To Identify: Transitive vs Intransitive

The language spoken by somebody and his or her identity as a speaker of this language are
inseparable: This is surely a piece of knowledge as old as human speech itself. Language acts
are acts
of identity (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985).
The Greeks identified as non-Greek those whose speech sounded to them like barbarbar and
called
them barbarians; in 1978, in a field interview in Belize, an independent state since 1976 after a
long
period under British rule as British Honduras, the following dialogue took place:
DR (the schoolboy interviewed): “Well, I would say I'm a Belizean, too. Co … Because
erm, born in Belize, you know, I got to know about Belize a bit in history. An’originally,
everybody called themselves Belizean, so I call myself a Belizean.”
LeP (the interviewer): “How do you recognize another Belizean?”
DR: “Well, usually in Belize you find the language, the main language you know is this
slang that I tell you about, the Creole. And you'd recognize them by that, you know.
They usually have this, you know, very few of them speak the English or some of them
usually speak Spanish.”
(Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985: 216)
The two semantic fields of the verb identify are illustrated: In the first case, language is taken as
an
external behavior allowing the identification of a speaker as a member of some group, as in the
case
of non-Greeks identified by Greeks as foreigners by their way of speech. In the second case,
language
is taken as the means of identifying oneself, as when the Belizean schoolboy identified himself
as
Belizean, which meant for him, first, to be born in Belize, and, second but indirectly and
certainly with
some ambivalent feelings, to belong to a group also identified by its language, “this slang,” “the
Creole.” Identifying the others as the barbarians is much more than nicknaming or naming
them. It
sets a frame within which the relationship will start and often develop. For it implies both that
they
are different from us and that we are different from them, and also, even if not explicitly, that
they
too are supposed to apply the same logic vis-à-vis ourselves. The Latin alter (or, at a later time,
alter
alter) expresses this complex process in a very condensed and apt way, stressing its mirror
quality.
Identifying us as Creole implies that at least some others exist who have a different identity.
Linguistics » Sociolinguistics
ethnicity
10.1111/b.9780631211938.1998.00021.x
Subject
Key-Topics
DOI:
Identifying others or oneself is a means of differentiation and of opposition.
The Dynamics of Identities
An analogy may be of some help. The dynamics of ever-changing language in ever-changing
human
polylogues1 takes place in a non-homogeneous, unlimited ocean containing mainlands, isles,
and
islets of relatively permanent usages based on a given linguistic stock, also only relatively
permanent;
these language pockets are located within larger sociolinguistic streamlets and streams. Personal
identities, although not parallel nor complementary to these variations, nevertheless show a
similar
kind of dynamic (Tabouret-Keller, 1989). At any given time a person's identity is a
heterogeneous set
made up of all the names or identities, given to and taken up by her. But in a lifelong process,
identity
is endlessly created anew, according to very various social constraints (historical, institutional,
economic, etc.), social interactions, encounters, and wishes that may happen to be very
subjective and
unique.
We call identification processes those psychological processes by which identities are
established.
Although we are primarily concerned with language-embedded identities that rest on strictly
symbolic
means, such as family names, for example, we must not forget that identities may also exploit
scopic
materials, sensory elements among which visual features seem to occupy a pre-eminent place.2
The
global term nonverbal, commonly used to deal with them, calls for caution, because it suggests
that
these features are extralinguistic, which is not quite the same thing, as will become apparent
further
on. Every person exploits different layers of identities, forming more or less intricate and
encased
networks, some parts of which are loose and prone to frequent change and replacement, others
being
more or less permanent throughout the life span and across social and cultural space. We are
identified, and identify ourselves, within the large space of the society of our time, within the
different
groups – institutional, professional, friends, etc. – we belong to, within the surroundings of our
home,
our office, our car, our out-of-door outfits, our in-door outfits, etc. A good deal of our overt and
covert identities blend symbolic and nonverbal means, certain identifications seem to isolate
scopic
behavioral elements as if in a postural imitation. The problem of the possible independence in
man of
certain scopic or nonverbal behavioral elements from inclusion into language-steered symbolic
systems remains open. It is central in cognitive theories and answers to it are still tentative, as in
a
postural imitation. In sociolinguistics we prefer to relate and include what may initially appear
as
purely nonverbal behavior in cultural constraints or trends that are never independent from
symbolic
mediation.
We must also stress that, as an oral behavior, language itself necessarily includes corporeal
elements
resulting from the physiological channels that our voice has to pass through and that give it its
phonetic qualities, that is, the upper ends of the digestive and respiratory tracts. No wonder
speech
and language are so easily confused with life itself: Many organic associations are constantly at
work
between speech and breathing or eating.
Language and Identity: Complex Links
The link between language and identity is often so strong that a single feature of language use
suffices to identify someone's membership in a given group. On the battle-field after their
victory
over the people of Ephraïm, the Gileads applied a language-identity test to sort out friend and
foe: All
of the soldiers were asked to pronounce the word shibboleth; those who pronounced the first
consonant as [M] were friends, those who pronounced it [s] were enemies and therefore killed
at once
(Judges: XII. 6). Hence a single phonemic feature may be sufficient to include or exclude
somebody
from any social group. But any other more complex symbolic language item, for example, a
given
name, may fulfil the same function. In the nineties, during a discussion in French about identity
with
other French-speaking adolescents of her age, a schoolgirl said: “It's my first name that spoils
everything. Nobody pays attention, and as soon as the teacher calls my name at the beginning of
the
year, Bang! those who don't know me say, ‘what name is this?’And I have to say my mother is
German.” This girl's first name was a Germanic name (Varro, 1995).
Language and Identity: Complex Binds
These examples show how individual identity and social identity are mediated by language:
Language
features are the link which binds individual and social identities together. Language offers both
the
means of creating this link and that of expressing it. Such features imply the whole range of
language
use, from phonetic features to lexical units, syntactic structures, and personal names.
Two main reasons can be used to explain the close link of language and identity. The first
belongs to
human psychology: Identification processes range all the way from the confluent identification
of
mother and new-born child by feeding at the breast or, more generally, nursing, to mere
imitation of
another, and to identification proper where someone adopts, consciously or unconsciously, a
feature
or a set of features of another's behavior. Language use offers the largest range of features and
the
most easily adoptable ones for identification, whatever such identification processes and the
complementary identities may mean to their bearer and to those who observe them. The
complexity
of such behavior is best illustrated by the attempt to please someone by adopting, through
identification, behavioral features of another person who one knows is appreciated by that
person.
Such an attempt may include, for example, such things as a kind of coughing to punctuate
sentences
as a style of expression. This would be an objective feature of conduct, but identification also
involves
all sorts of construed representations, such as types and stereotypes (Giles and Powesland,
1975; Le
Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985: chapter 6; Tabouret-Keller, 1991).
The second reason for the close identification of language and identity lies in their linkage by
constitution and by law, as illustrated by the example of the Oath of Strasbourg. On February 14
in
the year 842, Lewis the German and Charles the Bald, two grandsons of Charlemagne, took an
oath of
alliance against their older brother, who opposed the legitimate partition of their grandfather's
kingdom (Balibar, 1993: 26). First each read the text of the oath in his own language. Then they
switched languages: By speaking the Romance language to read out the text of the oath, the heir
of
Eastern France established it as the language for Western France. The heir of Western France
did the
same for the Germanic language for Eastern France by using it to read out the text of the oath.
Each
of the two languages was given legitimacy, but only as far as the dignity of the other was
respected.
All this took place under the authority of Latin, the language in which the history of the Oath of
Strasbourg is recorded. Third, the spokesmen of the two princes swore fidelity to the alliance in
their
own languages, according to a text which was translated verbatim (eadem verba) from Latin
into Germanic and Romance. This innovation came from the masters of grammar and literature
who prompted the princes word for word. Not only did they not speak Romance, but it was
important that
the spoken text did not deviate from the written one, which was considered to be the authentic
version. Imposing on a language the dimensions of an institution, of legitimacy linked to power
over a territory and over other institutions, especially law, has several consequences. The name
of the
language, corresponding to some kind of standardized form – in the case of the Strasbourg
Oath, the two forms created by the grammarian advisors of the two kings, Germanic and
Romance – achieves some degree of autonomy in people's thinking. According to Le Page
(1980), naming a language makes it ready for reification and totemization, that is, it can be
made into an object and given iconic status. Reification usually involves some body of doctrine
(grammars, lexicon, a literature),
totemization the adoption of a language as one of the defining social properties of a group.
Members
of a group who feel their cultural and political identity threatened are likely to make particularly
assertive claims about the social importance of maintaining or resurrecting their language (as,
for
example, in Wales, Quebec, Belgium, immigrant groups all over Europe, and numerous other
communities throughout the world). We see here that identification is served by the name of a
language that fulfills the symbolic function of representation, at both the social and individual
levels,
where it represents not only affiliation with a community or group, but all kinds of allegiance:
to a
religion, a political leader, an ideology. Fishman's chapter (20) in this book provides many
examples
of the expression of such collective identification processes.
Identification by a single feature of language use, as in the shibboleth example, or by a complex
of
features, as in the case of the so-called Creole, is only one side of the language binding
function. The
other is that a language's name serves as a label covering any kind of intuitive knowledge of
what the
“object” that it refers to may be – common use, a common standard, an idealized form of the
language, etc. As such the name of a language serves as the basis of identification by means of a
shared element. In such cases, identification with a partner is mediated, first of all, by the
common
label and, secondarily, but not necessarily, by direct behavioral identification with other
participants
in the same community, social group, faith, belief, ideology, etc. Other behavioral features may
support the identification, for instance, dress, a flag (or any other symbol), shared by people one
has
never met before and will never meet afterwards. Language itself can function as such a symbol
for
which some are ready to die or kill.
Boundaries, but with Gaps
Languages and the identities they carry with them generally imply a boundary marking
function: The
same identity prevails where and as long as the same language is spoken. Has this ever been
true? It
certainly is no longer true today, but it is true that the longer a territorial identity is perceived as
embedded in the use of an idiom – more often than not, subsumed under a unique term that
might
designate the territory, the people, and their language – the stronger the representation of a
highly
focused unit of internal coherence. The strength of such a representation does not depend on
permanent variation and change in language use: On the contrary, it helps to overlook these in
favor
of a unique identity supported by this unique term. This representation is even more focused
when
language as a named object – as an identification label, not as a linguistic behavioral feature –
becomes by law the expression of power at the same time that it also becomes the main
instrument
by which this power is expressed and executed (Weinreich, 1968: 648). Modern nation-states,
which
today occupy almost all the world's territory, intervene in the idealized union of language and
identity.
They have many means of forcing a language upon their citizens, be it by the constitutional
definition
of a national, official, or state language, or by one of many other ways like control over the
language
(s) allowed for school education, for law and justice, etc. French is not only the name of a
territory, of
the people who live there, of the language that is supposed to be spoken by them, it is also by
constitution the language of the citizen of the State of France, including overseas territories
such as
Martinique and Guadeloupe. As a matter of inherent paradox, though not openly expressed, the
formation of states rests on discourse (and ultimately on law) justified by mother-tongue
ideology,
and calls on the territorial identity of a population at the same time that these states, in setting
their
frontiers, ignored the language people use and their identity (Tabouret-Keller and Le Page,
1986:
252). As a result, frontiers between states do not usually coincide with dialectal areas and thus
most
European states, if not all of them, include territories where languages other than the official
ones are
in use. In such cases, all sorts of distributions between citizenship identity, national identity, and
language use identity, are found: Spanish by citizenship, Catalan by family origin, residence,
and
political choice, Catalan but also Spanish speaker. In a survey of language use in secondary
schools in
Alsace, in 1980, pupils between 12 and 14 were asked if they thought it possible to be Alsatian
without being able to speak the Alsatian dialect; more than 50 percent answered yes (Ladin,
1982:
185).
Multilingual situations illustrate the two aspects of identification by language. A bilingual
speaker may
be identified by linguistic features deriving from language contact. In certain situations, this
gives rise
to feelings of inferiority, discrimination, or exclusion from the dominant group, or conversely,
feelings of familiarity, recognition, complicity among those who share the language and/or the
contact situation. The creativity of bilinguals, especially in oral language not controlled by the
normative power of writing, will suffer repression through the totemization of the dominant
language.
Mastery of the latter is regarded as testimony to allegiance to the state that imposes it, and
integration into a community mistakenly based on a single linguistic identity. Such
sociolinguistic
constraints point toward the subjective difficulties which often arise in contact situations.
Group Affiliation as a Matter of Relative Choice
Boundary functions of language imply the possibility for individuals to be both in their own
group and
out of the others’groups.3 Such affiliations are of relative value, according to the strength of the
identification with language, both as being used and being an identification label, or as only one
of
these functions. In a survey by Dabène in Grenoble among adolescents whose parents were
immigrants from North Africa, one of them declared: “Arabic is my language, but I don't speak
it” (Dabène and Billiez, 1987: 76). As well as language, groups themselves, via their leaders,
their
members, a common faith and holy oral or written bodies, their press and other media, may
reify and
totemize their existence with a name identical to that of what they consider to be their proper
language. Membership in a group must satisfy some kind of need in its members, but groups are
nothing without their members and it must be stressed that group leaders usually have an
advantage
in fostering and sustaining the group. One of the easiest means for this is to include the group's
name and its attribute in discourse, to stress group affiliation by differentiating from others who
don't
possess the same advantages, who are easily recognized, by language use among other things.
Groups, whether formal or informal, are aware of and cannot ignore the boundary-marking
function
of language, if only by the name of the group. Names function in a double capacity of naming
an
organization and some kind of affiliation, as in Cosa Nostra, for example. Group affiliation is
hardly
something anyone can dispense with, but some groups one is part of willy-nilly, e.g., gender or
age
groups; some are imposed upon one, e.g., by social categorization; some one may choose
whether or
not to join, in which case one has more liberty to adhere to the constraints the affiliation
implies.
The image of language, absorbed by the infant with its mother's milk, is one of the roots of the
mother-tongue metaphor, the strength of which is due in part to the fact that the new-born child
cannot escape dependence on adult's care for his survival (Tabouret-Keller and Le Page, 1986).
In any
case, the family group is certainly one one has to deal with, even by leaving it. Later on many
want to
join other groups by accommodating to their behavior, or by adopting what is perceived as their
characteristic features, among which language behavior is often, although not always, the most
overt.
However, it is not necessarily the most important feature; virtually any product of the
imagination can
be employed for purposes of identification.
Joining a group is in itself a very complex process involving factors linked with the
subjects’most
subjective and intimate history, their situation and status in society, etc. Hence identity is rather
a
network of identities, reflecting the many commitments, allegiances, loyalties, passions, and
hatreds
everyone tries to handle in ever-varying compromise strategies. These imply language use to
mark
group affiliation, to reveal permitted or forbidden boundaries, to exclude or include, etc.
Theories about the Linguistic Aspects of Identity
To deal with language and identity, we must rely only on language itself. There are hence two
possible
avenues of approach: technical terms, as in linguistics, and metaphorical terms, as in all other
disciplines, and in everyday language. This can be illustrated by every chapter of this book.
Technical
terms need to be defined and strictly contextualized; metaphors appeal to imagination, which is
not
only a great asset in identification processes but also in scientific research.
Both Giles and Le Page have developed theories addressing two questions that arise here: To
what
extent is group identity a matter of choice, and what are the conditions for admission to a
linguistically defined group? What of people's feelings, motives, or loyalties?
Giles's accommodation theory is concerned with interactive behavioral events and rests on a
definition
of an ethnic group as “those individuals who perceive themselves to belong to the same ethnic
category” (Giles, 1979: 253). In 1982, Giles gave the following definitions of his theory:
A basic postulate of accommodation theory is that people are motivated to adjust their
speech style, or accommodate, as means of expressing values, attitudes and intentions
towards others. It is proposed that the extent to which individuals shift their speech
styles toward or away from the speech styles of their interlocutors is a mechanism by
which social approval or disapproval is communicated. A shift in speech style toward
that of another is termed convergence and is considered often a reflection of social
integration, whereas a shift away from the other's style of speech represents divergence
and is considered often a tactic of social dissociation.
(1982: 105)
An illustrative example of his theory is given by Giles, with Byrne (1982), in the case of two
close but
linguistically distinguished communities. According to this theory, the more chances of
acquiring a
quasi-native competence in the language of a group rise for an individual member of the other
ethnic
group when:
(a) his identification with his proper group is weak or the language of this group is not of
central value to him;
(b) he is not inclined to believe that the intergroup relationship can develop in his group's
favor;
(c) he perceives his own group as having a weak ethnolinguistic vitality;
(d) his perception of his own group is vague;
(e) he identifies with his community less in ethnic terms than in terms of membership in other
groups, such as a profession.
In order to account for a series of complex behavioral data, Giles introduces an additional
concept
into accommodation theory, the concept of complementarity. Convergence and divergence may
simultaneously operate on different linguistic dimensions. For example: “simultaneous shifts
away
from and towards the other in a dyad can occur in a way that can be regarded as totally
integrative for
both participants” (Giles, 1982: 122).
A good many theories applying to bilingual situations bear similarities to Giles's, for example,
those
of Wallace E. Lambert (1974, 1977), J. Cummins (1979), and J. Hamers and M. Blanc (1982).
These are
all based on the a priori existence of social, ethnic, regional, national, and professional groups,
etc.
More generally, language contact situations are good cases to study language and identity
fusion or
disjunction. Some of them are dealt with in other parts of this book (see especially the chapters
by
Clyne (18) and Nelde (17)).
Although Giles regards Le Page's work on language behavior in multilingual communities as an
important forerunner of accommodation theory (Giles, 1982: 105) the latter's theory differs
fundamentally from Giles's by postulating that the speaker creates his linguistic system and
speech
acts as acts of projection (Le Page, 1968, 1978). Hence social groups need not be defined
beforehand;
it is the existence of the individual that is the basic postulate. For Le Page it is essential to stress
that
“the individual creates for himself the patterns of his linguistic behaviour so as to resemble
those of
the group or groups with which from time to time he wishes to be identified, or so as to be
unlike
those from whom he wishes to be distinguished” (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985: 181).
Groups or
communities and the linguistic attributes of such groups have no existential locus other than in
the
minds of individuals, and such groups or communities inhere only in the way individuals
behave
towards each other.
Speech acts are seen as acts of projection: “The speaker is projecting his inner universe,
implicitly
with the invitation to others to share it, at least insofar as they recognise his language as an
accurate
symbolisation of the world, and to share his attitudes towards it” (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller,
1985:
181).
There is no system for the speaker to internalise other than that which he has himself
created, which is already internal, and is already the idiosyncratic expression of this
search for identity and role. To the extent that he is reinforced, his behaviour in a
particular context may become more regular, more focused; to the extent that he
modifies his behaviour to accommodate to others it may for a time become more
variable, more diffuse, but in time the behaviour of the group – that is he and those with
whom he is trying to identify – will become more focused. Thus linguistic systems, both
in individuals and in groups, may be considered as focused or diffuse.
(Le Page et al., 1974: 14)
An individual's ability to get into focus with those with whom he wishes to identify, however, is
constrained. One can only behave according to the behavioral patterns of groups one finds it
desirable to identify with to the extent that:
(a) one can identify the groups;
(b) one has both adequate access to the groups and ability to analyze their behavioral patterns;
(c) the motivation for joining the group is sufficiently powerful, and is either reinforced or
lessened by feedback from the group;
(d) we have the ability to modify our behavior.
My own theory rests on the postulate that language, however defined, precedes any of us at
birth,
that the existential locus of Homo sapiens, be it individuals or groups, is in language itself. This
postulate was developed in seminar work in 1987–8 (Tabouret-Keller, 1989: 15–17).
Identification
processes are not envisioned in the frame of a dual relationship between A and B, as if A
identifies B,
or A identifies with B. Rather, they take place in a three-part relationship: Identification
between A
and B is possible only insofar as these two have access to and are part of C.
A, B, and C are terms of different qualities. The former two represent individuals or groups,
whereas C
represents language in its symbolic function as the foundation of the human condition.
According to
this hypothesis, a three-part relationship is fundamental to human existence, while a dual
relationship may suffice for all other living species. Except in the case of a strictly scopic
identification, human beings are bound to language. We often adopt features of the manners and
ways of behavior of others without being aware of, or having any explicit knowledge about, the
process by which this happens. Yet such identifications make sense at some level of
consciousness,
and would still make sense were they to correspond to unconscious representations. Making
sense
means to depend on words.
Our various examples show two ways of how language creates people's identities. On one hand,
the
language someone speaks functions as a behavioral attribute by any of its elements; on the other
hand, language supplies the terms by which identities are expressed. Both ways are subsumed
under
C. In the present two states deriving from the former Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and
Slovakia, language politicians emphasize differences between the two varieties of the formerly
common language spoken in the formerly united country. They hope this will enable the
identification
of anyone, by a sole behavioral speech feature, as citizens of one of the two countries. The
armed
commando that, on December 24, seized the French Airbus at Algiers airport, intending to blow
it up,
called itself El-Mouakioune Bi Eddima “those who sign with blood.” This is alas no exception.
E. J.
Hobsbawm's latest book on the history of the present century provides many examples of this
kind,
from almost every country in the world.
We have to explain why people want to be identifiable by their language and ways of speech,
and why
they want to keep a name which reminds them of an allegiance that commands them to kill. A
corollary of my thesis leads us to define identification as a process on which rests the operation
of
bringing together identities as social constructs and identities as subjective constructs. The
distinctions we have introduced up to now were between the individual as a social unit and the
person
recognized in an institutionalized frame. We need here a third term to specify individuals as
unique in
that they alone have lived their own life, can speak their own words, and ultimately, must die
their
own death. The first two entities, individual and person, can be characterized by a series of
objectifiable features, as studied and described in sociology, anthropology, and law, whereas the
third, subject, can be characterized by the singular quality of mental processes, whatever this
notion
may refer to, from the Freudian concept of the three-layered mind to the sophisticated models of
contemporary cognitive science. We claim that these elements which create a nexus between
social
objective and individual subjective modalities of identities are themselves identity terms. In that
event, the same term functions on the social level, where it operates, for example, as an element
of
social integration, and on the individual level, where it serves, for example, as a catalyst of
associative
processes. The ways in which an identity term is invested in various social domains of discourse
does
not necessarily coincide with the subjective values associated with it. However, not every
identity term
has a subjective function, and not every subjectively invested identity is echoed in social
dimensions
and discourse.
Theoretical Background Sociolinguistics and sociocultural theory. Through analyses of linguistic variations,
sociolinguistics is concerned with the effects of societal factors on linguistic behavior. One significant dimension of
sociolinguistic research is the investigation of the impact of social norms and roles on linguistic identity (Holmes &
Wilson, 2017). Accordingly, sociolinguists are interested in the interactions between the identity of the speaker and the
social context within which the speaking happens (Carranza, 2017). The pioneer of sociolinguistic studies William Labov
(1972) conducted a series of studies regarding the confluence of American vernacular and social identity. He concluded
that divergent use of language is the reflection of identities people adopt as a result of their membership in the different
groups characterized by their race, ethnicity, gender and social class (Labov, 1972; Moore, 2004). The way people use a
variety of languages leads to their social identity identification. People may greet differently, request differently or use
their speech intonation differently and these varieties are reflections of their identity. Speakers define their positions
with other individuals by using a specific linguistic variety that conveys more than what is said (Jacewicz, Fox, & Wei,
2010). Linguistic variation is not merely originated from various geographical territories. People may use a variety of
language to show multiple group allegiances. This inclination exists because using that linguistic variety is a sign of
detaching yourself from the groups that do not speak that way (Blommaert & Backus, 2013; Kramsch, 1998; Sterling,
2000). This phenomenon is what Edwards (2007) has called “ethnonational solidarity” (p. 9): speakers construct and
develop their linguistic identities by informed selection of the proper language varieties. The speakers` identity is
reflected by the use of similar verbal and nonverbal communicative acts (Bodomo & Teixeira-E-Silva, 2012). A speech
community then is formed, which is a large group of people with a shared repertoire of verbal communication habits
(Gumperz, 2009). Furthermore, single individuals` language variety (also called idiolect), is not detached from the variety
of a language used by a community or group (also called dialect). A crucial point here is that the mechanism of the
relationships between idiolect and dialect is variable and is majorly unconscious (Kraljic, Brennan & Samuel, 2008).
Sometimes, individual speakers maintain dual identities by use of two linguistic varieties to communicate in double
speech communities. It is not true in any sense to conclude that social identity is the sum of every single individual`s
identities. In other words, both intra and interlinguistic identity may change in different ways through time. Within the
speech community, speakers continuously adjust their identities and contribute to the group’s identity. Language is a
pillar of identity undertaking. Thus, the way you talk is part of the speech community’s identity; and how you speak
reflects your appreciation of the community’s identity (Gumperz, 2009). The sociolinguistic research mainly addresses
this issue. The speech accommodation theory, which is discussed in details below, states that “the accommodation
through speech can be regarded as an attempt on the part of the speaker to modify or disguise his persona in order to
make it more acceptable to the person addressed” (Giles & Powesland, 1975. p. 158). This aspect of language identity is
the main fodder for critical literacy researchers and theorists. They believe that solidification of social bonds by use of
language may pave the way for the ruling or mainstream group to use linguistic identity for inciting their ideology to a
society for their majorly politically- or geographically-motivated objectives (Miller, 2000; Ssentongo, 2015). Accordingly
“the linguistic minority must achieve self-representation in the dominant language if they are to participate in
mainstream social and academic contexts, renegotiate their identities in new places, and accrue the necessary symbolic
capital to integrate successfully into school and the wider society” (Miller, 2003, p. 4). Another informative discussion
about the sources of identity formation is provided by Benwell and Stokoe (2006). The authors argue about the agency
of intrinsic and extrinsic factors contributing to the construction of identity. Accordingly, we should demarcate two
different processes: the formation of identity by individuals themselves according to their wishes and will or the
unconscious creation of identity by the mainstream power. Non-solidarity linguistic manifestations denote detachment
and reserve, while solidarity manifestations mean affinity and rapport. In other words, “to speak of someone’s social
identity is to speak, at the very least, of what attaches them in virtue of their membership of a category” (Antaki, et al.
1996, p. 473). For example, graduates from the same class, members of a family and players of a football team use a
linguistic variety to identify themselves as intimate. This argument is corroborated by the proponents of speech
accommodation theory maintaining that speakers shift and modify their speech in different situations, which require
these changes (Giles & Powesland, 1997; Street & Giles, 1982). One of the prime examples of situational identity is the
use of religious language within a religious group. Edwards (2009) has a compelling discussion on how missionaries have
used language to influence the emotions and perceptions of so-called morally ignorant people. Language has been one
of the rudimentary assets the ministers have embarked on establishing strong connections between people of different
dialects, languages, and locations on the basis of their shared religious identity. There is a similar discussion on the issue
of in-group favoritism (see Dasgupta, 2004). Accordingly, people tend to favor and support those whom they share the
same values, cause, expectation, etc. Sociocultural theory of learning considers human learning, in general, being
decided by social factors. Then, the sociocultural theory is aligned with sociolinguistics in that both view society as the
creator of the style, mechanism and purpose of language use. Yet, as mentioned earlier, the sociocultural theory is a
macro-theory discussing the role of society on various nonlinguistic behaviors as well. From a sociocultural perspective,
the linguistic identity can be regarded as “an emergent construction, the situated outcome of a rhetorical and
interpretive process in which interactants make situationally motivated selections from socially constituted repertoires
of identificational and affiliational resources and craft these semiotic resources into identity claims for presentation to
others” (Bauman, 2000, p. 1). Social Constructivism Theory. Rooted mainly in the works of Vygotsky (1967), Social
Constructivism Theory views the relationship between human behavior and societal factors mutually constitutive. While
sociolinguistics and sociocultural theory posit that society decides the linguistic identity, social constructivists keep an
interactive perspective on the correlations between language and identity. Correspondingly, the social constructivist
theories assert that: Although the social world appears to human beings as an objective reality, it is in fact constituted
through human action and interaction and is not independent of it. From this perspective, people continuously create
and recreate social reality and in turn, are shaped by it in a dialectical process. Thus, identity is not seen as a concept
that resides in the mind of the individual self, but rather as a process of construction, that has its locus in social
interaction. (Fina, 2012. p. 1) Furthermore, the social constructivist perspective rejects the idea of identity being a stable
cognitive representation of self-existing in the mind of individuals (constructors); rather, identity is constructed as a
response the necessities required by the nature of social interactions and social norms (Kiraly, 2014). Nonetheless, the
social constructivist theories do not dismiss the prominent role of cognition and memory in the formation of identities.
According to Riley (2007), the recognition of cognition by the social constructivists: “has important implications for any
kind of constructivist approach, where cognition is seen as a socially mediated activity, since it provides a bridge
between interpersonal and intrapersonal, showing that 'social' and 'individual' aspects of cognition and the identity
formation processes, far from being unrelated or even contradictory, are the distal and proximal motions of one and the
same mechanism.” (p. 83). In sum, research on language and identity has its root in three man philosophies, namely,
social constructivism, sociolinguistic theories and sociocultural theories of language learning. Sociocultural theories and
sociolinguistics investigate the potential effects of social factors and societal structure on the development and use of
language. However, social constructivist theories posit that human learning and behavior are constantly interacting with
the social, environmental and ecological variables in a mutually constitutive process

REFERENCES
Bernal, M. E., & Knight, G. P. (Eds.). (1993). Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics
and other minorities. Albany, US: State University of New York Press. [ Links ]

Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation:

Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 201-234). Lincoln, US: University of Nebraska Press. [ Links ]

Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Gill, S. (2008).
Promoting academic and social‐emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child
Development, 79(6), 1802-1817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01227.x. [ Links ]

Boroianu, S. F. (2008). “She called me a Mexican!”: A study of ethnic identity (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Northern Iowa, USA. [ Links ]

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic
anthropology (pp. 368-394). Malden, US: Blackwell Publishing. [ Links ]

Buckingham, D. (2008). Introducing identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp.
1-24). Cambridge, US: The MIT Press. [ Links ]

Cornejo Espejo, J. (2012). Educación, interculturalidad y ciudadanía [Education, interculturality, and

citzenship]. Educar em Revista, Curitibia, Brasil, 43, 239-254. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-
40602012000100016. [ Links ]

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London,
UK: Sage. [ Links ]

Dervin, F. (2008). Métamorphoses identitaires en situation de mobilité. Turku, FI: Humanoria. [ Links ]

Dervin, F., & Gao, G. (2012) Constructing a fairy tale around intercultural couplehood on Chinese
television. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(1), 6-
23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2011.630471. [ Links ]

Devos, T. (2006). Implicit bicultural identity among Mexican American and Asian American college
students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(3), 381-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-
9809.12.3.381. [ Links ]

Falicov, C. J. (2007). Working with transnational immigrants: Expanding meanings of family, community,
and culture. Family Process, 46(2), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00201.x. [ Links ]

Hatch, J. A., & Wisniewski, R. (Eds.). (2002). Life history and narrative. Washington, D.C.: Routledge.
[ Links ]

Holliday, A. (2010). Intercultural communication and ideology. London, UK: Sage. [ Links ]

Holmes, J. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New York, US: Routledge. [ Links ]

LaBarbera, M. C. (2015). Identity and migration: An introduction. In M. C. LaBarbera (Ed.), International

perspectives on migration (pp. 1-13). Berlin, DE: Springer International Publishing. [ Links ]

Mirdal, G. M., & Ryynänen-Karjalainen, L. (2004). Migration and transcultural identities. Strasbourg, FR:
European Science Foundation. [ Links ]
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative
approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-
141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534. [ Links ]

Padilla, A. M. (1994). Bicultural development: A theoretical and empirical examination. In R. G. Malgady &
O. Rodriguez (Eds.), Theoretical and conceptual issues in Hispanic mental health (pp. 20-51). Melbourne,
US: Robert E Krieger Publishing. [ Links ]

Phinney, J. S., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001). The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic
identity among adolescents in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 135-
153. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010389607319. [ Links ]

Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. [ Links ]

Riccio, B. (2001). From “ethnic group” to “transnational community”? Senegalese migrants’ ambivalent
experiences and multiple trajectories. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(4), 583-
599. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830120090395. [ Links ]

Schiller, N. G., Basch, L., & Blanc‐Szanton, C. (1992). Transnationalism: A new analytic framework for
understanding migration. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 645, 1-
24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb33484.x. [ Links ]

Smith, M. P. (1994). Can you imagine? Transnational migration and the globalization of grassroots
politics. Social Text, 4(39), 15-33. https://doi.org/10.2307/466362. [ Links ]

Super, C., & Harkness, S. (1997). The cultural structuring of child development. In J. W. Berry, P. R. Dasen,
& T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Basic processes and human
Development (Vol. 2, pp. 1-39). Boston, US: Allyn & Bacon. [ Links ]

Tinley, A. (2006). Migración de Guanajuato a Alabama: experiencias escolares de cuatro familias

mexicanas. Sociológica, 21(60 ), 143-172. [ Links ]

Vertovec, S. (2001). Transnationalism and identity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(4), 573-
582. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830120090386. [ Links ]

Xu, J., Shim, S., Lotz, S., & Almeida, D. (2004). Ethnic identity, socialization factors, and culture‐specific
consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21(2), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10117.
[ Links ]

Zuñiga, V. (2000). Migrantes internacionales de México a Estados Unidos: hacia la creación de políticas
educativas binacionales. In R. Tuirán K. (Ed.), Migración México-Estados Unidos: opciones de política (pp.
300-327). México: CONAPO. [ Links ]

Zúñiga, V., & Hamann, E. T. (2009). Sojourners in Mexico with US school experience: A new taxonomy for
transnational students. Comparative Education Review, 53(3), 329-353. https://doi.org/10.1086/599356.
[ Links ]

Social identity
UKEssays. (November 2018). The Relationships Between Identity And Language. Retrieved
from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/identify-the-relationships-between-identity-
and-language-psychology-essay.php?vref=1

Language and Identity Language is an aspect intrinsically connected to an individual’s identity.

As Giles (as cited in Phinney, Romero, Nava, & Huang, 2001) argues, “in group speech can
serve as a symbol of ethnic identity and cultural solidarity” (p. 137). It is often used as a
medium to remind and reestablish the cultural heritage in a given group of people. Regarding
this research project, the participants have lived in the U.S. for a certain number of years, and
they speak English. As Bucholtz and Hall (2004) sustain, “language contributes to nationalist
identity formation by providing a sense of cohesion and unity for its speakers” (p. 385).
Considering the authors’ views, everyday interactions offer information about the manners to
reaffirm and construct identity, through migrant speakers’ language choice. As has been noted,
the focus of this study is to determine how language may entail an influence for the process of
identity construction in the particular context of transnationals. Previous research has
considered this phenomenon. Imbens-Bailey (as cited in Phinney et HOW 25-2 JUNIO
2018.indd 14 24/07/2018 02:28:16 p.m. HOW Vol. 25, No. 2, July/December 2018, ISSN
0120-5927. Bogotá, Colombia. Pages: 11-27 15 The Role of Language in the Identity
Formation of Transnational EFL Teachers al., 2001) studied second generation Armenian-
American children. Results showed that “the bilingual subjects expressed more affinity with the
Armenian community than did those who were monolingual in English” (p. 138). The author
suggests that knowledge of the “heritage language may help maintain ethnic participation,
which may in turn reinforce ethnic identity” (p. 138). Mirdal and Ryynänen-Karjalainen (2004)
describe how speakers project themselves with a target identification social group using a
certain speech behavior, in order to receive reinforcement from such group. The authors add
that “people use their linguistic resources to project an image of themselves, and use language
differently to affiliate to certain social and ethnic categories” (p. 34). People use a “distinctive
language to get associated with their ethnic identity” (Holmes, 1992, p. 186). On the basis of
this study, transnationals have learned to interact in both languages, English and Spanish,
depending on their interlocutor, and the circumstance where they operate. Notwithstanding this
fact, hints of their ethnic/personal identity can be traced by means of studying the language
behavior of bilingual transnationals in certain situations. Hence, language behavior will be
approached in this research as a venue to better understand the process of identity construction.
. Introduction ‘Language is the principle means whereby we conduct our social lives’ (Kramsch, 1998, p. 3). Language is
the carrier that reflects our identity to others and delivers our culture. Identity is “people’s concepts of who they are, of
what sort of people they are, and how they relate to others” (Hogg and Abrams 1988, p. 2). Culture is not inherited
genetically, and cannot exist on its own, however, culture is always shared by society members (Hall 1976, p. 16).
According to Hall (1997), there is a strong relationship between the concepts of language, identity, and cultural
differences. He argued that while culture is concerned about ‘sharing meaning’, language is a link that is used to ‘make
sense’ of things, and meaning can be exchanged and produced. He also mentioned that language is essential to culture
and meaning and can be considered the key container of the values and meanings of culture. It works through what he
calls the ‘representational system’. This review will begin by summarizing Hall’s (1997) notion of representation,
presenting the connection between language, identity, and cultural differences and the importance of these concepts.
Then it will provide some personal and general examples to explain the mechanism of that notion. Finally, it will mention
some issues that I think Hall may fail to address, which can be considered as drawbacks. 2. Relationship Between
Language, Identity and Cultural Differences: Hall (1997) defines the important concepts of language, identity, and
cultural differences and addresses the complicated interrelationship between them and the differences that may affect
these three aspects interchangeably. Hall (1997) argues that language, identity, and cultural differences are strongly
connected due to the strong relationship between representation and culture. He mentions that culture, as a group of
shared meanings, is presented through language, which is a tool that works as a representational system. In this system,
symbols and signs whether words, sounds, images, etc. can be used by people to stand and present concepts, feelings,
and ideas to others. Hall (1997) considers language one of the ‘media’ that present thoughts, feelings, and ideas in a
culture. According to Hall (1997), there are many ways of defining the word “culture”. Culture can be understood as
embodying “the best that has been thought and said” in a society (Hall, 1997, p.2). It is a collection of the best ideas, as
shown in different classic works of painting, literature, music, etc. He also defines culture through the context of “social
science”, where it refers to anything that is distinctive about the way of life of a community, group of people, or nation.
This definition can be known as “anthropological”. Moreover, culture is used to describe the values that are shared
among people or groups in society. Hall (1997) then mentions the “cultural turn” and argues that culture is not a set of
things but a set of practices. The culture here concerns the exchange and production of meanings between groups or
societies that have similar interpretations of objects. For example, if two people belong to the same culture, then they
interpret the world in (roughly) the same manner and present their thoughts, feelings, and themselves in ways that can
be understood by each other. It can be said that this culture depends on the participants. However, some different
interpretations can be formed that are based on social practices. It depends on the use and representations of
participants that select the language and the meaning to be conducted. As a result, belonging and identity are formed
when they talk and communicate with others. Some identities are formed by Research on Humanities and Social
Sciences www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online) Vol.8, No.4, 2018 99 different means. For
example, through the mass media, people’s identities can be represented to others through producing meaning,
incorporating and consuming different events, and then regulating them according to social context. On the other hand,
identities such as cultural identity are not clearly represented because of the different positions of its participants (Hall,
1997). Hall (1997) refers to the circuit of culture which consists of five moments production, consumption,
representation, regulation, and identity, and they explain the steps and process of producing meaning in a culture.
Production is the first step, wherein people create a special meaning of the object. Then they share and consume the
meaning of that object among them and regulate the right uses of the meaning to its context. Later on, participants
introduce the meaning to others, and at the same time, they represent it as a special identity or mark. It can be said that
there is no starting or finishing point in that circuit because meanings are produced synergistically. Hall mentions that
representation by language is central to the process of producing meaning, as languages construct the meanings of
different objects. Due to their function as constructional components, words, sounds, colours, and physical gestures are
essential. They have some ideas and concepts of objects and can deliver them to others, thus the cultural difference is
introduced. As a consequence, special identity will be formed because identity is relational (Woodward, 1997). For
example, when fans of one football team use a special slogan, they, in fact, introduce the language that presents their
culture, and that indicates to whom they belong, and their identity in the sense that they are different from the fans of
other teams. Moreover, producing new meaning or historical truth can be reflected by the functions of visual language
(Hall, 1997). For instance, when an exhibition shows the objects of other cultures, it may introduce the history of these
cultures or may create new meanings. It may also reflect the identity of people who attend the exhibit and those who
are exhibited. Hall (1997) states that meaning gives us a sense of our identity, including who we are and with whom we
belong. Meaning is produced and exchanged in every social and personal interaction. Members of the same culture
should have and share the same sets of concepts, ideas, and images that let them think and feel about the world and
interpret the world in similar ways. They should share the same cultural codes. In other words, ideas and concepts must
be shared by members while they speak or have great knowledge of a unified language. Therefore, a conventional view
which describes things as they exist in the world according to their natural characteristics and materials in the first, then
according to their representation, can be changed by the cultural turn, which means that meaning is created rather than
existing. The role of representation appears in the social constructional approach because culture is considered one of
the fundamental points in the process. According to Hall (1997), language presents a general frame of how
representation and culture work. He mentions two approaches: the semiotic approach deals with how representation
works and with how language produces meanings and the discursive approach is concerned with the effects and results
of representations. He adds that constructivism, which is a model of its approaches -semiotics and discourse- can display
the effects of representation, knowledge, and relationships with power as well as a historical specificity. Furthermore, he
believes that there are no wrong or right meanings because meanings change according to its usage, context, and
historical events. They are governed by power, emotions, and feeling, so they play a big role in identifying others in
terms of excluding or including them, especially once ‘identity is marked out by difference’ (Woodward, 1997, p. 9). To
conclude, the notion of Hall (1997) concentrates on representation, which is considered an important and essential
factor that plays a major role in forming the complicated process between the three aspects of language, identity, and
cultural difference. It also focuses on the representation process that shapes ideas, feelings, and concepts in a simply
interpreted form by the use of correct meaning in a culture. While meaning is exchanged between participants using the
same shared cultural codes, they can communicate and reflect their culture and identity to others.

What is identity? Identity, simply stated, is who you are; individuality;

the condition of being a certain person. In the social sciences, identity
REMHU – Revista Interdisciplinar da Mobilidade Humana
66
The use of the home language as a human right of the immigrant
is defined as the way that individuals label themselves as members of a
particular group; in psychology, it refers to an individuals’ self-esteem or
self-image.
2
We can speak about social identity, gender identity, cultural
identity, religious identity, national identity and many other identities.
However, I want to focus this conversation on those aspects of identity that
deal with the self as a member of a particular group and how that image of
self is shaped by our language and the social experiences that we have.
Culture is a defining feature of a person’s identity. The shared
values, customs and histories characteristic of a particular culture have
a very strong influence on how a person behaves, thinks, and views the
world. Cultural identity then encompasses for me all that relates to self,
belonging, systems of beliefs and sentiments of self-worth. It is the total
sum of ways of living built up by a group of human beings transmitted
from one generation to another. It is me, and I have a right to know and
understand my cultural identity. As I embrace who I am it is likely that I will
engage in positive identity practices. If, on the other hand, I am forced to
reject this identity I will develop a repertoire of negative identity practices
to distance myself from who I am.
So, what is the role of language in the development of identity and
cultural identity in particular? Language is intrinsic to the expression of
culture. Language is a fundamental aspect of cultural identity. It is the means
by which we convey our innermost self from generation to generation. It is
through language that we transmit and express our culture and its values.
“Language – both code and content – is a complicated dance between
internal and external interpretations of our identity”.
3
Words, language,
have the power to define and shape the human experience. It is because
of language that I can name my experiences.
One repeatedly encounters poignant stories of having to forget
one’s language in order to assimilate or acculturate to a new environment.
Sadly, this forgetting often includes losing one’s roots. As powerfully said
by Benjamin Baez, losing his original language meant losing, “the intimacy
associated with Spanish and the closeness to my family and past it allowed.
I lost, essentially, all the ‘sights and sounds’ associated with my native
language”.
4
This loss of language, which inevitably leads to loss of cultural
identity, carries with it many dangerous implications. In the words of the
renown linguist, Joshua Fishman, when we take away the language of
a culture we take away, “its greetings, its curses, its cures, its praises, its
laws, its literature, its songs, its rhymes, its proverbs, its wisdom, and its
prayers”.
5
Georges Perec, a Polish Jew who migrated to France during World
War II writes that his parents’ memories were not transmitted to him. Their
language, their traditions and hopes, were lost. In reflecting on this loss
he states:
I am a stranger in relation to something of me (...). I am different, but not
different from others, different rather from what is mine, from my people. I do
not speak the language my parents spoke, I do not share the memories they
might have had, something which was theirs, which made them what they
were, their history, their culture, their hope was not transmitted to me.
6

The search for identity is most powerful during adolescence when

the ties to one’s parents begin to weaken and the adolescent begins to
ask the question, who am I in relation to everyone that surrounds me? My
family migrated to the United States in 1961 fleeing from a tyranny that
engulfed the minds of children and adolescents with Marxist and atheist
doctrines. My parents struggled in a new and strange land, they suffered
and were forced to adapt to different customs and a different language.
With their radical decision to choose freedom over tyranny, they instilled
in me a sense of honor and pride for who I was and for my roots. They
also instilled in me a sense of obligation to our adopted land, the United
States, and a love for my country of birth and my Cuban heritage. From my
parents I acquired my obsession with freedom and education. However, I
vividly remember my own experience when as an adolescent I only spoke
English, listened to American music, rejected everything that sounded or
smelled Cuban, and sadly, could hardly speak the language in which I
had first learned to speak, sing, and pray. My world was divided in two,
the outside world of school and friends, where English was the medium
of communication and Americanism was embraced, and the world of
home and family, where Cuban traditions and values were instilled. The
two worlds were constantly clashing. And I, I honestly had no clue what
my place was or who I was. Fortunately for me, my parents forged ahead
emphasizing a strong ethnic identity and family communication which
eventually helped me form a sense of pride and the gift of being bilingual.
But the road was paved with much rebellion and many tears.
5
FISHMAN, Joshua,
op. cit
.
6
PEREC, Georges in BOOTH, W. James.
Communities of memory on witness, identity, and justice,
p.
81-82.
This complex relationship between language, culture, and identity
has been at the core of the immigrant experience for centuries.
Culture, identity and language may be inextricable from each other; all create
identity, or, at least, important aspects of identity. But language not only
creates the contours of identity, it also may set up the conditions for other
kinds of inclusion and exclusion, belonging and not belonging, success and
failure... Language gives meaning to social structures, identity-creating and
oppressive ones.

References:

Language and Cultural Identity

Language and identity are inseparably associated with each other. While language is the
medium used by individuals to negotiate a sense of self in different contexts (Pierce, 1995;
Norton, 2000), identity construction is a social and cultural process which is accomplished
through discursive practices. Therefore, the ability to use a specific language in a specific
context influences the development of cultural identity (Trechter & Bucholtz, 2001) by creating
a tension between the discourse of the dominant culture and the discourse of the subculture of
second language speakers. In other words, the manner in which language, in this case English,
is used determines to which social group individuals are allowed entrance. Those who speak
English will be admitted to social groups with greater amounts of social and political power
than those who do not (Fairclough, 2001). When the English language learner’s (ELLs) first
language is devalued and the language of the socially and politically dominant society is
imposed on all of the students in schools, the ELL’s identity is threatened, and inequitable
social relationships between ELLs and native speakers of the dominant language are produced
(Pierce, 1995). As Cummins (1996) notes, the unequal relation of power between dominant and
minority languages can serve to constrain multiple identities that minority language speakers
can negotiate at school and in society. Moreover, because their culture is devalued and their
language is not supported through primary language instruction, many second-language-
speakers who attend Understanding the Interconnectedness Between Language Choices,
Cultural Identity, Construction and School Practices Mercuri No. 6 (Nov. 2012) No. 6 (Nov.
2012) 18 American schools experience the pressure of a predominant English only ideology and
lose their language and culture altogether (Norton, 2000). In sum, the imposition of the
predominant English-Only ideology and the devaluation of the ELL’s language and culture
force second language speakers to lose their heritage language and native culture. As a
consequence, they fail to develop both a strong sense of identity and the cognitive basis for
future learning (Sánchez, 1999). Bucholtz and Hall (2004) characterize language as “the most
flexible and pervasive symbolic resource” (p. 369) that is at the center of the cultural
reproduction of identity. The cultural identity associated with the politically, economically, and
socially dominant Western European-American culture is seen as the norm and that to which
other social groups in the United States should aspire (Martinez, 2006). Although it appears
innocuous, the dominant Western EuropeanAmerican group possesses pervasive and covert
power. For example, the English-Only ideology is seen as a norm in all public schools and
institutions. Students are viewed as having adequate knowledge only if they know English. It is
also understood that English is the language which should be used in all instructional situations.
Moreover, in this time of accountability, the results of mandated, standardized assessments are
only valued if they are administered in English. These practices not only send the message that
other languages and cultures are not valued in schools, but they also limit English language
learners’ opportunities for school success (Crawford, 2008). From a critical theory perspective,
Watson-Gegeo, and Gegeo (1999) explain that language is central to cultural ways of thinking.
They argue that “language is essential to identity, authenticity, cultural survival and people’s
learning and thinking processes” (p.25). This concept is manifested when English language
learners in most American schools must recreate knowledge through a second language, thereby
losing their personal cultural identity and their authentication of self. When the link between
language, cultural identity, and ways of thinking limit access to knowledge, second-language-
learners’ opportunities for literacy development are diminished.

Language and identity

“If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in
his mother language that goes to his heart.” – Nelson Mandela

The age of globalisation has seen thousands of people emigrate to other countries in search of
better employment and educational opportunities. Sometimes people migrate in order to escape
conflicts at home and to find safer and more stable living conditions abroad. This movement
from one place to another affects peoples’ mother tongue.

Language is not simply an assortment of words but an entity that connects an individual to his
family, identity, culture, music, beliefs and wisdom. It is the carrier of history, traditions,
customs and folklore from one generation to another. Without language, no culture can sustain
its existence. Our language is actually our identity.

The mother language plays a crucial role in shaping an individual’s personality as well as his or
her psychological development, thoughts and emotions. Our childhood is the most important
stage of our lives and children can comprehend concepts and skills that are taught to them in
their mother tongue quite fast.
Many psychologists believe that a strong bond between a child and his or her parents
(especially the mother) is established through exhibition of love, compassion, body language
and verbal communication; language.

According to education specialist, Hurisa Guvercin, “When a person speaks his mother tongue,
a direct connection is established between heart, brain and tongue. Our personality, character,
modesty, shyness, defects, skills, and all other hidden characteristics become truly revealed
through the mother tongue because the sound of the mother tongue in the ear and its meaning in
the heart give us trust and confidence”.

Unesco Director General Irina Bokova believes that, “mother languages in a multilingual world
are essential components of quality education, which in itself is the foundation for empowering
women, men and their societies”.

There is no harm in learning another language for it opens up new windows of opportunities
and helps us understand life better. A new language gives us a new worldview and makes us
more aware of the cultures, lifestyles, customs and beliefs of other people.

The 200 million people in Pakistan speak 72 different provincial and regional tongues,
including the official languages, Urdu and English. According to the Parliamentary Paper 2014,
10 out of these 72 languages are either “in trouble” or “near extinction”. The provincial
languages of Pakistan are spoken and used in the four provinces – Punjab, Sindh, Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. However, these languages, with the exception of Sindhi, have no
official status in Pakistan.

Since the most crucial factor is the attitude of those who speak a particular language, it is
essential that the state creates a social and political environment that encourages
multilingualism and respect for minority languages. It should enact laws that recognise and
protect minority languages, encourage an education system that promotes mother-tongue
instruction and create creative collaboration between community members and linguists to
develop a writing system and introduce formal instruction in these languages.
Lok Virsa’s stance in terms of mother languages is very clear. It considers all the languages
spoken in Pakistan as national languages. For the last two years, Lok Virsa has been actively
promoting cultural diversity and celebrating mother languages.

To commemorate the UN’s Mother Language Day, a two-day festival titled ‘Our Languages –
Our Identity’ will be held in Islamabad on February 18 and 19, 2017. The event will provide a
unique opportunity to experience Pakistan’s linguistic and cultural diversity: more than 150
writers, poets and cultural activists will represent Pakistan’s mother languages. This will be
followed by a musical evening and poetic night where sessions and mushairas will be held in
various national languages.

The aim of the festival is to promote Pakistan’s linguistic and cultural diversity as an instrument
of social harmony, peace and tolerance. It also aims to enlighten the new generation of Pakistan
by showcasing a wide range of literary works in these languages.

In addition, Lok Virsa has been organising summer camps for children over the last two years to
familiarise them with different regional languages and give them an idea about today’s
multicultural world with pluralistic identities. Lok Virsa, through regional exhibitions, also
promotes the music of regional languages.

It is time all regional languages are given the status of national languages which will bring their
speakers from the fringes to the mainstream. If we want to empower our people, we need to give
them the opportunity to communicate in their mother language so that they do not feel
disenfranchised.