LANGUAGE OBJECTIVITY: MYTH OR IDEOLOGICAL TOOL

Abstract

The ideal of "objectivity" in linguistic communication has long been thought of as the hallmark of effective communication, scholarly research, and translational practices. Nevertheless, recent linguistic theories and sociocultural studies increasingly suggest that language operates not only as a neutral vehicle of meaning but also as a battlefield for ideology, power play, and identification. In this paper, we critically review the ideal of linguistic objectivity, arguing that it is more an ideological construction than an empirical fact employed to legitimize mainstream discourse while suppressing alternative perspectives. Employing critical discourse analysis, studies on translation, and sociolinguistic theories, the investigation examines the ways in which claims of neutrality are deployed in political discourse, media, translational practices, and situations involving machine learning. Empirical studies on cases illustrate how ostensibly objective language expresses cultural, gender-oriented, and political biases, identifiable in the organization of news headlines, the otherwise "neutral" outcomes produced through machine translational systems, or neglected subjectivity on the part of translators. The studies conclude that the pursuit of objectivity often obviates the continuation of normative hierarchies rather than uprooting them. In fine, the paper contends that language objectivity is a fallacy sustained by ideological agendas and advocate instead the moving toward a perspective prioritizing transparency, reflexivity, and inclusion in human and machine-managed communication.