The following is a direct quote from a friend in the U.S. Foreign Service in response to my inquiry about the Slate story questioning Jon Huntsman’s fluency in Mandarin. The quote not only helps explain about the quality of Huntsman’s Mandarin, but contains some interesting insights into the concept of fluency and language as diplomacy:
I thought the article was pretty harsh. It is rare to scrutinize anything so closely and find it flawless. Honestly, I’ve never heard Amb. Huntsman speak much Chinese. I’ve heard him offer greetings and one-line statements is all. So in that regard, the article has some truth. But the real question is what is “fluency.” If fluency is the ability to speak as a well-educated (graduate degree holding) native speaker, then few people are fluent in any language. Defining fluency in Chinese carries the additional burden of incorporating the wide diversity of ways in which Chinese people speak the language. And I’m not referring to the differences between actual langauges in China, such as Cantonese, Taishanese, Fujianese, etc; rather, the very distinct differences within Mandarin. The author seemed to be comparing Huntsman’s Chinese to the Beijing standard. But, in fact, that standard is used by a very small percentage of people. All around the country, and especially in Taiwan, where Huntsman first acquired the languge, Chinese is spoken very differently. There was a point in the article about his unintelligibly saying “next” for “next” president. However, the way in which the author states that Huntsman said “next” is the most common way I hear people say the word in the area where I live. Further, it is highly encouraged that ambassadors do not converse formally/officially in foreign languages, regardless of how proficient they are. Around the world, we see this (not just with ambassadors from America). Diplomacy is all about language. Slight missteps can cause serious problems. Thus, well-trained, specialized translators are the norm (and a convenient scape goat should misunderstandings arise). Ultimately, I think the author is probably correct, Amb. Huntsman’s Chinese has some flaws. But I think his Chinese is sufficiently fluent to have a positive influence on US/China relations if he were elected president . . . and I think that’s all he is really trying to claim with his declaration of “fluency.”
Connect!