John Myhill (1999) added how languages identify groups. He raised the issue as arguing with two ideologies, namely language-and identity and language-and-territory. He explained that the ideology based on identity is more an emotional connection with language, while an ideology based on territory means that in each territory, only one particular language “should be the one used in public circumstances and intergroup communication”. 

Social psychologists explained that the major motivation for shaping identity is that people strive for positive self-esteem and this esteem is established through comparisons with others and their groups. Therefore, our research is interesting in the way that we interviewed students from two learning environment, namely Islamic school and local school. Social psychologists talked about the need for both distinctiveness of the self and inclusion of the self into larger groups (Hogg and Abrams, 1993). These needs are the source of attitudes toward others and of ideologies that may be used to mobilize one’s group in opposition to the other. At two different settings, the students would shape their identities differently as they are in two unlike habitus, where they may gauge the symbolic power differently in their linguistic marketplace. When we refer to ethno-linguistic vitality, which is the mental image that a group has of itself, it is likely that Pakistani students who are the minority in a local school would see themselves more different from their classmates than those in an Islamic school would.