Language Policy and Identity in Mauritania. El Hacen Moulaye Ahmed
is as an identity marker.
In his study, Munroe (2002) concluded that, in the Caribbean, individuals define themselves primarily on the bases of their island identity, whether they are Jamaican, St Lucia, or Barbadian. They did so in relation to other people who belong to different places. They transcended race, ethnicity religion, and all identity markers and relied primarily on their geographical affiliation when they introduced themselves (p. 13). It is clear that people’s belonging to geographical space lead them to define themselves accordingly. In fact, people from all around the world define themselves based on their affiliation to a particular space. People’s geographical affiliation is spelled out in almost every identification card. When they are out of their homeland, people also tend to define themselves based on their geographic affiliation. Succinctly, people are situated on different axes, race, ethnicity, gender, place, to name but few. As the setting or the context shifts, people choose to rely on one or some of these axes. For instance, in the house, people adopt their family role identity such as son, daughter, father, mother, and so on. In the university, the same people may shift to other axes such as by occupation; thus, they define themselves as professors, students, and so forth. In such environments, other axes, such as sex, ethnicity, race, religion, are also present but in a peripheral position.
Conclusion
An attempt was made in order to answer the question, what is language policy and identity? In so doing, many answers were offered which were crystallized in the forms of definitions, theories, types, and factors of possible effects. The chapter started by defining the term “language.” It was argued that the term “language” is best understood through laying out its different characteristics since no one single definition can capture all of them. The characteristics contain, but not limited to, human, arbitrariness, and reflexivity. Additionally, it was demonstrated that, as a result of generalization and sweeping claims, some linguists and almost all nonlinguists tend to hold some misconceptions (myths) about issues related to language. In contrast to what the people think, it was proved that all languages are equal, and language multiplicity does not scotch social and political stability and economic growth. Besides, solid evidence was provided to dismantle the myth that people hold concerning the low performance of bilingual and multilingual students in comparison with monolingual ones. Finally, an alternative view of language that underlines the verbosity of women in comparison with their male counterparts was provided.
After conceptualizing language and some of its related myths, the chapter dived into the heart of language policy. It was defined as ideas, rules, and practices formed by different actors, government, institution, and society, to name but few. It was also distinguished from language planning which some researchers in the literature used as its synonym. Language policy is language planning in practice, we clarified. Furthermore, the old and the recently developed theories of language policy were mapped out. Aside from their different takes on the nature of language policy, scholars of language policy offered four main schemes to language policy, each of which is formulated based on a different identifier. Based on genesis, the first typology classified language policy into two main categories, top-down and bottom-up. The second scheme classified language policy into two main types, overt and covert policies, based on means and goals. Finally, language policy was marked as the de jure and de facto labels. In addition to the types of language policy, the different factors that influence language policy were discussed. These factors were categorized into five main categories, political, linguistic, social-demographic, linguistic culture, and religious.
Beside language policy, different themes, definitions, theories, types, and markers, which helped in clarifying identity, were discussed. It was found out that identity is an ongoing process that is limited by neither time nor place, but rather by different traits and distinguishing characteristics which mark an individual or group of people from others significant actors. The literature revealed also that scholars across disciplines have developed many theories. Individualism theorists argued that identity should be understood in terms of sameness. Moreover, essentialism theorists remarked that identity is manifested in a set of categories, say, gender and race. The identity, they asserted, is stable and the same across different societies. Symbolic interactionism theorists observed that identity is strategic. Postmodernists painted identity with uncertainty, arbitrariness, and fragmentation. The recently developed theory was that of postpositivism realism. Theorists of this block criticized the preceding theories and asserted that the individuals construct their identity through a dialectic relation with the social world. In every context, the individual can construct an identity that fits such context.
In addition to offering possible definitions and devising different theories, scholars classified identity into three main types, personal, collective, and social. The different types of identity indicated that there are many identity markers. The chapter, thereby, pointed out that people are situated on different axes, race, ethnicity, gender, place, to name but few. As the setting or the context shifts, people choose to rely on one or some of these axes. In one context, for instance, the individual may identify himself or herself based on race; however, other markers, such as sex, ethnicity, religion, are also present but in a peripheral position.
The Interplay between Language and Identity and Some Issues in Multilingualism and Multiculturalism
A third issue, which has been lurking at the edges of the topic of language policy and identity, is the interplay between the two constructs which is a central theme of this chapter beside issues in multilingualism and multiculturalism. As a complement to the first chapter in the course of clarifying language policy and identity, this chapter provides a conceptual aerial map covering a number of possible themes related to the interplay between language and identity that have been marked out along the evolution of the field. In so doing, the chapter pinpoints exactly what is meant by the phrase “nation-state” and the term “nationalism.” In so doing, the evolution of such concepts was mapped out. It is shown also that nationalism has two main types: civic and ethnic. The former originated in France and the latter in Germany.
The chapter proceeds, after that, to charting out the role of language policy in both state-building and identity construction. Decision-makers tend to opt for language as a marker that fuses the diverse people of a state. As a result, people start to define themselves based on such linguistic identity. The role of identity in language policy is also discussed. Besides, in order to understand the concepts “multilingualism” and “multiculturalism,” the chapter spells out the possible definitions and typologies of the two terms.
The Interplay between Language Policy and Identity
Defining Nation-State, Nationalism
Before pinning down the phrase “nation-state,” definitions of the terms, “nation” and “state,” can be addressed. Such step is necessary indeed since, as remarked by Michie, the coinage of nation-state indicates an appreciation of the difference between the two constructs of the hyphened phrase (2000, p. 1093). Similarly, Campbell, MacKinnon, and Stevens (2010) asserted that although the terms are used sometimes interchangeably, they also have distinct meanings (p. 32). However, before embarking on laying out the distinctions between nation and state, it is useful to show some of the instances where the two terms are used interchangeably. In international law, the term “nation” is always used interchangeably with the term “state” and the phrase “nation-state.” For example, “Article 1 of the UN Charter provides that the purposes of the inter-State organization are ‘to develop friendly relations among nations’ and ‘to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations’” (Schrijver, 1997, p. 10). Another case is the name of the United Nations. That is, the United Nations represents the whole nations of the world when the meaning is that it represents the whole states of the world or the whole nation-states of the world (Kellas, 1998, p. 3). The cases reveal the frequent use of the terms “nation,” “state,” and the phrase “nation-state,” interchangeably.
Theoretically, the terms, “nation,” “state,” and the phrase “nation-state” may be used interchangeably