Why does politics always use Language as a unifying factor?

"The phenomenon of linguistic imperialism and its attendant forms of socio-political exclusion is not about oppressive relations based on race or skin colour that prevailed earlier. It is about unequal power relations whereby dominated groups regardless of skin colour or nationality are coerced into complying with forces of domination and mental control. In other words, the ultimate goal of linguistic imperialism is to ensure that the dominated identify with the cultural norms of the dominator, and accept the hegemonic language." (Ndhlovu, 181)

This quote about Zimbabwe reveals a lot about the politics of language. At a more parochial level, all of us experience some sort of politics of language in our day to day language. If you are from a monolinguistic state it would identify itself on the basis of language. If it is a multilingual state, it would have its preferences towards certain languages. It will surely employ various techniques to address plurality of languages. 

Politics uses language because language synchronizes the experiences of speakers. Our experience of the world is mapped on to something. This something is called language. If world view is taken as a criterion, then no two language provides same worldview. That is why every language group has a particular world view. At a personal level, language defines your identity. Also at a social level, language defines your identity. This identity is what politics wants to appropriate. 

Ndhlovu, Finex. The Politics of Language and Nation Building in Zimbabwe

Language and Identity

Language is linked to one's identity. There are two perspectives to it- shallow and deep. The shallow perspective is at the level of identifying people according to the language one speaks. One can be placed within or without a certain language speaking group. One can choose to belong to or identify as part of a language group. At a deeper level, one's identity changes when one speaks a different language. Language is not able to say what you want to say, usually in your L2. L1 being your primary language is always available for meaningful and effective communication. It is found that Russian speakers find it easy to identify shades of blue, because Russian has different names for different shades of blue. The earlier you familiarize yourself with a language, the more comfortable you would be in that language. When we use L2, we become conscious and formal. This can be explained on the basis of ethnocultural elements. People usually associate languages with contexts-social and cultural. For example, Hindi for home communication and English for office communication. English has formality attached to it thus. Therefore, if you are forced to use English at home or Hindi at the office, you would feel uncomfortable. Also, status, degree, etc. are associated to certain languages. When English is given to non-English children at home, they get confused. Children know that English is not their first language. This affects the identity of the child.

Bilingualism

Bilingualism is defined as having the ability to use two or more languages.  
Bilingualism can be individual and collective. When an individual in a society learns a second language he/she becomes a bilingual. There are possibilities and instances where an entire society turns bilingual by learning a second language. By learning another language the status of the learner changes. 

Individual bilingualism: There are cognitive advantages. Bilingual people can do certain tasks better than others. 

Collective Bilingualism: Emigrants change the linguistic composition of a place. For example, in 7th, 8th and 9th centuries, Persian came to India. Through interaction with Hindi, a new language was born- Urdu. When people from another linguistic background reach another place (colonists, religious, etc.) they bring their culture and language along with them. When British came to India, they took over the political system and then taught us English for the sake of administration. In Belgium, Flemish and French are spoken. Flemish, spoken in Flanders resembles Dutch because of the geographical proximity to Netherlands.

Varieties of Bilingualism: 

1. Minority Languages- spoken in restricted areas (Breton in Brittany, France)
2. Non-Unique language- Basque in Spain.
3. Minority in one setting, majority in another: French in Canada, French in France

3 important variables in Bilingualism

1. Speaker
2. Language
3. Setting 

How does Bilingualism begin?

• To bridge language gap
  If people of two different languages come together, there has to be a link language or a lingua-franca. It becomes a pidgin as it begins to take shape. Later when it becomes the first language of second generation learners, it becomes a creole. There could be artificial languages like Esperanto.

How do we judge someone to be bilingual?

Someone should be able to speak 2 fully developed languages (not dialects of the same language). The person should be able to comprehend and produce both languages with proficiency. There should be comparable proficiency in both languages. Someone who knows only how to greet in a second language is not a bilingual. There are rating scales, questionnaires, fluency tests, etc. to determine these factors. 

Age, gender, intelligence, memory, context of testing, inter-linguistic distance, etc. are important factors that affect bilingualism. 

Terminology used in the study of Bilingualism

• balanced bilinguals
• unbalanced bilinguals
• equilinguals
• ambilinguals
• receptive and productive bilinguals
• additive and subtractive bilinguals
• primary and secondary bilinguals

Error Analysis (EA)

Error Analysis (EA) is a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors learners make. Unlike Contrastive Analysis, L1 is not used to compare. Comparison is made between learners' errors in TL and the TL form itself. It is similar to the weak version of contrastive analysis in that both start from learner production data; however, in contrastive analysis the comparison is made with the native language, whereas in error analysis it is made with the TL.

Corder (The significance of learners’ errors, 1967) observed that learners' errors may be significant in themselves, and they should not be discarded as such. This led to shift emphasis from pedagogical issues to others. Errors can be indicators of learner's knowledge of L2. It has been found that errors are not a reflection of faulty imitation. But errors are indicators of learners' attempts to bring a system into the new language being learned. Probably, focus on errors led to the beginnings of the field of SLA. It is important because of its implications on psychology and linguistics also.

Corder identifies the difference between errors and mistakes. Mistakes are like the slips of the tongue- one time only events. Speaker corrects it after identifying it. An error is systematic. It occurs repeatedly, ad is incorporated in the language system of the learner. Therefore, these are errors according only to the teacher, not according to the learner. For the learner, it is all part of the IL. For example, utterances like 'no speak', 'no understand', etc. are consistent and systematic errors of the learner, and are mistakes according to the teacher! Such interpretations could hold learning/teaching process back.

Error analysis was done inside classrooms with pedagogical remediation as goal, using the following steps:

1. Collect data: written and oral
2. Identify errors
3. Classify errors
4. Quantify errors
5. Analyze source
6. Remediate: Based on the kind and frequency of an error type, pedagogical intervention is carried out.

Error analysis is more useful to teacher/researcher to explain errors. There are 2 types of errors, interlingual and intralingual in EA. Interlingual errors can be attributed to the NL - cross-linguistic comparisons. Intralingual errors stem out from the TL, independent of the NL. One would expect similar intralingual errors from speakers of varieties of languages. 

Criticism

1. One criticism said that EA is all about errors, and that one should consider errors as well as non-errors to get the entire picture of a learner's linguistic behaviour. 
2. A 1974 article by Schachter showed that the NL is a determining factor in accounting for the facts of restrictive relative clause production, yet these facts would not be apparent through an error analysis alone! She studied the use of Restrictive relative clauses in English by native speakers of Persian, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese. The error data she collected would say that Chinese and Japanese learners of English had control over formation of restrictive relative clauses, and Persian and Arabic users do not. But further data on errors plus non-errors showed a different analysis. While error were more in Persian and Arabic learners had more errors, they also produced half as many correct restrictive relative clauses as Japanese and Chinese learners! Why does this discrepancy occur?
   Japanese and Chinese form relative clause by placing the modifier before the noun it modifies. Persian and Arabic relative clauses are similar to English in that the relative clause is placed after the noun it modifies. Because the difference between how NL and TL forms relative clauses, learners do not frequently use the structure (Chinese and Japanese). But when they use it, they use it cautiously and with high degree of accuracy. Persian and Arabic learners use them a lot because their NL structure is similar to TL structure of relative clauses, and therefore, make more errors. Thus, EA alone couldn't bring out the explanation just by looking at the errors, while in fact, NL was a major factor.
3. Another difficulty is in judging if something is an error. Learners can use structures of NL to construct sentences in TL. It might be interpreted as an error of some kind, while it might be of another kind. So, there could be a mismatch between what the teacher judges as error and what the learner is actually attempting to do. 
4. Attempt to give reasons to errors is another inadequacy or EA. The assumption is that is the form is correct, underlying rule is also correct. But learner might make correct sentences, yet may not have internalized the necessary background rules.  In sum, error analysis alone cannot provide us with this information, because an assumption of error analysis is that correct usage is equivalent to correct rule formation.
5. Source of errors also pose criticism. EA says that errors can be categorized as belonging to one source or another. Can we attribute single reason for errors? Learner production may be influenced simultaneously by multiple sources (article system and Czech learners of English). Source of error could be TL and NL simultaneously also. Schumann studied the use of negation by Spanish learners of English. Learners pass through 5 stages before figuring out that 'do' is the element that carries tense and person distinction qualities in negation. He observed that certain stages of development are more persistent for learners from certain languages. He found that in case of Spanish learner of English, 2 forces, namely native language and facts of development act as sources of error. In case of learners from other languages, the only factor at play is development. He says that a single source of error will have less influence than a set of converging sources, and will lead the learner to move much more rapidly in the developmental sequence. 

EA acknowledges that learners are more than imitators of language. But it only sees a part of what a second language learner produces. Therefore, it doesn't analyse sufficient data. EA doesn't have comprehensive approach. Therefore, one cannot hope to understand a learning situation with a partial study like EA.

Notes prepared from: Gass, Susan M. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. Routledge, New York.

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

1950s and 60s saw language as a habit. Second language learning was seen as forming a new set of habits. Therefore, native language had a very relevant role, since in this view of language learning, it was the major cause of lack of success in language learning. The habits established in childhood (NL) interfered with the establishment of a new set of habits (TL). From this understanding emerged the need to compare NL and TL. This is known as Contrastive Analysis which compares the rules of two languages to determine similarities and differences. Robert Lado is the major proponent of the this field.

Contrastive Analysis (CA) is a way of comparing languages in order to determine potential errors to isolate what needs to be learned and what doesn't need not be learned in second language learning. Phonology, morphology, syntax, social aspects, etc. are studied to predict what will be easier and difficult for learners. Similar structures will be easily transferred and learned.

Lado says:

Since even languages as closely related as German and English differ significantly in the form, meaning, and distribution of their grammatical structures, and since the learner tends to transfer the habits of his native language structure to the foreign language, we have here the major source of difficulty or ease in learning the structure of a foreign language. Those structures that are similar will be easy to learn because they will be transferred and may function satisfactorily in the foreign language. Those structures that are different will be difficult because when transferred they will not function satisfactorily in the foreign language and will therefore have to be changed. (Lado, 59) 

Pedagogical materials that came out of CA in North American tradition were based on the following assumptions:

1. CA is based on the assumption that language is a habit, learning a new language is establisment of a new set of habits. 
2. major source of error in second language is the native language - NL.
3. errors can be explained using differences between NL and TL.
4. Greater the difference, greater the difficulty. 
5. One has to learn the differences. Similarities are easily transferred.
6. difficulty and ease are proportional to differences and similarities between the two languages under consideration. 

Various views on CA Hypothesis

Strong/a priori/predictive view: One can predict about learning, and success of materials based on CA. 

Weak/a posteriori/explanatory view: Starts with the learners' recurring errors and gives explanations for the learner behaviour based on CA.

Weak version gained faith because the strong version failed. Weak version gave importance to the learner, the forms they produced and the strategies they used to reach their IL forms.

CA did not survive because its theoretical background-behaviourims- belief that NL was the driving force of L2 learning- was discarded. In the 60s, language came to be seen in terms of structured rules. Behaviourism was discarded. Learning was no more seen as imitation and habit formation, but as active rule formation. 

The failure of behaviourism had implication on SLA. If imitation and reinforcement has no bearing on NL acquisition, may be SL also is not influenced by it. This became evident through data analysis. Some errors learners produced in L2 were in no way related to the structures/errors in their L1. (He comed yesterday- attempt to impose regularity on irregular verb). The theory did not predict what was happening in non-native speech. Not only did the predictions NOT come true, things that they did not predict appeared more than often. Within a theory based on the transference of NL forms, this could not be explained, for why should transfer occur in one instance, but not in another?

For example:

In French, object pronouns precede the verb, as in 

- Je  les  vois.

  I  them see

 "I see them.”

In English, object pronouns follow the verb. However, the following facts emerge in learner data:

By French learners of English 

I see them. (produced) 

*I them see. (not produced) 

By English learners of French- None of these is possible in French. 

a. Je vois elle. I see her. 

b. Le chien a mangé les. The dog has eaten them. 

c. Il veut les encore. He wants them still. 

In other words, French learners of English never prepose the object pronoun. Rather, they correctly follow English word order, which in this case is in violation of French word order. With English speakers, the reverse occurs: they follow the native language word order. If the “habits” of one’s native language are the driving force, then why should they be operative in one language, but not the other? (Gass 98-99)

The ideas of difficulty were also questioned. Difficulty was equated to errors in CA. Error meant that learner was having difficulty in learning. It is not a real measure of difficulty. How does one judge what is difficult for the learner? Error is not a real measure of difficulty. To equate difference with difficulty attributes a psycholinguistic explanation to a linguistic description. 

We can't say that there are no factors in NL that influences TL. But there surely are other factors than NL. The conclusion is that the 1:1 correspondence implied by CA Hypothesis between native and second language does not hold ground. It is not that simple. L1 has its effect, but cannot be limited to difficulty and transfer. There are other factors that may influence the process of acquisition, such as innate principles of language, attitude, motivation, aptitude, age, other languages known, and so forth. 

Comparing languages is a complex business. Lado himself had identified it. Stockwell, Bowen, and Martin gives a framework or hierarchy of difficulty in learning. it speaks also about ways in which languages can differ. Categories in which there is differentiation (NL has one form, TL has two forms), absence of some category in either languages (articles in English; Japanese has no articles), Only one form in L2, but two in L1, Correspondence, etc. are the elements of the hierarchy. CA also failed to validate claims through data from real world (empirical basis). 

Lado's hypothesis inspired a lot of research in the field of second language learning (to match CA predictions and actual data). As a result of Lado's warning to check hypothesis against actual data, Error Analysis emerged.

Reference
Gass, Susan M. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. Routledge, New York.
Secondary: Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.