"I don't want to call my husband's brother young master": How citizen sociolinguistic wonderment has led to the change in norms and practices
This
past weekend in Korea, we celebrated a harvest festival called Chuseok.
It is one of the only two three-day national holidays, which bring together
family members who live apart in distant cities to visit their hometowns and
family graves, to hold memorial services to their ancestors, and to share a
feast of traditional Korean food. It is this very nature of the holiday that instigates
active debate on various issues regarding family and traditions. Most controversial
among them currently is
the problem of the asymmetric address terms for one’s husband’s and wife’s
family members. This issue has received considerable attention from both media
and laypeople, which deserves examination from a citizen sociolinguistic perspective.
As someone living abroad and not having engaged in the practices of addressing
family members for a while, I watch the heat of social attention and debate
with wonderment and awe: What makes people suddenly feel uncomfortable with the
terms that they have been using for numerous years without even thinking about it?
In Korea, family members address each other using
specific terms that represent their relationship to one another. Depending on
your position within the family, you will be expected to call or address your direct
and in-law family members with different titles and designations other than their
names. Addressing your direct family members is not usually the subject of
lively debate that is going on at the moment. When it comes to addressing your in-law
family members, however, the titles and designations become quite complex and
awkward to the contemporary language standards that people raise questions and
doubts as to where those terms come from and whether it is appropriate to use
them in the context of contemporary Korean family culture.
Particularly, it has been suggested (mainly by younger
generation females) that there is a significant asymmetry between the address
terms for the husband's and wife's family members. The family trees below illustrate
some of those terms used for your in-law family members.
Images from Danuri: https://www.liveinkorea.kr/portal/USA/page/contents.do?menuSeq=3707&pageSeq=12
One prime example of the asymmetric terms is that the wife would address her husband’s younger brother—whether they are younger than her or not— “doryeonnim (a respectful title that traditionally refers to one’s young master)” or “seobangnim (another respectful title for one’s master)”, whereas her husband would address her younger brother “cheonam (a sino-Korean word that literally means one’s wife’s brother, without any respectful meaning).”
Speech level and the use of honorifics when you speak
to them would also be contingent on your relative position within the family. What
normally happens is that women speak in polite form and use honorifics to their
husband’s family members, regardless of the addressee’s age or birth order,
while men use casual speech to their wife’s younger siblings and their spouses.
Yes, this is the way people have been talking to each
other in Korean families. How come, then, have people become so conscious and
critical of this inequality in address terms between those of husbands’ and
wives’? Wonderment starts with “noticing.” Noticing of differences and
distinctions in language forms and their referents. The asymmetric address
terms reflect the ways Korean people have regarded their husbands’ and wives’
family—women will become part of (and usually live with) their husbands’ family
once they get married; men will be guests in their wives’ family. Therefore,
women treat their husbands’ family members with more respect and politeness.
Over the past few decades of nuclearization of
families and the advancement of women’s rights, the social positioning of man
and woman in a married relationship has become more and more equal. It is no
longer so common for the wife to move to her husband’s house and live with his family.
The wife and the husband treat each other’s family members in a more equal
term. This discrepancy in the actual practices and the language use has
probably created wonderment among people: Why is it that we address the wife’s
and the husband’s family members with such asymmetric terms?
Some people have raised questions similar to this on
the webpage of National Institute of Korean Language, which deals with the
interpretation and authorization of “standard” Korean language forms and rules.
These questions drew attention of the media, which led to the National Institute
of Korean Language and another government agency, Anti-Corruption and Civil
Rights Commission, conducting a nation-wide survey asking about laypeople’s
opinions on the use of address terms in family from August to September 2018.
One article from a major newspaper in Korea reports that 93.6% of female
respondents and 56.8% of male respondents agree with changing the address terms
for their in-law family members. Some of the alternatives suggested were
creating a set of symmetric terms for husband’s family members, i.e. “bunam (a
sino-Korean word that literally means one’s husband’s brother, without any
respectful meaning)” corresponding to “cheonam,” or simply using the generic
address suffix “-ssi (similar to Mr. or Ms.)” after their first names.
The survey even included questions about the address
terms between colleagues at workplace and between consumer and workers at
service counters or retail shops, where people began to notice more problems of
unequal or asymmetric address terms.
The survey results were released right before last year’s
Chuseok holiday, generating tension and controversies among family
members with different perspectives and experiences. The tension and controversies
persist this year, as I have been seeing multiple newspaper articles reporting
the issue of changing or keeping the traditional address terms after the National
Institute of Korean Language officially announced its recommendation of using new,
more equal address terms.
I think it’s
fascinating that a citizen sociolinguistic wonderment has triggered a
transformation in public opinion and sentiment, which in turn led to a change
in the government’s stance and made actual impact on the norms. It exemplifies what
may happen when there is a discrepancy in language and the world it represents,
and how change in linguistic practices takes place from bottom up.
I have run out of words for now, but I would like to keep
an eye on the ongoing debates about address terms at work as well and report to
you about it in the next time I post or in class discussion.
Eunsun thank you for this fantastic insight into ongoing debates about the evolution of address terms. I look forward to your updates!
ReplyDeleteEunsun, thank you so much for sharing this! What do we do with lexicon that does not fully serve a purpose? What are the conversations that people have when you try to introduce new words? Linguistic wonderment can help us make these modifications to brainstorm other ways that perhaps better capture the way a society is moving. Sharing what is happening in Korea reminds me of an ongoing debate among the latinx community which has recently reignited since from 9/15-10/15 is National Hispanic Heritage Month (even this name is being thought upon critically: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/style/does-hispanic-heritage-month-need-a-rebrand.html ).
ReplyDeleteWhen people used the @ for latin@, it was definitely a good start, but it was later pointed out that it reinforced gender binaries. Latinx was the word that was purposed to be more inclusive. However, this piece (https://www.thenation.com/article/hispanic-heritage-month-latinidad/) really brings into question what does it mean to be latinx. Also does the stem of the word, Latin-, conjure images of a monolithic group that share one story or does it capture the minoritized/racialized groups that also make up this ethnic group?
Thank you for sharing this rich example with us.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds us how language is a (total) “social fact” (Saussure, Silverstein), and how language change happens in a combination of bottom-up and top-down ways, with for instance people changing their practices or complaining about words in use, which then gets ratified by an authority (linguistic academy, government, etc.). In moments of critical social advances (civic rights, women’s rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, etc.), language is sometimes rendered obsolete by social progress (usually for more equality).
Just as you describe it in the example of in laws’ addresses in Korean, terms that we have used all our life without thinking about them twice suddenly feel offensive, strange, antiquated, etc. We see this with the lively debate about gender-neutral pronouns, especially in romance languages.
In France, there are also several famous examples of renaming pastries that had a racist or colonial name: “Congolais” (Congolese) became “rocher coco” (the American macaroon), “tête de nègre” (negro head) is now “choco meringue”.
A quick Internet search shows me that the debate is however not settled: http://abenchaalors.fr/tete-de-negre/
In this second comment, Aben writes: “Yes, of course, but I find it a shame to give 'power' to words, whereas what matters are not the words themselves but the value they are given ... The 'Negro heads', didn’t bother us for decades and all of the sudden it's 'immoral' ... a 'Congolese' that did not bother us and yet a dozen years ago a Congolese man complained because it bothered him to see that in bakeries ... I, it would not bother me that we call a cake a 'White head', I would find it quite funny, but hey ... it's true that it's not always very tasteful but I suppose that foreigners also have dishes or expressions that could be weighed against ...”
He then goes further by explaining (in ways that resonate strongly with Yoon’s article with a combination of minimization and cultural racism. You’ll also note here a very revealing use of ellipsis):
Although I understand your point of view Magitte and I also do not like to hurt, I find it a shame not to be able to use some words or sayings that are 'offensive' only by the perception that one has of them ... I also find it a shame (not to say 'ridiculous') to be hurt by expressions that have nothing personal .... The people who feel offended at the slightest remark often have a low self-esteem and because of that we are in the process of removing from our beautiful language all that made its charm ... (I exaggerate a little, but it's my nature!) ... not to risk being racist, homophobic or something ... it's almost dramatic, I think ...
I, unlike Alben, think that language’s ability to reflect our society and evolve with it to better serve our daily need is one its most beautiful traits.
This is really interesting! Thanks for sharing, Eunsun. One of the first parallels between the hierarchically unequal (and outdated) reference practices you mention and similar discrepancies I'm aware of in the English language is the idea of gender neutral pronouns. I see that Sophie brought this example up already, along with some additional parallels in French. What strikes me most about these disconnects and conversations is their sociotemporal specificity. Language uniquely reflects and is shaped by humans, to exquisitely specific/nuanced degrees (cf. Goffman's "Neglected Situation"). Yet, it seems that the pace at which human constructs/societies/norms/etc. evolves is often faster than the pace at which language norms/practices shift. It's thus striking to notice how the same linguistic features can draw notably different reactions, and spark variable wonderment and arrest, depending on place, time and culture. I'm curious how contemporary language norms that are collectively seen as appropriate/okay will grow to draw ire and/or wonder in future moments.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing with this interesting example with us, Eunsun. I agree with you that people's wonderment of linguistic, sometimes, promotes the change of society. I have experienced problems of addressing kinship terms as well in China. In my hometown, people often speak a southwestern dialect rather than standard mandarin. So we usually address grandpa with "公公（Gonggong)". However, in mandarin, “公公” refers to the father in law. So when I started to study in university located in Beijing, where most of the people use mandarin, I kind of suffered from the lexical differences. After encountering several times of sociolinguistic arrest, I switch to use "爷爷（Yeye)" to address my grandpa when I was talking to people who come from other provinces. This experience also makes me think about the historical change and cultural factors causing this discrepancy between mandarin and the dialect.
ReplyDelete