Language-learning and power: a theoretical approach

Abstract

This article calls language-learning the demand for a language in a certain social situation, while teaching refers to its supply. Both learning and teaching policies and strategies, whether of individuals, groups, or organized bodies like the state and dissident language activists, are ultimately connected with power. Individuals and groups generally learn the language of the domains of power because they want to empower themselves through employment. Sometimes, however, groups (ethnic, nationalistic etc.) may challenge the dominant language and teach the one they regard as a group identity symbol in a bid to change the prevalent power relations in a society. This is called resistance or ethnic language-teaching. Then there is ideological language-teaching by the state. Its purpose is to create legitimacy for the ruling elite and its ideology within the country so as to reduce resistance and to disseminate that ideology abroad as part of the projection of state power. These three major motivations for learning and teaching languages are predominantly rational, though extrarational elements are part of the motivation of actors in undeterminable ways. Learning a language for pleasure or other emotional reasons, not apparently connected with power, falls into the realm of the predominantly extrarational realm, which is not explored in this article.

Discursive power and the new labor force: the metamorphosis of a speech community

“…In part, this supports Rahman's (2001) claim that learning the standardized form of English served as a catalyst for his empowerment. However, it contradicts his claim that 'the language of power is not the spoken language of everyday life' (p. 59).…”

“…In fact, many scholars agree that power and language are intertwined (Fairclough, 1989;Kress, 1995;Pennycook, 1995;Pierce, 1995Pierce, , 1997 and that acts of individual power occur within a greater social arena. Rahman (2001) explicitly identifies three types of linguistic power: signitive, pragmatic, and symbolic. Signitive power addresses the construction of a world view, symbolic power refers to the act of attributing value to a language, and pragmatic power 'is based on the communicative dimensions of language' (p. 58) that are dependent on the context in which they occur.…”

Ukrainian–Russian bilingualism in the war-affected migrant and refugee communities in Austria and Germany: a survey-based study on language attitudes

“…Pragmatic power is based “on the communicative dimensions of language” ( De Kadt, 1993 : 160), which is operationalized as language use across different contexts. Symbolic power refers to the association of a language with attributes that have a value, positive or negative, in the mind of the perceiver ( Rahman, 2001 : 57), for instance, English is associated with modernity, knowledge, and education in Pakistan, while Punjabi is not ( Rahman, 2001 : 57).…”

“…On the one hand, language use and language maintenance, especially of minority languages, can be driven by the symbolic value of this language rather than pragmatic ones. The symbolic value refers to “extrarational” or “emotional” associations evoked by a certain language, whereas the pragmatic value refers to its communicative value and comprises, therefore, its “rational,” “instrumental,” or “functional” dimensions ( De Kadt, 1993 ; Rahman, 2001 ). A multilingual person might choose to use a particular language out of his/her desire to be associated with this language, as this language is a symbol of ethnic identification and cultural heritage, cf.…”