Linguistic Divergence Employed as Resistance

It is acceptable and sometimes expected for a speaker to accommodate to the speech of an addressee, to ensure that the conversation flows easily, or to let the addressee know they are regarded with a positive attitude. Linguistic divergence is a more conscious effort to emphasize the differences between speakers in an interaction, for some it is a decision to not modify or adjust features of their speech to that of their addressee. Although, this could be influenced by the attitudes which speakers have towards other languages, whether they are dominant or minority languages, it is a speech act which is meant to deliver a symbolic meaning through its continual use. Language policies which disadvantage minority language speakers could be a cause of linguistic divergence, an attempt to keep a language in use and to oppose any restrictions to its maintenance and innovation. Linguistically divergent behavior is also a way to represent culture or nationality, in response to shifts towards the dominant group’s language, “minority ethnic groups who want to maintain and display their cultural distinctiveness will often, use their own linguistic variety” (Holmes and Wilson 263). Linguistic divergence counters the societal expectation that a minority language speaker should converge towards the dominant language and change their linguistic features to match those of another group.

In Belarus, a group of speakers use linguistic divergence to express their disapproval of new language policies which are threatening to displace the Belarusian language indirectly. These speakers are re-establishing the unofficial Belarusian variety of taraŝkevica, which was reformed in 1933 towards the officially recognized Belarusian variety of narkamawka. Speakers of taraŝkevica claim that the narkamawka variety was a reform inspired not by linguistic concerns that would allow the modified variety “to simplify the standard orthography,” but as a method to change the language norms in Belarus to align with those of the dominant group. Speakers of taraŝkevica are critical of the close relation which the standard Belarusian linguistic forms share with the standard Russian language, they fear it will enable the eventual shift towards Russian in most domains, “the post-1933 grammatical and lexical norms associated with it are little more than a Trojan horse for Russian influence, a means to undermine the Belarusian language from within” (Woolhiser 376). The neglect of a minority groups’ preferred variety is what has inspired oppositional language groups, which use taraŝkevica in independent media as a way to show pride in their Belarusian nationality, this is what can be interpreted as a “collective form of action denouncing the tyranny of the majority: the official identity of the ideal citizen” (Dubreuil qtd. in Kulyk 1031). Where minority groups are faced with politicized actions to diminish the status of their language, their use of linguistic divergence from the standard or more prestigious variety is a response to counter this.

At times adherents of a language group are told that their variety is not suitable for formal interactions, such as in government and education, and this can evoke a more pronounced use of code-switching or bilingualism in which the speakers do not conform to the norms completely, but are found in the need to follow the set expectation. In Brunei where the use of Malay or first language is discouraged in the educational classrooms after the “Upper Primary” level, it is found that students often disapprove of the strict conditions which place English as the only and most important language intended to be used in this space, “this leads [students] to challenge the “policing English” policy…which they see as marginalizing their home/community and national language” (Saxena 176). Malay as the national language is highly valued in Brunei, supported by the Melayu Islam Beraja ideology institutionalized throughout Brunei after its independence, it promotes Malay as an important symbol of “cultural and traditional identity” (Saxena 176). Despite the linguistic prestige of Malay, English is still considered “the global language” and is upheld as the sole medium for education, it invalidates the students’ first languages and creates opposition from them. In the Ukraine this issue also exists between Ukrainian and Russian, the movement of Ukrainianization in media being a political action which Ukrainian speakers advocated for, they are disconcerted by the growing force of Russian in most domains, “there have been dramatic tensions between the two languages on the sociopolitical plane, raising questions about their respective status and especially their de facto social, cultural and political functions” (Nedashkivska 353). The prospect of Russian being given official status alongside the national language in Ukraine, makes Ukrainian speakers worry their own language will lose its significance as more people switch to Russian for extensive functions. This is a problem that tends to arise when the dominant group builds the influence of a language on the neglect of another, this is a criticism which Ukrainian government and President Kuchma received because of their ambiguous policies which “orchestrated the promotion of Ukrainian in education and business, but did not create, nor promote, any channels for Ukrainian in book publishing and the media” (Nedashkivska 353). Ukrainian speakers are aware of the impact which Russian media has on people, it constructs the language use of Russian as the norm and belittles the role of Ukrainian, this is concerning since “Institutional support generally makes the difference between success and failure in maintaining a minority group language” (Holmes and Wilson 68). In nations where language is part of the ideological contestation of political groups, government support or dismissal of a minority group’s language is crucial in shaping the dominant language use. In the Ukraine during and after the Euromaidan Revolution, language use of Russian and Ukrainian was viewed in relation to the socio-political context, it made it difficult for the government to adopt new policies which could appease “the active minority’s call for a radical break with the legacy of the Russian/Soviet rule and the majority’s preference for the preservation of the accustomed environment” (Kulyk 1030). During such a critical time in which Euromaidan supporters wanted to sever their ties to Russia’s influence in the Ukraine, Russian was considered a remaining impression of its imperialism. This ideology was inspired by a need to separate Ukrainian as a symbol of nationality, from Russian which was linked in the minds of many as part of the “Soviet legacy” (Kulyk 1035). Policies such as the “bilingual media campaign” were considered half-measures which did not allow the goal of “resolute promotion of Ukrainian” to occur, escalating the conflict between speakers of both languages (Kulyk 1038).

Linguistic divergence can increase the number of speakers who identify with the divergent variety, and this attempt at language maintenance can change the linguistic landscape of a nation and create innovations through the language use of oppositional language groups. In Belarus, oppositional language groups who advocate for the restoration of the taraŝkevica variety are the vehicles by which taraŝkevica linguistic forms are entering the speech of dominant language groups. In a survey of the language use in Belarus, there were official standard narkamawka variants and unofficial taraŝkevica variants placed in the questionnaire, and despite what was expected, Belarusian students who are not engaged in the oppositional language groups recognized and claimed to use nonofficial variants, such as даляр for dollar and the adjectival form моладзевы for youth, “independent Belarusian-language media and groups such as Malady Front and ZBS [are] beginning to influence the language choices even of those who do not openly identify with the opposition” (Woolhiser 387). Although these oppositional language groups which refuse to conform to the dominant language in Belarus regard the taraŝkevica variety as a legitimate variety, speakers on the outside of these groups not only look down on this variety but do not consider some of the linguistic forms to be correct ways of speaking. The use of the pre-1933 taraŝkevica loan words in the Belarusian standard variety have marked variants which show their linguistic closeness to Russian or their distance from the older linguistic forms. In a survey conducted by Curt Woolhiser, it was found that the most linguistically conservative student who only uses the Belarusian standard variety when needed in school, rejected Belarusian standard superlative forms such as найтаннейшы and самы танны even though they are part of the codified variety, they claimed to use variants which were “closer to Russian models, e.g., ён лепшы студэнт у групе ‘he is the best student in the group’, and ён самы лепшы студэнт (analogous to the Russian он лучший [самый лучший] студент)” (Woolhiser 393). This shows the infiltration of the Russian language forms which oppositional groups are against, the growing similarities between Russian and standard Belarusian makes them adopt more linguistically distant forms from either. The phonology of the standard and non-official Belarusian word forms is also an area where differentiation is practiced, the word for club in the standard Belarusian variety of narkamawka being клуб and having a nonpalatalized /l/, and the taraŝkevica variety being клюб and having a palatalized /l’/ (Woolhiser 393). A moderate speaker with ambivalent feelings towards both official and non-official varieties, said they used both the клуб and клюб word variants. The taraŝkevica speaker claimed the nonpalatalized /l/ word form was not appropriate and that he only used the taraŝkevica pronunciation, and this can be a confirmation of “the role the innovative variants play in the affirmation of group membership and status within the group” (Woolhiser 394). The innovative forms of taraŝkevica are not “forgotten historical variants” like President Lukashenka claims, but are significantly used by oppositional groups “as a natural response to dominant discourses that represent linguistic similarity as a justification for linguistic, cultural, and ultimately political hegemony” (Woolhiser 376). In Bruneian classrooms the English-only rule which teachers strictly exercise make it difficult for students to grasp certain concepts as they are not allowed an explanation in Malay or first language even when struggling with an English word, in this way the deviation from the English standard to that of Malay used by some teachers helps students learn and understand concepts more clearly and efficiently. Through the code-switching of the teacher and students, there can be a more cooperative learning interaction between them, an example of this is when a teacher drew on Malay vocabulary to explain the concept of roaming animals to students that were not as proficient in English, “...mcm kalau telipun..... {it’s like if a phone} it would, you know, roaming, right” (Saxena 178).

She code-switches between English and Malay to talk about a subject, because she knows it will assist the students in their understanding of the passage, she uses Malay to give them an idea and example of roaming in Malay and the students draw on this example to make sure they understand what the English word roam means, a student then asks through code-switching about the meaning, “Roaming” kah ^ {Do you mean “roaming”^}”, and yet another student attempts to elaborate on the question using only Malay, “Cari makan bah ‘cher... {They’re simply looking for food...}” (Saxena 178). This interaction goes against the English norms which Brunei has implemented in the school systems, yet the use of first language in code-switching is crucial for the development of the language, “For many bilinguals, certain kinds of referential content are more appropriately or more easily expressed in one language than the other” (Holmes and Wilson 38). This is the case in the above example, where students are being taught concepts in English which they are not yet familiar with, and this creates a gap in their educational learning, yet “the use of L1 at a strategic juncture in the discourse serves as retroactive contextualization” (Saxena 178). Linguistic divergence from the standard or norm is used in this sense to build on shared knowledge towards the goal of acquiring another language.

In the nations where the identities associated with a certain language are diminished in value, using media or governmental policies, speakers of those varieties are at times reluctant to follow this negation of their language. Linguistic divergence through code-switching or the use of a less accepted variety are resources by which minority groups maintain and revive a language. Independent media can help this cause when diverging from the standard variety to that which is preferred by these groups, it can create a space where other varieties are legitimized and treated like a more accepted variety. Disapproval of a language because of the political ideologies associated with it, are also a part of linguistic divergence, with speakers attempting to place boundaries between the more dominant variety and its influence. Refusing to engage in the language which does not represent the ideas and values of a speaker’s group is of importance in the creation of their identity.

Group 6 in Class 6C of the English Education Department of Islamic State University of Bandung. “Accommodation Theory (Convergence and Divergence).” Youtube, 28 Apr. 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koH6RfjpgJg.

Holmes, Janet and Nick Wilson. “An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.” edited by Mick Short, Brian Walker, Willem Hollmann, Geoffrey Leech, ed. 5, Routledge, 2017.

Nedashkivska, Alla. “Symbolic Bilingualism in Contemporary Ukrainian Media.” Canadian Slavonic Papers, vol. 52, no. 3/4, 2010, pp. 351-372.

Saxena, Mukul. “Construction & Deconstruction of Linguistic Otherness: Conflict and Cooperative Code-Switching in (English/) Bilingual Classrooms.” English Teaching, vol. 8, no. 2, 2009, pp. 167-187.

Volodymyr, Kulyk. “Memory and Language: Different Dynamics in the Two Aspects of Identity Politics in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine.” Nationalities Papers, vol. 47, no. 6, 2019, pp. 1030-1047.

Woolhiser, Curt. “Communities of Practice and Linguistic Divergence: Belarusophone Students as Agents of Linguistic Change.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 29, no. 1-4, 2007, pp. 371-404.