Irvine and Gal -- Language Ideologies
Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation
A language is often just a dialect with political backing, highlighting that linguistic differentiation's significance is rooted in regional politics. This means the distinction between a language and a dialect is often more about power and influence than actual linguistic differences. For example, if a particular dialect is promoted by a powerful group or government, it may become recognized as a language, while other dialects are marginalized.
Identifying a language implies a boundary or contrast with other languages in a broader sociolinguistic context. When we identify something as a language, we're also defining what it is not. This boundary-drawing is a key part of linguistic differentiation.
Linguistic differentiation involves ideas framing our understanding of linguistic varieties and how they map onto people, events, and activities. It's not just about recognizing different languages or dialects, but also about the beliefs and attitudes we have about them and the people who speak them.
These conceptual schemes are called ideologies, influenced by political and moral issues and the social positions of their holders. Linguistic ideologies are shaped by our social, political, and moral beliefs. They're not neutral or objective, but reflect the perspectives and interests of those who hold them.
Linguistic ideologies are held not only by participants but also by observers like linguists and ethnographers. Everyone has linguistic ideologies, including experts who study language. This means that even scholarly work on language can be influenced by the researcher's own biases and assumptions.
No view is without bias; detecting bias is easier in others' views than in one's own. It's important to recognize that we all have biases, and it's often easier to see them in others than in ourselves. This is why it's crucial to be critical and reflective about our own linguistic ideologies.
Historical analysis reveals ideological dimensions in early linguists' work, shaping our understanding of sociolinguistic phenomena. By examining the work of early linguists, we can see how their own biases and assumptions influenced their understanding of language and society. This can help us to better understand the history of sociolinguistics and the ways in which our understanding of language has changed over time.
The discussion focuses on the dynamics of sociolinguistic processes, exploring the structure and consequences of ideologies of linguistic differentiation.
Consequences of Linguistic Ideologies
Impact on Language Change: How ideologies about linguistic boundaries and differences contribute to language evolution. Our beliefs about language can actually shape the way languages change over time. For example, if a particular dialect is stigmatized, speakers may try to distance themselves from it, leading to changes in pronunciation or grammar.
Impact on Scholarship: How the describer's ideology influences the description of languages. The way that linguists describe languages can be influenced by their own biases and assumptions. This can affect everything from the grammar and vocabulary that they focus on to the way they interpret the social significance of different linguistic features.
Impact on Politics: How linguistic ideologies justify actions based on linguistic relationships or differences. Linguistic ideologies can be used to justify political actions, such as language policies that favor certain languages or dialects over others. They can also be used to promote or suppress certain cultural groups.
The study examines ethnographic and linguistic cases from different regions, particularly Africa and Europe, to understand linguistic differentiation.
Semiotic Processes in Linguistic Differentiation
Ideologies recognize or misrecognize linguistic differences and rationalize sociolinguistic complexity. Linguistic ideologies can either highlight or obscure linguistic differences, and they can be used to make sense of complex sociolinguistic situations. For example, an ideology might emphasize the differences between two dialects in order to create a sense of social distance between the groups that speak them.
Varieties are linked to "typical" persons/activities.
Three semiotic processes:-
Iconization:-
Links between linguistic forms and social phenomena.
Linguistic features appear to represent a social group's inherent nature.
Attribution of cause and immediate necessity to a historical or conventional connection. Iconization is the process by which linguistic features come to be seen as representative of a particular social group. For example, a certain accent might be associated with intelligence. This association can then be used to justify social inequalities, with people assuming that those who speak in the associated accent are inherently more intelligent than others.
Fractal Recursivity:-
Projecting an opposition onto another level.
Example: projecting intra-group oppositions to inter-group relations. This involves taking a distinction that exists within a group and projecting it onto a larger scale, such as the relationship between groups. For instance, if there is a class distinction within a community based on linguistic features (e.g., accent or vocabulary), fractal recursivity might lead to the projection of this distinction onto inter-group relations, creating stereotypes about entire communities based on their linguistic characteristics.
Creates subcategories or supercategories.
Reproduces oppositions within individuals, concerning roles rather than identities. It's not just about creating distinctions between groups, but also about creating distinctions within individuals. For example, someone might speak one way at home and another way at work, reflecting different roles or identities.
Provides resources to create shifting "communities" and identities. Fractal recursivity is a dynamic process that can be used to create new social groups and identities.
Erasure:-
Simplifying the sociolinguistic field, making some phenomena invisible. It involves simplifying our understanding of the sociolinguistic landscape by ignoring or downplaying certain aspects of it. This can involve ignoring linguistic variation within a group, or denying the existence of certain languages or dialects altogether.
Inconsistent facts are ignored or explained away.
Social groups or languages imagined as homogeneous. This erasure can lead to the belief that social groups or languages are more uniform than they actually are.
A totalizing vision that transforms or ignores elements that don't fit. It can involve creating a simplified, idealized picture of a language or social group that ignores or distorts the complexities of reality.
Doesn't necessarily mean eradication but may lead to action if the element is seen as a threat.
Identity Formation and Linguistic Images
Focus on linguistic differences highlights identity formation by defining the self against an "Other". The act of noticing and emphasizing linguistic differences plays a crucial role in how we construct our identities. By highlighting how we speak differently from others, we define who we are in relation to them.. This process is fundamental to understanding how individuals and groups establish their sense of self.
The "Other" is often essentialized and imagined as homogeneous. The group or individual we perceive as different (the "Other") is often portrayed in simplistic, uniform terms. This essentialization overlooks the diversity within that group, reducing its members to a set of fixed, often stereotypical, characteristics. This oversimplification is a common feature of identity formation, as it provides a clear contrast against which to define oneself.
Imagery includes linguistic images, simplifying others' linguistic behaviors as deriving from their essences. The way we imagine and represent others' speech often involves reducing their linguistic behavior to inherent, unchanging qualities. For instance, attributing someone's accent or dialect to their immutable nature, rather than considering social or historical influences. These linguistic images contribute to the creation of stereotypes and can reinforce social biases.
Serves to interpret differences from drift or separation.
May influence or generate differences where sociological contrast requires display.
Case Studies
Examples are chosen to illustrate and clarify the semiotic processes:-
Southern Africa: Motivation of language change.
West Africa: Linguistic description in grammars and dictionaries.
Southeastern Europe: Political contestation.
The Nguni Languages' Acquisition of Clicks
The Nguni languages gained click consonants from Khoi languages.
Clicks were not originally part of the Nguni languages.
The question is why this change happened.
Early European Observers
Many early European observers compared them with animal noises: hens' clucking, ducks' quacking, owls' hooting, magpies' chattering, or "the noise of irritated turkey-cocks". This comparison reveals a biased perception, where the unfamiliar sounds were judged negatively through the lens of familiar, yet disparaging, analogies.
Others thought clicks were more like the sounds of inanimate objects, such as stones hitting one another. These comparisons reflect an attempt to categorize and understand the unfamiliar, yet they also reveal a distance and lack of appreciation for the linguistic features of the Khoi languages.
To these observers and the European readers of their reports, such iconic comparisons suggested (before our more enlightened days, at least) that the speakers of languages with clicks were in some way subhuman or degraded, to a degree corresponding to the proportion of clicks in their consonant repertoires. By associating clicks with animal or inanimate sounds, early European observers created a hierarchy where languages with clicks were deemed less sophisticated and, by extension, the speakers of those languages were considered inferior. This reflects a broader pattern of linguistic prejudice, where unfamiliar linguistic features are used to justify social and racial discrimination.
Clicks have drawn attention due to their unusual nature, with some comparing them to animal noises, leading to prejudiced views about speakers.
F. Max Muller hoped missionaries would abolish clicks among the Kaffirs but thought it might be impossible to eradicate them in the "degraded Hottentot dialects". Muller's view exemplifies the extreme end of linguistic prejudice, advocating for the eradication of clicks and viewing languages that contain them as inherently degraded. This sentiment highlights the destructive potential of linguistic ideologies, where language is used as a tool to justify cultural and linguistic imperialism.
Adoption of Clicks
Clicks sounded foreign to Bantu-language speakers.
The Xhosa term ukukhumsha [Zulu ukuhúmusha] “speak a foreign language, interpret