The analysis of the discursive habiti of the ALA discourse in the previous chapters shows that this discourse, as a vibrant representative of the genre of linguistics sociopolitical in the Arabic-speaking world, partakes in two long-lasting struggles of the Arabs in modern times: a struggle with a dual definition of the national self and a struggle with a chequered revival and modernisation in a peripheralised position in the modern world-system. The discourse does so through the two processes of language symbolism: first, indexication that naturalises and ‘factualises’ the concurrence of the linguistic and the socio-political; and second, proxification that uses language as a proxy to address and alleviate sociopolitical concerns. The linguistic ideal – a strong national standard of Arabic, devoid of diglossia and foreignness and used in all domains of public communication – and the sociopolitical ideal – an empowered, unified Arab nation able to catch up with modernity and stand on a par with the West in the modern world-system – are believed to concur with each other. Deviation from the former ideal is treated as language ‘problems’, and deviation from the latter is seen as sociopolitical ‘predicaments’. The ‘problems’ are seen as indexes to the ‘predicaments’. Arabic LPLP, accordingly, aims not only to solve the ‘problems’ but also, in doing so, to tackle the ‘predicaments’. In other words, language is not the only and ultimate object of LPLP as is commonly understood. The sociopolitical is. Language accordingly serves as a proxy for extra-linguistic causes.

The entanglement among language, ideology and sociopolitical concerns in the ALA discourse illustrates how language symbolism acts as an important and marked mechanism of the language-ideology interface in the Arabic-speaking world. In this concluding chapter, I give a systematic description of this mechanism in and beyond the Arabic setting. I first compare it with another, communication-based language-ideology mechanism to highlight some distinctive features of language symbolism. Next, I discuss the effects of language symbolism on the sociopolitical realm as well as the consequences of de-symbolisation. Finally, I bring up the notion of dual anxiety as a driving force behind language symbolism in ‘Oriental’ societies, with a comparison between the script Romanisation movements in the Arabic-speaking world and in China to demonstrate. I hope my description will be a step forward in understanding and theorising ‘the ideologisation of language via language symbolism’ – a widespread phenomenon in our sociolinguistic life.