Linguistic Identities

Relationship between Local and Global Languages

Debates surrounding linguistic identity in the global world have 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 on the domains of language use previously occupied by local languages, most notably in the areas of 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” [Page 1081]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.

Scholars producing recent work on language and globalization, however, are 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 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 sociopolitical 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.

...