The Impact of Language Policy on National Identity from the Perspective of Libyan Society

AL-atrash, Amira, Language Policy Faculty of languages Journal (23 )320 The Impact of Language Policy on National Identity from the Perspective of Libyan Society AL-atrash, Amira English Language Department, Faculty of Education-Qasser ben Ghashair, Tripoli University, Libya [email protected] ABSTRACT This study investigates the impact of language policy on identity construction in Libyan society. It aims to examine how language policy shapes social identities and to explore the historical influence of such policies on the development of Libyan national identity. A randomly selected sample of 70 participants from Libyan society was studied. The findings reveal that language policy significantly affects identity construction, highlighting its ideological and cultural dimensions. The study recommends promoting awareness of the relationship between language and identity, fostering appreciation of linguistic diversity, and encouraging dialogue and inclusion to strengthen social cohesion and cultural understanding in Libya. KEYWORDS: language, policy, Libyan, identity, construction صخلملا فدهت ةسارلدا فادهأ للاخ نم كلذ ققحتيو .بييللا عمتجلما في ةيولها ءانب على ةيوغللا ةسايسلا يرثأت ةسارد لىإ ةسارلدا هذه ةيوغللا تاسايسلل خييرالتا رثلأا فاشكتساو ،عمتجلما لخاد تايولها ءانب على ايبلي في ةيوغللا ةسايسلا يرثأت ةيفيك ةسارد :ةليالتا طولا ةيولها روطت علىنم تفلأتو ،بييللا عمتجلما نم اًيئاوشع ةسارلدا ةنيع رايتخا مت .ةيبيللا ةين70 هذه جئاتن تراشأ .ا ً صخش ،دارفلأا ىلد ةيولهاو ةغللاب عيولا ةيمنت ةروضرب ةسارلدا تصوأو .ةيولها ءانب على اًيربك اًيرثأت ةيوغللا ةسايسلل نأ لىإ ةسارلدا ،يوغللا عونلتا ريدقتوليومشلاو راولحا عيجشتوة . ءانلبا ،ةيولها ،ةيبيللا ،ةسايسلا ،ةغللا :ةيحاتفلما تامكللا Faculty of languages Journal Issue 32 December 2025 Faculty of languages Journal (23 )321 Introduction Language policy has been defined as “the deliberate choices made by governments or other authorities with regard to the relationship between language and social life” (Djité, 1994: 63). The field of language policy can be considered a branch of macro-sociolinguistics, also known as the sociology of language. Not only has the field of language policy evolved in relation to changes in the social sciences, including sociolinguistics, and our epistemologies in the twenty-first century, but also the naming of the field itself has shifted. Originally, scholars referred to the field as language planning, focusing on what could be done by the state to systematically promote linguistic change (Cooper, 1989; Fishman et al., 1968; Fishman, 1971; Haugen, 1971). According to García (2015), the goal of language policy is to maintain national unity, improve economic conditions, and provide political justifications for influencing the forms and functions of language within political power. We can likewise communicate the status, dialects, and locales of the dialects verbally expressed in public as a bunch of thoughts, regulations, and choices about the freedom of people who speak them. She adds that language policy is a bunch of choices and applications focused on the dialects expressed in a political unit, their regions, improvement, and use. The presence of conscious external interference is the primary characteristic of language policy. These external interferences concentrate on a language's internal structure. The terms “language policy” and “language planning” are accepted as modern but have a long history. There is not a single term that could adequately describe this idea. The terms “language policy,” “language planning,” and “language policy” are frequently used interchangeably. From ancient times to the present, the dominant language has been the focus of extensive, systematic research and debate. The ancient Greeks valued language and how people used it to express themselves and build trust as a tool for truth and communication. Without a doubt, the thoughts of Aristotle influenced the further improvement of logical reasoning toward this route. Numerous ancient treatises on the culture of speech serve as the foundation for the connection between theories of language and power. The sophists in Athens developed practical guidelines for effective speech after realizing that collective action was dependent on emerging contradictions. AL-atrash, Amira, Language Policy Faculty of languages Journal (23 )322 Cicero's treatise “On the Orator” shows how this Greek tradition was carried on in Rome. Language planning is typically defined at a variety of levels worldwide. Wherever there is a communication gap, language policies can be implemented. There are three different categories of communication situations: the key distinction among the speakers in this primary collective speech is one of an unusual kind. At least partial comprehension provides the second category of group communication. As a country, people are starting to speak in this manner. Insufficient comprehension is the third category of collective communication for which an interpreter is required. This form of communication serves as a second or third language. As situational instances of language policy, the second and third categories of collective speech are given. In order to communicate with the first form of collective speech, the second and third types of speech frequently come together under a single common code. However, a further suitable standard, Ray's theory, refers to language policy as “language rationality.” Espersen and Paradise both advocate for the “social component of assessment” to include the standard of “acceptable language.” Due to these two hypotheses, Antoine Meillet claimed that “these languages were created by an aristocratic society for the aristocracy” in reference to European literary languages. Meillet (1928) argues that the classical languages Greek, Latin, and Arabic” wash” the spoken languages of other people in the Mediterranean region. This makes it clear that geographic (regional) connections have an impact on language development. Aims of the Study 1. To examine how language policy in Libya shapes the construction of identities within society. 2. To explore the historical impact of language policies on the development of Libyan national identity. Research Questions The study asks the following questions: 1How does language policy in Libya influence the construction of identities? 2How did historical language policies shape national identity in Libya? Significance of the Study Studying language policy is important because it reveals how language forms society, prompting national identity, cultural preservation, social cohesion, and Faculty of languages Journal Issue 32 December 2025 Faculty of languages Journal (23 )323 equity by determining which languages are valued, used, and how they are managed. Understanding these policies is fundamental for promoting inclusivity and addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by linguistic diversity, ensuring all languages and speakers are supported within communities and nations. Literature Review The Emergence of Language Policy Language policy is a new field of study that is rapidly expanding; however, researchers have discovered language policy structures dating back to World War II. Ricento (2000:196) “traces the evolution of language policy research since World War II in three phases, with their respective sociopolitical, epistemological, and strategic concerns.” It is suggested that the 1950s and 1960s were a period of decolonization and state creation during which language policy research was conducted using a structured paradigm focused on issue resolution. (cited in Gounder, 2018). Language policy evolved throughout the 1950s–1960s era, and numerous linguists emerged to provide solutions to language policy-related concerns in light of global colonial rule. According to Johnson (2013:139), “During this era, many linguists were recruited to help develop grammars, writing systems, and dictionaries for indigenous languages, and this grew an interest in how best to develop the form of a language, i.e., corpus planning.” Lin (2015) discusses her thoughts on the evolution of language policy. “Language policy as an academic interest emerged in the 1950s and 1960s and has largely been 'problem-oriented' and responded to the needs of newly established states; these polities had just gained independence from their former colonial powers.” (ibid.). The 1970s and 1980s language policy was viewed as a non-political, non-ideological, pragmatic, and technological paradigm during the 1960s and 1970s. The main objective was to focus on the immediate linguistic needs of newly emerging post-colonial republics in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Furthermore, status language concerns at the time were particularly focused on maintaining stable diglossic language environments in which majority languages (often ex-colonial languages and most frequently English and French) have been promoted as public languages of wider communication. Integrated viewpoints on sociolinguistics. On the other hand, Johnson (2013: AL-atrash, Amira, Language Policy Faculty of languages Journal (23 )324 30) maintains that “it is challenging to precisely and/or cohesively characterize the work during this period as interest became more prolix and extended beyond the corpus/status distinction, and many language planning academics began to question the practicality of previous models of language planning” (Johnson 2013: 30). Framework development from the 1990s until the present: current improvements in language policy place an even greater emphasis on the agency of local social actors in policy implementation settings (2007). Each of these theoretical achievements brings with it a distinctive variety of methodological and epistemological perspectives (Hult & Johnson, 2015). Johnson (2013) believes that the critical transformation between linguistics and sociolinguistics eventually informed and was publicly integrated into critical language policy in the 1990s. The Theory of Language Policy The theory of language policy that Spolsky (2015) proposed has four basic components. The first is the tripartite separation of language policy into language practices, language beliefs and ideology, and explicit policies and plans coming from language management or planning efforts aimed at changing a community's practices and ideas. The second fundamental concept is that language policy is concerned with all the various parts that produce language at all levels, rather than only designated variations of language. Language policy can relate to pronunciation, spelling, lexical choice, grammar, or style, as well as inappropriate, racist, immature, or correct language. The third fundamental concept is that language policy is implemented within a speech community of any size. Language policy can be applied to any specified or definable social, political, or religious group or community, ranging from a family to a sports team, neighborhood, town, business, company, city, nationstate, or regional alliance. The fourth fundamental concept is that language policy functions in a complicated ecological interaction between a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic aspects, variables, and factors. The association may be causal, although proving it is typically difficult. Even when specific language management decisions are implemented, they frequently produce either no result (for example, the failure of preachers to eradicate blasphemy or teachers to enforce grammatical correctness) or unexpected results (the way that reversing language shift or language revival activities produce novel, undesired forms of language). Faculty of languages Journal Issue 32 December 2025 Faculty of languages Journal (23 )325 The Elements of Language Policy According to Spolsky, practices, beliefs, and management are the three interconnected but separately definable components of language policy. Language practices are people's visible actions and decisions—what they really do. They consist of several language uses and the linguistic traits selected. They constitute a policy to the extent that they are predictable and regular, and while describing them is the task of a sociolinguistic study leading to what Hymes (1974) called an ethnography of speaking, studying them is made challenging by the observer's paradox that Labov (1972) identified: an observer adds an extra participant and so modifies behavior. Although some participants might be unwilling to acknowledge it, in a certain sense, this is the actual policy. The fact that it gives language learners the necessary linguistic context is significant. The linguistic activities to which children are exposed play a significant role in how well they acquire new words. For instance, immigrant parents frequently become upset when they discover that their children do not understand specific terms in their native tongue, despite the fact that they themselves frequently substitute phrases from the new language for such words. The following figure indicates the types of language policies: Figure 1: Spolsky's elements of language policy The ecology of language is a framework for the study of language that was primarily conceptualized in Einar Haugen's 1971 work, where he describes language ecology as “the study of interactions between any given language and its environment.” It was created as a wide and multidisciplinary framework in response to Chomsky's abstract idea of language as a monolithic, decontextualized, static thing. AL-atrash, Amira, Language Policy Faculty of languages Journal (23 )326 Haugen proposed 10 issues in his usage of 'ecology' as a metaphor from biology in linguistics that collectively address elements relevant to the location of languages in their environment. Each of these relates to a traditional subfield of language study, including historical linguistics, linguistic demography, sociolinguistics, contact, variation, philology, planning and policy, politics of language, ethnolinguistic, and typology, and each intersects with one or more of the others. Answering any or all of these questions is part of the ecology of language. Since then, the concept of ecology in linguistics has grown to include issues of social, educational, historical, and developmental significance. The concept of language ecology plays an important role in addressing broad issues of language and societal change, risk, and human rights, as well as more theoretical questions of language classification and perceptions, as envisaged in Haugen's work. (Lim, 2020). On the other hand, language ideologies are views about languages, speakers, and discursive processes. Language ideologies, like other types of ideologies, are developed in a cultural framework and become dominated by political and moral goals. Spolsky (2004) adds that language beliefs are the secondmost significant component of language policy. The values assigned to various types and features are the beliefs that are most important to the issues. Given the importance of language varieties in identification, for example, the variety associated with the most important membership group—whether it is the nation, the educational class, the region, or the ethnic heritage—is likely to have the highest value for people, whereas certain other varieties will be stigmatized. Of course, beliefs are not practiced. The members of a speech community also share a general set of beliefs about appropriate language practices, sometimes forming a consensual ideology, assigning values and prestige to various aspects of the language varieties used in it. These beliefs both derive from and influence practices. They can be a basis for language management, or a management policy can be intended to confirm or modify them. Language ideology, or beliefs, designates a speech community’s con sensus on what value to apply to each of the language variables or named language varieties that make up its repertoire. In most states, t h ere a re man y ideologies, jus t as t here are a number of speec h o r e t h nic communities; one is commonly dominant. Put simply, language ideology is language policy with the manager left out what people think should be done. Language practices, on the other Faculty of languages Journal Issue 32 December 2025 Faculty of languages Journal (23 )327 hand, are what people actually do. The terms “ideology” and “language” have appeared together regularly in the latest anthropology, sociolinguistics, and cultural studies, occasionally combined by “and,” sometimes by “in,” and sometimes by a comma in a trinity of nouns. It has been analyzed, some of them very influentially, of cultural and political ideologies as constituted, encoded, or enacted in language. This review, differently and (on the surface) disregarding closeness, considers the topic of ideologies of language, a part of scholarly review just beginning to combine. There is as much cultural distinction in ideas about speech as there is in speech procedures themselves. Concepts of how communication works as a social route and for what purpose are culturally changeable and need to be revealed rather than simply assumed. Language ideology is considered a mediating connection between social structures and forms of talk. Ideologies of language are significant for social as well as linguistic analysis because they are not only about language. Rather, such ideologies predict (Woolard 2020). The third component is language management, which is the intentional and obvious effort made by someone or some organization that has or claims to have control over the domain's members to change their behaviors or beliefs. A constitution or statute adopted by a nation-state governing some element of official language use is the most visible type of language management: an obligation to adopt a certain language as the medium of education or in conducting business with government agencies. Language-management efforts may go beyond or contradict the set of beliefs and values that underlie a community’s use of language and the actual practice of language use. To describe language management, one may use a taxonomy derived from the question posed by Cooper (1989: 31) when he set out to investigate language spread and language change: ‘Who plans what for whom and how? ” Considering these questions will provide us with a fuller notion of the nature of language management and how it should be differentiated from the general language practices and beliefs it is usually intended to modify. Construction of Identity and Language Policy AL-atrash, Amira, Language Policy Faculty of languages Journal (23 )328 According to theories of construction, an individual's interactional, situational, sociohistorical, and cultural settings all play a role in the production and modification of their identity. This premise's corollaries include the necessity of multiple, fluid, or both identities to accommodate the range of potential contexts and the existence of a process—often unexplored or incompletely explained—by which the social becomes profoundly personal in addition to being uniquely individual. Therefore, universal, ahistorical explanations of fixed or essential identities that revolve around a limited or isolated individual are challenged by construction. Additionally, it highlights the connections among identities, disparities, and the dynamics of power in modern society. In the discussion of construction, traditional identification categories including gender, age, class, nationality, race, and ethnicity continue to be significant points of focus. However, it is widely accepted that these categories are inadequate as bounded characterizations, and an examination of identities in context is likely to examine the ways in which multiple categories intersect, as in Robert Young's UK-based research on the classed (working class), ageassociated (young), and gendered (male) identities of “Neds” and “Chavs” (Young, 2012). Further questions are brought up by the idea that identities are created through language, including those related to the standing of the researcher and the classification of language data as either fact or interpretation. (Taylor, 2019). Multilingualism and Postcolonial Dynamic Language Language in Libya represents a complex interaction of historical, political, and social forces. Following colonial experiences under Italian rule and subsequent interactions with Arab nationalism and globalization, Libya shows a highly multilingual landscape, about Arabic (in its Libyan and Modern Standard forms), Berber languages, English, and other minority languages. Contemporary studies in sociolinguistics suggest that language policy in postcolonial contexts functions not just as an administrative tool but as an instrument of identity formation and cultural hegemony (Spolsky, 2004; Fishman, 1999). Multilingualism in Libya: Recent studies indicate that Libya’s linguistic collection reflects both historical and modern sociopolitical influences. Benrabah (2013) and Cavanaugh (2019) emphasize that language use is stratified by region, ethnicity, and socio-economic status, with Berber languages experiencing revivalist movements following the 2011 revolution. Faculty of languages Journal Issue 32 December 2025 Faculty of languages Journal (23 )335 The increasing use of English threatens cultural identity. Table 23: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid strongly disagree 6 8.6 8.6 8.6 disagree 32 45.7 45.7 54.3 neutral 14 20.0 20.0 74.3 agree 14 20.0 20.0 94.3 strongly agree 4 5.7 5.7 100.0 Total 70 100.0 100.0 Language policy must keep pace with global changes. Table 24: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid disagree 6 8.6 8.6 8.6 neutral 14 20.0 20.0 28.6 agree 28 40.0 40.0 68.6 strongly agree 22 31.4 31.4 100.0 Total 70 100.0 100.0 Social media has influenced language usage patterns. Table 25: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid disagree 2 2.9 2.9 2.9 neutral 6 8.6 8.6 11.4 agree 20 28.6 28.6 40.0 strongly agree 42 60.0 60.0 100.0 Total 70 100.0 100.0 Table 26:Preserving minority languages is essential despite modern challenges. Frequency Percent Missing System 70 100.0 Table 27:Linguistic openness helps enhance Libya's global image. Frequency Percent Missing System 70 100.0 Results and Discussion: The results which is dominated by young adults (18–25 years old), highly educated (60% bachelor's degree, 22.9% PhD), and female respondents (88.6%), implies that views on language policy represent the viewpoints of a more knowledgeable and socially conscious public. This is consistent with Abdulhady (2024), who highlighted how educated young influence language negotiation and code-switching in Libyan society. 62.9% of respondents agreed and 22.9% strongly agreed that language policy has a substantial impact on social and national identity. This is consistent with the findings of Spolsky AL-atrash, Amira, Language Policy Faculty of languages Journal (23 )336 (2004) and Fishman (1999), who observe that language is intrinsically linked to cultural identity and power relations. Similarly, Adam (2022) discovered that linguistic domination causes identity alterations in minority groups like the Libyan Tuaregs, underscoring the symbolic significance of policy in preserving or changing social cohesion. According to the study, acknowledging all languages is linked to a stronger sense of national identity, but disregarding minority languages results in feelings of exclusion. Algryani (2021) and Attia (2022), who emphasize the value of multilingual representation in public areas and media for promoting inclusivity, are supported by this. These results emphasize that in order to decrease social exclusion and promote cultural diversity, successful language policy must actively accept minority languages. The impact of colonial history on language policies, especially the emergence and persistence of foreign languages, was also acknowledged by respondents. Benrabah (2013) and Bhabha (1994), who argue about how colonial legacies continue to impact identity development and mixing of cultures in North African communities. Furthermore, although being designed to strengthen national unity, Arabization attempts received conflicting reactions, indicating that the general public may not completely accept top-down language planning (Al-Issa, 2020). While 45.7% strongly agreed that learning a foreign language is important for global openness, 57.1% strongly agreed that teaching Arabic in the classroom strengthens national identity. These results are consistent with Algwil (2023) and the textbook study from 2025, which demonstrates that bilingual schools can promote both global competency and national cohesion. Additionally, respondents acknowledged that social media and globalization had an impact on language usage patterns, underlining Libya's dynamic multilingual practices (Abdulhady, 2024; Attia, 2022). The poll emphasizes that inclusive, modern language planning is required to preserve equality across regions and communities and that prior language strategies have led to societal unrest. Important tactics to lessen historical marginalization and promote social cohesiveness include the recognition of minority languages, adaptable curriculum design, and policy responsiveness to global trends. Conclusion This study shed light on the language policy and the construction of identity in Libyan society, it also concentrated on the concept of language policy, its dimensions, and its theory. Language policy was defined by Djité as a field of Faculty of languages Journal Issue 32 December 2025 Faculty of languages Journal (23 )337 sociolinguistics, and it is also known as the sociology of language. The study also focuses on the emergence of language policy during three periods. It concentrates on the three elements of language policy, which are language practices (ecology). Language practices are people's visible actions and decisions—what they really do. They consist of several language uses and the linguistic traits selected. Language ideologies are the ideas and attitudes that impact speakers' relationships to their own and other people's languages, mediating between the social practice of language and the socioeconomic and political systems where it happens. Recommendations • Policymakers should develop language policies that recognize and protect minority languages, promoting inclusivity and preventing social marginalization. • Language policy should actively support the use of Arabic while encouraging proficiency in foreign languages to strengthen both national identity and global engagement. • Educational curricula should integrate multilingual education to enhance students’ understanding of cultural diversity and identity formation. • Public institutions should promote linguistic diversity in media, signage, and official communication to reflect the multicultural and multilingual nature of Libyan society. • Community programs should encourage dialogue between speakers of different languages to foster mutual understanding and social cohesion. • Researchers and policymakers should collaborate to assess the impact of language policies on identity construction, ensuring evidence-based reforms. • Social campaigns should raise awareness about the symbolic and practical importance of language in shaping social, political, and cultural identity. References Abdulhady, S. (2024). Linguistic alternation in Libyan Arabic: A sociolinguistic examination of code-switching. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Society. AL-atrash, Amira, Language Policy Faculty of languages Journal (23 )338 Adam, S. A. (2022). Multiple attitudes and shifting language ideologies: a case of language shift among Libyan Tuaregs. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Algryani, A. (2021). On the translation of linguistic landscape: strategies and quality assessment. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. Algwil, K. A. S. (2023). Libyan EFL teachers’ perceptions about the implementation of communicative language teaching at a secondary school in Libya. Libyan Academic Journal. Al-Issa, A. (2020). Language policy and planning in post-revolution Libya: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(5), 412-426. Al-Kadi, H. (2021). Educational multilingualism in North Africa: Libya as a case study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(6), 789-803. Attia, S. (2022). Libya, the media and the language of violence: A corpusassisted discourse analysis. Review of International Comparative Literature. Benrabah, M. (2013). Language conflict in Algeria: From colonialism to postindependence. Multilingual Matters. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge. Cavanaugh, J. R. (2019). Language ideology revisited. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2020(263), 51–57. Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge University Press. Fishman, J. A. (1966). Language loyalty in the United States: The maintenance and perpetuation of non-English mother tongues by American ethnic and religious groups. Mouton. Faculty of languages Journal Issue 32 December 2025 Faculty of languages Journal (23 )339 Fishman, J. A. (1971). National languages and languages of wider communication in the developing nations. In W. H. Whiteley (Ed.), Language use and social change: Problems of multilingualism with special reference to Eastern Africa (pp. 27–56). Oxford University Press for the International African Institute. García, O. (2015). Language policy Goundar, P. R. (2018). The characteristics of language policy and planning research: An overview. In Sociolinguistics: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford University Press. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. University of Pennsylvania Press. Ibrahimov, E. (2023). Basic principles of language policy. Irvine, J. T. (2020, December). Language ideology. In Oxford Bibliographies in Anthropology. Kummer, W., & Gramley, S. (2012). Language planning and policy. Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1(1), 97–120. Lim, L. (Ed.). (n.d.). Language ecology. John Benjamin’s Publishing. Lin, A. M. (2015). Researcher positionality. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (Vol. 4, pp. 21–30). John Wiley & Sons. Ricento, T. (2006). Language policy: Theory and practice—An introduction. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 10–23). Blackwell. Robinson, D. (1988, November 30). Language policy and planning. ERIC Digest. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED303051 AL-atrash, Amira, Language Policy Faculty of languages Journal (23 )340 Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2015). Language practice, language ideology, and language policy. Language Policy and Pedagogy. Stemper, K. D., & King, K. A. (2017). Language planning and policy. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. 655–673). Wiley-Blackwell. Suleiman, Y. (2003). The Arabic language and national identity: A study in ideology. Edinburgh University Press. Taylor, A. G. S. (2019). Estimating prognosis to enhance patient care: Identification of a suitable prognostic tool for use in hospice. The Representation of Speech Acts and Language Functions in Libya Public Preparatory English Textbooks. (2025). Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. Woolard, K. A. (2020). Language ideology. In The international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology (pp. 1–21). Wiley.