Near the end of her book, Amy Liu refers to a false impression some readers may hold, that “speakers of different languages are equal” (p. 140), an idealistic notion that she devotes the rest of Standardizing Diversity to disproving. For in actuality, speakers of different languages can never be equal because language is inherently and inescapably political; in every context, language creates hierarchies of inclusion and exclusion among its speakers. According to Liu, one key way that language is political is when it is officially recognized (or omitted) in a country’s language regime: “the rules that delineate which languages can be used when and where” (p. 4). Her guiding premise is that a language regime shapes the distribution of power within a nation: by privileging a majority linguistic group, allocating power to multiple linguistic groups, or transferring power to a neutral group. Furthermore, she argues that a nation’s regime choice has significant implications for its level of economic growth.
The book addresses two fundamental questions: 1) Why do countries choose to recognize a lingua franca, a neutral third-party language (neutral in the sense that it is no one group’s mother tongue)? 2) What are the social and economic effects of relinquishing the power of the mother tongue(s)? To answer these questions, Liu truly executes a yeoman’s task in terms of the scope, comprehensiveness, and sheer number of variables in her study. She evaluates four types of language regimes (based on the number of recognized languages and the types of language), two mechanisms that mediate the effect of language regime on economic growth (social capital and foreign capital), and three conditions of linguistic heterogeneity (low, moderate, and high) that constrain the government’s choice of language regime in three ways (cultural egoism, communicative efficiency, and collective equality).
The interplay among these dimensions is investigated both quantitatively and qualitatively, with breadth (large-scale statistical tests of 54 Asian countries over a 60-year period) and depth (process-tracing of two countries of similar design). A controlled comparison of Malaysia and Singapore, two countries with similar language regimes at the start of independence that have since diverged from each other, allows Liu to explain why “Singapore attracted three times as much investment as Malaysia” (p. 187) by 2005. It is a notable strength of this book that in the face of these many complex factors and variables, the author is able to demonstrate indirect causality between language regime and economic growth.
Liu unpacks this complex argument in eight chapters, each summarizing and extending the conclusions made in the prior chapter. She carefully considers a number of competing hypotheses and alternate variables before offering her own for empirical testing. Whenever deviating from the established literature, she is thorough in her rationale. Her operationalization and multilayered definitions (for example, she explains the term “politically relevant linguistic heterogeneity” by defining each word in its own paragraph [pp. 84–85]) have the potential to obscure the argument. However, the reader is not confused because she outlines her argument prior to making it and relegates statistical tables to appendices.
Liu theorizes that a government’s choice of language regime depends on the degree of politically relevant linguistic heterogeneity within the country and the balance among three competing tensions: cultural egoism, communicative efficiency, and collective equality. The interplay of these variables explains why a country will choose to grant official status to a lingua franca instead of a mother tongue. This decision will result in diminished translation costs (communicative efficiency) and a sense of equality among linguistic groups by not privileging any one language over another (collective equality). On the downside, this choice will negate groups’ cultural pride by not recognizing and codifying their language (cultural egoism). Therefore, this scenario will only likely occur when the number of influential linguistic groups is high. In fact, the results of the statistical analyses and case studies “offer strong evidence confirming the link between politically relevant linguistic heterogeneity levels and language regime choice” (p. 83).
In the third section of the book, Liu hypothesizes and tests the effects of a power-neutralizing language regime (exclusive recognition of a lingua franca) on economic growth, again using controlled comparisons of Malaysia and Singapore and Asian countries more broadly. She determines that language regimes have no direct effect on economic growth, but instead have an indirect effect through the mediating factors of social capital (measured by trust) and foreign capital (measured by foreign direct investment). She argues that when there is a strong sense of national community, society functions more efficiently; additionally, when there are fewer costs tied to translation, foreign financiers will be more inclined to invest. Liu finds that Singapore has higher social capital and foreign capital levels and greater economic growth compared to Malaysia, and explains this by the fact that Singapore has adopted English as a lingua franca, while Malaysia uses Malay in a de facto power-concentrating regime.
A major contribution the author makes to the field is confronting a dominant perspective within the political economy literature regarding ethnolinguistic heterogeneity. Conventionally, a higher degree of heterogeneity is correlated with negative socioeconomic trends. What is missing, Liu believes, is an account of the language regimes—“the role of institutions” (p. 11)—in shaping this foregone conclusion. Thus, “to condemn a country with high levels of diversity ignores the institutional options available to the government to respond appropriately” (p. 196).
Despite Liu’s welcome critique of the pitfalls of heterogeneity, some of her basic premises would be challenged from an applied-sociolinguistic and linguistic anthropological perspective. Throughout her argument, Liu nevertheless presents homogeneity as the ideal scenario: While language diversity may not be as problematic as once thought, its effects are still in need of mitigation. Missing from this perspective is the understanding that homogeneity itself is not “a natural state” (see Paul Kroskrity, Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Politics, and Identities, 2000, p. 26), but is rather “as much imagined as is community” (Judith Irvine and Susan Gal, Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Politics, and Identities, 2000, p. 76), referencing Benedict Anderson’s (1983) notion of “imagined community.” Language diversity is inherent even in monolingual settings—one variety of a language will necessarily have acquired greater prestige and be interpreted though various language ideologies (James Milroy, “Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization,” 2001). Furthermore, the title Standardizing Diversity implies that diversity needs to be reined in. However, linguistic standardization efforts are frequently prescribed by those in power to control the language habits of many; thus, the very practice of standardization codifies inequality. Lastly, Liu’s concern with the economic impacts of lingua francas overlooks minority language rights (Stephen May, Language Rights and Political Theory, 2003) and the possible loss of minority languages and dialects when they are not afforded meaningful recognition. While she acknowledges that language justice issues are present (p. 17), her priority is economic growth.
Standardizing Diversity is an important discussion of language regimes within an economic context. It will likely leave readers, including linguists, rethinking when the recognition of multiple languages is less desirable for the sake of fairness and economic growth.
