You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The representation of ethnicity through language is one of the most politically charged and analytically important topics in A-Level English Language, and it is a recurrent presence in Paper 1, Section A (Textual Variations and Representations) as well as in Paper 2. Language does not merely describe ethnic groups — it constructs how they are perceived, positioned, and valued within society. This lesson builds the precise terminology, the named theorists, the analytical method, and the exam technique you need to write about ethnicity representation at the top band.
The single most important principle to internalise is this: ethnicity is not a fixed thing that language neutrally reflects; it is produced in discourse. When you analyse a text under the AQA criteria, you are rewarded (heavily, under AO3) for showing how contextual factors — the producer, the intended audience, the purpose, the mode, and the period — are encoded in specific lexical, grammatical, and discoursal choices that construct a particular version of an ethnic group. A weak answer says "this is racist"; a strong answer shows how a passive construction or a definite-article-plus-group-noun does the ideological work.
A practical and ethical caution that also protects your marks: there is a categorical difference between describing racist language and using it. In your analysis you should quote and dissect derogatory terms with metalinguistic distance (referring to "the racial slur", "the dehumanising metaphor") rather than reproducing them gratuitously. Demonstrating that awareness is itself a marker of sophistication.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Race | A social construct that categorises people based on perceived physical characteristics such as skin colour. Biologically, the concept of distinct human "races" has been discredited by modern genetics |
| Ethnicity | A broader concept encompassing shared cultural heritage, language, history, religion, and traditions |
| Racialised language | Language that constructs, reinforces, or challenges racial categories and hierarchies |
The critical linguist Teun van Dijk (1987, 1993) has demonstrated that language plays a central role in the reproduction of racism. His work on news discourse shows how the media systematically constructs ethnic minorities as problems, threats, or outsiders through specific linguistic strategies.
Key Definition: Racialised language — language that constructs and reinforces racial categories, stereotypes, and hierarchies, whether overtly (through slurs) or covertly (through framing, presupposition, and lexical choice).
One of the most powerful ways language constructs ethnicity is through naming — the terms used to categorise and refer to ethnic groups.
The names applied to ethnic groups have changed significantly over time, reflecting shifting power dynamics and social attitudes:
| Historical Term | Contemporary Term | Why the Change? |
|---|---|---|
| Coloured | Person of colour (POC) | "Coloured" imposed an external label; "person of colour" foregrounds personhood and was chosen by communities themselves |
| Negro | Black / African American | The shift reflects self-determination — the right of communities to choose their own names |
| Oriental | East Asian / Southeast Asian | "Oriental" objectifies and exoticises, treating people as "other" to a Western norm |
| Eskimo | Inuit / Yupik | "Eskimo" is a term from outside these communities; the specific group names are preferred |
| Indian (for Native Americans) | Native American / Indigenous / specific tribal names | Corrects Columbus's geographical error and foregrounds indigenous identity |
The concept of othering — representing a group as fundamentally different from and inferior to an in-group — is central to understanding how language constructs ethnicity. The literary theorist Edward Said (1978), in his book Orientalism, demonstrated how Western discourse constructed the "East" as exotic, irrational, and inferior in contrast to a rational, civilised "West."
Linguistic strategies of othering include:
Key Definition: Othering — the discursive process of constructing a group as fundamentally different from, and typically inferior to, an in-group; language is a primary tool through which othering is achieved (Said, 1978).
Teun van Dijk's central contribution is the model often summarised as the ideological square: in elite discourse (news, politics) the in-group systematically practises positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, while minimising in-group faults and out-group virtues. Holding all four moves in mind at once is what makes the model analytically powerful.
| Strategy | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Negative other-presentation | Minorities disproportionately associated with crime, conflict, and social problems | Foregrounding ethnicity in a crime report ("Asian gang arrested") where it is irrelevant to the offence |
| Positive self-presentation | The majority group represented as tolerant, fair, and welcoming | "Britain has always been a tolerant nation" |
| Differential attribution | Minority actions attributed to ethnicity/culture; majority actions attributed to individuals | "Islamic terrorism" vs simply "terrorism" / "a lone gunman" when the perpetrator is white |
| Over-generalisation | A single incident used to characterise an entire group | One case of fraud invoked to question a whole community's trustworthiness |
| Disclaimer / denial of racism | Racism is denied even as racist discourse is reproduced | The "apparent denial" structure: "I'm not racist, but…" |
Van Dijk also draws attention to topoi — conventionalised argument schemes that naturalise discrimination by dressing it as common sense (e.g. the topos of numbers: "if so many come, we simply cannot cope"). Because a topos presents a conclusion as the obvious consequence of an apparently reasonable premise, it smuggles ideology past the reader's critical guard. Spotting and naming a topos is a high-value move in the exam.
Because most readers process only the headline and lead (van Dijk's point about the macro-structure of news), the choices made there are disproportionately powerful. Consider the same event reframed:
The choice of noun ("migrant" / "refugee" / "asylum seeker" / "illegal immigrant" / "person") and of verb ("storm" / "seek" / "arrive") constructs radically different representations of an identical event. The water metaphors — "flood", "swarm", "wave", "influx" — deserve special attention: they map MIGRATION onto a natural disaster, implying threat, formlessness, and the loss of individual humanity.
Norman Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis gives you the bridge between language and power that ethnicity analysis needs. Two of his concepts are especially portable:
Political correctness (PC) refers to the practice of avoiding language that may marginalise, offend, or reinforce negative stereotypes about particular groups. It has been one of the most fiercely debated topics in language and representation.
Semantic reclamation (also called reappropriation) is the process by which a group that has been targeted by a slur reclaims that word and uses it positively, as a term of solidarity or empowerment.
| Reclaimed Term | Original Use | Reclaimed Use |
|---|---|---|
| Black | Used pejoratively in many contexts | Reclaimed as a positive identity term: "Black is beautiful" (1960s civil rights movement) |
| Queer | Used as a homophobic slur | Reclaimed by LGBTQ+ communities as an umbrella identity term and in academic "queer theory" |
| N-word | The most toxic racial slur in the English language | Reclaimed by some Black speakers/artists as an in-group solidarity term — but its use remains deeply contested |
The key principle of semantic reclamation is that the in-group reclaims the term — its use by out-group members typically remains offensive. This raises important questions about who has the right to use certain words and how context determines meaning.
Key Definition: Semantic reclamation — the process by which a stigmatised group takes a word that has been used against them as a slur and redefines it as a positive or neutral in-group term, thereby challenging the power of the original usage.
Critical Race Linguistics (CRL) is a relatively new field that applies insights from Critical Race Theory to the study of language. Key principles include:
A key insight of Rosa and Flores's raciolinguistic perspective is the idea of the "listening subject": the judgement that a minority speaker sounds "deficient" or "unprofessional" often originates not in any objective property of their speech but in the racialised perception of the listener. The same linguistic features that pass unremarked from a white speaker are heard as errors or as "attitude" from a racialised one — which means the "problem" is relocated from the speaker's mouth to the hearer's ear and the ideologies that shape it. This reframing is analytically powerful in the exam because it lets you argue that a text's negative representation of a variety reveals more about the producer's ideological position than about the variety itself, and it dovetails with Baugh's profiling evidence: discrimination triggered by how someone is heard to sound is racism operating through a deniable, linguistic proxy.
The concept of Standard English is not neutral — it reflects the language patterns of socially dominant groups, a phenomenon sociolinguists call standard language ideology: the (mistaken) belief that one variety is inherently and uniquely "correct" and that all others are corruptions of it. Speakers of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Multicultural London English (MLE), and other ethnically marked varieties are often judged as less intelligent, less educated, or less competent, despite these being fully systematic, rule-governed language varieties with their own consistent phonology and grammar. The crucial move for analysis — and the standing rebuttal to any "broken English" framing in a text — is Labov's demonstration that such varieties are logically complex and rule-governed; what is heard as "error" is simply difference measured against an arbitrarily privileged norm. A text that mocks or "corrects" a racialised variety is therefore not describing a deficiency but enacting standard language ideology, and naming that ideology is a high-value analytical point.
Multicultural London English (MLE) — described by sociolinguists including Paul Kerswill and Jenny Cheshire — is a multiethnolect: a variety that emerged from sustained contact between many language communities in inner-city London and is now spoken by young people across ethnic backgrounds. MLE is analytically valuable precisely because it breaks the simple equation "one ethnicity = one variety". It demonstrates that linguistic features index local, urban, youthful identity at least as much as they index any single heritage, which is a powerful corrective to essentialist media stereotypes that treat an "accent" as proof of "foreignness". When a text mocks MLE features as comic or threatening, it is racialising a variety that does not in fact belong to one race — a contradiction you can productively expose.
Code-switching — moving between languages or varieties within a stretch of discourse — is too often misrepresented as confusion or deficiency. Sociolinguistically it is a sophisticated pragmatic strategy: speakers switch to signal solidarity, mark in-group membership, manage social distance, or flag a change of topic, audience, or footing. A bilingual character who switches into Punjabi for an aside and back into English for the public exchange is constructing identity strategically, not failing to control either language. Texts that frame minority bilingualism as a "problem to be fixed" reveal a monolingual ideology that you can name and critique.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.