Introduction
1. Theoretical foundations
1.1. Phenomenological considerations
1.1.3. Identity
Whenever one of the central themes of a study is identity, it is a crucial undertaking to clarify which of the many concepts of identity is being researched and how it is approached and understood. Although I am primarily concerned with identities that are language-embedded, a working definition of the 'identity complex' itself must be established. In recent years the one-dimensional concept of 'identity' underwent a crisis as post-modern and post-structuralist thought declared 'identity' as heterogenous concept. Certainly, every individual identifies her/himself according to various categories in every day life. Furthermore, these categories are context-dependent and consist of a multitude of dimensions, such as, linguistic, political, social, cultural, ethnic, religious and geographic categories.
Every individual portrays not only one, but a whole range of images based on multiple categories. Particularly at a time of rapid political and social change, as has been the case in South Africa, the question of 'identities' becomes rather complex and complicated.
Due to the fact that the study of 'identities' involves such a wide range of discourse possibilities, it is important to clearly delineate the limitations of this work. As this thesis is primarily interested in linguistically constructed identities, in particular ethnic identities, it is beyond the scope of this work to discuss, in depth, the multifaceted concept of identity by itself. Thus, I merely problematise the discourse on identity briefly and summarise some major approaches to the concept.
35
Scholars of several disciplines within the field of Human Sciences have approached the study of identity from their respective disciplines. Approaches overlap, contradict and complement each other to various degrees, but it is clear that the post-modern and post-structural perspectives dominate scholarly preference today. In post-modern terms, identity is conceptualised as fluid. This means that there is no single factor that constructs and reconstructs identity, but rather multiple and inter-related factors.
Furthermore, "identity is endlessly created anew" (Tabouret-Keller 1997: 316) because due to "shifting national and regional boundaries" we create "hybrid social and cultural identities" (Luke 1995: 83). Hence, from the post-structuralist perspective, 'identities' are always constructed and reconstructed and consequently at no time pre-existing. Every individual has a variety of choices and alternatives to pick from in the process of identity construction, hence, "people are composed of not one, but several, sometimes contradictory identities, enabling subjects to assume a variety of shifting identities at different times and places" (Barker and Galasinski 2001: 125). Thus, identity formulation in this sense is permanently created anew and presents a transformation process itself.
Introducing the concept of identity must entail a distinction between a personal and individual level of identity on the one hand, and identity construction in a social world, (social/collective identity23) on the other. The social environment and societal forces that come into play in the process of constructing identity have been highlighted most notably in the research efforts of Henry Tajfel (1978) and his associates. Sebba and Wootton (1998: 284) point out that "the linguistic medium by means of which social identities are constructed may itself be a part of the identity, but we cannot assume a fixed relationship between a social identity and the language of the utterance that evokes (or invokes) it".
There exists a number of theories of social identity construction, but one of the earliest ones, which assigned a crucial role to language, is the tradition of the 'Symbolic Interactionism'. Herbert Mead (1934) was one of the first scholars to explicitly emphasise the saliency of language in the formation of the social self. According to his theory the formation of the social self is created through agreeing with the symbols of the group to which someone belongs, particularly linguistic symbols.
36
Therefore, despite the fact that language clearly plays a significant role in identity construction, it may not be an important category of identification for a particular individual. Bloom (1998: xii) calls it the "the gravest contradiction in human life"
that even though "we live in a social order, we remain individuals and although we are idiosyncratic 'selves', we live embedded in many collectivities". Individual and social identity, however, often complement each other. A linguistic identity is automatically social because language is the most common medium used in social interaction. But, every individual has his/her own ideosyncractic and ideolectical way of expressing her/himself. However, theories of intercultural communication studies suggest that individuals in African societies have a more collective sense of who they are, and one's personal identity is predicated upon the relationship to the immediate community. In the words of the Umlazi artist Isaac Nkosinathi Khanyile: "I see myself as part of the community from which I come. It is my community that connects me with the past, my present and my future. Without this my existence would carry no meaning. This is what gives me identity [...]"
(MacKenny n.d.).
Tabouret-Keller (1997) argues that it is language that conciliates individual and collective identity due to the fact that language presents not only the very means of connecting the two concepts, but also that of expressing them. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) further introduce the concept of linguistic behaviour as a series of acts of identity that provides for the personal identity on the one hand and the search for social roles on the other.24 It is clear that with regard to language the idiosyncratic and idiolectical feature of identity and the collective level of identification often correspond; indeed, the former cannot exist without the latter.
As mentioned above, language functions as a central mediator in the process of socialisation and thus represents a symbol of collective identity on the one hand and a marker of an individual identity on the other (Bartholy 1992, Tabouret-Keller
24 The work of Le Page and Tabouret-Keller has found widespread recognition up until recently among scholars drawing on the framework of speech acts as an act of protection of one's identity (e.g. Kamwangamalu 1992; Slabbert and Finlayson 2000). Parts of the general theory on language in relation to ethnicity formulated by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) can be usefully employed for investigating the South African context as the abovementioned scholars have shown.
37
1997). Individuals construct their own unique personal identity in a process of differentiation to other people and this differentiation is often expressed by and through language. The establishment of linguistic boundaries is a common characteristic in multilingual states and may entail complex and multifaceted strands of identity constructions during the course of one conversation. Language is crucial for the development of the self and is both a symbol and a means to express how we perceive ourselves in the world. A conversation between two isiZulu mother-tongue speakers, for instance, may start out in English but switch to isiZulu during the conversation. However, bilingual and multilingual communication patterns are not always based on concrete motives and necessarily produce a specific identity. The linguistic choices that individuals make in a multilingual environment are not necessarily always conscious.
As rational human beings we individually choose which language(s) we allow to play a role in the construction of our identities. Newly acquired languages can develop into symbols of additional identities. Pavlenko and Blackledge (2003) argue for a new theoretical approach to the negotiation of identities in multilingual settings by merging social constructionist and post-structural thinking. Central to this is Bourdieu's (1991) model of symbolic domination, Heller's (1988) pioneering ethnographic accounts, and approaches that foreground the significance of power relations. Essentially, the scholars have four main concerns.
1) Linguistic and identity options are limited within particular sociohistoric contexts, even though continuously contested and reinvented.
2) Diverse identity options and their links to different language varieties are valued differently and that sometimes it is these links, rather than the options per se that are contested and subverted.
3) Some identity options may be negotiable, while others are either imposed (and thus non-negotiable) or assumed (and thus not negotiated).
4) Individuals are agentive beings who are constantly in search of new social and linguistic resources, which allow them to resist identities that position them in undesirable ways; produce new identities; and assign alternative meanings to the links between identities and linguistic varieties (Pavlenko and Blackledge 2003:27).
38
These four concepts clearly highlight the complexity of language-identity relationships in multilingual settings. In Africa, for instance, the mother tongue is generally used as a marker of ethnic belonging, while English counts among black people as an indicator of an educated status and identity (Webb and Kembo-Sure 2000c). Accordingly, bilingual and multilingual speakers who engage in code- switching also switch identities while they do so. This occurs sometimes subconsciously, other times, however, the speaker has a specific goal in mind25. An isiZulu-speaker may, for instance, choose to speak English in a particular situation in order to demonstrate his/her identity as an educated South African. In another situation, however, s/he may consciously choose to speak isiZulu in order to 'connect' with people.26
In the context of the frequent occurrence of code-switching in South Africa, Finlayson and Slabbert (1997) conclude that meeting the conversation partner half- way with language' (in an inter-ethnic encounter) encompasses an awareness of a personal linguistic identity. It is pointed out in this context, however, that isiZulu speakers - particularly males - are generally very reluctant to accommodate other African languages (ibid.). In a different sociolinguistic context, that of Hebrew and an Israeli identity, it has been argued that "choosing Hebrew meant rejecting other languages" (Spolsky 1996: 188). Applying this to isiZulu-speakers, it would mean that if isiZulu-speakers are reluctant to learn/speak an African language other than isiZulu, they may subconsciously discard other African languages.
In inter-ethnic communication isiZulu mother tongue-speakers have often been observed to be disinclined to accommodate their conversation partner.
Zulu speakers and their non-Zulu addressees often do not share the hierarchy of saliency. Zulu speakers are perceived to foreground ethnic identity in inter-ethnic communication, whereas the rest of society would specifically refrain from doing so (Finlayson and Slabbert 1997:
418).
Myers-Scotton's (1993a) theoretical model which is based on the distinction between 'marked' and 'unmarked' choice has received considerable attention in this context.
26 For more detail on English-isiZulu code-switching, see Ramsay-Brijball (2002, 2004).
39
The authors further question, "If speakers consistently foreground the index of ethnic identity, as Zulu speakers are said to do, are they acting against societal norms or merely affirming their own norms?" (Finlayson and Slabbert 1997:
416)27 An answer to this question is, of course, not easy to find. Suffice it to say at this point that many isiZulu speakers appear to make substantial use of Gumperz's (1982) 'we-code' as a boundary marker between themselves and the speakers of other languages. African immigrants from other countries who reside in KwaZulu-Natal sometimes experience exclusion based on language due to the fact that they are not proficient in isiZulu.
The role the mother tongue plays vis-a-vis an additional language in the construction of our identities, remains the focus in this work and shall be approached from a variety of angles. I am interested, inter alia, in finding out, under which circumstances individuals choose not to speak their mother tongue and why they choose another language, i.e. English as a medium of expression under specific circumstances. Coulmas (1997) argues that no one is imprisoned by his/her mother tongue but has a choice in which language plays which role in his/her life. He clearly argues against a primordial understanding of language and approaches language behaviour in general as a 'matter of choice'.29
In this context, Coulmas (1997) refers to prominent writers, such as, Vladimir Nabakov, Samuel Beckett or Chinua Achebe and stresses that their work has proven that it is not only the mother tongue which is suited to express the innermost, deepest thoughts. There is no doubt that this statement holds some truth, otherwise functional bilinguals would be a sociolinguistic impossibility.
' It is mentioned further that, "when foregrounding Zulu ethnic identity became associated with being a member of the Inkatha Freedom Party, i.e. when it became politicised, Zulu speakers started being more accommodating and less inclined to foreground their ethnic identity" (Finlayson and Slabbert 1997: 416).
8 The 'we-code' is understood in terms of solidarity among the participants of a conversation.
When the 'we-code' is chosen people demonstrate their membership of the group who uses this particular code. Other languages are 'they'-varieties and only appropriate for out-group communication.
29Similarly Williams (1979: 60) stresses that "language groups as status groups... are not of a permanent character but change because individuals are constantly calculating the advantages and costs likely to result from different courses of action".
40
The authors further question, "If speakers consistently foreground the index of ethnic identity, as Zulu speakers are said to do, are they acting against societal norms or merely affirming their own norms?" (Finlayson and Slabbert 1997:
416)27 An answer to this question is, of course, not easy to find. Suffice it to say at this point that many isiZulu speakers appear to make substantial use of Gumperz's (1982) 'we-code' as a boundary marker between themselves and the speakers of other languages.2 African immigrants from other countries who reside in KwaZulu-Natal sometimes experience exclusion based on language due to the fact that they are not proficient in isiZulu.
The role the mother tongue plays vis-a-vis an additional language in the construction of our identities, remains the focus in this work and shall be approached from a variety of angles. I am interested, inter alia, in finding out, under which circumstances individuals choose not to speak their mother tongue and why they choose another language, i.e. English as a medium of expression under specific circumstances. Coulmas (1997) argues that no one is imprisoned by his/her mother tongue but has a choice in which language plays which role in his/her life. He clearly argues against a primordial understanding of language and approaches language behaviour in general as a 'matter of choice'.29
In this context, Coulmas (1997) refers to prominent writers, such as, Vladimir Nabakov, Samuel Beckett or Chinua Achebe and stresses that their work has proven that it is not only the mother tongue which is suited to express the innermost, deepest thoughts. There is no doubt that this statement holds some truth, otherwise functional bilinguals would be a sociolinguistic impossibility.
It is mentioned further that, "when foregrounding Zulu ethnic identity became associated with being a member of the Inkatha Freedom Party, i.e. when it became politicised, Zulu speakers started being more accommodating and less inclined to foreground their ethnic identity" (Finlayson and Slabbert 1997: 416).
28 The 'we-code' is understood in terms of solidarity among the participants of a conversation.
When the 'we-code' is chosen people demonstrate their membership of the group who uses this particular code. Other languages are 'they'-varieties and only appropriate for out-group communication.
29Similarly Williams (1979: 60) stresses that "language groups as status groups... are not of a permanent character but change because individuals are constantly calculating the advantages and costs likely to result from different courses of action".
40
Nonetheless the question arises whether writers such as those mentioned above, may not have preferred to write in their mother tongue, assuming they would have been able to reach an international audience. Coulmas (1997: 39) does acknowledge that choosing to speak one's mother tongue in a particular situation may indeed present an act of cultural identity. Drawing from the work of Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985), whose theory of linguistic acts as 'acts of identity' has been highly influential, Kamwangamalu remarks that, "through language individuals project their identity, their inner universe, and shape it accordingly to the behavioural patterns of the group with which they wish to identify" (1992: 35).
Clearly, in a multilingual society, multilingual speakers have a repertoire of social identities, and depending on context and setting, individuals use a number of linguistic strategies to express their identities.
In Africa particularly, this linguistic repertoire is remarkably diverse and may include the ethnic mother tongue, an additional African lingua franca, mixed varieties and English or French. The extensive occurrence of language contact further triggers phenomena such as code-switching, mixed-codes, pidgins and Creoles, which from one perspective or another are linked to issues of identity construction and negotiation. Two terms relating identities to language shall be on focus here, 'ethnic identity', which will be dealt with at some length below; and 'cultural identity', that will be defined at this point. Although some scholars, in particular sociolinguists (see Edwards 1985), do not distinguish between 'ethnic' and 'cultural' identity, I attempt to do so by suggesting a perhaps 'unconventional' distinction for the simple purpose of avoiding confusion in this work.
In searching for a definition of 'cultural identity' one comes across the work of Stuart Hall (1990), who argues that there are two different ways of thinking about the concept. First, 'cultural identity' is to be defined in terms of a shared culture and thus a collective 'one true self, which people with a common history and ancestry hold. This identity provides a stable, unchanging and continuous frame of reference and meaning. Second, there is a different view, one which is adopted in
41
this work, that recognises that this 'one true self is concerned less with what 'what we really are' than with - since history has intervened - 'what we have become'.
'Cultural identity', in this sense, belongs to the future as much as to the past, undergoes transformation and is subject to the continuous 'play' of history, culture and power (Hall 1990: 225). Thus, cultural identity is to be defined in the words of Stuart Hall as a reflection of:
the common historical experiences and shared cultural codes which provide us, as 'one people', with stable, unchanging and continuous frames of reference and meaning, beneath the shifting divisions and vicissitudes of our actual history (Hall 1990: 223).
This definition of cultural identity is particularly relevant in the context of this work as it does not only point out the importance of a historical and cultural experience, but also highlights the ever-changing nature of these experiences. The question, however, that comes to mind, is whether this definition may not be equally applicable to the concept of 'ethnic identity' and ethnicity. This, indeed, is a point where we start to find ourselves on slippery ground. Making a clear-cut distinction between the understanding of 'cultural identity' as explained above, and the concept of 'ethnic identity' as explained later, is extremely difficult as definitions tend to overlap. Especially in sociolinguistics, there is little terminological differentiation in this regard; some scholars prefer the former term while others use the latter.30
For practical reasons, I intend to employ the term 'cultural identity' only when I am speaking of a person's 'active involvement' in practices s/he perceives as 'culturally important'. Cultural identity in this sense may or may not be part of an individual's 'ethnic identity'. However, it always includes the individual in an active role in the society. Thus, some sort of 'doing' and 'behaving' characterises 'cultural identity' as employed in this study, whereas ethnic identity does not necessarily imply this, but may simply be used as a label that an individual
30 With particular regard to the language debate in South Africa, the concept of 'cultural identity' is closely connected with 'ethnicity' (Niedrig 1999: 27) and researchers have increasingly dealt with 'cultural identity' as a research concept in the context of language in education research (i.e.
Coetzee van Rooy 2000).
42