Language has no ethnicity

Published: December 12, 2015
Email
The writer earned his PhD at Indiana University, Bloomington. He is currently Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney and has worked in the areas of language policy development and issues surrounding minority languages in South Asia

The writer earned his PhD at Indiana University, Bloomington. He is currently Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney and has worked in the areas of language policy development and issues surrounding minority languages in South Asia

It is not uncommon for people to associate a particular language with an ethnic or a regional group. People often relate a language to the group of people who speak it as a mother tongue; for example, Balochi is associated with the Baloch; Sindhi with Sindhis; Shina with people from Gilgit and Baltistan and so on. While labelling languages based on ethnic or geographical groups is convenient, we need to note that language itself does not have any ethnicity or nationality.

This observation is useful, particularly important in contexts where language has become a political issue e.g., in Pakistan. We often hear calls for recognition of certain languages as provincial, national or official languages. Some people start believing that their community is under-privileged because they speak a local language as their mother tongue and not the ‘provincial’, ‘national’ or ‘official’ language. Others start believing that their language is under attack by the dominant linguistic community and that they need to defend it. Based on such beliefs, they may abandon their language (leading to language death), or may become activists striving for language equity. While the experiences that lead people into taking such positions may be real, language is not the key issue here. Recognition of a language by itself does not give status to or bring socioeconomic benefits to a community. For example, while Urdu is one of the officially recognised languages in India, this recognition by itself does not empower the Urdu-speaking population in India. Socioeconomic and political imbalances are perpetuated by those in power to maintain their own interests and to change these imbalances we need a different set of strategies. Changing the status of a language may carry symbolic value, but will not on its own change the socioeconomic or political status of people who speak that language. In fact, in some ways, learning the language of power can give people more access to resources than trying to make their language (nominally) recognised. Once a community has these resources, it can take actions to protect and enhance its language.

In order to understand this better, we need to clarify what language is and what language is not. Language is a semiotic system: it helps create, represent and mediate meaning. Without language (whether spoken, written or signed), humans would not be able to develop the societies that we live in today. Language is a key tool that enables us to do things that other living beings are not able to accomplish. All human communities, regardless of where they are, use language to develop an understanding of themselves and their surroundings and transmit these to other members of their community (and potentially to people outside their community). The actual forms used and meanings construed through language in different communities, in different places and at different times can vary greatly and may or may not be mutually intelligible. We often (but not always) label mutually intelligible ways of communicating as a particular language, e.g., Gujarati is a language that is mutually intelligible to all people who speak that language. While a language may be given names based on an ethnic, regional or national community that uses that language, language itself does not have any ethnicity or nationality. The ethnic indexing of a language is a result of socio-political and historical processes; there is nothing intrinsically ethnic about a language.

All languages are the same in that they are all semiotic systems. However, not all languages are equal. All languages have the same potential, i.e., any language can be used to create and represent any meaning; however, this doesn’t mean that it does so at a given point in time. Languages that can be used to do more things can be considered more developed than others. So, while we are able to use English to write fiction and poetry, to carry out research and write legal texts, and to communicate with people around the world, etc., we are not currently able to perform all these functions in, say, Seraiki. This is not to say that Seraiki cannot do all this, it can; but the language has not yet been developed to do so. Both Seraiki and English have the same potential, but one is currently more developed than the other in that it can be used to do more things. It needs to be noted that the extent of a language’s development, or lack thereof, does not imply that speakers of one language or the other are better, smarter, or more developed — we are all essentially the same.

Furthermore, people who speak multiple languages, e.g., Seraiki, Urdu and English, will use these languages in different domains: they will more likely use Seraiki at home and in their everyday contexts; Urdu when interacting with other Pakistanis who don’t speak Seraiki and in some educational and work contexts; and English predominantly in educational, academic, professional and international contexts. Thus, people who are multilingual in Pakistan typically use different languages in different domains.

This exemplifies that languages, because they are differently developed and used, supplement each other (instead of being in conflict): each one allows us to create and negotiate a different set of meanings with different groups of people, in different contexts. All languages and dialects in a country are equally important and need equal recognition because they together allow us to live our lives, where we interact with all kinds of people (locally, nationally and internationally) and use language for all types of different purposes. Thinking of language as an ethnic or a national entity restricts our ability to understand it properly or to use it as a resource for national and socioeconomic development. We need to think of language as a semiotic resource and understand how language creates meaning and relates to human society. By doing this, we can harness the power of language and create a better society to live in.

In Pakistan, we need to consider what spread of languages we have, how they function in society, what each one of these languages is able to do for us (as individuals and as a country) and then develop strategies that can enable us to support all languages in a way that satisfies the communities that speak them while at the same time giving them access to languages of power and socioeconomic mobility. Language policy is not just a political act; it is intrinsically bound to national and socioeconomic development. If Pakistan continues to ignore the importance of language policy, then language will continue to be used for political battles rather than as a semiotic resource for development.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 13th, 2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (8)

  • Allah Dita
    Dec 13, 2015 - 12:28AM

    We should replace Urdu and introduce English as communication language with in Pakistan among different people. English has advantage that it is international language and can give economic opportunities at global stage. Urdu which even doesn’t belong to present Pakistan is acting as liabilityRecommend

  • Muslim Khan
    Dec 13, 2015 - 11:57AM

    Allah Dita, did you actually understand this article? Your remarks on Urdu are ethnic and racist and undermine the unity of the country.Recommend

  • Muslim Khan
    Dec 13, 2015 - 12:36PM

    @Allah Dita: How can you say that Urdu doesn’t belong to Pakistan when it is the national language of the country and spoken by millions across the four provinces as a mother tongue and by even more people as a second language. Your comment is what this article is trying to expose as being a racist connection between language and ethnicity/people and serves only vested political interests instead of the interest of the people of the country.Recommend

  • Skywalker
    Dec 13, 2015 - 6:02PM

    @Muslim Khan:
    There is nothing racist about it.
    People confuse “muslims” as a race, which is foolish. Now we are saying, using English for better integration is racist. I do not get how does race come in here.Recommend

  • Rex Minor
    Dec 13, 2015 - 7:18PM

    The author has choosen a very complex subject for his ploiticking with languages, when he comments that While labelling languages based on ethnic or geographical groups is convenient, we need to note that language itself does not have any ethnicity or nationality.

    Nothing can be far from the truth since the language originates not only from emotions and culture as well as experience of certain group of people, call them if one will, the ethnic or the religious group or a Nation indeed, it is based on rational and logical thoughts how Kant described it. Language is generaly defined as the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so. It is a mistake It was a mistake to impose urdu language in Pakistan on people of different language groups, equaly is a negligence for not making arabic languange compulsary for primary school students, thereby encouragng the translations of holy Quraan in an inferior language. The people of Pakistan have no other choice but to continue to learn English for higher science studies until such time that one or other local language becomes the alternative.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Hemin Hemini
    Dec 14, 2015 - 1:22AM

    The author claims that “language itself does not have any ethnicity or nationality”. If this were true, Esperanto would have replace English long time ago. But it can never do so because English is the language of the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and so forth but Esperanto is not associated with any ethnicity or nationality and thus with any culture. Whenever you could separate cultures from ethnicity and/or nationalists then perhaps you could start making the claim I quoted here. Furthermore, isn’t it also a fact that real people create language and that language is what it is precisely because of the way we use it and because of the demands we make of language (to help us to communicate, to convince others of our views, to sell things, to express our feelings, to hire people, to fire others, etc.)? The answer to this must be ‘yes’ for the author if he really believe that language is a “semiotic system” because that is akin to Michael Halliday’s view of language; so is what I just said about the fact that there cannot be a language with a group of people who create, use and maintain that language. Now, here is the real question: Can there be a language without a group of people? If not, since all human beings, as long as they are social beings, belong to certain cultures or nationalists or ethnicities, there cannot be a language without being more or less associated with particular cultures, nationalists or/and ethnicities. Recommend

  • Muslim Khan
    Dec 14, 2015 - 6:07AM

    @Rex Minor: What do you mean by ‘inferior language’? All languages and people who speak these languages are equal. The author clearly states: “It needs to be noted that the extent of a language’s development, or lack thereof, does not imply that speakers of one language or the other are better, smarter, or more developed — we are all essentially the same.” Arabic (even classical Arabic) is not superior to any other language; it may be more developed compared to some languages in that it servers more functions than other languages, but that doesn’t make it superior. English serves even more functions than Arabic; so, can we say English is superior to Arabic? Surely not. Similarly, local languages are not inferior either. If people can’t read and understand Arabic, then the right thing to do is to translate it into a language that people can understand; otherwise ‘mullahs’ become the sole interpreter and can manipulate things in anyway that they like – as they do in Pakistan (and many other places). Recommend

  • Muslim Khan
    Dec 14, 2015 - 1:57PM

    @Hemin Hemini: A language being associated with an ethnic or other community is not the same thing as a language having ethnicity.Recommend

More in Opinion