Language Use and Identity

The term identity literally means ‘sameness’. Yet in practice the concept of identity is more complex than the straightforward formulation. According to Bucholtz and Hall (2004: 371), in addition to discovering or acknowledging a similarity to establish identity, social grouping is a process of inventing similarity by downplaying difference. This argument has raised another fundamental idea: difference. Identity, on the one hand, refers to the similarity that distinguishes one from others; on the other hand, it also involves the differences between in-group members and those outside the group.

In numerous studies of language and identity, the most vigorous formation of socially significant identities lies in heterogeneity instead of homogeneity (Bucholtz and Hall, 2004: 371). In many cases, difference implies hierarchy, which in turn suggests power difference. Those with greater power are endowed with better benefit compared with other subordinate groups. This kind of ideological association enables the identities of the powerful group to become the norm, which is dissimilar from other recognizable groups. The term ‘markedness’ is used to describe the hierarchical structuring of difference in which some categories, like whiteness or middle-class status in the United States, gain default and less recognizable status, which in turn contrasts with the identities of other groups that are highly recognizable. Marked identities are ideologically linked with marked language, which is different from the norm. Because difference implies hierarchy bringing out the social evaluation, difference is therefore used as an explanation for social inequality (Bucholtz and Hall, 2004: 370-373).

Language has dual functions, which convey two levels of meanings: referential meaning and social meaning. The semiotic production of language and its meanings may indirectly invoke a certain identity. Concerning the semiotic associations,

29

Bucholtz and Hall (2004: 377) propose four terms helpful in understanding language and identity: practice, idexicality, ideology, and performance.

Practice refers to habitual social activity and is a semiotic process associated with identity. Bourdieu (1977) considers language as a practice that is also one form of social activities. Through a series of linguistic repetition and social practices, it shapes people to act and react in certain ways, and this is what Bourdieu calls habitus.

The next term, indexicality, is the semiotic operation of juxtaposition in which one event indexes another and the concept involves the semiotic association between linguistic forms and social meanings (Bucholtz and Hall, 2010: 21). For example, in Japanese, some sentence-final particles are thought to be women’s language and the linguistic forms are gradually and indirectly associated with women. With the social meanings created through repeated occurrence and the denotational meaning of linguistic forms, social stereotypes are therefore formed. Thirdly, the concept of ideology is characterized as the semiotic process of the ideological representation of linguistic features as the group with which it is associated. This kind of naturalized link between linguistic forms and social meaning is regarded more inevitable than the association created through indexicality. For instance, the linguistic gender of African languages in the nineteenth century was believed to be lacking, and thus a semiotic process was drawn to the view that African social gender is simultaneously defective.

In contrast, European languages which have gender-based noun classification are evaluated to be superior to African languages. European cultures consequently are regarded to be ‘better’ than African cultures. Finally, performance is a social display of self-awareness and it involves the audience’s evaluation. For example, certain stylized uses of linguistic features, like women’s language, are intentionally underscored through exaggerated performance to express irony.

The current study, while intending to investigate attitudes in two different

30

regions, can be related to the issue of the interrelationship between language use and identity, which emphasizes the role of language in promoting national and ethnic identity in countries with a historical background of ethnic and political inequity.

Joseph (2004: 92) interprets the term ‘nation’ in two ways: in an etymological sense and as a broader definition. The former view links nation with an individual’s nativity, origin, or birth, while the latter takes an extended sense of a territory’s expanse, its inhabitants and the government that rules them from a single, unified center. A concept that is closely associated with nation is national identity. Fishman (1973; in Millar, 2010: 247) distinguishes national identity in two forms: nationality and nation. Nationality refers to a shared ethnic culture in which a common language is used. On the other hand, the concept of nation is not interpreted in terms of ethnic construct. The people of a nation may speak different languages and a nation is comprised of people from different cultural backgrounds. Thus, a nationality may be realized by a single language, whereas a nation will recognize a language which is acceptable to the majority (Millar, 2010: 247). National identity may be strengthened when a nation or country is facing military, economic, or cultural threat. The sense of belonging to a nation will become stronger and causes individuals to seek mutual support with other fellow citizens to fight against the perceived threat. An example of national identity enhancement is the promotion of Gaelic. The Gaelic Language Act has been passed in 2005 in order to raise the profile of the language in Scotland.

Though several efforts are undertaken in education and mass media to draw connection between proficiency in Gaelic and national identity, the number of native Gaelic speakers is reported to be less than 60,000 in a country whose whole population is more than 5 million (Millar, 2010: 248).

Ethnic identity emphasizes common descent and a shared cultural heritage (Joseph, 2004). Edwards (2009: 157) engages in a discussion regarding the equation

31

between ethnic group and minority group. He argues that all people are members of some ethnic group or other and that there is no unique association between ethnic and minority groups. Another issue addressed by Edwards is group boundaries. Edwards claims that although the cultures enclosed within boundaries change, the boundaries are longstanding. For example, the younger generations might be different from older generations, though the concept of group boundaries separating other groups remains significant.

The study of language use and identity can be used to investigate how language is applied to promote national or ethnic identity. Eastman and Reese (1981) argue that although an association between language use and ethnic identity does exist, this does not necessarily mean that ethnic identity always coincides with language. In other words, actual language use does not guarantee the symbolic sense of an ethnicity.