E-ISSN 2240-0524 Journal of Educational and Vol 8 No 2 ISSN 2239-978X Social Research May 2018 Research Article © 2017 Shkumbin Munishi (Prishtina). This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Language and Ideology in the Context of Language Policy of Albanian Language Shkumbin Munishi (Prishtina) PhD, Associate Professor University of Prishtina, Kosovo Doi: 10.2478/jesr-2018-0023 Abstract This paper discusses the significantly tight relations which exist between ideology and language. It emphasizes that language and ideology are intertwined since ideology provides the framework within which a linguistic message is constructed and expressed. The influence of ideology is noted in language policy and language planning efforts since it enables actions taken by a certain social group to standardize a particular language. Another realm in which the influence of ideology becomes noticeable is the realm of discourse. Ideology is at best expressed through discourse structures. This type of ideological influence can be noticed in the case of Albanian language standardization process in which ideology served two functions: supporting the language policy and helping to build discourse rhetoric with which language policy was elaborated and promoted to the public within former Socialist Albania. Keywords: language, ideology, standardization, discourse 1. Introduction The definition of ideology as a set of ideas, views and social beliefs on the basis of which people determine their behavior and actions describes the extensiveness of the influence of ideology on the lives of individuals and social communities. Ideology forms a view on the world, reality and other issues of common interest to social communities as well as influences rapprochement within community members and social cohesion. The influence of ideology does not exclude language, and the latter often turns into the main tool for the realization of ideological goals. By influencing communication, linguistic ideology becomes a powerful tool for spreading views and ideas based on a certain ideological framework. Ideological influence on language is one of the most illustrative examples of linguistic determinism. This phenomenon is seen from different angles in linguistic, anthropological and sociolinguistic studies. Ideology is viewed in close liaison with language and linguistic manifestations and these relations are manifested in the form of mutual influence. The most obvious manifestation of ideology in language is expressed in the process of language policy development and in activities in the field of language planning aimed at the creation of standard languages. By the same token, the most concrete impact of ideology appears in the realm of discourse. In this paper, I will discuss the influence of ideology on language from the theoretical point of view. For the purpose of this discussion, ideology is defined on philosophical background, and not in terms of ideological language attitudes. Mainly, I will explore the correlation between language and ideology, and the influence of the latter on first. In this context, I shall examine the ideological influence on the language planning process, the views related to the Marxist concept of the superstructure, the implications of language included in the superstructure, as well as the manifestation of discourse ideology. 125 E-ISSN 2240-0524 Journal of Educational and Vol 8 No 2 ISSN 2239-978X Social Research May 2018 2. The Impact of Ideology in Language Policy and in the Language Planning Efforts The influence of ideology in language is manifested in the form of creating beliefs and convictions regarding the evaluation of language forms and their functional use by language users. From this metapragmatic source emerge the efforts to promote language forms which may be perceived as "good” and, “adequate" by a speech community as well as efforts to change language forms, which are considered "bad” or “inadequate". Ultimately, this starting point, in fact, is the starting point for building language policy and starting the language planning processes. Ideology has exerted a strong influence on the processes of language policy and language planning. Historically, the conscious efforts of European social communities in the field of language planning and language policy for the creation of standard languages are an integral part of efforts to build national identities and create national state entities. The formation of a standard language which emerges as a koine from a multitude of existing dialects was a model first applied in ancient Greece. Subsequently, the same model was spread more or less in the formation process of standard languages in Europe which took wider extent in the 18th and 19th centuries. The mere process of standard language formation was an integral part of the nationalist ideology that had overtaken Europe at that time and aimed at the creation of larger ethnic, political and cultural entities (national states), which has resulted in the creation of wider markets. The emergence of romantic nationalism and the development process of national states in Europe was accompanied almost in parallel with the further development of means of production and technological advancement. This progress was also accompanied by the development of infrastructure, especially during the period of Industrial Revolution, enabling the establishment of more frequent contacts between members of the community belonging to the same ethnicity and speaking the same language. These developments led to the creation of large urban centers and markets which members of ethnic communities who spoke dialects of the same language gravitated more frequently. If the migration and distance between human communities (clans and tribes) in the past had resulted in language divergence and dialectal separation, the development of urban centers necessarily provided opportunities for intensified contacts between speakers of different dialects and dialect convergence. These developments produced national, political and cultural elites simultaneously, elites which had assets and power to pursue socio-cultural and linguistic goals. National elites gave particular importance to the promotion and imposition of a language code, namely standard language, which was considered as a very important tool for the creation of national homogeneity within a given society and for the closeness of people who had populated urban centers. In discussing the linkage of national elites to language, Joshua Fishman points out that "the functional dependence of new protoelites in their vernaculars was a reflection of the need of these elites to communicate, organize and activate the new urban populations that were still illiterate. Less obvious is the fact that these populations did not have a common vernacular (but had a continuum of social, regional or experience-wide vernaculars) or did not have vernaculars that would be ready to be used for modern purposes ideologized and other organizations that took into account new prototypes (Fishman 2003: 155). Clearly, in such established political, economic and cultural circumstances, there was a need to have a common linguistic code which, in addition to communication needs, would also serve the homogenization needs of the population and conception of features over which the nation was consolidated, and the national state was built. For this reason, the elites implanted linguistic ideology within their nationalist ideology, which had an ultimate goal of creating the standard language. The common standard language was considered as one of the main binding features on the basis of which a nation was identified and perceived. But language standardization is not just about interfering with the language structure and simply creating a common language code. Given the ideological background of the linguistic norms, Rexhep Ismajli rightly notes: "language normation is not only a concrete intervention in the structure, in channeling a certain use of the language, but it is in the first instance interference in the social organization of speakers of that language. Thus, normation should not be seen as a confrontational action of certain forces in concrete societies, which sometimes also produce certain linguistic argumentation as ideological production "(Ismajli 1991: 305). 126 E-ISSN 2240-0524 Journal of Educational and Vol 8 No 2 ISSN 2239-978X Social Research May 2018 Among the authors who first emphasized the importance of the common language for the nation-building process is the German philosopher Johann Gottffried Herder (1744-1803), who emphasized the importance of language for the creation and strengthening of national sentiment, in addition to other cultural features and oral literature. Meanwhile, Ludwig von Mises (1919) sees the unification of the language as a result of the influence of several factors, such as the need for trade exchanges, political and military influences, religion, and so on. According to Von Mises, after the formation of the standard language, members of different communities who speak different dialects are motivated to learn and use standard language, since the latter becomes an important tool for their integration within the nation. This type of process of gradual transition from dialect to standard language is seen by Von Mises as part of national assimilation. The author Susan Gal indicates