Does the statement above sound good? Ok. Then, what is the current and old paradigm? What is it that we need to leave behind? What mindset permeates our language goals, learning ways and communication expectations?

The European imperial and colonial mindset is often at fault here. 

European imperialism and colonialism aimed to expand the economic and power base of European nations and to assert their superiority. Asserting and maintaining superiority is based on the belief that that which is superior is pure, and it should be maintained that way. It is also based on subjugating and eliminating what is considered inferior and impure. Under these circumstances, no merging is possible. 

Keeping things separated out of fear of losing their purity (read supremacism mindset) only creates friction and stunts growth (aka. evolution), which is unsustainable.

Now, what if we trust?

What if we trust that letting go of impurity and imperfection won’t lead to self-destruction? (Trying to maintain this so-called purity and perfection is actually leading us to that, so I’d say we try something different).

What if we trust that expressing our diversity and background and merging our native language with the non-native ones we are communicating ourselves in will not hinder communication but enhance it?

What if we trust?

I see that the opposite of fear is trust. Trust in yourself (self-efficacy) and trust in the other (let’s, please, let go of any paternalistic ways of communication in which we contain ourselves to protect other people’s egos or to bend ourselves in many shapes so that the other person doesn’t have to. Let’s stop treating adults like children).

Trust in yourself (Self-efficacy) 

You are learning a non-native language. You are effectively doing your part to connect with others who speak that language. You are doing your part to understand the culture or cultures of that language, which is the same as to say that you are working on understanding and adapting to the other person’s culture and ways.

Should you aim to sound like a “native” speaker (more to come about the native speaker fallacy and its colonial roots) and correct your accent, tournure de phrases, and choice of words to the extreme? That is, not letting your background or native tongue show in any way, shape or form. Should you be attempting to pass as a “native” speaker of a language you are not?

What’s the fear? Why the lie? (Remember, lies often come from fear of consequences). So, I repeat, what is the fear?

One of my greatest frustrations over years of working on my English was that I still sounded Spanish and that I still sometimes made mistakes (regardless of whether or not those mistakes were more my underlying Spanish and the “logic” of that language than my lack of understanding of the English rule). I wanted to be like some of my germanic speaking friends who were able to merge with the English-speaking locals, their name the only thing giving them away. I wanted to escape the expectations bestowed on me by my name and physical traits: “Spaniards speak English badly”. I wanted to speak English “well”. 

See? At those times, the goal was to use the language in such a way that allowed me to fit in rather than communicate to connect.

I wasn’t trusting my ability to withstand the consequences of exhibiting my identity. 

Trust in others

I wasn’t trusting others to accept me, to try to understand me (and grow from the interaction).

I put all the burden on me. I didn’t trust others.

Also, there was another lie I bought into: if you live in another country, you must speak their language and adopt their culture. You need to adapt and fit in.

Languages are nothing more than a tool for communication. And communication is a two-way street. Always. 

Suppose we trust that most people will make an effort to understand us, move past our accent and embrace new terms or ways of saying things because that means communicating to the most subtle of layers. In that case, we can allow ourselves to bring our patterns of vocabulary and idiom selection, which includes (or can include) words in another language that is not the common language chosen for that interaction. It means you can make up words sometimes. You can create a tournure the phrase as a direct translation from your native tongue (ie. The Spanish equivalent of “in for a penny, in for a pound” is “de perdidos al río”, which translates into “from lost to the river”. What if I used the English direct translation of the Spanish idiom and explained if/when the other person looked at me blankly?).

What if we trust that bringing our colour by letting our identity seep through our target language (or non-native language) won’t create separation but connection?

We can let languages become a political weapon, or we can let them be a bridge. This is the same as saying that we can let language become tools for separation or connection. That is our choice.

Of course, there are situations where the power dynamics may mean that you must make your expression more neutral and standardised to adapt to the other person who holds power over you (i.e., you have a job interview). Or you may want to gracefully and generously make the other person comfortable. That is beautiful when you consciously make that choice; in that case, you hold power. Remember that.

But, if you feel the imperious need to express yourself authentically and want to really belong and connect rather than making everyone else comfortable at the expense of your self-esteem, self-respect, self-empowerment and groundedness, then now it’s the time to push the edges of your non-native language by letting go of the search of perfection (aka. standardised language, aka. trying to pass by native), of not using words in your native language that are more meaningful or accurate than that target language option, etc, etc.