Language and Peace 77

Language and Peace *

Fr. B. Alip

Abstract
Aitchison (1978) argues that language must have developed out
of the human need to have better cooperation. Language is, therefore,
a useful means of peace and accord. Other than for its communicative
functions, language is used for phatic communion and aesthetic
purposes. In addition, it has also acquired an indexical function:
showing the nature of the relationship between the speaker and other
speech act elements. A language might also function as an in-group or
out-group language, which indicates the speaker’s intention to include
or exclude the interlocutor in his or her group. Language can be an
agent of peace when the speech participants use it with good intention
and weigh their language carefully. Language abuse, which stimulates
unnecessary conflict, is abundant in daily practice, from daily
conversations to newspaper reports and political speeches. Such
practices must be avoided if language is to be an agent of peace.

Keywords: language function, language and politics, language and

peace

Language for Peace?

It is typical that Moslems greet each other by extending peace. The

greeting Assalamuallaikum basically means Peace be with you. Christians also
have the same expression: exactly the same greeting is extended to the
congregation by a Christian priest during their religious services. Hindus have a
similar practice. Less religious greetings are also abundant among modern
people, where basically one hopes that the interlocutor will be filled with
peace. In Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia, for example, every greeting
starts with the word selamat, which is etymologically related to the originally
Arabic word salam (peace, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, 1988: 771). It is
obvious that language is a potential means of peace. Through language, people
promote peace between themselves.
In life, however, language also serves the opposite: it might trigger
conflicts and hostilities or even wars. A nation calls other nations members of
The Axis of Evil, while the latter reciprocally name the former The Great
Satan. A certain leader used to be called the Mother of All Evil. Politics labels

* The embryo of this article was presented in The 2nd International Seminar on English
Language Studies at Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, May 5 – 6, 2003 but has
never been published)

Vol. 10 No. 2 – October 2006

78 Fr. B. Alip

certain governments “dictatorships” or “absolute monarchies”, all of which are

never accepted by the targeted parties. In daily life, verbal abuse is basically
use of language typically meant for hurting and offending others, though some
forms of verbal abuse may be colloquialisms. Examples of abusive language can
be observed in films as well as in television series. (Their appearance on
television has made those words proliferate among younger users of language,
who are often unaware of the social consequences of their use.)
Peace can normally be achieved if people are happy with what they
have and what others have. In other words, peace is the result of social (as
well as personal) harmony, where social relationships are found agreeable by
the community members. Conflicts, quarrels, and hostilities are likely to arise
when people feel that they do not possess what they feel they should have, or
that they bear what they feel they should not have to bear. We can easily see
conflict in social, labor, and political disputes. Consequently, language can be
a means of peace when it is used to convey one’s as well as others’ acceptance
of rights and obligations. On the other hand, it might be a trigger of conflicts
and hostilities if it is used to incite unhappy feelings about one’s or others’
deprivation of rights. Thus, Harriet B. Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin obviously
aroused bitter feelings among the then slave-states of the Southern US, though
it was welcomed by the citizens of Northern US states and has been acclaimed
as a literary work which bluntly depicts the cruel reality of slavery. Similarly,
in the Indonesian context, Max Havelaar’s Multatuli was one of the factors
which prompted the then colonial power to adopt an ethical policy, where
they paid more attention to the welfare of the natives (and as such would
promote more peace in the then Netherlands India). Certain politicians have
also been praised for their eloquence in using language and thus for avoiding
the resort to violent tools to achieving their political ambitions. On the other
hand, politicians with fiery hate-speeches are despised because what they say
might incite uncontrolled violence among their followers or opponents.
In modern life, language has been a means for solving conflict before it
leads to war. Gulf War II in the Middle East was condemned as a defeat of
humanity by John Paul II because many believe that other means of solution,
such as more intensive and comprehensive negotiations, should have been
found. Locally, the conflict in Aceh has now been stopped from becoming
larger scale warfare because the conflicting parties finally agreed to sit round
a table and talk. Thus, again, language is a potential tool for promoting peace.

Communicative, Phatic, Emotive and Indexical Functions of

Language

Though many theories of language origin have remained unconvincing

and unproven, Aitchison (1978) argues that language must have initially
developed out of the human need to have better cooperation. With better
cooperation, people will have more things to agree with and are at peace with
one another. Language is thus by nature a useful means of peace and accord.
The biblical story about the Tower of Babel is also an illustration of how a
common language serves as a means to unify people while different languages
can disrupt their unity. When people do not speak the same language, as is

Vol. 10 No. 2 – October 2006

 Language and Peace 79

described in the Babel story, confusion arises. As a result, disagreements,

frustrations and quarrels will follow.
In terms of its communicative functions, language has been used as a
means to convey information, make enquiries and get something done.
Accordingly, sentence forms are syntactically categorized as declarative,
interrogative, and imperative. These business-like and transactional
interpersonal functions (Widdowson, 1997: 14) also include the use of language
for social relations. The social function of language takes place in phatic
communion (Aitchison, 1972: 29), where language is used to promote good
relationships between the speech participants when such ‘grooming talking’
(Aitchison, 2003: 23) takes place. Language also functions more personally to
express one’s emotive feeling, as observed when one is cursing or producing
various types of exclamatory sentences. A more peaceful function of language
has also appeared: to entertain. The entertainment function of language can
be observed in nursery rhymes, songs, puns and jokes. Though repulsive for
some, literature might have first served a means of entertainment before it
began serving what Aitchison (2003: 23) calls ‘aesthetic reasons’. In sum, all
these functions are also often categorized by Kinneavy as expression,
information, exploration, persuasion and entertainment (Michel, 1967 cited in
Giri Kartono 1984).
In addition to its interpersonal, emotive and aesthetic functions,
language has also assumed an indexical function. It serves to indicate the
speaker’s or the interlocutor’s status in their mutual relationship. Somebody
speaking in the informal style might indicate the intention of being in
solidarity with her/his listeners. In a Javanese speech community, a person
speaking Javanese Ngoko (the Low variety of Javanese) to a peer might
indicate his being in solidarity. However, it might also be meant to indicate
that this person is of a higher status and is exerting power over the
interlocutor. A fellow-student of this present writer while studying in East Java
in 1980’s was angry with a shop-attendant because she addressed her in Ngoko.
She argued that by addressing her in Ngoko this shop-attendant did not show
respect to her, the wife of a former president of a very prestigious academic
institution. For this lady, Ngoko was an indicator of no respect, while in fact
for the shop-attendant Ngoko was as an indicator of being friendly and
hospitable to a shop customer (particularly in East Java).
In this context, a particular language might serve as an in-group
language or an out-group language (Wolfowitz, 1991). The former means that
the language is used when the speaker wants to show that he or she belongs to
the interlocutor’s group. On the hand, the latter means that its use indicates
that the speaker assumes that the interlocutor does not belong to his or her
group. Language choice, therefore, indicates one’s attitude to the
interlocutor. The choice of an in-group language should lead to a more
peaceful relationship, while the choice of the latter is more open to invite
interpersonal tension. A Javanese lecturer or teacher is likely to speak Bahasa
Indonesia, the national and thus official language in the republic, to a student
because it is the unmarked language for teacher-student communication.
However, a Javanese student might address the same lecturer in Javanese
Kromo (the High variety of Javanese) for two possible reasons: trying to show
respect or trying to show comradery. The student is taking the advantage of

Vol. 10 No. 2 – October 2006

80 Fr. B. Alip

sharing the lecturer’s ethnicity. He or she hopes that this marked language
choice marks his or her intention to consider the lecturer as a member of his or
her own ethnic group and thus a comrade. Similar practices of using language
as an in-group language can be easily observed among people of the same
background (ethnicity, nationality, or place of origin), as shown in various
socio-linguistic studies (See Rubin, 1968 and Heye,1979).
An interesting incident was presented by Kartini (1964) in one of her
letters. She mentioned that the Dutch officers always addressed her in Bazaar
Malay, which she did not welcome because she considered it an improper
language, which indicates lack of education. She did not mind speaking Malay
but not Bazaar Malay, the variety spoken on the street. She claimed that she
spoke High Malay, the variety taught at school and thus the indicator of being
educated. What is interesting was that the Dutch officers though addressing
Kartini in Bazaar Malay expected to be addressed in Javanese Kromo because
this language variety explicitly indicates that the speaker shows respect to the
interlocutor.
For convenience sake, many Javanese youngsters prefer speaking Bahasa
Indonesia to fellow Javanese because Bahasa Indonesia is free from its
indexical function of power and respect. By adopting Bahasa Indonesia, a
Javanese is freed from having to show respect or power. In other words,
Bahasa Indonesia is a neutral language. However, when the relationship is
more stable and more intimate, Javanese is used because it is more
appropriate as an in-group language. If a Javanese wants to indicate that the
interlocutor does not belong to his group (albeit the same ethnicity), Bahasa
Indonesia might be retained.

Language as a Means of National Harmony

Realizing the intricate relationship between language and interpersonal

relationships, different nations have adopted different policies in choosing
their national or official language (Bell, 1976). It is because a national
language or an official language is not only a means of communication, but it is
related to national identity. One’s acceptance of a language to be the national
one means identifying oneself with the language. This choice does not pose
any problem if the person happens to be a native speaker of the language. If
the person is of a different language group, he or she must adopt another
language and perhaps abandons, or neglects, the native one. It is
understandable that different language groups compete with one another to
make their native language the national one. Many states have made a logical
decision and accepted one language as the national one. However, many have
ended up with bloody violence just because of a language issue, as has taken
place in India and Malaysia (see below). Indonesia is more fortunate in the
issue of the national language, because it was already solved long before her
independence from the Dutch and Japanese colonial powers.
With regards to the above, some nations can easily adopt the major (or
perhaps the only) native language of the land, such as what happens in
endoglossic states, such as the UK and other Old World countries. In each of
these countries, there is normally a major language which can be conveniently

Vol. 10 No. 2 – October 2006

 Language and Peace 81

elevated into the national language: English in the UK, Dutch in the
Netherlands, Italian in Italy, etc. Such a situation is not confined to the Old
World as many other nations are quite homogenous in that they have only
single majority languages. To mention some, countries like Korea, Japan, and
certain states in the American continent, have few problems with the issue of
national language. However, it should be noted that language issues are not
the monopoly of newly independent nations. Spain has problems with
Catalonian (not to mention Basque), the UK with Welsh, Canada with French.
Many other nations, mostly newly independent ones, have to intricately
balance their language policy between competing native languages. As a
result, a foreign (and thus neutral) language has often been chosen as the
official language of the country, as has happened in exoglossic states such as
Francophone or Anglophone Africa.. Thus, the Congos, Niger, Mali and
Cameroon take French, while Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe end
up with English. Other countries might adopt more than one language in order
to accommodate various group interests. In Belgium both Flemish and Walloon
are twin official languages. Switzerland has even more: German, French,
Italian, and Romansh. In South East Asia, Singapore has adopted Mandarin,
Malay, Tamil and English. As seen here, one of the languages might be a
foreign language, which normally is the language of the former colonial power.
Interestingly, the youngest nation in the world, Timor Lorosae, has adopted
the majority local language, Tetun, along with Portuguese and English as the
official languages. As noticed here, the decision is often more political than
practical. English is barely spoken by the locals though it is an international
language as well as the language of its recent benefactor, Australia.
Portuguese is spoken only by a small percentage of the population, the
educated elite, while the younger generation usually speak Bahasa Indonesia.
It must have been out of a strong national sentiment that Bahasa Indonesia has
been abandoned. Perhaps, it is also an indication that the new country wants
to disengage from their previous experience under Indonesian rule, which they
regard as cruel and genocidal. It should also be noted that, being a vernacular,
Tetun is not well prepared to function as a modern language. As a result,
schools still temporarily use Bahasa Indonesia as the medium of instruction,
despite their strong resentment towards their former Indonesian rulers.
The different policies above have been developed to maintain
harmonious (thus peaceful) relationship among different language groups. The
choice of one or several languages as the official or national language should
be perceived as fair by the population. No group should feel being
discriminated against or put in a disadvantaged position. If the adopted
language is that of an absolute majority, the minor group will normally accept
it. Thus, the Frisian speakers in the Netherlands can accept Dutch. However,
this is not always true: Tamil speakers in Srilanka do not want to accept
Singhalese, the language of the majority. There might be more than a
language sentiment here because there is a separatist movement to create an
independent nation. The fact that Tamil has a bigger number of native
speakers (as it is also spoken in the neighbouring Tamil Nadu, part of India)
might have fueled this language sentiment even more strongly.
A happy fact in Indonesia perhaps deserves a little note. In 1928
Javanese was spoken by the majority of the Indonesian population, albeit not

Vol. 10 No. 2 – October 2006

82 Fr. B. Alip

an absolute majority. The willingness of Javanese speakers to accept Bahasa

Indonesia, then spoken by much fewer speakers, must have contributed to
linguistic accord in Indonesia. This wise choice must have lessened more
potential problems in Indonesia because the ethnic majorities bear equal
disadvantages by not being native speakers of the national language. Thus, it
has reduced the issue of Javanese domination in the Indonesian politics.
Though well-thought policies have been taken to prevent language
conflicts, modern history has observed language rivalries. The conflict between
Hindi supporters and opponents in India has cost more than 60 human lives
(Sridhar, 1987). Similarly, Malaysia experienced bloody hostilities between
Malay and Chinese populations when Bahasa Malayu was adopted as the sole
official language (The Straits Time Weekly Overseas Edition, September 1984).
Obviously, language is not only a means of peace but can be a potential trigger
of violence which often results in the death of innocent victims. Due to its
indexical function, a language might also be oppressed by the ruling regime. It
was observed not only in underdeveloped countries, but also in the USA during
World War II, where German and Japanese were not welcomed by the
American public (Heath, 1981, but see also Baron, 1980).

Language for Peace

As seen above, though language was originally developed to promote

better cooperation among human beings, in its development language can also
be used to disadvantage or even oppress others. It is up to human wisdom to
bring language back to its original function: a means of better cooperation. In
this respect, we are reminded by Searle’s (1975) and Austin’s (1962) theories
on speech acts and Grice’s cooperative principles (1975).
Searle notes that there are three acts in a speech: utterance acts,
prepositional acts, and illocutionary, while Austin divides them into
locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. In communication, participants
should pay attention not only to what is explicitly spoken (locutionary) but also
the (illocutionary or unspoken) intention of the utterance. In addition,
participants should also consider the result or the effect of the utterance or its
perlocutionary aspect.
Following the above, any speaker must weigh the words they will utter
in order to avoid offending others. The choice of the appropriate variety,
style, vocabulary and prosodic elements of speech is very much the key to the
success of communication. These locutionary elements are directly observable
for the addressee(s) and hearer(s). Many speech acts fail because of the wrong
choice of the above, as seen in the case of a shop-attendant’s wrong choice of
speech variety cited previously. Certain lexical items are also found offensive
for some people not only because of their denotation but also, more often,
because of their connotation. Similarly, statements are often perceived as
commands, which invite rejections from the addressee(s). On the other hand,
skillful speakers modify sentence prosodic elements, such as intonation and
stress, to make their utterances sound more friendly. Thus, pronominal
questions, whose unmarked intonation is falling, performed with a rising
intonation.

Vol. 10 No. 2 – October 2006

 Language and Peace 83

Communication is an act of cooperation between the speaker and the

interlocutor. Therefore, its success also depends on how the interlocutor
reacts to the speaker’s utterance. An interlocutor should be sensitive to the
speaker’s illocutionary acts, such as the purpose or the mood of the speaker’s
sentence. Sentences which overtly sound harsh are often meant as jokes and
thus signs of intimacy. However, when perceived literally, detached from its
linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts, they might sound offensive. Such has
often been a frequent reason for communication failure among friends: jokes
are perceived as offences, while some requests or friendly remarks are
perceived as straightforward blunt commands, which some speakers feel they
do not deserve. Since illocutionary acts are non verbal, speech participants
should rely on the context, both linguistic and extra-linguistic. Thus, one
should identify the “felicity conditions – circumstances under which it would
be appropriate to interpret something as a particular type of speech act”
(Aitchison, 2003: 107).
A speaker, however, as the initiator of communication, bears the
greater responsibility for the communication success. He or she should
consider the effect of his or her words. This perlocutionary aspect is under the
speaker’s control when it covers only the speaker’s intended result of the
utterance. However, the actual result is the result of both sides’ understanding
of what is said. What a speaker should carefully weigh before performing an
utterance is its effect on the interlocutor, which might be different from what
is expected. An effective speaker, therefore, will assess the possible
consequences of his or her utterance and thus will avoid insensitive sentences.
The principle of ‘think twice before you speak’ is a wise one.
Similarly, Grice (1975) presents a principle that must be obeyed when
one conducts a conversation, which he labels as the cooperative principle. This
principle is divided into the following maxims: maxim of quantity, maxim of
quality, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner. What one says must be
just enough (not too little, not too much), truthful, relevant, and effective.
When the maxims are observed, one will be efficient in communication, which
frees interlocutors from boring moments. People are irritated when an item is
said again and again and they feel they are being treated like children if a
speaker speaks lengthily over a subject too familiar for them. Irrelevant
utterances also lead interlocutors to confusion as they do not match with the
topic being discussed. The maxim of quality is the one most frequently
violated because people often hide the truth and, instead, produce lies or half-
truths. Many criminal acts are started and covered up by the violation of the
maxim of quality.
By realizing the nature of a particular speech act and obeying the
cooperative principle, one might avoid misunderstanding and can achieve his
or her goal of communication. In this way, language can positively contribute
to the maintenance of interpersonal or communal peace.

Playing Dangerously with Language

Beyond the above theoretical discussions, we often observe how people

make unwise use of language. Under the disguise of democracy and freedom of

Vol. 10 No. 2 – October 2006

84 Fr. B. Alip

speech, people talk irresponsibly. Their words are manipulated to

disadvantage or even destroy others. Belonging to this category are slogans
and banners which are displayed in various politically-motivated rallies. Such
slogans include words of hate by labeling targeted parties as wicked and
therefore they deserve to be destroyed. It is no wonder that political rallies
often end up with riots and physical clashes between groups which are
otherwise friendly with one another.
Politics is not the only domain where language is manipulated. Leisure
activities such as sports are often described with unfriendly words. In an
Indonesian daily newspaper, a particular soccer match between an African
team and a European one is reported as an occasion to “shame its former
oppressor” (mempermalukan bekas penjajahnya) (Kompas, May 5, 2006, p. 32)
simply because the former defeated the latter. Thus, the good spirit of sport is
buried in over-jealous nationalism. In another column, it is reported how a
soccer team captain succeeded in leading his team to the defeat of their two
“ever-lasting enemies” (musuh bebuyutan) (p.31). A soccer player does not
play in a match; instead, he is reported as “fighting” (bertarung). A goal
unintentionally made into a team’s own goal is considered a “suicidal goal”
(gol bunuh- diri) (p.30). A suicidal act is done on purpose, which does not
happen in fair play. Therefore, the “suicidal goal” is misleading and it is better
named an own goal, which is the term used in English. We might wonder what
spirit has inspired the choice of those hateful words. It is to nobody’s surprise
that soccer matches often end up in bloody fights between the playing teams
as well as between their supporting fans. Soccer is not only the sport reported
with hateful words. Basketball is not free from that. Thus, the same
newspaper reported that a local team has been successful in “grounding the
struggle” (mengandaskan perlawanan) of another (Kompas, May 5, 2006, p.
29).
In fact, the newspaper cited as the source above is noted for its peace
journalism. Every word is therefore weighed carefully in order to maintain
balanced reporting as well as to avoid negative reactions from readers. We can
imagine how such reporting is conducted by other newspapers which often
resort to sensational reporting.
Though past practices of banning newspapers just because their political
news were felt not to be in line with the government’s view are deplorable, it
is recommended that every party should avoid dangerous games with words.
Such words fail to represent the real situation and have often misled others
leading to unwanted reactions. In sum, language must not be abused in the
promotion of hatred and offence.

Final Remarks

As a communication device, human language is neutral in terms of its

effects. Manipulated by ill will, it can be very dangerous to social peace and
harmony. It may be used to influence angry mobs to destroy properties and
even take lives. Wars are never waged silently but usually begin with wars of
words. On the other hand, language is also crucial in promoting peace. When
people use language with good purposes in mind, it will develop better

Vol. 10 No. 2 – October 2006

 Language and Peace 85

understanding, cooperation, solidarity, and friendship between people. For

human beings, though language is a tool, it is never really neutral. Its
acquisition requires and demands a lot of resources. Native speakers of a
particular language have spent their whole childhood to acquire it. Non-native
speakers have spent countless hours to master it, whose success cannot be
guaranteed. Therefore, it is only wise that this asset is used for positive
purposes.

References
Aitchison, Jean. Linguistics (Second Edition). New York: David McKay and Co.
Inc., 1978.
Aitchison, Jean. Linguistics (Sixth Edition). London: Hodder Headline, 2003.
Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1962.
Baron, Dennis. The English-only Question: an Official Language for the
Americans? New Haven, Mass.: Yale University Press, 1980.
Bell, Roger. Sociolinguistics: Goals, Approaches and Problems. London: B.T.
Batsfor Ltd., 1976.
Giri Kartono. “Kedudukan dan fungsi bahasa asing di Indonesia” in Politik
Bahasa Nasional 2. edited by Amran Halim. Jakarta: P.N. Balai Pustaka,
1984, pp. 121-130.
Grice, H. P. “Logic and conversation” in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech
Acts. edited by P. Cole and J.L. Morgan. New York: Seminar Press, 1975,
pp. 41-58.
Heath, Shirley Brice. “English in our language heritage” in Language in the
USA. edited by C. A. Ferguson and S.B. Heath . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1981, pp. 6-20.
Heye, Jűrgen. “Bilingualism and language maintenance in two communities in
Santa Catarina, Brazil” in Language and Society. edited by William C.
McCormack and Stephen A. Wurm. New York: Mouton Publishers, 1979,
pp. 401-422.
Kartini, Raden Ajeng. Letters of a Javanese Princess (transl. by Agnes Louise
Symmers). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1964.
Rubin, Joan. “Bilingual use in Paraguay” in Readings in the Sociology of
Language. edited by Joshua A. Fishman. The Hague: Mouton & Co. N.V.
Publushers, 1968, pp. 512-523.
Searle, J. R. “Indirect speech acts” in Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech
Acts. edited by P. Cole and J.L. Morgan. New York: Seminar Press, 1975,
pp. 59-82.
Sridhar, S.N. “Language variation, attitudes, and rivalry: the spread of Hindi
in India” in Language spread and language policy: issues, implications
and case Studies. edited by P. H. Lowenberg. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, 1987, pp. 300-309.
Widdowson, H.G. Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Wolfowitz. Clare. Language Style and Social Space: Stylistic Choice in
Suriname Javanese. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991.

Vol. 10 No. 2 – October 2006