SociolinguisticsAdrian Blackburn

16/12/2013Prof. Jaffer Sheyholislami

ALDS 2701

The relationship between personal identity and community of

practice

No man is an island. What does this common expression

actually mean when analyzing the intricacies of our

interpersonal and communal relationships? What does this

imply with regards to the people we are, how we define

ourselves, the decisions we make and our behavior in this

world? Within this first section of this paper I will

explore the relationship between how we define ourselves

within a broader social context – namely, within communities

of practice. To do this, it will be necessary to look at

what is a community of practice, what is personal

identity/self definition and what are the driving and

determining factors that influence people to create

identities and the way in which we do so. Central to these

considerations is the point of language. Through

investigating language - the way in which we are impressed

2

and socialized through language, the way that we then in

turn use and apply language – we are able to gain insight

into the depths of the psychological and social/communal

circumstances and processes that influence the ways in which

we view and define ourselves. Language, in this regard is

able to serve as a reflective indicator of personal

identity.

When considering the role of communities of practice in

how they relate to personal identity, it is important that

our consideration of the community of practice is one that

is broad and relevant to the individual:

The community of practice as a theoretical construct

rests on the focus it affords on the mutually

constitutive nature of the individual, group, activity

and meaning….a community of practice can extend to more

global communities, such as academic fields, religions

or professions. (Llamas, Mullany, Stockwell, 2013, p.

88)

3

Communities of practice may entail our immediate

relationships and social environments, as well as the

broader environments that may include contexts such as age,

sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, nationality and

religion. I would contend that these broader contexts are

the main determinants in the way an individual will tend to

associate and define themselves, as a naturalized process of

personal identification with one’s environment, that is

performed as an act of socialization and survival. Because

this process is so natural, and begins at such a young age

we often do not see the extent to which our environment has

influenced us and played a major role in our identity

formation. Furthermore, once this point of social influence

is identified, one may find it difficult to challenge or

even change the aspects about themselves that have been

influenced and determined by this point of socialization.

the reason why it is harder to change your vowels than

your address if you are upwardly mobile may be due to

developmental factors, but it is partly also to do with

social and psychological factors. Because language is

4

such an integral part of our self identity, we may also

not be prepared to abandon our original accent as

readily as we might abandon our home. (Meyerhoff, 2006,

p. 157)

The preceding quote brings me to the next point which

is of how personal identity is reflected through language,

or as Meyerhoff (2006) put it, “language as a tool of

identity formation”. It is through our socialization of

language, the various words and discourses that we are

exposed to, that we draw from in our process of

socialization and identity formation. It is the language of

the community of practice and our various experiences with

it that provide us with the words – and all the

concepts/definitions/social norms which these words embody –

that we experience and adopt as our own, which we then use

to negotiate our identities and navigate through our social

environments. As stated in Sheyholislami’s (2013) lecture,

“Language is the medium through which a human being becomes

a personality, in consequence of his membership of society

5

and his occupancy of social roles. (Halliday, 1978, p. 15).”

We often tend to take for granted the extent to which

we have created our identities, drawing on our exposure to

environmental conditions and circumstances. Whether it is

the families we are born into, the schools we go to, the

religions we are a part of, the work environments we take

part in, it is through the language utilized by these

various communities of practice from which we decide –

albeit consciously or unconsciously – who we are, and thus

what we will do.

Social identity is “that part of an individual’s self

concept which derives from his [sic] knowledge of his

membership of a social group (or groups) together with

the emotional significance attached to that membership.

(Tajfel 1974: 69, as cited in Dyer, p. 103)

(Sheyholislami, 2013, lecture 3)

If someone said to me that women are more polite than men,

6

how would I respond?

This is a question that, while I would be able to

answer with a simple ‘yes’, there is much more that can be

said with regards to gender and tendencies of politeness. It

is necessary to investigate the social conditions that

determine the relative statuses of men and women, and also

how these conditions can be varied, when looked at among

different cultures, or different situational interactions

between women and men. If someone asked me if this were

always the case that women are more polite than men, this is

where the discussion can be explored in more depth and

detail. Yet, it still remains difficult to ignore the common

reality that, as Sheyholislami (2013) stated in his lecture

“Robin Lakoff (1970): Women’s subordinate status is

reflected in the way they use language and in the language

used about them.” Being a sociolinguistic issue, we can

again analyze through tendencies of language use, how

relative statuses of women and women are reflected in

discourse.

7

In his lecture, Sheholislami (2013) sets a broad set of

parameters that outline the relative linguistic

characteristics of women and men, as commonly found in

sociolinguistic analyses:

NATURALIZED DISCOURSES

The discourse of the feminine:o Women are cooperative, supportiveo Women defer to males (interruptions, topic)

Discourse of the masculineo Males are competitive, achievement oriented,

emotionally restrained. But while this may serve as a broader set of

characteristics that define the ways in which males and

females tend to speak, is it really absolute that this is

always the case? Are women always more cooperative and

supportive than men? Are males always more competitive,

achievement oriented and emotionally restrained? In my own

experience, this has certainly not been the case and of

course I would be surprised to meet anyone else whose

experience was solely reminiscent of this. And yet I would

find it impossible to ignore the social realities of the

power dynamics between men and women – both historical and

current – that could serve to dictate such characteristics

8

and their influence on the way in which men and women speak.

From the historical women’s rights movement, to the ways in

which women today still fight for equitable status to men,

it is difficult to argue against the consideration that

women are in some cases women still treated as ‘subordinate

citizens’. This of course varies from culture to culture, as

for instance we find in some cultures there are still

efforts being made to ensure equitable pay between men and

women, and in some other cultures we find efforts to give

women equal status to men with regards to their right to

drive an automobile.

Rather than taking the categories to be objectively and

pre-culturally determined, they are understood to be

culture specific, emerging through conventionalized

activities and relationships that individuals enter

into throughout their lives. Language can be seen as

just one of those conventionalized activities.

(Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 206)

This is where the basis is formed that allows for some

9

to argue that women are more polite than men. Within the

context of unequal social status and power-status, it is

argued that there is a greater tendency for women to be

polite, as a way of negotiating the cost of their imposition

when engaging in discourse.

we consider how great a power difference there is

between the speaker and the addressee: we consider how

great the social distance is between the speaker and

the addressee; and we evaluate the cost of the

imposition…we generally put more effort into being

polite to people who are in positions of greater social

power than we are (Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 87)

In answering this question I am able to acknowledge

this as a prevalent social condition and tendency in

language use, however it is my own personal experience that

allows for the insight that this is surely not always the

case, and that through different contexts where power

dynamics may shift between men and women, these generalities

do not apply. Roles in power dynamics constantly shift.

10

Males may find themselves having female teachers, bosses at

work, or political leaders. Due to constantly shifting power

roles in our daily participations as social actors, it is

important to always consider all power dynamics – both the

micro and the macro – when answering the question of who

carries subordinate status, and thus, who it is that may

tend to employ politeness strategies.

How do the new media change the relationship between author

and reader, performer and audience?

When answering this question, it is important to assess

the question of: what is media? This is a question that

would have a very different answer if asked 20 years ago,

compared to today, since the birth of the Internet and its

constant undergoing of developmental change. One may

consider that these changes are also a reflection of broader

societal and technological changes. Thus, to answer this

11

question, both the older, more traditional context of media

as well as the newer, more modern context of media, are

required to be considered and even contrasted. What is

undeniable within all contexts, is the simple point that

media does in fact have a very real and significant impact

on our lives and our relationships – our relationships to

ourselves, our interpersonal relationships, and our macro-

scale relationships at a societal and national level. Once

again, what is central to this analysis is the language that

media uses, and how this language both reflects and

influences a society that is constantly undergoing a process

of change.

Analysis of media language should be recognized as an

important element within research on contemporary

processes of social and cultural change…Given the focal

position of mass media in contemporary social systems,

there can be little argument about their relevance to

the study of sociocultural change (Sheyholislami, 2013,

Lecture 8)

12

When looking at the pre-internet era as ‘traditional

media’, it is easy to find criticisms with regards to the

way media has had a negative impact on the relationships

between author and reader/performer and audience. However,

at first glance this impact may be viewed as a positive one,

as radio, television and literary publications establish

seemingly positive relationships between author and

reader/performer and audience. To analyze this, it is

important not to look at the immediate relationship between

author and reader/performer and audience, but rather ask:

what is the context of such relationships? In this regard,

traditional mass media has been critiqued for (to be

succinct) subversively brainwashing it’s audiences with

depictions of reality and cultural norms that do not serve

the best interests of the majority of people, but rather, an

underlying political agenda that may serve only a few

elites.

The mass media provide the means of access to much

information and represent a potentially powerful force

in our society. This is partly due to the fact that

13

media can select what counts as news, who gets into the

papers and on to television and radio and, most

importantly for linguists, the way that stories about

people and events get told and the frameworks in which

people get to appear and talk (Mooney, 1974, p. 2-3)

Conversely, it can be argued that with the advent of

the Internet, this traditional impact of media that media is

criticized to have had has lessened, due to the

accessibility of the internet shifting the role of who is

able to be a speaker/performer, and provide media content.

It can be argued that this has created a rather positive

relationship/interaction between author and reader/performer

and audience, which is more conducive to serving the best

interests of the majority of people. While some have argued

that new media formats of the internet have served to

further de-humanize relationship interactions, it can be

equally argued that it is this impersonality that has

facilitated more accessibility and interpersonal

connectivity, as well as breaking down pre-existing

14

sociocultural barriers:

engaging in normal interaction (either as Speaker or

Hearer) runs the risk of losing face. Consequently,

interactants have to jointly cooperate to maintain

face, making sure to pay face whenever an FTA must be

performed to meet the current goal. And that assumes we

somehow know when an act is indeed a face threatening

one and, more specifically, it assumes that we somehow

know how much face paying is appropriate

(Sheyholislami, 2013, lecture 9)

While personally I am a proponent of the Internet and

it’s potential to bridge gaps in sociocultural understanding

and positive relationship building, I do not ignore the

susceptibility of the Internet to the same abuses cited in

the use of traditional media. I would specifically implicate

the individual as the reader/audience as having the primary

responsibility in determining whether the internet serves as

gift in facilitating personal growth, education and

relationship building – or, becoming yet another accomplice

15

to facilitate the ignorance and alienation of individuals.

“Sometimes, the boundaries become blurred between

information and entertainment” (Meyerhoff, 2006).

What does “one nation, one language” mean? Why has it been

an important

concept in language policy and planning and why is it now

viewed less positively?

In answering this question, I am once again prompted to

look at the motives behind language policy planning, and

whom they serve. Language policy planning can be found as

both a response to the needs of a population/majority of a

population, but can also serve as a way to fulfill political

agendas that are not in the best interest of the majority of

people. It is also worth considering that LPP can be both of

the aforementioned: an effort meant to facilitate the needs

of some, while encroaching on the rights and freedoms of

others.

Language policy and planning decisions arise in

16

response to sociopolitical needs. Language planning

decisions may be required, for example, where a number

of linguistic groups compete for access to the

mechanisms of day-to-day life, or where a particular

linguistic minority is denied access to such

mechanisms. (Sheyholislami, 2013, Lecture 10)

As Sheyholislami (2013) cited in his lecture, “The goal

of a language policy is to perpetuate, establish, or undo a

language regime (Coulmas, p. 186)”. This statement is a

reflection of the ideology of having ‘One nation, one

language’, which is essentially motivated by progressions of

nation/state building, which are accommodated through

establishment and standardization of an official national

language.

This is an issue that, due to the way in which it may

not take into consideration the language minorities that it

affects, and the way it is implemented or even imposed on

language minorities, can become quite a ‘messy’ issue. It is

important to take into consideration in all stages of

language policy planning – status planning, corpus planning,

17

acquisition planning – what Sheyholislami (2013) called

“The Multilingual reality of societies”. This reality

implies that to be effective in all stages of planning is

not such a simple task, and forecasts problems within a

society if language minority speakers are not equally taken

into consideration as those who language policies seek to

serve.

No nation in the world is completely monolingual. In

some cases, this is due to the way modern nation-states

have been composed on the basis of rough geographic

boundaries and because of historical political

allegiances and conquest. Nowadays, it is also because

of the ease and speed of movements of people between

different nations. (Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 103)

To forecast what the outcome of LPP will be, it is

necessary to look at what the orientation of said LPP is. It

is commonly found that there are 3 main types of orientation

in LPP:

language orientations refers to the idea that language

18

planning efforts of all types can be characterized as

approaching language from one or more of three primary

stances: language as problem, language as right and

language as resource. Conflicts in orientation can

explain why language policy and plans re so difficult

to implement (Hall et al. 103) (Sheyholislami, 2013,

lecture 10)

The reason that the term ‘one nation, one language’ has

been viewed less positively in recent times is that it can

be reminiscent of past regimes where nations/societies

approached LPP and implementation from the orientation of

treating language as a problem. This term, in the minds of

many, is able to invoke negative connotations where in the

past, nations/societies have imposed language to an extent

where minority language speaker rights were overlooked,

imposed upon and in some cases have had other more severe

consequences. It can be reminiscent of scenarios where the

will of political leaders has been at odds with the people

who are affected by their policies, as Llamas, Mullany and

Stockwell, (2013) wrote: “Nationalism, with its ideal of a

19

culturally and linguistically homogeneous people

differentiated from neighbours, has led to more conscious

and consistent top-down LPLP than any other form of

governance”

Despite all of these criticisms and connotations of the

term ‘one nation, one language’, I am a proponent of

language homogenization and standardization, done more

within the orientations of treating language as a right and

as a resource. I would rather cite unequal socioeconomic

conditions as the real facilitators for why in the past,

efforts to standardize and homogenize language have been

detrimental to language minority speakers, while taking into

consideration correlations between language minority speaker

and peoples who are socioeconomically marginalized. If

language were truly treated as a resource and not as a

problem, we could enable all peoples of earth in bridging

unprecedented gaps in communication, while unconditionally

accommodating the needs of language minorities in whatever

ways needed.

20

Why is the decision to use Arabic as a medium instruction at

Qatar University is the right or the wrong decision?

As this paper has thematically eluded, there are simply

no right or wrong answers when it comes to questions of

language use, but rather there are histories that

contextualize language use and language spread, which much

be addressed as they dictate the way in which the spread of

a language unfolds. What have been primarily cited in this

address of these histories are the pre-existing

sociocultural/socioeconomic conditions that dictate why

language spread may be problematic and contentious. Thus to

give insight on this question, it is important to ask other

questions that provide context: Where do the motivations to

make such a decision come from? Who does it serve? Who does

it not serve? Why does it or does it not serve these

respective groups or individuals? What is it about English

that makes it such a commodity, allowing for it to have the

relevance that it does? Beginning with the last question I

draw on this quote from Llamas, Mullany and Stockwell to

provide some historical context:

21

It can be approached from a variety of angles, starting

with an examination of the macro-social and political

function of language in colonial, imperial and

postcolonial situations, considering for example the

different ways that colonial and imperial powers

exerted their hegemony through language (Llamas,

Mullany, Stockwell, 2013, p. 192)

I contend that this historical context is still very

much applicable in our modern world, with the power dynamics

having shifted from being contextualized within a framework

of colonial power, to one of purely economic power; power

exerted by those who are of a dominant socioeconomic class.

As Mooney (1974) has stated, “It is bound up politically

with notions of national identity and it is connected

socially with the middle and upper classes and consequently

with education, correctness and prestige”. Given that this

particular case of the spread of English as a standard

language pertains to a University - and by implication its

faculty and students - it can be argued that it is a form of

22

exclusive access given only to those who are typically found

in middle and upper socioeconomic classes. However, this may

not seem evident as these associations between higher-level

education and higher levels of affluence are not always

automatically perceived. Rather, such changes can often be

found hidden under the guise of bettering a nation as a

whole. This notion is highly debatable and even found to be

suspicious when the ideal of bettering a nation involves a

focus on mainly bettering its upper and middle classes. As

stated in Sheyholislami’s (2013) lecture, “when English is

widely seen as a key to the economic success of nations and

the economic well-being of individuals, the spread of

English also contributes to significant social, political,

and economic inequalities (Tollefson, 2005, p 8)”

The issue of adopting English as a standard language is

not one to be approached in terms of whether it is

beneficial or not - but rather by asking; who it is

benefitting? English has been referred to as ‘the language

of money’ and through both citing academic texts as well as

23

personal experience as an ESL teacher, I have found it to be

the case that the spread of English has been problematic

only in that it is not done equitably.

Bruthiaux (2002) has argued convincingly that for many

of the world’s poor, English language education is ‘an

outlandish irrelevance’ and ‘talk of a role for English

language education in facilitating the process of

poverty reduction and a major allocation of public

resources to that end is likely to prove misguided and

wasteful’” (Erling and Seargeant, 2009, p. xx)

(Sheyholislami, 2013, lecture 15)

Finally, in answering this question one must be

cautious of the way in which the spread and standardization

of English is presented as a benefit to an entire nation or

society, while in reality only a few may benefit, due to

having pre-existing higher socioeconomic status – and that

there is no ‘trickle down effect’. One must also be careful

to not confuse this abuse and inequitable spread of English

with the actual potential value that English may have, if

24

spread equitably. To enable such a spread, I contend that it

is these broader socioeconomic conditions that must be

addressed and corrected so that the spread of English is not

one that is highly debatable and contentious, in terms of it

being beneficial or not. In this way, such debates may

become moot points, and we may be able to utilize language

in the way its use should be intended: as an unquestionably

beneficial resource that is conducive to human living.

“With introducing English local and national languages

should not feel threatened; English or any other language,

for many people, is a tool used to serve humankind.”

(Sheyholislami, 2013)

References:

Llamas, C., Mullany, L., & Stockwell, P. (Eds.). (2013). TheRoutledge companion to sociolinguistics. Routledge.

Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. Routledge.

Mooney, A., Thomas, L., Wareing, S., Peccei, J. S., LaBelle,S., Henriksen, B. E., ... & Soden, S. (2010). Language, Society and Power: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis.

Sheyholislami, J. (2013, September). Lecture 3, Language andIdentity. Sociolinguistics. Lecture conducted from Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.

25

Sheyholislami, J. (2013, September). Lecture 5, Language andGender. Sociolinguistics. Lecture conducted from Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.

Sheyholislami, J. (2013, October). Lecture 8, Language and Media. Sociolinguistics. Lecture conducted from Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.

Sheyholislami, J. (2013, October). Lecture 9, Online Politeness. Sociolinguistics. Lecture conducted from Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.

Sheyholislami, J. (2013, November). Lecture 10, Language Policy Planning. Sociolinguistics. Lecture conducted from Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.

Sheyholislami, J. (2013, November). Lecture 14, English as aGlobal Language, 1. Sociolinguistics. Lecture conducted fromCarleton University, Ottawa, ON.

Sheyholislami, J. (2013, November). Lecture 15, English as a‘Global Language’ 2. Sociolinguistics. Lecture conducted from Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.

26