Language loyalty in the United States

REVIEWS

261

- COMPTES-RENDUS

(1952; von Rfike hier nicht angefiihrt) zusammenstellt 1 fehlen hicr. Anderseits Studien nachgewiesen. Northwestern University, Author’s address: IOII Fourth St., Santa Mmica,

verzeichnet und im Index werden manche zusgtzliche

W.F.

LEOPQLD

Calif. 90403, U.S.A.

Laquage Loyalty iut the United States. The maintenance and perpetuation of non-English mother tongues by American ethnic and religious groups. By Joshua A. Fishman, and Vladimir C. Nahirny, John E. Hofman, Robert G. Hayden with the assistance of Mary E. Warshauer, Heinz Kloss, Herve B. Lemaire, Chester C. and Jane Christian, and Nathan Glazer, and with an Introduction by Einar Haugen. Janua Linguarum Series Maior 21. Mouton Rr Co., The Hague 1966. 4'3 pp. It is tempting to reg a~? it as significant for the interpretation of the past and present ‘temper’ of the United States as a nation that this volume on the ‘maintenance and perpetuation of non-English mother-tongues by American ethnic and religious groups’ has had to wait for so long to be written and that it- does appear at this particular time. In fact, the principal authtir himself seems to suggest this in his chapter on ‘the historical ant social contexts of an inquiry into language maintenance efforts’. He first states: ‘To question the wisdom or the necessity or the naturalness of the deethnization of immigrant populations strikes many as questioning the very legitimacy or the very possibility of America’s national and cultural existence’. (p. 29). And later: ‘If Americans cannot understand the rest of the wor!d, it is largely due to the fact that they themselves, to recognize have not sufficiently corn 3 to understand themselves, or to accept thems,elves’. (p. 32). There exists, he argues within the borders of the United States exactly the .‘tind of cultuL , social, and linguistic diversity with which ‘w 2ation has to cope in its foreign relations. Be this as it may. The fact that this volume has appeared at this particuhr time can certainly be interpretfcl as one more indication

26:2

REVIEWS

-

COMPTES-RE

fi DUS

that we are witnessing a new era in the study of ‘language and society’. The area of research that is vaguely referred to by this term is, of course, not new, nor are the efforts to develop a ‘sociolinguistic’ methodology entirely new. What is new is the extent of the interest in the area and the concerted efforts that are being made to develop a theory which can truly be called ‘sociolinguistic’ by virtue of reflecting the intimate relationship between the two components of the term, or even by virtue of disposing of the dichotomy between ‘language’ and ‘society’ entirely by defining a ‘sociolinguistic’ object for study. Important contributions have been made in recent years by linguists working under such labels as ‘institutional linguistics’ and the ‘ethnography of communication’ as well as ‘sociolinguistics’ and ‘bilingualism’. Professor Fishman has been one of those who have tried to give the fi&l ifs OWEm~+hJo!ogicd profik, it; own *a..”-11VU __..._--* questions and hypotheses. The present volume is not, and does not claim to be, innovative in regard to the methods employed in the component investigations. The methods and techniques can best be characterized as sociological rather than sociolinguistic, if by the latter term we refer to an approach designed to deal with linguistic diversity beyond the broad distinction of ‘languages’ used in the present study. HowelTer, in one respect it certainly represents someth.ing essentially new’. By applying a variety of techniL les and points of view to a given situation, it suggests a type of-research program which may feasibly be carried our for other cases of societal bilingualism as well, perhaps as an initial probing to be followed by intensive studies of specific problems. The volume raises enough questions and generates enough hypotheses to keep researchers occupied for many years. Professor Fishman makes an impassioned claim not only for the importance to the American nation of an increased understanding of its own diversity, but also for the importance of ‘sociological’ and ‘sociolinguistic’ research in the developing world where political stability may depend partly on the possibility of coping with cultural and linguistic diversity. Within the genera!. sociological framework of the study, the different authors display a variety of approaches, often combining several techniques and points of view within one and the same chapter. There are analyses of census data and studies of the cammunity dynamics of language maintenance, historical surveys and projections of future development, broad discussions of ethnicity and

REVIEWS

-

COM PTES-RENDUS

263

American nationalism and civilization and detailed attitudinal studie>, case studies of specific groups and specific domains of l.+guage use and ‘integrative reviews’. The plan of l)reser!tation is as follows. An introductory chapter sets the stage fogr tLe investigatior... Chapter 2 then prese,.ts some socio-demographic clraracteristics of the non-Enl;;lish mother-tongue groups, including analyses of trends in regard to language maintenance. Chapters 3 through 6 deal with such basic domains and sources of language maintenance as the ethnic press, ethnic broadcasting, ethnic schools, and ethnic p..rishes. Tykil::ally these chapters contain analyses of trends from tl\e period of mass immigration 1880-1920 to the present, informcztlon concerning present strength, and. assessments of the attitudes ar.d plans of th s persons involved in the respective areas. In Chapters 7 and 8, the study of attitudes toward language maintenance is lmked with that of actual language use, first for the leadership of ethnic: organisation:; and then for five selected communities, Chapters 9 through 12 consist of four comprehensive case studies focusing on German-American, FrancoAmerican (in Massachusetts), Spanish-American (iu the SoL.th-west), and Ukranian-American language maintenance It:fforts. Historical surveys, some reaching back into the European past of a group, are followed ‘W detailed accounts of ianguage maim enance as related to th.e important domains discussed in chapters 3--6 and by assessments of the current situation. Attention is also g:.ven to questions of 3 more general theoretical nature, for example; the isolation of relevant social, cultural, and demographic variables. The chapter on the Spanish-American situation contains an int(:resting at tempt at a contrastive analysis of Hispanic and Anglo-American culture and tjhat on the Ukranian-American situation a polI?mic against the so-called Hansen’s Law concerning the ‘revolt’ of the second generation and the ‘return’ of the third generation to its ethnic heritage. Chapter 13 consists of an integrative review by Nathan Glazer, chapter 14 of the principal author’s recommendation:; for the support of what he terms a ‘neglected national resource’, and chapter 15 of his assessment o:E the findings of the ;nvestigaticn. The vclume concludes with methodological notes, a discussion by Fishman of language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry (previously published in Lingzbstics 9, 32-70, 196411,and indices. By. and large the empirical evidence furnished by the study

264

REVIEWS

-

COMPTES-RENDUS

supports what has so far often been simply assumptions and surmises concerning language maintenance and ethnicity in the United States. However, although this empirical undergirding is in itseli an achievement, there are some findings which deserve to be called new. Fishman points to the following results as the most striking: the vastness of the language maintenance efforts, the lack of a conscious policy of language maintenance even in circles involved in these efforts, the change in the role of religion from strong support of language maintenance and ethnicity to enmity or apathy, the present lack of more strident and ideologized opposition to language maintenance in the second and third generation, the continuation of favorable sentiments toward language maintenance in groups where functional bilingualism is long gone, yes even a search for ethnicity of an appropriately selective and marginal nature, and the role that marginal ethnicity still plays in spite of the success of the ‘melting pot’. I will return to the last point later but first a few words concerning the general picture of language maintenance that emerges from the study. A basic aim of a study of this type must, of course, be the search for variables in terms of which the development can be described and explained. A multitude of variables are suggested. The most important ones are singled out by Nathan Glazer: (1) the time of migration, (2) the area and pattern of settlement, (3) the social structure and cultural patterns of the migrating population, (4) religion, and (5) the degree of ideological mobilization. The situation is characterized by great between-group as well ;LSwithin-group differences in these respects. Perhaps the most striking finding is that in spite of this great ‘input variance’, there is so little ‘output variance’. (pp. 399-400). With one exception, that of the Spanishspeaking community in San Antonio, Texas, the groups all seem to be headed down the same road toward eventual language shift and de-ethnization. Robert Hayden’s study of the community dynamics of language maintenance in French, Spanish, and Ukrainian communities is illuminating in this connection. The France-American community in Fall River, Massachusetts, and the UkrainianAmerican community in Olyphant, Pennsylvania, are both beyond the stage of functional bilingualism. The Ukrainian-American community in Newark, New Jersey, and the Spanish-American community iq New York City, on the other hand, still exhibit functional

REVIEWS

-

COMPTES-RENDUS

265

bilingualism, but this fact can be explained entirely in terms of immigrational recency and Hayden finds no reason t‘o believe that they will not eventually meet the same fate as .th~ two former communities. They differ with regard to the rate of c:hange from the former, but not with regard to the direction of cha::lge. Only in the Spanish community in San Antonio, Texas, does Hayden find a viable fuctional bilingualism exhibiting the kind ol’ contextual and inter-generational stability that insures that t!le non-English mo~.her-tongue will continue to be used and transmitl:ed from parents to children. (He raises the question why this situation exists in San Antonio, but leaves it to further research to answer it.) The uniformity of the development in the face of extremes of ‘input variance’ emphasizes the tremendous power of the ‘ccunter maintenance’ factor to which all the groups have been exposed, viz., the American environment’ whether described primarily in terms of American nationalism as by Fishman or in terms of American civilization as by Glazer. In an imaginative analysis of the former concept, Fishman describes it as ‘non-ethnic’ in nature. Morality, opportunity and freedolm have been the basic ini/;redients of this nationalism rather than any substantive ethnicity. He uses this interpretation to explain what he first characteriises as a ‘double anomaly’, viz., on the one hand, the fact that so m any could be deethnicized so easily and, on the other, the fact tha:: this de-ethnization has not been complete. While theA rather abstract nature of Ameriican natronalism has made it easy to embrace, and thus a potent factor furthering assimilation’ its relative l~k of ethnic contetlt has left a vacuum where a lingering marginal ethnicity has playeld an important role. The impact of American mass culture is also emphasized in Fishman’s conclusions. In Gl:llzer’s analysis of American civilization as the main counter-mainten 3nce factorJ qmxs culture takes its place beside mass. free educatior, the openness of American politics, and economic factors. All in all, these features of American civilization tended to draw the immigrant and his detscendants away from ethnic isolation and to undermine any movement,; bent on elaborating the largely un-ideoloi;;ized ethnicity of the various groups into a nationalistic ideolotig that could complete with Qmericanism. In the introductory chapter, Professor Fishman speaks of the ‘towering mountains of ignorance’ that surround the cultural and

266

REVIEWS

-

COMPTES-RENDWS

linguistic self-maintenance efforts of American minority groups. Even if this volume does not remove the mountains, it probes deeply into unknown territory and provides a map that will indeed bt valuable to future (explorers. University of Minnesota, 516 Westwood Drive SO., ikfinnea~olis, M’inrt, 5~5416, U.S.A.

NILS HASSELMO

EINARHAUGEN,Lmguage conflict and language filamiq;

the Press, Price:

case of Modern Norwegian. Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966. xvi, 393 pp. 3 lO.-. As Haugen says somewhere in this book, the Norwegian patriots in the generation after 1814 clearly believed that the political independence Norway had achieved after four centuries of dynastic union with Denmark would of itself bring about linguistic independence. They foresaw difficulties (Henrik Wergeland himself spoke of the coming ‘literary civil war’) but it is doubtful whether anyone at that time could have predicted that the effort to develop a new national language would involve the whole country in a language controversy that has lasted well over a hundred years and in a sustained program of conscious planning that has effected language reforms more drastic in their nature than those instituted in any other country in a comparable period. Or that the end product of it all would be that Norway which started with a stable language of writing now has two competing languages neither of which can in any sense be described as stable. Though in fairness we should perhaps add that there is something to show for all the efforts. Language planning in the 19th century brought into being two Norwegian languages of writing. Twentieth century planning has largely been directed toward healing the cleavage and though the greater goal of fusing the two languages into a single standard has still to be achieved, they have been given a common orthographic framework that is unmistakably and adequately Norwegian. The only comprehensive account of the Norwegian language movement that has een available until now is Burgun’s Le dheloppement Zinguistique en Novvige de@& 1816, a work largely concerned