By Dr Laila Abdel Aal Alghalban
CAN a language be used as a weapon? Of course, yes. History teems with incidents in which language is weaponised to control and exclude others politically and socially Think about the literacy tests the US government used as a prerequisite for giving the right to vote to Americans, where African-Americans and other minorities were given vague and difficult excerpts from the constitution to interpret and hence be rejected. Think about Australia where the government imposed a dictation test to eliminate immigrants. Think about South Africa during the era of Apartheid, where the minority government enforced restrictions to curb and silence the voice of the majority. Furthermore, an accent can be a weapon or a tool for discrimination in interviews and business posts; certain groups are excluded on different grounds such as race, age, and gender, all of which are communicated via one’s accent or language.
Since the start of the current war in the Middle East, I have been glued to screens for hours tracking news and feeling stuck in a suffocating atmosphere in a doomed area. A couple of days ago, while I was flipping through TV channels, I came across a British channel airing a very intense talk show, with two hijabi women shouting at each other in a heated debate on using or banning languages other than English in election campaigns in the UK. I caught just a minute or two of the programme and found myself interested in the topic as a linguist, so I tried to dig more. Then I came across the following post.
“Only English should be allowed in English election campaigns. If you can’t read, write or speak our language fluently, frankly, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Shameless from the Green Party,” posted Alex Armstrong, a TV presenter and political commentator on his Facebook page. “The post was a reaction to the Green Party’s victory in the by-elections in some constituencies home to many immigrants, after a successful multilingual election campaign. “Anyone who can’t speak English in England shouldn’t have the vote. They should be deported,” reads on of the comments on the post. The post has triggered an avalanche of comments, most of which signify a rise in “linguaphobia”, hate speech, and xenophobia, and lament a bleak future for the England people knew.
This argument has been attacked by many bilingual politicians in the UK who believe that multilingualism is an asset for communicating with their fellow politicians and linking to their roots local communities. Interestingly, MPs can use their mother tongue language when swearing into Parliament. The UK is officially multilingual, with Welsh, Gaelic, Scots, Irish, Ulster Scots, and Cornish recognised as “official native languages”. Actually, there are about 300 languages spoken in the UK. So, why censoring multilingual election campaigns?
Furthermore, Zohran Mamdani’s multilingual election campaign using Arabic, Spanish, Urdu, Bangla, and English furnishes a creative, successful example of multilingual politics that connects with everyone in an authentic, inclusive and approachable manner in a linguistically dense city with 800 languages and over 30 per cent of its population born abroad.
Thus, English, which is globally functioning as a lingua Franca enhancing global communication, is being rivaled on its own soil by other migrating languages. This shift nourishes populist ideas and results in the weoponisation of the English language as a gatekeeping tool to determine who is native and who is not. Utilising some theoretical perspectives such as Language Weaponisation Framework by Pentón Herrera, speech act theory by Austin and Searle, and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) by van Dijk, and Norman Fairclough to understand how English is weaponised showcase that good English is seen as a pre-requisite for being a good British citizen ( control), that others are outsiders (marginalise), and that they re neither eligible for voting or staying there ( harm).
Speech act theory proposes that verbal expressions perform actions like naming, inviting, thanking, cussing, etc. The performative power of the discriminatory language of stigmatising, dehumanising and harming is achieved by a complex series of speech acts. Moreover, infrahumanisation , Brennan (2024) argues, is denying that the others possess sufficient traits to be in-group members. One’s community members are believed to be more human than those of other communities. This model explains how undesirable traits are ascribed to outgroup members. Critical discourse analysis helps us figure out how powerful groups position minorities by legitimising social injustice to promote the values and agendas of the dominant groups.
Stigmatising and othering
Lack of sufficient competence in English is utilised to stigmatise minorities and immigrants. As one commenter asserted, “Anyone who can’t speak English in England shouldn’t have the vote. They should be deported.” Another added , “No way, absolutely no way should a non English speaking person be able to stand at an election. “ The implication is that to be a good citizen, have the right to vote and have a say on public issues, multilingual citizens should be competent English speakers and shun their mother languages. Otherwise, they will not be fit for living in this country; they are outsiders, as captured in the sentiment “This is England. Maybe she forgot,” which means legitimating discrimination, exclusion and, ultimately, deportation. This emphasises the nationalist ideology of the superiority of the native speakers of English as gatekeepers. Some comments reinforced this, such as “We’re in Britain.
Dehumanisation and erasing
To further attack multilingual citizens, comments showcased further linguistic violence; it is dehumanising others, portraying them as animals and natural disasters. One commenter referred to immigrants as “savages,” stating “Starmer is allowing these savages to do this.” Others reduced entire communities to transactional objects, complaining of “Chasing the Muslim vote” and claiming the Green Party was “Buying votes” through multilingual outreach.
Harming
As a result of portraying multilingual citizens, especially those speaking languages other than English, Welsh, Scots, whose languages are recognised and respected under the British laws, as animals, incompetent citizens, invaders, and a threat to national identity and unity can escalate to actual violence and harm. This legitimises targeting multilingual citizens and immigrants by all means, amounting to killing to “clean” the country. The advocacy for state violence was explicit: “They should be deported” appeared alongside calls for disenfranchisement.
It’s no wonder, then, that the UK government is reviewing its immigration policies and posing further restrictions by weaponising English as a barrier, requiring higher levels of English proficiency for workers and a test of worthiness for British citizenship applicants, where applicants must show evidence that their English is improving over a ten-year period.
Finally, studies suggest that using multilingual election materials enhances minorities’ political participation and faith in the democratic process. More linguistic tolerance is urgently needed!
By Dr Laila Abdel Aal Alghalban
Professor of Linguistics
Faculty of Arts
Kafr el-sheikh University
Email: [email protected]
