Linguistics identitiES

LinguisticIdentities
Joseph Sung-Yul Park
[An entry for Mark Juergensmeyer and Helmut Anheier (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Global
Studies, 1080-1084. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 2012. A brief overview of issues in language
and identity relevant to the study of globalization.]
In the context of global studies, linguistic identities may refer to the sense of belonging to a
community as mediated through the symbolic resource of language, or to the varying ways
in which we come to understand the relationship between our language and ourselves.
These are closely related aspects of how we position ourselves in social context through
language, and globalization has significant implications for how these aspects unfold.
Linguistic identities become central in globalization due to the fact that movement of
people, ideas, products, and cultural forms across national boundaries intensifies contact
among languages. Hybridity and multiplicity introduced by linguistic exchanges on local
and global levels open up new possibilities of identity work and a more complex space in
which we come to understand our place in the world. Also, changing experiences of work
and social life lead to new conceptualizations of the self, leading to alternative
understandings of the relationship between language and identity. In particular, neoliberal
transformation of work has led to an increasingly flexible linkage between language and its
speaker. These trends make language a central issue in understanding the question of
identity in the context of globalization.
Relationship between local and global languages
Debates surrounding linguistic identity in the global world has often centered on the
question of whether globalization leads to greater homogeneity of language and culture
across the world or to reactionary emphasis on local identity as expressed through local
languages. On the one hand, new global and regional languages appear to be encroaching
upon the domains of language use previously occupied by local languages, most notably in
the areas such as education, science, commerce, and popular culture. As the domains for
local languages gradually shrink, the status and value of those languages suffer a loss,
which may discourage the intergenerational transmission of some of those languages,
ultimately pushing them into the status of endangered languages. On the other hand,
globalization also seems to lead to a renewed emphasis on local identity, and local
languages are often mobilized as symbolic resources for such drives. The heightened sense
of reflexivity introduced by globalization often gives rise to strengthened assertions of local
identity, whose unadulterated essence is assumed to be best represented by local language
and culture. Thus, various forms of linguistic purism arise, “defending” the local language
against the influence of global languages that appear to deteriorate the purity of local
cultural values and ways of speaking. Under this view, then, linguistic identity is basically a
site of conflict between the local and the global, with local languages serving as a key
weapon against the onslaught of global ones.
Recent work on language and globalization, however, is generally skeptical about viewing
the relationship between global and local languages in such oppositional terms. This is

because of the following reasons. First, it is problematic to assume a pristine purity of local
language and culture that precedes the influence of globalization, for such images of
essential identity are better viewed as discursive and ideological constructs. For instance,
Benedict Anderson’s famous work has shown that national languages, which are often
treated as natural evidence for the cultural and affective unity of a nation state, must be seen
as socio-political inventions that arise from the suppression and erasure of minority
languages and dialects that necessarily exist within the bounds of a country. As the notion
of essentialism, or the belief in natural, inherent connections between a social group and its
cultural characteristics (including language), is increasingly problematized across various
disciplines, it is better to view the link between local language and local identity as a matter
of constant negotiation and reproduction, rather than a natural bond that is threatened by the
influence of global languages.
Second, contact between local and global languages does not necessarily result in conflict,
as speakers are always capable of extending and modifying their linguistic repertoire and
incorporating multiple languages into more complex articulations of one’s sense of identity.
A great majority of the world’s population are in fact multilingual, and while their
movement across multilingual space may become a site of great tension or language loss
(e.g. for seriously marginalized linguistic minorities), in other cases it is a rich source of
new, hybrid identities which do not always imply contradiction and confusion. Indeed, most
studies on the state of languages in the world show that, while many smaller languages of
the world are reaching endangered status, a mass movement towards homogenization of
languages is not taking place; what we see instead is more widespread multilingualism
involving global, regional, and local languages.
Thus, even though tension between global and local languages can be real, researchers now
agree that a more sophisticated framework of understanding is needed, one that takes into
account both issues of power and local creativity, and one that recognizes the hybridity and
fluidity of identities in the global world. Current studies on language and globalization tend
to focus on how the conditions of global transformation open up spaces in which newer
kinds of relations and issues come to be integrated into how speakers and communities
position themselves through language. While it is probably the case that linguistic
difference and multilingualism have always served as a key resource for the articulation and
negotiation of identity in social context, the contingencies of globalization locate such
processes within a social matrix of greater complexity, thus giving rise to new issues that
must be grappled with as speakers and communities engage in identity construction through
language.
The case of English, as the global language par excellence, is illustrative of this point. The
emergence and spread of English is closely tied to the history of colonialism, giving rise to
various “new Englishes” in post-colonial contexts such as India, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong
Kong, and the Philippines. It is now widely accepted that such language varieties should be
seen not as degenerate forms of English corrupted by interference from local languages, but
as varieties of English that deserve equal status with traditional “native speaker” varieties
such as British or American English, with its own structural regularity and systematicity.
Also, it is recognized that the widespread use of such varieties among local speakers does
not necessarily constitute a blind desire to adhere to the language of the colonizer, but may

be seen as a valuable vehicle of local cultural expression and identity construction. At the
same time, however, those varieties cannot be understood apart from the more complex web
of ideologies that positions them within a global space of power. Thus, despite their
emergence as recognizable local varieties of English, they are still positioned as “non-
standard English” within a broader market of English, where “standard English” is by
definition modeled upon the language of the erstwhile colonizers. Such ideological
evaluations may in turn be reapplied locally; for instance, the local elite with better access
to more globally recognized forms of English through educational opportunities may
assume a more authoritative position in relation to speakers who only have access to local
varieties of English. In the case of Singapore, for instance, official language policies
promulgated by the government condemn the use of the local variety, Singlish, and the
ability to speak “standard English” offers much socioeconomic advantages, despite the fact
that the local variety is used predominantly across a wide range of contexts in society, and
strongly recognized as an expression of local Singaporean identity. In this case, the issue
becomes much more complex than the opposition between adoption of and resistance
towards English, as speaking different varieties or accents of English has implications for
one’s place within a social spectrum that intersects both local and global relations of power
and identity.
Social meanings of languages
Recent studies which attempt to understand language and identity in globalization focus on
the intricate network of social meanings that languages come to accumulate through their
circulation across the world, identifying this process as a key to how globalization opens up
a space for complex and rich articulations of identity. In the context of globalization, the
indexicality of language, or the property of language that conveys social meaning by
pointing back to previous contexts of usage, becomes increasingly complex, as multiplying
channels for cultural circulation and growing awareness of how language is used across the
world enrich the range of significances that may be invoked through the use of a particular
language. To use the example of English again, its widespread use allows the language to
invoke many different contexts and meanings, ranging from the memory of colonialism,
global consumer culture, and modern science to various appropriation of the language by
local speakers. A speaker who uses English in his or her talk, then, depending on the
specific form of English adopted, may invoke many different images, positions, and
identities. In addition, the resultant identity may be highly complex and hybridized, as such
language use may, either purposefully or inadvertently, point to multiple social contexts and
situations simultaneously. More importantly, such use in itself becomes another prior
context which adds to the complex indexicality of English, leading to an even more
multifaceted meaning.
This means that understanding local appropriations of English can become a highly
complicated analytic task, as the identities indexed through English may span multiple
scales, from global relations of colonialism and capitalist markets to local class relations
and cultural production. One field that has been instrumental in illustrating this complexity
is the research on English in global hip hop, best exemplified by Alastair Pennycook’s
work. When hip hop artists in Asia adopt English in their music, for instance, the identities
they perform through their language choice may transcend the fixed dichotomy between the

local and the global; the use of English in itself does not mean aspirations for a
“cosmopolitan” identity, while mixing in local languages does not automatically imply
claims of localness. It may be the simultaneous use of both languages that is important here,
highlighting the flexibility and adaptability of the performers’ identity. And yet, such
performances must also take into consideration, and will be understood in relation to,
various constraints on multiple levels, such as the distinct norms of the global hip hop
community and local structure of the culture industry. This demonstrates that what is
significant about linguistic identities in globalization is not simply the multiple meanings
linked to a language variety, but how such meanings intersect disparate levels and social
orders, an instantiation of what Jan Blommaert calls the polycentricity of language.
Researchers have also highlighted how adaptation of global and local languages may
contest fundamental conceptions of language and identity, potentially indicating a shift in
the way the relationship between a language and its speaker is imagined. Under
globalization, acts of appropriating the language of others are not constrained by traditional
norms of linguistic ownership or competence, as speakers may adopt linguistic forms to
which they would not normally make claims of ownership. For instance, Asian youths may
take up African American English in their speech as an expression of “coolness,” even
though their actual command of the variety may be limited and clearly they are not making
claims about racial or ethnic identity as commonly associated with that variety. This
practice, known in sociolinguistics as “crossing,” denaturalizes the essentialized connection
between language and identity, and underlines how speakers may actively utilize the
indexicality of language to construct their identity and to position themselves as subjects. In
this sense, linguistic identities in globalization emphasize the constructed, fluid nature of
identities.
Commodification of language and communication
In particular, the logic of capitalist economic globalization introduces a powerful incentive
for the denaturalization of the tie between language and identity. Due to the growing
importance of the service sector, development of telecommunication technologies, and
transformations in the meaning of work, we are observing a trend that is described in
sociolinguistic literature as commodification of language and communication, in which
linguistic competence and modes of communication come to be treated as commodifiable
resources. For instance, global call centers in India train their workers to adopt the
languages and cultural identities of their clients. When the call takers use Western names
and American accents to introduce themselves to the clients in the US, for instance, they are
not supposed to see it as a betrayal of their Indian identity, but simply as putting on a mask
that enables them to more effectively carry out their job. The underlying assumption here is
that language can be easily detached from identity and commodified, as the ability of the
worker to command a “native speaker” variety of English is not seen as having implications
for his or her identity, but as just another skill that may be picked up and mastered in
response to demands of the workplace. Commodification of language involves not only
specific language varieties, but more general stylistic ways of speaking as well. One
example is how corporations increasingly emphasize to their service staff the importance of
“communicative skills” such as active listening and display of empathy in order to enhance
consumer loyalty and smoother corporate communication. Again, such modes of

communication are not seen as natural reflections of the speaker’s “true” emotions, but
interpreted as a work-skill that can be activated and deactivated at will.
Such transformations are closely related to the discourse of neoliberalism, where the worker
is seen as a “bundle of skills.” In particular, the flexible and non-heirarchical workplace of
modern corporations values “soft skills,” skills which characterize the way the worker
manages one’s self and interpersonal relations through the mediation of language, attitudes,
habits, and moral values, in contrast to technical skills that are more specific to particular
tasks. As one of the soft skills, good communicative skills have become an important
characteristic of the ideal worker in the neoliberal job market. Thus, training in effective
communicative skills, which teach the worker how to convey one’s ideas clearly and to
persuade others efficiently, for instance, gains much popularity. Similarly, in many
countries, learning and improving one’s skills in the dominant global or regional language
(such as English) becomes an important way of staying relevant to the changing workplace.
Commodification of language and communication raises important questions for linguistic
identities. Most importantly, it problematizes the notion of authentic identity, the idea that
one’s language use is inalienably tied to one’s authentic self, one’s true provenance in terms
of age, gender, ethnicity, nationality, and other social categories. Commodification
destabilizes such beliefs in linguistic performance as a site for authentic identity, as workers
are encouraged and demanded to take on alternative identities through their language use as
part of their work routine. While some workers may actively embrace such synthetic
personae as required by their work, taking pride in their ability to freely adopt multiple
guises as a valuable skill, others may perceive such demands of the workplace as conflicting
with what they consider to be their true feelings and sense of self. For instance, service
workers may complain that they are expected to maintain an image of friendliness and
attentiveness throughout their communication with abusive clients while being constantly
monitored for their effectiveness in how many customers they can process within a given
amount of time. For the workers these may be seen as conflicting demands, which place
upon them a great burden of “emotional labor,” or the work of managing the client’s and
one’s own affect and emotion, without allowing the workers to attend to their sense of
authentic identity.
This does not mean that the image of authentic self is any more “real” than the model of
flexible connection between language and identity, however. As discussed above, the
seeming naturalness of identities based on entities such as nationhood are historical
constructs, and even categories such as gender must be understood as social constructs that
we build up based on biological distinctions of sex. As language is one of the prime
resources employed in the construction and performance of such identities, the authenticity
of identity categories must also be seen as constantly constituted through language. A major
effect of globalization on this work of linguistic construction of identity is that it
continuously brings our attention to the fluid, constructed, and imagined nature of such
identities, while simultaneously serving as a constraint on how identity work may be carried
out. As subjects in a global world, we incessantly need to manage our position between
multiple forces, including that of neoliberal capitalism, ideologies of the nation-state and
national languages, global flows of cultural production, complex indexicality of global and
regional languages, sense of belonging to local communities, and beliefs about our own

selves. This complexity intensifies the role of language in interpreting, negotiating, and
articulating who we are, making linguistic identities a key for understanding how we
position ourselves in the global world.

Linguistics identitiES

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Linguistics identitiES (20)

More from G.P.G.C Mardan (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Linguistics identitiES