Arizona State University, USA
Themed-panel
This two-part panel explores the interplay of face-to-face verbal interaction with official and unofficial policies designed to “manage” linguistic and cultural diversity. Part I focuses on national, minority, and immigrant languages in Europe and the U.S.; Part II addresses endangered Indigenous languages in Russia and the U.S., with a contrastive analysis of Swahili pidgin. The perspective taken is that language policy is not only or primarily constituted by official texts and acts, but is a complex socio-cultural process mediated by relations of power. Discussion questions include:
1. How are official and tacit language policies enacted in everyday social practice?
2. How do those practices shape individual and collective identities and social hierarchies?
3. How do members of marginalized speech communities resist and reframe those hierarchies?
4. What are the implications for language planning and language rights?
Each presenter is allotted 25 minutes, including 5-7 minutes for audience interaction. A brief period will be reserved at the end of each session for whole-group discussion.
Part I: National, Minority, and Immigrant Languages in Europe and the USA
Part I begins with a brief introduction to the session by Teresa McCarty. This is followed by Dónall Ó Riagáin’s paper, “Irish: A New Future for an Old Language.” Irish is unique among Europe’s lesser used languages in that it has a large pool of L2 users and a small pool of L1 users: 1.75 million people in Ireland speak Irish, while 453,000 use it on a daily basis. This paper examines the interaction of language practices in the domains of education, the media, and print literacy, with official language policies enacted to regulate the use of Irish and English. The paper argues that these practices are both constituted by and have concretely transformed Irish national identity.
The second paper, by Sonja Novak Lukanovic, “Managing Language Diversity in Ethnically Mixed Areas of Slovenia,” examines the “dual nature” of language as a symbolic system and a cultural product that participates in the formation and maintenance of human relationships. Using empirical data, these phenomena of language management in Slovenia are examined: (1) how inhabitants perceive language and cultural diversity in their micro environment and at the global level; (2) how they accept or resist measures aimed at intercultural communication; (3) why and where an individual language is used: and (4) factors underlying language choices. Implications for the social organization of language use are discussed.
The third paper, by Terrence Wiley, “Perceptions of Differential Treatment Based on Language Background among Chinese Immigrants and International Students in the USA,” reports on a study of language attitudes among 750 Chinese immigrant/international students in the USA toward: (1) differential treatment based on language background, and (2) negative experiences due to “Chinese-accented” English. This study probes the extent to which “regional accents” of Mandarin and use of regional languages mark social boundaries, resulting in differential treatment or “linguistic profiles.” Data from online surveys, focus group discussions, and interviews indicate differential treatment among Chinese in the U.S. based on regional language varieties as well as tolerance for language diversity; however, the majority of those of Chinese origin appear to be relatively resilient in dealing with this problem.
Part II: Indigenous and Pidgin Languages in the USA, Russia, and Africa
Part II begins with a brief introduction by Teresa McCarty. The first paper, by Perry Gilmore, “Creating and Recreating Language Communities: Verbal Practices Transform Social Structure and Reconstruct Identities on a Kenya Hillside and in the Alaska Interior,” presents a contrastive analysis of language practices which simultaneously (re)create community and resist inequities of power, race, and class in their social contexts: a Swahili pidgin language invented and used exclusively by two boys, a Samburu and an American, and an Alaska Native Indigenous language revitalization program. Focusing on parallel issues of identity, community, and ideology, the discussion explores micro and macro aspects of linguistic practices and (re)construction of community identities.
This second paper, by Tamara Borgoiakova, “The Sociolinguistic Situation and Ethnic Stereotyping in Khakasia,” addresses the sociolinguistic situation and ethnic stereotypes of Khakasians and Russians in Khakasia. A language status planning analysis shows the contradiction between the legal status of Khakas as a second official language in the Republic and its endangered future. Free associative experiments also reveal the presence of ethnic stereotypes. Despite 300 years of close association within Russia, intercultural misunderstandings and unequal majority-minority relations prevail. The paper concludes by discussing the mixed feelings of language pride and shame among Khakasians, and ongoing counter-initiatives to linguistic and cultural assimilation.
The final paper, by Teresa McCarty, “Portraits of Language Use in Native America: Complicating Language Shift, Promoting Indigenous Rights,” reports on a large-scale, five-year study of Native-language shift and retention among American Indians in the U.S. Southwest. Using ethnographic interviews, sociolinguistic surveys, and observations, this study reveals portraits of language use and change “on the ground,” as experienced by youth and adults. These data show the micro and macro environments in which language proficiencies are developed and language practices are enacted to be much more rich, varied, and contentious than the notion of “shift,” with its unidirectional connotations, suggests. The implications of these findings for Indigenous/minority-language maintenance and linguistic and educational rights are discussed.