ANDBOOK OF

Language [7 Ethnic Identity

Edited by JOSHUA A. FISHMAN

New York • Oxford

Oxford University Press

1999 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 141

Can Ethnicity Be Changed?

There are two polar positions to explain ethnic phenomena. One ofthese empha­ sizes the changeable aspects of ethnicity. According to this view, people are seen as acknowledging their ethnic identity only when they consider it to be useful for themselves. For example, if it is easier to get a job or an apartment by changing ethnic characteristics, people will do it, if possible. In other words, a which hinders an individual's personal security and well-being will more easily be given up. In this perspective, modern man is (often exaggeratedly) viewed as Social Psychology "a shrewd calculator of membership benefits" (Fishman 1989: 37). However, if we would acknowledge our ethnic identity only when that brings us clear benefits, why would members of some ethnic minorities rather starve to KARMELA LIEBKIND death or burn themselves than give up their ethnicity? The other perspective views ethnicity as comprising irrational, deep-seated allegiances, attachments to kin, territory, or religion. Ethnicity is seen as part of the herd instinct of human pri­ mates, ordinarily unquestioned and taken for granted but forcefully activated in times of stress or threat to group life. In a sense, it is true that both of these positions are examples of the unneces­ sary polarization ofinherently complementary aspects ofhuman life. It seems clear by now that ethnicity can be manipulated, although it cannot be created situ­ What Is Ethnicity? ationally out of nothing. A person's ethnicity is ascribed in the sense that one cannot choose the into which one is born, but it is achieved to the In dealing with language and ethnic identity, we touch upon two major concepts extent that the meaning it acquires for one's total identity can also be a matter of within the social sciences which have been given numerous different definitions: choice. ethnicity and identity. Ethnicity is often seen as the focus of identity. All people are members ofone ethnic group or another, but ethnic-group membership is more often associated with minority than with majority group status. Ethnic Identity as Social Identity As a term, ethnicity has its roots primarily in and . Usually, an ethnic group is defined on the basis ofso-called objective criteria, that One of the major cognitive tools individuals use to define themselves vis-a.-vis is, biological, geographical, linguistic, cultural, or religious characteristics. How­ the world in which they live is social categorization: ordering the social environ­ ever, cultures change, but the continuation of group boundaries themselves may ment by grouping persons in a manner that makes sense to the individual. Indi­ be more long-standing. For example, third- and fourth-generation immigrants in viduals perceive themselves as belonging to social groups, and recognition of the United States are generally quite unlike their first-generation forebears, even membership in these groups carries with it a knowledge of the values, positive or though they still often define themselves as members of their ancestral ethnic negative, that are attached to these groups. Within the social psychology of iden­ group. Subjective criteria seem to be more important than objective ones. An eth­ tity, a person's self-image is seen to have two components, personal identity and nic group could be defined simply as any group ofpeople who identify themselves social identity. The latter derives from membership in various groups. Ethnic or are in any way identified as Italian, Polish, Indian, Greek, and so forth. One identity can be defined simply as the ethnic component of social identity. Social can consider oneself to be a Greek-American without understanding the Greek identity, in turn, is that part of an individual's self-concept which derives from language, without practicing the Greek Orthodox religion, and even without lik­ his or her membership in social groups. We try to achieve a positive sense of so­ ing Greek food. cial identity by trying to perceive our own group as favorably distinct from other Ethnicity is also a matter of subjective belief in common ancestry. Members collectivities on valued dimensions. This is called the need for positive distinc­ of ethnic groups often have a subjective belief in their comm'on descent. It tiveness (TajfeI1978). does not matter whether or not an objective blood relationship really exists, There are important psychological differences between the actions ofindividu­ Ethnic membership differs from the group precisely by being a presumed als as individuals and their actions as group members. The transition from personal identity. to social identity is a psychological process. As a consequence of this transition,

140 142 DISCIPLINE 8' TOPIC PERSPECTIVES SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 143 the interpersonal interaction between two individuals changes into intergroup porarily switch to another language, abandon their language completely, or stub­ behavior, which implies interaction in terms of group identifications. The key bornly stick to their own language? These questions came more strongly into the feature of this intergroup behavior is depersonalization; the two individuals in­ focus of research with the general renaissance of ethnicity. volved react both to themselves and to each other not as differentiated individual When the first textbook on the social psychology of language was written more persons but as exemplars of the common characteristics of their groups. than twenty years ago, it took somewhat fewer than 200 pages to present the field. Today, no single author could do justice to the whole field, as amply demonstrated by the first Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (Giles and Robinson Language Groups in Contact: 1990). The social psychology of language focuses on the roles of motives, beliefs, Alternative Strategies of Individuals and identity in individual language behavior. It tries to link language and ethnic identity together and studies how this identity is formed, presented, and main­ Berry (1990) has identified four alternative acculturation strategies open to mi­ tained. Ethnic or ethnolinguistic identity is involved in all social psychological norities in contact with majorities. Depending on whether or not the minority research on language, even if the research deals with such diverse topics as eth­ members wish to remain culturally as before (in terms of language, identity, etc.) nic language attitudes, second language learning, or communication breakdown and whether or not they wish to have day-to-day interaction and good relation­ (Liebkind 1996). ships with mainstream society, the intergroup contact can result in integration, Credit for the birth of the social psychology of language goes primarily to assimilation, separation, or marginalization. In integration, some degree of cul­ Howard Giles and his colleagues (Giles and Johnson 1987). Giles introduced the tural integrity is maintained while one moves to participate as an integral part of so-called ethnolinguistic identity theory. This theory suggests that, when ethnic the larger social network. In assimilation, original cultural features (language, group identity becomes important for individuals, they may attempt to make them­ religion, etc.) are given up totally in favor of those of the majority. In separation, selves favorably distinct on dimensions such as language. Members of ethno­ the opposite is true; that is, no features of the majority culture are accepted, and linguistic groups, like those of other social categories, strive for positive social only the original minority culture is valued. In marginalization neither the ma­ identities to enhance their self-esteem. Thus members of such groups who value jority nor the minority can offer a satisfactory identity. In terms of language, it highly their own language may, in communicating with members from other could mean loss of original language without simultaneous sufficient acquisition groups, adopt various strategies ofso-called psycholinguistic distinctiveness, such of the dominant language. as accentuating their speech styles, switching to their in-group language, and so However, minority members may use different strategies in different areas of forth. life. For example, one may seek economic assimilation (in work), linguistic inte­ If, however, one's own language is a source of shame only, contributing prima­ gration (by way of bilingualism), and marital separation (by endogamy). This rily to a negative social identity, other strategies may be adopted. Some group implies that the minority can share some values with the majority without sacri­ members may use assimilation strategies and try to pass into and become mem­ ficing their minority culture. bers of the dominant group. "Passing" here means not only speaking the domi­ The result of the integration strategy is a truly bicultural identity. Although nant group language but also assimilating linguistically, that is, identifying with this means that elements of the person's original identity are seen as negotiable the speakers of the dominant language. and that identity loss does not hinge on any particular marker (such as language), it also means that, in true integration, the individual has accepted his or her eth­ nic and cultural heritage (Le., maintained identification with the ethnic group), Language and Ethnic Identity acquired necessary cultural skills (e.g., proficiency in the dominant language) in order to integrate into the larger society, and made a careful-and personally rele­ It has been claimed that ethnic identity is intrinsically connected with language. vant-selection of the ethnic/cultural markers to be retained and those that can Language interweaves the individual's personal identity with his or her collec­ be altered. Language mayor may not be among the markers to be preserved. If it tive ethnic identity. There are several conditions that promote this connection. is, the result of the integration is a bilingual person with a bicultural identity. First, language is very significant to the individual as an instrument for naming the self and the world. Second, the upbringing of a child is dependent on linguis­ tic interaction. Third, spoken language is one of the most salient characteristics The Social Psychology of Language of ethnic groups. and Identity Almost all contemporary are multicultural; that is, they contain two or more social groups which can be distinguished to varying degrees in terms of What about language as an ethnic marker? What make people want to either main­ culture. Language is frequently a highly salient feature ofsuch cultural differences tain their language or give it up? Under which conditions are they ready to tem- and can become the most important symbol of ethnic identity. This is so even if 144 DISCIPLINE &' TOPIC PERSPECTIVES SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 145 that language is not actively used (e.g., Gaelic for the Irish). Although not all tain it, or promote or revive it, and what the reactions are of the dominant group. members of the ethnic group need to speak the ethnic language, the language is Giles and his colleagues coined the term ethnolinguistic vitality-a concept that readily available and can act as a symbol of ethnic identity, especially if the lan­ refers to a group's ability to survive as a distinctive collective entity in an inter­ guage used within the family is ethnically distinctive. group setting. Ethnolinguistic vitality is dependent on three sets of factors: People generally have a so-called integrative attitude toward their mother tongue-that is, they identify with the speakers of that language and want to Status (e.g., economic, political, and linguistic prestige) maintain that identification. Much social psychological research has suggested Demographic strength (e.g., absolute numbers, concentration, birthrates, that language and identity appear to be reciprocally related: Language use influ­ migration, etc.) ences the formation of group identity, and group identity influences patterns of language attitudes and usage. Institutional support and control factors (Le., representation of one's own However, the role of language in ethnicity is far from unambiguous, and the language inmedia, government, education, etc.) language-ethnicity link has been subject to considerable debate. Many researchers claim that language is not an essential component ofidentity. They say that many All these factors combine to make up the vitality of ethnolinguistic groups. The groups manage to continue living as distinct groups even after communicative language of an ethnolinguistic group with high vitality has a high status; the size language shift. According to this view, the usefulness of a language is always and concentration of the group is sufficient for maintenance of the group as a emphasized above its symbolic or emotional value. Most scholars agree that lan­ collectivity; and the group has strong formal and informal institutional support guage can be an important component ofethnic identity but that this identity can, in the society. Low ethnolinguistic vitality of a group is marked by the opposite and does, survive the loss of the original group language. For example, the rapid characteristics. language shift from Irish to English in Ireland shows that people can use a lan­ It is the perceived or subjective, not the real or objective, vitality that counts. guage (English) for the socioeconomic and other advantages it offers even though That is, vitality has its impact on language use in the same way as do other socio­ they hold intrinsically unfavorable attitudes toward that language that contrast cultural factors, via subjective perceptions of, or beliefs concerning, the nature of with the favorable attitudes maintained toward their ethnic language. Language things, rather than the objective reality of things. Members of groups with low use or language proficiency, consequently, should not be confused with linguis­ vitality are more likely to use assimilation strategies; the group may even cease to tic identity. exist as a distinctive collective entity. Conversely, groups with high vitality are Thus, although language has been considered by some as the single most im­ most likely to survive as distinctive collectivities in multilingual settings. The basic portant component of ethnic identity, its importance clearly varies with the par­ assumption here is that speakers who perceive their own group vitality to be high ticular situation and is minimal for some groups. The association between lan­ have more positive attitudes about the use of their own group language than those guage and identity depends on the social context pertinent to the language groups who perceive it to be low. in question. Although language can be the most significant criterion ofsocial iden­ But there are at least two other factors that may influence attitudes toward one's tification, it is not the only one, nor is it necessarily the most significant one for own language: perceived group boundaries and multiple group membership. If all social groups. Consequently, it is obvious that original-language maintenance group boundaries are perceived as hard and impermeable, that is, almost impos­ is not a necessary feature ofgroup identity but that language may be more central sible to cross, then the assimilation option is not available, and identification with for some groups than for others. one's own language group is probably strong. And ifthere are few alternative social categories except the linguistic one with which to identify, then one's identifica­ tion with one's language group is probably very strong, too. Language Attitudes Evaluation of speakers of a particular language is dependent on many differ­ and Ethnolinguistic Vitality ent factors. Some of these factors are related to the sociocultural context in ques­ tion (Le., the standardization and vitality ofthe language) and some to the imme­ A basic feature of most multicultural societies is that the language of the domi­ diate social situation (e.g., its degree offormality). Yet other factors are related to nant group is also the most important one; therefore, it is to the advantage of the the language speakers themselves (Le., their personal and social attributes and subordinate ethnolinguistic group to be able to speak it. Failure to do so can have the content of their messages) and to those who judge or evaluate these speakers heavy social and economic consequences. Furthermore, the subordinate group's (especially their own personal and social attributes). language is often considered to be oflesser value and as such is often the object of However, the survival ofan ethnolinguistic minority in a particular social con­ ridicule from the dominant group. text ultimately depends on how the majority uses its power and dominance. The Given the evaluative connotations of language, it is important to know the con­ dominant group frequently imposes its own language as the only legitimate one ditions under which subordinate ethnic groups either lose their language, main- and pursues a policy of minority assimilation. In this case, the minority language 146 DISCIPLINE &' TOPIC PERSPECTIVES SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 147

may be devalued and stigmatized. Analysis of the power of dominant groups is identity have been most clearly implicated in studies that demonstrate language central to understanding the development and maintenance of favorable ethno­ divergence and maintenance. Drawing together research on ethnolinguistic vital­ linguistic identities. ity, group boundaries, status, and identity, it can be argued that people tend to adopt positive linguistic distinctiveness strategies-that is, to diverge-in inter­ action with members of other groups when they Language Identity (a) See language as an important dimension of their group and Speech Accommodation (b) Are aware ofpossible alternatives to their group's present status position (c) Perceive little overlap with the out-group person in terms of other so- A great deal of speech as communication occurs between individuals who are cial categories engaged in face-to-face interaction. Such encounters between two persons can be (d) Do not identify strongly with many other social categories interpreted in various ways by those involved. The encounter can be seen as strictly (e) Consider their social identities that derive from other social category interpersonal, and then individual characteristics ofthe participants are the only memberships to be relatively unsatisfactory ones that matter. Alternatively, the encounter can be seen as intergroup in na­ (f) Perceive their status within the ethnic group to be higher than their sta­ ture, and then the participants' different group memberships become very salient. tus within their other social categor.y memberships It is partly the specific situation and context which determine the interpretations, (g) See their group boundaries (especially linguistic boundaries) as hard and but it is also partly a question of negotiation between the interlocutors; as the closed communication goes on, the participants negotiate their mutual roles and identi­ (h) See their in-group as having high ethnolinguistic vitality. (Gudykunst & ties in the encounter taking place. Gumbs 1989) Sometimes language use is determined by long-term identity processes, but sometimes it is very much a matter of situational norms and has little to do with In reality, however, most of us belong simultaneously to many social groups. identity. The questions about how individuals use, evaluate, and alter their speech Most of us do identify (more or less) strongly with many social categories simul­ styles in face-to-face interactions have been more formally considered under the taneously and derive a (more or less) strong social identity from many social cate­ rubric of speech accommodation. Research in this area seeks to account for lan­ gory memberships. The greater the number of our membership groups, the greater guage use in terms of interlocutors' motives, attitudes, perceptions, and group the likelihood that conflict, ambiguity, or other strains will occur between them loyalties. The nature and extent of speakers' multiple goals will have a strong but also the greater the possibility of creating alternative sources ofpositive iden­ bearing on linguistic outcomes. The speech or communication accommodation tity. Inasmuch as a person feels him- or herself to be part of two or more ethnic/ model developed by Giles and his colleagues attempts to predict and explain lan­ cultural groups, one single ethnic self-identification is inaccurate. Such persons guage use in terms of different social psychological processes. identify themselves as partly ethnic and partly mainstream. Often this bicultural/ People use different strategies in communication. In speech convergence, bilingual alternative (or integration) is the most satisfactory one for the individual. speakers try to become more like their listeners in the language/speech style they use. In speech maintenance, the speakers maintain their speech styles; and in speech divergence, they accentuate the linguistic differences between themselves Bilingual Communication and their listeners. Speakers are not always aware that they are modifying their speech, but levels of awareness appear to be higher for speech divergence than Bilingual communication, in which two or dialects are used, usually for speech convergence. involve members of different ethnolinguistic groups. One of the most common Generally speaking, convergence evokes positive reactions in the other and thus phenomena in bilingual communication is code switching, defined generally as \,', satisfies the converging individual's need for approval or liking. Clearly, the greater the alternate use of two or more languages in the same utterance or conversation. an individual's need for approval, the greater his or her tendency to converge. Code switching is determined by a variety of different factors. Some ofthese char­ However, this need is not necessarily a permanent characteristic ofan individual's acterize the situation, others the individual communicators, and yet others the personality but can be a function of the prestige and status of the interlocutors. social positions of the language groups represented by the interlocutors. Social Usually the low-status speaker converges (upward) more than the high-status psychology tends to focus on the individuals involved and their motives, percep­ speaker converges (downward). Divergence indicates that the individual does not tions, and identities. But the social context of the interlocutors, particularly the need the approval of the other interlocutor. But if the interaction is intergroup power and status relationships between the language groups represented by the rather than interpersonal in nature, divergence may fulfill an identity function. interlocutors, has a decisive influence on code switching. People adapt their speech styles in order to satisfy a variety of motivations, In bilingual contexts, languages (codes) often serve as powerful cues for cate­ but motivations to achieve or maintain a positive social/ethnic/ethnolinguistic gorizing people into social/ethnolinguistic groups. This categorization often trig- SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 149 148 DISCIPLINE &- TOPIC PERSPECTIVES gers efforts to achieve positive distinctiveness, as discussed previously. But as the In the so-called intergroup model of second-, the focus is notion of ethnolinguistic vitality implies, sociostructural characteristics of the on how members of subordinate groups can acquire native-like mastery of the language groups involved have a strong impact on ethnolinguistic identity. Group language of a dominant group. The basic hypothesis here is that native-like pro­ numbers and power and status differentials have strong effects on intergroup be­ ficiency in a dominant group's language would be "subtractive" to the ethnic iden­ havior. Members ofdominant and high-status groups tend to favor their own group tity of members of the subordinate group if members more than members of subordinate and low-status groups do. In fact, • They identify strongly with their (subordinate) in-group the latter sometimes favor members of other groups more than their own. Being • Language is a central feature of their own group in a numerical majority in a particular social context offers a kind of"security in • There are few other or only lower-status groups with which to identify numbers" and diminishes the probability of out-group discrimination. • Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality is high. However, both majority and minority groups can be either psychologically secure or insecure, and these psychological states elicit different behavior in mi­ The model thus predicts that native-like proficiency in a dominant group's nority than in majority members. Insecure majorities feel threatened in their language would, under these conditions, attract hostility from other members of majority position, and, as a consequence, discriminate against out-groups. Inse­ the subordinate group, even accusations of ethnic betrayal, and that it would cre­ cure minorities, in turn, are not convinced of the intrinsic value of their own ate fear of assimilation. In these conditions, the model suggests, only classroom culture and language and therefore tend to favor the out-group rather than the in­ proficiency in the dominant language would be accepted. In contrast, native-like group. In contrast, psychologically secure minorities feel more free to reject the proficiency in the dominant group's language is seen as being "additive" under majority language and culture and assert their own distinctiveness, whereas se­ conditions opposite to those listed. This means that native-like proficiency under cure majorities are tolerant of minorities. such opposite conditions would foster integration into mainstream society and This is why dominant high-status group members tend to be more discrimina­ facilitate access to social and material rewards. tory when they are in a minority than when they are in a majority position and However, this intergroup model of second-language acquisition has also been vice versa; subordinate low-status group members tend to favor out-group mem­ severely criticized. It has also been difficult to verify the model in empirical re­ bers more when in a numerical minority than when in a numerical majority posi­ search; in some studies, the stronger the in-group identification, the more tolerance tion. For example, Bourhis and Sachdev (1984) found that English Canadians were there is for out-group members and the greater the competence in the out-group more tolerant of Italian usage when they composed a numerical majority rather language. In other studies, the opposite is true. Ifweak in-group identification andI than a numerically equal group in their local school setting. Similarly, anglophones or low perceived in-group vitality will most likely lead to native-like proficiency in Montreal are an example of a dominant high-status group in a minority posi­ in the dominant group's language, this would imply that, for example, one cannot tion, and feelings of insecurity associated with that position may explain the in­ be a proud Indian, a proficient bilingual, and a legitimate member of the main­ group favoritism in language evaluation displayed by this group in many studies. stream society all at the same time. In other words, the acculturation strategy of integration would be more or less impossible. The problem with the intergroup model of second-language acquisition is that Second-Language Acquisition it fails to distinguish between long-term identity processes and situational shifts, between more stable language identity and language use. Native-like proficiency Acquiring native-like proficiency in a second language is said to differ from most in a dominant out-group's language does not necessarily mean rejection of one's other learning tasks because it involves adopting an alien cultural perspective and own cultural or linguistic identity. It could mean only an instrumental attitude therefore becomes a question of identity. However, this depends on the learner's toward the dominant language, which is seen as useful for acquiring social and attitude toward the second language in question. If the attitude:is a purely instru­ material rewards. Even if bilingualism is lost, even if proficiency in one's own mental one, the second language is viewed only as a tool for communication and language declines as a result of the shift to a dominant language, this does not does not affect identity. In contrast, an integrative attitude toward the second lan­ necessarily mean loss of linguistic identity (ef. the example of English and Irish guage means that this language has a symbolic value and implies identification in Ireland, referred to previously). with speakers of that language. Only in the latter case is acquiBition of the lan­ guage in question a matter of identity. Speech-accommodation and ethnolinguistic-identity theorIes have exciting The Effects of the Ethnic Revival consequences for the study ofsecond-language acquisition. The motivation to learn a second language is far more decisive of the end result than is any aptitude for In people's minds, as in the physical world, there seems to appear for every ac­ learning languages. Motivation is a product of different features ofthe social con­ tion an equal and opposite reaction. The development ofthe relations between text in which the learning process takes place. large-scale social groups (e.g., language groups and ethnic groups) since World 150 DISCIPLINE &' TOPIC PERSPECTIVES SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 151

War II has been characterized by two continuous processes which seem to pull in 6. What different options are available for linguistic minorities in terms of their opposite directions and yet complement each other. These are the simultaneous relationship to the linguistic majority? growth of interdependence among and differentiation between social groups. Although international political and economic interdependence is clearly present 7. How does a language group's status and power influence its attitudes to­ and visible everywhere, many societies are shaken by internal claims for increased ward other linguistic groups? decentralization or even internal splits into smaller independent units. This development is not too hard to understand if one considers that there are 8. What is the difference between secure and insecure linguistic minorities? thousands ofethnic and linguistic groups in the world but only around 200 ­ states, very few of which can be called ethnically or linguistically homogeneous. The ethnic revival, starting in the late 1960s, resulted in a worldwide push to­ ward differentiation among minority groups. This push was called the "new Selected Bibliography ethnicity." Many of the movements toward differentiation have common claims Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of (1990). Handbook ofLanguage and based on the right of minorities to be different and to preserve their distinctive­ acculturation. In Nebraska Sympo­ Social Psychology. Chichester: Wiley. ness as defined in their own terms and not in terms implicitly or explicitly dic­ sium on Motivation: Vol. 37. 201-235. Gudykunst, W. B., and 1. 1. Gumbs tated by the majorities. Cross-Cultural Perspectives, J. J. (1989). Social cognition and inter­ The ethnic revival gave a veritable vitamin injection to the social psychology Bremen (ed.) Lincoln: University of group communication. In Handbook of language. Since the mid-1970s, there has been an outpouring of research that Nebraska Press. ofInternational and Intercultural gave rise to a definable social psychology of language. In the beginning, however, Bourhis, R. Y., and 1. Sachdev (1984). Communication, M. K. Asante and this research area was a mainstream reaction to the ethnic revival. The research Vitality perceptions and language W. B. Gudykunst (eds.), 204-224. attitudes: Some Canadian data. Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage. was carried out by mainstream researchers who adhered to mainstream theories Journal ofLanguage and Social Liebkind, K. (1996). Contact ofand attitudes toward minorities. In the mainstream perspective, language is not Psychology 3: 97-126. and social psychology. In Kontak­ an essential component ofidentity. Both language and ethnicity are seen as nego­ Fishman, J. (1989). Language and tlinguistik. Contact Linguistics. tiable commodities to the extent that they hinder a person's security and well­ Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Linguistique de Contact. An Interna­ being. Only from the early 1980s onward has this mainstream social psychology Perspective. Clevedon, England: tional Handbook ofContemporary of language been challenged by a steady and growing stream of studies showing Multilingual Matters. Research, H. Goebl, P. H. Nelde, S. the importance of language for many ethnic minorities. These studies emphasize Giles, H., and P. Johnson (1987). Denek, and W. Walck (eds.), 41-48. the possibility and desirability of active bilingualism and the right of minorities Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. to remain linguistically distinct. social psychological approach to Tajfel, H. (ed.) (1978). Differentiation language maintenance. International Between Social Groups: Studies in Journal ofthe Sociology ofLanguage the Social Psychology ofIntergroup 68: 256-269. Relations, London: Academic Giles, H., and W. E. Robinson (eds.) Press. Questions for Further Thought and Discussion

1. Can one consider oneself to be, for instance, a Greek/Pollish/German­ American without understanding the Greek/Polish/German language? Why? Why not?

2. Why is a "cost-benefit" model of ethnicity not satisfactory?

3. Can ethnic identity survive without a distinct language?

4. What distinguishes groups with high from those with low ethnolinguistic vitality?

5. When and why do people accentuate speech and nonverbal differences between themselves and others?