Focus on Language and Ethnicity: Essays in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman (Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the occasion of his 65th birthday)

LANGUAGE AND ETHNICITY

Professor Joshua A. Fishman Distinguished University Research Professor Emeritus Yeshiva University, New York

LANGUAGE AND ETHNICITY FOCUSSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF JOSHUA A. FISHMAN ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 65TH BIRTHDAY Volume II

Edited by

JAMES R. DOW Iowa State University

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA 1QQ1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Language and ethnicity / edited by James R. Dow. p. cm. -- (Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the occasion of his 65th birthday ; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Anthropological linguistics. L Dow, James R. II, Fishman, Joshua A. III. Series. P35.L268 1991 306.4'4'089 -- dc20 91-699 ISBN 90 272 2081 6 (Eur.) /1-55619-117-0 (US) (alk. paper) CIP © Copyright 1991 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

Preface

In the academic world we often pause to honor and celebrate a colleague's birthday or passage into retirement with a Festschrift. On rare occasions we attempt to focus such volumes on the topic which the celebrant pioneered and devoted his life and work to. Just such an occasion, Joshua A. Fishman's sixty fifth birthday, has caused us to produce not only a Festschrift, but also this three volume Focusschrift. It was indeed necessary to divide the effort, first because Professor Fishman has touched and influenced so many people around the world, that only through multiple volumes could we even begin to include all those who wanted to participate. Secondly, however, and far more importantly, it was necessary because Joshua Fishman has in fact pioneered, worked in and on, and he has contributed an enormous body of literature to each of the areas in this trilogy, so that it seemed only appropriate to call for focused studies on each of the topics he devoted his academic and personal life to. This three volume set thus focuses on Bilingual Education edited by Ofelia García, Language and Ethnicity edited by James R. Dow, and Language Planning edited by David Marshall. Each volume contains recent studies by well-known scholars from around the world, and each one attempts to document at this point in time (1990) where we are in the study of these topics. With these volumes we want to indicate to the contemporary world of linguistics, sociolinguistics, and sociology just how great an impact Joshua Fishman has had on all of us. For future generations we want to leave a record of our respect for this man, by furthering areas of academic research which he helped found, promote, and shape. Here then are three collections on topics which Fishman researched and wrote about throughout his entire academic career. All of us, editors and authors alike, hope that our work will contribute still more to our understanding of these complex but very gratifying subjects, and that they will thus be challenging and stimulating to the readers. Ames, IA New York, NY Grand Forks, ND July 1991

Table of Contents

Preface

v

Introduction

1

Marion Lois Huffines: Pennsylvania German: "Do they love it in their hearts?"

9

Werner Enninger: Linguistic Markers of Anabaptist Ethnicity through Four Centuries

23

KathrynA. Woolard: Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity: Changes in Barcelona, 1980-1987

61

Joanna Courteau: Language and Ethnicity: The Case of Rosalía de Castro

83

Carol Myers-Scotton: Making Ethnicity Salient in Codeswitching

95

Andrew Gonzalez, FSC: Cebuano and Tagalog: Ethnic Rivalry Redivivus

111

David E. Lopez: The Emergence of Language Minorities in the United States

131

Calvin Veltman: Theory and Method in the Study of Language Shift

145

Alan S. Kaye: A So-Called Dialect of English

169

Rakhmiel Peltz: Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children of Jewish Immigrants Return to Their First Language

183

Rolf Kjolseth: W(h)ither Ethnic Languages and Bilingual Education in the US? Crisis & the Struggle between Hegemony & Humanism

207

References

225

Contributors

245

Index

251

Introduction

About one month after being asked to assemble studies on "Language and Ethnicity" as part of a trilogy in honor of Joshua A. Fishman I received a copy of his new book entitled Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective (1989). The book does not represent new work by Fishman, but is rather an anthology of his own studies on the topic since 1972 along with some preliminary and concluding summarizations written especially for this selection. My reactions to the tome were many, not the least of which was a sense of inadequacy in carrying out my charge to invite and draw out scholars from around the world to contribute their most recent research and thinking on this same topic, for inevitably the new collection would be compared to Fishman's own collected research on the topic. Joshua Fishman has been and still is one of the most profound and productive academicians to deal with the study of language and ethnicity, and he is a passionate scholar of language as perhaps the most significant marker of ethnicity. The task at hand was thus a formidable one. It was not only necessary for me to solicit contributions for the new work, but also to read or reread Fishman's own collected research on the topic in order to assure that the studies to be included here would be new and, hopefully, would further or challenge primary theoretical work done by Fishman himself. In the Introduction to his new collection Fishman admits that his own views on language and ethnicity are not unbiased, stating that he would not take seriously any one else's claim to an unbiased viewpoint on this subject. He then says: The best I can hope for is (a) to state my biases, (b) to seek as much contact with empirical evidence as is possible, since such contact may lead me to revise my views, and (c) where no such contact is really possible, as is the case with many of our most central convictions, to accept the fact that social scientists (including myself) are only human, i.e. that they have values and that these values do show, must show, whether they are on my side of the fence or on the other. (Fishman 1989: 2)

2

James R. Dow

Having read these words, the task of assembling a new volume on the topic of language and ethnicity, a topic which virtually consumed Joshua Fishman throughout his forty year academic career, seemed to come back into focus. There are, after all, numerous scholars around the world, some of whom are his own students, who have also devoted much of their academic careers to this emotion laden topic. Many write and teach with a similar passion, and most indeed are on the same "side of the fence" even though others clearly are not. One group of those who are on the other side is singled out by Fishman in his Introduction when he speaks about some few sociolinguists who have "'discovered' the principle of 'self-serving interest' in commenting on minority efforts to foster their language and ethnicity goals" (Fishman 1989: 1). The thoughts and the research results of many scholars have found their way into this present volume, most of whom are clearly in sympathy with Fishman's own conceptualization of language and ethnicity. Many other scholars indicated interest, but were not able to contribute for any number of reasons. The letters and telephone messages from contributors as well as potential contributors and well wishers read in some cases like testimonials to the intensity of feeling concerning the topic. Even a cursory reading of the titles of the studies included here will immediately indicate that, even though the commission to the contributors was to focus sharply on the concept of language and ethnicity and to offer their latest research on the subject, what resulted were widely divergent studies. It was, however, most gratifying to note that many of the papers reflected the variety of approaches Fishman himself had assumed over the years, indeed the section headings in his new book on Language and Ethnicity parallel many of the papers included here. An attempt was made to solicit research papers from around the world so that the reader would gain an international perspective on recent research devoted to the matter of language and ethnicity. There are in fact papers which deal with Europe, Africa, and the Philippines, but more than half are devoted to the language of ethnic minorities of the United States. It is distinctly within the realm of possibility that the political and social upheavals around the world during the years 1989 and 1990, when these studies were being solicited, caused researchers from elsewhere to deal more pragmatically with their own local realities than with their research. Those studies which finally did find their way into this collection all have in common the study of the language practices and behavior of groups which constitute ethnic minor-

Introduction

3

ities within larger and linguistically complex societies. It is an impressive collection of theoretical perspectives and empirical data, which is after all international in scope. A composite bibliography has been assembled and appears following the essays. In the opening two articles Lois Huffines and Werner Enninger look closely at the ethnic identity of speakers of Pennsylvania German. Even though this minority language has served the communicative needs of its speakers for over two centuries, it is clear to all scholars who deal with it actively that it is indeed dying. Huffines, who has had her finger on the life pulse of Pennsylvania German for over a decade, moves beyond the simple life-death metaphor and asks quite poignantly how important is it to be Pennsylvania German and does the language itself express that ethnicity. She looks closely at sectarians and non-sectarians, specifically at the slow death of Pennsylvania German as it proceeds along two different avenues, in order to answer the question of how PG does or does not express ethnicity. Werner Enninger, the foremost European scholar dealing with Pennsylvania German, has long dealt with synchronic perspectives, building on extensive field work among the Old Order Amish of Delaware. In the recent past, however, he has turned most of his attention to diachronic investigations, i.e. back to the European origins. In his lengthy study he reconstructs the linguistic markers of ethnicity among the Swiss Täufer, from their very beginnings down to the contemporary Amish/Mennonite culture of North America. He traces the concept of "peoplehood" through distinctive ways of speaking and conversational strategies, later through biological descendance, thus identifying a "new ethnicity" added to the original "old ethnicity". Following their migration to other language areas this "old ethnicity" comes back into play because of their language minority status in their new homeland, but Enninger is still not satisfied with the "revived original ethnicity", and thus pushes his theme of language and ethnicity into the realm of deliberate and systematic deviation from established rules of appropriateness with a resulting de-canonization and re-canonization of established rules of social appropriateness. Here he comes into agreement with Huffines and suggests that even anglicization, i.e. language shift, does not automatically mean de-ethnization. Two of Spain's linguistic minorities are next subjected to close scrutiny, once again from a contemporary perspective and also from an historical one. Kathryn Woolard has been closely monitoring Catalan, once a threatened minority language, now making a bid to become a principle public language.

4

James R. Dow

Traditionally Catalan was used only by native speakers, but full catalanization of an autonomous Catalonia now depends on recruiting immigrants as second-language speakers. Woolard's ethnographic and experimental data are used to explore the extent to which policy changes have led to a restructuring of the language-identity link. My colleague here at my own university, Joanna Courteau, has long functioned as a literary scholar looking at both Spanish and Portuguese literatures. It is only natural then that she would devote considerable attention to a Galician poet, Rosalia de Castro, who nevertheless wrote most of her poetry in the dominant Castilian language of Spain, perhaps, according to Courteau, with the motivation of revealing her own ethnic identity as a Galegan through the dominant language of Spain. The two papers which do not deal with Europe or North America treat the minority languages of Kenya, and the long-standing ethno-linguistic rivalries in the Philippines. Carol Myers-Scotton, who has been one of the most productive scholars on the phenomenon of codeswitching, devotes her study to the motivation of negotiating the saliency of ethnicity in a conversation, using the multi-ethnic society of Nairobi, Kenya as her data source. Here she singles out, from the four social functions for codeswitching which she has identified in her recent research, one specific function for closer analysis. Codeswitching as a marked choice is investigated as a means for bringing the speaker's ethnicity into the rights and obligations characterizing conversational exchanges. Andrew Gonzalez' sensitive treatment of the ethnic rivalry between the speakers of Cebuano and Tagalog in the Philippines, sees language as a symbolic form of resistance to Tagalog domination and imperialism on the part of Cebuanos. The latter have obviously associated their identity with their language, but they have not threatened secession, not yet anyway. With a strong movement toward a Tagalog-based Pilipino (now called Filipino) national language they see themselves becoming disadvantaged, visa-vis the Tagalogs and even becoming second-class citizens. The issue becomes more complex when the self-proclaimed nationalists countered that the system of education should become nationalized in Pilipino as soon as possible. Several models for both federalization and language development are proposed, particularly the Swiss and Singapore models for what is locally called an "aggrupation" of ethnic tribes. The final five papers all deal with ethnic minorities in North America. David Lopez and Calvin Veltman, both of whom have published extensively on language maintenance and shift in the United States, contribute from their

Introduction

5

most recent research. Lopez sees language patterns and other cultural aspects of ethnicity as having been less significant than racial or religious attributes in the past. Nevertheless, Asians and Hispanics have increasingly become defined as "language minorities" during recent decades. His paper traces how language, rather than other possible characteristics, have emerged as a central defining attribute for these groups. He reviews three areas of language policy: bilingual education, multilingual election services, and the recent upsurge of "English Only", demonstrating that an approach that emphasizes conflict, group interests and the exercise of power best explains the intersection of ethnic group interests and public policy. Calvin Veltman reduces his long experience and extensive writing on ethnic minorities down to a specific theory of the measurement of language shift, and then addresses the methodology which needs to be employed in order to correctly interpret the data obtained. He divides his paper into four parts: a brief discussion of the concepts retained for analysis, the development of appropriate indicators of language origin and current language practice, the procedures by which language shift data may be correctly analyzed, and the implementation of demographic models for minority language populations. Two studies are devoted to Jewish languages. Alan Kaye explores JudeoEnglish or Jewish English as a so-called dialect of English. His paper examines the problems associated with these terms and shows them to be ambiguous, imprecise and misleading. Rakhmiel Peltz, who does empirical research on spoken Yiddish, looks closely at the children of Jewish immigrants who are increasingly returning to their first language as a statement of their Jewish ethnicity. His fieldwork was done in South Philadelphia and in several smaller cities in Massachusetts, and his archival work comes from autobiographies found in the American Jewish Archives. For many Yiddish speakers exposure to the language generally diminished over the years. Recently, however, these people have come to view Yiddish as a cornerstone of their Jewish identity, and they respond enthusiastically when Yiddish is spoken. Peltz discusses these findings in relation to our understanding of identity development during the aging process and its significance as an element of ethnic identity. The final paper included here is Rolf Kjolseth's reflective and speculative discussion of ethnic languages and bilingual education in the United States. His paper reads more like a lengthy editorial on the topic of language and ethnicity, and it is one which could indeed have found its way into any one

6

James R. Dow

volume of this set, since it ponders an entire range of questions on ethnic languages, bilingual education, and thus finally also deals indirectly with the question of language planning. His thesis is that the current "hegemonic" world view in the United States tends to negate both ethnic languages and bilingual education programs, and that only a paradigmatic shift to an alternative "humanistic" world view offers the possibility for supporting ethnic language use and bilingual education. Finally, a personal note. I too had planned to contribute a paper on my work with one of the two German-speaking minorities in Iowa which I deal with, the Old Order Amish or the Amana Colonists. The papers by Huffines and Enninger, however, convinced me that still another paper on Pennsylvania German would have given this volume too many studies on one specific ethnic group. My recent work with the historical origins of the Amana Colonies, which is heavily oriented toward the ethnic identity of this group during its earliest years, would certainly have fit, but I decided to include it in another volume on Minority Languages / Language Minorities (1991). I wanted to mention this work and this volume, because in a large sense Joshua Fishman is indirectly responsible. When I spent the summer at Stanford working with Fishman as a participant in an NEH Summer Seminar, I read heavily in the area of German minorities in the United States and continually confronted the name of Werner Enninger. Professional and personal contact ensued and intensified, and as a result I have just spent a semester in Essen, as a Guest Professor, at the invitation of Enninger, where we taught together, discussed in detail our mutual interest in German-speaking Americans, and also carried out a small conference on "Minority Languages". My paper on Amana, which might well have been included here, appears instead as part of the proceedings of that meeting (Dow 1991). With this brief comment I want to thank Joshua Fishman for encouraging me to continue my work with the German minorities of Iowa, thereby putting me in direct contact with a group of German researchers who are also most interested in the concept of language and ethnicity. Finally, several expressions of gratitude are in order to all who have helped in preparing the manuscript for this volume. Primary thanks go to the contributors themselves who endured endless letters and telephone calls reminding them of dates, text preparation guidelines, and even finally some threats of non-inclusion if I did not receive their papers in time to edit and prepare the final electronic manuscript for the publisher. I am also deeply

Introduction

7

indebted to Werner Enninger for supplying me with working space and atmosphere, secretarial help, personal and professional support while I worked to prepare the final copy of the manuscript during a Guest Professorship at the Universitat-Gesamthochschule Essen in the summer of 1990. Susanne Zinner and Heidi Kroheck of Essen were most helpful in preparing the composite bibliography and retyping one of the manuscripts when a disk didn't appear on time. Hans-Peter Mai of Essen and my chairman at ISU, James S. Ruebel, helped me enormously with technicalities of converting from various word processing programs so that the texts would be unified and the composite bibliography could be automatically sorted. To all my sincere thanks.

Pennsylvania German: "Do they love it in their hearts?" Marion Lois Huffines Bucknell University

I remember very clearly sitting in Joshua Fishman's office one sunny afternoon during a LSA Summer Linguistic Institute describing to him how Pennsylvania German was dying among the nonsectarian Pennsylvania Germans. Looking up at me and smiling, Fishman asked, "Do they love it in their hearts?" Since that moment, the life-death metaphor as applied to language has taken on for me a less menacing finality. Do Pennsylvania Germans love Pennsylvania German in their hearts? The question is a more meaningful one than simply asking whether Pennsylvania German is dying. The answer lies in how important speakers perceive their ethnicity to be and how strongly they wish to express it linguistically. For minority languages in the United States, language death is an almost inevitable outcome of contact with American English. The promise of social and economic advancement offered by mastery of English eventually overcomes the most fervent desire to retain another language. The number of social contexts in which speakers can use the minority language steadily declines. Without continued immigration from the language homeland, the number of fluent speakers gradually decreases, and eventually no social context remains in which it is appropriate to speak the minority language. The language is said to be "dead". Pennsylvania German, although it has enjoyed a long history in America, is no exception to this general process. How is Pennsylvania German dying? As suggested above, the life-death metaphor does not serve the study of language usage very well. The more meaningful and complex question is one of ethnicity: how important is it to be Pennsylvania German and does Pensylvania German express that ethnicity? The purpose of this study is to investigate the mechanisms of language death by contrasting Pennsylvania German usage and form in two environ-

10

Marion Lois Huffines

ments: 1. among Amish and Mennonite sectarians, where Pennsylvania German is spoken as the language for daily discourse; and 2. among the nonsectarians where Pennsylvania German is dying, and the community has almost completely shifted to English. In both instances, Pennsylvania German is in intimate contact with English. This study argues that language death is proceeding along different avenues in each community type. Among the nonsectarians, transmission has simply ceased. Parents do not speak Pennsylvania German to their children, who are, in turn, nonfluent in Pennsylvania German if they acquire any at all. The variety spoken by these younger Pennsylvania Germans exhibits characteristics which demonstrate faulty acquisition. Among sectarians, although it is used extensively for daily discourse, Pennsylvania German exhibits features of convergence to English. Sectarian communities prescribe Pennsylvania German usage, but not Pennsylvania German form, and the Pennsylvania German forms are changing in ways which facilitate both code-switching and translation tasks. Linguistic evidence will be drawn from three different grammatical structures: the Pennsylvania German dative case, the progressive verbal aspect, and the infinitive complement. Each of these points offers perspectives on language death and ethnicity, and each suggests ways to answer the questions: How is Pennsylvania German dying? Do they love it in their hearts?

Procedures for this Study The following observations are based on interviews with 52 Pennsylvania Germans who live in central Pennsylvania: 33 nonsectarians and 19 sectarians. The nonsectarians live in the farm valleys at the nexus of Northumberland, Dauphin, and Schuylkill counties, Pennsylvania. They are classified into three groups: Group N: Native speakers of Pennsylvania German (n=13). The nonsectarian native speakers of Pennsylvania German range in age from 35 to 75 years; all but four are 60 years old or older. All but the two youngest speak Pennsylvania German to their spouses and generational peers, but all speak English to their children. Group 1: First in the family native English speakers (n=9). Speakers in Group 1 are the first in their respective families to speak English natively. They range in age from 32 to 54 years. They speak Pennsylvania German to certain

Pennsylvania German

11

elderly members of the family and community but English to their spouses and children. Group 2: Second or later in the family native English speakers (n=ll). These native speakers of English range in age from 22 to 65. They understand Pennsylvania German, some with difficulty, but seldom speak it. The Pennsylvania German sectarian sample consists of Mennonites and Amish, who range from 24 to 65 years of age. Both groups are characterized by horse and buggy transportation, distinctive dress, and limited education to the eighth grade. All the sectarians are bilingual and speak Pennsylvania German natively. Group M: The Mennonites. The Mennonite group consists of 10 members of an Old Order Mennonite community, also called "Team Mennonites", a term which refers to the horses used for transportation and work power. Group A: The Amish. The Amish group consists of 8 members of a conservative wing of the New Order Amish and one member of an Old Order Amish community. The New Order Amish differs from the Old Order Amish in the interpretation of what it means to be separate "from the world". The New Order Amish in this sample have electricity in their homes; the Old Order Amish informant does not. The interview consisted of three parts: free conversation, translation of English sentences into Pennsylvania German, and description of pictures. The picture description task was especially successful in eliciting comparable grammatical structures without overt reference to English. The topics for all three parts centered on growing up on a farm, farm chores, recipes, butchering, home remedies, and one-room schoolhouses.

Language Usage Pennsylvania German, popularly known as Pennsylvania Dutch, is a German dialect closely related to the dialects spoken in the German Palatinate along the Rhine River. Pennsylvania Germans settled in America during colonial times in farm communities across southeastern and central Pennsylvania. Secondary settlements arose later in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and the Virginias. While many of these communities have long ago completely and irrevocably

12

Marion Lois Huffines

assimilated into mainstream American society, some have maintained their peculiarly Pennsylvania German culture and language to the present time. Although all Pennsylvania Germans share many traits and values, the Pennsylvania German population is not homogeneous. It consists of many subgroups, each having a different relationship to mainstream American society, and for each, Pennsylvania German fulfills different communicative and symbolic functions. The death of Pennsylvania German has been predicted for decades, but Pennsylvania German is still spoken natively by Old Order Amish and a majority of Old Order Mennonites. Members of these sects speak Pennsylvania German in their homes and communities; they learn English in school and use it when conversing with outsiders. English also serves the sectarian communities for reading and writing and will be used in families with children who suffer from learning disabilities (Huffines 1980b). The increasing number of preschoolers who speak some English indicates that English is being used in the home at least to some extent. The Old Orders also use an archaic form of standard German for the scriptures and hymns in their church services. No one converses in this standard German form, and even the passive knowledge of this German variety is gradually fading, especially among the young people. Other parts of the church service are carried out in socalled Amish High German, a term coined by Frey (1945; see also Enninger 1986a). Amish High German is essentially an upper register of Pennsylvania German, infused with formulas and phrases from the archaic standard German variety just mentioned. Some ministers manage to use more German in their sermons than others. Less conservative Amish and Mennonites tend to use more English in their daily lives and religious services than do the Old Orders. Among the nonsectarian Pennsylvania Germans (often referred to as the "church people" because of their membership in traditional church demoninations), the shift to English is pervasive. The number of native speakers is decreasing. The vast majority of Pennsylvania Germans do not speak Pennsylvania German; some can understand it, but most are monolingually English. In nonsectarian communities Pennsylvania German functions in very limited circumstances; it is used to speak with certain elderly members of the family and neighborhood and in the attempt to keep secrets from children and grandchildren. Children have little opportunity to learn Pennsylvania German because they hear it so seldom.

Pennsylvania German

13

Linguistic Evidence Receding languages typically converge toward the languages with which they are in contact. Native speakers and nonfluent speakers of the dying language adopt features from the dominant, usually prestigious language in order to elaborate the language which no longer fulfills all their communicative needs. If speakers must switch frequently from one language to the other or if the languages fulfill overlapping functions, speakers may integrate linguistic forms and functions of one language into the other. Such convergence may extend to all parts of the grammar, and in this way a language may alter its grammatical structures to match the structure of the language with which it is in contact (cf. Gumperz & Wilson 1977). As Pennsylvania German is used lessfrequentlyand the number of native speakers decreases, proficiency in Pennsylvania German varies widely. Native speakers who continue to use the language with family members and friends exhibit full mastery of it, but younger speakers are nonfluent and make frequent errors. How is Pennsylvania German changing as people use it less? How and under what circumstances does Pennsylvania German converge toward English? Linguistic evidence drawn from the dative case, the progressive aspect, and the infinitive complement provides insights into both language loss due to the interruption of transmission and the circumstances of convergence. Prescriptive rules are derived from Buffington and Barba (1965), Frey (1981), and Haag (1982). Case Usage: Dative of Possession In Pennsylvania German, the case system for nouns, indicated by the endings on noun modifiers, consists of a common case, which fulfills both nominative and accusative functions, and a dative case, which among other functions expresses possession. In Pennsylvania German possessive constructions, the possessor occurs in the dative and is followed by a possessive adjective which agrees with the possessed, the noun it modifies. For example, the sentence "Where is Daddy's book?" is rendered wu is em Daadi sei Buck. The viability of the dative case in this and other functions varies across Pennsylvania German groups, as speakers often use the common case in dative functions. Table 1 shows the distribution of cases used to express possession.

14

Marion Lois Huffines Table 1 % Case of the Possessor (Translation Task) Group

dative

N 1 2 M A

49 43 18 7 2

common 41 39 20 74 76

-s 4 14 37 12 9

other

(Total #)

6 5 24 7 13

51 44 49 42 45

0 0 67 0 7

7 7 6 11 15

(Free Conversation and Picture Descriptions) N 1 2 M A

57 43 0 0 0

43 57 0 100 93

0 0 33 0 0

Nonsectarian native speakers (Group N) respond most frequently with dative forms to express the possessor. The native English speakers (Groups 1 and 2) show considerable variation. Group 2 demonstrates little mastery of the possessive construction, resorts most frequently to the English genitive -s, and also produces the most aberrant forms and other faulty constructions lacking grammatical agreement (listed as "other" in the table). In Group N, common case forms are given by the two youngest speakers, whose usage profiles parallel those of speakers in Group 1. The sectarians consistently use the common case to express possession, especially when not translating. The speech of members in Groups 1 and 2 demonstrates attempts to apply the Pennsylvania German rule, even when the English s intrudes; for example, Groups 1 and 2, in attempts to translate "in my aunt's house", produced for the correct in meinre Aunt ihrem Haus such formulations as in meim Aunt ihre Haus, in mei Aunt sei Haus, and in mei Aunts ihre Haus. Groups M and A use the common case: in mei Aunt ihre Haus. These formulations preserve both the appropriate word order and the correct number of

Pennsylvania German

15

requisite lexical slots. While using the English genitive -s, as in meim Aunts Haus, Group 2's efforts to employ the dative case are apparent. The variant forms of the possessive construction indicates the difficulty which Groups 1 and 2 experience in attempting to acquire Pennsylvania German rules. Their strategies in forming the possessive result in aberrant forms and extensive variation within the groups. Speakers in Groups 1 and 2 do not achieve the conservative norm of Group N because they lack opportunities to hear and practice it. The dative case remnants in their speech point to the loss of a community norm for dative usage due to interrupted transmission. In contrast to the nonnative speakers of Groups 1 and 2, the sectarian speakers (Groups M and A) exhibit a strong community norm; their choice of the common case to express possession is strikingly uniform. Sectarian speakers remember that parents and grandparents said it differently and in a way which they now perceive to be old-fashioned; the change is, therefore, a recent one. A merger of dative and accusative forms and functions is not unusual. Many varieties of American and European German exhibit that feature. Although the German of the Rhine Palatinate maintains the dative/accusative distinction, one cannot necessarily ascribe the loss of the dative case in sectarian Pennsylvania German to the influence of English, but the resulting nominal system parallels that in English more closely. The Progressive Aspect The Pennsylvania German progressive is formed by the auxiliary sei "to be" plus am followed by the infinitive of the main verb. Rules govern the placement of modified and unmodified noun objects in the progressive construction: modified objects occur before am and the infinitive, unmodified noun objects between am and the infinitive; for example: sie is am Buck lese and sie is es Buck am lese. In contrast to Group N, the nonsectarian Groups 1 and 2 treat am plus the infinitive as a constituent unit which they are reluctant to separate (see Tables 2 and 3). Speakers in Group 2 are least likely to place objects between am and the infinitive, and they seldom modify nouns in that position. The sectarians, Groups M and A, expand the field between am and the infinitive and frequently modify objects in that position (see Table 3). In the formulation of the progressive aspect, the placement rules for objects vary across groups. For Groups 1 and 2, the acquired rule entails a restriction

16

Marion Lois Huffines Table 2 % Position of Noun and Pronoun Objects Group N 1 2 M A

am obj V

obj am V

Total #

32 72 61 42 29

133 106 69 110 111

68 28 39 58 71

Table 3 % Modifiers of Noun Objects in the am obj V Position Group

None

Modifiers

*Total #

N 1 2 M A

75 93 92 48 47

25 7 8 52 53

91 30 26 64 79

* The number of items reported for the am obj V position will not correspond across tables because structures containing errors were ignored in table 3.

of options: the unit am plus the infinitive forms a template which enables speakers in Groups 1 and 2 to deal more consistently with troublesome Pennsylvania German word order by eliminating syntactic options in the field between am and the infinitive. In addition, speakers can utilize the template as a structure which contrasts with the progressive in English and thereby distinguish their variety of Pennsylvania German from English. The sectarians, on the other hand, are effectively de-emphasizing that contrast with English by merging the syntactic fields preceeding and following am. These speakers also typically reduce am phonetically from [am] to schwa plus [n], which

Pennsylvania German

17

occurs without sentence or word stress. In the resulting structure, the object placement rule becomes void. One further observation points to Mennonite and Amish innovation: in contrast to nonsectarian native speaker usage, the progressive occurs in a larger variety of grammatical forms. The Mennonites and Amish produce progressive forms in the passive voice, in past tenses, and with the verb duh "to do". The expansion of the progressive usage into these grammatical structures as well as the reduction (or loss) of am as a constituent in the progressive construction result in forms which parallel those in English. The Infinitive Complement The formation of the Pennsylvania German dependent infinitive construction also varies across groups. In prescriptive terms, the Pennsylvania German infinitive takes zu when it depends on nouns and adjectives and when the infinitive complements verbs which are not modals or one of a small set of specified verbs; the infinitive of purpose (the counterpart to Standard German um ... zu) is expressed by far... zu plus the infinitive. In today's Pennsylvania German, the use of zu to indicate or mark infinitives which do not complement modals or the small set of specified verbs is low for all speakers. It occurs more frequently in the speech of the nonsectarians than in the speech of the sectarians, but in no group does the percentage of infinitives marked by zu reach 18% of the total number of marked infinitives. With few exceptions, infinitives marked by far ... zu are present only in the speech of nonsectarian nonnative Pennsylvania German speakers (Groups 1 and 2). The use of far to mark infinitives is frequent for all groups. See Table 4. Table 4 Infinitive Marking Group

zu

% total

N 1 2 M A

26 18 18 17 5 8

12% 10% 10% 13% 13% 3% 3% 6%

far... zw zu

% total total

far far

% % total total

3 11 11 6 0 0

1% 6% 6% 4% 0% 0%

193 161 161 112 192 122

87% 85% 85% 83% 97% 94%

18

Marion Lois Huffines

All groups use infinitives marked by far most frequently in dependent relations with nouns: no hen mir di Chance griegt far sie doch kaafe 'then we got the chance to buy it anyway' For the nonnative speakers in Groups 1 and 2, the second most frequent use of far with infinitives is to complement verbs: sie browiertfar ihn ufflange 'she tries to reach him' s is yuscht am schterde far bliehe 'it is just starting to bloom' The Amish and the Mennonites (Groups A and M) differ from the nonsectarian speakers in that infinitive marking seldom occurs when the infinitive functions as a verbal complement. See Table 5. Table 5 Percentage of Marked Infinitives by Function Group N 1 2 M A

w/ Noun w/Noun 53 45 45 50 50 56 56 58 58

w/Adj. 14 14 14 12 12 16 16 15

Purpose 15 18 18 13 13 19 19 17

Verb Compl. 18 18 24 24 25 10 10 10 10

In addition to the relatively low low occurrence of marked infinitives which function to complement verbs, the Amish and and Mennonites contrast with the nonnonsectarian native speakers (Group N) in their greater use of ««marked umarked infinitives as verb complements: hat der der Daed Daedals alsgeschtart geschtarts schneide s schneide 'dad always started to cut it'

Pennsylvania German

19

no hat ar als browiert Hickory Holz griege 'he used to try to get Hickory wood' The contrast becomes even more pronounced because nonsectarians, especially nonnative speakers, not only mark infinitives which complement these verbs, but also mark infinitives of verbs which historically and prescriptively require no infinitive marking: un hap ghelfe far di fountains butze 'and helped to clean the fountains' ich hap gelanntfar Hinkel schlachde 'I learned to butcher chickens' Among the Amish a confusion seems to exist involving the infinitive complement and the progressive aspect of the verb. As described above, the Amish reduce the progressive constituent am to schwa plus [n], and on occasion, that reduction is not phonetically present. In such instances, the infinitive (without am) occurs without marking in the same position it would normally occupy as a verbal complement (without far): sie sin der Reger gucke 'they are watching the rain' ar is draus Blumme blanze 'he is outside planting flowers' Reed (1948: 243-244) also recognizes the emerging form similarity between the Pennsylvania German progressive aspect and the infinitive construction. He ascribes the problem to the influence of the English "-ing" translation for both. All groups exhibit variation in the infinitive complement construction. All groups clearly opt for far as the primary infinitive marker. Members of Group N preserve the use of zu, but the form is recessive. For the nonnative speakers (Groups 1 and 2), the use of zu alone may be supported by the English counterpart 'to', but far ... zu effectively separates Pennsylvania German usage by making it more complex than the English formulation. The (far) ... zu construction provides these nonfluent speakers with a useful template based on a generalization of an acceptable structure heard from native speakers. Speakers in Groups 1 and 2 generalize infinitive marking beyond those

20

Marion Lois Hufftnes

contexts in which it is required. The template helps them to deal with Pennsylvania German word order while differentiating Pennsylvania German structures from English structures. These strategic uses of (far) ... zu for acquisition purposes account for the relatively frequent occurrence of zu in their speech. The Mennonite and Amish are least likely to mark infinitives, especially when the infinitives complement verbs. Speakers in these groups generalize the Pennsylvania German rule which specifies that marking not occur when the infinitive complements modals and a small set of specific verbs. The sectarians expand the application of this rule by not marking infinitives complementing other verbs and thereby obviate one feature which distinguishes English and Pennsylvania German.

Discussion Specific linguistic behaviors characterize each group. The native nonsectarian speakers (Group N) exhibit the most conservative linguistic norm. Speakers in that group preserve a vigorous dative case, apply the placement rules for objects of verbs in the progressive aspect, maintain remnants of the infinitive marker zu, and mark infinitives which complement the prescriptively appropriate verbs. Groups 1 and 2 lack access to the conservative norm of Group N and display partial mastery of Pennsylvania German rules. Speakers in Groups 1 and 2 produce various more or less aberrant forms of the dative and resort to template building in the use of both the progressive aspect and the infinitive complement. In comparison with the other native speakers in Group N, the Mennonites and Amish (Groups M and A) exhibit substantial change in their variety of Pennsylvania German: the dative has merged with the common case, the placement rule for objects of verbs in the progressive no longer applies, and the rules regulating the nonmarking of infinitive complements of verbs have been drastically expanded. Each of the sectarian changes results in forms which more closely parallel English usage. Groups 1 and 2 deserve special attention. These nonnative speakers of Pennsylvania German are intent on learning better control of Pennsylvania German in an environment with ever-decreasing access to Pennsylvania German and few acquisition opportunities. Group 1 demonstrates mastery of the dative case although they are not successful at every attempt to use it. The progressive am plus infinitive and the far ... zu constructions provide them

Pennsylvania German

21

with templates which contain structures heard from native speakers. Speakers in Group 1 apply these template-based Pennsylvania German rules more consistently than the native speaker norm. Used judiciously, the template strategy enables them to solve problems of speaking Pennsylvania German and maintain a formal as well as psychological distance between their variety of Pennsylvania German and English. Group 2 exhibits obvious acquisition limitations. They do not control the dative case and adopt the progressive aspect and the far ... zu templates with a vengeance. Group 2 is unable to determine as successfully as Group 1 when templates are applicable, and they produce structures which are frequently unacceptable to native speakers. Given their limited access to native speaker norms, it is amazing how seldom speakers in Group 2 opt for relexified English structures in their efforts to speak Pennsylvania German. Their attempts at producing acceptable Pennsylvania German discourse indicate faulty application of Pennsylvania German rules, not the imposition of English rules. The effort engenders much frustration; the final resort to English structures is often accompanied by paralinguistic and gestural signs of disappointment and helplessness. The sectarians show a substantial amount of syntactic change which results in structures appearing to converge toward English. Frequent code switching within a stable bilingual community provides a hospitable environment for convergence of a minority language toward the language of the dominant society. This is especially true within a sociolinguistic context in which the rules for language behavior prescribe that Pennsylvania German be spoken, not how it be spoken. The influence of English on the sectarian variety of Pennsylvania German is not direct. While the social context may provide the impetus for linguistic change, such as the necessity for frequent code-switching with outsiders and for translating both within and without sectarian communities, the contact with English does not necessarily dictate the specific linguistic accommodation. As mentioned above, case merger has been documented for German dialects without contact with English. Changes in the object placement and infinitive marking rules can be described as changes in Pennsylvania German rules rather than the adoption of English rules. The contact with English may influence the direction of the linguistic changes, but at least in this case convergence toward English seems to be the result of linguistic analogies operating internally in Pennsylvania German. These analogies indirectly produce linguistic convergence. The larger issue is the social one: how the sectarians, as a separated people in an economically complex environment, accommodate mainstream society.

22

Marion Lois Huffines

One can now return to the original questions: how is Pennsylvania German dying and do they love it in their hearts? Among the nonsectarians, Pennsylvania German is dying because younger speakers do not have the opportunity to hear and practice it. They receive little feedback on their flawed linguistic formulations; quite the contrary, older speakers will switch to English for discourse with them. Do they love it in their hearts? Yes, of course. There is no other way to account for their continuing efforts to apply linguistic rules in the face of societal and familial resistance (cf. Dorian 1980). Their linguistic performance is poor, but their ethnic awareness is quite active, and they have developed a vision of what it means to be Pennsylvania German. Among the sectarians, Pennsylvania German is dying in spite of daily usage and continued transmission. Sectarian Pennsylvania German exhibits substantial change in comparison to the native nonsectarian speaker norm. However indirect, the change is contact induced and results in convergent structures which parallel English. Although socially living apart from mainstream society, sectarian interaction with that society is increasing because of economic pressures. Even within the sectarian community, speakers must use English when writing to each other. More importantly, English is replacing varieties of High German used in liturgical settings. The use of English in church services and the observed acquisition of English by preschoolers presage a full shift to English in these communities. Do the sectarians love Pennsylvania German in their hearts? Probably not. Many sectarians say that they will speak Pennsylvania German as long as German is used in the worship services. Many Amish and Mennonite communities in Pennsylvania and other states have already shifted to English in that setting. Ethnicity is clearly an issue secondary to their religious identification. As Kloss (1966: 206) states, "In the United States their point of departure has always been religion rather than nationality or language." The use of Pennsylvania German in sectarian communities is dependent on the use of Amish High German in worship services. When English replaces Amish High German in worship, English will also replace Pennsylvania German within the family and community.

Linguistic Markers of Anabaptist Ethnicity through Four Centuries Werner Enninger Univeristat-Gesamthochschule Essen

0. Introduction This paper deals with the development of linguistic markers of changing concepts of ethnicity in one particular branch of the Anabaptists, i.e. the Swiss Brethren and their successors in parts of Europe and in North America. Broadly speaking, "ethnicity" is here seen as an open set of traits such as shared and distinctive values, common ancestry, a collective consciousness and a self-perception as being different from others, "all of which are implied in 'a sense of peoplehood'" (cf. Rose 1988: 168). For the purposes of this preliminary sketch we resort to Fishman's definition who uses the term "ethnicity" to denote "a bond (self-perceived and/or ascribed by others, with or without objective justification) to a historically continuous authenticity collectivity" (1983: 128). In order to illustrate what ethnicity means and does in collectivities in which ethnicity is a salient focus of perception, the passages following Fishman's definition are helpful. Thus, ethnicity assists inviduals in coping with the existential question of 'Who am I?' and 'What is special about me?' by contextualizing these questions in terms of putative ancestoral origins and characteristics. These questions are therefore illuminated in terms of 'Who are my own kind of people?' and 'What is special about us?' and come to be answered at the level of peopleness being (biological continuity and, therefore, triumph over death), peopleness doing (behavioral fealty even in the course of behavioral change) and peopleness knowing (i.e. ethnicity includes not only native philosophy but historiosophy and cosmology: a Weltanschauung or world view). (1983:128)

24

Werner Enninger

Ethnicity is thus co-terminous with the awareness of membership in, and affiliation with an ethnos, the awareness of which is based on a sense of sharing those traits in and through which a given ethnos constructs its identity and its history. In order to become socially effective the imperceptible awareness of membership in, and affiliation with an ethnos must be projected in perceptible signals. It is true that the sense of ethnicity can be (unintentionally) signified and/or (intentionally) communicated by any perceptible behavior that is subject to cultural constraints such as eating habits, clothing customs, hair and beard styles as well as modes of transportation. All these signaling systems permit the projection of some modicum of ethnicity. The specific design features of human language (Hockett 1960a, 1960b; Hockett and Altman 1968; Thorpe 1972) make linguistic performance the prime medium (also) for the projection of ethnicity. No other signaling system has the design feature of displacement which permits, for example, reference to absent phenomena (such as the past) and the construction of abstract configurations such as cosmologies. No other signaling system has a combinatory mechanism that permits the production of indefinitely long texts which may be extensive reports of ethnicity or folk tales of ethnic origins (cf. Beck 1990), for example. Conversely, even the smallest segment of the speech chain or an intonation contour suffice to evoke - in an all or nothing fashion - the full set of ethnic attributes in the mind of the hearer (Giles et al. 1973; Giles 1973), irrespective of whether the speaker intends to communicate (i.e. to "give") his ethnic identity or whether he (unintentionally) signifies and thus "gives-off" (Goffman 1959: 14-16) his identity, even against his intention. The following quote formulates this view succinctly. In language however we are offered, by the society we enter, and we offer to others, a very overt symbolization of ourselves and our universe, not only in the various grammars and lexicons and prosodies we can create for various domains of that universe, but also through the social marking which each occasion of use carries. Language is not only the focal centre of our acts of identity; it also consists of metaphors, and our focussing of it is around such metaphors or symbols. The notion that words refer to or denote 'things' in 'the real world' is very widely upheld, but quite misplaced; they are used with reference to concepts in the mind of the user; these symbols are the means by which we define ourselves and others. (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985: 248)

Anabaptist Ethnicity

25

In Goffman's terms, whenever people interact they convey not only the content of their message, but also an image of their "selves" (1959) by a combination of nonverbal and above all verbal means including both linguistic items and ways of speaking. On the basis of these assumptions and definitions this paper seeks to reconstruct the development of linguistic markers of changing Anabaptist profiles of ethnicity from the Zürich of 1525 to present-day North America. Since the earlier markers of Anabaptist ethnicity have attracted less attention than the more recent ones, the former will here receive broader treatment. The conclusion will suggest some principles of change in the realm of ethnicity marking which may apply to more than just the one case under examination in this paper.

1. Linguistic Markers of Peoplehood during the Founding Phase According to Giles "one important source of variance existing between different ethnic groups contexts is the baseline linguistic repertoires of the groups concerned" (1979: 253). However, during the founding phase of the Swiss Taufer [Baptists] movement in the Zürich of the fifteen-twenties, the Taufer did not - and could not - have a distinct linguistic repertoire. The "Brüderliche Vereinigung" of 1527 - better known as the "Schleitheim Confession of Faith" - codified the distinct value system of the Taufer movement (nonresistence, nonconformity with the world, adult baptism preceded by the experience of conversion) and marks the transition from the territorial people's church (ecclesia) to the small free church (ecclesiola) and thus the retreat into a particular and separate brotherhood of believers. From a Mennonite perspective Redekop concluded in 1984 that in points three and four of the Schleitheim Confession of 1527 "the peoplehood idea is implied" (Redekop 1984: 133). Redekop supports his assessment by quoting from another Mennonite author: "To us then the command of the Lord is clear when he calls upon us to be separated from evil and thus will be our God and we shall be his sons and daughters" (Wenger 1947: 209). Friedmann (1963) catches this idea of Anabaptist peoplehood in the doctrine of the two kingdoms which coexist side by side in this world. Ever since its founding phase the Taufer movement has existed in a theology-based dual-value situation, i.e. a dinomia-situation.

26

Werner Enninger

The earliest ethnicity profile of the Täufer can be described by slightly modifying the definition of ethnicity which Rose gives for Mennonite ethnicity. The definition that best fits for the early Täufer is one that is exclusively based on value dissensus (that is, the pursuit of major values not shared by others) plus an in-group ideology of shared values and beliefs and a collective consciousness through which purposive actions are possible. This ideology, which is encompassed in Anabaptist theology and differentiates them from other Christians, includes a belief in personal responsibility that participants translate as discipleship; freedom of conscience or conscientious objection to war; adult baptism and the individual responsibility and choice therein implied; and practical piety that manifests itself in mutual aid, stewardship and a simple lifestyle. Thus the identity of the early Anabaptists - their ethnicity - is exclusively defined by ideas and ideology (cf. Rose 1988: 169). In more general terms, we have an early case of what Gumperz and Gumperz-Cook - with reference to Glazer and Moynihan's Beyond the Melting Pot (1975) - call "new ethnicity" that is based on differences which distinguish one newly-emerging group from another. New ethnicity depends upon a process of reactive group formation whereby a group reasserts selectively certain historically established, yet neglected distinctions within the common polity shared with the other groups. Individuals build upon residual elements of shared culture to revive common sentiment upon which to found ethnically based interest groups. Ethnic identity thus becomes a means of eliciting political and social support in the pursuit of goals which are defined within the terms of reference established by the society at large. Because of the complex communicative environment in which individuals must exist, the cohesiveness of the new ethnic groups cannot rest on co-residence in geographically bounded or internally homogeneous communities (Gumperz and GumperzCook 1982: 5-6). All of the values which constitute the ethnicity profile of the emerging Täufer ethnos are values of early Christianity which had been lost or deemphasized in the course of church history. Their foregrounding in the emerging Täufer thought created the dinomia situation. During the founding phase this dinomia-situation was not reflected in distinct linguistic repertoires of the two kingdoms. The leaders of the traditional spiritual forces as well as of both the Zwinglian reformers and its radical wing, i.e. the (proto-)Anabaptists were highly educated theologians and humanists with a thorough knowledge of Latin, Greek and Hebrew (cf. Horsch 1950: 30-33). Conrad Grebel, for example, spent one year (1514) at

Anabaptist Ethnicity

27

the University of Basel, three years at the University of Vienna (1515-1518) and two more years at the University of Paris. "Altogether he spent six years in the best universities of his time, receiving a thorough training in humanistic studies and becoming a master of Latin and Greek" (Bender/Smith 1976: 26). Part of Grebel's correspondence with Dr. von Watt (Vadianus) of St. Gall - his brother-in-law - was in Latin. Balthasar Hubmaier, who played an outstanding role in the so-called Second Disputation of October 1523 in Zürich, was a doctor of theology. Felix Mantz, the first Anabaptist martyr (d. 1527) also had a university education. Michael Sattler, who supposedly drafted the Schleitheim Confession, was a former prior of a monastery in the Black Forest and he knew the Scriptures in the original languages (cf. Bender/ Smith 1976: 26-29). Ciasen (1965: 145) states that up to 1528 there were at least 40 intellectuals in the Täufer communities in Switzerland. Furthermore, various documents show that in the 1540s a discussion of doctrinal principles between Täufer from Saloniki and a "Schweitzer Gemein" in Pausrom/ Moravia was conducted in Latin (cf. Kadelbach 1971: 36-38). From the sources it is not clear whether Latin served as a lingua franca or whether it was selected as the appropriate language for the traditional disputado of theological issues. Thus not only the leaders of the ecclesia, but also of the ecclesiola can be assumed to have used Latin plus "oberlendisch deutsch" on formal occasions, certainly in the written mode. The Zürich Bible, also called the Froschauer Bible, of 1536 (first 1524) attests to the use of a distinct variant of German on formal occasions, as do contemporary letters, tracts, pamphlets and the records of the City of Zürich. Since the middle of the thirteenth century German had begun to replace Latin in legal documents, and the cities of Zürich and Basel had taken the lead of this development (cf. Lötscher 1983: 52). Furthermore, it can be assumed that in the oral discourse of informal situations a vernacular prevailed among the Täufer and their Reformed neighbors. Since the contemporary writings against the Täufer - as for example those of Zwingli and Bullinger which accuse the Täufer of all kinds of differences, for example in dress - do not mention any linguistic distinctness of the group on the level of language systems, one may - in an argumentum e silentio - conclude that the Täufer shared their linguistic repertoire with that of their neighbors as described by Studer (1981). The cultural and linguistic situation of this phase of the Täufer movement can - with some confidence - be hypothesized as suggested in table 1.

28

Werner Enninger Table 1 Cultural Situation Group

Individual

Linguistic Situation

+Dinomia

+Diglossia

values ours theirs

varieties shared between our and their group

+Biculturalism

+Multilingualism of our and their educaed elites: Latin, (Greek, Hebrew) Upper German / Schwytzerdytsch

+Bilingualism of our and their average member: Upper German / Schwytzerdytsch

With regard to values, the Täufer and the mainstream culture were distinct, yet they shared one identical linguistic repertoire. Their shared repertoire reflected the educational stratification of that society as a whole, but it did not distinguish the brotherhood-ethnos from mainstream culture. The brotherhood-ethnos was a representative cross-section of the society as a whole (cf. Kreider 1953), and its linguistic repertoire mirrored that of mainstream culture. In order to distinguish this linguistic repertoire from the one which was to emerge in the course of the migration of the Täufer to other language areas, we will call the above pattern a pattern of stratificational diglossia which reflects the educational strata of one social body rather than the cultural differences of majority and minority co-existing in the same social body. This indistinctive pattern of stratificational diglossia does, however, not mean that the Täufer did not act out their knowledge of peoplehood, or, more precisely, their knowledge of a religious brotherhood in and through linguistic means altogether. A good deal of evidence shows that even in seemingly homogeneous speech communities people use linguistic means in order to locate themselves in multidimensional social space. The early Täufer were no

Anabaptist Ethnicity

29

exception. Their group membership was not mediated through a distinct linguistic repertoire, but rather through a distinct speaking system. In this respect we will seek to provide descriptive evidence for a position taken by Hymes. My contention is that people who enact different cultures do to some extent experience different communicative systems, but not merely the same natural communicative condition with different customs affixed. Cultural values are in part constitutive of linguistic reality. (Hymes 1966: 166) The validity of this contention becomes clearest on the level of performative speech acts. Central doctrinal points of the Täufer belief system such as adult baptism and the rejection of oaths modified traditional performative speech acts and established distinctive variants of these acts. The total rejection of any oaths as formulated in article seven of the Schleitheim Confession ("... Christus, der die volkummenheit des gsatz leert, der verbüt den synen alles schweren ... Sichend zu, darumb ist alles schweren verbotten..." (Jenny 1951: 12)) deleted this performative speech act from the speaking economy of the Täufer. In terms of semiotics, it created a significant zero-sign which contrasted with the performative speech act of mainstream culture. In terms of pragmatics, the significant absence of this speech act had dire perlocutionary consequences. In a society which required oaths of allegiance to the temporal lords every year, the Täufer disqualified themselves from the status of full citizens and from all offices requiring the taking of an oath. Social boundaries began to emerge. While the rejection of oaths excluded the Täufer from the political community, the replacement of infant baptism by adult baptism excluded them from the religious community. The rejection of the doctrine of the original sin permitted the postponement of baptism to later years; the idea that baptism had to be preceded by the deliberate separation from a worldly life and the concomitant declaration for a deliberate renewal of life necessitated the postponement of baptism to adulthood. Again, the Schleitheim Confession of 1527 formulates this doctrine and sets it as the felicity condition of this performative speech act: "Der touff so[ll] geben werden allen denen, so gelehrt sind die buß und endrung des lebens und glouben in der warheit, das ire sünd durch Christum hin weg genommen sigent, und allen denen, so wollen wandlen in der ufferstannung Jesu Christi" (Jenny 1951: 10). In regard to the

30

Werner Enninger

theory of speech acts it should be noted that the performative act of baptizing (into the Name of the Lord) is here separated from the act of performative nomination. Nomination takes place right after birth, while baptism into the faith takes place during adulthood as a fully-fledged rite of passage - which Zwingli had already postulated. Again, the perlocutionary consequences were exclusion, now from the territorial church. In the present context it is worthy of note that membership in the ethnos as understood at that time, i.e. the religious brotherhood of believers, was an acquired status exclusively. It was acquired by the demonstration of a godly life, the explicit rejection of worldly life and by the declared intention of sealing the transition to a new life by deliberately applying for and by accepting baptism into the religious brotherhood. The acquired membership in the religious brotherhood and the boundary between the brotherhood and the rest of the world were acted out linguistically not only in the domain of ritual, but also in everyday life, and that in various ways. Apparently the ways of speaking in non-ritual and non-ceremonial domains of life were soon distinctive enough to make speaking an identity badge of the Täufer, Sebastian Franck's Chronica of 1536 makes the separatist motivation of their distinct speaking rules explicit. "Etliche gerathen dahin/dz sy nichts mit den Heyden gemein woellen haben/ ... Und haben wie die münche regel in essen/trincken/schweigen/reden/kleyderen" (1536/1969: CXCIIY). These (unidentified) normative regulations appear to have had their analogs on the plane of speaking behavior, at least in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Bossert summarizes the 1608 report of a priest from Göppingen as follows: "Dann etliche Jahre hernach sei ein Bote aus Östereich gekommen, den er für keinen Wiedertäufer gehalten habe, denn weder Kleider noch Rede seien wiedertäufisch gewesen" (Bossert 1930/1971: 806). Since this messenger later turned out to be a Täufer (cf. Ciasen 1965: 86), we seem to be dealing with the attempt of a Täufer at passing for somebody else (Goffman), an understandable communicative strategy at times of persecution. In any case, both documents attest in a general way to the existence of distinctive rules and ways of speaking among the Täufer. Other documents reveal the material differences between the mainstream and the Täufer system of speaking. A particularly sensitive realm for choosing between speaking and silence - the two linguistic phenomena mentioned by Sebastian Franck (cf. above) - is the initial face-to-face contact. With few exceptions (cf. e.g. Basso 1972; Hymes 1966) all cultures have rules for

Anabaptist Ethnicity

31

either uttering some routinized formula with greeting function (or some gesture, or both) and thus promote the co-present to a social with, or for remaining silent and thus leave alter in the status of a co-present who is (also) denied access to talk and interaction generally. The so-called "Zürich Kinderzucht" of 1539 (first printed by Eust. Froschauer in Zürich; cf. Weiß 1933) shows that offering a greeting was the expected behavior when coming face-to-face. Also the fact that the deletion of any tokens of acknowledgement of alter as a with is worth topicalizing and attests to the existence of such expectations. With regard to the Täufer, Johannes Keßler notes in his Sabbata written between 1519 and 1539: Derglichen woltend sy niemat mer, der in begegnet oder wohin sy wandlend, grutzen nach gruizend lassen, sunder schlichend hin mit beschlossnem mund; vermeintend, diewil sy undüchtig und onkreftig zu allen dingen und das, so sy wünschend, nit fergen noch geben kundend, wellend sy on grutz und gewünscht lassen; es möcht villicht einer am ainen guten tag wünschen, Gott welt im villicht den nit gonnen, so könne er den im nit geben; sam christenliche liebe nit so gescheftig sy: was sy (nit) mit worten und werken nach mit vermügen lasten mag, begere und wünsche doch von dem geben werden und verlangt, der sy gnug mächtig und gwaltig ist; sam Paulus in sinen briefen im anfang und end kaines grutzends beflissen hab, der och weder gnad nach frid fergen mocht, begert aber von Gott dem vatter und unserm hailand Jesu Christo verlichen werden. (Fast 1973: 617) Keßler explains the deletion of the greeting formulae by the Täufer in two ways. The first reason relates to the fact that the act of greeting very often takes the (surface) form of a wish (with a first person subject). Whereas one might take this as an instance of an indirect speech act - which "says" one thing while it "does" another - the Täufer take the literalism-stance. If the fulfillment of the (surface) wish is beyond the power of the speaker, and potentially against the will of God, the use of the formulae violates the sincerity condition. To speak the truth is, however, a supreme value, and where one cannot speak the truth, one must not speak at all. The insistence on the sincerity of greetings is confirmed, from an insider-perspective, in Peter Riedemann's (d. 1556) Rechenschaft, an early Hutterer defense of their variant of the Täufer faith. Es soll aber des Herrn Gruß nicht allein mit den Lippen und leicht-fertigem Herzen gegeben werden, sondern mit ganz völligem Herzen und im festen Glauben und mit solchem Vertrauen, daß Gott gewiß solche Worte

32

Werner Enninger und guten Wunsch erstatten werde, Mark. 13; Luk. 12; ja also als ob es Gott selbst durch ihn redet. Das Andre aber soll es auch wiederum in solchem Vertrauen und herzlichem Begehren aufnehmen, so wird Gott, der Herr das Gedeihen geben, und solchen Gruß und Wunsch (daß der Herr mit ihnen sei) erstatten, Richt. 6; Matth. 28, und ihnen allezeit beiwohnen, daß ihnen auch solcher Gruß (wie der Gruß Maria der Elisabeth) zu Freuden geraten wird. Wo es aber mit leichtfertigem Herzen oder Unaufmerken geschiehet, da ist es Sünde, Luk. 1; 2. (Riedemann 1988: 118)

This insistence on the sincerity condition is particularly important in social bodies which reject oaths and in which simple statements are the strongest acceptable form of assertions. The use of such formulae violates, second, the principle of humility; its use is a sign of arrogance or pride insofar as it interferes with the will of God (cf. Bauman 1983 with regard to seventeenth century Quakers). Beside these religious motivations of deleting greetings the social effects of such behavior are worthy of note. In cultures whose rules of speaking require that the act of greeting be expressed in some form, the deletion of any perceptible form in that slot is marked behavior. It is a significant zero-signifier given bald-on-record with the pragmatic force of 'impoliteness'. Ciasen, for example, states for 1540: "Der Heilbronner Wiedertäufer Endris Wertz, z. B. dankte plötzlich nicht mehr, wenn ihm jemand auf der Straße einen seligen Morgen oder Abend wünschte" (Ciasen 1965: 84). This Täufer adopted a new pattern insofar as he ceased to return a greeting. Not to return a greeting, i.e. withholding the second-pair part of a strict adjacency pair, is marked behavior. In the case of withholding the expected 'normal' second part of a greeting pair, the behavioral zero threatens the other's face and comes close to an overt insult. The behavioral zero is responding with an insult to what may have been intended as a friendly acknowledgement of a co-present as a social "with". In his "Geschichte der Straßburgischen Wiedertäufer in den Jahren 1527 bis 1543" Röhrich quotes the sixteenth-century Alsatian Knight Eckard zum Trübel as follows: "Die Täufer vermeinen ihre Heiligkeit in Den vor der Welt zu beweisen, daß sie Niemand grüßen, danken und wie stettige Ochsen in aller Unfreundlichkeit gegen andere menschliche Creaturen Gottes leben" (Röhrich 1860: 9). In this respect, Bauman's analysis of the greeting practices of the seventeenth century Quakers (1983: 44-46) also applies to the sixteenth century Täufer. Bauman notes that the Quakers' refusal to use formulae such as "good morning", "good evening", etc. was seen as a serious lack of civil courtesy. Furthermore, he adduces seventeenth century evidence

Anabaptist Ethnicity

33

for their refusal to exchange any greeting formulae at all: "... they will go or ride by them as though they were dumb, or as though they were beasts rather than men, not affording a salutation, or resalutation though themselves saluted" (Higginson 1653: 28; quoted from Bauman 1983: 44). The general analyses of greeting behaviors which Bauman adduces for the Quaker case also apply to the early Täufer: Greetings and salutations are part of the social duty of fully socialized people; to fail to use them is the mark of someone not fully human, either lacking the ability to speak at all or a beast. They are also ceremonial acts (Goffman 1967: 54), conventionalized means of communication by which an individual expresses his own character and conveys his appreciation of the other participants in the situation. To refuse to greet someone, especially someone who has offered a greeting first, is not only to mark oneself as unsocialized, but a lack of social regard for the other person, a serious face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson) in a society and a period in which much emphasis was placed on elaborate etiquette. (Wildeblood and Brinson 1965: 177) (Bauman 1983: 44-45) While those arguments interpet the deletion of greetings within the framework of the normative institution of social etiquette, closer scrutiny of deleted greetings may reveal their religious motivation and their effect for acting out ethnicity conceived of in terms of the religious brotherhood. A large set of historical documents shows that the Täufer did not delete greetings in general (as one may assume on the basis of the above quotes) but that they rather applied greetings selectively. Some alters are not greeted and remain thus in the status of co-presents, while others are greeted and thus promoted to social withs (cf. below when forms of address are discussed). In his Sabbata Keßler states: Es warend etliche von den ersten widergetouften, die nit mit so vil manungen befleckt, sunder hieltend an den artikeln allain, die sy von dem Cunradt Grebel erlernet. Die grutzend och kainen unwiedergetouften; aber nit uß ietz erzeltem grund, sunder wie Joannes in siner epistel leret; dann sy uns für unglobige haiden hieltend; woltend sich mit irem grutzen unserer sünden nicht teilhaftig machen. (Fast 1973: 617) The spiritual basis of this rule of speaking is the Second Letter of John 10: "If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his

34

Werner Enninger

wicked work." In his account concerning the separation ot the Täufer from the world, which the Schaffhausen Täufer Martin Weninger (called Lincki) wrote (before 1535), we find a paraphrase of this Biblical position: "Wer nit die 1er Christi bringt, den nehmend nit ze huß und grutzend inn nit (2. Jo. 1: 10 f.). Wer inn gruetzt, hatt gmainschafft mit sinen bösen wercken" (Fast 1973: 111). Riedemann, a Hutterer "Vorsteher" (d. 1556), also restricts the exchange of greetings: Grüßen ist an ihm selber Gutes wünschen, darum man denen allen, so des Guten begehren, auch Gutes wünschen soll. So nun in der Kirche ein Glied derselbigen zum andern kommt, soll es ihm auch den guten Wunsch, die holdselige Gabe, Luk. 1; Matth. 10; Luk. 10; Joh. 14, den Frieden des Herrn, den Christus hier gelassen und gegeben hat, anbieten, denn also lehret er auch seine Jünger: Wo ihr in ein Haus kommet, so sprecht: Der Friede sei mit euch. Ist jemand darinnen euch gemäß, so wird sich euer Friede wieder zu euch wenden. Aus diesen Worten lernen wir, daß der so grüßet und der so gegrüßet wird beide des Friedens Kinder sein müssen, soll anders Gott das Gedeihen geben. Denn welcher dem Evangelium nicht gemäß ist oder zu sein von Herzen begehret, da kann der Friede Christi nicht haften. (Riedemann 1988: 117-118) What is interpreted as impoliteness with reference to the norms of social etiquette can be explained as a religion-based, meaningful enactment of the theme of separation of the religious brotherhood from the rest of the world. Peter Riedemann's "Rechenschaft" is an exposition and a defense (of the Hutterer variant) of the Täufer faith. Martin Weninger's "Rechenschaft" is thematically focused on the separation of the two kingdoms, and one of the instruments of doing separation is "not greeting" outsiders. To be regarded as impolite is the social price to be paid for living up to one's faith. The scriptural rule of speaking provides for the socially effective communication of the doctrine of the two kingdoms in a frequent everyday situation. It has, furthermore, the perlocutionary effect of a) preventing the opening of an interaction across the boundary of the brotherhood ethnos, and of b) creating a social gap between 'us' and 'them' generally. Further documents show that this selective greeting pattern was not limited to the particular type of Täufer in Appenzell, to whom Keßler refers in the above quote. In his Chronica of 1536 Sebastian Franck states with regard to the Täufer: "Wer aber jrer Sect nit war / den grueßten sy kaum / boten auch dem kein handt / ..." (Franck 1536/1969: CXCIIY). Laurenz Boshart's chron-

Anabaptist Ethnicity

35

icle of 1529 to 1532 contains the following description of the Täufer: "Sy ... reden mit nimant und gruetzend kein, der nit ir sect ist..." (Fast 1973: 714). This document topicalizes not only the deletion of the greeting formulae, but also its discursive consequences, i.e. the abstention from any verbal interaction. This is more than Article Four of the Schleitheim Confession had set as a norm. While there we find an itemized list of prohibited kinds of interaction, this document maintains the general abstention from verbal interaction with anybody outside the brotherhood. The assumption that greetings were applied selectively to members of the brotherhood is supported by the wealth of documented greeting formulae (plus their second-pair parts) for brotherhood-internal use. In this respect we have to present evidence which appears to be in conflict with a document and its interpretation presented further above. It was argued that the Täufer refused to use greetings which have the surface form of wishes. In the light of the following data, we will have to modify this statement. If one goes by Neff (1937) and Ciasen (1965: 85), the Täufer appear to have developed and canonized distinct and elaborate greeting formulae (in the surface form of wishes and adjacency pairs) for group-internal interaction. Neff notes that the formulae (pairs) served the mutual identification of the Täufer, and were even meant to serve this purpose. While the regional variation is considerable, the format of the wish is a prototypical characteristic (cf. table 2, p. 36). The last pair appears to be the most widely used, whereas the others had rather local or areal currency. The widespread use of formulae topicalizing the wish of God's peace is also attested in a report of the inquest of Nikolaus Guldin in 1529: "Sie haben kain warzeichen, dabi si ainander kennen, sondern si wunschen ainander den friden gots" (Fast 1973: 439). It is interesting to note that article eleven of the Straßburg church discipline (Ordnung) of 1568 sets a norm for greeting behavior. It reads as follows: Ein Bruder oder Schwester soll je eins das andere empfangen mit dem Kuss des Herrn, die aber nicht aufgenommen sind, die soll ein Bruder oder Schwester nicht mit dem Kuss empfangen, sondern sagen, der komme dir zu Huelfe. (Bender 1927: 61) Both the holy kiss and the verbal formula are alloforms of the act of greeting, and both fulfill the function of establishing some social relationship. However, the complementary distribution of the alloforms over membership

36

Werner Enninger

Table 2 Greeting formulae in group-internal use First Pair Part

Second Pair Part

Area

"Gott grüße dich in dem Herrn" (after doffing the hat)

"Ich danke dir in dem Herrn"

Franconia

"Lieber christlicher Bruder" (with a handshake and a hug)

?

Northern Thuringia

"Der Friede des Herrn sei mit dir!"

?

ditto

"Der Friede des Herrn sei mit dir!"

"Amen"/"Das sei wahr" (then: handshake plus kiss of peace)

Friesland

"Der Friede Gottes sei mit dir!"

"Das muß Amen sein"

Friesland

"Die Gnade des Herrn sei mit uns"

?

Neckar valley

"Got gries dich, bruder im hern"

"Danck dir got, mein bruder im herrn"

Augsburg

"Got sei mit mir"

"Der fried sei mit uns"

Augsburg

"Der fried gots sei mit dir"

"Danck dir got"

Göppingen

"Grüß dich gott, christlicher bruder"

"Danck dir got du christlicher bruder"

Linz

"Der ewige vater beschirme dich mit seinem ewigen frieden und sei mit dir"

?

Thüringen

"Lieber christlicher bruder"

Eisleben

"Amen"/"Mit deinem geiste"

Southern and Middle Germany

"Lieber christlicher bruder" (plus handshake) "Der friede des herrn sei mit Dir"

(cf. Neff 1937 and Ciasen 1965: 85)

Anabaptist Ethnicity

37

categories makes a distinction in the relationship which obtains between ego and alter, i.e. religious peers vs. non-peers. Furthermore, it can be claimed that the verbal formula "Der Herr komme dir zu Huelfe" also has meaning beyond the mere social meaning: it is a wish which is directed at the seeker who needs God's help in finding her/his way into the true church. At this point two conflicting kinds of documentary evidence of the greeting patterns of the early Täufer require attention. First, the wealth of the greeting formulae used for group-internal purposes conflicts with the sweeping statement (of some documents) that the Täufer did not at all participate in the then extant greeting patterns. Second, the fact that the greeting formulae (as well as the leave-taking formulae not topicalized here) have the prototypical surface-forms of wishes appears to conflict with Keßler's assessment that the Täufer refrained from greetings for this very reason. Let us take the second issue first. Closer scrutiny reveals that the Täufer greeting formulae taking the surface form of a wish do not have the propositional format of 'I wish you x', but 'May God grant you x'. The decanonization of the traditional wish format of the greeting and the apparent re-canonization of a new wish format reflected and enacted in everyday life the theological distinctness between the brotherhood and "them" out there. Second, the dual pattern of refraining from greeting when meeting ousiders and of using a wealth of greeting formulae in group-internal interaction is associated with the dual function of greetings. Here we follow Bauman's argumentation in regard to seventeenth-century Quakers. 1) Greetings are instances of phatic communion insofar as they are almost devoid of referential meaning and have only the pragmatic force of raising spatial co-presents to the status of social withs. 2) They have the function of opening access to talk. "It follows naturally that if one has not real need to talk to another person, greetings are to that extent rendered unnecessary..." (Bauman 1983: 45). We suggest that the conflicting statements concerning the use and the non-use of greetings can be reconciled when one considers them as motivated in their (complementary) distribution over meeting Täufer and outsiders, respectively. With regard to outsiders, both the phatic and the talk-opening function of greetings are dysfunctional: not only are they redundant, but they are even in conflict with the value system of the Täufer. On the other hand, greeting other Täufer is not only functional within the conversational machinery, but it is even mandatory in view of the value system. Greetings are confirmations of the brotherhood of true believers. The distribution of the use versus the deletion of greetings over

38

Werner Enninger

intra- and intergroup encounters is another mode of acting out the themes of 'strengthening the true church, i.e. the body of Christ' on the one hand, and of 'separation from the world' on the other. This boundary marking of the particular religious ethnos by a selective application of (any) greeting is supported by the prototypical format of invoking god's grace in group-internal interaction and the particular formulation used when applied to outsiders "Der Herr komme dir zu Huelfe". Before we leave the linguistic marking of ethnicity through greeting patterns we will dwell for a moment on one document which provides explicit insights into the early concept of Täufer ethnicity. The specific ethnic profile of the Täufer in the sixteenth century becomes clear from the description of the opening of an encounter of 1578: "Meinen (halb)bruder Sebastian hab ich auch bei dem brauhaus angetroffen, der mir aber, wie auch der Christmann (whom the chronicler had met before; W.E.) die hand nit geben wollen. Seine erste worte waren: ich sei ein falscher prophet; darumb dörf er mir die hand nicht bieten." (Bossert 1930/1971: 1107). While the refusal to shake hands is stated and explained, the absence of a verbal greeting must be inferred from the statement "seine erste worte waren...". Thus without a verbal greeting or its non-verbal analog of a handshake and without a mitigating preface Stephan Gerlach's half-brother Sebastian opens the encounter with the hearercostly statement that Stephan (the addressee) is a false prophet and that any signifiers of a relationship must be avoided, because they are no brethren in faith. Taken together with other evidence presented above, this document grants insight into both conversational strategies and the ethnicity concept of the early Täufer, First, in intergroup communication bald-on-record contributions appear to supersede off-record ones. The former threaten both the negative face (the need to be left alone) and the positive face (the need to be approved by others) of the outside interactant. Here conversational directness appears to be preferred to indirectness. Broadly speaking, impoliteness is used as a boundary marker of the ethnos. The document shows, second, that religious ties supersede blood relationship. In the present context this underlines that initially peoplehood was exclusively defined on the basis of the deliberately acquired status of membership in the religious brotherhood. Complementarity, ascribed statuses of kinship were explicitly excluded from the defining criteria of ethnicity. The basic questions of "Who are my kind of people?" and "What is special about us?" were answered in terms of religious brotherhood with membership exclusively based on adult baptism and confession of faith.

Anabaptist Ethnicity

39

Before we follow up the development of different profiles of ethnicity, we must dwell on other markers of the earliest profile of ethnicity. Of all, we will focus on forms of address, because they reflect almost exclusively the relationship obtaining between speaker and hearer. Pragmatics and conversational analysis have taught us that the interactional partners do not function as individual speakers and hearers, but as incumbents of social positions and roles of their respective social worlds. The relationships to in-group and to out-group interactants, respectively, are therefore likely to be marked by alternative choices of address-forms, which choices thus become linguistic boundary markers of an ethnos. The background against which the address system of sixteenth century Täufer may be put into profile is provided by Metcalf (1938: 11-63). At the beginning of the sixteenth century abstractive honorifics or designatory markers such as Majestät, Gnade, Liebde as well as Ihr were in use among the highest ranks of society; for polite address, Ihr was given to, and received by the nobility and the upper middle class (including the artisans) except where honorifics were in use. Du was exchanged by persons of the lowest ranks, but also among intimate friends, even among the highest classes. Furthermore, Du remained the sole means of addressing supernatural beings; but Du was also used to express anger or contempt (cf. Brown and Gilman 1960: 274-276 for the "thou of contempt"). During the century the frequent use of Ihr caused it to lose its value for polite address so that it began to give way to a nominal construction with Herr and a third person plural form Sie. The Zürich book of etiquette of 1539 quoted above (p. 30), Trümpy (1963: 158159) as well as many contemporary documents (cf. Fast 1973) support the validity of Metcalf 's findings also for Switzerland. In the following we will, first, compare the actual choices among the nominal and pronominal options as reflected in letters in order to show how each letter writer used the address system in order to locate himself in social space. This comparison will, at the same time, show the emergence of addressorial ethnicity markers among the Täufer. The first example is a letter of Stefan Zeller, Landvogt at Adelfingen to the City of Zürich (dated 28 February 1535). It illustrates the addressorial extremes to which an inferior might resort when writing to his superior. Both, addressor and addressees belong to mainstream authorities. Fromen, vesten, fursichtigen, ersamen, wyßen herrn, sunders günstig, genedig, lieb herren, uver wyßheit sye min underthänig Ghorsam, willig

40

Werner Enninger dienst und, was ich eeren und gut vermag, nach schuldigen pflichten allezit bereit zu vor. Gnedigen lieben heren ... Ever wyßheit gib ich hiermit in underthänigkeit zu erkennen, das... (Fast 1973: 77)

The above complimentary opening has its formal analog in the equally complimentary closing. Deictically, the use of Du would be inappropriate, because Zeiler addresses more than one person. The use of Ihr would be appropriate deictically, but it is avoided throughout the letter, probably because Ihr, when used to address more than one person, is the form which is used to address both, inferiors and close equals as well as distant superiors. Zeiler avoids this ambiguity by resorting to what Metcalf calls "abstractions" incorporated into the sentence structure: Euer wyßheit gib ich hiermit... Social propriety dictates, and the inferior's motivation to fulfill the superior's expectation of tokens of positive face-work suggests both the selection of the most deferential options and the accumulation of honorific attributes and titles in the opening of letters to superiors in the (mainstream) power network. At first sight, a letter written by the Täufer leader Felix Mantz to the Council of Zürich written in December 1524 follows the same pattern. We will select only those passages from a modern German version which are relevant for the discussion of locating oneself in social space through choices of address forms. Weise, fürsorgende, gnädige, liebe Herren und Brüder! Eure Weisheit wissen wohl, daß viele ungewöhnliche Gepräche stattgefunden haben ... Da man mich nun (wenn auch ohne Grund) so einschätzt, halte ich es für nötig, Euch, meinen gnädigen, lieben Herrn, Rechenschaft ... zu geben. ... Zum folgenden will ich Eure Weisheit ... gebeten haben: Bitte hört ohne Ansehen der Person...; ermeßt wohl, was da angeführt ist, und laßt Euch die kurze Zeit nicht leid sein! ... Deshalb will ich Eure Weisheit freundlich und auf das allerdringlichste gebeten haben: Bitte nehmt mein Schreiben im besten Sinne auf.... Ich möchte Eure Weisheit auch ermahnt haben, daß Ihr Euch an den Streit über die Götzen erinnert ... Ich möchte Eure Weisheit auch daran erinnert haben, daß ... Deshalb möchte ich aufs fleißigste gebeten haben: bitte besudelt Eure Hände nicht mit unschuldigem Blut und meint, Ihr tut Gott einen Dienst, wenn Ihr einige tötet oder verjagt... Ich möchte Eure Weisheit auch um folgendes gebeten haben. (Fast 1962: 28-35) In the opening address Mantz uses unintegrated designatory markers, but unlike Zeller in the preceding letter, he does not accumulate them to the

Anabaptist Ethnicity

41

extreme; the difference is one of degree, not of kind. In a letter to the authorities, the term Brüder seems unusual. Fast (1962: 28) takes the use of this term as an indicator of the fact that at that time Mantz acknowledged the later persecutors of the Täufer still as brethren, although Zwingli and the Täufer had been drifting apart since the October disputation of 1523. Thus the initial address reflects Mantz's dual relationship to his addressees: citizen to magistrates in the power network vs. brother to brethren in the solidarity network. In the body of the letter he uses both, abstractions integrated into the sentence structure ("Eure Weisheit wissen wohl ... Ich möchte Eure Weisheit auch um folgendes gebeten haben") and Ihr, also in oblique cases and implicitly, as in the imperative nehmt While the former expresses deference owed to superiors, the latter - when used to address more than one person - is neutral with regard to power and solidarity. In comparison with the Zeiler letter (which does not contain any token of Ihr), the alternation between deferential and neutral forms of address indicates that Mantz is thoroughly aware of his dual, and probably ambiguous relationship with the addressees. His address forms locate him in just this double-faced position between the two (emerging) social worlds. The famous letter from Konrad Grebel (and associates) to Thomas Müntzer of September 5, 1524 indicates the general direction in which the Täufer forms of address were to develop in the intra-group network. Dem wahrhaftigen und getrüwen deß evanngelli Tome Müntzer zu Altstett am Hartz, unserem getrüwen und lieben mitbruder in Christo etc. Frid, gnad und barmhertzikeit von Gott unßerem vatter und Jesu Christo unserem herren sy mit unß allen, Amen. Lieber bruder Toman, laß dich umb Gotz willen nit wunderen, daß wir dich ansprechend on Titel und wie ein bruder ursachend hinfür mit unß zehandlen durch gschrift, und daß wir ungeforderet und die unbekant habend gedörfen ein gmeinkünftig gsprech ufrichten. (Franz 1968: 437) In a period, in which the address systems was characterized by "a gradual but constant tendency to veer off farther and farther from the familiar form Du: first to the second person plural (in addressing one person), next to the third person singular, finally to the third person plural" (Silverberg 1940: 510), Grebel moves in the opposite direction. He addresses Müntzer without title and with Du, although they had never met before. The comment (on the meta-level) shows that Grebel and associates are aware of the expectations which they violate: laß dich umb gotz willen nit wunderen, daß wir dich an-

42

Werner Enninger

sprechend on Titel und wie ein bruder. Throughout the letter Grebel and associates use consistently tokens of TU (du, dich, din; implicit TU in finite verbforms such as wellist, berichte, lere) in order to address Müntzer. Ihr forms occur only where Grebel et al. address more than one person, i.e. Müntzer and Karlstadt. Throughout the letter there is not one token of deferential Ihr or of any "abstractions". Thus this letter is not only the earliest summarizing statement of doctrinal points of the Swiss Täufer (who reject some of Müntzer's views), but at the same time the letter documents the emergent marking of the emergent brotherhood ethnos through an invariant Du for singular address. How radical this innovative use of the invariant Du for singular address inside the religious brotherhood was becomes clearer by its contrast to the maintenance of the traditional address forms between brothers-in-law. The same Conrad Grebel who on 4 September 1524 addresses Müntzer, his (half-) brother in faith with Du, on 23 November and on 15 December of the same year 1524 addresses his brother-in-law (Vadian) with honorific Ihr and title: Min schwagerlichen grutz zwor. lieber herr doctor, wüssend mir üwer brief.... So ir aber nüt vernommen hettind ... will ich üch schriben.... (Muralt/Schmid 1952: 28-29) Lieber herr doctor und schwager, daß ir mich gebetten hand, kond ich nit leisten... (Muralt/Schmid 1952: 29) Both letters use ir/iiwer, i.e. tokens of VOUS consistently. Thus while religious ties came to be signaled by solidary TU (and significantly absent honorifics), certain family ties continued to be reflected in polite VOUS plus honorifics. Not only in addressed written communication (personal letters, corporate epistles etc.), but also in group-internal face-to-face encounters tokens of pronominal TU appear to have been the rule. The list of greeting-formulae (cf. above) attests to that. Ciasen (1965: 87; Jacobs 1899: 484-485, 505) confirms the view that TU forms were the unmarked option of intergroup pronominal address. Outsiders perceived this usage as so marked that it roused their suspicion: Die Stuttgarter Regierung wurde schon argwöhnisch, als man ihr meldete, daß die Täufer einander duzten und Schwester und Brüder nannten. (Ciasen 1965: 111) This quote shows that the nominal equivalent of pronominal Du in the Täufer intra-group network was bruder/schwester. An abundance of docu-

Anabaptist Ethnicity

43

mentary evidence from, for example, Sebastian Franck's Chronica (die Täufer hießen einander Brüder), Wappler (1913: 396, 399, cf. below), Nicoladoni (1893: 224), Jacobs (1899: 484-485, 504-505) gives credence to d a sen's generalization: "Die Täufer selbst redeten sich nach ihrer Bekehrung nur noch als Brüder und Schwestern an" (1965: 84). This Standard form of address appears to be optionally followed by the qualifier "im Herrn", as in the opening and concluding addresses which frame the "Schleitheim Confession": brüder und Schwestern, Lieben brüder und Schwestern, Lieben brüder und Schwestern im Herrn!, Lieben brüder (cf. Jenny 1951). The qualifier explicitly selects the subsense 'related in faith' of the otherwise polysemous bruder/schwester, i.e. 'sibling' versus 'related in faith'. Since all of the above addresses are co-referential, the qualifier-free form must be refential-semantically compatible with the qualified address. As in the case of the selective greeting behavior, we are again made aware of the fact that during the founding phase the ethnicity of the Täufer was based on shared beliefs alone, and that to the explicit exclusion of the criterion of relationship in blood. The perceptual foregrounding of faith before family is evidenced in the records on the arrest of Täufer Orlamünde in Thuringia on 21 November 1535: "Als sie nun gefenglichen vorfast, hat der muller Hans Poißker zu seinem weibe geredt und sie Schwester geheißen.... hinwidder inen das weib bruder geheissen" (Wappler 1913: 399). The same tendency is repeated a few pages later. "(Martha...) saget, Gott hat sie underweist, das sie sich zu den brudern halden sollte, welche auch den vatern einen brudern und der vater sie widderumb eine Schwester genannte" (Wappler 1913: 399). If the definition of ethnicity in terms of faith - and not in terms of family ties - needed a confirmation which also reflects the bald-on-record conversational strategies the document contains one: Item sie wollen von iren freuntschaften und blutsfreunden nichts hoeren, sagen, sie haben auf erden keine freundschaft, begeren nicht irer hulf noch rat, weniger irer vorbitt, und sunderlich ist der wechter einer des mullers Hansen Poißkers gefatter, der inen im gefenknus gefatter geheißen, der er geantwort, er wußte von seiner gefatterschaft gar nichts, er were des teufeis gefatter. (Wappler 1913: 399) Further distinct rules of speaking could be discussed as linguistic ethnicity markers during the ethnogenesis of the Täufer cosmos. Limitations of space, however, prevent discussing the function of rules for the topicalization

44

Werner Enninger

of speech content in general or constraints on identifiable speech acts (such as slander, libel, derision (cf. Jacobs 1899: 485), litigation, talking-back, etc.) as linguistic markers of emergent "new ethnicity". In view of the growing importance of speaking rules in the Täufer cosmos, the pertinent documents deserve further attention in separate studies as for example Dietrich Philips' Enchiridion or Hand Book (repr. 1978; first 1569), Johann Arndt's Paradies Gärtlein (first 1612) or the anonymos Lust=Gärtlein Frommer Seelen (repr. 1970; first c. 1770), which on pages 219-241 anticipates the core content of Grice's maxims of quantity, quality, relation and manner (cf. Enninger et. al. 1989: 162-165). Instead, section 1 has exclusively focused on rules of greeting and address in their function of ethnicity marking, and has not even covered this realm exhaustively. The 'thou' of contempt as for example documented in Muralt/Schmid (1952: 39), Bossert (1930/1971: 1050), Ciasen (1965: 104) deserves attention also in regard to its role in (aggressive) boundary marking of the emergent ethnos. As a more recent study of the variable use of one address system by two co-territorial Mennonite groups (Howell and Klasen 1971) shows, ways of addressing are worthy objects of research beyond the ethnogenesis of the Täufer cosmos. This and the fact that rules and ways of speaking have been continually topicalized in the doctrinal writings of the Täufer leads us to assume that distinct conversational strategies have continued to play a role in the linguistic marking of Täufer ethnicity beyond the founding phases. Instead of following up pertinent leads we will in the following focus on other linguistic markers of ethnicity.

2. Linguistic Markers of Peoplehood during the Post-Foundation Phases Section 1 dealt (selectively) with the emergent linguistic marking of peoplehood, of "new ethnicity" during the ethnogenesis of the Täufer. The following section will deal with concepts of peoplehood and their linguistic marking in the post-foundation phases. The end point of what is meant by "post-foundation phases" is clearly the present - which includes also the migration to other language areas. The consequences of this migration for the linguistic marking of ethnicity are here disregarded and will be treated in section 3. Instead, we will here focus on an additional component in the concept of ethnicity and its linguistic marking, both of which are independent of migration to other lan-

Anabaptist Ethnicity

45

guage areas. Admittedly, the weak point of the following section is the exact point in time at which the new concept of ethnicity began to take shape. Only for the sake of convenience the year 1550 is suggested, because by that time harassment and persecution had forced the originally aggressively proselytizing urban movement to withdraw to a quietist rural movement which turned inward on itself. As was repeatedly stated in section 1, the dissensus was initially based on religious values exclusively. From the studies of religious-based schisms it is well-known that sometimes the differentiation, though at first defined in religious terms, broadens to include a whole way of life (cf. Petersen 1980: 241). This is particularly likely to happen, if the central doctrinal positions are to be lived out in life - as is the case in the existential Christianity of the Täufer (cf. Friedmann 1973: 31). In such a context membership can no longer be based exclusively on the acceptance of a closed list of doctrinal points in baptism, but also (or rather) on an ethnic sentiment which can only be absorbed in an extended socialization process within both the family and the closely-knit social network in which like-minded people interact frequently or even regularly. The group's separate religious past is reinforced in the present by physical-geographic proximity as well as occupational, political, friendship and familial ties. Such a group is likely to turn inward, and encourage or even enjoin endogamy as a boundary-protecting instrument. These considerations account for the inclusion of common ancestry and endogamy into most definitions of ethnicity: "... and common ancestry or place of origin ... Endogamy is usual" (De Vos 1975: 9). With the exception of a shared and distinctive linguistic past, we are here faced with the ensemble of components which are, as a rule, considered to constitute ethnicity, or - more precisely - "old ethnicity" (cf. Gumperz and Gumperz-Cook 1982: 5). In the case of the Täufer this turning inward did not only develop from internal motivations but it was at the same time enforced by outside powers. They were first forbidden to proselytize, then complied with the pertinent legislation, and ultimately some (conservative) branches canonized non-proselytizing as one of their norms. In due course, the brotherhood became co-extensive with a kinship-network and a new concept of ethnicity emerged. In analogy to Rose (1988: 168 who, in turn, refers to Francis 1955: 25) one can say: Within a few generations the Täufer passed from an exclusively religious brotherhood based on adult baptism and confession of faith to a society identified additionally by characteristics of descent and shared cultural traits. This means to say that the primary

46

Werner Enninger

locus of identification remains the system of Täufer beliefs, but that the medium of their transmission, i.e. parentage/ancestors develops into a second locus of identification. In such a cultural context exogamy is likely to be considered an indicator of assimilation into the dominant culture and "marriage out" might endanger the unbroken transmission of the Täufer belief system to the following generations. In fact, endogamy has remained the rule, - as one can infer from two linguistic markers of ethnicity alone. To the extent in which the proselytizing outreach receded the Täufer ecclesiola became almost coextensive with an endogamous race. Family names attest to that. Hard-core linguists may hesitate to include onomastics into their discipline, because the semantics of the various kinds of names (familiy names, first names, nicknames; Enninger 1985a) gives them a particular status among words which makes them peripheral to the language system. On the other hand, it is equally clear that names do not only identify individuals, but that they - given their inherited status or their anchoring in traditional first-naming patterns - are markers of ethnicity that cannot very well be assigned to non-verbal markers of ethnicity. Above all family names reflect a group's distinctiveness and they should therefore be included into the (verbal) vehicles of ethnicity (cf. Epstein 1978: X). The fact that among the 85,000 Amish in 1980 there were only 126 different family names attests to the prevalence of endogamy. Only "forty-three names (33 per cent) are American in origin and represent converts to the Amish faith, but they constitute a small proportion of the population. At the present time, 18 of the 43 names represent only single households" (Hostetler 1980: 241). In analogous fashion, thorough demographic analysis of one specific Old Order Amish settlement revealed that 1,304 persons living in or born to the 170 families with Old Order Amish household heads had only 20 different family names (Enninger and Wandt 1980). In the present context this means that the second criterion of ethnicity, i.e. kinship and endogamy, is saliently reflected in family names. While the clustering of family names in a narrow segment of the onomastic potential reflects the biological effects of conceptualizing the religious brotherhood also in terms of an historically continuous and endogamous kinship network (Pennsylvania German: die Freindschaft), the preoccupation of later successors of the Swiss Täufer with genealogies indicates the deliberate attempt to answer the ethnicity questions of 'Who are my kind of people? What is special about us?' (also) at the level of biological continuity. Again,

Anabaptist Ethnicity

47

while hard-core linguists would clearly exclude genealogies from their field, our definition of "linguistic markers" of ethnicity is broad enough to include this text-linguistic genre. Its inclusion is even warranted because it helps to distinguish the construction of historical continuity within the concepts of new versus old ethnicity. New ethnicity, we suggest, constructed historical continuity exclusively in religious terms, i.e. in the Nachfolge Christi (the discipleship of christ): Braght's Martyrs' Mirror (1660) reflects this view: Gleich wie man zweierlei Volk, zweierlei Versammlungen und Kirchen findet, die eine aus Gott und vom Himmel, die andere aus dem Satan und von der Erde, so findet man auch zweifache Nachfolge und Fortpflanzung derselben. (Braght 1973: 19) In the transition from new to old ethnicity biological continuity was foregrounded - and reflected in a small cluster of family names and the salience of family histories among all text types produced by the Täufer descendents. The case may serve to support and to modify Hansen's "deliberately overdrawn" hypothesis of "third-generation nationalism" and its markers. The hypothesis suggests a three-generation typology of ethnic marking, in which the third generation wants to remember their roots, which the second generation - caught in the strange dualism of being a native of foreign extraction wanted to disremember. Hansen suggests that after approximately 60 years that is, two generations - the immigrant population makes organized efforts to revive specific elements of its root culture (cf. Petersen 1980: 239). Among the successors of the Swiss Täufer revival efforts did not focus on Swissness or Germanness, but rather on the history of the brotherhood and its transmitters, i.e. the largely endogamous chain of procreation. To what extent the rise of genealogies fits Hansen's 60 years and three-generation cycle remains to be seen. It seems as if the genealogical interest among the Täufer-successors was due to a postponed search for roots - much like the ethnic revival in the US in the seventies and in present-day Europe. As Springer (1972) shows, genealogies and family histories became a major concern in the wider Mennonite world in America during the nineteenth century. The first books appeared in 1858. "From 1870 to the present there has been a continuous growth in American Mennonite genealogical publications with an early peak in the 1890's and a slight recession during the 1930s" (Springer 1972: 457). Springer's analysis of the genre brings to light that the distribution of such books over Mennonites in the wider sense on the one hand, and the Old Order

48

Werner Enninger

Amish on the other varies with time. The increase in the number of American genealogies published between 1952 and 1972 can be attributed largely to the Old Order Amish (and the Russian Mennonites). In August 1982 no fewer than 460 Old Order Amish genealogies had appeared (Luthy 1982; personal communication). This reflects the present-day concern of the more traditional segments with 'old ethnicity' at a time when more liberal Anabaptist groups have reverted to the original 'new ethnicity' (cf. section 3.2). Together with the absence of other widely produced historical studies by the population at large, this can be taken as an indicator of the fact that in the historical thought of the Täufer successors the procreational chain has been foregrounded against the implicitly understood and taken-for-granted background of the meanwhile diversified religious brotherhood. Today, there is hardly an issue of the culture-internal papers that does not advertise a (new) family history and/or that does not solicit and publish genealogical information. Also, in oral discourse, genealogy has been "the Mennonite game", as one Mennonite aptly put it. (For further details on doing ethnicity "through specific genres", cf. Enninger 1986b, 1988.) It should be noted, that constructing historical continuity at the level of family history makes sense in a group with extreme horizontal mobility: one's own procreational chain is the most stable historical dimension. In concluding this section it should be noted that the additional component of the Täufer concept of ethnicity, i.e. the unbroken procreational chain leaves immediate linguistic traces only in onomastics and in the genre of genealogies - and thus those markers should not be ommited, even if they are marginal linguistic phenomena. Since an unbroken procreational chain favors language maintenance, maintained languages may be considered as secondary markers of endogamy. They may become particularly salient markers of ethnicity in general after migration to other language areas where they may become a component of a linguistic repertoire not shared with mainstream society. These questions will be addressed in section 3.

3. Linguistic Markers of Peoplehood during the Migration to Other Language Areas The social distance between in-group and out-group - at first only actively sought - was as of 1527 increased by severe persecution by state and church.

Anabaptist Ethnicity

49

This persecution, later abating to harassment, lasted for almost 200 years. The early migrations were mostly the result of this persecution. Since then most branches of the Täufer movement - even the agrarian branches - have been horizontally mobile groups. For centuries many of their branches have been in continual transit from one region to another, from one state to the next, and from one language area to another. These migrations created the language-contact situations in which the inherited varieties could and, in fact, did become the most salient linguistic ethnicity markers. It is in these language-contact situations that the basic tenet of Giles unfolds its full heuristic value, namely that "one of the important sources of variance existing between different ethnic group contexts is the baseline linguistic repertoires of the groups concerned" (1979: 253). Giles proposed three types of adjustment strategies leading to different situations: language choice situation, accommodation situation, and assimilation situation (1979: 255). He furthermore suggested four typical ethnolinguistic profiles emerging in language-contact situations: a) monolingualism in the ingroup language, b) monolingualism in the outgroup language, c) bilingualism in the in- and outgroup languages, and d) bilingualism in the ingroup language and a lingua franca. Of these concepts, four are particularly helpful in the description of linguistic ethnicity marking across the Täufer-spectrum through history: linguistic accommodation resulting in bilingualism in the inand outgroup languages and linguistic assimilation leading (ultimately) to monolingualism in the outgroup language. Before we discuss these in turn we hasten to add that the above terms stand for prototypes with fuzzy edges rather than for strict categories with clear boundaries. 3.1 Linguistic Accommodation: Diglossic Bilingualism in the Ingroup and the Outgroup Languages In language-contact situations the assimilative and the isolative forces obtaining within a given ethnos (cf. Kloss 1966) can produce quite different ethnolinguistic profiles and quite different timings of language transitions to the ultimate terminus ad quem predicted by the majority of ethnolinguists, i.e. monolingualism in the outgroup language. Thus it comes as no surprise that the particularly strong isolative motivations of some Täufer branches should even today, i.e. sometimes after several hundreds of years of migration

50

Werner Enninger

through other language areas, exhibit a distinct bilingualism and sometimes even a trilingualism pattern supported by diglossia. Examples are: 1) Täufercongregations in the francophone Swiss Jura that have maintained their Bernese dialect. 2) The German-speaking Mennonite communities in Paraguay, Uruguay, Belize and Mexico in Spanish-speaking areas, and in Portuguese-speaking Brazil. 3) The Hutterer Bruderhöfe in the US and Canada. 4) The Old Order Amish in the US and Canada. 5) The Old Order Mennonites in the US. In order to provide a comparison with the largely hypothetical ethnolinguistic profile of the sixteenth-century Zürich presented in table 1 we will here give the linguistic profile of the Old Order Amish (OOA) settlement in Kent County, Delaware, which is representative of most OOA settlements, except those stemming from nineteenth-century immigration from the Switzerland, from the Pays de Montbéliard and Alsace. In those areas (high-) alemannic dialects close to the Bernese dialect takes the place of Pennsylvania German in table 3. Note that AHG stands for Amish High German and AE stands for American English. Note also that this example of linguistic accommodation contains a reflection of linguistic assimilation: "In a single generation in the Palatinate the Zürich and Bernese Anabaptists had completely adopted the speech of the new land" (Gratz and Geiser 1973: 671). In the context of the above quote this means that the immigrants gave up their Zürich and Bernese dialects for the Palatinate dialect, which later was to serve as the basis of present-day Pennsylvania German. Table 3 Cultural Situation Group

+Dinomia ours theirs values

Individual

Linguistic Situation

+Biculturalism

+Diglossia varieties values identity prestige

our

AHG PG high high

+Multilingualism

high low

their AE low high

Anabaptist Ethnicity

51

Table 3 reveals that the transit from Switzerland, Alsace and various parts of Germany to America was accompanied by a) the maintenance of Amish High German and the substitution of Pennsylvania German for Schwytzerdytsch and by b) the complementary association of the components of the linguistic repertoire with "our" and "their" values: AHG is associated with high prestige and high identity, PG is associated with low prestige and high identity values. The latter means that - in contrast to the original Zürich situation, the terminus a quo - the dinomia-situation is paralleled by or reflected in, a linguistic repertoire which, insofar as it is not shared with mainstream society, is distinctive of the minority. Both situations are depictable in terms of diglossia and bilingualism; but whereas in the original situation the plus and minus distinctions operated on the vertical dimensions or "our" and "their" elite vs. "our" and "their" average person, they now operate on the horizontal dimension of "us" versus "them": "we" share "their" variety AE, but "they" do not share "our" varieties AHG and PG. The table thus suggests that in the transit from Europe to the language-contact situation in America the linguistic repertoire of the Täufer, which was indistinguishable from that of mainstream culture, "transited" to the non-shared and distinct ethnolinguistic profile of the 0 0 A today (for further details, cf. Enninger 1986c). With regard to the signaling of identities in speech this diglossic pattern implies: 1. In the intra-group interaction network 'old ethnicity' is signaled by the use of one of the inherited varieties, either the low-prestige plus high-identity variety of PG, or the high-prestige plus high-identity variety of AHG in their respective domains. Two comments are appropriate here: On the part of the speaker, the use of these varieties is not equivalent with "free choice", insofar as the speaker is subject to the norms of appropriateness. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the speaker intentionally communicates 'old ethnicity'. We would rather say that - in following the conventionalized rules of appropriate variety-use - s/he is socially obliged to signify the societally important 'old ethnicity'. The other point to be mentioned is that the heavy borrowing from AE into PG, as well as the interference from PG in AHG, and the borrowing from AE into AHG do not endanger the signification of 'old ethnicity' as long as the varieties are perceived as distinct and identified as "their" versus "our" varieties.

52

Werner Enninger

2. In the intergroup network the use of AE is again not a question of deliberate choice, but one of communicative necessity. After all, AE is, as a rule, the only variety shared with group-external interactants. The fact that AE is used signals the accommodative attitudes to mainstream society and the cooperativeness with mainstram interactants in secondary roles of power. The way in which it is used, signifies 'old ethnicity' through a minimal amount of learner interferences from L1 (PG) on L2 (AE) (cf. Eninnger et al. 1985). The order in which the components of the L2 (AE) are affected by interferences from L1 (PG) is - as can be expected - the inverse of the order in which the components of L1 (PG) are affected by borrowing from L2 (AE) (cf. Thomason 1986). In speech, the AE lexicon of the OOA is not marked by learner interference from PG, i.e. their speech contains no lexemes which are not also contained in the speech of their socially comparable territorial monolinguals. Switches to PG words or phrases are no evidence to the contrary. However, a questionnaire based on Kurath (1949) revealed a preference for originally German lexemes which have become established areally as AE words by substratum interference/borrowing, if such items co-exist with indigenous AE options. Thus they prefer smear case over cottage cheese, thick milk over clabber/clabber milk, sheep buck over ram, clook over setting hen, den/overden over loft. The same preference applies for options with a cognate in PG/HG as in pancake over hotcake, and options which are morphologically transparent to Pennsylvania Germans: frying pan ( < brotpann) rather than skillet. However, since the preferred items are also (dispreferred) options in the AE speech of AE monolinguals, their preferred use by the OOA can be interpreted as a hardly noticeable, and therefore weak marker of 'old ethnicity'. In view of the well-documented intralingual grammatical ethnicity markers in Black English (cf. Giles 1979: 262-263) the question arises, whether or not the marking of ethnicity is any stronger on the level of morpho-syntax. On this level fourteen types of deviation from the school booksanctioned norms of AE were found by the Essen Delaware Amish Project Team (EDAPT): 1) loss of plural marker, 2) "those" is replaced by ''them", 3) past participle is replaced by preterite, 4) preterite marker is deleted, 5) present perfect and past perfect "have"/"had" are deleted, 6) absence of subjectverb concord, 7) negation after negated verb, 8) negation after/before "hardly", 9) adverb is replaced by adjective, 10) non-standard prepositions, 11) de-

Anabaptist Ethnicity

53

letion of article, 12.1) deletion of relative pronoun, 12.2) relative pronoun is replaced by "what", 13) deletion of genitive "of, 14) non-standard insertion of "yet", "make", "get". However, a comparison with socially comparable monolingual speakers of AE reveals that - with the exception of type 14 their speech exhibits the same types of morpho-syntactical deviation from the school-book norm. Thus the morpho-syntactical component reflects areal features (Bynon 1977: 244) or even national features associated with informal registers or less educated speech styles rather than markers of old ethnicity. On the level of phonology the EDAPT search for ethnicity markers among the OOA of Kent County, Delaware was more successful. On this level the following pecularities could be observed: sometimes loss of final /r/ and loss of sonority in final [ b, d, g ]; more frequently [ d3 ] was replaced by [tf], [ e i ] b y [ e : ] , [ o ] b y [ o ] or [ A ] , and final [ i ] b y [ I ] , [ o ] , or [ e ] . None of these features occurred regularly, but rather at a level of low relative frequency; furthermore, these features were not evenly distributed across the OOA population but clustered rather with a few individuals. Given the insistence on "good English" in the OOA parochial schools (which are English language schools and not geared toward the maintenance of the ethnic varieties, cf. Enninger 1985b), and given the fact that a systematic contrastive analysis of PG (L1) and AE (L2) predicts the above peculiarities, we regard them as cases of interference, and thus as instances of (unintentionally) signifying rather than as instances of (intentionally) communicating and thus of asserting 'old ethnicity'. A matched-guise test (reading a text) supported the descriptive results insofar as the informant judgements indicated a slight, but not a straightforward tendency to identify OOA on the basis of pronunciation alone. What the linguistically naïve listeners perceived as the most salient cue for ethnic categorization was an undetermined intuition about "their strange melody", but not so much segmental units. This is in accordance with the pertinent literature (such as Gumperz; Taylor and Simard; von Raffler-Engel; Lass, Mertz and Kimmel; Dickens and Sawyer; Wächtler). The quality of the tapes, unfortunately, prevented a descriptive analysis like the one which Huffines did in her pioneer work for the less conservative Pennsylvania Germans. Summary: In general, the above linguistic findings for the Kent County, Delaware OOA confirmed the earlier results of Raith (1981a, 1981b) for Lancaster County, PA and of Huffines (1980a, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, 1984d, 1986) for

54

Werner Enninger

various counties of Pennsylvania. In the language-contact situation of the US (and Canada) these fairly conservative descendants of the Täufer have opted for the accommodation paradigm. They signal 'old ethnicity' predominantly through the continued use of two German-based varieties group-internally, rather than through the way in which they use the outgroup variety AE in intergroup encounters, as Huffines had noted before. (Note that all written communication is in English. For ethnicity markers in written texts, cf. Enninger 1984, 1986b, 1987, Enninger et al. 1985.) 3.2 Linguistic Assimilation: towards Monolingualism in the Outgroup Language In many cases, the transit of the Täufer to other language areas was accompanied by a fast or slow language shift so that the linguistic repertoires of minority and mainstream culture have become, or are becoming, identical. Examples of this linguistic assimilation are: 1) The Zürich and Bernese Täufer in the Palatinate who shifted to the Palatinate dialect within one generation (cf. above). 2) The Dutch to German shift by Anabaptist-Mennonite refugees from Holland settling in Emden, Krefeld, Hamburg, Lübeck, and later in Danzig, Elbing, Königsberg and Graudenz. The transition from Dutch monolingualism through Dutch-German bilingualism to German monolingualism was completed everywhere but in Emden by the end of the nineteenth century (cf. Bender 1973a: 291). 3) The German to English shift by the 18th century Mennonite immigrants to Pennsylvania from Switzerland and the Palatinate (including subsequent settlements in Ontario, Virginia, and Ohio) and by the immigrants from Switzerland, Alsace, and Southern Germany to the area west of the Allegheny Mountains as far as Illinois. Both groups completed their shift to English monolingualism largely in the second half of the 19th century (cf. Bender 1973a: 291). In all these cases the ultimate terminus ad quem of the immigrant repertoire, namely monolingualism in the language of the country of destination, was reached in a complete linguistic assimilation. In a few other cases this shift has been almost completed, such as in the French (speaking) Pays de Montbéliard (formerly part of the Duchy of Württemberg) where only the oldest generation is still bilingual. The same applies to the Les Bulles and the Pruntrut/Porrentruy congregrations in the francophone Swiss Jura (Gratz and Geiser 1973: 671) and the Mennonite enclaves west of the (earlier) French-German language-border fol-

Anabaptist Ethnicity

55

lowing the ridge of the Vosges south across the Sundgau to Biel/Bienne in Switzerland (cf. This 1888; Sommer 1913). Today, the Birkenhof/Altkirch congregation in Southern Alsace supplies simultaneous translations into French for the sake of the younger generations, if the service is held in German - and vice versa. For a close-up picture of the language transition in Kansas, cf. Buchheit 1982. Below we will discuss the case of the more liberal Täufer descendants in Pennsylvania, who are at various points of the transition continuum between bilingualism and monolingualism. In many cases the linguistic assimilation to the out-group language caused serious friction within the Täufer ethnos, because the conservative segments of the groups involved perceived the linguistic assimilation not only as linguistic de-ethnicization, but rather as religious de-ethnicization. They insisted on language maintenance by making claims of higher spiritual values and forfeiture of group principles and even faith in God in the case of the surrender of the mother tongue (cf. Bender 1973a: 291, Buchheit 1982: 111). To the conservative wing, the inherited varieties were not only linguistic markers of ethnicity or instruments of doing ethnicity (by raising the fence against inmarriage and against outsider participation in intra-group domains of interaction), but the inherited varieties came close to being considered as a component of the ethnicity concept itself. Such considerations played a role during the Amish schism between 1850 and 1880 and the Mennonite schisms between 1870 and 1900. Though the language question was not the sole or even the central cause of the ultimate schism, it certainly did play a role. In order to stay with dem alten Gebrauch (the old custom) and in order to strengthen the isolative orientation, the Old Order Amish and the Old Order or Wisler Mennonites opted for the linguistic accommodation paradigm described above and implicitly for 'old ethnicity'. Bender's little article provides at the same time the key for understanding the emergence of a different concept of ethnicity and - in its wake - the emergence of the paradigm of linguistic assimilation in other branches of the Täufer descendants. After isolating the advantages of maintaining inherited languages in other language areas (separation from the surrounding culture, strengthening the sense of nonconformity and internal solidarity), Bender points out a disadvantage: "On the other hand, the language breach has usually prevented a program of active evangelism and outreach..." (Bender 1973a: 290). For ethnicity the evangelistic programs which were started in the 1870s by some Mennonite leaders in the wake of the revival movement in

56

Werner Enninger

some protestant churches (Bender 1973b; Bender 1973c) caused the opening of the (then endogamous) ethnos to outsiders with a non-Täufer biological, migrational and cultural history. Biological continuity was deemphasized for the sake of re-conceptualizing the ethnos in terms of a religious brotherhood of believers - as during the foundation phase. This re-conceptualiziation required the readjustment of the so far distinct ethnolinguistic profile to an indistinct one - as it had existed during the foundation phase. After centuries of linguistic separation the return to the original concept of ethnicity necessitated the deliberate linguistic assimilation, which, however, cannot be equated with de-ethnicization. The Emmental Täufer congregations of today (which never moved to other language areas) and the many Mennonite settlements that in other language areas went through linguistic accommodation and linguistic assimilation attest to the fact that ethnicity - if defined exclusively as a religious brotherhood - is independent of using a separate language. After all, religious principles are not language-specific (cf. Buchheit 1982: 112). However, during the shift toward monolingualism in the outgroup language, intralingual markers in the outgroup language resulting from previous or ongoing language contact may, at least for some generations, carry the linguistic distinctness of the ethnos. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the speech economy of the Mennonites was roughly identical with that of the Old Order Amish today. During the first quarter of the twentieth century one finds several instances of Mennonite scholarly and professional organizations to maintain the Mennonite speech economy in the status quo. By the thirties, however, such voices were hardly heard any more (cf. Buchheit 1982: 112), and more and more communities started on their way towards a monolingual speech economy, i.e. the more extensive use of English for more purposes with concomitant blurring of the boundaries of the domains for the use of each variety and, ultimately, the exclusive use of the outgroup language AE. In such groups which are at various points of the language shift continuum towards ultimate loss of PG and AHG, the question of what language they use is ethnolinguistically less relevant than the way in which they use the language towards which they are shifting, i.e. AE (cf. Huffines 1986). With regard to segmental phonology, Raith (1981a and 1981b) reports for his sample from Lancaster County that the more liberal Anabaptist groups betrayed almost all of the segmental interferences in AE which might be predicted by systematic contrastive analysis. This scope contrasted with that of

Anabaptist Ethnicity

57

the OOA: 1. initial 0 > s (thin), 2. final r > 0 (floor), initial v > w (very), 4. u > o (joke), z > s (bells), 6. initial w > v (want), 7. final v > f (leave), 8. d3 > tf (jug), 9. ei > e: (teenager), 10. A > D (O) (jug), 11 final r before s > 0 (teenagers), 12. final b, d, g > b, d, g (ñb, wood, jug). This is more than just a list, it is rather an implicational hierarchy. Speakers who exhibit interference number one are likely to exhibit also all the higher number interferences. Here it should be remembered that the OOA of Kent County exhibited none of the features one to seven, and that they exhibited none of the higher interferences regularly: interferences eight to ten occurred frequently, and interference twelve occurred only occasionally (Enninger et al. 1985: 5-7). Similarly, in Raith's interference hierarchy the OOA clearly clustered near the low-interference pole. The reduced participation of the Old Orders, and the ample participation of the nonsectarian Pennsylvania Germans in the interference hierarchy was also found by Huffines (1986). In the present context of ethnicity marking this means that the more liberal Anabaptists and nonsectarian Pennsylvania Germans mark ethnicity in their AE speech more clearly through segmental phonetic interferences than the Old Orders do. Summary: In the context of linguistic ethnicity markers this means that the replacement of 'old ethnicity' (endogamous brotherhood of believers sharing the same socialization process and thus the cultural and linguistic traditions) by the revived original concept of the brotherhood of believers necessitated the disuse of the separate inherited varieties; in turn, their function as ethnicity markers was taken over by the way in which the mainstream language is used. The interference-laden variant of English used by the ethnos evokes on the part of the member the same kind of solidarity and on the part of the outsider the same kind of social distance as would the use of one of the separate inherited varieties. "Nevertheless, it has been found that the use of an outgroup language, but with a distinctive ethnic accent, does not detract from the speaker's perceived ethnicity in the eyes of others" (Giles 1979: 256-257; cf. Giles 1973; Huffines 1986). In most cases, such ethnicity markers will be cases of unintentional signification (interference), but the member of the ethnos who has an interference-free variant of English at his disposal may choose to use it and thus totally converge on the outsider's speech. However, he may also choose to intentionally communicate and thus to assert his ethnicity by diverging from the outsider's speech. Whereas the former speaker will be located in social space by his interference, the latter speaker can locate

58

Werner Enninger

himself in social space by selecting among his options. He may try to pass for a mainstream person, or he may assert his ethnic identity.

4. Conclusion This paper sought to show how the ethnicity concept of the Swiss Täufer and its linguistic markers have changed through four centuries. The 'new ethnicity' emerging in the sixteenth century was exclusively defined by a closed set of religious principles not shared by others. Membership was acquired by the deliberate acceptance of the distinctive ideas. Linguistically, the peoplehood idea was not reflected in a separate language, but it was signaled by distinctive ways of speaking and conversational strategies. Within a few generations this original ethnicity concept was complemented by the ascribed criterion of biological descendance and by an open set of cultural traits absorbed in a socialization process within the kinship/brotherhood network. 'New ethnicity' gave way to 'old ethnicity'. Linguistically the ascribed criterion of biological descendance was reflected in an almost closed list of family names. During the (enforced) migration to other language areas 'old ethnicity' was additionally signaled either through the continued use of inherited languages by the side of the outgroup language and the concomitant linguistic interference in the outgroup language if the ethnos opted for linguistic accommodation, or through heavy interference in the outgroup language during language transition, if linguistic assimilation was the choice. In language contact situations linguistic assimilation is the only choice, if the original peoplehood concept of a brotherhood of believers is maintained or revived, as for example among nineteenth or twentieth century liberal Täufer churches in America for the sake of proselytizing outreach. The revived original ethnicity concept, the reversal to the ethnicity concept of the Reformation, required deemphasizing biological continuity of the ethnos. Beside the language transition to the outgroup language, a widening list of family names can be taken as an indicator of the successful implementation of "revived original ethnicity". This presentation of linguistic markers of Anabaptist ethnicity deviates from the extant publications on the same subject insofar as it includes ways and rules of speaking among the linguistic ethnicity markers. Most other studies appear to be based on the assumption that ethnicity is marked in speech by the use of a separate language or/and by the use of features of a

Anabaptist Ethnicity

59

separate language while speaking the language shared by the ethnos and the mainstream group. This line of thought presupposes that ethnicity is associated with the coexistence of different languages in one polity. Such a view is reductive insofar as it disregards the fact that linguistic ethnicity marking is only a specific aspect of locating oneself in social space through speech. Even in seemingly monolingual "language" communities there may be a variety of "speech" communities in the sense that within the one "language" community there may be social differences with respect to what is deemed appropriate to say and how it is deemed appropriate to say it. It is sharing of conversational strategies that creates the feeling of satisfaction which accompanies and follows successful conversation: the sense of being understood, being "on the same wave length", belonging, and therefore of sharing identity. Conversely, a lack of congruity in conversational strategies creates the opposite feeling: of dissonance, not being understood, not belonging and therefore of not sharing identity. This is the sense in which conversational style is a major component of what we have come to call ethnicity. (Tannen 1982: 217) Such considerations are, first, particularly relevant for establishing 'new ethnicity' by an ethnos that emerges within its own polity and which therefore shares its linguistic repertoire with outsiders. While in such a context creating a new and distinct language is unrealistic, the creative use of available linguistic items as ethnic distinguishers is not only feasible, but may also be dictated by the distinct value system of the emergent ethnos. Modified or deleted performative speech acts (adult baptism and the oath, respectively), the substitution of ceremonial events by others (Holy Mass by a congregation meeting (Versammlung, Gemeinde, Gemay)), the selective application of greetings, distinct greeting formulae and forms of address, distinct constraints on speech acts (derision, applause, talking back etc.) and topics, the handling of speech versus conversational silence, the handling of conversational (in-) directness etc. can be derived from the distinct value orientations of the Täufer. Such ways and rules of speaking and conversational styles are more readily transformed to linguistic distinguishers of ethnicity in a three phase process. First, the deliberate and systematic deviation from established rules of appropriateness. Second, the de-canonization of the established rules of social appropiateness through continued rule-infringement. Third, the recanonization of one's own continued usage (Hahn 1987: 28; Assmann 1987). It bears repeating that this de- and recanonization of rules of speaking is not

60

Werner Enninger

only quickly feasible, but also mandatory in view of the innovated value system. Religious value orientations help to constitute rules of speaking, whereas religious value orientations are not associated with or reflected in specific language systems. Tannen's tenet quoted above is, furthermore, of particular importance during and after the final phases of language shift, - in our case - for example during the linguistic "anglicization" of the less conservative descendants of the Täufer in the United States and Canada, because "conversational style is more resistant to change than more apparent marks of ethnicity such as retention of the parents' or grandparents' language" (Tannen 1982: 230). Tannen supports her contention by citing Seaman's study of language transition among Greek-Americans (1972: 204) who - though their Greek was "practically extinct" in the third generation and will be "totally extinct" in the fourth generation - may not have lost, or not lost entirely, Greek communicative strategies. Unfortunately, the ways of speaking of the liberal end of the Täufer spectrum are even less explored than those of the conservative wing, as for example the OOA. If "anglicization" is not "de-ethnicization", but rather a system-linguistic reflex of revitalized original ethnicity, the religious value system should be intact and it should have its reflexes in the ways of speaking even after completed "anglicization". Even limited observation of the ways of speaking of so-called liberal Mennonites suggests that this is more than an abductive speculation.

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity: Changes in Barcelona, 1980-19871 Kathryn A. Woolard University of California, San Diego

The links of a language to ethnic identity play a paradoxical role in patterns of language maintenance and shift. On the one hand, a key role in defining or symbolizing ethnic identity has sometimes been seen as contributing to the maintenance of minority languages and nonstandard vernaculars (see, for example, the comparative discussion of American immigrant groups in Conklin & Lourie 1983: 171-177, and Fishman 1972c: 52, 185-187). The importance of such languages in defining community membership and esteemed or rewarded personal identity can make them valued resources that speakers protect. But the linkage of language and ethnic identity has been seen to work differently for dominant languages. One explanation that has been given for the remarkable assimilative power of American society in relation to immigrants, and of the English language in the U.S. traditionally, is that this society and language are primarily "nonethnic" in character. So, "American nationalism was primarily non-ethnic or supra-ethnic in comparison to the nationalisms of most of Europe. ... it did not obviously clash with or demand the betrayal of immigrant ethnic values...." (Fishman 1965: 149, cited in Grosjean 1982: 111; see also Fishman 1972c: 59). "Similar observations may be made concerning the role of the English language in American nationalism. Just as there is hardly any ethnic foundation to American nationalism, so there is no special language awareness in the use of English" (Fishman 1966: 29-30). These disarming features of the American conception and ideology of language have been seen to promote bilingualism and then language shift among immigrants, making them less consciously defensive about language and culture,

62

KathrynA. Woolard

more accepting of the seemingly value-neutral language of upward mobility (Fishman 1972c: 61).2 To the extent that these two principles are both valid, then the rare threatened minority language that survives and revives well enough to present a hegemonic challenge, making a bid to become a principal public language, may be in a paradoxical position. Language planning is often intimately involved with what has been called "identity planning" (Pool 1979). Ethnic signalling value, a quality that can contribute to survival under conditions of subordination, may be a limiting factor when acquisition and use by a larger population become a goal. Such is the situation of Catalan in the autonomous community of Catalonia in Spain. During centuries of state-sponsored subordination to Castilian, and decades of state repression under Franco, the Catalan language survived as a vibrant vernacular, in large part because it has been the key defining criterion of a prestigious ethnic identity associated with high social status (Woolard 1989). Traditionally, most autochthonous Catalans held to a principle by which language practices determined ethnic identity; appropriate use of Catalan was essential to the exercise of a claim to Catalan identity. In post-Franco Spain, the political community of Catalonia (autonomous since 1979) is officially bilingual, and the goal of many Catalan language loyalists and policy makers is for Catalan to become the primary medium of communication in the community, a role long held by Castilian. The attainment of such a goal depends not only on successfully recapturing high and formal domains of language use for Catalan, but also on extending its use to a large population of Castilian speakers. Maintenance of Catalan among the autochthonous Catalan ethnolinguistic group (henceforth "Catalans") is not enough to support the full catalanization of regional institutions, since Catalonia was swamped in the postwar period by Castilian-speaking immigrants. These immigrants and their children (henceforth "Castilians"), many from impoverished sections of Andalusia in southern Spain, the majority concentrated in the working class, form about half the population of the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Recruiting them as second-language speakers of Catalan, under the largely voluntary conditions mandated by the official bilingualism permitted by the central state, is a serious challenge to language planners and educators. The ethnic symbolism of the Catalan language appears to have aided over the years in the recruitment of some speakers among immigrants who were

Linkages ofLanguage and Ethnic Identity

63

socially and psychologically situated to make a leap in identification, renouncing a view of themselves as Castilians and establishing a strongly Catalan identity through their new language behaviors. But ethnographic and experimental research I conducted in 1979-1980 demonstrated that this language-identity symbolic link may have hindered the use of Catalan by more people than it encouraged. An etiquette of language choice was practiced by the great majority of Catalans (virtually all bilingual in Castilian) which led them to switch to Castilian when addressing native speakers of Castilian. This was an automatic, often unconscious exercise of politeness, but it had the force of an ethnic boundary-maintaining mechanism. The exclusionary effect of such "politeness" was apparent in the repeated experience of many learners whose accents revealed their non-native status. Such individuals were often chagrined to find Catalan interlocutors unable to maintain Catalan-medium conversation with them after detecting their Castilian origins. A person not only had to understand and to speak Catalan in order to be addressed in that language, but very often, also had to be taken as a native speaker. In effect, the traditional norm allowed only "Catalans" - native speakers of Catalan - to be spoken to in Catalan. A social-psychological "matched-guise" experiment on language attitudes I carried out in Barcelona in 1980 (based on Lambert et al. 1960), corroborated the social significance of this etiquette. The test found that as judged by young people, the use of Catalan made speakers sound better than did the use of Castilian on a set of traits I have labelled a "status" dimension (intelligence, cultivation, leadership, etc.). This was true regardless of the ethnolinguistic origins of the speaker or the listener. However, on a measure of solidarity, only Catalan listeners valued the speaking of Catalan very highly, and only for native Catalan speakers. The solidarity ratings of these same speakers dropped significantly when they spoke in their Castilian guises. But the speaking of Catalan won no increase in solidary feelings from Catalan listeners when the speaker's accent revealed that she was a native Castilianspeaker. Catalan listeners were indifferent to the language choice of such Castilians. And importantly, Castilian listeners penalized their fellow Castilians for the use of Catalan, with their solidarity scores dropping significantly. The matched guise test showed that Castilian speakers had little to gain in cementing relations with Catalans by attempting to speak Catalan, while they had much to lose in solidarity and support from co-members of their own native

64

KathrynA. Woolard

ethnolinguistic group. In 1980, the use of Catalan was most often taken as a claim to be autochthonously Catalan. This symbolic value of the language worked against its adoption by non-native speakers, since they could not make good on the claim. These positive sanctions for the maintenance of Catalan by native speakers and negative sanctions against its use by Castilian speakers helped explain patterns of language proficiency and use. A survey in 1983 (Direcció General de Política Lingüística 1984) found that, of those born in Catalonia of parents born in Catalonia, 93% claimed Catalan as their principal language. This shows the remarkably minimal attrition of the Catalan language group. However, the demographic structure of Catalonia has changed significantly over the twentieth century, from a largely native-born to a massively immigrant population by the 1960's, and then with economic stagnation in the 1970's, returning to an increasingly native-born population. Immigration has virtually ceased, and among the 15-20 year olds in the DGPL sample, 87% were born in Catalonia, while over half of some older age brackets were immigrants. Among these 15-20 year olds, however, 34% were second generation immigrants, Catalonia-born children of immigrants. Table 1 shows that while Catalonia is again becoming much more native and less immigrant in character, its native-born are much less likely to be Catalan-speaking.

Table 1 Linguistic Profile of Adults in Barcelona Urban Area, 1983* Age Group

N

Catalonia-born

15-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60

122 245 237 192 209

87% 68% 48% 45% 53%

CT-dominant 40% 40% 39% 42% 55%

* CT = Catalan Based on Direcció General de Política Lingüística 1984

Speak CT frequently 43% 49% 44% 46% 58%

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity

65

In older generations, we see a very close relationship between birth in Catalonia and the claiming of Catalan as a dominant language (and we also see that indeed, among the oldest group, some immigrants switched their language affiliation to Catalan). But in the younger generations, this relationship between birthplace and language has disappeared. Moreover, in spite of the increasingly native origin of the population, Catalan was not acquiring any more speakers who use it often as a second language than in past decades; in fact, it appeared to be acquiring fewer than ever. (See Woolard 1989 for a discussion of the difference between first and second generation acquisition of Catalan.) These were the sociolinguistic circumstances around the time of transition to political autonomy for Catalonia, when efforts would begin in earnest to restructure the linguistic profile of the region. According to the analysis of the matched-guise test, a successful strategy for extending use of Catalan to nonnative speakers could capitalize on the existing prestige of the language, but ultimately would depend on attenuating its ethnic symbolism. It would be necessary to create a perception of Catalan as a "public voice", rather than a distinctive and private ethnic voice, and the purpose would be to create not simply institutional access but also emotional access to the language for nonnative speakers. Acquisition of Catalan needed to be recast as a practical matter for instrumental purposes, compatible with maintenance of ethnolinguistic identity and the mother tongue. In the following sections of this paper, I will explore the question of whether political and linguistic policy changes in Catalonia have led to a restructuring of the language-identity link that might enable the use of Catalan by new sectors of the population, particularly among teenagers. This evaluation of changes is based on ethnographic and experimental research carried out in Barcelona in 1987.I will first briefly outline significant changes in language policy between 1980 and 1987. Drawing on a variety of ethnographic data, I will then sketch a somewhat impressionistic picture of changes in patterns of language use. Finally, I will present a summary discussion of the results of a more rigorous analysis of changes in language attitudes, as measured by a replication of the matched-guise test.

66

KathrynA. Woolard

A Brief Review of Some Major Linguistic Policy Changes The General Directorate of Language Policy was established within the Department of Culture of the Catalan government in 1980, the year that control over a variety of administrative areas began to be transferred from Madrid to Barcelona. Among other efforts, the Directorate launched a publicity campaign in 1981-1982 to encourage popular acceptance of a plan to "normalize" the use of Catalan. This campaign stressed gradualism, voluntarism, and cooperative efforts to make Catalan the shared language of the newly-recognized community (Woolard 1986). The slogan of the campaign, "Català, cosa de tots" ("Catalan is everybody's") underlines the goal of extending identification with Catalan to those not usually ethnically identified as Catalan. In 1983, the Law of Linguistic Normalization in Catalonia was passed by the Catalan Parliament, establishing a legal frame for full co-official use of Catalan in government, the judiciary, education, public signage, etc. The law also authorized government financial encouragement of Catalan-medium cultural activities. Demands for a Catalan-medium television channel figured in campaign platforms in the 1980 Catalan parliamentary elections, and the Catalan TV-3 was finally established in 1983. Although its alleged political bias toward the governing Catalan party is subject to criticism and debate, the channel quickly won audiences that rival those of the two Spanish-state channels. Changes in educational language policy are of particular interest given the special focus of this research on language use and attitudes among teenagers. In 1979-1980, the only legal mandate for Catalan in the schools specified three hours of study per week of Catalan language and literature. Public (as well as private) schools were allowed to teach in Catalan, but had to complete a lengthy certification process. In that school year, only about 9% of Catalonia's primary schools were registered as offering instruction wholly or partially in Catalan. Catalanization of the schools began in earnest in 1983. The teaching of at least one basic subject matter in Catalan was required for "middle cycle" primary school, and two basic subject matters for upper cycle elementary and secondary schools; since then, the Catalan requirements have been increased. By the 1984-1985 school year, 86% of schools in Catalonia used Catalan as the medium of instruction in at least some subjects (Arenas i Sampera 1987: 87), and by 1986-1987, over 62% of elementary schools had instructional

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity

67

programs the Education Department qualified as Catalan (whether exclusively Catalan, progressive immersion, or parallel Castilian-Catalan lines).

Changes in Linguistic Choices? Official public uses of Catalan are important in and of themselves, and as symbols of Catalan's "arrival". For many Catalan speakers, a principal desire is to know that Catalan is a language used for all communication purposes, at all levels of social and political organization that affect or involve Catalan speakers. But there is also a notion that official status bears a relation to the health and maintenance of a language as a vehicle of primary communication, that the support of formal institutions is essential to the survival of languages as vernaculars in literate societies. This assumption about links between public language policies and a population's everyday language practices merits examination, for empirically the relationship is not simple and direct. Latin is of course the example, par excellence, of a language that maintained not only institutional use but hegemony, even as it was lost as a vernacular. In general, I found Catalan to be significantly more visible and audible in central Barcelona in 1987 than it had been in 1980. Not only native Catalan speakers, but also Castilian speakers produced this effect. On television, radio, and in public meetings, I noted non-native but fluent versions of Catalan. Catalan appeared consistently in public sector signage - street signs, subway instructions, etc. - and sometimes monolingually in information distributed by the "autonomic" government (of Catalonia) and by the municipal government. Catalan was also evident in advertisements and signage for commercial establishments. These announcements were most often bilingual, rather than monolingual Catalan, but even this co-presence was a notable change from 1980, when Catalan was rarely evident in commercial writing. It was a testimony to the advances that had been made that Catalanist discourse now derisively attacked "bilingualism", rather than monolingual Castilian usage, as the situation that must be redressed in favor of Catalan. There was also, however, substantial basis for the view that things had not changed much under the new policies. Although the transition to a state of autonomies was in a structural sense complete by 1987, at least in relation to the "historic" community of Catalonia, there was considerable evidence that linguistic policy in the new Spain was still transitional rather than "post-tran-

68

KathrynA. Woolard

sitional". Contradictions and ambiguities in the framework for language policy provided by the Spanish Constitution of 1978 and the Catalan Statute of Autonomy continued to be confronted in the courts. Most policy problems stemmed from conflict between the recognition of linguistic pluralism within the autonomous communities (but not the state), and the still largely centralized system for assigning civil service personnel, particularly in the schools and the court system. Within Catalan social and political life the potential for ethnolinguistic divisiveness was restrained much as it had been in transition years. One striking change was a growing public recognition of the cultural presence of Andalusians in Catalonia. For example, considerable news coverage was given to the growing "Romería del Rocío", a several-day long quasi-religious festival, and to the secular Feria de Barbarà, a massively-attended week-long festival of food, song and dance modelled on the Feria of Seville. At the Feria, one might dance the night away with hundreds of thousands of fellow celebrants, but hear hardly a word of Catalan (a million people were reported to attend the Feria over all in 1987, surely an exaggeration, but one that is interesting in itself). Political parties nervously milled around this consolidating popular-cultural base with its potential for political mobilization, and competition arose among organizers over location and control of the festival. Nonetheless, the festivities maintained an apolitical tone, and some young Castilians criticized them as "bread and circus" distractions from the real issues of life in Catalonia. In spite of the folkloric resurgence, public expressions of Castilian linguistic backlash were still minimal and effectively marginalized. As reported in both the Catalan and Castilian-language news media, the prototypical pursuers of Castilian language rights in Catalonia were "ultra-rightists" such as the lawyer Esteban Gómez Rovira, who represented most of the cases of Castilian language rights claims in Catalonia, and eccentrics such as Carlos Obregón, self-styled leader of a tiny Andalusian Party of Catalonia, portrayed as unstable and given to dramatic hoaxes. No real movement among a traditionally leftist, working class sector of the population could build behind such personalities. Public "convivencia" (getting along together) remained the keynote of relations between these ethnolinguistic groups in Barcelona in 1987 as in 1980, and there was remarkably little political polarization. In the Catalan elections of May 1988, language policy was nearly a nonissue. Only one traditionally Catalanist party, Esquerra Republicana (Republi-

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity

69

can Left), pressed for official Catalan monolingualism, and it failed to increase its very small percentage of the vote. On the other hand, in the precampaign period, a conservative and a centrist party, both identified with a centralist state, tested the appeal of the language issue, floating complaints that the Catalan government didn't respect and observe official bilingualism. Both parties backed away from this issue during the actual campaign, apparently after it failed to arouse sufficient interest. The major contenders, the Socialist Party of Catalonia and the victorious Catalan nationalist party Convergence and Union, largely ignored language as a campaign issue, burying mention of language policy deep in their literature. Such studied inattention does not necessarily signal that language policy was established and accepted; it could also mean that mainstream politicians did not control the forces that could be mobilized around the issue. Organized concern for Catalanist language policy was alive and concentrated among younger, newer, and less mainstream political groups, but any grass-roots Castilian discontent with language policy that might exist had not been officially organized.

Language Choices in Informal Domains In informal arenas, Catalan was also more audible from sectors of the population where it had not been found in 1980. Particularly in the center of the city, I heard shopkeepers and clerks, especially the young, who accommodated customers' language choice with fluent Catalan marked by Castilian-speaking origins, an infrequent occurrence in 1980. Moreover, it appeared that a tenacious traditional norm, that two-party conversations should be monolingual, was beginning to erode. This monolingual norm had been strongly associated with Catalan accommodation of Castilian speakers. But more than once in 1987 I heard bilingual conversations among co-workers (e.g. in shops, or among school teachers) in which each spoke his or her own language. On trains I occasionally overheard such bilingual conversations among middle-aged passengers who seemed to be newly acquainted. It appeared, then, that making Catalan a public language, used routinely in formal institutions, had worked to loosen the bonds of traditional etiquette and allow more use of Catalan, by both native and second-language speakers, in inter-ethnic exchanges.

70

KathrynA. Woolard

The Ethnographer's Experience Reactions to my own language use were an indicator of sociolinguistic norms and the language-identity link. In 1980, I usually had trouble convincing interlocutors that I was not Catalan when I was speaking Catalan, even though my control of the language was far from flawless. (The phonetic and syntactic interference from American English was unlike the telltale interference from Castilian that would trigger accommodative switches to that language.) Interlocutors assumed that I was from a far corner of the Catalanspeaking world (most often Mallorca), or that I was not quite bright, but they were often shocked and confused to learn that I was not Catalan. Questions and praise invariably followed the revelation of my foreign origins. Accustomed to this misunderstanding, in 1987 I offered my usual preface, "I'm not from here", in responding to a question from a new acquaintance at a large private party. "Not from here! With that accent she thinks she has to tell me she's not from here!" was the laughing response. Another time, I stopped at a political campaign booth to pick up material. Hearing my response to a question from him, the gentleman in charge shrugged "Oh, you're not from here", and turned away, uninterested in further conversation, since I was not a recruitable voter. Neither was I the oddity worthy of further interest that I had been in the past. While these reactions were a bit of a blow to my ego, they constituted a sign that Catalan was indeed viewed as more "normal" - a language not restricted to an ethnic ingroup, that outsiders might learn like any other, a phenomenon that did not merit explanation or extended comment.

Changes in Linguistic Choices among Students Changes in educational linguistic policy are intended to increase knowledge and use of Catalan among the younger generations. Other official uses of Catalan may also be expected to contribute to changes in language choices, by altering not the knowledge base but the symbolic meaning of the language. Young people, both Catalans and Castilians, are now hearing the proficient non-native Catalan speech of authoritative models, as described above. Teachers, politicians, and mass media announcers, performers, and guests are among those Castilian speakers who routinely can be heard employing Catalan. The understanding of such behavior as a violation of a group norm might have changed accordingly.

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity

71

Additionally, young Castilian speakers, whatever their own language habits, are now more accustomed to hearing themselves personally addressed in Catalan (especially by teachers), or counting themselves among an audience addressed in Catalan (e.g. for TV-3). In 1980, most young Castilians took an interlocutor's use of Catalan as a signal that the talk wasn't addressed to them, or that it was hostile. But in 1987, being addressed in Catalan had become a part (even if only a small part) of most school-aged Castilian speakers' day. Official speakers are not necessarily taken by young people as models for language behavior, but their daily uses of Catalan do change its connotations. The 1986 census reflects the effect of instruction on knowledge as reported by parents. For pre-schoolers, 2-4 years old, only 55% are reported to understand Catalan and 26% to speak it. But among 10-19 year olds, 96% understand, 75% can speak, 78% can read, and 60% can write Catalan, as reported by heads of household (CIDC 1987, Tuson 1988). From the census reports, the new educational policies seem to have had a positive effect on knowledge of Catalan. What is less clear, and much harder to ascertain, is how the program of catalanization has affected language use, especially outside the school. The reports of teachers and my own ethnographic observation indicate that there have been some significant changes, but that these do not constitute the fundamental and widespread shift in everyday language choice that some language professionals hoped to achieve. In carrying out the language attitudes test, I once again came in contact with a number of teachers and many students in the five schools in the experimental sample. Moreover, in 1987 I spent nearly four months engaged in extended participant observation in an academic-track secondary school, focusing on one first-year group of 36 students with whom I attended classes, made field excursions, and carried out extended interviews. Some of the teachers of Catalan whom I met, particularly those who worked in schools where the overwhelming majority of students were of Castilian-speaking background, suffered from the professional disillusionment and exhaustion known among teachers in the United States as "burnout". They despaired of any success for their efforts to teach students Catalan. "They never speak it", several told me. This surprised me, because it differed from the classes I had observed. Don't the students speak Catalan in class? I would ask, pursuing the meaning of "never". Ah, well yes, students speak Catalan in class, to the Catalan teacher, "because they have to". But in the

72

KathrynA, Woolard

halls, among the students themselves, one hears only Castilian, teachers told me sadly. The teachers' observations seemed essentially correct, but it was their interpretation that was of interest to me. I remembered well that in 1980, many students didn't speak Catalan even in Catalan class, so I believed there had been more change than the teachers noticed. Underlying their evaluation of the situation were unexpressed assumptions about the goal of Catalan instruction. The explicit goal of educational linguistic policy is that by the end of studies, every student be able to understand, speak, and write both official languages (Arenas 1987: 30). But some teachers of Catalan implicitly assumed another goal for their efforts toward "normalization": to make Catalan the language normally used by their students. Anything short of this would seem to them failure. The teachers' implicit goal was indeed shared by many language planners. But this goal had not been made explicit, and pedagogic strategies were also not explicitly designed to achieve the goal (and indeed, it is not clear from sociolinguistic research that school policies ever could achieve such a drastic change in social practices). In particular, several teachers noted that the emphasis of the secondary curriculum was the traditional one of language studies, on grammatical analysis and correct written forms. Nothing in the secondary school curriculum acknowledged that they were teaching Catalan not only to non-native speakers, but to non-speakers in many cases. (This was less true of primary school, where a Catalan immersion program had recently begun to be promoted with considerable fanfare.) The overt recognition of existing ethnolinguistic boundaries that a special curriculum would demand was usually avoided in official spheres, as for example in the linguistic census, in which no question about mother tongue was asked. The teachers' expectation of hearing new language practices among peers was extremely dramatic, an expectation counseled against by sociolinguistic theory. If young people are to acquire a new language, one that has constituted an ethnic marker, and shift progressively toward its regular use, one of the last domains in which we can expect to find such shift is in peer relations between co-members of the same ethnolinguistic group. Yet this was precisely where some teachers looked for evidence of change, overlooking and disvaluing other concrete signs of progress, and condemning themselves to a sense of failure and futility. Additionally, some teachers hoped for students to be motivated to use Catalan through the emotional and political symbolism that had led the

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity

73

teachers themselves to their own profession. A large proportion of teachers of Catalan were, quite understandably, ardent Catalan nationalists; they had chosen to teach Catalan because of their great love and concern for the language as a symbol of their identity and nation. (This was beginning to change, with some younger teachers explaining to me that they had chosen to specialize in Catalan as one might choose to specialize in English, because there would be a good selection of jobs. While such motivation may seem cold to the older guard of Catalanism, it is also a fairly strong sign that the language is becoming "normal".) Catalanists still hoped their students would rise to the defense of Catalan, a sincere motive for the teachers but not conducive to success with young Castilians, particularly since Catalan was not obviously oppressed under conditions of political autonomy. For example, in one university preparation class of nearly 100% workingclass Castilian speakers which I was generously allowed to observe, the teacher discussed diglossia and the possibility of normalization with students (part of the regional curriculum). Characterizing Castilian as the high prestige language in Catalonia, the teacher asserted that bilingualism was abnormal and that bilingual schooling was impossible (positions that I heard repeatedly in 1987). She linked the speaking of Catalan to identity, stating that it reflected whether one feels Catalan or Spanish. (The teacher no doubt spoke from personal experience, since she was a native Castilian speaker herself. Yet she never mentioned her own transformation to her students, and I was warned that the topic was too delicate to broach casually with her.) A student objected strongly to this construction of the language issue, asserting that it created problems for her and her fellow students, forcing them to choose one identity or the other. She wanted to maintain both. Many of these students rejected the teacher's vision of the meaning of language behavior in contemporary Catalonia, and they had their own sociolinguistic analysis of the difficulties of language shift. They explained to me that they never use Catalan except in school classes because they are "socially marginated". However, they expected and planned to use it when they got to the university, because they believed that there they would be among Catalan speakers. The students might well be right. But this would mean that the majority of their young neighbors who would never experience university life were equally unlikely to find a use for the Catalan language. In the most concentrated Castilian-speaking communities on the periphery of Barcelona, particularly in vocational schools, the teachers were quite

74

KathrynA. Woolard

justified in their despair. In those schools, there were still large groups of students even among the youngest classes who appeared basically untouched by linguistic normalization and Catalan teaching. Discourse not only in the halls, but also in Catalan class was dominated by Castilian, a Castilian heavily tinged with the accents of Andalusia even though the overwhelming majority of students had been born in Catalonia.

Case Study: First Year High School Not all schools presented the same pessimistic picture. In public secondary schools around the metropolitan area where students were of more mixed linguistic background, considerably more second-language use of Catalan could be heard. I carried out extended observations in a public high school in the metropolitan area, known for its Catalan orientation, but offering mixed-language instruction to a student body in which Castilian speakers were heavily represented. My case study class of first-year students cannot be said to be representative of the school, particularly since Catalan speakers made up well over half of the group observed. But in that data I have tentatively identified three different patterns of response to catalanization among the fourteen native Castilian speakers in the group, patterns that indicate both continuity and change from 1980. First, as in 1980, there were some students of Castilian language origin who spoke Catalan fluently and frequently. Two boys, David and Toni, had taken on a primarily Catalan identity, deliberately changing over to Catalan language habits in the summer before beginning their studies at this school. These two used Catalan habitually in all their relations with each other and with Catalans, and preferentially with bilingual Castilians. David and Toni followed a pattern found in small numbers in 1980, whereby Castilian speakers (usually immigrants themselves rather than second-generation immigrants like these boys) were found to "catalanize" their linguistic repertoire, and where this change in language habits also constituted a claim to a new Catalan identity. David told me that he had consciously made the language shift because he wanted to be fully identified with his primary circle of friends, all of whom were Catalan speakers. His relations with these friends were close and comfortable, with no comments made about his linguistic identity, although Castilian was used for direct interchanges with him. David

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity

75

felt that this use of Castilian signalled incorrectly and unnecessarily a contradictory message, that he was not quite one of them. He chose the moment for his linguistic transformation deliberately, since the change from primary to secondary school offered him an opportunity to make the change in language choice convincingly. In the summer before beginning high school, David made an agreement with Toni, who was changing schools with him, that they would speak only Catalan. Indeed, I found that they used Catalan together at all times, even in murmured exchanges as lab partners in science class. So successful was the transformation that some of David's classmates did not realize he was not a native Catalan speaker until it was mentioned in a class discussion I conducted on the topic. At the other end of the spectrum, there was a group of four female students in the same class who retained strong and self-conscious "Castilian" and "Spanish" identities, although they were all born in Barcelona. Their Castilian identities were at least as strong if not stronger than any I had encountered in 1980. "I'm Catalan, I ought to say so" admitted Susana (meaning she had been born in Catalonia), even as she claimed to feel only Castilian and Spanish. Some (but not all) of these girls felt they had been discriminated against, and recalled instances of insulting epithets. Some belonged to Andalusian cultural clubs and flamenco dance groups, and all were ardent fans of the "Real Madrid" (Royal Madrid) soccer team, a powerful summary statement of Castilian identification in a region where support of the Barcelona soccer team has long been an expression of Catalan identity. This group of girls had acquired some competence in Catalan, but spoke it only when called on in Catalan class. To all of their peers and most other Catalan-speaking teachers, they generally spoke (very comfortably) in Castilian. (Interestingly, it was with me, a non-Catalan adult, that they were most likely to initiate conversations in Catalan). These two types of response to the ethnolinguistic challenge faced by Castilian speakers - either catalanization or consolidation of a Castilian identity - echoed patterns found in 1980. But a new response was displayed by a third subgroup in the class, three second-generation immigrant girls led by Rosa. These were fluent Catalan speakers who used that language consistently with Catalan-speaking teachers, outsiders like myself, and Catalan-dominant peers. But they openly maintained their primary identity as Castilian speakers, publicly speaking Castilian to each other unlike David and Toni. Rosa and her friends switched back and forth between Catalan and Castilian

76

KathrynA. Woolard

as they worked on their science lab assignments in ways that neither the native Catalan speakers in the class nor the catalanized David and Toni did. While all claimed to feel more "Catalan" than "Castilian", this group of girls appeared to be welding a new, more bilingual identity than had been available to Castilian language-origin students of their age in 1980. As before, friendly relations were possible across the ethnolinguistic boundaries. Now it was somewhat less predictable which language would be used in such relations. Castilian girls appeared to accommodate Catalanspeaking teachers and fellow students somewhat more frequently than did the boys. But as before, close friendships fell largely within the linguistic boundaries, except in the instance of one pair of close male friends. (As a student in another school said, "Sure, there's no problem with language choice among classmates, because [the two groups] don't talk to each other".) Susana's and Rosa's cliques had each absorbed a Catalan-speaking girl, and these girls took on the language habits of the circle: nearly monolingual Castilian in Susana's group, and bilingualism with heavy in-group use of Castilian in Rosa's group. For all of these young people, school language policy appeared to play an important role by providing the linguistic knowledge base and creating conditions for some use of Catalan, and most of the students mentioned this in interview. For those socially motivated to make an identity switch, primary school instruction in Catalan had given them an invaluable preparation and made such a switch possible, although it did not directly motivate or cause it. Among those less inclined to adopt a Catalan identity, school still enabled them to learn and practice Catalan to a point where they could express themselves fluently and comfortably, with little hesitation even thought they might incorporate many castilianisms. And lastly, even among the most resistant, complete receptive proficiency had been established through instructional use (which at first had caused them some difficulty), and these students claimed to find it perfectly acceptable that teachers addressed them in Catalan, although they might respond in Castilian. In private interviews, I could not elicit many hints of the linguistic resentment that was so often expressed in 1980. This brief profile shows that there was no uniform response in 1987 to language and identity decisions among young Castilian speakers, even those who found themselves in the same environment. But a new resolution did seem to be becoming available, mitigating the dichotomizing force of ethnolinguistic identity in the earlier period. To the extent that the different resolu-

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity

11

tions found in the same schoolroom are predictably patterned, it is in their correlation with residence and socio-economic status. The boys and girls who learned and frequently used Catalan, whether as a habitual language or a fluent second choice, all lived in more central neighborhoods where more Catalan speakers were found, and their parents had middle-class occupations. The resistant, Castilian-identified group were all children of workers living in a Castilian-dominant peripheral neighborhood.

Language Attitudes These ethnographic observations sketch an ambiguous picture, from which it is difficult to extrapolate a more general characterization of the effects of language policy on young people's language choice. Changes in language use on a large scale are of course the ultimate concern in planning and evaluation, but actual language behavior is notoriously difficult to document on a large scale. Given the mediating import of symbolic values, we can usefully consider changes in language attitudes and values even when behavioral changes are not (yet) apparent or are not readily documented. Have changes in the official functions of Catalan affected the connotations of speaking Catalan? As mentioned above, for new policies to be most effective, they need not only to maintain or enhance the greater prestige value of Catalan found in 1980, but to generalize the solidarity value of Catalan as well, extending its benefits to second language speakers. The matched-guise experiment, with the same taped voices, was used again in 1987 to gauge the extent to which such effects had been achieved among the adolescents described above and their peers in four other schools. Although not identical, the 1980 and 1987 student samples were deliberately matched very closely on a number of social dimensions. (See Woolard 1989 and Woolard & Gahng 1990 for details of the experiment and a full presentation of the statistical analysis.) The results for the Status measure are similar in 1980 and 1987, showing a higher evaluation of Catalan than Castilian in both years which, loosely speaking, is more marked in 1987 (see Table 2). All listener groups give higher Status ratings to speakers in their Catalan guises than in their Castilian guises, although the preference was considerably more marked for Catalan listeners than for Castilian listeners and those from bilingual homes.

KathrynA. Woolard

78 Table 2

Mean Status Scores by Language Guise

1980 1987

Catalan

Castilian

.0415 .0951

-.0415 -.0941

While Status did not show any major differences in patterning between the two years, Solidarity did. In 1980, the highest scores went to co-members of the listener's ethnolinguistic group using the ingroup language, and the lowest scores went to these same co-members using the outgroup language. Relatively indifferent, middling scores went to speakers not from the listener's ethnolinguistic group, no matter which language they used. In 1987, the highest scores are still reserved for co-members using the ingroup language, but they are no longer so heavily penalized for using the outgroup language. Moreover, listeners are no longer indifferent to the language choice of speakers from the other ethnolinguistic group, who now fare much better if they use the listener's language than if they use their own (see Table 3). Table 3 Mean Solidarity Scores, Use of Speaker's Dominant Language x Use of Listener' s Language

Speaker uses Listener's language ?

Speaker uses own dominant language? yes no

1980 yes no

.2874 -.0512

-.0369 -.1992

yes no

.1984 -.1656

-.0246 .0626

1987

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity

79

The Solidarity scores of the two native Castilian speakers in the speaker sample are of particular interest. Angeles is an Andalusian immigrant whose accent in both languages betrays her origins. Dolores is a Barcelona-born Castilian speaker who speaks a very standard form of Castilian, unmarked by typical Catalan interference, and a Catalan with some phonetic traces of Castilian. In 1980, these two young women's use of Catalan did not win them increased Solidarity ratings from Catalan listeners. But in 1987 it did, and significantly so for Dolores, a marked change. In turn, the strong, statistically significant preference among Castilian listeners in 1980 for the Castilian guise of these same Castilian-dominant speakers was gone in 1987 (see Table 4).

Table 4 Difference Scores on Solidarity, Speaker x Listener's Language f Speaker Angeles (CS)

Dolores (CS)

Montse (CT)

Catalan Castilian

-.1425 -.7200**

.0865 -.5091**

.4889** .0440

.0539 -.1225

Catalan Castilian

.1495 -.1545

.3944** -.1480

.3488** .0723

-.0975 -.2660**

L istener 's Language

Núria (CT)

1980

1987

f

*

Difference scores are derived by subtracting score for speaker's Castilian guise from score for her Catalan guise. Positive scores favor Catalan, negative scores favor Castilian. (CT) or (CS) under speaker's name indicates her dominant language. p<.05, **p<.01

80

KathrynA. Woolard

Formal public use of Catalan seems to have had an effect on the solidarity connotations of the language, as measured by the matched-guise test. Although the patterning of the Solidarity variable in the new test is not entirely clearcut, there are notable differences between the results for 1980 and 1987. The ethnolinguistic groups in Catalonia still show a preference for their own languages, and this preference seems to have grown stronger among Catalan speakers. But there has been a loosening of the bond between the value of the Catalan language and native Catalan ethnolinguistic identity. It no longer matters so much to young Catalans who speaks Catalan, but rather simply that it is spoken. Even more important for encouraging greater use of the Catalan language, Castilian-speaking listeners no longer penalize second-language speakers of Catalan with significantly reduced feelings of solidarity. There now may be rewards of increased solidary feeling from Catalans for Castilians who use Catalan as a second language, and fewer sanctions against such use from Castilian speakers. Young Catalans are still sensitive to the use of Catalan, but less discriminating about who ought to use it; young Castilians in Barcelona also appear less zealous in guarding a language boundary. It may well be, in fact, that young urban Catalans of 1987 cannot distinguish native and non-native speech styles as well as their counterparts of 1980 could; this appeared to be the case for David. If the matched-guise test is a valid indicator, changes in Catalan language policy have been followed quite rapidly by significant changes in language attitudes. Catalan may have higher value than ever, and it appears that the language choice-ethnic identity link has begun to loosen. Catalan is no longer a private, ethnic language, signalling a claim to an ascribed Catalan identity, but is now a more public language. The reactions measured by the matchedguise test reflect a corresponding widening of the benefits and reduction of the social-psychological costs of speaking that language. Solidarity connotations of language choice no longer conflict with and undercut status motivations for use of Catalan by young Castilian speakers. Classroom ethnography indicates that many Castilian-speaking students have been affected by this change in symbolic values to some degree, learning and using Catalan fluently for at least restricted purposes. Some are even positioned socially and psychologically to forge a new ethnolinguistic identity that challenges the traditional dichotomy. In the de facto conditions of residential and occupational segregation in metropolitan Barcelona, what is still missing for a great number of young Castilian speakers - by their own

Linkages of Language and Ethnic Identity

81

account as well as the research evidence - is the opportunity to use Catalan with native speakers, particularly peers, in everyday interactions. In institutional settings or social groups where the use of Catalan appears "natural" to these young people, they are able to use Catalan with fewer social obstacles and less psychological ambivalence than hindered second-language speakers in the past. But it is apparent that the assimilative power of a language ultimately depends not only on linguistic ideology, symbolic value, and the hegemony over public institutions that makes it seem a natural vehicle of communication, but also on opportunity for egalitarian interaction among different linguistic sectors within such public institutions.

Notes 1.

I am grateful to the Social Science Research Council, the Comité Conjunto HispanoNorteamericano, the Fulbright Program, the Spencer Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, and the University of Wisconsin Graduate School Research Foundation for funding the field research on which this chapter is based. The opinions and conclusions presented here are mine alone and do not reflect the positions of these organizations. Tae-Joong Gahng carried out the statistical analysis of the 1987 experiment discussed in this chapter. Portions of this chapter appeared in "Changing Language Policies and Attitudes in Autonomous Catalonia", by K.A. Woolard and Tae-Joong Gahng, Language in Society 19.311-330 (1990). Published here with permission of Cambridge University Press. Many thanks to the speakers, students, teachers, school administrators and colleagues who made this research possible. Thanks also to David Laitin, Miquel Strubell, and the Grup Català de Sociolingüística for comments and encouragement.

2.

Questions can of course be raised about the asserted ethnic neutrality of American institutions and of English, particularly in relation to indigenous or castelike minorities, in contrast to immigrants; see, e.g. Ogbu (1987) and Gibson (1987).

Language and Ethnicity: The Case of Rosalía de Castro Joanna Courteau Iowa State University

Rosalía de Castro, an outstanding Spanish poet of the 19th Century, born and raised in a small town in the region of Galicia in Northwest Spain presents a very special case study in the many chapters devoted to language and ethnicity. Many of the problems concerning her own bilingualism and diglossia, as well as the bilingualism and diglossia characteristic of 19th Century Galicia (cf. Britto 1986) have not yet been solved by linguists. Problems regarding normalization of the Gallegan language and Rosalia's contribution to its normalization, or in some cases her ignorance of those norms that were available, have given rise to an ever present polemic. While the outlines of this polemic can be sketched out, little can be done to resolve it until linguists are able to map out the 19th Century Gallegan language within the normative matrix being established today amidst a heated tri-polar debate. Therefore, this paper will concentrate not on Rosalia's contribution to the Gallegan language but on showing that Rosalía tried to define Gallegan cultural identity within a metapoetic context, transmitted by means of a specific semiotic code in the dominant language. Such a transmission of a culture in the language of another, the dominant culture, supports the position that cultural identity is not necessarily bound by a culture specific minority language, and that in bilingual or diglossic communities it may manifest itself quite successfully through the use of the dominant language. Thus I believe it is possible to see within the context of Rosalia's Castilian poetry a parallel to John Edward's statement about ethnic identity, succinctly summarized in the following terms "Identities clearly survive language shifts" (1986: 98). Rosalia's case is especially perplexing because, while she wrote a lion's share of her poetry in her native Gallegan, she is considered to be one of the

84

Joanna Courteau

outstanding romantic poets of Spain, a reputation she could not have attained through the two little books of poetry she wrote in the dominant Castilian language. At least some of her recognition must have stemmed from the poetry she wrote in Gallegan which constituted about 75% of her poetic production. Yet Gallegan linguists have found her use of the language primitive, incorrect and often contaminated by Castilian. (Pensado 1986; McKenzie 1986). Furthermore, while she wrote all her novels in Castilian, none of these has merited much recognition to date, hence even today she is not considered a great Spanish or for that matter Gallegan novelist of the 19th Century. A search for literary sources and models of her literary production is further complicated by her poetic bilingualism and novelistic diglossia. Were her sources to be found in Castilian written tradition or in the oral tradition of Galicia (Carballo Calero 1975)? If indeed she followed no literary masters did she simply reflect and absorb the oral tradition? While several scholars attempt to establish literary antecedents, they are not able to come to a definitive resolution of this problem (Nogales de Muníz 1965; Carballo Calero 1975 & 1986). A brief glance at the history of Galicia will help explain somewhat the complexity of Rosalía's case and the concurrent difficulty in resolving many of the linguistic problems associated with it. Since before the dawn of history Galicia's ethnic and political formation differed from the rest of Spain. Settled almost entirely by Celts in the 9th and 8th Centuries B.C. Galicia acquired Celtic customs and Celtic language. While it has been impossible to reconstruct precisely a Celtic mythology, a number of Celtic gods were described by Roman authors, who sought to find parallels with Roman gods. What is most interesting about Celtic religion and mythology for the purpose of this study is the confirmation by scholars of ancient Celts' (MacCana 1970) belief in various nature deities and the existence of a number of female deities, the Matres. Thus rivers, wells, sacred trees, and woods were worshipped and had their patron gods and goddesses. In addition, the Celts believed in transmigration of the soul and life after death, which belief led to a special respect for the dead, who were often buried under familial dwellings. Although conquered by Rome in the 1st century A.D. and settled by vandals in the 5th century Galicia continued to be influenced by Celtic culture until the early Middle Ages. In the 5th Century A.D. the Suevi Vandals established an independent kingdom of Galicia which vanished at the end of 6th century. Galicia was absorbed and became part of the Kingdom of Asturias in

The Case of Rosalía de Castro

85

the first stage of the Reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslims. Throughout the Middle Ages Galicia played an important role in the political battles between various princes and kingdoms for the hegemony of the peninsula. Gallegan language was clearly defined in the 11th Century when it became the dominant language of lyrical poetry in the Peninsula, hence the name of that poetry came to be Gallegan - Portuguese lyric. This poetry was distinguished by the woman's voice lamenting or rejoicing a love experience, presence of various Pagan fertility symbols (Lemaire 1986) and the parallelistic structure in many of the compositions called "cantigas de amigo". However, already in the 13th Century Gallegan language began to be discredited through pressure from Castilian, which made its incursion into Galicia in the form of administrative, legal, military and religious institutions. In the 16th century there was a generally accepted notion throughout the Peninsula that Gallegan was a rustic and vulgar dialect (Lorenzo 1986). According to Ricardo Carballo Calero "Rosalia's book Cantares Gallegos was the first truly masterful accomplishment of the Gallegan Renaissance, therefore her language constitutes a real foundation [of Gallegan]" (1972: 1516) which had deteriorated continuously since reaching its apogee sometime between the 11th and 15th centuries. Victoriano Garcia Marti remarks on the bitter sweet irony of Padrón, Rosalia's native village, having also been the home of Juan Rodriguez de Padrón, the last Gallegan writer of the 15th century, who, while writing in Castilian, created the ultimate Gallegan hero. "It is curious that these two figures originally from Padrón ... the vital matrix of Christian Galicia ... should signal the decadence of Galician letters ... in the XV Century, which does not experience rebirth until XIX Century, when its central figure is Rosalía de Castro, also from the same village of Padrón" (1958: 151). This 19th century Gallegan Renaissance of which Rosalía was the central figure began with the rise of provincial awareness in the first third of the 19th century, which resulted partially from civil wars of succession and regency in which Gallegans saw themselves separated from the rest of Spain in supporting an unpopular position regarding Queens Cristina and Isabel. This political involvement led Gallegans to become aware of the distinct cultural identity of their province, an awareness that developed into a full fledged cultural renaissance of Galicia. Victoriano Garcia Martí characterized this first Galician renaissance as much more political than literary, motivated as it was by the

86

Joanna Courteau

ideals of liberalism and autonomy (1958: 152). According to him it was the second renaissance of Gallegan cultural identity in the 19th century, which occurred between 1846 and 1858 that was marked by intense literary activity. Although Rosalía is considered one of the most important figures of the 19th century literary renaissance of Galicia, several aspects of her Gallegan literary production have been difficult to explain. Many scholars claim that Rosalía, considered by some to be the founder of the Gallegan Renaissance, did not know normative rules of Gallegan. Ricardo Carballo Calero points out that while she was "a bilingual poet she was a diglossic novelist and her use of Gallegan in poetry is not literary but rather a rustic imitation of the spoken language that she heard around her" (Carvalho Calero 1986: 86). Cristina Dupláa demonstrates further that Rosalía did sense the need for a normative Gallegan language, (cf. Barreiro Fernandez 1986) so that it would attain the same category as Spanish, but she goes on to point out that to date no such normative language has been established as the debate among supporters of the Castillanist, Lusitanist and official versions goes on unabated (1986: 416). To further complicate this linguistic debate, Ricardo Carballo Calero assures us that a literary search for sources is not any less problematic, for Rosalia's husband, Murguía, a Gallegan historian and Rosalia's intellectual mentor did not know of the Medieval models for the Gallegan lyric. In 1865, Murguía, ignoring the existence of medieval Gallegan-Portuguese lyric, expressed in this way the possibility of a poetic renaissance. A great poet would be needed, one that simultaneously knew well our dialect, as well as our customs and feelings, in order to give us not only a model for our poetry, but also for our literary language. Galicia still awaits this great poet. (Carballo Calero 1972: 11) While on the one hand Rosalia's use of Gallegan and her literary sources present many problems to be solved, on the other hand the contemporary integrationist current, which called for the abandonment of Gallegan as the language of that region, cannot be dismissed lightly, for it formed part of a distinct movement within Galicia itself to eliminate the Gallegan language, the cause of Gallegan backwardness and economic failure. Xosé Ramón Barreiro Fernandez discovered an article entitled "The Gallegan Dialect and Iberian Unity" published by Ventura Pueyo in 1866, which argues cogently for the abandonment of the Gallegan dialect, for it constitutes a serious obstacle to Gallegan progress, "having slowed down and made difficult the swiftness of the civilizing movement" (1986: 369).

The Case of Rosalía de Castro

87

In summary then, according to Justo G. Beramendi, the first Gallegan Renaissance was political and provincial in nature, interested solely in establishing a Gallegan identity, while the second generation, composed of Vicetto, Pondal, the Iglesia brothers and the couple Murguía-Rosalía, transformed this provincialism into regionalism (1986: 384). In effecting this transformation Murguia, the movement's ideologist, established those aspects of ethnicity which were missing in the first provincialist movement: 1. He established language as the center of ethnic definition and affirmation. 2. He established the existence of a Gallegan Volksgeist. 3. He demonstrated the survival of Celtic characteristics in Gallegan culture: a. love of land and sacredness of its possession, b. religious and lyrical inclinations, and c. resistance to invasion and non-agressivity of Gallegan people. 4. He developed the concept of an almost pure Celtic/Gallegan race, different from all those people who lived around the Gallegan region. It is my opinion that Rosalía does share Murguia's concepts of Gallegan ethnicity which she develops in her poetry, thus becoming, as pointed out earlier, one of the primary founders of the Gallegan cultural and literary Renaissance. However, the lack of normative standards and the difficulty in converting oral tradition to literary language, may have led Rosalía to explore the possibility of communicating Gallegan ethnicity through the dominant language. While stressing this difficulty Carballo Calero recognizes that Rosalía provided an invaluable document of the language at a given historical moment, "which, on the one hand is the idiomatic expression of a great poet, and on the other hand, it is a compendium of the then common forms of rural Gallegan language, and thus it informs us of the linguistic situation at that specific moment" (1972: 15). Therefore, I would like to propose the thesis that Rosalia's poetic texts in Spanish constitute an attempt on her part to codify Gallegan ethnicity through the Castilian language, and thus offer a metatheory of ethnicity, which disagrees with that of Murguia, that language is a primary prerequisite for the existence of ethnicity. To codify this Gallegan ethnicity Rosalía uses standard Celtic symbols in accordance with Murguía's theory regarding Celtic traits in Gallegan culture. Below follows a discussion of a few examples from her book En Las Orillas del Sar, written in Castilian, which will illustrate her use of Celtic symbols to define Gallegan ethnicity both on the textual and sub-textual levels in the language of the dominant culture.

88

Joanna Courteau

These symbols have to do with the worship of nature and of the land, belief in the immortality of the soul, worship of sacred trees and tree stands, special feelings for wild animals and for Celtic music. Through these examples one can see Rosalia's attempt to codify Celtic characteristics as intrinsic to the Gallegan culture. While for this discussion I have selected specifically those poems that are centered on Celtic elements, all poems in En las Orillas del Sar are imbued with Celtic feelings regarding the sacredness of nature which forms an important background of every poem, as is the case with stanzas centered on aloneness and the passage of time on pp. 579-581, in which the main themes are etched out against a commanding background of sacred nature. In the poem I of En las Orillas del Sar Rosalía speaks of the temple of nature obliquely, while alluding directly to perhaps a real church building. The nature environment, which the poetic voice describes, through which the more formal temple can be seen, is infused with terms of sacredness and mystery: "the perennial greenness, wondrous, peculiar sounds, undulating sea of greenness, amorous abode of birds" terms that allow us to perceive the very special place of nature within the scope of the poem (cf. Havard 1986). I. A través del follaje perenne que oír deja rumores extraños, y entre un mar de ondulante verdura, amorosa mansión de los pájaros, desde mis ventanas veo el templo que quise tanto. El templo que tanto quise..., pues no sé decir ya si le quiero, que en el rudo vaivén que sin tregua se agitan mis pensamientos, dudo si el rencor adusto vive unido al amor en mi pecho, (p. 571) In poems V and VI we see emphasized a love for a specific piece of land, the special piece of land that one considers one's birthplace or the land of one's childhood memories. Again this land is endowed with very special sacred and Pagan images, of eternal springs of life, eternal beauty and fertility where the month of May is crowned in light and roses, perfumed and splendidly gilded by the rays of dawn.

The Case of Rosalía de Castro V. ¡Cuán hermosa es tu vega! ¡Oh Padrón! Iría Flavia! mas el calor, la vida juvenil y la savia que extraje de tu seno, como el sediento niño el dulce jugo extrae del pecho blanco y lleno, de mi existencia oscura en el torrente amargo pasaron, cual barridas por la inconstancia ciega, una visión de armiño, una ilusión querida, un suspiro de amor. De tus suaves rumores la acorde consonancia, ya para el alma yerta tornóse bronca y dura a impulsos del dolor; secáronse tus flores de virginal fragancia, perdió su azul tu cielo, el campo su frescura, el alba su candor. La nieve de los años, de la tristeza el hielo constante, al alma niega toda ilusión amada, todo dulce consuelo. Solo los desengaños preñados de temores y de la duda el frío, avivan los dolores que siente el pecho mío; y ahondando mi herida, me destierran del cielo, donde las fuentes brotan eternas de la vida. (p. 574)

VI. ¡Oh tierra, antes y ahora, siempre fecunda y bella! Viendo duán triste brilla nuestra fatal estrella, del Sar cabe la orilla, al acabarme, siento la sed devoradora y jamás apagada que ahoga el sentimiento y el hambre de justica, que abate y que anonada cuando nuestros clamores los arrebata el viento de tempestad airada. Ya en vano el tibio rayo de la naciente aurora, tras del « M i r a n d a » altivo, valles y cumbres dora con su resplandor vivo; en vano llega mayo, de sol y aromas lleno,

89

90

Joanna Courteau con su frente de niño de rosas coronada y con su luz serena; en mi pecho ve juntos el odio y el cariño, mezcla de gloria y pena; mi sien por la corona del mártir agobiada, y para siempre frío y agotado mi seno. (p. 575)

The Celtic belief in transmigration and immortality of the soul are obvious in many poems. Distinct from the Christian belief, the souls of the dead do not disappear in some blissful heaven, but continue wandering through the fertile fields, so that live persons can establish direct contact with them in moments of tiredness and despair as exemplified in this line in poem VI of "Los Tristes": "Each time she speaks more with the dead". Los Tristes, VI. Cada vez huye más de los vivos, cada vez habla más con los muertos: y es que cuando nos rinde el cansancio, propicio a la paz y al sueño, el cuerpo tiende al reposo, el alma tiende a lo eterno. (p. 586) Rosalía is famous for reviving the Celtic feeling for sacred oaks and sacred stands of trees. Discretely she condemns the dominant culture which had no respect for these divine places and thoughtlessly fells them with an axe. In the poem "The Oaks" the poetic voice talks about the ancient times in which the oak was indeed sacred and it provided the people of this land with the necessary heat and shade. The poetic voice bemoans the demise of the sacred trees and the appearance of deformed, black barren lands in places previously involved in occult mysteries where darkness floated and birds played. Even the wild beasts have felt the emptiness created by the axe between the earth and the sky. Thus in part IV of "The Oaks" the poetic voice invokes the oaks to return in order to bring back the sacredness to this land, to shade the parched hillsides where the old warring Gallegan windpipes used to console the wandering souls of its people, so that with the oaks the oak gods and fairies may return to cloak in flowery crowns the missing Gallegan heroes (cf. Cardona-Castro 1986).

The Case of Rosalía de Castro Los Robles, I. Allá en tiempos que fueron, y el alma han llenado de santos recuerdos, de mi tierra en los campos hermosos, la riqueza del pobre era el fuego; que al brillar, de la choza en el fondo, calentaba los rígidos miembros, por el frío y el hambre ateridos, del niño y del viejo. De la hoguera sentados en trono, en sus brazos la madre arrullaba al infante robusto; daba vuelta, afanosa, la anciana, en sus dedos nudosos, al huso, y al alegre fulgor de la llama, ya la joven la harina cernía, o ya desgranaba con su mano callosa y pequeña, del maíz las mazorcas doradas. Y al amor del hogar calentándose en invierno, la pobre familia campesina olvidaba la dura condición de su suerte enemiga; y el anciano y el niño contentos en su lecho de paja dormían, como duerme el polleulo en su nido cuando el ala materna le abriga. (p. 588)

II. Bajo el hacha implacable, ¡cuán presto en tierra cayeron encinas y robles! Y a los rayos del alba risueña, ¡qué calva aparece la cima del monte! Los que ayer fueron bosques y selvas de agreste espesura, donde envueltas en dulce misterio al rayar el día, flotaban las brumas, y brotaba la fuente serena entre flores y musgos oculta,

91

92

Joanna hoy son áridas lomas que ostentan, deformes y negras, sus hondas cisuras. Ya no entonan en ellas los pájaros sus canciones de amor, ni se juntan cuando mayo alborea en la fronda que quedó de sus robles desnuda. Solo el viento al passar trae el eco del cuervo que grazna, del lobo que aúlla. (p. 589)

III. Pero tú, sacra encina del celta, y tú, roble de ramas añosas, sois más bellos con vuestro follaje que si mayo las cumbres festona salpicadas de fresco rocío donde quiebra sus rayos la aurora, y convierte los sotos profundos en mansión de gloria. Más tarde, en otoño, cuando caen marchitas tus hojas, ¡oh roble!, y con ellas generoso los musgos alfombras, ¡qué hermoso está el campo!, la selva, ¡qué hermosa! Al recuerdo de aquellos rumores que al morir el día se levantan del bosque en la hondura cuando pasa gimiendo la brisa y remueve con húmedo soplo tus hojas marchitas, mientras corre engrosado el arroyo en su cauce de frescas orillas, estremécese el alma pensando dónde duermen las glorias queridas de este pueblo sufrido, que espera silencioso en su lecho de espinas que suene su hora y llegue aquel día

Courteau

The Case of Rosalía de Castro

93

en que venza, con mano segura, del mal que le oprime la fuerza homicida. (p. 590)

IV. Torna, roble, árbol patrio, a dar sombra cariñosa a la escueta montaña donde un tiempo la gaita guerrera alentó de los nuestros las almas, y compás hizo el eco monótono del canto materno, del viento y del agua, que en las noches de invierno al infante en su cuna de mimbre arrullaban. Que tan bello apareces, ¡oh roble!, de este suelo en las cumbres gallardas y en las suaves graciosas pendientes donde umbrosas se extienden tus ramas como en rostro de pálida virgen cabellera ondulante y dorada, que en lluvia de rizos acaricia la frente de nácar. ¡Torna presto a poblar nuestros bosques, y que tornen contigo las hadas que algún tiempo a tu sombra tejieron del héroe gallego las frescas guirnaldas! (p. 591) As indicated in this last example Rosalía recognizes clearly the need for the persistence of Celtic elements in order to maintain an awareness of Gallegan culture and folklore. The oaks epitomize the Gallegan tradition; when they are destroyed by the axe of progress, all of Gallegan culture is threatened. I believe this fear of demise of Gallegan culture by progress explains her desire to codify this culture in terms of the dominant language, so that those generations who come after her, may have a written record of Gallegan culture, for the written tradition was known to her only in Castilian, and therefore it was natural for her to assume that the only way to inscribe the Gallegan culture for posterity was by codifying it in the language with a writing tradition.

94

Joanna Courteau

Through this effort of codifying Gallegan culture in the dominant language she seemed to acknowledge the political realities as stated by A.D. Edwards (1976: 40) and John Edwards (1985: 98). For in the 19th Century it was difficult to predict whether, in spite of the efforts of the literary renaissance group, Gallegan would survive as an independent language. Today Rosalia's voice, as the voice of a major poet in Spanish literature, cannot be ignored. A reading of Rosalía's poetry in Spanish is equivalent to a reading of Gallegan culture. Thus, Rosalía succeeded in keeping Gallegan culture alive not only through her renewal of the Gallegan language, but also and especially through her writing in Castilian.

Making Ethnicity Salient in Codeswitching Carol Myers-Scotton University of South Carolina

Introduction In the multi-ethnic cities of Africa, people are very much aware of their own ethnic group membership and that of others, perhaps because so many are recent in-migrants who find themselves in a sea of strangers. Sometimes far from their ethnic homeland, people turn to those they can identify as ethnic brethren, at the least to ease the strains of urban anonymity and at best to enhance their socio-economic opportunities. But asserting one's ethnicity often goes against the national myth of egalitarianism, e.g. in Kenya, politicians speak (in Swahili) for the umoja wa wananchi "the unity of the citizens" but against ukabila "tribalism". Yet it is also a fact of everyday life that Nairobi residents help "those from home" get jobs at their place of work and, if possible, live in the same housing areas and drink in the same bars with persons of shared ethnicity. The result is tension between one's public and private expressions of self. In private settings where all share the same ethnicity most Nairobi residents would be ill at ease to speak anything but their own mother tongue. But in the workplace and other public settings, the order of the day is Swahili and/or English, both relatively neutral from an ethnic viewpoint. Speaking one's own ethnic language in multi-ethnic work groups goes against norms and is a sure way to call attention to - or create - boundaries of interpersonal allegiance; Nairobi residents call it "back-biting". Yet, at times people do put aside ethnic neutrality in public and reveal their private, ethnic mask in switching to their mother tongue. This paper will discuss the motivations for codeswitching as an expression of ethnicity. Examples come mainly from Nairobi, but the arguments presented have applicability in any multi-ethnic community.

96

Carol Myers-Scotton

Codeswitching (hereafter CS) is the selection of two or more linguistic varieties in the same conversation. One language can be identified as the Matrix Language (ML) or the main language of such utterances, with the other language(s) as the Embedded Language (EL). (See Myers-Scotton and Azuma (1990 & forthcoming) on the differential roles of the ML and EL in the structuring of CS utterances.) CS may occur on any structural level; intersentential CS shows alternation of varieties between sentences, and intrasentential CS shows variation within the sentence when clauses or phrases or even single morphemes from one variety are juxtaposed with those of another. While any type of linguistic variety (from styles within a language to different languages) may be involved in CS with similar social motivations, this paper will deal only with CS between two languages. This is the level most appropriately used for the expression of ethnicity, given the fact a particular language is often perceived as a symbol of a particular ethnic group.

Explaining Social Motivations for Code Choices Six examples of CS for which the switching is a negotiation to make salient ethnic identity will be discussed in this paper. They will be interpreted within the markedness model I have discussed more fully elsewhere (e.g. Scotton 1983; Scotton 1988a; Scotton 1988b; and Myers-Scotton 1989). The premise of this model is that code choice is always indexical of an on-going negotiation between speaker and addressee involving their respective right and obligations (RO balance) in an interaction. Speakers work out what RO balance is expected or unmarked for specific participants in a given speech event, based on the norms of their community. An RO balance is derived from those situational features which are salient for the community for that speech event. While many features are nearly universally salient in the same type of interactions (e.g. age, gender, socio-economic status), it is important to emphasize that a good deal of specificity (one community vs. another, one speech event vs. another) marks feature salience. For example, differences in age or educational level might be much more salient in a particular type of speech event in one community than in others. A related mater is that based on who uses them and when they are used, linguistic varieties become associated with certain sets of psycho-sociological features. For example, in Nairobi speaking English well is associated with education and the results of education (a well-

Making Ethnicity Salient in Codeswitching

97

paying job, authority). Thus a linguistic variety becomes the unmarked medium for carrying out a certain speech event because of its association with the socio-psychological features which are most salient in that event. The result is that at some level (often a subconscious level) speakers make the linguistic choices they do because of the features with which a variety is associated. At a higher level of abstraction, their linguistic choices become negotiations of the RO balance which speakers wish to have between themselves and other participants in an interaction. One way of looking upon this is to say speakers weigh the possible costs and rewards for making one choice rather than another. Speakers are free to make any choices they wish to make, but their choices will be interpreted within the normative framework establish by their community. Although assignment is never categorical, this normative framework has associated one linguistic variety as the unmarked index of a particular RO balance for a particular class of interactions and so forth. Thus, while there are no "rules" which speakers must follow in making choices, a grammar of consequences does govern the interpretation of choices. That is, the choice the speaker makes is individualistic, but its interpretation flows from preexisting norms. The idea that speakers assign readings of markedness to linguistic varieties is based on the premise that any innate linguistic faculty includes a markedness model. This model predisposes speakers to view each linguistic variety as more or less unmarked for the range of RO balances in their community. That is, given a particular interaction and a particular set of participants, speakers know that a certain RO balance is unmarked. Their innate markedness model underlies their ability to associate a particular linguistic variety as the unmarked index of that RO balance. The model, then, has both universal and particular aspects. First, all speakers of all languages have the same markedness model. Second, the details of the model are filled in differently depending upon the linguistic repertoire and the norms of the community where the speaker lives; that is, no variety is universally an unmarked choice and no variety is an unmarked choice across all speech events.

Unmarked Choices Example (1) illustrates concretely the concept of unmarked choices. In this example, as two strangers learn more about each other, they negotiate a

98

Carol Myers-Scotton

change in the interaction from one between strangers to one between ethnic brethren. In the course of the exchange, the unmarked code choice for such an interaction changes from Swahili to their shared ethnic language, a Luyia variety. This type of CS represents "codeswitching as a sequence of unmarked choices" (Scotton 1988b: 153-154). (1) Setting: Entrance to the IBM Nairobi head office. A visitor approaches; he is a school principal in the Luyia area of Western Kenya (at some distance from Nairobi). He speaks English and Swahili fluently in addition to his own first language, a Luyia variety. The guard speaks first and addresses him in Swahili, the unmarked choice for interactions between strangers in a Nairobi service encounter: SECURITY GUARD (Swahili): Unataka kumwona nani? "Whom do you want to see?" VISITOR (Swahili): Napenda kumwona Solomon Inyama. "I want to see Solomon Inyama." GUARD (Swahili): Unamjua kweli? Tunaye Solomon Amuhaya-nadhani ndio yule, "Do you really know him? We have a Solomon Amuhaya-I think that's the one you mean." VISITOR (Swahili): Yule anayetoka Tiriki - yaani Mluyia. "The one who comes from Tiriki - that is, a Luyia." GUARD (smiling, switches to Luyia): Solomon mwenuyu wakhumanya vulahi? "Does Solomon know you?" VISITOR (Luyia): Yivi mulole umovolere ndi Shem Lusimba yenyanga khukhulola. "You see him and tell him that Shem Lusimba wants to see you." GUARD (Luyia): Yikhalayalia ulindi "Sit here and wait." Another visitor arrives who addresses the guard: VISITOR II (Swahili): Bwana Kamidiyuko hapa? "Is Mr. Kamidi here?" GUARD (Swahili): Ndio yuko - anafanya kazi saa hit Hawezi kuiacha mpaka iwe imekwisha. Kwa hivyo utaketi hapa mpaka aje, Utangoja kwa dakika kama kumi tano hivi.

Making Ethnicity Salient in Codeswitching

99

"Yes, he's here - he is doing something right now. He can't leave until he finishes. Therefore you will wait here until he comes. You will wait about five or ten minutes." (Then the Guard leaves to look for Solomon Amuhaya.) (Scotton 1988b: 153-154) Example (1) illustrates two points of interest here. First, it shows how the unmarked choice can change in the course of a conversation when situational factors change, or their salience changes. It is easy to see how a situational factor can change; for example, the topic may change or a new participant may join a conversation. Consider also, however, how salience of a factor can change. The markedness model views all situational features as differentially salient in different speech events. For example, in a typical service encounter between strangers, the situational factor of age is not salient in many societies, and very often the socio-economic status of the client is not salient either (e.g. consider the check-out line in a supermarket). Yet, in another type of event, these factors may well be salient. At the beginning of example (1) the most salient factor was the visitor's appearance as being a Kenyan African or not. Since he looked like a local African, the guard addressed him in Swahili, the language most often used in Nairobi for such service encounters between strangers. Yet, as the conversation develops, ethnicity becomes a salient factor. The visitor identifies the person whom he wishes to see as a Luyia; by implication, he also so identifies himself. At this point, the salience of ethnicity in this speech event changes. Second, the example illustrates how exploiting the salience of ethnicity comes into play in weighing the costs and rewards of code choices. No doubt the visitor raised the issue of ethnicity because he suspected from what the guard said or from his physical appearance that he, too, was a Luyia. In any service encounter, the client might benefit if shared ethnicity is salient. And the visitor is in luck because the guard confirms his guess. Since both guard and visitor are from the Luyia ethnic group, the unmarked choice for them is a Luyia variety.1 By switching to Luyia, the guard negotiates a different RO balance with the visitor. He is still a stranger, but as a stranger having something in common with him, ethnicity.2 In summary, note how this example shows that CS as a sequence of unmarked choices depends on situational factors to establish their unmarkedness. At the beginning of the interaction, Swahili was unmarked because the only salient situational factor was the probability the visitor was a Kenyan African. With

100

Carol Myers-Scotton

more information, the participants' shared ethnicity becomes salient, and societal norms encourage use of the ethnic language under such circumstances.

Marked Choices Many times speakers do not wait for a change in the situation to effect a change in the salience of situational factors; they themselves attempt a change by switching away from the unmarked choice. They engage in "CS as a marked choice". If unmarked choices are the expected and a linguistic index of the unmarked RO balance for a specific speech event, then marked choices are unexpected and index a different RO balance from that which norms call for. Recall that a person chooses a variety to index his/her position in an RO balance; and an RO balance is derived from the situational factors salient in the specific community and the specific speech event. Thererefore, making a marked choice is a bid to make other factors salient in place of the expected ones. The motivation for a marked choice is most generally to increase or decrease the social distance between participants. Because it is marked, such CS is a disruption and therefore the speaker is always taking a chance as to whether the rewards of this disruption will outweigh the costs.3 Example (2) illustrates a particularly distruptive instance of CS as a marked choice; the motivation here is to increase the social distance. A man and a woman from different ethnic groups are trading abusive words in Swahili,4 again the unmarked choice for interactions between strangers in Nairobi, when the woman switches to her own ethnic language. This is clear evidence of the indexical force of a linguistic variety on its own, outside of its referential meaning. In this case, the man does not understand her language, a fact she seems quite aware of. Yet, her "message" is unmistakable: it is a slur, directed at his person or group. He seems to take it as against his group, because he responds in his own language. (2) Setting: Medical dispensary in the Jericho Housing Estate in Nairobi, a housing developing for lower middle and lower class workers. Stimulus for the following exchange: a woman had gone, by mistake, into the men's restroom. The exchange begins while she is still inside and then continues when she comes out.

Making Ethnicity Salient in Codeswitching

101

MAN (to another woman outside) (Swahili): Mbona hamukumwambia aende kwa choo wanaume? "Why on earth didn't you tell her not to go into the men's restroom?" WOMAN (emerging from the restroom and overhearing his comment) (Swahili): Mimi apana mjinga kama unavyodhania. Enda ita mkeo mjinga, apana mimi. "I'm not a simpleton as you claim. Go call your wife a simpleton, not me." MAN (Swahili): Ona huyu mshenzi, ulijifünza wapi tapia hiyo yake?Rudi risavuni ukafanyie huko hizo tapia zako za kishenzi "Consider this uncivilized person! Where did you learn your manners? Go back to the reservation where you can behave in such a way." WOMAN (switching now to her ethnic language, a Luyia variety): Mindu chelea miruyi yiji chayikholeleza vindu vyosi Nairobi hanu. "These people with suspended ears have monopolized everything here in Nairobi!" (A reference to Kikuyu people because the man looks like a Kikuyu.) (Speaking his own ethnic language, the man returns the insult.) (Scotton 1982: 432-433) In other speech events, marked switching to an ethnic language may be a strategy to narrow the social distance. In example (3) a well-educated Luyia woman is driving her car into the Nairobi athletic club where she is a member. She has stopped her car, waiting for the gatekeeper to open the two doors of the club gate. But the gatekeeper wants her to use only the one door which is already open. The young woman addresses him initially in Swahili, again the unmarked choice for this service exchange. It turns out that the gatekeeper is also a member of the Luyia ethnic group, but even if the young woman had known this, she would still have used Swahili. In such an interaction, the sharp status difference between club member and employee has salience over other situational factors, making an ethnically neutral language in order. But before the end of the episode, the young woman sees the virtue in establishing their shared ethnic identity.

102

Carol Myers-Scotton (3) Setting:

GATEKEEPER (to young woman stopped in the middle of the gate) (Swahili): Ingia kwa mlango mmoja tu. "Enter by using only one gate." YOUNG WOMAN (looks behind her and sees another car has pulled up so she cannot manoeuver easily) (Swahili): Fungua miwill Siwezi kwenda revas! Kuna magari mengi nyuma. "Open both. I can't reverse! There are other cars behind me." (Seeing the situation, the gatekeeper very grudgingly opens both gates so she can pass through.) YOUNG WOMAN (driving by the gatekeeper) (Swahili): Mbona wewe mbaya sana leo? "Why are you being so difficult today?" (She says to her companions in the car - in English, "That man is a Luyia." She determines this from his pronunciation in Swahili. Several hours later, she drives past the gatekeeper as she leaves.) YOUNG WOMAN (to gatekeeper) (Maragoli, a Luyia variety): Undindiyange vutwa. "You were being unkind to me." GATEKEEPER (Swahili; Maragoli): Pole, simbere nikhumany ta. "Sorry, I didn't know it was you." (Scotton 1988b: 168-169) The young woman's switch to a Luyia variety, once she determined the gatekeeper's shared ethnicity, was a conscious choice, she reported.5 Why? She knows she will come back to this club again and the next time she does not want any trouble about the gates not being open. Therefore, she seeks to narrow the social distance between herself and the gatekeeper. When he says, "I didn't know it was you" one cannot be sure what he means by "you", but one interpretation (that of the young woman) is "I didn't know you were a member of my ethnic group."

"Permissible" Marked Choices Some marked choices are allowable under special circumstances, even in those exchanges for which the community has indicated that another Unguis-

Making Ethnicity Salient in Codeswitching

103

tic variety is expected and therefore unmarked. The reason these marked choices are more acceptable and less disruptive than some others is that it becomes obvious the speaker makes the marked choice in order to convey deference. And when a speaker wants special considerations from the addressee, many societies almost expect the speaker to produce "special" speech (e.g. requests become more elaborate than unmarked requests, one's style becomes more elaborate than the unmarked style for the speech event). That is, it is almost unmarked for speakers to solicit special consideration by using marked choices. Offering the addressee deference is often a "permissible" marked choice. Deference comes in various structural forms,6 but the expression of deference of interest in this paper is accommodation to the addressee's speech (see Giles and his associates on speech accommodation theory, e.g. Giles, Mulac, Bradac, and Johnson 1987). Speech accommodation may involve simply modifying features of one's speech toward those perceived to characterize the addressee's speech; for example, the percentage of certain alternants of a phonological variable may be changed or rate of speed may be altered. The more dramatic form of accommodation of interest here is switching to the addressee's ethnic language. The use of another person's ethnic language to convey deference is another way in which ethnicity figures in CS as a marked choice. Such a case is exemplified by Parkin (1974) who describes an interaction between a Kikuyu market seller in Nairobi attempting to speak Luo and a Luo customer. According to the markedness model discussed here, marked choices call attention to themselves because community members tacitly know there is an unmarked choice which is being by-passed. In this case, Swahili is the unmarked choice, and the seller's attempt to speak an ethnic language not her own in this type of exchange is clearly a marked choice. Its motivation seems to be flattery. What Fishman (1972a: 449-450) had to say about metaphorical switching applies to how one recognizes marked choices and their motivations: The very fact that humor during a formal lecture is realized through a metaphorical switch to another variety ... must be indicative of an underlying sociolinguistic regularity ... Without such a view, without a more general norm assigning a particular topic or situation, as one of a class of such topics or situations, to one language rather than another, metaphorical purposes could neither be served or recognized.

104

Carol Myers-Scotton

In Parkin's example, it turns out that the seller, in fact, can speak little Luo and is forced to switch to other languages (Swahili and English). But she still insists on trying to finish off the interaction with a few words of Luo: (4) A Kikuyu woman stallholder greets a Luo male customer in a Nairobi market. Dashes indicate a switch of languages. SELLER (Luo): Omera, nadi! "How are you, brother?" CUSTOMER (Luo): Maber. "Fine." SELLER (Kikuyu; Swahili): Ati - nini? "What-what?" CUSTOMER (Swahili): Ya nini kusema lugha ambao huelewi, mama? "Why (try) to speak a language you don't know, madam?" SELLER (English): I know Kijaluo very well! "I know Kijaluo very well!" (Note: Kijaluo is a Swahilized version of the name Luo.) CUSTOMER (Swahili; English; Swahili): Wapi! - You do not know it at all - Wacha haya, nipe mayai mbili. "Go on! You do not know it at all - let's leave that matter; give me two eggs." SELLER (Swahili; Luo; Swahili): Unataka mayai - ariyo, omera - haya ni - tongoio - tatu. "You want two eggs, brother. Ok, that's thirty cents." (Note Luo forms: ariyo "two"; omera "brother"; tongolo "thirty".) (Parkin 1974:194-195)

"Exclusive" Marked Choices Another type of marked choice involving an ethnic language conveys nearly the opposite of deference to some participants. This is the use of a speaker's own ethnic language to ethnic brethren in front of co-participants from other ethnic groups. To those sharing ethnicity with the speaker, a marked switch to an ethnic language is a negotiation to decrease social distance. To others, the use of the speaker's ethnic language is a strategy to increase the social distance.

Making Ethnicity Salient in Codeswitching

105

Such "exclusive" switching occurs relatively often in the multi-ethnic communities of Africa. Depending on other dynamics in the situation (e.g. the relative status in other respects of the person initiating the switch or the relative socio-political position of his/her ethnic group), other participants may or may not object strenuously. Whether it is condoned, "exclusive" switching clearly is a marked choice since it negotiates a change from the unmarked RO balance. Example (5) illustrates such switching. Four young Kenyan men who all work in the same government ministry in Nairobi are chatting about their finances. Two are native speakers of Kikuyu, one of Kisii, and one of a Kalenjin language. Given the participants and the setting, the unmarked choices are Swahili and/or Swahili/English. KIKUYU I (Swahili): Sasa mumesema nini juu ya hiyo plan yetu? Naona kama siku kama siku zinaendelea kwisha. "Now, what do you all say about this plan of ours? I think time is getting short." KIKUYU n (Swahili; English): Mlisema tu - collect money, lakini hakuna mtu hata mmoja ambaye amenipatia pesa. "You said collect money, but there isn't even one person who has got money for me." KALENJIN (Swahili; English): Makosa ni yako kama mweka hazina. Tulisema uwe ukitembelea watu mora kwa mora lakini hufanyi hivyo. Watu wengi hawawezi kufanya kitu bila kuwa harassed. "The fault is yours as treasurer. We said you should visit people (us) from time to time, but you don't do that. Many people can't do a thing unless they are harassed." (The others express their views. Finally, the Kikuyu, who was to be the treasurer, switches to Kikuyu): KIKUYU II (Kikuyu): Andu amwe nimendaga kwaria maundu maria matan na ma namo. "Some people like talking about what they're not sure of." KIKUYU I (Kikuyu): Wira wa muigi wa kigina ni kuiga mbeca. "The work of the treasurer is only to keep money. Not to hunt for money." KISII (Swahili; English): Ubaya wenu ya Kikuyu ni ku-assume kila mtu anaelewa Kikuyu.

106

Carol Myers-Scotton "The bad thing about Kikuyus is to assume that everyone understands Kikuyu." KALENJIN (Swahili; English): Si mtumie lugha ambayo kila mtu hopa atasikia? We are supposed to solve this issue. "Shouldn't you use a language which every person here understands? We are supposed to solve this issue." KIKUYU II (Swahili; English): Tunaomba msameha. Sio kupenda kwetu. Ni kawaida kwa most people kupendelea lugha yao. "We are sorry. It isn't that we favor our side. It's normal for most people to prefer their own language." (Scotton 1988b: 175-176)

Note that when the Kikuyu who is the treasurer switches to Kikuyu, his ethnic brother aligns himself with him, both in his language and his content. But note the sharp reaction from the two non-Kikuyus. And while the Kikuyu does apologize and does return to the unmarked choices for the interaction, restoring the unmarked RO balance, he glosses over any personal motivation for his switch to Kikuyu even though he obviously used the switch to change the social distance.

Exploratory Choices: Marked Use of an Ethnic Language A final point to be made about ethnic languages as marked choices is to emphasize that CS is very much of a negotiation and that all negotiations are not necessarily successful. Example (6) comes from Western Kenya, not Nairobi, but what it illustrates could be true anywhere in Kenya. In this case, a sister visits her brother who owns a small grocery shop. She greets him in their shared ethnic language (a Luyia variety) and he responds in kind. But then he switches to Swahili. By doing this, he is using Swahili as an exploratory choice, indicating Swahili indexes the RO balance which he would like to have in effect for the interaction. In a case like this, with conflicting sets of norms (is shared ethnicity or the marketplace going to prevail?), speakers propose an unmarked choice in their turns at talk. Sometimes CS is used to try out first one choice and, if that is rejected, to try another. With Swahili in place, the features of the brother and sister which would be salient are their

Making Ethnicity Salient in Codeswitching

107

roles as customer and shopkeeper, given Swahili's established use elsewhere as the unmarked choice of service encounters. That is, the use of Swahili in effect neutralizes the salience of their shared ethnicity. But if the two are interacting in Luyia, the interaction would become, not a service encounter, but a family visit. In that case, the brother would have to worry about the sister expecting a handout. Because the sister wants to be a sister, not a customer, she continues in Luyia rather than speaking Swahili. Her proposal for an RO balance based on ethnicity is rejected. The brother persists in Swahili until the end and the sister does not get anything free. BROTHER (Luyia): Vushele muno mbotswa? "Good morning, sister." SISTER (Luyia): Vushele. "Good morning." BROTHER (Luyia): Uli mulamu? "Are you all right?" SISTER (Luyia): Yee, hadi vutswa. "Yes, just a little." BROTHER (Swahili): Dada, sasa leo unahitaji nini? "Sister, now what do you need today?" SISTER (Luyia): Nenyanga umbe munyu. "I want some salt." BROTHER (Swahili): Ah, unahitaji kiasi gani? "How much do you need?" SISTER (Luyia): Mbe kutukha mang'ondo gasasava. "Give me sixty cents worth." BROTHER (Swahili): Na kitu gani kingine? "And what else?" SISTER (Luyia): Nakenya shindu shindi nawutsa mang'ondo gavula. "I would like something else, but I've no money." BROTHER (Swahili): Asante sana dada. Kwa herí. "Thank you, sister. Goodbye." SISTER (Luyia): Urio. Muno ulindwi. "Thank you. Goodbye." (Scotton and Ury 1977: 17)

108

Carol Myers-Scotton

Conclusion This paper has considered how speakers in multi-ethnic communities use switching to an ethnic language as a negotiation of the rights and obligations which they wish to have in effect for a speech event. In particular, switching to an ethnic language as a marked choice has been illustrated. In general, speakers so use CS to redefine the RO balance in such a way that they increase or decrease the social distance between participants. More specifically, examples considered have illustrated switching to one's own ethnic language (to make shared ethnicity with the addressee more salient in some cases, but in other cases to insult or shut out others not sharing the same ethnicity); they have also illustrated how to switch to the addressee's ethnic language may be an act to extend deference to the addressee. This discussion has been within a general markedness model proposed to explain as well as describe the socio-pragmatics of CS.7 Viewed in terms of this model, CS is a strategy by means of which speakers, as individuals and within the dynamics of individual interactions, exploit the social grammar of a community (i.e. knowledge of the social interpretation of linguistic choices) to negotiate outcomes favorable to themselves.

Notes 1.

Shared ethnicity is not necessarily the feature most salient in establishing the RO balance in all speech events. For example, in interactions between a boss and employee, many bosses in Nairobi prefer an RO balance with no ethnic basis and therefore use an ethnically neutral language.

2.

It is interesting to note here that the guard, as the person more in control of the outcome, takes the initiative in switching to the shared ethnic language. This is in line with the observation of Brown and Gilman (1972) that it is the prerogative of the superior to extend solidarity in a dyad. They, of course, referred to initiating the use of the more familiar form of the second person pronoun in European languages distinguishing singular and plural in this pronoun.

3.

The markedness model is made more predictive, particularly in reference to marked choices, in Myers-Scotton (forthcoming). Hypotheses are proposed as to the types of persons who are most likely to make marked choices.

4.

Speakers quoted in this example and those that follow do not necessarily use Standard Swahili.

Making Ethnicity Salient in Codeswitching

109

5.

I was present for this interaction and was able to discuss the choices she made with the young woman involved.

6.

Brown and Levinson (1987), of course, catalogue a number of structural devices which speakers use cross-culturally to mitigate "face-threatening acts". These mitigations may be intended as expressions of deference.

7.

Elsewhere (e.g. Scotton 1988b) I argue there are four social functions of CS, although here I discuss only three (CS as a sequence of unmarked choices, CS as a marked choice, and CS as an exploratory choice). For each of these types, it is the point of the switch which carries the social significance; and of course switching to an ethnic language has been the subject of this paper. Missing here is "CS as the unmarked choice". Such switching involves a to-and-fro pattern of switching from one language to another (possibly including a shared ethnic language) in the same conversational turn. Its discussion is not relevant here because for those types of interactions calling for CS as the unmarked choice it is the overall pattern of switching which is the unmarked choice, that is neither language on its own is unmarked or marked. The overall pattern of switching carries the social message that speakers and co-participants are distinguished by the dual identities they share, those associated with both languages involved.

Cebuiano and Tagalog: Ethnic Rivalry Redivivus Andrew Gonzalez, FSC De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

1. Introduction On August 25, 1988, in celebration of National Language Week, the Office of the President issued an executive order (No. 335) enjoining government offices to use Filipino, the national language of the Philippines, in official communications. The celebration of National Language Week is an annual event and takes place during the week preceding the birthday of Manuel L. Quezon, the first President of the Philippine Commonwealth and considered by Filipinos 'the father of the national language'; the celebration takes place from August 13 to 19 each year, with Quezon's birthday falling on August 19. The issuance of the Executive Order was done upon the suggestion of the Linangan ng mga Wika sa Pilipinas (Institute of Philippine Languages), formerly the Institute of National Language. The Executive Order did not enjoin a new practice; it merely repeated existing policy (the official status of Filipino, the national language) and enjoined implied consequences of practice (its use as an official language in government, more specifically, in government correspondence, circulars, bulletins, newsletters, public ceremonies, speeches, oath-takings). It is common knowledge, however, that in spite of the official status of Filipino (with English likewise having official status), more English than Filipino is used in government offices. By any mode of interpretation, however, the executive order was a hortatory repetition of an existing policy enjoining civil servants to use the national language more than they were using it heretofore, uttered for symbolic reasons (the annual celebration of National Language Week). Given the context of the situation of the

112

Andrew Gonzalez

message, a semiotic analysis would readily indicate that at best, the executive order was in harmony with the symbolic activities associated with a national language. Ordinarily, the executive order would not have merited more than passing notice, a nod of assent, surely quite innocuous because stressing the obvious, namely, that the national language should be used more for official functions. For unexpected reasons which cannot be fully explained, perhaps because the order gave certain local columnists grist for their journalistic mills in an otherwise newsless week, one influential columnist of the Daily Star (Maximo Soliven) wrote an entire column attacking the executive order (without having read it) as if it were making new educational policy, namely, changing the present bilingual education program to a monolingual one (in Filipino). An editor of a weekly periodical, the Philippines Free Press, Teodoro Locsin, took up the same theme and put on the cover of the influential weekly the caricature of the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports having a pencil between her ears! If one were to read between the lines of these over-reactions to misinformation, one would have to conclude that the language issue in education, namely, the expanded use of Filipino as the medium of instruction in schools, is something that alarms many people in the Philippines, although our survey in 1985 (see Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988) indicates an acceptance of both Filipino and English as media of instruction at the primary and secondary level and on an experimental basis for some subjects at the tertiary level. What is not acceptable is a monolingual educational system in Filipino. However, for the purpose of this paper, what is relevant and interesting is not so much the over-reactions of journalists to Executive Order No. 335 based on a non-reading or misreading of the executive order and a misconception as to its purport but the negative reactions it evoked from Cebu City and Cebu Province, a reaction that is still echoed at present. Unlike the Manila journalists, the Cebuanos who reacted to the Executive Order interpreted the order correctly; they had at least the courtesy of reading the order and reacted accordingly to it. Executive Order No. 335 enjoining the use of Filipino as the official language of government provoked typical reactions from Cebuano such as the following:

Cebuano and Tagalog: Ethnic Rivalry Redivivus

113

Both the City Council of Cebu (the second major city after Manila) and the Provincial Council of Cebu Province insisted on carrying on their deliberations in Cebuano, not Filipino (actually, one would not be mistaken in guessing that these deliberations even now are carried on mostly in English). A resolution was passed by the City Council to sing the Philippine National Anthem (long sung in English, begun to be sung exclusively in Tagalog-based Pilipino, now Filipino, since 1963) in Cebuano. There were even more 'radical' resolutions to ban the use of Filipino at official functions in Cebu (where most public ceremonies have for some time called for a token use of Filipino at the beginning). There was likewise a resolution to stop the implementation of the current Bilingual Education Policy of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports whereby some subjects are taught in Filipino, some in English. The Regional Director and Superintendent of Cebu Province both refused to honor the resolution on the grounds that the national policy took priority over a local resolution. A year later, in 1989, city and provincial offices of Cagayan de Oro City and Misamis Oriental Province (Borja 1989) in Northern Mindanao, a Cebuano-speaking province with a population composed mostly of migrants from the Bisayan area, opened a drive to make Bisayan (Cebuano) the national language, and forthwith demanded that the national anthem be sung in Cebuano, not Filipino. Towards the beginning of School Year 1990-1991, matters came to a head on the island of Cebu when the Governor of the Province, Emilio Osmefia, Jr., went to the Regional Trial Court to seek to nullify existing Department of Education policy on the use of Tagalog-based Filipino and English in schools (under the bilingual education scheme), on the grounds that the practice was against the 1987 Constitution which proclaimed Filipino, not Tagalog, as the national language. The grounds were based on the contention that Filipino as interpreted by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports is based on Tagalog while Filipino as mandated by the Constitution of 1987 is supposed to be based on all the Philippine languages and is as yet in the process of formation. (This contention is reminiscent of the concept of Filipino under the 1973 Constitution; see Gonzalez 1980.)1 Senator John Osmeña, a cousin of the Governor, has urged the use of Cebuano in notices and announcements on airplane flights to and from Cebu (Tangbawan 1990) instead of Filipino, another manifestation of an assertion of regional emphasis on language.

114

Andrew Gonzalez

The Cebuano reaction is thus a challenge to the existing policy on the official status of Filipino in the school system and in official government communications. The anti-Filipino advocates in giving their reasons for their opposition repeat the traditional argument against Filipino, namely, that Filipino is not Tagalog and is as yet in the process of formation and until it is fully formed should not be imposed on non-Tagalogs. Actually, of course, if one were to interpret the constitutional provision on Filipino as the national language of the Philippines on the basis of the hearings and the discussions during the 1986 Constitutional Assembly, one would have to conclude that Filipino is the Manila lingua franca to be enriched by lexical entries from Philippine and other languages. In turn, the Manila linguafrancareally rests on a grammatical basis of Tagalog. Only the lexicon is truly multi-based. Nevertheless, the seeming reason for the Cebuano opposition to Filipino is the same reason alleged in 1935 when the question of the basis of the national language was first debated in a national assembly (during the Constitutional Convention of 1934-1935). Even after fifty-five years, therefore, the ethnic rivalry between Cebuanos and Tagalogs has not been laid to rest; its manifestations are amazingly confined to the national language or symbol of linguistic unity and national identity, not in other areas. At best, of this rivalry, one can say that periodically it is laid to rest only to be resuscitated at unexpected moments. One can likewise say that there have been truces but thus far no really permanent peace.

2. Cebuanos and Tagalogs: Some Social Data To understand this recurrence of anti-Tagalog sentiments on the part of Cebuanos, one must look at the historical relations between the two ethnic groups, Tagalogs and Cebuanos. The prehistory of the Philippines has not been adequately studied (for a beginning attempt, see Jocano 1975 based on Beyer 1935 but updating it; for more recent views using pottery, see Solheim 1981). Archeological evidence, scarce as it is, must be complemented by linguistic evidence using the methods of historical linguistics (the comparative method, the reconstruction of protoforms and historical reconstruction of underlying forms, subgrouping hypotheses based on lexicostatistical techniques and qualitative examination

Cebuano and Tagalog:EthnicRivalry Redivivus

115

of shared features especially innovations; more recently, reconstructions of grammatical subsystems; see Dempwolff 1934, 1937, 1938; Zorc 1977a, 1972; McFarland 1974, Gallman 1974, Dyen 1971, Llamzon 1969, Starosta, Pawley and Reid 1982, Reid 1974). The current view (largely based on hypotheses from Zorc's reconstructions) is that both Cebuano and Tagalog undoubtedly belong to the Central Philippine language group (what Dyen 1965 calls the 'Central Tagalic Hesion'; the term Tagalic' is best avoided since it smacks of linguistic imperialism among nonTagalogs). Zorc hypothesizes an earlier split of Tagalog from the Bisayan languages, which were united somewhere in the Eastern Visayas and split thereafter (Zorc 1977b). The dispersal of these languages began about two thousand years ago or the beginning of the Christian era, with the Tagalogs seeming to have separated first and wending their way from Southern Luzon eventually to replace the Kapampangans (a Northern Philippine group) in the Manila-Rizal area and further north up to Nueva Ecija (Figure 1). The geographical area for Tagalog is thus composed of parts of Camarines Norte, Quezon, Aurora, and Quirino (formerly Tayabas Province), Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and the southern part of Nueva Ecija. In these provinces a mutually intelligible variety of Tagalog is spoken; however, it shows dialectal differences without jeopardizing mutual intelligibility (see studies of Tagalog dialects: Soberano 1976 for Marinduque Tagalog; Manuel 1971 for Tayabas Tagalog; Baltazar 1967 for Laguna Tagalog; Lopez 1925 for Marinduque and Parañaque Tagalog). On the other hand, because of the insular character of the Bisayan area, leading to further isolation and linguistic differentiation, there has been greater differentiation of varieties spoken in the area resulting in closely related though mutually unintelligible codes (and therefore languages and not merely dialects) known as the Bisayan languages (see Zorc 1977b for a comparative study; Rafael 1976 for a putative reconstruction of the negative subsystem). Dialects of the same language are Cebuano, Boholano (Cebuano) and the Cebuano spoken in Negros Oriental and parts of Leyte. In addition, during the period of government resettlement of Mindanao in the 1930's under Quezon and resumed in the 1950's under Magsaysay, as part of the dispersal of population and to distribute land (in the process, of course, leading to problems of land ownership vis-à-vis the Islamic communities of Mindanao), settlers from Cebu and Cebuano-speaking areas settled in Northern Mindanao, Misamis Oriental and Occidental, Bukidnon, Davao,

116

Andrew Gonzalez Figure 1 The Languages and Dialects of the Philippines (Hayden 1947)

Cebuano and Tagalog:EthnicRivalry Redivivus

111

Cotabato, and Zamboanga) so that in effect Cebuano has become the lingua franca of Southern Philippines (Visayas and Mindanao) just as Ilokano is still the linguafrancaof Northern Philippines. Three groups of Philippine tribes have been the most mobile and aggressive in terms of migrations and settlements: the Ilokanos in the North who have settled not only along the west coast of Northern Luzon but likewise in parts of Eastern Luzon and in the Cagayan valley as well as the Mountain Province so that Ilokano has become the lingua franca of the North (see Jocano 1982, Foronda 1972). The Ilokanos are likewise known to have been the first group of ethnic Filipinos to form communities in Alaska, Hawaii, and Stockton, California after 1898. The aggressive group in Central Luzon has been the Tagalogs, who however have been land-locked, displacing only the erstwhile inhabitants of the lowlands in these areas, the Kapampangans, with whom they have been in cultural and linguistic contact for centuries. In the South, the most mobile (by sea) have been the Cebuanos who formed settlements in Dumaguete, Negros Oriental, Southern Leyte, and then in different parts of Mindanao, including the southernmost group of islands of the archipelago, Jolo. One surmises that in this pattern of dispersal they were merely following the tradition of their ancestors as a mobile people. The hypothesis of Zorc is that the Proto-Bisayans came from the Eastern Bisayan area; the precursors of the Cebuanos, the Bisayans, aggressively settled on different islands of the Bisayan area so that Bisayan languages are found in Masbate, Sorsogon, Samar, Leyte, Bohol, Cebu, Panay, Romblon, Surigao (and from Surigao, it seems, to the Sulu archipelago; see Gallman 1977). In historical times, Magellan and his ships landed at Limasawa, a small island in Southern Leyte in 1521; an alternative first-landing place is now proposed as Surigao on the Northeast coast of Mindanao. The expedition then went to Cebu. In the second expedition under Legazpi in 1565, a settlement was set up in Cebu, then in Iloilo, before Manila was founded by Legazpi and Goiti in 1571, six years after they landed in Cebu. Manila became prominent as an entrepôt of trade largely because of the galleon trade between Manila and Acapulco beginning in the late sixteenth century up to the later part of the eighteenth century. However, with the growing of sugar, Iloilo became the most prosperous province of the Philippines in the nineteenth century, rivaling Manila in its volume of trade; in the eighteenth century, another major center of trade was the Sulu archipelago under the Sulu sultans.

118

Andrew Gonzalez

As with all capital cities, the prominence of the Tagalogs which began with the founding of the city of Manila by the Spaniards was an accidental confluence of colonial policy and geographical location resulting in economic and eventually political and cultural dominance. Thus, while the oldest See of the Roman Church was Cebu, the most important one soon became Manila. And during the American Period, while the first two decades were dominated by a Cebuano, Sergio Osmeña, who was the first speaker of the Philippine Assembly, the rest of the American colonial period was dominated by a Tagalog, Manuel Quezon from Tayabas, as Senate President once a bicameral legislature was established in 1916. In 1923, Osmeña took a back seat to Quezon and became senate president pro-tempore (Gonzalez 1980: 47). The pattern set by Quezon and Osmeña, with Quezon taking the dominant role and Osmeña taking the secondary role, resulted in a balancing of North and South among presidential and vice-presidential candidates as well as among senators. Thus, Quezon was a Tagalog, Osmeña a Cebuano; Roxas (the first president of the independent republic in 1946) was a Capizeño from the island of Panay, a West Bisayan; Quirino, his Vice-President, a Northerner, was an Ilokano. When Quirino ran and won for office, his running mate was Lopez, a Bisayan from Iloilo. Magsaysay, from Zambales, Northeastern Philippines, had as his running mate Garcia, a Boholano Cebuano. Macapagal, a Kapampangan from the Central Luzon, had Pelaez, from Misamis Oriental (a Cebuano speaker) as his Vice-President. Marcos, an Ilocano, chose Lopez once more as his Vice-Presidential partner, a Hiligaynon from West Visayas. Only in contemporary times, because of abnormal conditions, have we had a President (Corazon C. Aquino) and Vice-President (Salvador Laurel) both from Luzon, both Tagalogs (although Aquino comes from Tarlac, which speaks Tagalog, Kapampangan and Ilokano), without a Bisayan representative. Presently, what has exacerbated the centrifugal forces threatening to split Cebuanos from Tagalogs is the new-found prosperity of Cebu as a putative 'new Singapore' attempting to liberate itself from the bureaucratic entanglements of Manila which seemingly militate rather than promote economic progress. The assertion is made that of a peso contributed by Cebu in terms of revenues for the government, only about ten centavos or 10% returns to Cebu by way of public works. While the rest of the country (especially Luzon) has

Cebuano and Tagalog:EthnicRivalry Redivivus

119

been increasing its economic growth rate (GDP) by 5-6% the past two years (1988 and 1989), the GDP growth rate in Cebu has been approximately 20%. What the Cebuanos want is more autonomy under a Federal model, liberation from the seeming bureaucratic imperialism in Manila which is dominated by Tagalogs, and freedom to develop as an island not saddled with the drawbacks which have impeded rapid growth in Manila, the center of the country's stormy political wrangling and seeming ineptitude in terms of public results as well as the fruitless investigations of the legislature instead of creative initiatives to hasten the country's socio-economic growth in the region. One surmises that this has been the main cause of a renewed pressure on the part of Cebuanos to assert their ethnic identity, symbolized by an assertion of linguistic rights. If this kind of rivalry is not creatively channeled, there is danger of separation in the same way that the Bangsa Moro (Moro Nation) movement threatens to split Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago from the rest of the republic; the latter separatist movement, however, is based on religious grounds.

3. Cebuano and Tagalog: Some Sociolinguistic Data The National Language law of the Philippines was passed in 1936; it was known as the Romualdez Act. In 1937, the National Language Institute was established as a result of this law; by the end of that same year, the basis of the national language had been chosen, Tagalog. Romualdez, himself a Waray Bisayan from Leyte, on various occasions, at public forums, not only outlined the steps towards the selection and cultivation of the national language but spelled out criteria for the choice of the basis of the national language among the existing Philippine vernaculars. Even before the selection of Tagalog by the National Language Institute (of which he was not a member), he had affirmed that the language that best exemplified the criteria which he had outlined as having the best potential (a developed literature, widespread use, central role in the life of the society, a developed morphology which made the structure transparent) was Tagalog (see Gonzalez 1980: 64-68). The National Language Institute, under a Director and an Executive Secretary (the director was Jaime de Veyra, a Waray Bisayan dominant in Spanish more than English or Tagalog) and a trained linguist (Cecilio Lopez,

120

Andrew Gonzalez

a Tagalog), was governed by members of the Commission representing major languages of the Philippines. Knowing how delicate the choice would be, when Tagalog was putatively selected as the basis, Cecilio Lopez went to Cebu to try to explain to the Cebuano influentials the reasons for the choice. The Cebuano representative was Vicente Sotto. It seems Vicente Sotto accepted the choice only with reluctance; he soon resigned from the Commission. In this way Tagalog was chosen as the basis of the national language and thus began likewise the lingering rivalry between Cebuano and Tagalog, which has lasted to this day. The claim of the Cebuanos that the largest speaking ethnic group at the time of selection (1937) consisted of the Bisayans was true (see Table 1). It seems that the other arguments brought forth by Romualdez, arguments based on criteria for national language selection other than numbers, were never really considered by the Cebuanos. It was on the basis of numerical plurality over the Tagalog that the Bisayans staked their argument that Cebuano, not Tagalog, should have been the basis of the national language of the archipelago. The most accurate figures we have for that period may be found in the 1939 census, taken two years after the choice, a census taken in preparation for independence in 1946. Based on that census, the figures are listed in Table 1.2 In addition to Cebuano and Hiligaynon, there were Masbateño, Surigaonon, Waray, Rombloanon and other Bisayan 'dialects' then not fully analyzed. Their numbers, for the sake of argument, except perhaps for Waray, were insignificant; however, if one were to consider Cebuano and Hiligaynon as Bisayan, Bisayan constituted a plurality and the largest speaking ethnic group. Labels and names are deceiving, however, for Cebuano and Hiligaynon are separate though closely related languages, part of the Bisayan sub-family and part of the larger Central Philippine Family among whose coordinate members are Tagalog and the Bisayan group. Indeed, if one were to constitute all the Bisayan languages, there would have been more than 35% Bisayanspeaking Filipinos in 1939, but all speaking mutually unintelligible though closely related languages, languages undoubtedly much more closely related to each other than to Tagalog which constitutes a separate branch of the subfamily (see Gonzalez 1982 for an attempt to measure structural 'distance' among language family members in the Philippines).

Cebuano and Tagalog:EthnicRivalry Redivivus

121

Table 1 Number of Tagalog and Cebuano Speakers in Tagalog- and Cebuano-Speaking Provinces Year

No. of Tagalog Speakers

Total Population

Percentage of Speakers in Tagalogspeaking Provinces

1939 1948 1960 1970 1980

3,146,034* 3,540,226 5,331,648 8,295,209 13,224,424**

16,000,303 19,234,182 27,087,685 36,684,486 48,098,460

19.7% 18.4% 19.7% 22.6% 27.5%

Year

No. of Cebuano Speakers

Total Population

Percentage of Speakers in Cebuanospeaking Provinces

1939 1948 1960 1970 1980

3,397,844* 4,459,554 6,044,826 7,902,537 10,239,569**

16,000,303 19,234,182 27,087,685 36,684,486 48,098,460

21.2% 23% 21.3% 21.5% 21.3%

Source: Censuses of 1939, 1948 and 1980; Yearbook 1975. *

The 1939 Census figures for Cebuanos and Tagalog speakers were arrived at by combining the total number of residents in each Cebuano or Tagalog speaking area. No distinction is made of first and second language speakers; we assume that all residents speak the language of the area.

** The 1980 census figures are based on percentages of households where the language is spoken by residents 6 years old and above. We assume that in these households, even children below 6 years old speak the same language. We, therefore, extrapolated the numbers of speakers by multiplying the number of households with the average number of persons per household in 1980 (5.588). For all numbers, only speakers in their respective areas (Tagalog-speaking areas and Cebuano-speaking areas) are included; second-language speakers of either Cebuano or Tagalog living in other areas are not included.

122

Andrew Gonzalez

Unless therefore one chooses to gloss over language (not dialectal) differences, Tagalog at that time (with its dialects all mutually intelligible) constituted if not the largest single group the most influential one from a political, economic and geographical point of view. This fact combined with meeting the other criteria spelled out by Romualdez and included in the National Language Act or the Romualdez Bill of 1936 was undoubtedly the reason why the members of the National Language Institute (only one of whom was Tagalog) chose Tagalog instead of a Bisayan language as the basis of the national language. Complicating the matter was, moreover, the overpowering influence of Manuel L. Quezon, a Tagalog from Tayabas, for whom any language other than Tagalog would have been unthinkable as the basis of the national language. Perhaps, too, it was an unexpressed resentment against a domineering Tagalog president which stoked the flames of not-quite-expressed resentment against the choice of a language other than Bisayan. Too, the perceived purism of the Institute of National Language under a certain director in the 1960's gave rise to a reaction among both non-Tagalogs and Tagalogs. With most people, it took the form of ridicule of comic coinages allegedly propagated by the Institute. Actually, reports of these coinages are inaccurate and except perhaps for some exaggerations during the period 1941-1945, (the Japanese Occupation), the mode of lexical borrowing advocated by the Institute has always been a moderate one; it has been open to loanwords from both foreign and local sources. The attributed coinages, often comic because off-colored, were the comments of humorists which soon became accepted myths. More serious, however, were the 'language wars' of the 1960's led by a Bisayan (not a Cebuano but a Hiligaynon), Congressman Inocencio Ferrer, who challenged the alleged purism and standardization rules of the Institute in court. When his plea did not meet success at the lower courts, he took it all the way to the Supreme Court, which however sustained the authority of the Institute to standardize the language and to make policy. The celebrated case was also an occasion for the Supreme Court to confirm the authority of the Institute in having chosen Tagalog as the basis of the national language in 1937 and its subsequent work of propagating, standardizing and developing it (see Gonzalez 1980: 103-104). In spite of this Supreme Court decision in 1970 (Gonzalez 1980: 115), however, the resentment lingers and manifests itself at inauspicious moments.

Cebuano and Tagalog:EthnicRivalry Redivivus

123

In the 1971-1973 Constitutional Convention, a compromise formula of Filipino to be constituted by all the Philippine languages (a combination of both structure and vocabulary) (see Gonzalez 1974) was arrived at. Surprisingly, sparks of the controversy did not flare up much during the 1986 Constitutional Commission hearings except in the heated discussions between Davide and Villacorta in the plenary session on language (see Gonzalez and Villacorta, forthcoming), but they did flare up with a vengeance one year later upon the promulgation of an innocuous Executive Order. After 1939, because of forces other than linguistic, primarily because of migration to Manila and its environs, the number of Tagalog-speakers has steadily increased to the numerical disadvantage of Cebuano speakers (see Table 1). Census figures designate inhabitants per province and do not designate whether or not the speakers are first or second language speakers. With emigration into Manila and its environs, we know that only about 50% of Metro Manila residents are first-language speakers of Tagalog (see Gonzalez 1989). However, for other areas, we can assume that the number of secondlanguage speakers of the area is minimal. It should be noted that the number of those who speak Tagalog-based Pilipino as a first or second language in Tagalog-speaking areas has now gone up to 27.5%, a rapid rise in spite of anti-Tagalog sentiment in some quarters. Nationally, throughout the country, the number of speakers of Tagalog-based Pilipino was estimated in 1980 as 77% (Gonzalez and Bautista 1986: 59). Moreover, smaller surveys done by different scholars as part of their dissertation requirements indicate that even in Cebuano-speaking areas, the dissemination of Tagalog-based Pilipino as the national language is for the most part widespread although the percentage is smaller in Cebu; see Mendoza (1978) for Surigao; Caballero (1983) for Cagayan de Oro; Velasquez (1987) for Cebu City itself. More recent relevant data about the national language and Cebuano speakers are available in an evaluation of achievement in Grades 4, 6 and Year IV across the country, in Pilipino Language and in Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies taught in Pilipino) (Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988: 34). In achievement tests of Pilipino language and Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies), Cebuano-Surigaonons and Cebuano-speaking Cotabato students ranked 3.5, equaled only by Kapampangans and Tagalogs from Bataan, Laguna, Batangas, Quezon, and scoring better than Pangasinenses and Bikolanos. The only groups ahead of the Cebuanos were the Tagalogs from the

124

Andrew Gonzalez

National Capital Region and the Tagalogs from Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Mindoro and Palawan. Moreover, in Grade 4 Pilipino, Cebuano speakers in Davao placed first among the ethnolinguistic groups tested. Cebuano speakers from Surigao and Cotabato also ranked first in Grade 4 Araling Panlipunan and Grade 6 Pilipino. These indicators of achievement indicate that Cebuanos do well using a language they do not necessarily identify with as the national language. Note, however, that the areas where Cebuanos did well in Pilipino and Araling Panlipunan are immigration centers and do not belong to the Cebu heartland, where the resentment against Tagalog is most pronounced. Similarly, in the data on parents (Sevilla 1988) from Cebuano speaking areas (Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro), there seems to be an acceptance of Pilipino as the national language and an acceptance of a form of bilingual schooling; what is not acceptable is a monolingual system in Pilipino and the extensive use of Pilipino at the secondary and tertiary level, where parents perceive English to be still functional and necessary. What seems to be the predominant sentiment all over the Philippines, not only in Cebuano-speaking areas but most especially in Cebuano-speaking areas, is a sentiment against the identification of mastery of Pilipino with nationalism and worse, the monolingual use of Pilipino in school as a badge of nationalism. The overwhelming majority position of most sectors in the school community as of 1985 was that of refusing to consider the choice of medium of instruction as a badge of nationalism, the non-identification of mastery of Pilipino with nationalism, but the acceptance of Pilipino as a symbol of linguistic unity and national identity (see Sibayan, Gonzalez et al. 1988). The symbolic function, not the educational function, of the language has been accepted but not much more. Perhaps the last hold-out will be Cebu among the Cebuano speaking areas, but even among Cebuanos, based on the Velasquez (1987) data, opposition seems to be concentrated among politicians who often grandstand for votes and who do not necessarily represent the majority view. However, based on the volatile nature of the issue and the recent developments going on in Cebu, including its new-found prosperity and its call for federalization, perhaps the language issue will be resuscitated and become part of the campaign for federalization and a liberation of dominance from the capital, which is likewise identified with Tagalog imperialism. In the thought of Cebuanos, voiced by Edilberto Tiempo of Silliman University, himself one of the leading novelists of the country in English, the

Cebuano and Tagalog:EthnicRivalry Redivivus

125

domination of Cebuanos by Tagalogs is tantamount to a 'fourth' colonization (Spanish, American, Japanese). And citing Salvador de Madariaga, a Basque nationalist who exiled himself in protest against Franco's domination and stayed at Oxford, he said that there is nothing worse than being colonized by your own countrymen! (See the report on Tiempo's remarks in Gonzalez and Bautista 1981: 212.)

4. Conclusion The unique feature of Cebuano's resistance to Tagalog as the national language of the Philippines is that language has become the symbolic form of resistance to Tagalog domination and imperialism on the part of Cebuanos. In spite of the political, economic and cultural domination of Manila and the Tagalog region, by and large there has been no separatist movement because of language anywhere, not even in Cebu. In other words, Cebuanos seem to have tied their identity to their language, which is also a regional language and one of the three linguae francae of the Philippines (the other two being Tagalog and Ilokano) without threatening, at least as of now, secession. The plea made has been for ethnic and cultural autonomy symbolized by language, not political autonomy realized by secession. Indeed, prior to the outburst of opposition to Filipino occasioned by Executive Order No. 335 in 1988, based on surveys of Cebu-speaking areas (Caballero 1983, Mendoza 1978) and Cebu itself (Velasquez 1987), there is grudging acceptance, at least of a majority, of Filipino as the national language (it should be noted, however, that these surveys were taken before the 1987 Constitution mandating Filipino). What seems to have touched the nerve and resuscitated rivalries of several decades was the threatened monolingualism of the schools, a misconception actually, as already stated. It should be emphasized that resistance to a monolingual system of education (using only Filipino) will meet nation-wide resistance not only in Cebu but even in Manila. In traditional terms, insofar as national language dissemination is concerned, the situation of Cebu City and Cebu Province in 1990 may be considered a case of terra irredenta. In the light of projections (Gonzalez 1977), Tagalog-based Pilipino (now called Filipino) will be so widespread at least in its colloquial or conversational variety by the end of the century that for prac-

126

Andrew Gonzalez

tical purposes one may say that it will be spoken by nearly 100% (more exactly, 97.1%) of the Philippine population, including Cebuanos. On the other hand, what the Cebuanos object to is not Tagalog-based Filipino per se nor even its widespread dissemination as a lingua franca for the entire country, but its designation as a national language or a linguistic symbol of unity and national identity, for in effect, by so recognizing it, a second place will be given to Cebuano Bisayan; in the minds of the Cebuanos objecting to this development, such a legitimation would place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the Tagalogs and put them in the category of second-class citizens. The only compromise that they have accepted thus far is an amalgamated language, a language not based on one of the existing languages but on all the languages, to be slowly evolved. In the meantime, insofar as official languages are concerned, the status quo should remain. While this resuscitated interpretation of Filipino (this was the interpretation of Filipino in the 1973 Constitution but not in the 1987 Constitution) is acceptable to Cebuanos as a compromise, it is not acceptable to the majority of the interpreters of the 1987 Constitution who contend (rightly in our opinion) that the Filipino legislated by the 1987 Constitution as 'evolving' already exists as a mixed language using Tagalog structure as a grammatical base; it will gradually include more (there already are) loans from other Philippine languages (including Cebuano) and other international languages. All Filipinos (Cebuanos and non-Cebuanos alike) accept, at least at the national level, the desirability of a national language as a linguistic symbol of unity and national identity. The issue is which. This complicated issue is made even more complex by another intervening issue: the language of instruction in the schools. For the majority of Filipinos (non-Cebuanos) the choice of the basis of the national language (Tagalog) is no longer an insuperable obstacle. De facto, Tagalog has been accepted as the base. However, the majority of Filipinos (no matter of what ethnic background), based on the 1985 survey (Gonzalez and Sibayan 1988) and other surveys (see Gonzalez and Bautista 1986) do not wish to identify national language with official language and language of instruction or medium of instruction in the schools. The status of Pilipino/Filipino as a national language and as a language used for symbolic purposes in ceremonial functions of government (and therefore as one of two official languages) and for the official rhetorical functions of government leaders is not at issue.

Cebuano and Tagalog: Ethnic Rivalry Redivivus

127

What is at issue is the contention of self-proclaimed nationalists that the system of education, monolingual in English till 1972, presently bilingual in Filipino and English, become monolingual in Filipino as soon as possible. The suitability of a bilingual scheme has been accepted by the majority, especially at the primary level; at the secondary and tertiary level, however, the scientific, global-cultural, wider communicational and economic advantages of English are perceived to be too valuable to be let go. However, while this is the majority sentiment, the minority is vocal, even strident, and difficult to object to on ideological grounds (rather than pragmatic ones) and able to lobby for its position, placing the majority on the defensive. To return, however, to the ethnic rivalry issue between Cebuanos and Tagalogs: Language has become the last locus of resistance, the last rallying point, for Cebuanos; surprisingly, until lately, when the notion of federalization has become popular because of economic and political reasons, the question of separatism has never arisen among Cebuanos. It may, in the future, however, if the problem is not handled correctly by the central government. Language thus becomes, in the language of semiotics, a megasymbol of yet other symbols utilized in the rivalry, these other symbols threatening to emerge if the rivalry is not managed properly. With regional prosperity will come a revival of political rivalry, initially rallying around the slogan of federalization, subsequently if unchecked building up to a movement of separatism and therefore compounding the problem of secession threatened by the Bangsa Moro Movement. For the sad reality about the Philippines is that the culture is not sufficiently 'crystallized' (to use a Japanese-based descriptor; see Kikuchi 1990), perhaps a more and apt and certainly less objectionable descriptor than James Fallows' 1987 term (in an Atlantic Monthly article), 'damaged culture'. For while the Philippines proclaimed its independence from Spain as early as June 12, 1898, and was finally able to claim its independence from the United States on July 4, 1946, in many ways, it is still a collection or to use a local neologism 'an aggrupation' of ethnic tribes. It is a state more than a nation, in spite of the fledgling nationalism movement in the last quarter of the nineteenth century which was nipped in the bud by being preempted by the American colonial government in its promise of eventual independence through the process of legislative maturation towards independence by means of the forms rather than the substance of democracy. It seems that this collection of

128

Andrew Gonzalez

ethnic tribes unites itself only in moments of crisis, in the face of a 'supervenient force' (Fishman's 1972b term) or a common enemy. In the nineteenth century it was the Spaniards; in the twentieth, opposition was effectively dispersed through the political process in the lobby for independence under the American colonial government; between 1941-1945, it was against the Japanese; in that brief moment of EDSA3 on February 22-25, 1986, it was against twenty years of misrule and dictatorship under Marcos. However, once a crisis is over, perhaps because the common experience of struggle and hardship historically has been shortlived, the contripetal force is converted into a centrifugal force within the state, leading to a struggle within and militating against the formation of a genuinely united and cohesive nation. The Cebuano reassertion of ethnic identity and language rights must be seen in this context and viewed with sympathy; it should be solved amicably more by patient compromise than by the force of law or power. Perhaps the long-term solution is indeed federalization or a grouping of autonomous regions, which the 1987 Constitution recognizes by establishing the Northern Luzon autonomous area (the Cordilleras) and the Mindanao autonomous area (the Muslim area); the door is left open for other autonomous regions under a federal set-up. The logical step after federalization, in contradistinction to overcentralization which has not worked for development until now, is perhaps the pursuit of a variety of models of language development which could follow the Swiss model (several official languages without one national language, the regional languages and English being the natural candidates) or the Singapore model (one national language which will be used for largely symbolic purposes without disturbing the status quo, Filipino as an evolving language without commitment to its basis, used for symbolic purposes and the status quo for Tagalog-based Pilipino and English as linguae francae and as official languages).

Notes 1.

I do not foresee the Governor's suit prospering before the Supreme Court as it is quite clear from the discussions of the Constitutional Commission leading to the 1987 Constitution that the concept behind the term Filipino in the minds of the commissioners was the Manila lingua franca, itself based on Tagalog, in a process of evolution through loans from not only Philippine languages but likewise other international languages

Cebuano and Tagalog:EthnicRivalry Redivivus

129

such as Spanish, English, and Arabic; see Gonzalez and Villacorta, forthcoming. The suit went to the Regional Trial Court under a pro-Cebuano judge, Judge Peary G. Aleonar, who forthwith issued an injunction against the continuing use of Filipino in Cebu public schools; the non-use of Filipino in schools has in turn been ordered by the local Superintendent of City Schools in Cebu City but not in Region VII, the whole Cebuano-speaking region, where a difference of interpretation has caused confusion (see Philippine News Agency 1990a & 1990b, Severino 1990, Roa 1990a & 1990b, and the June 20, 1990 issue of the Manila Bulletin, page 20). 2.

The provinces used as Tagalog speaking provinces are Bataan, Batangas, Bulacan, Cavite, Camarines (1939 only), laguna, Marinduque, Manila, Nueva Ecija, Mindoro (Occidental and Oriental) Quezon (including Aurora), and Rizal; the provinces designated as Cebuano-speaking are Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Bohol, Bukidnon, Cebu, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Lanao del Norte, Leyte, Southern Leyte, Misamis (Occidental and Oriental), Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Siquijor, Surigao del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur.

3.

EDSA, Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, in Quezon City, where the non-violent protest of the masses took place against the guns and military hardware of the armed forces.

The Emergence of Language Minorities in the United States David E. Lopez University of California, Los Angeles

1. Introduction In reviewing my notes in preparation for writing this paper I was struck once again by the imposing presence of Joshua Fishman in the sociology of language. His work is represented in some of the earliest references in my bibliographic notes, and some of the most recent. At least in my files, he is by far the most frequent author. His championship and advancement of what he has termed 'macrosociolinguistics' is an inspiration to anyone concerned with language and its relation to ethnicity and other aspects of social organization (Fishman 1985a). Professional sociology in the United States, like the country generally, has never quite known what to do about language as a social variable. It has always been a peripheral and even marginalized area of study. At times Joshua Fishman has been as a voice calling in the wilderness; we are the richer that he has persevered. Today, after a decade of Reaganism, along with a (quite unrelated) rise in a macrosociological paradigm that has trouble dealing with any aspect of ethnicity, one can only hope that, in honoring Joshua Fishman, we are also contributing to renewed interest in the interrelations of language, ethnicity and society. The 1970's saw an upsurge of academic interest in the sociology of language in the United States. In part this was due to the influence of other national traditions, where these topics had greater currency and legitimacy (Canada in particular). But the more important reasons were social: sharp increases in immigration from Latin America and Asia, combined with new political frameworks through which foreign and native-born members of

132

David E. Lopez

Asian and Hispanic populations expressed themselves. This most recent wave of mass immigration has hardly been the largest in our history, particularly in terms of its size in relation to the total U.S. population. And, unless it is only the vanguard of truly massive population movements of displaced persons from the Third World to the United States, it will have minor ultimate impact in comparison to the great migrations of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But the new migration is distinctive in a number of ways, not the least of which is the rapidity of entrance into the political system. Immigration and immigrant groups have always been central to political debate in the United States. But now immigrants are themselves participants in that debate. Hispanics and Asians in the United States are now "Hispanic Americans" and "Asian Americans" and have joined blacks and Indians as certified "minorities". Of course not all are newcomers. Many Hispanics, particularly in New Mexico, can trace their ancestry back to before the coming of Anglo Americans. And there has been an Asian presence in the West since the nineteenth century. But it is only in the last two decades that, with the precedent of the black civil rights movement, and the upsurge of immigration, these groups have taken on their distinctive presence in the American polity and imagination. Perhaps the most novel aspect of these newly emerged groups is that their social definition has become heavily bound up with language. They have become "language minorities" ... groups whose distinctiveness from majority America is defined primarily in terms of the different languages they speak. This is ironic for several reasons. These groups were hardly unique in that they entered the United States speaking a language other than English. There is some evidence that Hispanics maintain Spanish more tenaciously than many European immigrant groups did in the past. But the evidence is by no means conclusive and there is little equivalent evidence for Asian immigrants (Lopez 1978, 1982; Veltman 1983). But the ultimate irony of the very notion of 'language minority' as applied to the Asian and Hispanic groups is their distinctiveness is primarily racial, not linguistic. Race, not language characteristics have traditionally been the major factors inhibiting assimilation into American society. North Americans try to apply the same dichotomous habit that they use to distinguish whites from African Americans to other non-Europeans. Immigrants from Asia and their descendants become 'Asian Americans', in which their ethnicity is imposed, on the basis of race (Lopez and Espíritu 1990). Lan-

Language Minorities in the United States

133

guage differences decline in importance, to both insiders and outsiders. With Hispanics the reverse seems to be the case, at first glance. But in fact for native-born generations, non-European physical features set Hispanics apart more than language (Lopez and Espiritu 1990). Shared language has been a shakey foundation for panethnic cooperation among Hispanic groups, especially in contrast to the cohesion that Asian groups have derived from racial lumping. Hand in hand with the development of these 'language minorities' has been the development of language policy in the United States. In fact, it would be fair to say that the two developments amount to the same thing. The United States has never had well-defined explicit national policy on language (Brisk 1981; Marshall 1986). In part this is because the social institution most directly related to language ... the schools ... have been controlled almost entirely at local and state levels, allowing for considerable diversity. Since World War II there has been a steadily increasing Federal involvement in education, but its degree is still far below that of most other countries. Nevertheless in this and other arenas of language policy and language politics there has been a growing level of conflict, conflict that is often conceived in polarizing terms like 'protecting the American way of life' or 'respecting the rights of minorities'. After a theoretical discussion, this paper reviews language policy and politics in three realms ... education, elections and 'official language'. It is argued that, while spread across several domains of law and often decentralized to state and municipal levels, language policy and politics are very real and increasing in the United States. But, just as the concept of 'language minority' has often obscured more fundamental racial cleavages, so much of the controversy over language in the United States has in fact obscured racial hostility and conflict. As Joshua Fishman (1986) has argued, majority-minority relations of exploitation and competition, not language differences, are the source of ethnic tensions. Furthermore, much of the policy and conflicts over language have been more symbolic than real in their immediate consequences, but these symbolic conflicts hide more fundamental cleavages that are developing in American society. Finally, the fixation over language policy as a means to increasing equity and opportunity for minorities (particularly Hispanics) may lead to the neglect of other, more fundamental problems.

134

DavidE.Lopez

2. Functional and Conflict Perspectives on Language Students of race and ethnicity continue to debate the possibility and desirability of the field as one that is distinct from others, with its own unique theoretical underpinnings (Schermerhorn 1978; van den Berghe 1981). On a practical level the field is certainly well-established, as the evidence of separate journals, meetings and professional sub-organizations attests. However the field's theoretical bases seem much more shakey, and reflect the chaos, squabbling schools and insecurity that characterize sociological theory generally. That insecurity is all the greater because racial and ethnic diversity did not figure significantly in the theories of any of our 'founding fathers'. Marx and the tradition he inspired emphasized the dynamics of capitalism and saw social segmentation in terms of class. Simmel and Weber allowed for a place for ethnicity, but both saw it as declining in importance under the onslaught of economic forces and, in their more optimistic moments, saw industrial society built on 'rational' voluntary interests as well as class, with ethnicity receding into the background. The third great tradition in sociology, the Durkheimian, emphasized the development of new bases of social solidarity in industrial society, based on one's place in the social division labor, not on family, religion and other antiquated social institutions. But of course recent developments in the United States and elsewhere have not followed these predictions. Exploitation and oppression on the basis of race, as well as ethnic solidarity have continued to thrive. The painful process of de-colonization called attention to the complexities of race and ethnicity in the Third World. Domestically, the black Civil Rights movement re-awakened sociologists and others to the continuing significance of race in America. A variety of 'middle-range' theories have sought to account for the this persistence (Blauner 1968; Bonacich 1972; Bonacich 1973; Yancy et al. 1976) but the debate continues. Language has played a minor part in these theoretical developments, which have emphasized factors like the dynamics of capitalism and group interests. Macrosociolinguistics has a well-defined subject matter, but its theoretical foundations are eclectic and not always clear. Indeed, a large part of the marginality of the field in the context of American sociology can be traced to the tendency to confound analysis, which is best done in terms of conflict, power and group interests, with policy making, which properly concerns itself with questions of national interest, and employs a rhetoric of

Language Minorities in the United States

135

social function. It is possible to include both levels in the same article (e.g. Spener 1988) but sociological analysis and policy development need to be kept distinct. This is by no means a problem unique to the sociology of language, but in my view it continues to be a particular problem in the field. In the next few paragraphs I want to speculate on how language might be brought into current debates over race and ethnicity. Sociology as a self-conscious field of study is now well over one hundred years old yet, despite the extensive experience of research and theorizing, we still fall back on the two fundamental visions of society that we inherited from social philosophy. The first sees societies as held together by common views, values and interdependence. This perspective can be traced back at least to Classic Greece, but our usual, and convenient, point of reference is Emile Durkheim, who so well summarized this line of thought, and used it as the basis for the reformist/functionalist sociology he founded at the turn of the century. The job of the sociologist, according to Durkheim, is to improve society by analyzing deviations from the ideal, and showing how society can rid itself of pathologies. While a distorted version of this perspective has been used to justify authoritarianism and conservatism, it is important to remember that the original Durkheimian vision of society was founded on the assumptions of freedom, equality and voluntarism. There is no more reason to condemn functionalism for its misapplications than there is to blame Marx for oppression done in the name of class struggle. Central to the functional approach to language diversity is the importance of symbols: language is much more than an objective means of communication: it is a set of symbols that have meaning beyond the mundane level of communication. Language is the central symbol of social solidarity, one of the few similarities that we all have in common in societies that are increasingly based on the division of labor. The essence of modernity is that solidarity based on similarity becomes less important, and is replaced by the solidarity of interdependence. But that interdependence is possible only to the degree that we can communicate with on another, and experience the same moral education and interaction that teaches us about our interdependence. Clearly the central implication about language from the functional perspective, then, is that societies need to be bound together by a common language, whatever their state of development. And indeed this very point is at the center of those arguments favoring English as the official language of the United States, and opposing bilingual education or any other policy seen as

136

David E. Lopez

promoting linguistic heterogeneity in the United States. These arguments are explicitly at both the practical/communication and the symbolic/solidarity levels. It is worth noting that those favoring the maintenance of minority languages and cultures are also making functionalist arguments, except that their notion of society or nation is much more circumscribed, to the boundaries of their own groups. For them language is above all a symbol of their group's survival. The conflict perspective that sees society as held together, when it is held together, by force and domination, both physical and ideological, is equally ancient, but usually represented by the figure of Karl Marx. Marx saw change and conflict, often violent and cataclysmic, as the usual state of society, not peace and equilibrium. When these conditions did seem to exist, it is due to the temporary success of domination by one effective class actor of the others in society. The functionalist is a reformer, dealing with social problems. The conflict theorist, on the other hand, is a revolutionary, or at least one who sees the necessity of conflict and radical change. Certainly one of Marx's greatest insights is that domination is rarely based solely on force, and that the imposition of ideology favorable to the ruling class was at least as effective a means of controlling populations. Thus what for a functionalist might be seen as the central values or ruling ideas of a society, for a conflict theory are the ideas of the ruling class. Clearly language plays an essential part in any ideological domination, though the implication for language policy is not so clear as it is in the functionalist perspective. A frequent analysis of social policies imposing English on minorities is that this is done to weaken the minority groups, and to make them more amenable to imperialistic cultural domination, domination by a culture that defines their roles as second-rate and marginal. But it could be argued that the most effective way to keep minorities under control, and easier to exploit, is precisely to keep them encapsulated in their own language and culture, and thus unable to compete in the language and culture of the dominant group. By this perspective minority leaders could, and have been, criticized for favoring the maintenance of linguistic separateness since it in effect gives them greater power over their own communities. The difference between conflict and functional perspectives on the role of language homogeneity in societies, then, lies not so much in the language policy they might predict (or even favor) but rather in their interpretation of the meaning of the policy. For a functionalist language homoginization is a force

Language Minorities in the United States

137

for social solidarity. For a conflict theorist the same policy is coercion and exploitation. To some degree this difference is in the eyes of the beholder. But these differing interpretations are not just matters of choice. I believe that careful examination of who holds which preferences, and why, will go a long way in determining which perspective best explains the debates over language policy in the United States. To the degree that this examination allows us to choose between perspectives, it also provides general support for one over the other. In the next part of this paper I will review the debates over bilingual education, bilingual election services, and English-only laws, paying special attention to who advocates what. If the debate genuinely relates only to societal level issues, then that suggests the usefulness of a functional approach. But if the debate is clearly linked to the interests of particular groups within American society, then that suggests that a conflict/interest perspective is more appropriate.

3. Domains of Language Policy and Debate in the United States A. Bilingual Education The focus of U.S. civil rights and affirmative action programs has been the black population, of course, the group against which most sins have been committed. And American Indians continue to be the recipients of paternalistic federal aid. For Hispanics and Asians to get in on the dubious benefits of such programs they had to establish a reason. They found it in language. An alliance of Hispanic and Asian groups has cooperated to further two language-linked federal programs: bilingual education and bilingual election services. By far the larger effort has been bilingual education, support for which was established at the national level nearly two decades ago, and still exists, though in very precarious form. But in many ways the program that led to a negative reaction all out of proportion to its size is bilingual election services. Let me sketch each briefly. Though small state and local bilingual education programs had existed for decades, bilingual education really only appeared in the public consciousness with the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. The clear goal of the legislation was to provide special educational support to children who were both economically and linguistically 'disadvantaged'. The approach used was the

138

DavidE.Lopez

usual federal carrot and stick, with funding provided for state and local jurisdictions who participated and the threat of withdrawal of other federal support for those that did not but were deemed to be in need. Interestingly, the primary legislative basis for the stick was Lau vs. Nichols, a case in which the Chinese community of San Francisco successfully argued that they were being denied equal education. This led to several years of ascendancy of what have been called the "pluralists" ... those who believe that bilingual education programs should be used not only to ease the transition to English but also to maintain ethnic languages. One of their major successes was modification of the legislation in the 1970's to exclude the requirement that students be economically disadvantaged to be eligible. Under pressure from minority organizations, prominent among which were groups of bilingual educators, and prompted by minority staff members, federal agencies promulgated a series of regulations and guidelines that local jurisdictions viewed as increasingly burdensome and counterproductive. In particular it explicitly ruled, with dubious authority, that programs designed only to ease the path to English (ESL, English immersion) were not acceptable. As Guadalupe San Miguel has argued, these regulations went far beyond the Lau decision and by 1976 had transformed the concept of bilingual education from a vague desire to help out limited English speaking children to a full-blown effort to educate children in both their mother tongue and the official language (Teitelbaum and Hiller 1977; García-S. 1983; Swing 1983; San Miguel 1984). Sympathetic administrators in the U.S. Department of Education fought a rearguard struggle to maintain bilingual programs as a priority in the early years of the Reagan decade, but increasingly succumbed to right wing pressure. Latino language activists contributed to the silencing of their liberal critics, who were more concerned with latino school achievement than in cultural maintenance (but were never actively hostile to it). Now they are saddled with conservative administrators who are not interested in either goal, but political competition for the latino vote keeps bilingual education alive at both federal and state levels. Debate continues on what constitutes 'true' bilingual education, and on the effects of such programs on individual student achievement (Lianes 1981; Reagan 1984; Carter 1986; Nielsen and Lerner 1986; Behuniak et al. 1988). Though no longer in the political limelight, bilingual education has become as much a part of symbolic politics as issues like drug policy that have replaced it.

Language Minorities in the United States

139

B. Bilingual Election Services Bilingual education is still with us and, in one form or another, will not soon go away. It has the advantage that at least one of its goals ... the improvement of the English language competency of immigrant children, is impossible to disagree with publicly across most of the U.S. political spectrum. However another language program ... bilingual election services ... was condemned at the outset by having a goal that was and is almost universally opposed in the United States: providing access to the electoral process for individuals who do not speak English. The U.S. electoral system is notorious for its low level of electoral participation, especially among the young, the poor and the nonwhite. Reasons for this non-participation include the absence of a legitimate working class party, complex registration procedures and the fact that, unlike most nations, the United States holds its elections on Tuesdays, during working hours, not on Sunday like most civilized nations. As might be expected, blacks have particularly low voting rates. Until quite recently these were even more depressed by local regulations designed to limit black (and to some extent Hispanic) voting. Poll taxes and so-called literacy tests are now a thing of the past, and those who supported their abolition were disappointed because reform did not raise black voting rates to white levels. But in fact a large part of the non-participation of blacks can be explained by the same reasons (or correlates) that cause whites to not register and vote ... essentially age and socioeconomic status. The same is true for Hispanics, for whom, since they are by far the youngest component of the U.S. population, age is particularly important. But they have a further and rather obvious reason for not voting: at least one-quarter are not citizens ... and the proportion is probably much larger than even the best official estimates. Several studies indicated that, when these obvious factors are taken into account, Hispanic voting rates are not particularly low after all. But statistical controls mean little in the real world, and the essence of the matter is that Hispanic voting rates, overall, were and continue to be comparatively low. In any case, it seemed fair to say at the time, and still now, that bilingual election procedures would help some naturalized citizens who had never really learned much English. But since the clear barrier to their participation was registration, not voting, that first step had to be taken before their would be any significant demand for voting assistance. In the early planning stages of implementation (by the Federal Election Commission) a group of researchers and election experts was brought together.1 In their minds their job was to

140

David E. Lopez

assess the particular needs and plan how to best meet them. Initially this group took their task literally, i.e. that they should deal only with directly language-related issues. But gradually they came to realize the symbolic importance of the legislation, especially as a means of encouraging latinos voters in jurisdictions where they had previously been barred from voting. Research indicated that what was needed was not so much materials translated into Spanish, but rather materials in English and Spanish that were more accessible and understandable. Literacy studies at about the same time indicated that about one-quarter of the nation's adults were illiterate or only marginally so. Literacy problems were especially great in the black and latino populations, but they were definitely present among whites as well. This research and implementation team had high hopes, but found itself caught between two increasingly implacable forces: minority organizations that took a legalistic and highly polemical stance ("if even one individual needs complete translation of written and verbal materials then it has to be done, regardless of the cost"), and the growing backlash against bilingual election services (bilingual ballots). They were obliged to continue to develop vague and blanketing services, and to make suggestions to local election officials that they knew made little sense. To this day it is impossible to assess how important the actual bilingual services were in any direct sense. Probably they did help somewhat, especially in rural Texas, for both registration and voting. In states like California, however, the direct use of services was by all accounts minimal. Yet the visibility of the bilingual services, especially at the voting places, was considerable. This, combined with complaints from officials who were not pleased to have to do everything in two languages, led to an enormous backlash. The legislation was subsequently modified so as to effectively exclude California and many other jurisdictions, and enforcement was never really vigorous even in Texas. The overall cost of all the programs, local, state and federal, was not more than a few million dollars (really not much in context). Yet the outcry and backlash was enormous. The bilingual election services contributed more than any other factor to the English Only and English as Official Language movements in the United States. C. The English Only Movement This backlash has taken various forms, including the introduction of draft legislation at the federal level (which has so far proven unsuccessful), and

Language Minorities in the United States

141

laws passed at the state and local levels. Dozens of states and localities have declared English their official language, usually with little direct consequence (Marshall 1986; Glass and Schon 1988). Legal scholars say that none of these would have any legal importance, but would be essentially symbolic moves. For most purposes English already is in fact the official language of the United States, and the various laws protecting minority rights would assure that an English Only Law would not have much if any practical effect. But it certainly would have, and has already had, considerable symbolic effects. A rural town near Los Angeles passed an English as Official Language ordinance, with the intention of doing away with the limited bilingual education services it provides to the children of immigrant latino farm workers. A suburb of Los Angeles passed a similar ordinance, with the intent that it would reduce the number of signs in Chinese put up by the prosperous Chinese immigrant community. Several counties and large companies in Texas have mandated that their workers speak only English on the job for 'safety reasons', even though the vast majority of their workers speak more Spanish than English. Many more jurisdictions simply refuse to comply with the bilingual election provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Several authors have noted the nativist and exclusionary ideology of those connected with the English Only movement, which tends to be linked with such things as 'Immigration Reform' and Zero Population Growth (Donahue 1985; Fishman 1988). Others (e.g. Marshall 1986) have noted that, since language shift seems to be quite rapid for all groups, there seems to be little need for the enforcement of an official language. Such arguments miss the point that race, not language, is at the bottom of so much of the opposition to using languages other than English in the United States. In saying this I am not making accusations of racism, real though it may be. Rather, my point is that there are genuine (and mutual) antipathies involved here, between groups whose social definition is in terms of race, not language.

4. Theoretical Implications Bilingual education has been perhaps the most idealistic struggle, pitting those who genuinely believe that these programs will help children against those who, equally genuinely, believe that immigrant children are best off learning English as soon as possible. But at the same time there are many par-

142

David E. Lopez

ticular interests involved: minority teachers and researchers who stand to gain, politicians eager to garner support, and those who simply find other languages offensive, to name only the most prominent. Bilingual election services is rather more complex. Its initial justification was to do away with barriers to Hispanic political participation in places (preeminently Texas) where it had been oppressed in the same way that black voting had been thwarted in the South. But that practical justification was secondary in most parts of the country, to the symbolic element that, above all, sought to show that Hispanics and Asians could achieve some political end, whatever its usefulness. It is in the English Only movement that a conflict group interpretation is most clearly supported. This movement is led by conservatives who are at least as concerned by the growing racial diversity as by linguistic diversity. They object to the great increase in non-white immigration that has taken place in the last two decades, and they see linguistic diversity as a symbol of racial diversity, which they see as threatening the privileged status of white Americans. But if we broaden our notion of conflict to include symbolic conflict, then in all three policy domains language is at the center of conflict between minorities and segments of the majority community. These segments are, fundamentally, opposed to the growth of racial minorities in the United States, particularly those who seem to maintain their distinctive cultures. Their xenophobia is not all that different from that directed at Southern European immigrants early in this century, except that today the racial distinctiveness is more genuine, and the opposition more genuinely racialist. However, since open racism is forbidden in all but the most extreme political circles of the United States, the target of protest is instead language. This is ironic because, whatever programs are instituted and whatever laws are passed, today's immigrants will switch to English just as rapidly and just as surely as European immigrants did in the past. It remains to be seen if protests against them will decline as the target of protest, language, ceases to distinguish them from other Americans, and only racial divisions remain. However the history of continued segregation of African Americans does not lead to optimism. Our most important sociological conclusion is that, in the context of the United States, language 'policy' is ethnic and racial politics. The interplay of group interests, not the 'needs of society' are what drive the many small decisions and compromises that make up that 'policy'. But this also has practical

Language Minorities in the United States

143

implications for advocates of these minority communities. The fixation on language can have the effect of diverting attention from other more fundamental issues. There is, after all, nothing shocking about poor non-Englishspeaking immigrants and their children being in below average economic situations. In fact interviews regularly find that such immigrants tend to compare their current situation with where they came from, and are pleased at the difference. The national shame comes when English-speaking latino youth ... the majority of those born here ... continue to do nearly as poorly in school as their Spanish mother tongue counterparts. Similarly it is difficult to deny the justice of greater political participation for minorities, but that involves much more fundamental reforms than mere bilingual election services. Finally, racial antipathies need to be met directly, not camouflaged as language problems.

Note 1.

The data for this section are drawn largely from the author's personal experiences.

Theory and Method in the Study of Language Shift Calvin Veltman Université du Québec à Montréal

1. Introduction Policies of linguistic assimilation1 have been pursued not only with respect to the integration of new immigrant groups (Australia, the U.S., the U.K., France etc.) but also by central governments extending their administration over newly integrated parts of the country. The history of France provides a singularly successful example of the linguistic integration of the hinterlands, including the previously German-speaking parts of the Alsace and Lorrain regions, a process which extended nonetheless over a number of centuries. On the other hand, as recent events have shown, the russianization of the Soviet hinterlands appears largely unsuccessful. The relative success or failure of assimilationist policies with respect either to new immigrant groups or territorial minorities with the nation-state may be assessed by examining the language practice of those groups whose assimilation is desired. This area of scientific analysis is called the study of language shift and is properly situated somewhere along the fuzzy boundary which separates sociology from socio-linguistics. The analysis presented in this chapter is more properly sociological in character since we examine only those shifts in language behavior which are so significant that they can be measured using survey questionnaires. Our discussion of the measurement of language shift and the methodology which should be employed to correctly interpret the data obtained is divided into four major sections: a brief discussion of the concepts retained for analysis, the development of appropriate indicators of language origin and current language practice, the procedures by which language shift data may

146

Calvin Veltman

be correctly analyzed and, finally, the implementation of demographic models for minority language populations. Most data will be drawn from research conducted on North American minorities, notably those living in the United States.

2. Definitions Language shift may be thought of as any movement across a continuum ranging from language conservation to language loss. Let us define the former as the practice of speaking one's mother tongue throughout one's lifetime as the only language of daily use. Language loss may be defined by both the abandonment of the mother tongue as a language of daily use and the "forgetting" of that language which will eventually occur. Properly speaking, a person who in the United States has "lost" his mother tongue has been completely assimilated into the English language group, even if he retains some slight accent in his speech. It should be observed that our definitions are exclusively concerned with language use and with membership in a living language community. As a result, the acquired knowledge of some second language should not be (necessarily) viewed as a step in the language shift process. For example, an (English-speaking) American student learning Spanish is not normally involved in a process which will lead him to adopt Spanish as his principal language of use and eventually to cease speaking English. Three factors reduce the probability of such an event to zero. First of all, the spoken Spanish of most Anglo-Americans is so elementary that their skills are rapidly lost after the end of their language studies. Secondly, when living or travelling in a Spanish-speaking country, they seek the presence of English-speaking people, preferably other Americans, Australians, Canadians or the British. Thirdly, the desire (and ability) of Spanish-speaking persons to acquire English is stronger than the desire (and ability) of Americans to speak Spanish. The former will generally attempt to impose English as the language of interaction even when the latter attempt to communicate in Spanish. As a result, second language learning by members of the English language group is without consequence for the linguistic future of minority language groups in the United States. However, the study of a second language leads inexorably to language shift in the case of immigrant and/or minority language Americans. This

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

147

occurs because the language being studied is the "national" language, officialized in legislation or not, and the ability to speak English is a sine qua non of participation in the larger society. In order to take advantage of what America has to offer in the way of music, technology, educational and occupational opportunities, one must speak the national language. Further, in order to live comfortably with one's neighbors, shop in stores, deal with officials, the easy command of English is an empirical necessity. This brief discussion singles out one important feature of the language shift process: language shift from the dominant language to minority languages is almost nil, while language shift from the minority languages to the dominant language is normative. The flow of people is always unidirectional. As a result, the learning of Spanish by English-speaking children in Miami, New York or Los Angeles will not lead to their participation in the Spanishspeaking community. However, the learning of English by Spanish-speaking Americans will not only lead to participation in the English language community; it will also lead to increasingly larger rates of language loss in each succeeding generation.

3. The Measurement of Language Shift The optimal approach to the measurement of language shift requires a longitudinal analysis of the language practices of any given minority language group. In the first wave, researchers would obtain information on both the linguistic origin of respondants and their current language practice. Follow-up studies would simply measure current language use. In this way, the sociolinguistic pilgrimage of a given group could be adequately followed over time. To our knowledge, no such studies currently exist, although the Quebec Ministry of Cultural Communities and Immigration is currently implementing a longitudinal survey of the linguistic choices of new immigrants and their children.2 Given the absence of longitudinal studies in this area of sociological analysis, researchers have focussed their efforts on the measurement of mother tongue and current language use, the former representing the point of origin, the latter the point of arrival. Further information is difficult to obtain since individuals may not be able to report with any degree of accuracy their language behavior at ages 5, 10, 15 etc... However, data do indicate that people can remember which language they first learned to speak in early childhood,

148

Calvin Veltman

which makes the concept of mother tongue the logical choice for the indicator of linguistic origin. 3.1 The Measurement ofMother Tongue The concept of mother tongue is really not too difficult to define. It is the language spoken by the child when he first learned to speak (from 0 to 2 or 3 years of age). As the name of the concept suggests, normally this language is most frequently that spoken by his mother, undoubtedly because the raising of young children is (remains) a task traditionally accomplished by women. Given the clarity of the concept itself, a question similar to the following would seem an appropriate indicator: "What language did this person first speak as a child?" Nonetheless, researchers have seemed to have a great deal of difficulty developing such straight-forward indicators. Consider first of all the Canadian situation. The Census of Canada requires that the "first language learned" by a person be "still understood". As a result, those who have "forgotten" their mother tongue should report their second language as the "first language learned and still understood", leading to the erroneous conclusion that they had been members of their new language group throughout their entire lives. This unsatisfactory formulation leads in turn to the under-estimation of the "true" rate of language shift. Briefly, the "forgetting" of one's mother tongue occurs most frequently among native born members of minority language groups where language shift rates are already very high, for example among the French-language minority in English Canada.3 The true rate of anglicisation of this group is certainly higher than that reported by the Census, although it is impossible at the present time to estimate the importance of this error.4 Since members of the majority language group do not forget their mother tongue, the Canadian question produces relatively satisfactory results. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the many different "mother tongue" questions used at one time or another by the U.S. Bureau of the Census since 1941. Happily, however, the Bureau has been so inconsistent in its attempts to measure mother tongue that it has bequeathed us three national studies from the 1970's which permit us to assess the relative validity of three questions, those asked in the July, 1975 Current Population Survey, the 1976 Survey of Income and Education and the November, 1979 CPS:

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

149

1975 CPS: "Was a language other than English usually spoken in (this person's) home when he was a child?" 1976 SIE: "What language was usually spoken in (this person's) home when he was a child?" 1979 CPS: "What language, other than English, was spoken in (this person's) home when he was a child?" The following weighted estimates were obtained for the number of persons reporting French mother tongue: 1975 CPS: 2,257 million, 1976 SIE: 1,285 million, 1979 CPS: 2,485 million. Since we can safely assume that the Bureau's sampling procedures are satisfactory, these differences are directly attributable to differences in the wording of the questions.5 The 1979 CPS question, which has been used in the 1970 and 1980 follow-up studies to the Decennial Census, is without any validity whatsoever, a fact which the Bureau has known (or should have) since the publication of the Reinterview study for the 1970 Census. Approximately one-half of those declared by the Census to be of minority "mother tongue" spoke "English only" or "English almost exclusively" in early childhood (see Veltman 1983: 3-7 for a more complete discussion). Further, the following comment may be found in the Bureau's report on the November, 1979 study: "An individual may never have learned to speak his or her mother tongue...".6 It is most rare to find such candid admissions of incompetence in print! The 1975 CPS question is not much better than the 1979 CPS, even though it insists that the non-English language should have "usually" been spoken. The extent to which the answers to this question misrepresent social reality depends, however, on the characteristics of the minority group being examined. When the group is largely composed of native born persons, this question finds a much greater number of people of minority mother tongue than it should. This is the case for the French language group where twice as many persons are reportedly of French mother tongue than were found in the SIE. When, however, the group is largely composed of recent immigrants and their children, the degree of error is not so serious. Most children growing up in homes where Spanish was "often" spoken at home did in fact have Spanish for their mother tongue. Thus, the SIE found 7.04 million as opposed to 7.45 million in the 1975 CPS. Nonetheless, a question which produces relatively acceptable results in one case (for the Spanish) and totally unacceptable ones in another (for the French and most of the other pre-World War II immigrant groups) is not a good indicator of the concept of mother tongue.

150

Calvin Veltman

The tenor of the preceding discussion reveals quite clearly our preference for the "mother tongue" question used in the SIE. While not clearly directed to the language practice of the child himself, it would appear logical that the language usually spoken in the home should become the mother tongue of its children. Although some parents make a distinct effort to teach a different language to their children than that they speak with each other, any law of inertia (or human laziness) would suggest that this question should be a good proxy for mother tongue. If we can accept the general validity of this indicator, the way in which this question was administered was unfortunately flawed. The framers of the study, a joint committee of the Bureau of the Census and the Center for Education Statistics, expected that the mother tongue of children aged 0-13 could be defined by the language usually spoken by the household as a whole at the time of the study.7 Accordingly, they did not administer the mother tongue question to this group, a practice which makes it impossible to calculate true rates of language shift for younger children. This is extremely unfortunate since a great deal of language shift occurs as minority language children enter school and encounter strong formal and informal pressures to become English-speaking. The importance of this administrative error can be illustrated by comparing the language usually spoken by the members of the household to the mother tongue of the youngest group for which adequate information is available. Considering 14-17 year old children living in homes of English usual language and Spanish second language, 28% reported Spanish as their mother tongue rather than English (Veltman 1983: 31). Should we follow the recommended SIE procedure of assigning English as their mother tongue, a large number of children would be considered not to have made language transfers to English when in fact they had done so, a finding reminiscent of the Canadian situation where people may "forget" their mother tongue. If we may assume that Spanish was the dominant household language at the time when these children were born, it would appear that both parents and children had undergone a good deal of joint language shift in the ensuing 13 years. It would seem reasonable to suggest that as children become Englishspeaking, they bring that language into the home. As a result, their parents' English improves to the point where that language eventually becomes the dominant household language. It should, therefore, be clear to all researchers that the mother tongue question must both (1) be adequately drawn and (2) that it should be adminis-

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

151

tered to the entire population, with the exception perhaps of the very youngest children (0 to 2 years of age, for example). Given the effort and the money invested in such studies as the national census, the failure to establish the language origins of a given population renders futile all attempts to measure the degree of language shift which could be observed for that group. Before turning to the measurement of language use, it should be noted that the actual language situation in which some people live does not easily fit even the best designed indicators. For example, we were confronted in Alsace with large numbers of children who were raised in heavily bilingual settings (Denis and Veltman 1989). Many of the teenagers we interviewed had some difficulty determining which language was their mother tongue. The situation may be similar for the French-speaking population of Montreal where many children appear to be raised in highly bilingual settings. For example, in the 1986 Census some 80 000 people were declared to be of both French and English mother tongue, this in response to the Canadian census question which, let us remember, asked for the first language learned and still understood! Since the Quebec situation is complicated by heavy components of social desirability and political positioning, it is difficult to determine how many children really are bilingual from birth and how many are declared to be bilingual because their parents wish it so.8 This is not to say that precocious bilingualism does not exist. Many minority language children are in fact bilingual before they begin school, particularly those whose older siblings have brought the dominant language into the home. As a result, we recommend that a second question be incorporated into language use surveys, minimally one which tests the presence of bilingualism in early childhood.9 Further, we could require that the second language have been learned in the childhood home. Unfortunately, the wording of such a question tends to become unduly complicated. "Before he began attending school, did this child often speak some other language which he learned at home?"10 The administration of both a mother tongue and a second language origin question to the entire population would render unnecessary the SIE questions relating to the usual and second languages of the household.11 Further, it would enable researchers to better assess two important parameters of language shift: the rate of transmission of second languages from parents to their newborn children and the rate of abandonment of such languages by the children themselves as they grow older. When using the SIE, for example, children of English mother tongue who subsequently set up their own English

152

Calvin Veltman

monolingual households can no longer be detected as having once lived in bilingual households. As a result, the true rate of the failure to transmit Spanish to English mother tongue children can not be finally established. 3.2 The Measurement ofLanguage Use Once a solid base has been established against which language shift can be measured, the researcher's next task consists in developping indicators of current language practice. Unlike the previous situation where the concept to be measured can be well circumscribed, the measurement of current language practice proves to be more difficult since individuals may vary their choice of language according to the setting in which they find themselves. Until 1971 the Canadian census attempted to measure current language practice by asking the respondant whether he could carry on a conversation in English or French. It has been observed, however, that there is a great deal of difference between "knowledge" of a language, i.e. the theoretic capacity to speak a language, and actual language use. For example, many Greek children in Montreal who reportedly speak French "well" or "very well" never use that language in any social context whatsoever (Veltman and Ioannou 1984). Due to the fact that the future of any given language depends on its actual use, reported patterns of use are much to be preferred to questions relating simply to perceived levels of competence. Given the conceptual difficulties presented by the official languages' question, Statistics Canada began asking in 1971 what has come to be called the "home language" question: "What language does this person usually speak at home?" In our view, this is a good question because it taps a crucial area of social life where the individual is unconstrained by higher authorities to speak this, that or some other language. The language usually spoken at home is freely chosen, so to speak. As such, it is a good indicator of the individual's personal language choices. Unfortunately, it would appear that the home language question is a better indicator of the free choices of adults than it is for those of children and adolescents. Studies undertaken by Veltman and Ioannou in the Greek (1984) and Portuguese (Veltman 1985) communities of Montreal found that nearly all children in both groups spoke either French or English to each other and to their siblings, although they normally spoke their mother tongue with their parents.12 When filling out the Census questionnaire, their parents tended to

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

153

report the minority language as the usual home language of their children, i.e. the language of parent-child interaction. Given the fact that the practice of children at home is constrained both by parental authority and parental competence in the majority language, we prefer to seek better measures reflecting the uninhibited choices of the children themselves. A first strategy for obtaining better information on language practice consists in expanding the number of points measured along the continuun of language shift. The Canadian home language question has the liability of providing only two potential outcomes: an individual either continues to speak his mother tongue or he has made a language shift (transfer) to some other language.13 The American study, the Survey of Income and Education, provides a more adequate series of alternative behavior because it permits us to measure four points along the language use continuum. In the SIE a first question ascertains what language a given person usually speaks while a second examines the presence of another language in the daily practice of the individual. "Does this person often speak another language? If so, what language is that?" Notice that this question does not assess the knowledge of a second language or the ability to speak it; rather, the question requires that the individual participate in the life of his second language community on a regular basis. The combination of the two language use questions permits the researcher to establish four basic language use categories ranging from monolingualism in the mother tongue to monolingualism in a host language. Applied to the United States, we obtain the following categories: 1. monolingualism in a language other than English. English is not spoken on a regular basis, i.e. "often"; 2. other-dominant bilingualism. A non-English language is usually spoken but English is also present on a regular basis; 3. English-dominant bilingualism. English is the language most frequently spoken but a second language is frequently used; and 4. monolingualism in English where no second language is often spoken. Quite naturally, we have aligned the categories along a language shift continuum ranging from the least use of English to the least use of a minority language. Conceivably, a person could move from the stage of monolingualism in a minority language to monolingualism in English during the course of his lifetime. Note that the concepts numbered 1 and 2 represent the "retention" of one's mother tongue according to Canadian standards, while those numbered

154

Calvin Veltman

3 and 4 represent "language transfer". When English is the language which benefits from language shift, the process is dubbed "anglicisation" and persons undergoing this process have been labelled "anglicized".14 That so much information can be obtained from only two questions on language use suggests that the researcher need not obtain a great deal of information in order to conduct fruitful research. Nonetheless, the questions retained as indicators of language practice should not be troubled by considerations of age and status within the household. We have found the Canadian question wanting on this issue and it is difficult to determine whether the same bias is found in the American data. Since the SIE question does not specify the home context as the subject of interrogation, it should be less contaminated by parental bias than is the Canadian question. An alternative strategy consists in finding an indicator which will measure equally well the language practice of both children and adults. The language a person speaks to his best friends would appear to be such an indicator. Parents do in fact make clear distinctions between the language their children speak to them and that (those) employed when their children speak to their best friends, their siblings and peers. Further, the language of friendship of adults closely corresponds to the language which they usually speak at home, so that this question produces satisfactory results for people of any age. It is for this reason that it has become our measure of choice in the studies which we have carried out in Montreal and in Alsace. Unfortunately, the use of a single indicator of the language most frequently spoken with one's best friends returns us to the dilemna confronted when using Canadian data, namely an all or nothing situation where the person either does or does not retain his mother tongue as his principal language of use. For this reason, it would appear important that two questions concerning the language of friendship be asked, one ascertaining the languages often used when conversing with (best) friends, the other the language most frequently used when speaking with best friends.15 Note, however, that the concept of "friendship" may not be the same from one culture to another. For example, the word "friend" has a somewhat broader interpretation in the United States than does "amis" in French Canada, which is somewhat closer to the conception of "best friend". Other measures of language use, with parents, grandparents, siblings, at work, in stores or with neighbors, etc... may be used to fill in the portrait of language use patterns for any given person or group. Measures referring to

Theory and Method in the Study of Language Shift

155

the ability to speak, understand, read and write one or more languages may also be included in any research where questionnaire length and funding are not major problems, even though they are clearly irrelevant to the problem we are addressing here, namely one's active participation in a given language group.16 However, the failure to obtain direct data on principal and second language use, whether obtained by the indicators employed in the SIE or those referring to the language of friendship, requires the researcher to produce a theory which will permit him to create indices of global language use from the variety of data which he has collected. At the current time we do not think that such a theory can be produced with any likelihood of success. For example, one respondent has no living grandparents, another a mother but no father, a third lives with an aunt and sees neither parents, grandparents or siblings, a fourth has no siblings. In the face of a good deal of missing information, how does one produce a valid measure of language practice?17 In short, the use of a set of specific context-related questions seems to lead to greater analytic difficulties and less theoretic clarity than do the more general ones. It is for this reason that two language origin questions (mother tongue and the presence of a second frequently-spoken language in early childhood) and two language practice questions appear sufficient to trace an accurate picture of the linguistic profile of any given language group.

4. The Interpretation of Language Shift Data Given a set of indicators which permit us to measure the degree of language shift, we then must adopt procedures which permit us to correctly interpret the data obtained. The error most frequently observed is the failure to isolate relevant categories of the targetted population for separate analysis. For example, the comparison of the language shift rates for the Spanish and French language groups is clearly inappropriate. The former is largely composed of immigrants and their children, the latter of the grandchildren of immigrants. One cannot, from such data, conclude that the Spanish language group more effectively resists anglicisation than does the French. Three factors must be considered in the analysis of language shift, place of birth, age and the time of arrival of immigrants in the host country. Age is used for the construction of age-specific rates of language shift among the

156

Calvin Veltman

native born while both age and time of arrival must be considered when analyzing the language shift process of immigrants. 4.1 Language Shift Among the Native Born The first wide-scale application of the methodology involving the comparison of mother tongue and language use data followed upon the publication of the results of the 1971 Census of Canada. Data were assembled to create age-specific rates of language shift for native born populations and then interpreted in a longitudinal manner. Consider for example, the data presented by Castonguay (1976) and reproduced in Figure 1.

The data presented in Figure 1 are easily interpreted. When children are very young, rates of language shift are relatively low since their language use is largely determined by the behavior of their parents. When, however, children begin their formal schooling, rates of language shift rise very rapidly as they are subjected to pressures and behavior which modify not only their language skills but also their language preferences. The process slows and final-

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

157

ly stops as young adults leave school, enter the work force and establish their own households. If language transfer has not occurred by approximately age 35, the individual ceases to be "at risk" in the demographic sense. Consequently, the rate of language shift observed for people in the older age groups indicates the current rate of language shift which obtained during the period when they attained 35 years of age. For example, the observed rate of anglicisation for 40 year olds indicates the current rate of language shift which obtained five years earlier while that of the 45 year olds represents the current rate ten years prior to the time of the study, i.e. in 1966 and 1961 respectively. It should be observed that this interpretation of age-specific rates of language shift violates one of the elementary rules of scientific analysis, namely that one may not make longitudinal inferences from cross-sectional data. Although an alternative explanation remains possible,18 most researchers now accept the postulate that the spread of both public education and the mass media, together with the increasing bureaucratization and urbanization of Western societies, have made national languages increasingly more attractive to minority language children. Consequently, rates of language shift have been slowly increasing throughout this century, a finding reflected in the increasingly higher rates of language shift for each successive cohort of younger adults. Further, such rates may be expected to pursue their upward course in the future, the rate of increase being estimated by simple projection techniques. Applying this method of interpretation to the data presented in Figure 1, the dotted line shows the rate of language shift which would have been obtained had anglicisation rates been constant for the French language minority in English Canada. Since the 25 and 30 year old members of the English language minority in Quebec have not yet attained their 35th birthdays, their final rate of francisation may be expected to be somewhat higher than that currently observed.19 Furthermore, Figure 1 suggests that rates of language shift have risen faster for the English minority in Quebec City than for the French minorities in English Canada. This finding is sustained by the comparison of the slope of the two language shift curves for the post-35 age groups, the Quebec City curve falling off more sharply to the right. This method of analysis has also been applied to the study of language shift in the United States, first in our general treatment of American language minorities (1983), most recently in our studies of the future of the French

158

Calvin Veltman

(1987) and Spanish languages (1988a) in that country. For example, Figure 2 presents the distribution of English monolingualism, English-dominant bilingualism, Spanish-dominant bilingualism and Spanish monolingualism for native born persons of Spanish mother tongue.

Figure 2 reveals that the anglicisation curve (the middle curve) follows the general pattern previously obtained in the Canadian analysis. Anglicisation rates undergo a sharp rise in the early childhood years, peak at approximately age 35 and then show a decline for the older age groups. However, the placement of this curve indicates that Hispanic Americans undergo substantially higher rates of language shift than do the two Canadian minorities examined in Figure 1. In addition, the long term rates of language shift have been rising much more rapidly for the Spanish language group in the U.S.A. than for either of the two Canadian groups, i.e. by approximately 4-5% per decade. It should be observed, however, that the evolution of English monolingualism does not follow the expected pattern. First of all, the surge in rates of monolingualism does not occur during the teenage years but immediately

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

159

afterward, i.e. when individuals leave the parental home. Secondly, it would appear that these rates have remained relatively stable over time while Spanish monolingualism has declined and been replaced by English-dominant bilingualism. 4.2 Language Shift Among Immigrants Since the presence of minority language groups in the United States derives nearly exclusively from immigration, our research on the French and Spanish language minorities forced us to consider the process of language shift among immigrants and their children, a problem largely ignored in Canadian research. Our approach uses age and period of arrival in the United States to create two new variables: age at time of arrival and length of residence in the United States.20 Although initially suggested in our study of language shift among FrancoAmericans (1987), the methodology was much more fully developed in our monograph dealing with the Spanish language group (1988a). Briefly, language shift is projected for any given minority language group as a function of age at time of arrival and length of residence in the United States according to the following principles: 1. The younger the immigrant at time of arrival, the greater the degree of language shift expected; 2. The longer the period of residence in the host country, the greater the degree of language shift expected. These principles are illustrated empirically in Figure 3, which presents the estimated rate of anglicisation for persons of all mother tongues other than Spanish or English (called "allophones" in French Canada) after an average 2.5, 7.5, 12.5 and 17.5 years of residence21 in the U.S.A (Veltman 1988b). This figure clearly shows the progress of anglicisation in the immigrant population. The curves fall sharply from left to right, supporting the general proposition that the younger the immigrant at time of arrival in the U.S.A., the greater the degree of language shift observed. Further, anglicisation rates rise constantly as a function of length of residence in the United States. After only 2.5 years of average residence, approximately 40% of the youngest immigrants already have made English their principal language of use. The figure exceeds 70% for those 0-9 years of age at time of arrival after 7.5 years of residence, 80% after 12.5 years and more than 90% after 17.5 years of resi-

160

Calvin Veltman

dence. On the other hand, less than 30% of the oldest immigrant group adopts English as their principal language of use. Figure 3 also reveals another important aspect of the language shift process of immigrants. Language shift begins very quickly upon arrival in the host country, almost one-half of all anglicisation being accomplished in the first five years of residence and two-thirds within ten years of time of arrival. Afterwards, the movement slows considerably.

Future rates of language shift for any given age group can be readily established. Immigrants of any given age will be expected to achieve the language shift profile of those who arrived in the United States at the same age but who now have lived in that country for a longer period of time. This point can be illustrated from Figure 3. During the first time period the expected rate of anglicisation for 0-4 year olds can be found on the lower curve, for the second on the next higher curve etc... Notice once again that this interpretation also derives longitudinal inferences from cross-sectional data. The principal postulate, one likely to be confirmed should longitudinal data become available, is that the language shift

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

161

process is highly structured, on the one hand by the degree to which the new immigrant is integrated into his culture of origin, represented by age at time of arrival; on the other by the need to speak English and the desire to be a "good American", represented by length of residence in the United States. Other factors are deemed, therefore, to be less important. Whether there are more or less immigrants in a given area (Veltman 1988a: chapters 7 and 8), whether they come from Cuba or Mexico (ibid., chapter 9), male or female etc... may cause some fluctuation in rates of movement to English but are on the whole relatively inconsequential, at least for any given particular minority language group.22 Further, intergroup differences in language shift are best expressed in terms of higher or lower rates of movement, since the general impact of age at time of arrival and length of residence remains relatively constant. The relevant data for Spanish language immigrants to the United States serves to illustrate this point (Figure 4). While the curves generally follow the expected shape, three features seem relatively distinct: (1) the general rate of anglicisation is substantially lower; (2) there appears to be an important rupture in the process of anglicisation for immigrants, those younger than age 15

162

Calvin Veltman

at time of arrival being substantially more assimilated than those 15 years of age or over at time of arrival; and (3) the assimilative process extends over a longer period of time, it taking nearly approximately ten years to accomplish one-half of the expected movement (as opposed to only five years in the case of the "allophone" group). It would appear then that intergroup differences are principally expressed through changes in the placement of the language shift curves on our charts. Nonetheless, it is quite likely that both socio-economic status and the knowledge of English prior to arrival play significant roles in determining the extent of language shift and the rapidity of that process. First of all, any minority language group where a significant proportion of the immigrants speak English prior to their arrival in the United States should have curves which resemble those observed in Figure 3, those where English is rarely spoken similar to those observed in Figure 4. Secondly, the inflection observed in the Spanish curve at age 15 is probably due to the fact that 15 year old Spanish language immigrants arrive as autonomous immigrants looking for work while 15 year old allophone immigrants are sent to school by their families and anglicized in this setting. This hypothesis clearly merits further investigation.

5. Demographic Modelling While the analysis presented in this paper does not permit the definitive resolution of a number of demographic problems, it should be clear that a finite number of questions, two concerning mother tongue and/or precocious bilingualism, two relating to current language use and four standard demographic questions (age, sex, place of birth, time of arrival) are sufficient to permit the development of demographic models for minority language groups, complete with estimates of the linguistic impact of different levels of international immigration. Once we have resolved the problems of rate and type of language shift expected for both the native and foreign born, two further problems call for resolution, the assignment of language characteristics to newborn children and the estimation of final rates of language loss in the English language population. Consider first of all the attribution of language characteristics to newborn children. In the event that the data base contains adequate information on the

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

163

language use of parents, the mother tongue of newborn children can be assigned as a function of the language most frequently used by the child's parents. In case of conflicting language use patterns for the parents, we prefer to give greater credence to those presented by the mother. Accordingly, children with English-dominant bilingual mothers are assigned English for their mother tongue, those with predominantly Spanish-speaking mothers are given Spanish. Although this procedure is satisfactory for most purposes, some language shift undoubtedly occurs when parents segment their own language practice, speaking Spanish to one another but English to the child. Some estimate of the magnitude of this behavior may be obtained by comparing parental language practice to the mother tongue/precocious bilingualism characteristics of the youngest children for whom such data are available.23 Language use characteristics are subsequently assigned to children of different mother tongues. Initially, they receive those presented by the youngest children included in the survey being analyzed. For example, 0-4 year old allophones in Montreal presented the following home language patterns in 1986: French, 10.8%, English, 16.5%, French-English bilingualism, 4.4% and Other, 68.3%. Accordingly, we assigned these same proportions to the cohort of children born between 1986 and 1991 to women who usually speak a language other than English or French. During the 1991-1996 time period, they will take on the language practices manifested in 1986 by 5-9 year old children having similar mothers etc. Such a demographic model projects the size and composition of the minority language group at different points in time based upon the hypothesis that current rates of language shift will remain unchanged, an hypothesis which in the light of Figures 1 and 2 seems unlikely. For example, Figure 2 suggests that the anglicisation rate of the Spanish language group in the United States is rising by 4-5 percent per decade. Rates of language shift for each age group not having attained 35 years of age should therefore be increased by this amount throughout the life of the demographic model. Such adjustments should also be applied to the immigrant population because they too are subjected to the same factors affecting the language shift rates of the native born. This is particularly true of those who arrive in the U.S.A. as very young children since they undergo language shift at rates comparable to those of native born children (Veltman 1988a: 44). In addition, trend analysis may indicate that the type of language shift expected may be changing over time. For example, rates of English monolin-

164

Calvin Veltman

gualism seem fairly constant for the Spanish language group in the United States; English-dominant bilingualism is on the rise while Spanish monolingualism is on the decline. Similarly, the anglicisation rates of Montreal allophones are declining while francisation rates are rising. Consequently, our final model projects French overtaking English as the predominant choice of allophone children in Montreal just after the turn of the century (Veltman 1989).

Conclusion In conclusion, let it be noted that the production of demographic models of minority language groups may make an important contribution to intelligent debate regarding the desirability of continued immigration or of certain types of immigrants. In most cases, immigrant groups are accused of "refusing to integrate" into the host society as in the United States or thought to be so different that they cannot be integrated (France). Since language use is one good measure of "integration" (or, alternatively, of the "desire to integrate", it can be readily shown that Hispanic immigrants do not "resist" the learning and adoption of the English language. Rather, immigration levels remain sufficiently high such that losses to English monolingualism are totally absorbed, permitting the continued growth of the Spanish language group in terms of absolute size. Similarly, the 1971 Census of Canada revealed that the allophone population of Montreal had been heavily anglicized. In response, the Quebec government invested heavily in the francisation of the immigrant population, such that a majority of immigrants admitted in every time period since 1971 has been more heavily francisized than anglicized. New demographic models now reveal that the greatest long-term threat to the future of the French language in Montreal comes from the anglicisation of the French language majority itself (Veltman 1989). In both cases, the policy conclusions which may be drawn from demo-linguistic models may be unpopular. Xenophobes, for example, are not interested in data which suggests that they are simply impatient if not intolerant. Members of minority language groups, notably those most attached to the values and practices of their culture of origin, find it painful and frustrating to admit that their peers manifest so little language loyalty. This is equally true of members of the French language majority in Montreal.

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

165

Nonetheless, these two examples show the practical utility which can be derived from the development of demographic models of language shift. For the social scientist interested in policy formation in the areas of ethnicity, immigration and assimilation, the study of language shift remains a young discipline in the forefront of much current debate. Since birth rates in most Western countries are now substantially below ZPG, international immigration will likely become a still more important source of population stability in the future. Given the fears expressed by nativist groups in most countries, it is likely that provinces, states and national governments may wish to monitor somewhat better the assimilative process in the future, a desire which may make it possible to make still further progress in the 1990's than the important advances which have been made over the past 15 years.

Notes 1.

While the use of the word "assimilation" has provoked some hostility among democratically minded Americans, it would seem that the movement away from the use of minority languages to the English language in the United States provides one example of the assimilative process. Becoming a "good American" entails the learning and use of English, confining the practice of other languages to the very private sphere of the home.

2.

The U.S. Center for Education Statistics missed a golden opportunity to pursue this topic when it failed to measure current language practice in follow-up surveys to High School and Beyond.

3.

The term covers all of Canada with the exception of Quebec. It should be noted that rates of language shift to English are lower in areas contiguous to the latter province.

4.

The pre-test of the 1991 Census questionnaire omits the requirement that the mother tongue be "still understood". It would seem likely that a second question will be added to obtain this information, a procedure which ensures comparability to previous census questions while at the same time bringing the mother tongue question into line with the concept it is intended to measure.

5.

Similarly, the 1979 CPS found 9.25 million persons of "Spanish mother tongue" as opposed to only 7.04 million in the 1976 SIE.

6.

Ancestry and Language in the United States: November, 1979, Current Population Reports, Special Studies, Series P-3, no. 116, Washington: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982.

7.

"What language do the people in this household usually speak?" The presence of a second language was tested by the presence of some other language "often" spoken in the home.

166

Calvin Veltman

8.

My own personal feeling is that there is much less genuine bilingualism at this level than is reported. Cases where persons succeed in teaching both English and French with relative parity to young children are not abundant.

9.

For example, "Did this child often speak any other language before he began attending school?"

10.

A better solution may be the introduction of the topic of mother tongue itself. "Think about the time when this person first learned to talk". One might then ask which languages (plural) he learned to speak at home. Should more than one be listed, the researcher would then ascertain which language was spoken most frequently by the child.

11.

The general pattern of household language use would then be constructed as a function of the practice of the individuals who live there.

12.

Similar studies carried out by the Institut quebecois de recherche sur la culture in the Armenian, Arab and Chinese communities of Montreal confirmed these data.

13.

Attempts to create more sophisticated categories by integrating data from the official languages' question run up against the problem of constructing a single measure from two indicators of different phenomena, language practice and language knowledge.

14.

Some English-speaking people have found this word "too French" and prefer the term "anglification". I have retained the Canadian term since "anglicification" strikes me as "too foreign". Notice that I use the term "monolingualism" in preference to the Canadian term, "unilingualism", throughout the text, a choice which proves that I am not hopelessly insensitive to reader preferences.

15.

One may also follow the SIE model of questionnaire development, i.e. determine the language most frequently spoken with one's best friends, then ascertain whether the respondant frequently speaks another language with his best friends and if so, which language is employed.

16.

Such measures may be useful if the researcher is attempting to create "at risk" rates for the development of some anticipated outcome, for example, the probability that an American who speaks French well will be francisized should he move to Quebec.

17.

A similar situation obtains with respect to the language of work. In our view, the best indicator appears to be a general question of the variety, "What language do you most frequently speak at work?", followed perhaps by an attempt to ascertain the presence of a second language regularly ("often") spoken in this setting. Attempts to define the language used with employees, with supervisors, with the public, with fellow workers, with persons below them in the hierarchy, all lead to a good deal of missing information. Many people have no subordinates, others no supervisors, etc. Again, some people spend a lot more time conversing with their superiors, others with clients, etc.

18.

Rates of language shift drop as older people abandon the use of their acquired language in favor of their mother tongue. However, based upon the comparison of 1971 and 1976 Census data, this reversal theory has been generally discredited (Castonguay 1979).

19.

A simple extrapolation suggests that the rate will attain 44% in the case of the 30 year old group and 47% in the case of the 25 year old group. Following the assumptions of

Theory and Method in the Study ofLanguage Shift

167

this theory, these rates should be observed in the 1981 Census of Canada. Unfortunately, changes in the processing procedures used by Statistics Canada in 1981 make direct comparisons difficult to achieve. 20.

Age at time of arrival may be estimated by subtracting the year of arrival in the host country from the year in which the survey was conducted. Length of residence is then constructed by subtracting age at time of arrival from age at the time of the survey.

21.

The data were obtained by interpolation and smoothing from the 1976 Survey of Income and Education (Veltman 1988: chapter 10).

22.

That governmental policies regarding bilingual education or minority language services could have any significant impact on this process seems highly unlikely, particularly in the light of the unsuccessful Canadian effort to promote the use of French outside Quebec.

23.

That is, when children are 2-3 years old, if researchers follow the procedure which we recommended earlier in this article.

A So-Called Dialect of English* Alan S. Kay e California State University, Fullerton

Fishman (1985b: 19) warns us that the entire subject of Judeo-English1 (his term for the more popular designation Yinglish, which Fishman calls "mocking" for what he says is "less archaically: Jewish English") "still seems strange to most current investigators". As one might expect from our honoree Joshua Fishman, he is right. Just how strange it is will be explored in the following pages. More research surely is needed on this subject, and will hopefully occur as the study of Jewish intralinguistics expands in the years and decades ahead. Undoubtedly, some better terms with their corresponding understanding for the entire phenomenon under discussion may be proposed and justified. However, it seems to me that the field first needs to come to some kind of agreement concerning what we are and are not talking about. It seems much easier to pinpoint what Jewish English is not than what it actually is, or if it actually is, assuming that what one means by this designation is the English spoken by Jews in general. We must, right at the outset, come to the realization that it is incorrect to think that all Jews in the United States (or Canada, Great Britain, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) speak their own unique dialect of English, i.e. Jewish English (hereafter JE) (an empty label, however, see below). Indeed many (most?) English-speaking Jews speak, in my opinion, nothing of the sort in their normal, everyday, speech patterns of discourse, using Hebrew-Aramaic or Yiddish loanwords or not, in monologues and dialogues, with their friends and relatives, whether they be at home, at their jobs, or at play. It seems to me that many or most American Jews speak English dialects at home (as their normal discourse) which are indistinguishable from those of their next door neighbors who just happen to be gentiles. Linguists

170

Alan S. Kaye

should actually determine, using a sound sample for several different geographical areas both inside and outside of the United States, the precise statistics involved for the aforementioned claim. Fishman's own thoughts on this intriguing subject may conveniently serve as a springboard for what follows (1985b: 19): Although various lexical, grammatical, prosodic and functional characteristics of Judeo-English have already been described [by David L. Gold in Fishman 1985c], the major Israeli, American, Canadian, British and Australian subvarieties and the features uniting and separating them still remain largely unformulated by socio-linguistically trained observers. The purpose of this paper is to offer a reaction to the idea of JE. Basically, the point I want to make is that the designation JE or Judeo-English gives the erroneous impression that (all?) American, Canadian, British, etc. Jews somehow have their own unique dialect of English. This is nothing more than a narrow-minded myopic lectism gone crazy. I do not think that the aforementioned point of view (or scientific opinion) can be substantiated, although I readily admit that some Jews (e.g. in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn, New York City), particularly Orthodox Jews (between 200,000-1.5 million of them according to Steinmetz 1981: 15, fn. 1) who know Yiddish and Hebrew/ Aramaic (fluently, semi-fluently, or poorly), do speak a dialect which I can refer to as "New York Yinglish" (I do not use this term pejoratively) or Yiddish(ized) English (cf. Davis 1967 for Yiddish American English and Tannen 1981 for New York Jewish Conversational Style). This is but a part of what is meant by JE, however. In short, the concept of JE (as a whole), which involves much more than the stereotypic New York Orthodox Jewish "He's ah schmo who's heppy as ah boid", is a generalization which is so all-encompassing that, due to its gross imprecision, it becomes a vacuous label. In other words, to use JE as a cover term for all Jewish English lects is a usage which is devoid of merit, both linguistically, ethnolinguistically, and probably historically as well. It is most often impossible to recognize a Jew by his/her dialect nor by his/her name. Fishman has, I believe, even questioned whether or not JE is a full-fledged language in the sense of a Judeo-Arabic or a Judezmo by writing (1985b: 19): "Is it possible that a Jewish language is being born before our very eyes but that few are aware of it?" This leaves the door open to investigate the possibility that there might be a JE dialect in the future. How does this point of view fit in with Gold's pronouncement that "older JE"

A So-Called Dialect of English

171

to go on aliya ~ to come on aliya has changed to "current JE" to make aliya (Gold 1985b: 186), defined as "a complex term referring to the return of Jews to Israel" (1985b: 186), or that JE goes back to the 1600's (Gold 1987: 406, fn. 4)? I should confess right at the outset that I do not know how old JE is as a term, nor do I know who coined it or first used it in print, however, Steinmetz (1981: 15, fn. 2) relates that Fishman had already used it in his 1975 review of Walt Wolfram's Sociolinguistic Aspects of Assimilation published in Language, and that it had prior to that "been circulating informally among linguists for several years" (1981: 15, fn. 2). However, I began noticing the term quite frequently in various linguistic publications in the 1980's. It stands out quite conspicuously in, for instance, Gold (1981) and (1984) as well as Steinmetz (1981), and I believe it fairly safe to say that it is David L. Gold of the University of Haifa,2 who has used the term more than any other single linguist (at least insofar as I am aware). It is even the title of an entire article by Gold (Gold 1985a). Gold (1985b), in advocating the appropriateness of the term JE, rejects the various designations used by other authors such as Engliddish, Yiddiglish, or Yidlish, coined by Lillian Mermin Feinsilver in the journal American Speech? While I can perhaps agree somewhat with Gold (1985b) that some of Feinsilver's seven proposed terms such as the three listed above are "infelicitous, unnecessary, and unwieldy", I believe that there are also many problems with the replacement term JE, which Gold states (1985b: 186) is based on the analogy of "black English" (sic), "white English" (sic), and "Mormon English" (sic). (What? No terms "Christian English", "Jehovah's Witnesses' English", "Catholic English", "Protestant English", and so on!) Gold's position on JE can succinctly be summarized thus. All (emphasis mine) Jews who are English-speaking speak a dialect of English properly designated as JE. As he explicitly maintains: Because Jewish English is a new concept (though the linguistic phenomenon it designates is itself as old as the end of the seventeenth century), immediate lay reaction tends to be "I speak English; there's no such thing as Jewish English". On countless occasions, Jews have told me that they speak English "without the slightest accent" (i.e. with no Jewish features), yet without exception I have been able to convince them otherwise. Indeed it is impossible to lead any sort of meaningful Jewish life without at least some special features in one's language. (1987: 406, fn. 4)

172

Alan S. Kaye

Using the logic that is evidenced in this statement, I am positive that Gold could "convince" any person of any religion that s/he was speaking a variant of English based on that particular religion. All religious groups have developed terminology which may serve to distinguish their members from others. (I shall not further complicate the matter by bringing in the realms of specialized phonology and grammar.) In addition, much religious-based vocabulary, similar to the Hebrew/Aramaic-Yiddish substratum in JE, is non-English in origin. For example, a Catholic, as opposed to non-Catholics, may tell others that s/he has just said the rosary or completed the Stations of the Cross or feels happy/unhappy that s/he is obliged to follow the moral teachings of the Pope when he is speaking ex cathedra. A Buddhist may remark that s/he is happy that bodhisattvas aid mankind in its struggle to attain Nirvana. A Muslim may comment on his/her fervent desire to go on hajj to see the grand mosque in Mecca, and the importance of sawm or siyam "fasting" during Ramadan or of reading the Qur'a:n (= Koran), and facing the Qibla (the direction towards Mecca) during salat "prayer". Each of the above samples used a "special" feature (i.e. vocabulary) to distinguish the speaker. Further, said vocabulary can make an individual's spiritual and/or everyday life regardless of the particular religion practiced more "meaningful". But, does it necessarily follow that the reader has just been treated to excerpts of Catholic (or Christian), Buddhist and Muslim English, respectively? A simpler and more straightforward sociolinguistic conclusion would be that each of the highlighted speakers was speaking English using religion-specific nomenclature, which can be extended to include other socio-cultural terms as well. Much of the vocabulary cited by proponents of the term JE as being typical of its usage deal with traditional (make that Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, or Hasidic Jewish lifestyles). As Sol Steinmetz (1981: 6) states in the first sizeable article on JE: Jewish English is used to express the elements that characterize traditional Jewish life. Thousands of words and expressions have been taken from Yiddish and Hebrew ... The borrowings include, for example, terms pertaining to marriage (shiduch 'match' ...), terms relating to death (... matzevah 'gravestone'), terms dealing with study (talmid 'student' ...)... In the above description, one could easily substitute any number of religions and the statement would still be valid. To illustrate very briefly, Englishspeaking Muslims use many words and expressions that are Arabic in origin.

A So-Called Dialect of English

173

It is well known that when Muslims speak English (and other languages as well, such as Persian, Urdu or Hausa), they often interject various Arabic expressions such as In sha Allah "God willing" or Ma sha Allah "whatever God wills", and use Arabic words such as bazaar, bedouin, caliph, hadith = "a tradition going back to the Prophet Muhammad", imam "spiritual leader", zakat "alms", or sura "chapter of the Koran". Can we as linguists legitimately talk, therefore, of a Muslim English, and further subdivide it into a Sunni English, a Shi'ite English, an Ismaili English, and a Sufi English? (Compare, if you will, Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic English in Gold 1985b.) Yet, this is exactly what Gold is suggesting in a Jewish context when he notes that (1985b: 186): "Jewish English is the collective name for all English lects which are used only by Jews, including those lects which may differ from non-Jewish ones by as little as one feature". This is indeed an exact and very bold pronouncement which leads us to the following question. Just how much Hebrew/Aramaic/Yiddish phonology/morphology/syntax/semantics/pragmatics, or nonverbal communication, etc. does this sort of term imply? Where do we or can we draw the line? Fishman seems to be acutely aware of the problem posed above in his definition of what a Jewish language is, for he states (1981: 5-6 with little change in 1985b: 4): I define as 'Jewish' any language that is phonologically, morpho-syntactically, lexico-semantically or orthographically different from that of nonJewish sociocultural networks and that has some demonstrable function in the role-repertoire of a Jewish sociocultural network. The borderline cases pose considerable difficulty, as do all borderline cases, since it is at the borderlines where inter-network similarities are greatest, that it is (sic) hardest to define who and what is Jewish and who or what is different. Gold's definition of "one feature" quoted above, however, leaves no room whatsoever for "borderline cases". Gold has even elaborated on this by further claiming that this "one" feature need not necessarily be an active one. It can merely be passive as well. This is formulated as follows (1987: 399): By some stretch of the imagination one could conceive of a Jew whose life output of utterances could have been that of a non-Jew too, but who, at least, recognizes certain Jewish utterances as such and understands them, whereas non-Jews normally do not, like "Did you porge the meat?" Jewish and non-Jewish performance might thus be identical in such a hypothetical case, but not competence.

174

Alan S. Kaye

Agreeing with this philosophy is Steinmetz (1981), who uses the term JE to refer to the speech of Orthodox American Jews in his paper but extends this usage in his overall generalized definition of JE (1981: 14): "Jewish English can be defined as a form of Yiddish- and Hebrew-influenced English used by Jews, regardless of the extent of its hybridization". (This means that only one loanword4 from Hebrew or Yiddish would make this particular English dialect JE.) Then Steinmetz concludes that some American Jews (1981: 14) "employ it only slightly or occasionally". How about Americans of all religions who regularly use words such as nosh, bubkes, and schmaltzy! My problem with accepting the above definition is that there can be nonJews who, thus, know JE better than some Jews. I am utterly confused because we can, apparently, have a non-Jew who speaks and understands more JE than a Jew. We can even have Jews who have never uttered a word of JE, and we can have non-Jews who speak JE daily, and, moreover, fluently. Frankly, where does it all end? And, what's the point? For some who advocate the existence of JE, the question of just exactly where to draw the line between JE and non-JE is tenuous. In discussing regional varieties of JE, Gold (1981: 287) observes that: "British Jewish English particular "devout" = American Jewish English religious or observant, as in "They're very particular" (for American English "They're very religious/observant")". Why is this an example of JE? Can not Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc., who happen to be British or American, also comment on the religiosity of those they meet, and in fact, use the exact same phraseology? Following this same line of reasoning, I can produce an example of a regional variant of Mormon English. British English pram, short for perambulator, = American English baby carriage or buggy. I have an acquaintance who was born in Utah and is a Mormon. His wife, also a Mormon, was born and raised in London. If one went to their home and overheard the following "Honey, where's the pram?" "I don't know where the baby carriage is.", would this constitute a dialogue between speakers of British Mormon English and American Mormon English? To add to the confusion, Gold seems to be backpedaling from his previous position when he maintains (1985a: 281): "Naturally, not every utterance by a Jew is necessarily an instance of JE". It then follows from this that not every utterance by a non-Jew is necessarily an

A So-Called Dialect of English

175

instance of non-JE. Of course, both groups can be speaking foreign languages or imitating other dialects, but how relevant or germane are these situations? The question now becomes how is one to tell if Jews or Mormons (or members of any other religion for that matter) are speaking in a form (read: dialect) of English directly linked to their religion, i.e. JE or Mormon English? If the Mormon couple's conversation about the elusive pram/baby carriage had also alluded to being late for the sacrament meeting (= Mormon terminology for religious service), could all or part of the discourse now be classified as examples of British Mormon English and American Mormon English, respectively? I do not think that this would be an appropriate conclusion to reach, yet this is, in essence, what is being done by those who propose the use of such ambiguous terms as JE. A possible pitfall of using a term as imprecise as JE is that it can easily lead the observer into basing language categorization on certain factors (such as religion) that are really quite external to the American-English speech community. Thus, a linguist could manufacture a convincing case for Christian English. One can even postulate an earlier Christian English "Holy Ghost" which has been changed to Modern Christian English "Holy Spirit" or an earlier Christian English "extreme unction" for the Modern Christian English "last rites" (cf. our earlier remarks on go on aliya > make aliya for JE). This is not to say that one's religion can not in varying degrees influence, especially through specialized terminology, one's language. However, it should not be viewed as one of the primary determinants when it comes to classificatory designations of English dialectology. If this were the case, then one need only ask a person's religion in order to ascertain what dialect (or variant) of English is being spoken. Up until this point, I have focused my remarks on examples of what I have labelled religion-specific nomenclatures. Let us now examine other groups who also use a specialized terminology peculiar to their (non-religious but nevertheless socio-cultural) way of life. Many types of human endeavors (e.g. occupations, hobbies, clubs, sports) have associated with them vocabulary terms that are unique to their undertaking. Just a few of the things that accountants consider are future cash flows, EPS (= earnings per share), ROI (= return on investments = ROA = return on assets), self-liquidating cycles (= cash cycles = operating cycles = working capital cycles = the movement from cash to inventories to accounts receivables and back to cash), contribution margins (= revenues minus all variable expenses), the bottom line, and PV

176

Alan S. Kaye

(present value). Ideally, a poker player wants to become a zombie (one who shows no emotions and exhibits no tells = distinctive habits that would allow others to estimate the value of their hand), but wants to avoid zoo joints (= establishments in which cheating occurs regularly), and perhaps give tokes (= zukes = gratuities given to dealers and other service personnel, which is perceived as bringing good fortune or luck to the giver of the tip). Skiers can offpiste (= ski on unmarked slopes), langlauf (= cross-country skiing), hot-dog (= freestyle skiing noted for spectacular jumps), christy (= christiania = a medium-fast turn in which the skis are kept parallel), swing (= a high-speed turn in which the skis are kept parallel), etc. Linguists regularly discuss morphophonemic alternations, morphographemes, phrase-structure rules, transformational rules, agglutination, apophony and metaphony not to mention anticipatory coarticulation, dissimilation, schwas, carets, and so on. Needless to say, the list of further groups having specialized vocabulary is probably endless. The aforementioned terms all have specific meaning to each of the groups involved and undoubtedly make the lives of the participants more meaningful, at least in the context of group membership. Many of the terms cited may also be known to and used by the public at large. Further, of the cited terms, some are non-English in origin, which is a trait that is similiar to what the proponents of the term JE claim as a distinguishing feature. However, should this lead one to proclaim the existence of Accountant's English or Skier's English and so forth? I think this would not be a meaningful generalization. There are many other glottonyms which further complicate the meaning to the designation JE used by Gold (1985b) and elsewhere, viz., "Ashkenazic English", "non-Ashkenazic JE", "Sephardic English" and "non-Sephardic English". One can easily get bogged down with such confusing terminology! How would one say "How are you?" or "I'm tired. I want to go to sleep" in each of these so-called dialects of English? To make the matter even worse, Gold (1985a) uses even finer distinctions in his subdivisions (see 1985a: 280, fn. 1): "American Ashkenazic English", "Ashkenzic English", "American Eastern Ashkenazic English", "American Western Ashkenazic English", "British Ashkenazic English", "Eastern Ashkenazic English" and "Western Ashkenazic English". Not wanting to intentionally poke fun at this Jewish lectism gone wild, is there an "American Southern Ashkenazic English" which can then be further bifurcated into a "Southeastern" and a "Southwestern" branch? And can these so-called dialects be then further bifurcated

A So-Called Dialect of English

177

once again? And then again? Is not this sort of terminology rather like saying that there is a 42nd and Broadway (i.e. Times Square, Manhattan, New York City) English, a 43rd and Broadway English, a 44th and Broadway English, and so on? This is linguistic isoglossal lectism taken to the extreme and should be recognized as such. Let us now consider the case of a certain Jew growing up in Flatbush, Brooklyn, New York City, who, according to the above criteria, must speak JE. On his (or her) twenty-first birthday, he (or she) decides to leave the Jewish faith and converts to Christianity. Does his or her JE now instantaneously become "Christian English" or is s/he now a non-Jew speaking JE? I feel certain that instances such as this have occurred, although not necessarily when a person reaches a birthday, without any change whatsoever in one's speech patterns. Or consider the opposite situation of someone converting to Judaism. Does that person's English automatically become JE after a week as a member of the Jewish faith? A month? A year? The late actor-singerdancer-entertainer, Sammy Davis, Jr. converted to Judaism many years ago. Can one legitimately invoke Gold's definition quoted above to proclaim Davis' normal conversational English to have been in JE?5 Let us now leave the realm of speech and switch gears to a discussion of the written or graphemic representation of language. Jewish languages such as Judeo-Arabic have a long tradition of scholarly attention as there is an extensive body of Judeo-Arabic literature written in Hebrew characters employing certain diacritics (Judeo-Arabic is not written in the Arabic alphabet). But clearly, there is no such comparable written version of JE, or is there? Presumably, if I write the JE word aliya (see above on this term) in the Jewish alphabet (sic) (see below), I would now have "graphemic JE" (cf. the parallel with Judeo-Arabic, yet I do not see any significant difference in writing aliya or a word such as Satan, an English word which has been borrowed from Hebrew). Yet Gold states (1985a: 280) that JE "has usually been written in the English alphabet". This means that JE is also written in some other alphabet, too. Gold (1984: 271) does talk of the "Jewish"6 alphabet, which does not appear to be standard usage, as the reader will momentarily come to appreciate. He states (1984: 271): "Since Yiddish is normally written in the Jewish alphabet, a suitable romanization must be found for Yiddishorigin words in Latin-letter languages". Normally, one does not talk of the "Jewish" alphabet. (Ferguson and Heath 1981: 289 have even edited Gold's use of "Jewish" alphabet to read the "Hebrew" alphabet: "Unlike older Jewish

178

Alan S. Kaye

languages, which have traditionally been written in the Hebrew alphabet, JE is almost always [emphasis mine: ASK] written in the roman alphabet, because most of its users have had training in written non-JE".) The standard work on the history and development of the alphabet by one of the world's leading authorities on the subject (Diringer 1968: 208) states explicitly that the "Hebrew" script (read: alphabet) has been adapted to Yiddish (as well as for Arabic, Turkish, Judezmo, etc.). Diringer writes (1968: 208): "Yiddish employs the Modern Hebrew alphabet". Similarly, one does not talk of the Muslim alphabet, the Hindu alphabet, nor the Buddhist alphabet. One refers to the Arabic (or Perso-Arabic) and Devanagari alphabets, respectively, although Buddhists use various scripts for their languages (e.g. Thai and Sinhalese). To call the Hebrew alphabet the Jewish one is similar to calling the Cyrillic alphabet the Communist one. To put it in other words, the designation Jewish alphabet (see Gold 1982) is not an appropriate term because the phrase suggests historical and religious connections which are contrary to fact. One can only wonder why there was no mention of JE in the series of conferences held in March-April 1975 at the University of Michigan and New York University entitled "Jewish Languages: Theme and Variations". The following Jewish languages were discussed at these conferences: Hebrew, Aramaic, Yiddish, Ladino (also known as Dzhudezmo, Judezmo or JudeoSpanish), Judeo-Persian and Judeo-Arabic. The proceedings of these conferences have appeared as Paper (1978), and nowhere in this volume was there any mention of JE. If JE were considered a Jewish language at these conferences by some of the linguists present, I am sure it would have received formal, or at least, informal treatment. Offered as somewhat of a parallel, Youtie (1978: 155-157) mentions a scholarly attempt to set up a "Jewish Greek", but finally firmly rejects this notion. Other scholars such as Paul Wexler recognize a Judeo-Greek, however, this is referred to by Gold (1987: 400) as "Yevanic". Interestingly enough, even Gold (1981: 273) does not include JE as a Jewish language of great importance in the United States reserving those places rather to Yiddish, Hebrew, and Dzhudezmo. In this regard, I find myself forced to agree with Hebraist and general linguist Saul Levin (1983: XII, no. 15): "I must protest against the exaggerated [emphasis mine: ASK] conception of ,'Jewish languages'. It makes for self-deceptive nationalism". Yiddish, a language which almost everyone would associate as a lingua franca of Western and Central

A So-Called Dialect of English

179

European Jewry, was used by many non-Jews for commercial purposes (this is still somewhat true today). Incidentally, one Israeli linguist, Uzzi Ornan, does not even consider Hebrew a Jewish language (see Ornan 1985). However, Gold vehemently disagrees (1987: 398-399). Herein, Gold (1987: 399) also gives no reasons for his refusal to believe Oman's conclusion that "upper-class British English is used by many Jews in Britain exactly as do their socially equal, non-Jewish peers", except to note that Ornan may be speaking of "Britishers of Jewish ancestry". How would Gold define a Jew vs. someone of Jewish ancestry?7 There is already an established field of Jewish interlinguistics (e.g. see Wexler 1981), or as Gold prefers, Jewish intralinguistics (Gold 1987: 405, fn. 2), and I wholeheartedly endorse Paper's (1978: vii) coinage of an Islamic interlinguistics, a Buddhist one, and an Eastern Christian vs. a Western Christian interlinguistics. We will, however, have to get our terminology straight for these fields to progress in an enlightened manner. This means that we will need to avoid ambiguous, imprecise, and misleading terms such as JE, Muslim English,8 Buddhist English, Eastern Christian English vs. Western Christian English, and so on, at all costs. It is tempting to look at external factors such as religion to try to come up with all-encompassing conclusions such as those discussed previously herein. However, unless we can be certain that our views hold scientific water, every attempt should be made to inform the reader to proceed with caution or "let the reader beware".

Notes *

I wish to thank my wife Susan M. Kaye for many useful suggestions. Indeed, she has seen things which I have failed to, and her comments have greatly enhanced both the clarity and organization of the paper so much in evidence in the final product. I would also like to express my appreciation to Ronald Butters, Joshua Fishman, and Saul Levin, all of whom commented on a preliminary version of this paper. The usual disclaimers apply.

1.

Actually, the designation Judeo-English goes back at least to 1972 when Richard N. Levy used it in a review of Raphael Patai's Tents of Jacob, The New York Times Book Review. See Steinmetz (1981: 16, fn. 6). Levy writes therein (quoted in Steinmetz 1981: 15): "... one can make a case for the barely perceptible (emphasis mine: ASK) beginnings of a Judeo-English - cf. words like Bar Mitzvahed.... " Ronald Butters has pointed out to me (p.c.) that the term Jewish dialect (applied to a variety of American English) is old, e.g. in H.L. Mencken's The American Language

180

Alan S. Kaye (1937). In checking Mencken, one indeed finds "Jewish Dialect", and "Yiddo-American" (1937: 368-369, fn. 2), written about by C.K. Thomas and R. Sonkin in American Speech (1932 and 1933). Mencken (1937: 634 ff.) further describes what he calls American Yiddish.

2.

Cf. The Jewish Language Review, an annual publication that began in 1981, which Gold claims (1985a: 297) contains "reliable information on JE".

3.

The exact references are cited by Gold (1985b: 185).

4.

The late Mayor LaGuardia of New York City reportedly spoke Yiddish and Yiddish(ized) English, in addition to Italian and English, and used them to his great advantage in campaigning for the job of mayor, i. e. the Jewish vote was very important. It would not be correct, in my opinion, to characterize LaGuardia's dialect of English as JE when he campaigned for the Jewish vote and addressed Jewish audiences. LaGuardia could use Hebrew, Aramaic, or Yiddish expressions or lexemes in his English, such as "to make aliya" - "to immigrate to Israel", yet so may anyone. Gold states that expressions such as "make aliya" (from the Hebrew root cly meaning "go up") are part of and characteristic of JE. He actually states that kosher is Ashkenazic English (1985b: 186), whereas I would think that it is just, synchronically speaking, good ol' plain everyday English. To cite another example, consider the famous conversationalist and author Alexander King (Mine Enemy Grows Older and May This House Be Safe from Tigers), who appeared so often during the 1960s on the old Jack Paar Show (The Tonight Show). He spoke Yiddish (some say native-like). However, I believe he was an avowed atheist (although born a Christian). If occasion so suited him, he could sound like the well-known nightclub and TV personality and fellow New Yorker, actor and comedian Jackie Mason (who incidentally is also a former Rabbi). I do not think we could thus describe King's English as the atheistic variety of JE any more than we could characterize it as "Atheist English" (paralleling JE, "Mormon English", and so on). Although born in Europe, King considered himself first and foremost a New Yorker. New York City is an enormous population center, yet not all New York Jews, even in this largest conglomeration of them in one city in the world, can be said to speak this so-called JE. I am willing to exclude, however, English-speaking New York Orthodox Jews in the context of a Yeshiva, studying the Talmud, where the term Yiddish English or Yiddishized English (= Yinglish) may be in order.

5.

If anything, Davis was well known for his code-switching abilities between Black English and Standard English (at least under certain public circumstances). I cannot understand how appropriate it would be to consider Sammy Davis, Jr., Jerry Lewis and Jackie Mason speakers of JE. Gold might argue that Davis, Lewis and Mason are representative of three different "subvarieties" of JE (his term 1985b: 186), yet I think this summation would lead us to the absurd conclusion that there are almost as many JE sub-categories as there are speakers. Further, do Black Vernacular English and Chicano English have so many subvarieties? We can facetiously coin the new, ultra-confusing "American Black JE" for Sammy Davis' English dialect. If his ex-wife, actress May Britt were Jewish (I am not sure whether she was/is Jewish), did she speak "American non-Black JE"?

A So-Called Dialect of English

181

6.

The terms "Jewish" and "Yiddish" can sometimes be interchangeable. Some Jews, e.g. when speaking English, actually say that they speak Jewish, by which they mean Yiddish. I can personally attest to this. This usage is reported in Weinreich (1980: 322). Even Gold (1984) seems occasionally to be using the term Jewish as a more or less loose synonym for Yiddish or Yiddishized. This usage is listed, however, only in some English dictionaries. The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd college edition (1976: 688) does not mention this nor does The New Century Dictionary (1944: 875). However, The New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd college edition has it (1978: 758) as do Thorndike Barnhart Advanced Dictionary (1973: 552) and Funk and Wagnalls' Standard College Dictionary (1974: 727). Quite surprisingly, the O.E.D. (Vol. V, p. 578) does not mention this particular nuance. Histories of the designation "Yiddish" occur in Weinreich (1980: 315-317; 322-325) (also Jüdisch-deutsch, Judendeutsch, Jüdisch, Jude, Juif, Zyd, (H)ebräer, Yid, Israélite, etc.). See also Herzog (1978) on the subject. I do not know why Yiddish has an orthographic geminated , whereas the Hebrew or Yiddish spellings or <7ydyŠ> ~ <îydyt> do not. Gold (1984: 272) says that Yiddish is "properly Yidish". If I may offer an hypothesis, the geminated follows the English spelling rule to geminate a consonant to keep a preceding vowel "short" (only at the orthographic level - not the phonological one). Cf. hide > hidden, rid > ridden. Otherwise, there would be a confusion with riding. Perhaps the spelling Yiddish with geminated imitated an already existing and familiar spelling jiddisch in German in which the double -dd- would have been quite normal to show that the preceding vowel 4- is not long, as the cognate umlaut vowel is in jüdisch.

7.

I find it difficult to understand Gold's unsound reasoning when he proclaims that those Jews who do not speak JE "must be Jews in name only". One need only mention the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia and the Chinese Jews of Kai-Feng Fu to note that Jews have tremendously different backgrounds.

8.

Would it not be absurd to claim that Karim Abdul Jabbar, Muhammad Ali, or Queen Noor, the American-born wife of Jordan's King Hussein, speaks Muslim English? I refrain from expatiating further allowing the reader to decide for himself/herself. I could also be creative and invent a Zoroastrian (= Parsi) English, however, the reader is free to do so for himself/herself as well.

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children of Jewish Immigrants Return to Their First Language Rakhmiel Peltz Columbia University

Introduction During my research work of the past eight years on the status, corpus and interactional dynamics of Yiddish speech in contemporary American society, I discovered retention, maintenance and positive identification with Yiddish in unexpected settings: small, peripheral neighborhoods and communities, and amongst children of immigrants, a sector generally thought of as having rejected the language and culture of their parents. Further study of these circumstances has convinced me that an understanding of life cycle changes relating to personal and group identity can highlight variation in both language use and ethnic identity. There has been relatively little exploration of the correlation between these two domains and development during aging. Research on the elderly has largely focussed on providing services for the frail and needy. Changes related to cultural identity among the elderly have not generally sparked an interest on the part of gerontologists or those studying ethnicity, and issues of aging and language use have received even more limited attention. Psycholinguists have concentrated on child language acquisition, and sociolinguists tend to study adolescents and young adults, who are regarded as vanguards of language change. In the current study, I plan to discuss my findings on the Yiddish language behavior of older adult offspring of Jewish immigrants, and to consider whether the return to ethnic language and culture upon aging is a more widespread phenomenon within contemporary ethnic communities in the United States than has previously been thought. This investigation will illuminate the

184

Rakhmiel Peltz

relative roles of generation (what it means to be a child of immigrants), cohort (the specific experience of the current elderly) and history (distinctive events in recent American, world and ethnic group history). My earlier work in South Philadelphia revealed maintenance, fluency and a positive attitude toward Yiddish on the part of both immigrants and their children (Peltz 1987; 1988). Although a majority of the Jewish residents in South Philadelphia are children of immigrants, this study included four generations of neighborhood residents. The question of whether such language behavior reflects the especially intense ethnic activity present in a neighborhood of primary immigration was inevitably raised, as was the need for further study of the relationship of Yiddish language behavior to Jewish ethnic identification in different kinds of Jewish communities. I carried out my fieldwork in South Philadelphia during 1982-1983 and 1984-1985. In the current report, I also discuss results from fieldwork during 1986-1990 in smaller cities in Massachusetts: Holyoke, Northampton, and Worcester. The methods followed are similar to those described earlier (Peltz 1987; 1988; 1990a). Intensive long-term participant observation in neighborhood settings allows me to get to know the residents and become familiar with communal organizations, social networks, and communication behavior. Audio recordings of group discussions in Yiddish are collected, but dialogues between the investigator and individual residents are only taperecorded after a lengthy period of acquaintance. An essential tool has been my use of Yiddish with those who understand and especially with those who also speak the language. Speaking Yiddish induces Yiddish conversation and helps not only to develop rapport, but to uncover otherwise unexpressed emotions. In addition, archival documents relating to the history of the neighborhood or specific Jewish community are consulted. More recently, my work has incorporated autobiographies of children of Jewish immigrants in the United States. In presenting transcriptions of speech, I have made an effort to reflect individual, non-standard usage, syntax and dialectal specificity, while rendering an easily readable text.1

Yiddish during the Life Cycle of Children of Immigrants Despite the danger of depicting this group as a uniform generation or cohort, several common themes relating to language use and attitude are indicated for

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children of Jewish Immigrants

185

many children of Jewish immigrants who are alive today. The variation in patterns of Yiddish language behavior seems to relate to factors such as the age of immigrant parents at the time of immigration, the presence of immigrant grandparents, the position in terms of the birth order of siblings, as well as the degree of interaction with parents during the life cycle. To be sure, these are precisely the issues that need further clarification in the future. Nevertheless, we can make some general observations at this point. Children born of immigrant parents report that the most intensive time of exposure to Yiddish was during their first years before entry into school. Their Yiddish was restricted to the domain of house and family, used with other immigrants, relatives, friends of parents and neighbors. If they spoke Yiddish with their siblings, it was at home, not on the street. This crucial period of initial language contact is followed by comparatively little use in later years. When active Yiddish speech did continue, it was typically with a parent. However, this must be qualified: sometimes the parent spoke in Yiddish and the child responded in English, or else both reverted to English in these later years. When the child initiates involvememt in a Yiddish-related activity, it is often during a period when parents are no longer alive to serve as interlocutors. A variety of sources confirm these patterns, including autobiographies of Jewish communal leaders that both illustrate these trends and also elaborate on the embeddedness of language in ethnic culture and religion. For example, we read of the cocoon-like Yiddish environment that enveloped a young child in Brooklyn: I knew no English, mine was a Yiddish speaking house. When I got into public school, for the first time, I began to understand that the language of this country was not Yiddish but was English. And I had a few difficult years in accomodating myself to what was happening in public school. But obviously I made it. (Sol B. Kolack, Anti-Defamation League, vol. 6, B 2-3) Growing up in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, Benjamin Epstein was comfortable at home in Yiddish: I learned my Bar Mitzvah speech in Yiddish and that was the way I gave it. Yiddish was the second tongue and frequently the tongue that many of us used in our homes. My father and mother could not converse in Yiddish to keep a secret from me because I understood Yiddish which they

186

Rakhmiel Peltz had taught me. On the contrary, when they wanted to talk privately, they would talk Russian, and I was always trying to get into the act by trying to learn some Russian from them. (Anti-Defamation League, vol. 1, A 9-10)

Even if immigrant parents normally conversed in English, the Yiddish culture of the home could greatly influence the life of a youngster, as we can see from the memoirs of Conservative Rabbi Simcha Kling, who grew up in Newport, Kentucky: Although my parents spoke English to each other as well as to my brother and myself, Yiddish was often used at family gatherings and I was able to follow conversation. As a young teen-ager, I learned to read Yiddish and occasionally went over Der Morning Journal which my father received daily. And much later, after I had become proficient in Hebrew I improved my Yiddish and was able to turn to Yiddish articles for research. (American Jewish Archives, Biographies File, p. 1) One description of the Sabbath as a special day in the life of a rabbinical household points to the integration of Yiddish in traditional Jewish family life. The father tests his son's ability to translate portions of the Bible into Yiddish. The mother reads the children stories from the week's Yiddish newspapers, as well as Yiddish classics, although "later she read them to us in English". At the end of the day the farewell to the Sabbath is recited in Yiddish and Hebrew (American Jewish Archives, Manuscript Collection, Box 548, Rabbi Herman Elliot Snyder, "Memories"). Although the autobiographical fragments above cite persons employed in leadership roles within the Jewish community, similar reminiscences are often shared by children of immigrants with far less visibility within their neighborhood and within public Jewish life. South Philadelphia and its Jewish residents receive little attention from the press, the larger Jewish community in Philadelphia, scholars, or even family members who have left the neighborhood (Peltz 1989). These residents, too, recall an intense Yiddish-speaking environment at home as children, and in the few instances in which immigrant parents did not use Yiddish at home, the surrounding Jewish life of the neighborhood provided conducive language learning conditions for the American-born children. Ester-Sosye, for example, recalls that talking English at home was strictly prohibited. Breaching this rule was met with punishment, a slap in the face. Her parents were convinced that Yiddish was the only language of dis-

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children of Jewish Immigrants

187

course befitting a Jewish household (88A376). Yet, sometimes within a family, the younger children utilized less Yiddish. Dveyre, for example, stated that her younger brother and sister only conversed in Yiddish occasionally (30A011). Leye also reinforced this image. She, the eldest, and her brother closest to her in age spoke Yiddish with their parents; the younger children understood, but did not speak the language (74A024). Tsipe-Khashe, also an eldest child, recalls how her mother ensured that her brother would speak Yiddish: Fleg mayn mame ze em zogn, Eyb du vilst geyn in de muviz.. zolste kumen tsurik un mir zogn vos du(ho)st gezen in idish'. Er fleg zikh mutshenen. That's how he learned to speak. He didn't speak much later but he understood. (72B695) "My mother used to say to him, 'If you want to go to the movies., you'd better come back and tell me what you saw in Yiddish'. He used to struggle." At the same time, there were families in which even the youngest siblings spoke Yiddish exclusively with their parents, as Ester-Beyle, 66, Itke, 62, and Beyle, 60, each being the youngest in their families, attest. The domains for Yiddish usage are clearly delineated by Rive-Rukhl, who remembers that all of her friends spoke Yiddish with their parents. The public school, even if attended mostly by Jewish pupils who were taught by Jewish teachers, was marked as a non-Jewish setting. Playing on the street was part and parcel of the children's activity sphere, and, hence, the realm of English was embraced in that world. Language choice, according to Rive-Rukhl, was determined by these larger domains and not by specific situations. The school and street required English discourse, whereas the home necessitated Yiddish. It is worth noting that Rive-Rukhl retrospectively associates Yiddish fluency between children and their parents with obligatory attendance in religious school. She recalls: R.P. : Ir meynt az ir hot upgehit yidish meyn vi di andere kinder in gegnt, oder ale kinder hobm gekent demolí? R.R.: Bot ye si di inglish, geyn in skuwl, zayn a kind in skuwl, hot men geven tsvishn goyim, tsvishn alerley mentshn hot men gedurft redn inglish aend in di strit az men geshpilt in de strit mit di kinder iz geven inglish, mit di kinder, az me fleg arayngeyn ba zey in shtib, iz zeyer eitern hobm ekhet geredt yidish, hobm mir geredt yidish tsi zeyere eitern.

188

Rakhmiel Peltz R.P.: Yo, ober a sakh kinder hobm nit gevolt redn yidish mit zeyere eitern, zey hobm nor gevolt redn english. R.R.: Nisht nisht in may tsayt, nisht in may tsayt Mir hobm gedarft geyn in kheyder, ale. (81A271) R.P.: "Do you think that you kept Yiddish up more than the other neighborhood children, or all children knew how then?" R.R.: "But you see the English, going to school, you were among nonJews, among all kinds of people so you had to speak English and in the street when you played in the street with the children it was English, with the children, when you used to go to their house, their parents also spoke Yiddish, so we spoke Yiddish to their parents." R.P.: "Yes, but many children didn't want to speak Yiddish to their parents, they only wanted to speak English." R.R.: "Not not in my time, not in my time. We had to go to religious school, all of us."

Some of the clearest memories the residents call up describe arriving at school and not comprehending English. Itke, for example, explained that even though her elder siblings knew English, they could not convince her ahead of time that in school only English will do. Ultimately, these children of immigrants learned to relegate English to school and Yiddish to home. I don't know if I told you this story, when I started first grade, fortunately ikh ho(b) gehat a titsher vos ken idish "I had a teacher who knew Yiddish", and there was a little boy he pinched me. So I says, 'gey avek fun mir9 "leave me alone". And the teacher says, 'what's the ma- vus iz "what's the matter" what's the matter Etta?' I say, 'titsher, er(ho)t mir geknaypt "teacher, he pinched me". She got hysterical. She says, 'me zukt nit knayp, me zukt pintsh' "you don't say knayp, you say pinch". I say, 'pintsh, shmintsh, tut mir vey, er(ho)t mir vey, er(ho)t mir (ge)gibn a gitn knip' "pinch, shminch, it hurts me, he hurt me, he gave me a good pinch". I didn't know a word. My mother said, 'you gotta learn Jewish'. She said, 'di(ve)st oyslernen english' "you'll learn English". We spoke only Jewish.2 (84A267) The contrast between these two domains is not always recalled with humor, but rather what lingers is the painful remembrance of the trauma of entering a new and unfamiliar setting for second language acquisition. The following incident, which indicates the intimate cultural meaning of a child's name, captures the impact of this jolting encounter:

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children of Jewish Immigrants

189

English hob ikh nit geredt, (i)khob nor gevist yidish. Zi rift, 'Elinor, Elinor, Elinor*, in ikh entfer nit. (I)khob nit gevist az dus iz man numen. Flig men mir gibnpeyperz ale tug nemen aheym. (I)kho(b) gebrakht dipeyperz aheym. Di mome hot genimen di peyperz tsim zeydn, 'vus ken zan?' Biz man onkl, man mornes brider, er hot gezukt, s'iz shon, frier iz gevin fin titsher, nakher(i)z gevin fin printsipl. 'Ikh entfer nit tsi man numen, ikh ken nit lernen'. Hot men shon farshtonen. Man onkl hot geshribm krik, a leter, az ikh ken nit redn english in ikh farshtey nit, derf ar entfer ikh nit. Hot men mir ungefangen in d(e)r(h)eym knakn in kop, dus iz dan numen, dus iz dan numen, dus iz dan numen, dus iz dan numen, biz vonen siz arangekimen in kepele. In ikh gey shen in skuwl nukh amul. In epes, in, der tsveyter tsi driter- bin gegongen- promoted, m(eh)ot mir promoted. Ikh gey fin eyn klaes tsi an ondern. Enyhaew, (i)khob ungefongen lernen, in ikh hob gelernt git. (Elke, 49A034) "I didn't speak English, I only spoke Yiddish. She calls, 'Eleanor, Eleanor, Eleanor', and I don't answer. I didn't know that that was my name. They used to send papers home with me every day. I brought the papers home. My mother took the papers to my grandfather, 'what can be the matter?' Until my uncle, my mother's brother, he said, it's already, first it was from the teacher, then from the principal, 'I don't answer to my name, I can't learn anything'. They understood already. My uncle answered in a letter, that I can't speak English and I don't understand, therefore I don't answer. At home they started banging it into my head, this is your name, this is your name, this is your name, this is your name, until it entered my little head. And I am attending school again. And for some reason, in the second or third I went - I was promoted. I went from one grade to the next. Anyhow, I started to learn, and I studied well." Yiddish was spoken throughout South Philadelphia, on the streets and in the stores. Exposure to the language and opportunities for speaking it continued for those children who stayed in the neighborhood after they left their parents' house. Since this persisted as the Jewish immigrant area in the city, occasions for talking Yiddish could be found until recent years, as fewer and fewer of the original settlers remain. Still, the early experience, influences fluency (Fillmore 1979) of Yiddish speech nowadays. In contrast to the larger cities that had compact immigrant neighborhoods, the support of neighbors, relatives and fellow townspeople from the old country as agents of language acquisition is far less evident in smaller cities. Rather than affirmation of the hegemony of Yiddish in the immigrant household, residents retell with incredulity and humor a narrative in which an immigrant mother uses a Yiddish word to a local Northampton policeman

190

Rakhmiel Peltz

(NE17B070). Differences are also apparent when different New England cities are compared. Those who grew up in larger urban environments that also host a larger Jewish population, such as Worcester or Springfield, will speak more fluently than those who were raised in smaller towns, such as Northampton. All of the children of immigrants understand Yiddish, however, although to varying extents. Within the family, there is usually one person who is most readily identified as a Yiddish speaker, and the child's connection to the language is colored by this familial relationship. In Worcester, for example, both RokhlLeye (NE7B218) and Minke (NE7A635) recall speaking Yiddish exclusively with their mothers and English with their fathers. Freyde-Nekhe was very close to her grandfather and only spoke Yiddish with him. The first time she realized that he could talk English was when he was in the hospital close to death and spoke English to a nurse. She describes this discovery and the ensuing exchange with her grandfather: -

Zeyde, di kenst take redn englishl "Grandpa, you can actually talk English?"

-

Ikh hob gevist a(z) di vest lernen english ober (i)khob gevolt az di zolst visn yidish. "I knew that you would learn English but I wanted you to know Yiddish."

-

In derfar de gantsn leybm ikh hob nor geredt yidish tsu eym un er tsu undz. Aen ikh dank em ale tug derfar ikh hob es zeyer lib. Un ikh denk, a sakh mentshn in mayne yum ken nit redn yidish un ken nisht farshteyen, un ikh dank em ale tug az er hot mir gelernt un ikh ken farshteyen. "And therefore my whole life I only spoke Yiddish to him and he to us. And I thank him every day because I love it. And I think, many people my age cannot speak Yiddish and cannot understand, and I thank him every day because he taught me and I can understand." (NE7A601)

Repeatedly, children of immigrants recount that their parents did not want them to forget Yiddish. How did they accomplish this goal? One woman who grew up in Greensboro, North Carolina interprets her parents' increased borrowing of English words into their Yiddish speech as the very means by which they made Yiddish a natural part of their children's world. This seem-

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children of Jewish Immigrants

191

ingly paradoxical step, in fact, was an act of preservation. (Klein, Min, "This I Remember", p. 19, American Jewish Archives, Oral Histories File, Klein Family). However, the ambivalence and shame that American-born children of immigrants felt should not be neglected. In part, these emotions account for the attenuation of their involvement with Yiddish. The immigrant language, after all, was a badge of peculiarity, and a child might choose to reject this distinctiveness, as this memoir of childhood in Altoona, Pennsylvania relates: At the end of every afternoon Mama rested briefly, cleaned up, put on a fresh apron and sat on the front porch on the swing, reading the Yiddish Daily Forward in full view of the neighborhood. What an agonizing experience that was for us kids, to have our mother flaunt her differentness! I used to cringe at the sight of the Jewish paper that proclaimed to the world that we were not exactly like our neighbors, that we were not quite Americans. (Karp 1983: 30) Being reminded of this difference was often painful, as we see in another biographical account. Although possessing an English name, Lionel, this child was called Leybele by his parents, the loving diminutive of his Yiddish name. ... But all others - Jews and non-Jews alike - called me, until I went to public school, simply 'Laby'. Imagine being called 'Laby' in a town like Waco, Texas. I recall being unmercifully teased with taunts like 'Laby, the cry baby', and much worse. (Koppman, Lionel, "What I Remember", p. 1, Biographies File, American Jewish Archives)

Current Yiddish Language Use In my research in various cities I located very few instances currently of spontaneous Yiddish conversation in public and residential settings. I have documented this for South Philadelphia, the community that has retained the most Yiddish (Peltz 1987; 1988), where such impromptu speech is found among a few of the remaining immigrants. Among the children of immigrants, only two sisters have continued to speak both Yiddish and English with each other. In South Philadelphia today, the children of immigrants vary in age between 60 and 90. Their parents are no longer alive. The opportunities for

192

Rakhmiel Peltz

speaking Yiddish are no longer available, since they generally did not communicate in Yiddish with their peers. They delight in viewing a Yiddish-language performance or in singing and dancing along to a popular Yiddish melody. Such cultural events are organized by the neighborhood Jewish Senior Center. At the Center, I initiated a weekly Yiddish conversation group, called a Gleyzele tey 'Glass of Tea'. Members responded enthusiastically to this opportunity to gather in this relatively unstructured group meeting, where participants generally determined the topics for discussion. During the course of our year together, these included sex and the senior citizen, children without parents, and how to improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. The preponderant subject matter, however, was specifically Jewish in nature. In fact, many conversations reverted to the topic of the interaction of Jews and non-Jews. From the beginning, the participants indicated that the Gleyzele tey meetings were different from other Center activities, that this was a program in which they felt particularly at home. Poor attendance was a problem at the Center's other morning classes, but this was not the case with a Gleyzele tey. Sharing conversation over a glass of tea and, indeed, the very name of the group was designed with the purpose of facilitating comfortable talk. I had observed that talking, for the sake of talking, was a salient activity among the elderly Jews in the neighborhood. Since Yiddish conversation was infrequent in the neighborhood as compared with English, I searched to establish circumstances which would encourage Yiddish "talk" in a group setting. There are advantages to communication in a group environment that a conversation between two individuals can not duplicate. A feeling generated in a group, because it is shared by a critical mass of people, has a heightened effect on any one individual in the group. A communicator who can transmit such a shared emotion through speech, thereby raising the members' consciousness of their commonalities may come to be regarded as a conversational "star", a leader. Such individuals did indeed exist in our Gleyzele tey (Peltz 1988). Besides possessing the skills of rhetoric that are recognized by the community, the conversational "star" recognizes the values held by the group and can elicit an appreciation of such values. Such activity helps foster and cultivate a sense of shared ethnic identity that serves immigrant groups and their descendants well. If members who normally do not talk Yiddish to each other are willing to congregate weekly to do so, there must be special motivating factors. The

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children of Jewish Immigrants

193

immigrants' habit of conversing over a glass of tea was a memory that came alive in a new form on Friday mornings in South Philadelphia. The use of their Yiddish names in the session was also a resurrection of things past, since very often only their parents addressed these South Phildelphians by that name. After the year of meetings had concluded, one member, Leye, published a note in the Center's Beacon (September 1985: 2), that linked the fact that the participants were "encouraged ... to use mame loshen "the mother tongue" and called ... by names our parents called us (which enabled) our present... (to be) enriched by a link with our past". Only one participant expressed the view that the Gleyzele tey program could be interpreted as a mission for rescuing Yiddish. In reality, during the sessions, the future of Yiddish was rarely, if ever, discussed. Yankl, however, clearly realized that this setting for language use was somewhat extraordinary, one to which the residents were not accustomed. At the first meeting of the group, he exclaimed: Ikh veys nit vus di vilst du roteven, indz o di vilst roteven dem yingern folk ... mir zenen arupfinem mark. (1A499) "I do not know whom you want to save, us, or you want to save the younger generation. We are all washed up." Yankl put the issue on the agenda in a report in the Beacon (January 1985: 13): "Even now when the Yiddish language is in jeopardy the Almighty sent us Rakhmiel to teach and restore the language, over a gleyzele tey". Although Yankl alone defined the purpose of the group as an attempt to revive the language, it is possible this was also an underlying if unarticulated purpose of some of the other participants. Due to the popularity of the program, a newspaper featured the group, wherein one member who was interviewed did reinforce Yankl's theme of the renewal of a "dying language". Yiddish is a dying language. It is wonderful to get together and speak it. As a child I spoke Yiddish fluently, but with the passing of my parents, I stopped. Now I'm speaking it again. The group has really kept together. We talk about things in our childhood and what happened in our lives. It's really nostalgic. (Alper 1985a,b). This theme had, however, otherwise not been aired in our group meetings or during my extensive contact with members outside the group meeting. A

194

Rakhmiel Peltz

second member who was also quoted in the paper stressed the place of Yiddish in her early biography and then proceeded to emphasize my catalytic role in the group: I was born in America but grew up speaking Yiddish with my family. Rakhmiel is wonderful. He helps us to speak our minds and brings togetherness to the group. We enjoy one another and enjoy speaking out. The element of joy associated with speaking Yiddish and with congregating for this purpose secured the group's existence and its further development. My presence in the Gleyzele tey group was a special ingredient that cannot be ignored. Although I tried not to determine the topic of conversation or to speak at length, and certainly not to lecture, many members referred to me as teacher. I treated these elderly residents with respect and showed them attention. This is especially important for the elderly who are usually living far from family and are often neglected by family and friends. Furthermore, for a shrinking Jewish community, each and every Jewish activity is valued, and a new activity is especially welcome. The fact that I represented a younger generation symbolized for these elderly Jews the continuity of their customs and values. It was refreshing for them to see that a language which they normally associated with their own youth, now far away, and their parents, now gone, was alive. The Yiddish Gleyzele tey group fostered another strong bond between past and present. On many occasions, neighborhood residents would automatically associate speaking Yiddish with the quintessence of being Jewish, yiddishkeit, and with traditional Jewish observance (Peltz 1987). The local Jews use the term yiddishkeit to connote not only the fundamental state of being Jewish, but also the conglomeration of traditional Jewish ways that they once knew. Reyzl offered her thoughts, with little prompting on my part as interviewer, on this topic: Iz derfar iz dayn kles gevorn azoy groys, bekos di host zey dermant, az siz take du dus yidishkayt. (92A023) "Therefore your class became so big, because you reminded them, that yiddishkeit is really present." Ikh gey krik tse dir. Di host getun a byutiful zakh. Di host gebrenkt dus yidishkayt tsu di mentshn. (92A162) "I return to you. You did a beautiful thing. You brought yiddishkeit to the people."

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children of Jewish Immigrants

195

Di host zey dermant vus zey(hob)m gehat, in zey hobm dus nisht yetst Dus iz zeyer harts. (92Al 06) "You reminded them of that which they had, and they don't have now. That is their heart." According to Reyzl, the Yiddish conversation group stimulated essential emotions within the participants. It touched their inner being, the heart and the soul of personal identification. Although the main thrust of the Gleyzele tey activity was Yiddish conversation, its nature and evolution was shaped by the special history of the neighborhood, the Senior Center and the residents. Similar experiments have taken hold in the United States during the past fifteen years, whereby elderly Jews, preponderantly children of immigrants, have formed hundreds of Yiddish cultural clubs in a variety of institutional frameworks. Some of these are connected to synagogues, Jewish community centers, and residential centers for the elderly. Others take on the form of adult education courses or informal meetings of friends. Since most Jewish communal institutions are not accustomed to offering any Yiddish-language activities, this new interest on the part of children of immigrants in Yiddish is perhaps the major shift in Jewish cultural programming in the United States in recent years. Yet, no study has been made of the phenomenon. Resources of Jewish communal institutions have not been expended to meet the cultural needs of these new Jewish elderly (Peltz, 1990b). This largely spontaneous grass roots endeavor, usually utilizing no professional staff, but rather volunteer facilitators, involves telling stories and jokes, singing songs, guest lectures, films, and reading and speaking Yiddish. At a seminar devoted to utilizing Yiddish conversation as a resource for club meetings, the leadership of such organizations agreed on a set of characteristics that various groups hold in common. For example, the leaders often partake in the world of high Yiddish culture, support the theater and the press, and have difficulty identifying with the Yiddish cultural interests of the elderly children of immigrants in their groups. The leaders usually defend high standards in language, norms for a kulturshprakh that ordinary group members find quite foreign. Since the members have difficulty understanding the literary language, the leaders complain that they cannot read aloud from Yiddish belles lettres to the group. Additionally, they avoid conversational activities since they do not have patience to wait until some less fluent mem-

196

Rakhmiel Peltz

bers utter the proper word (NE1, National Yiddish Book Center Summer Institute, Hampshire College, 6/27/86). This search for Yiddish words long unheard is illustrated in Sore-Tserne's story. She, a child of immigrants from Worcester, digresses in the middle of sharing her biography with a group to recount a proverb that her mother had often used: Ven me geyt in a hospitol, me zogt siz a breyte tir arayntusgeyn - un a~ ikh veys nit vos - narrow, how do you say narrow? (NE7B029) "When one goes to a hospital, one says there's a wide door to enter - and a-1 do not know what" In the Northampton Glezele tey group, on the other hand, any such mention of long forgotten phrases brings on laughter; for example, fintster in di eygn "shockingly hopeless" (NE17A496), nekhtiker tog "utterly impossible" (NE17B015). At one meeting of this group, Freydl, who does not understand nor speak much Yiddish, entered the meeting with joyous excitement. Her children and grandchildren had just left her house, and the place was in a state of disorder. Upon entering the meeting she recalled the Yiddish word ibergekert "turned upside down". This was the exact word she was looking for, and her ability to recall it clearly brought her a feeling of accomplishment (NE16A058). The inception and evolution of the Northampton Yiddish cultural group can provide a case study which epitomizes the recent shift of elderly children of Jewish immigrants to their ethnic mother-tongue, Yiddish. Northampton, home of Smith College, is a city of 30,000, with a Jewish population that numbers about 2,000. The one synagogue has a membership of 200 families. Most of the older members were born in Northampton or Springfield, children of immigrants. None of the original East European immigrants are alive. In 1986, for the first time in the history of the local synagogue, Congregation B'nai Israel, a group of members mostly between the ages of 65 and 75 established a Seniors' group. Most of the members had recently retired from their businesses, although a few still work. At the group's first meetings a variety of social and cultural activities were planned, including bus excursions and guest lectures. At one of the first meetings, I was invited to lead a session related to Yiddish. I chose to lead a conversation, called a Glezele tey, according to the predominant local Lithuanian Yiddish pronunciation. Subsequently, the entire

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children ofJewish Immigrants

197

activity of the group was subsumed under the Glezele tey. Although only a few members are fluent speakers of Yiddish, the focus on Yiddish has succeeded in maintaining a loyal following. Attendance at monthly meetings during the four years of the group's existence varied from 8 to 30. Although the South Philadelphia Gleyzele tey was exclusively devoted to Yiddish conversation, the Northampton Glezele tey coordinates diverse activities. The South Philadelphia Jews are generally fluent in Yiddish; in Northampton, it is difficult for the group to maintain a lengthy discussion. My role in the Philadelphia group was largely facilitator, but I did not very often speak out on issues. In Northampton, although I do not attend every meeting, usually I am much more active at the meeting, supplying Yiddish words, reading stories or teaching songs I have selected. The Northampton Glezele tey has expanded its functions over the years and has developed into a Yiddish cultural club, which supports many ventures. Besides conversing in Yiddish, meetings involve singing, listening to stories, corresponding in Yiddish with members who stay in Florida during the winter, celebrating Hannukah and other holidays festively, potluck suppers, picnics and viewing Yiddish videos. The group has also travelled to New York City to attend Yiddish theater. Members of the group have been invited by the synagogue school to share with the children their reminiscences of growing up in Northampton. In addition, group members are invited to perform at holiday celebrations of the entire synagogue. The most ambitious undertakings of the group have been the organization of two performance events, a Yiddish-English musical comedy and a talent show. The former event required almost a year in planning and involved the writing of an original script and lyrics. The show was called Vos iz geven un vos iz yetst "What Was and What Is Now", depicting the history of the local Jewish community. Although the Glezele tey group planned the entire production, members of all ages were invited to act in the play. This project established the group as a vehicle of intergenerational ethnic education. Despite the panoply of activity, it is Yiddish speaking and Yiddish language that remain the sine qua non of the group. Even the least fluent speakers and the members who comprehend little come to the group because Yiddish is its hallmark. Such members exhort each other to red yidish! "speak Yiddish!" (NE12A106). When other activities dominate most of the session, complaints are heard about not enough time devoted to speaking

198

Rakhmiel Peltz

(NE18B200). When discussion of an excursion to a theatrical performance takes place, and one member suggests an English-language play, the majority express an interest only in a play with Jewish content and in Yiddish (NE16B365). Very few Jewish communal endeavors relating to Yiddish existed in Northamptom before 1986. Although most of the local new Jewish elderly can understand spoken Yiddish, they hardly ever used the language themselves, even as young children. Yet, in this Jewish outpost of America, Yiddish was the major Jewish culture of their youth. As these offspring of immigrants age, they find that indeed they do possess an ethnic culture. A major way to express this group identification is through language. Accordingly, with tenacity and originality, they refashion their recently reacquired language and culture.

Aging, Language and Ethnic Identification Daily morning prayer services are conducted in the synagogues of Holyoke. Ruveyn has been attending every morning during the past year since his father died, in order to say kaddish, a prayer for the dead recited during the year of mourning. One day he suggests that I be invited by a group of Holyoke residents to tell them Yiddish stories. I say, "I bet you know some Yiddish stories that are inside of you". Ruveyn responds, pointing to the chapel, "I guess that's why I am here". Yiddish language, Yiddish speech, Yiddish stories do not exist as isolated touchstones in the Jewish identity of American-born children of immigrants. Repeatedly, residents associate speaking Yiddish with yiddishkeit, the essence of being Jewish. Despite the diversity within each community I observed, as well as when different cities were compared, uniform group behavior and values were discerned. My studies have revealed that second generation American Jews conceive of yiddishkeit, a general feeling of being Jewish, as a pervasive element in their personal identity. This condition encompasses being raised in a Jewish household and among Jewish relatives and neighbors, belief in God, observing kashrus "the dietary laws", preparing traditional foods, speaking Yiddish, observing holidays and being interested in Jewish people and issues. Even people who do not follow the rules of kashrus, do not attend synagogue and do not observe the sabbath or holidays, feel that they still adhere to yiddishkeit.

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children of Jewish Immigrants

199

The strong attachment to Yiddish language as a component of yiddishkeit, even when the second generation Jew does not speak Yiddish, is a sign of the strong identification with an oral culture that is transmitted in the home by the immigrant parents. The most fundamental bases of Jewish tradition are not the synagogue, the local federation of Jewish agencies, or Zionism and the state of Israel, but rather the immigrant culture of the kitchen, of celebrating holidays at home, of hearing Yiddish in the house. Be it attitudinal or behavioral, by embracing this attachment to Yiddish, these older Jewish-Americans are currently demonstrating a return to the ethnic culture of their youth. Further research should focus on the nature of the cultural elements of this popular, traditional folkculture that second generation immigrants possess, as well as the modes of its transmission. The evidence brought forward in this paper is in agreement with the view that ethnic identity is malleable, changeable over time and according to situation. The factors that affect variation in the individual and the group are numerous and interrelated. Suffice it to say at this point that children of immigrants exhibit multiple identities that interact and overlap depending on context and historical events. In the earlier literature, at a time when theories of ethnicity were emerging, yet case studies were still limited, Barth (1969: 17) asserted that ethnic identity is ... imperative, in that it cannot be disregarded and temporarily set aside by other definitions of the situation. The constraints on a person's behaviour which spring from his ethnic identity thus tend to be absolute. However, analysis of empirical data such as that of Sinhalese-Buddhist identity in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), soon uncovered a far more complex and flexible conception: When an individual's commitments to his other identities have weakened, his commitment to his ethnic identity will be enhanced ... With the dissolution of these other identities the ethnic identity, often revitalized and refashioned to suit the changed social conditions, helps to give a sense of meaning and coherence to the individual's existence. (Obeyesekere 1975: 256) The idea of ethnic identity as a pliable social construction was recently embraced by Kellogg (1990: 28) in a treatise that purports to emphasize the centrality of ethnic identity in contemporary American family life. Kellog,

200

Rakhmiel Peltz

furthermore, in trying to account for the persistence of ethnicity, localizes it in the private and family realms, as I have in my discussion of the contemporary yiddishkeit of elderly children of Jewish immigrants: Ethnic identity symbolizes a history that families mediate for individuals, particularly children. It allows children to form a sense of belonging and attachment to both the family and the larger ethnic group. (Kellogg 1990: 37) One aspect of the development and meaning of ethnic identity that has received relatively little notice, although it represents a perspective that is universally applicable, is that of change over the life cycle. Many of the insights gained from gerontology come from the underlying supposition of that field that flux and growth are always occurring, at all stages of life and during all periods of history. The anthropologist Myerhoff (1978; 1980), in an eloquent ethnography of elderly immigrant Jews in Venice, California, underscored how ethnic resources play a positive role during aging. Moreover, she and her colleagues have been responsible for stressing the cyclical nature of ethnic involvement over the life cycle: high levels of engagement in the early years, followed by an eclipse, and a subsequent intensification during the later years (Simic 1985: 68; Weibel-Orlando 1988: 329). In general, however, neither organizational affiliation, nor behavioral acts, nor psychological orientation relating to identification with the ethnic group have been subjected to careful scrutiny in relation to longitudinal studies of aging. If we turn to language, which Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985: 370) identify as the "focal centre of our acts of identity", we also find meager attention to the changing attitude toward and use of ethnic language during the life cycle. To a great extent, this reflects the paucity of interest in broadly treating language and aging (Eckert 1984: 230-231). When language behavior of the non-diseased elderly is scrutinized, it is seen purely as a series of deficits, either speech impairments, poor intelligibility or memory loss (Emery 1985; Light and Albertson 1988; Zelinski 1988). This attitude on the part of researchers parallels the once standard approach to aging and the aged that viewed older people as cultureless and incapable of interacting within the social system and dominant cultural tradition (Simic 1978). The field desperately lacks a serious inquiry into the transformations in ethnic language during the life changes of members of ethnic groups. Does the significance of ethnic language and culture indeed intensify as other identities subside, and vice versa?

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children ofJewish Immigrants

201

Seliger (1989) has worked on the attrition of first language over the life cycle, and Clyne (1984) was one of the few to show interest in whether first language reversion in elderly bilinguals is related to monolingualism or bilingualism during childhood. At the present time, we have only fragmentary evidence of correlations between increased ethnic cultural awareness and greater interest in and use of ethnic language on the part of the elderly. This has been depicted for Jewish-Americans in a study that posited a variety of cultural and religious involvements as related to greater satisfaction and self-esteem (Saul 1983). In addition, we learn of the utility and popularity of programs in Yiddish instruction for staff at a Jewish long-term care facility (Berman et al. 1986). However, at least in these specific cases, second generation immigrants are not differentiated. Rempusheski's (1988) work on second generation Polish-Americans is an exception, showing that this group does seek out an environment in which to express its ethnic identity, and that they tend to appreciate and use Polish more as they get older. Another example of second generation cultural return of the elderly is that of French-Americans in New England (Portes 1982; Woolfson 1990). Although the confluence of language, culture and aging with an expressed interest in the descendants of immigrants has largely been ignored by researchers, the field of family therapy which values the interlocking relations of different generations as keys to understanding family dynamics has highlighted the ethnic language behavior of such diverse groups as Cuban-, Greek-, Irish-, and Vietnamese-Americans (McGoldrick et al. 1982). Among ethnic minorities in this country, perhaps because of their traditional role as repositories of wisdom and culture, we find a wealth of data on the increased identification of older Native Americans with their ethnic culture and language in present day America (Saunders and Davis 1974; Svensson 1974; Amoss 1981). The most striking examples relate to the migration of urban Native Americans back to the reservation after their retirement (Weibel-Orlando 1990). A role which they play that Jewish-Americans rarely assume nowadays is that of cultural conservator and instructor of the grandchildren. The studies we have obviously do not all indicate universal embracement of the language and culture of their youth on the part of ethnic Americans. For example, in di Leonardo's (1984) work with second generation ItalianAmericans in Northern California, fluency in the native Italian dialect was exhibited only when talking with aged relatives. Overall, attenuation, and not

202

Rakhmiel Peltz

enhancement of cultural involvement was predominant. In my own work, although I attempt to have contact with a variety of neighborhood residents, my research design, which includes fieldwork in Jewish institutions and the introduction of Yiddish speech, gives less attention to those who do not identify with cultural organizations and ethnic language. Furthermore, Luborsky and Rubinstein (1990: 238) warn that revitalization may also activate anxieties associated with loss of family members and cultural heritage. We may also question whether the phonemonen of return is limited to this time in American history and may not be a characteristic of aging children of immigrants in the future. The patterns we have noted for the case of Yiddish in the United States are not restricted to second generation Jewish-Americans, but apply to other groups as well. Krause's (1979) comparison of Italian-American, JewishAmerican and Slavic-American grandmothers, mothers and daughters showed some use of the European language by 81%, 58% and 12% respectively of the three generations. But when asked if learning the ethnic language should be a priority, 75% of the mothers, the group with the bilingual childhood experience, answered positively, as compared with 52% of the grandmothers and 53% of the daughters. Although isolated examples of long-term retention of ethnic language use persist (Thomas 1979), the recent survey by Fishman (1985d) reports that in the United States only those communities that ensure stable residential and cultural segregation exhibit ethnic mother-tongue maintenance beyond the second generation. In fact, Fishman (1982) has exhorted the secular Yiddish speech community to secure Yiddish in its primary institutions and to effect physical and ideological separation, in order to guarantee continuity of language and culture. The language situation of school-aged children of Italian immigrants to Australia has been examined to reveal that the pattern of language use that the Jewish-Americans describe for their youth also pertains to this ethnic group, on another continent, a half-century later. Generally, Italian dialect is restricted to interactions with the ethnic elders, not with siblings, and increasingly a mixture of English and Italian is used as the language of the home. In addition, going to school marks the beginning of English use for as many as 35% of the pupils (Smolicz 1983). Also, as with Jewish-Americans, so too did Norwegian-Americans restrict their ethnic language use to the home (Haugen 1989: 69). The children may respond to their parents in English, as happens in other language groups, however the lack of production of lan-

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children ofJewish Immigrants

203

guage does not imply the inability to perceive and comprehend (Troike 1970). Indeed, this asymmetry of production and perception obtains in households in which parents speak one language and children another. The emphasis in linguistic research on production and the inventory of losses associated with language shift has often caused neglect of what Dorian (1982) has termed the "working margins" of the speech community. Nonfluent speakers, like some of the second generation American Yiddish speakers I have studied, can be significant members of the Yiddish speech community, since they have mastered both receptive skills and sociolinguistic norms of appropriateness (Dorian 1982: 30-31). Gal (1989) has emphasized that continued use of the ethnic mother-tongue can be a strong statement of group solidarity and that the new social and linguistic forms that emerge parallel with language shift are worthy of further scrutiny. We have in the present study attempted to make this point regarding the group cohesiveness that is engendered by speaking Yiddish. Elsewhere, I have presented the forms of Yiddish speech of the second generation as a topic that can help us better understand the history of Yiddish (Peltz 1990a). Gal (1989) pleads with linguists to abandon the pastoral position that focusses on the old conservative "authentic" forms and to turn to the newer changing forms associated with cultural contact and shift. Future work on the variably contracting and expanding use of Yiddish can also benefit from empirical and theoretical approaches to second language acquisition. As Anderson (1989: 385) discusses, just as second language learners rarely come in contact with speakers who use the language, so too do second- and third-generation speakers rarely have the input necessary for remaining competent speakers. Empirically, one could expose the speakers at various ages to native speakers in ethnic communal settings and measure the differential effects on reception and production, in order to better understand the determinants that influence and limit increased use. In short, the most striking finding in the present study is the fervor, enthusiasm and deep pathos which characterize the new engagement of elderly second generation Jewish-Americans with Yiddish, which was either their first language, or at least the first language of their parents. This excitement arises from a warm feeling associated with the individual and collective memories that are conjured up by use of the language. Concurrently, this constitutes a significant part of the contemporary ethnic identity of these elderly individuals. As Connerton (1989: 103) explains, these two aspects can

204

Rakhmiel Peltz

become linked in the present: the memory persists in a new contemporary form, even though the historical context may not be remembered. Although we have not yet documented the extent to which children of immigrants rejected the ethnic language and culture during the eclipse of their middle years, it would be interesting to see whether they engaged more actively with remembrances of the past during this period of rejection and thereby retained vivid memories that are now available to them. Given our current understanding of aging, we can only speculate as to how the past may be united with the present. Butler (1963), who was one of the first to underscore the significance of life review for the aged, has also been a critic of the notion of identity. The continuous life-long search for selfunderstanding, as opposed to the process of defining and consolidating one's past identifications, is a sign of health. From this viewpoint, the life-review process of the elderly does not redefine their being in terms of their youth or resolve old conflicts; rather, it allows a reintegration of past experiences and emotions into their ever-changing lives. The ethnicity of elderly JewishAmericans, subsuming language and culture as strong components, is a construction that these new Jewish elderly actively produce in the present. Kaufman (1981: 84) sees such newly constructed themes as the older adults' ways of adapting to their environment "by symbolically connecting past experience with current circumstances". Indeed, for many of the older Jews the symbolic strength of their ethnic language has outweighed the effect of their involvement in speech, either through production and/or reception. Theorists of ethnic identity have acknowledged that all cultural features, and especially language, can be used emblematically (Romanucci-Ross and De Vos 1975: 369; De Vos 1975: 15). According to Eastman and Reese (1981: 110), in order to identify strongly with ethnic language one does not have to understand or speak it, but only feel associated with it, since "language is an aspect of our self-ascription". However, we should not deemphasize the intensity of feeling toward Yiddish that we have observed and the concentrated linguistic and cultural experience of their youth that these children of immigrants recall so vividly. The prediction of Gans (1979) that the third and fourth generation does not have intense ethnic identity needs and is content with empty, diluted symbols does not apply to these second generation members. They can benefit both from the symbolic strength of Yiddish and the enjoyment of active involvement with Yiddish speech, be it in some cases only as listeners.

Ethnic Identity and Aging: Children ofJewish Immigrants

205

As an age cohort, second generation American Jews share with each other their current processes of aging, as they have in the past, as well as the common experience of historic events. As the descendants of immigrants, they were involved in their parents' specific life experiences, which colored their own decisions and evaluations. As fellow travelers through history, they have reacted to a host of circumstances that have drastically affected the fate of their language and culture, including their own and their children's Americanization, the destruction of the heartland of Yiddish in Eastern Europe by the Nazis, and the growth of the Jewish state of Israel, which has fostered Hebrew alongside the diminution of Jewish languages, including Yiddish. All of these factors have helped recast their Jewishness, just as other determinants have influenced the development of other not specifically Jewish aspects of their lives. Exploring changes in identity during the life cycle helps to explain why residents of South Philadelphia or Northampton, Holyoke or Worcester, even those who rarely speak Yiddish, if at all, respond so enthusiastically when Yiddish is spoken.

Notes 1.

Preparation of this study was aided by a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture (1989-1990). Research at the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, was facilitated by the Starkoff Fellowship.

2.

In their English speech, children of Jewish immigrants generally refer to the Yiddish language as "Jewish".

W(h)ither Ethnic Languages and Bilingual Education in the US? Crisis & the Struggle between Hegemony & Humanism Rolf Kjolseth Univeristy of Colorado

This essay is intended as a reflective and speculative discussion of the following question: Under current conditions in the United States will ethnic languages and bilingual education flourish (whither) or flounder (wither)? I will argue that although now most ethnic languages and bilingual education programs are doomed to withering, nevertheless conditions may soon change in a radical manner and reverse ethnic language's and bilingual education's destinies in this country so that they may yet flourish. From this point of view, the salient questions become: 1. What conditions currently discourage ethnic language use and doom bilingual education? 2. Why might these conditions change? 3. What new conditions might encourage the use of ethnic languages and support bilingual education? For this discussion a few definitions are necessary. Throughout, by ethnic languages I mean any language other than standard American English actually used in the US. Also, by "bilingual education programs" I am referring to publicly (not privately) financed bilingual education programs designed for pluralistic (not assimilationistic) goals of supporting and developing stable (not transitional) group (not individual) bilingualism and ethnic language maintenance (Kjolseth 1982).

208

Rolf Kjolseth Three key presuppositions underlie the perspective of this essay:

1. It is assumed that ethnic languages and bilingual education (like anything else in the social world) do not have any intrinsic value (good or bad) but what counts is determined by the values attributed to them by persons in society at some particular time and place. Therefore, while here and now negative values may be attributed to ethnic language use and bilingual education; they are seen as dangerous, divisive, deficient, etc., - at another time or place they may have the opposite, positive values attributed to them; they are seen as bringing security, solidarity and sufficiency. 2. Humans do not and cannot evaluate things like ethnic languages and bilingual education, or anything else in isolation. Evaluations are always comparative value judgments made within large, complex contexts. I will refer to these large interpretive contexts as "paradigms" or "world views". 3. As homo sapiens we are that unique species which is faced with the "cosmological imperative" of inventing and constructing a universe of meanings without which we cannot live. For example, since homo sapien's appearance on earth, hundreds of thousands of human societies have constructed their own distinctive spoken languages without which none of them could have existed. And, within their language communities all humans are launched upon what I would like to call "The Great Vision Quest", where as a minimum each society must develop answers to three generic and essential questions: 1. Who are we? 2. Where are we in what kind of a world? 3. What are we to do? The collectively accepted answers to these three questions establish basic parameters contributing to the definition of the society's world view which in turn becomes an interpretive paradigm within which all other things (including language varieties, identity repertoires and educational goals and strategies) are assessed and evaluated. Therefore, how issues of language and ethnicity are viewed depends upon the collectivity's dominant world view. The thesis of this essay can now be restated as follows: In the United States, the currently dominant, mainstream world view (who, where, what) interprets ethnic language use and bilingual education programs as antitheti-

W(h) ither Ethnic Languages and Bilingual Education in the US

209

cal to the "nature" of the national self-concept and therefore as something that should wither and decay. However, the possibility exists that this self-concept could change such that ethnic language use and bilingual education programs would come to be seen in a reverse light as conforming to a new world view of national self so that they would be something to affirm and support. In this perspective then, the transvaluation of the worth of ethnic language use and bilingual education depends upon reappraisal of the national cosmology. The proper issue for our critical attention then becomes not language, ethnicity, or bilingual education per se, but rather national identity: the national sense of self, world, and the country's relation to it. Thus the crucial questions are: 1. What is the current world view that negates ethnic language use and bilingual education programs in the US? 2. What could shake and alter this existing world view? 3. What alternative world view might affirm ethnic language use and bilingual education programs? Caveats. Before taking up each of these three questions, it should be made explicitly clear that this discussion is operating on an overarching level of generality. In actuality the United States is a very large, diverse, complex collectivity. Yet, for all its diversities, some common threads do run through and across them. Here we are concerned with those threads.

The Hegemonic Paradigm - The Received World View in the U.S. Who are we? In the popular cosmology, the national identity is understood as being a unique new monolingual amalgam forged out of diverse linguistic and cultural immigrant predecessors. Becoming a native (mother tongue) speaker of American English is a badge of identity. Group monolingualism in English is a source of pride. Also common is what I have elsewhere analyzed as a complex "cultural politics" (Kjolseth 1983) of apparently contradictory attitudes towards ethnic language use and bilingualism. The public constantly hears the uncontested refrain that they are the "richest, most powerful nation on earth", or as President Eisenhower once put it in the 1950s, "we are the mightiest nation that God ever permitted to sit on his footstool".

210

RolfKiolseth

Where are we? The world is seen as a dangerous, threatening place of infinite resources and ever expanding frontiers. This world is divided along the lines of a vertical hierarchy of dominance and subjugation - of superior and inferior peoples, cultures, and languages. Within this world, the position of the US is seen as being at the top. In fact the powerful nations of the North are up, and on top in all the global maps affirming this world view which is believed to be completely natural. Symptomatically, in the 1980s Ronald Reagan campaigned successfully on the promise of "keeping America Number 1" with a program of "Peace Through Strength". What are we to do? The people of the US have a mission: a manifest destiny to bring their secular religion of capitalist expansion (the American Way of Life) to all the peoples of the world. Both nature and the earth's peoples are there for the US to conquer; by force, finance, or example. The mainstream ideology has been assimilation (The Melting Pot is still hot) with a sidestream ideology of pluralism. The result is that linguistic and cultural differences are only tolerated or celebrated after they have been tamed and domesticated, as Fishman's (1985d) recent study of "The Ethnic Revival" shows. This mainstream ideology has steadily flowed over the most diverse immigrant groups, marking their languages as "ethnic" and relentlessly eroding away these non-English mother tongues in a steady process of language shift that has transported most immigrant groups through transitional bilingualism to English monolingualism within three generations (Fishman 1966). The 1960s was a period of turbulence in this national river, with eddies appearing such as the civil rights movement, the discovery of the "invisible" poor (Harrington 1962), and the quagmire of the Vietnam war with the attendant popular resistance and protest movements. Sidestream voices began to be heard, among them voices speaking up for minority linguistic rights and advocating the advantages to individual, group and nation of stable bilingualism, pluralistic bilingual education (Kjolseth 1978), and viewing ethnic languages as a national resource (Fishman 1966). These sidestream eddies produced some impressive, momentary results before being washed out or diluted in the Reagan 80s which were dedicated to restabilizing the mainstream within its original channels of white male privilege, economic inequality, assimilation and foreign intervention. Thus ethnic

W(h)ither Ethnic Languages and Bilingual Education in the US

211

language use and group bilingualism are still seen as a problem and threat to national identity (Fishman 1972b) that should be eliminated and bilingual education is seen as un-American at worst or as a remedial means of assimilation at best. Spokespersons for the hegemonic paradigm proclaim themselves "realists" and claim that the civil rights and bilingual education movements were liberal fantasies that have now fortunately been contained.

The Current National/World Crisis But how realistic are these realists? The world and all its nations have now entered a qualitatively new period of enduring crisis that is already decades old. Some are beginning to realize the faint outlines of this crisis and as they do, it is challenging the hegemonic world view. In a genuine crisis, received explanations cease to work, but the degree to which this is realized or accepted is highly variable. Denial is not uncommon. Nostalgia may prevail. Fiddling with trivia (e.g. flag burning) may become common as well as seizing opportunities for national mobilizations (e.g. Saudi Arabia), distracting attention from the larger, deeply disturbing issues and thereby postponing any critical reassessment of the previous understandings and deferring a search for new perspectives. Such a politics of distraction may be understandable but counterproductive if it places the members of the society ever more out of touch with where the rest of the world is actually going. One may become accustomed to a crisis-a-day as they serially appear and disappear from the headlines, where they are successively noticed, forgotten, and rediscovered by the media which presents them as just more single examples of things that aren't working the way they are supposed to. What will make a difference is when they are grasped as "all adding up" and making sense as parts of a new, larger whole. Then one will have made the transition to a new paradigm and world view. But for now, they are in the main cast as just so many separate, disturbing crises - more than can be mentioned here where I will now note only a few with their dismal digits. The Domestic Crisis. The signs of decline and decay are everywhere. Within the US, one fifth of the population is a permanent underclass trapped in poverty and more than a million are homeless, many of them families. The inner

212

RolfKiolseth

cities are in disgraceful decay and maintenance of the country's infrastructure of roads, bridges, dams, sewage treatment plants, etc. have been suspended (to "save money") thus creating a repair "time bomb" with a $1 Trillion price tag. For every middle class family better off today than a decade ago, there are two middle class families who are worse off, even with two incomes now instead of one previously. In their family budgets, two equals less then one. The children of working parents require day care that neither they, the government, nor the employers can afford. The minimum wage stays frozen for eight years. Two out of three new jobs created are dead ends and won't support a family. For increasing numbers, the American dream of owning one's own home is only that - a dream. On top of that, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) turns out to have been parlayed into a Billion dollar giveaway program for the rich. The health system is so flawed that although $600 Billion, or about 11% of the GNP was spent on health care in 1989, - more than any other country on earth - still, 37 million citizens have no health insurance and the infant mortality rate ranks 22nd in the developed world (Census 1987). Education is being increasingly privatized and even so-called "public education" has long been far from free and is becoming increasingly expensive. The price tag at "public" universities increased 60% between 1980 and 1987 (Census 1987). Family income has become the best single indicator of school attendance at all levels. More Blacks are in prison than in college and every prisoner, Black or White, costs more per year than tuition at Harvard. A full quarter of the nation's students drop out before completing high school, functional illiteracy estimates for so-called minority groups hover around 40% (and around 25% for all American adults), and student's math scores are below the mean for all industrialized countries (National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983). Meanwhile the government hardly cares "two cents" for much of what most of the population needs. Of each federal tax dollar, only two cents is given for education, two cents for housing, and two cents for the environment. At the same time, the military takes fifty-two cents of that dollar (CDI 16:7.1). The United States, once the world's largest creditor nation, is now the world's largest debtor nation (CDI 16:7.7). In the single decade of the 80s, the national debt tripled from $1 to $3 Trillion, more than in the entire previous history of the country since George Washington (CDI 13:4.2). After two cen-

W(h) ither Ethnic Languages and Bilingual Education in the US

213

turies of producing more for export than was imported, competitiveness has steadily sunk, as is reflected in the trade deficit that rose from $40 Billion in 1981 to over $200 Billion today ($50 Billion just with Japan alone in 1989) so that the combination of trade and federal budget deficits, i.e. the national debt, will soon tie up in yearly interest payments an amount ($300 Billion) comparable to the country's yearly military expenditures (Broder 1990). Estimates for the Savings & Loan bankruptcies now reach $500 Billion (the equivalent of $2000 for every man, woman and child in the country), to which can be added the unpayable Third World debt crisis to which US banks are overexposed (Stallings & Kaufman 1989). In addition, after spending $1 Trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since 1945 to insure "national security", the public's health has been compromised by creating somewhere around 15,000 contaminated military waste dumps and millions of tons of radioactive waste for which there is no safe and permanent means of disposal (CDI 18:6.1). Currently all US nuclear reactors producing tritium and plutonium for nuclear weapons have been shut down because they are outdated, rundown and unsafe. The Department of Energy estimates it would cost $110 Billion (that's equivalent to $2 million for every nuclear warhead the US ever produced) just to bring these nuclear facilities back on line (CDI 18:6.7). A melancholy consequence is that two of the largest growth industries in the US are now garbage (toxic and radioactive) and bankruptcy. The nation has stolen from its children and mortgaged their future by refusing to pay for its most extravagant projects. Individual debt bondage is universally abhorred and officially illegal, but collective debt bondage has become the norm. Looming above all these "dismal digits" is the militarized, permanent war economy of the national security state. Taken collectively, the US military establishment is the world's largest industry (Melman 1988:9). Department of Defense employees and their dependents number over one million and the country maintains 375 major bases and hundreds of minor installations in 35 foreign countries (CDI 18:2.1). The annual military budget has tripled since President Nixon, with $2 Trillion (equal to $21,000 for every US household) spent just between 1981 and 1987 (CDI 16:7.1). One third of all US research and development spending and 70% of all federal research dollars are taken by "mission oriented" military projects while basic research is starved and the productivity and competitiveness of industries sinks (Dumas & Thee 1989).

214

RolfKiolseth

The revolving door of the military-industrial complex where military contractors hire former military officials, spins ever faster: up 500% between 1975 and 1985 with 3,842 top Department of Defense officials landing well-paid jobs with defense contractors in 1985 alone (CDI 16:3). In addition to this cozy symbiosis, the majority of defense contracts are let without competitive bidding and according the Admiral James D. Watkins, in 1985 these military contractors averaged over four times as much profit as they did on their commercial contracts (CDI 16:3.7). Hardly surprising then that eight out of the top ten military contractors have been found guilty of massive fraud and waste (CDI 15:1.3). In addition to corruption at home, this militarized economy has produced unilateralism abroad with manifest disrespect for international law and diplomacy. Some recent examples are the US government's refusal to recognize the decisions of the World Court, withdrawal from UNESCO, refusal to pay up its dues to either the United Nations or the Organization of American States, assassination attempts against foreign leaders (Libya), military intervention, economic warfare (Nicaragua), open invasion (Grenada, Panama), and massive mobilizations for resource wars (Saudi Arabia). The Senate hearings on "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders" and the Watergate scandal of the mid 70s plus the IranContra scandal of the mid 80s revealed only a little of the unraveling that has taken place in the way the public thought things were supposed to work. As former Costa Rican president Rodrigo Carazo warned, the problem with military establishments is that they can take their own countries hostage. The World Crisis. The gap between rich and poor continues to grow and has become a yawning chasm. The nations of this earth now spend about half a Trillion dollars per year on military expenditures, primarily to protect privilege and to keep the poor in their place. Conventional wars have killed approximately 10 million since WWII. Every year 12 million children die of starvation before reaching their fifth year. Meanwhile, the two top ranked exports of the US remain arms and food - although food relief programs usually cost more in one year than would a 5-year local investment program that could make the food relief unnecessary (Brandt 1980: 94). The value of Third World export commodities are depressed and unstable while the costs of their imports from the developed world soar, generating perpetual debts renegotiated under conditions imposed by the rich lenders that suffocate the poor majority and perpetuate underdevelopment. "Free" trade continues to

W(h) ither Ethnic Languages and Bilingual Education in the US

215

give more advantage to the developed countries and has let the devil (and the bankers) take the hindmost, widening the gap between rich and poor, and deepening the debt bondage of entire countries and their future generations. Meanwhile massive needs go unmet: for water and soil management projects, for land reform, for health, education, transportation and communication infrastructure, energy development, afforestation, etc. This ragged development has now deployed the industrial revolution around world in a manner and scope as to threaten humanity's very existence by pushing up against the limits of the life sustaining biosphere: ozone depletion, global warming, starvation, the AIDS plague, the crushing Third World debt and arms race including nuclear proliferation have closed the circle, touching all earth's inhabitants. Summary. The world has become a paradox. For example, in the name of "National Security" the government developed the doctrine of nuclear deterrence: security was based upon the ability to annihilate chosen adversaries. In fact, in the name of national security these "realists" have been risking global extinction. The surprise of "Nuclear Winter" made it possible to see just how out of touch this was with our species and with nature. Yet although the threat of nuclear deterrence is no longer credible, "enhanced" deterrence is proposed, demonstrating the depth of this collective insanity. In all this (and much more that could be said along the same lines) there are probably no unfamiliar pieces. What is still mysterious is the awesome whole. What does it all mean? The Great Vision Quest hovers between the received world view that no longer fits with what is happening, and a new world view that is still in the process of being discovered. It is to this nascent world view-in-formation that I now turn.

Whither the US? - Can/Will It Change? The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer noted, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident". In the eyes of the hegemonic 'realists', the new world view is presently between stages one and two; ridicule and opposition. But the world has, and continues to change ever faster and they may yet catch up with it and get to three.

216

RolfKiolseth

Nobody predicted the dramatic 1989 changes in Eastern Europe or Germany's speedy reunification. It should now be evident that the 'realists' were stuck in the old paradigm: their predictions were dead wrong. Therefore, let us take a leap out into a world view that might fit these changes and speculate on its possible consequences for the US, concepts of identity, ethnic language use and bilingual education. Caveats. There is no guarantee that recognition of the existing national/world crisis will occur in anything like a straightforward manner, and Kuhn (1962) suggests that paradigm shifts are not continuous but abrupt. Also, a societal reaction to crisis may go in any direction depending upon what is formed along the path of the nation's Vision Quest. Khomeini and the radical conservative Iranian Revolution of 1979 is a reminder of the diversity of paradigmatic shifts that are possible. Nevertheless, a chorus of signs are pointing in another direction, indicating that something like the following is a distinct possibility.

The Humanistic Paradigm - An Alternative World View for the US Who is the US? In this view, the nation is not monolingual but rather a multilingual society where at least one out of eight persons in the US is born into a home where a language other than English is spoken (Fishman 1985d: 108-176). This is seen as an advantage because it gives the country more fit with the multilingual world with which it is necessary to co-exist in mutual dialogue. It is recognized that one of the greatest national resources is the immigrant population and the development of their abilities including their native language abilities which sound policy seeks to identify and cultivate. The country has now come to see itself not as young but rather as old, having for example one of the oldest uninterrupted political systems on earth. This political continuity assures security but also creates the need for reform to escape a creeping sclerosis as shown by several indicators such as rampant government corruption and massive voter abstention. The nation knows that it is no longer "Number 1" and is glad of it because that presumptuous claim bore a fatal delusion to which many were addicted - an "arrogance of power" (Fulbright 1966) that bred ignorance and incorrigibility which the nation is happy to abandon as it seeks to learn about

W(h) itherEthnicLanguages and Bilingual Education in the US

217

and work with others in this hectic, heterogeneous world. Thus it is seen as an advantage for the nation to take its place as an equal at the roundtable of nations. The country remains committed to securing its self-interests which now are seen not as national security, but rather as the mutual security of interdependent nations. It is understood that true interests reach beyond national boundaries and that one's security depends upon one's neighbor's well being, not higher fences and more locks on the doors. The motto is not Peace through Strength, but Peace through Justice - peace with nature, and with "liberty and justice for all". Where is the US? This world is a finite, fragile place where the human built environment has become capable of threatening the biosphere upon which humans depend for their existence. The international division of labor has globalized all earth's economies and interdependence has enveloped all nations. All the air and liquid oceans as well as all land masses and the entire flora and fauna of the globe are within the influence of human activities from the ozone of the stratosphere to the krill off Antarctica, to the butterfly in the tropical rain forest. Humans have been extincting more plant and animal species and contaminating more areas of the habitat than ever before, forcing the realization that the hegemonic path is suicidal. The humanistic path leads to the understanding that we are all citizens in a world of complete interdependence - of humans with humans and humans with nature - where all major problems transcend national boundaries. This world is not vertical but actually horizontal where "what goes around, comes around" and where the divisions of distinct peoples, cultures and languages provide authentic, alternate realities - a cultural diversity as important to the survival of our species as the biological diversity of nature's flora and fauna is essential to a sustainable biosphere. What is the US to do? The human species must avoid the two distinct possibilities of rapid omnicide via nuclear holocaust and gradual ecocide through unsustainable development. Humans have created an environment that they cannot possibly survive. Therefore, they have no choice but to recreate a new environment that they can survive. Humans must create a sustainable future. They must abandon the hegemonic paradigms of violence against nature and against their fellow humans in favor of a humanistic paradigm of world en-

218

RolfKiolseth

compassing dialogue, negotiation, law and cooperation to deal with their interconnected problems. But the US will not be able to embark on this path as long as it is held hostage by its militarized economy. The nation's security forces are destroying its best defenses. The only power strong enough to overthrow the US is its own military-industrial complex. There never was a Cold War, and everyone lost it! The Soviet Union never planned a massive invasion of Europe. The US sacrificed its health, its wealth, and its best minds to the false gods of war and domination. The real enemy is within. A dual economy has developed; the noncompetitive, wasteful economy of the arms race and a highly competitive civilian economy that has been losing ground internationally to countries with budgets less fettered by military ties. The hegemonic view led the US to defend itself by tying its own hands to military options. Yesterday's "solution" has become today's problem. The hegemonic "realists" have bankrupted the US and sabotaged its economic competitiveness. The result has been the development of underdevelopment both at home and abroad, - and all in the name of security. This is the paradox of (hegemonic) national security. Within the humanistic paradigm it is realized that true, i.e. mutual security cannot be accomplished without development, but those needed developments cannot take place at home or abroad without disarmament. The 40 year history of "arms control" negotiations has been a cruel and costly deception, camouflaging controlled escalation. Current arms control agreements such as the INF Treaty and the START talks are still largely cosmetic as they maintain the tradition of subterfuge by again restricting older, outdated weapons while leaving the door open for "modernization" of existing systems and the development of new and more destructive weapons. The hoax continues as land based ICBMs are coming up for reductions, while sea and space based systems expand. And troops the US had facing East in the Cold War are now being repositioned to face South, using Drug Lords, socalled terrorism and "strategic resources vital to the national security" as covers for wars dubbed "low intensity conflicts" against landless peasants and poor urban majorities (Klare & Kornbluh 1988) or regional police actions. The military monkey is on the country's back. It is the country's major addiction. The government cannot take it or leave it like a social drinker but has developed such a deep military-industrial-university-media complex of vested interests, rationalizations and self-deceptive delusions that this addiction is out of control and threatening the society's existence. This year (1990)

W(h) ither Ethnic Languages and Bilingual Education in the US

219

the administration swore it would show its "control" by reducing its rate of increase for arms spending. If that were a drinker talking one would easily identify this action as the plain insanity of a bona fide alcoholic (Alcoholics Anonymous 1988: 40). The political economy of the US is certifiably "waraholic", and desperately needs help in fighting this lethal disease. The defense budget is just the symptom. The disease is the hegemonic vision that seeks to control everything. "Post-Hegemonists" have had to throw this lifelong conception out the window and have faith in the ability of the world's people to know and control their own lives. This is the principle of self-determination which the US claimed for itself in its Declaration of Independence and incorporated in its Constitution. It is also fundamental to the "Declaration of Human Rights" of the United Nations, an organization that deserves the support of those who seek to "form a more perfect union" for the globalized society. "Cold Turkey" demilitarization of the US is not going to happen and it would cause disastrous unemployment, human displacement and misery if it did. What is needed is a planned program of coordinated demilitarization and conversion to a civilian political economy. This restructuring (Perestroika USA) may be harder in the US than in the Soviet Union because of the combined power of the military and the defense industries over both government and the public. A not exceptional example is General Electric, the nation's fourth largest defense contractor and also owner of NBC, one of the big three television networks. Internal reform under these circumstances will be much more difficult than whipping up public opinion to cheer the invasion of some defenseless nation as another "Just Cause", as was so successfully done in Grenada and Panama. Powerful interest groups are addicted to their privileges, and like addicts they will opportunistically grasp at any rationalization or pretext to continue their habit. Recently a National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament (Melman 1988: 90-100) has been formed and is working out the complex details needed for comprehensive federal legislation. Hegemonic realists see such plans as weakening the country. The humanistic vision sees the winners among tomorrow's societies as those that are able to demilitarize fastest through planned conversion. Perhaps hardest of all will be figuring out how the well-being of Third World neighbors (and therefore First World security) can be accomplished while at the same time winding down industrial civilization's war against

220

Rolf Kjolseth

nature and establishing a sustainable relationship with the biosphere. Humans must cease being a conqueror, and become a caretaker of nature. If the poor majority of this world are brought up to the level of consumption of the world's affluent minority in the same reckless and wasteful manner in which the rich nations did it, then our species is doomed to sink into a degraded environment of its own creation. The task is to find the road to equitable and sustainable development and disarmament. With this new, humanistic world view, representative, democratic governments will care more than two cents for education. Human capital will become a first priority because sustainable development in an interdependent multilingual world requires negotiating mutually acceptable agreements. There, it is essential to enter into dialogue, listen and speak with others on their terms, in their languages and so negotiate effectively for mutual benefits. In the hegemonic world view this was secondary because the US understood itself as Number 1; others were subordinated in classical or neo-colonial relationships and therefore it was understood and taken for granted that they needed to learn English to deal with the US. Hegemonists believe having colonies and neo-colonial client states like Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador is a measure of the nation's strength and security. However, Humanists realize that violence, force and threat as a means of projecting one's identity and interests on others produces no lasting security but only "wars without end" (Klare 1972) that drain one, devastate the other and destroy the environment. Security is better served by divesting oneself of these colonies. They should not be dealt with as anybody's "back yard". Therefore, Humanists embrace reciprocity and peaceful negotiation as the more fruitful, profitable and enduring way of managing one's conflicts with others. Just as this is the primary way differences between the several states within the United States are managed, so too this is a useful model for "planethood" (Ferencz 1988) in handling relations with other nation states. To better engage this multilingual world, the development of the human capital of native speakers of languages other then English via bilingual education programs from elementary through advanced higher education and other encouragements for the use and cultivation of ethnic language use is seen as prudent. Given the humanistic paradigm or world view, this is simply obvious. Humans live in spoken worlds. Monolinguals can only move in one; bi- and multi-linguals can move in several. But is this paradigm shift from hegemonic to humanistic world view likely?

W(h)itherEthnicLanguages and Bilingual Education in the US

221

Whither the Paradigm Shift? Anything is "possible", including, as the hegemonic realists would have us believe, the indefinite persistence and dominance of their own world view. An Ancient Struggle. Actually, the struggle between the hegemonic and the humanistic world views is not new. In the Dark Ages of the 14th century, the Catalan philosopher and statesman Ramón Lull espoused the humanistic paradigm for achieving a peaceful coexistence between the Moslem and Christian worlds (Hanke 1959: 42). What would the Middle East look like today if Lull's vision had been heeded? Two centuries later in 1550, on the orders of the king of the world's then mightiest empire, Charles V of Spain, this contest of Hegemonist and Humanist was even enacted as a formal trial at Valladolid in Galicia, Spain were the Spanish jurist Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda argued the (dominant) hegemonic position and the Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas expounded the humanistic world view. This extraordinary trial ended with a hung jury and a continuation of the dominant (hegemonic) paradigm (Hanke 1959: 44-73). That in turn passively legitimated the enslaving of the natives of the Americas, the expropriation of their resources and lands, and contributed to the decadence and fall of the Spanish Empire and the continued, neo-colonial underdevelopment of Latin America under new hegemonic auspices that have all evolved into key elements of the current crisis. This contemporary global crisis is in fact a repeat performance of the trial of the hegemonic and humanistic world views on the world stage. How will it turn out this time, when the "Fate of the Earth" (Schell 1982) is at stake? Prediction is not possible, however, we can reflect on some of the factors and forces assembled on each side. Hegemonic Continuity. One potent motivation for maintaining the hegemonic paradigm is its proven ideological utility in rationalizing the gap between theory and reality. The theory of human rights, political democracy and economic justice include principles that have achieved near universal acceptance. The crisis is the growing gap between these principles and the harsh realities. Anything that can rationalize this contradiction is politically welcome amongst dominant elites. The hegemonic paradigm does the trick for them in part by what I have called the "cultural politics" of language and culture whereby subjugated numerical majorities are "minoritized" and their cultures

222

Rolf Kjolseth

and languages "ethnicized" (Kjolseth 1983). As used in hegemonic discourse, "minority" has nothing to do with numbers but rather power: it is the dominant minority's label for what they perceive to be the inferior majority. As such, their inferiority is characterized as an attribute of the subjugated group itself - its race, language or culture are inferior. Now the gap between theory and reality, between advantaged and disadvantaged is bridged. Everyone is in their proper place and has gotten what they deserve by virtue of successfully "blaming the victim" (Ryan 1976). As the older hegemonic concept of racial inferiority has lost some legitimacy, Hegemonist's belief in social, linguistic and cultural inferiority has become more salient. A shift to the humanistic paradigm therefore poses a double threat for Hegemonists. First it boggles their mind to hear that the disadvantaged are actually advantaged by their language and culture. And secondly, the frightening implication is sensed: - that they, the missionaries of manifest destiny are the cause of these dire straights and therefore must change. Just the faint whiff of this implication can increase the commitment of many to the mainstream hegemonic paradigm. Such an ideologically useful world view dies hard. Humanistic Change. However, the Hegemonists are spitting into the winds of global change. Shocks and tremors or even social earthquakes may trigger the conceptual leap to a new paradigm. A clear paradigmatic leap from hegemony to humanism in the Soviet Union has initiated startling reforms (Glasnost and Perestroika) which have precipitated previously unimaginable changes in Germany and Eastern Europe. Additionally, we are witnessing the ancient enemies of Western Europe transcending their hegemonic nationalism in a European Economic Community. This is a giant step in the direction of the new paradigm. A demilitarized Europe will show that humanism pays and hegemony costs. The world-wide recession is also causing many to reassess previously taken for granted beliefs. Social change requires organized social movements. Therefore it is highly significant that several diverse movements organized around different issues nevertheless all incorporate elements of the shift to a humanistic paradigm. These include 1) the anti-nuclear movement, 2) liberation theology, 3) women's liberation, 4) national liberation (de-colonization), and 5) the environmental movement. Each of these five organized winds of change are growing within and across all the regions of the globe. Their combined effect is to

W(h)ither Ethnic Languages and Bilingual Education in the US

223

foster the new world view for earth's inhabitants. This time around, the trial of the hegemonic and the humanistic paradigms may just turn out differently.

Conclusion Language, identity and education (bilingual or otherwise) are not ends in themselves but rather are means to other ends (Kjolseth 1977). In the perspective of this essay, those ends are self-realization within a particular world view. Educational systems and cultural and linguistic policies reflect the collectivity's image or vision of itself. In fact, one of their most basic purposes is the creation and reproduction of national identity; to socialize each new generation of citizens into seeing themselves, their world and their relation to it much as the rest do. However, the contemporary enduring crisis is making many in the US realize that the rest of the world is changing more rapidly than they are, giving them the sense that they are losing the world which is passing them by. If and as the world crisis dawns on the US, and if and as the nation awakens to it and forms a qualitatively distinct understanding of itself along something like the lines of the humanistic world view sketched here, then in that world, ethnic language use and bilingual education will be transvalued from something bad into something good because the national identity will have been transformed. Then, bilingual education and ethnic language use will fit naturally with this new self-understanding, be recognized as a realistic preparation for that world, receive full support and then they will flourish. This has been the constant vision of Joshua Fishman, that indefatigable researcher and man-before-his-time whose humanistic vision is now moving closer to realization. So, here is the US, on the human path of The Great Vision Quest, enveloped in crisis and faced with the cosmological imperative of re-creating itself. Who will they have the vision and determination to be?

References

Acosta, Ceferino, III. 1990. "DECS Exec Says No Order Yet on Use of Cebuano". Philippine Daily Globe 959.8. (June 8). AFP. 1990. "Judge Bars the Use of Filipino in Cebu Schools". Philippine Daily Globe 943.1.8. (May 23). Alcoholics Anonymous. 1988. Alcoholics Anonymous. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Alper, Leslie. 1985a. "'Glezele tey': In South Philly Yiddish Still Thrives". Jewish Exponent. 7 June. 31, 36. Alper, Leslie. 1985b. "'Glezele tey' Keeps Yiddish Alive in South Phila.". JCC Impact. July. 2. Amoss, Pamela T. 1981. "Cultural Centrality and Prestige for the Elderly: The Coast Salish Case". Dimensions: Aging, Culture, and Health ed. by Christine L. Fry, 47-63. South Hadley, Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey. Andersen, Roger W. 1989. "The 'Up' and 'Down' Staircase in Secondary Language Development". In Dorian, ed., 1989.385-394. Anonymous. 1970. Neu vermehrtes geistliches Lust = Gärtlein Frommer Seelen. Lancaster County: Verlag von den Amischen Gemeinden. (First printed c. 1770). Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. 1987. 'Not the Work of a Day': Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith oral memoirs. New York. Arenas i Sampera, Joaquim. 1987. Catalunya, Escola i Llengua. Barcelona: La Llar del Llibre. Arndt, Johann, n.y. Paradies Gärtlein. no place: no publisher. (First printed in 1612). Assmann, Aleida & Jan, eds. 1987. Kanon und Zensur. München: Fink. Baltazar, Natalia A. 1967. Isang Paunang Pagsisiyasat sa Heograpiya ng mga Salitang Tagalog sa Limang Lalawigan (Batangas, Laguna, Cavite, Rizal at Bulacan) 'A Preliminary Study of the Linguistic Geography of Tagalog Words in Five Provinces'. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Philippine Normal College, Manila. Barreiro Fernandez, Xosé Ramón. 1986 "Debates ideológicos y políticos entre 1846 y 1868". Actas do Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre Rosalía de Castro e o seu Tempo III.355-370. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press. Barth, Fredrik. 1969. "Introduction". Ethnic Groups and Boundaries ed. by Fredrik Barth, 9-38. Boston: Little Brown.

226

References

Basso, Keith H. 1972. "To Give Up on Words: Silence in Western Apache Culture". Language And Social Context ed. by Pier Paolo Giglioli, 67-86. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bauman, Richard. 1983. Let Your Words Be Few. Symbolism of Speaking and Silence among Seventeenth Century Quakers. London: Cambridge University Press. Beck, Ervin. 1990. "Mennonite Origin Tales and Beliefs". Mennonite Quarterly Review 64.1.32-48. Behuniak, Peter, et al. 1988. "Bilingual Education: Evaluation Politics and Practices". Evaluation Review 12.5.483-509. Bender, Harold S. 1927. "The Discipline Adopted by the Strasburg Conference 1568". Mennonite Quarterly Review 1.1.57-66. Bender, Harold S. 1973a. "Language Problems". Mennonite Encyclopedia III.290292. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House. Bender, Harold S. 1973b. "Revival". Mennonite Encyclopedia IV.308-310. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House. Bender, Harold S. 1973c. "Revival Meetings". Mennonite Encyclopedia IV.312. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House. Bender, Harold S. & C. Henry Smith. 1976. Mennonites and Their Heritage. Scottdale PA/Kitchener Ont.: Herald Press. Beramendi, Justo G. 1986. "Referentes nacionais en Rosalía no Provincialismo". Actas do Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre Rosalía de Castro e o seu Tempo III.381-394. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press. Berman, Rochel, Audrey S. Weiner & Gella S. Fishman. 1986. "Yiddish: It's More than a Language: In-Service Training for Staff of a Jewish Home for the Aged". Journal ofJewish Communal Service 62.328-334. Beyer, H. Otley. 1935. "The Philippine People of Pre-Spanish Times". Philippine Magazine 32.476-477, 483, 515-517. Blauner, Robert. 1972. Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper and Row. Bonacich, Edna. 1972. "A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market". American Sociological Review 37.549-559. Bonacich, Edna. 1973. "A Theory of Middleman Minorities". American Sociological Review 38.583-594. Borja, Greg G. 1989. "Drive to Make Bisaya the National Language is On". Philippine Daily Inquirer 4352.1, 11. (May 26). Bossert, Gustav. 1930. Quellen zur Geschichte der Wiedertäufer. I. Band. Herzogtum Württemberg. Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger Eger & Sievers. Rpt. 1971. New York/London: Johnson Reprint Corporation. Braght, Thielemann Jansz van. 1973. Der blutige Schauplatz oder Märtyrer - Spiegel der Taufgesinnten oder Wehrlosen Christen. Aylmer, Ont./La Grange, IN: Pathway Publishing Corporation. (First printed in Dutch in 1660). Brandt, Willy. 1980. North-South: A Programme for Survival. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Language and Ethnicity

227

Brisk, Maria Estela Allende. 1981. "Language Policies in American Education". Journal of Education 163.1.3-15. Britto, Francis. 1986. Diglossia: A Study of the Theory with Application to Tamil. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Broder, David S. 1990. "Senator's Proposal Would Expose the Deficit-Reduction Charade", Boulder Daily Camera. March 25, 1990.13A. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. "The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity". Style in Language ed. by Thomas E. Sebeok, 253-276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1972. "The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity". Language in Context ed. by P.P. Gigioli, 252-82. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (Originally in Style in Language ed. by Thomas Sebeok, 253-76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Buchheit, Robert H. 1982. "Language Maintenance and Shift among Mennonites in South-Central Kansas". Yearbook of German-American Studies 17.111-121. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. Buffington, Albert F & Preson A. Barba 1954, rev. 1965. A Pennsylvania German Grammar. Allentown, PA: Schlechter. Butler, Robert N. 1963. "The Life Review: An Interpretation of Reminiscence in the Aged". Psychiatry 26.65-76. Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caballero, Grace M. 1983. Language Use and Attitudes of Selected Cebuano and Non-Cebuano Families in Barrio Camamanan, Cagayan de Oro City. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ateneo de Manila University-Philippine Normal College-De La Salle University, Manila. Carballo Calero, Ricardo. 1972. Particularidades Morfológicas del Lenguaje de Rosalía de Castro. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press. Carballo Calero, Ricardo. 1975. Historia da Literatura Galega Contemporanea. Vigo: Editorial Galaxia. Cardona-Castro, A. 1986. "Simbolismo Europeo y Rosalía de Castro: En las Orillas del Sar". Actas do Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre Rosalía de Castro e o seu Tempo II.267-278. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press. Carter, Thomas P. & Michael L. Chatfield. 1986. "Effective Bilingual Schools: Implications for Policy and Practice". American Journal of Education 95.1.200232. Carvalho Calero, Ricardo. 1986. "Umha Rosa de Cem Folhas". Actas do Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre Rosalía de Castro e o seu Tempo II.77-88. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press.

228

References

Castonguay, C. 1976. "Les Transferts linguistiques au foyer". Recherches Sociographiques 17.341-351. Castonguay, C. 1979a. "L'Exogamie précoce et la prévigion des taux de transfert linguistique". Recherches Sociographiques 20.403-408. Castonguay, C. 1979b. "Exogamie et anglicisation chez les minorités canadiennesfrançaises". Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 16.21-31. Castro, Rosalía de. 1972. Obras Completas. Madrid: Aguilar. CDI (Center for Defense Information). The Defense Monitor. Washington, D.C. Cebu Language Row Worsens. 1990. Manila Bulletin 210.20.20. (June 20). Census (U.S. Bureau of the Census). 1987. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1987. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. Census of the Philippine Islands. 1939. Philippines (Commonwealth). Department of Commerce and Industry. Bureau of Census and Statistics. Summary for the Philippines and General Report of the Census of Population and Agriculture. Census of the Philippines. Census of the Philippines. 1948. Philippines (Republic). National Census and Statistics Office. Census of Population and Housing. Census of the Philippines. 1960. Philippines (Republic). National Census and Statistics Office. Census of Population and Housing. Census of the Philippines. 1980. Philippines (Republic). National Census and Statistics Office. Census of Population and Housing. CIDC. 1987. Padrons Municipals d'Habitants de Catalunya, 1986: Cens Lingüístic. Barcelona: Consorci d'Informadó i Documentació de Catalunya. Ciasen, Claus-Peter. 1965. Die Wiedertäufer im Herzogtum Württemberg und in benachbarten Herrschaften. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Clyne, Michael G. 1984. "The Decade Past, the Decade to Come: Some Thoughts on Language-contact Research". International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 45.9-20. Conklin, Nancy Faires & Margaret A. Lourie. 1983. A Host of Tongues: Language Communities in the United States. New York: Free Press. Connerton, Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. David, Rina Jimenez. 1990. "Unfortunate Seeking in Use of Filipino" (Editorial). Philippine Daily Inquirer 5.189.5. (June 17). Davis, Larry. 1967. The Phonology of Yiddish American English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: University of Chicago. Dempwolff, Otto. 1934, 1937, 1938. "Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen Wortschatzes". Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 15, 17, 19. Berlin. Denis, M.-N. & C. Veltman. 1989. Le Declin du dialecte alsacien. Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg. De Vos, George. 1975. "Ethnic Pluralism: Conflict and Accomodation". In De Vos and Romanucci-Ross, eds., 1975b.5-41.

Language and Ethnicity

229

De Vos, George & Lola Romanucci-Ross. 1975a. "Ethnicity: Vessel of Meaning and Emblem of Contrast". In De Vos and Romanucci-Ross, eds., 1975b.363-390. De Vos, George & Lola Romanucci-Ross, eds. 1975b. Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change. Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing Co. di Leonardo, Micaela. 1984. The Varieties of Ethnic Experience: Kinship, Class, and Gender among California Italian-Americans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Direcció General de Política Lingüística. 1984. Les Expectatives d'Us, Actituds i Necessitais Lingüístiques Entre la Població Adulta de l'Aglomeració Urbana Barcelonina. Barcelona: Departament de Cultura de la Generalitat de Catalunya. Diringer, David. 1968. The Alphabet: Key to the History of Mankind, 3rd ed., vol. 1. New York: Funk and Wagnalls. Donahue, Thomas S. 1985. '"U.S. English': Its Life and Works". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 56.99-112. Dorian, Nancy C. 1980. "Language Shift in Community and Individual: the Phenomenon of the Laggard Semi-Speaker". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 25.85-94. Dorian, Nancy. 1982. "Defining the Speech Community to Include its Working Margins". Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities ed. by Suzanne Romaine, 25-33. London: Edward Arnold. Dorian, Nancy, ed. 1989. Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dow, James R. 1991. "Bezeugung als Sprechereignis bei den Amanaiten". Minoritätensprachen/Sprachminoritäten ed. by James R. Dow and Thomas Stolz, 153168. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Dumas, Lloyd J. & Marek Thee, eds. 1989. Making Peace Possible: The Promise of Economic Conversion. Oxford, England & New York: Pergamon Press. Dupláa, Cristina. 1986 "Rosalía de Castro y el Rexurdimento Gallego: Posibles Conexiones con la Renaixença Catalana". Actas do Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre Rosalía de Castro e o seu Tempo III.413-418. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press. Dyen, Isidore. 1965. A Lexicostatistical Classification of the Austronesian Languages. Baltimore: The Waverly Press. Dyen, Isidore. 1971. "The Austronesian Languages and Proto-Austronesian". Current Trends in Linguistics ed. by Thomas Sebeok, 8.5-54. The Hague: Mouton. Eastman, Carol M. & Thomas C. Reese. 1981. "Associated Language: How Language and Ethnic Identity are Related". General Linguistics 21.109-116. Eckert, Penelope. 1984. "Age and Linguistic Change". Age and Anthropological Theory ed. by David I. Kertzer and Jennie Keith, 219-233. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Edwards, A.D. 1976. Language in Culture and Class. London: Heinemann Educational Books. Edwards, John. 1985. Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Inc. Edwards, John. 1988. "Bilingualism: Education and Identity". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9.12.203-210.

230

References

Emery, Olga B. 1985. "Language and Aging". Special Monograph Issue. Experimental Aging Research 11.3-61. Enninger, Werner. 1984. "Funktion, Struktur und Erwerb der Varietäten Pennsylvaniadeutsch, Amish Hochdeutsch und Amerikanisches Englisch bei den Altamischen". Spracherwerb, Sprachkontakt, Sprachkonflikt ed. by Els Oksaar, 220242. Berlin: de Gruyter. Enninger, Werner. 1985a. "Amish By-Names". Names 4.243-258. Enninger, Werner. 1985b. "Die Gemeindeschulen der Old Order Amish (Altamischen) und deren (geringe) Bedeutung für die Erhaltung deutscher Sprachvarietäten". Deutsch als Muttersprache in den Vereinigten Staaten II ed. by Heinz Kloss, 179-217. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH. Enninger, Werner. 1986a. "Structural Aspects of Amish High German". Studies on the Languages and the Verbal Behavior of the Pennsylvania Germans I ed. by Werner Enninger, 61-105. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Enninger, Werner. 1986b. "The Theme of Ethnicity in the Literature of the Old Order Amish". Studies on the Languages and the Verbal Behavior of the Pennsylvania Germans I ed. by Werner Enninger, 116-136. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH. Enninger, Werner. 1986c. "The Ethnolinguistic Profile of the Old Order Amish in Transit and Transition". The Transit of Civilization from Europe to America. Essays in Honor of Hans Galinsky ed. by Winfried Herget & Karl Ortseifen, 197-215. Tübingen: Narr. Enninger, Werner. 1987. "Kosten und Nutzen von Mehrsprachigkeit - Optimierungsprozesse in mehrsprachigen Zeichensystemen". Soziokulturelle Perspektiven von Mehrsprachigkeit und Spracherwerb ed. by Els Oksaar, 54-75. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Enninger, Werner. 1988. "The Social Construction Of Past, Present And Future In The Written And Oral Texts Of The Old Order Amish: An Ethno-Semiotic Approach To Social Belief". Literary Anthropology ed. by Fernando Poyatos. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Enninger, Werner & Karl-Heinz Wandt. 1980. "Zur Beziehung zwischen religiösen, sozialen und ökonomischen Faktoren in einem Old Order Amish Isolat". Soziale Beziehungsgeflechte ed. by Harald Niemeyer, 361-390. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot. Enninger, Werner et al. 1985. "The English of the Old Order Amish of Delaware". English World Wide V.l. 1-24. Enninger, Werner, John A. Hostetler, Joachim Raith & Karl-Heinz Wandt. 1989. "Rules of Speaking and Their Mediation: The Case of the Old Order Amish (OOA)". Studies On The Languages And The Verbal Behavior Of the Pennsylvania Germans II ed. by Werner Enninger, Joachim Raith and Karl-Heinz Wandt, 137-168. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH. Epstein, Arnold Leonard. 1978. Ethos and Identity. Three Studies in Ethnicity. London: Tavistock. Chicago: Aldine.

Language

and Ethnicity

231

Fallows, James. 1987. "The Philippines: A Damaged Culture". The Atlantic Monthly (November) 49-52. Fast, Heinold, ed. 1962. Der linke Flügel der Reformation. Bremen: Carl Schünemann. Fast, Heinold, ed. 1973. Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz. Zweiter Band: Ostschweiz. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Ferencz, Benjamin B. 1988. PlanetHood: The Key to Your Survival and Prosperity. Coos Bay, Oregon: Vision Books. Ferguson, Charles A. & Shirley Brice Heath, eds. 1981. Language in the USA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fillmore, Charles J. 1979. "On Fluency". Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior ed. by Charles J. Fillmore, Daniel Kempler and William S.Y. Wang, 85-101. New York: Academic Press. Fishman, Joshua A. 1965. "The Status and Prospects of Bilingualism in the United States". Modern Language Journal 49.143-155. Fishman, Joshua A. ed. 1966. Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton. Fishman, Joshua A. 1972a. "Domains and Relationships between Micro- and Macrosociolinguistics". Directions in Sociolinguistics ed. by John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 435-53. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Fishman, Joshua A. 1972b. Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Fishman, Joshua A. 1972c. Language in Sociocultural Change. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Fishman, Joshua A. 1983. "Language and Ethnicity in Bilingual Education". Culture, Ehnicity, and Identity ed. by Joshua A. Fishman, 127-138. New York. Fishman, Joshua A. 1985a "Macrosociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language in the Early Eighties". Annual Review of Sociology 11.113-127. Fishman, Joshua A. 1985b. "The Sociology of Jewish Languages from a General Sociolinguistic Point of View". In Fishman, ed., 1985c.3-21. Fishman, Joshua A., ed. 1985c. Readings in the Sociology of Jewish Languages. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Fishman, Joshua A., et al. 1985d. The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival: Perspectives on Language and Ethnicity. Berlin, New York & Amsterdam: Mouton. Fishman, Joshua A. 1986. "Bilingualism and Separatism". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 487.169-180. Fishman, Joshua A. 1988. '"English Only': Its Ghosts, Myths and Dangers". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 74.125-140. Fishman, Joshua A. 1989. Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, Shikl. 1982. "Yidish, modernizatsye un reetnifikatsye: An ernster un faktndiker tsugang tsu der itstiker problematik". Afn shvel 248.1-7. Foronda, Marcelino. 1972. Samtoy: Essays in Iloko History and Culture. Manila: United Publishing Co.

232

References

Francis, Emerick K. 1955. In Search of Utopia. The Mennonites in Manitoba. Altona Manitoba: D.W. Friesen and Sons Ltd. (Originally Glenco 111.: The Free Press. 1953). Franck, Sebastian. 1536. Chronica. Rpt. 1969. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Franz, Günter, ed. 1968. Thomas Müntzer. Schriften und Briefe. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn. Frey, J. William. 1942, rpt. 1981. A Simple Grammar of Pennsylvania German. Reissued with a new preface by C.R. Beam. Lancaster, PA: Brookshire Publications. Frey, J. William. 1945. "Amish Triple Talk'".American Speech 20.85-98. Friedmann, Robert. 1963. "Die Lehre von den beiden Reichen". Das Täufertum ed. by Guy F. Hershberger, 101-114. Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk. Friedmann, Robert. 1973. The Theology of Anabaptism. Scottdale, PA/Kitchener, Ont.: Herald Press. Fulbright, J. William. 1966. The Arrogance of Power. New York: Random House. Gal, Susan. 1989. "Lexical Innovation and Loss: The Use and Value of Restricted Hungarian". In Dorian, ed., 1989.313-331. Gallman, Andrew F. 1974. A Reconstruction of Proto-Mansakan. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Texas, Arlington. Gallman, Andrew F. 1977. "Proto-South East Mindanao and Its Internal Relationships". Paper presented to the Austronesian Symposium at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. August 18-20. Gans, Herbert J. 1979. "Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America". Ethnic and Racial Studies 2.1-20. García Martí, Victoriano. 1958. Rosalía de Castro o el Dolor de Vivir. Madrid: Ediciones Aspar. García-S, Ofelia. 1983. "Sociolinguistics and Language Planning in Bilingual Education for Hispanics in the United States". International journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 44.43-54. Gibson, Margaret A. 1987. "The School Performance of Immigrant Minorities: A Comparative View". Anthropology & Education Quarterly 18.262-275. Giles, Howard. 1973. "Accent Mobility: A Model And Some Data''. Anthropological Linguistics 15.87-105. Giles, Howard. 1979. "Ethnicity Markers in Speech". Social Markers in Speech by Klaus R. Scherer and Howard Giles, 251-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. Giles, Howard, Anthong Mulac, James J. Bradac & Patricia Johnson. 1987. "Speech Accommodation Theory: The Next Decade and Beyond". Communication Yearbook 10 ed. by Mary McLaughlin, 13-48. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Giles, Howard, Donald M. Taylor & Richard Y. Bourhis. 1973. "Towards a Theory of Interpersonal Accommodation through Speech: Some Canadian Data". Language in Society 2.187-192.

Language and Ethnicity

233

Glass, Gene V. & Isabel Schon. 1988. "Effects of an English-Only Law on Public Library Acquisition Policies, Practicies, and Librarians' Attitudes toward Books in Spanish for Children and Young Adults". Library and Information Science Research 10.4.411-424. Glazer, Nathan & Daniel Patrick Moynihan. 1975, Beyond the Melting Pot. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gold, David L. 1981. "The Speech and Writing of Jews". In Ferguson and Heath, eds., 1981.273-292. Gold, David L. 1982. "The Jewish Alphabet". Language Problems and Language Planning 6.342-343. Gold, David L. 1984. "Words of Jewish Origin in English Dictionaries: The Case of FARBLONDZHET". American Speech 59.271-277. Gold, David L. 1985a. "Jewish English". In Fishman, ed., 1985c.280-298. Gold, David L. 1985b. "Names for Jewish English and Some of Its Varieties". American Speech 60.185-187. Gold, David L. 1987. "Recent Studies in Jewish Languages (Review Article)". Language in Society 16.397-408. Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC. 1974. "The 1973 Constitution and the Bilingual Education Policy of the Department of Education and Culture". Philippine Studies 22. 325-337. Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC. 1977. "Pilipino in the Year 2000". Language. Planning and the Building of a National Language. Essays in Honor of Santiago A. Fonacier on his Ninety-Second Birthday ed. by Bonifacio P. Sibayan and Andrew Gonzalez, FSC, 263-290. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC. 1980. Language and Nationalism: The Philippine Experience Thus Far. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC. 1982. "Tagalog, Kapampangan and Hiligaynon: Some Attempts at Language Distance Measures". Gava' Studies in Autronesian Languages and Cultures Dedicated to Hans Kahler ed. by Rainer Carle, Martina Heinschke, Peter W. Pink, Chrystal Rost and Karen Stadtlander, 321-375. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC. 1989. "The Creolization of Philippine English: Evidence for English as a First Language Among Metro Manila Children". Manila: History, People and Culture ed. by Wilfrido Villacorta, Isagani Cruz and Ma. Lourdes Brillantes, 359-373. Manila: De La Salle University Press. Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC & Bonifacio P. Sibayan, eds. 1988. Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines (1974-1985). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC & Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista, eds. 1981. Aspects of Language Planning and Development in the Philippines. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.

234

References

Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC & Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. 1986. Language Surveys in the Philippines (1966-1984). Manila: De La Salle University Press. Gonzalez, Andrew B., FSC & Wilfrido Villacorta. Forthcoming. The Language Provision of the 1987 Constitution. Manila: Linguistics Society of the Philippines. Gratz, Delbert L. & Samuel Geiser. 1973. "Swiss German Dialects". Mennonite Encyclopedia IV.671-672. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House. Grosjean, François. 1982. Life with Two Languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, John J. & Jenny Gumperz-Cook. 1982. "Introduction: Language and the Communication of Social Identity". Language and Social Identity ed. by John J. Gumperz, 1-21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, John J. & Robert Wilson. 1977. "Convergence and Creolization". Pidginization and Creolization of Languages ed. by Dell Hymes, 151-167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haag, Earl C 1982. A Pennsylvania German Reader and Grammar. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Hahn, Alois. 1987. "Kanonisierungsstile". Kanon und Zensur ed. by Aleida and Jan Assmann, 28-37. München: Fink. Hanke, Lewis. 1959. Aristotle and the American Indians: A Study in Race Prejudice in the Modern World. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press. Harrington, Michael. 1962. The Other America: Poverty in the United States. New York: Macmillan. Haugen, Einar. 1989. "The Rise and Fall of an Immigrant Language: Norwegian in America". In Dorian, ed., 1989.61-73. Havard, Robert G. 1986. "Paralelos entre los Sentimentos Gallegos y Galeses de la Saudade/hizaeth: un Espejo Céltico de la Neurosis Rosaliana". Actas do Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre Rosalía de Castro e o seu Tempo I.217-224. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press. Hayden, Joseph R. 1947. The Philippines: A Study in National Development. New York: McMillan Co. Herzog, Marvin. 1978. "Yiddish". Paper 1978.47-58. Hockett, Charles F. 1960a. "Logical Considerations in the Study of Animal Communication". Animal Sounds and Communication ed. by Wesley Edwin Lanyon and William Nicolai Tavolga, 392-430. Washington DC: American Insitute of Biological Sciences. Hockett, Charles F. 1960b. "The Origins of Speech". Scientific American 203.89-96. Hockett, Charles F. & Stuart Allen Altmann. 1968. "A Note On Design Features". Animal Communication ed. by Thomas Albert Sebeok, 61-72. Bloomington, IN: University Press. Horsch, John. 1950. Mennonites in Europe. Scottdale PA: Mennonite Publishing House. Hostetler, John A. 1980. Amish Society. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Language and Ethnicity

235

Howell, Richard W. & Jack Klasen. 1971. "Contrasting Du/Sie Patterns in a Mennonite Community". Anthropological Linguistics 13.68-74. Huffines, Marion Lois. 1980a. "English in Contact with Pennsylvania German". German Quarterly 54.352-366. Huffines, Marion Lois. 1980b. "Pennsylvania German: Maintenance and Shift". Internationaljournal of the Sociology ofLanguage 25.43-57. Huffines, Marion Lois. 1984a. "Pennsylvania German Stereotype: Particles, Prepositions, and Adverbs". Yearbook of German-American Studies 19.23-32. Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas Press. Huffines, Marion Lois. 1984b. "Word Gain and Loss in the English of the Pennsylvania Germans". Pennsylvania Folklife 34.1.30-33. Huffines, Marion Lois. 1984c. "Intonation in Language Contact: Pennsylvania German English". Studies on the Languages and the Verbal Behavior of the Pennsylvania Germans ed. by W. Enninger, 25-36. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH. Huffines, Marion Lois. 1984d. "The English of the Pennsylvania Germans: A Reflection of Ethnic Affiliation". German Quarterly 57.2.173-182. Huffines, Marion Lois. 1986. "Strategies of Language Maintenance and Ethnic Marking among the Pennsylvania Germans". Language Sciences 8.1.1-17. Hymes, Dell. 1966. "Two Types of Linguistic Relativity (With Examples from Amerindian Ethnography)". Sociolinguistics. Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistic Conference 1964 ed. by William Bright, 114-167. The Hague: Mouton. Hymes, Dell, ed. 1964. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row. Jacobs, Eduard. 1899. "Die Wiedertäufer am Harz". Zeitschrift des Harz-Vereins für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 32.423-536. Jenny, Beatrice. 1951. "Das Schleitheimer Täuferbekenntnis 1527". Schaffhauser Beiträge zur vaterländischen Geschichte 28.5-81. Thayngen: Karl Augustin. Jocano, F. Landa. 1975. Philippine Prehistory: An Anthropological Overview of the Beginnings of Filipino Society and Culture. Quezon City: Philippine Center for Advanced Studies, University of the Philippines System. Jocano, F. Landa. 1982. The Ilocanos: An Ethnography of Family and Community Life in the llocos Region. Quezon City: Asian Center, University of the Philippines. Kadelbach, Ada. 1971. Die Hymnnodie der Mennoniten in Nordamerika (17421860). Doct. Diss. University of Mainz. Karp, Florence Berman. 1983. Roses in December: A Memoir of My Parents. Pittsburgh: Wolfson Publishing Co. Kaufman, Sharon. 1981. "Cultural Components of Identity in Old Age". Ethos 9. 5187. Kellogg, Susan. 1990. "Exploring Diversity in Middle-Class Families: The Symbolism of American Ethnic Identity". Social Science History 14. 27-41.

236

References

Kikuchi, Yasushi. 1990. A Theory of Filipino Organizational Behavior in Education: An Anthropological View. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Manila: De La Salle University. Kjolseth, Rolf. 1977. "Bilingual Education: For What and For Whom?" a review of Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experiment by Wallace E. Lambert & G. Richard Tucker (Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, 1972) and Bilingual Education in a Binational School: A Study of Equal Language Maintenance through Free Alternation by William Francis Mackay (Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, 1972). Language in Society 6:2.247-263. Kjolseth, Rolf. 1978. "The Development of the Sociology of Language and Its Social Implications". Advances in the Study of Societal Multilingualism ed. by Joshua A. Fishman, 799-825. The Hague: Mouton. Kjolseth, Rolf. 1982. "Bilingual Education Programs in the United States - For Assimilation or Pluralism?" Bilingualism in the Southwest ed. by Paul R. Turner, 328. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. Kjolseth, Rolf. 1983. "Cultural Politics of Bilingualism". Society 20.4.40-48. Klare, Michael T. 1972. War without End: American Planning for the Next Vietnams. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Klare, Michael T. & Peter Kornbluh, eds. 1988. Low Intensity Warfare: Counterinsurgency, Proinsurgency, and Antiterrorism in the Eighties. New York: Pantheon Books. Kloss, Heinz. 1966. "German-American Language Maintenance Efforts". In Fishman, ed., 1966.206-252. Kreider, Robert. 1953. "Vocations of Swiss and South German Anabaptists". Mennonite Life 1953.38-42. Krause, Corinne Azen. 1979. Grandmothers, Mothers and Daughters: An Oral History Study of Ethnicity, Mental Health, and Continuity of Three Generations of Jewish, Italian, and Slavic-American Women. New York: The Institute on Pluralism and Group Identity of the American Jewish Committee. Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lambert, W.E., R.C. Hodgson, R.C. Gardner & S. Fillenbaum. 1960. "Evaluational Reactions to Spoken Languages". Journal ofAbnormal & Social Psychology 60. 44-51. Le Page, Robert B. & Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lemaire, Ria. 1986 "Explaining the Case of Medieval Lyric". Poetics Today 1A. 729-743. Levin, Saul. 1983. "The Hebrew Etymon Behind TALED in Spanish and [t'alas] in Yiddish". Comments on Etymology XII. 15. Light, Leah L. & Deborah M. Burke, eds. 1988. Language, Memory, and Aging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Language and Ethnicity

237

Light, Leah L. & Shirley A. Albertson. 1988. "Comprehension of Pragmatic Implications in Young and Older Adults". In Light and Burke, eds., 1988.133-153. Llamzon, Teodoro A. 1969. A Subgrouping of Nine Philippine Languages. Verhandelingen 58. The Hague. Lianes, Jose. 1981. "The Sociology of Bilingual Education in the United States". Journal of Education 163.1.70-82. Lopez, Cecilio. 1925. On the Book Tagalog of the Island of Marinduque. Manila: University of the Philippines. Lopez, David E. 1982. Language Maintenance and Shift in the United States Today: The Basic Patterns and Their Social Implications. Los Alamitos, CA: National Center for Bilingual Research. Lopez, David E. & Yen Espiritu. 1990. "Panethnicity in the United States: A Theoretical Framework". Racial and Ethnic Studies 13.2.198-224. Lorenzo, Ramón. 1986 "A Lingua Literaria na Época de Rosalía". Actas do Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre Rosalía de Castro e o seu Tempo II.7-43. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press. Lötscher, Andreas. 1983. Schweizerdeutsch. Frauenfeld/Stuttgart: Huber. Luborsky, Mark R. & Robert L. Rubinstein. 1990. "Ethnic Identity and Bereavement in Later Life: The Case of Older Widowers". In Sokolovsky, ed., 1990.229-240. MacCana, Proinçias. 1970. Celtic Mythology. Feltham, England: Hamlyn Press. Mackenzie, David. 1986 "A variación linguistica na obra en galego de Rosalía". Actas do Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre Rosalía de Castro e o seu Tempo II.51-70. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press. Manuel, Arsenio E. 1971. Lexicographic Study of Tayabas Tagalog of Quezon Province. Quezon City: Diliman Review, Univesity of the Philippines. Marshall, David F. 1986. "The Question of an Official Language: Language Rights and the English Language Amendment". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 60.7-75. McFarland, Curtis D. 1974. The Dialects of the Bikol Area. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University. McGoldrick, Monica, John K. Pearce & Joseph Giordano, eds. 1982. Ethnicity and Family Therapy. New York: The Guilford Press. Melman, Seymour. 1988. The Demilitarized Society: Disarmament and Conversion. Montreal: Harvest House. Mendoza, Juanita C. 1978. Language Use and Language Attitude in Interaction with Social Setting: A Sociolinguistic Survey. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Santo Tomas, Manila. Metcalf, George J. 1938. Forms of Address in German (1500-1800). St. Louis: Washington University Studies, Language and Literature No. 7. Murait, Leonhard von & Walter Schmid, eds. 1952. Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer der Schweiz. Erster Band: Zürich. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Myerhoff, Barbara. 1978. Number Our Days. New York: E.P. Dutton.

238

References

Myerhoff, Barbara. 1980. "Life History among the Elderly: Performance, Visibility and Re-membering". Life Course: Integrative Theories and Exemplary Populations ed. by Kurt W. Back, 133-153. Boulder: Westview Press. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1989. "Codeswitching with English, Types of Switching, Types of Communities". World Englishes 8.333-46. Myers-Scotton, Carol. Forthcoming. Motivations and Structures in Codeswitching: EvidencefromAfrica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers-Scotton, Carol & Shoji Azuma. 1990 & Forthcoming. "A Frame-Based Process Model of Codeswitching". To appear in Papers from the 26th Annual Meeting Chicago Linguistics Society ed. by Karen Deaton, Manuela Noske, and Michael Ziolkowski. Chicago: University of Chicago Linguistics Department. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Neff, Christian. 1937. "Gruß der Täufer". Mennonitisches Lexikon, Vol. II ed. by Christian Hege and Christian Neff, 196. Frankfurt/Weierhof: Selbstverlag. Nicoladoni, Alexander. 1893. Johannes Bünderlin von Linz und die oberösterreichischen Täufergemeinden in den Jahren 1525-1531. Berlin: R. Gaertners Verlagsbuchhandlung. Nielsen, François & Steven J. Lerner. 1986. "Language Skills and School Achievement of Bilingual Hispanics". Social Science Research 15.3.209-240. Nogales de Muníz, Maria Antonia. 1966. Irradiación de Rosalía de Castro. Barcelona. Obeyeskere, Gananath. 1975. "Sinhalese-Buddhist Identity in Ceylon". In De Vos and Romanucci-Ross, eds., 1975.231-258. Ogbu, John U. 1987. "Variability in Minority School Performance: A Problem in Search of an Explanation". Anthropology & Education Ouarterly 18.312-334. Ornan, Uzzi. 1985. "Hebrew Is Not a Jewish Language". In Fishman, ed., 1985c.2224. Paper, Herbert H., ed. 1978. Jewish Languages: Themes and Variations. Proceedings of Regional Conferences of the Association for Jewish Studies held at the University of Michigan and New York University in March-April 1975. Cambridge, MA: Association for Jewish Studies. Parkin, David J. 1974. "Language Switching in Nairobi". Language in Kenya ed. by W.H. Whiteley, 189-216. Nairobi: Oxford University Press. Paulston, Rolland G. 1976. "Ethnicity and Educational Change: A Priority for Comparative Education". Comparative Education Review 20.3.269-277. Peltz, Rakhmiel. 1987. "Who Is Speaking Yiddish in South Philadelphia Today?: Jewish Language in Urban America". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 61.145-166. Peltz, Rakhmiel. 1988. Speaking Yiddish in South Philadelphia: Changes in Language and Identity. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University. Peltz, Rakhmiel. 1989. "'It Used To Be Like Jerusalem': South Philadelphia, Portal to the City and Enduring Jewish Community". Traditions in Transition: Jewish

Language and Ethnicity

239

Culture in Philadelphia 1840-1940, ed. by Gail Stern, 46-63. Philadelphia: Balch Institute for Ethnic Studies. Peltz, Rakhmiel. 1990a. "Spoken Yiddish in America: Variation in Dialect and Grammar". Studies in Yiddish Linguistics, ed. by Paul Wexler, 55-73. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Peltz, Rakhmiel. 1990b. "The Changing Ethnic Identity of the New Jewish Elderly". Journal ofAging and Judaism 5.65-69. Pensado, X.L. 1986 "Rosalía e a Lingua Galega do seu Tempo e do seu Entorno". Actas do Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre Rosalía de Castro e oseu Tempo II.43-50. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Press. Petersen, William. 1980. "Concepts of ethnicity". Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups ed. by Stephen Thernstrom, 234-242. Cambridge, MA/ London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Philippine Yearbook. 1975. National Economic and Development Authority and National Census and Statistics Office, Manila, Republic of the Philippines. Philippine News Agency. 1990a. "Cebuanos Go to Court Over Use of 'Filipino'". Philippine Daily Inquirer 5.161.12. (May 20). Philippine News Agency. 1990b. "Cebu Court Issues Injunction vs. use of Filipino". The Philippine Star 7. (June 10). Philips, Dietrich (Dirk). 1978. Enchiridion or Hand Book. Aylmer, Ont./La Grange IN: Pathway. (First printed in 1569.) Pool, Jonathan 1979. "Language Planning and Identity Planning". International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 20.5-22. Portes, Jacques. 1982. "The Franco-American Reawakening". The Guardian. 3 January. 18. Reprinted from Le Monde. Rafael, Teresita C. 1976. Negativization in the Bisayan Languages and Dialects: A Case Study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Philippine Normal College-Ateneo de Manila University-De La Salle University Consortium. Raith, Joachim. 1981a. Sprachgemeinschaftstyp, Sprachkontakt, Sprachgebrauch. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Raith, Joachim. 1981b. "Phonologische Interferenzen im Amerikanischen Englisch der anabaptistischen Gruppen deutscher Herkunft in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania". Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 48.1.36-52. Reagan, Timothy. 1984. "Bilingual Education in the United States: Arguments and Evidence". Education and Society 2.65-69. Redekop, Calvin. 1984. "Anabaptism and the Ethnic Ghost". Mennonite Quarterly Review 58.133-138. Reed, C. 1948. "The Adaptation of English to Pennsylvania German Morphology". American Speech 23.239-244. Reid, Lawrence E. 1974. "The Central Cordilleran Subgrouping of Philippine Languages". Oceanic Linguistics 13.511-60.

240

References

Rempusheski, Veronica F. 1988. "Caring for Self and Others: Second Generation Polish American Elders in an Ethnic Club". Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 3. 223-271. Riedemann, Peter. 1988. Rechenschaft unserer Religion, Lehre und Glaubens. Von den Brüdern, die man die Huterischen nennt. Falher Alberta: Verlag der Huterischen Brüder Gemeine. (Written before 1556.) Roa, Merpu. 1990a. "Judge to Cariño: You're a liar!". Philippine Daily Globe 962.6. (June 11). Roa, Merpu. 1990b. "Cebu Teachers Ordered to Start Scrapping Filipino". Philippine Daily Globe 957.7. (June 6). Röhrich, Timotheus Wilhelm. 1860. "Zur Geschichte der Straßburgischen Wiedertäufer in den Jahren 1527 bis 1543: Aus den Vergichtbüchern und anderen archivalischen Quellen mitgeteilt". Zeitschrift für historische Theologie 30.3-121. Rose, Marilyn. 1988. "Migration and Ethnic Persistence: The Study of a Rural Mennonite Church". Mennonite Quarterly Review 62.2.167-176. Ryan, William. 1976. Blaming the Victim. New York: Random House. San Miguel, Guadalupe. 1984. "Conflict and Controversy in the Evolution of Bilingual Education in the United States". Social Science Quarterly 65.2.505-518. Saul, Jack Michael. 1983. Jewish Ethnic Identity and Psychological Adjustment in Old Age. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Boston University. D.A.I. 44.1642-B. Saunders, R. & P.W. Davis. 1974. "Some Problems in Amerindian Second Language Pedagogy". Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 15.34-42. Schell, Jonathan. 1982. The Fate of the Earth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Schermerhorn, R.A. 1978. Comparative Ethnic Relations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Scotton, Carol Myers. 1982. "The Possibility of Codeswitching: Motivation for Maintaining Multilingualism". Anthropological Linguistics 24.432-44. Scotton, Carol Myers. 1983. "The Negotiation of Identities in Conversation: A Theory of Markedness and Code Choice". International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 44.115-36. Scotton, Carol Myers. 1988a. "Codeswitching and Types of Multilingual Communities". Language Spread and Language Policy ed. by Peter Lowenberg, 61-82. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Scotton, Carol Myers. 1988b. "Codeswitching as Indexical of Social Negotiations". Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives ed. by Monica Heller, 151-86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Scotton, Carol Myers & William Ury. 1977. "Bilingual Strategies: The Social Functions of Code-Switching". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 13.5-20. Seaman, P. David. 1972. Modern Greek and American English in Contact. The Hague: Mouton. Seliger, Herbert. 1989. "Deterioration and Creativity in Childhood Bilingualism". Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects ofAcquisition, Maturity, and Loss. ed.

Language and Ethnicity

241

by Kenneth Hyltenstam and Loraine K. Obler, 173-184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Severino, Horacio G. 1990. "Cebu Revolts Against 'Filipino'". Focus. A Chronicle Magazine 9, 16. (Sunday, June 3). Sevilla, Judy Carol. 1988. "Level of Awareness of the Bilingual Education Policy Among Parents and Among Government and Non-Government Organizations". In Gonzalez and Sibayan, eds., 1988.99-130. Sibayan, Bonifacio P., Andrew Gonzalez, FSC, Jose Arong, OMI, Fe T. Otanes & Luke Moortgat, CICM. 1988. "Measuring Achievements and Its Factors After Eleven Years of Bilingual Schooling". In Gonzalez and Sibayan, eds., 1988.562. Silverberg, William. 1940. "On the Psychological Significance of Du and Sie". Psychoanalytic Quarterly IX.509-525. Simic, Andrei. 1978. "Introduction: Aging and the Aged in Cultural Perspective". Life's Career -Aging: Cultural Variations on Growing Old. ed. by Barbara G. Myerhoff & Andrei Simic, 9-22. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Simic, Andrei. 1985. "Ethnicity as a Resource for the Aged: An Anthropological Perspective". Journal ofApplied Gerontology 4.65-71. Smolicz, J.J. 1983. "Modification and Maintenance: Language among School-children of Italian Background in South Australia". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 4.313-337. Soberano, Rose P. 1976. The Dialects of Marinduque Tagalog. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Philippine Normal College-Ateneo de Manila University-De La Salle University Consortium. Sokolovsky, Jay, ed. 1990. The Cultural Context ofAging: Worldwide Perspectives. New York: Bergin and Garvey Publishers. Solheim, Wilhelm. 1981. "Philippine Prehistory". The People and Art of the Philippines ed. by Gabriel Casal, et al., 17-83. Los Angeles, CA: Museum of Cultural History, University of California. Sommer, Pierre. 1913. "Französische Sprache". Mennonitisches Lexikon Bd.I ed. by Christian Hege and Christian Neff, 687-688. Frankfurt/Weierhof: Selbstverlag. Spener, David. 1988. "Transitional Bilingual Education and the Socialization of Immigrants". Harvard Educational Review 58.2.133-153. Springer, Nelson P. 1972. "Genealogy". Mennonite Encyclopedia Vol. II, 457-465. Scottdale PA: Mennonite Publishing House. Stallings, Barbara & Robert Kaufman, eds. 1989. Debt and Democracy in Latin America. Boulder: Westview Press. Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley & Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. "The Evolution of Focus in Austronesian". Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics ed. by Amran Halim, Lois Carrington and S.A. Wurm, 145-170. Pacific Linguistics C-75. Canberra: The Australian National University. Steinmetz, Sol. 1981. "Jewish English in the United States". American Speech 56.316.

242

References

Studer, Eduard. 1981. "Sprachliche Stationen auf dem Weg zum Deutsch der Schilling-Chronik". Die Schweizer Bildchronik des Luzerners Diebold Schilling 1513 ed. by Alfred A. Schmidt, 585-601. Zürich: Faksimile-Verlag. Svensson, Frances. 1974. "Language as Ideology: The American Indian Case". Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 15.60-68. Swing, Elisabeth Sherman. 1983. "Flemings and Puerto Ricans: Two Applications of a Conflict Paradigm in Bilingual Education". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 44.27-42. Tangbawan, Romy. 1990. "Osmeña to PAL: Go Visayan". Malaya 9.47.1, 2. Tannen, Deborah. 1981. "New York Jewish Conversational Style". International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 30.133-149. Tannen, Deborah. 1982. "Ethnic Style in Male-Female Conversation". Language and Social Identity ed. by John. J. Gumperz, 217-231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Teitelbaum, Herbert & Richard Hiller. 1977. "Bilingual Education: the Legal Mandate". Harvard Educational Review 47.2.138-170. This, Constant. 1888. Die deutsch-französische Sprachgrenze im Elsaß (Beiträge zur Landes- und Volkskunde von Elsaß-Lothringen V). Strassburg: Heitz. Thomas, Rosemary Hyde. 1979. Some Aspects of the French Language of Old Mines, Missouri. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Saint Louis University. D.A.I. 40.5845-A. Thomason, Sarah Grey. 1986. "Contact-Induced Language Change: Possibilities and Probabilities". Akten des 2. Essener Kolloquiums über Kreolsprachen und Sprachkontakte ed. by Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger and Thomas Stolz, 261-284. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Thorpe, William Homan. 1972. "The Comparison of Vocal Communication In Animals and Man". Non-Verbal Communicaton ed. by Robert A. Hinde, 27-47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Troike, Rudolph C. 1970. "Receptive Competence, Productive Competence, and Performance". Linguistics and the Teaching of Standard English to Speakers of Other Languages or Dialects, ed. by James E. Alatis, 63-73. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Trümpy, Hans. 1963. "Die Formen der Anrede im älteren Schweizerdeutschen". Sprachleben der Schweiz ed. by Paul Zinsli et al., 157-166. Bern: Francke. Tuson, Amparo. 1988. "School, Language and Teachers' Training in Catalonia". Paper presented at the Conference on Minority Language and Education. Cornell University. van den Berghe, Pierre. 1981. The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier. Van Home, Winston A. & Thomas V. Tonnesen, eds. 1987. Ethnicity and Language (= Ethnicity and Public Policy Series, VI) Milwaukee: The University of Wisconsin System. Velasquez, Ester B. 1987. Determiners in the Use of Pilipino by Adults and Children in Cebu City: A Sociolinguistic Survey. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of the Philippines Systems, Quezon City.

Language and Ethnicity

243

Veltman, C 1983. Language Shift in the United States. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Veltman, C. 1985. L'Intégration sociolinguistique des Québécois d'origine portugais. Montréal: Département d'études urbaines (UQAM) et INRS-Urbanisation. Veltman, C. 1987. L'Avenir du français aux Etats-Unis. Quebec: Conseil de la langue française. Veltman, C. 1988a. The Future of the Spanish Language in the United States. Washington and New York City: Hispanic Policy Development Project. Veltman, C. 1988b. Modelling the Language Shift Process of Allophone Immigrants to the United States. Paper presented at XXIV Colloque of the Applied Econometics Association, unpublished. Veltman, C. 1989. L'Impact de l'immigration internationale sur l'équilibre linguistique de la région montréalaise. Ottawa: Ministère de la Santé et du Bien-Etre. Veltman, C. & T. Ioannou. 1984. Les Grecs du quartier Parc Extension. Montréal: Institut national de la recherche scientifique. Ventura, Pueyo, 1866. "El dialecto gallego y la unidad ibérica". El Pensamiento de Galicia. Ferrol. 15.II. Wappler, Paul. 1913. Die Täuferbewegung in Thüringen 1526-1584. Jena: Gustav Fischer. Weibel-Orlando, Joan. 1988. "Indians, Ethnicity as a Resource and Aging: You Can Go Home Again". Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 3.323-348. Weibel-Orlando, Joan. 1990. "Grandparenting Styles: Native American Perspectives". In Sokolovsky, ed., 1990.109-125. Weinreich, Max. 1980. History of the Yiddish Language. London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weiß, Leo, ed. 1933. Ein vergnügliches Anstandsbüchlein für Jung und Alt I in Versen I aus dem Jahre 1539. Zürich: Reutimann. Wenger, John C. 1947. Glimpses of Mennonite History and Doctrine. Scottdale PA: Mennonite Publishing House. Wexler, Paul. 1981. "Jewish Interlinguistics". Language 57.99-149. Woolard, Kathryn A. 1986. "The Politics of Language Status Planning: 'Normalization' in Catalonia". Language in the International Perspective ed. by Nancy Schweda-Nicholson, 91-102. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Woolard, Kathryn A. 1989. Double Talk: Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Woolard, Kathryn A. & Tae-Joong Gahng. 1990. "Changing Language Policies and Attitudes in Autonomous Catalonia". Language in Society 19.311-330. Woolfson, Peter. 1990. "Franco-American Elders: Adaptation and Change". Paper presented at the 89th Annual Meeting, American Anthropological Association, New Orleans. Yancy, William C, Eugene P. Ericksen & Richard N. Juliani. 1976. "Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation". American Sociological Review 41.391403.

244

References

Youtie, Herbert C. 1978. "Response to Jonas C. Greenfield, 'The Languages of Palestine', 200 B.C.E. - 200 CE.". Paper 1978.143-155 and 1978.155-157. Zelinski, Elizabeth M. 1988. "Integrating Information from Discourse: Do Older Adults Show Deficits?" In Light and Burke, eds., 1988.117-132. Zorc, R. David. 1972. "The Western Subgrouping of Bisayan". Oceanic Linguistics 11.2.110-139. Zorc, R. David. 1977a. English Proto Philippine Data Index. (Grammatical Etyma) (Manuscript). Zorc, R. David. 1977b. The Bisayan Dialects of the Philippines: Subgrouping and Reconstruction. Pacific Linguistics, C-44. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Contributors

Joanna Courteau Joanna Courteau received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin where she studied Spanish and Portuguese historical linguistics with Lloyd Kasten and Diego Catalán. Her primary research interests have involved discourse analysis in Spanish and Portuguese texts of 19th and 20th centuries. This research includes among others the works of Antonio Machado, Juan Ramón Jiménez, Fernando Pessoa, Rachel de Queiroz and Graciliano Ramos. The article on Rosalía de Castro reflects an ongoing interest in romantic poetry in general, and the poetry of Rosalía de Castro in particular. As demonstrated in this article this interest has led Courteau to revise her own views on language and ethnicity, both aspects central to Rosalia's poetry.

James R. Dow James R. Dow is Professor of German at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. He has studied in Mississippi, Germany, Vermont and Iowa. He received his Ph.D. in German Language and Literature from the University of Iowa, and he did postdoctoral study at Indiana University and UCLA. He has published in the area of German folklore, bibliography, and has also published several studies on the Old Order Amish and the Amana Colonists of Iowa. His most recent work includes a volume edited with Thomas Stolz on Sprachminoritäten/Minoritätensprache (Bochum 1990), and a special issue of IJSL on "Language Maintenance and Language Shift". He has two new studies which will soon appear, a special issue of Asian Folklore Studies on "Folklore, Politics and Nationalism" and a new two volume work co-edited with Hannjost Lixfeld on The Nazification of an Academic Discipline. German Folklore of the Third Reich (forthcoming with Indiana University Press). In July of 1991 he will become the Chairman of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at Iowa State University.

Werner Enninger Werner Enninger (b. 1931) studied at the Universities of Cologne and Bonn. In 1968 he received his Dr.phil. from the University of Bonn with a dissertation on the history of the word licere - leisir/loisir - leisure and orals taken in English, general lin-

246

Contributors

guistics, and (language) philosophy. He taught high school for nine years. Since 1972 he has been teaching English (linguistics) at the University of Essen (Gesamthochschule), Germany. About 50 of his publications deal with the verbal and the nonverbal repertoires of the Old Order Amish, particularly in Kent County, Delaware. The studies are rooted in the paradigms of socio-linguistics (the ethnography of communication), pragmatics, contact-linguistics, and semiotics. Beyond the casestudy level the publications have sought to make a contribution to the theory of speech economy and to the verbal and nonverbal constitution and maintenance of ethnicity. Since 1985 the focus of research has shifted to the genesis and the development of the nonverbal and verbal repertoires of the Old Order Amish and their European predecessors, i.e. the Swiss Anabaptists. Another concentration documented in publications is intercultural communication in general and the cultural relativity of pauses, gaps, lapses and silences in particular.

Andrew Gonzalez Andrew Gonzalez, FSC is Professor of Languages and Linguistics at De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, a university associated with the Brothers of the Christian Schools (Fratres Scholarum Christianarum), a Catholic teaching fraternity. He is Executive Secretary of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines and editor of its journal, the Philippine Journal of Linguistics. A graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, he has published studies in Philippine and foreign journals as well as monographs and textbooks in the fields of language development, sociolinguistics and applied linguistics. Marion Lois Huffines Marion Lois Huffines, Professor of German and Linguistics at Bucknell University, received her Ph.D. in Germanic Linguistics from Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Having taught German and linguistics at Bucknell for several years, she has more recently been appointed Director of Graduate Studies, Director of the Summer School, and also Director of the Bucknell's Writing Program. In addition to her extensive administrative duties, she continues to devote as much time as possible to her research on the language behaviors of the Pennsylvania Germans. Her earlier research dealt with the English of the Pennsylvania Germans and how that variety affects the English of surrounding communities. Her current research analyzes the Pennsylvania German spoken in sectarian and nonsectarian Pennsylvania German communities. Future research will investigate the European roots of Pennsylvania German, the German dialect of the Palatinate. The focus of her research continues to be the process of language death and issues of linguistic change due to language contact.

Language

and Ethnicity

247

Alan S. Kaye Alan S. Kaye (b. 1944) is Professor of Linguistics, Arabic, and Hebrew, and Director of the Laboratory of Phonetic Research at California State University, Fullerton. He received his B.A. in Semitic linguistics from UCLA, and his M.A and Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of California, Berkeley. Before coming to CSUF in 1971, he taught at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and UC Berkeley. He also taught at UC Irvine, Pepperdine University, Shalom Bible Institute, Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria, the University of Sri Lanka, Colombo, and for the North Orange County Community College District, and has lectured all over the U.S., Canada, Europe, Asia, and Africa. He serves as Review Editor of the Journal of Afroasiatic Languages (Princeton University Press), is Editor of the California Linguistic Newsletter (since 1982), and is on the editorial board of seven journals. He has served for eight years as Chair of the Department of Linguistics at CSUF, and was a Trustee of the North Orange County Community College District for four years. Honors and awards include five Friends of the UCI Library Book Awards and major grants from the National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, American Philosophical Society, Fulbright-Hays, Hughes Aircraft Corporation, and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. He has served as a referee numerous times for the U.S. Department of Education, National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, and other agencies. He has written three books, co-authored another, and has edited two in addition to more than two hundred articles, book chapters, and reviews in more than thirty journals. Among his current linguistic projects is the edition of a two-volume work by over 120 authors entitled Semitic Studies, to be published in late 1991 by Otto Harrassowitz Verlag in Wiesbaden, Germany.

Rolf Kjolseth Rolf Kjolseth is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of ColoradoBoulder, is currently Director of the Department's Graduate Program and has taught courses on the sociology of language and knowledge, ethnographic methods, visual sociology and problems of disarmament and development. While teaching in Germany he co-authored with Fritz Sack the first collection of sociolinguistic papers {Zur Soziologie der Sprache, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1971) to appear in German. He has collaborated in the development of "The Ethnograph", a text-analysis software program now widely used in sociolinguistic studies. His documentary photography has been exhibited at the University of Paris and at UNESCO. He was one of the founders of the Research Committee on Sociolinguistics of the International Sociological Association - an idea initiated by Joshua Fishman - and served as the elected president of the Committee during its first eight years (1966-1974). From 1973 to 1977 he was a member of the Social Science Research Council's Committee on Sociolinguistics where he initiated the first national research conference on Chicano

248

Contributors

sociolinguistics. In the early 1970s he helped draft and lobby for the Colorado Bilingual Education Act, helped design and evaluate the first bilingual education program in the Boulder public schools and is an avowed language loyalist and polyglot (German, Spanish, French, English) whose home language is Spanish. He and his Mexican wife Silvia have three bilingual children (Pablo 22, Francisco 19, & Silvita 12).

David Lopez David Lopez is Associate Professor of Sociology at UCLA. He has written about language maintenance and ethnicity in the United States, with special emphasis on Chicanos and other Latino groups. His current interest in this area has shifted from earlier work on the quantitative estimation of factors associated with language maintenance to more qualitative studies of ethnicity, as exemplified by his recent article on panethnicity in the United States (Lopez and Espíritu 1990). His major current research interest is a comparative study of race, ethnicity and national development in four Latin American nations: Mexico, Brazil, Peru and Cuba.

Carol Myers-Scotton Carol Myers-Scotton is currently a Professor of Linguistics at the University of South Carolina (Columbia). She holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her specializations are sociolinguistics and African linguistics. She has done extensive field work in Africa (Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe). She has also taught at Michigan State University, Yale University, the University of Texas-Austin, and also at Makerere University (Uganda), the University of Lagos (Nigeria), and the University of Nairobi (Kenya). She has just completed a book on codeswitching, which deals with both the social motivations for codeswitching and also considers structural constraints on where in a sentence a speaker may switch.

Rakhmiel Peltz Rakhmiel Peltz holds doctorates in Biology (University of Pennsylvania) and Yiddish Studies (Columbia University) and has done extensive research and teaching in both fields. Currently, he serves as Assistant Professor and Director of Yiddish Studies in the Department of Germanic Languages at Columbia University. His major research area is the social history of Yiddish language and culture, focussing, at this time, on Yiddish language use in the contemporary USA. His work lies at the interface of the study of anthropology, sociolinguistics, gerontology and ethnicity. Shikl Fishman's interest in Yiddish has been an inspiration for him. Fishman taught him The Sociology of Jewish Languages. More importantly, he encouraged his research work and its publication. Shikl Fishman serves as a mentor and sponsor for

Language and Ethnicity

249

younger colleagues working on Yiddish. He has consistently stood as a model in two crucial ways. He insists that Yiddish Studies be informed by the broader disciplines and vice versa. His academic work parallels a commitment and involvement in the community and the culture. Calvin Veltman Calvin Veltman, Professor of Urban Studies at the Université du Québec à Montréal, is a native of Chicago. Holding a Ph.D. in sociology from New York University, he has also taught sociology at York College (CUNY) and SUNY-Plattsburgh. His interest in ethnolinguistic groups led Dr. Veltman to adopt the Canadian approach to language shift analysis which has since characterized his work. His first application of this methodology to U.S. minority language groups was entitled Language Shift in the United States, a book published by Mouton and for which Joshua Fishman was the general editor. Dissatisfied with the limitations imposed by the use of secondary data, Dr. Veltman has conducted field studies of language use in the Greek and Portuguese communities in Montreal, and among high school students in Alsace. His interest then turned to the development of multilinguistic population models which simulate the flow of minority language groups, notably immigrants and their children, into national language communities. After publishing studies on the future of the French and Spanish language groups in the United States, his most recent effort has extended this methodology to the analysis of the linguistic future of the Montreal metropolitan area. At the present time he is directing a 10 year study of the linguistic integration of immigrants and their children for Quebec's Ministre des Communauts culturelles et de l'Immigration.

Kathryn Woolard Kathryn Woolard is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of California, San Diego, and has taught sociolinguistics and education at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. She received her Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1983. Professor Woolard's research on bilingualism in Barcelona over the past decade was first reported in the International journal of the Sociology of Language (1984), and has since led to publications in journals such as the American Ethnologist, Language in Society, and her Stanford University Press book, Double Talk. In addition to her continuing Catalan fieldwork, Professor Woolard has studied bilingualism and language politics in the United States. A discourse-based analysis of the English-only movement, begun in a NEH summer seminar under the direction of Professor Fishman, appeared in the American Ethnologist (1989) and is also reported in Perspectives on Official English, edited by K. Adams and D. Brink (Mouton de Gruyter 1990).

Index

Africa, 95-109 aging, 198-205 Alsace, 145,151, 154 American Jewish Archives, 186, 191, 205 American Way of Life, 210 Amish, 10,11, 16, 18-22,55 Amish High German, 12, 22 Anabaptist ethnicity, 23-60 Andalusia, 62, 74 Andalusian Party, 68 anglicisation, 148, 154, 155, 157-161, 163 anglicisation rates, 162 Anti-Defamation League, 185,186 Ashkenazic English, 173, 176, 180 assimilationist policies, 145

Bangsa Moro Movement, 127 Barcelona, 61-81 biculturalism, 28, 50 bilingual community, 21 bilingual education, 135, 137-138, 207-223 Bilingual Education Act of 1968,137 Bilingual Education Policy, 113 bilingual education programs, 207 bilingual education services, 137,139140 bilingualism, 28, 49, 51, 67, 73, 76, 201, 207 Black English, 51

Cantares Gallegos, 85 case study, 74 Catalan, 61-81 Catalan nationalists, 72 Catalan Statute of Autonomy, 67 CDI (Center for Defense Information), 212-214 Cebuano, 111-129 Celts, 84, 87, 88, 90 Census of Canada, 148 Center for Educational Statistics, 150 Central Tagalic Hesion, 115 CIDC, 71 Civil Rights Movement, 134 code-switching, 10, 21, 95-109 conflict perspectives on language, 134136 convergence, 10, 13, 21 convivencia, 68 Courteau, J., 83-94 CPS (Current Population Survey), 148, 149, 165 Cuban-Americans, 201

dative of possession, 13-15 demographic modelling, 161-163 desire to integrate, 164 diglossia, 28, 50, 51 diglossic bilingualism, 49 dinomia, 25-26, 28, 50 Direcció General de Política Lingüística, 64 domains for Yiddish, 187

252 domains of language policy, 137 Dorian, N., 21, 203 dying language, 193

EDAPT (Essen Delaware Amish Project Team), 52, 53 educational linguistic policy, 72 Edwards, J., 83 embedded language, 96 En Las Orillas del Sar, 87 endogamy, 45, 48 English Only, 137, 140-141 English as Official Language, 140-141 English-dominant bilingualism, 153 Enninger, W., 23-60 Esquerra Republicana, 68 ethnic identification, 198-205 ethnic identity, 61 ethnic identity and aging, 183-205 ethnic language maintenance, 207 ethnic languages, 207-223 ethnic rivalry, 111-129 ethnicity markers, 43 ethnolinguistic identity, 79 exclusive marked choice, 104 exogamy, 46

Federal Election Commission, 139 Feria de Barbarà, 68 Filipino/Pilipino, 111-129 Fishman, J.A., 9, 23, 61, 62,103,128, 131, 133, 141, 169, 170, 173, 179, 202, 210, 211, 216 French-Americans, 201 functional perspectives on language, 134-136

Galician, 83-94 genealogies, 47-48 Gleyzele tey, 192-197

Index Gold, D., 171,172,174, 176,177-181 Gonzalez, A., 111-129 Greek-Americans, 201 Greeks in Montreal, 152 greeting formulae, 36-37, 42

Hebrew-Aramaic, 169, 170, 172, 173 hegemonic continuity, 221 hegemonic paradigm, 209-211 Hispanic Americans, 132-143 Holyoke, 184, 205 homoginization, 136 honorifics, 39 Huffines, M.L., 9-22, 53, 56 humanistic change, 222 humanistic paradigm, 216-220 Hymes, D., 29, 30

identity planning, 62 Immigration Reform, 141 infinitive complement, 17-19 informal domains, 69 Institute of Philippine Languages, 111 insulting epithets, 75 interrupted transmission, 15 Irish-Americans, 201 isoglossal lectism, 177 Italian-Americans, 202

Japanese Occupation, 122 Jewish-English, 169-181 Jewish Greek, 178 Jewish immigrants, 183-205 Jewish interlinguistics, 179 Jewish intralinguistics, 169 Jewish Languages: Theme and Variations, 178 Judeo-Arabic, 170 Judeo-English, 169, 179 Judezmo, 170

Language and Ethnicity Kalenji, 105 kashrus, 198 Kaye, A., 169-181 Kikuyu, 104, 105, 106 Kisii, 105 Kjolseth, R., 207-223

Lancaster County, 56 language attitudes, 77 language choice, 75 language conservation, 146 language loss, 146 language maintenance and shift, 61 language minorities in the US, 131-143 language shift among immigrants, 159161 language shift among native born, 156158 language shift, current rate, 157 language shift measurement, 147 language shift theory, 145-167 language transfer, 153 language use, 146 Latin, 67 Lau vs. Nichols, 138 Law of Linguistic Normalization in Catalonia, 66 life cycle, 184 life-death metaphor, 9 linguistic accommodation, 49 linguistic assimilation, 54, 55 linguistic choices, 67 linguistic choices among students, 70 linguistic de-ethnicization, 55 linguistic diversity, 142 linguistic heterogeneity, 136 linguistic ideology, 80 linguistic markers of peoplehood, 44 linguistic policy changes, 65-66 linkages of language, 61-81 literacy test, 139 Lithuanian Yiddish, 196

253 Lopez, D., 131-143 Lorrain, 145 Luo, 103, 104 Luyia, 98, 99, 101, 102, 106, 107

macrosociolinguistics, 131, 134 Mallorca, 70 Maragoli, 102 marked choice, 100 marked use of an ethnic language, 106107 Martyrs' Mirror, 47 Marx, K., 134, 135, 136 Mason, Jackie, 180 matched-guise test, 53, 63, 77, 80 matrix language, 96 measurement of language use, 152 measurement of mother tongue, 148 Melting Pot, 210 membership in a living language community, 146 Mennonite, 10,11,16, 18-22, 55 metaphorical switch, 103 migration, 48 minority language, 61 monolingualism, 49, 153, 201, 209 multilingualism, 28, 50 Myers-Scotton, C, 95-109

National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983, 212 National Language Act of the Philippines, 122 National Language Institute of the Philippines, 119, 122 National Language Law of the Philippines, 119 National Language Week, 111 National Yiddish Book Center Summer Institute, 196 Native Americans, 201

254 new ethnicity, 26, 44, 47, 48, 58, 59 New Order Arnish, 11 nonstandard vernaculars, 61 normalization, 72 Northhampton, 184,189,196,197, 205 Norwegian-Americans, 202

Obregón, Carlos, 68 old ethnicity, 45, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58 Old Order Amish, 11 Old Order Mennonites, 11, 12 onomastics, 46 other-dominant bilingualism, 153

participant observation, 184 Peltz, R., 183-205 Pennsylvania German, 9-22, 46, 50, 51, 52, 57 permissible marked choice, 102-104 Philippines, 111-129 pluralists, 138 Polish-Americans, 201 poll tax, 139 Portuguese in Montreal, 152 progressive aspect, 15-16 psychological distance, 20

Quakers, 32, 33 Quebec, 151, 157, 164, 166 Quebec Ministry of Cultural Communities, 147

racial diversity, 142 religious de-ethnicization, 55 Rhine Palatinate, 15 RO balance (right and obligations), 96, 97, 99, 106, 107, 108

Index Romería del Rocío, 68 Rosalía de Castro, 83-94 Rovira, Esteban Gómez, 68 Russian Mennonites, 48

salience, 99 Schleitheim Confession, 25, 27, 29, 35, 43 school curriculum, 72 Schopenhauer, A, 215 Second Disputation of October 1523, 27 self-ascription, 204 Sephardic English, 173, 176 SIE (Survey of Income and Education), 148-151,153,166 Singapore model, 128 situational factors, 99 Slavic-Americans, 202 socially marginated, 73 social motivations for code choices, 96-97 social solidarity, 135, 203 solidarity, 77, 78, 79, 203 South Philadelphia, 184, 186, 189, 191,193,197, 205 Spanish Constitution of 1978, 67 Springfield, 190, 196 Swahili, 98, 99,101, 102, 106,107 Swiss Brethren, 23-60 Swiss model, 128 symbolic values, 77, 80

Tagalog, 111-129 Täufer, 25-60 Team Mennonites, 11 The Ethnic Revival, 210 third-generation nationalism, 47 translation task, 14

Language and Ethnicity UNESCO, 214 unmarked choice, 97, 100, 103 unmarked infinitive, 18

Veltman, C, 145-167 Vietnamese-Americans, 201 Voting Rights Act, 141

Woolard, K., 61-81 Worcester, 184, 190, 205

255 xenophobia, 142, 164

Yevanic, 178 Yiddish, 169,170,172,173,174,178, 180, 181, 183-205 Yiddish language use, 191-198 yiddishkeit, 194, 198, 199, 200 Yinglish, 169

Zero Population Growth, 141 Zürich Bible, 27