Language and ethnicity
Language and ethnicity are known to be closely intertwined (Giles &ump; Coupland 1991). However, prior to analyzing interrelation between language and ethnicity I faced the problem of identifying the concept of ‘ethnicity’ itself. Thus, Fishman (1997: 327) points out that ‘ethnicity’ like other notions it is in a close association with, i.e. ‘race’, ‘people’, ‘nation’, ‘nationality’, is not “an exact scientific term”. Therefore it is not clearly defined and thus is open to interpretations (Ibid). In my search I came across a number of rather vogue explanations, and the most common aggregated dictionary definition of ‘ethnicity’ is ‘a belonging to a particular social group that has a common national or cultural tradition’ (MacMillan Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, etc.). Dictionary of Cultural Literacy does single out and include language into the ethnicity definition saying that it is an “identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group's customs, beliefs, and language”. However, is language always an inevitable part of one’s ethnicity or the ethnicity of a group? Definitely, the most understandable case of interrelation between language and ethnicity is the one when a person is born and lives on a specific territory which historically had one dominant ethnos and one dominant language, so ethnicity is predetermined by close bound between language and territory (Fishman 1997). Thus, Tabouret-Keller (1997) gives an example of a school boy from Belize who identifies himself as Belizean because he was born in that country, he lives there and also is a native speaker of its Creole language. But there are two more cases when interrelation of ethnicity and language should be considered: a) case of ethnic group as a minority one in a dominant society and b) case of a state created based on immigration (Fishman 1977, 1997; Jenkins 2005).
In terms of the first case, ethnicity is viewed as a belonging to a social group with a common cultural rather than national tradition (Fishman 1997). Thus, there have been a number of studies proving the importance of language to the preservation of ethnic minority’s identity (Fishman 1977, 1997; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977; Isajiw 1983; Lieberson 1988; Reitz 1985). According to Isaiw (1983: 208) “to understand the nature of ethnicity it is essential to understand whether, how and why ethnic identity is retained from one generation to another, since retention of the ethnic identity refers to the prevalence in the second or consecutive generations of attributes – personal or institutional – that can be identified as characteristic of the specific ethnic group”. Isaiw (1983) also claims that language together with customs, personal networks, participation in ethnic organizations and institutions, makes up an external dimension of ethnic identity. Therefore, language is considered an essential part of ethnicity. For example, Fishman (1977: 25) notes that language is “commonly relied upon so heavily (even if not exclusively) to enact, celebrate and ‘call forth’ all ethnic activity, the likelihood that it will be recognized and singled out as symbolic of ethnicity is great indeed.” Therefore minority groups strive to protect their languages as an essential component of their group marker (Williams 1991). For instance, Hutterite ethnic group in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan managed to retain their ancestral German dialect since immigrating to Canada in the early XX century (Ryan 2011).
However, it has also been claimed that often minority language retains only a symbolic value and meaning for second and third generations of immigrants, even though its communicative functions have been replaced by the majority language(s) (Chow 2000). For example, Canada 2006 Census shows that there were an estimated 1,209,085 persons of Ukrainian origin (single and multiple responses) in the country; however only 141,805 people claimed Ukrainian to be their mother tongue and less than 30,000 actually used it on a daily basis at home. In terms of maintenance of such ‘symbolic’ languages Clyne (1997: 310) suggests that only those languages that are “intertwined as a core value with other core values” in their corresponding ethnic groups are more likely to survive, whereas those ethnic groups for whom language is an isolated ethnicity marker are less inclined to preserve it. Fishman (1991) gives an example of Hasidic Jews in the US, who have much better Yiddish retention rates since they are required to use it in specific domains, unlike other Jews, for whom language carries only a symbolic meaning.
Concept of ‘ethnolinguistic vitality’, introduced by Gilles, Bourhis and Taylor (1977), also utilized the intrinsic connection between ethnicity and language. Ethnolinguistic vitality determines largely the behaviour of group members “both amongst themselves and in interactions with members of the other groups” (Crozier 1999: 4). If the vitality of an ethnic group is relatively high, its members will be more likely to act in a way that distinguishes them from others, i.e. eat ethnic food, dance traditional dances and use their ethnic language. In this case, an ethnolinguistic group is more likely to survive (Ibid). On the other hand, a low vitality is an indication of lacking interest within the group in retaining its distinct identity and might cause the group’s eventual demise (Giles et al. 1977, Crozier 1999). Ethnolinguistic vitality theory also takes into consideration the status of the ethnic language: the higher it is, the better chances the whole group has for its survival (Gilles et al. 1977). For example, ethnolinguistic vitality of Greek diaspora all over the world can be explained, to a large extend, by “a belief in the uniqueness of Greek culture and the authenticity of the language” as the language of Bible and church, ancient literature and science just to name a few (Clyne 1997: 311).
But if we consider ‘ethnicity’ as a sense of belonging to a particular national group, common language seems to be less important. As Jenkins (2005) notices a number of distinctively different ethnic groups use the same language. The case of English is probably the most notable. It is mother tongue of Approximately 375 million people. According to 2006 data, United States (215 million), United Kingdom (61 million), Canada (18.2 million), Australia (15.5 million), Nigeria (4 million), Ireland (3.8 million), South Africa (3.7 million), and New Zealand (3.6 million) are the countries with the highest number of native speakers of English Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language). However, more than likely ethnicities which have English as a mother tongue “would not consider themselves the same as another nationality just because they speak English also” (Jenkins 2005).
According to 2006 Canada Census, almost 6 million people claimed Canadian ethnicity as their sole ethnic origin, and 10 more million mentioned ‘Canadian’ in their multiple responses. However, almost 18 million Canadians named English their mother tongue (Statistics Canada 2006). Therefore, for people who call themselves Canadians it might simply mean that they take part in the common ‘Canadian culture’, of which language is a part, but not an essential one. This assumption is supported by the research carried out in the border region of Italy, Austria and Slovenia where linguistic landscape is much more varied than the ethnic one (Stacul ????). And the same situation can be observed in other multilingual states built on immigration, such as USA and Australia, where censuses show an increase in numbers of those who report national ethnicity (Cohen ????).
As a matter of fact, Wikipedia even has a separate entry for ‘American ethnicity’ which is claimed to be different from citizenship of nationality. 2000 U.S census data, showed the rising number of those who identify themselves as Americans. Furthermore, this increase represents the largest growth in numbers compared to any other ethnic group in the United States (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity).
Nevertheless, it is important to remember that language is a significant component of ethnicity. However, as any other (component of ethnicity), “it can be perceived and dealt with differently in analysis and classification” (Jenkins): for many ethnic minority groups language proved to be a cornerstone of their vitality, but for such countries as Canada it is rather an optional characteristic in formulating modern ethnicity.