Sociolinguistics of Ethnicity in Francophone Louisiana by Dajko (2012)

Dajko, N. (2012). Sociolinguistics of ethnicity in francophone Louisiana. Language and

Linguistics Compass, 6, 279-295. doi:10.1002/lnc3.333

            Language cannot be the only marker of ethnicity (p. 279) as perceived by the identified groups in this study by Dajko in Francophone Louisiana.

            She reiterated that there is a clear linguistic distinction in the variety of French, i.e. Colonial French, Louisiana Creole, and Cajun Creole, spoken in Louisiana (pp. 280-281). The developments of these varieties can be traced back to the history of immigrants from France (p. 281-283).  Moreover, these are caused by several factors including social class of immigrants from the Old World (p. 283), new generation of speakers (p. 284), and intermarriages (p. 285). Language leveling across these new communities excited the shift of identities resulting conflation of categories and, thus, confusion. Initially, white and people of color in the area freely identify themselves as speaker of Cajun or Creole, as one would feel most comfortable (p. 289), until the passing of misinformed legislations and polarization of ‘ethnicity’ to ‘race’ (p. 290).

Dajko conducted surveys of self-declared language labels (p. 290). This confirmed that speakers label their language in accordance with their ethnic affiliation rather than differences of speech patterns, i.e., identifying themselves as speakers of Cajun even though linguistically their speech is characterized as Creole. She also reaffirmed the existence of French used by American Indians (p. 291) from her dissertation work.

Speakers of a language are aware of their differences (p. 292). Dajko successfully argued that “informal observation” and “personal opinion” on matters involving ethnicities must be done away with (p. 291) as they result to confusion. When this is observed, it may contribute to well-informed legislation; legislation that in turn will strengthen ethnicities and respond to deeply felt identity of the peoples.

The Bible, Christianity, Ethnic Identity, and Nationhood by Hughes (2012)

Hughes, D. (2012). The Bible, Christianity, ethnic identity, and nationhood. Ethnic identity from the margins: A Christian perspective. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Hughes presented how ethnicity and ethnic identity, even for those who are marginalized ethnicities, are made ‘concrete’ alongside Christianity and the message of the Bible.

            This chapter provides an overview of the early works in the translation of the Bible, which dates back to the second century BC (pp. 59-60). A focus is then shifted to the formation of the English identity and the place of the Bible in it until it reached ‘nationhood’. Hughes goes on to say, “Christianity in general and the Bible in particular made a vital contribution to the shaping and stabilizing of English identity” (p. 63). In Wales, Hughes argues that ethnic identity can take its shape through ‘nonconformity’ and could weaken through assimilation (p. 74; see the cases on pp. 78-84). For this matter, contributions of Griffith Jones of Llanddowror, Thomas Charles and Mary Jones were given emphases. For a growing state like England expansion not just with trade but also with influence is expected. This gave rise to the period of English Christian mission, as well. Even though imperial authority and imperialistic purpose primarily propelled the missionary works, many missionaries began translating the Bible in the heart languages of Tsonga, Baganda, and Yoruba.

In effect, Hughes highlighted a warning that when theories of “progress” concern themselves with production, democratization, and with “better material circumstances”, “more nonmaterial cultural values could be sacrificed on the altar of this new god” (p.74). This statement deeply leaves an imprint to modern thought on ethnicity and language. It embodies the struggles and successes of the marginalized ethnicities in this chapter.

Does Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory Account for the Actual Vitality of Ethnic groups? A Critical Evaluation by Yamgur (2011)

Yamgur, K. (2011). Does ethnolinguistic vitality theory account for the actual vitality of ethnic groups? A critical evaluation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32, 111-120. doi:10.1080/01434632.2010.541914

            Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory (EVT) and its accompanying questionnaire was retested and critically accounted for in this paper by Yamgur. He took the Turkish community in diaspora with focus on four countries, namely Germany, Netherlands, France and Australia.

            Calling on the article by Elhala, Yamgur supported and cited several weaknesses of the instrument in question. He noticed that SEVQ, EVT’s instrumentation, failed to produce consistency of results in determining Demographic, Institutional Control, and Status factors (pp. 118-9), as in this study. He went on to discover that SEVQ couldn’t reconcile mainstream versus immigrant vitalities (p. 116). He cited it as an instrumentation that is contextually difficult when administered across geographies under the same ethnic communities (pp. 116, 117-118).  Also, building on Fishman, he emphasized that language should be intertwined with the ethnic core values to achieve language maintenance (p. 118), which the instrumentation had not incorporated. He then suggested reconstructing the concepts under EVT and producing a more inclusive instrumentation.

            Yamgur, however, did not discredit some important insights gained from the EVT, such as the revealed importance of generational considerations (p. 113), social network (p. 117) and media portrayal of Turkish in diaspora in language maintenance. It is accepted that instrumentations have vulnerable areas for improvement and Yamgur had successfully pinpointed these areas of consideration under the EVT.

Sociocultural Influences on Classroom Interactional Styles by Sullivan (1996)

  Sullivan, P. (1996). Sociocultural Influences on Classroom Interactional Styles. TESOL Journal, 6, 32-34.

     In an English as Second Language (ESL) classroom, various behavior can be observed among the students. Sociocultural factors, as the present shift of understanding takes us, provides an informed assessment to these interactional behaviors than a go-to judgment of a student’s conformity or non-conformity in a particular learning setting.

     Sullivan (1996) drew insights from her documented observations in Vietnamese university-level English language classrooms. She picked two instances that recorded their interaction in the class. These revealed presence of (a) high noise levels from individual and overlapping question-answering practice and (b) widespread repetition and ‘playful’ interjection of other students between the student being asked and the teacher who is asking. This behavior is contextually ‘supportive’ and not seen as debilitative to learning.

     This classroom interactional style for the Vietnamese immigrant student is somehow inhibited in a new setting. The importance of ‘verbal support’, and much of it, which is present in the Vietnamese ESL classroom, has been more felt in an interview. Furthermore, the student experiences disconnectedness in activities, such as divided grouping, and shock in a ‘silent’ U.S. classroom.

     Values and cultural practices are seen to have reinforced this feeling of connection and support from the learning community of the subjects being studied. Shared lives inside and outside the campus among the Vietnamese are contrasted with that of the U.S. college experience. This contrast showed that the former set-up fostered strong life relationships and obligations, which transcends beyond the classroom. According to Sullivan, these connections are rarely cultivated in the U.S. since the university is viewed to be a transitory setting.

     In Vietnam, the teacher-student relationship is comparable to a father and his son, where the father teaches his son and the son has the task to complete his learning in obeisance, as in a family. With regards to group dynamics, the U.S. and Vietnam have differences in the purpose of groupings. The former purposes it to bde an opportunity to express various opinions without the necessity to agree while the latter sees its purpose as a group with a “consensus, or at least all agreeing to agree” (p. 34).

     The silence of a Vietnamese student in a U.S. classroom is not a matter of indifference but of ‘acceptable verbal interaction’. If transferred in a new setting, the student’s interactional style might even be seen as interrupting than contributing. Moreover, one-to-one recitation is perceived as putting the student on the spotlight.

     The student’s classroom behavior, which he built from his native learning community, can be reflected through his interaction in a new setting. This interaction may be externally pronounced or muted. I affirm the idea that one’s silence in a new classroom is not an antagonistic expression but, as presented, an initial manifestation of shock brought by being in a new classroom with a different interaction expectation default. Ideally, the student should not singularly cope with this. In establishing an inclusive classroom, the teacher’s orchestration is highly demanded. It is also important to point out that this can only be possible through the teacher’s active and informed decisions.

     Moving beyond the case of the Vietnamese student, Sullivan does not raise into question the interactional style in the U.S. This juxtaposition only demonstrates that learning communities learn differently but this difference is specific to how they learn effectively. In addition, the gradients of familial ties among teachers and students across cultures are not less ideal than others. However, the strength or weakness of this connection will surface as a student interacts in a new learning community.

     Finally, sociocultural factors, as stated above, influence the classroom’s interactional styles. In the field of education, differences in the students’ classroom participation can be attributed to their former learning community’s social and cultural conventions. Taking this lens to view such challenges will help the ESL teacher appropriate methods to advantageously position a diverse classroom towards a fruitful interaction and learning.

Fishman & Garcia's (2010) Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives

Fishman, J., & Garcia, O. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of language and ethnic identity: Disciplinary and regional perspectives (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The editors present an expansive introduction to the study of language and ethnic identity. Joshua Fishman starts by distinguishing language-and-ethnic-identity as a triad that he well acknowledges. Ethnicity, in Fishman’s introduction of the book, is referred to as something “attitudinal and attitudinally complex”. Nevertheless, these are discussed in studies of practices across cultures.

            Current trends on research methodologies cover the first part of the book, including topical approaches in the field. Several studies include the contributions of established arts and sciences to language policy from the areas of psychology, politics, economics, and education. François Grin, a contributor of the section in economics, posits that there will always remain a debatable aspect of any language policy that adapts the sciences and arts of economics (p. 86), among other fields aforementioned (pp. 45, 66). The second part covers studies from locations around the world. Language and ethnic distribution, fragmentation, vitality, and integrity are some key concepts herein (see pp. 286, 535, 470). Across the studies in this book, it shows that certain approaches to language and ethnic identity are challenged by ‘globalization’ and ‘transnationalism’; it can change. Research, therefore, becomes more complex, but still deemed methodologically possible (p. 520).

 Similar to other sources, there has been a stark description of attributing “ethnicity” as an assignment by the contextually dominant group to the gradients below it; i.e. separate “peopleness”. Overall, this book can be considered as a research manual in the field of language and ethnic identity. It discusses approaches to current research in the field where ethnolinguistics remains employable and a new demolinguistic perspective is introduced. Finally, local and global influences to ethnicity and education are widely considered as strong factors to ‘make’ or ‘break’ ethnicity.

Fieldwork in Field Methods in Linguistics by Newman (2009)

Newman, P. (2009). Fieldwork in field methods in linguistics. Language Documentation and Conservation, 3, 113-125.

Newman offered a quick but insightful (a) review of literature that discuss the human factor in fieldwork and (b) study on the implementation of field methods (FM) courses in universities in the U.S. and Canada.

He particularly highlighted four human factors/issues that he believes as beneficial in carrying out a linguistic project. Health issues in the field, according to him, are mostly exaggerated. Fatality from a disease that may be acquired in the field is actually curable. The difference is the presence of medical personnel, which may be working in the community or with the team (p. 115). He pointed out that researchers in the field should actually be more concerned with the following health hazard: car accidents, loss/broken eyeglasses, and lack of preparation in familiar medications such as allergy remedies or even sunscreen. Having children is the second issue he pointed out for reasons that include time demands, education, and overall psychological need. Next, he discussed gender and sex. He assessed that sex in the field is less discussed than gender, i.e. the role of women professionals (p. 117).  He raised interesting questions that will allow self-examination for a single, married, and homosexual person doing a fieldwork in response to the realities encountered in the field. Finally, he presented professional and personal ethics as an issue subsumed in the overarching human factor. Situations such as presence of long-time expatriates as resource, knowledge management protocols, and other professional responsibilities are taken to account.

For reference purposes, Newman built on the book by Howell (1990) for his discussion on health, Cassel (1987), Warren (1988), and Cassel & Jacobs (1987) for children, gender and sex, and professional and person ethics, respectively.

What interested me in this article is the ‘informal survey’  (p. 121) he conducted. This survey captured a rough picture of the status of FM in linguistics across all major PhD-granting linguistics departments in the U.S. I would definitely invite you to read this part of the article. I can point out two challenges that personally confronted me from the implications of the survey. First, as a student of [applied] linguistics, it is important to get our senses familiar with how our craft operates in the field, thus taking field methods class, at least. Secondly, and finally, theoretical knowledge in analyzing language must be empowered with descriptive methods of data gathering.

References:

Cassell, J. (1987). Children in the field: Anthropological experiences. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Cassell, J. & Jacobs, S.E. (1987). Handbook on ethical issues in anthropology. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Howell, N. (1990). Surviving fieldwork: A report of advisory panel on health and safety in fieldwork. American Anthropological Association, 26

Warren, C. A. B. (1988). Gender issues in field research. Qualitative Research Methods Series, 9