CONCEPTS OF LANGUAGE, PEACE, AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

To examine the interconnectedness of language, peace, and conflict resolution would call for probing each core concept, in the perspective of each of the three fields and then relationally.

What is language? is the first question posed by scientists called linguists, whose goals may be broad and deep. Thus, a look at the table of contents of a reference work by Crystal and Crystal (2000) shows that linguists’ interests can range from the nature of language-analysis of its structure, diversity, functions, meanings, forms—through its uses and effects (friendly/unfriendly). How do linguists define or characterize language? In that source we find these state­ments: “Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communi­cating ideas, emotions and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols” (Sapir, [1921] 2001) and “Language is a social fact”(Ferdinand de Saussure, [1916] 2000). Definitions of language reflect the theoretical or appli- cational views of definers, thus, cognitively oriented linguists might regard lan­guage as “a cognitive system which is part of a human being’s mental or psychological structure” (Atkinson and others, 1999, p. 1).

If one looks at lists of traits of language, the most recurring defining element is that of systematicity. In my surveys of the literature for distinguishing features of language (Gomes de Matos, 1973, 1994), the view of language as a system occurred more frequently than descriptions such as “Language is social” or “Language varies/changes.” Although lists of traits of language have been enriched with the cognitive dimension, an important feature has been conspic­uously missing, namely, that of humanization.

That such a (de)humanizing trait of language is still invisible in works for a general audience can be seen by looking up current dictionaries. Thus, the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997, p. 737) carries on the tradition of defining language as “communication using a system of arbitrary vocal sounds, written symbols, signs, or gestures in conventional ways with conven­tional meanings” but it does not make the dehumanizing trait explicit, despite offering its readers a useful section on avoiding insensitive and offensive lan­guage, with examples of linguistic sexism and ageism (pp. 1507-1511). If I were to update definitions of language, within the perspective adopted for this chap­ter, I would sum it up in this way: Language is a mental marvel for peaceful meaning making and problem solving. Such formulation reflects the fact that we are cognitive, communicative, creative, and (potentially) peaceful language

users.

Another critical question to be posed in this introductory section is: Have the concepts of peace and conflict been dealt with in the linguistics literature? The answer is in the affirmative, but minimally so, with possible increasing atten­tion as Peace Linguistics gains momentum. For more on that, see page 162. Interestingly, the expression Linguistics of Conflict appears in a sociolinguistics book (Downes, 1998) and “Discourse and Conflict” is the title of a chapter in a comprehensive handbook (Schiffrin, Tannen, and Hamilton, 2001).

Let’s look at the third concept in the chapter’s title: conflict resolution. How would peace researchers define it? A renowned peace educator says, “Conflict is a part of all our lives: yet few of us have the skills to transform conflict from a painful destructive process to one of significant learning and constructive change” (Reardon, 2001, p. 103). She cogently argues that “conflict resolution is one function of non-violence” (p. 106).

Mention of violence is a good reminder of the major goal of this chapter: helping to integrate language, peace, and conflict resolution as an approach to understanding, preventing, monitoring, overcoming, and, if possible, eliminat­ing forms of communicative violence in our personal lives, our communities, and the world.

To illustrate how much language users activate metaphors based on war, here is a list of verbs used by Ellison (2002): attack, be vulnerable, camouflage, counterattack, deface, disarm, entrap, fight, fight back, retaliate, sabotage, and supply with ammunition. Given this chapter’s focus on the interplay of lan­guage, peace, and conflict resolution, a strategy for enhancing language users’ awareness of the pervasiveness of war-based metaphors is what I call the use of contrastive metaphors. It consists of presenting sets of three verbs, displayed as a continuum from war-based to peace-based. Thus: X attacked/strongly criticized/questioned Y’s views.

Such practice of using contrastive metaphors in continuums of human attitudes, emotions, and feelings could have its place in the educational sun all over the world. After having characterized language, here is a brief definition of the science that is exclusively focused on language, both theoretically and applicationally: linguistics.

Linguistics is the scientific study of language, that is, of the universal human faculty of communication and expression, as realized through specific systems called languages. Applied linguistics (AL) is an interdisciplinary field that addresses an increasing variety of language-based problems in areas such as language learning and teaching, literacy, language contact, language policy and planning, language pathology, and language use. For details, see Grabe (2002). Given the diversity of research approaches in AL (Duff, 2002) and the increasing importance of peace and conflict in the social and political sciences, it is natural to expect a growing interest, among applied linguists, in peaceful and conflic- tive aspects of language use. I first started to explore the language and peace connection in the early 1990s, through workshops and seminars on construc­tive communication in Portuguese, the outcome of which was a book advocat­ing a pedagogy of positiveness (Gomes de Matos, 1996). The core concept underlying that approach—communicative peace—had been formally presented in a sociolinguistics publication three years earlier (Gomes de Matos, 1993). It has been revisited recently in a brief discussion for a new journal in the field of peace education (Gomes de Matos, 2005a). Peace linguistics is an emerging approach with a focus on peaceful/nonviolent uses of languages and an emphasis on “attitudes which respect the dignity of individual language users and communities” (Crystal, 1999, p. 255). Its complementary side, applied peace lin­guistics (APL) could be defined as an interdisciplinary approach aimed at help­ing educational systems create conditions for the preparation of human beings as peaceful language users. My commitment to APL reflects the conviction that every citizen should have the right to learn to communicate peacefully for the good of humankind (Gomes de Matos, 2005b, p. 211).