The influence of changing group vitality on convergence toward a dominant linguistic norm: An Israeli example

Yaeger-Dror, Malcah

doi:10.1016/0271-5309(88)90023-7

Cited by 34 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Johnson 1981, 1987;Yaeger-Dror 1988;Ytsma et al, this issue). Most simply, Bourhis (1979) proposed that the language of high-vitality Speakers is likely to be dominant in crosscultural encounters (and therefore the likely target of communicative convergence) involving members of high-and low-vitality groups.…”

Section: Effects Relating To Inter-and Intragroup Language Behaviormentioning

confidence: 87%

“…It remains that since its introduction the combined notions of objective and subjective vitality have proven useful äs conceptual tools for discussing a broad ränge of applied and theoretical issues within the language and ethnicity literature. The notions of objective and subjective vitality have been most fruitfully applied to issues related to cross-cultural communication (Bourhis 1984b;Gudykunst 1986;Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey 1990;Sachdev andBourhis 1990a, 1990b), language attitudes (Genesee and Bourhis 1988;Ryan et al 1982), and ethnolinguistic behaviors (Giles and Johnson 1981;Yaeger-Dror 1988;van den Berg 1988), äs well äs language acquisition and bilingualism (Clement 1980;Giles and Byrne 1982;Garrett et al 1989;Landry and Allard 1990) and language maintenance and loss (Giles and Johnson 1987;Giles et al 1990).…”

Section: Subjective Vitality äS Apredictor Of Ethnolinguistic Behaviormentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The genesis of vitality theory: historical patterns and discoursal dimensions

Harwood¹,

Giles²,

Bourhis³

1994

International Journal of the Sociology of Language

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of "vitality" was introduced into the ethnolinguistic arena in the late 1970s. Fifteen years on, a growing body of research has adopted differing features of the group vitality framework to address a broad ränge of issues related to language, ethnicity, bilingualism, and intergroup communication. The first part of this paper provides a brief overview of the origin and development of the group vitality concept and its measurement. The second part presents a first attempt at a transactive model not only useful äs a conceptual framework for synthesizing extant research but also äs a heuristic for guiding future directions. This approach extends traditional work by focusing in part upon the nature of discourse concerning vitality issues in everyday life. It is proposed that discoursal analyses of vitality beliefs äs manifest during interpersonal conversations and within the mass media can constitute a useful complement to current quantitative research. During the unfolding of this framework, a series of research propositions will be presented äs an agenda for future work. The origin of the ethnolinguistic vitality concept The notion ofobjective group vitalityRelations between groups do not occur in a vacuum but rather are influenced by a ränge of sociostructural and situational factors that can fundamentally affect the nature and quality of intergroup contact between Speakers of contrasting ethnolinguistic groups. The notion of "ethnolinguistic vitality" was first introduced by Giles et al. (1977) and provided a conceptual tool to analyze the sociostructural variables affecting the strength of ethnolinguistic communities within intergroup settings. The vitality of an ethnolinguistic group was defined äs "that which makes a group likely to behave äs a distinctive and collective entity within the intergroup setting" (Giles et al. 1977: 308). It was proposed that the 0165-2516/94/0108-0167

show abstract

Section: Effects Relating To Inter-and Intragroup Language Behaviormentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Subjective Vitality äS Apredictor Of Ethnolinguistic Behaviormentioning

confidence: 98%

The genesis of vitality theory: historical patterns and discoursal dimensions

Harwood¹,

Giles²,

Bourhis³

1994

International Journal of the Sociology of Language

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet since its introduction the combined notions of objective and subjective vitality have remained useful as conceptual tools for discussing a broad range of applied and theoretical issues within the language and ethnicity literature. These notions have been most fruitfully applied to issues related to cross-cultural communication (Bourhis, 1984b;Gudykunst, 1986;Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1990;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1990a;b), language attitudes (Genesee & Bourhis, 1988;Ryan, Giles & Sebastian, 1982), ethnolinguistic behaviours (Giles & Johnson, 1981;Yaeger-Dror, 1988;van den Berg, 1988) as well as language acquisition and bilingualism (Clement, 1980;Giles & Byrne, 1982;Garrett, Giles & Coupland, 1989;Landry & Allard, 1988) and language maintenance and loss (Giles & Johnson, 1987;Giles, Leets & Coupland, 1990). …”

Section: Ethnolinguistic Vitality: Objective and Subjective Parametersmentioning

confidence: 98%

Ethnolinguistic vitality in the Danish capital of America'

Kristiansen

Harwood

Giles

1991

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses objective/subjective and qualitative/ quantitative aspects of vitality in Solvang, a Danish-American community. The setting is interesting for its radical transformation from being all about leading a fulfilling (Grundtvigian) community life to being instrumentally all about attracting tourists with an external Danish facade. By ethnographic-like means, we analyse the historical vitality of Solvang to the present leading us to formulate hypotheses for testing in three investigations using the Subjective Vitality Questionnaire (SVQ) with adolescent and adult Danish-and Anglo-Americans.

show abstract

“…Since Ferguson's initial 1959 study of Arabic, Greek, German, and Haitan Creole diglossia scholars in a diverse range of fields (linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and education) have adopted this concept to study language variation (Bell 1976), language planning and maintenance (Fishman and Das Gupta 1986), language standardization and dialectology (Fasold 1984;Yaeger-Dror 1988), code switching, bilingualism, and language contact (Fishman 1967). Table (1) below shows the criteria developed in Ferguson's (1959) study to label 'High' (H) versus 'Low' (L) varieties.…”

Section: Diglossia Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diglossia versus Register: Discursive Classifications of Two Sinhala varieties

Zubair¹

2010

BLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt:The discourse I focus on in this study comes from interviews and ethnographic work with Sri Lankan university youth. While diglossia theory proves insufficient in depicting the way these youth mix ‘formal’ and ‘colloquial’ morphosyntactic features in the same social setting, Agha’s register approach to Sinhala optimally accounts for the specific dialogic effects speakers attach to linguistic features, suggesting such interdiscursive meaning combined with sociohistorical backgrounds of the varieties explains the registers’ composite recognition as divergent.

show abstract

The influence of changing group vitality on convergence toward a dominant linguistic norm: An Israeli example

Cited by 34 publications

References 35 publications

The genesis of vitality theory: historical patterns and discoursal dimensions

The genesis of vitality theory: historical patterns and discoursal dimensions

Ethnolinguistic vitality in the Danish capital of America'

Diglossia versus Register: Discursive Classifications of Two Sinhala varieties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About