About Us

 I watched Jason changed languages while he was speaking.

That description makes it sound as if there was a change.

A before and after.

English on one side.

Spanish on the other.

But that was not what I saw.

I was watching Jason Frenn on YouTube, speaking as an evangelist, moving between English and Spanish with a fluidity I could barely follow. Not because he was moving too quickly. Because I could not see the place where one language ended and the other began.

There was no visible reaching for the next word.

No moment of retrieval.

No small internal pause while meaning was lifted out of one language and placed carefully into another.

He simply continued.

The language changed.

The person did not.

Or perhaps something did change and I did not yet know how to see it.

I was mesmerized.

Later, I found a podcast Jason records entirely in Spanish.

I do not speak Spanish.

This should have made the podcast inaccessible to me.

In the ordinary sense, it did.

I could not follow the ideas. I could not repeat a sentence. I could not tell someone what had been discussed with any confidence.

And yet I kept watching.

Something was reaching me.

Feeling, mostly.

Energy.

The shape of the exchange.

I knew when something seemed to matter. I sensed movement in the conversation before I knew what had moved. I could feel attention gathering and releasing, intensity rising and softening.

Not the meaning exactly.

But not nothing.

It was like watching a bird in song.

I hesitated when I wrote that sentence.

Spanish is not birdsong. Another person’s language is not beautiful noise simply because I do not understand it. That would make my ignorance the center of his language.

But the image stayed.

A bird sings and I do not ask for a transcript.

I listen differently.

Pitch matters. Rhythm matters. Repetition matters. The direction of the body matters. The answer from another bird matters.

Meaning seems to exist in the space around the sound.

Not fully.

Not reliably.

But enough to make me turn my head.

A few days later I read about birds on four continents making nearly the same whining call when brood parasites came near their nests.

The birds had never met.

Their species had been separated for millions of years.

And still the sound appeared.

At first, the headline called it a global language.

But the research was more interesting than the headline.

The birds did not seem to inherit a complete message. They were drawn to the sound before they understood its use. They approached. They watched. They absorbed what was happening around them. Eventually the sound became connected to a particular kind of danger.

Instinct brought them close.

Experience gave the sound context.

Relationship taught them when to use it.

The call existed somewhere between what was already known and what still had to be learned.

That stayed with me.

Because perhaps language did not begin as language.

Perhaps it began as attention.

A sound that made the body turn.

A movement that changed the behavior of another living thing.

A pattern repeated often enough that feeling slowly became context and context slowly became meaning.

I thought again about Jason.

About how I could hear something without knowing what had been said.

This does not mean I understood Spanish secretly or intuitively. I could have mistaken warmth for certainty. Intensity for agreement. Familiar expression for familiar thought.

We are very capable of finding ourselves inside other people’s meaning.

But incomplete understanding is not the same as no understanding.

The distinction matters more than it first appears.

Lately I have been reading about what happens when bilingual people move between languages.

Judith Zangerle calls part of it linguistic frame-switching.

The phrase sounds mechanical.

What it describes does not.

People shown the same image in two languages did not merely choose different words. Sometimes they told different stories. The picture remained still. The language changed what became visible inside it.

I had assumed language followed thought.

First we know.

Then we translate what we know into words.

But perhaps language is also one of the places thought comes from.

Perhaps English and Spanish do not simply give Jason two ways to say the same thing.

Perhaps each language opens a different door into the thing itself.

Or perhaps it does not.

I have not asked him yet.

That matters too.

There is a danger in becoming so enchanted by a pattern that I stop seeing the person inside it.

Soon I will interview Jason. I want to ask what happens when the language changes. Whether anything feels different in his body. Whether memory moves differently. Whether faith does. Whether some ideas seem to belong more naturally to one language than another.

But I also want to leave room for him to tell me the border I imagined was never there.

Maybe that is part of listening too.

Not simply noticing patterns.

Allowing them to be interrupted.

I think about that often now.

Especially when I think about neurodiversity.

Especially when I think about school.

Education tends to behave as though meaning has one proper entrance.

Language should be clear.

Thought should be linear.

Understanding should be demonstrated immediately and in the form requested.

The student who cannot do this appears not to understand.

The student who cannot look while listening appears not to attend.

The student who needs silence appears not to participate.

The student who arrives at an answer through image, movement, memory, sensation, or three apparently unrelated stories appears to have wandered away from the question.

Perhaps they have.

Or perhaps we cannot see the route because it is not ours.

That is what the double empathy problem has begun to mean to me.

Not one person failing to communicate.

Two forms of meaning passing close to one another without recognition.

One person is asked to translate.

The other person is allowed to believe no translation is necessary.

Watching Jason’s Spanish podcast placed me briefly on the obvious side of the gap.

I was the one who did not know the language.

No one would diagnose Jason’s communication because I could not understand him.

No one would ask him to speak more normally.

My limitation as a listener was visible.

So I became more attentive.

I watched for pattern. Tone. Pause. Response. I let myself receive what I could while remaining uncertain about what I could not.

It seems such a small thing.

But imagine if schools listened that way.

Imagine if an unexpected response made us curious about the route instead of certain about the deficit.

Imagine if silence were not always absence.

If movement were not always distraction.

If the child who did not answer in our language was not assumed to have no song.

The birds did not learn the warning call alone.

The meaning was in the sound, but also in the flock. In the approaching danger. In the instinct to turn toward one another. In the repeated experience of what happened next.

Meaning was not located entirely inside the bird.

It belonged to the relationship.

Maybe human understanding has always worked this way too.

Less like a package sent from one mind to another.

More like something made between us.

I return to the podcast.

Jason is still speaking Spanish.

I am still unable to tell you what he said.

But I can no longer say that nothing reached me.

The screen is small. His voice rises and settles. Meaning gathers at the edge of language, not yet clear enough to name, but present enough to make me listen.

It was like watching a bird in song.

I did not understand the words.

That remains true.

But perhaps the deeper truth is that words were not the only thing I was hearing.