SAN ANDRÉS and PROVIDENCIA by Héctor Ramírez-Cruz BA In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY IN A CREOLE ECOLOGY: SAN ANDRÉS AND PROVIDENCIA by Héctor Ramírez-Cruz B.A. in Philology and Languages, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2002 M.A. in Linguistics, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2007 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Hispanic Linguistics University of Pittsburgh 2017 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences This dissertation was presented by Héctor Ramírez-Cruz It was defended on April 28, 2017 and approved by Jerome Branche, Professor, Department of Hispanic Languages and Literatures Matthew Kanwit, Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics Scott Kiesling, Professor, Department of Linguistics Dissertation Advisor: Shelome Gooden, Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics ii Copyright © by Héctor Ramírez-Cruz 2017 iii ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY IN A CREOLE ECOLOGY: SAN ANDRÉS AND PROVIDENCIA Héctor Ramírez-Cruz, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2017 This dissertation investigates the Ethnolinguistic Vitality (EV) of the English based Creoles spoken in San Andrés and Providencia. Given that Spanish has a growing presence in these islands, this context opens the question of whether the Creoles may be threatened. The dissertation provides empirical evidence for EV, enabling a better understanding of how the Creoles, as low status languages, survive in these contexts. The study included 259 participants distributed in different subsets. A cross-sectional design was used to investigate the EV in four dimensions of analysis: (1) Objective EV, (2) Subjective EV, (3) Underlying ideologies of EV, and (4) Linguistic evidence. Standardized scales were used to assess the objective EV based on census information and archival research. A qualitative interview, a series of discussion groups, and two perception tasks were used to investigate the subjective EV and underlying ideologies. A series of speech tasks were used to collect linguistic data. Rather than a single outcome of EV, the results on the objective EV indicate a pattern of language maintenance in Providencia and a language-shift trend in San Andrés. On the subjective EV, the perceptions of vitality were consistent with the objective EV: higher in Providencia, lower in San Andrés, and negative among participants who are shifting to Spanish. On underlying ideologies, the analysis discloses ideologies of ethnic authenticity regarding Creole along with its stigmatization. It shows distinctive EV modalities per island and different representation of interethnic relationships. Those who are shifting show emotional disengagement from the ethnic group and the instrumentalization of the languages. Regarding the linguistic evidence of EV, there are differences of fluency, lexical knowledge, Spanish use, and fine-grained Creole features between fluent speakers and shifters. Among fluent speakers, there are some differences per age group, with young adults using distinctive Creole markers, such as dem, deh, fi, and seh, more frequently than older adults. This is the first study to systematically assess the EV of Creoles in contact with dominant non-lexifier languages. It provides a comprehensive analysis of EV and adds empirical evidence to the burgeoning body of sociolinguistic studies of Creole languages in multilingual contexts. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. XXI 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY ............................................................................ 2 1.2 THE RAIZAL ETHNIC GROUP FROM SAN ANDRÉS AND PROVIDENCIA 6 1.2.1 Historical background in a sociolinguistic perspective. ............................... 7 1.2.1.1 First phase: intense contact. .................................................................. 9 1.2.1.2 Second phase: interrupted contact. ..................................................... 10 1.2.1.3 Third phase: the Spanish Language incursion................................... 11 1.2.2 Raizal and Islander as ethnic denominations ............................................. 13 1.2.3 Afro-Caribbean connections ......................................................................... 15 1.2.4 Political activism ............................................................................................ 17 1.2.5 Cultural practices and cultural production ................................................ 19 1.2.5.1 Religion. ................................................................................................ 20 1.2.5.2 Education. ............................................................................................. 21 1.2.5.3 Storytelling. ........................................................................................... 25 1.2.5.4 Music and performance. ...................................................................... 26 1.2.5.5 Mass media. .......................................................................................... 27 1.2.5.6 Cuisine. ................................................................................................. 29 v 1.2.5.7 Other forms of cultural production and cultural practices. ............... 30 1.3 DISSERTATION OUTLINE ................................................................................... 31 2.0 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 32 2.1 ETHNICITY, LANGUAGE CONTACT, AND VITALITY OUTCOMES ........ 32 2.1.1 Language maintenance ................................................................................. 34 2.1.2 Language shift ................................................................................................ 35 2.1.3 Language attrition ......................................................................................... 37 2.1.4 Reversing language shift ............................................................................... 37 2.2 A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE EV THEORY ................................................... 39 2.2.1 Criticism ......................................................................................................... 40 2.2.2 Undertaking new approaches to the EV theory .......................................... 41 2.2.2.1 Language ideologies. ............................................................................ 42 2.2.2.2 Interethnic discordance. ...................................................................... 43 2.2.2.3 EV Modes. ............................................................................................ 45 2.2.2.4 Language shift motivations. ................................................................. 46 2.3 EV IN CREOLE LANGUAGE CONTEXTS ......................................................... 47 2.3.1 Creole language ecologies and their EV ...................................................... 48 2.3.2 Previous studies on San Andrés and Providencia ...................................... 50 2.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................................... 54 3.0 CHAPTER 3: METHODS ........................................................................................ 55 3.1 PILOT STUDY .......................................................................................................... 56 3.1.1 Participants .................................................................................................... 57 3.1.2 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 61 vi 3.1.2.1 Production task. .................................................................................... 62 3.1.2.2 Perception task-matched guise questionnaire. .................................... 65 3.1.2.3 Ethnolinguistic Vitality Interview........................................................ 68 3.1.3 Key findings and revised methods ............................................................... 69 3.1.3.1 Limitations on Objective EV. ............................................................... 70 3.1.3.2 Limitations on Subjective EV. ............................................................. 70 3.1.3.3 Limitations on the linguistic evidence. ................................................ 72 3.2 MAIN STUDY ........................................................................................................... 73 3.2.1 Participants .................................................................................................... 74 3.2.1.1 Participants of discussion groups. ....................................................... 76 3.2.1.2 Fluent Creole L1 speaking participants. ............................................. 77 3.2.1.3 Creole-shifting participants. ................................................................ 79 3.2.2 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 80 3.2.2.1 Objective EV procedures. ..................................................................... 82 3.2.2.2 Subjective EV procedures. ................................................................... 84 3.2.2.3 Procedures to collect the linguistic evidence. .....................................