearn, L. (2017). Living Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology.
Apple. (n.d.). Line App. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/line/id443904275?mt=8
Bailey, B. (2005). Misunderstanding. In Alessandro Duranti (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 395–412). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405144308.2005.00001.x
Gershon, I. (2010). The breakup 2.0 : disconnecting over new media (1st ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. Retrieved from www.cup.cam.ac.uk
Hillin, T. (2014). 16 Ways Maya Angelou Taught Us How To Love | HuffPost Life. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/maya-angelou-love_n_5405609
Khullar, P. (2018). Difference between Code Mixing and Code Switching - LanguageLinguistics. Retrieved December 7, 2018, from http://languagelinguistics.com/2018/02/06/difference-code-mixing-code- switching/
Kroskrity, P. (2009). Arizona Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of a Dominant Language Ideology. In Alssandro Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic Anthropology (2nd ed., pp. 386–401). Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.
Livingston, G. (2017). Interracial and interethnic marriage vary widely by U.S. metro area. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/18/in-u-s-metro-areas-huge-variation-in-intermarriage-rates/
Robert K Herbert, & Stephen Straight. (1989). Compliment-Rejection versus Compliment-Avoidance. In Language & Communication (pp. 35–47). Great Britain: Pergamon Press plc.
Rockwell, N. (1944). The Tattoo Artist. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/94640
Comments