A Meta-Analysis of the Correlation Between Heritage Language and Ethnic Identity by Mu (2015)

Mu, G. M. (2015). A meta-analysis of the correlation between heritage language and ethnic identity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36, 239-254. doi:10.1080/01434632.2014.909446

            In his expansive yet critical paper, Mu intervened to the gap in research justifying cross-ethnic claims between ethnic identity and heritage language (HL) proficiency (p. 240). He employed meta-analysis, an advanced statistics for contrasting and combining quantitative studies (p. 241), and treated 18 articles that had successfully met the selection criteria (p. 242). Component models of this analysis (pp. 246-247) revealed that there is a medium positive correlation in the differences of the included studies and significant correlation of ethnic identity and HL proficiency across different ethnic groups (p. 248).

            This instrumentation of analysis, however, has its own limitations. Methodological variations in sampling across the analyzed studies raised a concern (p. 248). Collectively, convenience sampling is administered but the participants of the study are the differential, i.e. strong proportions of children, adolescents, and young adults. Parental intervention and multi-ethnicities are notable considerations altogether (p. 249). Furthermore, the studies’ operationalization, i.e., adapted frameworks, measurement, i.e., self-reported results and instrumentation, and localization, i.e., spatial diversities, have been discussed as deeply felt consideration for future research (pp. 249-250). Mu also raised the development of the studies’ theoretical bases. He urged working on mainstreaming as a response to theoretical overlaps (p. 250). He personally proposed Bourdieu’s “sociological notion of habitus” to harmonize concurrent approaches in ethnic identity and HL research (p. 251).

            Mu can be commended with his attempt to ‘standardize’ the results of the studies. Yet, his attempt to arrive at a transcending standard authority affirming the correlation of ethnic identity and HL use is in itself must be reconsidered, e.g., for weighted sample sizes. Gladly, this was mentioned before resting the paper’s case (pp. 250-251).

Ethnolinguistic Orientation and Language Variation: Measuring and Archiving Ethnolinguisitc Vitality, Attitudes, and Identity by Noels, Kil, & Yang (2014)

Noels, K. A., Kil, H., & Yang, F. (2014). Ethnolinguistic orientation and language variation: Measuring and archiving ethnolinguisitc vitality, attitudes, and identity. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8, 618-628. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12105

            Ethnolinguistic vitality, attitudes and identity have indeed received a lot of attention from various authors over the past four decades (p. 620). In this particular report, Noels and her team indexed studies that were used from the earliest consideration of ethnicity and language to what it is today. Furthermore, they suggested to having the studies archived to have a corpus dedicated for the field.

            Upon examination, past and present studies expose several points of improvement.  The long standing ethnolinguistic vitality (ELV) framework was later deemed to lack the communicative competence and language use, thus subjective perception of ethnolinguistic vitality (SELV) emerged; and the Subjective Vitality Questionnaire (SVQ) as its instrument (p. 620). However, SVQ was found out to be unidimensional, i.e., not measuring discrete latent variables of language vitality perceptions (p. 621). More recent studies showed more complex developments, which include psychological (p. 622), attitudinal  (pp. 623-624), allegiance-acculturation (p. 624), and situational considerations (pp. 625) as variables.

            Strikingly, the team favored quantitative research (p. 619). Though it seemed that the trend in research in the Philippines, as for my experience, tends to curve towards qualitative research, this is a revelation that it is not always appropriate. This is because it can “concisely document variables of interest”. Also, the presentation of language stereotypes (pp. 622-623) strikes a new note to my ears. It is not that I haven’t observed it before. It is the thought of the possibility that simple inquiries can be structured and researched is encouraging.

“Will this hell never end?”: Substantiating and Resisting Race-Language Policies in a Multilingual High School by Malsbary (2014)

Malsbary, C. (2014). “Will this hell never end?”: Substantiating and resisting race-language policies in a multilingual high school. Anthropology Education Quarterly, 45, 373-390. doi:10.1111/aeq.12076

Building on Critical Race Theory (CRT; p. 374), Malsbary revealed white supremacy and white racial consciousness is destroying academic participation and success of racial and ethnic students (pp. 381-383) in an English Second Language (ESL) program from a top performing high school in California.

The main contentions of the study are (a) exposing discriminating policies in the educational system and (b) fostering civil rights action from youth’s policy-making practices. She argued that in the present context, educational success of young people in the school’s ESL program is defined by their proficiency of English (p. 376) to the extent that this system demands “singular identities at personal cost” (p. 377). Malsbury even indicates that “motivation” reasons of dropping-out or even failing in the program could not be the singular cause (p. 382) even though this is the go-to reason of many teachers under the study. Judgment of language use, mispronunciation, and overall hostility (p. 380) is borne in such system of white racial consciousness (p. 381). Teachers (pp. 378-379), generational racial students (pp. 381-382) in the classroom, and the curriculum (p. 383) can be held accountable for this, as well. The “other” students, i.e. the “emergent bilinguals” (p. 386), tried to resist assimilation but proved to have less success (pp. 383-384) and fewer initiated to adapt individual classroom bi-/multilingual policies, which studies have shown to yield higher academic performance (p. 385).

This study carefully uncovers the discrepancies in the educational system. Also, this research is conceptually challenging the educational status quo and not the governing race. (This should be accentuated since the title can be bias to hate). As for her methodology, her decision to have the high school ESL students as subjects is empirically sound and reasonable (see Mu, 2015). Nevertheless, she could have used Discourse Analysis to account for the near-genuine attitude of the participants towards the subject. I recognize, however, that this would expand the research in its entirety.

Ethnicity by Harris (2013)

Harris, R. (2013). Ethnicity. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics. London: Routledge.

            Amidst the confusion of how to conceptualize ethnicity in its very essence, Harris, in this chapter, adapted Stuart Hall’s interpretive frames (p. 345). Respective to these frames, which I would call ‘gradation’, he cited tensions (pp. 346-347), which brought the conceptualization of “ethnicity” (pp. 347-348), and birth of applied linguistics in the field (p. 348).

            He highlighted several stages of colonization and showed how the Anglo perspectives on language planning and policy posed threats to a colony’s ethnicity and ‘progress’ (pp. 349-350). With the growth of English varieties (see World Englishes on p. 351) and migration of non-native English speakers to Anglo centers of the world, taught English language is considered to have taken a form as “proxy for a general discourse of hostility” (pp. 352-355). This part of the chapter deeply tugs a string in me, of my ethnic background and extends to the people from the examples presented. Today, research on the field is constantly challenged by the changing landscape of ethnicity and language use (p. 355). These challenges are brought by social actors that in themselves transcending ethnic boundaries and class (p. 356).

            It should be noted that Harris gave limitations in the article’s discussion. In this light, language is portrayed as a key player of modernity, hostility, and unity across ethnicities. English being the language of ‘progress’ changed the make up of the colonies, e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa. Moreover, it showed that even though ethnic language vitality and instrumentality are threatened by imposing English language in education, there could still be ways to facilitate harmony among ethnicities and languages as seen on the examples from Singapore and the African American Vernacular English case.

At this juncture, applied linguistics moved from being heavily focused on education to involvement in language planning and policy. Applied linguistics in the area of ethnicity and language is preparing itself to accommodate such developments in the field.

Notes on Ethnicity by Harris (2013)

Harris, R. (2013). Ethnicity. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics. London: Routledge. 

I. Introduction

- There are set limitations to the chapter, bulleted in page 344.

A. Ethnicity and applied linguistics

1. Post-WWII: AL’s dev’t from sources of authority from locations of the ‘Anglo diaspora’; “learning of English by ethnic and racial ‘others’” is a central focus (p. 344).

2. Teaching English (other EU languages), raised questions about ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ (p. 345).

B. The concept of Ethnicity

1. AL “has not supplied a lead in offering its [ethnicity] own explicit conceptualization” (p. 345; see quote from Hutchinson and Smith).

C. An Intepretive frame for conceptualizing ethnicity

- Stuart Hall on key sociological and philosophical notions; three dimensions/ frames: ‘traditional (pre-modern)’, ‘modern’, ‘late modern/ity’ (p.345).

D. Harris presented definitional/ background on Tensions between tradition and modernity & Tensions between modernity and late modernity (pp. 346-7).

1. “[…] ‘race’ is a social and cultural construction rather than a biological-scientific fact.” Harris and Rampton’s comment on the latter statement is highlighted on page 347.

2. ‘Race’ on ethnicity relates to classification, i.e. “sharing common ancestry...language…religion, and a distinctive physical appearance; note ‘primitive’ (p. 347).

3. However, a shift from “identifying essences” and “locating” peoples to “analyzing practices and social processes of categorization”, as in race/ethnicity (see Harris & Rampton, p. 348).

II. Tradition, modernity and ethnicity in applied linguistics

- Ethnicity within AL, “complicated and often relatively opaque matter” (p. 348).

A. Ethnicity and the ‘birth’, development and consolidation of applied linguistics

1. Anglo world on “a common commitment to the teaching of English worldwide” (Howatt & Widowson, 2004; p. 348). Britain to teaching English as L2 in secondary schools; US to documenting Amerindian languages endangered for extinction.

2. Initial relationships operated with colonialist perspective in tradition and modernity. New configurations with regards to this are notable in the postcolonial period (p. 348).

B. Ethnicity and postcolonial language planning

1. 1950s and 1960s: characterized by “building modern nation states” through collaboration with former colonies (p. 349). “Local ethnically linked languages” marred with “backwardness”, non-instrumental.

2. Resolution processes portrayed in the cases of (1) Sub-Saharan Africa (rivalry>unity>Mazrui; colonial language) and (2) Singapore (dominance>neutrality>practicality; accommodation). See page 350.

C. A struggle over authority and authenticity

1. Who/Where is/are the center/s of authority and authenticity “with regard to English” and its teaching (p. 351)? Overviews on (1) dispute between Quirk and Kachru and (2) the native speaker intervention by Rampton.

2. Quirk and Kachru: perspectives “carried an underlying ethnic/racial embodiment” (p. 351). Finally, Anglo ethnicity remains as the “central reference point”, according to Rampton (1990).

3. Native speaker intervention: Rampton, issues of ethnicity “are negotiated rather than given” works in the light of late modern “frames of thought and analysis” (p. 351).

D. Ethnicity and applied linguistics ‘at home’: majority-minority relation

- Language learning as “proxy for a general discourse of hostility” (p. 352; pp. 353-5). UK: Assimilation principles. The USA: Cases on AAVE and Spanish language.

III. Modernity, late modernity and ethnicity in applied linguistics

- Ethnicity, grew from assuming groupings–“labels” (p. 355); as with Harris and Rampton, new configurations as ‘roUtes’ rather than ‘roOts’ (emphasis by the authors).

- Worthy to note is ‘social class’ in the context of ethnicity and language (p. 356).