PIET VAN AVERMAET LANGUAGE AND THE FUTURE

CENTRE FOR LANGUAGE AND MIGRATION 8-10 JULY 2004

UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON

piet.vanavermaet@arts.kuleuven.ac.be

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF LANGUAGE SHIFT AMONGST ETHNIC MINORITY

GROUPS

PROBLEM

Relation between social factors and language shift is often ambiguous and ambivalent

PROPOSAL

Introduction of intermediary theory

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

• Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory - H. Giles cum suis

•Ethnolinguistic vitality•Inter-group relations•Speech accommodation

• Core Values Theory - J. Smolicz

• L’économie des Echanges Symboliques - P. Bourdieu

•Linguistic Market•Symbolic Profit

• Looking at social determinants of language shift is only relevant in a context where people have the choice between L1 and L2.

• Giles cum suis and Smolicz look at inter group language choice behaviour

• Can we speak of choice here in a migration context?

• Analyse INTRA group language choice behaviour

• Bourdieu’s theory incorporates dynamic power relations between majority and minority groups

To what extent can the theory of ’l'économie des échanges symboliques' explain intra group language choice behaviour?

To what extent can the intermediary concepts derived from Bourdieu's theory account for the influence of social factors on intra group language choice behaviour?

RESEARCH QUESTION

RESEARCH DESIGNSOCIOLOGICAL INTERMEDIATE LANGUAGE CHOICEPROFILE CONCEPTS BEHAVIOUR

PERSONALFACTORS

ETHNIC GROUP FACTORS

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

GROUP CONTACTS

ANTICIPATION

IMPORTANCE OF LM2

LANGUAGE CHOICE

BEHAVIOUR

• 100 Italians in Flanders

• 100 Turks in The Netherlands

• Questionnaires• 'anticipation of acceptability of linguistic products' through

indirect measuring of an individual's self assessment of language proficiency Dutch

• 'Importance of LM2' through indirect measuring a person's identification with own ethnic group

• 'Language shift' through domain related intra group language choice behaviour

• Observations

• Census data

• Language proficiency tests Dutch

RESEARCH DESIGN

ITALIANS 1997 TURKS 1997mainlyDutch

Nmax=100

mainlyDutch

Nmax=100

grand parents 3 33 0 60father 23 86 2 93mother 31 95 1 90partner 75 44 0 38children 85 39 3 36brothers/sisters 79 93 19 90friends 66 96 15 98neighbours 47 85 12 93meeting places 62 74 12 51clubs 86 50 28 29shops/market 75 93 31 98church/mosque 67 30 0 47work/school 75 68 44 76official services 83 78 43 94

LANGUAGE SHIFT ITALIANS AND TURKS

LANGUAGE SHIFT ITALIANS

Italians '86 Italians '97grand parents - 3father 13 23mother 17 31partner 28 75children 32 85brothers/sisters 66 79friends 25 66neighbours 27 47meeting places 37 62clubs 48 86shops/market 39 75church/mosque 19 67work/school 55 75official services - 83

Turks '86 Turks '97grand parents - 0father 8 2mother 6 1partner 3 0children 14 3brothers/sisters 36 19friends - 15neighbours 5 12meeting places 12 12clubs 55 28shops/market - 31church/mosque - 0work/school - 44official services - 43

LANGUAGE SHIFT TURKS

SOCIAL PRIMARY VARIABLES1 Social historical and educational context2 Generation3 Maternal social background4 Paternal social background5 Actual level of language proficiency Dutch6 Domain related group contacts7 Contact with home country8 Religious activity

INTERMEDIARY CONCEPTS9 Anticipation on the acceptibility of linguistic products10 Importance of LM2

LANGUAGE CHOICE BEHAVIOUR11 Language choice behaviour at intragroup level

FACTORS AND MEASURES USED IN THEDEVELOPMENT OF A PATH MODEL

PATH ANALYTICAL MODEL (without intermediairy concepts)

Group contacts

Shes

Maternal background

Language choice

behavior

.27

.17

.63

.28

.64

PATH ANALYTICAL MODEL (with intermediairy concepts)

Group contacts

Shes

Maternal background

Importance LM2

Anticipation

Language choice

behavior

.27

.07

.17

-.62

.74

-.26

.13

-.59

.26

.09

.59