British colonialism and its linguistic consequences

Keywords: colonisation affect, colonisation and language


Colonization (and more recently globalization) certainly makes up about the drastic improvements in the linguistic landscapes of around the world the centuries. Conceptualized as as the directing control of politics, culture and people by foreign claims, colonization has how to write a psychology research paper got imposed to the colonized more than a few harmful difficulties. The compulsory necessity of engaging with a language ascribed to oppression, exploitation and slavery stands out, though.

Moreover, colonialism, in many territories meant likewise an imposed mosaic of several ethnic groups and human types that ahead of European penetration, had diverse political, cultural and interpersonal structures that have been randomly appreciated to coexist in that space. Such impositions concerning language and way of life reflected and changed the identification of the colonized people and, according to Türkmen (2003), played an essential role essential to colonialism to be successful:

&quot;Identity is among the indispensable parts of colonialism, if we consider colonialism as a physique; identification constitutes its spirit while the economic exploitation can be its corporal body system. The colonizer arriving at the virgin lands with the feeling of colonial desire and obsession to own low-priced profit in his heart and soul finds himself prepared to defame the inhabitants, regard them as "the other". And he starts off his policy by deterritorializing and reterritorializing…" (p.189).

In that sense, persons were forced to become what they aren’t. That is evident by the actual fact that the colonizers employed to call the colonies "new lands", as though they were "virgin" lands, uninhabited before their arrival. Türkmen (2003) stresses that the colonizers did not perceive their actions over the colonies as reconstruction because they did not consider the organizations and cultures proven in the colonies as valuable. The colonizers likewise imposed their lifestyle and language as a way to legitimize their power:

"In the colony what is asymmetrical, instead of merely different proves to get pathological. To be able to legitimize their maltreatment, the colonizer attempts to project the additional not merely different but also dangerous, primitive, extreme, lazy, etc. Desire to is making people feel that colonialism is not an unfair perpetration, rather, it is just a necessary drive, for, and these people do not are worthy of these lands by virtue of their notorious characteristics. Also, the drive, in the end, will promote their lifestyle standards. This is for his or her interest". (Robert Little in Colonialism and Desiring machine as cited in Türkmen (2003), p.190)

As revealed, the colonized is pressured to internalize a fresh identity through the reinforcement of stereotypes by the colonizer, which is very easily understandable if one thinks that the colonized discovers him/herself in a circumstance they haven’t experienced before, after having been appreciated to abandon all what constitutes his/her "universe". The colonized then has no option other than "emulate the colonizer as a sole model before him". On the other hand, his attempt can be rejected by the colonizer. Motivated by his urge for exploitation, he makes sure to set hard limits to the difference, as "to them the difference is what feeds the colonial program, what legitimize and postulates it" (Türkmen, 2003).

So the colonized loses his former identity but he’s also not supported in building a innovative one. As Türkmen (2003) sets, it, "he will neither be like the colonizer nor himself…. Hence, he lives in a full oblivion. All at once, he’s casted out from his history, memory and citizenship". However, through colonialism identity isn’t totally lost, but occur the unknown ground temporally positioned between prior and after the colonizers came.

Identity and language

Identity and the cognate conditions in different languages have a long history as technical conditions in Western philosophy from the historic Greeks through modern-day analytical philosophy. They have already been used to address the perennial philosophical problems of permanence amidst manifest change, and of unity amidst diversity. Wide spread vernacular and social-analytical use of identity and its own cognates, nevertheless, is of a lot more recent vintage and more localized provenance.

The introduction of identity into social analysis and its own initial diffusion into social sciences and public discourse occurred in the United States in the 1960s (with some anticipation in the next half of the 1950s). The most important and best-know trajectory involved the appropriation and popularization of Erik Erikson (who was responsible, among other things, for coining the word identity crisis).

But there were other paths of diffusion aswell. The idea of identification was pried from its original, especially psychoanalytic context (where the term had been primarily unveiled by Freud) and associated with ethnicity on the one hand and also to sociological function theory and reference group theory.

"The term identity proved extremely resonant in the 1960′s diffusing quickly across disciplinary and countrywide boundaries, establishing itself in the journalistic plus the educational lexicon, and permeating the dialect of social and political analysis". (Davis, 2004, p.61)

Stuart Hall, among the well-known scholars specialized on identification, points that identification is dynamic, not steady and is in frequent flux:

"Perhaps rather than thinking as identification as an currently accomplished historical fact, which the latest cinematic discourses represent, we should think, instead, of ‘identification’ as a production, which is never total, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside the house, representation (ibid 210)", (Davis, 2004, p.184).

Therefore, cultural identity can be considered as a historically located set of experiences that require to be recovered so as to fulfill the desire to become one nation or one people, consequently, happens to the language.

As it expresses beyond what its words signifies, language as well reveals "the way individuals situate themselves in relationship to others, the way they group themselves, the powers they lay claim for themselves and the powers they stipulate to others" (Sterling, xxx). Persons use language to indicate social allegiances, that is, which groups they are users of and which groupings they are not. In addition, they use terminology to create and maintain role relationships between persons and between groups in that way that the linguistic varieties utilized by a community form a system that corresponds to the structure of the society.

Therefore, a speaker uses language not only to express but to make a representation of him/herself with regards to others with whom s/he is interacting. The problem of respect is an facet of the broader marriage between power and language. Power may be the degree to which one interlocutor can control the tendencies of the additional. S/he then simply uses the dialect of intimacy and familiarity as they employed it in greetings, interacting about family, and leave-takings. In talking about their jobs and different "external" acquaintances, they use the colonizer’s language, which quite possibly signs distance.

Sterling (xxx) also argues that within a culture or a culture, speech patterns become tools that speakers manipulate to group themselves and categorize others with whom they are interacting:

"Due to the relationship between language make use of and group membership, vocabulary can inspire deep group loyalties. It could serve as symbolic of unification on more than a few levels. On the nationwide level, dialect loyalty can serve a significant political function. Many people in the usa are threatened by the application of languages other than English. To speak a dialect other than English is thought to be "un-American." The reason being English is certainly "promoted as the best possible terminology of a unified and healthier nation". On a local level, language is a symbol of loyalty to a community". (Sterling, xxx, p.xx).

For the community as a whole, socialization through dialect learning produces conformity to social norms and transmits the tradition of the community. As s/he learns dialect, a kid learns the social composition of the tradition, learning the correct linguistic form for each and every kind of person. This is component of communicative competence. Communicative competence is not only knowing how to speak the precise language(s) used in the speech community but also focusing on how to use language properly in any given social situation in the community. And the capability to know that is closely linked to the identification that one keeps. "Speech patterns become equipment that loudspeakers manipulate to group themselves and categorize others with whom they will be interacting" and that is merely distributed to those sharing a particular identification, whether in a network or a customs.