The relation between language and nationalism

• Language and Early Nationalism…

The American and French Revolutions are often identified as starting points for early nationalism (1776 and 1789 respectively). The American Revolution can be visualised as anantimetropolitan war between speakers of the same language (English), American states resisting English domination. As a result, vernaculars did not divide the two sides in the conflict but, as Anderson (1991) maintains, it did serve to unify the American community through the circulation of news and newspapers over a wide geographical area. Similarly the French Revolution did not focus on language divisions until after its success was assured.

Then, however, a vast process of language standardization took place in an attempt to unify the nation against outside threats, both perceived and real, culminating in the Académie Française, still the current guardian of a standardized French language.

• …and to the Present Day

Issues of power surrounding language standardization and standard languages continue to affect the modern world. Firstly, the after effects of the age of imperialism continue to be felt. Ethnic groups originating in former imperial powers colonized and settled in the dominions, while continuing to use the prestigious imperial language. Following independence, many have found themselves members of a nationstate that is not truly theirs, and unable to speak the newly chosen/reemerged national language (e.g. the Russian populations of the Baltic states).

Alternatively, in newly independent states, there is the crucial issue of what administrative language to adopt, and whether or not to use this as a national symbol. Often, in multiethnic, postcolonial states the language of the original imperial power is maintained as the language of administration. This both provides an arguably “neutral” standard which does not belong to any one ethnic group within the state, and is already known by the bureaucratic elites who administer the state. That is not to suggest that this is an easy process, given the historical connotations that these languages carry, but nationalism seems not to focus on language as a key issue.

A further legacy of imperialism is the process of immigration from former colonies into the excolonizer. This leads to an influx of nonnativelanguages and speakers, who, in terms of my examination of prestige carry low status. This situation may restrict the access of those whose language is not standardized to state facilities.

The continuing role of language, nationalism, and state formation can also be seen in nonimperial situations. Thus there are increasing differences between what are now known as the standard Czech and Slovakian languages following the division of Czechoslovakia in 1993.

Finally, the insistence on “one nation, one language” continues in many places. Thus the suppression of dissident ethnic groups occurs in conjunction with the suppression of their language, either overtly through coercion or more covertly through education policies