The Role of Linguistic Nationalism on the Integration of Nation- State Building

International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR) ISSN (P): 2249–6947; ISSN (E): 2249–8052 Vol. 10, Issue 2, Apr 2020, 9–22 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

THE ROLE OF LINGUISTIC NATIONALISM ON THE INTEGRATION OF NATIONSTATE BUILDING STEPHEN ONDAGO ODUOR School of International Education, Wuhan University, Wuhan City, Wuchang Hubei Province, P.R. China ABSTRACT In the modern and contemporary history, the scope of research on language as the public wealth of mankind and a non-renewable cultural resource, as manifested through linguistic nationalism has been remarkable. Language life is the most important social life of mankind, and is increasingly becoming a matter of concern to politicians, multidisciplinary participation, and influencing the construction of the new nation and international order. Linguistic nationalism originated in Europe and spread to the world. It has shown an integrated and building function, especially in the formation of European nation-states and also played an important role in the post-colonial era in Asia and Africa countries. This paper argues that the language policy of the central and eastern European countries have two main characteristics: first, linguistic nationalism prevails; second, the influence of European Union language policy is

struggles for power and dominance between groups, language planning is not merely a technical undertaking and can often result in creating conflicts rather than solving them.

KEYWORDS: Language Planning, Linguistic Nationalism, Lingua Franca & State Construction

Received: Jan 23, 2020; Accepted: Feb 13, 2020; Published: Mar 17, 2020; Paper Id.: IJESRAPR20202

Original Article

expounding profoundly and also emphasizes the need for critical awareness that, given the role played by language in

INTRODUCTION Theoretical Perspectives and Historical Development of Language Policy and Planning (LPP) Although Language Planning is an interdisciplinary field, it came into its own as a branch of sociolinguistics.

During the 1950s and 1960s, Western- trained linguist’s scholars were engaged by many of the new nations of Africa, South America, and Asia to develop grammars, writing systems, and dictionaries for indigenous languages. While Language Policy and Planning (LPP）as an activity has certainly been going on for centuries, the concept of "language planning" was first proposed by Weinrich in 1957. In1959, Haugen, considered by many to be the father of the field, introduced the term Language Planning (LP), which appeared in the related academic literature of Haugen's study of language standardization in Norway, describing Norway's new standard national language program after independence from Denmark in 1814. He once wrote: “the activity of preparing a normative orthography, grammar, and dictionary for the guidance of writers and speakers in a non-homogeneous speech community.” (Haugen, 1959: 8). Haugen’s language planning steps were proposed as both a theoretical model of language planning and a practical roadmap for those interested in actually engaging in the planning of languages.

The publications such as the Ford Foundation-funded International Research Project on language planning processes carried out in the 1960s by Rubin, Das Gupta, Fishman, and Jernudd, each one focusing on a

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

10

Stephen Ondago Oduor

national LPP case - Indonesia, India, Israel, and Sweden, respectively; and LP processes (Rubin et al., 1977), in which Rubin (1977: 282) wrote : "Language planning is deliberate language change, that is, changes in the systems of a language code or speaking or both that are planned by organizations established for such purposes or given a mandate to fulfill such purposes. "These publications have become classics in the academic research field, providing accounts of early empirical efforts and descriptive explorations of national LPP cases. Scholars trained in descriptive linguistics such as Fishman advanced current theories of language structure and use. In the seminal figure in the sociology of language, Fishman notes that developing nations as providing an "indispensable and truly intriguing array of field-work locations for a new breed of genuine sociolinguists." (Fishman 1968: 11). This research was directly relevant to LP, especially for many aspects of corpus planning. In addition, beyond linguistic theory, the activities of many sociolinguists were understood as beneficial to nation-building and national unification; the decision of which language whether colonial or indigenous would best serve these interests was often based on which language would provide access to advanced, that is, Western, technological and economic assistance.

The 1990s saw the beginning of the resurgence of LPP output，ranging from books overview to articles review, as many linguists were proposing new theoretical directions. Cooper (1989) and Tollefson (1991) were among the first and most enduring contributions this era. For instance, is Cooper’s frequently cited definition of language planning, (Cooper 1989: 45):" deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, and functional allocations of their language codes?" In addition, Cooper while accounting framework, organized around the question Cooper (1989:98), "What actors attempt to influence what behaviors of which people for what ends under what conditions by what means through what decision-making process with what effect?", summarized the state of LPP as a descriptive endeavor, while he also clearly enunciated the need for a theory of social change in order to move LPP forward. Tollefson sought to "contribute to a theory of Language Planning (LP) that locates the field within social theory" (Tollefson, 1991: 8). LP is therefore first and foremost about social change (Cooper, 1989; Rubin & Jernudd, 1971; Tollefson, 1991).

LPP activities often involve both implicit and explicit goals and objectives. Tollefson argues that: “Language policy is a form of disciplinary power. Its success depends in part upon the ability of the state to structure into the institutions of society the differentiation of individuals into "insiders" and "outsiders”. To a large degree, this occurs through the close association between language and nationalism. By making language a mechanism for the expression of nationalism, the state can manipulate feelings of security and belonging. The state uses language policy to discipline and control its workers by establishing language-based limitations on education, employment, and political participation. This is one sense in which language policy is inherently ideological.” Tollefson (1991:207-8). Spolsky, on the other hand, simplifies language policy to three components, he wrote :“ a useful first step is to distinguish between the three components of the language policy of a speech community: its language practices - the habitual pattern of selecting among the varieties that make up its linguistic repertoire; its language beliefs or ideology - the beliefs about language and language use; and any specific efforts to modify or influence that practice by any kind of language intervention, planning or management.” Spolsky (2004:5).

Other schools of thought believe that there was a link between the language policy and planning, for example, Cooper argues: “That language planning should serve so many covert goals is not surprising. Language is the fundamental institution of society, not only because it is the first institution experienced by the individual but also because all other institutions are built upon its regulatory patterns ... To plan language is to plan society. A satisfactory theory of language planning, therefore, awaits a satisfactory theory of social change.”(Cooper 1989: 182) Some scholars argue that language planning subsumes language policy (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997) while others argue that language policy subsumes language Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Role of Linguistic Nationalism on the Integration of Nation- State Building

11

planning (Schiffman 1996). According to (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997: xi): “The exercise of language planning leads to, or is directed by, the promulgation of a language policy by government (or other authoritative body or person)”. A language policy is a body of ideas, laws, regulations, rules and practices intended to achieve the planned language change in the societies, group or system.” On the contrary opinion, Schiffman’s primary argument is that language policy is grounded in linguistic culture and examining one without the other is “probably futile, if not simply trivial” (Schiffman 1996: 5). Fettes further envisions the link between language planning and language policy by argueing that language planning subsume policy: “Language planning ... must be linked to the critical evaluation of language policy: the former providing standards of rationality and effectiveness, the latter testing these ideas against actual practice in order to promote the development of better ... language planning models.....a great deal of language policy-making goes on in a haphazard or uncoordinated way, far removed from the language planning ideal” (Fettes, 1997:14). Ager (2001) argues that the language planning must be closely linked to the assessment of language policy: language planning provides rational and effective standards for language policy, and language policy validates the ideological and theoretical models of language planning. Language planning as an applied sociolinguistic activity can function either as a tool for empowerment and liberation or as a means of oppression and domination (Reagan, 2002).

Ricento (2000a：197-203) divides the intellectual history of development of LPP field into three phases，roughly two decades each: (1) classic language planning theory, (2) critical language policy, and (3) an intermediary stage, lasting from the early 1970’s to the late 1980’s. These three phases are typified by significant social and political processes and event, epistemological paradigms and strategic goals. He characterizes the first two stages as primarily focused mainly on the actual language problems in the emerging countries. Early studies on LPP advocated optimism and ideological neutrality, and gradually with an evolving awareness of the potential negative effects and inherent limitations of these modernization and development models within which early LPP efforts were situated.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LANGUAGE POLICY & PLANNING OF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES In 1959, Haugen first came up with the concept of Language Planning (LP), and since then a batch of classics of LP have sprung up. The new nation states of Africa and Asia became experimental ground for conscious LP with a mushrooming of scholars who analyzed the experiences of the recent European nation building past and applied the knowledge suggesting frameworks for the postcolonial nation building future. For instance "Language Problems in the Developing Countries “(Fishman, Ferguson and Das Gupta 1968). "Other scholars believed that a decision could be taken centrally and imposed top-down through education to those who began to wonder whether language practice could be influenced greatly at all.

This was manifested when Jernudd and Rubin (1971) posed the question ‘can language be planned?’ where he concluded that, ‘convincingly show the absence of planning from language planning’ (Jernudd and Das Gupta 1971: 201)." The Progress in Language Planning" Fishman 1974 and so on. These works laid the foundation of language planning.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the study of LP seemed to be at low ebb, but it gradually came to attract peoples’ great attention after the 21st century. This is due to the new international situation and trends of thought, such as the new round of world integration process, the worldwide migration, the revival of ethnic nationalism, the language crisis, the global spread of English, and the emergence of a number of new countries and so on. According to the research, the current international language planning research shows four characteristics:

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

12

Stephen Ondago Oduor

•

The scope of research is expanding rapidly. In addition to the traditional research content, many problems of contemporary language life have emerged, such as language identity, language renaissance, language rights of ethnic minorities and foreign immigrants, bilingual education, globalization and linguistic diversity, International dissemination of languages, endangered languages and language protection, language informatization, etc.

•

The research scope spans the globe. In the past, LP mainly focused on countries in Asia and Africa that were casting off the yoke of colonial rule. However, today's research horizons span almost every corner of the world.

Language problems in The USA and other immigrant countries, the old single nation-state in the west, the new countries that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union, various international and regional organizations, etc., have aroused the deep interest of language planners. It goes without a doubt that all countries or regions in the world have been brought into the research perspective of LP.

•

The shift in research concept. In the 1960s and 1970s, linguistic diversity was often seen as a social problem, and as a centrifugal force holding back nation-building. However, with the acceleration of the process of world integration, people's attitude towards linguistic diversity has undergone a fundamental change. Languages and their variants are seen to warrant value and non-renewable cultural resources. A series of documents from UNESCO, the EU's long list of official languages, are a concrete manifestation of the attitude of maintaining linguistic diversity.

Multi disciplinary participation. Language life is the most important social life of mankind, and it is also the

research object of many subjects. In fact, political science, sociology, law, economics, ethnology, communication, information science and other disciplines in profusion have entered the domain of LP and are playing an increasingly important role. LP is becoming a subject of concern to politicians, involving multidisciplinary participation and disciplines that influences the construction of the new nation and International order.

DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF LPP IN MAJOR COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD The global language environment is complex and changeable. On the other hand, languages are endangered and hegemonic. Some scholars estimate that 50 % or even as many as 90 % of the 6,000 languages in existence will no longer be used by the end of the 21st century. Language death continues to constitute a critical problem across all five continents of the world. The problem has caused much alarm and preoccupation among ethnographers, linguists, language planners and even national governments, especially after the revelation of statistics predicting that by the turn of the century as many as 90% of the world’s languages will have become extinct (Krauss,1992).

•

Strong Language Awareness

Consciousness dominates and influences behavior, and the relationship between language consciousnesses, LPP is very close. More than 400 years ago, English was only a small branch of Germanic language, but in the 20th century, especially in the 21st century, it showed a tendency of world hegemony. The reason is that the strong language consciousness of Germanic nation is a very important factor.

•

Establishment of Specialized Agencies

The world's leading countries usually set up special agencies responsible for their own LP and foreign language promotion.

The USA Department of State is the official department in charge of teaching English to in foreign countries. France's Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Role of Linguistic Nationalism on the Integration of Nation- State Building

13

French academy, the professional vocabulary council and the Alliance France are the specialized institutions for the planning and promotion of French established by successive French governments.

•

Adoption of Legislation to Define Official and Lingua Franca

Status planning in the state nations usually concerns itself with the choice of the varieties that would be considered as the official language(s) of the state or sovereign, especially as the medium of such institutions are concerned, (Sue, 2004).

Through legislation, to determine that official language and lingua franca are the commonalities of powerful countries. For example, Japanese is the official language and national lingua franca of Japan, British English is the official language and national lingua franca of the UK and American English is the official language and national lingua franca of the US. In 1968, the USA introduced the Bilingual Education Act, and the English only Movement passed legislation to make English the official language of the United States, which saw cohesive linguistic group as essential for the well-being of the state.

Where the other languages or dialects present on the territory of the state nations survived the pressures of nationalism, such languages were mostly retreated to the private domain, were prohibited from being taught in schools and were not permitted in any contact with the state as exemplified by nationalist ideology who discouraged minority language as The Dupont Act, enacted in August 1994, which stipulated that :Teaching in public schools; The printing of official government publications and publications of public interest must be in French.

•

Codification and Standardization of Languages

Scholars who engaged in linguistic unification became conscious very early in the process that official language and national lingua franca of the state would be disseminated efficiently to non-speakers in any population if its written form was stable and existed clear guidelines and rules on that particular language’s syntax, lexis, grammar and orthography, that it could be formally taught in the education system. Imposing national standard throughout national territory is usually achieved through codification and standardization of orthography and grammar by central bodies. Hence, codification and standardization are thus usually state initiatives, which are undertaken by prestigious language academies at the behest of government or sovereign, since the spread of standard national languages is widely held to be a requirement as soon as the political legitimacy of the state derives from the people, as it provides forum and means for political participation and also considered as a means of achieving social cohesion and social mobility (Sue, 2004). Corpus planning is the planning of language forms such as pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary and grammar. The France's French Academy was responsible for the codification and standardization of French spelling, vocabulary, usage and grammar. Its responsibility was to find omissions in the French vocabulary of relevant fields, to collect, revise and advocate for professional terminology, and use the resources international organization of francophone to disseminate the official professional vocabulary. Japanese includes Kanji and Kana. The publication of modern Kanji Font Table in 1949 and the Kana published in 1985, contributed greatly to the development of Japanese language disciplines in Japan.

•

Attaching Importance to the External Dissemination of Language

Language dissemination means that the language of nation A is learned and used by nation B, so that the language of nation A is spread to nation B, which can be divided into domestic and international dissemination. Powerful countries attach great importance to the spread of their own languages. The USA is aggressively promoting foreign English teaching around the world, and TOEFL, IELTS, GRE and other exams have become foreign language passes for foreign students to enter American Universities. The Alliance France founded in Paris in July 1883. This institution is an official, non-profit

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

14

Stephen Ondago Oduor

organization for the promotion of French and French culture, mainly through French teaching activities, targeting groups of students learning French as a second language in France and abroad, popularizing French and promoting French culture.

The dissemination of Japanese language focuses on two major groups: foreigners, especially those who learn Japanese as a second language; Japanese living abroad, especially Japanese immigrants from latin America, California and Canada.

Foreign Japanese teaching is the main form of foreign language promotion in Japan.

LINGUISTIC NATIONALISM AND THE NATION STATE BUILDING The term Nation state refers to a group that considers itself as a cultural and linguistic entity, or rather whose leaders saw it as such, sought to acquire territory, which would be exclusively for such a group. According to Sue (2004), he argues that the history of the politics of nation state building reveals how the conscious promotion of language convergence is part of the development of the nation state. The linguistic Nationalism plays a number of important roles in the nation building process: •

National language has a utilitarian role. It becomes the medium of communication which permits the nation to function efficiently in its political and economic life, particularly as democracy develops. For instance, the citizens of the nation state are trained in their national education systems to be both able and willing to assent to this, since it is the means of social promotion and necessary for employment in the mainstream.

•

Promotes culture and cohesion: a unified language is held to promote cohesion, allowing the nation to develop a shared culture. National language takes a symbolic dimension to this: to know and to use the national language is part of the definition of belonging to the nation; while to be able to speak the language is a badge of inclusion; to refuse to know the language is to refuse the community and is seen as schismatic and unpatriotic.

•

If it can be demonstrated that the language of a particular group is both different from that of her neighbors and with some measure of inner cohesion, this can be used as one of the arguments in any bid to be treated as a separate nation. Thus the political leaders of the nationalist era of both actual and aspirant nation states believed that it was essential to encourage a single community of communication.

•

Sue further adds that, the need to create a feeling of solidarity within the group was equally vital. Making the case that a language was separate and coherent was a powerful strategy in the bid for independence and sovereignty.

Fichte, the German romantic nationalist, who puts the point most radically: ‘wherever a separate language was to be found there was also a separate nation, which had the right to manage its own affairs and rule itself (1808/1908:25).’ Therefore, a country possessing her own language helps define her. This is a desideratum of nation building even in the cases where the national language never actually comes to be widely spoken.

Nationalist movements understood the desideratum of nation building and the significance of organized congresses of LP in the early era of national mobilization to planning differentiation from allied varieties and promoting general acceptance of norm (Fishman 1993). In addition, Sue while taking the position that language is contingent in nation building, he notes that: ‘...... nation state, national linguistic homogenization was encouraged, because a single linguistic group could be enlisted in claims for national self determination or for continued national sovereignty. Nation builders saw that national education and national service would create a single community of communication in addition to their primary purposes of training the workforce and military. Actual and imagined communication would build national identity and solidarity.’ He further adds:‘Linguistic

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Role of Linguistic Nationalism on the Integration of Nation- State Building

15

differentiation was welcomed because it reinforced borders. Where the Citizens on either side of a political border spoke the same language there was always fear of irredentism at worst or a dilution of national identity at least.’

(Sue, 2004:67).

In the modern history, linguistic nationalism is conspicuous feature. It originated in Europe and spread across the world. Linguistic nationalism, not only played an integration and construction function, but also in the formation of European nation-states and in the post-colonial era of Asian and African countries. The two schools of thought, Dai Manchun and Zhu Ningyan interpreted the language nationalism and its movement as far as its function is concerned, as the integrative linguistic nationalism bound to seek national liberation or the construction of super-national community by using unified national language as a tool.

Theory and Practice of Linguistic Nationalism on the Integration of Nation State Building in Europe As a subject of academic enquiry LPP first appeared in the era of nationalism. Language planning was an integral part of nation building and, in the 18th and 19th centuries, a rich literature on LPP was produced by intellectuals in the European countries especially Germany and France. The most outstanding works of the Germans, Herder and Fitches, was particularly influential in elaborating the role of language in ethnic nationalism. On the other hand, Renan in France convincingly reconciled language and the theories of civic nationalism (Sue, 2004). One can argue that the ideas of German romantic nationalism and the theories of French republicanism indeed inspired a ferment of interest among those who aspired to the status of independent nations. Language was at the center of nationalism, since in the struggle for independence, it could be enlisted in defining the ethnicity of the group and even after independence; language would be fostered in providing the statewide community of communication that nationalism required.

Linguistic nationalism originated and developed in Europe, with the construction process of European nationstates under the impetus of nationalist thoughts and movements as the historical background. The theory and practice of linguistic nationalism first appeared in Germany and France. German thinkers and politicians were the initiators and practitioners of linguistic nationalism. According to Chen（2008, the German-speaking world of Germany, before the end of the 18th century, under the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, was a loose geographical concept, and during the period of extreme division, Germany was actually a union composed of more than 300 vassal states, free cities, and more than 1,700 territories of the imperial knights. The dream of German thinkers and statesmen was to unite the Germanspeaking regions and build a unified German nation-state that was conducive to the development of production and trade and could compete with her strong neighbors. The famous German philosopher of the 18th century, Herder (1744-1803), once said: “The thoughts, feelings, prejudices and so on of generations of people are manifested in the language, and the people who speak the same language have the same historical tradition and psychological characteristics through the inheritance of the language, and the formation of peoples based on the common language is the most natural and systematic combination of human beings; Language is the most sacred attribute of each nation, and the most important distinguishing feature between them.”Another philosopher, Fichte (1762-1814), further bluntly states in his speech to the German Nation that “where there is an independent language, there is an independent nation with the power to govern its own affairs.” He also pointed out “What separates the Germans from other European peoples is the common language and national identity, which unite the Germans with one another.” At the same time, he argued that the German nation should form a strong and unified German nation-state as soon as possible. German politicians adopted their views and used them as the theoretical basis for the creation of the nation state, which played an important role in the unification of the German www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

16

Stephen Ondago Oduor

nation, culminating in the establishment of a unified German Empire after the three dynastic wars in the 1860s.

At the same time, another European country that raised a banner of language and integrated the unity and identity of nation states was France. Unlike Germany, France in the 17th century was already a centralized, unified, absolute monarchy. The France under the Louis XIV era occupied the pinnacle of power on the European continent, and the history and culture of France distinguished her from the other great western powers. In particular, after French replaced Latin as the lingua franca in the 16th century, and then became the language of many European courts and international diplomacy in the 18th century. The French revolution promoted the eventual formation of the French-speaking community. One of the major problems faced by the politicians of the French revolution in launching and advancing the revolution was how to ignite the enthusiasm of the people to participate and how to convey the revolutionary information accurately and clearly.

“Communication was a major problem confronting the French revolutionaries in 1789. In the first phase, the revolutionary message was spread in the various languages and dialects of France. The need to understand the extent of the linguistic diversity with which they were dealing led to a language census carried out by the Abbé Grégoire in 1790.”(Sue 2004:31).

This survey revealed that in the 1790, after the revolution，only 3 million people in France spoke French as their first language. Another 3 million had some level of proficiency in French and the remaining 25 million populations spoke other language and had minimal competence in French (Grégoire 1794).

After Jacobins acquired power, they argued that linguistic diversity was an important factor impeding equality for all, and that the best symbol of democracy was the use of the standard French of the social elite. Since then, government documents from central to local governments, such as bulletins, have been written in French, and citizens' learning to speak French has been regarded as a patriotic and revolutionary mission. The Jacobins further believed that French was the symbol of the state and centralization, and that the languages of minorities were impeding national unity and should be banned. They even demonized other languages of France and linked them with anti-revolutionary forces and factions. As noted by Sue (2004): “Breton is the language of federalism and superstition; German is the language of those who hate France and have abandoned it; Italian is the language of those who oppose the revolution; Basque is the language of fanaticism. We must destroy these harmful instruments, which lead the people into error. (Barère 1792. Author’s translation)”. The principle of one language, one race and one nation gradually became the foundation of the establishment of the French Republic. Since then, successive French governments for more than 150 years have basically adhered to a single language policy on language issues, supporting the use of a monolingual public affairs, arguing that a single language l is conducive to strengthening unity and social prosperity alongside nation building. “The argument for monolingualism has always been that only a single language can foster the solidarity and fraternity needed for a welfare state and that only a single language can ensure the equality of opportunity needed for a meritocracy”(Sue2004:32). And the French people also believe that French is not only the symbol of the country, but also the symbol of the French nation.

The Greek struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire was deeply influenced by the French revolution ideas, that they adopted and applied the theories and ideas of linguistic nationalism, mobilized and integrated the historical, cultural and social resources of the nation to establish a unified and independent nation-state. Pre-independence Greece in the 1830s was a divided nation for centuries, mobilizing a divided state and integrating her into a political and cultural society as a whole, the intellectual elite of nationalism archaeologists and linguists, played a key role in evoking Greeks’ memories of the classical golden age. In particular, in awakening the community's national consciousness and community identity, the linguists "encourage the use of modern Greek - a language that excludes loanwords from the Ottoman period

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Role of Linguistic Nationalism on the Integration of Nation- State Building

17

that are closer to the ancient Greek language than the usual popular language used term", which fully embodied the intention and purpose of the nationalists to use language to serve the establishment of a nation-state. After independence, language became an important tool to strengthen national identity. Another case is that language played an important role in national identity during the Italian national unification movement and the subsequent nation-state building process. In the process of the Italian national independence and unification movement and the subsequent nation state building. It is undeniable that the political process takes precedence over cultural and linguistic identity in the process of national unification in Italy. However, the fact that there is linguistic and cultural identity in the Italian world is indisputable.

Linguistic Nationalism on the Integration of Nation-States Building in Asia and Africa: A case study of Tanzania and Indonesia The dissolution of the European colonial empires in the second half of the 20th century resulted in another postwar period where many newly states were constituted. Although the leaders of the newly liberated countries especially having gained independence were in very different settings from their counterparts as nation state formation since they took the nation state as the model for sovereign statehood. However, the basic problems were much the same. From the linguistic and cultural perspective, the challenges were still those intractable issues: how to ensure independence, achieving national unity, and educating the national population effectively. The new nation states of Africa and Asia became conscious of language planning with a mushrooming of western scholars such as (Ferguson, Fishman, Das Gupta 1968; Jernudd & Rubin 1971; Fishman 1974; etc.), these policy groups were committed in analyzing the experiences of the recent European nation building past and adopted the knowledge in suggesting the frameworks for the post colonial nation building future.

They were quite optimistic that language change could be orchestrated, as pointed out by Das Gupta & Ferguson (1977: 5): ‘Planning includes indicative, regulative, productive and promotional functions. The indicative aspect of LP consists of assessing the language situation in terms of social developmental requirements and prescribing certain courses of change. The regulative aspect calls for authoritative action in the form of public measures accompanied by sanctions for encouraging specific uses of selected languages for defined domains. The productive aspect attends to the task of developing the capacity of a language to cope with the increasing demands likely to be made on it from the domains Planning authorities are likely to engage in active promotion of the products and standards among the potential user publics, including the administrative, educational, news media and other modes of language use. ‘Some scholars believed that LP could be introduced top-down through the agencies of the state and citizens persuaded of the utility of the rationalization. However, Haugen (1966), cautiously ‘reported the incremental force of individual decisions and suggested that top-down policy only succeeds when bottom-up patterns of behavior are (or can be brought to be) in accord with it.’(Sue 2004:74).

Nationalism originated in Europe and spread to the world ,accompanied by colonialism, industrialization, education and other modernization process and etc, and thus becoming the mobilization force of the national liberation movement in Asia and Africa, and after independence, adhered to the theory as the basic principle of nation-building.

However, the form of organization of nation-state was the most important legacy of political organization left by Europe to the world, and it is also a great political hidden danger. The territorial boundaries of many post-colonial states were drawn by the colonial empire based on the sphere of influence, mutual checks and balances and competing economic and trade interests. The boundaries of geometric shapes ignored the reality of ethnic groups, and as a result, ethnic groups that were once highly homogeneous in terms of language and culture were torn apart and divided, while the language, culture and

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

18

Stephen Ondago Oduor

other distinct regions were forcibly joined together. The post-colonial nation-state building era was faced with great social differences from diversity of religions, ethnic groups, languages and cultures. The urgent task of the new nation-state was to construct and integrate the national identity and unity. In this process, language nationalism and other factors constituted the basic elements of integrating and constructing homogeneous and unified state.

In his research, scholar Sue explores in depth the language problems in the nation-state building of Tanzania and Indonesia, highlighting the prominent role of language in the nation-state building in the post-colonial era. The linguistic diversity of Africa is not usually seen as a major problem at the grass-roots level. Most Africans are multilingual and the phenomenon is not as surprising since Africa has a tendency towards multilingual society for a long time. In Central Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa, many languages are closely related, with a highly shared vocabulary and grammatical structures. Indeed, many countries are likely to identify with an indigenous language that both symbolize a distinctive, formal national identity and serves an official functions. Tanzania and Indonesia are the usually cited cases. (See Wright 2004; Foley 1997; Omar 1992). Tanganyika became independent in 1961 and Tanzania was founded when Tanganyika united with Zanzibar in 1964. Tanzania, qualifies as a state where language policy and national identity effectively occurred as an issue: it was a nationalist state and language was explicitly schematized in this context. In 1967, postcolonial Tanzanian state was one of the first to designate an indigenous language, Swahili, the national language of the Tanzania. In the same year, Swahili was designated as an official language alongside the former colonial language, English.

Hence, Swahili was immediately adopted as the medium of instruction in primary schools, alongside English as the (inherited) medium of instruction in post-primary education in Tanzania. As a long-standing local lingua franca, Swahili was based on Bantu grammar and had a relatively few native speakers, but it is well suited as a national official language in highly heterogeneous Tanzania and thus was chosen as the official language.

Tanzania is a territory of more than 120 ethnic groups with diverse languages and cultures. After independence, Swahili instantaneously became the language of political life as the nationalist leaders of the new state eventually chose Swahili and used it when addressing their constituencies and parliamentary proceedings thus playing the role of the unifying language of the state building. In addition, Literature in Swahili was actively encouraged, as majority of the mass media; both radio and printed press systematically used it. Despite the absence of any formal language planning, a lot of language-policy measures ensured, the reasons were manifold. Firstly, Swahili was a common commercial language in East Africa, linked to the language of religious groups such as Christianity and the Islamic communities; secondly, it has been used for a long time as the working language outside the language of the metropolitan state in government institutions throughout the colonial era. However, Swahili was eventually chosen as the official language of the newly independent State as the language of political mobilisation against colonialism, most importantly because Swahili was the language used as the medium by Tanganyika African National Union, the main organization of the Tanganyikan independence movement, since its inception, and that ‘Swahili had already acquired the status of a party or national language’(Whiteley 1971:146). Post-independence, especially during a massive campaign of nation-building in the mid1960s. Swahili was given a crucial role in which it was defined as the language of African-socialist Ujamaaide as and values, thus it became the language of introducing and promoting Ujamaa's socialist policy and also as a measurable index of spreading socialism across the population of Tanzania , since the language and political ideology mutually reinforced each other.

Nyerere affirmed the key role of Swahili in promoting national cohesion and stability. He said: ‘The Arusha Declaration and our democratic single-party system, together with our national language, Swahili and a highly politicized

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Role of Linguistic Nationalism on the Integration of Nation- State Building

19

and disciplined national army, transformed more than 126 different tribes into a cohesive and stable nation.’ (Sue 2004: 78). In terms of national identity, Tanzania was defined not in ethnic or cultural terms but from the political-ideological and linguistic fronts. Firstly, the ideal situation envisaged by the pioneers of the nation-state building campaign was monoglot. In which the elite leaders believed that the nation-state building campaign would only be a success when the population would use single national language as imbued with those of Ujamaa set of ideological loads. In addition, the spread of Swahili and Ujamaa ideologies would have to go alongside with the disappearance of other languages for example English and local languages; and ideologies, for instance, English was considered as the language of imperialism, capitalism, and oppression; while local languages was viewed as vehicles for traditional, pre-colonial cultures, hand in hand with "non-standard" varieties of Swahili which were seen as an impediment to process of hegemony. Secondly, the conception of language as a politically defined set of ideological values was not only a typical case of an inherited ideology from colonial language description, but the whole operational conception of language was that inherited from colonial predecessor regimes as well just as described by ( Irvine & Gal 2000; cf. Blommaert, 1994). In short, on the construction of Swahili as a purified artifact of normativity literacy produced through formal education systems focused on referential functions. The fact that Tanzania was relatively stable for a long period after its founding shows that the construction policy of Tanzania's nation-state, including language planning and its construction, was successful.

Indonesia was also a country built on the political legacy of the former colonial power when the colonial empire collapsed and colonialism withdrew from the historical stage. It is a country with more than 13,000 islands, stretching more than 5,000 kms, along the equator, and highly heterogeneous. In 1949, Indonesia gained independent from the Netherlands and chose a higher status written Malay language as the official language. This choice was not surprising, nor received much criticism, since Malay was seen as indigenous thus seemed to fit all the requirements for a national language status.

As early as 1928, the language was considered a proper national language by nationalists. During the Japanese occupation of 1942 -1945, Malay replaced the Dutch to become the language of government and as the medium of education. Postindependence, Japanese speakers became the largest ethnic language group, accounting for 48% of Indonesian's total population. The heterogeneous in Indonesia with a population of 203.4 million people was more than Tanzania, thus also faced the ethnic and linguistic diversity in an archipelago. Indonesians’ early nationalist leaders preferred to use the variant of Bahasa Malay rather than the dominant national language, such as Japanese. Malay was predominantly linked with a Islam group that historically was the religion of the majority of Indonesian. Malay was therefore more widely acceptable and accessible to ethnically diverse Indonesians. The ultimate choice for the Indonesian nationalist movement and its founders was Bahasa Indonesian. Firstly ,the choice of Bahasa Indonesia was politically astute and secondly, the Bahasa Indonesian language was a variation of Indonesia's native language, since it was closely related to Lingua franca of the malay which had been used by commercial community throughout the archipelgo over centuries hence had far-reaching effects, and was thus well-received by the Indonesian people because it is associated with state institutions, while retaining enough historical imprints that symbolized unity, especially in terms of ideology (Sue 2004:81-83). As the foundation of the language and cultural identity of the Indonesian nation-state, the identity of the same language community and the symbol of national identity, the Bahasa Indonesian in the early days of the founding of Indonesia, played a positive role in rallying the hearts of the people, consolidating the building of nation-state, and integrating diversity.

CONCLUSIONS LPP is a resurgent science, revived by the policy challenges of global development in the 20th and 21st centuries, including

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

20

Stephen Ondago Oduor

globalization, resurgent nationalism, the rise and fall of nations and etc. However, LLP has been a different discipline in many aspects since the early post-colonial era in the 1960s and 1970s. First of all, it is clear from the above that there are greater questions about the effectiveness of LLP. The second most notable difference is that people's positions on linguistic diversity are much more positive, which is reflected in more interference with the languages by people who speak regional national languages, immigrant languages and endangered languages of indigenous peoples. FurthermoreďźŒthe linguistic problems addressed by LP are not just linguistic and communicative issues, but often stem from the context of political, economic, social and cultural struggles, and can only be fully understood in these contexts. It is for this reason that LP research has no alternative but to become an interdisciplinary study. Hence, it should be affirmed that constructive linguistic nationalism has no universal value, nor is it an essential element in the construction of all nation-states. French linguistic nationalism had more politically integrated functions. As mentioned above, during the revolution, the Frenchspeaking population was not the majority, but the unity of the state required that French not only act as a tool of communication, but also serve as a function of assimilation and unity of aliens, and achieve cultural and even political coherence through the homogeneity of language. For the French, French language was a symbol of both the state and the nation. French people even show a morbid preference for French in their daily lives. The integration and construction function of French linguistic nationalism to the French nation-state is undeniable, and it played an irreplaceable role in consolidating and developing the imaginary community—the French nation-state.

There are several reasons why the decolonizing countries of Africa and Asia are considered to be particularly suitable areas for LPP. First of all, the distribution model of language status in these countries is more flexible and unfixed compared with the old European countries, which can provide opportunities and development for the application of theory to practice. Secondly, the challenges facing emerging countries are clear, and traditional nation-building refers to building a cohesive state that fosters the loyalty of its citizens to the state, rather than a more locally-based nationalism. Finally, there is the question of nation-state building. As emerging countries inherited the artificial legacy of the colonial era, and the resulting multilingualism and multicultural problems, the new ruling elite scoured no pre-existing national and linguistic cohesion from which to shape the new national identity. In the post-colonial era, language was an important resource and means in the nation-state building. Language and other factors combined to integrate the language, culture, religion, clans and other previously disparate communities left behind by colonialism into a unified whole. This process was often driven by political forces with official backgrounds or intentions, such as governments, political parties, movements, groups, etc.

In their struggle for independence, these political forces adhered to the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial nationalist ideology and selectively abandoned the cultural and linguistic symbols linked to colonialism to show their determination to completely break away from colonialism. Some countries even irrationally excluded the patriarchal language and culture, thus undermining their links with the outside world and depriving them of available resources. The linguistic nationalism embodied in the construction of nation-states in Tanzania and Indonesia are correct in the sense of nation-states building.

However, while nationalism highlights the political nature, it ignores the functionality, practicality and sociality of languages. Tanzania's case proves that simply projecting language onto national identity doesn't work. Mature sociolinguistics sees the State and it’s functioning as part of all activities that goes on in the country's socio-political and cultural sphere, with specific, rather than all domains, activities and relationships, except within the totalitarian Systems.

Thus, language policy should be seen as an activity in the niche, the product it craves as well as national identity. Language policy can now be defined as an ideological activity in a niche, which, despite initially seen as having predominance, is still contained in many other activities and is interconnected with others.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Role of Linguistic Nationalism on the Integration of Nation- State Building

21

REFERENCES 1.

Ager，D．Motivation in language planning and language policy［M．Clevedon: Multilingual Matters，2001．

2.

Chen, Ping. "Language Nationalism: Europe and China." foreign language teaching and Research, vol. 1, 2008.

3.

Cooper, R.L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4.

Argina, Ade W. "Presupposition and Campaign Rhetoric: A Comparative Analysis of Trump and Hillary’s First Campaign Speech." International Journal of English and Literature 8.3 (2018): 1-14.

5.

Dai Manchun, Zhu Ningyan. The political function of linguistic nationalism: the case of the former Yugoslavia. European studies, 2nd Volume, 2011.

6.

Archana, S., and K. Usha Rani. "Role of a teacher in English language teaching (ELT)." International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR) 7.1 (2017): 1-4.

7.

Fettes, M. (1997). Language planning and education. In R. Wodak & D. Corson (eds.), Language policy and political issues in education (pp.13-22). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

8.

Haugen, E. (1959). Planning for a standard language in Norway［J. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(3). (Pp.8-21).

9.

Haugen, E. (1966). Linguistics and language planning. In W. Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 50-71). The Hague: Mouton.

10. Hussain, Tanveer. "Postcolonial Dimension in the Poetry of Yeats and Iqbal: A Comparative Study." International Journal of English and Literature (IJEL) 7.2 (2017): 133-138.

11. Haugen, E. (1983). The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and practice. In J. Cobarrubias & J. Fishman (eds.), Progress in language planning: International perspectives (pp. 269-90). Berlin: Mouton.

12. Paul, Anusuya. "Manifestations of Conflict in Tughlaq." International Journal of English and Literature (IJEL) ISSN (P) (2016): 2249-6912.

13. Hornberger, N. H. (1990). Bilingual education and English-only: A language planning framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508, 12-26.

14. Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

15. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, (pp.196-213).

16. Stewart, W. (1968). A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism. In J. Fishman (ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (pp. 531-45). The Hague: Mouton.

17. Su Jinzhi. Japanese language promotion policy [J]. Language development, 1993(3) 18. Spolsky, B. D. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19. Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman.

20. Thomas Ricento. An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method [M].UK: Blackwell Publishing，2006. (pp.238-241).

21. Wright,S.Language policy and language planning: From Nationalism to Globalization [M].New York: Palgrave Macmillan，2012. p. 32,94

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org