80 likes | 197 Views
Towards a framework for assessing ethnolinguistic sustainability. Martin Ehala University of Tartu. “No instrument powerful enough to assess language shift adequately on a large scale has yet been devised . ” (Clyne 2003: 21) RLS (reversing language shift) is one of the best ones available.
E N D
Towards a framework for assessing ethnolinguistic sustainability Martin Ehala University of Tartu
“No instrument powerful enough to assess language shift adequately on a large scale has yet been devised.” (Clyne 2003: 21) RLS (reversing language shift) is one of the best ones available. Fishman (2001:452) admits that RLS is just “the linguistic part of the pursuit of ethnocultural self-regulation”, but is cautious as for a broader approach.
“Prescribing more ‘institutions, positive attitudes or prestige and active speakers’ for a threatened language is no better than giving a patient a peptalk, urging him / her ‘to get a good grip on yourself’” (Fishman 2001:464) Instead, RLS theory helps to establish theoretically grounded priorities for practical RLS activities. Its weak point is the assumption that language shift is a disease.
Language shift is very often a symptom of a more profound change - ethnic identity shift. • Although the cure of symptoms may help the patient to last longer, we need to go further to find the cure for the disease. • We need to pass the peptalk stage when talking about the causes of the shift. • We need a systemic approach to the problem which models the relationships between structural variables influencing ethnolinguistic shift.
Ethnolinguistic sustainability (Su) is a community’s ability to maintain its existence through times. • Su is threatened mainly by environmental changes: • Increased contact with powerful outgroups • Loss of the main resources for economy • Su is supported by: • the strength of the community (number, distribution, wealth, defence, social institutions etc); • ethnolinguistic vitality (ability to act as a collective entity)
Where and how to act: • To develop a standard assessment system to evaluate comparatively a group’s sustainability, including a theory of vitality. • To educate potential leaders of techniques how to raise vitality • To protect threatened languages from too quick and massive environmental changes (not to create reservations, but to buy time for internal modernisation) • To assist modernisation. • To continue RLS.
References Fishman, Joshua A (ed) (2001).Can threathened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Clyne, M. (2003).Dynamics of Language Contact. English and Immigrant Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.