Migration Letters

Volume: 21, No: 3 (2024), pp. 162-172

ISSN: 1741-8984 (Print) ISSN: 1741-8992 (Online)

www.migrationletters.com

The Interplay Of Language And Social Identity: A

Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Review
Ahsan Mukhtar (Corresponding Author)1 , Tanveer Fatima2 , Tanveer Fatima3

Abstract
This paper seeks to discuss the role of language in defining social identity and as the paper
shall bring out this argument, it shall give an overview of sociolinguistic theories and empirical
evidence that shall underline the work of language in defining social identity. To do this the
social identity concepts of ethnicity, gender, class and age are examined to consider how these
are linguistically policed and sustained through communicative practices. Thus, by
demonstrating how the linguistic choices support or disrupt the existing power relations, the
paper reveals the interaction between language and social organizations. The review also
reviews the multilingual and multicultural contexts thus investigating identity processes 1such
as code switching and language mixing which underscores the dynamics of identity in a global
society. In addition, the paper also provides a reflection of the significance of the
aforementioned the findings towards the improvement of relating and integrating of people in
the newly asserted diverse societies thus stressing on the fact that language is both a mirror
and a tool of people’s identity.
Keywords: Language and identity, sociolinguistics, ethnicity, gender, class, age, code-
switching, multilingualism, social structures, identity negotiation, inclusive communication.
I. Introduction
It thus became a common focus of sociolinguistic research how language and social identity
are intertwined, how language practices index society, in other words how they osmotically
shaping society and how society shapes language. This review goes a long way in exploring
issues of this interplay by focusing on how language is an operational mechanism in efforts to
perform identity across the different social contexts. In the light of recent studies it can be
clearly seen that the language is not just a tool that is passively used by the people to convey
certain messages but it can also be seen as a socially constructive force that helps to shape the
identities of individuals as well as the society (N. Edwards , 2009). A sociolinguistic analysis
of language variation has also always shown that dialect, code-switching and style are certainly
indicators of social identity (Gumperz 1982; Eckert 2000). For instance, associating regional
accents with the wider community denotes a person’s association to a certain region or culture
while code-switching common among multilingual speakers describes the social and cultural
fluidity that such persons exhibit (Milroy & Milroy, 1992). Also, new developments in the field

1
Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature Government Shah Hussain Associate College, Lahore,
Punjab.
2
Associate Professor Department of Applied Psychology Govt. Queen Mary Graduate College, Lahore, Pakistan.
3
Lecturer Department of Pakistan Studies National University of Modern Languages, Lahore, Pakistan.
 Ahsan Mukhtar (Corresponding Author) et al. 163

contributed to enhance our knowledge of how technology modify identity and positioning
proposing that, through the use of new technologies, people are reinventing more classical
media language rules and, as a result, changing their social identity (Danet & Herring, 2007).
Trying to sum up these notions, this chapter offers the reader the general insight into the essence
of language as the versatile and context-bound means of social identity construction. The
discussion also consider the these implications in the context of sociolinguistic theory and
practice as it pertains to questions of power, resistance and social transformation (Blommaert,
2010).
Social identity is one of the most popular concepts in the sociology and psychology exploring
the mechanism whereby people define themselves as well as others in different social settings.
It involves the individual’s frame of reference based on the perceived groups membership
which includes nationality, ethnic group, religion, and/or occupation (Tajfel and Turner 1979).
Social identity is the dynamic and contextual construct that can be constantly changing due to
the individual’s interactions with other people and his/her personal transformations. When in
different social circumstances, people can change their identity to subscribe to the culture of
the group (Hogg, Terry & White, 1995). This dynamic process underlines a number of
processes and show that social identity is vital for comprehending people’s behavior within the
context of social structures.
Language is proving to be very central in the formation of social identity since it is both a
symbol and resource of forming group identity. There is a clear and unambiguous
understanding in sociolinguistic works that language acts as a marker where spaces-of-
variation of accent, dialect and linguistic style signify different social, ethnic, and cultural
origins (Labov, 1972; Fishman, 1999). The manner in which people speak also tends to help
them assert membership of certain social circles as well as mark their difference from other
circles. It is not constructed as a result of the identities one has but as an ongoing
accomplishment which people engage in while interacting with others (Eckert and McConnell-
Ginet, 2003). Further, language is be a major site for the construction of identity when social
groups’ boundaries are ambiguous or modifiable; thus sociolinguistics and social psychology
cannot overlook language.
Thus, the aim of this review is to describe various aspects of the interaction between language
and social identity based on the literature of sociolinguistics. To achieve the mentioned
purpose, the review seeks to review the relevant theories together with empirical data that
explores the role of language as a badge and a builder of the social identity in different settings.
In so doing, it aims at offering a theoretical elaboration of the ways in which language use
impacts on the developmental processes of social categorization and identity. The
sociolinguistic issues of this paper will analyze language variation, bilingualism, code
switching and new media and technology which all play roles in defining language as an
element in the construction of social relationships. In addition, this review also incorporates
the analysis of the key psychological theories that concern the subject of sociolinguistic
analysis because this approach achieves a more comprehensive perspective of the ways
language construct social identity in various social contexts.
II. Theoretical Foundations
Sociolinguistic theories give a paradigmatic view of the connections that exist between
language and identity, stressing how language systems and practices are rooted in social
contexts. Linguistic variation is one of the earliest theories that have been proposed in this area
by Labov (1972) which clearly stated that language variation is far from being random; they
are socially relevant and have a clear correlation with factors such as class, ethnicity, gender
and so on. This theory has been helpful in showing the ability of language to be used as a

Migration Letters
164 The Interplay Of Language And Social Identity: A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Review

mechanism of identifying social classes and groups. Furthermore, Gumperz (1982)

Interactional- sociolinguistic theory established that interactional context plays a major part in
determining linguistic conductance as a direct reflection of social personality of the interactants
and their social bond with others. These theories have been further advanced by other scholars
including Eckert (2000) whereby she rejected the concepts of style and accent to come up with
‘‘community of practice’’ where identity is shaped through social practices that involve
language. Such theoretical frameworks emphasize language use as a sociocultural asset for
building, negotiating an asserting identity, and can form a sound theoretical background for
studying the relations between language and social identity across various cultural and social
contexts.
SIT baselines its foundation on the work of Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposing elaborate theory
that explains how groups are formed, how individuals classify themselves or others and how
they act, react and identify in relation to a certain group. In terms of applicability to linguistic
study, SIT is particularly useful since it provides understanding of how language works as a
sign of group identity and as the tool of group inclusion or exclusion of particular individuals.
It is noteworthy to mention that the choice of the dialect by a communication partner, code
switching, as well as use of certain language in one or another situation can be viewed as
strategic actions through which people build and negotiate the social identities they want to
embrace as well as reject (Giles & Johnson, 1987). According to SIT, part of a person’s self-
image comes from an understanding of ones social identity and this is evident in Language.
This theoretical construct has been helpful in sociolinguistic research especially in those
involving identification of correlations between variability of language and social
characteristics as well as the ways in which individuals are able to reply to linguistic complexity
of social situations (Coupland, 2007). SIT has enriched the understanding of the relationship
between language and identity, when linked with the linguistic approach, the researchers
described how the use of certain language features fosters the construction of particular
identities, as well as how the language used influences identity.
Intersectionality, first coined by Crenshaw in 1989, can be best described as a method of
analyzing how two or more axes of oppression—most commonly race, gender, class and
sexuality—operate simultaneously in the context of an individual’s experience and society.
Beyond sociology and political contexts, intersectionality is a helpful theoretical framework
for analyzing how these multiple aspects of individuals shape language and/or linguistic
practices. People do not live in vacuum, they work, study, socialize and communicate in
environment where their self is not a single entity but is constituted by multiple facets and so
it is with their language. For instance, a woman and an immigrant who is also a bilingual may
speak a particular language or accent to reflect on her gender, race and immigration status at
the same time (Mesthrie et al. , 2009). In this regard, it is possible to investigate how precisely
linguistic practices may be subversive both of structures of structure of oppression as well as
hegemonic in its nature (Levitt & Jaworsky, 2007). Thus, the sociolinguistic perspective that
takes into account the multiple identities’ influences on language will help to elucidate properly
the role of language as one of the crucial elements of social identity performance.
III. Language as a Marker of Group Identity
Ethnicity is a very important factor when it comes to language, as language has the potential
of being used to define ethnicity. The identify of ethnic groups has been significantly described
by sociolinguistic in how ethnic groups have embraced the use of language to express their
ethnic values and distinguish their selves from other groups (Fishman, 1999). Ethnolinguistic
vitality was defined by Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977) as the dynamic strength of an
ethnolinguistic group and its ability to sustain and employ its language which reflects its
 Ahsan Mukhtar (Corresponding Author) et al. 165

involves the group’s identity. For instance, the continued utilization of AAVE by the blacks
serves both the interest of ethnicity by keeping them together and the interest of language by
resisting the prompting of the mainstream society (Morgan, 2002). To this extent, it is by
speaking a particular language that the process of defiance and the safeguarding of the local
culture are executed. That immigrant groups continue to speak ethnic languages at home even
though their children are likely to grow up an Anglophone society supports the close
relationship between language and ethnicity (Zentella, 1997). They flow show the connote of
language as a definite symbol of ethnicity of the people besides representing social constructs
of differentiation and unity among the Gacaca tribunals.
Gender has a great impact on the language and many sociolinguistic studies show that each
gender identity has some specific phonological and syntactic patterns. Thereby stating that
language helps in creating gender because different genders use language to portray their roles
and act in a certain way during their interactions with others (Butler 1990). For instance, studies
conducted by Lakoff (1975) have established that, while using a language, women and men
may differ since women are known to be more proper than men and as such they are likely to
use polite forms of the language, hedges and tag questions. Still, these linguistic practices are
not simply the way in which women and men perform gender norms but a way by which people
engage gendered positions within a given culture on an active basis (Cameron, 2005).
Furthermore, recent trends in sociolinguistic would suggest that sociolinguists’ awareness of
gender as a variable is broadening to include more than just that binary between male and
female; sociolinguists are beginning to understand gender identities as something that exceeds
this binary; there is, albeit somewhat minimally, recognition of non-binary and trans-identities;
people also recognize how gender identities are constructed and performed through language
(Eckert & These implications underline language as another significant weapon in the creation
of gender and the formation of gendered identities and thus an important focus of
sociolinguistic inquiry.
Hence socio-economic status and social class are strong factors of variation within language
and within the structure and practice of language. This social factor has been evidenced by
sociolinguistic studies where it is clear that the language which is used by different people in
society is tagged according to social classes (Labov, 1966). These patterns are not only indices
of SE status, but are also the ways in which exclusion and segregation are organized and
reinforced. For instance, Trudgill (1974) pointed out that while using the English language,
upper class tends to stick to the formal English than the working class whose pronunciation
may be seen to be substandard. At the same time, however, these non-standard forms act as
markers of belongingness to a particular group and thus reflect working-class solidarity, which
also proves that there is a strong connection between linguistic variation and social class
(Milroy & Milroy, 1992). What makes SES relationship with linguistic variation even more
complex is things like; education levels, types of employments and migration. Consequently,
these findings demonstrate the importance of confining social class whenever evaluating
linguistic variation.
This paper will therefore seek to compare the use of language among the different generations
based on the age factor as the key determinant of the variation in languages used by people in
the society. In accordance with sociolinguistics studies, it is proved that language is a dynamic
process; changes are most often initiated with young people (Eckert, 1997). This characteristic
can be observed in such processes as formation of new lexis, phonological innovation and
grammatical innovations as they all work to set the younger generations apart from the previous
ones (Tagliamonte & Roberts, 2005). The seen generational differences in language use are not
a question of language change alone, but also a social change a question of culture, technology
and diverse sociological identities. For instance Crystal, (2008) noted that technologies of new-

Migration Letters
166 The Interplay Of Language And Social Identity: A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Review

generation communication have produced fresh linguistic forms among the youthful people in
the society including the textisms and emojis. It is therefore important for the analysis of age
related linguistic variation to unravel how language influences and is influenced by
generational identity.
IV. Language and the Construction of Personal Self.
Code-switching – the use of two or more languages or dialect in the context of discussion is a
significant part of the construction of the position of the individual. This linguistic practice is
not simply an indication of the learner’s linguistic knowledge but the way speakers use
language to manage and cope with intricate social realities and to perform diverse roles and
selves (Gumperz, 1982). According to Myers-Scotton (1993), in multilingual situations, people
switch codes in order to fit into a certain social group, to establish their identity or to regulate
interpersonal interaction in different ways. For example, a bilingual person may switch to the
ethnic language to feel close to their group members or to mark the difference from the others
while in the status-oriented situation, he or she may use the language of power (Auer 1998). In
this way, code-switching allows the person to constantly define her/himself depending on the
situation and meeting the requirements of different interactants. The dynamic process shows
the process through which language constructs and/or performs the act of identity, thereby
underlining the importance of code-switching as a research interest in sociolinguistics and
identity studies.
Therefore, while monolingualism has identity management approach that often responds to
stereotypical notions, approaches, or representations in singular cultural forms of identification,
multilingualism offers identity transformation, a flexibility wherein one can manage and/or
negotiate multiple forms of identification in more than one cultural setting. The high level of
flexibility that is observed in the code-switching process allows the people, who are developing
multilingual, to regulate the way of their language behavior depending on the context of the
current social interaction, thus, they express various aspects of their personality whenever it is
necessary (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). This variability of the language choice is especially
noticeable in multicultural societies, where people switch between languages in the process of
“acts of identity” in which languages are selected which are most appropriate to the observer
culture, prior roles, or specific context (Leung, Harris & Rampton, 1997). For instance, the
same person may use a given language for cultural purpose in a family and another language
to meet societal expectations while at work. Besides, this gives people a chance to make
themselves heard and to change their roles according to the current social contexts.
Multilingualism therefore provides important understanding of the process of identity and its
function and also the function of language in the representation of identity.
Thus, language is an essential component, which can be regarded as a mediator between young
people and their roots as well as it is the tool for accommodation to new conditions of a new
society. Concept also to many diasporas communities’ preservation of language dialect is very
important because of the social and cultural, so members of this community feel that they
belong there (Fishman, 1991). However, language may also be a source of conflict, in which
peoples have to live in between respecting their language and culture and the need to
acclimatize to conform and use the language of the host country (Garcia, 2009). This fine line
leads to the creation of such hybrid linguistic behaviors through which a person uses more than
one language to embody or signify a dual or a multiple form of culture and life practice
(Rampton, 1995). Language is cultural capital in diaspora context in which people factors
individual and group identity and navigate the spaces of ethnic and social imaginary. Language
is a central component in these processes since it not only mirrors but also engulfs the processes
inherent in the construct of diasporic identities.
 Ahsan Mukhtar (Corresponding Author) et al. 167

V. Case Studies and Empirical Evidence

It has been ethnography which has given a real insight into the complex roles, which language
plays as a signifier of social status across different cultures. These studies afford detailed
contextually grounded understanding of how people and cultures employ language to build,
manage and perform their selves. For instance, in her book, Heller (1992) draws on the
ideological model to analyze how language is used to build up nationalism in the French-
speaking part of Canada as well as how code-switching and bilingualism are used in
management of multiple identity politics. Along the same line, Rampton (1995) explores
language crossing in multiracial cities where the people use language to cross ethnic divisions
and therefore perform identity that undermining ethnocentrism. The ethnographic concepts
show significant real life account in the fluctuating relationship between language and social
identity: employment of language is not solely a mirror image of the social taxonomy but rather
a tool that participants use to reconnoiter and renegotiate the social taxonomy. ethnographic
research thereby offer a holistic view of the practices of using language giving important details
regarding language and self-/identity construction.
Arising from a laboratory setting, the pattern of language use and social identity brings up
experimental evidence is especially useful as they offer quantitative data for ethnographic
work. These studies tend to include change of specific linguistic variables to see their impact
on identity and sociability categorization. For example, in an experiment by Giles and Johnson,
(1981) it was established that participants’ attitudes towards the speaker depended on the
standard or the non- standard dialect used, therefore emphasizing the role of language in the
formation of identity. Similarly, language priming research has also found that specific cue can
bring into operation certain social categorizations, a result in which behavior and attitudes are
altered (Chen & Bond, 2010). These experimental approaches offer strong support for
hypothesis that language use is organizers of social identification processes and indicate that
even minor differences in language use may lead to the highly important consequences for
people’s perceptions and self-perceptions. Such findings make it possible for researchers to
discover the processes by which language constitutes social identity by decomposing them into
their cognitive and social components.
Cross cultural as well as cross linguistic comparisons are valuable as we are able to notice the
process through which language and identity are constructed in different cultures. These
researches pay attention to both general approach to language as the social category and the
specificity of language representation of identity in various cultures. For example, Kashima
and Kashima (1998) conducted a comparative analysis of the Japanese and the Australian
English language and concluded that while the Japanese language is very formal, the social
norms in such culture reflect formality of language and conformity to authority figures, in the
AUssie English the language is less formal the social norms are more liberal and encourage
individualism. In a similar vein, Blommaert (2010) himself also discussed how the processes
of globalization and transnationalism with increase superdiversity, meaning multiple languages
and thus identities and hence identity constructions which can and indeed do differ greatly
across different contexts. The above comparative research thus highlights the need to take
culture and language differences into account while undertaking sociolinguistic research since
even as language is a universal symbol of identity across communities; the manner in which
this identity is invoked and negotiated is informed and shaped significantly by cultural beliefs
and practices.
VI. Language, Power, and Identity
It is further revealed that language ideologies which are people’s attitudes towards certain
tongues significantly support existing power relations in given societies. These ideologies are

Migration Letters
168 The Interplay Of Language And Social Identity: A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Review

bound to come out in the process that regards some languages or dialects as superior to others,
which keeps echoing the existing social order (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994). For instance, the
world standard language ideologies, where the use of the standard national language is
considered as the norm means that speakers of the regional or other non-standard named
dialects are excluded and the social hierarchy is based on language differences (Lippi-Green,
2012). This ideologies not only impact the language behavior of these people but also their
social persona as language assumes cultural importance that defines the class and community
affiliations of people. In educational and professional contexts these ideologies can result in
the systematic marginalization of those who do not speak the standard variety of the dominant
group, thus perpetuating structures of social power and of blocked social mobility (Bourdieu
1991). Language ideologies are thus crucial to know how power maintains language as a tool
of reproducing socio-political relations.
Linguicism is defined as the unfair treatment of people based on their language or the way they
speak and it has deep effects on the process of identity and belonging. There is always a
correlation between linguistic discrimination and other social discriminations like racism and
classism where some particular groups are always discriminated and held back (Piller 2016).
For example, people who speak minority languages and other forms of dialect are discriminated
against in many schools, courts, businesses, and workplaces and thus they lose their self-esteem
and feelings of rejection by society (Tollefson, 1991). These discriminations may cause people
to change their ways of using language with the aim of coming closer to dominating norms
which in the process leads to the decline in the cultural identity as well as language diversity
(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). The experience of and resultant prejudice and oppression can
therefore be both individual and collective, in so far as the proposition of identity is pre-
eminently both personal and social-cum-cultural in the context of language discrimination.
Ending language discrimination thus means understanding how language differences and
inequalities are reproduced in institutions and society.
Words can be rightly stated to be more than a mean of expression; it is actually a weapon/
instrument of emancipation / revolution. In general, language is creating and informing
discourse and from the very start of history oppressed groups turned to language to question
the dominance of power, to make a statement about their existence when other options were
closed to them (Fairclough, 1995). Such process often entails the conscious of promotion or
retrieve of the minority languages and dialects as the reactions to the processes of globalization
as well as anti-linguistic imperialism (Heller, 2007). For instance, the indigenous languages of
Latin America have been used as a form of resistance against colonial and neocolonial powers
and signify a way of gaining back cultural and political self-governance (May, 2012). In the
same way, the using of language of civil rights movements in the United States shows how the
language can be used with regard to the demands of justice and equality, determine the
formation of public discourse, and its impact on social change (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).
Language is therefore key in analyzing how change occurs within societies, as a specific subject
since it allows dominated groups to counteract domination and forge new social realities with
words.
Language policy is essential in the maintenance and development of linguistic as well as
cultural diversities especially in societies that acknowledge more than one language and
culture. These policies are adopted by governments and institutions in an attempt to regulate
the use of language and most of the time seek to find a middle ground for the protection of the
national language as well as the minority languages (Ricento 2006). Current language policies
state that it is possible to preserve different languages and cultural backgrounds maintaining
people’s identities. For instance, Māori language in New Zealand shows how policy that can
bring the renaissance of endangered languages and improve the stability of the community’s
 Ahsan Mukhtar (Corresponding Author) et al. 169

identification (Spolsky, 2004). On the other hand, policies and practices that tend to impose
monocultural linguistic models like the policy of a single national language perpetuates social
injustice and linguistic prejudice that results to loss of cultural identity as well as
marginalization of those who practice the minoritized language (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000).
Hence, it is very important for the work of developing and implementing the policies of
inclusive language for minority for claims of their linguistic rights and to ensure that their
languages and cultural identities are adequately provided and defended against the forces of
globalization and social change.
Schools have a very important social responsibility of supporting and protecting
multilingualism and modelling exemplary practices regarding their recognition in every
learner. One of the ways to address the issue of linguistic diversity is the use of multilingual
education, where the students’ first languages are used alongside the main language used in the
classroom, (Garcia, 2009). It also goes a long way in the prevention of depreciation of the
minority languages while at the same time improves the students’ cognitive and academic
performance by letting them learn in their own language (Cummins, 2000). Nonetheless,
educational policies that promote monolingualism seem to negate these advantages, making
students to lose their ethnic and linguistic identity through forced language shift (Baker, 2011).
When incorporating multilingual education, such learning institutions can become contexts of
language, where students are promoted to create, sustain and enhance their language resources
hence the general goal of promoting linguistic diversity within society (Hornberger, 2002). It
therefore become incumbent upon any educational systems to implement policies that
appreciate multilingualism’s and see that all the learner are able to have education that
embraces their language and cultural diversity.
This paper argues that what the media presents to the audience as common in linguistic and
cultural settings determines how different linguistic and cultural groups are considered by
others as well as how they consider themselves. This means that it is through the media
particularly through social media that different Language Ideologies are produced for the
express purpose of reproducing or transforming social relations (Fairclough, 1995). For
example, some specific dialect or accent in the movie or TV show can mean that some linguistic
minorities are locked out of society (Lippi-Green 2012). On the other hand, through media that
has broken the white wash linguistic barrier, people of diverse linguistic backgrounds feel
proud of their languages and it becomes acceptable to use them in the public domain (Meylakhs
2010). Another factor that has favored the use of languages itself, has significantly been media
influence especially with the availability of new media technologies; this has promoted
multilingualism in the media and embodies the heritage of diverse languages (Androutsopoulos
2015). Therefore, media representation is an on-going process in the construction of language
and identity, which subliminally has serious ramifications for the role of language diversity in
society.
Conclusion
Focusing on this topic, this review has revealed the close connection between language and
social identity and has emphasized that language is more than a means of communication:
rather, it is one of the key components of the identity process. From theoretical analysis and
research findings we can conclude that language works like a symbolic system that signals
group belonging that is ethnicity, gender and class and age (Gumperz, 1982; Eckert, 2000). The
review also brought out how language ideologies work in perpetuating social ranking; how
discriminations in language affect personal development and how discriminations in language
contribute to prejudice (Bourdieu, 1991; Lippi-Green, 2012). Moreover the study of code-
switching and multilingualism showed the interplay of social personas and the use of language

Migration Letters
170 The Interplay Of Language And Social Identity: A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Review

to manage one’s identity in accordance to certain social domains (Myers-Scotton 1993;

Pavlenko and Blackledge 2004). The review has therefore offered a rich appreciation of how
the three aspects of language, identity and power relation with regard to the paramount role of
language in both personal identity and social transformation.
Further research should try to disentangle the relations between language ad identity with a
focus on the processes ongoing in the globalized/digital environments that are characterized by
the shifting linguistic landscape. One of the directions for further research can be investigated
through the effects of digital communication on the uses of language and identity as new
channels of media communication provide unique contexts for negotiating identities
(Androutsopoulos, 2015). Also, there exist a need for future research that involves more cross
cultural and cross linguistic comparisons to examine both the cross-cultural similarities and
differences and the variables that mediate these similarities and differences in matters
concerning language and identity (Kashima and Kashima, 1998). Research should also
concentrate in the multiple and mutual relations between language, meaning that how race,
gender, and class intersect in matters of language and discriminatory experiences (Crenshaw,
1989; Levitt & Jaworsky, 2007). More importantly, it is time to consider research initiatives
that adopt what Geertz termed as ‘genealogical’ approach to conduct research on the trajectory
of language policy and education efforts in relation to the Shuar people and their identity and
linguistic rights. To this end, if the areas highlighted herein are addressed, then future research
can provide better insights to the interactive correlation between language and identity as the
two constituents continue to evolve to fit the contemporary global village.
Consequently, the theoretical and practical implications of the findings of this review are of
great importance to sociolinguistic theory. Deeper theoretical developments of gender and sex
must be pursued as it pertains to different contemporary societies because the nature of identity
is constantly changing and the role of language as a mediator of an individual’s social relations
and relations of power in society is becoming more prominent (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005). Ideally,
these findings should guide language politics and educational practices as variety equality and
as support mineral identity requirements (Spolsky 2004). Sociolinguists and educators
therefore need to promote policies and practices that helps to embrace and celebrate
multilingualism (Garcia 2009). Further, there is a lack of ethnographically grounded research,
which involved with minority language communities and mobilizes them to warrantor the
documentation and revitalization of such languages (Heller, 2007). Through merging of these
theoretical and practical frameworks sociolinguists are most helpful in creating societies in
which language is not a source of exclusion but a means of connection.
References
1. Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and
their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 185-205.
2. Auer, P. (1998). Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. Routledge.
3. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual
Matters.
4. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J.B. Thompson, Ed., G. Raymond & M.
Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
6. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach.
Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.
7. Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.
8. Cameron, D. (2005). Language, Gender, and Sexuality: Current Issues and New Directions. Applied
Linguistics, 26(4), 482-502.
 Ahsan Mukhtar (Corresponding Author) et al. 171

9. Chen, S.X., & Bond, M.H. (2010). Two languages, two personalities? Examining language effects
on the expression of personality in a bilingual context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
36(11), 1514-1528.
10. Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
11. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of
antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal
Forum, 1989(1), 139-167.
12. Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford University Press.
13. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Multilingual Matters.
14. Danet, B., & Herring, S. C. (2007). The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and
Communication Online. Oxford University Press.
15. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University
Press.
16. Eckert, P. (1997). Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The Handbook of
Sociolinguistics (pp. 151-167). Blackwell.
17. Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge University Press.
18. Edwards, J. (2009). Language and Identity: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
19. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
20. Fishman, J.A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of
Assistance to Threatened Languages. Multilingual Matters.
21. Fishman, J.A. (1999). Sociolinguistics: A brief introduction. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
22. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
23. Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J.C. Turner & H.
Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 199-243). Blackwell.
24. Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.
25. Heller, M. (1992). The politics of codeswitching and language choice. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 13(1-2), 123-142.
26. Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J., & White, K.M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of
identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255-269.
27. Hornberger, N.H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An
ecological approach. Language Policy, 1(1), 27-51.
28. Kashima, E.S., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language: The case of cultural dimensions and
personal pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 461-486.
29. Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied
Linguistics.
30. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
31. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. Harper & Row.
32. Leung, C., Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealized native speaker, reified ethnicities, and
classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 543-560.
33. Levitt, P., & Jaworsky, B.N. (2007). Transnational migration studies: Past developments and future
trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 129-156.
34. Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the
United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
35. May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism, and the politics of language
(2nd ed.). Routledge.
36. Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A., & Leap, W.L. (2009). Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh
University Press.
37. Meylakhs, P. (2010). Representing and constructing “the normal”: The internationalization of the
Russian media and the representation of linguistic diversity. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 31(4), 377-392.
38. Milroy, L., & Milroy, J. (1992). Social network and social class: Toward an integrated
sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 21(1), 1-26.
39. Morgan, M. (2002). Language, Discourse and Power in African American Culture. Cambridge
University Press.

Migration Letters
172 The Interplay Of Language And Social Identity: A Comprehensive Sociolinguistic Review

40. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for code-switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford
University Press.
41. Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts.
Multilingual Matters.
42. Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied sociolinguistics.
Oxford University Press.
43. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. Longman.
44. Ricento, T. (2006). An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Blackwell.
45. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human
rights? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press.
47. Tagliamonte, S.A., & Roberts, C. (2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers
in the television series Friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280-300.
48. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
49. Tollefson, J.W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community.
Longman.
50. Trudgill, P. (1974). The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.
51. Woolard, K.A., & Schieffelin, B.B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology,
23(1), 55-82.
52. Zentella, A.C. (1997). Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Blackwell.