THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE AND THE CONCEPT
OF LINGUISTIC IDENTITY
KANAVILLIL RAJAGOPALAN*
S a e Uni e si y a Campinas (UNICAMP), B azil
ABSTRACT
Linguis ic iden i y is la gely a poli ical ma e and languages a e lags o
allegiance. This means ha he ins umen al iew o language is undamen-
ally lawed. I any hing, i is he p e- heo e ical sense ha communica ion is
possible o desi able in gi en con ex s o , mo e echnically, he p esence o a
ela i ely s able speech communi y, ha makes us pos ula e he exis ence o
a common language. So oo, i is he unwillingness o communica e o he
una ailabili y o he means o do so ha pa es he way o he sense ha
he e a e insupe able linguis ic ba ie s o con end wi h. The immedia e upsho
o his line o easoning is ha he e a e no such hings as languages, i by
‘languages’ we mean na u al objec s ha a e “ou he e”, wai ing o be dis-
co e ed, desc ibed, and ca alogued by he linguis . Wha his means is ha
he e is an u gen need o o eg ound he issue o he poli ics o language.
KEY WORDS
Linguis ic iden i y, language s. communica ion, language loyal y, language
and na ionalism, poli ics o language.
RESUMEN
La iden idad lingüís ica es ampliamen e una ma e ia polí ica, y las lenguas
son bande as de uniones o alianzas. Es o signi ica que la isión ins umen al
del lenguaje es comple amen e allida. De cualquie o ma, es el sen ido p e-
eo é ico que e la comunicación como posible o deseable en de e minados
con ex os, o más écnicamen e, la p esencia de una comunidad de habla azo-
nablemen e es able, que nos hace pos ula la exis encia de una lengua común.
Así ambién, es la mala olun ad pa a comunica se o la incapacidad de los
medios pa a hace lo que p epa a el camino pa a asumi que hay ba e as lin-
güís icas in oluc adas en eso. El esul ado inal de esa o ma de azonamien-
CAUCE, Re is a de Filología y su Didác ica, nº 24, 2001 / págs. 17-28 17
* Kana illil Rajagopalan is adjunc p o esso o linguis ics a he S a e Uni e si-
y a Campinas, São Paulo, B azil. His esea ch in e es s include philosophy o lan-
guage, linguis ic p agma ics, and issues ela ing o language loyal y and language pol-
i ics.
KANAVILLIL RAJAGOPALAN
18
o es que no exis en ales cosas llamadas lenguas, si po ‘lenguas’ en ende-
mos los obje os na u ales “disponibles”, que es án ahí, espe ando se descu-
bie os, desc i os, y ca alogados po los lingüis as. Lo que es o signi ica, al
inal, es que hay una necesidad u gen e de p io iza los esul ados de las polí-
icas del lenguaje.
PALABRAS CLAVE
Iden idad lingüís ica, lenguaje s. comunicación, leal ad lingüís ica-lengua
y nacionalismo, polí icas del lenguaje.
RÉSUMÉ
L’iden i é linguis ique es la gemen une ques ion poli ique e les langues
son des d apeaux d’allégeance. Cela eu di e que la ision ins umen ale du
langage es ondamen alemen p obléma ique. En ai , c’es le sens p é-
héo ique endan possible ou souhai able la communica ion dans des con-
ex es donnés ou, plus echniquemen pa lan , la p ésence d’une communau é
linguis ique ela i emen s able, qui nous ai pos ule l’exis ence d’une langue
commune. De même, c’es la é icence à communique ou la non-disponibi-
li é des moyens pou ce ai e qui ou e la oie dans le sens qu’il n’y a pas
de ba iè es linguis iques unsu mon able à a on e . Le ésul a immédia de
ce e ligne de aisonnemen , c’es que les langues n’exis en pas, si pa langues
nous comp enons des obje s na u els qui son ‘au-deho s’, en a endan pou
ê e décou e s, déc i s e ca alogués pa le linguis e. Cela eu di e qu’il y a
un besoin u gen de me e en elie la ques ion de la poli ique du langage.
MOTS-CLÉ
Iden i é linguis ique, langue s. communica ion, loyau é linguis ique,
langue e na ionalisme, poli ique du langage.
Tha languages and language loyal ies a e equen ly exploi ed by
he powe s ha be o u he poli ical ends is a ac ha nobody who
has an inkling o amilia i y wi h wo ld his o y will call in o ques ion.
One does no need o go in o he annals ancien his o y o disco e
ha social ne wo ks and communal bonds (and hei ela i ely mo e
ecen o mal coun e pa s such as he ideas o na ionhood, na ional-
ism, na ionali y e c.) we e o ged ou o an in ui i e sense ha hose
wi h whom you we e able o communica e we e o he same kind o
‘ilk’ as you. And he simple ac ha you could unde s and you nex -
doo neighbou and make him unde s and wha you wan ed him o
know mean ha you could posi a common language be ween he wo
o you. Thus, con a y o con en ional wisdom, he a ailabili y o a
common language is no a p e-condi ion o communica ion. I any-
THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE AND THE CONCEPT OF LINGUISTIC IDENTITY
19
hing, i is p ecisely he o he way a ound: i is he e y sensa ion ha
one is somehow able o communica e wi h he people a ound one ha
p omp s one o hypos a ise a common language o he g oup. So-and-
so speaks he same language as I do; he e o e I unde s and ha pe son
is a mis aken way o epo ing he ela ion be ween language and com-
munica ion. Tha ela ion is mo e accu a ely ep esen ed by he sen-
ence: So-and-so and I ge along well wi h each o he and can com-
munica e o each o he easonably well; he e o e we ha e a eason o
posi ing a common language be ween us. The exis ence o a language
xis p edica ed upon he exis ence o a communi y o speake s who
gua an ee hey can unde s and one ano he . (This may help explain a
leas pa ially why heo is s o language who ha e ela i ely li le in e -
es in he social o communica i e dimension o language p e e o alk
o language in he abs ac , a he han languages in he plu al and in
hei indi idua ing sense).
Languages and language loyal ies ha e in he pas o en se ed as
powe ul allying poin s and hey con inue o do so. The ancien G eeks
o ins ance de eloped hei sense o na ional/e hnic iden i y by obse -
ing how unlike he Ba ba ians hey we e. And he ba ba ians in u n
we e so called because hei speech sounded like pu e gibbe ish o he
G eek ea s. ‘They speak di e en ly om us; so hey mus be a di e -
en lo al oge he ’ –such is he essence o he kind o pe cep ion ha
c ea ed g oup iden i ies in ancien imes. O cou se, he ancien G eeks
had no no ion o na ionhood in he mode n sense o he e m. Nei he
did hey ha e he no ion o wha i was o be a o eigne . The G eek
wo d ξενος (xenos) is ambiguous be ween he senses o ‘s ange ’ and
‘ o eigne ’, a phenomenon a es ed o by he common e ymology o he
Po uguese wo ds ‘es anho’ and ‘es angei o’ and hei cogna es in o h-
e Romance languages.
The concep s o na ion and na ionali y a e hemsel es o pos -Renais-
sance o igin and hey only came o acqui e hei mode n sense in he
19 h cen u y, la gely in i ue o he geo-poli ical clima e in Eu ope
ma ked by he spi i o colonialism and he e hnocen ic sen imen s
a oused by he conques and subjuga ion o alien e i o ies and hei
peoples. As Renan (1990, p. 9) pu i :
Na ions [in he sense in which we unde s and he e m oday] a e some-
hing ai ly new in his o y. An iqui y was un amilia wi h hem; Egyp ,
China and ancien Chaldea we e in no way na ions. They we e locks
led by a Son o he Sun o by a Son o Hea en. Nei he in Egyp no
in China we e he e ci izens as such.
KANAVILLIL RAJAGOPALAN
20
By he la e 18 h and ea ly 19 h cen u ies, he idea o na ionhood
had become closely linked wi h he concep o alanguage (as opposed
o language in i s gene ic sense) and he whole equa ion was summed
up in he slogan ‘One na ion, one people, one language’. Indeed so
powe ul was his newly pos ula ed associa ion ha e en someone o
he in ellec ual calib e o D . Samuel Johnson ell in o he ap o anach o-
nis ically acing he his o y o na ions o he a ailabili y o common
languages. In his 1773 dia y no es om a jou ney o he Heb ides, one
comes ac oss he ollowing con iden asse ion:
Wha can a na ion ha has no le e s ell o i s o iginal? … The e is no
acing ancien na ions bu by language, and he e o e I am always so -
y when language is los , because languages a e he pedig ee o na ions.
(Emphasis added) (D . Johnson, ci ed in Snead, 1990, p. 231).
As Snead eminds us, Johnson’s o - he-cu ema k ne e heless
bespeaks a powe ul Zei geis and is con empo aneous wi h he upsu ge
o a Ge man na ionalis ideology ha was he alded by He de and
No alis, and en husias ically joined in la e on by Fich e and Schleie -
mache . No wonde ha he end inaugu a ed by hese p ecu so s o
na ionalism in Ge many would ind i s ulles mani es a ion in such ea -
ly 20 h cen u y concep s as ha o Sp achgeis ( he spi i o language)
(c . Vossle , 1932).
Summing up his discussion o he poli ical in e es s ha we e a
wo k in he o ma ion o mode n F ench iden i y, G een ield (1998, p.
639) w i es:
The example o F ance, one o he pa adigma ic ea ly na ions, unde -
sco es he weakness o he heo y which iews na ional iden i y as a
e lec ion o an objec i e uni y and sepa a eness based on p imo dial,
‘ances al’ e hnic cha ac e is ics, and speci ically on language.
Fa om being a s aigh o wa d ac o he ma e , na ionali y is a
poli ical banne and gi es ise o such poli ically powe ul eelings as
na ionalism –which in u n is all oo equen ly liable o degene a e in o
chau inism and xenophobia, i s lipside.
I seems easonable o hypo hesise ha he idea o a language x
i s eme ged as a esul o man’s i s con ac wi h ano he membe o
his own species wi h whom his e o s o communica e u ned ou o
be o no a ail and he new sense o sel -awa eness ha esul ed om
his su p ising disco e y. In o he wo ds, knowledge o he exis ence
o ano he ongue, mus ha e been a c ucial momen in he bi h o
he e y no ion o alanguage as opposed o language in he abs ac .
THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE AND THE CONCEPT OF LINGUISTIC IDENTITY
21
We ha e al eady seen ha i is he eeling ha you a e able o com-
munica e wi h you ellows ha mus ha e led o he concep o alan-
guage and no he o he way ound. In he ea ly his o y o ou me -
alinguis ic awa eness, we did no use a common language o
communica e; a he we posi ed a common language a e no icing ha
we we e able o communica e easonably well wi h he ones in ou
daily con ac –bu his new sense o awa eness could only ha e dawned
on us a e we had ou i s con ac wi h a speake whom we simply
could no comp ehend. The s ange / o eigne o a he his symbolic
p esence is a sine qua non o he o ma ion o language iden i y. I on-
ically, no g oup iden i y could ha e consolida ed i sel wi hou he con-
s i u i e p esence o he adically o he . I is no only he G eek sense
o na ionali y o o a language o hei own ha needed he p esence
o he alien o mani es i sel as such; G eek hough o philosophy also
eme ged and de ined i sel in opposi ion o ‘alien’ hough (o en ca i-
ca u ed in he o m o down igh scep icism)– as in Pla onic dialogues
whe e he G eek sa an ypically in oduces he igu e o he s ange / o -
eigne as he inca na ion and oice o un eason, o be sys ema ically
challenged and neu alised by din o in ense ques ioning by Soc a es.
The e y no ion o a language xis hus cons i u i ely dependen
upon knowledge ha he e a e o ms o speech o he han he one is
con e san wi h. Fu he mo e, in o de o he e o be he no ion o
language x, i is absolu ely essen ial ha we con ince ou sel es ha
hose al e na i e o ms o speech a e jus as comp ehensible o i s
speake s as ou s is o ou sel es. I he G eeks had no had any con-
ac wi h he Ba ba ians, he sense o a dis inc Hellenic language –and
wi h i , a hos o o he ela ed and de i a i e no ions as na ion, cul-
u e, a and so o h– simply would no ha e eme ged. His o ians ell
us ha he ba ba ians we e ini ially hough o as less han humans,
bu he G eek sense o sel -iden i y c ucially depended upon he pe -
cep ion ha hey we e jus as human as he G eeks hemsel es, only
di e en . The e y iden i y o indi idual languages is o ged ou o an
exclusiona y ges u e, bu ha iden i y is – ue o all exclusiona y s a e-
gies– dependen upon he con inued symbolic p esence o he O he
o i s pe manence. (Rajagopalan, 1998a). Bina y logics ha e long been
ecognised o de i e hei s eng h om he a he pa adoxical condi-
ion ha absolu e di e ence will no coun as ue di e ence.
In he emaining pa o his pape , I wish o ocus on he poli ics
o iden i y and how i a ec s ques ions o language loyal y and lin-
guis ic sel - ep esen a ion. Languages a e, as I shall seek o sus ain, lags

KANAVILLIL RAJAGOPALAN
22
o allegiance and no simple o s aigh o wa d ‘ ac s o he ma e ’ as
linguis s and o he language heo is s equen ly ake hem o be.
LINGUISTICS AND THE QUESTION OF LINGUISTIC IDENTITY
I is an amazing ac abou mode n linguis ics ha he iden i ies o
language and speake s o gi en languages ha e been ea ed as la ge-
ly unp oblema ic. This is no o deny ha one equen ly comes ac oss
obse a ions o he e ec ha he bo de lines be ween languages and
among dialec s wi hin one and same language a e o en di icul o
speci y wi h any amoun o ce ain y. In a pape en i led ‘Some issues
on which linguis s can ag ee’ Hudson, 1981), a pape based on an elab-
o a e su ey conduc ed some wo decades o so ago among p o es-
sional linguis ics in he UK, one comes ac oss he ema k ha “[ ]he e
is no clea o quali a i e di e ence be ween so-called language-bound-
a ies’ and ‘dialec -bounda ies’” (p. 336). Bu , as p o essional linguis s
emba k on hei ou ine business, hey a e p one o sweep unde nea h
he ca pe such exa ious issues. Su p isingly, some w i e s ha e e en
a gued ha “ he wo d ‘language’ has a clea and co ec use only as
an indi idua i e e m” (c . Wilson, 1959, p. 4, quo ed in Ha is, 1981,
p. 13). Bu he s anda d p ac ice amongs linguis s has been o hijack
he whole discussion om an examina ion o indi idual languages o
specula ion conce ning language in he abs ac (Rajagopalan, 1997a, b;
1998b), hus ski ing a numbe o oublesome empi ical issues abou
he iden i y o indi idual languages and, mo e impo an ly, some o he
insupe able p oblems in coming up wi h eliable c i e ia o deciding
he bounda y lines. Conside he ollowing exce p om Moul on ha
illus a es he s a egy a wo k:
Linguis ics is he b anch o lea ning which s udies he languages o any
and all socie ies: how each language is cons uc ed; how i a ies
h ough space and changes h ough ime; how i is ela ed o o he lan-
guages; how i is used by i s speake s. Fundamen al o all b anches o
linguis ics is he basic ques ion: Wha is language? (Moul on, 1969, p. 4).
Wha linguis ics has, in o he wo ds, sys ema ically ough shy o
admi ing is ha he p ima y condi ions o a language o be ecog-
nised as such a e poli ical. A language, as i has o en been ema ked
wi h a a he dismissi e sh ug, is a dialec wi h an a my and a na y.
Bu he ull implica ions o such casual obse a ions a e ye o be se i-
ously coun enanced by he p o essional linguis . C i e ia such as he
THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE AND THE CONCEPT OF LINGUISTIC IDENTITY
23
possibili y o mu ual comp ehension ail o p oduce sa is ac o y esul s
when we con on , on he one hand, such cases as ha o Hindi-U du
which is p ac ically a con inuum o speech wi h wo ds o Sansk i and
A ab o igins occupying he pola ex emes bu a e conside ed wo dis-
inc languages o easons o he long-s anding poli ical and eligious
s and-o be ween India and Pakis an, and, on he o he hand, cases
such as he Vene ian and he Neapoli an ‘dialec s’ o mode n I alian o
he Manda ain o Can onese dialec s o wha is aguely e e ed o as
Chinese ha could e y well be conside ed di e en languages we e i
no o he s ong poli ical in e es s a wo k in hese cases. As poin ed
ou ea lie on in his pape , linguis ic iden i y is a unc ion o he poli -
ical clima e p e ailing in gi en socie ies a speci ic his o ic momen s.
Whe e he e a e ensions and un esol ed poli ical dispu es be ween
wa ing ac ions, mino o e en non-exis ing di e ences a e blown up
so as o jus i y he exis ence o di e en and ‘mu ually incomp ehensi-
ble’ languages. I is no ha di e ences be ween languages ac ually
impai communica ion be ween peoples; i is ha people who do no
wan o communica e ac oss hei sec a ian di ides a e ap o ‘conju e
up’ linguis ic di e ences whe e none in ac exis s so as o jus i y hei
inabili y (o a he , unwillingness) o communica e. Wha his means is
ha he ime-honou ed, ins umen al iew o language, acco ding o
which na u al languages a e bes app oached as a means o commu-
nica e wi h one’s pee s, s ands in u gen need o e o mula ion since i
implies ha i is he a ailabili y o a common language ha makes com-
munica ion be ween peoples possible and no he o he way a ound,
as I ha e been a pains o p ess home.
When all is said and done, he u h o he ma e is ha linguis s
a e ye o come up wi h a pu ely linguis ic o o mal de ini ion o a
wha ‘alanguage’ is: as opposed o language in i s gene ic o abs ac
sense. Indeed i is no exagge a ion o en u e he ema k ha , i he e
is one mos emba assing bu closely gua ded sec e ha mode n lin-
guis ics has had o li e wi h, i is ha , a e nea ly a cen u y o in ense
esea ch and phenomenal expansion and consolida ion as an academ-
ically espec able discipline, he science o language s ill has o ha e
ecou se o ex e nal (non-linguis ic) c i e ia such as geo-poli ical con-
side a ions when i comes o dema ca ing he exac bounds o a gi en
language.
The upsho o he o egoing discussion is ha languages a e di -
e en o same, depending on he poli ical in e es s o hose whose
opinions ma e in hese ci cums ances. The e a e a numbe o his o -
KANAVILLIL RAJAGOPALAN
24
ically a es ed cases ha a ou such a conclusion. Lea ing aside such
a e cases o language being p ac ically p oduced om a d awing-boa d
in answe o poli ical expediency –a mos elling example om ecen
his o y being he bi h o mode n Heb ew, we also ha e such e y
ecen cases as he a emp by he la e C oa ian p esiden F anjo Tudj-
man o delibe a ely C oa -ise he common Se bio-C oa ian ha his coun-
y sha es wi h i s e s -while pa ne Se bia. As T eano (1997, p. 69)
epo ed: “I he is no sho o deposed, i is no impossible ha Tudj-
man will make Se bian and C oa ian mu ually incomp ehensible in 20
yea s’ ime”. Tudjman himsel did no li e long enough o see his d eam
ansla ed in o eali y and only ime will ell i he language he wished
o help c ea e will become a eali y in he yea s o come. Anyhow, we
ha e he e a pe ec example (albei no ye ca ied h ough o i s ull
ealisa ion) o a language being c ea ed in o de o sa is y he es ed
in e es s o a poli ical pa y o a despo ic na ional leade .
The bi h o Bangla Desh in he ea ly 1970s is ano he clea exam-
ple o a language –Bengali– ha was poli ically exploi ed as a banne
o u he he objec i e o independence om a na ion ounded on he
p inciple o eligion, belie ed by i s ounding a he s o be s ong
enough o hold oge he an e hnically and linguis ic di e se mass o
people. So oo is he ongoing s uggle o he Tamil Tige s in S i Lan-
ka. Once again, he ques ion o language became a use ul weapon and
a allying c y in he hands o a g oup o ebels igh ing o independ-
ence and Tamil became, all o a sudden, a lag o allegiance. In poin
o ac , languages a e used as lags o allegiance much mo e o en han
we o dina ily hink. O he in e es ing examples o a mino i y language
esis ing ex inc ion by se ing as a symbol o e hnic iden i y include
he case o Ca alan (c . Woola d, 1989) and ha o Mexicano (Az ec)
(c . Hill and Hill, 1986). Pe haps he bes example o a language being
used as he allying c y o he o ma ion o a new sense o na ional
iden i y is he ecen case o Eas Timo e, whe e Po uguese, spoken
oday by only 5 pe cen o he popula ion, has been elec ed as he
na ional language –as a clea indica ion o hei nex -doo neighbou s
and o me colonial occupie s ha hey will hence o h ‘ha e no uck
wi h hem’– as i hey we e elling hei o me colonial mas e s: “F om
now on, we will be speaking a language ha you do no unde s and;
and ha is ou way o le ing you know ha we ha e had enough o
you and ha e no u he in e es in communica ing wi h you”. Like pe -
sons, na ions oo a e gi en o op ing ou o being on ‘speaking e ms’
wi h hei o me ‘ iends’ and cu en enemies.
THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE AND THE CONCEPT OF LINGUISTIC IDENTITY
25
IDENTITY AND ITS VICISSITUDES
The pos -Wo ld Wa II e a has wi nessed con ac s among na ions
and peoples inc easing a an inc edibly apid a e and wi h i he p o-
g essi e disman ling o ba ie s, be hey geo-poli ical, cul u al, o e en
linguis ic. Mo e and mo e people a e becoming p o icien in mo e han
one language, o en as many as h ee o ou languages. So much so
ha mul ilingualism is as becoming he no m a he han he excep-
ion in many coun ies. E en in coun ies ha adi ionally we e looked
upon as igo ously monolingual, mul ilingualism has been sp eading a
an imp essi e a e –a case in poin being G ea B i ain which, acco d-
ing o S ubbs (1986, p. 15), is oday “socially mul ilingual”. Equally impo -
an , hough much less no iced, is he ac ha many o he linguis ic
ansac ions ou inely ca ied ou in ou globalised wo ld a e ac ually
being ca ied ou in mixed languages such as he Canadian ‘ anglais’,
Sou h Ame ican ‘po unhol’ and he No h Ame ican ‘spanglish’– much
o he dismay o language pu i ans.
These ecen de elopmen s ha e a emendous impac on he e y
iden i y o indi idual languages and also ha o he speake s o hose
languages, because hese iden i ies can no longe be hough o in ‘all
o no hing’ e ms, con a y o he ecei ed wisdom in linguis ics. Ou s
is an age o P o ean iden i ies, whose hall-ma k is ola ili y and easy
adap abili y o changing ci cums ances. Ins ead o he ixed iden i ies
ha , in he ages pas , p i ileges o bi h o s a ion in li e we e belie ed
o con e upon pe sons, ou iden i ies ha e la gely become a ma e o
‘sel - ashioning’ (c . Taylo , 1992).
Howe e , wha we mus no lose sigh o as we ponde he pos -
mode n phenomenon o he dissipa ion and ehashing o iden i ies is
ha he ques ion o iden i y is as becoming a poli ically loaded issue.
As Pandi (1975, p. 178) has ema ked:
‘Loyal y’ o language is p obably no as ex e nal o linguis ics as i may
appea o be. An eno mous amoun o social and cul u al in o ma ion
is encoded in a message; e bal in e ac ion in a speech communi y is
a cul u al e en ; i ein o ces sense o belonging and asse s one’s exis-
ence in a communi y. In his sense, iden i y wi h language is no ex e -
nal, no a supe posi ion –poli ical o social– bu an in insic linguis ic
ai . The speake ’s a achmen o his a ie y and his language is symp-
oma ic o he cul u al load his language ca ies o him.
In he eme gen wo ld o de ma ked by ins abili y and cul u al in e -
mixing a an unp eceden ed a e, we a e cons an ly being asked o