Understanding and forecasting Ethnolinguistic Vitality

Abstract

Forecasting of ethnolinguistic vitality can only be done within a well-functioning descriptive and explanatory model of the dynamics of language stability and shift. It is proposed that the Perceived Benefit Model of Language Shift, used with a taxonomy of language shift motivations, provides that model. The model, based on individual language choice decisions which are motivated by the speaker's perceived personal benefit, is first explained. The model is then validated through case studies by demonstrating how the motivators which were present in the past would have predicted the language vitality scenarios that actually developed. The possibility of extending the change model beyond language choice is examined. The effectiveness of the model points to observable language use and language attitude patterns as the most important predictors of ethnolinguistic vitality.

Hot and cold ethnicities: modes of Ethnolinguistic Vitality

“…The selfbeneficial motivations are founded on the perceived benefit for the self, more or less as described by Karan (2011). Altruistic motivations are based on the understanding that there are higher principles than the benefit of the self that may motivate a person's behaviour.…”

“…At first glance, it seems that the claims that Moring et al (2011) and Karan (2011) make are conflicting, as Moring et al argue that media behaviour is better explained 'mainly by background variables related to the objective aspects of ethnolinguistic vitality and to the completeness of the media supply, and less by subjectively perceived ethnolinguistic vitality factors' (p. 184), while Karan claims that 'in order to forecast ethnolinguistic vitality, it is crucial to understand the motivations that are behind the language choices, which when combined make up language shift' (p. 148). Upon closer inspection, this controversy may only be apparent because, by subjectively perceived ethnolinguistic vitality, Moring et al mean the perception of group strength measured by traditional SEVQs.…”

“…The question of whether ethnolinguistic behaviour is more influenced by the socialÁstructural properties of groups (objective vitality) or by socialÁpsychological factors, such as beliefs and motivations, is discussed in the contributions of Moring et al (2011) and Karan (2011). Karan (2011, this issue) presents the principles of the Perceived Benefit Model of Language Shift, and argues convincingly that the choice of one or another language in a range of communication settings depends on motivational factors that affect the behaviour of individual language users.…”

“…What the complementary contributions of Moring et al (2011) and Karan (2011) highlight is the interactive and reinforcing dynamics of structural and social psychological factors in shaping a group's ability to behave as a collective entity in intergroup encounters. The motivational fabric of individuals is shaped, to a large extent, by their socialisation, beginning in the family and continuing in the school, church and public space.…”

Ethnolinguistic Orientation and Language Variation: Measuring and Archiving Ethnolinguistic Vitality, Attitudes, and Identity

“…A second point is that the relation between ELV and language behavior is posited to be indirect and/or supported by a number of other factors. A variety of mediators and moderators of this relation have been forwarded, including the individual's network of linguistic contacts (Allard and Landry ), identification (Hogg and Rigoli 1996), dissonance or perceived threat between groups (Ehala ), motivation (Karan , ), and the extent to which language choices are self‐determined (Landry, Allard, and Deveau ), among others. In one of the more elaborated models of the relations between ELV and language behavior, Allard and Landry (, ) claim that objective indicators of ELV are linked to SELV beliefs through each person's network of linguistic contacts.…”