Linguistic Politics and the Reinforcement

Linguistic Politics and the Reinforcement of Social Power Hierarchies Discussion of language and how it functions socially. This section is meant to stimulate the readers interest and will raise the critical questions which my paper addresses. Language has the potential to be a deeply powerful instrument when wielded to political, social or hierarchical interests.

Distinct power structures are implicated in the nuances of linguistic communication, from the selection of words to the semantics of context; from the seemingly simple colloquialisms which reflect cultural in-groups and out-groups to the complex interactions between differing linguistic traditions; from the imposition of a set of normative cultural terminologies to the construction of meanings centered on certain inherencies within a culture. Indeed, must is as stake in the way our public officials, world leaders, celebrities and peers speak to one another and through forms of mass communication.

At its most basic level, this discussion aims to evaluate power as a function of linguistic characteristics within a culture. Therefore, it is implied that political, economic and social realities do share a close relationship with linguistic traditions. Moreover, we can deduce that individuals and organizations in roles of power or leadership will tend to project specific uses of the language which carry meanings that are both explicit and implied.

The latter such meanings may hinge on a whole host of contextualizing factors which include the originator of the message, the sector in which it is spoken (such as professional, private or familial) and the situational context which had invoked the initial delivery of the message. In order to demonstrate this, the research conducted here is primarily geared toward the argument that linguistically-based power-structures can have the impact not just of manipulating cultural realities but indeed, of fully subverting one culture in favor of another.

The account hereafter will first examine some of the semantics that shape the use of language in practical terms. Subsequent to establishing this foundation for a proper discourse analysis, the research will turn to consideration of the role which linguistic power structures have played in imposing cultural dominance from one party to another.

Indeed, the central thesis of this research is that linguistic dominance can be used as a powerful instrument in subverting, and even exterminating a less powerful or stable linguistic tradition, as demonstrating by the linguistic genocide perpetrated by European colonialists in the spread of English and Spanish throughout the so-called 'New World.' II. Introduction of the theory and methods of discourse analysis; with brief examples and discussion.

Before proceeding to an examination of these claims which tie linguistic traditions to patterns of imperialism, the use of the term 'New World' serves as an ideal segue into a discussion on the discursive semantics of linguistic politics. Indeed, the term 'New World' inherently takes a distinctly European and decidedly ethnocentric stance on characterizing the continents today known as North and South America. As we know today, these are lands which were vastly inhabited by rich and varied peoples erroneously referred to as Indians by their European conquerors.

Like the term 'New World,' the term Indians reflects a Europeanized perspective of entitlement to name that which it encountered according to a distinctly European experience. So we can see that semantics play a significant part in the way that political power structures come to be formulated.

Or as Uszkoreit (1996) observes, "according to the intentional approaches the coherence of discourse derives from the intentions of speakers and writers, and understanding depends on recognition of those intentions." (Uszkoreit, 6) In this case, the intention of the term 'New World' was to suggest that it has only then been discovered by man. Accordingly, we may perceive that the colonists settling here perceived that their relationship with the land -- rendering it new -- transcended the relationship of those who had long-inhabited it.

This is a proper initiation to both aspects of the research conducted hereafter, which first identifies some of the realities shaping language usage and the formation of meanings and subsequently addresses the role of language in creating cultural hierarchies, sometimes to devastating effect. At its most basic, language is a complex symbiosis of verbal and nonverbal cues used to convey information within and across cultures. One inherent effect of the continued use and unconscious collective exploration of its prospects for usage is the reduction of formality in its everyday implementation.

The needs for economy, for familiarity and for personal expression have together had the effect of enabling individuals to achieve a diversity of meanings and linguistic expressive tendencies within the context of a shared communication framework such as a language or dialect.

Our research suggests that it might be sensible to "view the constant evolution of new words and new uses of old words as a reassuring sign of vitality and creativeness in the way a language is shaped by the needs of its users" (Yule, 53) That is to suggest that there is a close coordination between the ways in which words are used and contextualized and their intended effect.

As desired effects such as expediency or the conveyance of a certain personality trait are sought, so are decisions made regarding desired word choice and informal adaptations thereof. Understanding these realities requires a discourse analysis such as the one which is applied here to the conditions of linguistic expression, both semantically and in the context of particular political and social systems. This speaks to our instinctual use and comprehension of words which are created by the processes of blending and clipping.

Word economy is a common trait of informal linguistic communication and even the word choice more commonly used in the professional setting today, where there is a high premium on conciseness but linguistic decisions that are simultaneously comprehensible to a common denominator of recipients. Blended and clipped terms are those derived by the abbreviated conglomeration of two words and those derived from longer terms, respectively.

In each case, there is a resident familiarity to the words which form the basis for the hybrid or truncated terms, with our collective consciousness possessing some registered awareness of the automatic process which resulted in their combining or shortening. This is how we come to understand almost automatically the meanings created therein. These types of simplifications of language appear at their root to be fundamentally benign.

But in another way, the creation of famliar and informal uses for language and the extension of their normalcy is a subtle way of promoting a specific cultural reality which is unified by specific linguistic patterns. Indeed, this stimulates the formulation of a cultural in-group which comes to achieve its own symbolic and metaphorical meanings through the reinforcement of linguistic norms.

As Zinken (2003) finds, "research in cognitive linguistics has brought rich evidence of the enormous influence that body experience has on (metaphorical) conceptualization." (Zinken, 507) This is to say that one's cultural experience which play a particular role in how well one comprehends bended and clipped terms or symbolic abstractions that have achieved normative status within a culture. In turn, this may prefigure the ability of one to make entrance into the culture itself.

With blending, the goal is quite often to respond to the creation of some new object, process or amenity which demonstrates shared characteristics of a number of already existing and well-known concepts. For example, we may cite combination of the words television and broadcast has forged the word telecast. Without very much background in multi-media, an average person having never heard the term may likely be able to intuit the word's basic meaning as a broadcast on televisions.

Though a novel term, its basis in two common and mutually understood words with well-established and collectively accepted meanings render it an easily deductible term for those with a competent working knowledge of the basic English language. Clipping is essentially a process by which abbreviated expressions of words come to replace their lengthier originating terms. Thus, many of the terms which are held in our lexicon as full words, are in fact the result of a need for the convenient abridging of communicative expression.

Interestingly, in many cases of clipping, the words which have been thereby produced are far more familiar and frequently used than their roots. Such is evident in the terms selected as examples by the Yule text as cab, which is a shortened term used for the cabriolet. This latter term is now scarcely seen in casual discourse, with the clarity and inherent preferable nature of its one syllable substitute having long supplanted it as the more instantaneously understood word.

This suggests much about the way that we appear to almost naturally understand such words as members of a cultural in-group. Their adoption as a natural consequence of the desires inherent in the process of human communication illustrates that they are not necessarily spontaneously produced on a whim by one inflective user. Rather, we may more accurately understand that such terms are reflective of some inherent need within the language.

Whether the need is to express a new range of ideas within the concise context of a single word, as seems often to motivate blending or to convey information about one's self by suggesting through word choice a certain loose, off-the-cuff informality, it is clear that there are both unconscious and deliberative forces at play in our choice of word economy.

To this point, Chouliarki (2000) argues that "the facilitation of deliberative processes among audiences is a matter not only of changing institutional arrangements (towards a regulation of marketized media) but also of changing the mode of articulation of media discourse itself; even though the latter may be a consequence of the former, each is a sine qua non-for deliberative democracy." (Chouliarki, 293) To an extent then, these approaches to language and the degree to which the cognitive experience of this language are shared in a culture will dictate how extensively democracy is truly fostered.

Beyond this, there are distinct messages of self-reference and the implications of power structures within a culture such as may occur when one reduces the content of a statement in the interests of word economy in settings where less formality is required.

As a simple example, a speaker may reply to an inquiry regarding how he is feeling by asserting 'fine.' Our understanding of this statement is that it is roughly identical in meaning to the proposition, 'I am fine.' In Palmer's (1981) discussion of sentences as being the basic units of the spoken language, he suggests that we might correctly understand the utterance of a sentence as the 'expression of a complete thought.' (Palmer, 37) Yet by virtue of the familiarity that we develop through constant social interaction of certain implied cues in our verbal exchanges, there develops a certain degree of scripted formulism which allows us to enable obviations in place of, in this case, such deictic terms as 'I' or 'me.' (Palmer, 37) There is an opportunity provided by the context of a conversation which allows us to reduce those formulaic scripts to the sparest and most essential terms of information.

In the statement provided, the proposition that the speaker is referring to himself in his assertion may be assumed according to the social response obviated by the question to which he is responding. It is inquired of him to describe his condition, so without necessarily applying the disambiguating deictic, it may still be assumed without a reasonable doubt that speaker is making a proposition regarding himself.

More, the absence of a verb, in this case the expediting 'am,'(contracted here to the 'm) is a manifestation of context as well. When it is asked of the respondent 'how are you?,' it is already anticipated that the reply will concern the respondent's state of being. Thus, the adjective which will be required to attend to the 'how' is implicitly reinforced by the connotation of a verb supplement asserting the 'being' which will be described by the state.

In this case, the state is 'fine,' and thus, according to the formula of expressive interchange that is socially obviated, the 'am' is implied. Palmer explores throughout his text the ways in which we communicate either directly or indirectly by conveying meanings through the exclusion of words as well as through the careful selection of words.

Palmer's text offers a discussion which helps to elucidate the nuances of language that are not universally perceptible but perceptible to those willing or able to incorporate contextual clues and a knowledge of the speaker the relationship implied by conversation with said speaker. (Palmer, 174) Often, what is said is not exactly what is meant. By way of irony, sarcasm, humor, derision or any other number of sophisticated uses of the language, it is possible to say one thing and mean something totally different.

Moreover, if there is a relevant significance of such an utterance to its recipient, the likelihood is high that the subtextual meaning will be received. The nature of such an occurrence in language illustrates much about the manner in which "language is often deeply concerned with a variety of social relations." (Palmer, 40) in order to understand a statement such as any of these, one must understand the implications underlying its utterance.

Palmer's text refers to this as implicature, arguing that the socially understood and accepted use of language for the purposes of communicating both information and sentiment simultaneously through such a device as irony or sarcasm renders what is produced as a common and identifiable part of speech. Taken together, the instances of semantic deconstruction considered here are indicative of the culturally derived peculiarities of the spoken language.

In many ways, what is addressed in this discussion constitutes an exploration of the manner in which meanings and expressions are manipulated as a reinforcement of cultural norms. Factors such as context, the nature of the relationship between the conversant partners and general social conventions within a culture will play a determinant role in the way that individuals choose the information they disclose, the manner in which they disclose it and the manner in which they interpret it. III.

Discussion of how manipulation of language can mean power in our society; followed by close examination of several longer examples (political speeches, propaganda, campaign advertisements). The semantic realities considered above for the basis for the claims in the section to follow, which demonstrate through a consideration of English in world culture that linguistic cultural dominance can manifest as linguistic imperialism.

Economic, military and structural conditions have helped English to permeate global culture to the point that it is often taken for granted, especially in such distinctively ethnocentric cultures as that of the United States, that English is a universal language. In corollary to that theory, many native English speakers react harshly to those immigrants who have yet to master the language and many of the familiar nuances discussed in the section above.

Moreover, it is even expected by many native English speakers that wherever they may tread in the world, they might be entitled to locate an English speaker with whom to interact. While even a modest linguistic education should dispel this myth, there is yet some cause to examine the belief, as it does not arise from a total vacuum of cultural conceit.

Instead, we might recognize that this viewpoint is provoked by a far larger and long-standing reality of global hierarchy, in which language serves as a marker of dominance in the molding of world politics, world economy and world culture.

Thus, as we enter into a discussion of the role which language has played both historically, within the context of international colonialism, and currently, within the context of economic globalization, we can assert that English has ascended to its unparalleled status of recognition and conceit on the world stage with the design of fostering the impression of its linguistic superiority.

In fact, such theories as that espoused in Phillipson's (1990) text, Linguistic Imperialism, argue that there has been an intentional enforcement of the global adoption of English as a product of the assumed cultural superiority of the British, and subsequently, the Americans. The sheer vastness of the Empire which the British would extend throughout the world would be significant enough to introduce such venues as India, Pakistan, South Africa and North America to the English language.

Britain's long-standing occupation in these settings, accompanied by its long-standing assumptions of racial and cultural superiority, rendered a circumstance in which it would become an economic imperative to function in what were increasingly English-speaking nations. The ability to subsist, earn advancement opportunities and even interact within the courts and legal system would be determined by the ability of native-tongue speakers to accept the primacy of English in their own countries.

The success of this approach to levying cultural dominance upon its possessed territories would prove incredibly effective and long-lasting, as may be testified by the unwavering dominance of English in most of the nations which would gradually achieve independence from the massive empire. By the start of World War II, with the British drawing inward to focus on continental strife, "the British Empire has given way to the empire of English." (Phillipson, 1).

In the fallout of the centuries upon which it militarily, diplomatically and economically exported its own culture, the subsiding British Empire would nonetheless disseminate its educational and linguistic proclivities to nearly every part of the globe. Even as the people of the world would gradually come resist the colonialist conceits which would project a universality of British culture, there could be no returning of the English language to its source. Its permeation of other cultures would be permanent. This conforms with the conception of English as a global language.

Whether it may truly be regarded as 'superior' or otherwise, it has ascended to a point of relevance in nearly all parts of the world. As one theorist defines it, "a language achieves a genuinely global status when it develops a special role that is recognized in every country." (Crystal, 2) Accordingly, English may be found as a language for use in official government business in more than 70 countries. (Cyrstal, 3) and while this ranks it well above any other language in the world with regard to permeation, it is not peerless.

Spanish, French, German, Russian and Arabic, sociolinguist Crystal (2003) asserts in his text, English as a Global Language, all have also established a global presence and a degree of dominance. Though not as fundamentally widespread, each of these languages has staked a degree of influence in a setting where it might be argued that cultural tendencies were otherwise driven at a juncture preceding colonial occupation.

Here, we are given the opportunity to recognize English not in comparison to the languages which it has subverted -- and in some cases, such as that concerning the colorful variance of Native American languages which once cut across the North American continent, outright extinguished -- but to recognize it alongside other languages which have played their part in helping to facilitate colonialism. The product of such a comparison is a greater understanding of language as a mere device of imperialist desires, with the specific language itself mattering very little.

The incidental importance of the English language today may be seen as akin to the Roman tongue which traversed the globe during that empire as well as the Greek language which did the same. This is to remark that it is the culture and imperial intent, rather than the language, which must be understood as the dominant and universal force.

Such is to say that, in the case of our discussion of English, it has been the primacy of England, and subsequently America, in the determination of world affairs which has assured the spread of English. There is no quality specific to English itself which has allowed it such great penetration. Rather, its carriers are the universal force.

The omnipresence of English and America in different theatres throughout the world is of more importance to this discussion than the notion that some countries and people are specifically amenable to some languages.

Still, for some critics of the theory held in Phillipson's seminal work on the topic, there exists not simply a rejection of the notion of language as a means to enforcing cultural value and political authority but even a consideration to the perspective that the invasion of English upon non-English speaking cultures may be seen as creating a hybrid of linguistic tendencies. For example, according to Caribbean sociolinguistic theorist R.B. Le Page, "what is necessary for an appropriate description of Caribbean language behavior.

is a multidimensional model which can account for the very complex mixing that takes place in individual and group performance." (Christie et al., 3) This is to argue that language created in formerly native speakers, as well as in the offspring of native and foreign procreators, cannot be comfortably packaged within the category of 'English.' Here, English is perceived and characterized as the language of native English speakers and those who have disseminated the language to countries all over the world.

In a sense, this is to deny language itself of a power which it is according in the theory of linguistic imperialism. Instead, language is seen as a cultural feature which may exist across a virtually endless spectrum of expressive tendencies depending on the individual, group or culture from which such expression is derived.

In fact, the text in question, using a study of the Creole variation upon English in order to lead a study based on the two languages of decidedly close comprehensive proximity, suggests that the theory of linguistic imperialism is itself a provocative notion which undermines the independent absorption and integration of languages.

This is to suggest, for example, that by determining to categorize one language as English, and to label the Creole derivation of English as a separate language in spite of its root similarities, is to inherently tie into the conversation of language categorization such distinctions in communicative delivery as the level of one's education. For example, "if we know Speaker X to be educated and/or economically well off.

we tend to associate him or her with Standard English speech, ignoring what may in fact embrace a wide range of linguistic features. Simliarly, more English features used by Speaker Y, whose appearance and social background make us associate him or her with the other end of the linguistic scale, may be overlooked." (Christie et al., 4) This is an important distinction from the ideas held in Phillipson's work, providing a useful point of objection to the idea that language functions as a weapon in the homogenization of the world's culture.

Certainly, the idea that that there is a relationship between the height of one's education and the category of language which they speak (rather than the quality of their abilities within a single language), is indicative of an elitist prejudice informing the view held by English disseminators of their perspective.

Even though this tends to discount the notion that English itself has been a weapon employed to subjugate and even eliminate non-English speaking cultures, it does illuminate the related notion that accepted standards of English proficiency do play a prominent role in distributing individuals along a hierarchy with extremely relevant racial implications. This calls into relevance a discussion over the relationship between the origins of one's education or the extent of one's education and the dexterity with which they speak this globally dominant language.

Instead of employing an understanding of the individual and cultural nuances which unique speakers may bring to English, the popular perspective contrasts this idea of La Page's by discounting the credibility, intelligence and cultural sophistication of individual's speaking English which deviates from Standard English.

Interestingly, and once again referring to the question of America's Native American population, there is concrete evidence to suggest that, at least within the context of the United States itself, a declination to use or understand English in full is tantamount to the myriad disadvantage of poverty and under-education. In a discussion on the Navajo Indian tribes which constitute the greatest remaining population of native-tongue speakers, theorist Joshua Fishman nonetheless asserts that their language continues to be eroded in daily use by the preeminence of English.

And further, he points to a number of socio-economic indicators which accompany that trend. He remarks that "in the course of surveying the language abilities of Navajo children in the late 1960s, a study determined that families' access to paved roads, which at that time were far fewer in number than they are today, correlated directly to the young persons' speaking abilities." (Fishman, 28) This is to indicate that where access to society existed, so too did the inevitable proclivity of ceding the native tongue to the social dominance of English.

More directly, this means that the presence of opportunities for social, economic and educational advance would necessarily come at the cost of a linguistic conversion. This speaks to the inbuilt sociological obstacles presented to those resistant to the dominance of English. Again, we can see here that language is used as a barrier excluding those unwilling to assimilate into American culture. Recent legislative efforts in the U.S. even point to this as an institutional approach to alienating proliferating immigrant populations.

While it may seem reasonable to accept that English is the official language of the United States, dominated as it is by English speakers, there is a strange irony to this condition in what has been for over a centuries, the world's hub for immigration from all over the non-English speaking world. Today, in America, the highly charged issue of immigration centers around the inexorably swelling population of Latino arrivals, mostly from across the Mexican border.

This has informed a number of legislative practices throughout America's south and Midwest -- distinctive for their anglicized cultural homogeneity -- designed to alienate and isolate Spanish-speaking immigrants. Most particularly, a law currently up for consideration proposes an English-only policy for governmental communications in many municipalities. In important U.S.

cities such as Nashville, Tennessee, for example, a newly proposed bill denotes that "English would be Metro government's 'official language' and all city communications would have to be in English, and only in English, under a Metro Council bill filed" in September. (O'Neal, 1) This is a piece of potential legislation that is designed to discourage the social integration of Hispanics, thus reducing their prospects for economic advancement or the formulation of a unified ethnic demographic with a differing cultural bent than the hegemonic white, English speaking population.

As a study released in 2004 shows, an.