Ti u ban 4: Văn hóa trong ho t ñ ng gi ng d y ngo i ng th i kỳ h i nh p

BẢN SẮC NGÔN NGỮ VÀ VĂN HÓA
Andreas Gardt
Trường Đại học Kassel, Đức

LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL IDENTITY
0. Introductory remarks on language and identity
1. Language and the concept of ‘nation’
2. Language, nation, and the community of speakers
3. ‘Threats’ to linguistic identity
4. Language policy and the rise of English
0. Introductory remarks on language and
identity
The relationship between language and identity
is always close. This is true both for individuals as
well as for groups. For an individual, it may be
sufficient to say “Good morning!” in English or
whatever his native language is to be identified as
a speaker from a specific country or a specific
region, or as someone with a certain kind of
formal education, or someone belonging to a
certain social class. Our phonetic patterns, our
speaking volume and rhythm, our choice of words
and of grammatical constructions function as
identity markers. When we speak, it makes others
think that we are intelligent, vulgar, witty, or
arrogant.1
Ascribing identity to a speaker is always a
twofold move: it isolates him from all others –
“identity as uniqueness” (as John Joseph calls it;

Joseph 2004, 37) - and, at the same time, ascribes
him to a particular group – “identity as sameness”.
One must not forget, however, that correlating
language and identity does not imply a purely
1

Although it is possible to define these markers
individually, the perception of our language by others is as sociolinguistic research has shown – a holistic
perception, which is dominated by the overall
constellation of the linguistic variables; cf. Auer 2007, 12:
“a gestalt-like stylistic expression”. - For examples see
also Joseph 2004, 1ff.
552

passive attitude on the part of the speaker, in the
sense that he is passively exposed to the
judgement of others. Inasmuch as he can influence
his language, he can perform what Robert Le Page
and Andrée Tabouret-Keller call “acts of identity”
(1985), i.e. the conscious or subconscious choice
of linguistic features to signal identity with a
particular social group (as, for example, young
people do when using their in-group-language).
Doing identity one could call it, in analogy to
doing gender.
What is true for the language of an individual
is also true for a language as a whole, for a
national language. From the outside, i.e. from the
perspective of speakers of other languages, a
given national language and its speakers may be

judged in a certain way, including appraisals of
the speakers’ (alleged) ‘national character’ (e.g.:
‘French is an elegant language – just like its
speakers’). But the speakers of this language
themselves may also regard and use their language
as an expression of their national identity,
sometimes up to a point where they pass laws to
protect their language from foreign influence. This
illustrates two points, which I will come back to
later: Firstly, that linguistic identities are not static
but dynamic phenomena, and, secondly, that
linguistic identities are not ‘given’ but are
constructed socially.


Chi n l
c ngo i ng trong xu th h i nh p

In my paper, I will concentrate on collective
linguistic identity, on a national level, as national
identity is a particularly important form of cultural
identity.
1. Language and the concept of ‘nation’
National languages are not just the product of an
existing nation, but they also help to define the
nation. In numerous definitions of what a nation is,
language is mentioned as an important criterion.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “nation”
this way (SOED 1973 ed.).
“A distinct race or people, characterized by
common descent, language, or history, usu. [i.e.

usually] organized as a separate political state and
occupying a definite territory“
The definition includes three typical aspects of
the concept of nation:
- a political aspect (political state; territory)
- a cultural aspect (language; history)
- an ethnic aspect (race; people; descent).
However, there is a fourth aspect of the
meaning of “nation” which is not mentioned in the
definition of the OED:
- volition.
The nation is also often regarded as the
expression of a common will of its citizens.
Of course, these fours aspects do not appear in
all texts on linguistic identity all of the time. In
Germany, for historical reasons the cultural and
the ethnic aspects played a prominent role. Among
them, language was of great importance. In 1813
the German poet Theodor Körner wrote2:
“What links us, is the holy tie of language, is
our God, our fatherland/is our faithful German
blood“.
2

“Uns knüpft der Sprache heilig Band, / Uns knüpft ein
Gott, ein Vaterland / ein treues deutsches Blut“ (Theodor
Körner: “Jägerlied”, 1813).

Tháng 11/2014


The political unit (fatherland) is linked to the
cultural dimension (language), to the ethnic
dimension (blood), and to religion (God), i.e. to
another cultural aspect of nation.
In statements like this the nation is not seen as
the result of historical processes and decisions
taken by social individuals, but as something of an
almost timeless quality. The more ideological
these comments become, the more ahistorical they
become. The political entity (nation, country,
empire, fatherland) is then presented in a way that
suggests that it contains a kind of core which
transcends time and guarantees the identity of the
entity, its sameness throughout history – which, in
fact, is a basic assumption in identity discourse.
And within the logic of this argument this does
not seem alltogether implausible: After all, how
can something function as a firm point of
orientation, if it is not stable in itself? History and
social change are the enemies of identity politics.
This essentialist view of the nation stands in
sharp contrast to the approach taken in
contemporary research. Benedict Anderson speaks
of the nation as an imagined community (1991): it
is not only kept alive only by the wish or desire to
belong to it, but it is brought into being by the will
to create it. In a similar way, Stuart Hall speaks of
narrating the nation (1996), and Eric Hobsbawm
and Terence Ranger use the expression the
invention of tradi- tion. 3 These analytical

approaches are constructivist: social entities are
3

Hobsbawm 1983, 1: “‘Invented traditions’ is taken to
mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or
tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual and symbolic nature,
which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of
behaviour by repetition, which atomatically implies
continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they
normally attempt to establich continuity with a suitable
historic past.” – See also Hutchinson/Smith on ethnicity
(1996, 6f.): ethnic groups show six central features: a
common proper name; a myth of common ancestry/fictive
kinship; shared historical memories/shared memories of a
common past; one or more elements of common culture,
normally including religion, customs or language; a link
with a homeland (not necessarily physcial, but symbolic);
a sense of solidarity.
553


Ti u ban 4: Văn hóa trong ho t ñ ng gi ng d y ngo i ng th i kỳ h i nh p

not seen as the inevitable results of processes
governed by teleological laws, but as social
constructions governed by social interests. To
point out the constructivist dimension of an entity
like a nation does not mean, however, that it has
no ontic reality. Of course, it has: once the
concept of nation has been established, it is part of

what we regard as ‘objective reality’. And to point
out, that there is no ‘natural necessity’ for a nation
to become reality, does not mean to say, that at
any point in history anything is possible.
A short summary of the first section:
In definitions of the concept of nation four
aspects play a dominant role – a political, a
cultural, an ethnic and a volitional aspect. In
different countries, different aspects dominate: In
Germany, for example, the cultural dimension of
the concept (with language being central to it) and
the ethnic dimension (common descent) were of
particular importance. Whereas modern research
regards nations as the results of processes of social
construction, identity politics tend to point out the
assumed ontological, ‘natural’ quality of the nation.
2. Language, nation, and the community of
speakers
Much of what has been said about the nation is
also true for the national language.
Jacob Grimm, as one of the Grimm brothers
best known for his collection of fairy tales, was
also one of the leading historical linguists of his
time. With his brother he started a comprehensive
German dictionary, the preface of which he ended
in these words in 1854:
“Beloved German countrymen, of whatever
territory or belief you may be, enter the great hall
of your inherited, ancient language, learn it,
hallow it and cherish it, the life and future of your

people depend on it.”4
4

“Deutsche geliebte landsleute, welches reichs, welches
glaubens ihr seiet, tretet ein in die euch allen aufgethane
halle eurer angestammten, uralten sprache, lernet und

554

There are many statements like this, from
many countries. To mention just one more from
the German tradition: In 1982, a few years before
the fall of the Berlin Wall, the East German writer
Peter Schneider states in his book “Der
Mauerspringer”:
“If there is still a fatherland of the Germans, it
has most likely survived in their mother tongue.”5
These and many other quotations illustrate that
in the discussion of language and identity there is
often the assumption of a strong interdependence
between language, its speakers (the people) and
the political entity (nation, empire etc.).
Current linguistic theory is characterized to a
high degree by the conviction that language does
not just denote pre-existing reality, but segments
the amorphous mass of impressions into distinct
semantic units, thus guiding our view of reality
along these lines of segmentation. In an early text
of the 17th century, the English philosopher and
statesman Francis Bacon had put it in a nutshell

by saying “verba res secant” – words dissect
things (Novum Organum, aphorism 59). This
constructivist position is, as said before, widely
accepted in present academic thought (and not just
in the field of liguistics), and Wilhelm von
Humboldt’s remark from the 19th century is still
regarded as valid: that the different languages are
“the means of the particular ways of thinking and
feeling of the nations”.6 According to this view, it
is due only to this linguistic structuring that we
can deal with reality intellectually: a national
language contains a particular view of the world
which more or less guides our thinking, our
cognitive access to reality.
This view of the close correlation between
language and thinking leads to my next point:

heiliget sie und haltet an ihr, eure volkskraft und dauer
hängt in ihr” (Grimm 1854, LXVII).
5
“Wenn ein Vaterland der Deutschen weiterhin existiert,
so hat es am ehesten in ihrer Muttersprache überlebt.”
6
“die Organe der eigenthümlichen Denk- und
Empfindungsarten der Nationen” (Humboldt 1821[?], 26)


Chi n l
c ngo i ng trong xu th h i nh p

3. ‘Threats’ to linguistic identity

An alleged threat to the language is nearly
always also perceived as a threat to the identity of
the corresponding community of speakers and the
corresponding cultural/political entity. Despite the
differences between the various historical
situations, there is an underlying pattern to this
argument which appears again and again. To give
only a few examples, both from history and from
the present.
In a German text of 1647 the author states that
by the use of French loan words in German “the
German spirit is alienated, the natural way is
corrupted” (Hille 1647, 3).7 And, in a very similar
mode: “If you make [your] language a maid [by
using foreign words, thus serving foreign interests,
A.G.], you will become a servant”.8
In the current debate on the presence of
English loan words in German (anglicisms) most
of the arguments bear a striking resemblance to
the arguments used against French loan words in
the 17th century. The most conservative position in
this debate is held by the Verein deutsche Sprache
[Association for the German Language], a private
language society.
To quote from a programmatic article written by
a leading member of the society (Dieter 2004, 142):
“the spoken and written vocabulary of a
language could […] ‘be described as’ the
(genocultural) code of that ‘culture which uses it’
(Kerckhove 1994: 158). Put simply: 1 word stem

= 1 gene. […] Too many mutations at once […]
destroy the phenotype. This is how a linguistic
breach is occurring at present - called ‘Denglisch’
in Germany […].”
Structurally, this modern argument is not
7

“Durch die Sprachverderbnis wird die Rede / und der
Teutsche Geist erfremdet / die rechte Art / verunartet”
(Hille 1647, 3).
8
“Machst du die Sprach zur Magd: So wirst du werden
Knecht” (Sigmund von Birken, in Neumark 1668, b6r).

Tháng 11/2014

different from traditional arguments: language
corresponds to the culture of its speakers on a very
basic level. When language is influenced in its
‘deep structure’ by foreign elements, this will
inevitably affect the culture in its ‘deep structure’
as well. The term “Denglish” reflects this
mutation: following the logic of the argument, it
should be either “Deutsch” or “Englisch” – but
not a hybrid: Denglisch. As the author of 1647 put
it: by foreign words “the natural way is corrupted“
(Hille 1647), a change of the species has taken
place. This line of thought ignores the central
cultural quality of language by turning it into a
biological phenomenon, thus ‘de-socialising’ and

‘ontologising’ it.
A second quotation by the Verein deutsche
Sprache9:
The use of English words in German “weakens
the linguistic and cultural autonomy of the
European countries. The linguistic autonomy as
the most important sign of the economic and
cultural independence of the European countries
threatens to get lost”.
The organisers of the Verein deutsche Sprache
make it quite clear that the loss of European
“linguistic and cultural autonomy” would be a
sign of the subordinantion of Europe to the United
States, to its (alleged) linguistic and cultural
dominance. Structurally, this conviction is
identical to the one set forth in the above quoted
text from 1668: “If you make [your] language a
maid, you will become a servant”.
Before I come to my final point, let me sum up
what has been said so far.
Language plays a central role in the formation
9

“Diese Entwicklung ist nicht nur eine Modeerscheinung
- sie schwächt die sprachliche und kulturelle
Eigenständigkeit der europäischen Länder. Die
sprachliche Eigenständigkeit als wichtigstes Merkmal der
wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Selbstbehauptung der
europäischen Länder droht allmählich verloren zu gehen.”
( (20.7.2014)

555


Ti u ban 4: Văn hóa trong ho t ñ ng gi ng d y ngo i ng th i kỳ h i nh p

both of individual and collective identity. In
identity discourse what is regarded as true for the
nation is also regarded as true for the national
language: both are seen to possess a quality that
transcends time, neither of them is regarded as a
social construction, but, more or less, as a natural
phenomenon. And in the logic of this argument,
only because they are ‘natural’, they can provide
identity to their citizens and speakers.
In this process, language is not just a passive
expression of peoples’ thinking, but it helps to
shape their thinking: each language contains a
specific view of the world, which its speakers
grow up with and which guides their cognitive
access to reality.
Because language, speakers, and the
cultural/political unit correspond with each other
so closely, a threat to the language is always also
seen as a threat to the identity of the speakers and
to the well-being of the cultural/political body.
In linguistic identity politics – in fact, in any
kind of identity politics – identity is regarded as
stable, permanent, natural, not as socially
constructed. In academic discourse, the opposite is
the case: identity is regarded as man made, as the

result of social dynamics. The same holds true for
language: in popular discourse (in folk linguistics,
so to speak) a language that is supposed to supply
identity tends to be seen less as a historical and
social phenomenon, exposed to change, following
fashions, but rather as something monolithic,
resting in itself. Whereas in linguistics and in the
social sciences the opposite is assumed.
– So where does this leave us? How are we to
respond to the ever greater influence of English in
a world of globalization?
4. Language policy and the rise of English
It think it was the British Linguist David
Crystal who first called English “the

Tyrannosaurus Rex” of languages 10 , devouring
any language that gets in its way. However,
English cannot be blamed for everything: changes
in the linguistic world map are not always or only
due to the international spread of English. The
rapid increase of various forms of communication,
in combination with an increase of mobility and a
drift from rural, seclosed areas to larger cities are
major reasons for the decrease in the use of
minority languages. In Europe, there has been a
response to this by the European Council, which
in 1992 passed the European Charter for Regional
or Minority Languages. In May 2014 the Council
renewed its claims:
“The Committee of Experts of the European

Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
(ECRML) recalls that the Charter is designed for
pluralist and multilingual societies and reiterates
that ’the protection and promotion of regional or
minority languages in the different countries and
regions of Europe represent an important
contribution to the building of a Europe based on
the principles of democracy and cultural diversity
within the framework of national sovereignty and
territorial integrity’ (Preamble of the Charter).“11
So one way of trying to protect one’s linguistic
and thus cultural identity is:
a) protection of regional/minority languages
While this measure may be described as a
‘positive move’ – as it helps to increase linguistic
plurality – a second kind of linguistic policy
measure consists of a ‘negative move’, by trying
to exclude exogenous linguistic elements,
particularaly loan words, such as anglicisms:
b) exclusion of foreign linguistic influence
(e.g. loanwords)
This can take place on the legal level, and there
are several countries which have chosen this
10
11

556

See also Swales 1997.
/>


Chi n l
c ngo i ng trong xu th h i nh p

alternative, among which France is a well known
example. 12 Since 1635 France has had the
Académie Française which controls the usage of
French. However, the decisions of the Académie
are not binding legally, which is different in the
case of the Loi Toubon, a law passed in 1994,
regulating the use of non-French languages in the
public sphere (commercial slogans, for example,
must be translated into French).
English loan words may stick out clearly from
the surface of a native language, thus provoking
opposition concerned with questions of linguistic
identity. But of far greater cultural impact for a
language and its speakers might well be the
practice of using English for certain areas of
intellectual life, i.e. for specific fields of knowledge
in the sphere of science. 13 In some scientific
disciplines not just publishing in English has
become standard practice in a number of countries,
but also the teaching of university courses.
It is extremely difficult to come to a decision in
this question, that does justice to all its
dimensions. Of course, any scientist who wants to
join the international scientific community will
have to follow its rules, i.e. publish papers in
chemistry, the nanosciences or in internet
technology etc. in English. For the country and

culture he lives in, however, this will mean that
sooner or later whole areas of knowledge cannot
be dealt with anymore by the public, as the
necessary linguistic means – such as the special
terminology – are not available in his native
language anymore. Hence, these areas of knowledge
are not accessible cognitively anymore for anyone
who does not speak English. In a curious way, this
situation reminds of the European Middle Ages,
where only Latin was the language of scholarly
discourse, and where the native languages had to
fight for their ‘intellectual rights’.

Tháng 11/2014

But the importance of English is not as great in
fields of knowledge other than the natural
sciences. In many academic disciplines – ranging
from law, the humanities, the social sciences, even
partly up to economics – the languages and texts
within these disciplines are culturally ‘loaded’ to a
noticeable degree. This comes at no surprise:
Languages inevitably ‘contain’ and thus reflect the
culture of those who speak it, most obviously in
their vocabulary. The more specific a cultural item
is, the less the word that denotes it can be replaced
by a word from a different language. And cultural
distinctiveness also reaches beyond the lexical
level of a language. German sentence structure,
for example, differs from the syntactic structures

of English, and the stylistic and textual traditions
and approaches in dealing with a given subject
matter are also quite different. Of course, this is
the case even more where the typology of
languages and the traditions of speaking and
writing in them differ as much as they do between
Indo-European and Asian languages.
In order to do justice to these demands – i.e. to
accept the practical dominance of English in
certain fields of knowledge and to accept that each
language and the texts produced in it are culturally
specific in many respects and to accept and
support one’s own linguistic identity – the
educational institutions of many countries are
called upon to practice the teaching of foreign
languages, following a rule of a + b or c: teaching
the native language plus either English or a
different language, be it German, French,
Japanese, or any other language, which is either
traditionally connected with a given country or
which seems useful for present political or
economic reasons. This then might turn out to be
the most promising way to deal with the
correlation of language and identity14:
+ English

12

Christian Schmitt (2000).
13

For the situation in Germany cf. Ehlich 2012 and
Ehlich/Meyer 2012.

14

See also Crystal 2004 and 2012.
557


Ti u ban 4: Văn hóa trong ho t ñ ng gi ng d y ngo i ng th i kỳ h i nh p

c) teaching the native language
or + German or French or Spanish…
However, what might look like a symmetrical
structure, is not really one: in most countries,
where several languages are taught, English
clearly dominates the other languages, for reasons
mainly due to the strong geopolitical, economic,
and cultural position of the United States. But no
country in the world does only do business with
the United States, and there will always be the
need of experts who not only speak a language
different from English but who are also familiar
with life in the country that language is spoken in,
with the political, social, economic, historical, and
everyday traditions and practices of the people
who live in this country. A wide range of political,
economic and cultural contacts based on a
knowledge of various languages has always been
an advantage for any country in the world.

– We like to see identities as stable and permanent,
providing reliability in the face of change.
But identities are in a state of constant flux,
even if we do not notice it: we are not the same as
our forefathers were a hundred or even fifty years
ago. And our linguistic identities change with us.
If we want to control this change, we must achieve
a balance between linguistic and cultural tradition
and innovation.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson,
Benedict
(1991):
Imagined
Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. Rev. Ed. London/New York.
2. Auer, Peter (2007): Style and Social Identities.
Alternative Approaches to Linguistic Heterogeneity.
Berlin.
3. Crystal, David (2004): The past, present and future
of World English. In: Gardt/Hüppauf, 27- 46.

6. Ehlich, Konrad (2012): Sprache(n) und Universität.
Eine Skizze. In: Heike Roll/Andrea Schilling (eds.):
Mehrsprachiges Handeln im Fokus von Linguistik und
Didaktik. Duisburg, 17-31.
7. Ehlich, Konrad/Hans Joachim Meyer (2012):
Thesen zur künftigen Rolle des Deutschen in der
Wissenschaft und zu den Chancen wissenschaftlicher
Mehrsprachigkeit. In: Heinrich Oberreuter/Wilhelm

Krull/Hans Joachim Meyer/Konrad Ehlich (eds.):
Deutsch in der Wissenschaft. Ein politischer und
wissenschaftlicher Diskurs. München, 30-34.
8. Gardt, Andreas (ed.) (2000): Nation und Sprache.
Die Diskussion ihres Verhältnisses in Geschichte und
Gegenwart. Berlin.
9. Gardt, Andreas/Bernd Hüppauf (eds.) (2004):
Globalization and the Future of German. Berlin.
Grimm, Jacob (1854): Vorrede. In: Jacob
Grimm/Wilhelm Grimm: Deutsches Wörterbuch.
Berlin. Vol. 1, I-LXVII.
10. Hall, Stuart (1996): The global, the local, and the
return of ethinicity. In: Stuart Hall/David Held/Don
Hubert/Kenneth Thompson (eds.): Modernity: an
Introduction to Modern Societies. Cambridge, 634-628.
11. Hille, Carl Gustav von (1647): Der Teutsche
Palmbaum: Das ist / Lobschrift Von der Hochlöblichen
/ Fruchtbringenden Gesellschaft Anfang / Satzungen /
Vorhaben / Namen / Sprüchen / Gemählen / Schriften und
unverwelklichem Tugendruhm. Reprint. München 1970.
12. Hobsbawm, Eric (1983): Inventing traditions. In:
Eric Hobsbawm/ Terence Ranger (eds.): The Invention
of Tradition. Cambridge etc., 1-14.
13. Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1821?): Ueber den
Einfluss des verschiedenen Charakters der Sprachen
auf Literatur und Geistesbildung. In: Wilhelm von
Humboldt. Werke in fünf Bän- den. Ed. by A. Flitner,
K. Giel. Vol. III: Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie. 4th.
ed. Darm- stadt 1963, 27-30.
14. Hutchinson, John/Anthony

(1996): Ethnicity. Oxford.

D.

Smith

(eds.)

15. Joseph, John E. (2004): Language and Identity.
National, Ethnic, Religious. Basingstoke/New York.
16. Le Page, Robert B./Andrée Tabouret-Keller
(1985): Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to
Language and Ethnicity, Cambridge/New York.

4. Crystal, David (2012): Plurilingualism, pluridialectism,
pluriformity. (Plenary paper for the annual conference
of TESOL Spain, Bilbao, 10 March 2012;
/>
17. Neumark, Georg (1668?): Der Neu-Sprossende
Teutsche Palmbaum. Oder Ausführlicher Bericht / Von
der Hochlöblichen Fruchtbringenden Gesellschaft
Anfang / Absehn / Satzun-gen / Eigenschaft / und
deroselben Fortpflantzung [...]. Weimar o.J. Reprint.
München 1970.

5. Dieter, Hermann H. (2004): Does ‚Denglish’ DeDifferentiate our Perceptions of Nature? The View of a
Nature Lover and Language‚ Fighter’. In:
Gardt/Hüppauf, 139-154.

18. Schmitt, Christian (2000): Nation und Sprache:

das Französische. In: Gardt, 673-745.Swales, John
(1997): English as Tyrannosauros Rex. In: World
Englishes 16, 373-382.

558