Language and Identity
Identity is a complex concept that includes countless facets and aspects. Shahrebabaki (217) describes it as stemming “from the Latin word idem, which means sameness.” In different contexts, this “sameness” can vary semantically and has various features. In the meantime, language belongs among the most vital identifying features, being inseparable from the identity of its speaker. Apart from similar dynamics, language, and identity possess a connection strong enough to provide identification even out of minor indicators. For example, people from different regions can pronounce the same word differently; thus, even a single phonemic feature is enough to exclude or include a person from a social group. Consequently, with the support of particular theoretical background, language and identity’s interconnection showcases the unique sociolinguistic mediation between personal and social areas of people’s lives.
Identification Semantics
To understand the connection between language and identity, one should first dive deeper into the meaning of identification in the context of spoken language. Tabouret‐Keller (315) states that “language acts are acts of identity.” The statement is subsequently explained with the analysis of the verb “to identify,” which has two semantic fields that can be classified as transitive and intransitive. The former relates to the identification of other people judging by their speech. Language is an external behavioral indicator and allows individuals to associate speakers with specific social groups. The latter implies an individual’s self-identification; the language provides means for individuals to represent themselves as members of particular groups.
Identity Dynamics
Language in human society does not stagnate – it constantly changes, improves, and expands. The dynamics of such an ever-changing phenomenon can be described as an ocean that contains mainlands and numerous island groups of language concepts varying in the frequency and permanency of use. However, even the mainland is subjected to long-term change, possessing only relative permanency. Analogically, identity showcases the same dynamics regarding permanency and changeability (Tabouret‐Keller, 316). Even Shakespeare (153) noted the complexity of personal identity – “we know what we are, but know not what we may be.” At any given moment, an individual’s identity represents a heterogeneous construct of all the names and personalities they took up or were given by others (Tabouret‐Keller, 315). Nevertheless, in the long term, the identity is subject to endless recreation depending on various external and internal circumstances.
Language Binds
Language serves as a link binding personal and social identities together. Advanced Consulting for Education stresses the “research conducted so far shows that there really is a strong connection between our language use and our language choices and our identity” (00:00:16 – 00:00:24). In his research, Tabouret-Keller (317) states two main reasons for such a relationship: psychological and legitimate. The psychological reason is based on the language’s ability to provide its users with the most extensive set of easily adoptable identification features, no matter the meaning and interpretation for a user or their observers. The legitimate reason rests on the officially accepted affiliation of certain languages and respective countries – if the countries’ laws and constitutions are written in a specific language, the country acknowledges this language as its distinguishing feature.
Identification Boundaries
In general, languages and identities associated with them involve a boundary-marking function. It implies the prevalence of the same identity in a place where the same language is spoken; this identity would remain prevalent as long as that language is spoken. However, modern nation-states can enforce specific languages on their citizens. It results in a curious paradox: these states apply to the population’s unity based on the territorial linguistic identity despite ignoring the language and identity people had during the state formation. In many cases, it leads to bilingual or multilingual communities where people might experience discrimination and inferiority or, conversely, recognition and inclusion based on specific language choices.
Group Affiliation
Linguistic boundary functions imply the individuals’ ability to be both in their groups and out of the groups of others. The value of these affiliations is relative and centers around members’ specific needs and satisfaction. Consequently, there are groups where the affiliation may be imposed while other groups are voluntary to join. For example, Salesses (2013) mentions that when he was adopted, he had no choice but to follow the cultural change: “For me, code-switching wasn’t a freedom or a choice. It was a one-way street.” Thus, the family group and its language are imposed on the child; his family connection persists even after he decides to leave it. On the contrary, the example of a linguistic person showcases their ability to decide which group better satisfies their needs. Overall, joining a group is a complex process that depends on various factors, such as commitments, loyalties, or hatred, illustrating each identity as an intersection of other identities.
Giles’ Accommodation Theory
There are several theories regarding the linguistic aspects of identity. Giles’ accommodation theory and Le Page’s works on language behavior are among the most popular. The accommodation theory states that “people are motivated to adjust their speech style or accommodate, as means of expressing values, attitudes, and intentions towards others” (Tabouret‐Keller, 322). As an integration process, Giles defines convergence as an act of expressing approval, while divergence, the process of dissociation, is related to expressing disapproval. The accommodation theory implies the a priori existence of predefined social groups; this fact serves as a motivator for an individual’s speech adjustment to express the desire to be affiliated.
Le Page’s Linguistic Theory
In his writing, Malcolm (257) notes that “I had commanded attention when I said something.” Commanded attention is essential in Le Page’s linguistic theory, where he defines speech adjustment as a solely internal projection of his vision while others are invited to join (Tabouret‐Keller, 322). In this context, no group is defined beforehand, and everything depends on the individual’s desire to diffuse his projection for others’ understanding or focus on his inner universe for dissociation. Overall, the topic of linguistic identification has a vast theoretical background, which strengthens the fact of language’s importance in the process. It allows for self-identification and identification of others, displays certain group features, and mediates between personal and social visions of people. In other words, language and identity are inseparable and mutually defining when it comes to the question of identification.
Works Cited
Alger, Anne-Marie. “Identity.” ‘I don’t know who I am anymore’: Losing my identity, Councelling Directory, Web.
Shakespeare, William. “Hamlet.” Shakespeare’ s Hamlet, edited by Terri Mategrano, Cliffs Notes, 2000.
Karin Moosbrugger. “Personal and social identity.” Identity Theory vs. Social Identity Theory, Pinterest, Web.
“Language and Identity.” YouTube, uploaded by Advanced Consulting for Education, Web.
“Multiculturalism.” Embrace Multiculturalism and Embrace Your Humanity, Think Bilingual, Web.
Malcolm, X. “Learning to Read.” The Autobiography of Malcolm X, edited by Alex Haley, Ballantine, 1965, pp. 353-361.
Salesses, Matthew. “The Overwhelming Nature Of Code-Switching.” NPR, Web.
Shahrebabaki, Masoud Mahmoodi. “Language and Identity: A Critique.” Journal of Narrative and Language Studies, vol. 6, no. 11, 2018, pp. 217-226.
Tabouret‐Keller, Andrée. “Language and identity.” The handbook of sociolinguistics, edited by Florian Coulmas, Blackwell Publishing, 2017, pp. 315-326.