Linguistic Sovereignty Across Minds

 

Linguistic Sovereignty Across Minds: From Humans to Animals

Linguistic sovereignty is often framed as a human right, the right to speak, think, and construct meaning within one’s own language. Yet, through the lens of psycholinguistics and comparative cognition, it emerges as far more than a political or cultural claim. It is a claim over thought itself, a defense of conceptual autonomy. Language is not merely a conduit for expression; it shapes perception, structures attention, and frames experience. To lose one’s language is to lose a lens on reality, a unique cognitive rhythm, and a mode of cultural memory.

In psycholinguistic terms, linguistic sovereignty affirms the mutual constitution of language and cognition: words carve conceptual categories, grammar organizes patterns, and prosody signals nuance. When a language is marginalized or replaced, what is lost is not just vocabulary but a worldview, a distinctive epistemic stance toward reality. Human linguistic imperialism, exemplified by the global dominance of English, restructures reasoning, reshapes knowledge hierarchies, and narrows the space of conceivable worlds (Phillipson, 1992).

Zhanna Reznikova’s research on animal cognition provides a compelling metaphor. Ants, bees, and other species have evolved structured communicative systems, finely tuned to their ecological and cognitive environments. Ants convey route information through tactile “binary” codes; bees communicate direction and distance via symbolic waggle dances; birds maintain vocal traditions across generations. These systems are rule-governed, intentional, and symbolic, reflecting features strikingly parallel to human language.

If linguistic sovereignty protects human conceptual integrity, then these animal communication systems can be seen as exercising a form of cognitive sovereignty. Each species’ signals encode survival strategies, social hierarchies, and environmental knowledge. Disrupting these systems, through habitat destruction, invasive species, or anthropocentric misinterpretation, threatens the cognitive and social integrity of non-human minds. Recognizing this is not anthropomorphism; it is an acknowledgment that communication, whether chemical, gestural, or vocal, functions as a structured medium of meaning.

Psycholinguistically, this perspective reframes language as a continuum of cognition rather than a uniquely human trait. Humans deploy words, grammar, and cultural transmission; ants, bees, and birds use antennal taps, pheromone trails, and movement sequences. Across species, communication reflects a shared cognitive architecture, adapted to ecological and social demands.

Speculatively, linguistic sovereignty might be viewed as a continuum extending from human communities to animal collectives. Just as humans assert epistemic rights over their symbolic systems, non-human species exercise natural sovereignty over theirs. Ethical recognition of this sovereignty involves preserving communicative integrity, respecting the “grammar” of other minds, and fostering environments where these systems can flourish without interference. In this sense, linguistic sovereignty is both cultural resilience and cognitive autonomy, encompassing the entire ecology of communication.

In essence, linguistic sovereignty is an ontological principle. It is the right of minds, human or otherwise, to maintain the integrity of their structured, meaningful communication. Recognizing it challenges anthropocentric assumptions, bridges cognitive and ecological perspectives, and situates language within a larger semiotic and ethical continuum. Spoken language is not the origin of meaning but one branch of a vast evolutionary tree of communicative intelligence, whose roots extend deep into the animal world.

Language did not invent meaning; it merely gave meaning a voice. And across species, many voices, silent, gestural, chemical, have always spoken.

Bibliography

1. Bueno-Guerra, N., & Amici, F. (Eds.). (2018). Field and laboratory methods in animal cognition: a comparative guide. Cambridge University Press.
2. DeGraff, M. (2020). Toward racial justice in linguistics: The case of Creole studies (Response to Charity Hudley et al.). Language, 96(4), e292-e306.
3. DeGraff, M., & Stump, G. S. (2018). Kreyòl, pedagogy, and technology for opening up quality education in Haiti: Changes in teachers' metalinguistic attitudes as first steps in a paradigm shift. Language, 94(2), e127-e157.
4. Frasnelli, E., Iakovlev, I., & Reznikova, Z. (2012). Asymmetry in antennal contacts during trophallaxis in ants. Behavioural brain research, 232(1), 7-12.
5. Griffin, A. S., Tebbich, S., & Bugnyar, T. (2017). Animal cognition in a human-dominated world. Animal Cognition, 20(1), 1-6.
6. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
7. Panteleeva, S., Reznikova, Z., & Vygonyailova, O. (2013). Quantity judgments in the context of risk/reward decision making in striped field mice: first “count,” then hunt. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 53.
8. Reznikova, Z. (2017). Studying animal languages without translation: An insight from ants. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.
9. Ryabko, B., & Reznikova, Z. (2009). The use of ideas of information theory for studying “language” and intelligence in ants. Entropy, 11(4), 836–853.
10. Vonk, J., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2022). Encyclopedia of animal cognition and behavior. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
11. Whorf, B. L. (2012). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.