Posted at 10.14.2018
Keywords: colonisation impact, colonisation and language
Colonization (and more recently globalization) certainly makes up about the radical changes in the linguistic landscapes of around the world the hundreds of years. Conceptualized as as the directing control of politics, culture and people by foreign areas, colonization has enforced to the colonized several unsafe problems. The compulsory need of participating with a vocabulary ascribed to oppression, exploitation and slavery stands out, though.
Moreover, colonialism, in many territories recommended also an imposed mosaic of different cultural groups and human being types that prior to Western european penetration, got different political, social and social buildings which were arbitrarily appreciated to coexist in that space. Such impositions regarding language and life styles reflected and modified the id of the colonized people and, regarding to Tјrkmen (2003), enjoyed an important role essential to colonialism to be successful:
"Id is one of the vital the different parts of colonialism, if we consider colonialism as a body; id constitutes its nature while the financial exploitation is its corporal body. The colonizer approaching to the virgin lands with the feeling of colonial desire and obsession to possess cheap earnings in his heart finds himself prepared to defame the inhabitants, regard them as "the other". And he starts off his insurance policy by deterritorializing and reterritorializing. . . " (p. 189).
In that sense, people were obligated to be what they are not. This is visible by the fact that the colonizers used to call the colonies "new lands", as if these were "virgin" lands, uninhabited before their appearance. Tјrkmen (2003) strains that the colonizers didn't perceive their actions in the colonies as reconstruction because they didn't consider the corporations and cultures proven in the colonies as valuable. The colonizers also imposed their culture and terminology as a way to legitimize their ability:
"Inside the colony what is asymmetrical, rather than basically different proves to be pathological. To be able to legitimize their maltreatment, the colonizer will try to job the other not only different but also dangerous, primitive, ambitious, lazy, etc. The aim is making people feel that colonialism is no unfair perpetration, rather, it is a necessary drive, for, and these people do not need these lands by virtue of their notorious features. Also, the drive, after all, will promote their life standards. This is for his or her interest". (Robert Young in Colonialism and Desiring machine as cited in Tјrkmen (2003), p. 190)
As shown, the colonized is pressured to internalize a new personal information through the reinforcement of stereotypes by the colonizer, which is easily understandable if one thinks that the colonized discovers him/herself in a circumstances they haven't experienced before, after having been appreciated to give up all what constitutes his/her "world". The colonized then has no option other than "emulate the colonizer as a lone model before him". However, his try out is rejected by the colonizer. Motivated by his need for exploitation, he makes sure to set hard boundaries to the difference, as "to them the difference is exactly what feeds the colonial system, what legitimize and postulates it" (Tјrkmen, 2003).
So the colonized manages to lose his former personal information but he is also not supported in creating a new one. As Tјrkmen (2003) puts, it, "he'll neither end up like the colonizer nor himself. . . . Thus, he lives in a total oblivion. All at once, he's casted out from his background, memory space and citizenship". Nonetheless, through colonialism identity is not totally lost, but occur the unknown ground temporally placed between prior and after the colonizers came up.
Identity and the cognate conditions in other dialects have an extended history as technical terms in European school of thought from the old Greeks through contemporary analytical philosophy. They are used to address the perennial philosophical problems of permanence amidst express change, and of unity amidst variety. Endemic vernacular and social-analytical use of id and its cognates, however, is of a lot more recent vintage and much more localized provenance.
The benefits of identity into social examination and its primary diffusion into sociable sciences and public discourse occurred in america in the 1960s (with some anticipation in the next fifty percent of the 1950s). The main and best-know trajectory involved the appropriation and popularization of Erik Erikson (who was responsible, among other activities, for coining the word identity turmoil).
But there were other paths of diffusion as well. The notion of id was pried from its original, specifically psychoanalytic context (where in fact the term have been initially introduced by Freud) and linked to ethnicity on the one hand and sociological role theory and reference group theory.
"The word identity proven highly resonant in the 1960's diffusing quickly across disciplinary and countrywide boundaries, creating itself in the journalistic as well as the academics lexicon, and permeating the dialect of social and political analysis". (Davis, 2004, p. 61)
Stuart Hall, one of the well-known scholars customized on identity, factors that identification is dynamic, not stable and it is in continuous flux:
"Perhaps rather than thinking as individuality as an already achieved historical fact, which the new cinematic discourses signify, we ought to think, instead, of 'identification' as a production, which is never complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside the house, representation (ibid 210)", (Davis, 2004, p. 184).
Therefore, cultural personal information can be considered as a historically located group of experiences that need to be recovered in order to fulfill the desire to become one land or one people, hence, happens to the words.
As it expresses beyond what its words signifies, dialect also unveils "the way individuals situate themselves in romance to others, the way they group themselves, the capabilities they declare for themselves and the capabilities they stipulate to others" (Sterling, xxx). People use terms to indicate sociable allegiances, that is, which groups they are users of and which groupings they aren't. Furthermore, they use vocabulary to create and maintain role relationships between individuals and between categories in that manner 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 and then express but to make a representation of him/herself in relation to others with whom s/he is interacting. The issue of respect is an aspect of the broader romance between electricity and language. Vitality is the amount to which interlocutor can control the tendencies of the other. S/he then uses the language of intimacy and familiarity as they used it in greetings, interacting about family, and leave-takings. In talking about their jobs and other "external" acquaintances, they use the colonizer's terminology, which possibly evidence distance.
Sterling (xxx) also argues that within a contemporary society or a culture, speech habits become tools that audio system change to group themselves and categorize others with whom they may be interacting:
"Because of the relationship between language use and group regular membership, language can motivate profound group loyalties. It could serve as a symbol of unification on several levels. Over the national level, terminology loyalty can serve an important politics function. Many people in america are threatened by the use of languages apart from British. To speak a terms other than English is regarded as "un-American. " It is because English is "promoted as the one and only possible language of the unified and healthy nation". On an area level, vocabulary is symbolic of loyalty to a community". (Sterling, xxx, p. xx).
For the city as a whole, socialization through words learning creates conformity to interpersonal norms and transmits the culture of the community. As s/he discovers language, a kid learns the communal composition of the culture, learning the appropriate linguistic form for every kind of person. This is part of communicative competence. Communicative competence isn't just focusing on how to speak the specific language(s) found in the talk community but also focusing on how to use dialect appropriately in virtually any given cultural situation in the community. And the capability to know that is tightly related to the id that one supports. "Speech habits become tools that speakers manipulate to group themselves and categorize others with whom they are interacting" which is only shared with those showing a certain identification, whether in a community or a culture.