Language Attitudes, Cultural Identity, and Minority-Language Maintenance in Multilingual Contexts: A Systematic Thematic Review

Do Language Textbooks Challenge or Reinforce Cultural Stereotypes? Perspectives of Advanced Learners of Arabic

Language textbooks do more than facilitate linguistic development; they also mediate learners’ encounters with the cultural communities represented through the target language. This role becomes particularly significant in advanced foreign-language education, where learners are expected to engage critically with complex social, political, and cultural representations. This qualitative study examines how advanced learners of Arabic perceived and negotiated cultural representations in Al-Kitaab fii Ta'allum al-'Arabiyya, Part Three, with particular attention to whether the textbook challenged or reinforced pre-existing stereotypes about Arab cultures. The study draws on focus-group data collected from eight advanced American learners of Arabic specializing in diplomacy and politics at a language center in Rabat, Morocco. Participants had extensive experience using the textbook during their advanced Arabic studies. The focus-group discussion was audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and subjected to iterative qualitative content analysis. Findings indicate a complex relationship between textbook representation and learner perception. Participants acknowledged the textbook’s contribution to introducing cultural, historical, and political issues related to the Arab world, yet they also perceived some representations as insufficiently diverse or critically contextualized. Rather than consistently disrupting pre-existing assumptions, certain representations were perceived as potentially confirming simplified understandings of Arab societies. Learners particularly emphasized the need for greater regional diversity, authentic voices, contemporary perspectives, sustained self-reflection, and opportunities for direct intercultural engagement. The findings suggest that cultural representation in advanced language textbooks should move beyond exposure to cultural information toward pedagogical practices that actively encourage learners to interrogate, reassess, and complicate their prior assumptions. The study contributes to discussions of textbook evaluation, intercultural learning, and cultural representation in Arabic-as-a-foreign-language education.

JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

Language Usage among University Staff Members: Communication, Power, Inclusion and Multilingual Practice in Higher Education

Language is central to the organisation of work in universities because staff members use it to exchange information, negotiate professional identities, exercise authority, build collegial relationships and participate in institutional decision-making. In multilingual universities, however, language choice may simultaneously enable communication and reproduce exclusion. This conceptual article examines language usage among academic, administrative, professional, and support staff, with particular reference to South African higher education. Drawing on sociolinguistic perspectives, linguistic capital, communities of practice, and translanguaging, the article analyses formal communication, informal interaction, code-switching, digital communication, and the relationship between language and institutional power. It argues that the continued dominance of English offers a shared medium for cross-linguistic communication and international engagement, but may disadvantage staff who possess valuable professional knowledge without equal confidence in dominant academic and bureaucratic registers. Conversely, the unreflective use of a shared local language can exclude colleagues who do not understand it. The article proposes a Context-Responsive Inclusive Staff Communication Framework comprising communicative access, multilingual flexibility, linguistic respect, power awareness, digital clarity and institutional accountability. It concludes that effective university communication requires neither rigid monolingualism nor unrestricted language choice, but an ethically managed multilingual approach that matches language practices to audience, purpose, and context. Universities should therefore translate high-stakes information where necessary, encourage inclusive multilingual interaction, strengthen plain-language communication, support language learning, and evaluate whether their language policies are implemented in everyday staff practices.

Language AND Social Identity Among Iraqi University Students

ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި އިނގިރޭސިބަސް: ދިވެހިންގެ ކާކުވަންތަކަމަށާއި ދިވެހިބަހުގެ ސިޔާސަތަށް އަސަރުފޯރުން

This study explores the influence of English on Maldivian identity and local language policy, particularly in light of historical, educational, and sociocultural shifts since the introduction of English-medium education in 1960. While Dhivehi remains a key marker of national identity and patriotism, English has gained significant dominance across domains, including education, media, technology, and public signage. This linguistic shift raises concerns about the erosion of the local language and its implications for national identity. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, using three strategies: a national survey (n=302) covering seven key sectors (religion, technology, education, health, media, law, and security); linguistic landscape observation (data from 1,004 public signs from Greater Malé Area); and focus group discussions with stakeholders (n=26). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data were thematically examined. Findings indicate that a majority foresee English becoming even more integrated into daily life. Stakeholders expressed concern that diminished prominence of Dhivehi in the education system has weakened national identity and local language development. Survey responses highlighted early education as a critical stage for strengthening Dhivehi language skills and fostering patriotism. Furthermore, 499 of the 1,004 observed signs were exclusively in English, with many others using English names even if printed in Thaana script, and others mixing English and Dhivehi in inconsistent ways, often contrary to the 9/2011 Maldives National Language Policy Act. The study concludes that without urgent policy reinforcement, the marginalisation of Dhivehi may intensify. It recommends strengthening the implementation of the Maldivies national language policy, expanding Dhivehi use in public life and education, and ensuring equitable status for the local language alongside English. These actions are necessary to preserve national identity and promote linguistic balance in the face of global English dominance. ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި އިނގިރޭސިބަސް: ދިވެހިންގެ ކާކުވަންތަކަމަށާއި ދިވެހިބަހުގެ ސިޔާސަތަށް އަސަރުފޯރުން މުޖުމަލު ޤައުމެއްގައި ބޭނުންކުރާ ބަހަކަށް ބައިނަލްއަގުވާމީ ދަރަޖަ ލިބޭ އެއް ގޮތަކީ ތަޢުލީމީ ނިޒާމުގެ ތެރެއިން ބޭރު ބަހެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި އުނގެނުން ލާޒިމު ބަހަކަށް ހެދުމެވެ. އިނގިރޭސީންގެ ހިމާޔަތުގެ ދަށުން މިނިވަންވުމުގެ ކުރިން، 1960ގައި ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި އިނގިރޭސި މީޑިއަމަށް ކިޔަވައިދޭން ފެށުމާއި، މިއަދާ ހަމައަށް މިކަން މިގޮތަށް އޮތް އޮތުމާއި، ދިވެހިބަހަކީ ގައުމިއްޔަތުގެ މައިގަނޑު އެއް ބަހާ ކަމުގައި ވިޔަސް ތަޢުލީމާއި މީޑިއާ އަދި ޓެކްނޮލޮޖީ ފަދަ ދާއިރާތަކުން އިނގިރޭސިބަހަށް ބޮޑެތި ބާރުތަކެއް ލިބިފައި އޮތްއޮތުމަކީ ކަންބަޑުވާންޖެހޭ ކަމެކެވެ. މި ދިރާސާގެ މަގުސަދަކީ، ދިވެހިންގެ ކާކުވަންތަކަމާއި ދިވެހިބަހުގެ ސިޔާސަތަށް އިނގިރޭސިބަހުގެ ނޭދެވޭ އަސަރުފޯރާ މިންވަރު ދެނެގަތުމެވެ. މި ދިރާސާ ފަރުމާކުރީ އެކުވިތަރީގާތު ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ތިން ތަރީގާއަކުން ޑޭޓާ އެއްކުރާ ގޮތަށެވެ. މިގޮތުން، ހިމެނެނީ ދިވެހިބަހުގެ މަސްލަހަތުވެރިންގެ މައިގަނޑު ހަތް ދާއިރާ (ދީން، ޓެކްނޮލޮޖީ، ތަޢުލީމު، ޞިއްޙަތު، މީޑިއާ، ޤާނޫނު، ސަލާމަތީބާރުތައް) ނިސްބަތްވާ ގޮތަށް 302 ބައިވެރިންގެ އޮންލައިން ސާވޭއަކާއި، މާލެ ސަރަހައްދުން ތަޙުލީލުކުރި ބަހަވީމަލައިގެ 1004 ނިޝާނަކާއި، މަސްލަހަތުވެރިންގެ ހަތް ދާއިރާއިން 26 ބައިވެރިންނާ އެކު ބޭއްވުނު 9 ގުރޫޕުގެ މަޝްވަރާއެވެ. ސާވޭގެ ޑޭޓާ ތަޙުލީލުކުރީ ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވް އަދި އިންފަރަންޝަލް ތަފާސްހިސާބު ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ. ސިފަވީ ޑޭޓާ ތަޙުލީލުކުރީ ތީމުތަކުގެ މައްޗަށެވެ. މި ދިރާސާގެ ހޯދުންތަކުން ދައްކަނީ އިނގިރޭސިބަހަކީ ދިވެހިންގެ އާންމު ދިރިއުޅުމުގެ ތެރެއަށް މިހާރަށްވުރެ ވެސް ބޮޑަށް ލާމެހިގެން ހިނގައިދާނޭ ބަހެއްކަމާއި ދިވެހި ކުޑަކުދިންގެ މާދަރީބަސް އިނގިރޭސިބަހަށް ބަދަލުވަމުންދާކަމެވެ. ތަޢުލީމީ ނިޒާމުގައި އިހުގައި ދިވެހިބަހަށް އޮތް އިސްކަން، ކިޔަވައިދޭ މާއްދާއެއްގެ ދަރަޖައަށް ކުޑަވުމުގެ ސަބަބުން ދިވެހިބަހުގެ ކުރިއެރުން ބަލިކަށިވެފައިވާކަމުގެ ކަންބޮޑުވުން މަސްލަހަތުވެރިންގެ ގިނަ ބަޔަކު ފާޅުކުރައްވައިފައި ވެއެވެ. ސާވޭއިން ފާހަގަކުރެވެނީ ދިވެހީންގެ ދުވަހީދިރިއުޅުމުގެ މުޢާމަލާތްތަކުގައި ދިވެހިބަސް ބޭނުންކުރަން ނުފަރިތަކަމާއި މިއަދުގެ ހަލުވި އަދި ބަވަނަ ދުނިޔެއަށް ކަމުދާވަރަށް ދިވެހިބަހުގެ ބަސްކޮށާރުގައި ބާރެއް ނެތްކަމަށް ގިނަބަޔަކު ދެކޭކަމާއި، އޭގެ ސަބަބުން އިނގިރޭސިބަހަށް އިތުރަށް ދީލައިލާކަމަށެވެ. މިއާއެކު، ދިވެހިބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ހަރުދަނާކޮށް، ގައުމިއްޔަތު ކުރިއެރުވުމަށް ޓަކައި އިސްކޫލުތަކުގެ ދަށު ގުރޭޑުތަކުގައި ނަމަހީވެސް ދިވެހިބަހުން ކިޔަވައިދޭގޮތަށް ބަދަލުކުރުމުގެ ބޭނުން އޮތްކަމަށް ފާހަގަކުރެވުނެވެ. ބަހަވީމަލައިން ނެގުނު1004  ނިޝާނުގެ 49.7 އިންސައްތައިން ފެންނަނީ ހަމައެކަނި އިނގިރޭސިބަހެވެ. އަނެއްބައި ނިޝާންތަކުގައި ތާނާއަކުރުން ހުއްޓެއްކަމަކު ގިނައިން ހުރީ އިނގިރޭސި ނަން ނުވަތަ މައްސުނި ނަންތަކާއި ނިޝާންތައްކަމަށް ހޯދުންތަކުން ދައްކައެވެ. ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޤައުމީ ބަހަށް އިސްކަންދިނުމުގެ ޤާނޫނު، ޤާނޫނު ނަންބަރު 2011/9، ބަޔާންކުރާގޮތުން ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި އާންމުންނަށް ފެންނަން ހުންނަ ކޮންމެ ނަންބޯޑެއްގައި އެންމެ އިސްކޮށް އަދި ބޮޑުކޮށް ލިޔެވިފައި އޮންނަންވާނީ ތާނައަކުރުންނެވެ. ނަމަވެސް ހޯދުންތަކުން ފެންނަނީ ޤާނޫނާ ޚިލާފުވުމާއި އިނގޭރިސިބަހަށް ދީފައި އޮތް ގަދަރެވެ. މި ހޯދުންތަކުން ނިންމަންޖެހޭ މައިގަނޑު ކަންކަމަކީ، ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޤައުމީބަހުގެ ސިޔާސަތު ތަންފީޒުކުރުން ހަރުދަނާކުރަން ޖެހިފައިވާކަމާއި، އަވަސް ބަދަލުތަކެއް ނުގެނެވިއްޖެ ނަމަ ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގައި ދިވެހިބަހަށް އޮތް ޖާގަ އިތުރަށް ހަނިވެގެން ހިނގައިދާނޭކަމެވެ. މިގޮތުން ޢާންމު ދިރިއުޅުމާއި ތަޢުލީމުގައި ދިވެހިބަސް ބޭނުންކުރުން ފުޅާކުރުމާއި، އިނގިރޭސިބަހާ އެކު، ދިވެހިބަހަށް ހަމަހަމަ ދަރަޖަ ހޯދައިދިނުމަށް މި ދިރާސާއިން މިސްރާބުދައްކައެވެ.

Bilingualism and Issues of Identity: A Sociolinguistic Study with Special Reference to Pakistan

This article examines the intricate relationship between bilingualism and identity construction, with a particular focus on the Pakistani sociolinguistic context. Drawing on an extensive review of existing literature and an analytical case study of the Hindi film English Vinglish (2012), the article argues that bilingualism, far from being a purely linguistic phenomenon, is deeply embedded in the social, political, and psychological fabric of a speaker's identity. In Pakistan's tri-lingual structure, where speakers navigate between vernacular regional languages, Urdu as the national language, and English as the official language of power, identity construction becomes a site of contest, negotiation, and crisis. The article demonstrates how the hierarchical valuation of languages engenders issues of prestige, shame, and loyalty that determine not only linguistic choices but also social mobility and self-perception. The case study of English Vinglish, though a Hindi film, illustrates these dynamics in the South Asian context by tracing the protagonist's journey from identity crisis to self-actualization. The article concludes by advocating an acceptance-based framework for bilingual identity that acknowledges the compound, rather than conflicting, nature of bilingual selfhood.