Skip to main content
Language and globalization

Virtually multilingual

By June 7, 20186 Comments4 min read5,260 views

English is the mother tongue of the Internet, or so it seems. English is omnipresent in the architecture of this breakthrough technology. You see it in the QWERTY keyboard, domain names, major search engines, and how most of this world’s knowledge is coded. Therefore, to use the Internet, one has to know some English. It is the original gatekeeper of this powerful global communication technology.

As its user population has exploded, however, the Internet’s linguistic repertoire inevitably has expanded, too, and transformed it into a multilingual space.

But how multilingual is the Internet? What languages other than English does it speak? Why these languages?

The development of the Wikipedia logo is a metaphor for the journey from English-monolingual to multilingual Internet (Source: Wikipedia)

These are some of the key questions explored in Internationalizing Internet Studies: Beyond Anglophone Paradigms. Published in 2009, this collection of articles celebrates the non-Western, non-English speaking face of the Internet that is often hidden from academia and the media limelight.

Editors Gerard Goggin and Mark McLelland challenge the tendency of communications and media scholarship to overemphasize the Anglophone-orientedness of online phenomena, taking for granted the multicultural and multilingual realities that persist alongside Western hegemony in virtual spaces. Using this skewed representation of the Internet as take-off point, the articles problematize whether the Internet truly bridges boundaries or, otherwise, creates other forms of division.

One obvious form of division online is the linguistic divide, which pertains to the differential valuing and representation of languages on the Internet. This issue is elaborated in the second part of the book—Language Communities Online. Through case studies of language practices in non-Western online communities, this section foregrounds languages other than English in the Internet and how the online space and these languages mutually shape each other.

In Chapter 5, Nanette Gottlieb presents the case of Japan:

While language use on the web in Japan, in terms of the selection of languages, is conservative overall with a strong monolingual bent, as dictated by national language policy, infrastructure, and cultural considerations, ludic use of the Japanese language itself online is multifaceted and far from conservative. (p. 65)

The scripts on the Wikipedia logo (Source: Wikipedia)

Gottlieb then describes Japanese language play in online messaging, which is exemplified in the use of emoticons as substitutes for verbal emotive expressions. Despite their banality as built-in features in hand-held gadgets and mobile messaging apps, emoticons can be valued as indexes of cultural distinction.

Subsequent chapters discuss the more serious function of the Internet as instrument for linguistic resistance and cultural preservation. Chapter 7 focuses on Welsh-speaking Internet users promoting Cymraeg as language of choice in their websites, forums, blogs, and social networking sites to assert its status as a contemporary language. The author, Daniel Cunliffe, argues that the success of this language movement can be attributed to institutional policy (the Welsh Language Act) and technical backing (software localization). Despite not having the same quality of support, the case of Catalan, articulated in Chapter 8, shows that the Internet can be a potent tool for the propagation of a minoritized language. The authors, Josep Lluis Mico and Pere Masip, partly echo the insights of Professor Josu Amezaga in his lecture about minority and minoritized languages and evinces the power of new media to facilitate the resurgence of languages silenced in traditional media platforms.

The final chapters in this sociolinguistic section focus on the intersection between language use and identity formation. The link between language and identity particularly in the context of migrant experience echoes the theme of the New Finnish Grammar, which was also reviewed for the Language-on-the-Move Reading Challenge. Chapters 9 and 10 talk about how specific groups of migrants use language online to define aspects of their identity, which may be displaced and denied in the “real world” offline.

Urmila Goel examines the Indernet (www.theinder.net), a website that uses German language but which is primarily an Indian space. Through this forum, second generation Indians in Germany, who are othered as neither of India nor of Germany, find a virtual home where their transnational identity is accepted. Meanwhile, Ljilijana Gavrilovic talks about Serbian refugees, for whom “language is the primary element of identification” (p.147) and who use their home language online to assert their pre-refugee identities.

Overall, I found the recognition of the Internet as a beyond-Western phenomenon refreshing. The descriptive articles, whilst not equally engaging, provided information that made me more conscious of what and how languages are used online, by whom, and for what end. Of course, I was silently disappointed that Philippine languages were not mentioned in this conversation, but so were a host of other languages that are certainly represented in some corner or thread of this wide virtual web today. As an introductory reading on multilingual practices in cyberspace, however, the book succeeded in defamiliarizing the English-dominant Internet and inspiring a fresh curiosity for its linguistic repertoire.

Pia Tenedero

Author Pia Tenedero

Dr. Pia Tenedero is Assistant Professor in the Department of English of the University of Santo Tomas (Manila, Philippines). She is also Honorary Research Fellow of Macquarie University (Sydney, Australia), where she finished her PhD in Linguistics with a thesis on the language practices and ideologies of globalized accountants. Her other research interests are English language learning, intercultural communication, multilingualism, and discourse analysis in globalized professions and social media.

More posts by Pia Tenedero

Join the discussion 6 Comments

  • We can look into the expanding virtual spaces through social-mediated/electronic-mediated communication.

  • Liv says:

    Thank you for this concise summary, Pia. Your review reminded me of a panel on ‘Minority languages – Social and electronic media’ at the International Symposium on Bilingualism in Limerick last year. Panellists presented how minority languages (Frisian & Egyptian, Irish, and Hong Kong varieties of English) were being used online (on Twitter, Gmail, & Facebook respectively) and what this display of their languages in an online space – surrounded by ‘other’ languages (mainly English) – means to (new) speakers.

    • Pia says:

      Wow! Those conference presentations are certainly aligned with this book’s theme, Liv. I reckon their articles could be part of the sequel to Goggin and McLelland’s, which, to my recollection, does not make any reference to the Internet presence of Frisian and Irish minority languages. Of course, there’s a host of other languages online that can be explored and written about–certainly a promising research topic.

  • Alexandra says:

    Thanks for the overview, Pia. A related blog of interest is Superlinguo’s piece on the right-to-left orientation of many emojis (emoticons), and their Japanese foundations. https://www.superlinguo.com/post/130501329351/emoji-deixis-when-emoji-dont-face-the-way-you

    • Pia says:

      Thanks for sharing, Alex. Interesting read! Speaking of directionality in emojis, I found another blog entry that talks about orientation as one of the evident distinctions between Western and Eastern emoticons. Western happy is 🙂 while Eastern is ^_^. Essentially, Western emoticons require you to tilt your head, making Eastern emoticons easier to read. Here’s the link: http://www.8asians.com/2011/09/27/all-about-asian-emoticons/

      Enjoy (^_~)

      • Pia says:

        Oh! I forgot that word processors automatically turn a sideways smiley into a graphic, upright, yellow smiley, as you see in my previous comment. In emails though, the sideways smiley stays as is and shows more clearly its distinction from the Eastern upright smiley.

        The fact that word processors have this auto-correct or recognition system for Western smileys (but not for Eastern ones) is further proof that the Internet is more visibly Western-shaped. This, however, does not mean that non-Western influence is absent. It’s simply hidden or silenced. Books like “Internationalizing Internet Studies” helps make them more visible and voiced. \(^o^)/

Leave a Reply