Bourdieu argues that language is never a neutral instrument of communication, because every linguistic exchange occurs within a market structured by unequal power. Against Saussurean linguistics, which treats language as a shared code, Bourdieu insists that speech acts are also relations of symbolic power, shaped by the speaker’s linguistic habitus and by the sanctions of the linguistic market . The “legitimate language” is not naturally superior; it becomes dominant through the state, schools, grammarians and official institutions, which impose one form of speech as correct, refined and authoritative. This process converts linguistic competence into linguistic capital, enabling privileged speakers to gain distinction while marking popular, regional or working-class speech as vulgar, incorrect or deficient. A clear case study is the French state’s suppression of dialects and patois: linguistic unification was not simply a technical matter of communication, but a political struggle to reshape mental structures and secure recognition for a new language of authority . Schools then reinforced this hierarchy by rewarding mastery of the official language and devaluing dominated modes of expression. Thus, symbolic domination works because speakers internalise the market’s judgments, often correcting themselves before legitimate speakers and experiencing silence, shame or insecurity. Ultimately, Bourdieu shows that language does not merely express social inequality; it actively reproduces it by transforming arbitrary linguistic standards into recognised markers of intelligence, authority and social worth.