There is a metalinguistic level of analysis that deals with language in terms of how we think about certain ways that people speak. We call these Language Ideologies, or sets of beliefs or feelings, or even just the way we discuss language in its social context. They often reveal subliminal connections between social phenomena or personal attributes and the particular variety of language in use. As we explore some of these popular beliefs, we will see that, under scrutiny, they often do not hold up as true representations of the world because they rely on oversimplification, and yet, they are important because they can have real world social effects as they influence action.
Standard Language
This ideology holds the view that there is one standard of a language, be it “English,” “French,” “German,” etc., that is the “right” way of speaking. Any way of speaking outside this standard is seen as improper, rude, or uneducated, depending on the context. For example, we feel social pressure to speak a certain way when faced with certain authority members (possibly with more attention to our articulation or less slang words), and they expect this form of speech from us. This is because “proper” language, in their minds and ours, has been established within other social fields such as education and media, to the extent that we associate that way of speaking with being official, educated, polite, etc.
Additionally, languages change naturally. They evolve. If any one place were to establish a standard and rigidly seek to maintain it, the country would have a lot of work to do in order to keep the standard from its course of natural change in its populace. How can a standard logistically compete with the natural way in which language works?
Linguistic Hierarchy
An application of the Standard Language Ideology provides the foundation for Linguistic Hierarchy. When one variety of a language is prized above others in education and media in the way I’ve described above, then people are likely to transfer judgements about the variety in question to the people who are speaking them, denoting negative qualities to any “lesser” or imperfect form of the language.
These two ideologies, of course, do not hold up. As we’ve seen before, correct language or the language of power is not inherently linguistically better than any other form of speaking. In other words, speakers of “more polite” language are not by any necessity actually more polite than speakers of “less polite” varieties, speakers of “more educated” varieties are not necessarily smarter than people of “less educated” styles of language, and so on. A “standard” language only holds the power that it does because it has been associated with those qualities for years, and we’ve been subjected to these associations by everyone and everything around us.
Linguistic Purism
This ideology just straight up ignores linguistic evolution. It is the belief that particular phrases, pronunciations, etc. are bastardizations and are inherently a threat to the “purity” of the language. What is meant by “purity” cannot be ascertained, as languages have always been changing and none out there is devoid of influence from other languages, nor from the innovations of its own speakers, but these movements of calls for purism often occur in times of great social change, language being something people assume they can control.
Purism is also tightly linked to Standard Language because each sees a heightened, better form of the language that should be used and maintains assumptions about speakers who do not meet these criteria. The problem here is that nobody meets the criteria exactly, because everybody speaks differently. We’re not robots. Additionally, many people would disagree on what the purest form of the language is, so there’s really no practical application of this ideology.
One Nation, One Language
This is the most dangerous of the ideologies (in my opinion), as it can lead to racism, “othering,” discrimination, and forced assimilation. Let me explain:
As language is a huge part of identity—be it racial, ethnic, national, geographical, etc.—it can be (falsely) assumed that speakers of other languages or other varieties are a threat to the cohesion of one group, or to scapegoat a group for any kind of trouble to one’s own group. This happens all. the. freaking. time.
Identity is a complex and multifaceted thing. In fact, we often have many different identities (e.g. as a student, a female, an American, a libertarian) and sometimes we value specific ones over others, or they fluctuate in their weight depending on our present situation. I feel more American when I am not in America, for example. I don’t recognize that identity much when I’m surrounded by so many others who share it. Because of this fluidity in how we identify, our identity cannot be simplified to a 1:1 correlation between the language we speak and the nation we belong too, so arguments for policy with national unity or monolingualism at their root can be fallacious in this association.
Language differences between majority and minority groups do not always constitute oppression, but even when they don’t (and especially when they are an explicit part of it) they will often represent the socio-cultural differences of the two groups. This culminates in the idea that someone of X citizenship must speak language X or they cannot truly be a part of that group, as well as the idea that someone who speaks language X cannot also be a part of identity Y or identity XY because they detract from one another or go against the norm. Does this sound fair or practical to a species as multifaceted as we are?
Arguments for homogeneity are nonetheless made by making these associations. The sociocultural and sociopolitical impact of thinking this way can be quite detrimental. This is not to say that there is not a relationship between language and national identity, because there often is. But there is much more to identity than just that.
Mother Tongue
Finally, the Mother Tongue ideology creates other problems of identity.
What is a mother tongue? Is it the language you learned first? The one you know best? The one you use more? The one that your parents speak?
It’s difficult to qualify just what we mean by this term. I’m sure all of you have different interpretations of it. And yet, we want to see everyone as having one “mother tongue” so that we can classify them, even when we know somebody was raised in a bilingual situation.
This proves problematic in an increasingly interconnected world. The underlying tendency here is towards monolingualism. It assumes that people’s linguistic capabilities can be equated to their mother tongue (however you define that) plus the rest of their linguistic repertoire as an add-on. This view classifies people in a very linear way.
What if you don’t speak the first language you learned anymore? You’ve acculturated to a new context and learned that language, but will always have an accent from the first which you don’t use much, or maybe you’ve overcome your accent but your childhood which didn’t include this second language has left you with less of a total vocabulary? Or you could simply identify more with the language in which you have an accent in.
There are many possible explanations as to why one would deviate from the “standard” language or the linguistic repertoire expected of them. Is this enough of a reason to qualify them as “other” in society or to assume them linguistically deficient because they come from a different language background (and this includes accents)? Again, I think not.
The idea of a “first,” “native,” or “mother” language is not inherently bad because the concept seeks to explain one’s identity. But again, because identity is so multifaceted, this question can be fallacious. It is suggested that the concept should be broken up into questions of language inheritance, language expertise, and language affiliation, because each could theoretically tell a different story and contribute to identity in a different way.
—
These ideologies can be present in tandem or alone, but in whatever combination they suggest a view of the language-derived view of the social world that is not entirely accurate or understanding. We must seek to understand language in society a little deeper before we make decisions based on the languages we hear.
Language Biographies 