Language and Identity

The English language is often considered a cultural byproduct and export of England and America – a language, like others, inseparable from its literature and history. In many universities and other institutions, the demand and desire exists that learners of a second language should try to produce as near-native pronunciation as possible. This has been supported by studies that have shown that native listeners respond more positively to lightly or unnoticeably accented speech. For the majority of learners, this task is impossible and therefore, the feasibility and need for this goal, at least in English, is being reevaluated (Dalton-Puffer, et al.,1997).

English today functions as an international language, a “free agent” in society. Released from cultural constraints, many non-native speakers agree it is no longer necessary to imitate the pronunciation (or other language features) of the standard varieties but instead have begun to mark English as their own. Accordingly, English in Europe is losing its foreignness and becoming nativized. This does not, however, deter from that fact that English still must be understandable, pertinent, and accepted by the community (Smith, 1983).

In Europe widespread use is leading to one or more non-native varieties dubbed “Euro-English” or European English (Modiano 1996, Crystal 1995 in Cenoz & Jessner, 2000) which differ from standard native varieties of English. These new varieties of Euro-English are similar to other “New Englishes” in that they are not the result of a pidgin but rather education and exposure. As Crystal (2003) mentioned, it is a divergent variety of English that appears when different nationalities communicate in English. They will adapt and modify their speech while still exhibiting features (i.e. interference) from their native tongues. If these speakers are European, the result is an original variety of Euro-English..

What makes these new varieties different from standard English varieties is the mother tongue interference normally called “errors” by native speakers and English teachers. Interference is not a limitation, a distraction, or a hindrance. Instead, these “errors” become standardized, regular and accepted as part of a nativised European English .

Another explanation for the appearance of “Euro-English” is the fact that language is the primary vehicle for a culture; it is the wisdom of centuries passed on and preserved generation to generation. When a language meets with death it is not replaced by a new linguistic culture but rather compromises between the old language and the new one, creating a new variety that is neither one nor the other (Kramsch, 1998). Certainly this is somewhat the case with the Euro-English varieties; in a similar fashion speakers move their language features and accent over into spoken English in order to stamp themselves as belonging to that particular group (and not a native English one) thus creating a new variety that is neither English nor their mother tongue - it is Euro-English.

Personal and group ídentity

Contradictory results like those above are not uncommon. They can be at least partially explained by the social identity theory which states that people will exhibit a preference for the variety of language that is associated with their most salient in-group. (from Lambert, 1967 cited in Bresnahan, et al., 2002). Both of these studies reflect the importance of one’s social network and of one’s personal and group identity. Identity is a term borrowed from the realm of social psychology and is defined as “a person’s mental representation of who he or she is” (Bernstein, et al, 1994). A person’s identity results from a basic tension between the necessity to be similar to those around us, group identity, and a simultaneous desire to feel unique, personal identity. A group is characterized by two or more people with not only physical but also functional interaction.

Groups are also important in establishing values and norms and therein impose a social impact on the individual depending on the strength, immediacy, and number of the group. Both personal and group identities differ along lines of gender and culture.

Group identity may be based on any of several possible factors; among the most salient factors are ethnicity, nationality, and religion. Trudgill (2000) expressed the point that people have a much easier time identifying themselves as Jewish or Black rather than Lower Middle Class. Language, however, “may be or may not be included in the group’s cultural bag. According to the subjective view, group members more or less consciously choose to associate ethnicity with language” (Appel & Muysken, 1987).

Читайте також:

<== попередня сторінка	\|	наступна сторінка ==>
In Europe	\|	Connection between identity and language

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.02 сек.