جامعة المنيا، كلية األلسن ,Mini University, Faculty of Alsun لغة وحضارة، الفرقة الثانية دراسات عليا ، Language& , Pre-M.A.,2020 0202 المحاضر د.إيمان العيسوى Instructor Dr Eman Elesawy

Linguistics

Language and Culture

18th March,2020

ILOs (Intended Learning Objectives): *To understand the definition of culture *To Identify components of culture *To criticize and compare different definitions of culture

Questions: 1*Based on your reading of the 5 articles, which are the basic elements of any cuture?

SOME NOTES ON CULTURE

There are a wide variety of definitions of 'culture':

. A culture is a way of life shared by a large group of people . Culture is what is taught by a large group to its members . Culture is the filter through which we see 'reality' . A culture is a distinctive set of o manners (customs, practices, rules) o morals (values, beliefs, norms) o arts (visual, literary, performing, aural, etc) and o traditions including knowledge and history shared by a large group of people.

It doesn't matter which definition you prefer, but it is important to remember that: • Culture describes the group, not the individuals in it; so, not all members of the group agree about manners, morals, arts and traditions, about what the lifestyle is, about what should be taught to the members of the group. For example, 'racing, rugby, and beer' and 'quarter-acre, half-pint, pavlova paradise' are expressions which have been used to describe New Zealand culture, but many New Zealanders are not interested in one or more of these aspects of New Zealand life.

• are changing all the time, as they influence each other and respond to changes in the environment. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between cultures because there has been so much overlap due to interaction amongst the members.

• Membership in a cultural group is based on your behaviour and beliefs, not on inherent characteristics such as actual age, gender, race, sexual practices, occupation, citizenship, etc.' Being a member of a culture means that you understand how and why the group acts as it does and you know enough to be able to operate competently within it yourself. Usually, people live within the cultures of which they 'appear' to be members. For example, most people aged between 13 and 19 prefer teenage language, dress codes, music, but some people in that age group prefer older or younger cultural lifestyles and some outside that age group adopt the teenage lifestyle - both of which may be very disconcerting to others who expect them to act according to their chronological age.

• Culture is like an iceberg: what is visible (ways of eating, dressing, speaking, arts) is the relatively small part; the most important parts are not easily recognised (values, worldview, etc)

• In society, some cultural groups have more power/authority than others, which encourages some people to learn/adopt those cultures. For example, some women have learned to operate within heterosexual men's culture because they are more likely to get good jobs that way; many Māori have adopted Pākeha culture.

• Sub-cultures are smaller groups within a large culture. Nobody has ever defined how big a group has to be to constitute a culture or sub-culture, but usually either would include thousands rather than dozens of people. For example, New Zealand culture includes Māori, Pākeha, Pasifika and Asian cultures; Māori culture includes many iwi such as Ngā Puhi, Ngāti Porou, Kai Tahu; Pākeha culture includes people identifying as Irish, as Dutch, as Dalmatian, etc; Pasifika culture in New Zealand includes Samoan, Tongan, Cook Island cultures; and of course there are many different Asian cultures as well. Some of the large sub-cultures even have sub- cultures within them; for example, Christianity includes both Catholics and Protestants; Protestants include Presbyterians, Mormons, Methodists and so on.

The Power of Culture: An Exploration of Collective Transformation GEORGIA KELLY CHESTER ARNOLD CONSCIOUSNESS, PASSION, & PURPOSE PASSION, CONSCIOUSNESS,

32 SEPTEMBER–NOVEMBER 2006 • # 12 • SHIFT: AT THE FRONTIERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS “Hope remains only in the most difficult task of all: to reconsider everything from the ground up, so as to shape a living society inside a dying society.” —Albert Camus

oes culture evolve? Or does society, established , by its very structure, denies through unconscious social agreements, simply such a transformation.” D recycle the same patterns century after century To pursue personal transformation without being in updated packaging? Examining the social trends engaged in social transformation or to engage in social throughout recorded history,it would be easy to draw the transformation without a commitment to personal conclusion that we are creatures of a deterministic world. transformation is to continue a well-established cultural Cultures steeped in Social Darwinian cycles of war, pattern: dualism.The separation of body from soul, the conquest, and power struggles might be our fate as long personal from the political, the spiritual from the as humans inhabit the Earth.What is it in our cultural story material, all suggest that one area is more important than that recycles war, exploitation, and empire? What are the the other or should take precedence. Believing that unconscious social agreements that make these cycles all of creation is one is not the same as living as if we all but inevitable? are one.The former is a personal belief; the latter is the Every culture has stories about its origins and integration of theory and practice, or praxis. history.These stories weave together a cultural mythos, a way of making sense of the world by defining beliefs, CONFRONTING THE values, and appropriate behavior. Mythos provides the DOMINATOR MYTHOS foundation for cultural patterns and incorporates both conscious and unconscious social agreements that are passed Both Marcuse and evolutionary theorist Riane Eisler down from generation to generation. Although mythos identify a dominator system of social organization that has offers structure and meaning, it also confines and limits. prevailed throughout recorded history. The dominator If we wish to transform embedded patterns, we need to mythos, which also characterizes our current culture, understand our cultural stories and what needs they satisfy. supports authoritarian power structures and patriarchal Noam Chomsky,recently voted the world’s number one social values. It glorifies war, exploitation, and the con- public intellectual, says that the principles of language and quering of new frontiers. Rebellions and revolutions have moral judgment are part of the human condition. been followed by counter-revolutions and restorations.As These are innate abilities. But culture has an extraordinary historian Hannah Arendt put it, “The most radical influence on both language and moral judgment. revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the Undoing ingrained patterns is far more difficult than revolution.” As a society we have been trained in the many personal growth workshops would lead us to dominator mythos, and we have internalized dominator believe. Certain patterns we exhibit on a personal level are values and dominator methods of action. reinforced by the culture, so attempting to transform These values and methods are held in check by them becomes problematic in a society that is invested in conscious and unconscious social agreements. Three maintaining the old patterns. examples that bear exploration are (1) the belief that Philosopher and psychologist Herbert Marcuse war is part of human nature, (2) the selective memory of (1898–1979) claimed that the optimal development historical events, and (3) the role of hero. of a person’s potential or the realization of their individ- The agreement that war is an innate quality of human uality couldn’t be attained within our current culture. He nature serves the dominator system of social organization did not believe they were unattainable because of by maintaining a mythos about the inevitability of any human limitations or even because of limitations in war. Not only does war prop up ruling elites and expand psychological or spiritual methods, but because “the their economic opportunities, it also maintains a

SHIFT: AT THE FRONTIERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS • # 12 • SEPTEMBER–NOVEMBER 2006 33 system that says might makes the relevant factor in societal right. Even if we don’t accept transformation is that it pro- the idea that war is part vides those frames of reference. of human nature, we are Knowing our own culture and influenced by it because it how we are captive within its pervades the entire culture. biases is a necessary step in Entertainment and propaganda learning how transformation reinforce this assumption on a takes place, whether we are daily basis. Cultural beliefs are talking about personal or social also held in check because transformation, our own or people want to fit in and someone else’s.Even our quest appear normal. Peer pressure for personal growth or spiritual and self-censorship thus development has arisen from a become other means of particular set of beliefs. How sustaining the status quo. does our culture influence the Selective memory of his- type of search we undertake? torical events is common to What beliefs in our mythos all cultures. Beliefs we hold morph into tenets of our new about our nation, our people, philosophy? Do we understand and our religious or ethnic that relationship? groups will determine how Another common agreement we construct a historical record in most cultures throughout that supports these beliefs. Some historical facts will be recorded history is the archetype of the hero. The omitted or glossed over, others will be embellished with belief is that heroes show us what is possible and inspire legend and larger-than-life heroes, and some will simply greatness. Often, heroes exalt some type of sacrifice for a not be seen.What we are capable of seeing or not seeing greater good.They also offer projection screens for us to reflects our relationship to the existing mythos, which also create idealized personas that we can honor, respect, fear, defines what we call “reality.” or adore. Its counterpart, the antihero, provides us with Although I have read stories about people who could another type of projection screen: the scapegoat, someone not physically see what they could not incorporate to carry our shadow.The antihero gives us a place to into their frame of reality, I never experienced it in indulge our hatred, feel righteous, and make war. such a concrete way as I did recently. I was invited to a War propaganda relies on selective social agreements function near my home in Northern California; about history,the identities of the hero and antihero, and unfamiliar with the street on the invitation, I consulted the belief that war is an acceptable way to resolve a MapQuest.com. The directions said to take St.Vincent problem. If one of these three components is missing in Drive directly off of Highway 101. I had driven that a society,it is much more difficult for the powers-that-be section of freeway hundreds of times in the past eight to wage war. Since we are steeped in the cultural mythos years and had never seen an exit for St.Vincent Drive. of the hero, for example, it is difficult to imagine being The day after my MapQuest query, I was driving down without these icons.We need a much better understanding that highway, and lo and behold, there was the sign— of how the hero and antihero maintain the dominator that I had never seen!—announcing St.Vincent Drive. paradigm.What need does the hero serve? Is there a better My story suggests one reason why facts alone don’t way for this archetype to emerge? What would a culture convince many people. If they don’t fit the frames of ref- without heroes look like? States that did not engage in erence, the facts will be viewed as skewed or simply heroic battles, annex territory, expand empires, or defer untrue. So the reason for focusing on cultural mythos as to powerful rulers were not considered important by

34 SEPTEMBER–NOVEMBER 2006 • # 12 • SHIFT: AT THE FRONTIERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS historians with our particular . Such stories did not fit our profile of advanced or states; hence, they have been omitted from most of ABOUT PRAXIS PEACE INSTITUTE our history books. The background for this article is the Culture CULTURAL INTERVENTION and Mythos Series that Praxis Peace Institute

Breaking an addiction or eradicating a deeply initiated in February 2005. It consists of entrenched pattern often requires an intervention. lectures, workshops, discussions, and research As a society,we have not yet accepted our codependence with the patterns that keep us revolving in the groups and covers a two-year period. dominator paradigm. One type of cultural intervention is to begin questioning our cultural assumptions and Through these presentations, we are to stop being passive in the dominator mythos.Taking on such sacred cows as our beliefs about gender, economic conducting an in-depth exploration of systems, race and ethnicity or the tenets and directives in religion and spirituality brings us face to face with culture, its influences, and how we might some of our blind spots and unquestioned beliefs. To create a new society from the ground up, as Camus transform cultural patterns. Speakers and advises, requires that we examine the beliefs and stories that make up our cultural mythos. workshop leaders have included Angeles Historian Gerda Lerner says,“To step outside of patri- archal (or dominator) thought means being skeptical Arrien, Riane Eisler,Tom Hayden, Sam Keen, toward every known system of thought (and) being critical of all assumptions, ordering values, and definitions.” David Korten, George Lakoff, Rabbi Michael Since our thinking is trained within the mythos of patri- archy or domination, our training is suspect.This means Lerner, and Richard Tarnas, among others. that the systems we create from this training are also suspect. So, are we trapped in a maze with no escape? Are we Praxis Peace Institute will convene a endlessly pushing a revolving door? Where is the exit ramp on this mythic highway? six-day conference,“Transforming Culture: Primatologist researchers such as Frans de Waal— author of Our Inner Ape (Riverhead, 2005) and research From Empire to Earth Charter,” in scientist at the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory Univer- sity—insist that warlike behavior is only one possible Dubrovnik, Croatia, June 4–10, 2007. option for humans. Noting the compassionate and The Institute of Noetic Sciences will be a altruistic nature of the bonobos, they find primates that shun aggressive behavior—that would rather make love cosponsor and host a one-day program than war—and do so regularly. De Waal and biologist Bruce Lipton have demonstrated that we do not need to within the conference. For more information, exist in a deterministic or dominator culture. But a certain level of consciousness—both about our inner and visit www.praxispeace.org. outer worlds—is necessary to overcome the patterns that are programmed on default mode.

SHIFT: AT THE FRONTIERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS • # 12 • SEPTEMBER–NOVEMBER 2006 35 In his 1995 Pulitzer Prize–nominated book, On Killing diplomacy,and civil society.They built a plumbing system (Back Bay Books, 1996), retired U.S.Army psychologist that would make the chamber pots of Europe seem David Grossman writes about the psychological primitive. They outlawed slavery in 1416, before any conditioning that soldiers received between World War II other European state.They built the earliest quarantines and Vietnam to help them overcome their innate to protect their citizens from the plagues sweeping Europe. resistance to killing.The result: 90 percent of the soldiers Their most significant accomplishment was a legacy of in battle fired on the enemy in the Vietnam War more than six hundred years of peace up to the end of the compared to only 20 percent in World War II. This Dubrovnik city-state in 1808. Heroes were in very short clearly demonstrates that most humans are not innate supply in old Dubrovnik.Without the need to conquer killers.They have to be highly trained, conditioned, and or create enemies, to set up classes of divine-right rulers, even brainwashed to accept the role of killer. or to create heroes of mythic stature, Dubrovnik placed Another type of intervention is conflict resolution and a higher value on its citizens and civil society.The few the development of communication skills. The field of statues in the walled city were dedicated to Sveti Vlaho (St. conflict resolution is a creative process based on mutual Blaise),the patron saint of Dubrovnik,and to Mijo Prahac, respect, empathy,and the desire to behave more respon- a commoner who left his fortune to the city. Above sibly toward one another. It emphasizes the cooperative the doorway of Dubrovnik’s city offices is the Latin side of our human capacity and strives to undo the inscription from its city-state days, translated as “Forget conditioning that justifies indulged anger and warfare. private business; care for public affairs.” No statues of Conflict resolution and responsible communication not rulers, generals, sports heroes, or celebrities.This heritage only propose alternative values and behavior but they also of justice and egalitarianism has been credited by some to plant the seeds for an alternative mythos—one that could have helped Dubrovnik escape the worst of the killing and eventually alter the social pattern of war.Will a critical mass conflagration in Yugoslavia’s recent civil war. of humanity,however defined, commit to this alternative vision of conflict? If so, we might actually uproot a very THE ENGAGED CITIZEN old social pattern. It is not the avoidance of conflict that AS AN EMERGING ARCHETYPE leads to peace; it is the responsible and respectful handling of differences that establishes peaceful principles. The greatest hindrances to democracy are not terrorism, a despotic ruler, or controlling special interests—they are A COOPERATIVE MODEL apathy, hopelessness, and cynicism. Fortunately, this pattern is being interrupted by an emerging citizen So, do partnership models that thrive without warfare archetype, an aware individual who engages in both actually exist? The answer is yes.The former city-state of personal and social transformation simultaneously. Dubrovnik in Croatia, for example, was an alternative Transforming culture will not be simple or easy.It will model to the accepted ideal of empire, but very few take more than prayer, good intentions, and meditation. people outside of the Balkans know anything about it. It will also take more than going to protests, signing Consciously created in the 1200s as a state that would petitions, and lobbying for peace.The patterns are deeply neither engage in warfare nor conquer territory, the embedded; they will not move outside the cultural founding city council members decided to have no comfort zone without serious intervention, awakened monarch or long-term rulers.The council would elect one consciousness, and civic participation. of its members as governor for a mere thirty days; that way, long-term personal goals and temptations of power abuse GEORGIA KELLY is founder and director of were averted. The council members also focused on Praxis Peace Institute. She has produced conferences on building good diplomatic relations with the known world peace-building in Dubrovnik (2000 and 2002) and on democracy in California (2004 and 2005), teaches at that time and had embassies in fifty cities.They became conflict resolution, and is also a harpist, composer, and a major port on the Adriatic Sea and excelled in trade, recording artist.

36 SEPTEMBER–NOVEMBER 2006 • # 12 • SHIFT: AT THE FRONTIERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Chapter 3

Culture

I. What Is Culture? Culture refers to the beliefs, values, behavior and material objects that, together, form a people’s way of life. A. Culture has two basic components: nonmaterial culture, or the intangible creations of human society, and , the tangible products of human society. Together, these two components describe a people’s way of life. Culture also plays an important role in shaping the human personality. occurs when an individual suffers personal disorientation when experiencing an unfamiliar way of life. 1. SOCIOLOGY IN FOCUS BOX (p. 56)—Confronting the Yanomamö: The Experience of Culture Shock. B. Only humans depend on culture rather than instincts to ensure the survival of their kind. C. Culture is very recent and was a long time in the making. D. What sets primates apart is their intelligence. Human achievements during the Stone Age set humans off on a distinct evolutionary course, making culture their primary survival strategy. E. The concept of culture (a shared way of life) must be distinguished from those of nation (a political entity) or society (the organized interaction of people in a nation or within some other boundary). Many modern societies are multicultural, meaning that their people follow various ways of life that blend and sometimes clash.

II. The Elements of Culture. All cultures have five common components: symbols, language, values and beliefs, norms, and material culture, including technology. A. Symbols are defined as anything that carries a particular meaning recognized by people who share culture. The meaning of the same symbols varies from society to society, within a single society, and over time. B. Language is a system of symbols that allows people to communicate with one another. 1. SEEING SOCIOLOGY IN EVERYDAY LIFE BOX (p. 58)– New Symbols in the World of Instant Messaging. 2. Language is the key to cultural transmission, the process by which one generation passes culture to the next. Through most of human history, cultural transmission has been accomplished through oral tradition. 3. WINDOW ON THE WORLD—Global Map 3–1 (p. 60): Language in Global Perspective. Chinese is the native tongue of one-fifth of the world’s people. English has become the second preferred language in most of the world. Spanish is the preferred second language of the United States. 4. Only humans can create complex systems of symbols, but some other animals have the ability to use symbols in communicating. 5. The Sapir-Whorf thesis holds that people perceive the world through the cultural lens of language. C. Values are culturally defined standards by which people judge desirability, goodness and beauty, and which serve as broad guidelines for social living. Values are broad principles that underlie beliefs, specific statements that people hold to be true. 1. Robin Williams (1970) identified ten key values of U.S. culture: a. Equal opportunity b. Achievement and success c. Material comfort d. Activity and work e. Practicality and efficiency f. Progress g. Science h. Democracy and free enterprise i. Freedom j. Racism and group superiority 2. Values within one society are frequently inconsistent and even opposed to one another. 3. In general, the values that are important in higher-income countries differ somewhat from those in lower-income countries. D. Norms are rules and expectations by which a society guides the behavior of its members. They may be either proscriptive or prescriptive. 1. There are two special types of norms that were identified by William Graham Sumner (1906): a. Mores are norms that are widely observed and have great moral significance. b. Folkways are norms for routine, casual interaction. 2. Sanctions are a central mechanism of social control, attempts by society to regulate people’s thoughts and behavior. E. Sociologists distinguish between ideal culture, social patterns mandated by cultural values and norms, and real culture, actual social patterns that only approximate cultural expectations. F. Material culture reflects a society’s values and a society’s technology, the knowledge that people apply to the task of living in their surroundings. G. Many rich nations have entered a postindustrial phase based on computers and new information economy.

III. : Many Ways of Life in One World. The United States is the most multicultural of all industrial countries. By contrast, Japan is the most monocultural of all industrial nations. A. refers to cultural patterns that distinguish a society’s elite; in contrast, designates cultural patterns that are widespread among a society’s population. High culture is not inherently superior to popular culture. B. refers to cultural patterns that distinguish some segment of a society’s population. They involve not only differences but also hierarchy. C. is an educational program recognizing the cultural diversity of the United States and promoting the equality of all cultural traditions. 1. Multiculturalism stands in opposition to Eurocentrism, the dominance of European (especially English) cultural patterns. a. SEEING OURSELVES—National Map 3–1 (p. 66): Language Diversity across the United States. The 2010 U.S. Census reports that 20 percent of people over the age of five speak a language other than English in their home. 2. Supporters of multiculturalism argue that it helps us come to terms with our diverse present and strengthens the academic achievement of African- American children. Some call for Afrocentrism, the dominance of African cultural patterns in people’s lives. 3. Opponents of multiculturalism argue that it encourages divisiveness rather than unity. D. Counterculture refers to cultural patterns that strongly oppose those widely accepted within a society. E. Cultural change. 1. As cultures change, they strive to maintain cultural integration, the close relationship among various elements of a . 2. William Ogburn’s (1964) concept of refers to the fact that cultural elements change at different rates, which may disrupt a cultural system. 3. Three phenomena promote cultural change: a. Invention, the process of creating new cultural elements. b. Discovery, recognizing and understanding an idea not fully understood before. c. Diffusion, the spread of cultural traits from one cultural system to another. F. Ethnocentrism and . 1. Ethnocentrism is the practice of judging another culture by the standards of one’s own culture. 2. Sociologists tend to discourage this practice, and instead advocate cultural relativism, the practice of judging a culture by its own standards. G. Some evidence suggests that a global culture may be emerging. 1. Three key factors are promoting this trend: a. Global economy: the flow of goods. b. Global communications: the flow of information. c. Global migration: the flow of people. 2. Three limitations with the global culture thesis: a. Global culture is much more advanced in some parts of the world than in others. b. Many people cannot afford to participate in the material aspects of a global culture. c. Different people attribute different meanings to various aspects of the global culture. 3. THINKING ABOUT DIVERSITY: RACE, CLASS & GENDER BOX: (p. 68) Early Rock-and-Roll: Race, Class and Cultural Change. This box shows how rock-and-roll mirrored aspects of U.S. culture as well as how U.S. culture was influenced by early rock-and-roll.

IV. Theories of Culture. A. The structural-functional approach depicts culture as a complex strategy for meeting human needs. 1. Cultural universals are traits that are part of every known culture. 2. Critical review. a. The strength of the structural-functional analysis is showing how culture operates to meet human needs. b. The weakness of the structural-functional approach is that it ignores cultural diversity and downplays the importance of change. B. The social-conflict approach is rooted in the philosophical doctrine of materialism and suggests that many cultural traits function to the advantage of some and to the disadvantage of others. 1. Critical review. a. The social-conflict analysis recognizes that many elements of a culture maintain inequality and promote the dominance of one group over others. b. It understates the ways that cultural patterns integrate members of society. C. Sociobiology is a theoretical approach that explores ways in which human biology affects how we create culture. Sociobiology has its roots in the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin. 1. Critical review. a. Sociobiology may promote racism and sexism. b. Research support for this paradigm is limited.

V. Culture and Human Freedom A. Culture as constraint. Humans cannot live without culture, but the capacity for culture does have some drawbacks. B. Culture as freedom. Culture forces us to choose as we make and remake a world for ourselves. C. THINKING GLOBALLY BOX (p. 73): The United States and Canada: How Do These National Cultures Differ? This box explains that Canada has a somewhat more collectivist culture than the more individualistic United States.

Language as a Core Value of Culture

J.J. Smolicz University of Adelaide Australia

Core values can be regarded as forming one of the most fundamental components of a group’s culture. They generally represent its very heart- land and act as identifying values which are symbolic of the group and its membership. Rejection of core values carries with it the threat of exclusion from the group. Indeed, the deviant individual may himself feel unable to continue as a member. Core values are singled out for special attention because they provide the indispensable link between the group’s cultural and social systems; in their absence both systems would suffer eventual disintegration. Indeed, it is through core values that social groups can be identified as distinctive ethnic, religious, scientific or other cultural com- munities.

Diverse examples of core values may be cited, and in this paper reference will be made to a number of such values in ethnic groups. They can be viewed either in their original national setting, or in plural societies to which they have been transported by immigrants. Australia, with its mainly Euro- pean-derived groups, is taken as a model of such a plural society, although the argument presented here is not limited to any one particular country (Smolicz 1979a). Core Values in Italian Culture

In considering the nature of core values in a particular culture it is important to remember that more than one core value may be involved, and that it may be possible to establish a relative hierarchy of importance among them. Thus the Italian language undoubtedly constitutes a core value in Italian culture but, among rural Southern Italians at least, the impor- tance of the family as a cultural value may even transcend that of language. Vecoli (1964: 405), for instance, argued that the loyalty which the Southern Italian family demanded of its members was ’so exclusive ... that it pre- cluded allegiance to other social institutions.’ In his experience the Italian ethnic tradition ’prized family solidarity over individual advancement.’ In contradistinction to the Anglo-Saxon stress on individualism, self-reliance and independence, the Italian family ethos demonstrates an underlying stress on collectivism and mutual interdependence of members (Smolicz 1979b).

The acceptance of this value priority may well be a contributing factor in the apparent lack of concern among many Italian-Australians for the maintenance of Italian in its literary-standard form, as opposed to an oral ’family language’ for everyday communication within’’a restricted social group (Smolicz, Gardini, and others 1980)..The ,latter may take the form of a ’purified dialect’ or an Italian-English ’mW, which may‘ either be a dialect base overlaid with usages, or an stiucture English &dquo;E4g4~h:lan 4e interspersed

’ ’ &dquo; .,.. j&dquo;¿ )u ’

1 with dialect words and phrases. Italian ethnic schools in Australia are also relatively fewer in number and are generally poorly attended, in contrast with those established, for example, by the Greeks and the Ukrainians, many of whom zealously preserve their mother tongue not simply as a convenient mode of family communication but as a central element of their .

Language as a Core Value in Polish Culture

Poles provide one of the best examples of a culture where the native language has the status of a central or core value. During the nineteenth century when the country was partitioned among three powerful neighbours, the language came most clearly to acquire the role of a core value as a result of its most determined and ruthless persecution. The method used in the attempt to suppress it ranged from the expulsion of pupils from school, if caught using their mother tongue in the school corridor, to the deportation to Siberia of parents caught organizing Polish classes for groups of children in their own homes.

In this way an indissoluble link was forged between the Polish lan- guage and the perpetuation of the Polish people as a distinct social and cultural group. The attempt to extirpate the mother tongue and, through it, the culture as a whole, succeeded in this instance in elevating that language to a symbol for the survival of the group as a separate entity and for the pre- servation of its cultural heritage. Differing circumstances and challenges may lead another group to accord the highest priority to non-linguistic aspects of culture. However, whenever people feel that there is a direct link between their identity as a group and what they regard as the most crucial and distinguishing element of their culture, the element concerned becomes a core value for the group.

At present in Poland the language is not being persecuted, or in any way actively discouraged. However, other traditional values are being modi- fied by the introduction of a new ideological system through the state con- trolled educational system, mass media or the allocation of employment by the state. As a result, one of the core values which has been particularly bolstered, has been that of the Catholic religion. During the nineteenth century Catholic religion came to be increasingly identified with Polish ethnicity - a process which had begun some centuries earlier in the face of mounting political conflict with largely Lutheran Prussia and Orthodox Russia. Now once again, there has been an attempt to minimize the influence of the Church. This has resulted in a resurgence of the Catholic faith which now approaches, although it cannot rival, the language as a core value of at least certain sections of the Polish ethnic group. In general terms, we could say that external pressure upon a group and especially any attempt to alter its traditional culture, brings forth coun- ter measures that help to pinpoint those values that the group considers as its cultural core and, therefore, as meriting all efforts in their defence. Some such action by ethnic groups can be observed in a plural society where there may be no prosecution, but where the ethnic cores may be threatened by assimilation to the ways of the majority.

2 Jewish Core Values

In contrast to language-centred cultures, the perpetuation of Jewish ethnicity has been possible almost without the need of one special language to act as its carrier and preserver. The case of the Jews is different from that of either the Poles or Italians. Anthropological studies of Jewish schools in Australia have drawn attention to the vital role played by value orien- tations in the of the rising generation (Bullivant 1979). This is in line with the view that the core value system of is complex but extremely well integrated. Its three most fundamental components could be labelled as those of religion, peoplehood and historicity.

The linkage of Jewish religion to the concept of Jews as a distinct group held together by ties of common ancestry strengthens both these core values. This special symbiotic relationship is seen, for example, in the fact that the teaching of Mosaic religion represents at one and the same time a religious instruction and a review of Jewish national history. (Only Jews can be said to possess their own ’ethnic God’). The principle that a person born of a Jewish mother is automatically Jewish is, in modem times, probably also unique in that no other major religious group makes any such stipulation. The importance attached to descent in the female line means that religion alone is insufficient to define a Jew, a view which is reflected in Judaism’s lack of proselytizing zeal (although, of course, conversions do occur, mostly as a result of marriage).

The third pillar in the Jewish triumvirate of core values is therefore that of historicity - a characteristic which fluctuates greatly among different ethnic groups. This sense of communication with one’s ancestors and their ways is strong also in many other ancient nations (Szacka 1975). Despite current inroads into traditional culture by popular culture communicated by mass media, such peoples still retain a strong sense of approval for things past. The historical consciousness of being a distinct cultural group is parti- cularly strong among the Poles, the English, the French or the Chinese, but among the Jews, partly as a result of their persecution in dispersion, and partly because of the reinforcing link with religion and their own deity associated with it, such historical consciousness has acquired a special signi- ficance.

The transmission of Jewish ethnicity has been aided to some extent by the development of specific languages, such as Yiddish among Central and Eastern European Jews. The existence of such a language does not appear, however, to have been indispensable for the perpetuation of Jewish culture and tradition, as can be seen by the maintenance of their ethnicity by both the Sephardic Jews and the Arabic-speaking Jews of the Yemen (as well as by the many Jews who speak no distinct ethnic tongue of their own).

It is of interest to note that Jewish ethnicity, so successfully preserved over the past two millenia in diaspora, has come to be linked in recent times with the concept of the nation-state through the creation of Israel as a territorial unit. Thus one can sense an increasing identification of Jewish

3 ethnicity with an Israeli state. Another interesting phenomenon connected with the establishment of the state of Israel has been the revival of the long extinct tongue, for Hebrew, although it had been retained for sacred and certain philosophical-intellectual pursuits, had long ceased to be used for the purpose of everyday communication among group members. The important principle which the successful revival of Hebrew demon- strates is that ethnicity, when it has been preserved mainly through the means of core values other than language, may later cause the emergence or re-emergence of a special tongue associated with the group and culture concerned. This has not, however, happened in the case of Erse in Ireland. The fact that Irish Gaelic has not in modern times been in any way linked with Irish Catholicism suggests that the revival of a virtually dead language in Israel is once again a unique achievement of the Jews and that this can be explained, at least in part, by the special connection of Hebrew not only with the ancient state of Israel but also with the Mosaic religion. Another factor in the revival of Hebrew has been the need for a common tongue to weld together Jews arriving in Israel with different linguistic backgrounds. In contrast, independent Ireland already had English as its lingua franca. Irish Core Values

The core values of the Irish ethnic groups seem to be unquestioningly centred in the Catholic religion. Gaelic, as a mode of everyday communi- cation, has all but disappeared through centuries of the ’leaden prejudice of English interest’ against the language. During the seventeenth century the great bulk of the population still spoke the Irish language. There were, how- ever, no schools teaching Irish and no schools using it as the language of instruction.

Until Robert Boyle showed an interest in the language, only four books had been printed in Irish in Ireland since the time of Elizabeth I. For the rest of the seventeenth century the Irish Catholic colleges on the conti- nent remained the only centres of scholarship in the Irish language. After sponsoring the translation of the Bible into such diverse and distant tongues as Malay and the languages of the American Indians, Boyle turned his atten- tion to his own compatriots. According to Clark (1934: 15-16), the ’chief incentive would have been to attempt to make converts to protestantism.’ But soon the tide turned once more against the native language of Ireland. The Irish tongue, it would seem, was so inextricably linked with the ’Roman error’ that its perpetuation was thought only to encourage Popery. Despite Queen Anne’s approval for the teaching of the language, the movement in its favour ’was stifled.’ Clark maintains that there had always been opposition from some of the Protestant clergy who desired its suppression. They achieved their end in 1711. ’From that time no Irish bibles were printed and no Irish schools were opened until the nineteenth century.’ After the regaining of independence, despite all the efforts of the Irish government, including the compulsory introduction of Irish to all the schools, it has proved impossible to revive it as the common language of the people (Streib 1974). English remains the language that is almost universally

4 spoken by the Irish and is the main vehicle for their cultural activity, although it has been argued that English, as it is spoken in Ireland, differs not only in accent but in some of the meanings attached to words and has developed its own characteristic flavour.

Bereft of their ancestral tongue, it was in Catholicism that the Irish found the refuge and shield behind which they could retain their identity and awareness of their distinction from the conquering British Protestants, including the descendants of the Cromwellian settlers of the seventeenth century. From the Irish point of view the subjugation of their country by Britain had certain latent functions, however few, since it opened the whole of the English-speaking world to Irish emigrants. Wherever they went, the Irish carried their Catholic religion with them.

In the countries of new settlement, be it America or Australia, the close identification between Irish ethnicity and the Catholic Church con- tinued and developed. Probably one of the most interesting phenomena to observe in recent years has been the way the Catholic identification has tended to outlive the Irish ethnic one. People of Irish origin have lost their feelings of Irishness more readily than their Catholicism This process is a continuation of the earlier one when Catholicism took over from the Irish language the function of a core value. In more recent times even Irish identi- fication itself has come to be blurred so that the descendants of Irish settlers are left with Catholicism as almost the sole remaining identifying value which differentiates them from the Anglo-Protestant majority. Core Values: An Asian Example

The core values of the two main racial groups that make up the popu- lation of Malaysia form an interesting and instructive contrast. Among the Malays, the Moslem religion and the Malay language appear to constitute the key identifying values (Asmah 1975). When a Malay marries a non-Malay, the non-Malay partner may become classified as Malay simply by accepting the religion of Islam and indicating a desire to learn Malay. (He or she would then take part in certain Islamic rituals.) The recognition of a Malay by such cultural means is generally acceptable, and of some formal significance since in Malaysia everybody carries their racial or ethnic identification in their documents (Nagata 1977). (This is unlike Australia or America where ethnici- ty is assumed to be a private matter).

In this way Malays demonstrate their tradition of absorbing people with ease and of not being race conscious. Children of mixed Malay-Chinese parentage or of Malay-Indian origin are treated officially as Malays, provided that both partners subscribe to Malay culture and religion. In fact one may forget their different looks and treat them in a way that their accepted culture requires. Malays have for centuries lived mainly on islands that were on international trade routes and they have obviously evolved effective mechanisms for absorbing the outsiders, while preserving their integrity as a cultural group. It should be noted, however, that if a Malay marries a no,n-Malay and if the non-Malay refuses to convert to blam, then the children of that marriage are classified as non-Malays and lose prerogatives

5 which are now attached to Malay ethnicity, as the founding group in the State. What is more, if say, a Malay woman married a Chinese, adopted his name and abandoned her religion, then she would herself lose the right to be classified as a Malay. For official, as well as for informal purposes, she would then be deemed to be Chinese.

The Chinese in Malaysia appear to demonstrate a different core value system. It is perfectly acceptable within a Chinese family to have members belonging to different religions, including Christianity and Islam. The Chinese have also shown a greater openness to the English language, although Chinese schools have tried to preserve Mandarin as well. It is the family in its widest ramifications, the clan, and the entire Chinese community that represent the core values of the Chinese group. In contrast, the Malays appear to stress more the cultural values of language and religion, though there is variation in the extent to which religion is practised. Core Values and Collective Identity

There is an important connection between core values and the social system which upholds them. This transcends the mere application of legal sanctions to these group members who transgress against the core values. Here we are confronted with the phenomenon of identification. Core values may be defined in terms of the social system whose members identify with them; and, conversely, a social system may be defined in terms of the core values to which its members subscribe. This identification of the two is not simply a function of the coercive powers which a social system invokes to make its members comply with the core values that have been officially stabilized as the group’s characteristic attributes and dogma.

The link between core values and the social system is provided by the collective group identity which members feel on account of sharing such values and which, following Durkheim, Parsons (1972:34) labels as that of ‘solidarity.’ This effectively differentiates between members and non-members and indicates that the collectivity in question has some kind of group iden- tity. Parsons distinguishes such collective identification from one which binds an individual to his group and its principal values through a personal sense of ’belonging’ which he terms ’loyalty.’

Ethnic is, therefore, a phenomenon which is experi- enced by both groups and individuals; the group phenomenon is in fact acknowledged by its members who are often conscious that their particular attitude is shared with other members and is a reflection of the group’s value system. As Znaniecki (1939:808) puts it, ’certain values are similarly represented by many members, provoke similar emotional attitudes, and rouse similar active tendencies. Conscious of such similarities, members have the experience of sharing ideas, sentiments, and desires: &dquo;We know, we feel; we want&dquo;.’ Such representation of a group as a collective body with a collective consciousness, in the sense that it possesses an accepted core value system, must always be taken with the humanistic coefficient (Znaniecki 1963:132). The group’s core values always refer to the way they are experienced, shared, and expressed by members.

6 This leads us to the concept of the personal cultural system as an organized system of attitudes or personalized values. The concept provides a theoreti’cal bridge between group value systems (or traditions) on the one hand, and attitudes and tendencies of individuals on the other. In this con- nection more is involved than an individual’s propensity to activate the value system of the group. In our view, personal cultural systems provide recognition of the conscious activity of a human agent in selecting values from the group stock and organizing them into a system which suits his own particular purposes and interests. The personal cultural system may, therefore, be regarded as a mediator between the culture of the group and the private world of the individual. Indeed, in the case of identity we are really dealing with a person’s attitudes to the core values of a particular social group.

Core Values in a Plural Society

In a plural society the ideological system of each ethnic group almost invariably includes certain beliefs about the value of its culture as a distinc- tive entity, and hence about the extent and nature of cultural and social interaction that should take place between itself and various other groups. In some instances such beliefs may even be elevated to the status of a core value and act as one of the symbols of the group’s identity. In this capacity they exercise a co-ordinating and directive role over other cultural values. The belief of the majority of white South Africans, for example, concerning the undesirability of social interaction with black Africans represents such a core value, which dominates the lives of all citizens, including the black majority which may hold different ideological values.

The type of personal systems constructed by ethnic individuals in a plural society will normally depend upon the core values of more than one cultural group. In the first instance, the extent to which a member adheres to the core values of his own ethnic group, would depend on that group’s own estimate of the importance of retaining its culture as distinct from that of others, and of the dominant majority in particular (if it is a society in which one group predominates). This can be conceptualized as the ’ethnic tenacity’ of the group in relation to its current cultural environment. It could be claimed, for example, that many of the Dutch immigrants who have come to Australia (unlike those who resided in Indonesia in the recent past) are showing low ethnic tenacity by being more willing in advance to assume assimilation as the final outcome of interaction than, say, the Greeks or Latvians. Thus many first generation Dutch parents are both able and willing to converse in English with their children, a much rarer occurrence amongst other ethnic groups (Zubrzycki 1964; Smolicz and Harris 1977; Clyne 1977). -

I Such empirical findings and other observations are in agreement with the data obtained from the 1976 Australian census, as interpreted by Clyne (1979). These show a regular pattern in the extent to which first generation European immigrants have claimed not to use their mother tongue. Indeed, the uniformity in the shift to English, as shown by the rank order of major ethnic groups throughout all the states and territories of Australia, is in line

7 with insights previously gained from the study of the Australian scene (Smo- licz 1979a). The census data show that the Greek-bom Australians have the smallest language shift (3%), while the Dutch are the most likely of all the groups to change to English, with 44% swing in the first generation. (Italians, Yugoslavs, Poles, Germans and Maltese occupy intermediate positions on such a scale).

Our own empirical study of the language used in the home of Catholic secondary school students in South Australia has shown a similar rank order of ethnic groups, except that Greek-Australians, as Orthodox in religion, were absent from such a sample. The data showed that Italians and Poles made the greatest use of the ethnic tongue (88% and 85%), followed by the Germans (70%) and the Dutch (65%). A similar sequence was observed in relation to support for the teaching and learning of ethnic languages. Here again approximately two-thirds of Polish and Italian respondents favoured the teaching of their mother tongues at school. The German-Australians were somewhat less enthusiastic, while the Dutch formed an exception among ethnic groups, since they exceeded Australians from English speaking background (British and Irish) in their rejection of Australian children learning any language other than English (Smolicz and Lean 1979). Findings of this type are in agreement with the view that the ability of individuals to construct ethnic personal systems is dependent on the way the core values of the ethnic culture concerned are related to the value system of the dominant group. If such a group already has a tradition of religious pluralism, ethnic groups that can claim to be culturally structured around a religious base have a better chance of making a case for their self- perpetuation than cultures centred on some other values. Under the bene- volent gaze of the majority group which has grown accustomed to religious differentiation within itself, a religion-based ethnic group (provided it has the financial resources) can then continue to provide its members with materials for their ethnic system construction and development. This appears to hold, for example, in the case of the Jewish ethnic group which has been able to establish seven private day schools in Melbourne, a city which is quite bereft of any Italian, Dutch, Greek or Polish equivalents, although the latter groups are much more numerous than the Jewish one (Klarberg 1979). Similarly, it was possible for the German Lutherans, who were fleeing from religious persecution in their homeland, to establish their own German schools in South Australia and Victoria during the nineteenth century (Borrie 1954: 196-197). This they could accomplish under the aegis of religion, since they could argue that the Australian majority had already allowed similar freedoms to Irish Catholics.

Such differences in cultural accommodation are connected with the nature of the cultures themselves, their centres of gravity, or core values, which ensure their transmission, as well as their integrity and cohesion. In the case of language-centred cultures, their survival in a viable form is depen- dent on the preservation of the mother tongue of group members. In these instances the language is more than the medium of communication and self-expression but a symbol of ethnic identity and a defining value which acts as a prerequisite for ’authentic’ group membership.

8 Language and Culture It is widely known that the relationship between language and- culture is a matter of deep concern among sociolinguists. Thus the Whorfian school and its allies give pride of place to language as the most fundamental and stable element of culture, a matrix which shapes our particular ways of feeling, thinking and acting (Whorf 1940: 229-231). Because of its struc- ture, language determines the way we perceive and sense the world around us. Such linguistic structuralization of nature represents a constraint upon our perceptual patterns and limits the degree to which individuals brought up in different linguistic traditions can communicate and interact with one another. It is, of course, quite clear that such a ’constraint view’ of language makes any suggestion that a culture evolved in a particular linguistic setting could be perpetuated in the absence of that language seem quite absurd. The Whorfian theory goes much further than that, however, in that it makes hardly any allowance for the existence of any cultures which are not totally grounded in and dependent upon their language.

The view opposed to that of Whorf is one which takes language as a reflector of, rather than a constraint upon, other items of culture, be they value orientations, social structures, or economic forces. More than that, it can also be claimed to reflect environmental factors, such as those gene- rated by geographic and climatic conditions (Fishman 1972: 288-299). This is not the place to try to settle such a fundamental dispute among the linguists. Both the ’constraint’ and ’reflective’ school, however, represent extreme positions, and can be regarded as limiting cases of a generally much more complex situation. What the model of culture outlined earlier does, is to suggest a change of focus which places special emphasis on core values as a co-ordinating agency for all the group’s cultural activities, including language. When the core values of a particular group are other than linguistic, the model suggests a hierarchy which displaces the language from inevitably being the sole and unquestioned pivot for the group’s cultural survival. This is not to deny the vital function of language as a preserver of ethnicity. There are, of course, considerable variations among ethnic groups in the role that language plays in the maintenance of their culture but its unique role for language-centred cultures remains unchallenged.

Language Centred Cultures in a Monistic Society

When language provides the core of an ethnic or minority culture, and where the dominant majority’s ideological system is that of linguistic monism, the individual’s chances for constructing a viable personal ethnic linguistic system become somewhat more problematic. The Polish language, for exam- ple, has been lost by a great number, probably a majority, of Polish-Ameri- cans and it is now fast being lost by Polish-Australians. Despite such a lin- guistic loss, numerous Polish ethnics in both those countries continue to identify with their Polish origins, while some pass or intend to pass such sentiments to their own children.

9 In such a language-centred culture, those values which remain behind after the evaporation of a language represent merely what Fishman and Nahirny (1966: 156) referred to as ’residual’ or ’non-authentic’ ethnicity. It could be argued that when the heartland of a culture has been surrendered, the ’survivors’ still cling to the remnants of their heritage. We have described such a phenomenon as that of cultural shift, or displacement from the ideo- logical fulcrum to the periphery. This is best demonstrated in the almost obsessive preoccupation of some ethnics in America or Australia with folklore - ethnic dances, ethnic costumes, ethnic artifacts and similar ex- ternal manifestations of culture. Such preoccupations are the preserve of ethnics who can often hardly say a few words in their native tongue.

In such a judgement there would appear some devaluation of the non- literary aspects of culture. A few remnants of ethnicity may be better than none; interaction with the host culture can occur at a non-intellectual plane; ethnic institutions, divested of their language-maintenance function, may help ethnics pass the time in a pleasant and mutually satisfying way. What is more, ethnic structures, and the cultural residues which they harbour, may in certain instances act as anchorages for ’authentic’ culture. They may keep the embers of ethnicity alive long enough to enable subsequent genera- tions to return to the more intellectual and literary, as well as folkloristic, parts of their heritage. Some such cases have been observed in Australia where residual ethnicity has, at times, been transformed to an authentic one by an extended visit to the mother country, or marriage to a more ethnic partner. On the negative side, residual ethnicity obscures the fact of ethnic cultural degeneration. Parents ease their consciences by sending their chil- dren to dancing classes or making a donation to an ethnic club. The net result of this is that the stream of ethnic culture gets steadily shallower and less able to act as a creative agent in the cultural life of the country as a whole. The fossilized ethnic life holds no attraction to the educated young ethnics who can give expression to their talents only through the medium of the dominant Anglo culture. Such cultural development, as catalyzed by ethnic Australians, remains within the monolingual framework so that any possibility of real interaction is just idle talk.

It follows that it is necessary to understand the different nature of ethnic core values to make sense of the different patterns of adaptation in a plural society. In view of the fact that it is the ethnic language that is pro- bably most vulnerable to the influences of the culturally monistic school, one would expect that cultures centred upon linguistic values would face greatest difficulties in retaining their cohesion and integrity. Ethnic ’peculiar- ities’ in family structure and the relative-importance assigned to kinship and friendship patterns would appear, however, to be more immune to the influences of the school than linguistic values. Hence in a monolingually oriented society, the preservation of ethnic cultures which stress such values has better prospects of success than that of cultures based upon language. In such societies the decline of language-centred cultures illustrates the way in which the personal systems constructed by ethnic-Australians are depen- dent on the relationship of the core values of the dominant group to those of the ethnic culture concerned (Smolicz and Harris 1977).

10 Supra-Ethnic Values

How can the core values of different groups be reconciled within a plural setting? How is a conglomerate of disparate groups to remain stable politically and evolve culturally? In a democratic society, governed by con- sensus of participating groups, the possibility of achieving stability through control or coercion of the whole society by the dominant group is ruled out. (In the past, however, dominant groups have attempted such control through policies of enforced assimilation, under the pretence of striving for ’national unity’.) To achieve such consensus the multicultural society must possess certain supra-ethnic or shared values which are acceptable to all the groups. Such values transcend and complement the more particularist values of each group. Indeed, the acceptance of cultural diversity and linguistic pluralism by the majority group, and by society as a whole, may itself be regarded as a shared or supra-ethnic value, without which there can be no multicultural society.

In a society where at least some minority groups have language as a core value, pluralism can only be maintained by the acceptance of multi- lingualism as the ideal for society. Minority group members would then be allowed, and even encouraged, to maintain their language as the focal point of their culture. In addition, however, in order to avoid pluralism of the extreme or separatist kind, it would be necessary for all members of society to have a common language of communication. Hence society would need to accept and develop bilingualism at the personal level as a supra-ethnic value. This means that each individual would internalize at least two lan- guages in a form of dual system and activate each one of them according to his needs and circumstances.

It may be of interest to record here what may be recognized as the newly emergent shared values for Australian society. (Not every Australian accepts every one of their values but they are reflected in the political arena by both the major parties). Some of the values concerned may appear to derive more from the Anglo majority than from the minority groups, but the fact that they are acceptable to the minorities is, at least in part, based upon their origin in the ancestry and cultural heritage common to all the groups (most of which are of European origin). Moreover, supra-ethnic values, once they are accepted, no longer belong to just one group, but to all Australians, who regard them as their common cultural inheritance. One of the shared values is that of parliamentary democracy, and another that of freedom of the individual. Another value held in common by Australians is that of economic pluralism - that is, the appreciation of a free enterprise economy, alongside the recognition and acceptance of govern- ment or state intervention in certain areas. Perhaps the only uniquely British contribution in the system of supra-ethnic or shared values in Australia is the English language, as the one which is spoken by almost all members of society, but not to the exclusion of other mother tongues. Over the last six years, the Australian government has issued a number of policy state- ments that appear to give support to the teaching of ethnic languages and cultures in Australian schools in addition to English. Whether this repre-

11 sents the emergence of bilingualism as a core value for all Australians will become apparent as the government seeks to implement these policies.

In a society based upon consensus, the persistence of presupposes the existence of a certain cultural base of core values. When developed further, these can provide that type of unity which is essential to a modem state, while at the same time allowing for the flourishing of cultural diversity which, as T.S. Eliot (1948: 59) claimed, is a guarantee of intellectual growth and creativity.

References

Asmah, Haji Omar. 1975. Essays on Malaysian linguistics. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Borrie, W.D. 1954. Italians and Germans in Australia: a study of assimila- tion. Melbourne: Cheshire.

Bullivant, B. M. 1979. The way of tradition. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Clark, G.N. 1934. The later Stuarts. The Oxford history of England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clyne, Michael. 1977. Nieuw-Hollands or Double Dutch. Dutch Studies III. 1-20.

_. 1979. Community languages in Australia - What the 1976 census will (and will not) tell us. Paper presented to the society for Linguis- tics and Education. Melbourne.

Eliot, T.S. 1948. Notes toward the definition of culture. London: Faber & Faber.

Fishman, J.A. 1972. Language in sociocultural change. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Fishman, J.A. and Nahirny, V.C. 1966. Organizational and leadership interest in language maintenance. Language loyalty in the United States, ed. by J.A. Fishman, 156-189. The Hague: Mouton. Klarberg, F. 1979. Ideology, identity and language teaching. Proceedings of the Mid-American Linguistics Conference. Nebraska.

Nagata, J.A. 1977. Ethnic differentiation within an urban Muslim mercantile community in Malaysia. Ethnicity IV. 380-400. Parsons, Talcott. 1973. Culture and social system revisited. The idea of culture in the social sciences, ed. by L. Schnieder and C. Bonjean, 33-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12 Smolicz, J.J. 1979a. Culture and education in a plural society. Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre.

_. 1979b. Individualism v. collectivism: social relations in ethnic groups. Ethnic Studies III: 1. 13-24. Smolicz, J.J., Gardini, A. and Pieraccini, L. 1980. The retention of Italian language among schoolchildren of Italian background in South Austra- lia. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Smolicz, J.J. and Harris, R. Mcl. 1977. Ethnic languages in Australia. Inter- national Journal of the Sociology of Language XIV. 89-108. Smolicz, J.J. and Lean, R. 1979. Parental attitudes to cultural and linguistic pluralism in Australia. Australian Journal of Education XXIII: 3. 277-249. Streib, G.F. 1974. The restoration of the Irish language: behavioural and symbolic aspects. Ethnicity I. 73-89. Szacka, B. 1975. The past in the consciousness of the modem Polish intelli- gentsia. Warsaw: Ksiazka i Wiedza.

Vecoli, R.J. 1964. Contadini in Chicago: a critique of the uprooted. Journal of American History LI. 404-417. Whorf, B.L. 1940. Science and linguistics. Technology Review. 229-231.

Znaniecki, F. 1939. Social groups as products of participating individuals. American Journal of Sociology LXIV. 799-811.

_. 1963. Cultural sciences. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Zubrzycki, J. 1964. Settlers in the La Trobe valley. Canberra: Australia National University Press.

13