Language and Identity

Language and Identity

National, Ethnic and Social

What is identity and what is the role of language in forming national, ethnic or local identity? Further what is the influence or role of one’s perception of identity upon the language they speak? If we go for a dictionary definition of identity, we will come up with something like, ‘who a person is, or the qualities of a person or group which make them different from others.’ (Cambridge Advance Learner’s Dictionary) It is the second part of this definition, ‘qualities of a…group’ which is of most interest to us. For a local group their identity is defined by a shared set of qualities or values such as culture, language, ethics etc, in a relatively small geographically confined space. Ethnic identity takes account of matters such as shared religion, race, culture and language. A local identity may function as a subset of Ethnic or National Identity. National identity is a matter of all these on a larger scale combined with a political desire of autonomy.

Language certainly falls into the category of such qualities which determine or influence a group or nation’s perception of their identity. It goes along with their culture, social norms, religion and race, and plays a sentimental and emotional role in exercising its grip on the group. It may no longer be perceived as the pillar of groupness (Edwards 1994) but if we look back in history and see how much, often political, importance people have given to their language, we will be in a better position to analyse its influence on determining a group’s sense of identity. Humboldt (1979, quoted by Edwards 1994) stated that “absolutely nothing is so important for a nation’s culture as its language (and that) a language is the spiritual exhalation of the nation.” Thomas Davis (1843, quoted by Edwards 1994) related language to national identity and considered a people without a language of their own as only half a nation. One will find numerous examples from around the world showing the very importance place of language in determining a group’s identity. (for more details, see Edwards, John: Multilingualism 1994)

Language and its relationship with perceived identity is two fold. There’s an out group symbolic value of their language which is a kind of sentimental and emotional attachment with it. I am different from you because of the language I speak. In Pakistan, certain speakers of the North-West Frontier Province often identify themselves as ‘I’m a pashtoon’ (I am a speaker of Pashto, as contrasted with … eg., Punjabi, Urdu etc). Here language is being used a marker of identity. This identification classifies the speaker into certain larger ethnic or national groups. In contrast to out-group identity, in-group identity involves adhering to a particular variety of language to mark local or social identity within a larger context. It is however, crucial to note that these out-group and in-group identity relations are flexible and relative.

As it happens in social comparison processes that members of one group generally tend to prefer their own salient group characteristics over those of the other groups (Hamers 2000), they tend to prefer their own language over others. It often, in the areas of conflict, becomes a marked difference and a symbolic value is attached to it. People not speaking the same language (or same variety) may be treated as outsiders. Quite often a threat from outsiders may bring in an unconscious change in language to mark local solidarity on one side and obvious differences with outsiders on the other.

We know that language and society go side by side, and that one can not understand the development of a language change if the social life of the community in which it occurs is not taken into account. (Labov 1972) Language operates under a continuous pressure from the society, and often incorporates such pressures by showing or accepting some variation in its form. A change in society is bound to lead to a change in language. However this change in not a simple phenomenon, even though it can be correlated to the social change. Just like a change in society is a struggle between various social pressures, language undergoes similar struggles between certain varieties and eventually one comes up as the dominant strong variety which may later become the norm. Sturtevant (1947, quoted by Labov 1972) stated that “before a (change in) phoneme can spread from word to word… it is necessary that one of the two rivals shall acquire some sort of prestige.” Now this notion of prestige is triggered by the society. It is the society as a whole (please note that not everyone has got an equal say here) which decides as to what varieties are socially identified as prestigious. The criteria for determining the prestige of a variety is quite complex, but in line with the ideology of that particular society. If, for any reason, a variety is perceived to be belonging to a rival it may not be treated favourably and the opposing variety may be accepted as norm. It is important to note that a perceived threat to the social identity of a group may lead to an unconscious change in language which may serve a social purpose of showing their hostility or differences. Similarly, a threat from a large outsider group may lead to an in-group unification of various varieties.

Milroy (1980) asserted the importance of the relationship between local solidarity and the use of the local vernacular. A classic study conducted by William Labov in 1972 studied the social motivation for certain linguistic change. The ethnically diverse population of Martha’s Vineyard, a small island just of the coast of Massachusetts, was showing a rise in high centralization of /ay/ and /aw/ even though a previous study suggested a decline in such use. At the time of this pronunciation change there was a major social change in progress. During the summer period, a large number of holiday makers from the cities visited the island and transformed its outlook. However, this had little or no long lasting impact on their speech in terms of converging towards the visitor’s speech. On the contrary, the three ethnic groups—native English descendents, Portuguese descendents, and the native Indians showed a rise in the use of centralised /ay/ and /aw/ as a marked difference from the speech of the native inhabitants of the island as opposed to the visitors. It was closely correlated with the expressions of strong resistance to the incursion of the visitors who flocked the island in summer. (Labov 1972) Further, it appears, Portuguese and native Indian speakers’ use of centralized was a way of their assertion as being similar to (or part of) the native English speakers and in return they were accepted by the native English speakers as one of them—the native inhabitants of he island as opposed to the visitors. The variation in language on one hand defined their local identity in terms of their loyalty to the local community (Eckert 2000) and on the other hand served the purpose of differentiating them from the outsiders.

Language is an important factor when it comes to social or national unification or divergence. It has the ability to unite people as well as divide them. Urdu and Hindi provide an interesting example of both. Modern day Hindi, the national language of India and Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, both arose from colloquial Hindustani, with Hindi showing a strong Sanskrit influence, and Urdu, with a heavily Persianized vocabulary (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Because of the religious and ideological differences between Muslims and Hindus, Muslim employed the Arabic script and Hindu preferred the traditional Devanagri script. In the changing political atmosphere of language (in fact the script) became a symbolic representation of religious and national identity. During the politically tumultuous first half of the twentieth century the difference between Hindi and Urdu marked the political division between people. However, after the partition Pakistan used Urdu as a national language to bridge the linguistic differences within its very diverse linguistic communities. Since various languages spoken in Pakistan are mutually unintelligible, Urdu functions as a lingua franca. Across the border, the same function is achieved by the Hindi language. Because of the religious and ideological differences between the two nations, the linguistic differences between the two languages have ever been increasing. Modern day Hindi employs a heavy use of Sanskrit borrowings and may not be understood by an Urdu speaker. It is interesting to note that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, who use Hindi or other Indian languages. (Please also note that Urdu with Arabic script is also used in parts of India).

Since Pakistan, not very unlike India, is by large a multilingual country, the regional languages are always in contact—hence in conflict. In rural areas there is a strong sense of pride and emotional attachment related to language and their group identity is defined by their language. (In some cases, one may not be able to marry someone just because one’s mother tongue is different) It is interesting to note that groups which feel to be under some sort of economic threat attach more importance to factors which differentiate them from others. In my personal experience, (I may turn out to be quite ignorant) people will attach less sentimental value with Punjabi, the most widely spoken native language of the largest province, than with Pashto, Sindhi or Balochi which are mainly used in smaller provinces.

The situation of Arabic and French in modern Lebanon presents another interesting example of the role of language in the formation of identity. Christians and Muslims have been living there side by side for centuries, and Christians considered Arabic as their language just as much as Muslims did. However, there’s a shift in progress. Arabic is more and more being treated as the language of Muslims or Arabs or of Islam, and French as the language of Christians. Although English language is also emerging as a strong second language, no sense of identity has yet been attached to it. (Joseph 2004) According to Joseph (2004) the refusal of Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon after Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, had profound effect on the Lebanese Christians’ identity. They perceived Syrian presence as occupation by Syria. In this case another (Arabic Speaking) oppressor is identified, and then a detachment is made from him wherever possible. Their acceptance of French is originally motivated by their denial of Arabic which is also the language of Syrians. By showing their indifference or detachment from Arabic language, and by accepting French they are forming a new identity which differentiates them from Arabic speaking Muslims.

We have noticed that in the case of Martha’s Vineyard speakers unconsciously altered their language to mark their separate identity. In Lebanon a complete conscious shift towards another language is in progress. Whereas Hindi and Urdu are both segregating as well as integrating people simultaneously. Is all shows the very powerful role of language in people’s perception or projection of their identity. All linguists would agree that all languages are equal. But common folks, and in some cases politicians also, may disagree. The sentimental and emotional value that gets attached to one’s mother tongue may lead them in a different direction. In 1807 while promoting the linguistic criterion of nationhood, Johanne G Fichte (see Edwards 1994) pointed out that “the Germans speak a language which has been alive ever since it first issued from the force of nature, whereas other Teutonic races speak language which has movement on the surface only but is dead at the root.” From a linguistic point of view this sentiment is illogical, incongruous and meaningless, but it does reflect on the essentially irrational power and appeal of linguistic nationalism. It is only before God and the linguist are all language equal, people, when their solidarity or identity is under threat, will always attach emotional and sentimental values to their language.

References:

Eckert, Penelope (2000) Linguistic Variation and Social Practice. Blackwell

Edwards, John (1994) Multilingualism. Penguin Books

Hammers, Josiane F. and Blanc, Michele H.A. (200) Bilinguality and Bilingualism. CUP

Joseph John (2004) Language and Identity: National, Ethnic and Religious. Palgrave

Labov, William (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press

Encyclopaedia Britannica

Cambridge Online Dictionary.