Fishman Et Al - The Rise and Fall of The Ethnic Revival - 1985 PDF

The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival:
Perspectives on Language and Ethnicity

Contributions to the Sociology of Language
37
Editor
Joshua A . Fishman
MOUTON PUBLISHERS · BERLIN · NEW YORK · AMSTERDAM

The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic
Revival: Perspectives on Language
and Ethnicity
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN
and
Michael H. Gertner, Esther G. Lowy and William G. Milán
assisted by
Silvia Burunat, David E. Fishman, Ofelia García, Itzek Gottesman,
Phyllis Koling, Rena Mayerfeld, Carole Riedler-Berger, and
J. Mark Steele
MOUTON PUBLISHERS · BERLIN • NEW YORK • AMSTERDAM

ClP—Kur^titelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek
Fishman, Joshua Α.:

The rise and fall of the ethnic revival:
perspectives on language and ethnicity/Joshua
A. Fishman and Michael H. Gertner . . . Assisted
by Silvia Burunat ...—Berlin; New York;
Amsterdam : Mouton, 1985.
(Contributions to the sociology of language; 37)
ISBN 3-11-010618-3 Paperback
ISBN 3-11-010604-3 geb.
NE: G T
lîbrary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Fishman, Joshua A.
The rise and fall of the ethnic revival.
ι. Language and culture—United States. I. Title.

P35.5.U6F57 1984 306'. 4 84-20702
ISBN 0-89925-048-3
ISBN 0-89925-049-1 (pbk.)
Printed on acid free paper
© Copyright 198; by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of
translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form—by
photoprint, microfilm, or any other means—nor transmitted nor translated into a machine
language without written permission from Mouton Publishers, Division of Walter de Gruyter &
Co., Berlin.
Typesetting: Permanent Typesetting and Printing Co., Ltd., Hong Kong.—Printing: Druckerei
Hildebrand, Berlin.—Binding: Dieter Mikolai Berlin. Printed in Germany
To Bruce Gaarder:
public servant, friend,
scholar and tireless advocate of the
non-English languages of the United
States, as an expression of
gratitude, not only from us but from
many, many more than he is aware of.
. . . [Τ] hey are prevented by diversity of language from conveying their senti-
ments to one another, so that a man would more readily converse with his dog
than with a foreigner. But the Imperial City has endeavored to impose on
subject nations not only her yoke, but her language, as a bond of peace . . . but
how many great wars, how much slaughter and bloodshed have provided this
unity?
—St. Augustine, The City of God (c. 413)
All political societies are composed of other, smaller societies of different

types, each of which has its interests and maxims The will of these particular
societies always has two relations: for the members of the association, it is a
general will; for the large society, it is a private will, which is very often found to
be upright in the first respect and vicious in the latter.
—Rousseau, Political Economy (1755)
The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is
that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow-creatures, and of acting
in common with them. I am therefore led to conclude that the right of
association is almost as inalienable as the right of personal liberty. No legislator
can attack it without impairing the very foundations of society. Nevertheless, if
the liberty of association is a fruitful source of advantages and prosperity to
some nations, it may be perverted or carried to excess by others, and the element
of Ufe may be changed into an element of destruction.
—Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1, chap. 12 (1835)
CONTENTS
Preface: Language and Culture, the Ethnic Revival and the

Sociolinguistic Enterprise xi
Acknowledgments xv
I Historical, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives on

Language and Ethnicity ι
ι. Language, Ethnicity and Racism 3

2. 'Am and Goy as Designations for Ethnicity in Selected Books of the
Old Testament 15
3. Bilingualism and Biculturism as Individual and as Societal Phenomena 39
4. Language Maintenance and Ethnicity 57
5. "Nothing New Under the Sun": A Case Study of Alternatives in
Language and Ethnocultural Identity 77
II The "Ethnic Revival" and Language Maintenance in the

American Context 105
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming in the United States Since i960: Trends

and Correlates 107
7. Ethnicity in Action: The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages
in the United States 195
8. Ethnic Activists View the Ethnic Revival and Its Language
Consequence 283
III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community

Institutions 303
9. Language and Ethnicity in the Periodical Publications of Four

American Ethnic Groups 305
10. The Hispanic Press in the United States: Content and Prospects 343
11. The Significance of the Ethnic-Community Mother-Tongue School 363
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in the Acquisition and Retention of
Biliteracy: A Comparative Ethnography of Tour New York City
Schools 377
IV Ethnolinguistic Pluralism in Herderian and Whorfian Perspective 443
13. Positive Pluralism: Some Overlooked Rationales and Forefathers 445

χ Contents
14· The Whorfian Hypothesis: Varieties of Valuation, Confirmation and

Disconfirmation 457
15. Whorfianism of the Third Kind: Ethnolinguistic Diversitj as a
Worldwide Societal Asset 473
Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA 489
Index 527
PREFACE
LANGUAGE AND CULTURE, THE ETHNIC

REVIVAL AND THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC
ENTERPRISE
It is our hope that this volume will inform the three major ways in which
language is related to culture: language itself is a part of culture, every language
provides an index of the culture with which it is most intimately associated, and
every language becomes symbolic of the culture with which it is most intimately
associated. Language and ethnicity relationships, the central concern dealt with
in this volume, provide revealing insights into each of these three links between
language and culture in general.
Most human behaviors are language imbedded and, therefore, language is an
inevitable part of culture. Ceremonies, rituals, songs, stories, spells, curses,
prayers, laws (not to mention conversations, requests and instructions) are all
speech acts or speech events that constitute the very warp and woof of ethnic
life. But such complex ethnocultural arenas as socialization, education, barter
and negotiation are also entirely awash in language. Language is, therefore, not
only part of culture but a very major and crucial part as well. All those who seek
to enter fully into a given ethnoculture and understand it must, accordingly,
master its language, for only through that language can they possibly par-
ticipate in and experience the culture. On the other hand, language shift, or loss
of a culture's intimately associated language, is indicative of fargoing culture
change, at the very least, and possibly, of cultural dislocation and destruction,
even though a sense of ethnocultural identity may, nevertheless, remain, at a
conscious or unconscious attitudinal level. The study of language and ethnicity
can help us to know and follow these intricate processes of change and
continuity.
The role of language as an index of culture is a by-product (at a more abstract
level) of its role as part of culture. Languages reveal the ways of thinking or of
organizing experience that are common in the ethnocultures with which they
are most intimately associated. Of course, languages provide lexical terms for
the bulk of the artifacts, concerns, values and behaviors recognized by their
associated ethnocultures. But, above and beyond such obvious indexing, lan-
xii Preface
guages also reveal the native clusters or typologies into which the above
referents are commonly categorized or grouped. The recognition of colors,
illnesses, kinship relationships, foods, plants, body parts and animal species
involves ethnoculture-bound typologies and the culturally recognized sys-
tematic qualities of these typologies are revealed by their associated
ethnoculture-bound languages. This is not to say that speakers of particular
languages are inescapably forced to recognize only the categories encoded in
their mother tongues. Such restrictions can be counteracted, at least in part, via
cross-cultural and cross-linguistic experience, including exposure to mathema-
tical and scientific languages which provide categories different from those
encountered in ethnocultures and their associated mother tongues. Minority
languages and minority ethnocultures are particularly good vantage points for
examining the consequences of cross-cultural and cross-linguistic experience.
Since language is the most elaborate symbol system of humankind, it is no
wonder, then, that particular languages become symbolic of the particular
ethnocultures in which they are imbedded and which they index. This is not
only a case of the part standingfor the whole (as when Yiddish, e.g., often stereo-
typically "stands f o r " or evokes Eastern European-derived ultra-Orthodox
Jewish culture, when we hear it spoken or when we hear it mentioned), but also
a case of the part becoming a rallying symbol for ( or against) the whole and, in some
cases, becoming a cause (or a target) in and of itself. Language movements and
language conflicts utilize languages as symbols in order to mobilize populations
to defend (or to attack) and to foster (or to reject) the ethnocultures in which
they are imbedded or which they index by dint of long and intimate association.
The study of language and ethnicity brings us very directly to the heart of such
sensitive and conflicted issues as inter-generational ethnic continuity and lan-
guage maintenance in which the symbolic role of language is highlighted again
and again.
ETHNIC REVIVALS AND THE ETHNIC REVIVAL
This volume, we would hope, also contributes directly to an understanding of

the widespread North American and Western European "ethnic revival" of the
mid-6os to mid-7os. This was a period in which the Western capitalist
uniformizing ethos was found wanting in many ways, by many groups, and in
many places. The rejection of the war in Vietnam, the "do-it-yourself" move-
ment, the civil rights struggle, the campus riots, the return to romantic simp-
licity and spontaneity of the flower children and the hippies, the widespread
anti-big business, anti-atomic energy and anti-big labor sentiments, the pure air
and pure water and environmental protection movements—all of these and
their counterparts abroad were also anti-central movements and sentiments.
Preface xiii
The "central idea" was profoundly disappointing in many ways and to many
different segments of society due to its purported materialism, violence, in-
trusiveness, bureaucracy, demoralization, lack of warmth, etc. Its apparent lack
of Gemeinschaft (whether in ethnic terms of bonds of purportedly spontaneous
affection and intimacy for those w h o are considered to be of "one's own kind",
or merely in more general, purely human, interactional terms) was deeply
disturbing, particularly to the young. Thus, the "ethnic revival" coincided with
a more general revaluation of the "central idea," a revaluation that contained
philosophical and cultural dimensions, as well as economic ones, a revaluation
that found the "central idea" seriously wanting insofar as a large variety of
critics, both in the U.S.A. and abroad, were concerned.
The "central idea" has recovered much ground in the world since the mid-
70s, but it is still not back to where it was soon after World War II. A s an idea
that waxes and wanes, gratifies and disappoints, rewards and overpromises, it
both fosters and undercuts ethnolinguistic diversity. The two (the central idea
and ethnolinguistic diversity) exist together, they complement each other sym-
biotically, and the absence of stable, societal bilingualism, on the one hand, but
the persistence of peripheralized ethnic mother tongues and individual bilin-
gualism, on the other hand, are the sociolinguistic reflections of their syn-
cretistic coexistence. In a country with as brief a history as the United States,
with ethnic and religious diversity as part of its deepest mythology and its most
basic reality, with constantly (and still) recurring waves of mass immigration, it
is highly unlikely that the "central idea" can long reign supreme. However, the
powerful uniformizing forces of its unrivaled econotechnical, urban processes
also guarantee that self-isolating social compartmentalization will not prove
possible for any but small and distinctly "off-beat", nonparticipationist mino-
rities. Perhaps, then, this is the genius of America (and of much of post-modern
life elsewhere as well), namely, that neither the "central idea" nor the "pluralis-
tic" idea can carry the day by itself for long. Being spared, therefore, the
excesses of either, the post-modern world must, of necessity, become more
tolerant toward both, since they both not only have their assets but, taken
together, bring along with them the assets of the creative tension between them
as well. A s time goes by, more and more of the world will have to learn to live
with both.
BRINGING LANGUAGE INTO SOCIOLOGY AND

SOCIOLOGY INTO LANGUAGE
Finally, this volume represents another step toward a goal that the senior author
and a small number of colleagues took upon themselves a little over twenty
years ago, namely, to bring about a mutually rewarding interaction between
xiv Preface
sociology and the language sciences. A study of language and ethnicity in

general and of the ethnic revival in particular, may well constitute an especially
promising vantage-point from which to pursue this goal, since ethnicity is a
topic of established interest both to sociology and several of the language
sciences. It is his particular hope that interest in language will grow among
sociologists and he has tried to encourage this interest by presenting language
in the very terms best known to sociologists: demographic, stratificational,
institutional and interactional. Modern societies are far too complex to fathom
via any one method or level of analysis, but language use, language attitudes
and behaviors toward language are superbly sensitive and dovetailed vantage-
points from which this complexity can be significantly revealed and clarified.
In connection with the second half of this task, i.e. in attempting to bring
sociology to the language sciences, we have tried not only to embrace meth-
odological diversification (to avoid the impression that there is only one
desirable, all-purpose method or level) but also to avoid the faddish roadblocks
that sociology has, at times, erected in connection with the study of ethnicity.
The roadblock that views ethnicity as necessarily artificial or secondary to other
factors, and the roadblock that views ethnicity as a phenomenon pertaining
only to unabsorbed minorities have each been equally eschewed. On the other
hand, we have tried to stress familiarity with sociological theory, for nothing
serves the total sociolinguistic endeavor more poorly than when language
specialists make up their own sociology as they go along, apparently oblivious
of the fact that social theory is every bit as old and as intricate an area of
intellectual endeavor as is language theory. Many readers of this book will
doubtless realize that this is the senior author's second attempt, over the period
of the past quarter century, to derive general sociolinguistic theory from a con-
trastive study of the non-English language resources of the United States. He is,
therefore, fully cognizant of the fact that this attempt must bear comparison
on two fronts: with his earlier Language Loyalty in the United States (1966) and
with the best work by others in the interim on related topics. Since his earlier
attempt was completed before the (re)birth of sociolinguistics in the early and
mid-6os, he is all the more eager that the current volume reflect the impact of
that thrilling intellectual ferment on our subsequent empirical and theoretical
efforts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (by the senior author)
Others must say to what extent our efforts to deal with language and ethnicity
from the perspectives of language and culture, ethnic revivals, and sociology-
language sciences interaction, have succeeded. I can only say that I have labored
hard and conscientiously on this volume for some five years and that my efforts
were assisted by a considerable number of very dedicated colleagues and
supporting agencies or institutions. The former are listed on the title page and,
again, in connection with the chapters with which they were most intimately
associated. The latter, too, deserve to be fully enumerated and thanked, and I
gratefully do so at this time: Office of Education International Studies Branch
for supporting my initial efforts in 1977 to study once again the non-English
language resources of the United States, after I had previously investigated this
area in the early 1960s with that very same office's help and encouragement;
National Institute of Education, for support in 1978 and 1979—81 for research
on the ethnic community schools of the United States and on the biliteracy
process in particular; National Science Foundation (Linguistics Program), for
support in 1979-83 for research on the ethnic revival as a factor in language use,
attitudes and behaviors toward language; National Endowment for the
Humanities for enabling me to discuss my preliminary finding and theories
during the entire summer of 1981 with 12 young humanists selected from
college faculties throughout the United States; Yeshiva University for awarding
me a sabbatical in 1982—83 so that I could devote my time exclusively to
preparing this volume for publication without the interruptions that teaching
and committee memberships entail; Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
(Wassenaar) and Institute for Advanced Studies ( Jerusalem) for awarding me
visiting fellow status during that year so that I could read and write with as little
distraction and with qs much stimulation as possible. To all of them and to the
project secretary and office manager, Mrs. Maxine Diamond-Kosofsky (who so
competently steered me through and around year after year of daily problems),
my sincere gratitude. Finally, I would like to thank my entire family, but
particularly my wife, Gella, and my youngest son, Avrom, for uncomplainingly
taking upon themselves the extra burdens which this work engendered and for
providing me with the additional encouragement and affection that are in-
evitably required by any one involved in a work such as this. Social research is
far more difficult than is generally imagined and without a safe and sure harbor
in the midst of my family I doubt that I could have managed to complete this
volume at all.
September 1983
χ vi Acknowledgments
Although this volume was conceived of as an integrated whole, most of its

chapters benefited from early publication, in whole or in part, in various books,
journals and collective volumes. The following publishers and journals are,
therefore, gratefully thanked for their permission to reprint material which they
originally published:
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 1977 and 1978,
Georgetown University Press.
Identity: Personal and Socio-Cultural. Uppsala, Almqvist and Wiksell, 1983.
Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, 1981
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1984.
Bilingual Press, 1984
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1983.
Multilingua, 1983.
NABE Journal, 1979.
Basic Wwiting, 1980.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1980 and 1984.
Language in Society, 1982.
Journal of Intercultural Studies, 1983.
I HISTORICAL, CROSS-CULTURAL AND
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON
LANGUAGE AND ETHNICITY
Chapter ι
Language, Ethnicity and Racism
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN In Irish, not merely does our mind react

to the same beauty, the same delicacy of
inflection and suggestion that delighted
our fathers, but we can still share
through it the desires and hopes, the
failures and successes, the nobility and
even, in healing manner, the human
weakness of practically the whole of our
recorded history (Brennan 1969: 7 1 ) .
hanguage and ethnicity: Overlooked variables in social theory and in social history. Many
discussions of ethnicity begin with the struggle to define "it". While I am cer-
tainly interested in defining (or delimiting) ethnicity, I am even more interested
in what the definitional struggle in this day and age reveals, namely, that the
social sciences as a whole still lack an intellectual tradition in connection with
this topic. Social scientists and social theorists have neither reconstructed nor
developed with respect to ethnicity (nor, indeed, with respect to language and
ethnicity) either a sociology of the phenomenon per se or a sociology of know-
ledge concerning it, much less a synchronic view of the link between the two, in
any major part of the world of social life and social thought. Thus, here we are,
in the late twentieth century, with God only knows how few or how many sec-
onds remaining to the entire human tragi-comedy on this planet, still fumbling
along in the domain of ethnicity, as if it had just recently appeared and as if three
millenia of pan-Mediterranean and European thought and experience in con-
nection with it (to take only that corner of mankind with which most of us are
most familiar) could be overlooked. Obviously that is not our attitude toward
other societal forms and processes such as the family, urbanization, religion,
technology, etc. For all of these we manifestly delight in the intellectual tradi-
tions surrounding them. I must conclude that our intellectual discomfort and
superficiality with respect to ethnicity and our selective ignorance in this con-
nection are themselves ethnicity-related phenomena, at least in part, pheno-
mena which merit consideration if we are ultimately to understand several of
the dimensions of this topic that are still waiting to be revealed.
4 I Historical, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
This is not the place to undertake so grand an expedition, nor have I the
ability to take you everywhere that this topic (the sociology of language and eth-
nicity and the sociology of knowledge with respect to it) must lead us. Suffice
it to say that we must try to carry both the reconstruction and the analysis of
social history and social theory from classical Hebrew and Greek times through
to the 20th century, up to and including the 'rebirth of ethnicity' in many
Western locales during the past decade. In the process we must attend to the
Roman Empire, both in the West and in the East; to the early Church and the
Church Fathers; to Islam as a Euro-Mediterranean presence, to medieval and re-
naissance life and thought throughout Europe; to the reformation and counter-
reformation; to the commercial and industrial revolutions viewed both as social
change/continuity and as stimulants to social thought and social theory; and fin-
ally, to the rise of modern intellectual schools and social movements. In this last
we must particularly examine the capitalist-Marxist clash, and the Marxist-
Herderian-Weberian differences in sociological and anthropological thought
and in political and economic action, both in the ominous 19th and in the cata-
clysmic 20th centuries. At this time I can only try to select a few themes here and
there that may provide some clues to language and ethnicity viewed in such a
perspective.
What is ethnicity ? Since one of my objectives (in what might very well be a life-
time task in and of itself) is to disclose what social theorists have said about eth-
nicity, including how they have defined it, my initial definitional passions can
be satisfied at a general orientional level which gives me as much latitude as
possible to attend to all forms and definitions of ethnicity (see Isajiw 1974, for
detailed attention to the definitional issue). What I am interested in is both the
sense and the expression of "collective, intergenerational cultural continuity,"
i.e. the sensing and expressing of links to "one's own kind (one's own people),"
to collectivities that not only purportedly have historical depth but, more cru-
cially, share putative ancestral origins and, therefore, the gifts and responsibi-
lities, rights and obligations deriving therefrom. Thus, what I am interested in
may or may not be identical with all of society and culture, depending on the
extent to which ethnicity does pervade and dictate all social sensings, doings
and knowings, or alternatively (and as is increasingly the case as society moder-
nizes) only some of these, particularly those that relate to the questions: who are
we? from where do we come? what is special about us?. I assume (together with
Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1982) that these questions can be answered differ-
endy at different times by the same respondents (and, all the more so, by different
respondents). It is in this context that I also want to monitor whatever link there
may be to language as an aspect of presumed ethnic authenticity.
The theme offundamental 'essence'. Both ancient Israel and ancient Greece con-
ceived of the world as made up of a finite number of ethnicities with characteris-
/. Language, Yìthnìcity and Racism 5
tic and fundamental biological 'essences' and, therefore, histories or missions of

their own. This theme, with its undercurrent of bodily continuity and triumph
over death, has its counterpart in modern Herderian and nationalist thought
and has been continually present in the pan-Mediterranean and European
world, as well as in much of the African, Asian, and Native American worlds.
This essence is transcendental and ultimately of superhuman origin, and lan-
guage is naturally a co-occurring part of the essential blood, bones, or tears.
Thus, the view that the deity (or deities) necessarily speak(s) to each ethnicity in
its own language and could not conceivably do otherwise, is also a recurring
view (albeit one that is not always accepted and, therefore, one that is also con-
tradicted). It is a view related to a cosmology in which language-and-ethnicity
collectivities are seen as the basic building blocks of all human society. In more
modern thought, the superhuman origin of this co-occurrence and its depen-
dence on biological essences are questioned. However, many theoreticians and
philosophers still hold that ethnicity and ethnogenesis (i.e., the coming into
being of ethnicities and of language-and-ethnicity linkages) is a natural and
necessary fact of human social life (for a recent Soviet view along these very
lines, see Bromley 1974). Eastern European and Eastern Mediterranean
thought is particularly noteworthy along these latter lines (Jakobson 1945) and
it is here in the Euro-Mediterranean complex that we find today most generally
and insistently the view that language authenticity is a natural and necessary
part of a mystically inescapable physical/cultural collective continuity.
The theme of metamorphosis. Seemingly at odds with the above view, but at
times syncretistically subscribed to in addition to it, is the view that ethnicities
can be transcended and that new or 'higher' levels of ethnic integration can be
arrived at, including the level of terminal de-ethnicization, i.e., of no ethnicity at
all. The argument between those who view ethnicity as fixed and god-given and
those who view it as endlessly mutable begins with Plato and Aristotle, the
former proposing that a group of de-ethnicized Guardians of the City be created
so that uncorrupted and uncorruptable, altruistic and evenhanded management
of the polity could be attained. There would be no husband-wife relationships
among them since all women would belong to all men and vice versa. Similarly
their offspring would have no fathers and no mothers since all male adults
would be fathers to all children, all female adults would be their mothers, all
children would belong equally to all adults and vice versa. Only a group such as
this—a group whose members had no differentiating intergenerational bio-
logical continuities—could devote itself to the public weal, since, having
neither property nor family, it could view the general need without bias,
without favoritism, without greed, without conflict of interest, all of which
Plato considered necessary accompaniments of ethnicity. Aristotle hotly con-
tested this view and stressed that whatever the dangers of ethnicity might be,
those who do not initially love and feel uniquely bound to specific "others"
could not then love mankind nor fía ve the benefit of generalized "others,' firmly
in mind. A child who belongs equally to one and all belongs to no one. The
challenge of ethnicity , as Aristotle saw it, was one of augmenting familial love,
expanding the natural links to one's own "kind,', so that these links also include
others who are more distantly related, rather than doing away with the initial
links and bonds as such.
This theme too is developed consistently—the expansion and transmutation
of language and ethnicity to a higher, more inclusive level of both being re-
peatedly expressed by early Christian thought e.g., St. Augustine, Roman
thought, medieval thought (including much of moral philosophy) and by capi-
talist statism. Going even further, de-ethnicization and linguistic fusion are ex-
pressed as ultimate, millenial goals by some modern Christian social theorists,
by classical Marxists as well as classical capitalists, and as inevitable if regret-
table outcomes of modern industrial society by Weber and the entire "grand
tradition" of modern social theory from Saint-Simon to Parsons.
Ethnicity as disruptive, irrational, and peripheral. The darker side of ethnicity is

commented on by almost all ancient and medieval thinkers, but usually as only
one side of the coin, i.e., as only half of the entire phenomenon which has both
positive and negative features. However, the more completely negative view
begins with Plato, as already mentioned, in relation to matters of state. In this
connection it receives its quintessential formulation by Lord Acton, John
Stuart Mill, and other establishment-oriented defenders of Western capitalist
democracy. For them, state-forming ethnicity was nothing but the disrupter of
civility, a base passion, a nightmare, a wild evil that still lurked in the backward
parts of Europe but that had, thank God, already been tamed and superseded in
Great Britain, France, Spain, Holland, and in the other early and enlightened
beneficiaries of political consolidation and econotechnical growth.
This view coincided with a developmental theory defining 'legitimate'
language-and-ethnicity, namely, that the link between them and the currency
that they both enjoyed in the West were by-products of political and economic sta-
bility. That is, they were the legitimate creations of centuries of continuous
governmental, commercial, military, and religious stability. This view, that the
benign, wise and stable state creates its corresponding and legitimate nationality,
was long the dominant view in the West. The thought that the nationality might
undertake to create a state for itself was anathema, viewed as unnatural, unjust,
unwise, and simply a wild and wanton disruption of peace and civility. The
thought of a Breton or Rumanian ethnicity was as roundly abhorred by 'proper'
society then as the thought of a Québécois ethnicity is in some circles today.
Indeed, the evil, instinctual penchant of "illegitimate" language-and-ethnicity
movements to undertake disruptive state-formation was thought to be the basic
negative dynamic of minority ethnicity, and so it is for some to this very day.
ι. lânguage, Ethnicity and Racism η
Thus, the confusion of ethnicity with politically troublesome collectivities,

with rambunctious minorities, with 'difficult' peripheral and vestigial popu-
lations, began long ago.
However, classical Marxism was not very different from capitalist establish-
ment statism in this respect. Mill had held that the language and ethnicity
movements, particularly in their nationality-into-state phase, were despicable
'irrationalities' that had to be contained at all costs, evils to be compromised
with only grudgingly if the established political order was to be maintained
(note, for example, the compromise escape clause of 'once defeated but his-
torical nations' as an interstitial category between Mill's and Acton's two major
categories: 'goodies': 'peoples with histories', and 'baddies': 'peoples without
histories'). Initially, Marx and Engels were equally vituperative with respect to
nation-into-state language and ethnicity movements (and, ultimately, made
equally grudging and opportunistic exceptions in connection with them), due
to their obviously disruptive impact on the class struggle and on proletarian
unity. However, if language-and-ethnicity movements for Mill were merely
vile passions, they were for Marx and many of his followers also vile figments,
lies, and chimeras, objectively no more than mere by-products of more basic
economic causes, phantoms manipulated by leading capitalist circles in order to
fragment and weaken the international proletariat.
Needless to say, both Mill and Marx have their followers today, who ascribe
to language and ethnicity linkages all manner of evil and evil alone, including
genocide. Furthermore, this purportedly objectivist view is still very much
alive among those social scientists who deny any subjective validity or func-
tional need for ethnicity, and who see it only as an essentially manipulated (and
therefore, basically inauthentic), manufactured by-product of elitist efforts to
gain mass support for political and economic goals (Gellner 1964). They
basically sympathize with Engels' lament of a century ago (1866):
There is no country in E u r o p e where there are not different nationalities under the
same government. T h e Highland Gaels and the Welsh are undoubtedly of different
nationalities to what the English are, although nobody will g i v e to these remnants of
people long gone by the title of nations, any more than to the Celtic inhabitants of
Brittany in F r a n c e . . . . T h e European importance, the vitality of a people, is as nothing
in the eyes of the principle of nationalities; before it the Roumans [sic] of Wallachia,
w h o never had a history, nor the energy required to have one, are of equal importance
to the Italians w h o have a history of 2,000 years, and an unimpaired national vitality;
the Welsh and M a n x m e n , if they desired it, w o u l d have an equal right to independent
political existence, absurd though it be, with the English! T h e whole thing is
absurdity. T h e principle of nationalities, indeed, could be invented in Eastern E u r o p e
alone, where the tide o f Asiatic invasion, for a thousand years, recurred again and
again, and left on the shore those heaps of intermingled ruins of nations which even
n o w the ethnologist can scarcely disentangle, and where the T u r k , the Finnic M a g y a r ,
8 1 Historical, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
the Rouman, the J e w and about a dozen Slavonic tribes live intermixed in inter-
minable confusion.
To this very day ethnicity strikes many Westerners as being peculiarly related
to 'all those crazy little people and languages out there', to the unwashed (and
unwanted) of the world, to phenomena that are really not fully civilized and that
are more trouble than they are worth.
Ethnicity as creative and healing. Autochthonous ethnicity theories commonly

refer to the responsibilities incumbent upon the carriers of the intergenerational
essence, i.e., to the duties that those of 'one's own kind' have, duties to be and to
do in particularly authentic ways; and of course, these theories also refer to the
individual and collective rewards of such faithfulness. However, various more
generalized ethnicity theories have taken this kind of thinking a step higher.
Classical Hebrew thought contains a recurring emphasis on the perfectability of
ethnicity, i.e., an emphasis on its highest realization via sanctification. It was not
only Jewish ethnicity which could be so elevated and attuned with the Creator's
designs and expectations (Fishman, Mayefeld and Fishman, Ch. 2, This Vol.),
although Hebrew thought is, understandably, repeatedly more concerned
with the theoretical perfectability of Hebrew ethnicity (just as it is with the
actual shortcomings of Hebrew ethnicity). Hebrew thought is an early source
for the recurring message that sanctified ethnicity is ennobling, strengthening,
healing, satisfying. Its thought proclaims the message of the joy, the wholeness,
the holiness of embodying and expressing language-and-ethnicity in accord
with the commandments of the Master of the Universe: 'for they are our life and
the length of our days.' Whosoever lives in the midst of his own kind, speaking
his own language and enacting his own most divinely regulated traditions in
accord with these imperatives, has all that one could hope for out of life (Also
see Fishman, This Volume, Chapters 2, 13 and 15).
The joys of one's own language and ethnicity are subsequently expressed
over and over again, from every corner of Europe and in every period. In
modern times this feeling has been raised to a general principle, a general
esthetic, a celebration of ethnic and linguistic diversity perse, as part of the very
multisplendored glory of God, a value, beauty, and source of creative inspir-
ation and inspiring creativity—indeed, as the basic human good. It is claimed
that it is ethnic and linguistic diversity that makes life worth living. It is
creativity and beauty based upon ethnic and linguistic diversity that make man
human. Absence of this diversity would lead to the dehumanization, mechaniz-
ation, and utter impoverishment of man. The weakening of this diversity is a
cause for alarm, a tendency to be resisted and combatted. In Herder and in
Mazzini, in the Slavophiles and in Kallen—indeed, in much of modern anthro-
pology and anthropological linguistics—the theme of ethnic diversity and the
sheer beauty of cultural pluralism provide an unending rhapsody. This view

both tantalizingly merges with and also separates from general democratic
principles, with the rights of man, and the inalienable privilege to be one's self,
not only to befree but to befree to be bound together with 'one's own kind (Talmon 196 5 ).
On the one hand, democracy also subsumes an alternative right, namely, to be
free from ethnicity, i.e., the right and opportunity to be a citizen of the world
rather than a member of one or another traditioned ethnic collectivity. On the
other hand, democracy guarantees the right to retain one's ethnicity, to safe-
guard collective ethnic continuity, to enable one's children to join the ranks
of 'one's own kind,' to develop creatively, and to reach their full potential
without becoming ethnically inauthentic, colorless, lifeless, worse than lifeless:
nothingness.
Dimensions of language-and-ethnicity. The foregoing themes provide us with many

insights into language and ethnicity, and into how language and ethnicity have
been viewed in a particularly influential part of the world as well. The themes
themselves are not independent of each other. Many of them relate to a putative
ethnic essence that is intergenerationally continuous among " one's own kind"
and is absorbed via the mother's milk. Thus, there is commonly a "being"
component to ethnicity, a bodily mystery, a triumph over death in the past as
well as a promise of immortality in the future, as the putative essence is handed
on generation after generation. There are a few escape hatches in, and a few
escape hatches out, and a terrifying state of liminality in between, but the
physical continuity of a corpus mysticum continues. And language is part of that
corpus. It issues authentically from the body, it is produced by the body, it has
body itself (and, therefore, does not permit much basic modification).
Just as commonly, language is part of the authentic 'doing' constellation and
the authentic "knowing" constellation that are recurringly assumed to be
dimensions of ethnicity. Ethnic doing and knowing are more mutable and,
therefore, in danger of inauthenticity. Ethnic doing is a responsibility that can
be shirked. Ethnic knowing is a gift that can be withheld. The basic de-
sideratum, ethnic being, is necessary but not sufficient. There is everything to be
gained and everything to be lost, and language is recurringly part and parcel of
this web (Fishman 1977). In premobilization ethnicity it is naturally, uncons-
ciously so (Fishman 1965), whereas in mobilized ethnicity it is a rallying call,
both metaphorically and explicitly (Fishman 1972).
Autochthonous theories gravitate toward the metaphorical and metaphysical
views of the language and ethnicity link. External objectivists reduce the
mystery to the needs of the military and the economy, with the school system
merely exploiting language and ethnicity in preparing recruits for both.
Autochthonists see language and ethnicity as initial essences, or causes.
External objectivists see them as manipulable by-products. However, both
io I Historical, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
agree that they are generally there together,. Hovering over them both is the
problem of how to interpret the "we-they" differences that are, unconsciously
or consciously, part of the experience of ethnicity, which brings me to racism.
Ethnicity and racism. Racism is one of many words that have been so broadened in
modem, popular usage as to have lost their utility. Democracy and socialism are
two other such terms, but whereas the latter have become all-purpose terms of
approbation (viz., people's democracy, guided democracy, National Socialism,
etc.), the former has become an all-purpose put-down. I would like to rescue
racism from that dubious distinction, to limit its semantic range, in order more
clearly to distinguish between ethnicity and racism as social phenomena and as
social theories, and thereby, to focus pejorative usage more tellingly.
Relative to ethnicity, racism is not only more focused on the " b e i n g "
component (therefore having even fewer escape hatches from it than does
ethnicity), but it also involves an evaluative ranking with respect to the
discontinuity between ethnic collectivities. Ethnicity is an enactment (often
unconscious) and a celebration of authenticity. Racism inevitably involves
more heightened consciousness than does ethnicity, not only because it is an
" i s m " , but because its focus is not merely on authenticity and the celebration of
difference or collective individuality, but on the evaluation of difference in
terms of inherent better or worse, higher or lower, entirely acceptable and
utterly objectionable. Ethnicity is less grandiose than racism. It has no built-in
power dimension while racism, being essentially hierarchical, must have the
concept of dominance in its cosmology and requires the constructs of superior
races, dominant stocks, master peoples. By their words and deeds, ethnicity and
racism are importantly different.
Herder, though anti-French to the hilt (like many German intellectuals
struggling against French cultural hegemony within the disunited German
princedoms at the beginning of the 19th century), is rarely, if ever, racist. He
proclaims:
No individual, no country, no people, no history of a people, no state is like any other.

Therefore, the true, the beautiful and the good are not the same for them. Everything
is suffocated if one's own way is not sought and if another nation is blindly taken as a
model (Herder, Sammtliche Werke, v. 4, p. 472).
Is not this still a dominant ethic and motivating dynamic in cultural anthro-
pology to this very day? Herderian views must be understood as a plea and a
rhapsody for an ethnically pluralistic world in which each ethnicity can tend its
own vineyard as a right, a trust, and a point of departure for new beauty and
creativity yet undreamed of. Such pluralism is, however, strange to racism,
since the dynamics of racism represent a call and rationale for domination rather
than for coexistence. While ethnicity can proclaim live and let live, racism can
proclaim only bondage or death to the inferior.
Of course, every ethnicity runs the risk of developing an ethnocentrism, i.e.,
the view that one's own way of life is superior to all others. It may even be true
that some degree of ethnocentrism is to be found in all societies and cultures
(Bidney 1968), including the culture of secular science itself, to the degree that
they are all-encompassing in defining experience and perspective. The antidote
to ethnocentrism (including acquired anti-ethnic ethnocentrism, which may be
just as supercilious and uncritically biased as is ethnic conditioning) is thus
comparative cross-ethnic knowledge and experience, transcending the limits of
one's own usual exposure to life and values (a theme which has long appeared in
the literature on ethnicity). Characteristic of postmodern ethnicity is the stance
of simultaneously transcending ethnicity as a complete, self-contained system,
but of retaining it as a selectively preferred, evolving, participatory system.
This leads to a kind of self-correction from within and from without, which
extreme nationalism and racism do not permit.
The modern heroes of racism are Gobineau in France (see, for example,
Biddess 1966, 1970a and 1970b), Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1899) in
England, and a chorus of German philosophers, scientists, and politicians (see,
for example, Barzun 1937, Gasman 1971, Mosse 1966, Weinreich 1964). From
their works it becomes clear that the language link to racism is as invidious as
racism per se. Hermann Gauch, a Nazi 'scientist', was able to claim:
The Nordic race alone can emit sounds of untroubled clearness, whereas among non-
Nordics the pronunciation is . . . like noises made by animals, such as barking, sniffing,
snoring, squeaking That birds can learn to talk better than other animals is
explained by the fact that their mouths are Nordic in structure (quoted in Mosse 1966,
p. 225).
Here we have the ultimate route of racist thought: the demotion of the 'others'
to a subhuman level. They are animals, vermin, and are to be subjected to
whatever final solution is most effective and efficient.
Concluding sentiments. These remarks must not be taken simply as a defense of

ethnicity. Ethnicity has been recognized since ancient times as capable of excess,
corruption, and irrationality, this capacity being one of the basic themes
accompanying its peregrination across the centuries. The very term ethnicity,
derived from the Greek ethnos (used consistently in the Septuagint to render the
Hebrew goy, the more negative term for nationality, as distinct from 'am, the
more positive term), has a decided negative connotation in earliest English
usage (see O E D : ethnic 1470, ethnist 15 50 and 1563, ethniciê 1663, ethnicity 1772,
ethniê 1847). These connotations—heathenness, superstition, bizarreness—
have not fully vanished even from modern popular usage, e.g., ethnic dress,
ethnic hairdos, ethnic soul. Thus, we need not fear that the excesses of ethnicity
will be overlooked.
Racism itself is one of the excesses into which ethnicity can develop, although
racism has often developed on pan-ethnic and perhaps even on nonethnic
foundations as well. 2 However, the distinction between ethnicity and racism is
well worth maintaining, particularly for those in the language-related discip-
lines and professions. It clarifies our goals, our problems, and our challenges as
we engage in bilingual education, in language planning, in language mainten-
ance efforts, and in a host of sociolinguistic and anthropological enterprises.
The distinctions between religion and bigotry, sexuality and sexism, socialism
and communism, democracy and anarchy, are all worth maintaining. N o less
worthwhile is the distinction between ethnicity and racism. Unfortunately, we
know more about racism than about ethnicity, and more about the conflictual
aspects of ethnicity than about its integrative functions. This is a pity, par-
ticularly for American intellectuals, since we too (regardless of our pretense to
the contrary) live in a world in which the ethnic factor in art, music, literature,
fashions, diets, childrearing, education, and politics is still strong, and needs to
be understood and even appreciated. N o t to know more about ethnicity, about
the ethnic repertoires of modern life, the endless mutability of ethnicity since
the days of ancient Israel, the variety of prior thought concerning ethnicity (e.g.
the various and changing views as to its power or centrality as a factor in societal
functioning and social behavior) is also to limit our understanding of society
and of the role of language in society. Language and ethnicity have been viewed
as naturally linked in almost every age of premodern pan-Mediterranean and
European thought. When ethnicity disappeared from modern social theory in
the 19th century, language, too, disappeared therefrom. We may n o w be at the
point of reappearance of both in modern social theory and we must prepare
ourselves, accordingly, to benefit from and to contribute to the sensitivities and
perspectives that a knowledge of language and ethnicity can provide, without
overdoing them. Only in this way can the "ethnic revival" in the United States
be fully understood.
NOTES
ι. For an account of racism's more complete domination of modern culture, see Banton's paper
in Zubaida (1970). For a preliminary differentiation between ethnicity and racism, see the
penultimate section of this paper.
2. The terminology of ethnicity often included the word race (e.g., ra%a,) in the sense of ethnicity
as employed in this paper. This is but one of the semantic alternatives that a sociology and
sociology of knowledge pertaining to ethnicity must be aware of and must try to illuminate.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barzun, Jacques. Race: A Study in Superstition. N e w York, Harper, 1937.

Biddess, Michael D. Gobineau and the origin of European racism. Race: Journal of the Institute of Race
Relations. 1966, 7, 225-270.
Biddess, Michael D., ed. Gobineau: Selected Political Writings. London, Cape, 1970a.
Biddess, Michael D . Father of Racist Ideologi/: The Social and Political Thought of Count Gobineau.
London, Weindenfeld and Nicholson, 1970b.
Bidney, David. Cultural relativism. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 1968,3,543-547.
Brennan, Rev. Martin. Language, personality and the nation, in Cuiv, Brian Ó., ed. A View of the
Irish Language. Dublin, Stationery Office, 1969.
Bromley, Y u V . Soviet ethnology and anthropology, in his Studies in Anthropology I. The Hague,
Mouton, 1974.
Chamberlain, Houston S. The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. N e w York, Fertig, 1899.
Engels, Friedrich. What have the working class to do with Poland? Commonwealth. 1866, March 24,
March 31 and May ;.
Fishman, David E., Rena Mayerfeld, and Joshua A. Fishman. n.d. 'Am andgoy as designations for
ethnicity in selected books of the Old Testament. This Volume, Chapter 2.
Fishman, Joshua A . Varieties of ethnicity and varieties of language consciousness. In: Georgetown
University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, if6j. Edited by Charles W. Kreidler. 1965,
69-79.
Language and Nationalism. Rowley, Newbury House, 1972.
Ethnicity and language, in Giles, Howard, ed. Language and Ethnicity in Intergroup Relations.
N e w York, Academic Press, 1977, 15-52.
Gasman, Daniel. The scientific origins of National Socialism, in his Social Darwinism in Ernest
Haeckel and the German Monist League. London, Macdonald, 1971.
Gellner, Ernst. Thought and Change. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1964.
Herder, Johann G . Sammtliche Werke. 33 vols. Β. Suphan, E. Redlich et al.,eds. Berlin, 1877-1913.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. Definitions of ethnicity. Ethnicity, ι , 1 1 1 - 1 2 4 , 1974.
Jakobson, Roman. The beginnings of national self-determination in Europe. Review of Politics.
1945, 2, 29-42. Reprinted in Fishman, J.A., ed. Readings in the Sociologi of Language. The Hague,
Mouton, 1968.
LePage, R.B. and Andrée Tabouret-Keller. Models and stereotypes of ethnicity and language.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1982, 3, 161-192.
MacRae, Donald. Race and sociology in history and in theory, in Mason, P., ed. Man, Race and
Darwin. London, Oxford University Press, i960, 76-86.
Mosse, G . L . Ναζί Culture: Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich. London, W.H.
Allen, 1966.
Rjasanoff, N. Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels über die Polenfrage. Archiv für die Geschichte des
Socialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung (Leipzig). 1916, 6, 175-221.
Talmon, Jacob L. The Unique and the Universa!. London, Secker and Warburg, 196;.
Weinreich, Max. Hitler's Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes Against the Jewish
People. N e w York, Yiddish Scientific Institute-YIVO, 1946.
Zubaida, S., ed. Race and Racism. London, Tavistock, 1970.
Chapter 2
'Am and Goy as Designations for Ethnicity

in Selected Books of the Old Testament
DAVID E. FISHMAN, RENA MAYERFELD,

JOSHUA A. FISHMAN.
'AM, GOY AND ETHNICITY
The unabridged Oxford English Dictionary presents the student of ethnicity with
a puzzle, rather than with an answer to a riddle, when it associates the term
"ethnicity" (and such obsolete variants as "ethnish" and "ethnicize") with the
Old Testament Hebrew goy and when its oldest (16th-century) English citations
associate all of these terms with what are now distinctly unlikely meanings such
as "pagan, neither Jewish nor Christian, heathen." These intimations of back-
wardness, grossness, incivility and general unsavoriness are certainly not at
the heart of this term's current semantic field (although they linger only slightly
below the surface in such references as "ethnic hairdo" and "ethnic politics,"
both of which presumably are less civilized than ordinary hairdos or politics).
Currently, in scholarly references to "ethnic studies" and "ethno-sciences" the
designation ethnic refers to the cultural specificity that defines or self-defines a
people or nationality. Other languages handle this area of discourse ever so
much better than does English—with its ambiguous and wavering distinctions
between nationality and nation, on the one hand, and nationality and citizen-
ship, on the other hand. However, even modern English places "ethnicity"
within the semantic field of "peopleness" rather than "heathendom." Thus,
two interrelated issues arise to be clarified: (a) how does "ethnicity" come to
refer to peopleness, to begin with, and (b) how does "ethnicity" come to refer to
"heathendom" within the general orbit of "peopleness" ? A third, more mar-
ginal issue is how "ethnicity" comes to lose the latter pejorative connotations
and to gravitate toward more neutral ones, in modern sociological and popular
usage in English.
16 I Historical, Crass-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
BIBLICAL SEMANTICS: PROBLEMS AND

UNCERTAINTIES
Following the lead of the OED, we will turn to the Hebrew Bible in order to
begin our exploration. Here we immediately discover two widely used terms
for ethnocultural aggregates: 'am and goy. In the Septuagint (the Alexandrian
Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by Hellenistic Jews, between 250 B.C.E.
and 100 B.C.E.), ethnos is the Greek term used to translate goy, and laos is the
Greek term employed to render 'am. Since "ethnicity" is a derivative of only
one of these two terms (terms which together represent an ethnotypology or, at
the very least, part of an ethnotypology), we must seek to understand them both
('am and goy)—and particularly to fathom the semantic differences between
t h e m — i f we are to appreciate either choice of ethnos for goy or the subsequent
negative semantic field of its earliest recorded English derivatives.
The student of Old Testament semantics (as well as of any other records o f
ancient literate civilizations) is faced with two major problems: on the one hand,
the limited (i.e., historically selected) data available, and, on the other, its
vastness and variety. Indeed, the study of Biblical semantics often appears to
attempt the impossible: to arrive at the "true" (underlying, basic) meanings of
words from their relatively few but yet often ambiguous or idiosyncratic
occurrences. Such a study is inevitably based on partial and incidental data.
"Clearly our knowledge can never be complete, because we are dependent on
the size of the corpus and on the number of times a certain word occurs (which
may be very few): moreover, if we are lucky, the context will tell us a lot about
the way it is used, but it may also tell us next to nothing." (Rabin 1970, p.25).
T o make matters even more difficult, we are faced with a historical problem.
The texts of the Hebrew Bible and the oral traditions behind them scan a period
of at least a thousand years, including the works of authors and redactors of
various geographic locations, social milieus and political and religious philo-
sophies. Words are not passive artifacts. They carry different meanings and
connotations by and to individuals in different times, places and classes. It is
therefore nearly impossible to speak of "the Biblical concept" of Χ , Y or Z , and
a comparison of meanings at different times or in different contexts may well be
a more realistic and accurate (but, obviously, more difficult) goal. Finally, it
must be admitted at the outset that our efforts reveal a quite traditional
"Jewish" oudook on the nature of the language of the Bible, i.e., that each word
has a significance, a meaning of its own. N o two words can be exact synonyms.
They must differ in meaning, connotation, stylistic level, etc. It is our view that
each word "gets its meaning by being in opposition to other words of the
language and especially to other words used in talking about the same sphere of
things or concepts" (Rabin 1970, p. 25). Goy gets its meaning, in part, in
2. 'Am and Goy as Old Testament Designation for Ethnicity 17
opposition to 'am and, therefore, we cannot really appreciate the earliest

semantic levels of English "ethnicity" and of Greek "ethnos" as the translation
of goy without also investigating the meaning of non- goy, i.e., of 'am.
'AM IN THE PENTATEUCH: NARROWING THE

FIELD
N o t all the cases of the singular 'am in the Pentateuch, the first five (and
presumably oldest) books of the Old Testament, are related to our concern with
'am as a designation for (a certain kind of) ethnicity. The following are examples
of usages that we have excluded from our analyses:
ι. 'Am and (Ha-'am) as a Collective Noun: The Hebrew 'am served two
purposes, as does the English word people, first to indicate an ethnic or
national body and secondly as a collective noun: one person—many people.
Examples of the second usage may be found 1 in Genesis 50: 20, Leviticus
16: 33 and Exodus 21: 8. In the new Jewish Publication Society (JPS)
translation of the Torab, 'am in the latter verse is translated as outsiders.
Indeed, this is the case with the frequent term Ha-am, which often does not
refer to a nationality, but, rather, to any group of many people.
2. 'Am as an Army·. Several verses refer to kings, along with their respective
'am, launching attacks (against the Israelites). The intent of soldiers is un-
deniable. Examples of this usage may be found in Exodus 14: 6 and
Deuteronomy 20: 1. JPS wisely translates 'am in the former case as his men and
'am in the latter as forces greater thanyours.
3. Pharoah's People: Similarly, several verses speak of Pharoah's people, refer-
ring to those close to h i m — t h e servants, advisors and officials of his court.
Examples of this usage may be seen in Genesis 41: 40, Exodus 1: 22 and
Exodus 9: 27.
4. ' A m = Family: Many scholars have claimed this to have been the initial
meaning of 'am, peoplejnation being a subsequent broadening of this sense.
Others (Speiser i960; Rost 1934) have pushed the derivation of 'am back to
the Arabic for paternal uncle. Several verses clearly indicate family and not
nationality contexts, e.g., Genesis 34: 16, Deuteronomy 9: 2 and Leviticus
21: I .
5. Plurals (amim) will always be excluded because when they refer to eth-
nicity, they must, by necessity, refer to non-Jewish aggregates.
Sundry other excluded usages are those contained in traditional phrases and
formulas (e.g., references to dying as in Genesis 17: 14 and Leviticus 17: 10 or
to collective stubbornness as in Exodus 33:5) with clearly established idiosyn-
cratic meanings in the original Hebrew. However, 'am and goy in "poetic"
18 I Histórica/, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
Table ι. 'AM (in the sense of Ethnicity/Nationality) in reference to Jews and Gentiles in the
Pentateuch
Jews Gentiles
ι. Genesis 0 I
2. Exodus 23 (19) 0
3. Leviticus I 0
4. Numbers I 3
5. Deuteronomy '8 (6) 3
Total 43 (25) 7
( ) indicates the occurrence of 'am in possessive form ('ami, etc.); the number within the
parentheses is included in the figure to its left.
passages will be retained (primarily because it is not always clear just when their
usage is that of contrastive metaphor, i.e., usage contrary to the usual or
contrastive to immediately preceding phraseology).
From all of the foregoing, it is clear that 'am has a variety of other signific-
ances beyond ethnicity; indeed, a clear majority of its instances in the
Pentateuch are outside of the ethnic fold proper (but related to it via notions of
family, group of people, army, etc.). Nevertheless, we still remain with a core of
substantial size (n = 50) in the Pentateuch in which it is exactly the ethnocul-
tural aggregate (nationality, ethnicity, peoplehood) that is explicitly indicated.
Let us examine this usage at this point.
'AM AS A PEOPLE IN THE PENTATEUCH
Having sufficiently defined and delineated the field, we can now turn to 50
instances of singular 'am2 as a term indicating nationality, ethnicity, people-
hood (Table 1). Three predominant categories of usage stand out—stressing
relationship with deity, religious observance and communal closeness,
respectively.
ι. As an 'am, Israel is portrayed as possessing a very unique relationship with God.
G o d resides and walks with Israel, distinguishing it from other people (Exodus
33: 16). Israel and G o d possess a special /oye-relationship, based on common
(historical) experiences, mutual commitments (Deuteronomy 4: 3 3). Indeed,
God's revelation of himself, the closest association possible with the deity, is
an experience of the Israelite 'am (Exodus 6: 7, Leviticus 26: 12,
Deuteronomy 29: 1 3 , Deuteronomy 27: 9). G o d ' s connection with the
Israelites causes Him to refer to them as My people and the Biblical narrative to
call them His people (Exodus 3: 7, Exodus 32: 14, Deuteronomy 26: 15).
2. Formalized religious worship and observance of sacred rituals is essential to the
function of an 'am as a national body. The phrases 'am seguía (peculiar—i.e.,
special—people) and seguía mikol ha-'amim (a peculiar treasure above all
nations) constantly appear to emphasize the importance of keeping all God's
commandments (Deuteronomy 26: 18, Exodus 19: 5). The Israelites are an
'am kadosh (holy or separate people) by virtue of refraining from foreign
cui tic practices and avoiding idolotry (Deuteronomy 14: 2, Deuteronomy
14: 21, Deuteronomy 7: 6; similarly, Deuteronomy 26: 19 and 28: 9). The
greatness or wisdom of the Israelite people is to be found in its unique
lifestyle, in its religious and moral precepts (Deuteronomy 4: 6; see below for
the special usage goy gadol in the latter part of this citation).
3. Last but not least, 'am is used to stress the communal brotherhood of all Israel,
their closeness, similar to that of a family. The emphasis on the emotional bonds
and kin-like closeness found in this usage of 'am (Exodus 2 3 : 1 1 ,
Deuteronomy 7: 7) stems from its primary family-based meaning mentioned
earlier and from the Old Testament conception that all peoples initially began
with a founding forefather and his family.
GOY AND GOY GADOL IN THE PENTATEUCH:

NARROWING THE FIELD
The primary distinction necessary before t r e a t i n g ^ qua nation is that between

goy and the common phrase goy gadol. Most frequently, becoming agoy gadol is an
integral part of the many promises given to the Patriarchs concerning their
future destiny. It signifies multitude, many-ness, " a great population," "a great
number of people." Normally this is an insurance of children and a large
number of descendants.' Presumably the term 'am could not be applied in such
cases because of its initial meaning or connotation, " paternal uncle." H o w
could Abraham be promised to become an 'am when in this primary sense he
already was one, Lot being his nephew?
The promise of being a goy gadol meant, in the first place, survival in the
future. In the desert (the locale of much of Genesis), population and survival are
connected, since no man (not even a small group) can live alone, self-
sufficiently, in such an environment. The greatest promise G o d gave Abraham,
left only with his wife, was that in the land of Canaan he would acquire servants,
co-workers and descendants (Genesis 12: 2). A t the climax of her despair, G o d
promises Hagar that this is not the end. Her son will have descendants (Genesis
21: 18). Three verses later Ishmael marries, thereby beginning the promised
2o I Historical, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
Table 2. GO Y (in the sense of Ethnicity/Nationality) in reference to Jews and Gentiles in the
Pentateuch
,
Jews Gentiles
ι. Genesis !
2. Exodus 2 I
3. Leviticus O 2
4. Numbers 0 0
5. Deuteronomy I 5
Total 4 9
expansion of his fold. In time of famine, G o d tells Jacob to go down to Egypt,

thus insuring the future of his family (Genesis 46: 3). This, indeed, was the case.
The Jews left Canaan as a small group and multiplied greatly in Egypt. On the
other hand, Deuteronomy 6-8 emphasizes that Israel is more than just a large
conglomeration of people. It is rather an 'am, with a unique order of law, with
very special religious experiences.
In view of this very special (and often contrastive or exception-implying)
usage of goj gado I to indicate manyness, size of population, rather than natio-
nality or ethnicity, we will exclude it from further consideration here, just as we
have previously argued for the exclusion of exceptional meanings of 'am.
GOY AS A PEOPLE IN THE PENTATEUCH
Generally translated in English as "nation," the 13 instances of goy in the

Pentateuch (Table 2) stress the tangible or organisational or concrete aspects of a
people: land, government, statehood.
ι. When referring to the promised conquest of the land of Canaan, the
Pentateuch combines the aspects of driving out, "cutting down" and defeat-
ing the goyim, on the one hand, and gaining control of their land, cities and
dwelling places, on the other hand (Exodus 34: 24, Deuteronomy 19: 1,
Deuteronomy 1 1 : 23, Deuteronomy 12: 29). In exile, Israel finds itself among
goyim (Leviticus 26: 33, Deuteronomy 30: 1). Having left Egypt, the
Israelites passed through goyim (Deuteronomy 29: 16). Goj and land are
intimately connected as seen in the common phrase gojei ha-arets (Genesis
26: 4, 22: 18). Eitan (1924) has suggested that in its oldest Biblical usage the
term goy meant "field, forest" and Barr (1968) has accepted this opinion.
However, goy is clearly not only a geographic but also a political entity.
Several verses bring goy and king in parallelism (Genesis 17: 6, Genesis
3 5: 11). Only once are Israelites referred to as a goy kadosh (holy goy) and not as
'am kadosh, and this is also in conjunction with the term "kingdom." (Note,
however, that it is to be a "kingdom of priests": Exodus 19: 6; that is, it is to
become not the usual type of goy at all—a goy merely of land, of kings, of
statehood.)
In Jacob's blessing of Joseph's children, Ephraim and Menashe, Menashe
is promised W-ness, peoplehood (perhaps, in this context, a collective
singular for "family") while Ephraim will be the source ofgoyim ("a multi-
tude": Genesis 48: 19). This prophecy was indeed confirmed when "the
kingdom of Ephraim" separated itself from Judah, founding its own non-
Davidic lineage of monarchs. Finally, the geographic and monarchial conno-
tations oí goy are found together in Deuteronomy 17: 14.
2. The foregoing also adds to our understanding of several verses employing
goy and le-om as synonymous parallels (Isaiah 34: 1). Driver (1956: 158, note
12) and Gray (1957: 197) have both supported the hypothesis that besides its
poetic usage as "people," le-om at one time possessed a second meaning (or
possibly a homonym) "ruler" or "prince."
3. Goy generally emphasizes political, economic or geographic concerns and
behaviors (as opposed to religious ones) (Exodus 9: 24). The few references
to "gods of the.goyim" (Deuteronomy 12: 30) do not contradict this generali-
zation. Goy still retains its usual stress on land or locality even in this phrase,
since many pagan deities were believed to "reside" in certain cities or places.
Economic relationships are also entered into with goyim, such as loans and
sales (Deuteronomy 1 5 : 6 and 28: 12). Goyim observe the Exodus from Egypt
only because it is of geo-political importance (Leviticus 26: 45). G o d will
punish Israel by enabling a goy to overtake the land of Israel and rule it
(Deuteronomy 28: 49—50). Alternatively, God can place Israel to rule over
thç.goyim. Indeed, one aspect of the miracle of the exodus was the creation of a
new state by God's transplanting a population from one location to another
(Deuteronomy 4: 34). However, the deeper meaning of the exodus lies
elsewhere. The Israelites left as a people called forth and protected by G o d
(Number 22: 5). In the desert, they acquired a separate religious communal
identity {'am kadosh, 'am seguía, 'am hashem). Only then do they receive their
own territory, achieving also the secondary status of goy but, hopefully, with
sanctified moral ('^w-like) precepts as their guide.
THE FUNCTIONAL THEORY—JEWS AND GENTILES
The contextualization principles and semantic fields developed above concern-

ing Pentateuchal 'am and goy may be considered a functional theory of their
usage, i.e., goy and 'am signify different characteristics, activities and organiz-
Table 3. 'AM and goy for Jews and Gentiles in the Pentateuch
Jews Gentiles
'Am 45 7
Goy 4 9
χ 2 = i6.6i (p.oi = 6.64; p.001 = 10.83)*
* χ 2 is not really appropriate in this case, since we are dealing with an entire universe rather than
with a sample, but it is s h o w n here for comparative purposes relative to Tables 6 and
ational bases of ethnic aggregates. 'Am and goy are different terms which may be
applied either to the same "people" in different contexts or to separate prototy-
es of 'am-ness andîy-ness.
A number of earlier scholars have offered more restricted, contextual theories
of Biblical 'am and goy usage, claiming that the two possess essentially identical
meanings and are used on different occasions. "Linguistic usage confined the
application of the singular 'am with rare exceptions . . . to the people of Israel,
while the s i n g u l a r ^ was prevailingly, though not exclusively, applied to other
nations" (Hastings 1980). T h o u g h this opinion has been criticized as actually
stemming from the later post-Biblical meaning of goy (e.g., see the discussion of
goy in the Entsiklopediye Hamikrait 1965), the evidence, on the whole (see Tables
1—3, below), does seem to verify this distinction. Rather, this "rule" and the
exceptions to it (only 11 in the entire Pentateuch) should be understood within
the realm of the full functional theory developed above, and the often over-
looked «7/ra-ethnic use of each term (Table 3) should be scrutinized carefully for
its own systematic semantic characteristics.
THE "EXCEPTIONS PROVE THE RULE": BOTH 'AM

AND GOY ARE USED ON INTRA-ETHNIC AS WELL
AS ON INTER-ETHNIC BASES
Jews Called Goy
Genesis 3;: 11
As was noted above, the political aspect of goy is manifest in its frequent
parallelism with " k i n g s . " Jacob is promised a sovereign territory (note the
following verse), a state. This verse may also be interpreted, possibly, as a
reference to the later kingdom of Israel (after the division of the land of Israel
into two separate kingdoms, Judah and Israel). It should be noted that in
Jacob's relating this promise, to Joseph (Genesis 48:4), he omits the

"kingly" aspect and consequently returns to the phrase kahal 'amim.
Exodus 19: 6
This is again the same phenomenon, goy being used due to the "political"
context (if only as a metaphor).
Exodus 3 3 : 1 3
This verse, employing both terms together, is the only one in the Pentateuch
to refer to the wandering Israelites as a goy. This apparent inconsistency with
the delineation of goy as related to land, statehood and economy can be
resolved by the following remarks:
a. The intention of the verse is to emphasize the specialness of the Israelite
nation by distinguishing between an emotion-packed term for "people"
and an objective, dispassionate one. This dichotomy is inherent in the
terms 'am and goy. the former relates to emotional, family-like and super-
natural religious bonds; the latter portrays an objective, "rationally or-
ganized," material, physical society, united by spacial proximity and
government. Speiser (i960, pp. 1 5 8 - 1 5 9 ) offers a similar understanding
of this verse, noting that rarely, if ever, does goy appear with a possessive
suffix. This strengthens the opinion thitgoy is an impersonal and objective
term.
Since this verse can be interpreted as posing a difficulty in understanding,
employing a term in a rare usage, a textual emendation may be in order.
As noted before, the Israelites in the desert are referred to as a goy gadol in
Deuteronomy 4: 6. There may be room to propose that this verse (Exodus
33: 13) should also correctly be read with the term gadol inserted after goy.
Indeed, the context demands such an emendation since several verses
earlier (Exodus 32: 10), God offers to destroy the Israelites and to mul-
tiply Moses and his seed greatly. Moses' ultimate reply is that this great
population is God's people. The peerless n t h century commentator
Rashi offers a similar interpretation, calling for an emendation.
Deuteronomy 4: 34
For an analysis of this verse, see the discussion above in connection with
transplanting a population from one location to another.
Gentiles Called 'Am
Genesis 11:6
'Am in this context is used to stress closeness and family-like unity.
Exodus 33: 16
As noted earlier, Israel is distinguished from other ethnic communities
primarily by the presence of God among them. This verse seems to include a
scribal error and should read mikol ba-'amim (from all the peoples/nations)
rather than mikol ha-'am, (from all the people) since it compares Israel with
other peoples.
Mikol ha-am appears only once in the Pentateuch, referring to the collective
Israelites (Exodus 18: 21). Mikol ha-amim is found in Deuteronomy 7: 7,
7: 14, 10: 15, 30: 3 and Exodus 19: 5, when comparing Israel to all the
nations.
Numbers 21: 29
Just as Israel is called 'am hashem (the people of G o d ) , so the Moabites are an
'am in the context of their family relationship with their own god. We will find
Moab singled out also in the moralistic books (see section 24.0, below).
Deuteronomy 4:33
The body which experiences revleation is an 'am, whether that aggregate be
the children of Israel or any other nation.
Deuteronomy 28: 32
This verse should be understood as referring to the God-given punishment
of estrangement from the Jewish covenant via marriage with non-Israelite
women. One should also note the word G o d in the concluding phrase of this
citation (although it is not translated as such in the K i n g James version).
Numbers 24: 14 and Deuteronomy 28: 33
Both of these verses are somewhat difficult to explain according to our
functional theory. However, they both deal with sanctified prophecy and,
therefore, with the possible (and exceptional) 'aw-ness of what would norm-
ally be a goy. In the second verse, 'am can also be understood as a collective
noun, not as a national body. As noted before, inflected forms always involve
'am. The uninflected noun in the first pertains to the Israelites.
THE RULE IN THE PENTATEUCH
Besides the previously advanced and widely accepted rule that 'am is applied
more often to the Jews than to Gentiles and thatôy is applied more prevalently
to Gentiles than to Jews, this being an intergroup principle, a second and more
subtle intragroup principle is also manifest. When speaking of the Jews, the
Pentateuch stresses their 'am aspect more than their goy aspect, while stressing
the¿<y-ness more than the 'am-ness of other peoples. This can be understood as
a significant statement as to the Pentateuch's view of just what the Jewish
people essentially represents: communal closeness, sanctified guidance, reli-
gious precepts, traditions and codes ('aw-ness attributes theoretically attainable
by all peoples). O n the other hand, land, other material interests, statehood and
monarchy are secondary and nonessential since they constitute ôy-ness (in
Israel or in other nations).
2. ' Am and Goy as Old Testament Designation for Ethnicity 25
Before such a sweeping reformulation can be confidently accepted, par-

ticularly since the two sub-rules can be in conflict or in a state of tension vis-à-vis
each other, a similar 'am and goy inquiry must be made into other, more
historical books of the Bible. Such a follow-up inquiry is particularly advisable
because the Pentateuch may "play d o w n " the goy aspects of the Israelite people,
simply because the five books of Moses conclude before Israel has achieved the
status of a people with a land, king and army of its own.
'AM AND GOY AS ETHNICITY DESIGNATIONS IN

SELECTED HISTORICAL BOOKS
T o test the above tentative formulation in later books of the Old Testament
(both with respect to its intergtoup as well as with respect to its intragtoup
implications), the uses of'am and goy were also studied in Joshua, Judges, Samuel II
and Chronicles II (with the overlap between the latter two books being treated as
if it were a fifth, separate book). A s was done before, it was necessary to set aside
certain uses of each term as designating references outside of the ethnic fold (as
well as to set aside the plural forms of each term as necessarily relating to non-
Jews). Having reviewed our approach to the exclusion of non-ethnic re-
ferences, above, in rather great detail, w e will here more quickly review several
categories that were excluded from our final analyses. A s was the case with the
Pentateuchal data, a majority of 'am citations had to be excluded as not
pertaining to the focus of our interest. Some examples of the excluded cases will
be indicated below.
EXCLUDED 'AM USAGES
ι. A m o n g the excluded usages of 'am were several encountered before, e.g.:

'Am as a collective noun referring to any larger or smaller grouping of people (e.g.,
Judges 10: 18, Joshua 5: 5).
2. 'Am in referring to armedforces (e.g., Joshua 8: 3, Joshua 8: 20, Samuel II
12: 28).
3. 'Am in referring to the people in the royal household, similar to its use in the
Pentateuch in referring to Pharoah's household (e.g., Samuel II 15: 12,
Samuel II 18: 5).
4. 'Aminreferringtoone'sfamily,tribeorclan{e..g.,)\iàges\z: 2,Joshua 17: 14,
Samuel II 20: 22).
5. N o t entirely precedented in the Pentateuch, but obviously related to some
of its excluded uses there (as well as in the above enumeration), are the uses of
'am in referring to followers, adherents, accompanyingfolk, etc. (e.g., Judges 9: 30,
Samuel II 6: 2).
i6 I Historical, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
6. 'Am aher (a different or unusual 'am) occurs only once (Chronicles I

16: 20). It is found in a very striking verse that also hasîy twice and refers to
kingdom immediately prior to mentioning the expression whose exclusion
we are recommending. The intent here is obviously to imply that it is not
really an 'am that is being referred to.
EXCLUDED GOY USAGES
Only one instance of goy qualifies for exclusion. This is goy ehad (a unitary or
unique people), a strikingly exceptional usage similar to that oígoy gadol(a great
or numerous nation), which occurs twice, namely in Samuel II 7: 23/Chronicles
I 17: 21.
THE NATURE OF THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
The Pentateuch describes the emergence of the Jews on to the arena of their
own version of world (and cosmic) history. It stresses this people's perception
of its unique relationship to G o d and its selection as the nation of G o d (Exodus
6: 7). In the historical books, however, the special nature of the Jews is already
well known and, in theory, fully established. Its early historical experiences as
an established, landed, national entity, rather than its spiritual ups and downs
per se, are now at the center of attention. Accordingly, 'am (and even more
frequently ha-am) takes on an overwhelmingly neutral coloration. It becomes
simply "the Israelite nation," with no particular spiritual characterization
usually being indicated. Examples of such usage are plentiful but Joshua 4: 19,
Joshua 7: 5 and Judges 20: 2 may be taken as typical.
'AM AS A CHARACTERIZATION OF ISRAEL IN THE

HISTORICAL BOOKS
However, 'am still retains some characterological (rather than purely catego-
rical or designative) functions in the historical books. Although neither the
requirement of formalized worship nor the notion of communal brotherhood
are as much in evidence in connection with the semantic field of 'am in these
books, there still remain several occurrences of 'am hashem, "the people of the
Lord" (e.g., Judges 5 : 1 1 , Samuel II τ: 1 1 and 6: 21). Several occurrences of the
possessive ("your nation" or "my nation"), stressing that Israel "belongs" to
God, are also found (e.g., Chronicles I 23: 25, Samuel II 7: 11/Chronicles I
17: JO), although proportionately not as many as in the Pentateuch. Indeed, the
Table 4. 'AM (as Ethnicity ¡Nationality ) in reference to Jews and Gentiles in selected
Historical Books of The Old Testament
Jews Gentiles
ι. Joshua 44 0
2. Judges 15 (0 3
3. Samuel II 16 (2) 0
4. Chronicles I 7 0) 0
5. Overlap between 3 and 4 3*(») 0
Total 114(30) 3
( ) indicates the occurrence of 'am in possessive f o r m Çami, etc.); the n u m b e r within the
repetition o f an e v e n t in S a m u e l II 24: 3 and in C h r o n i c l e s I 21: 3 includes the

c h a n g e o f " t h e p e o p l e : " t o " H i s p e o p l e " in an o t h e r w i s e a l m o s t identical
passage. T h i s indicates nicely the interchangeability o f the c o n c e p t s o f " t h e
people o f Israel" and " G o d ' s p e o p l e . " N o t e , h o w e v e r , that 'am is still used o n
an i n t e r g r o u p basis ( T a b l e 4), a l t h o u g h n o t as o f t e n , either absolutely o r
p r o p o r t i o n a l l y , as in the Pentateuch.
A l l in all, therefore, w e find a tendency t o w a r d substantive neutralization o f
the term 'am in its ethnic/nationality sense and its greater restriction t o the J e w s .
A l t h o u g h it still primarily (indeed, o v e r w h e l m i n g l y ) represents J e w s , as it did
in the P e n t a t e u c h , it has n o w b e c o m e a m o r e neutral national d e s i g n a t i o n and
less o f a spiritual one. N e v e r t h e l e s s , its usage in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the expressions
" n a t i o n o f G o d , " " Y o u r ( G o d ' s ) p e o p l e , " " H i s ( G o d ' s ) p e o p l e " is still an active
o n e , a c c o u n t i n g f o r a third o f all instances o f ethnic 'am.
GOY IN THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
T h e m a j o r reason f o r c h o o s i n g the historical b o o k s f o r f o l l o w - u p s t u d y , after

the Pentateuchal inquiry w i t h w h i c h w e b e g a n , w a s t o investigate 'am v s . goy
usage in a c o n t e x t in w h i c h Israelite political and s t a t e h o o d experiences c o u l d
c o m e t o the fore. H o w e v e r , the historical b o o k s contain several surprises f o r us
in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h goy usage ( T a b l e 5). First o f all, the total n u m b e r o f o c c u r -
rences o f goy is far smaller than it w a s in the Pentateuch (a d r o p f r o m 13 t o 8).
S e c o n d l y , 6 o f its 8 o c c u r r e n c e s (i.e., all o c c u r r e n c e s e x c e p t in o n e passage that
w e h a v e already f o u n d t o be unusual, n a m e l y C h r o n i c l e s I 17: 20) refer t o J e w s
rather than t o o t h e r nations (perhaps because the spirituality o f the J e w s
themselves is n o t h i g h l i g h t e d in these b o o k s . Since m o s t o f the o c c u r r e n c e s o f
28 I HistóricaI, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
Table 5. GO Y (as Ethnicity ¡Nationality ) in reference to Jews and Gentiles in selected

historical books of The Old Testament
Jews Gentiles
ι. Joshua 5 0
2. Judges I 0
5. Samuel II 0 0
4. Chronicles I 0 2
5. Overlap between 3 and 4 0 0
6 2
ethnic goy pertain to Jews, this strengthens our intragroup theory, on the one
hand, but requires a careful examination of citations in order to see whether the
usual association of 'am with Jews and goj with non-Jews is weakened thereby.
THE EXCEPTIONS: THE INTERETHNIC RULE

REEVALUATED
Jews Called Goy in the Historical Books

As Table 5 reveals, only one of the six instances in which Jews are called a goy
(instead of an 'am) is not in the book of Joshua. Let us examine this case first
(Judges 2: 20) since it is the least problematic for the intergroup theory. In
the verse just prior to the one under consideration, the Jews are severely
criticized for recurringly (i.e., between the death of one Judge and the raising
up of another) "going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to
them." As a result, "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; and He
said: because this people (goy!) have transgressed my covenant which I
commanded their fathers and have not obeyed My voice . . . " Obviously, the
Jews are termed by God a goy in this instance because of their lapse of proper
W - l i k e fidelity to the covenant and the commandments. In this instance, at
least, referring to the Jews as a goy is an indication of God's displeasure and
impending punishment. Such use, therefore, agrees with the intrae.thnic rule
even if it does not agree with the intercúuüc rule.
The five remaining cases in which the Jews are referred to as goy are all in
the book of Joshua and are all, in one way or another, problematic for the
interzthmc rule without revealing any compensating intrac thnic justification.
In one instance (Joshua 10: 13) a shadow of criticism is present as "the nation
{goy) took vengeance on their enemies" when "the sun stood still and the
2. 'Am and Gqy as Old Testament Designation for Ethnicity 29
moon stayed." While the celestial miracle was clearly the work of G o d and
while the massacre of Gilgal was clearly God's will, nevertheless the em-
phasis on martial triumph and on annihilation may lead to the use oí goy here
rather than 'am
A remotely similar factor may be involved in Joshua 5: 6, where it is
recorded that "the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till
all the nation (goyi), the men of war that came forth out of Egypt, peri-
shed...." The identification of "men of w a r " as the real subject of this
sentence (not unlike the many uses of 'am to refer to soldiers and armies) may
explain this lapse from expected usage. If this explanation is accepted, then
this instance should be dropped from our table (as all of the 'am references
meaning "soldiers, armies" have been dropped due to their non-ethnic
semantic field).
Most problematic of all are the three remaining citations: Joshua 3: 7,4: 1
and 5: 8 The first two deal with the people's crossing of the Jordan to enter
the Promised Land (could their troop-like crossing be the cause of referring
to them as goy on this occasion?) and the third refers to the circumcision of all
males born during the forty years of desert wanderings (could the implied
circumcising knife and the drawing of blood be responsible for the use oígqy
in this case?).
All in all, we are left with a few difficulties that need to be carefully con-
sidered and, if possible, explained (rather than merely explained away).
GENTILES CALLED 'AM IN THE HISTORICAL

BOOKS
O f the three cases with which we are concerned, all of them in the book of
Judges, two are found in the story of Samson (14: 16 and 14: 17). They each
deal with Samson's wife, a "daughter of the Philistines." In the first instance,
she refers to her people as bnei ami "the children of my people") and, in the
second, the narrator tells us that "she told the riddle to bnei ama" ("the
children of her people"). Perhaps the women's point of view is implied here
(in her eyes they were an 'am) or perhaps this is no more than the familial 'am
that we have excluded on all earlier occasions.
More problematic by far is the remaining citation (Judges 18: 27). It refers
to the Canaanite people of La'ish as "a people {'am) quiet and unsuspecting"
w h o m the Danites "smote with edge of the sword." Perhaps here the
narrator is identifying with the innocent and unsuspecting victims "far from
Sidon, and they had no dealings with anyone," particularly since the Danites
soon set up for themselves "Micah's graven image."
3o I Historical, Cross-Culturaland Theoretical Perspectives
Table 6. 'AM and GOY for Jews and Gentiles in selected historical books of The Old
Testament
Jews Gentiles
'Am 114 3
Goy 6 2
χ 2 = 9.82 (p.01 = 6.64; p.001 = 10.85)
"THE RULE" IN THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
The Pentateuchal rule, both at the intergroup and at the intragroup levels, is
slightly weakened in the historical books we have investigated. Thus, a further
investigation into 'am andgoy usage in the moralistic books, with their emphases
on morality and spirituality, would definitely seem to be called for. As things
stand, we must conclude that the historical books, with their focus on the
chronology (rather than the ethics) of the Israelites in the Promised Land, reveal
a narrowing of the semantic field of 'am so that it primarily implies nothing
more than the Israelite nation and, at the same time, a narrowing of the
distinction between 'am andîy occurs, so that the latter loses not only most of
its materialistic, territorial and statehood overtones but most of its non-Israelite
nation and, at the same time, a narrowing of the distinction between 'am and goy
occurs, so that the latter loses not only most its materialistic, territorial and
statehood overtones but most of its non-Israelite overtones as well, perhaps
because Israelites and Gentiles alike are territorial entities in these books. The
intergroup rule is particularly weakened in this process of semantic narrowing.
However, stronger evidence of the earlier intragroup rule remains. Although
'am is used in connection with the expression "the nation of G o d " and although
only 'am is inflected (My people, His people), both Jews and non-Jews are
referred to both as 'am and as goy. Nevertheless, ethnic 'am is overwhelmingly
reserved for Jews (Table 6), while goy still occurs proportionately more often
for non-Jews (2 out of 8 cases) than does 'am (3 out of 117).
'AM AND GOY AS ETHNICITY DESIGNATIONS IN

SELECTED MORALISTIC BOOKS
T o test, once more, our intergroup and intragroup hypotheses, we turn, in

conclusion, to a sample of moralistic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Reekie I and
Lamentations. The first two deal with a period in which the Jews still possessed a
country and government of their own. The second two deal with their first exile
after their defeat by the Babylonians. A l l four books are characterized by a high
degree of criticism directed at the Jews by their moral and spiritual leaders,
great prophets w h o either fear, predict or lament God's punishment of His
people, Israel, due to their lack of proper and expected behavior. As before,
several categories of 'am and goy usage will be excluded. After reviewing these
exclusions briefly, we will move to an analysis of their semantic distribution
within the realm of ethnicity.
EXCLUDED 'AM USAGES
Most excluded 'am citations fit into categories discussed earlier, either in
connection with the Pentateuch or in connection with the historical books.
Non-ethnic 'am (particularly ha-'am) has been set aside, e.g., in the sense of
"many people" or "multitudes" (see, e.g., Isaiah 13: 4, Jeremiah 17: io,Ezekiel
36: 3, Lamentations 1 : 1 ) . Frequently such usage refers to a specific assembly or
group of people in a particular city (Jerusalem) or place (the Temple court) at a
particular time (e.g., Jeremiah 39: 9, Ezekiel 44: 19). O n other occasions, the
use of 'am with respect to armed men (also in the construction ' am-haarets, e.g.,
Jeremiah 52: 25) occurs, as it has before, or it is used to signify inhabitants (e.g.
Ezekiel 12: 19, Jeremiah 25: 1 ). For the first time, a goodly number of inflected
forms are among those so excluded (e.g., Jeremiah 22: 2, Isaiah 7: 2, Ezekiel
30: 11), all of them referring to members of someone's household (his servants,
his warriors) or to Jerusalem's inhabitants as a whole (Lamentations 1 : 7 , Isaiah
60: 18).
A few idiosyncratic non-ethnic uses of 'am should be noted, e.g., Isaiah
63: i l , where 'amo, in reference to Moses, may mean His servant, and Ezekiel
26: 20, where 'am olam may mean the nether-world, the world of the dead.
EXCLUDED GOY USAGES
Several exceptional uses of goy have been excluded (six to be exact), as was the
case with goy gadol and goy ehad in the Pentateuch and in the historical books.
These clearly exceptional uses are as follows:
ι. Goy 1'fanai (Jeremian 31: 36): " I f this fixed order of the sun, moon and
stars departs from before me, says the L O R D , then shall the descendants of
Israel cease from being a nation before me for ever."
2. Goy atsum (Isaiah 60:22 " T h e least one shall become a clan, and the
smallest one a numerous nation-, I am the Lord; in its time I will hasten it."
3. Goy ehad (Ezekiel 37: 22): " A n d I will make them one nation, upon the
mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king over them a l l . . . . "
T a b l e 7. 'AM (as Ethnicity/Nationality) in reference to Jews and Gentiles in selected

moralistic books of The Old Testament
Jews Gentiles
ι . Isaiah 96 (5 5) 9 ω
2. Jeremiah 69 (29) 5
3. Ezekiel 43 (?z) *(0
4. Lamentations 6(6) o
214 (122) 16(3)
( ) indicates the occurrence of 'am in possessive form ('ami, etc.); the number within the
4. Goyhashem (Isaiah 26: 15): " T h o u hast increased the nation of God, thou hast
increased the nation·, thou art g l o r i f e d . . . . "
5. Goy asher tsedaka asa (Isaiah 58: 2): " Y e t they seek Me daily and delight to
know My ways, as if they were a nation that did righteousness and did not
forsake the ordinance of their God...."
6. Goy tsedek (Isaiah 26: 2): " O p e n the gates, that a righteous nation which
keeps faith may enter in."
O f all these examples, one, goy ehad, has occurred previously, in the his-
torical books, when it was set aside as clearly an exceptional formulation. The
other five listed above (four being from Isaiah) are very similar to goy ehad in
construction. Their intent is partially satirical and partially contrastive (meta-
phorical). They all imply a goy that is not (or pretends not to be) a goy, a clearly
exceptional, unusual, un-goyiikz goy, because it stands before God, thegoy of G o d ,
a goy that does righteousness, a righteous goy, etc.
'AM AS A CHARACTERIZATION OF ISRAEL IN THE

MORALISTIC BOOKS
The overwhelming proportion of occurrences of 'am in the moralistic books is

in reference to Jews (Table 7). Once again, we find aplenty such Pentateuchal
formulations as "they will be a people unto Me and I will be their G o d "
(Jeremiah 30: 22; 32: 38; Ezekiel 37:27), accompanied by the additional prom-
ise that " T h e y will return to the land that I promised them" (Ezekiel 36:28).
However, what is truly unprecedented in these books is the extent to which they
contain critical expression concerning the Jews, due to their following false
T a b l e 8. GOY (as Ethnicity I Nationality) in reference to Jews and Gentiles in selected mor-
alistic books of The Old Testament
Jews Gentiles
ι. Isaiah 4 10
2. Jeremiah 5 24
3. Ezekiel 0 0
4. Lamentations 0 0
9 34
gods, putting their trust in political alliances and, in various ways, falling short
of the high standards expected of them both in worship and in daily observances
and ethical precepts. Nevertheless, in the lion's share of all of these denunci-
ations (and they number well over 200 instances), they are still referred to as an
'am because after all is said and done, they are G o d ' s people and though they
may need to be grievously punished, they are and will remain such.
Accordingly, 'am is used in such damning formulations as "This is a people
without discernment; therefore He w h o made them will not have compassion
on them" (Isaiah 27: 11), "Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, w h o have
eyes but see not, w h o have ears but hear n o t " (Jeremiah 5: 21), " . . . they sit
before you as My people and they hear what you say but they will not do it "
(Ezekiel 33: 31). Nevertheless, this "eternal people" (Isaiah 44: 7) will yet "see
the great light" (Isaiah 9: 1) and, indeed, will be a "light unto the nations"
(Isaiah 42: 6) and will "Break forth together into singing . . . for the L O R D has
comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem" (Isaiah 5 2: 9), for they will
once again be "a people whose heart is my l a w " (Isaiah 5 1 : 7 ) and then "just as I
have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all
the good that I promise them." (Jeremiah 32: 42). The prophets believe that
G o d will ultimately forgive His repentant people and this belief leads them to
refer to the Jews as an 'am (an errant 'am) even when they consider them wicked
and sinful.
GOY IN THE MORALISTIC BOOKS
The clear majority of occurrences of goy in the moralistic books refer to non-
Jews (Table 8). By and large, these occurrences refer to peoples w h o will bring
desolation upon others (e.g., Jeremiah 25: 32, 49: 31, 50: 3) or w h o will be
destroyed themselves (Isaiah 60: 12). In these connections, the old Pentateuchal
association of goy with undesirable qualities is once again not uncommon. In
Table 9. 'AM and GOYfor Jews and Gentiles in selected moralistic books of The Old
Testament
Jews Gentiles
'Am 214 16
Goy 9 54
χ 2 = 65.50 (p.01 = 6.64; p.001 = 10.83)
several c o n t e x t s , i s paired with kingdom (Jeremiah 18: 7 and 18: 9), with
warfare and implements of war (J eremiah 5: 1 5 - 1 6 , Isaiah 2 : 4 ) , with might and
destruction (Isaiah 18: 7; 18: 2), with land and possessions (Jeremiah 49: 3 1 ;
25: 12). A n y "foreign" nation whatsoever is referred to as goj, particularly if it
does not obey the will of G o d vis-à-vis the Jews (J eremiah 12: 17; 18: 8; 27: 13).
Thus, goj generally returns to the non-Jewish and barbaric, materialistic and
godless overtones that it had in the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, just as non-Jews
are still occasionally referred to as 'am, so are Jews occasionally referred to as
goj. It is to these exceptions that we now turn.
THE EXCEPTIONS: A FINAL LOOK AT

DEPARTURES FROM THE INTERETHNIC RULE
Jews Called Goj in the Moralistic Books
The ratio of occurrences of J e w s referred to as goj to J e w s referred to as 'am is

even lower in the moralistic books than it was in the historical books (Table 9).
Nevertheless, the nine occurrences of this type that do obtain are all instructive
and are as follows: Jeremiah 5 : 9 ; 5: 29; 7: 28; 9: 8 and 33: 24, on the one hand,
and Isaiah 1: 4; 9: 2; 10: 6; 65: 1, on the other hand. Eight of these nine are
powerfully and strikingly rejective formulations. Three of the Jeremiah cita-
tions are essentially alike and refer to the Jews as goj asher ka%e ("a people such
as this"). The expression "such as this" may be taken as an intimation that the
Jews are either not really an ordinary goj or, perhaps, that they are viewed as
being even worse than an ordinary goj. The two remaining Jeremiah citations
are more varied. One (7: 28) gives the J e w s a new sobriquet: hagoj asher lo shamu
b'kolhashem ("the people that did not hear God's voice"). The other (33: 24) is
the most complex of all since it utilizes both 'am and goj in connection with the
Jews: "they have despised M y people ('ami) so that they are no longer a nation
(goj) in their sight." Three of the four Isaiah citations are also of these same two
types. T w o new appellations are applied to the Jews: in 1: 4 they are called ¿«y
het (sinful people) and in 65: 1 they are calledêj lo kore b'shmi (a people that did
not call on my name). This people will be punished by sending against them
"Assyria, the rod of my anger, the staff of my fury! Against a godless nation
(goy) I send him, and against the people ('am) of My wrath I command him"
(10: 5-6).
Obviously all of the above citations are strong stuff. But what is even more
remarkable about them is that they are so few in number and that even in their
own ranks there are two ambivalent vacillations between referring to the Jews
as a goy (in view of G o d ' s displeasure with them) and as an 'am (in view of their
being G o d ' s people nevertheless). But even in this tiny fraction of citations in
which the Jews are referred to as a goy, their ultimate pardon is not in doubt for
" T h o u hast multiplied the nation (gqy), thou hast increased its joy . . . for the
yoke of his burden and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor
thou hast b r o k e n . . . . " (Isaiah 3: 4). Even though the Jews are now behaving
as a goy, G o d will again be their champion when they return to His command-
ments. Thus, the ultimately remarkable fact is not that there are in these books
a few instances of the Jews referred to as a goy, but that there are only so few and
even these few include a few ambivalent and even one consoling formulation.
GENTILES CALLED 'AM IN THE MORALISTIC

BOOKS
The ratio of Gentiles referred to as 'am to Gentiles referred to as goy is lower in

the moralistic books than it was in either the Pentateuch or the historical books.
Although there are 16 occurrences of this type in the moralistic books (see Table
9), they are nevertheless almost all of two varieties. In several instances, other
peoples, non-Jews though they be, are an 'am when they are cast in the role of
God's instruments, G o d ' s messengers, G o d ' s means of punishing the Jews or
other peoples that have offended Him. A few examples of this type are Isaiah
23: 13 and Ezekiel 26: 11 (the Chaldeans are sent by G o d to destroy Tyre),
Isaiah 33:19 (the Assyrians—fundamentally an "insolent people of an obscure
speech which you cannot comprehend, stammering in a tongue which you
cannot understand" — w i l l be seen no more after fulfilling the mission on which
G o d has sent them), Jeremiah 46: 24 (Egypt will be delivered into the hand of a
people from the north" [Babylon]), Ezekiel 3: 5 the prophet is sent to bring
God's words to the Jews rather than to "people of a foreign speech and a hard
language". However, an even larger number of instances are clearly ambiva-
lent. Although these God-sent avenging nations are referred to as 'am, they are
also referred to as goy in the very same passage, thereby metaphorically implying
that they are fundamentally really not an 'am at all. A few examples of this type
are Isaiah 18: 2 and 7, Isaiah 25: 3, as well as Jeremiah 6: 22 and 50: 41.
Finally, there are three citations in which non-Jews are referred to as 'am
which are quite different than either of the types illustrated above. These are
more problematic for our intergroup and intragroup hypotheses since they deal
with other issues than those hitherto discussed, namely God's ability to identify
with any people whatsoever and, thereby, to consider them an 'am too. T w o of
these three refer to the destruction of Moab (Jeremiah 48: 42 and 48: 46)
"because he magnified himself against the L o r d " 3 . The third refers to Egypt
(Isaiah 19: 25): "Blessed by Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My
hands, and Israel My heritage." The common denominator uniting these
passages is that they deal with a distant time, perhaps in the end of days, when all
nations will recognize God. Then God "will restore the fortunes of Moab in the
latter days" and Egypt "will return to the Lord and He will heed their
supplication and heal them." When all nations will recognize God the distinc-
tion between 'am and goy will cease. The nations will remain but they will
worship together (Isaiah 19: 23) and then "Israel will be the third with Egypt
and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth" (Isaiah 9: 24).
THE RULE IN THE MORALISTIC BOOKS
The moralistic books have nicely confirmed both the intergroup and the
intragroup hypotheses. The former now clearly appears to deal with the
stronger and more obvious regularity 4 but the latter deals with the bulk of the
subtle exceptions to normal usage. It is the two rules together and the dialectic between
them that reflect the refined nuances of the Biblical texts. Either rule alone would
be simplistic and, indeed, propagandistic. The two taken together speak to the
complexity of "the ethnic condition." These great books of the Jews find them
to be God's chosen people, whether they are good or bad, but particularly and
deservedly when they are good. In addition, and perhaps more interestingly,
these same books convey the view that all peoples can attain 'am-ness or slip back
intoôy-ness. If the latter possibility represents the anguish of the Jews, then the
former represents the promise for all nations. 'Am is marked and goy is
unmarked. The distinction of 'amness is ultimately available to all. 5
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The predominant recurring and striking association (never an exclusive one) of

goy with non-Jews leads not only to the translation of goy as ethnos in the
Septuagint but also to the lingering association of ethnicity with heathendom
and pagandom. However, as much as the Greeks and Christianity thereafter
looked down upon the Jews, they could not accuse those from whose midst
monotheism had arisen of being either heathen or pagan. Thus, Christiandom
came to exclude Jews from the semantic field of ethnos, whereas Jewry (as the
aggrieved and persecuted party in millenia of Jewish-Gentile relations) did not
exclude (indeed came to focus upon) Christians vis-à-vis the semantic field of
goy. While the more subtle intragroup message within the 'am-goy dialectic was
forgotten over the centuries, vestiges of heathen, pagan, uncouth and other
pejorative semantic connotations for ethnicity have lasted to this very day, at
least in popular English. Interestingly enough, the fate of gens (the Latin
Vulgate equivalent of the Greek ethnos), which enters not only into "Gentile"
but also into "gentle," "gentleman," "gentility" and "genteel", has been
altogether different, perhaps because it has been under Christian "auspices"
from the very outset.
But some positive imagery is also associated with ethnicity as a concept in
popular English (even though such positiveness may be a spin-off from 'am). It
still retains much of its original overtones of familial togetherness, brotherly
communality, emotional intimacy and relatedness. In this sense, it has about it
the aura of Gemeinschaft, of supra-rational (if not actually sanctified) bonds of
interpersonal affection and concern. This is also the semantic field to which the
term has moved in much popular English usage during the past two decades,
starting from, but soon becoming relatively independent of, its professional
anthropological meaning of "peoplehood relatedness." There was good reason
for the growing American acceptance of the term, since neither race (which had
once had many of "ethnicity's" rather neutral, "peoplehood" overtones, but
which had lost them under the onslaught of Nazi racism), nor nation (which also
tends to mean country, polity in much American usage), nor even nationality
(which also tends to mean citizenship in much common American usage) were
fully acceptable. In a country with literally countless different "ethnic groups,"
including Indians and long indigenized Blacks, little else remained to designate
those outside the unmarked Anglo-American mainstream (Fishman 1977). The
latter was presumably non-ethnic. It represented the core of society. But, "the
others", "the outsiders," the goyim, those who are at times somewhat wild and
woolly and, at other times so passionately bound up in their emotions toward
(or against) one another, they were "ethnics," one and all, their ethnicity being
both their greatest blessing and their greatest burden. Basically, however, the
term remains an exceedingly multi-faceted one (Riggs 1982). In American
usage, therefore "ethnicity" takes on yet a new semantic penumbra: not only
(and not so much) "uncouth others" but minorities in general, no matter how
cultivated or fortunate these might (on occasion) be. This, then, represents yet
another frontier that requires conquering. Perhaps when the mainstream will
recognize its ethnicity it will be less likely to view ethnicity as equivalent to
either marginality or provincial uncouthness in others.
NOTES
ι. Full quotations from books of the Bible will not be listed, in the interest of space, particularly
since the interested reader will have no difficulty locating them independently. Note that we
are not interested in this paper in the standard issue of dating various Biblical books but,
rather, in the overall semantic impact of three different sections of the Old Testament on
usage in subsequent times.
2. Plural examples, both of 'am and goy are sometimes cited to give the flavor of certain usages,
but these are never counted in our statistical distributions.
3. The strange lament on the destruction of Moab also occurred in Numbers 21: 29. Some
scholars assume that it represents a fragment of ancient Moabite poetry. The destruction of
Moab is also treated in Isaiah 15/16 and Jeremiah 48 ("Concerning Moab").
4. The clarity of the 'am = Jews relationship is all the more startling when it is remembered
that unlike goy, which has a unidimensional semantic thrust in the direction of nation/people,
'am has several frequently occurring non-ethnic meanings. In addition, the fact that 'amim is
also frequently occurring and can only refer to non-Jews (since it is a plural ) might also have
served to weaken the 'am = Jews relationship.
5. I am indebted to Moshe Anisfeld for stressing the marked/unmarked dimension in the 'am-
goy distinction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barr, John. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford, Oxford University Press,
1968.
Driver, Godfrey R. Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh, Clark, 1956.
Eitan, Israel.Contribution to biblical Lexicography. New York, Columbia University Press, 1924.
Fishman, Joshua A. Language, ethnicity and racism. Georgetown University Koundtable on Languages
and Linguistics, 1977, 297-309.
Gray, J . The Legacy of Canaan. London, E . J . Brill, 1957.
Hastings, James. Dictionaiy of the Bible (see "Gentiles). New York, Scribner, 1908.
Rabin, Chaim. How to work out a semantic field in Biblical Hebrew, in his Materials on Biblical
Lexicography and Semantics. Jerusalem, Hebrew University, 1970.
Riggs, Fred W. Terminological problems: A proposed solution. Current Anthropology. 1982, 724.
Rost, Leonhard. Bezeichnungen für Land and Volk im Alten Testament in Festschrift Otto Proksch,
Alt, Albrecht et al. (eds.). Leipzig, Deichertsche Verlag und Hinrichssche Buchhandlung, 1934,
125-144.
Speiser, Ephraim A. People and nation of Israel, journal of Biblical Literature. 1969, 79, 157—163.
Chapter 3
Bilingualism and Biculturism As Individual and

As Societal Phenomena
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN
BILINGUALISM AND DIGLOSSIA
The relationship between individual bilingualism and societal diglossia is far from
being a necessary or causal one, i.e. either phenomenon can occur with or
without the other (Fishman, 1967). As such it is but one more example of the
possibility of weak relationships between various individual behaviors and their
corresponding societal counterparts. Wealthy individuals can be found in both
rich and poor societies. Traditional individuals are recognizable within both
modern and traditional societies. Diglossia differs from bilingualism in that it
represents an enduring societal arrangement, extending at least beyond a three
generation period, such that two "languages" each have their secure, phenome-
nologically legitimate and widely implemented functions. This chapter raises
for consideration the corresponding problem of arrangements at the individual
and societal levels in conjunction with the phenomenon of biculturism, par-
ticularly as these pertain to ethnic identity.
KINDS OF DIGLOSSIA: LINGUISTIC RELATIONSHIPS
Following usage that has become widely accepted ever since Ferguson's semi-
nal article of 19 5 9, H will be used to designate the superposed variety in a diglossie
society, i.e. the variety that is learned later in socialisation (and, therefore, is no
one's mother tongue) under the influence of one or anotherformal institution outside of the
home (and, therefore, is differentially accessible to the extent that entry to formal
institutions of language/literacy learning [typically: school, church, govern-
ment] is available). However, departing from Ferguson's initial formulations
and restrictions, several different kinds of linguistic relationships between Hs
40 I Historical, Cross-Culturaland Theoretical Perspectives
and Ls (the latter being the universally available and spoken [mother] tongues
and varieties of everyday life) may be recognized:
(a) H as classical, L as vernacular, the two being genetically related, e.g., classical and
vernacular Arabic (Kaye 1970, Zughoul 1980), Kntharevusa and demotiki
(Toynbee 1981, Warburton 1980), Latin and French among francophone clergy
and francophone scholars in earlier centuries, classical and vernacular Tamil,
Sinhalese, Sanskrit and Hindi, classical Mandarin and modern Pekingese, etc.
The Hebrew-modern Hebrew case is only marginally of this kind (Even-Zohar
1970) because modern Hebrew has only had less than a century in which to
function as a vernacular.)
(b) H as classical, L as vernacular, the two not being genetically related, e.g., Loshn
koydesh (textual Hebrew/Aramaic) and Yiddish (Fishman 1976) (or any one of
the several dozen other non-Semitic Jewish Ls, as long as the latter operate
primarily in vernacular functions rather than in traditional literacy-related ones
(Weinreich 1980).
(c) H as written\formal-spoken and L as vernacular, the two being genetically unrelated
to each other, e.g., Spanish and Guarani in Paraguay (Rubin 1968), English (or
French) and various vernaculars in post-colonial areas throughout the world
(Fishman, Cooper and Conrad 1976, Parasher 1980, etc.).
(d) Has writtenfformal-spoken and L as vernacular, the two being genetically related to
each other. Here only significantly discrepant written/formal-spoken and
informal-spoken varieties will be admitted (rather than any and all written-
spoken variety distinctions), i.e., discrepancies such that without schooling the
written/formal-spoken cannot even be understood (otherwise every
dialect/standard situation in the world would qualify within this rubric), e.g.,
High German and Swiss German, standard spoken Pekingese (Putonghua) and
Cantonese, Standard English and Caribbean Creole, Occitan and French
(Gardy and Lafont 1981), etc.
There are, of course, various more complex cases within each of the above
major clusters. Thus there are several instances of dual Hs in conjunction with a
single L , one H commonly being utilized for ethnically encumbered or tradi-
tional H pursuits and the other for ethnically unencumbered or modern pur-
suits. For example, in conjunction with type (a), above, we find various stable
Arabic speech communities that have both Classical Arabic and English or
French as H and a vernacular Arabic as L. The Old Order Amish also reveal a
complex form of type (a) involving High (Luther Bible) German and English as
H and Pennsylvanian German as L. On the other hand, Hasidim in America
reveal a complex form of type (b) involving Loshn koydesh and English as H
and Yiddish as L (and in Israel: Loshn koydesh and Ivrit as H and Yiddish as L
[Fishman, 1982; Poll, 1980]). Many developing nations hope to establish a type
(c) pattern involving both a Western Language of Wider Communication and
one or more favored standardized vernacular(s) as Hs and the same (or even
Bilingualism and Biculturism as Individual and as Societal Phenomena 41
more) local vernaculars as Ls. Thus, in the Philippines, we find a national policy
fostering English and Pilipino/Filipino as Hs and, e.g., Tagalog as L. Note,
however, that in all these "more complex" cases a long-standing indigenous
variety/language is available at the H and the L level, even if modern H
functions are also shared with a language (or languages) more recently im-
ported or imposed from without.
STABILITY VIA COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF THE

SOCIETAL ALLOCATION OF FUNCTIONS
The above rapid review of a dozen or more instances of relatively stable and
widespread societal bilingualism (i.e., diglossia) was intended to discount the
view that only in connection with classicals can such stability be maintained.
Classicals are a good example of diglossia situations, of course, but sociologi-
cally speaking, what they are an example of is not classicism per se (nor even of
traditional religion, with which classicals are usually linked) but of a stress on
social compartmentalization, i.e., on the maintenance of strict boundaries between
the societal functions associated with H and L respectively (Fishman, 1972).
Sanctity/secularity, ascribed social statification such as in caste distinctions/
achieved social status, indigenousness/foreignness, traditionalism/modernism,
these and others are all possible bases of rather rigid and stable compartmentali-
zation in societal arrangements and, therefore, in the allocation of languages (or
language varieties) to such arrangements.
There is much in modern life that militates against such compartmentali-
zation. A m o n g the hallmarks of modernization, as expounded by the great
sociologists of the past two centuries, is the increase in open networks, in fluid
role relationships, in superficial "public familiarity" between strangers or
semistrangers, in nonstatus-stressing interactions (even where status differences
remain), and, above all, in the rationalization of the work sphere (the sphere that
has, presumably, become the dominant arena of human affairs). All of these
factors—and the constantly increasing urbanization, massification and mobility
of which they are a part—tend to diminish compartmentalization, whether in
the language repertoire or in the social behavior repertoire surrounding lan-
guage perse. However, they do not make it impossible, as the many instances of
stable diglossia in the modern world reveal.
The presence or absence of social compartmentalization in language-use in
bilingual settings leads to very different societal arrangements with respect to
bilingualism, which, after all, is an individual behavioral manifestation.
Similarly, the presence or absence of social compartmentalization in ethnocul-
tural behavior in bicultural settings leads to very different societal arrange-
ments with respect to biculturism, which, after all, is also an individual be-
Table ι : The Relationships between bilingualism and Diglossia
Diglossia
Bilingualism
+
+ ι .Both Diglossia and 2. Bilingualism without
Bilingualism Diglossia
- 3. Diglossia without 4. Neither Diglossia nor
Bilingualism Bilingualism
havioral manifestation. Thus, ultimately, if we are concerned with the various

possible relationships between bilingualism and biculturism, we must be con-
cerned with the co-occurrence patterns differentiating between societally com-
partmentalized and uncompartmentalized biculturism. However, relatively
little has been written, so far, about the possible relationships between societal
ethnocultural compartmentalization and individual biculturism; certainly little
in comparison to the literature on the possible relationships between societal
diglossia and individual bilingualism. Let us, therefore, first re-examine the
latter literature and then apply its concepts and contexts to the former topic.
TYPES OF DIGLOSSIA-BILINGUALISM
RELATIONSHIPS
Both diglossia and bilingualism are continuous variables, matters of degree

rather than all-or-none phenomena, even when compartmentalization obtains.
Nevertheless, for purposes of initial conceptual clarity, it is simpler to treat
them both as if they were dichotomous variables. Treated in this fashion there
are four possible combinations between individual bilingualism and societal
diglossia as Table ι indicates, and we will proceed to consider them one at a time.
(a) Bilingualism and Diglossia (cell i)

The occurrence of bilingualism and diglossia has already been discussed, above.
Let us, therefore, merely summarize our observations in this connection at this
time. This is a societal arrangement in which individual bilingualism is not only
widespread but institutionally buttressed. (Obviously we are using bijdi as
generics and intend that our comments with respect to them also apply to more
complex cases as well, i.e., to cases of tri/ter, quadri/tetra, etc.). "Membership"
in the culture requires that the various languages that are recognized as
pertaining to such membership be implemented in culturally "correct" con-
texts, i.e., that the H (or Hs) be utilized in (the normatively appropriate) H
contexts and the L (or Ls) be utilized in (the normatively appropriate) L
contexts. The separate locations in which L and H are acquired immediately
provide them with separate institutional supports. L is acquired at home, as a
mother tongue, and continues to be employed there throughout life while its
use is extended also to other familial and familiar (intimate, affect-dominated,
emotion and spontaneity-related) interactions. H, on the other hand, is never
learned at home and is never utilized to signal such interactions. H is related to
and supported by other-than-home institutions: education, religion, govern-
ment, higher/specialized work sphere, etc. The authority and the reward
systems associated with these separate institutions are sufficient for both L and
H to be required at least referentially (if not—due to possible access restrictions
in the case of H—overtly) for membership in the culture, and the com-
partmentalization between them is sufficient for this arrangement not to suffer
from excessive "leakage" and from the resulting potential for language spread
and shift.
The above picture is, of course, at least somewhat idealized. Diglossie
societies are marked not only by compartmentalization conventions but by
varying degrees of access restriction. Similarly, in addition, Hness (whether in
lexical, phonological or grammatical respects) does creep into L interactions
(particularly among the more educated strata of society), viz., the case of
"Middle Arabic" and "Learned Yiddish", and, contrariwise, Lness does creep in-
to H interactions (particularly where access restrictions are minimal; note, for
example, the completely Yiddish phonology of Ashkenazi Loshn koydesh).
Nevertheless, the perceived ethnocultural legitimacy of two languages as "our
o w n " (i.e., neither of them being considered foreign, even though one or the
other might, in point of historical reality, be such), and the normative functional
complementarity of both languages, each in accord with its own institutionally
congruent behaviors and values, remains relatively undisturbed.
(b) Diglossia without Bilingualism (cell 3)

Since diglossia applies to societal arrangements, political arrangements may
certainly be included under this rubric. Given this fact we must recognize
political or governmental diglossia whereby two or more differently monolin-
gual entities are brought together under one political roof. Not only were
various empires of old characterized by diglossia without bilingualism (except
for small commercial, military and civil service elites) but various modern states
may be so classified: Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, and, at least in terms of
early Leninist idealism, the USSR. This is diglossia in accord with the ter-
ritoriality principle (McRae, 1975). It requires that we set aside our earlier intra-
societal notion of widespread bilingualism and extend it to the political recog-
nition and institutional protection thereof on an /«/"ersocietal-politywide basis.
There is full freedom of press in Switzerland, but, nevertheless, one cannot

publish a German newspaper in Geneva or an Italian one in Bern, regardless of
whether this might be desirable in terms of short term population movements.
Similarly, King Ahasuerus of old, who "reigned from India even unto
Ethiopia... sent letters into all the King's provinces, into every province
according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language"
(Esther ι : ι and 22). Thus, we note that in this great multilingual empire of old,
there was not only territorial diglossia at the governmental level (as between the
various written languages for governmental use) but also societal diglossia
between the (one) written and the (several) spoken languages of each province.
Wherever an absent nobility controls a peasantry from afar by means of a
small military, governmental and commercial presence which mediates between
the absent masters and the local indigenous populations, diglossia without
bilingualism is in effect. Most forms of colonialism throughout the world
(whether under capitalist or communist auspices) are, therefore, also instances
of political/territorial diglossia without widespread demographic-indigenous
bilingualism. When substantial numbers of colonizers have settled in the
erstwhile colonies and access to H is not restricted in so far as indigenous
populations are concerned a transformation may ultimately take place to that of
diglossia with bilingualism (i.e., cell 1, above)
(c) Bilingualism without Diglossia (celli)

Both diglossia with bilingualism and diglossia without bilingualism are relatively
stable, long-term arrangements. However, since these are highly interpretable
and judgemental dimensions (how stable does a sociopolitical arrangement have
to be before we consider it long term?) let us once more agree to use a three-
generational rule of thumb in connection with them. There are obviously
innumerable bilingual situations around the world that do not last up to or
beyond three generations. These are characterized not only by language spread
but also by language shift. In some instances indigenous languages are swam-
ped out by intrusive ones (B —» A = B) as in the case of many native American,
aboriginal Australian and not a few non-Russian Soviet populations as well
(Silver, 1974; Kriendler, 1982). In other instances, immigrant languages have
disappeared as their speakers have adopted the languages of their hosts
(B —> A = A), doing so particularly given the long-term absence of newly
arriving monolingual mother-tongue speakers from the homeland. What both
of these otherwise quite different contexts reveal in common is an absence of
social compartmentalization such that the languages of hearth and home (of
indigenous peoples, on the one hand, and of immigrants, on the other) can
protect themselves from the greater reward and sanction system associated with
the language of new institutions to which they are exposed and in which they
are involved (see Chapter 4, this volume, and Fishman 1980 for further discus-
j. Bilingua lism and Biculturism as Individual and as Societal Phenomena 45
sion of differences between these two subtypes of bilingualism without

diglossia).
As a result of the lack of successful compartmentalization, both A and Β
compete for realization in the same domains, situations and role-relations.
Since, with the exception of fleeting metaphorical usage (humor, sarcasm, etc.)
linguistic functional redundancy cannot be maintained intergenerationally and
gives way to the stronger functional system, the language with stronger
rewards and sanctions associated with it wins out. In the American and Soviet
contexts three generations or less have generally been sufficient for this process
to run its course where sufficiently small, impacted and dislocated groups have
been involved. A relatively few larger groups, groups strong enough to
maintain or to fashion a reward system under their own control (whether in the
home, the community, the church, or elsewhere) may succeed in establishing
and maintaining the compartmentalization needed for diglossia or to do so at
least at the areal level, even in the absence of newly arriving monolingual
recruits. However, none of these can really opt for a completely territorial
solution (implementing compartmentalization via secession or isolation).
Without compartmentalization of one kind or another—at times attained by
ideological/philosophical and even by a degree of physical withdrawal from
establishment society—the flow process from language spread to language
shift is an inexorable one. Although it may, at times, require more than three
generations for its inroads to be clearly discerned, the functionally unbalanced
nature of the bilingualism that obtains (both in terms of who becomes bilingual
and who remains monolingual, to begin with, and the power
differentials/reward and sanction differentials of the remaining monolingual A
and monolingual Β domains) always leads displacively and replacively only in
one direction.
(d) Neither bilingualism nor diglossia (cell 4)

The outcome of uninterrupted (i.e., uncompartmentalized) bilingualism-
without-diglossia is neither bilingualism nor diglossia. Some settings, however,
are characterizable in this latter fashion without ever having gone through the
former stage. Korea, Yemen, Cuba, Portugal and Norway have all experienced
relatively little immigration within the past three generations and have few if
any indigenous minorities. However, many settings that have initially had
numerous immigrants or linguistic minorities or both have translinguified (or
exterminated) them to a very large degree. New Zealand, in so far as its
indigenous Maoris are concerned, and Ireland, in so far as Irish speakers are
concerned, are examples of the "successful" implementation of policies of this
kind, as are several indigenous and immigrant groups in the U.S.S.R., U.S.A.,
Spanish America, the Arab Moslem world, Israel and others.
Strictly speaking, of course, no socially complex speech community is fully
homogeneous linguistically. Different social experiences (in work, education,

religion) lead to different socially patterned varieties of talking (and even of
writing) and different regional dialects may maintain themselves in a stable
fashion even after former communications and interactional barriers are gone.
Nevertheless, if we hold to a definition of bilingualism as involving consensu-
ally separate "languages", there are of course numerous speech networks,
speech communities and even polities that may be characterized in this fashion.
Normal foreign language instruction and tourism clearly lead neither to stable
bilingualism nor to diglossia.
WHAT IS THE ETHNOCULTURAL COUNTERPART TO

DIGLOSSIA?
We are now ready to broaden our discussion from a treatment of sociolinguistic
parameters alone (bilingualism and diglossia) to one involving ethnocultural
dimensions as well. In the latter connection, however, we are faced with the lack
of a terminological and conceptual distinction such as exists between bilingua-
lism and diglossia. If we employ biculturism to designate the individual pattern
in the ethnocultural realm, paralleling our usage of bilingualism in the sociolin-
guistic realm, what can we use to designate the societal pattern in the ethnocul-
tural realm, paralleling our usage of diglossia in the sociolinguistic realm? Most
investigators use "bicultural" in both instances (i.e., for both individual and
societal phenomena) with considerable confusion and circumlocution as a
result. Saville-Troike (1978) has suggested the term dinomia (two sets of norms,
i.e., two cultures) for societially widespread biculturism. This is certainly a
worthwhile suggestion, but, in a sense, it is a bit too broad for our purposes.
Culture is a much broader designation than ethnicity, particularly in connection
with modern complex societies. It deals with norms pertaining to all of human
behavior, belief, and valuation. Ethnicity is a narrower concept, particularly in
modern times. It focuses on "peopleness relatedness", that is: on those cultural
behaviors, values and beliefs that are related to "peopleness authenticity", i.e.,
to membership in a particular people and its defining tradition (Fishman,
1977a). At earlier stages of social development all of culture is ethnically defined
and defining. How one dresses, what one eats, the kind of work one does, how
one's house or furniture is built—these are distinctively peopleness-related
behaviors. At later stages of social development many of the above behaviors
(and many values and beliefs as well) have become ethnically neutralized
because of their widespread ("international") currency. Even though cultures
continue to coincide with broad ethnic designations, ethnicity recedes into a
smaller corner, indeed, at times, into a residual corner of culture, so that only a
much smaller set of behaviors, values and beliefs are considered (by "insiders"
or by "outsiders", be they scholars or not) as ethnicity-related, implying,

defining, because they are viewed as "authentic" and associated with dis-
continuity across ethnic boundaries and/or self-definitions. Language behavior
(particularly mother-tongue use) is very frequently considered to be ethnicity-
related, implying, defining.
If what is of concern to us is the co-occurrence between bilingualism/
diglossia and the enactments of single versus multiple norms and identities in
the realm of ethnocultural behavior, beliefs and values, then we may find it
useful to utilize bicultural for the individual manifestations in this realm, but
what are we to use for the societal counterpart thereto? It is in this connection
that I would like to tentatively suggest the term di-ethnia. Like bilingualism,
biculturism is an individual asset or debit that corresponds to no particular
societal institutions or concerns. Without such it is not intergenerationally
maintained. However, like diglossia, di-ethnia is a sociocultural pattern that is
maintained by means of specific institutional arrangements. The arrangements,
as we will see, require (as they do in the case of diglossia) repertoire com-
partmentalization. However, ethnic compartmentalization and linguistic com-
partmentalization are only weakly related to each other in any causal sense.
Thus, not only can we find bilingualism with and without diglossia (cells 1 and
2), as well as diglossia with and without bilingualism (cells 1 and 3), all without
di-ethnia, but we can also find
(a) multiculturism with and without di-ethnia, as well as
(b) diethnia with and without either bilingualism or diglossia.
As we will note, multiculturism and di-ethnia do not form a fourfold table (a
counterbalanced 2 X 2 table) as do bilingualism and diglossia. The reason for
this is that di-ethnia is a rarer phenomenon than diglossia and a far, far rarer one
than biculturism as well.
BICULTURISM AND DI-ETHNIA IN VARIOUS

BILINGUALISM-DIGLOSSIA CONTEXTS
When bilingualism and diglossia obtain (cell 1 above) di-ethnia may yet be
absent. Thus, Paraguayans do not view Spanish and Guarani as pertaining to
two different ethnocultural memberships. The two languages are in com-
plementary distribution, of course, in so far as their macrosocietal functions are
concerned, but they are both accepted as indicative of the same ethnocultural
membership: Paraguayan. Both languages are required for full membership in
the Paraguayan people and for the implementation of complete
Paraguayanness. The same is true with respect to Geez and Amharic among
Ethiopian Copts. Only one peopleness is involved, albeit different functions are
fulfilled by each language and the two together constitute the whole, as they do
for speakers of a vernacular Arabic who read/write Koranic Classical (and/or

classicial) Arabic. Certainly, neither di-ethnia (societal biculturism) nor in-
dividual biculturism are involved in cases such as these.
When diglossia is absent but bilingualism is present (cell 2) multiculturism
may well be present but di-ethnia not. This is the context of transitional
bilingualism and transitional biculturism on the one hand, and of ordinary
cross-cultural contacts on the other hand. Neither passes the three generation
test and the bilingualism they prompt is either ultimately lost, integrated or
transitioned into translinguification, just as the biculturism they prompt is
ultimately either lost, integrated or transitioned into transethnification. Note,
however, that language shift and ethnocultural shift need not proceed apace;
indeed, language shift for American immigrants has commonly proceeded
more rapidly than has their re-ethnification (Fishman et al., 1966, 1978).
Nevertheless, ethnicity maintenance (particularly at any long-term creative
level or in any central domain) requires strong institutional support, as does
language maintenance, rendering the other ethnicity inoperative (consensually
unacceptable) in certain functions—or even rejecting the functions per se—if
two ethnocultural systems are to operate side by side on a stable and widespread
basis. T w o sets of ethnic behaviors and identities must be in complementary
distribution and strongly compartmentalized, as must be their language usage
counterparts, if they are to constitute something more than transitional arrange-
ments. It is just such complementarity and compartmentalization that this cell
(cell 2) lacks, and, as a result, acculturation (and, in cell 4, assimilation) finally
result.
Cell 3 also is inhospitable to di-ethnia. Since the diglossia encountered there
is that based upon the territoriality principle it is, once again, only a small class
of middlemen (civil servants, commercial representatives, professional trans-
lators) who have any need for being bilingual, and even most of them have no
need for either biculturism or di-ethnia. At any rate, they hardly constitute a
complete society or ethnocultural aggregate unto themselves.
STABLE SOCIETAL BICULTURISM: SOME U.S.A.

EXAMPLES
We have made the rounds of our 2 X 2 table and have not encountered di-ethnia
in any of its four cells. Actually, stable, societal biculturism does exist in part of
cell ι , but the purpose of our initial "go-round" has been attained if it has
clarified the rarity of the phenomenon we are pursuing. Most of modern life is
inhospitable—whether ideologically or pragmatically—to compartmentalization
between a people's total repertoire of behaviors and values. Fluidity across role and
network boundaries and, indeed, the weakening and overcoming of bound-
}. Bilingualism and Biculturism as Individual and as Societal Phenomena 49
aries, is both a goal and result of most modern behavior and its emphasis on
efficiency and reciprocity/solidarity in social behavior. Little wonder then that
our examples of di-ethnia will derive primarily from nonmodern contexts.
The Old Order Amish and the Hasidim represent two patterns of di-ethnia
on American shores. Both groups maintain a pattern of bilingualism and
diglossia (cell 1) for their own internal needs involving Luther German and
Pennsylvania Dutch on the one hand, and Loshn koydesh and Yiddish, on the
other hand. In addition, both groups control their own schools wherein their
children are taught to become proficient in English (speaking, reading, writing)
so that they can engage in "the other culture" within carefully prescribed limits
of kind and degree. The "other culture" is viewed as necessary and the "own
culture" is, therefore, in necessary complementary distribution with it. In both
cases actualization of the "other culture" is restricted to economic pursuits and
relationships and even in this domain, limits are carefully observed. Electricity
may be used for pasteurization (the latter being required by state law) among
the Pennsylvania Dutch, but not for refrigeration of their own food or to power
modern farm machinery (Hostetler, 1968, 1974). The "outside world" must be
engaged to some unavoidable degree—and for such purposes the outside
language must be learned—but this degree must be a limited one and, ulti-
mately, even it is rationalized as necessary for the maintenance and well being of
the "inside world".
It is probably not accidental that the rural Old Order Amish and the urban
Hasidim both accept another culture only in the econotechnical domain, this
being the most universalized and, therefore, the least ethnically encumbered
domain of modern society. Nevertheless, the primary point of generalizable
interest in connection with them is not so much the specific area in which their
stable societal biculturism is expressed as the fact that it is stabilized by:
(a) not integrating the two cultures involved but by keeping them separate, in a
state of tension vis-à-vis each other, i.e., compartmentalization is recognized as
necessary so that the outside world will not intrude upon (spread into: Cooper,
1982; displace/replace: Fishman, 1977b) the "inner world": and
(b) not accepting or implementing "the other culture" in its entirety but,
rather, implementing it selectively and in a particular domain so as to keep it in
complementary distribution with their "own" Η-governed and L-governed
domains. English is specifically excluded from home use (where it would
threaten their own L mother tongues) and from religious use (where it would
threaten their own sacred Hs). Thus, just as no speech community can maintain
two languages on a stable basis (past three generations) if they are both used in
the same social functions and, therefore, stable societal bilingualism (diglossia)
depends on institutionally protected functional sociolinguistic compartmentali-
zation, so no ethnocultural collectivity can maintain two cultures on a stable
basis past three generations if they are both implemented in the same social
functions (family, friendship, work, education, religion, etc), and therefore,

stable societal multiculturism (di-ethnia) depends on institutionally protected
ethnocultural compartmentalization.
DOES DI-ETHNIA EXIST ELSEWHERE AS WELL?
Di-ethnia is a relatively rare phenomenon—much rarer than its individual

counterpart, biculturism. It is found beyond the three-generation cut-off in the
Moslem world where traditional behaviors, dress, diet and values dominate
most of life but where modern econotechnical roles require different dress, diet
and languages and do so not only for /»/«/-group interactions but for intragtoup
interactions within this arena as well. Similar compartmentalization is
encountered beyond the three generation cut-off among various segments
of Japanese, Chinese (Hong Kong, Singapore), Native American and non-
Russophone Soviet society. Di-ethnia of a more marginal or peripheral kind is
sometimes also found among stable populations living at long-established
political borders and sharing market days and other limited collective ex-
periences (e.g., sports contests). Finally, and even more exceptionally, di-ethnia
is still encountered at times even after language shift has eroded bilingualism
and diglossia to the vanishing point. Thus, even with the transethnification of
Blacks and aborigines, a deep-seated and often conflicted di-ethnia at times
reveals itself.
THE BICULTURAL "THRUST" OF

BILINGUAL/BICULTURAL EDUCATION
The term "bicultural" is often introduced quite innocently in connection with

Title VII bilingual education in the U.S.A. Neither the institutional stability
nor the functional compartmentalization of this phenomenon, if it is to be
pursued seriously and societally, is recognized. Indeed, unknowingly, the
arrangements entered into usually foster biculturism in the most dislocative
sense, i.e., they are transitional and transethnifying. They are commonly con-
descending, trivializing and peripheralizing in connection with the marked
culture ("thingification" I have called it elsewhere) and Anglo-Americanizing
even when they least suspect. The basic compartmentalization of societal
functions and the vital institutional protection of marked sociolinguistic
and ethnocultural behaviors, beliefs and values upon which stable societal
biculturism (di-ethnia) crucially depends are not only unrecognized but would
probably be anathema if they were recognized. In distinction to the destructive
j . Bilingualism and Biculturism as individual and as Societal Phenomena 51
Title VII empty-headedness in this connection is the conscious and conscien-

tious societal multiculturism often pursued by ethnic-community-sponsored
"parochial" schools in the U.S.A. Unfortunately, while the former (Title VII)
programs are numerous and tragically destructive, the latter (ethnic-com-
munity "parochial") programs are too few and, tragically, too weak to attain
their goals. America is the poorer in each case, but for quite opposite reasons.
CONCLUSIONS
Just as diglossia is the stable, societal counterpart to individual bilingualism, so

di-ethnia is the stable, societal counterpart to individual biculturism. Di-ethnia
requires societal compartmentalization as well as institutionally protected func-
tional specificity. These desiderata are hard to attain and to retain—both
ideologically and structurally—under "modern," interactive, mobile and in-
dividualistic urban industrial conditions. However, some groups have, intui-
tively or consciously, displayed a capacity and an inclination for exactly such
arrangements. Minorities that do not control econotechnical and political
boundaries of their own are particularly dependent on ethnocultural and
ethnolinguistic boundary maintenance arrangements in order to secure their
intergenerational continuity within a larger context of ongoing change.
ON CRITIQUING DIGLOSSIA: A POSTSCRIPT
The bedrock on which the di-ethnia construct rests is the diglossia construct.
The former is an extension into the realm of ethnocultural identity of the basic
sociolinguistic notions of the latter. Accordingly, it would be well to attend to
the occasional criticisms of the diglossia construct in order to determine their
implications for a program of empirical research and theoretical elaborations of
the total diglossia-di-ethnia nexus.
IDEOLOGICAL INTERFERENCE
It is always important to attempt to differentiate between ideological and

intellectual criticism, however much the two are, of necessity, intertwined. I
take as ideological criticism the rather uninformed but symptomatic view that
diglossia patterns necessarily coincide with high rates of illiteracy in H. The Swiss
German/High German case is sufficient to disprove that assertion, as well as to
call into question the allied but somewhat more sophisticated assertion that
diglossia obtains only under rather primitive, highly traditional and rigidly
52 7 HistóricaI, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
stratified sociocultural conditions. Modern Western cultures too, not to men-

tion modernizing Third World settings such as those encountered in many parts
of the Moslem world and the Hindu world, have maintained quite classical
diglossia arrangements in parts of their sociolinguistic repertoires while modern-
izing and de-compartmentalizing other areas of national life. On the other hand,
most high illiteracy areas in the world today are not diglossia impacted at all
(certainly not in the sense of consensually "separate" languages or huge dis-
crepancies between the spoken and written varieties of the "same" language).
Thus, while it is true that traditional society is more compatible with diglossia
(just as it is more compatible with boundary "status quos" of all kinds), it is
not true that diglossia arrangements are not possible under (or are in any
way causally related to) political, econotechnical or ideological/religious/
philosophical arrangements of whatever kind. Indeed, it is part of the intrigue
that the modernization/continuity dialectic presents to all serious investigators
who approach it without prior overriding polemic intentions (see, e.g., Streng
1979), that "easy solutions," such as those that appeal to those whose reformist
socioeconomic passions leave them no patience for tradition at all, are often
simply not viable from their more experienced, accepting and concerned
internal perspective. The twentieth century has proved without a doubt that
Jacobinian solutions are not universally attractive, nor are they universally
effective even where they are considered attractive. The price that society may
need to pay for diglossia arrangements (a price such as well-defined territoriality
principles or intimacy/local vs. formality/supra-local distinction conventions)
may be worth every penny, relative to the price of "simplified" equalization
solutions that would destroy such arrangements but bring with them a host of
attendant problems tantamount to cultural disruption as well.
The accompanying criticisms that accuse diglossia arrangements (or di-
glossia focused scholars) of being unsympathetic to the economic mobility aspi-
rations of "the masses of urban poor," or to economic factors in social change
and in social control, are simply further evidence of a regrettable tendency to
confuse one's own political-ideological rejection of a particular sociocultural
convention with the responsibility for objective and parsimonious description
of that convention. Economic factors and socioeconomic "advancement" may
or may not be the crucial factors at any particular time or in any particular
sociocultural context in which the language and ethnicity nexus is being
investigated (Reitz 1980). T o assign unquestioned priority to such factors is a
type of vulgarization that social scientists should eschew, every bit as much as
they eschew vulgarization of their pet political principles. It is even stranger,
however, to find economic determinists opposing diglossia, as if its abandon-
ment per se could be an effective means of altering class-related economic facts,
processes and potentials. That would certainly seem to be a case of replacing
economic determinism with linguistic determinism (hardly an improvement). It
β. Bilingualism and Biculturism as Individual and as Societal Phenomena 53
is the breathless penchant for simplistic determinism as a whole, and for

ideological determinism in particular, that mars the academic judgment in such
instances. However, there may and need be no prior agreement on the desir-
ability of diglossia in any particular instance in order for researchers to proceed
with an intellectual task at hand. To my mind, indeed, there is no good reason
always to favor diglossia or to consider it to be a wise or desirable social
arrangement for the solution of each and every ethnocultural problem, any
more than there is any good reason to oppose it always. Nevertheless, there
must be a common quest to determine when and to what extent it does obtain,
how it came into being, what its consequences are relative to a particular focus
of interest, which factors tend to strengthen or weaken it, etc. Such a quest can
be pursued only if the ideological passions can be sublimated, at least tem-
porarily, and the intellectual permitted to roam relatively undisturbed. Even the
difficulties that remain will be substantial.
INTELLECTUAL ISSUES
The intellectual critique of diglossia is, of course, the more important of the two
lines of criticism occasionally encountered. Unfortunately, whereas the ideo-
logical criticism has simply disregarded the scientific issues, the intellectual has
simply not gone far enough with them. It has gotten bogged down in elemen-
tary methodological issues which pertain to social science research in general or
to sociolinguistic research more pervasively and whose extensive literature the
critics are blithely unaware of. As a result, it does not bring the field any closer
to more powerful research on diglossia perse nor even to a more knowledgeable
view of methodological issues in general. One criticism often addressed to the
diglossia construct is that it is too removed from the data of everyday speech
and behavior. But why should one restrict sociolinguistic and ethnocultural
research and theory to that particular level of data and data analysis? The
tendency to reductionism, to accept as real only that which is elementary,
palpable, directly sensed and quotable, is certainly an unaccepted scientific
limitation in all but the most provincial backwaters of the social science
enterprise today. Certainly society and culture are "real" at levels higher than
those that ethnography alone can reveal (which is merely to question the
"exclusive truth" of ethnography, rather than its truth value for problems at its
own level of analysis and conceptualization). Certainly this is the hoary issue of
levels of analysis, that some are only now discovering due to their own
provinciality, being sublimely unaware of its several-centuries-old intellectual
past. Methodological monism will get us nowhere with respect to epistemolo-
gica! or substantive issues in the future, just as it has gotten us nowhere in the
past. There are various levels of analyses, various types of data, various
approaches to proof and they must each be appreciated for their contributions
(for, indeed, they have all made contributions), as they must each be criticized
for their limitations and blind spots (for they all have them) and, above all, they
must be used together, in tandem, to reinforce and clarify each other, for the
sake of the common enterprise.
T o have to argue such points now is to take time out to "rediscover the
wheel" when the real issue is to use all kinds and sizes of wheels more effectively
and more interactively. All the wheels are real. All the social sciences and social
science methods correspond to a fruitful vision of reality. That should not be at
issue in this day and age, although, unfortunately, it is.
Constructs are, of course, still constructs and they must not be reified and
confused with "things." But the scientific enterprise is, at its most advanced,
precisely a quest for more parsimonious and more powerfully explanation- and
prediction-linked constructs. All levels of analysis wind up with constructs
which are derived from intellectual operations (interpretation, categorization,
comparison, judgment as to likeness or unlikeness) performed upon data.
Diglossia (as well as some of its subsidiary constituents such as "domains"
which have been well critiqued in Breitborde 1983) is just such a construct and
is in no way different in this respect from constructs such as "language X , "
society, culture, social class, ethnic group, etc. None of these constructs is self-
evident, self-explanatory, nor given in direct experience. The construct "cul-
ture" does not itself explain when a particular culture came into being, why it
changed and why it ultimately may have merged or been destroyed. These all
remain to be researched, and, in any particular instance, documented at various
levels of analysis, long after the utility of the construct "culture" is no longer in
doubt (although its detailed formulation may well continue to undergo revision
and improvement, as nearly all constructs do, forever and a day). However, the
law of parsimony also applies to all of these latter efforts at documentation,
clarification, specification and explanation, both of particular cases relative to
certain constructs as well as of constructs per se. It is not enough to have a
laundry list of variables ("economic, social, historical, linguistic, demographic,
institutional, etc.") and to present the empirical relationships obtaining be-
tween them, however exactly and exhaustively. The quest for generalizable
findings, for theory that bridges or distinguishes, systematically and parsimo-
niously, between cases and cases, that recognizes recurring types of outcomes,
leads again and again to the formulation of more underlying notions, factors or
constructs, as well as to statements of probabilities of if-then relationships
(whether quantitatively formulated or not) between them. The process is a
fairly endless one, but ultimately no serious social science effort can or should
avoid constructs or a parsimonious factorial approach to their elucidation in
terms of empirical variables as well as in terms of yet other constructs.
What then remains to be done in the realm of diglossia research and theory?
β. Bilingualism and Biculturism as Individual and as Societal Phenomena 5 5
Less fear of social boundaries per se would help, as various European social
scientists have fully recognized (e.g., Strassoldo 1982, Luhmann 1971,
Raffesion 1980 and Schwartz 1979). Less ideological sniping at "irrelevant
pluralism" would clear the field of partisan polemics. However, more data on a
variety of cases illustrating diglossia in various degrees, more
intermethodological/interdisciplinary/intertheoretical research, more concern
for various "types" of diglossia, more attention to degrees of diglossia in
various "types" of social and cultural change/continuity contexts, more theory
building on empirical bases and with a striving toward parsimony: these are
truly crucial. They are the true scholarly agenda. "Diglossia," i.e., the basic
construct per se, is too deeply and fruitfully imbedded in the basic sociolinguistic
notion of "societal allocation of function" (e.g., Charpentier 1982, Martinet
1982, Tabouret-Keller 1982), i.e., in the very implementation of language
varieties on consensually recognized and different occasions, to be either
disregarded or neglected at one's own peril. In addition to its socio-
sociolinguistic centrality, it has also been a fruitful focus for those concerned
with more linguistic-sociolinguistic issues (Wexler 1971). It requires, as does
the rest of the sociolinguistic enterprise, a dispassionate passion for inquiry,
well-formulated and well-informed, above and beyond ideological and political
sympathy or antipathy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Breitborde, L.B. Levels of Analysis in Sociolinguistic Explanation. International Journal of the

Sociology of Language. 1983, 39 (entire issue).
Charpentier, Jean-Michel. Quand et où parler de bilinguisme et de diglossie? La Linguistique. 1982,
18, 65-84.
Cooper, R.L. Toward a general theory of language spread, in his (ed.) Language Spread: Studies in
Diffusion and Social Change. Arlington (VA), Center for Applied Linguistics, 1982 (provisional
titles).
Even-Zohar, I. L'birur mahuta v'tatfkida shel leshon hasifrut hayata badiglosiya [Toward clarifying
the scope and function of the language of literature under diglossia], Hasifrut. 1970, 2, 286-302.
English abstract: 443-446.
Fishman, J.A. et al. Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966. (Reprinted New
York, Arno Press, 1978.)
. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal
of Social Issues. 1967, 23(2), 29—38.
. The Sociology of Language: An Interdisciplinary Social Science Approach to the Study of Language in
Society. Rowley, Newbury House, 1972.
. Yiddish and Loshn koydesh in traditional Ashkenaz: The problem of societal allocation of
macro-functions, in Verdoodt, A. and R. Kjolseth (eds.), Language in Sociology. Louvain, Peeters,
1976. 39-42·
. Language, ethnicity and racism. Georgetown University Koundtable on Languages and
Linguistics. 1977a, 297-309.
56 I Historical, Cross-Cttltural and Theoretical Perspectives
. The spread of English as a new perspective for the study of language maintenance and
language shift, in Fishman, J.Α., R.L. Cooper, A.W. Conrad et al. (eds), The Spread of English.
Rowley, Newbury House, 1977b, 108-136.
. Attracting a following to high culture functions for a language of everyday life, in R.L.
Cooper (ed.), Language Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change. Bloomington (IN) and
Arlington (VA), Indiana University Press and Center for Applied Linguistics, 1982, 291-520.
. Language maintenance and ethnicity. Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups.
Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1980, 629-638.
. R.L. Cooper, A.W. Conrad, et al., The Spread of English. Rowley, Newbury House, 1977.
Gardy, Phillipe and Robert Lafont. La diglossie comme conflit: L'exemple occitan. Langages. 1981,
•5(6I), 75-9 1 ·
Hosteder, J. Amish Society. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins, 1968 (revised edition).
Kaye, A.S. Modern standard Arabic and the colloquiate. Lingua. 1970, 24, 374-391.
Kreindler, Isabelle. The changing status of Russian in the Soviet Union. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language. 1982, 30, entire issue.
Luhmann, N. Soziologische Auflkärung I. Opladen, Westdeutscher, 1971.
McRae, Κ . The principle of territoriality and the principle of personality in multilingual states.
International journal of the Sociology of Language. 1975, 4, 33 — 54.
Martinet, A. Bilinguisme et diglossie. La Linguistique. 1982, 18, 5 - 1 6 .
Parasher, S.V. Mother tongue-English diglossia: A case study of educated Indian bilinguals'
language use. Anthropological Linguistics. 1980, 22, 1 5 1 - 1 6 2 .
Poll, S. Loshn koydesh, Yiddish and Ivrit among ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language. 1980, 24.
Raffestin, C. Pour une Geographie du Pouvoir. Paris, Librairies Techniques, 1980.
Reitz, Jeffrey G. Effects of economic position on ethnie group cohesion, in his The Survival of Ethnic
Groups. Toronto, McGraw-Hill, Tyerson, 1980.
Rubin, Joan. NationalBilingualism in Paraguay. The Hague, Mouton, 1968.
Saville-Troike, Muriel. A Guide to Culture in the Classroom. Rosslyn, National Clearinghouse for
Bilingual Education, 1978.
Schwartz, T. The size and shape of a culture in F. Barth (ed.), Scale and Social Organisation. Oslo,
Universitetsvorlaget, 1979, 215-252.
Silver, B. The impact of urbanization and geographical dispersion on the linguistic Russification of
Soviet nationalities. Demography. 1974, 1 1 , 89-103.
Strassoldo, Raimond. Boundaries in sociological theory: A reassessment, in R. Strassoldo and G.
Delli Zotti (eds.), Cooperation and Conflict in Border Areas. Milan, Franco Angeli, 1982, 24; - 2 7 1 .
Streng, Frederick J. "Sacred" and "secular" as terms for interpreting modernization in India.
Religious Traditions. 1979, 2(1), 21—29.
Tabouret-Keller, Andrée. Entre bilinguisme et diglossie; du malaise des cloisonnements uni-
versitaires au malaise social. La Linguistique. 1982, 18, 17-43.
Toynbee, Arnold. The Greek languages' vicissitudes in the modem age, in his The Greeks and Their
Heritages. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1981.
Warburton, Irene P. Greek diglossia and some aspects of the phonology of common modern Greek.
Journal of Linguistics. 1980, 16.45-54.
Weinreich, M. History of the Yiddish Language (translated from the Yiddish original [Geshikhte fun
der yidisher shprakh, New York, YIVO, 1973,4 vols.] by S. Noble and J.A. Fishman). Chicago,
University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Wexler, Paul. Diglossia, language standardization and purism. Lingua. 1971, 27, 330-354.
Zughoul, Muhammed R. Diglossia in Arabic: Investigating solutions. Anthropological Linguistics.
1980, 27, 201-217.
Chapter 4
Language Maintenance and Ethnicity
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN
After two decades of modern sociolinguistic inquiry into language maintenance

and language shift in the U.S.A. and after one decade of renewed academic interest
in the transformations of ethnicity in the U.S.A., the time is probably ripe to
attempt to bring these two normally separate areas of inquiry into more focused
interaction with each other. In addition, it may also be possible, due to the
substantial amount of work that has recently gone into each of these topics in
settings outside of the United States, to seek more general (i.e., more widely
applicable) theoretical formulations with respect to these topics, and to do so
without in any way decreasing local (U.S.A.) validity. Indeed, it is my goal in
this paper to attempt to enhance local validity by means of increased comparat-
ive perspective.
Interactions Between Ethnolinguistic Collectivities: A Typology

Of Resolutions
There appear to be three major and recurring resolutions to interaction between

two separate monolingual ethnolinguistic collectivities when such interactions
are viewed from a perspective of more than three generations of time depth. If
we take A to be indigenous and Β to be intrusive in a particular setting then:
Resolution ι : Β A = A
Resolution 2: Β A = Β
Resolution 3: Β -> A = Β + A
In Resolution 1 the intrusive language is lost. 1 In Resolution 2 the indigen-

ous language is lost. In Resolution 3 both languages are maintained. Obviously,
these are three very different resolutions and the social circumstances leading to
them are likely to be very different as well. Nevertheless, if possible, we must
find a single conceptual framework within which to pursue our inquiry so as to

make comparisons between one setting and another (or between one resolution
and another) possible. Our goal in this connection is to come to some conclusion
as to when (i.e., the circumstances under which) each resolution obtains and
what the involvement of ethnicity might be in each of them.
RESOLUTION i: T H E INTRUSIVE L A N G U A G E IS LOST
The first observation to offer in connection with Resolution ι is that it is only

one of three possible patterns, rather than the only one. Although this is the
pattern that corresponds to the predominant American immigrant experience,
it is not a universal, not a moral imperative, and not even the only resolution
vis-à-vis that (or other immigrant) experience per se. Nevertheless, it is a
common resolution and one which enables us to investigate several factors that
have been hypothesized or confirmed with respect to language shift.
(a) Ilegal requirements re A or prohibitions re Β

A recurring obstacle faced by intrusive languages are prohibitions vis-à-vis their
use in public/official/written functions or alternatively, requirements that pre-
viously established languages be so used. What is crucial in this connection is
not so muchprimum mobile alone (the fact that social systems that are established
first acquire an inertia and an establishment that continues their predominance
vis-à-vis later arrivals on the social scene) but the role of laws ( = formal and
authoritative sanctions and prohibitions) in maintaining primum mobile. There
are certainly many polities at present in which there are language laws that
declare specific languages to be 'official", "national" or permissible/optional
for specific functions. What is, therefore, most interesting insofar as U.S.A.
sociolinguistic reality is concerned, is the paucity of language legislation and
legalistic formulations vis-à-vis language (Fishman 1979). Indeed, the U.S.A. is
in the company of a relatively few countries in the world that have no de jure
national or official language (Faleh 1972, Touret 1972).
That the foregoing is so is not for want of trying (viz. the Hayakawa
Amendment, proposed in 1982, to make English the official language of federal
government services). At the very beginning of the 19th century the patriot-
lexicographer Noah Webster inquired of Chief Justice John Marshall whether
there could be either a law or a constitutional amendment declaring "The
American language" to be our sole national and official language. It was the
Chief Justice's opinion then—and our highest courts have consistently agreed
with him ever since—that any such legal provisions on behalf of English would
be counter to the freedom of speech and freedom of religion provisions of the
American constitution. Accordingly, local legislation requiring English or
<f. Language Maintenance and Ethnicity 59
prohibiting other languages has consistently been struck down by the courts
(Heath 1977). Out of nearly two centuries of such precedents there has de-
veloped a purely defacto legal posture relative to language in the U.S.A. On the
one hand, no languages may be prohibited and no languages may be favored on
a dejure basis, and, on the other hand, government services (and monies) must
be available de facto in whatever languages are required in order to achieve
equity (fairness, justice) for all segments of the population.
Given this history of language law in the U.S.A. the Lau decision (1974) and
the Mendoza and Black English rulings (both in 1979) appear as quite recog-
nizable and consistent "affirmative action" steps that seek no more than
parsimonious equity. It is not cultural pluralism nor language maintenance that
they pursue but the pragmatic view that (particularly in the absence of any
official or national language) government must equitably serve everyone and if
a ("sufficiently" large) segment of the population cannot be so served in
English, other languages must be employed. However, since both parsimony
and equity are involved, many government-sponsored programs (bilingual
education among them) "legitimately" aim at fostering English. Thus, other
languages are both to be used as needed in connection with government-spon-
sored, conducted or supported programs in the health, education, welfare and
justice areas, but, presumably no longer than necessary, i.e., not beyond the
point where any population's English is good enough for it to be equitably
served in the language that can be used to serve "everyone else." Cultural
pluralism and parsimonious equity are very far from being one and the same
thing.
Our brief excursion into U.S.A. language-related law and legislation reveals
more than the interesting fact that there is relatively little such law and
legislation in the U.S.A. and that what there is, is neither mandatory with
respect to English nor prohibitory with respect to other languages. What is
suggested, in addition to the foregoing, is the relatively noncrucial nature of law
and legislation in the entire language maintenance-language shift process. The
historically effective U.S.A. experience with relinguification and reethnification
of millions upon millions of immigrants has transpired in a context relatively
innocent of laws requiring such relinguification or reethnification to take place.
Thus, it must be clear that other processes, not necessarily ones explicitly
formulated and formalized via laws, are the fundamental causes or influences in
connection with language maintenance and language shift. Furthermore, just as
language shift may be exceedingly common—when viewed across a period
beyond three generations after the arrival of intrusive Bs in the territory of A —
even in the absence of language laws, so language maintenance may be equally
common even when there are laws to the contrary. Leges sine moribus vanae·. laws
without underlying social support processes are in vain for they cannot ac-
complish their goals. On the other hand, these same goals that some seek to
attain via laws might be accomplished even without explicit laws on their behalf
if conducive social circumstances obrained.
Other sociolegal traditions make much greater use of language laws than
does the U.S.A. (Savara and Vigneault 1975, Colloque 1978). Post-
revolutionary France immediately adopted a law "abolishing" the regional
languages (Provencal [ = Occitan], Alsatian, Breton, Catalán, Basque, all of
which were disparagingly referred to as "dialects"). These languages exist to
this very day—indeed there are organized movements on behalf of each of them
(Tabouret-Keller 1981)—but reliance on legal coercion seems to be part of the
French sociocultural tradition. This tradition also seems to be alive and well in
French Canada, where a whole spate of pro-French (and, therefore, explicitly or
implicitly anti-English) laws have been passed in Quebec since the "separatists"
gained power (Mallea 1977)· There can be no doubt about it. Language laws—
like all laws—doubtlessly engender and reinforce social attitudes and behaviors
related to their goals and purposes. However, they are not in themselves
sufficient "causes" with respect to these attitudes and behaviors. Laws require
authoritative implementation (rewards, punishments) but not even authori-
tarian governments can endlessly continue to implement laws that do not gain
general acceptance and that are not reinforced by and congruent with basic
societal processes, rewards and values. Therefore, it is to such that we now turn.
(b) Intergroup social dependency

Even in the absence of specific laws on behalf of A , the A establishment may be
sufficiently entrenched and organized as to make rewards to Bs contingent on
interactions with As and in A. The result is that a host of social dependency
relationships are developed such that material, econotechnical, professional
governmental and educational rewards are available to Bs not only to the extent
to which they master A but also to the extent that they interact with As. In the
absence of strong and compartmentalized reward traditions to the contrary,
this channeling of rewards to Bs in such a way as to foster /«/«rgroup social
dependency relationships via language A finally also impacts Β /«/ragroup
status relationships as well. Within Β speech communities and speech networks
per se, status recognition is channeled to Bs that are A speakers. Mastery of A
among Bs thus no longer serves merely as an indicator of social dependency
upon and interactive frequency with As,but it also becomes a desideratum and,
finally, a hallmark of leadership status within the Β community itself. At this point,
language spread becomes language shift. Ultimately this transition reaches the
Β family unit per se. Bs learn A not outside of the family context (in school, at
work, "outside") but, precisely within the family context, from parents, older
siblings and other adult relatives whose status within thefamily is enhanced by the
fact that they have mastered A (Fishman 1966). Finally, Bs learn A as a mother
tongue from B-mother-tongue parents who have become A speakers. In the
4- Language Maintenance and Ethnicity 61
absence of a rather rigid and fargoing compartmentalization which is difficult

to maintain (and, therefore, rare) in modern interactive life (Fishman 1980),
separating the home and the immediate ethnic community from A-interactions
and Α-language and Α-related statuses, such as is available, e.g., to Amish,
Hasidic or traditional Islamic families (or other communities sheltered by
distance, rurality or major philosophical-religious-ideological ramparts), what
begins as the language of social and economic mobility ends, within three
generations or so, as the language of the crib as well, even in democratic and
pluralism-permitting contexts.
The ubiquity of social dependency relationships in fostering language shift is
truly amazing. In the U.S.A., in the U.S.S.R., among southern European
"guest workers" in northern Europe, among immigrants to Australia, among
urbanizing Indians in North, Central and South America, among urbanizing
populations in West and East Africa, among overseas Chinese and overseas
Indians-from-India, the story repeats itself again and again. It is related to social
mobility but it is not social mobility per se, since relinguification and reethnifi-
cation also occur in nonmobile middle and even in lower social classes to the
extent that they too become dependent on direct interaction with A speakers
and the rewards that the latter control. Bartenders become relinguified to the
same extent as clerks; salesmen to the same extent as dentists; auctioneers to the
same extent as nurses and other sub-professionals; even though the social status
of bartenders, salesmen and auctioneers is lower than that of clerks, dentists and
subprofessionals (Lieberson and Curry 1971). Indeed, education and social
mobility are merely higher order abstractions that may mask the lower order
reality involved: the decompartmentalization of sociolinguistic interaction,
such that the ethnically encumbered domains (from the point of view of
intrusive Bs: home, community, church) respond to the same hierarchy of
rewards and statuses as do the ethnically unencumbered domains (school, work
sphere, government). The dependency-based reward system pertaining to Β
functioning and status in the latter is finally also triumphant in connection with
Β functioning and status in the former. Thus, it is the weakening and, finally,
the destruction, of B-requiring-role-relationships among Bs (in addition to the
adoption of A-requiring-role-relationships between Bs and As), and the con-
comitant weakening of Basa requirement sine-qua-non for B-ness (rather than merely
as a metaphorical, dispensible, negligible, quaint, humorous outdated indicator
of B-ness) that is at the heart of the language shift issue. A weaker reward system
crumbles not only as a result of frontal attacks from stronger systems, but also
as a result of becoming dependent upon the stronger systems and, therefore,
rewarding those of its own members (including those who are most highly
rewarded by the stronger system directly and who can mediate between the
two) to help channel the rewards of the stronger system into the networks of the
weaker. When the weaker system begins to reward Bs for their A-ness, insiders
Gì I Historical, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
for their "outsideness", then its dependency is sealed and language shift with
respect to its mother tongue is certain. (For research on several U.S, Hispanic
examples of this type see references in Hudson-Edwards and Bills 1982, López
1976 and 1983, Skrabanek 1970 and Veltman 1983).
(c) Relinguification as a marker of membership; re-ethnification as a marker of

modernisation
Even with relinguification, the sense of B-ness can continue among Bs. Since
relinguification generally precedes re-ethnification (Fishman 1966) new patterns
of B-ness arise out of the social dependency relationship discussed above. These
new patterns of B-ness (-via-A) are not only implemented in socializing the
younger generations born "in the new country" (or in the new context) but they
are also implemented in socializing new immigrants coming from the old
country (or from the old context). In the context of advanced social dependency
relationships where B-ness-via-A is the new norm, new immigrants trans-
linguify even more rapidly than the "old timers" did (Nahirny and Fishman
1965). Newly arriving Bs are translinguified by their "own kind", rather than
by dint of painful interaction with As. They are translinguified in the context of
B-ness and Bs. A is ultimately needed by them not only for interaction with the
"outside world" and its greater reward systems, but for interaction with the
"inside world" and its spontaneous warmth, affection, solicitude and proximity
to authenticity. Newly-arriving Bs find Β churches operating in A , Β periodicals
in A , Β educational and cultural agencies and societies in A , Β leaders and
spokesmen who speak only A , etc. Indeed, ultimately, a new language-and-
ethnicity pattern has been established, one in which A is the language of living
B-ness whereas Β is associated with foreign, old-fashioned and/or scholarly-
specialist associations with B-ness. At this stage the only way to be a mainstream
B, a Β who is neither schismatic nor parochial, a Β capable of combining and
profiting from the "best of both worlds", is to be a B-via-A.
The above message is not lost upon more recently arriving Bs. In addition,
however, the "old country" too has frequently changed relative to the "good
old days" when Bs first began arriving in major numbers upon the shores of A-
land. B-land too has become relatively modernized and urbanized, although its
average standard of living may not have fully caught up with that of Α-land or
with that of the early immigrants from B-land who resettled in Α-land. Thus, Bs
keep coming to Α-land in search of "greater opportunity" (and other rewards as
well), but they are now importantly different Bs than were their predecessors,
the "old-timers". The differences between Β "old-timers" and their A hosts was
not primarily a difference in language alone, but, rather a difference in all the
ethnically encumbered rounds of life: in food patterns, dress patterns, family
patterns, socialization pattern worship patterns, amusement patterns, courtship
patterns, educational levels and Weltanschauung more generally. Most of these
4- Language Maintenance and Hthnicity 63
differences no longer obtain, or have been significantly lessened with respect

to newcomers arriving when the stage of B-ness-via-A is already well ar-
ticulated. They are, indeed, as close to As in most extra-linguistic respects (and,
sometimes, they are even closer to them) than are the grandchildren of the
original Β oldtimers. Thus, the newest-arriving Bs have less of a transition to
make from B-ness of A-ness than did the oldtimers. They, therefore, adapt to
their new surroundings more rapidly, more in the stance of equals among
equals, with primarily a "mere" language bridge to cross. And in crossing this
language bridge they obtain help not only from As but from Bs as well. Indeed,
although a pattern of B-ness-via-A is ready-made and available for them it is
often not even needed or not wanted. The newcomer Bs are close enough to the
world of the As, in terms of shared outlooks, values, norms, goals and
experiences, to find the pattern of B-ness-via-A to be "quaint," inauthentic at
best and, commonly, simply unnecessary and superfluous. They are more
predisposed to the next step: A-ness per se. The emotional investment in B-ness
that the "old-timers" had and, in part, passed on to their children and grandchil-
dren, is not there for thoroughly secularized, modernized and urbanized new-
comers (Nahirny and Fishman 1965). The drama of confrontation, the agony of
rejection and accommodation, the intergenerational contest to attain mobility
but not to lose one's soul—all these are lacking for the newcomers. Had they
wanted to remain Bs, they would have remained in B-land. Having come to A-
land as co-moderns, the offers of landslayt to help them acquire "A for B-ness-
via-A" strike them as funny. They increasingly help themselves to A for A-
ness per se.
At this advanced stage of language shift Β may well continue a vestigial
existence. It will, of course, continue to be used by the "parochials", i.e., by
non-mainstream Bs. It is also still found on some letterheads and on some office
doors and even on some store windows evocative of mainstream B-ness.
However, its major function among the latter is clearly metaphorical, it is used
(by those who still know it) primarily in exceptional circumstances: to designate
humor, irony, satire, affect, or to put it even more broadly—to indicate
symbolic contrastivity to normal functioning. However, the predominance of
such usage is itself an indication of shift. Metaphorical usage is basically a
normatively consensual departure from the usual situational/functional allo-
cation. In order to engage in appropriate and acceptable metaphorical usage it
is necessary first to be a master of normal situational usage. For a story or punch
line in Β to "sound funny" it is necessary not only to know Β but also to know
and agree that one usually speaks A when humor is not intended. Metaphorical
usage is not intergenerationally continuous but, rather, fleeting, changeable,
marginal and nonreciprocal. Its association with Β may not be the last straw but
it is definitely the last act. Language maintenance is clearly impossible on a
metaphorical basis alone.
(d) The potentialfor rebirth: the roots live on

All three of the processes discussed above (use of legal sanctions, fostering
social dependency relationships via channeling rewards to Bs in terms of their
use of A, coopting Bs to become agents of A and of A-ness) are subject to the
limitations of the real world. This is particularly true for the second process
since the A reward system itself goes through periodic as well as long-term
change, that is to say, it may not always wish to be equally rewarding to Bs, nor
can it always be as rewarding to Bs as it (or as they) might wish to be. Thus, the
likelihood of a residue of unrewarded, ungratified and uncoopted Bs is, realisti-
cally speaking, quite appreciable. There are Bs who have bet on A and A-ness
but who have lost their bets or received a much smaller payoff than anticipated.
Their social-mobility hopes and aspirations have been thwarted. The wrench of
relinguification (and even re-ethnification) did not result in the quid-pro-quo that
might have made it all worthwhile (not only in the "outer world" but in the
"inner world" as well). A disappointed proto-elite, disappointed even after
making difficult and conflicted compromises and overtures, is again ripe for
relinguification and reethnification, i.e., for the journey "back home." As the
perfidy of the "outer world" becomes manifest the comforts of the "inner
world", including its genuineness, its transcendental (rather than opportunis-
tic) truth value, its altruistic authenticity and its consoling acceptingness, above
all: its humaneness above and beyond instrumental goals, become increasingly
clear, compelling, and deserving, not only of loyalty but of organized recog-
nition, focused concern, and devoted leadership. A disappointed ethnic proto-
elite rediscovers its roots, all the more so in order to atone for having aban-
doned or neglected them. A disappointed ethnic proto-elite redirects its
energies and redefines its goals: its members become the defenders of the
defenseless, the mobilizers of the unmobilized, the unifiers of the disunited and
the authenticators of the tradition that was being lost, has been lost or might be
lost. A disappointed proto-elite turns inward and in finding its own roots it
revives them. In so doing, it may revive Β as a language, B-ness as an authentic
experience, and the B-and-B-ness link as sacred responsibility, of drive, moti-
vation and commitment. Thus, just when some are proclaiming the death of B,
others may be heralding its revival and, indeed, its eternity. More usually,
however, the above goals may be unattainable and only symbolic snippets of
them are implemented.
A disappointed ethnic proto-elite is more likely to be urban than rural,
because it is in urban areas that the promise and the potential rewards for
relinguification are greatest. As a result, the counter-mobilization that disap-
pointed proto-elites engage in is also likely to be urban. Urban areas, therefore,
are centers of conflicted ethnicity and of ethnic conflict, both at the between-
group and at the within-group levels. Urban areas represent the greatest
dangers for relinguification but also the greatest early successes of revival
movements, given their promise to comfort the alienated and the twice-
alienated.
RESOLUTION 2: THE INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE IS

LOST
North Americans are likely to think that immigrant languages (Bs in our
shorthand) always go by the board by the time three generations have elapsed
and, therefore, that A always emerges not only victorious but even stronger
than it was before, having coopted the immigrants into its greater reward
system. However, this view reveals a paucity of sociohistorical perspective,
since there are equally many and equally noteworthy cases of the opposite kind,
i.e., cases in which the resolution B—»A = Β obtains. Indeed, even the
"American case" itself was initially of this latter type, since there were indigen-
ous languages throughout North, Central, and South America before the
Anglo-Franco-Hispano-conquerors and settlers arrived. Several other contexts
usually viewed today as examples of the B—>A = A sequence were actually
originally examples of the opposite kind. Australia and New Zealand, although
more recently (post World War II) hospitable to non-English-speaking immi-
grants, also originally represent instances of the second resolution B—»A = B,
because there too there were indigenous populations prior to the arrival of the
Anglo-Europeans (Benton 1978). Indeed, the major instances of language shift
in world history are probably of this second kind, including in its ranks the
Romanization of most of Gaul and Iberia, the Arabization of most of the Middle
East and North Africa, the Sanscritization of most of the Indian peninsula, the
Swahilization of large parts of East Africa, the Sinoization (particularly in
script) of much of East Asia, and, currently, the relentless and continued
Russification of the Soviet Union (Lewis 1972, Kreindler 1982, Silver 1974).
In many respects the underlying dynamics in Resolution 2 are similar to those
reviewed in conjunction with Resolution 1, above, but this time the shoe is on
the other foot. Intrusive Β is by far the stronger of the two ethnolinguistic
entities and it, therefore, ultimately swamps out the indigenous language and
ethnicity constellation. It is the intruders who establish the predominant system
of legal sanctions. It is the intruders whose econo-technical, educational and
cultural superiority (and, at times, whose sheer numbers) results in a reward
system that fosters social dependency relationships on "aboriginess" and "autoch-
thons" who want to get ahead. It is the original population that forms a
transmission system for the relinguification and re-ethnification of its own
outlying and, therefore, late-urbanizing and modernizing brethren.
Nevertheless, given all of the above similarities between Resolution ι and

Resolution 2, there is still at least one major difference between them (and
several minor ones as well).
Language shift of any kind (in the context of either resolution) is an indicator
of dislocation. It implies the breakdown of a previously established societal
allocation of functions; the alteration of previously recognized role-
relationships, situations and domains, so that these no longer imply or call for
the language with which they were previously associated. Such dislocation is to
be expected among intruders, be they immigrants or occupants. After all, they
have left their old homes, their familiar places, and, often, their cultural self-
sufficiency. As a result, one is not surprised to observe their subsequent alie-
nation. Their old pattern does not quite work any longer but, at least initially,
no new integration has become sufficiently established to provide the certainty,
the bases of clear understandings, identities and expectations, formerly pro-
vided by the old. A n immigrant father's authority at home is questioned,
directly or indirectly, by a young whippersnapper who speaks A better than he
does, who quotes Α-ideology better than he does, and who even earns more
than he does. The intricate web of family statuses and values is questioned, is
found wanting, is increasingly inoperative. All this we expect among immi-
grants and other intruders and, indeed, all this underlies the B—• A = A picture
delineated earlier. What then must we concude if we find this same picture
among indigenous populations, populations who have not left their old homes,
nor their familiar places, nor the territorial bases of their cultural integrity and
continuity?
What we must conclude from Β—>A = Β is extremely great dislocation·, the·
dislocation of conquest, of genocide, of massive population resettlement such
that locals are swamped out, engulfed, deracinated and decimated by intruders,
be they conquerors or settlers. The Anglo-American uprooting and destruction
of Native Americans and the Russo-Soviet decimation of White Russians,
Ukrainians, Jews, Germans, Poles and many, many of the smaller Central and
Far Eastern Asian peoples is sugar coated as "frontier democracy" and "the
greatest good to the greatest number" on the one hand and as "creation of the
new Soviet people", on the other hand, but it is, in both cases, the excruciatingly
painful and disruptive dislocation and annihilation of local peoples. Other Β—>A = Β
contexts may lie further back in history but they were doubtlessly equally
ruthless, regardless of the religious, ideological or philosophical rationales that
accompanied and "legitimized" them. The metric of terror is inverse to time
and distance. Wherever neither three generations of time nor the shelter of
distance is/was available to temper and mute the dislocative ("internal coloni-
zation") process (Hechter 1971, 1974) instances of Β —• A = Β are likely to be
especially sad examples of man's inhumanity to man.
And yet the roots revive at times, even after the tree has been burnt seemingly
4- Language Maintenance and Ethnicitj 67
beyond recognition or recovery (Eastman 1979). There are limits to the power
of Β to either annihilate or incorporate A and the usual history of establishment
vacillation between the one and the other is peculiarly likely finally produce the
very proto-elites who come to be the initiators and leaders of rebirth and revival
language-and-ethnicity movements. Just as such proto-elites were once (and,
in some cases still are) legion among disappointed Anglicized Irishmen,
Francofied Provençale, Hispanicized Catalans, Danicized Norwegians,
Germanized Czechs, Hungarianized Slovaks, Serbianized Croatians and
assimilated Jews throughout the West, so their ranks are currently swelling
among Chícanos, Puerto Ricans and native Americans in the U.S.A., among
Ukrainian and other non-Russian-nationality spokesmen among Soviet resis-
tors, and among Africans and Asians of a large number of local ethnic origins.
The phenomenal increase in languages of education and government since the
end of World War II is a result of such recoveries from external and internal
colonization. The end of this process is not yet in sight. Significantly, such
revival and rebirth movements, in attempting to overcome and undo the
punitive dislocations to which their constituencies were exposed, turn to
ethnicity and to the presumed language-and-ethnicity link, rather than to either
social-class ideologies or religious philosophies alone for this purpose. In so
doing, they seem to tap a well of emotion, or commitment, of longing, related
to the "dynamo of history" (that both Herder and Whorf recognized), hibernat-
ing in their ancestral language and identity. The more dislocated a segment of
mankind becomes, the greater seems to be its penchant for putative roots, for its
origins, for "authenticity." The scholar's determination that these identities are
composed of great slices of fabrication and imagination are beside the point, in
the same way that all rational empiricism is beside the point when emotional
needs are uppermost. It is the needfor a sense of historically deep, glorious and intact
authenticity that so typifies the disappointed ethnic proto-elites and their fol-
lowers, rather than for any need that the authenticity responses that they
employ be rationally verifiable and validated. The recurring role of language in
such movements is eloquent testimony to the ability of this sublime symbol
system to symbolize the fondest and most fervent dreams, hopes and wishes of
which mankind is capable.
RESOLUTION 3: BOTH THE INTRUSIVE AND THE

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARE RETAINED AND
INDIGENIZED
Given our earlier analysis of diglossia (Chapter 3 in This Volume, Fishman 1980),
there is no need, at this point, to review in detail the societal and the political
arrangements that undergird a resolution of this third kind. Still uncovered,

however, by our previous treatments, are some of the internal differences
within this particular resolution and the strains to which it is exposed.
The territorial counterpart to Β —> A = A + Β is A/B, i.e., A and Β are
utilized in separate sections or functions of a common polity. The seeming
stablility of this arrangement (in the Swiss case, e.g., regardless of demographic
realities such as the resettlement of many, many thousands of Italian speakers in
the German and French cantons) nevertheless does not itself completely halt the
social processes of language shift (McRae 1964 and 1983). The regions are not eco-
nomically equal and, therefore, the richer one(s) beckon to the inhabitants of the
poorer one(s) and the latter, as migrants to greener pastures, become examples
of resolution 1, Β —• A = A. In addition, even though they remain in their own
valleys, the numerically and economically weak Romansch become examples of
resolution 2 vis-à-vis their vastly more numerous and prosperous German
speaking neighbors (Billigmeier 1979). Thus, not even the territorial principle
is immune to change and to strain and to the irredentist cry of troubled true-
believers that they be enabled to return to their mother tongue and motherland
of old (McRae 1975).
The stresses and strains of shift can be all the more obvious when it is social
rather than territorial\political diglossia that obtains. Basically two different
subpatterns can constitute the societal counterpart to resolution three.
Although both are equally instances of Β —• A = A + Β, one realizes the
A Β
right-hand side of the equation as — , and the other, as —. In the first instance
the intrusive language remains as the common vernacular whereas the indige-
nous language is retained for Η functions alone. This is, in part, the anomolous
position of Irish today, particularly outside of the Gaeltacht (Western coastal)
region, such that Irish has been "kicked upstairs", so to speak, and is used only
for various ceremonial purposes, whereas instrusive English (Hiberno-English
to be sure) has become the vernacular of Irishmen and Irishness.2 A similar
situation pertained with respect to Judeo-Aramaic ( = Aramic or Targumic) in
ancient days when it increasingly displaced Hebrew as the Jewish vernacular
until the latter was retained only in hallowed functions (Weinreich 1979).
Judeo-Aramaic itself was subsequently displaced as a vernacular by other
Jewish languages and was vestigially retained as a co-hallowed variety, along-
side and intermixed with Hebrew, as the co-language of two millenia of sacred
and hallowed Loshn Koydesh texts.
Far more common is the second sub-pattern of resolution 3, namely, that in
which the intrusive language Β is retained for Η functions, displacing the
indigenous or otherwise prior H, whereas indigenous A is maintained in its
prior venacular functions. This pattern is illustrated by the various central
administrative languages of empire in classical Eastern Mediterranean antiquity
¿f. language Maintenance and Ethnicity 69
(Lewis 1976). They replaced each other rather completely as administrative Hs

(Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc.), leaving the local verna-
culars relatively untouched (except in the cases of more powerfully impacted
populations and places, where these Hs ultimately became vernacularized or
fused with local vernaculars). These classical situations are rather similar to
current H uses of English, French and other languages inherited from periods
of colonization (e.g. Chinese in Tibet and Russian in Outer Mongolia). Their H
statuses are obvious in presumably post-colonial areas that are still highly
dependent on their former colonizers for economic, political and educational
guidance and assistance (Fishman, Cooper & Conrad 1977).
The strain in both of the above-mentioned sub-patterns of societal diglossia
is the strain toward equalization or symmetry. Movements arise for the re-
vernacularization of asymmetric Hs i.e., of Hs that were once also Ls but that
lost all vernacular functions. Of these movements the vernacularization of
Hebrew has succeeded (and, as a result, has endangered the longevity of all
other Jewish vernaculars (Fishman 1978) whereas those on behalf of Irish,
Sanskrit, Classical and Classized Greek, Latin and Classical Arabic have not.
Similarly, movements arise for the elevation of asymmetric Ls (i.e., of Ls that
were once also Hs but that lost all Η-culture functions). The movements on
behalf of Catalán, Galician and Occitan today and on behalf of Flemish prior to
World War II were of this type. Even where Ls never had H varieties and H
functions of their own (e.g., in the case of Pilipino or, generally speaking,
Yiddish) there is a strain to develop and to devise such, almost as a moral
imperative and as a strain toward closure, toward completion, toward local self-
dignity and self-respect, particularly if there is a proto-elite whose power
position would benefit from such elevation. Thus, these latter strains are easily
ethnically encumbered and expressed and they contribute to movements of
ethnic cultural autonomy and political self-determination.
ETHNICITY AS STABILIZER, DESTABILIZER AND

RESTABILIZER
In each of the resolutions that we have reviewed above, we have encountered

ethnicity (in the form of ethnic revivals, returns to ethnic roots, ethnic mem-
ories and loyalties) as a potential source of destabilization. Although it is true
that ethnicity can be appealed to and can function in this fashion (Fishman
1972), it is, however, by no means true that déstabilisation of past patterns (be
these of societal allocations of language functions or of any other culture
patterns) is any more part and parcel of the basic phenomenon of ethnicity than
is the opposite tendency: the stabilisation of societal patterns. Indeed, each and
every one of the above resolutions can (and, if undisturbed, ultimately does)
ηο I Histórica/, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
develop its own sense of ethnic normalcy, naturalness and legitimacy, i.e., it is
subject to being stabilized in terms of ethnic authenticity rather than merely to
being destabilized on such grounds. It is all the more crucial, therefore, that we
have a clear understanding of ethnicity perse and of its seemingly inevitable link
to language in general and to language maintenance in particular.
Generically, "ethnicity" pertains to "peopleness", i.e., to actions, values,
views or attributions pertaining to belonging to a people. As with many other
social behaviors, actors and attributors may not agree with respect to "people-
ness" behaviors and attributions. We (outsiders) may call people "communists"
who do not think they (insiders) are communists or even know what commun-
ism is. Similarly, outsiders may call others (insiders) Irish, or Puerto Ricans or
Ruthenians who do not themselves call themselves such and who do not even
think they are such. Whenever "outsiders" (particularly a class of outsiders
known as social scientists) and "insiders" do not agree on social designations,
that itself is worthy of study, but it does not invalidate the outsider's designa-
tion any more than when certain outsiders designate "phonemes" or refer to
"prose" in other people's speech, even though the others have never been
aware of either phonemes or prose. Certainly, a societal phenomenon and awareness
of that phenomenon are not one and the same thing. Thus, ethnicity (like most other
societally patterned phenomena) can exist either with awareness or without
awareness on the part of members of social aggregates. Note, however, that
ethnicity with awareness is likely to be something quite a bit different from
ethnicity without it (just as prose differs when speakers are aware of it and when
they are not).
Ethnicity is "peopleness". i.e., belonging or pertaining to a phenomenologi-
cally complete, separate, historically deep cultural collectivity, a collectivity
polarized on perceived authenticity.· This "belonging" is experienced and
interpreted physically (biologically), behaviorally (culturally) and phenomeno-
logically (intuitively). Where it is experienced or attributed on only one or
another of these three dimensions it might easily be reduced to other constructs,
but characterized as it is on all three it is a very mystic, moving and powerful
link with the past and an energizer with respect to the present and future. It is
fraught with moral imperatives, with obligations to "one's own kind", and
with wisdoms, rewards and proprieties that are both tangible and intangible.
Above all, in its quiescent state, it is part of the warp-and-woof of daily life, part
of all the customs, traditions, ceremonies and interpretations related to the
collectivity that is defined by them, distinguished by them and responsible for
them. As such, it is language-related to a very high and natural degree, both
overtly (imbedded as it is in verbal culture and implying as it does structurally
dependent intuitions) and covertly (the supreme symbol system quintessentially
symbolizes its users and distinguishes between them and others). Indeed this is
so to such a degree that language and ethnic authenticity may come to be viewed
Language Maintenance and Ethnicity ηι
as highly interdependent. Thus it is that ethnicity is focused on authenticity

(continuity of being, of doing and of knowing) while it is as modifiable (both in
content and in saliency) and as manipulable (that is: consciously used as a basis
of mobilization) as are other bases of human aggregation (economic, religious,
ideological, political) focused on other assumptions and other dimensions.
Ethnicity then, in its unconscious, everyday routines of "we-ness", pheno-
menologically normalizes and indigenizes any particular socialinguistic allo-
cation of functions. Spanish is thereby rendered authentic in Latin America, and
Arabic in the Near East and North Africa, and Yiddish among Ashkenazim.
Although in each case these language initially came "from the outside" they
have been adapted and internalized, at least by most (if not by all) speech
networks in the ethnicity collectivities to which they pertain, and are viewed
now as indigenous, authentic, genuinely their own, part of their daily ethnic
identity. Thus it is that unconscious, unthinking, unmobilized ethnicity comes
to be a great stabilizer of each and any resolution of the Β —> A intrusion. But
the very unconsciousness of the unmobilized ethnicity of ordinary social life
also makes it a potential and a flexible source of untapped energy for elites who
are concerned with changing the status quo to a presumable status quo ante.
NATIONALISM ( = CONSCIOUS, MOBILIZED

ETHNICITY) AND ITS OPPONENTS
The quiet cocoon of routine ethnicity (that protects and provides an implicit
eternity of past authenticity to each of the resolutions we have reviewed) can be
energized, organized and manipulated by proto-elites to counteract or to foster
any particular language-and-ethnicity link and any particular B - > A resolution
that ordinary folk have taken for granted. Thus, guided, exploited, mobilized
(and, therefore, conscious) ethnicity has, particularly in modern times, been one
of the great destabilizers of the status quos so precious to all establishments,
including the pet non-ethnic, supra-ethnic or anti-ethnic establishment that are
preferred by advocates of other-than-ethnic bases of human aggregation. Given
the repeated though unconscious link of language to unconscious ethnicity, its
link to conscious, activated ethnicity ( = nationalism) has been equally recur-
ring and ever so much more dynamic. Conscious ethnicity movements are more
than likely to become or incorporate conscious language movements as well.
Together they seek to foster specific Β —» A resolutions and to undo others.
Language loyalty movements are, therefore, normally part of larger movements
to activate and use unconscious language-and-ethnicity linkages in order to attain
or reallocate econotechnical, political and cultural/educational power. Such
movements are normally part of much larger, more encompassing social
change movements. They stress ethnic identity consciousness (and even ethnic
identity change) in order to attain the ends defined by their proto-elites and,
understandably, they have been much attacked and maligned by the counter-
elites or proto-elites that are threatened by them. Capitalist theoreticians have
attacked language loyalty movements as barbarous and uncivilized for breaking
up capitalist empires (e.g., the former Anglo-empire in Quebec that was headed
in the direction of Β —» A = B, and the former Dutch empire in Friesland that
was headed in a similar direction), and for delivering whole sections of them
into the clutches (and coffers) of counter-establishments. Communist theoret-
icians have attacked language loyalty movements as false and fractionating for
breaking up a larger proletariat (that might be led by a single supra-ethnic
establishment) into smaller proletarian establishments each with its own leader-
ship (Engels 1886). Capitalist elites have rejected minority language loyalty
movements (such as those in regions of Spain or France or Great Britain) as
communist conspiracies. Entrenched Communist elites have rejected minority
language loyalty movements (such as those in Croatia and the Ukraine) as
capitalist conspiracies. "Neutralist" sociologists have attacked language loyalty
movements as chauvinistic ativisms (Patterson 1977), as backward-looking
incivility, as romanticist Gemeinschaft longings in an age of Gesellschaft efficiency
and market-place ethos. N o one, it seems, likes language loyalty movements,
unless they or their favorite causes can profit or gain from them. And yet such
movements abound and their end is not in sight!
Language loyalty movements are most commonly associated with attempts
to foster and focus modernization via channeling and exploiting authenticity
longings. Beginning with the various disappointments of failed or flawed Β —» A
resolutions, these movements utilize language as a medium for reaching the
largest possible target population and as a symbol of the purported "authen-
ticity," "unity" and "mission" of that population. Thus, it is through language
loyalty movements that ethnicity becomes a conscious, organized, and dynamic
factor in language shift, since every language maintenance movement, from the
point of view of what is the "marked" language at any particular time and in any
particular place (e.g., on behalf of French in Quebec in 1970), is also a factor in
language shift from the point of view of the "unmarked language" (e.g., with
respect to English in Quebec as of 1970). Clearly, language loyalty movements
are consciously mobilized and manipulated attempts to utilize ethnicity bonds
and ethnicity affect and action potential for the purposes of establishing or
disestablishing a particular societal allocation of language functions. Whereas
everyday, unconscious ethnicity is quietly involved in the myriad of daily
actions that go into language maintenance and language shift, heightened and
politicized ethnicity movements, including language loyalty movements as part
and parcel of the entire nationalism thrust, are involved in conscious and often
rowdy publicity-seeking actions on behalf of language maintenance or language
shift. Such movements typically seek to alter the laws, to prohibit the social
dependency relationships, and to dislocate populations from those traditional

socialization and related practices that resulted in or fostered undesirable Β —• A
resolutions, regardless of whether those were consciously or unconsciously
implemented.
RESOLUTIONS AND COUNTERRESOLUTIONS: AN

ENDLESS PROGRESSION
We live in a world of tensions and countertensions, of movements and counter-

movements, of revolutions and counterrevolutions. Accordingly many modern-
language loyalty movements are attempts to effect counterresolutions to the
Β —• A resolutions that preceded them. However, even when they succeed as
such, they too may no more be final resolutions than were the ones that they
came to overturn. Successful counterestablishments become establishments in
their own right and subsequent counterestablishments may ultimately arise to
contest or reform them. After some two centuries of such language-related
resolutions and counterresolutions, in pursuit of solutions to the dilemmas of
modernization, two seemingly contradictory trends seem to have been
strengthened:
(a) More languages than ever before have been recognized for governmental
and governmentally protected functions, their number having risen from 30 to
approximately 200 in the present century alone (Deutsch 1942, Fishman 1976).
(b) A single lingua franca—English—has spread further than ever before for
supra-local econotechnical, political, diplomatic, educational and touristic pur-
poses (Fishman, Cooper and Conrad 1977).
The above two processes seem to be sufficiently counterbalanced—socio-

functionally and in terms of the power and stability of the rewards associated
with each of them—that the likelihood of either one swamping the other in the
near future seems rather negligible on any but a very local scale or brief period.
Furthermore, neither process seems yet to have run its course so as to reach its
outer limits. While (or, perhaps, also because) additions to the ranks of "stan-
dard," "national" and "officiai" languages can still be expected, particularly in
the Third World, international reliance on English is also increasing, with
Mainland China, the Arab world and even the U.S.S.R. constantly increasing
their utilization of this "latter-day Aramaic." Finally, these two processes are
guided by equally modernized and language conscious elites and, therefore,
neither is likely to be found ideologically wanting in terms of long term or short
term rationales.
As a result of the "stand o f f " illustrated by the two above-mentioned
international processes, a bilingual compromise may come to be resorted to
m o r e a n d m o r e f r e q u e n t l y , at least o u t s i d e o f the E n g l i s h m o t h e r - t o n g u e w o r l d .
S u c h a c o m p r o m i s e w i l l n o t o n l y r e c o g n i z e E n g l i s h a n d local s t a n d a r d lan-
g u a g e s as b e i n g in c o m p l e m e n t a r y d i s t r i b u t i o n , b u t it w i l l a l s o set t h e s t a g e f o r
t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f e v e n m o r e h i t h e r t o - u n r e c o g n i z e d l a n g u a g e s , t h e latter t w o
seeking a complementary distribution of functions between themselves and
l o c a l l y s u p e r - p o s e d l a n g u a g e s . A l l o f these p r o c e s s e s , in t u r n , u n d e r l i e the truly
a m a z i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l g r o w t h in e n r i c h m e n t b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n since the e n d
o f W o r l d W a r I I . W h i l e Β —> A t e n s i o n s c o n t i n u e t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d , m o r e
a n d m o r e a u t h o r i t i e s are e x p e r i m e n t i n g w i t h l a n g u a g e p l a n n i n g — o f which
b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n is o n e e x a m p l e — i n o r d e r t o find a w a y o u t o f the endless
c h a i n o f r e s o l u t i o n s a n d c o u n t e r r e s o l u t i o n s that has t y p i f i e d sociolinguistic
policy heretofore. Instead of c o o p t i n g proto-elites by translinguifying and
t r a n s e t h n i f y i n g t h e m , t h e y are n o w m o r e a n d m o r e f r e q u e n t l y g i v e n a w e l l
c o n t r o l l e d a n d d e l i m i t e d " s h a r e o f t h e a c t i o n " a m o n g their " o w n k i n d " w h i l e at
the s a m e t i m e , t h e y o b t a i n a c c e s s t o the l a n g u a g e o f w i d e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d
s o m e o f its r e s u l t as w e l l . VCill it w o r k ? O n l y t i m e w i l l tell.
NOTES
ι. I do not intend to pause here to examine the methodological and conceptual issues of when a
language is " l o s t " , i.e., of how we can recognise that language shift has occurred with respect to
particular societal functions and with respect to mother-tongue functions in particular. There
is a justifiably extensive technical literature on this topic, much of which has been reviewed
most recently in Fishman 1977. A somewhat related literature is that dealing with language
spread. Language spread does not necessarily imply language shift, since languages can
spread into new (culturally unprecedented) functions and, thereby, not engender language
shift with respect to previously existing functions of the speech community. The literature on
language spread has been reviewed by Cooper 1982. The present paper may be considered as
picking up the language spread trail at a more advanced point than that which is of concern to
Cooper, i.e., at the point when language spread has impinged upon previously existing language
functions and, therefore, when it has changed from being merely language spread to being
language shift as well. For the very final stages of language shift see Dorian (1977) and
Dressier (1977) on language death.
2. Actually the complete formula for most parts of Ireland would probably require Β —• A =
A + Β
— g — since English is encountered both in H and in L pursuits. A t any rate, Irish is
now generally devoid of vernacular functions (particularly outside of the Gaeltachf) and is in
danger of being "respected to death" in its honorific H functions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benton, Richard A . Problems and prospects for indigenous languages and bilingual education in
N e w Zealand and Oceania, in B . Spolsky and R . L . Cooper (eds.). Case Studies in Bilingual
Education. Rowley, Newbury House, 1978, 126—166.
4- Language Maintenance and Ethnicity η 5
Billigmeier, R.H. Crisis in Swiss Pluralism. The Hague, Mouton, 1979.

Colloque/Colloquium. Linguistic Minorities and Interventions: Towards a Typology, Quebec, Laval
University Press, 1978.
Cooper, R.L. A framework for the study of language spread, in his (ed.), Language Spread: Studies in
Diffusion and Social Change. Bloomington and Washington, D.C., Indiana University Press and
Center for Applied Linguistics, 1982, 5 - 3 6 .
Deutsch, Karl. The trend of European nationalism—the language aspect. American Political Science
Review, 1942, 3 6 , 5 3 3 - 5 4 1 ; also in J . A . Fishman ed. Readings in the Sociology of Language. The
Hague, Mouton, 1968, 598-606.
Eastman, Carol M. Language reintroduction: activity and outcome language planning. General
Linguistics, 1979, 19, 99— i l i .
Engels, F. What have the working classes to do with Poland? Commonwealth, 1866, March 24, March
31, May 5.
Falch, J. Contributions à l'étude du statut des langues en Europe. Quebec, Laval Univ. Press 1972.
Fishman, J . A . et al. Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966.
Fishman, J . A . Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays. Rowley, Newbury House, 1972.
Fishman, J . A . Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective. Rowley, Newbury
House, 1976.
Fishman, J . A . The spread of English as a new perspecitve for the study of language maintenance
and language shift, inhis(etal.) The Spread of English, Rowley, Newbury House, 1 9 7 7 , 1 0 8 - 1 3 6 .
Fishman, J . A . The sociolinguistic "normalization" of the Jewish people, in E . Polome (ed.),
Archibald Hill Festschrift IV. The Hague, Mouton, 1978, 2 2 3 - 2 3 1 .
Fishman, J . A . Bilingualism and biculturism as individual and as societal phenomena, journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1980, 1, 3 - 1 5 . Revised as Chapter 3, This Volume.
Fishman, J. Α., R.L. Cooper and A. W. Conrad et al. The Spread of English. Rowley, Newbury House,
1977·
Heath, Shirley B. A national language academy? Debate in the new nation. International Journal of the
Sociolog/ of Language, 1977, 1 1 , 9 - 4 4 .
Hudson-Edwards, A . and G.D. Bills. Intergenerational language shift in an Albuquerque barrio, in
Jon Amastae and Lucía Elias Olivares (eds.), Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic Aspects.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982, 135—153.
Kreindler, Isabelle. The Changing Status of Russian in the Soviet Union. International Journal of the
Sociologi of Language. 1982, no. 33 (entire issue).
Lewis, E . G . Multilingualism in the Soviet Union. The Hague, Mouton, 1972.
Lewis, E . G . Bilingualism and bilingual education: The ancient world to the Renaissance, in J . A .
Fishman, Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective. Rowley, Newbury House,
1976, 150—200.
Lieberson, and T . J . Curry. Language shift in the United States: some demographic clues.
International Migration Review, 1971, j, 1 2 5 - 1 3 7 .
López, David E. Chicano language loyalty in an urban setting. Sociology and Social Research. 1976, 62,
167-175.
López, David E. The Maintenance of Spanish over Three Generations in the United States. Los Alamitos.
National Center for Bilingual Research, 1982.
Mallea, J.R, (ed.) Quebec's Language Policies: Background and Response. Quebec, Laval Univ. Press,
1977·
McRae, K . D . The principle of territoriality and the principle of personality in multilingual states.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 1 9 7 5 , 4 , 3 3 - 5 4 .
McRae, K.D. Conflict and Compromise in Multilingual Societies: Switzerland. Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier
Nahirny, V . and J . A . Fishman. American immigrant groups: ethnic identification and the problem
of generations. (British) Sociological Review, 1965, 13, 3 1 1 - 3 2 6 .
Nahirny, V. and J.A. Fishman. Ukrainian language maintenance efforts in the United States, in J . A .
Fishman et al. Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966, 318-357.
Patterson, Orlando. Ethnic Chauvinism: The Reactionary Impulse. New York, Stein and Day, 1977.
Savara, J . G . and Vigneault, R. (eds.) Multilingual Political Systems: Problems and Solutions. Quebec,
Laval Univ. Press, 197;.
Silver, B. The impact of urbanization and geographical dispersion on the linguistic Russification of
Soviet nationalities. Demography 1974, 1 1 , 89-103.
Skrabanek, R.L. Language maintenance among Mexican-Americans. International Journal of Com-
parative Sociology. 1970, i t , 272—282.
Tabouret-Keller, Andrée (ed.). Regional Languages in France. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language. 1981, no. 29 (entire issue).
Touret, B. L'Aménagement constitutionnel des Etats de peuplement composite. Quebec, Laval Univ. Press,
1972.
Veltman, Calvin. Language Shift in the United States. Berlin, Mouton, 1983.
Weinreich, M. History of the Yiddish Language. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1979 ( = vols. 1
and 2 of the original four-volume Yiddish edition, 1973; translated into English by S. Noble and
J.A. Fishman.)
Chapter 5
"Nothing New Under the Sun": A Case Study

of Alternatives in Language and Ethnocultural
Identity
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN
Today, in almost all of the Western world (and in the ethnopolitically con-
solidated and econotechnically modernized world more generally), nothing
seems more "natural" than the current linkage between a particular ethno-
cultural identity and its associated language. For Frenchmen, that language is
French and for Spaniards it is Spanish. What could be more "natural"?
However, by their very nature, cultures are primarily conventional rather than
truly natural arrangements and, therefore, even these links, apparently natural
though they seem, need to be examined more carefully, perhaps even more
naively, and such fundamental questions as "Was it always so?" and "Why,
when or how did it become so?" need to be raised. Such questions commonly
reveal that what is considered "natural" today was not always considered to be
so, not only because of lack of awareness (even today there may be Frenchmen
who are not conscious of French as a reflection of, a symbol of and a contributor
to their identity), but because even those few who were originally aware of the
functions of language in the above ways were themselves of different minds and
purposes.
That such alternative programs (and, therefore, alternative language-and-
ethnicity linkages) exist is frequently recognized among specialists who have
studied pre-modern ethnocultural configurations. "Who are the Lue?"
Mooreman asks (1965) and provides a host of different views both by outsiders
(neighbors of those whom some call Lue) and by insiders (those who sometimes
call themselves Lue), in which the ethnocultural designation, the language
designation and the link between the two all show variation. Similar cases are
more difficult to find in contemporary Europe, but they are not completely
unknown even there, particularly among some of its eastern and southern
Slavic groups (see, e.g., Mogocsi 1978 on the Subcarpathian Rus). In less-
developed and/or less-consolidated settings (and the U.S.A. may well be one of
the latter), instances such as these are much more common. All such cases,
wherever they occur, lead us to be more sensitive to the possibility of earlier,
less consolidated periods (or regions) in the development of ethnolinguistic
identity even among those populations for whom current linkages have lasted
for centuries, and, even more decidedly, to sensitize us to changes in ethnicity
and in language and ethnicity linkages that are ongoing today (see, e.g., LePage
and Tabouret-Keller 1982).
Still rarer, however, is a case such as the one to be examined here, in which
ethnocultural identity per se is well established, both by internal and by external
definitions, but its "natural" vernacular language counterpart is still symbolically
unfinaliêd and, therefore, subject to widely differing programmatic formu-
lations. The case itself pertains to early 19th-century Eastern European Jewish
society, but its problems are generalizable to the late modernization of other
societies with intact sacro-classical traditions. In such societies (other major
examples of which are the Greek case in Europe, the Islamic Arabic case in the
Near East and North Africa, the Tamil case in South Asia and the Mandarin
Chinese case in East Asia), diglossia 1 between what are consensually viewed as
"separate languages" has persisted long after its disappearance in Western
Europe. In Western Europe, the typical diglossie pattern H/L began to be
resolved in favor of the vernaculars even before the Reformation ended in the
full triumph of the latter as symbols of national identity. This process began first
in the Atlantic seacoast countries with massification of participation in com-
merce, industry and armed service. In Central and Eastern Europe, however,
the domination of former or current sacroclassical languages for serious writing
continued much longer so that German, Russian and finally Italian achieved full
general recognition as vernaculars symbolic of national identity and worthy of
governmental, literary and educated usage only by the 18th century. Thereafter
in Europe, the pattern L H / L L (instead of former H/L) in which varieties of the
former L are used for both formal/written and informal/spoken functions was
denied only to minorities that lacked state apparatuses under their own control,
a denial which implicitly recognized the dynamic as well as the symbolic nature
of the language and ethnicity link (Fishman 1972). For Jews and Greeks,
however, no such resolution was possible for yet other reasons. Sacroclassical
languages continued to reign supreme for them, both functionally and symboli-
cally, and their vernaculars remained in the shadows on both accounts.
THE TRADITIONAL JEWISH VERNACULAR ROLES
H/L is not an adequate formulaic representation of the role of Jewish verna-

culars in traditional Jewish society. Jewish vernaculars (Yavanic in Greece,
/. Alternatives in lânguage and Ethnocultural Identity 79
Judezmo in Spain and then in the Balkans, Chuadit in Provense, 2 Tsarfatic in

France, Italkic in Italy, Yiddish in Germany and then in Eastern Europe,
Yahudic in most Moslem lands) always had more than spoken vernacular
functions. Indeed, they were regularly used for such sanctity-proximate func-
tions as the oral, written (later printed) translation of prayers, oral (later
printed) translation of Bible and of Talmud 3 and as the discourse language for
the study of Talmud (Fishman 1981a). Note, however, that although these
vernaculars were admitted into the pale of sanctity, they never functioned
independently or exclusively in that pale. They were always merely co-present
in the realm of sanctity as assisting, attending, serving vehicles rather than as
primary or exclusive ones. Thus, even though the true societal allocation of
languages to social functions in traditional Jewish communities was a complex
one, 4 the vernacular alone was never in full sway in any H function. At the point
at which our case begins, toward the end of the 18th century, several earlier
attempts at promoting Yiddish, the then 900-year-old Central and Eastern
European Jewish vernacular, to serious H functions had already failed. 5
However, the spread of modern ideas and processes into Eastern Europe
guaranteed that additional attempts would be made, resisted and defended. Not
since the times of Aramaic had a Jewish vernacular been a major bone of inter-
rabbinic Jewish contention. 6 With the coming of modernization in Eastern
Europe, a century and a half of "vernacular debate" was launched in which the
modernizers themselves were far from united as to the solutions that they
advocated. Not only were various vernaculars advocated ( Jewish as well as
non-Jewish) but even Loshn-koydesh—the holy tongue itself—was advocated
for modern purposes, oral as well as written.
THE HASKOLE COMES TO EASTERN EUROPE
Like modernization more generally, vernacular awareness came to Jewish

Eastern Europe from Germany in particular and from "Western Europe" more
generally. Modernization as a diffuse whole was the goal of a movement known
as haskole ("enlightenment"). Since it was an intellectual current more than a
political one, it was variously interpreted and had no real organizational
apparatus. Its ideological/philosophical counterpart had already strongly im-
pacted German Jewry by the time it began to influence Jewish intellectuals in
the eastern Austro-Hungarian Empire (particularly in Galicia 7 ) and in the
western Czarist Empire. Its spokesman and fountainhead in Germany had been
Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1780), and many of its earliest protoganists in
Eastern Europe had been his students during their younger years. However
much they may have differed amongst themselves, they all tended to share three
views: (a) modern knowledge and modern behavior was bringing about major
changes in the co-territorial societies that surrounded Jewish Eastern Europe,

(b) as a result, it was urgent for Jewish society also to change in many ways,
both internally as well as vis-à-vis the co-territorial societies, and (c) it was the
responsibility of Jewish intellectuals to formulate, interpret and guide this
change process for the maximum benefit of the Jewish people as a whole. These
three views were so broad and nebulous that they did not differentiate between
the parent haskole in Germany and its child, the haskole in Eastern Europe. In
reality, however, both with respect to their programs and their consequences,
the two haskoles differed markedly. Whereas the former aimed at sociocultural
and political integration of Jews (redefined only as a religious group: "Germans
of Moses's persuasion") into "society at large" and, therefore, rejected the
notion of separate Jewish kehilas (community councils) or a separate Jewish
vernacular (given that a separate Catholic vernacular or a Protestant vernacular
would have seemed equally superfluous), the latter generally viewed Jews as a
separate ethnocultural entity in need of political rights, on the one hand, and of
economic, educational and cultural modernization, on the other hand.
However, the latter goals were not unambiguous via-à-vis the need for separate
governing community councils or for a separate vernacular (or, even if there
ιvere to be such, maintenance of their unique functions) and, accordingly, these
and other related issues remained "on the agenda" and the Eastern haskole
debated them bitterly and at seemingly interminable length. Insofar as the
"language issue" was concerned, three major views arose: (i) that Yiddish could
serve as the medium of early modernization but that it might very well be
replaced later by Polish or another co-territorial vernacular, (ii) that Hebrew
itself should optimally serve as the vehicle of modernization but that German
might initially need to be used since it was the only "enlightened" language to
which Jews had ready access and (iii) that Yiddish alone was capable of
integrating modernity and tradition in such a way that the new would fit
harmoniously with the old. These three views received their earliest extensive
formulation in Galicia in the first quarter of the 19th century by three bearers of
enlightenment ( = maskilim), M. Mendl Lefin-Satanover, Tuvye Feder and
Yankev Shmuel Bik. The clash between these three left echoes which re-
verberated clearly in the vernacular/cultural programs of Zionism, Bundism
and Folkism, more-focused social, cultural and political movements that came
into being before the century ended or soon thereafter.
MENAKHEM MENDL LEFIN 8 -SATANOVER

(1749-1826)9
Lefin-Satanover was rightly called "the father of the Galician haskole" since
he encouraged many other Jewish intellectuals ("proto-elites," I have called
/. Alternatives in Language and Ethnocultural Identity 81
them elsewhere, 1972) to cultivate and to spread enlightenment among Eastern

European Jews. Although he was an ordained rabbi and an acknowledged
Talmudic master, he also studied mathematics and natural sciences, both in
German and in French, and visited Berlin often so that he could converse with
Mendelssohn (who considered Lefin-Satanover his most important "Polish"
pupil) and with maskilim from the east as well as from the west. He was among
the very first Galician Jewish intellectuals to express the view that it was not
only permissible but incumbent upon Jews to study modern subjects if they
were not only to become citizens of their respective countries but defenders and
adapters of Jewish society in modern contexts. Indeed, Lefin-Satanover
formulated a rather complete program for the intellectual and cultural im-
provement of Jewry. He submitted this plan—written in impeccable French—
to the Polish Sejm. A further indication of Lefin-Satanover's own substantial
interaction with non-Jewish society is certainly the fact that it was his friend and
patron, Count Adam Czprtoryski (whose wife and children he tutored in
various subjects and who had granted him a life-long stipend so that he could
devote himself to scholarship and enlightenment)—a member of the Polish
royal family—who had asked him to prepare such a plan for the Sejm's
Committee on the Jewish Question. Lefin-Satanover's plan (1791/1792) called for
the establishment of Polish public schools for Jewish youngsters. After their
traditional "coming of age" (as 13 year-olds), Jewish boys were to be
required to attend these schools so that they could take courses in mathematics,
natural sciences, modern agricultural methods, Polish history and customs as
well as "rational Jewish subjects" (Maimonides, e.g.), all to be taught in Polish.
The avowed purpose of these schools was to prepare graduates who would
become modern communal leaders and leaders in the struggle against khasid-
ism.10 Although Lefin-Satanover's plan did not elicit any great support in the
Sejm—Poland itself underwent its second partition in 1793 and its third in 1795
and the Polish nobility that served in the Sejm was presumably preoccupied
with more pressing matters—his plan is adequately indicative of his goal: to
combat mysticism, to foster rationalism and to bring Jews into touch with the
modern world in general and with its Jewish counterpart in particular.
Lefin-Satanover was not overly disturbed by the failure of his sweeping

plan to elicit support. He embarked on less ambitious and more piecemeal
"educational efforts." He translated into exceptionally clear and simple Hebrew
the French volume by S.A. Tissot, Avis au peuple sur sa santé (1761), calling it
Refues ho-om (Cures of the People)}1 His did the same for parts of Benjamin
Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac (Kheshbn hanefesh, 1809). In both cases, he
attracted a larger than usual readership for secular writings in Hebrew, not only
because of interest in the material per se, but because he insisted on simple
Hebrew, without flourishes, without biblical metaphors, endless asides, literary
allusions, puns or any of the other stilted conventions that had long dominated
Hebrew writing, whether secular or religious. He obviously wanted his books

to be read by ordinary f o l k . 1 2 Nevertheless, no matter how hard Lefin-
Satanover tried to write in a "simple, understandable and interesting" w a y —
in order to meet his self-imposed obligation (as a maskil) to spread modern
learning among the people, he finally realized that there was no way in which
this goal could be attained as long as Hebrew was his vehicle of communication.
Only through Yiddish, his mother tongue and that of all his readers, could he
really reach everyone (men and women, old and young, rich and poor). Finally, he
decided to do exactly t h a t — t o publish a serious book in Yiddish—regardless
of the break with convention that such a step represented.
LEFIN-SATANOVER'S BIBLE TRANSLATIONS INTO

YIDDISH
The idea to render selected parts of the Old Testament in Yiddish had come to
Lefin-Satanover much earlier, during his visits to the famous German-Jewish
philosopher and modernizer, Moses Mendelssohn, in Berlin, in the late 1770s
and early 1780s. Mendelssohn himself had translated the Pentateuch and
provided his own commentaries thereto (in 1783), both in High German, "in
order that everyone might be able to understand it easily and quickly." Up until
then, only Yiddish translations were available. These were entirely unac-
ceptable to Mendelssohn for three reasons: (i) they were in Yiddish, (ii) they
were in archaic Yiddish and (iii) they were inaccurate. For Mendelssohn,
Yiddish was not only a hideous corruption of German (a view that he adopted
from gentile contemporaries such as Goethe [Low 1979] and that he helped
spread among Jews and gentiles alike), but an utterly objectionable barrier
between German Jews and "other Germans," generally (Mendelssohn 1782).
The fact that some of the contemporary Yiddish translations were poorly done
(certainly so by Mendelssohn's sophisticated and critical standards) and that
they were in an archaic caique variety that was almost as distant from the
everyday Yiddish that German Jews spoke as it was from the standard German
that Mendelssohn wished them to speak, only made his translation (published in
Hebrew characters since the majority of Jews w h o could understand German
could not read the adapted Latin characters [these being termed galkhes, i.e.
"tontured script"]), all the more acceptable to those w h o did not share his
reformist philosophy. However, if it was possible to translate the Bible into
German so that German Jews could understand it easily and quickly, that was
distinctly not a viable solution for the Galician and other Eastern European
Jews whom Lefin-Satanover sought to reach. O v e r the centuries of residence
in Slavic environments, their Yiddish had lost many of its earlier German
features until it was, by Lefin-Satanover's time, far less mutually intercom-
prehensible with standard German than was the far more German Yiddish of
Mendelssohn's "public." Clearly, it was only via Yiddish that Lefin-Satanover
could reach his widest public, whether for the purpose of making the Bible
understandable to everyone or for the purposes of spreading knowledge,
rationality and enlightenment more generally. Lefin-Satanover was always the
rationalist in his approach to Yiddish. He referred to it as a vital instrument if he
were to "bring culture and enlightenment to the Jewish population of Poland"
(in a letter to his subsequently famous student Yoysef Perl, 1808).
As it happened, Lefin-Satanover's translations were clear breaks with long
established tradition—not so much quantitatively (there had been many and
much more extensive translations before his) as qualitatively and visually. He
concentrated on five books of philosophy (Proverbs, Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes
and Lamentations), since he believed them to be particularly likely to move
readers to think for themselves, to reflect and to ponder on their own.
However, only one of these five saw the light of day during his lifetime
(Proverbs, 1813, published in Tarnapol), and it created such a storm that he
abandoned his plans to publish any of the others. What exactly was it that was so
revolutionary about them?
THE REVOLUTIONARY NATURE OF LEFIN-

SATANOVER'S TRANSLATIONS
Lefin's translations departed from the norm of Yiddish-in-print 1 3 in three

dramatically striking ways, all of which have to be considered programmatic
rather than merely idiosyncratic or accidental. T o begin with, his translation
was printed in square Hebrew letters (oysiyes merebues) i.e., in a typeface that
had until then almost always been reserved for printing sanctified texts such as
the prayer book, the Old Testament or Talmud. Although there had already
been some minor precedent for setting aside the centuries-old distinctive type-
face for Yiddish (vaybertaytsh, it was called, i.e., the typeface used in Yiddish
translations or popularizations ostensibly for w o m e n 1 4 ) , the typeface that
Lefin chose was definitely a break with a deeply ingrained and culturally
consensual visual norm. T o set aside that norm was to call attention to an
implicit new status for Yiddish, an implicit independence of Yiddish from
subservience to Loshn-koydesh; it was a rejection of the cultural assumption
that only Loshn-koydesh could utilize oysiyes merebues. It was a visual declaration
of equality or even of accentuation. Such a declaration had been made a century
or more earlier by another rebel and had ended rather sadly in full capitulation
(Stein 1970). 1 5 After Lefin, however, the ice was broken and Yiddish-in-print
never again returned to its previous "segregated" typeface.
However, Lefin's translation of Proverbs caused a storm at the textual level
which greatly surpassed (and outlasted) any hackles that it raised at the visual
level. Basically, this was due to the fact that Lefin also rejected the centuries-old
linguistic-stylistic-substantive tradition with respect to Yiddish translations of
hallowed texts. In accord with that tradition, Yiddish-in-print followed con-
ventions established in Germany literally centuries earlier. As a result, it was
twice removed from the spoken vernacular of Eastern Europe. All written
(printed) language follows a convention of its own and is by no means a faithful
reflection of the language as popularly spoken. However, in the Yiddish case,
perhaps because its serious written/printed functions were always rather tenu-
ous and restricted, this distance was further magnified by the preservation of an
archaic written norm/ Furthermore, in accordance with that norm, the Yiddish
employed was not only heavily impacted by German, both lexically and gram-
matically, but Hebraisms that were completely assimilated into Yiddish were
never employed in translation of words of Loshn koydesh origin. This conven-
tion, of course, further accentuated (artificially so) the Germanic nature of the
translation and further distanced it from spoken Yiddish. Finally, at a more
purely stylistic level, Yiddish translations of holy or sanctified writ were more
than translations; they were also abbreviated commentaries. Since it was as-
sumed that those who needed the translations were incapable of following the
many learned rabbinic commentaries that had been written in Loshn-koydesh
about every nuance of the original texts, the Yiddish translations constantly
departed from the texts themselves in order to provide snatches of those
commentaries. As a result, those Yiddish readers who really could not follow
the Loshn-koydesh original at all could, at times, be quite unsure as to what in
the translation was text and what was commentary, since the latter was often
unidentified as such while being interwoven with the former.
In one fell (but very deft, very sophisticated, very delicately orchestrated)
literary swoop, Lefin abandoned all three of the above conventions. 16 His
translation of Proverbs approximated popularly spoken Yiddish to such an
extent that even today, 170 years later, it strikes the reader as somewhat overly
"familiar," "informal" or folksy," much more so, e.g., than does the superb
modern Yiddish translation of the complete Old Testament by Yehoyesh
(completed some 120 years after Lefin's work). However, not only did Lefin
utilize slavisms and contractions galore (indeed, he may have purposely over-
used them), all of them implying popular speech and all of them reinforcing the
distance that modern Eastern European Yiddish had traveled over centuries
from its Germanic origins, but he did not hesitate to translate Loshn-koydesh
terms in the originals with their corresponding Loshn-koydesh equivalents in
Yiddish as long as the latter were fully indigenized and widely employed. This,
too, or course, accentuated the autonomy of Yiddish from its German (and non-
Jewish) origins and stressed its distinctly Jewish nature. 1 7
Finally, Lefin's translation was precisely that and no more. There were no
j. Alternatives in hanguage and Ethnocultural Identity 85
commentaries, no asides to help the reader, no paraphrasing of diverse

rabbinic insights over the centuries. There was only the translated text, beauti-
fully, movingly, sensitively rendered. Whoever wanted more than that would
have to study further, just as did those w h o had access to the original. Like any
really competent translation, therefore, Lefin's work led the really serious
reader back to the original rather than replacing it, it encouraged further
independent study rather than implying that the reader could g o no further.
Although Lefin's motives are still subject to interpretation (some Yiddish
scholars still refuse to attribute to him a truly positive attitude toward
Yiddish), 1 8 his conscientious approach to the task he had undertaken is beyond
doubt. In one of his letters, he put it this way: " . . . to exert myself to
approximate it [the Yiddish of his translation] to our language and to distance it
from German . . . exactly as it is spoken nowadays among us . . . the language of
our eastern Podolye." 19
It seems to me that such conscientiousness, such awareness of Ausbau,20 such

sensitivity to the flavor of slavisms and hebraisms, implies not only stylistic
artistry but the furthering of a program of action in which Yiddish would
exercise new symbolic functions. In his translations, Lefin was carrying forward
his original plan submitted to the tottering Polish Sejm in 1791-92: a plan to
fashion Jews into a more modern people, a people fully in touch with its own
tradition but yet capable of adapting it, adding to it selectively by controlled
contact with surrounding cultures, evaluating it (thinking it through) by means
of more massive participation in these processes rather than merely by means of
blind reliance on rabbinic authorities, on the one hand, or on foreign m o d e l s —
even highly regarded German m o d e l s — o n the other hand. Indeed, not only
would we miss the significance of Lefin were we to interpret his translation as a
mere stylistic achievement today, but we would be unable to explain the
controversy that immediately arose in connection with it then, when it appeared.
It was viewed programmatically both by those w h o reviled it as well as by those
w h o defended it. T o do any less today would be tantamount to seeing things
less clearly today, with the passage of time, than they were seen by the maskilim
of that very day and age.
TUVYE FEDER AND THE ATTACK UPON LEFIN'S

TRANSLATION
N o t only was Lefin's translation brutally critized qua translation but its clearly-
sensed promotion of Yiddish was rejected precisely on those grounds. The self-
proclaimed "leader of the opposition" faction of maskilim was T u v y e Gutman
Feder ( 1760-1817), a well-known grammarian, Old Testament scholar and, like
most maskilim of that time, a dedicated follower of Mendelssohn. Although
similar in background to Lefin, in many ways (Feder, too, was a Galitsianer, i.e.,
born and educated in Galitsiye, and was widely read in Western languages,
particularly German), Feder was far less fortunate with respect to earning the
wherewithal to feed, clothe and house his family and himself. Disinclined, as
were also most maskilim, to earn his livelihood by means of serving as a rabbi of
a particular community, and unable to receive support, as did Lefin, from any
major benefactor so that he might be able to spend his life in quiet and
productive scholarship, Feder and his family were constantly on the move in
search of funds. Not only did he frequently have to stoop to such time-
consuming but traditionally low-paying pursuits as scribe, reader (of the weekly
lection), cantor and preacher, but he was forced, on occasion, to write flattering
doggerel about wealthy Jewish as well as non-Jewish "personages" in the hope
of some monetary reward. Accordingly, he acclaimed Czar Alexander I for his
victory over Napoleon in a lengthy poem, Hatslokhes aleksander ( = The
Triumph of Alexander), and was constantly on the look out for an opportunity
to come to greater attention in some potentially rewarding connection.
Although Lefin's translation of Proverbs provided him with a seemingly perfect
chance to do just that, it also enabled him to express views that both he and
other maskilim believed deeply and had subscribed to previously, albeit in less-
focused fashion.
Indeed, Lefin's translation seems to have struck Feder as virtually a personal
afront. Not only was he irked by its apparent advocacy of "common/vulgar
Yiddish," but he was exasperated that a fellow maskil could so falsely interpret
and so foully mishandle the mission of the haskole and the goals of its great
leader, Moses Mendelssohn. In order to publicize his defense of the true
haskole, as he interpreted it, Feder authored a lengthy and bitter attack on Lefin
and on his work. Since he lacked the funds necessary to publish his work, he
circulated it in manuscript form among other maskilim, in order both to
publicize it as well as to raise the funds that would enable him to have it printed.
The literary form of his attack, entitled Kol mekhatsetsim : sikbe beoylem haneshomes
(Voice of the Archers: A Discussion in the World of the Spirits), was that of a
heavenly trial in which maskilim of various earlier periods gathered to indict
Lefin. They charged—in Feder's characteristically intemperate prose—that
Lefin's translation was full of filth and that it literally stank to high heaven.
"Whoever sees it runs away. It should be hacked to pieces. It should be burned
in fire. Its name should never be recalled. The foul scroll, which the prema-
turely senile Lefin has penned . . . seeks only to find grace in the eyes of
concubines and maidens/old maids and even they flee from it saying: 'Are there
not enough madmen without him?' " The maskil Isaac Eichel, who had trans-
lated Proverbs into High German only some few decades before, charged Lefin
with committing treason against Mendelssohn. "He spits in the face of refined
speakers; only the language of the coarse find grace in his eyes." This "vulgar
language" is variously referred to as a mixture of all tongues, a gibberish, a

monstrosity. No wonder, then, that the heavenly court finally rules that Lefin's
work must be burned and its ashes discarded in a cesspool!
Feder's hyperbole both confuses and lays bare quite a variety of purported
shortcomings insofar as Lefin's translation is concerned. One of the themes that
almost all of Lefin's heavenly prosecutors stress is the purportedly unaesthetic
nature of Yiddish relative to either Loshn-koydesh, on the one hand, or High
German, on the other. This view went considerably beyond Mendelssohn's
own dictum as to the so-called dwarfed and disfigured nature of Yiddish
(interestingly enough, Mendelssohn himself was a hunchback) and referred to
Lefin's well-known rejection of the florid phraseology and the high-flown
rhetoric that typified the Hebrew style of most other maskilim. Lefin had
ridiculed that very style (known as melitse) as "impenetrable without prior oral
explanation by the author." He had consistently sought to avoid the melitse style
from his very earliest writings in Hebrew and had only embarked on his Yiddish
translations when he was clearly convinced that even a simple and direct
Hebrew was a barrier to comprehension that most Jews could not cross. Thus,
Lefin was a twofold enemy, since he was an opponent to elegant, sophisticated
usage even when he wrote Loshn koydesh. Feder's stress on elegance (in Loshn-
koydesh if possible, but in High German at the very least) was not merely an
aesthetic whim. It reflected the conviction that only those who controlled and
practiced the florid and platitudinous melitse style were worthy of intellectual
leadership among Jews. It was not only Loshn-koydesh, therefore, that had to
remain the symbolic language of Jewish modernization (yes, Feder, too, was a
champion of modernization; all of his grammatical and biblical analyses clearly
identifying him as breaking with rabbinic scholarship and its traditional legalis-
tic focus), but it had to be that variety of Loshn-koydesh that was furthest from
what the ordinary Jew could possibly fathom. Lefin, on the other hand, had not
only opted for as much transparency and nonelitism as possible in his Loshn-
koydesh but had taken the next step, to ultimate transparency and non-elitism in
print, namely, to contemporary spoken Yiddish per se. From Feder's point of
view, Lefin and he stood polls apart even were they both to write in Loshn-
koydesh; given, however, that Lefin had chosen to bring enlightenment in
Yiddish, "a language of darkness," he was clearly a renegade beyond the pale.
In Feder's view, modernization would transform Jewish life without reach-

ing the stage that Lefin had striven for from the outset: the stage in which each
Jew had access to basic Jewish and modern sources and was capable of thinking
these through himself without recourse to khasidic or other mystic obfuscation.
Accordingly, Feder firmly believed that traditional Jewish diglossia required
hardly any adjustment at all for the purposes of modernization. Loshn-koydesh
would remain in its H position but would be used for both traditional and
modern purposes. If its symbolic status as representing, embodying the foster-
ing the highest Jewish intellectual order required any supplementation at all,
then obviously this should come only from High German, the unchallenged
language of modernization par excellence in all of Eastern and Central Europe.
For Feder, Yiddish played no role at all in the symbolic order of Jewry. For
Lefin Yiddish at least had an effective mission to perform, a utilitarian service to
discharge. If Lefin came to Yiddish without any illusions as to its beauty, its
dignity, or its traditional validity as a Jewish medium, nevertheless, as a
pragmatist he wanted it to be used effectively, movingly, tellingly, as the major
carrier (at least initially ) of Jewish modernisation.
YANKEV SHMUEL BIK (1772-1831) AND THE

DEFENSE OF YIDDISH
Both Lefin and Feder had their followers and the dispute between them quickly
engulfed the still rather small world of Eastern European maskilim, even though
Feder's manuscript was no more than just that and literally had to be passed
around from hand to hand. However, it was quite clear that Lefin was by far the
more highly regarded and better connected of the two, if only because of his
longer and more distinguished record of intellectual contributions to haskole,
the many students whom he had added to the ranks of the maskilim and his
many wealthy patrons, Jewish as well as Polish (the latter making him a figure
to be respected if not admired). As a result, many arose to defend him more out
of rejection of Feder's untempered and irresponsible diatribe than out of any
basic agreement with Lefin's program or the implicit role of Yiddish therein.
However, his main defender, Yankev Shmuel Bik, a former student and long-
time admirer of Lefin's, not only agreed with what Lefin had done but outdid
him, particularly in his advocacy of Yiddish as a symbol of the very best in the
Eastern European tradition. Bik, too, like most other maskilim of the time and,
most particularly, like Lefin, translated a considerable number of works from
German, French and even English into Loshn-koydesh. Like Lefin, he was also
greatly preoccupied with the need for "productivization" of the small town
Jewish poor. Being independently wealthy (even more so than Lefin), he
devoted a good bit of his time and money to encouraging Jews to enter
agriculture and the artisan trades. He also supported many scholars and writers
(as well as "would be" scholars and writers)—including Lefin himself during
certain years—thereby enabling them to devote themselves uninterruptedly to
their studies and writings and enabling him to become more fully aware of the
gaps and contradictions in their thinking. This thorough familiarity ultimately
contributed to his unique view among maskilim that haskole lacked involvement,
lacked follow-through, indeed that it was "cerebral" to such a degree that it
lacked warmth, feeling and "love for Jews as concrete people" as contrasted
with "concern for Jews as an abstract problem." This stress on concrete and all-
/. Alternatives in lânguage and Ethnocultural Identity 89
embracing love for Jews led Bik ultimately to demand greater toleration and
even admiration for khasidism. It was to kbasidism that he bade the haskole look if
it were ever to learn to do more than educate, criticize or scold Jews. A khasidic
rabbi cared for his flock, helped them in time of need, comforted them in time of
sorrow. Bik saw no need to surrender these admirable traditional virtues in the
process of modernization; least of all did he want to displace Jewish
Gemeinschaft by a maskilic Gesellschaft (Tonnies 1957 [1887]).
In 1815, some two years after Feder's manuscript had initially become
known, Bik's reply, in the form of a lengthy letter, made the same rounds, from
hand to hand, among Eastern European maskilim. Bik's defense of Yiddish
constitutes the very heart and core of his letter, clearly indicating once again
that much, much more than personal animosities and stylistic preferences lay at
the very foundation of the disagreement between Lefin and Feder. Indeed, Bik's
defense of Yiddish became the classic defense of that language, repeated by all
its ideological champions (as distinct from its various pragmatic implementers)
ever since. Bik's letter made the following three major points:
ι . Yiddish has been the language of Jewish traditional life for centuries. Bik lists the
names of the greatest and most revered sages of Central and Eastern European
Jewry during the past many centuries and reminds Feder (and all opponents of
Yiddish) that they all spoke Yiddish, taught their students in Yiddish and
discussed and defended their Talmudic interpretations with other scholars in
Yiddish. This being the case, Bik argues, it is incumbent upon Feder (and
others) to respect this vernacular and even to honor it. 2 1 Furthermore, Bik
adds, other Old Testament translations in Yiddish have existed in appreciable
numbers before, going back to the Mirkeves hamishne of 1534 and the ever
popular, revised and reprinted Pentateuch for women, Tsene-urene (1628). These
were all righdy admired and highly valued for spreading familiarity with the
Old Testament among ordinary, less educated men and women. There is no
reason, Bik concludes, for Lefin's translation to be viewed any differently. Here,
of course, Bik sidesteps the issue of modernization and the possible role of
Yiddish as symbolic of Jewish mastery of modern subjects, modern roles and
modern responsibilities. Modern challenges and modern solutions are ques-
tionable verities. Bik, therefore, related Yiddish to the unquestioned great
names and books of the past. In this way, he assures its positive historicity
against Feder's charges of corruption and bastardization.
2. Other modernising nationalities do not hesitate to utilise their vernaculars to improve
the lot of the everyday man. By arguing via analogy with the peoples of Central and
Western Europe—and thereby avoiding comparisons with many Eastern
European nationalities whose vernaculars were still generally unrecognized for
serious purposes, symbolic or pragmatic—Bik turns the tables on Feder. To
deny Jews the use of Yiddish in the course of their modernization is to deny
them a major avenue to knowledge which all modern nationalities of Europe
were clearly delighted to have. Via their vernaculars even peasants have become
9<3 I Historical, Cross-Culturaland Theoretical Perspectives
literate and able to read and understand by themselves. Is this not something
that Jews too should be encouraged to do, Bik asks rhetorically. Therefore, Bik
concludes, instead of being exposed to criticism and ridicule, Lefin should really
be congratulated and encouraged because works such as his (and more are
needed!) spread knowledge and ethnic pride among the people at large. By
discussing Lefin in a comparative framework vis-à-vis the great vernacular
educators of the gentiles, Bik utilizes a favorite debating tactic and intellectual
stance of the haskole ( " O h , if we could only learn a lesson from the successful
experience of the already modernized nationalities") against Feder and for Lefin
and Yiddish.
3. Yiddish is no more linguistically inadequate than other vernaculars were at a com-
parable stage of modernisation involvement. Here Bik specifically refers to other
"mixed languages" (primarily to English) and other languages previously used
primarily by "uneducated classes" (primarily German) and indicates that both
of these languages succeeded fully in becoming "cultivated languages."
Cultivated languages need not be made in heaven, Bik says. Such languages are
the by-products of generations of assiduous effort on the part of sages and
writers w h o use them in order to communicate with each other and with the
masses about new and important topics. A s a result of such use by intellectuals,
these languages, no matter how rough they may initially have been, become
elegant, sensitive and refined instruments. The same can certainly occur to
Yiddish. It is clear from the immediately above that Bik envisioned what we
now call language planning, both in its corpus planning and in its status planning
aspects (Rubin and Jernudd 1971, Fishman 1974, Rubin et al. 1977). He
recognized that all languages are initially rather ill-suited for societal functions
that they have not hitherto discharged. He also recognized that intellectuals
change and adapt languages by putting them to new functions. With respect to
Yiddish, he points to an area of responsibility that maskilim should assume
rather than shirk.
Bik's three point agenda vis-à-vis Yiddish—traditional cosanctity, modern
utility, intellectual responsibility—clearly indicates that he surpassed his teach-
er Lefin in this respect. Lefin, unsurpassed stylist that he was and linguistic
innovator that he was, rarely goes beyond pragmatic claims and practical plans
in his view of Yiddish. Bik raises Yiddish to the level of a symbolic verity: it is
symbolic of the Jewish traditional past and present and, given responsible
intellectual devotion, it can become symbolic of the modern Jewish future as
well.
DÉNOUEMENT: PERSONAL AND LINGUISTIC
None of our heroes (or antiheroes) came to a particularly "happy ending."

Feder, always in dire need of funds, permitted himself to be "bought o f f " by the
/. Alternatives in language and Etbnocultural Identity 91
money that Bik and other friends of Lefin offered. Ostensibly this money was to
make up for the deposit that Feder had already given to the printer in
Berditshev for publishing Kol mekbatsetsim. However, it seems doubtful that
Feder had ever paid any printer anything, and the fact that he also never
published his letter replying to Bik (see Verses 1983 for the text of this letter,
hitherto lost and recently discovered) and further attacking Lefin would seem to
substantiate the interpretation that his personal need for money had a higher
priority than his need to publicize his views. He died in 1820, barely five years
later, a bitter and defeated man. Thirty-three years later, when Feder, Lefin and
Bik had all long since gone on to their eternal rewards, Kol mekbatsetsim was
finally published, more as a curiosity than for any intrinsic interest in it. Lefin
fared somewhat better, but he never recovered from the anguish and embarrass-
ment that he experienced due to Feder's attack. He never published any of his
other Old Testament translations, although in 1873, almost 50 years after
Lefin's death in 1825, his translation of Ecclesiastes » w published. 22 Fragments
of his translations of Psalms and J o b , as well as the complete translation of his
Lamentations, can be found in an archive in Jerusalem.
It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that Yiddish achieved
either the full practical recognition that Lefin advocated or the full symbolic
recognition that Bik had recommended. 23 By then, modern secular Yiddish
literature had begun to flower. On the other hand, Hebraism and Zionism had
become well established as, in part, profound anti-Yiddish movements. While it
cannot be said with any certainty that they were directly influenced by Feder's
thinking, their rejection of Yiddish and enthronement of Hebrew often utilized
many of his arguments. Indeed, echoes of the great debate of 1813 — 1815 linger
on to this very day. Ultimately, external forces (Nazism, Communism and
democratic assimilation) became the greatest enemies of Yiddish. However,
internally, within the Jewish fold, the symbolic value of Yiddish often con-
tinues to be argued pro and con. It has remained an internally conflicted
language and those who value it most are once again (since post-holocaust days)
engaged primarily in an internal argument with others with whom they share a
common ethnoculturai identity. The parties to this argument share a common
ethnoreligious identity and yet differ as to the language(s) which symbolize(s)
that identity for them.
CONCLUSIONS
a. Substantive
The dissolution of a diglossia situation that has endured for centuries under the
impact of modern massification processes has most usually involved the ele-
vation of L. The variety hitherto employed primarily for everyday verbal rounds,
informality and intimacy is functionally elevated and symbolically promoted to

more dignified and status-related pursuits and identities. So it was with the
demotion of Latin and the promotion of the vernaculars in the long process of
Western European modernization. In this process, vernaculars triumphed as a
result of changed power relationships, not only on a social class basis ("the
masses and bourgeosie" vs. the "traditional elites" involving church, throne
and gentry) but also on a regional/ethnocultural basis. Had Cataluña, Friesland,
Wales and Provence been the integrative centers for consolidating and moder-
nizing Spain, The Netherlands, Great Britain and France, Catalán, Frisian,
Welsh and Occitan might have become the vernaculars symbolic ("naturally
so") of those new econotechnical and ethnocultural national (as distinct from
regional or subnational) constellations.
However, the fact that vernaculars have so generally triumphed—both
functionally and symbolically—upon the dissolution of diglossia, does not
mean that it was or is inevitably so. Indeed, generally speaking, provernacular
ideologies were rather late in establishing themselves. The process of doing so
was doubly, perhaps even excruciatingly, difficult where the H and its sanctified
traditions were fully indigenized and where econotechnical consolidation and
modernization were long delayed. In Greece, in Ashkenazi Jewry, in Italy, in
Russia—and later in the Islamic sphere—serious efforts were undertaken to
combine modernization with vernacularization of the H. Only in Russia were
these efforts discontinued in a decisive way at a sufficiently early point so that
modernization and the state apparatus became substantially identified with the
vernacular in early modern times. In the other locales, vernaculars have either
triumphed in much delayed or vacillating fashion (Greece, Italy), or they have
never fully triumphed at all (Ashkenazi Jewry and the Arabo-Islamic sphere).
Indeed, by the time controlled and attenuated modernization was attained in
most of the latter instances, the adherents of the traditionally symbolic Hs were
frequently able to adapt them sufficiently for new functions so that it was the
sanctified Hs rather than the plebeian Ls that became symbolic of both modern
identity and continuity with the past.
The case under discussion reveals the typically labile nature of the language
and ethnicity identity link in early modern circumstances. Each of our three
"heroes" possessed the same mother tongue and yet had markedly different
views as to its symbolic significance for the purposes of modernization and its
attendant social identity formation. Similarly, each of our three "heroes" was
fully and identically "identified" ethnoculturally. Furthermore, each was a
modernizer, in his own eyes, in the eyes of colleagues, in the eyes of their
everyday coethnics and in the eyes of co-territorial non-Jews. Indeed, in many
ways, they were highly similar and, nevertheless, their views of their shared
traditional H, of their shared folk vernacular, of their shared co-territorial
vernacular and of their shared language of wider communication differed
widely. Thus, although it may well be inevitable for language ingener alio become
symbolic of modern ethnocultural identity—after all, what better symbol

system than language do we possess to convey and foster such identity?—it is
far from inevitable that any particular language (or variety) will become symbolic
for any particular ethnocultural identity.
Ethnocultural identities are composites of continuity and fortuitous his-
torical fortune. Germanic populations have been romanized, Celtic populations
have been de-Celticized, Amerindian populations have been hispanicized and
the resulting ethnocultural identities have, in time, "felt good," natural and
authentic. Similarly, any one of the three options represented by our heroes
could have triumphed and have fostered its own authentic identity. They each
represented a fine-tuning of ethnocultural identity (a modernization thereof) in
a context in which basic ethnocultural identity had long been established and
was by no means in doubt. However, even fine-tunings can be difficult and
disputatious, can lead in different language and identity directions. The fact that
one or another triumphs only means that the others are less fortunate. The
winner was not necessarily more authentic ab initio. The loser was not necessarily
less so. Any stable language and ethnocultural identity link ultimately comes to
seem natural, "worked out." Another, quite unlike it, would also have ulti-
mately felt just as natural-and just as authentic, had it emerged victorious.
The cases of extremely delayed (or nonexistent) vernacular symbolic
promotion—delayed in all instances well beyond entry into significant modern
identity and often beyond politically independent econotechnical control—
may well have certain features in common. One of these would seem to be
unsubordinated indigenous classicals (and their accompanying elites) with overriding
religious significance. Where religion has not only NOT been separatedfrom the rest of
culture but, indeed, still serves to integrate the whole, to provide it with its
elites/caretakers and to provide one and all with the major status rewards that
society proffers, external H languages often come to be initial channels of secular
modernisation. In the ensuing struggles between the indigenous classicals and the
external Hs (each with their respective elites) the vernaculars become "poor
thirds," particularly when the classicals themselves undergo modernisation for econotech-
nical purposes. Under such circumstances (e.g., in the Arabic world, in Greece,
in China, in Somalia) the vernaculars cannot even claim sole pride of indigenousness,
which they could do if the external Hs were to appear to emerge victorious. In
each of these cases ethnic identity may not be at all in doubt (or in dispute) but its
accompanying written vernacular may be long ( or permanently ) submerged. While the
case of Yiddish vs Hebrew (Loshn-koydesh, later: Ivrit) vs German/Polish
(later: other coterritorial vernaculars) also definitely has its own particularistic
characteristics, it would seem to share (and to suggest) many general sociolin-
guistic circumstances of far broader interest, particularly the d i f f i c u l t y of displac-
ing an entrenched indigenous elite that ultimately adapts its classical for modernisation
purposes.
Another substantive point that this study raises pertains to modernization per
se as both a problem for and an aspect of contemporary ethnocultural identity.

Such identity comes about not only as a clarification or consolidation vis-à-vis
external alternatives but, importantly, also as a clarification and consolidation vis-
à-vis various internal alternatives (alternatives within the same ethnocultural
constellation) as well. Both types of alternatives are frequently differentiated in
terms of the degree or content of their modernization, i.e., of their combination of
authenticity (unmarked "own" aspects) and modernization (initially "foreign"
aspects), a combination which is quintessential for all nationalist movements.
For some insiders and during some periods of time such a combination is
viewed as impossible, as incommensurable, as tantamount to being both
Protestant and Catholic simultaneously. However, not only is even the latter
possible (as some recent research on language and ethnic identity among
adolescents in Northern Ireland reveals), but syncretism is a far greater prin-
ciple of nonideological daily life than either intellectuals or elites care to
recognize. Ultimately, the issue becomes not whether but what or how much of the
outside to admit into the inside, how much of the new (and once-foreign) to
indigenize, to synthesize, to incorporate into the preexisting and phenomenolo-
gically "authentic" tradition. Modern ethnic identity includes many hitherto
foreign/modern ingredients that may once have appeared disjointed and con-
tentious but that have now been digested and authenticized nevertheless. The
"purification" movements that arise before this process is completed should
remind us that the outcome is neither easy nor preordained with respect to any
particular modern import.
The foregoing point would seem to flow into the next (and last): "objectively
small differences" may yet have subjectively huge consequences and, indeed,
be experienced by insiders as objectively huge. Fully shared highest order
preferences do not foreclose significantly different lower order preferences.
Indeed, once highest order preferences are shared (as they were among the three
protagonists on whom this paper is focused) there would seem to be no other
outlet for human creativity (or is it combativity) than in connection with lower
order preferences and, accordingly, the latter too easily become rallying cries
for ethnocultural/philosophical value-differences pertaining to "the future of
the people," the ideal society and, therefore, the ideal identity as well. No matter
how inconsequentially small the differences may seem to be to "objective
outsiders," there is always (in language or in culture more generally) further
differentiation between social networks (not to mention individual differences),
both between and within higher order groups, and, therefore, further oppor-
tunity to ideologize, to mobilize and to exacerbate on the basis of such
differentiation. "Objective similarity" is obviously of more minor significance
than the subjective interpretation of social differentiation and of the power
possibilities or rivalries with which such differentiation is readily associated.
Once differentiations become ideologized, and have their own elites to inter-
prêt, defend and cultivate them, they can continue virtually interminably (or
until one party or another emerges as the definite victor in very physical and
material terms). At the earliest stages, when few "members" are as yet con-
scious of the differences and of the interpretations later given to them, a large
number of final solutions may be possible and are certainly available. However,
such flexibility is counteracted by the very elites that exploit the differences that
always exist, lower order differences though they may (seem to) be. After the
internal struggle is over—and it may last for generations if not for centuries—
the authenticity for which men, women and children live and die is at hand (at
least temporarily). "Authenticity" is the winning alternative; what was once
one among many alternative differentiation-constellations is finally popularly
understood (and elitistically defined) as "the only way" (i.e., as no alternative at
all), as God given, as authentic, as really and truly the only possible ethnocul-
tural identity for the group in question.
b. Methodological
I do not really mean to separate substance from method but do so here so that
the latter can more easily be given the attention that is its due. The study of
language and culture relationships is, in large part, a struggle against parochial-
ism and ethnocentrism masquerading as universalism. However, as a topic area
long productively dominated by anthropologists, there is some danger that
fieldwork and ethnography by Westerners working in non-Western settings
may, consciously or unconsciously, take on the aura of a universal super-
method. Perhaps one of the contributions of this paper may be that it calls into
question such methodological parochialism and ethnocentrisms. If so, it at-
tempts to do so in several respects.
It stresses the study of historical cases, utilizing standard historical primary
data (manuscripts, letters, diaries of a bygone age), neither accessible to eth-
nographic study nor to survey research nor experimentation. While it is no
longer generally necessary to do, it may bear repeating in an area where little
research has heretofore used this method, that "actors" or "members" who can
no longer be observed can still be cautiously studied—and hypotheses concern-
ing them advanced and tested—on the basis of extant historical materials. Like
every other method of social research, this one has its very definite limitations (the
individual researcher's interpretation of fortuitously preserved—and therefore
incomplete—records), but, again like every other method, it has produced a small
number of clearly first-rate works. We would certainly all be poorer without the
historical studies of Weber, Freud and Erikson, among many others.
Methodological imperialism is not only ethnocentric (and, therefore, unbecoming
for the study of language and culture) but it would make us all poorer in the
process.
This paper also raises (or at least heightens) the issue of whether the
researcher (the observer) must always be of a different ethnoreligious identity
than that which pertains to the subject population (the observed). Much social
research following a variety of methodological preferences (rather than his-
torical research alone) calls this shibboleth into question and even the study of
language and culture, in its most recent urban and applied ramifications, has
also begun to do so. There are, of course, great risks when observer and
observed share ethnoreligious or any other important aspects of identity: lack
of detachment, lack of perspective, lack of broadly contrastive framework. We
are certainly well aware of the fact that ethnic movements (as well as social class
movements, religious movements, political movements and intellectual move-
ments) can lead (and have led) to seriously biased and purposively invidious
research. While such caricatures and miscarriages of social research must clearly
be unmasked, disowned and discredited, the risks that they pose must not blind
us to the assets of much research that is conducted by observers who share many
central aspects of social identity with their subjects. Such shared identity may
carry with it huge amounts of detailed knowledge that can never be equalled or
acquired by outsiders. If such knowledge can be objectified and if the research
utilÌ2Ìng .it is accompanied by high levels of motivation as well, then the
resulting combination may be extremely worthwhile in highly generalizable
respects. While it may be true that only Freud was able to psychoanalyze
himself, countless extremely worthwhile historical, sociological, literary and
psychological studies have been done by researchers who have grown up and
been trained in the very contexts that they have then undertaken to study.
Finally, although this methodological point shows the indivisibility between
"methodology" and "substance" even more than do the others, this paper seeks
to remind us that elites (spokesmen, leaders, intellectuals) and proto-elites are
worthy of study. It seems to me that this is particularly so in connection with
research on modern ethnic identity. Modern society is characterized by the
massification of participation in industrial, educational, political and military
operations. This massification is orchestrated and rationalized by elites who not
only act as conduites of innovation but as the planners, managers and polarizers
of sociocultural identity for the masses. In modern society, even more than in
earlier periods of social development, elites are the major actors in the ongoing
drama of sociocultural change and of identity consolidation and change. Elites
speak to/write to the masses and reach them via modern identity-forming
media, often on a fairly continual basis. Thus, rather than study only the
nameless, most impersonal actors and most pervasive institutions that are
involved in the identity formation and reformation process, we must also study
elites per se if we are to understand why and how modern sociocultural identity
takes a certain turn or polarizes on a certain issue. It is idle, I think, to pursue the
question of which is more important, the mass or the leaders, the nameless or
the named, the widespread ways and values or the goals, purposes, conscious-
ness and conflictedness o f elites. T h e t w o are in constant interaction, all the
more so in modern society, and both must be studied if a complete picture o f
modern sociocultural identity, including ethnic identity, is to appear. T o fail to
do so because the study o f elites lies outside the purview o f a certain disciplinary
or methodological camp is to become a captive rather than a master of disci-
plines and methods alike, thereby delaying rather than advancing the shedding
of light on ethnic identity processes in the modern world.
NOTES
ι. For further discussion of diglossia see Chapter 3, this volume.

2. Provense (three syllables) is an area similar to but not identical with Provence. Provense, like
all Jewish culture areas, is defined by the boundaries of its distinctive regional adaptation of
Jewish rites and traditions. Similar references to Jewish languages of Greece, Spain, France,
Italy, Germany, etc., are merely convenient shorthand expressions for Jewish culture areas
that predate any of the foregoing political designations. In each case, a Jewish vernacular was
coterminous with a particular rite and set of customs, as validated by its local/regional
rabbinic authorities. Although the latter also strove to function within the fold of supra-
regional Jewish conventions, local/regional rites and customs were, nevertheless, always
considered ultimately binding whenever the two (the local/regional and the supra-regional)
were in disagreement. For a review of all circum-Mediterranean Jewish vernaculars (since the
decline of vernacular Hebrew) in the framework of their own rites and customs, see
Weinreich 1980 [1973].
3. Talmud—A vast compilation of what was originally the unwritten Oral Law, the Talmud is
the accepted final arbiter and legal code for Orthodox Jews. Its two divisions are the Mishne
or text of the Oral Law (in Hebrew) and the Gemore (in Aramaic), which supplements and
comments upon it. Separate compilations were produced in Palestine (;th century C.E.) and
in Babylonia (6th century C.E.), with the latter coming to be authoritative in view of its
greater length and completeness.
RR:LK/jvc + R W : L K + RS:jvh
4·
SR:jV[ + S W : L K / j v 2 + D S : j v 3
(RR = religious reading (study) and prayer

L K = loshn koydesh (Biblical/Talmudic/Medieval Hebrew/Aramaic)
jvc = Jewish vernacular caique for word-by-word translation of RR in such a fashion as to
remain as close as possible to the grammar of the L K original
RW = religious writing (e.g., rabbinic responsa)
RS = religious spoken interaction (e.g., Talmudic discourse pertaining to L K texts)
jvh = Jewish vernacular "high," i.e., as spoken in learned discourse
SR = secular reading (entertainment or practical reading)
jv, = written Jewish vernacular in secular literature
SW = secular writing
jv 2 = written Jewish vernacular in letters, diaries
DS = daily speech
jv 3 = the variety of minimally sanctified verbal interaction)
Note the meager presence of Jewish vernaculars in Η-related functions and the meager
presence of Loshn koydesh in L-related functions.
;. The most noteworthy earlier failure along these lines was that of A m b'r Shmuel of
Hergershausen, approximately a century earlier than the point at which our first "hero's"
temerity became widely known in "enlightened circles". Arn b'r Shmuel composed and had
a unique prayerbook (Liblekhe tfile 1709) printed, which consisted both of his Yiddish
translations of parts of the traditional prayerbook and certain chapters of Psalms, as well as of
Yiddish prayers or supplications that he himself had composed for specific recurring occa-
sions (e.g., "a beautiful prayer to ask that man and wife live together affectionately").
Although his intentions were to enable simple folk understand more fully and feel their
prayers (rather than to only semiunderstand and semifeel them as was—he believed—
necessarily the case when they were in Loshn-koydesh), his "heretical prayerbook" was
banned by local rabbinic authorities. "Several generations later, in 1830, in the attic in the
house of study of Arn b'r Shmuel's native town, hundreds of copies of this confiscated book
were found" (Tsinberg 1943 [1975], v. 6, 256-259 [v. 7, 225-227]). See footnote 13, below.
Note: the Ashkenazi (Yiddish) pronunciation of Loshn-koydesh terms and titles is the basis
of the transliteration employed in this paper.
6. Aramaic (technically Judeo-Aramaic, since various varieties of Aramaic were employed
throughout the Near East and, subsequently, further east up to and including Tibet) was not
always accepted as on a par with Hebrew, notwithstanding the fact that major portions of the
books of Daniel and Ezra are written in this language. It is clear that the majority of all Jews
spoke Aramaic from the earliest days of the Second Temple and that countless sanctified
traditional writings and prayers were composed in this language or in a mixture of Aramaic
and Hebrew. Nevertheless, the Talmud Yerushalmi reveals (Sotah 49) that many sages were
opposed to Aramaic and demanded that Hebrew be spoken, whereas others defended its use
(Sotah 7). However, ultimately the genetic similarity between the two languages, the fact that
Aramaic persisted as a Jewish vernacular for some 1400 yeats (from the ; th century B.C.E. to
the 9th century C.E.), and the final fact that so much of rabbinic authority continued to be
recorded in that language (even down to modern times) won out and the two together
(Hebrew and Judeo-Aramaic) were dubbed Loshn-koydesh, the holy tongue, and became
fused in popular thought, even as they were in function and in structure.
7. Today a region in southeastern Poland and in the northwestern Ukraine, Galicia was part of
Poland during the lattet>Middle Ages. During the first partition of Poland (1772), most of it
was transferred to Hapsburg rule and on subsequent partitions the area under Hapsburg
(Austro-Hungarian) rule was extended. (Between the two World Wars, it was again primarily
under Polish rule but since the end of the Second World War, it is once more divided between
Poland and the Ukrainian S.S.R.). Because of its exposure to more Western, modern and
liberal Austro-Hungarian policies, Galicia became a gateway for the diffusion of modern
studies and ideologies into Jewish Eastern Europe. Thus, "the Galician enlightenment" is
considered the dawn of modern Western ideologies among Eastern European Jews and,
more generally, galitsianer came to be viewed as a culture type (sophisticated, wily, capable of
flattering and hoodwinking more traditional folk in order to get their way) by Eastern
European Jews from other regions. For abundant further details see Magocsi 1983.
8. In accord with traditional usage, the name should properly be transliterated Levin. However,
Lefin himself wrote it with the equivalent of an f in Hebrew letters, probably because he
associated the Hebrew/Yiddish grapheme for ν with its German equivalent. Since the
German ν was pronounced as an / , he therefore wrote his name with a fey in Hebrew and
Yiddish. In more recent articles, the tendency to refer to him as lieviti seems to be gaining the
upper hand. I have retained Lefin's own usage here in order to indicate how far-reaching was
the influence of German-sponsored modernization.
My account of Lefin, Feder and Bik depends heavily on the major Yiddish, English and
Hebrew sources, e.g., Tsinberg 194} [1975], Levine 1974, and Shmeruk 1963, 1 9 7 1 . 1 have
also used Vaynlez 1 9 3 1 , Cooper 1978, Versus i938,Haberman 1932 and various other sources
secondarily, e.g., the English materials in the 10-volume Encyclopedia Judaica (1970).
Khasidism (also transliterated Hasidism or Hasidism): movement founded in Poland in the
18th century in reaction to the academic formalism of rabbinic Judaism. By stressing the
mercy of G o d , encouraging joyous religious expression through song and dance and de-
emphasizing the centrality of traditional study, it spread rapidly among the poor and
uneducated. Although pronounced a heresy in 1 7 8 1 , it became and remains a notable force in
Orthodoxy.
Lefin's translation (Re/ues ho'om 1794) was actually the second translation of Tissot's volume
for Jewish readers. It had already been translated/paraphrased into Yiddish by Moyshe
Markuze, a contemporary of Lefin, in 1790. Although Markuze's rendition (Oyêr jtsroel) may
be considered the first book to approximate spoken Eastern Yiddish, it was, nevertheless,
heavily colored by stylistic remnants and influences derived from German and from Western
Yiddish, on the one hand, and by anti-khasidic asides and implications, on the other hand. In
many respects, Lefin's translation was an improvement over Markuze's: it was certainly
closer to the original and contained no interpolations or editorializing by the translator. On
the other hand, it was in Loshn-koydesh, rather than in Yiddish, so that popular as it became, it
could not penetrate deeply into the lay public. Later, Lefin combined the advantages of both
translations when he too switched to Yiddish but remained true to the originals that he
translated without inserting into them opinions of his own.
Women generally received no formal Hebrew education and could not be expected to
understand even a simple Hebrew text on their own. Boys were taught (in schools under
communal auspices) to recite prayers and ritual benedictions in Hebrew and, if their parents
could afford to keep them in school beyond that point (ages ; - 6 ) , also to read the (Hebrew)
Pentateuch and translate it into Yiddish and, ultimately, to study the Judeo-Aramaic Talmud
and its classical commentaries and to argue their fine points in Yiddish. N o n e of these texts,
however, prepared them to read secular material on relatively modern matters, and, in
addition, the latter type of reading matter was often prohibited or at least discouraged by
rabbinic authorities.
So widespread is the popular assumption that Yiddish was traditionally utilized only for oral
functions (oral translation of text, oral argumentation of text and face-to-face intimacy or
daily routine) that a minor aside here concerning the ancient lineage of Yiddish-in-print may
be in order. Yiddish-in-print traces back to early 16th century northern Italy, that is, to very
close to the invention of movable type (circa 1437) and possibly, therefore, to before the
convention of Loshn koydesh-in-print. Prior to the appearance of Yiddish-in-print, utiliza-
tion of Yiddish-in-manuscript was well established with extant manuscripts now being
traceable back to the i j t h century (Weinreich 1980). By and large, Yiddish-in-print consisted
either of secular writings (poems, stories, novels) of an entertainment nature, on the one
hand, or of translations (often word by word) of prayerbook and Old Testament text on the
other hand, through to the 19th century, at which point a much more diversified repertoire of
secular Yiddish-in-print comes into being, including an extensive practical, educational and
ideological literature. B y the late 19th century, scientific scholarship publication in Yiddish
also becomes common.
I write "obstensibly for w o m e n " in order to indicate that many of the Yiddish publications in
vaybertaytsh were not only also read by men but that some of them were primarily intended for
men. The fly-leaf rationale "written in simple Yiddish so as to be understandable to women
and, girls" was often no more than camouflage in order to avoid the wrath of rabbinic
authorities who zealously protected (and directly benefited from) the diglossie tradition in
ιοο I Historical, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives
accord with which Yiddish was not used in other than an auxiliary (translating, popularizing)
function insofar as serious publications, particularly those related to the sanctified topics or
pursuits for which rabbinic ordination was considered necessary, were concerned.
15. A m b'r Shmuel of Hergershausen's hiblekhe tifile (1709) had also been set in oysiyes
merebues, a fact which might well have contributed to its being banned and confiscated by
the rabbinic authorities of the time. See note 4, above.
16. For a close comparison of Lefin's translation with those published before him and with those
then in vogue, as well as with the modern translation by Yehoyesh (1941), see Shmeruk 1964
(Yiddish) and 1981 (Hebrew).
17. For a thorough-going review of the various literary "dialects" of 19th-century Yiddish, from
those most distant from the spoken language of Eastern Europe to those most faithful to
spoken speech, see Roskies 1974. For a modern restatement and implementation of the view
that Yiddish should be consciously de-Germanized and moved "away from German," see
Weinreich 1938 [1975]·
18. Shmeruk, in particular, is dubious as to Lefin's motives and tends to attribute the latter's style
to literary virtuosity rather than to ideological or programmatic goals. Others (e.g., Mark
1956) interpret Lefin in more consciously pro-Yiddish terms. Shmeruk is undoubtedly
correct in reminding us of several anti-Yiddish comments in Lefin's earlier writings. Lefin
may well have gone through several phases in his attitude toward Yiddish, but it seems clear
to me that while working on his translations, his views are overwhelmingly positive,
particularly for a maskil of his day and age. Other maskilim, too, had to swallow their initial
pride and to use Yiddish to get their ideas across to the average Jew, but Lefin was one of the
first to do so and to display unusual satisfaction and warmth (rather than just virtuosity) in the
process. For continued maskilic reluctance in this connection down to the end of the century,
see Miron 1973.
19. Lefin's reference to "our eastern Podolye" is interesting both linguistically and geographi-
cally. His choice of words here, "mizrekh podolye shelonu," is made up of two hebraisms
and one slavism. Although the first hebraism (mizrekh = east) and the slavism
(podolye — Podolia, a somewhat more easterly Galician region largely under Czarist rule after
1793) are unsubstitutable in Yiddish today, the last hebraism (shelonu = our) is not normally
employed. Its use, instead of the more normal undêr (of Germanic stock) gives the entire
phrase a very striking and decidedly non-Germanic flavor. The region referred to in this
fashion can be interpreted either as the area in which Lefin himself resided, at the eastern-
most point of the Austro-Hungarian/Polish border, where both states met with the lands
occupied in 1793 by Czarist Russia, or as referring to the region farther east in Czarist Russia
per se, where the impact of German on Yiddish was even less than in Galicia.
20. Ausbau, literally "building out" or "building away," applies to the process of consciously
distancing a weaker language from another that is functionally stronger, competitive with the
weaker and genetically close to it. Via Ausbau, the weaker is rendered progressively more
dissimilar from the stronger so that it cannot readily be viewed as a dialect of the latter but
will appear fully independent of it. Ausbau is contrasted with Abstand, wherein two languages
are naturally so dissimilar that neither can be taken as a dialect of the other (Kloss 1967).
While the interdialectal diversity of Yiddish (no greater than that of Dutch or Swedish, e.g.)
added some urgency to the codification of its modern written standard (as was also the case
for Dutch, Swedish, etc) its genetic similarity to German remained an "issue"—both among
adherents and opponents—even after this standardization had been achieved.
21. Bik is the first in what subsequently became quite a long list of very prestigious Orthodox
spokesmen to praise Yiddish and to point out its merits as a vehicle and shield, or defender, of
tradition. For such statements by the Khsam Soyfer of Pressburg (1762-1839), see Weinreich
1980, p. 283. For such statements by Nosn Birnboym in the 30s of this century and by Rabbi
Joseph B. Soloveitchik in very recent days, see Fishman 1981 b, vii-viii and 160.
/. Alternatives in Language and Ethnocultural Identity ιοί
22. Lefin spent the rest of his life working on a new translation/edition of the Guide for the
Perplexed, originally written in Judeo-Arabic by Maimonides (i 135-1204), the greatest
Jewish philosopher of all times, and never again entered the arena of public debate or
of pro-Yiddish activism. The fact that he spent his last decade entirely engrossed in a
volume seeking to synthesize religion and rational philosophy certainly implies some loss of
certainty that enlightenment programs of action alone could solve "the Jewish problem."
Lefin's champion, Bik, died at the age of 59 in a cholera epidemic in Brod, having become
infected while tending to the needs of the sick and hungry. He, at least, remained an involved
activist to the end, giving his life in daily exertion for his fellows rather than in labor over one
manuscript or another. In 1853, two years after Bik's demise (he was the last of the three to
die, although he was also the youngest at the time of his death), his letter to Feder, and Feder's
hitherto-unpublished reply were finally published in the maskilic journal Keren ijemed. The only
importance that can be ascribed to this otherwise esoteric posthumous publication is that it
made Bik's strong and clear views available to pro-Yiddish maskilm of the latter part of the
century. The major figure among them, Y. M. Lifshitz, quoted it in its entirely in 1863 in
connection with his effort to convince maskilim in the Czarist Empire that Yiddish was the
only language via which they could reach, educate and dignify the mass of Russian-Polish
Jewry.
23. Modern symbolic and practical dignification came with the adoption of a pro-Yiddish (and
pro-Jewish secular cultural) resolution by the Jewish Workers Bund of Russia, Poland and
Lithuania and with the First World Conference for the Yiddish Language in Tshernovits,
both in the first decade of the 20th century. The former is analyzed in Hertz 1969 and the latter
in a paper of mine (1980b). Assigning any symbolic priority to Yiddish, but particularly the
extreme view that Yiddish alone was of modern ethnocultural significance, came to be termed
Yiddishism. While Yiddishism never became a mass movement in and of itself, it heavily
influenced all left-wing Jewish ideologies (including left-wing Labor Zionism, not to
mention Jewish anarchism, socialism and communism). These sought a complete change of
authority systems within the Jewish fold. Yiddishism influenced modern Jewish secularism
as a whole, reconceptualizing Jews as a "nationality" rather than as a "religion" (Gutman
1976). For a Yiddish-secular rejection of the purely linguistic stress of extreme Yiddishism,
see Lerer 1940. For a review of the architects of Yiddishism (not all of whom were Yiddishists
in the extreme sense of the word), see Goldsmith 1976.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cooper, Ephraim. Yaakov Shmuel Bik leor teudot hadashot [ Jacob Samuel Bick in the light of new
evidence] Git ad 1978, I V - V , pp. 535-547.
Ferguson, Charles A. Diglossia. Word. 1959, 325—340.
Fishman, Joshua A. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingual-
ism. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 29—38.
. Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays. Rowley (MA): Newbury House, 1972.
. (ed.). Advances in Language Planning. The Hague, Mouton, 1974.
. Bilingualism and biculturism as individual and as societal phenomena. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1980a, 1, 3 - 1 6 . (Revised as Chapter 3, This Volume.)
. Attracting a following to high-culture functions for a language of everyday life: The role of
the Tshernovits Language Conference in the "rise of Yiddish." International Journal of the Sociology
of Language, 1980b, 24, 43-74.
. The sociology of Jewish languages from the perspective of the general sociology of
language: A preliminary formulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1981a, 30,
5-18.
I02 I Historical, Cross-Culturaland Theoretical Perspectives
. (ed.). Never Say Die! A Thousand Years of Yiddish' in Jewish Life and Letters. The Hague,
Mouton, 1981b.
Goldsmith, Emanuel S. Architects of Yiddishism at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century. Rutherford
(NJ), Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1976.
Gutman, Saul. The Faith of Secular Jews. New York, Ktav, 1976.
Haberman, A. Tuvye Feders kol mekhatsetsim (Tuvye Feder's "Voice of the Archers"). Y IVO
Bieter, 1932, 3 , 4 " 5 , 4 7 2 ~ 4 7 5 ·
Hertz, Jacob S. The Bund's nationality program and its critics in the Russian, Polish and Austrian
Socialist movements. YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science, 1969, 14, ; 5-67.
Kloss, Heinz. "Abstand" languages and "Ausbau" languages. Anthropological Linguistics, 1967,9,7,
29-41.
Lefin, Menahem Mendl. Essai d'un plan de réforme ayant pour object d'éclairer la nationjuive en Pologne et
de redresser par là ses moeurs, 1791-92.
LePage, R.B. and Andrée Tabouret-Keller. Models and stereotypes of ethnicity and language.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1983, 3, 1 6 1 - 1 9 2 .
Lerer, Leybesh. Der blik az yidish is der tamtsis fun yidishkayt—di sakone fun der formule
"lingvistish-sekularistish" (The view that Yiddish is the quintessence of Jewishness—The
danger of the formulation: "linguistic-secularistic"), in his Yidishkayt un andere Problemen
(Jewishness and Other Problems). New York, Matones, 1940, 68-94. (Reprinted in Fishman,
Joshua A. (ed.). Never Say Die! A Thousand Years of Yiddish in Jewish Life and Letters. The Hague,
Mouton, 1981, 313-342.)
Levine, Hillel. Menahem Mendl Lefin: A Case Study of Judaism and Modernisation. Harvard University,
Ph.D. Dissertation, 1974.
Lifshits, Y:M. Di fir klasn [The four categories]. Kolmevaser. 1865, 2 , 3 2 3 - 3 2 8 , 3 6 4 - 3 6 6 , 3 7 5 - 3 8 0 ,
392-593. (Includes Y.S. Bik's letter to Tuvye Feder [1815].) Reprinted in J.A. Fishman, ed. Never
Say Die! A Thousand Years of Yiddish in Jewish Life and Letters, The Hague, Mouton, 1981,
259—266.
Low, Alfred D. Jews in the Eyes of the Germans: From the Enlightenment to Imperial Germany. Philadelphia,
ISHI, 1979.
Magocsi, Paul R. Galicia: A Historical Survey and Bibliographic Guide. Toronto, University of Toronto
Press, 1983.
Mark, Yudl. Di hoypt-eygnshaftn fun mendl satanovers mishle-iberzetsung (The major charac-
teristics of Mendl Satanover's translation of Proverbs). Yidishe shprakh, 1956,16, no. 4 , 1 0 8 - 1 1 4 .
Mendelssohn, Moses. Against bastardization of languages [1782], in Eva Jospe, ed. Mose
Mendelssohn: Selections from His Writings. New York, Viking, 1975, 106 (also see p. 78).
Miron, Dan. The commitment to Yiddish, in his A Traveler Disguised. New York, Shocken, 1973,
1—33-
Moerman, Michael. Ethnic identification in a complex civilization: Who are the Lue? American
Anthropologist, 1965, 67, 1215 —1230.
Mogocsi, Paul Robert. The Shapingof a National Identity: Sub-Carpathian Rus', 1848-1948. Cambridge
(MA), Harvard University Press, 1978.
Roskies, Doved-Hirsh. Yidishe shraybshprakhn in 19m yorhundert (Yiddish literary dialects in the
19th century). Yidishe Shprakh, 1974, no. 1 - 3 , 1 - 1 0 .
Rubin, Joan and Bjorn Jernudd (eds.). Can Language be Planned? Honolulu, University Press of
Hawaii, 1971.
Rubin, Joan, Bjorn H. Jernudd, Jyotirindra Das Gupta, Joshua A. Fishman and Charles A.
Ferguson. Language Planning Processes. The Hague, Mouton, 1977.
Shmeruk, Khone. Vegn etlekhe printsipn fun mendl lefins mishle iberzetsung (Concerning a few
principles of Mendl Lefin's translation of Proverbs). Yidishe shprakh, 1964, 24, no. 2 , 3 3 - 5 1 .
Shmeruk, Khone. Sifrutyidish bepolin (Yiddish Literature in Poland). Jerusalem, Magnes, 1971.
Stein, Siegfried. Liebliche Teffiloh—a Judeo-German prayer book printed in 1709. Leo ftaeck
Institute Yearbook, 1970, 1 5 , 4 1 - 7 2 .
Tissot, S.A. Avis au peuple sur sa santé ( 1761).
Tonnies, Ferdinand. Community and Society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). Translated and edited by
Charles P. Loomis. East Lansing, Michigan State University Press, 1957 [1887].
Tsinberg, Yisroel. Di geshikhte fun der literatur bayyidn. New York, Shklarsky, 1943. (In English:
Zingberg, Israel. A History of Jewish Literature. New York, Ktav, 197;.)
Vaynlez, Y . Mendl lefin-satanover. YlVO-bleter, 1931, 2, 4 - ; , 354-357.
Verses, Sh. Yankev-shmuel bik, der blondzhendiker maskil. (Yankev Shmuel Bik, the groping
maskil). YlVO-bleter, 1938, 13, 505-536.
Verses, Sh. Hanusah hamakori habilti yadua shel igerat shmuel yaakov bik el tuvye feder (The
unknown original version of Shmuel Yaakov Bik's letter to Tuvye Feder). Kiryat Sefer, 1983,
;8, no. ι, 170-187.
Weinreich, Max. Daytshmerish toyg nit (Germanisms are not acceptable). Yidish far ale, 1938,
97-106. (Reprinted in Yidishe shprakh, 1975, 34, 1 - 3 , 23-32.)
Weinreich, Max. History of the Yiddish Language. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980.
(Translated by Shlomo Noble and Joshua A. Fishman from the four-volume Yiddish original.
Geshikhte fun deryidisher shprakh. New York, Y I V O , 1973.)
Yehoyesh. Toy re, neviyem, ksuvim (Pentateuch, Prophets, Scriptures). New York, Yehoash, 1941.
II THE "ETHNIC REVIVAL" AND
LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE IN THE
AMERICAN CONTEXT
Chapter 6
Mother-Tongue Claiming in the United States

Since i960: Trends and Correlates
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN
The decade from the mid-sixties to the mid-seventies is often designated as

revealing a widespread "revival of ethnicity" or an "ethnicity b o o m . " This
revival or boom has been reported precisely in those parts of the world
(Western Europe and North America) where democratic capitalism had pre-
viously made the greatest progress in re-ethnidzing or integrating indigenous
and/or immigrant minorities into the mainstream ("state building" or "host")
sociocultural identities. These ethnicity "revivals" (by whatever name) sur-
prised most observers and, indeed, they were contrary both to popular wisdom
as well as social science prognostication. If nonmainstream ethnicities 1 were to
have a new lease on life in modern society, then the Western democracies, with
their encouragement for all to enter into (and to interact in) the basic economic,
political, social and cultural processes of their respective mainstreams, were
presumably the least likely setting for that to occur. Thus, the revival of
nonmainstream ethnicity in these very settings faces us with many empirical and
conceptual problems. O n the other hand, it provides us with new opportunities
to understand better the role and intensity of ethnicity in general and of
nonmainstream ethnicity in particualr in modern society. In this chapter, I hope
to contribute along these very lines by exploring the mother-tongue claiming
dimension as one aspect of this larger phenomenon, and, hopefully, to do so in
such a way as to relate recent American experience pertaining to the "ethnicity
revival" to somewhat similar experiences in other parts of the world and in the
Western democracies in particular.
ιο8 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMING IN THE UNITED

STATES AS A VARIABLE WORTHY OF STUDY
Mother-tongue claiming, the basic linguistic dimension of our research, has
tended to be downgraded in the recent burgeoning of national and regional
census-type sociolinguistic research in the United States (Stevens 1982, Velt-
man in press, Waggoner 1981). In large part, this is due to the fact that policy
decisions and funding allocations pertaining to governmentally or institu-
tionally supported services have been based upon current language use claiming
rather than upon mother-tongue claiming, given that the latter pertains to early
childhood and may, therefore, be quite unrelated to current use, particularly for
older respondents. In part, however, recent mother-tongue data has been
largely played down in the United States due to an assumption that it lacks
validity as such, as mother-tongue data. The latter view is well illustrated by
Veltman (in press) who holds that recent (1960-1970) increases in mother-
tongue claiming in the United States are attributable merely to changes in the
wording of the relevant question in the U.S. Census 2 rather than due to any real
increase in the valid reporting of non-English mother tongues in the American
population.
The above assumption of invalidity remains to be demonstrated (as does
also—by the way—the assumption of validity of the language use claims that
are currently more generally studied in connection with national policy deci-
sions or in the investigation of local dynamics, e.g., Hudson-Edwards and Bills
1982, Lopez 1976, 1982a and 1982b, Skrabanek 1970). However, the theoretical
utility of mother-tongue claiming data does not depend on its validity vis-à-vis
the actual incidence of non-English mother tongues in the United States popula-
tion (the latter being a criterion which is far from convincingly approximated
even by use claiming). It may, indeed, be a rather attitudinal variable, reflecting
changing nuances, emphases and priorities in repertoires of ethnic identity, and
still be a very useful indicator. Furthermore, although changes in the wording
of the question may make it difficult to arrive at fine-tuned interpretations of
trend data pertaining to mother-tongue claiming, such trend data with respect
to mother-tongue claiming exists going back to the very beginning of ttys
century for over a score of languages, whereas in the case of language use
claiming (notice: this too is merely "claiming" and, therefore, is also subject to
all the self-protective response patterns of which humankind is capable) only a
very meager time depth is available for study and only for roughly a dozen
languages. Thus, post-1960 mother-tongue claiming data may still be well
worth looking at, particularly when it is an importandy subjective experience
such as the rebirth of ethnicity that is of interest to us. I propose to do so here
and to let the merits of the data speak for themselves. I will attempt to review
trends in non-English mother-tongue claiming, paying particular attention to
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming Since i960: Trends and Correlates 109
data from just before (i960), during (1970) and just after (1979) the so-called
"ethnicity boom," in order to discover what overall trends, as well as what
individual language trends, are revealed. In addition, I will try to find societal
correlates (e.g., generation, age, education and income at the individual level
and ethnic institutions, such as mass media, schools and churches, at the
community level) with whatever mother-tongue claiming trends may appear.
If these attempts produce consistent, conceptually parsimonious findings,
these will have their own necessary implications for the importance of mother-
tongue claiming, and, at the same time, they may illuminate not only the nature
of such claiming per se but also aspects of minority ethnicity, its relationship to
language, and its revival or nonrevival in recent years.
MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMING IN 1970
The Total Magnitude of Non-English Mother-Tongue Claiming, J9/0

In its 1973 report on "National Origin and Language [in 1970]" the U.S.
Census indicated that slightly over 33 million individuals (some 17% of the
total American population of over 203 million inhabitants) had claimed a
mother tongue other than English (Table 1). If it is assumed that some 17 % of
the 9.3 million individuals for whom mother-tongue data remained unreported in
1970 would also would have claimed non-English mother tongues (probably
an underestimate), then the total magnitude of this phenomenon in that year
came to 34.8 million. This is a large figure, in any context, and not only is it
roughly equal to the combined populations of Belgium, Denmark, the Nether-
lands and Norway, but (as we will see in greater detail below) it is also
substantially larger than it was in either 1940 or i960 in the United States itself.
It is the size of this population, and its growth relative to previous periods of
American history, that constitute the next part of the puzzle that we seek to
solve. Why did this growth occur? Did it occur primarily in one ethnic group
(e.g., among Hispanics) or is it attributable to several (or even to most) groups?
Did it continue growing thereafter or did it peak? These are questions to which
we will return after we leave more fully explored the nature of the 1970
phenomenon per se.
GENERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 1970 NON-

ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMING
There is a distinct (and quite as expected) generational regularity with respect to

non-English mother-tongue claiming in 1970. Among the first generation (the
Foreign born in Table 1) it is fully 82.17% of the total; among the third
no II The Ethnic Revival and language Maintenance in the USA
Θ Θ Θ ® Θ Θ Θ
ν r-- vs vs 0 so NO
O Tf Ν H"» φ O
C fTS
tuD
*Γ\ NI ^ 00
o"-·
ολ o"-
C CN s o r^ r - cn
u M. Os Ν Cs Ν r- o
0 0 NO so^ 00 CN
Ν Ν
& ÇQ CS ON 00 00
•ί·
t. "ΰ ω £
" « S í Μ \0
α. > a e
s « ^ S 0 so" CÑ 4 Cs
Ζ Ζ ο α- ** ** f^S
^
NO 0 0 οο r- cs so
r - 00 00 r- CS
.§> & CN Ν ΝΟ λ Ν — »TS
. o
II υ S 2 N" wC Ο vC oo" O""
o r». Ν Γ- CS 00 CS
Λ > ο ο CN r^ ** 0 ΝΟ λ 0
Ê ' 8 £ g fi Ν cn «Λ .Λ
γ--
ζ ζ o <2
o Ν cs _
eu 00 «•Λ oo Ν
C N NO 00 Ν
^ o
Ζ S
ys 00 Γ— SO* ο" o " - VN ^ o^·
-φ ο Ο Ο 00 O o oo
CN NO CN 00 Ν >- oo
•/S CS *<s 00 00
Ι 2 · 8 Ν Ν Μ
Ν Ν 0 00 Ν Cs
•ÍN ON Γ- SO r-
C Ν r- ΝΟ λ r^ so.
. o . o
—. .ϋτ
KS
r-
•f
4
ο" ^Ο KS
Ν 00
^
cs 00
Λ 1> Ο
r^ Ν
Ο s g Μ M KS Ν KS
Η Cl, (Λ »TS Ν so Ν so
NO O 00 00
Ν 00 -Φ «•«•s ίΛ
C N <3 00 t CN J
»Λ μ· Ν Cs _Γ ι_Γ
Γ- NO τΤ \ 0 00
ΟΟ r- ^ o ^ · SO Ολ O"
Ι-Γ Ν Ν
CN 00 0 CN Ν
NO NO 2»
** Γ-
00 Ν 00 ο
Γ- 00 Μ Γ- CS r-
N- ΟΟ Ν Η- Η- Ν TÍ;
O r^ Η Γ— yZ, -vO CN -ν?
CS r- CS NO
N^ 00 M VN r- NN
n-\ ο tS -Φ
o O
*«·.
C s SO r-
Η Ν Η* >->
. - tJ TJ ο
δ «
(ΙΟ
ο "-1 ft s c
ω -τ; « ~ ω
c
§ Ι @ Ι o
ζ « g . g J3 Ζ
00 ,
C
ω
ι
S ^ Θ
§
Ζ I Θ
υ s -
®
Θ ¿ 3 ©
J2
Λ
Η Θ Θ Θ ® Θ Θ Θ ®
generation (the Native [born] of Native [born] in Table 1) it falls to a mere

7 . 1 2 % . In the interstitial second generation (the Ν [a ti ve] of Fforeign]
P[arentage]/M[ixed] P[arentage] in Table 1) it is an intermediate 58.88%, i.e.,
far closer to the first-generation figure than to the Third. Furthermore, although
the proportion of third-generation claimants of non-English mother tongues is
rather small (leaving us with the natural question as to whether it is this small in
all minority ethnolinguistic groups or only in some), the total of such claimants
is, nevertheless, over 12 million, i.e., more than a third of the national total of
non-English mother-tongue claimants. Certainly this is an aspect of ethnolin-
guistic continuity in the United States that has not been recognized before and,
indeed, an aspect that may well be unprecedented.
CLAIMING PARTICULAR NON-ENGLISH MOTHER

TONGUES, 1970
Prior to 1970 six languages had accounted for the lion's share of non-English
mother-tongue claiming in the United States throughout the century: Spanish,
German, Italian, French, Polish and Yiddish. Although their rank order has not
always been the same as their rank order in 1970, these same six languages also
remained the "big six" in 1970 and their order in that year was the order in
which we have just mentioned them (Table 2). 3
Before going further, perhaps a word about the layout of Table 2 is in order. It
is a far longer table than its predecessors in prior censuses. 4 The top half of the
table (roughly down to Armenian) lists the primarily European languages that
have customarily been listed before and does so by blocks or clusters that reflect
the roughly regional order of mass immigration periods to the United States
(first from Northern Europe, then from Central Europe, then from Eastern and
Southern Europe). The bottom half of the table lists the African and Asian
languages that generally correspond to more recent immigrational history.
Amerindians are listed last of all and in highly abbreviated fashion. All in all, it is
clear from this order that non-English mother tongue is viewed here as related
to immigrational recency and, above all, as indicative of non-Anglo or non-
mainstream ethnicity. Those "ethnics" that no longer claim non-English
mother tongues are assumed to have joined the mainstream, an assumption
which may or may not be borne out by our subsequent discussion.
GENERATIONAL COMPOSITION OF NON-ENGLISH

MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMANTS, 1970
The generational breakdown of non-English mother-tongue claiming in 1970

obviously varied greatly from language to language and its third generation
112 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
00 00ι τ}- — Ο —
·< -φ οο
c νΟ
ΙΛ Ο Ν
^ •~ « Ο
« οο I—
00 Ν Ο ^ Ο
t Η »
«Λ ΙΛ Νr^ ο ο>-"
Ν -φ
o o «
ft.
•φ Ν •it \ο >- O -φ
r- ο ^ ο « Ν •φ μ Γ
ΙΛ Ά ^^"Λ·«•%
M
ce)
? ? Μ Λ
Ο
Ο •φ νο va
-φ ο "S 1 1
υ ν" ·Ο Τ^ <- ΟΟ I- + (Λ » t- t-
Έ e m
CS Ν Ο
«W> .s a
s s.
«
Cu
Ό O M V«N Cs es Tf SO CS
VΓ- Γ- M TJ- SO Ν Ν N
Mo
m υχ bC Cs O Ν GsSO SO^ O C
CN SCso
N Tj- O
r^ Ν ^ sû
O Ν 0
8 s, Ν O ΗΓ V-s so" M
I KNoc 00 <£ so"
r- Ν Os 00 00 Ν KS 00 r-
O
cn Ν r- «*">
Ό
"fr <3
SO Ν es 0
c O 0 rt Ν*
Ml b a,
go
O Η
p. Cs 00 OO «TNOO
.0 ο Wv O r- £ Νf CS CS Ν CS SO 00 sO
T 00
CN CNSO w-v M O N^ 0, so^ ** 00 o CS 0
so Ν •Λ οο ri ^Ν Ν r^ nN
- o" "fr N"4 0^
CSOr- 0 Γ- 0 Tj- Ν •Φ Ν
o
Ζ« H
Ν 00 00 o 00 r- 00 O 00 so HMO M M
r-
Ν so Ν rj- Ν r- SO
O_ o0 S00
O Tj- sO 00 SO
es »Λ OOa SO 00
τί 00 00 vü o" CNoo" vC SD
r- O r- O Ν 0 SO 0•TS Ν CS
so SO
Ν SO^ 'Φ ( Γ-
M
o 1-1
H
Sû MS Ν CS Cs KS Ν CS
Ν ^ OΝO 00 SO O Ν f<S
O Ο οο
&0 Cs Ολ CN CN OO
a τ? CÑ C
ΝN οCS SO o" r^ οο
00 O 00 S00
O*"
sO^ 0Ν r-
cυ so
ι* Cv C
N Ν
g. sO ^
00 Ν Ν Ν Ν 00 Os 00 Ν 00
SO S00
O Ο SO 00 Ν KS Ν SO r-- Ν Ν Ν
0 οο
00 O r^· CN00 SO
cs KS 00
00 Ν* so"
0* r^ OO ο"
Ν Cs so Cs
oo" fi es ^
r^ Ν O C
N Ν CÑ
ΟΟ
Ν SO SO Ν
O O 0 Ν SO" Ν
H Ν SO
c C
« S 0
(Λ
-O U λ« ü ja ca '3 υ •3 S
υ Ί3 á .a ρ 3 ^ •fi ·3 εM
IQJ
O υ
.O > ε 1
So abo"υS S3 8 υ
'S
Ρ ^υ ~ t- O
S 2, •a £
H « U Q Ib 0. tQ (Λ t/l Ω <
0 00 00 r- ΙΛ so SO vs * 0 Os Os SO «fi Ν Γ- ON SO SO ON 00 so ON
On 00 0 r- Ν ON T* ON so Ν 00 Tí- ΟΟ r - 0 vs 00
Ν H- N vo r·^ Ν fs| «- Κ-, GN »r* ι- r^ r - M 00 r- Ν >-·
OO* VC o" so" \û 00 SO o" ff oo" SO" so" « 4
»Ts ON •«t ON Ν Os Ν ON
Ολ
l-> NM
o Ν r - ο Os Μ 00 1— ^ r- r - OO Ο «Ν SO OO Ν
ON so 00 Γ- Wv so Ο ON so Ν w-s 00 Ο Ν ON Ν rr>
so 00 «•ς· Ν Ν sO^ 00 0 On 00 Ν- SÛ ι-
On _Γ f í 4 »Λ 0 Ι-Γ r - θ" ~ CN « 4 OO
Ν TT SO 00 ON
ι- ON
Ο Γ- SO Ν O ON Tf ON ι-- >_ 00 Ν O r- O SO •«t

KS ON τ* ON 00 Ν O 00 Γ- ON O Ν Ν ON O
r^ Ν Sû GN -> 00 t 00 οΛ S0A C\ CN NO
so" J* ^ ΗΗ ΙΛΝ so" OO* _
,< 00 M 00
ON »VN IM M Ν t—
M 00 »-1 ON ON >-
00 ON rr\Tj- r - on O V-. so ON Γ- N r- Ν ON οο so Ν SO Γ- Ν
00 O r- so O 00 ON ON ΟΟ O 00 O Γ- 0
00 SO IM 1- ^ SO Ν SO^ 00 ON Γ— •Λ Ν Ν 00
Ν 00 o" 00 Ν so" Ν 4 00 Ι-Γ Ν* ο"
so trs Ν 00 0 so •Ί-
N- <-« — On Ν CN —
ν" S
-φ so Γ- 0 ON OO Tí- ON SO O 0 M-, OO SO Γ- 00 0 Os 00 Ν M ^
r- 00 Γ- Ν 11 SO ON 00 00 ON 00 0 ON h- O
ers VÛ τί; 00 *<N 00 NO^ VN Ν VN CN Ό 00 On ·- 1- ON v^
so" 00 ΟΟ »TN SO" Ι-Γ _Γ οο" rT NO so" N" _r On M"
O Ν Ν o 0 00 00 O
Ν Ν Tf sq.
IM Ν ON SO Ti- Ν ON 0 Ν Ν 00 ν-χ O ΙΜ r\ ON Ν Γ- Ο "^ Ο

Γ-
Ν »*Ν Τtr 0+
»Λ SO SO Γ- NO Ν SO ON ON 0 00 τ
NO SO M IM ι- Ν 00 SO^ 00 Γ- ON V-- S0_ ζ ON Λ
o" Ν* vA ο" scT Ν « CTS 4 θ" fT
Ν Γ- 0 Γ- SO « **
00 O 00 ν-ν Μ Γ- 0 00 ON V-s 0 σο O SO IM OO 00 IM
SO Ν Tí- ON ON 00 ON 00 0 O ON Γ- 00 ON M SO O ON
00 Γ^ ΝΟλ Γ- GN ^ NO^ KN sq_ 00 ο^ GN CN
Ν" so" Ά iS 00 T? ^ 00 θ" θ" ΗΓ rrs Ν so" KS
ON ON Ν SO O Ν 0 Ν SO
Ν Ν Ν Tf 00
Tt
-a
υ
IB
rt
§> <
1-1
-3 •3
55 c tí
» cd
υ
«Ά
.a "a G es υ 1) c c 5
3 <
o.
χ
.03 g
§ ®
υ
.3 c
m «
Λ
.a
ja
0,0 3 t-l a u ÉB s
<Λ <9 S -i υ O,. t: f
e 2
S Λ
u
J3 «Λ M s ε a .ä c 3 er ε e Λ « ri 1 1 1
G 4-J
3
δ s !2
BU J O P4 D Ü oí >·
,ξ
O
« 8, o
ä <λ eu pa
s
χ < ω £ ζ
o
(Λ ΐ
£
(Λ
114 H The Ethnie Revival and lânguage Maintenance in the USA
CN NOΜ ο Ο NOΦ 0 NO VN
κ*\ 0t0 0CN CN Ν ON o CN NO CN O
at¡e Ν 00 NO
00 ^ r- 1-1 NO^ NO
NO Φ Φ Ο λ <D <D ^
SO" Ι-Γ Ν"
Ν ^ φKS oo" NO"
00 f/S hl N* Φ
o o
Ά J3
Κ"\ ΟΟ" φ NO -Φ ΝO
Γ - ο0 0 ΦCS O NOC S £ κ·\ NO 0r^N
0 C S NO•Φ o
Ν NOCNa ** NO^ Ν NOΝ CN NOO
NO NO
,_Γ J oo" 0r-» ΗΓ ^
Φ
«
CL. KS NO Γ^ NO rt 0 ΟΟ 0Ν0 KS
- υO CN
Ν MS r -
r- rrrv- NOo •ΝΛ
χ NO ON ΟΟΝ Tfκ-\ OΝ CN " φ — Ν •- 1
NOΦ
E, « ws r f ,-T »S r ^ r ^ 0o0" ΗΓ
•SP c
cm a g
a £ l
o S' S P
ü- IH KS Φ 0 0 O " φ r« -s NO o rr -- KS
.O 0 0 ΝΝ Γ^ΓΝ- NO
ΝΟ NO NO οΓο - Ν 0 0 ΝΟ λ Ν O<D Tf^ 0 0
„ SD o A Ν CN ΦΦ C\ « «-•
^ n " fi no" 0 N* M
Ν Ν
o
H
C S KS 0 0 Γ -
? ΟΟTΝt οΝ ΟΟ
Ν NOΝ NO
Tf s o OΟ λ
00
OΝ
ΟΟ
φKS
ΝΓ -
r^
OO
NO ä
CN
NS NO"Φ NO NO
<3 NO NO MS Ν Νt
^ Ν* Ν* νΝ" οο" ^ 00 ,_Γ I-I
Ν T? Ν o ΝMS 0•^s
o
H
NO» Λ NO CN WS KS NO NO rrs NO 0 0 OOTfΝ OOr - NO

*
Ν Ν r - NO r ^ OO
κ*\ ΟΟ NOr - O "Φ 0 0 Ν NO o NOI - <— 0Ν0
ΗΓ _τ m" Ν 0N*0 Ν ΗΓ
·-<
t
Ο γKS- Φ M-\ ON 0•0Λ 0Ν0 Γ - CN Ν (M 0 0 NO KS
•Ί- Ν CN rCN- Ν CN CN VN 0 0Ν0 ' ΟCN o o NO ^ Φ Ν
Ο vC NOΝ eΝf œ * KS 00 rKS^ IM" m 4 NcT
Ν 0 HS
o
H
o ^
J «ï M« .ÇJc
υ 2S(Λ HS> » * (Λ
o ^5Λ S
àc ^ χ υ Og
a S -S «ε ·β§
ΙΛ o -fi 3 Κ C
Ό υ υ « rt ιΛ
υ · - -O υ c S u J3
e tuo w 3 s a .s -s " ° SS ". -λS o 3 S S Î
Ρ • H rt
Ζ ω h O < I O q a ^ u S υ Ο H m F
00 s o O O 00 Μ
M 0 r-
0 C\ r-
Tt C\ ι-
Ν of 4 Ον SO
00 Cs
ΧΓ
Ν Ν SO CS
Ό Cs ON r- Ν Γ-
es TJ- G\
«•Λ τ*
Ν 0 h-
τ- 00
r- r- r- ν£> ο 00
N >- N- 00 ^ Ν
_Γ SO r^
Ks r -
Ν
? 00
SO
>-
-*t
er\
CS
w\
00 £
SO
M 00
'φ
O 00 >- -i" Ν
»Λ Ό Ν CS
οο h Ο Ο SOä r-
o"
ίΛ Ό Ό SO «
CN ^ Ο Ν 00
ι- O ~ O
M M ©S ~
« οο
Ν r-» r - e s O 00 Cs
0 00 0 SO Ν SO Γ-- Γ -
SO^ C\ 00 Ν SO^ h - οο
r^
Ν-
oΝ CS ,-Γ oo"
Cs
0"
00
Ν 1- 00
-a
c
S
§* S
"3 C JS O
^ rt . ε o
S » ' S s < CL,
^
m
-2
« β
g < *
ι U
υ
60 J ^ > j=
•S _ 2 *S O
O H
rt O
P-. < ζ o 5 o Ζ
was proportionately at its lowest in connection with those ethnolinguistic

groups that had either relatively long or relatively short histories of post-
immigrational presence in the United States (Table 3). In the latter case (e.g.,
Turkish, Hindi, Korean, etc.), we are dealing with immigrant-derived popu-
lations who have arrived too recently in the United States to have produced
much of a third generation here by 1970. Their demographic growth in the
United States was still ahead of them at that time and, therefore, it remains to be
seen whether or not (or to what extent) their respective third generations will
claim non-English mother tongues. However, in the former case, i.e., in
immigrant-derived ethnolinguistic groups that have had more than enough
time to produce third (and even further) generations in the U.S.A. (e.g. Danish,
Slovenian, Yiddish and Italian), the meager representation of the third genera-
tion must be attributed to language shift from the ethnic language to English.
This can be appreciated most simply by comparing the third generation propor-
tion for English with that for the European-derived immigrant languages as a
whole (most of the latter having been present in the U.S.A. long enough to have
produced their third generation by 1970). The former stands at roughly 93%
and the latter at roughly 35%! This represents a very sizable difference and one
that would be much greater still if such obvious exceptions as Spanish, French
and German were excluded and treated separately. On the other hand, we need
to know whether the generational composition of non-English mother-tongue
claiming among "old timer" non-English languages in the U.S.A. (that is,
among those arriving primarily before World War II) had changed since 1960
and, if so, in what ways. Our interpretations and predictions would differ if the
admittedly bad situation had gotten worse (or, alternatively, if it had gotten
better). But let us complete our review of 1970 per se.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF NON-ENGLISH

MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMANTS, 1970
Two important questions can be answered by examining the geographic dis-

tribution of non-English mother-tongue claiming in 1970. On the one hand we
can find out which languages are most concentrated. On the other hand we can
find out which states are most "impacted" by non-English mother-tongue
claiming. The first question is of importance because concentration may foster
communication networks between individuals as well as provide for economies
of scale at the institutional level, i.e., concentration may make it easier for
speakers of any given non-English mother tongue to interact (i.e., to meet—
and speak to—others who claim the same non-English mother tongue), and it
may make it easier to maintain their communal institutions (press, radio, t.v.,
schools, churches). On the average, most of the traditionally reported non-
SO -Φ Ν es OS Ο Ν •Φ •φ 0 SO O M Ν Φ -φ so •Φ
Ν Ν 00 Ks CS MS •φ Cs •φ SO SO •φ Ν so Ι—
Cs •φ 00 Η 0^ f Ν Ks MS Cs cs O, 0, SO, so. « ί-
c •φ Ν MS Ν 0" ΟΟ θ" 00 so" Ν •Φ Μ" 0" Ν -Φ 00 ο"
υ Ks MS
tuo o Ν 0 SD 00 •φ 00 Ν Ν Ks
va ms Ν Φ •φ SO
Ό os Cs M" Ν
w so Φ
>
Η
<
Ζ
O ΟΟ HH OS SO
α, 0 •Φ Ν SO •φ 0 Cs ί - SO so 00 φ Cs SO φ Ks 00
o φ OS 0 •φ 0 Cs Cs 00 00 ο SO 0 OS O O 00 so
MS Ν MS 00 •φ •Φ SO Ν 0 r^ Ν 0 0 Os OS Cs CS 0
00 Os KS Ν Ν φ Ν KS O 0 Ο Ν 0
0 Ks Cs oc OS 00 so Ks KS MS φ 00 Φ Cs MS
MS so I— ρ Ν Cs MS Ν CS sìT 00 Os 0 00 r^ 00 SO 0
c CJi 00 CJs SO, Ν SO, Φ »-, SO, ·"", 00 0 Ν Ν so. 0 , 00 KN r^
Ζ o M" WS vC
^ so" Ν MS _r r^ MS KS ο" Φ Ν 4 00 Φ 0" <sT vC
Ο 60
-α Cs
0
r^
MS 00 0
KS MS
SO
H
Ν O
Φ
φ KS Φ
KS Ν KS
Κι MS
Ν f
ms SO Ν
«
00
Cs
ω α c KS (í, N" Η
eí ω Ν
o χ
a ^
3 > d
Eh r s
Μ
C
«
o •φ o 00 Φ o r^ ι-« 00 00 Η Ν so Ms 00 <Λ WS
•J ix
o O φ •« os ι- O O -φ ν φ r^ ms Ν n SD CS 00 00
c\ s o i ^ i - o - ^ o s o o r ^ VO « " + '
O MS SO Ks Ν sj- φ v-. Í SO
ON 00 00 ν·* Ν Ν- »Λ ^ oo OO r^ 00 o SÛ
C v~> S© O "-1 Η O VÛ ^ O '
Γ-» Ν r- ^ 00 c\ ^ Η
t ^ t Ν O
υ
οο
Os Γ - v-v Ν o
es r^
ν
Os sû
— Ν o
v-v 00 Ό 00
« ζ
TJ- ON ^ Ν »TN
Cu es SO
T3 O Cs
c« m
Ζ
O
hH C
« M o
ζ Pí ' 8
O o
[Ih α , KS SO so 0 CS Ν CS so Ν Ν 11 00 Ks CS O >-< l-l l-t 00 •Φ OS
o 0 •t Cs Cs 0 SO r - Ν SD O SO KS KS SD r^ ΟΟ 0 •Φ
O OS so SO O Cs r^ SO SD KS MS 00 Ν r^ SO
0 0 Ν Ν MS MS Ks MS Ν Tt MS KS •Ί- Ν
00 KS Ν Ν Ν Ν r^ 00 Ν •Φ 00 Ν so N 0 00 Ο Ks
SO SO 0 SO Ν 0 Ν KS so Cs Ν 00 Ν so Os CS
00 * so. r^ Ç Cs ΟΟ Ms rt; Ks KS so. KS ΟΟ Cs
0 oo" Ν so" •Φ Ν 00" Ν"
00 Ν CS Cs MS
Ks
Cs KS
Ν" 0" ci
Tt· KS
Ν"
00
-ΐ
MS
CS
•Φ
Ν"
Cs
•Φ so" KS
Cs
« 3
«s| SO SO -t O, •φ TI- Ν ms Ν Ν Ν
o
Η
a .ü
ùû O
ω ö
118 II The Ethnic Revival and hangiage Maintenance in the USA
CS o Ν 00 Vv -Η SO CN so SO 00 so es Ν
Μ·\ Ν SO O N SO Tf 00 SO R - R- CS
00 Ν os so r^ 00 N r-^ oo o,
c so* _Γ Ν* C\ ΗΓ Ν N* o* » oo*" oo
υ 0 r- SO Μ <- Ν oo -lH es
M SO
-α 4
(û
>
HH
H
<1
Ζ
o CS M Η CS O ΝΘ Ν M CS Γ- MS |-< SO
CL Ο
SO MS O SO Γ - MS MS R- Ν Cs 00 00
O Ν ·«• MS r- KS CS MS R - O 00 ΟΟ Μ·\ 0 CS
O 0 O 0 Ν Ο 0 Ο CS CS
O US Cs •«t Ν »TS r- SO Γ- 00 r- MS MS Ο 00
CS CS ^ O 00 CS SO ΟΟ Ν Ν ο Γ— CS
c ** SO^ Ν SQ^ 00 0 SO^ <> Ο^ SO
ζ υ 00 N* 00* Ν" Γ—
bo Ν* SO" MS SO* τ? Ι-Γ ,-Γ
O O so es 0 Ν
—
tI _ -O Ν Ν >-
ω Q C N* HT
PI A
o χ
ω Á
> Pí
p o
c O
OH
Γ- _ 1Λ.
00 Ν Ν cs OO
fA
O Ν o CS 00 O
ζ O
M"v SO O —I M Ô CN 00 O r- M os O
IH O 00 r- OO CS O SO 0 SO o
CL
Tf SO Ν Ν Ν MN H O 0
Cs O CS so N — r SO r- 00 00
£ Cs "t Ν oo Tt-
O
Cs
O
SO Cs cs
O 0
Ν
I
CS
Ν Ν MS cr\ sq_ SD r- Ολ Ν S0Ä SO
Ζ MS VC SO* O* 00 so* M-\ SO* N* 00* O* Ν*
CS Ν CS MS l-l M^ r- M Ν MS N M os l-l
s 0 Λ sq m
O S HH fi
β ^
Ζ
ο
SO 00 Μ . MS 00 M SO 0 SO Ν M 00 oo M o
Ν Γ- so M r- 0 0 00 Cs Cs O « es Ν o
Ν οο 00 r- v-N 00 CS M\ •t 00 ^ « es MS 0
-φ Ν Ν MN SO 00 SO Ν oo so o 0
GS M-S Ο 00 ι- SO Γ-- OS O
Ν Ο ** Ο O VO
σ\ αο
^ 't "t
00 WV >Λ » TT h-
^ Ν Ο Ο Tf - Η
t « ΟΟ >Λ ^ MS Ν
s
£
g to
crt
o '3
c .a
3
üo c s •J
?G -zro
3 C
qj rt C3
ε e
jd -α o S /-Ν
O 3 -S
Ü "
$
U 1Η <Λ§· CL < CL H X < Ζ
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming Since if 6o: Trends and Correlates 119
English languages in the U.S.A. were concentrated (that is, at least 50 % of their
claimants were concentrated) in four states (See Appendix 1). This means that
claimants of non-English mother tongues were quite a bit more concentrated than
the American population as a whole since minimally a dozen states were needed
to account for half of the total American population in 1970 5 . Even the least
concentrated among them, Danish and German, were roughly twice as con-
centrated as the U.S. population as a whole, only 6 or 7 states being required,
respectively, in order to account for half of their claimants. The most con-
centrated non-English mother tongues in 1970 (at least among the traditionally
reported European languages, Amerindian languages as a single total, and
Chinese, Japanese and Arabic) required only two states in order to account for
half of their claimants in 1970. These super-concentrated languages were
Yiddish, Spanish 53 , Portuguese, Japanese and Chinese. It remains to be seen
what the consequences of such over-concentration (or even of concentration in
general, as a factor above and beyond demographic magnitude per sé) may be.
If the non-English mother tongues differ from each other in the degree to
which their claimants are concentrated, then the states and regions differ even
more in the extent to which non-English mother-tongue claimants are con-
centrated within them. The South as a whole and its individual states were
least often the places in which claimants of non-English mother tongues
resided. Only three southern states (Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas) need to
be included in order to most parsimoniously account for 50% of the claimants
of any particular non-English mother tongue (French, Amerindian and
Spanish) and these are all "West South Central," according to the Bureau of the
Census' designation. In the "South Atlantic" and "East South Central" areas
that constituted the heart of the old Confederacy, more than half of the states
showed clearly negligible population segments (5% or less) claiming non-
English mother tongues, with Tennessee and Mississippi each reporting the
lowest proportions of all, namely 1 . 5 % .
On the other hand, the Northeast and West are the regions in which the highest
proportions of non-English mother-tongue claimants resided (accounting for
roughly 25% and 2 1 % of all such claimants respectively), with some states
reporting astounding proportions of such claimants in their populations, e.g.,
roughly 28% in Connecticut, 30% in New York, 36% in Hawaii and 42% in
New Mexico! Lest it be overlooked, it should be pointed out that although
"only" 24% of the population of California claimed a non-English mother
tongue in 1970, this state, the epitome of the "modern" West and the home of
much that is trendy, sporty and "zany" in American culture, must be counted in
order to account most parsimoniously for 17 of the 2 5 traditionally tabulated
non-English mother tongues. This is exactly the same total as that obtained by
New York and these two states, therefore, constituted the very heart of non-
English mother-tongue claiming in America in 1970, and probably do so today
120 II The Ethnic Revival and Iânguage Maintenance in the USA
as well, with Pennsylvania and Illinois being distant runners-up (being required
for 1 1 and 9 languages respectively). California is important as well because it is
simultaneously the home of many of the relatively new Asian/Pacific immigrant
groups as well as being a major secondary settlement area for many of the " o l d
timers" of American immigrational history. If non-English mother-tongues
can attain intergenerational continuity in California (either overtly or attitudin-
ally) then, indeed, they may have learned how to survive, i.e., to selectively
maintain and remove the ethnocultural boundaries that distinguish between
their own claimants and mainstream Anglo-America.
AGE OF NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE

CLAIMANTS, 1970
The entire foreign-born population of the United States in 1970 (even the
English mother-tongue segment thereof) was a g o o d bit older than the total
native-born-of-native-born population in that year (Table 4),6 with the native-
born-of-foreign-or-mixed-parentage (the "second generation") once again
being much more similar to the former than to the latter. Indeed, several of the
foreign-born non-English mother-tongue groups are of such advanced median
ages (75 and over) and a f e w others are so close to being equally superannuated,
that within a relatively few years (and barring renewed mass immigration from
abroad) first-generation status for claimants of mother tongues other than
English or Spanish will become a rather rare phenomenon, not merely in the
American population as a whole but even within the ranks of non-English
mother-tongue claimants per se. Thus, what began as an indicator of foreign
birth (except among Amerindians and most Chícanos) had transitioned by 1970
(due to the relative lessening of immigration, in general, and European immig-
ration, in particular, since its early 20th-century peak and due to the normal
aging of those w h o arrived in the decades just before or in the years im-
mediately after World War I) into a significantly native-born phenomenon. In
fact, for the claimants of European mother tongues it had become a distinctly
native-born phenomenon. H o w e v e r , when we turn to the "third generation" in
1970, we note that not only were its ranks proportionally smaller than we would
have expected if intergenerational continuity of non-English mother-tongue
claiming were taking place (we have already commented about this earlier in
discussing Table 3, above) but that the age distribution of these claimants was,
generally speaking, considerably more advanced than that of the native-of-
native population that claimed English as its mother tongue. Thus, whereas the
modal age of the latter population was under 14 and its median age roughly 24,
the modal and median ages of the former were in the 40s. Indeed, in the case of
Norwegian and German mother-tongue- claimants the median/modal ages of
« S
>
r-- o
00 ON »
h 00 v-J 00 r - o s o Ή τ}- o tj-

1 - ν-. h | r - 00 ν M * , q o o « r-
r^-r^öKo C\ Ν 4 o l ^
— >- rtì » tf\ ΙΛ Ν <r-J —
o
«r\ r- -rf SD Tf SD l· Ν O CS Ν 4 00
ooI o s sO| ~
SI £ S - 2 - ti S 1
y S S* "S ï j 3
» Ni t O «s
¿
— 00 00 r -
-ι ~ 00 O CS «
¿1 5 · j 8
O Cs O Ν s o l 00 cH 00 so I
00 o <-• 00 sO - V. " Mf e j Ν -1
sO SO SO Cs CS Cs 4 OO
D
•a β
^ Tt o
SO Ο Ν
- ν s o «A
"H °°.J 9| Η τι í i "ti ~ I *? ^ « v-s « q

^J 3Ί -"ti y Hsol^lsoi H ^ l o i S j S^jol H 2·. Γ Stl Ν*
O CS - O
n C s w ^ N « O O esso O CS
o c s ο s o sq Γ - s q e s so e s » s o
Cs - Ν « Ν A Cs 4 Ν ->* Ν
SO Ν v-v Γ- -- «m m r- H «
CS 00 τ}- >-• es SO Oi5 r - cs 0 ^ eel ^
'so Κ- Ν
*
i ~ - 3 " ¿J
o,
« S 00
f i 0 CS Ni 00 •1 «-· e s ν r-· 00
T« r»·. 00 »-J Ν r--•00 0
t
φ ~ > Γ"- w
.S •Λ col vol 00 SO 00 s o o l » ·«fr Ν « Ν ο Ά o
r- O
I so 0 0 0 >-> c s H ^ t ^ s o 01 s o s o s o l r -
r^-q cs s o « τ}, ο ν ^ Η ·- ^ cn ν ^ 00
rj- 4 o « ° ¿ so « A o j s o Cs so 4 r^ Ν so
es so -1 H ' t 001 Ν o SO SOI Ν SO

NO Η Ol 00 0 H sq
so O o l 00 4
I
(2
CH CS M M
o". · Ν 00 SO
Tf Cs 00 « l o I oo
ι- Ν Ν —
« es r- so s o CS CS • t sO O -
ι ^ τ ^ Γ-. SO 0 0 r - e s - c s
e s 00 »Λ Cs Ά Κ- s o
00 00 CS ^ 00 ·*·.Ν SO CS CS
1.37
1.97
2.01
.99
5.10
r-.
Q \θ - t Ο >7 1 Τ 1 Τ " t 00 SO 't
υ
Ht> Ο Η Μ Ν \û
oCroatian
C
garian
enian
Β S
'So
υ
jz
v¡ g - a 1 - s ¿A „C .- 2
g XS3
ρ
ak
h
=g s a
Í . W „> C , XI > . 2 C rt
r » f a s E
S O 3 £ .0 s ζ ί s á =3 o
m z ^ a a i o i ü ä U i (Λ i I 1Λ Λ Ού O J >w· HlH C/5p > < Ζ
122 II The Ethnic Revival and hanguage Maintenance in the USA
third-generation claimants were already in the 45 - 6 4 age range. Only for a very
few of the traditionally documented languages was the third generation in 1970
as young as or younger than the average age of the English mother-tongue
claiming third generation, namely for Greek, Spanish and Chinese, 7 all of
whom were still in the midst of demographic growth as revealed by their
"younger-than-English" age distributions in the other two generations as well.
Thus, once again we have a very definite indication of the difficulty encountered
by most non-English mother-tongue groups vis-à-vis intergenerational con-
tinuity. Their third generations (which, of course, in accord with traditional
American nomenclature, includes third generation and beyond) was not only
generally smaller than it should have been. In only a few cases did it consist
primarily of the great-grandchildren of those who initially brought these
mother tongues to our shores (even though it should have done so by 1970,
thereby greatly increasing the proportion of "under i4"-year-old claimants)—
these great-grandchildren having become part and parcel of the English
mother-tongue claiming population.
RURAL, URBAN AND STANDARD METROPOLITAN

RESIDENCE, 1970
For a very few non-English mother tongues, namely the "big six" of this
century (and, partially, also Russian) 8 we also have 1970 data on rural-urban
and standard metropolitan residence. As far as rural-urban distributions are
concerned, the foreign born as a whole (regardless of mother-tongue claiming)
not only continued to be more urbanized than were the native born but they had
become even more so than they themselves had already been in i960 (Table 5).
These same circumstances also apply to each of the "big six" individually (as
well as Russian), Yiddish and Italian mother-tongue claimants being the most
urbanized of all, in both reported nativity groupings, whereas French and
German mother-tongue claimants were least so (and, indeed, were far below the
national averages in both nativity groupings). Given the high rate of urbaniza-
tion in the United States as a whole, and among claimants of the non-English
mother tongues in particular, the city must be recognized as the ubiquitous
context of intergenerational mother-tongue claiming continuity (or the lack
thereof). By 1970 (as it had been in most cases by i960, if not earlier), the drama
had become an urban drama almost completely. Its situation and its actors, its
tools and its processes all had to bear the stamp of urban life and its special
opportunities, on the one hand, or its special problems, on the other. Foreigners
and their children had not only fashioned the cities; the cities had come, in turn,
to fashion them.
However, be that as it may, apparently all cities were not alike. If we focus on
CS CS ©S 00
-i* CS Tj· OO Ν
»S»
*
<->
*g
Tf Ν
rt r- -«t
8·
£
-Si Ν IM CS O so - f r " f r 00 0 0 VO O SD r- Ν KS 00 Μ
,
Ν "Φ CS 00 i" ΟΟ — 00 00 00 Tt Ν Ν >1 SO Ν r- so
i 0 Ν Μ ^ 4 Ν
Ί Ο SO 00 00 0 ON •Φ 0 00 Ν ers CS SO ^ r-
ON Γ- Ν ΟΟ »rs VO o 00 SD Cs 00 •θ"
M
I* Ν! »rs Ν Ön m Ν
Μ
Μ Ο
Μ 00 0 0 M* SD SO 00 Cs
Ν Ν Ν Ν
•XS
β
«
CS
"fr
KS ' f r »rs " f r
SO O φ
00
Ks
so
CS
Ν
Ο
Os ^ 0
h- r^·
^
'S· ^
Ν Os „00
00 00 WS 0 SO q r— Ο
•Λ Ν mi * «A CS so •Λ 00 iJ vö 0 00 HI Ν <j\ Os On
κ Γ- Γ- r- Γ- SO 00 00 es CS 00 r- 00 00 00 CS CS CS On 00 00
.•β "Φ 0 r- 0 "φ o\ o\ Ν 00 00 Tf Ν OS r- 00 •<% 00

ΟΟ SO CS SD «rs 0 Ο ο Ν 00 00 Ν Γ- r- SO jr
.S Ν SO O M -Φ r^ VO 00 »<s SO^ Os x^
Λ»
Η-Γ «TS M" «s Ι-Γ r^ ο" CT, rî 0" 0" |_Γ so" O «S HT
6 ο so 00 00 Tt Ν Ν Ν Ν Tt
£ u 00 ·-< •Φ
a ο" 0" 00"
tu
* _ Os 0 WS ^ 0 _ Ν NO Cs SO „ Γ- ^ _ Cs On
δ 6« οο r- 00 SO r- Ν Ν Ν 0\ r^ 0 WS Ν ΟΟ SO SO Γ- «s 00
r^ r^· r^ SOä r^ CTj r^ S0w SD^ «s Ν Os
tt. so" so" ON V^ Ν" Ι-Γ oo" CS o" ι_r 0" Os cA CS r^ o" 00
« β Γ- r-» 00 SD Ν Ν Ν Ν rr·. OV VO Ν CS
» o
Ν
Ν"
t CS Ν Ν VO o\ r^ Ν
£ Ζ
<5 Ν US Ν 00 \£> Ν
CS ^
r- Ov »rs Γ- 00 Ν Ν O
CS 00 CS Ν 00 Tt- Ov \o Ν r- Ό Cs r-
I « Γ^ On VN « Ολ « - r^ q^ CS r-^ »Λ 00 SO^
ν" ΗΓ 00 N" so •Λ rTN fsT vo" θ" o" Γ— »Ts 00 0^ vi
c« CS -Φ SO Ν Ν 0 SO *<s ΟΟ «vs KS r- Γ— Ν 00
§ -O
so Ov S0_
θ" N" ΗΓ
Ν- 00
Ν
r;
00
»TN hH CS V-N Ν
Ν
ui "Φ Tf NM
D ** "
J
ΟΟ so 00 00 CS so 00 O -O Ν _ O Ν r- SO TÍ- o SO
00 Ν Ν «*S r- Ν Tt- Ν O Ν 00 OS -Φ Γ— Tj-
ί- ΟΟ Ν 00 W N
- its ΟΟλ 00 ^ Cs w On Ν SO^
R ο" 0* r^ Ι-Γ οο" οο" r^ νΐ r^ 0" Ο^ OÑ 00" ¿i, so" xs so"
ON 00 CS 00 Ν Ό Ν CS 0 - f r MS Ν On 00 CS
*
Ν ολ — 00 Ολ ι- ^ VO- Ν ^ so N^ sq_
>© «τ·* US On Ν" 4 Ν o\ •H" Ι-Γ Ι-Γ IM N"
o 0 CS
ξ Η Ν **
(5 s
O
2 g
s «a
oí «
β
« •lo
ε
£
.A
ju
3
rt
Η â £ ϋ & (2 ?
the proportions of native-born claimants among the "big six" (i.e., second
generation and beyond) as our criterion, we consistently find negative corre-
lations between this criterion and total population size across the 30 non-
Southern standard metropolitan areas that had populations of one million or
more in 1970 (Table 6). This same implication of the negative impact of
population magnitude per se is repeated whether we focus upon the White
population, the Black population, the population of "other races" or the native-
of-native (third-generation population). On the other hand, if sheer population
siê is generally contraindicated in connection with explaining the proportions
of native-born claimants of the "big six" non-English mother tongues, the pro-
portions of English mother-tongue individuals in the populations of these same
metropolitan areas are generally positively indicated. T w o familiar sociological
variables seem to be implied. The very largest metropolitan areas, i.e., the ones
with the most ethnolinguistic diversification, tended to depress the rate of non-
English mother-tongue claiming among the native-born children and
grandchildren of the "big six," whereas metropolitan areas that were the most
anglified, i.e., the ones with the least ethnolinguistic diversification, tended to
increase the rate of such non-English mother-tongue claiming. In the latter
contexts non-English mother-tongue claiming reflected an identity need and
function that it did not provide (perhaps due to the more visible surrounding
diversity) in the former contexts in which more recent immigrants were also
more prevalent and native-born claimants of non-English mother tongues
were, therefore, proportionally less common.
Within the "big six," Yiddish and, most particularly, Spanish, stand out as
being somewhat different from the others. Although the proportion of native-
born claimants of Yiddish is appreciably related to the proportion of native-
born claimants of Polish (the only other Eastern European-derived language in
the "big six") it tends to show all of the above trends in a more muted fashion
than do French, German, Italian and Polish, all of which are highly correlated
with each other. Finally, Spanish stands alone. It was the only one of the "big
six" that was still experiencing substantial growth in 1970, both due to immig-
ration and to natural increase, and it was apparently unresponsive to any of the
factors that were influencing the others.
THE REGIONAL IMPACT ON THE SECOND

GENERATION'S NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE
CLAIMING, 1970
One more bit of light on the dynamics of non-English mother-tongue claiming

in 1970 is available for a dozen languages (mostly, certain of the traditionally
Tf-
f( H t Η Ν N o
Ο >- KH O ^ H o o
l i l i I I I I
I I
Tt- ν \o Η
o
o o -φ M o ^ Tt- 00
ô -ψ > O O
Γ ' ' Γ ι"
I I I
ν r- ι- o O
Ο Ν OC τ(· ΙΛ -
ι ι' ι' ι' ι'
Ν
•t
I I
•«t Ο CN ^J-
I I
so Tj- r- — cn so
I I I I
o r- ν r-- Ν
CS ««·*> SO ^
ι' I I
μ-
ι'
μ-
ι'
>— Ν ^ SO h- 00 CN O ^ so f~"· 00
E -2
reported European variety plus, fortunately, Chinese and Japanese) in conjunc-

tion with their respective second generations and regions of residence. For
these 12 languages the lion's share of their original immigrant speakers came
from one relatively linguistically homogeneous country (or two in the case of
German). As a result, it is possible to compare the country of origin figures for
second generation individuals whose parents hailed from these countries with
the mother-tongue claiming figures for second-generation claimants of these
languages (Appendix i). 9 The overall (i.e., nationwide) second-generation
"maintenance quotients" for these 12 languages vary from a low of roughly
40% for Danish (to which Haugen pointed as long ago as 1953 as the least-
maintained Scandinavian language) to a high of roughly 80% for Greek. The
median maintenance quotient for the second generation of these 12 mother
tongues is roughly 60%, an overestimate certainly but an imaginable and,
therefore a bearable one.
However, it is the interregional differences shown in Appendix 2 that interest
us, rather more than the interlanguage differences discussed above. In nearly
every instance the second generation has a higher maintenance quotient in that
region of the country in which its parents initially settled than in any of the latter,
secondary settlement areas to which it may have moved. Thus, for Norwegian,
the second-generation maintenance quotient is clearly highest in the North
Central region (as it is for Swedish, Danish, Polish, Hungarian and Lithuanian),
for Italian in the Northeast, and for Chinese and Japanese and German in the
West. Except in the case of German, the primary settlement areas continued to
be of prime importance in 1970—as was initially concluded in the early 1960's
(Hofman 1966)—primarily because these still have the neighborhood concen-
trations that early settlement permits and the institutional resources that the
immigrant generation required, founded, supported and endowed. Secondary
settlement areas are relatively dislocative in both of these crucial respects. 10
REVIEW OF 1970 MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMING

DATA
Our examination of 1970 mother-tongue claiming has resulted in findings

which appear to be, on the whole, eminently reasonable in terms of inter-
language comparisons and intervariable relationships. Non-English mother-
tongue claiming in 1970 was a massive affair (involving some 17% of the total
population). Its "big six" were the same non-English languages that had held
this distinction during the entire century (although the role of Spanish had
become clearly predominant). Many Asian and African languages were re-
ported for the first time in detail. Among the largely European languages for
which the Bureau of the Census had traditionally reported throughout this
century, non-English mother-tongue claiming had ceased to be associated with
foreign birth and had become overwhelmingly an attribute of the second
generation (native-born of foreign or mixed parentage). There is evidence that
not only did this generation experience considerable losses insofar as inter-
generational continuity of non-English mother-tongue claiming is concerned
but that these losses became even greater between the second and the third
generations. The native-born-of-native-born "generation" is usually not only
smaller than it would naturally be but also older than it would be if it, in turn,
consisted not only of the third generation but of subsequent generations as well.
Claimants of non-English mother tongues are highly urbanized (even more so
than the country at large) and particularly so among the foreign-born. Those
metropolitan areas that were not too large/diversified were particularly condu-
cive to non-English mother-tongue claiming among the native-born generations
pertaining to the "big six." Among a dozen languages, most of whose initial
immigrant speakers arrived from linguistically relatively homogeneous coun-
tries, second-generation maintenance quotients were higher in the traditional
primary settlement regions than in any others.
All in all, the reasonableness and the internal consistency of the above
findings tend to confirm the utility of utilizing 1970 mother-tongue claiming
data in order to illuminate some of the social and psychological factors pertain-
ing to such claiming in the United States. We will, therefore, now proceed to
add a historical dimension to our discussion and, in particular, to explore
1960-1970 differences and the rebirth of ethnicity (the "ethnicity boom") in
conjunction with such data.
COMPARISONS WITH 1970: BEFORE AND AFTER
There is no point denying that "something" of very major proportions occur-

red in connection with non-English mother-tongue claiming in the United
States between i960 and 1970. While it is true that the wording of the mother-
tongue question changed from one census to the other, it is the burden of our
argument that the changes in rate of non-English mother-tongue claiming
cannot be explained on that basis alone. A change in the wording cannot explain
the willingness of respondents to claim a non-English mother tongue at all, nor
can it explain the various demographic correlates (individual and institutional)
as well as the between-language differences that characterized the change in
non-English mother-tongue claiming from i960 to 1970. The change in rate of
non-English mother-tongue claiming must be explained rather than explained
away. Minority ethnolinguistic phenomena in the modern, Western world have
all too frequently been explained away, wished away, rather than explained
conceptually and empirically as an aspect of demographic, sociocultural and

psychoreligious reality, a forming and reforming, grouping and regrouping
capacity and inclination in the human condition.
CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER OF MOTHER-TONGUE

CLAIMANTS, 1960-1970
Non-English mother-tongue claiming increased dramatically in the United

States in 1970 and did so whether or not Spanish is included in our compu-
tations (Table 7). This change constituted a reversal of the downward trend with
respect to such claiming that had set in after 1940. From 1940 to 1960 the total
American population increased by roughly } 6 % . At the same time total non-
English mother-tongue claiming decreased by roughly 1 2 % . If the major increase
in Spanish mother-tongue claiming during that decade (79%) is set aside then
the overall decrease in non-English mother-tongue claiming within a single
decade was roughly 2 0 % — a very major decrease indeed. N o wonder then that
it seemed to many observers as if the integrative dream of one re-ethnicized,
fully anglified American nation, "Anglo-Americans all," without "hyphens"
and "foreignisms," was well on its way toward realization. Practically every
traditionally tabulated non-English mother tongue experienced a decline
during this decade and the few exceptions either pertained to relatively small
groups (Dutch, Serbo-Croatian, Ukrainian and Greek) going through atypical
immigration cycles and bound to "settle down" soon, or to Spanish, a problem
that needed "special handling" (e.g., economic development of Puerto Rico/
Mexico and "destabilization" of Castro), but exceptions that proved the rule
rather than invalidated it.
The 1960-1970 reversal of the above trend constitutes a veritable shocker,
not only to cocktail-hour wisdom but to the professional expertise of American
sociology. Almost all non-English mother tongues reveal not only unexpected
claiming increases but sizeable increases at that. Indeed, during a decade in
which the total American population had increased by only some 1 3 % , the
increase in non-English mother-tongue claiming was roughly 7 1 % (or, if
Spanish is discounted as clearly "something else", by over 5 5 % ) ! 1 1 Whereas the
growth-rate of the English mother-tongue claiming population was only 8% in
an entire decade, that of the non-English mother-tongue population was roughly
that per annum! What had happened? What would happen? Let us tackle these
questions one at a time, keeping in mind that our answers might well have
implications not only for an understanding of minority language and ethnicity
in America but for a broader understanding of minority language and ethnicity
in modern societies more generally.
ι3ο II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Tf SÛ r- Ί- 0 o Ν Ν Ί-
Ν 0Ο0 * 2s ο
r- 0 SO 4 -Α \ό wA
ο Ν Ό ·- ΟΟ SO ο Ά ι^·
++++:++ +++ ? I + +'+ +++ « +
++ + ++
O O o
H ON 0 0 o O
—
I v-sO ΟΤ"-
Ο h- 0sO
0
0Ί-
0 Ολ ~ ? ζ Ν so r- o '4- Ί" 00 Ί" M"\
ΌΊ" ON £ on
ιI so so
ν so —
r-- ooν ^
oo o
oo »r-- o
on r-- un
« Ί- Ί- ~ ι Ο oo t r-on
oo on
+ +++ ~ + +++++ +
, Μ ι Ν MM
•C -ι- + + + + + + +
U
os Ί* OS r·- OS
OO so Ν o o ON GN ^ Ñ £ OS 00 M ο Ό σν es o
so 4 4 N Ο•«Ι- 00 Ν M SO •Α ΝTt 0OS
0
Ο " 1I e " •o
+ +00 +κ\+ + «<-·>+ Ρ-+
1 y r + +
++ ι + 1 + 1 1 + + I + + +
o o o ο Ο ο ο ο o o o O O o O o o o o O o O O Os Ν
00 Ν sOÄ SO ο, Ν CN « * * sO Os
Η Ν SO* r- sO 00 Γ- Ν Os
£ Ί-
ο 00 Ν SO «M I 00 SO
Cs o sO o
Ν sO Ι ^ oo r- SO 0Ν0 r-
^ sqr-_
1 Νί + I + 1 + 1 1 ++ Γ Ν CJv sO_
•f + + + +
Γ + r-
τ
++ + +r- so
+ +
υ
0os
0 0Os
0 SO Ν Ν Ν ^ t Η Χ 00 V-V
r^· OS Η
O OS r- Ο ν Γ-- so so
Os iJ so κί Os SO Γ^ «^ν ^ V^ ο Ν
-t Ν -ι Ν Ό i so
+
1 Γ + I I + I I I I I 1
+ Γ 1 τ τ + + Γ
ι
ο
1- 0 O o 0 ο οON « ο ο ο ο ο
00 r- so
o, so λ η υ
Ν οο ν rf οο" r- so on -i- o o Ί-
SO Ο Νν Ί- «Ν Iι h- + ι
00
1 Γ +
, ι
I I I 1 + I
J3 I I
U ++
ο
so O O O O O O o
r- Ο 0 o
O so Ν o
Ν o αοο
Ν οΓ- οON o o 0 o o 0 o o 00 Τ Ν
SO os
ON 0r- Ν 00 o Ν óo" ON h-
IOO
οο ^ sO •«t o Os 00 so «s|
o of so" fsf oo r^ N* o" fi •«f Ν* so" oo 5 ^ ^ Ο*
Η so SO - ? TÍ; ^
sO Ν
^ Î Ν Ν Ν Ν ?
^ 00
r-
2s sq_
o Ν
? »
ο "Λ
Ν ο Ν sO
o O O
Ν O oΗ O
r- O O o o 0
Os o 0o0 o ο ο r- o o o o soo o o o Ο so SO
o sO
r- SO SO Ν f«- Ι-
ΟΝ o
o ^ o r-
ON •Ί-
Ο oΝ Tj- o Os r-. 00
Os o Ί- r- r-
o" o" Ν so" ο* 00 Ν ^ HT so" ο"
^ - ^ cf í « Ν M so" Tt- Ν Ν OS Ν í - ο_ Ν %
oo ON ON On
- r- Ί-
O
Ν O
oOs o 0O0 sO
O «oo Ν o o sOo oo 00 o 000 ο
0 ·«* 0ο0 ο o
Ν o
o oΝ o o 0 0 Ν o ο ON ο O
o h- î o 0 so ο so
0 sO 0Ν0 o so
sO Tf ΟΝ Ν so
•Ι- Ί· Ί-
Ν
00 0 so" fsf Ov so" o" so* Ν ο" so" r^ so" Ov so"
so 00 Ν Ν Os ^ Ί- £ - Ν Ν Ν r- cc Ν 2 r^ Os O^ 0^
Ν Ν Os Ν Ν
Ν
Uì
•a Η
vì
υ Λ
to cCL
/5 C
o S
g
60 H n
C J l S "bû
J"ε oπ.
^
c<s 13 n. » iS
e S Uo c
'3υd jz
M _c m V a i
a α e ao o l l l l H à ^ d S h υ
I l = 3 ö « »Ν ë^ § -e .2 3 ¿ 2 .s S 3
à i a a £ o a. o ™
U 55 χ £ 3 £ t2 f2
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming Since ip6o: Trends and Correlates 131
THE GENERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE RISE IN

NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMING,
1960-70
By 1970 the proportion of non-English mother-tongue claimants in the total

American population had returned to its 1940 level ( 1 7 % ) instead of continuing
to flow downward below its i960 level (10%), as had been widely expected. If
we but knew the generational composition of this about-face, that could make a
substantial diference in our understanding of the processes involved. If, for
example, the increase were primarily first-generation based (i.e., derived from
new immigration during that decade) that would have far different implications
than if the about-face were attributable to American-born generations.
Therefore, let us begin our attempts to understand "what happened" by a
generation-by-generation review of mother-tongue claiming in the crucial
decade 1960—1970. This can be done with the help of Tables 10 to 13 and the
appendixes.
It is quite clear, indeed strikingly so, that the foreign-born made no overall
contribution to the increase in mother-tongue claiming, whether from i960 to
1970 or from 1940 to 1970. Relative to 1940 the decreases in the immigrant
generation were so massive (due to the surplus of deaths over new arrivals) that
even the million-and-a-quarter increase for Spanish could not balance out the
decreases, large and small, in claiming all but a handful of other languages. All
in all, the decrease in non-English mother-tongue claiming with respect to the
usually reported languages was over 15 % and, if Spanish is set aside as a clearly
exceptional case, the overall decrease was nearly a third! Even the crucial
1960-1970 comparison turns out poorly if Spanish is set aside, with a decrease
of over 8%. However, it was not only Spanish immigration which was of
importance in that decade. The other non-European languages ( Japanese,
Chinese and Arabic) also showed increases, the continuation of a trend that had
begun somewhat earlier. Nevertheless, after all is said and done, the first
generation usually made a negative contribution, rather than a positive one, to
non-English (and even to English!) mother-tongue claiming during this
decade. Certainly, therefore, it cannot be considered responsible, in any direct
quantitative sense, for the increase in non-English mother-tongue claiming that
we have noted earlier. Indeed, that increase seems to have obtained in spite of the
first generation rather than because of it.
The picture with respect to the second generation is somewhat different.

Generally speaking, the native-born-of-foreign-or-mixed-parentage did increase
their non-English mother-tongue claiming, whether 1940-1970 or 1960-1970
are considered, and, indeed, whether or not Spanish is included in the tabu-
lation (Table 9). This generation, which has earned quite a reputation for itself
13 2 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
r - - oo so O n oo ι— o r - Ν - o so
ON oo Γ-· Ν Ο Ό oo On ^ O ON I— o
r^ so v-< O NO ©Ν f-"- I— M Η M
I I I ^ ^ I I Ν *r\ —
I I I I I I I ¿. I I I I I
>? Ρ
On « o o r-- os ON O
^ SO -
r-- ^j·
m Γ- ON
Tj- 00 Ν M
ω N* m o ^ w ON
s OO Ν - I M « SO
I I I l ' i l i
I I
- U
M s© r» Ν >-"00 v-s Ν NO OO 00 NO
Ν Tf ^ h Ν
*r\ Ν ON OO Ν \o r - oo >- so so
On Ν h- ^
M W SO ^ w
•Φ v-s « -r-- r - Γ-· Ν SO
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *
ss P.
00 h- ON Γ-- Tf Ν v«>
SO "Ν NO NO 00 so 0 s F*· Os SO Ν
r- ov os o h Ο Ο Ν ^ - ^ Ό O ^ h Ob -Λ
00 oo 00 On O s Ν so r - oo r*- so
CS Ο »Λ On NO M - OC
t OO Μ Ν ι I I I *
I I I
- I I I ' I I I -
Ν » OO «NNO h h CN O <-> ON
sooo r - so r- ·-
ο, r^ r^ Tf o, o o os
«/-V »Λ Ν SO NO OO ON »Λ 00 Ό ^ ΙΛ ΙΛ h· Ò M 00 <
SO O 00 OO Ν Ν
SO - Η ΙΛ
Ν ON »Λ ι— O sO 00 r - r - \ο o 00 OO "
-Λ ON O " ^ Ν -i- Ν SO **N Ν ON
Os >- Ν νV. ON ο 1Λ 00 VO ON i"
rr\ CN SO so r - Tf -φ OO v^ *<S Ν HH SO
^00 if\ >o \ ί <Λ h- Ό Ν Λ \û Cs h- Ν VN
SO « «H ^ Ν Ν Ν Ν ν-
r-- so on oo so t OO Os SO I--
î ^. ON O OS
ON « Onso sO O
o o on r - O N 00 O
On Ο sfl
O O O O O O V V V V V V
Ν oo -φ oo O so t ^ ss » Ν t Ν O NO 00
I SO Tf 00 v^ <D so NO « ν - r-
J On s O Ν Cs ά - f-- ^ V-S >Ή
r- TJ- r - r- SO SO Ν OO
O Tt ΟΟ ^ ^ τ , ο ο ONW-xi- Μ ρ* ON
E Ο ι- Ο Ν Ο r - ^ so Μ ο ^ sO ο
h O - O H O O ^ O - O v û O - ^ H
ί OO Ν ο — •ft W Ν so NO ΙΛ ITI Ό Ό
>- oo r- o o r-- ν so
r- oo -> Ν Ν N M HH H Γ-
•ίο
ε
(S ΟΟ 00 w O Ν fr. H Tf- OO h ΙΛ 00 ο so
Ο M MS oo - o so so r-· Γ-- ^ OO On V-S M
•8 ^J· Ν so CS Ν Ν o ~ Ν so « - N O · -
h«
s
bC
d
0
H S 2 c o
'5 u .a c .a J3 'S
E £ .¡a
—
· js
-c J= S I I •S s e ^ SP
r. > Ό .23 υ > .ss c 2
_o S "öb '2 s S s 5 8 > s { ü s s ί sa sε ?
Η 3
Z
*
in O
3 S. o
Ü <Λ ft.
Mother-Tongue Claiming Since i960: Trends and Correlates
υ
Q SP
S J
ω ε
υ
Ο- Β
0
ΐ:
jS
i 2
-s S
I I
S £
C C
υ J=υ
S3 3
ai ai
? y
g a.
bû àû
C C
'S
<3 I 3 3
« ΰ S
υ
5 ai ai
Ό ?
¿ u-
M
£ o
~0 dû t S o -
> -s G\ —
s .s 8L 8.
à Î
43 c g I ' | j j
ο ε § JJ J |
vS c
C χ C J5 JS «s r
Ο «Λ O [Λ bO û u ?
«s ·β -β ï
y Ζ îgj Ζ 'S ° 9
SsO o .2 .3 Ξ
s. J
s 1 ω 1 ω ι - S ?
" â à l
< Η Η à Ρ
ti ^ ώ
¿ ¿ ι
° η
^ P.
• ο »Λ ON
ν 'Φ ν-, r- co Ν
Γ^ ^ Cv Ν νο o -
η- Ν
" - τ
- C
V • ν γ»· on ο οο
'Φ ν οο ·- r- Γ- Tf h- GN
" O
, Ό ·- ν o r^ ~ ^ f^·
èu s
s
ι Λ Ι I
>- ν h- r- Ν
I I I
c S
'τ ¿X
οο Ό r--
r-- Ν 1
vn M 00 ^ r- ο O CN o
I I I ι ι
- υ
•Ί- « h-
Ν > -
• Ν GN Ο Η ·ο Η
00 \0 Ν ο οο \ο cn CN Ο ^ Ο Ο
cn r- o o o
CN Is· Ο Ό
00 Ό Γ~
~· Ν
^ O "i t « Ό r- οο ο Ό ν·. Γ-- »Λ O

VN Wv VN οο o r-- ο ο οο o\ ^ o ^ on ·• Ό
Ν t oe -> « Η
\o •• oo «« CN - r- o on
ΟΟ Ν v -
N ^ Γ"- οο ^ o r-- o ν ^ ^ t o
Ό ι-« 00 Ν Ν
o o o o
O o oo ^ Ν o rj- 00
r- oo «r» — Ν Ό *ί· »ft VO
r- oo C\ Γ-
ΟΟ O O O
O O O O O O
- Ν TJ- O V-
S ON Ν Ό sO
Tf Ν
'Λ ^ ^ ^
o r-- ν- ·- oo
ON 00 Ό I- NO
\o Ά ~ r~l fZ — Ό
τΓ Tf-
O 00_
O oo Ν
VN o — OO O Ό Ν
O N r- «
·
*Ν ** •• r-
60
Β
O
Η
tuD -C
il M x
-C js
%
£ -3 .a
S c
HIÛZc£ÛÛUhOCUUC75
Mother-Tongue Claiming Since i960: Trends and Correlates
υ
α,
ε
o
U
•a
it
Ε
<
î - S
* 2
Ö i
* 2
CV - C
- »
•t
5 <2
O,
<
2
ο
ύ
? ε M ?
•S
Ή ο 8
00 -Û
_C
& s
QO ·
Μ) ς/3 • -a
υ
G C _
ε Ϊ-- a
e
l
s
e
*
-
ε
« ω S <
c c s J3
s
(2 -S '
-o "ü -ra " ü

Ζ Ζ b
.3 .3 .2 .2 3 o θ" - 2
υ <-> υ w u ·*- o u
C C C C C ^ & c
a ν ^ ν w. » M
136 II The Ethnic Revival and L.anguage Maintenance in the USA
as rebellious and rejective vis-à-vis parental non-mainstream ethnicity, revealed

a higher proportion of non-English mother-tongue claiming in 1970 than it had
in 1940, although the total size of this generation remained practically un-
changed during this period. The conclusion that millions changed their mind
during this decade as to what their mother tongue had been is hard to avoid.
This conclusion is buttressed by looking again at European languages that
correspond more or less to linguistically homogeneous countries of origin
(Table 10). Here we note that in almost every instance the proportions of second
generation claimants are more similar to their 1940 proportions than to their
i960 counterparts and, furthermore, that they are usually the majority of all
possible claimants, a situation that definitely did not obtain in i960! Nevertheless,
the overall rise in non-English mother-tongue claiming from 1960-1970 also
cannot be primarily attributed to the second generation. For the roughly two
dozen traditionally tabulated languages that we have repeatedly referred to, the
increase from i960 to 1970 was over 65 %(Table 7)! Among second-generation
claimants of these same languages the increase in claiming over this same decade
was 46%. Therefore, there must be yet another generation that increased in non-
English mother-tongue claiming from i960 to 1970 even more than did the
second. Quite obviously: it is the "third generation" that we must examine in
this respect.
THE "THIRD GENERATION": FACT AND FICTION
Before we turn our attention to the data pertaining to third-generation non-

English mother-tongue claiming in 1970 let us remind ourselves that the
designation itself ("third generation") is that of social scientists and other
commentators on American life. It reveals the perhaps unconscious view that
beyond the third generation there is nothing. By then the end of the line has
been reached and a new journey into the unmarked American mainstream is
fully under way. It is an American myth, which, like all myths, is compounded
out of truth, wishful thinking, and careful ignorance in varying proportions.
"Shirt-sleeves to shirt-sleeves in three generations" has its counter-part in the
area of ethnicity: "completely foreign to completely American in three gener-
ations." Mid-19th-century Europe believed that "East of Vienna the Orient
begins"; Anglo-identified America is convinced that "after three generations
ethnicity vanishes". The popular concept of "the Orient" and the popular
concept of "ethnicity" have much in common. They are more important to
those that believe them than is their truth. This, indeed is the definition of
"myth."
The United States Bureau of the Census, in documenting the country's
popular mythology (which is not only its right but its duty), has, accordingly,
ν ON r^
vo « ^
ό \ά ο
τ}· es ^ SO
SO -Η ON
SO^ SO ΟΟ r^ « o O »«s
υ Ifi Η h - I— Tj- Ν r^ o© Ν SO T? sO
1-00 o t ^ 'O >-- Ν O 1-1
. Η M Ν it CS
sOOO «- h Ν vfl Γ-- s o SO SO O CS 00 00 s o O

O SO ·- Cs ^ SO Ν Ν ·-" h-. «
O — M t C\ Η Ν Ν Tj- s o vOB " ς 0B
r - ON Tf so" o" ^f oo" so*" r ^ N* CN
HH Γ— Ό Ν Ν Ι^ν »/Ν Γ"-- Cn es so 00 s
, CIh SO Ν 00 ί" Ν Μ Ii N N W ν
- Z
o o o
0 0 0
0 0 0
. U
Η
so h- O SO VN h- 0 c s sO O Ν SO Ν ws cs Ν
CS r - OO r- O N· W\ Cs r - SO Ν O Ν
(D Ν Ν Ν Νλ Tf Os <} N ** Ν r^ 00 CN
Ν Ν* T t Ν* SO* HT f/N CN CN SO θ" 00* h-Γ CN o " N" 0"
Ν 00 r- Ti- >- 00 s o ^ 00 00 CS 00 CS Ν
. CLh SO 00 <3 Ν « Ν Ν Ν SO Ν r-»
ζ Ν »rs M" MS
Ο O O
Tf 00
Ν O ^ 00 \ û Tj·»^ o
T j - T f - ^ 0 0 0 0 OOO o
υ
• ^ • r ^ C V N CN ·- Ν
Η ΙΛ rn I-H ** ι-
0 O 0 0 O O O 0 O Ο o O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0
0 Ν 00 TJ- 00 SO Ν O Ν 00 0 0 Ν 0 -Φ 00
SO^ •Λ» sO^ 00 Ολ r^ Ν Ν CN CN SO <y*\ 00
Ν SíT v i N* _r CS m t-Γ CN h-Γ Ν Ν 1-Γ <30 O
SO 0 Ν SO SO r - CS CS s o SO Ν 00 CS 00
SO 00 CS Ν 1-1 « ι- es so 00 SO Ν CN
• Z M" Ν" 4
*
>
o
rt
(Λ —·
u (Λ
« C m S S -O
a S
•S
e υ S 0 (Λ .
O
c
ci
_
O u ï C rt S
s I o
•S
ü
ε
C J2
g
α ja
υ S
( βΛ« 5Ë
< 'rt O •X
·£
M ε s
Ρ-, 3 a -a J -S α , t-,
S β 2f
5 £
£ Λ O ΙΛ c . â
Ph u o (Λ û ¿ I 2 ¿ o I 2 o d ¿ O C ·
138 II The Ethnic RevìvaI and Iânguage Maintenance in the USA
included all generations after the second (that is the third and subsequent
generations) in one and the same triumphant category: "native of native." In
the case of most Eastern and Southern European-derived populations, whose
immigrant forefathers arrived primarily between 1880-1920, this category does
encompass primarily third-generation individuals. However, for Northern and
Western European-derived populations, most of whose immigrant forebears
arrived much earlier, this category now pertains to several generations beyond
the third. It is harder yet to think of Amerindians in this same category, but this
is the very category to which most of them "belong." Such is the price of
popular mythology concerning the inevitability of "Americanization" or,
rather, the view that Americanization and de-ethnification are equivalent to
each other.
THE "THIRD GENERATION" IN 1970
The very surprising fact about third-generation non-English mother-tongue

claiming in 1970 is that there was more of it, both in absolute and in relative
terms, than in 1940 (not to mention i960, when it was at a war-time, all-time
low). Whereas the total size of the native-of-native-born generations increased
by i o 2 % f r o m 194010 1970 and by 1 7 % from 196010 1970, the increases in non-
English mother-tongue claiming for these same intervals was 265% and 278%
respectively (Table 11). Thus, whereas the third generation itself was slowing
down in its overall growth toward the end of the thirty-year period 1940-1970,
its rate of non-English mother-tongue claiming was still accelerating.
Furthermore, this development was by no means attributable to Spanish. Even
without Spanish, the "third generation" rate of non-English mother-tongue
claiming increased by i 9 5 % f r o m 1940 to 1970 and by 3 2 8 % f r o m i960 to 1970
(which is to say that third-generation claimants of many languages increased
from i960 to 1970 even more dramatically than did Spanish per se).
The i960 to 1970 growth in "native-of-native" non-English mother-tongue
claiming is observablefor each and every language that the Census has traditionally
reported. It is as observable among respondents derived from early immigrants
from Northern and Western Europe (412% increase for Norwegian: 565%
increase for Swedish; 3 84% increase for Danish) as it is for the descendants of
relatively more recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe.
Subjectively based though this claiming may have been (just how much of it
was subjective, involving an interpretation or reinterpretation of personal
history that was contrary to fact, still remains to be documented), it reveals a
tremendously interesting and important phenomenon. Indeed, the more sub-
jective the experience can be shown to be, the more interesting and important
it becomes. If, in earlier years, the third generation underclaimed non-English
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming Since i 9 6 0 : Trends and Correlates 139
o " O O O ^j-
»Λ Η ΙΛ lf\
£
ON « 4 00 o
Ν r^s Ό ^ h-
O C£ υ
CN CN r- o v-v τ}· o o •φ Tf SO
CN W-s VN C \ t Ό •Ί- Ν \D
<Λ ffv CS H Oa SO^ SO^ r-- - «
bo ι SO «*"·> 00 O ^ -Φ \o so r^ so* N' N 1
Ό CN Ν Ν O 00 Η ^
SS °
o
CN «Λ -
υ ~
CN ^ cv O H CN O Γ"-- \ο V-S tr\ Os

>-> U ι-» ιλ 00 \a CN C S V S ν-ν Ι— H-N SO
1
o Ja£
Ν Η Η Η >-Η Ν ΡΛ Γ- so Ν
Ν CN CN O TJ- W-v Ν w-s

£
VN h- 0 so vs 0
SO OO r- 00 CN R- CS so 00 00 0
Cs Ν SO^ CN CN >- so^ CN 00 Ν so^ 00 CN
ιυ M O" CN NO m 00" 00 tA pS
¡JO SO Ν r- Ti- SO 00 so Ν
S2 o CN
θ"
es «t
υ ?
Ν CN CS 0 ·* Ο SO 0 Ν V-V SO
Ν 00 r- CN CN ^ SO SO 00 Ν SO
CN 00 ΟΛ CN CN O^ SQ^ SO^
Ν CN RF 0" 00 O" CO SO" Ν CN 0" N^ OO 0
0 Ν O so 00 •Ί- 00 Ν Ν r-
SO Ν >- SO
CN
O o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o
O SO*
"Π o
ν) so
Μ o
o o O o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SO so o o •Ί- sO so 00 00 00 00 00 O 00 so 00
M so »-> 00 ο r- Ν ·- r^ es oe Tf 00 o CN
Ν H- r^ CN *·τ\ Ν >- CN Ν Ν
3
M £
w>
c 3
c .2
a
H
o G
<4 SC oU
"·•—-
'So - C •s e a e «
•Li J¡
3 ^ 1 ^
J3 O CA •s aC G -G ja "rt «.
> Λ
o
§ f
E J3 Έ >
*-t -6 (Λ
¿ (Λ
Ë ^
c ü Μ Λ tH
.0 _3 S π Χ!
S
0 JÍ
Λ o S j2
Ζ ΙΛ 0 (X U Tr¡ 55 eü Ρ < E « >H
II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
O
Oss O
Os MΜ
\mi-hs 00
O
ZZa iη-" (Λ os oc
I ö « m\ ΝoeΓ — ν*r^ Ν
o £ u
^ Ά
2 ^ P.
« 2* •<t οο Ο
Μ ι Tj- ν^ ΟΟ <7s
•Ί-
S
2 SoO •Φ 00
•ί
υ 2s
o u ^
Ν 00"t 00Ο
? § s Ν
ι Ηa 00 Μ-\
ο
•φ h3
ι-ι uΚ
CNsPU
O
r»s 00 or^ Ν Ν Ν
sa o, 00 M· Ν
CTs 00
O
Μ 2^
ι o" 00o" N" o" Ν
Ν οΝ
ο" \r-
θ"
S o st •
Φ Ν
•ΐ
u 2*
C
MSS Ν o Ν so Ν Ν
00 SO, <3 Ν Γ^ ο
Γ^ SO,
so o (-Γ soΝ Ν sΜ
o"- WC
SO ** so.
-í ο" so"
O
0o, o
o o
o OΟ ο O
<3 DO
(„" o_ Ο
Ο, οο. O
O,
Ν O so"
Νs ο
>—
E 00
•a
(Λ oSO n" ν" H"
-
ω ?
o o ΟOO O o
so
** o.· 00 00
M MS Ν
r^ or^
o o
00
so" Ν 00 M S r^ OOs
O
ι- Os
N" N"
(Λ J3en
Λ
SbOS boJ3 «Λ
ο c c c
bo ωI ωI «UH
C
ο 5S eO cOt/3«
Η υ
Jd q Ά sp o Ζ Ζ C 3
Λ
Ο g I g ë ^Q O"αO
S λ g ο , ο ·;
Ο m « α. < Η Η
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming Since i?6o: Trends and Correlates 141
mother tongues, why did it overclaim (or, at least, more commonly claim) them
in 1970? If the wording of the question permitted a "more liberal interpre-
tation" in 1970, why was such an interpretation seized upon? If claiming these
non-English mother tongues has no emotional or conative significance, then
why, as will be shown below, does it correlate so well with other "active"
variables of interest? It seems to me that the unavoidable conclusion is that the
"native-of-native" in 1970 were not merely faced by the new wording of a
census question; it seems to me that the "native-of-native" themselves were
different in 1970 from what they had been before. Indeed, it may be that they
were also different in 1970 from what they were afterwards as well.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CORRELATES

OF 1970 NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE
CLAIMING
I will discuss elsewhere (Fishman et al., This Volume Chapter 7) my findings

concerning the incidence of four non-English mother-tongue institutions in the
U.S.A. in the early 1980s (the periodical press, radio/television broadcasting,
ethnic community schools and religious units). At this point, suffice it to say
that each of the above institutional fields is not only large (consisting of at least
ι 031, 2 590, 13 638 and 23 812 units respectively), but that its size in 1980 was,
in each documented instance, far larger than its size had been in i960. At this
juncture it is merely my purpose to compare the magnitudes of these four
institutional fields, across the various ethnolinguistic groups that implemented
them, with the magnitudes of 1970 non-English mother-tongue claiming for
these same languages. In essence, therefore, what I propose to do is to inquire
whether mother tongues that had more claimants in 1970 had more insti-
tutional units in 1980-82. In addition, I propose to inquire whether (a) gener-
ational structure and (b) concentration of 1970 mother-tongue claimants are in
any way related to the magnitudes of institutional resources in the four above-
mentioned fields.
NUMBER OF NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE

CLAIMANTS, 1970, AND NUMBER OF ETHNIC
COMMUNITY MOTHER-TONGUE INSTITUTIONS,
1980-82
It is quite clear (and was first reported in the mid-6os in connection with this
topic, Fishman and Hofman 1966) that population magnitudes and institutional
magnitudes go together, i.e., non-English mother-tongues with more claimants
142 II The Ethnic Kevival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Table 12. Correlations between 1980-1982 Institutional Frequencies and 1970 non-English
Mother-Tongue Claiming in the U.S.A.
Concent, of
Total M T NN MT % NN MT M T Claim
Claim 1970 Claim 1970 Claim 1 9 7 0 1970
Broadcasting .84 .90 •27

LRUs* •43 •47 .24 -.42
Periodicals .82 .83 •13 -.28
Schools .18 .20 •°3 -•33
Total M T Claim 1970 — •94 •25 04
N N M T Claim 1970 — 34 °3
% N N M T Claim 1970 — 06
Concent, of M T Claim 1970 —
η (languages)** 41 41 41 25
* Local religious units

** Variation in η from one column to the other is due to the variable availability of US Census reports
for particular languages in connection with generational and concentrational data.
in 1970 also had more institutions roughly a decade later of all four types (Table
12). This is particularly true with respect to periodicals and radio/t.v. stations,
which are called "mass media" for good reason. In the U.S.A. these are most
commonly privately-sponsored, profit-making ventures and the advertisers
that maintain them are interested in them to the extent that they reach large
numbers of readers, listeners or viewers. As far as the third generation is
concerned, its numbers are particularly felt in connection with the most youth-
ful media of all: radio and television. (Note the correlation of .90 between the
1970 pool of native of native claimants of various non-English mother tongues
and the number of stations broadcasting in those languages in 1980-82.)
In connection with ethnic community mother-tongue schools and local
religious units the dépendance on magnitudes (as one would expect) is much
reduced. These institutions constitute the bed-rock of ethnic community func-
tioning (and are highly interdependent in sponsorship, operation and language
use). They need not show a profit and, accordingly, they tend to be established
with much less concern for the size of the community in toto or for the number
of its young. Indeed, the number of ethnic community mother-tongue schools
pertaining to particular languages in 1980-82 correlates only .20 with the
number of native claimants of these languages in 1970, and correlates essentially
zero with the proportion of native-of-native members in the claiming pool. These
are both eminently sensible (but previously unrealized) community-process
tendencies and their clarification in connection with 1970 mother-tongue claim-
ing data also further supports the conviction that this data is a useful indicator
of community sentiments, goals and priorities, on the one hand, and insti-
tutional dynamics, on the other hand.
CONCENTRATION OF NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-

TONGUE CLAIMANTS, 1970, AND NUMBER OF
INSTITUTIONS, 1980-82
Population magnitude is one thing and population concentration is quite

another. Large numbers of claimants may be either concentrated or dispersed,
as may small numbers of claimants. Since we have already noted that the non-
English mother-tongue-claiming population of the United States in 1970 was
more than twice as concentrated 12 as the general population, let us now inquire
as to the 1970 generational and the 1980-82 institutional correlates of such
concentrations. As Table 12 reveals, the former were negligible but the latter
were not. There was no tendency for the more concentrated non-English
mother-tongue-claiming populations to be larger or generationally different
(e.g., vis-à-vis the size or proportion of the native of native generation) than the
less concentrated populations. However, there was a very noticeable tendency
for the former to be institutionally "richer" than the latter. This was true for all
four institutional fields, but it was particularly true in connection with non-
English-using ethnic community LRUs and schools. 1 3 Obviously concentra-
tion (even the ten-years-removed precursor of current concentration) was
institutionally facilitating, all the more so for those institutions (LRUs and
schools) that were least dependent on magnitudes to begin with. A numerically
concentrated market stimulated the competitive growth of more non-English
periodical publications and radio/tele vision stations. However, it also stimu-
lated the multiplication of smaller, more intimate, more Gemeinschaft-iptottctmg
LRUs and schools. These two types of institutions are far less concerned about
"economies of scale" than are publications and radio/television stations.
Clearly, then, the resultants of 1970 concentration were still societally important
factors at the institutional level in 1980-82, although we have not yet indicated
whether or not such concentration had other, more individual, demographic
correlates as well (see below).
NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE, 1970, AND NON-

ENGLISH LANGUAGE USE, i960
Before leaving behind the 1970 non-English mother-tongue data that we have
repeatedly found to be so useful an indicator of attitudinal and institutional
trends, at least a few words should be said about its correspondence to some
144 H Tf>e Ethnie Revivai and Language Maintenance in the USA
T a b l e 15. Persons Reporting English as Current Language

(Numbers in thousands)
Native Foreign born
Current language Current language

English English
Total
Mother Tongue persons Total Number Percent Total Number Percent
Total 198,214 187,333 179,!92 95-7 10,882 7,33 5 67.4
English 161,787 158,954 158,386 99·6 2,833 2,813 99-3

French 2.179 1,801 1,547 85.9 378 218 57-7
German 5,835 4,809 4,653 96.8 1,025 866 84.5
Italian 4»364 3,i47 2,982 94.8 1,218 725 59-5

Polish 2,382 1,982 1,916 96.7 399 236 59-2
Spanish 6,700 4,878 1,774 36.4 1,822 341 18.7
Yiddish 1,620 1,142 1,122 98.2 478 372 77.8
Other 9.767 7,111 6,506 91.5 2,655 1,727 65.1

N o t reported 3,581 3,5o6 304 8.7 74 37 50.0
Total Non-English 36,428 28,376 20,804 73-3 8,042 4,522 56.2
Total Non-English
minus Spanish 29,728 23,498 19,030 81.0 6,220 4,181 67.2
S o u r c e : Current Population Reports: Population Characteristics, Series p. 20, no. 221, April }o 1971.
Characteristics of of The Population by Ethnic Origin, November 1969.
measure of language use proximate to that date. It is clear, of course, from many
of the foregoing tables as well as from much prior research, that most of those
w h o claim non-English mother tongues no longer currently use these lan-
guages. Some indications of the extent of this attrition may be gleaned from
Table 13 which deals primarily with "the big six" non-English mother tongues.
Even among the foreign born per se this attrition occurred and varied from a
low of roughly 1 9 % for Spanish to a high of 8 5 % for German. However,
among the native b o m (combining both the second and "third" generations),
the rate of attrition was much higher, varying from a low of roughly 36% for
Spanish to a high of 9 8 % for Yiddish (with German, 96.8%; Polish, 96.7%; and
Italian, 94.8%, close behind). Indeed, the only surprises among the native born
are the French mother-tongue claimants and those for w h o m no mother tongue
was ascertained, with attrition rates of roughly 86% and 9 % respectively.
Obviously, the rate of attrition is massive indeed, foolishly and ruinously so, if
non-English languages are recognized as national resources of cultural, com-
mercial and diplomatic value (Fishman 1966).
However, the true evaluation of the above attrition rates depends heavily on
the definition of "current" language use. If use as a second language or as a
functionally delimited language were included then the attrition rate would be
somewhat lower. Finally, if attitudinal positiveness is also included as use (and
if mother-tongue claiming is considered indicative of such use) then the attri-
tion rate is even lower. This latter type of use, I have maintained, is related to
the support of various institutional expressions at a societal level. Others have
shown that attitudinal positiveness is also related to language learning rates and
to language mastery levels among students (Lambert 1963). Thus, mother-
tongue claiming can have productive consequences both at societal and at
individual levels of behavior and should not be fluffed off and disparaged. It is
exactly for these reasons that the attrition rates revealed by Table 13 (when
compared with Table 2) should be taken as seriously as those revealed by
Hudson-Edwards and Bills (1982), Li (1982), Skrabenek (1970), Veltman
(1981a, 1981b), and others studying various levels of language use per se. It is
because the implications of both types of data are in agreement that we can turn
with even more certainty to an examination of non-English mother-tongue
claiming in 1979, a date which may well have been the last occasion on which
the Bureau of the Census gathered data in connection with this particular index
of the language resources of the U . S . A . 1 4
NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMING IN

J
979
The 1979 data referred to above has been reported by the Bureau of the Census
in a less detailed fashion than we would have preferred. Exact figures are given
only for 15 "languages" ("the big six" plus Chinese, "Czechoslovakian,"
Greek, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, "Philippine Languages," Portuguese and
Swedish, as well as for a combined "other" category. Although age distribu-
tions are given for these "languages" (as well as for the "other" category), no
separate generational tables are given. Most disappointing of all is the fact that
this data is reported only for the population 14-years-old and over, on the
assumption that for those younger only language use ("speaking") was of
interest. However, it is possible to derive 1979 estimates for almost all lan-
guages of interest to u s 1 5 and, less than perfect though these may be, they
provide us with an opportunity to bring our story to a tentative close by
providing tentative answers to many of the questions pertaining to the period
closest to the present.
TOTAL CHANGE IN NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-

TONGUE CLAIMING, 1970-1979
Although the total magnitude of non-English mother-tongue claiming con-
tinued to rise from 1970 to 1979 (as did the percent of the entire American
146 II The Ethnic Revival and Eanguage Maintenance in the USA
population claiming a non-English mother tongue), the 1970—1979 change is

no longer as uniform as it was for 1960-1970. The simplest way of gauging the
difference between 1960—1970 change and 1970-1979 change in non-English
mother-tongue claiming is to examine the role of Spanish in both cases. In the
first instance the positive total change did not depend on Spanish alone; in fact,
even without Spanish the total change was still an extremely significant one
(see Table 7, above). However, when we turn to the period 1970—1979 it
immediately becomes apparent that not only is the total change much smaller
than it was from 1970—1979(71.17% vs 1 2 . 4 % ) but that it is entirely dependent
on the change in Spanish per se (Table 7). Indeed, without the Spanish increase
of roughly eleven-and-a-half million there would have been a small overall
percent loss from 1970 to 1979 (rather than a gain of over 50%, as was the case
from i960 to 1970, even without Spanish).
The difference between 1960-1970 change and 1970-1979 change with
respect to non-English mother-tongue claiming becomes even clearer if we
look at other individual languages. Instead of an almost universal array of
increases we are now faced by decreases in a third of the traditionally reported
European languages. German, which had finally snapped back in 1970 from the
decades of opprobrium that had previously surrounded it as a result of its twice
being associated with the chief wartime enemy of the U.S.A., suffered a reverse
of 10%. Yiddish, which in 1970 had pulled out of its steep 1940 to i960 decline,
registered a 24% drop in 1979, thereby once again achieving the rare distinction
of being the most rapidly declining non-English mother-tongue among "the
big six" (indeed, among non-English mother tongues in the U.S.A. as a whole).
Although both German and Yiddish in 1979 still stand above their i960 levels
they may well be headed for even more serious declines in the future. 1 6
The same may be true (barring significant future immigration from their
homelands) for all of the Scandinavian languages and Dutch. Each of them
register declines relative to 1970. Indeed, of the entire Northern European
block, only French (and its regional plaintiff, Breton) comes through relatively
unscathed. On the other hand, certain Southern European languages (see
Greek, Portuguese) and most Asian languages have continued to increase
greatly, although the few for which comparisons are possible (Greek, Arabic)
frequently reveal a slower rate of growth than that reported previously for
1960-1970 (see Table 7). All in all, whatever factor may have been responsible
for these developments between 1970 and 1979, they were clearly different from
the factors that produced the 1960-1970 changes that we discussed earlier. If
there was a "rebirth of ethnicity" from i960 to 1970, did it cease (or even
reverse itself in some cases) between 1970 and 1979? Before we tackle questions
such as these, let us pause to test our 1979 estimates for validity. Only if we can
conclude that they are of reasonable validity does it become appropriate for us
to attempt to explain the factors that underlie them.
T a b l e 14. Estimated Change in Non-English Mother-Tongue Claiming, 1970-19/9
Language 1970 E s t . 1979 Est. % change
English 160,717,113 170,636,000 6*

Celtic 88,162 79,346 —10
Norwegian 612,862 601,892 -2*
Swedish 626,102 556,104 -II*
Danish 194,462 175,016 —10
Dutch 412,637 387,879 -6
French 2,598,408 2,780,5 50 7*
Breton 32,722 35,oi3 7
German 6,093,054 5,486,186 -10*
Polish 2,437,938 2,562,273 5*
Czech 452,812 522,771 Μ*
Slovak 510,366 597,128 17
Hungarian 447,497 523,571 17
Serbo-Croatian 239,45 5 280,162 17
Slovenian 82,321 87,260 6
Dalmatian 9,802 10,390 6
Albanian 17,382 22,597 30
Finnish 214,168 192,751 —10
Lithuanian 312,568 331,322 6
Russian 334,6i5 391,500 17
Ukrainian 249,351 264,312 6
Georgian 757 886 !7
Rumanian 56,590 59,985 6
Yiddish 1,593,993 1,214,942 -24*
Gypsy (Romani) 1,588 2,064 30
Greek 458,699 574,6i2 25*
Italian 4,144,3! 5 4,35 1,5 3° 5*
Spanish 7,823,583 11,400,525 46*
Portuguese 365,300 474,890 3°*
Basque 8,108 9,486 17
Armenian 100,495 "7,579 17
Persian 23,923 27,990 17
Hebrew 101,686 610,116 500
Arabic 193,520 226,418 17
African 15,783 18,465 17
Turkish l
39,3H 45,997 7
Altaic 974 1,140 17
Hindi 26,253 45,943 75
Other Indo-Aryan 22,939 26,839 17
D r a vidian 8,983 10,510 !7
Korean 5 3,528 93,674 75
Japanese 408,504 531,055 30*
Table 14. (cont.)
Language 1970 Est. 1979 Est. % change
Chinese 345 »431 645,963 87*

Tibetan 352 412 17
Burmese 1,581 1,850 !7
Thai 14,416 25,228 75
Malay 10,295 13,384 30
Tagalog 217,907 38I,337 75
Polynesian 20,687 36,202 75
Amerindian 268,205 348,667 3°
All Other 880,779 1,056,935 20*
Not Reported 9.3 !7,873 8,386,086 -10*
Total E M T 33> I 75> I 7 2 38,242,647 !5
Total (EMT, English,
Not Reported) 203,210,158 217,264,733 7
% EMT 16.3 17.6 1.4
% E M T without Spanish 12.5 12.4 — .1
* Exact percent increase/decrease for ages 14 and over derived from Table 4, Special Studies Series
p. 23, No. 1 1 6 , 1982, and utilized in calculating 1979 figure (total for all ages).
THE VALIDITY OF ESTIMATED 1970-1979 CHANGE

IN NON-ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMING
We have already noted that non-English mother-tongue data correlated quite

appreciably with 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 data pertaining to ethnic community mother-
tongue periodicals, radio/tele vision "stations," schools and local religious units
(see Table 12 and accompanying discussion). We may interpret those corre-
lations as indicative of long-term demographic tendencies or continuities.
H o w e v e r , be that as it may, we may certainly expect short-term continuities to
greater than their long-term counterparts. Accordingly, we should expect 19/9
non-English mother-tongue claiming data (and mother-tongue claiming esti-
mates) to correlate even more appreciably with our 1980—82 data on ethnic-
community mother-tongue institutions than was the case, earlier, for 19/0 non-
English mother-tongue claiming data. Indeed, if that were not the case, we
would be troubled and would suspect that there was something w r o n g with the
more recent data (all the more so since it includes so many of our own estimates
rather than primarily figures reported by the Bureau of the Census itself). As it
happens, the correlational magnitudes shown in the first (left-most) column of
Table 15 are such as to foster confidence in the non-English mother-tongue
Table 15. Correlates of Change in Non-English Mother-Tongue Claiming (1960-1970 and

1970-1979)
Total Mother- % Change % Change

Tongue Claim in TMTC in TMTC Concentration
(TMTC) 1979 1970-79 1960-1970 1970
Broadcasting •94 — .01 •37 -•23

LRUs •5° .69 .36 -.42
Periodicals .89 -.06 •33 -.28
Schools •23 .89 •35 -•33
Total Mother-Tongue
Claiming 1970 •97 — .10 •43 .04
Native-of-Native
MTC 1970 .96 -.06 •53 .03
% Native-of-Native
MTC 1970 .29 -.07 •76 .06
TMTC 1979 — -.03 •44 .08
% Change in
TMTC 1970-79 — .03 -•52
% Change in
TMTC 1960-1970 — .16
η (languages) 39 31 23 23
claiming data (and claiming estimates) for 1979. In each 1980-82 institutional
area the correlation is greater with 1979 data than with its 1970 counterpart.
Furthermore, the earlier pattern indicating greater dependence on magnitudes
of claimants for periodicals and radio/t.v. stations isfully maintained. In addition,
the other correlations in that column (between the totals for non-English
mother-tongue claiming in 1970 and 1979, as well as between the 1979 totals
and the 1970 native-of-native totals and percentages) are all in accord with what
we would expect in order to confirm common-sense validity expectations.
However, Table 15 is of more than methodological interest to us. Let us
proceed, therefore, to consider its more substantive implications.
CORRELATES OF CHANGE IN NON-ENGLISH

MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMING, 1960-1970 AND
ι970-ι979
Changes in 1 9 6 0 - 1 9 7 0 non-English mother-tongue claiming correlate quite
similarly (in the mid 30s) with the number of E M T institutions in each of the
four fields that we have studied. In a decade in which almost all groups
experienced rather large increases in non-English mother-tongue claiming, the

magnitudes of these increases had a rather moderate but quite similar relation-
ship to the magnitudes of institutional units in each of these four fields.
However, when we turn to 1970-1979, i.e., to a decade in which some non-
English mother tongues gained claimants and some lost (and in which the
range of gains and losses was considerable), then we find that the extent of
change 1 7 is greatly related to the number of schools and LRUs but not at all
related to the number of periodicals and radio/t.v. stations. Here we see again
the greater liberation from absolute magnitudes of the former two institutional
fields in a period of differential growth. They reacted to proportional changes in
their environments rather than to gross magnitudes as such. In a sense, they are
more attuned to the drift of the times than to the times alone. (For further
discussion of this tendency on the part of E M T schools and LRUs see Fishman
et al., Chapter 7, This Volume.)
Whereas in 1970 the percent of 1960-70 change was significantly related, first
of all, to the magnitude of total 1970 claimants, and, secondly, even more to the
magnitude of native-of-native claimants (indeed, most of all, to the proportion
of native-of-native claimants) there is virtually no relationship between 1970
magnitudes and the proportion of 1970-79 change. Initially, the largest ethno-
linguistic groups with the largest proportions of native-of-native claimants
(French, Spanish, German, -see Table 3 above) may have set the tone. The
"ethnic boom" may, indeed, have been a by-product of that very tone: the
Quebec-inspired and supported rebirth of Franco-American language con-
sciousness in New England and Louisiana, the new sense of ethnic opportuni-
ties among native-of-native Hispanics, and the attitudinal self-legitimization of
German-Americans, a quarter of a century after the end of World War I I . 1 8
Subsequently, when the " b o o m " was over (at least as an across-the-board
phenomenon), the percent of 1970-79 change no longer had any particular
relationship to either 1970 magnitudes or generation of percentages. However,
it did continue to be quite closely related to the 1970 concentrations of non-
English mother-tongue claimants.
CONCENTRATION IN 1970 AND PERCENT CHANGE

1970-1979
The more concentrated the claimants of non-English mother-tongues in 1970

(the last year for which concentration indexes 1 9 can be compiled on the basis of
the Census reports published thus far) the more positive change they ex-
perienced from 1970 to 1979 (at least, insofar as the traditionally reported
European languages are concerned). Similarly (but not quite to the same
degree), the more concentrated the claimants of non-English mother tongues
in 1970, the more institutions they supported in 1980-82. Clearly, the degree of
1970 concentration had very important and very stable consequences (as re-
ported also by Angle, 1978), both at the levels of individual and institutional
demography, reaching appreciably even into 1980-82. German, one of the least
concentrated non-English mother-tongues in the U.S.A. (7 states being re-
quired in order to account most parsimoniously for 50% of its claimants in
1970) contributed strongly to the overall correlation of-.5 2 between 1970
concentration and 1970-79 change—as do Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and
Chinese, all of them among the most concentrated. 20 On the other hand, German
also contributes to the minor correlations between concentration (.16) and
1960-1970 change since it gained dramatically in those years notwithstanding
its low concentration. All in all, however, concentration is vastly more import-
ant in explaining 1970-1979 change than it was in explaining 1960-1970
change. Indeed, with respect to 1970-1979 it was the strongest change correlate
of all. On the other hand, with respect to 1960-1970 change, it was a weak
correlate since far stronger circumstances of an across-the-board nature (i.e.,
among concentrated and among dispersed groups) were then operative.
UNDERSTANDING 1979: VARIOUS HINTS

Age
How, then, can we explain the apparent drop in non-English mother-tongue

claiming from 1970 to 1979 for those languages not experiencing ongoing
immigration? Unfortunately, we do not have much to go by, in terms of Bureau
of the Census reporting thus far. The sole published table that cross-classifies
1979 non-English mother-tongue claiming with another variable deals with age
(an important enough variable, although, regrettably, only ages 14 and over
are tabulated). This table (Table 16) reports on 14 non-English mother tongues
(counting "Czechoslovakian" and "Philippine languages" as separate lan-
guages for the moment), as well as on "other" and "not reported." Of these 14,
5 were "losers" (German, Norwegian, Swedish, Yiddish and "other") from
1970 to 1979, and 9 were "winners." The median age of all of the "losers" falls
in the 45 to 64-year-old age category, whereas the median age of the median
"winner" falls in the 25 to 44-year-old category (indeed, only "winners" have
their median ages in that category). The biggest losers (Swedish and Yiddish)
also have the largest proportions in the 6 5 to 74-year-old and in the 7 5 -and-over
categories. One possible interpretation of this line of analysis is that the "losers"
are generally of a sufficiently advanced age that many of their members who
claimed non-English mother tongues in 1970 were no longer alive to claim
them in 1979. By this line of interpretation the decrease in non-English mother-
tongue claiming between 1970 and 1979 is explainable on purely demographic
15 2 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
> 3ΙΛ
o C
w
-α (J
c
1Λ Η O •^Tj-'O Γ-· O
τ·, τ}- Ν CN 4 CC O
3
CO
Ov^-O CN >-> oo Ν oo oo "-> tft oo

r^. r^ oo o so 4 * " ό \o 4
Ν «-N Ν 00 CN CN
•ο- oo M f^ l-l Cn 00 Ν
^ o
Ν tJ- Ν Ν **
o s Ν Ν Χ—Ν
+ + ++ +
C^ Os O Γ-- so m sq
4 *T3 W
-o
S 1/3
iL
c S
υ
υ
+ + + + =3 s
•S S
£ O û-
ov βί
I TT
Ν 2 §
Ο t ov « r^ o r-. o
T i ^ OO CN r^ o o ^
1 1
O Γ-- Ό t Cs r^- Ά Ν Cs o
M S-
Ί3 £
ΙΛ 3
x I ο T "
CÍ Tf V-N Tj- OO w Ν 00 ^ Γ-- VV CN ff* ' t Γ^ ^
C
& CL
•Ί- <i\ 6 \ό 6 4 Ν 4 Ν TJ- r - r - r - o o o ^ C N e s
β a
- -s
ï I
ì ι q q q q q q q q q o q q q q q q q q
o o o o o o ò o o o o o
ο o o o o o o o o o o o o
Η I !
k1»» G o t,
? § l ì
(Λ 4J 00
Κ S Cs o
-> e « Κ CS so ι-ι Γ-- Tí- CS oo so oo
w o. «TN 00 Tf SO s
2 "8
c
a, > o > •S
o s»
V ΰ <Λ^
Ό mSP
« C β go
g « «r
O -o
f e -J S
£ ¡ oo -o
α O s
3 _ IM S
« "=3
fe O O 4)
't·»
S Jt3i bC t-l T3 £ 8
3 C " §
rt 5 So
M ΙΛ g «
I . s c •J
•a c υ a <ß
o t¡ u bo
o 2 C o
υ 'So -C .. o
-C c CA G.
m λ o υ V
^S. „ 3j-S <Λ
8 S
Λ J3 c C α , -β 3
jy ε c <υ M 'S "3
Λ 3 H ai
o o c 2 » S s 5 a, 0 ,c Ο ο k O oo
Η ^
§
η ω υ ü £ O O
01
Ζ Cu 0- </ì ' C
*/5 Os
-
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming Since i960: Trends and Correlates 15 3
(actually: gerontological) lines. However, parsimonious though this expla-

nation may be, it lacks complete credibility (certainly, credibility as far as " a g e "
being a sufficient explanation) when looked at in detail. In 1970, when over 50%
of French mother-tongue claimants were native-of-native, their median age was
in the 25 to 44-year-old category. Barely 9 years later, when proportionally
more of the claimants of French mother-tongue would be native-of-native, the
median age has risen to the 45 to 64-year-old category with a third of all
claimants being of that age. Too many seem to have aged too much. This is true
elsewhere in the table as well. On the whole, the distribution of median ages
looks more like the second generation distribution in 1970 than like the native-
of-native distribution of that year (Table 4). The implication of this latter line of
interpretation is that disproportionately many erstwhile native-of-native claim-
ants of non-English mother tongues in 1970 no longer claimed those mother tongues
in 1979, particularly among the larger and older ethnolinguistic groups not
experiencing recent immigration (French, German, Yiddish).
In the absence of further cross-classifications any choice between these two
explanatory lines, one gerontological ("the population pool is no longer there")
and the other social/psychological, ("the population pool is there but no longer
interested"), must be largely projective of the "choosers' " personal attitudes and
preferences. Unless and until further Bureau of the Census reports are forth-
coming pertaining to the 1979 data, it might be most judicious to consider that
both lines of interpretation contributed to the 1970-1979 drop in non-English
mother-tongue claiming among those ethnolinguistic groups not experiencing
recent ongoing immigrations.
Ancestry
The two lines of reasoning adumbrated above are indirectly illuminated when
we compare mother-tongue claiming, 1979, and ancestry claiming, 1979. We
have noted in conjunction with our discussion of 1970 mother-tongue claiming
that the pool of potential claimants was far from exhausted (at least when
mother tongues related to relatively homogeneous countries of origin are taken
as indicators). In 1979 a new indicator of the potential pool of non-English
mother-tongue claimants appeared on the scene, namely "ancestry." 2 1
"Ancestry" has one advantage over "country of origin" (actually parent's
country of origin) in that it is not as generationally defined or restricted. 22
Individuals are expected to reply on the basis of their self-concept rather than on
the basis of that of their forebears. Thus, it might be argued, it reveals the
current potential pool of mother-tongue claimants even better than does
country of origin. As such, it might tell us if the gerontological hypothesis
seems reasonable. However, even if this gerontological hypothesis is preferred
with respect to mother-tongue claiming, "ancestry" tells us how many in-
154 H The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
dividuals were available in 1979 who might have considered X to be their ethnic
mother tongue (because they considered Xness to be their ancestry). Thus,
ancestry enables us to compare two aspects of self-concept, and to gauge the
extent to which one coincides with the other. Accordingly, "ancestry" data
gives us yet another glimpse of the status of intergenerational continuity of
non-English mother-tongue claiming (and, patently, at an attitudinal level).
What, then, does the ancestry data reveal?
If we set aside "single ancestries" as being both too restrictive (only 45 % of
the population in 1979 designated no more than a single ancestry), and as
yielding somewhat incongruous results for rapidly growing groups (whether
due to ongoing immigration, natural increase or both), we find that the data
reveals huge gaps between ancestry claiming and corresponding mother-
tongue claiming in the 13 instances for which data is provided. Only Chinese,
Spanish, Filipino and Japanese mother-tongue claiming approximate roughly
two thirds or more of their respective ancestry pools. The nationwide average is
29% with German, Swedish, Norwegian and French revealing the largest gaps 2 3
and with Polish and Italian at or around the one-third level. We have ancestry
data for only five of "the big six" (since Jews are considered a religious group,
rather than an ancestry/ethnic group by the Bureau of the Census, no data on
Yiddish is available in this connection) 24 and of these five only Spanish comes
reasonably close to being claimed as a mother tongue as often as it is claimed as
an ancestry. In addition, if we compare the gap between ancestry claiming and
mother-tongue claiming in 1979 with the gap (for the second generation)
between parental country of origin and mother-tongue claiming in 1970 (Table
17) then it became quite clear that, language by language, the gap is greater in 1979
than it was in 1970. While the difference is meager for Spanish, it is quite breath-
taking for such large groups as German, Italian and Polish, on the one hand,
and for such old immigrant groups as Norwegian and Swedish on the other.
Whether because of natural morbidity or ideological weakness, the ability to
draw large proportions of fellow ethnics into the circle of non-English mother-
tongue claimants seems to have slackened significantly from 1970 to 1979 for
many ethnolinguistic groups. Why this should have been and whether it will
continue to be remains to be seen and will be theoretically explored elsewhere
(Fishman, Epilogue). That it was not due simply to "gerontological" shrinkage
of the pool of available claimants seems clear. For the 13 groups for which
relevant single ancestries are reported, the median ages range from 47.7, 46.5
and 46.0 for "Czechoslovakian," Swedish and Polish to 23.5, 30.7 and 30.8 for
Spanish, Filipino and Chinese. Accordingly, it would seem that the pools of
potential claimants are (at least for many languages) still there, that they are still
of reasonably young median ages, and that what has changed is the mother-
tongue claiming orientation ("language consciousness") rather than the basic
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming Since if 60: Trends and Correlates 15 5
Table 17. Ancestry Claiming ( 19J9) and Mother-Tongue Claiming ( 1979)
I 2 3 4 5
TMTC TAC SAC
Ancestry or (age 14 + ) (age 14 + ) (age 14 + )
Language >979 1980 ï 1980 41
Chinese* 5 >4 609 84.40 444 116.03

Czechoslovak i" 1644 31.08 743 68.78
French** 2417 14,692 16.45 3251 74.81
Filipino 442 632 69.94 393 112.47
German 5138 49.432 10.39 14,943 34.38
Greek 475 896 53.01 473 100.42
Italian*** 4100 11,160 36.74 5514 74.29
Japanese 449 596 64.51 445 100.90
Norwegian 590 401} 14.70 1125 52.44
Polish 2452 8148 30.09 3"5 76.03
Portuguese 409 880 46.47 427 95.78
Spanish**** 7652 9469 80.81 6738 113.56
Swedish 550 4819 11.41 1149 47.87
Total 38,534 132,863 29.00 36,367 105.94
T M T C = Total Mother-Tongue Claiming

T A C = Total Ancestry Claiming
S A C = Single Ancestry Claiming
* Chinese includes Taiwanese
** French includes Franco-Canadian
* * * Italian includes Sicilian
* * * * Spanish includes Cuban, Mexican, Puerto-Rican, Other Latin American and Other Spanish
existence of its potential claimants. Admittedly this point would gain from
further documentation, particularly with respect to the generational nature of
non-English mother-tongue claiming in 1979, but there is at least enough
evidence to make us realize that significant social and psychological factors
were at play in 1979 rather than merely the physical processes of aging per se.
MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMING (1979) AND USE

CLAIMING (1979)
It may be worth mentioning briefly (only briefly since others will certainly
examine the data in detail) that there is also 1979 Bureau of the Census data on
language-use claiming (speaking). This data permits us once again to compare
mother-tongue claiming and use claiming (see Table 13, above), although with
156 II The Ethnic Revival and 'Language Maintenance in the USA
respect to 1979 it is possible to do so only for individuals of age 14 and above.

A s was the case in 1970, the attrition rates between non-English mother-tongue
claiming and use claiming (speaking) are substantial (Table 18). Even more
noteworthy, however, is the fact that the rates for 1979 are regularly lower (i.e.,
they reveal less attrition or slippage between mother-tongue claiming and use
claiming) than was the case for "the big six" in 1970. Since we are comparing
a truncated age distribution for 1979 with a complete age distribution for 1970, it
is difficult to come to an unambiguous interpretation of the sizeable and consis-
tent differences in the two slippage rates for these six languages (as well as for
"other" and "not reported" mother tongues). However, one very plausible
interpretation is that the decreases from 1970 to 1979 in mother-tongue claim-
ing among "the big six" (other than Spanish) were primarily occasioned by
those at the younger (including the youngest) age levels. Some of the foregoing
may not have been available for the 1970 census. Others may have had non-
English mother tongues claimed for them in 1970 but not in 1979. A t the older
ages the line may have been held (and, indeed, mother-tongue claiming and
speaking claiming in 1979 approximated each other even more closely than in
1970); at the younger ages, as we have hypothesized before when examining the
age distribution for non-English mother-tongue claiming in 1979, something
seems to have changed, at least in the ranks of "the big six" other than Spanish.
PREDICTING THE FUTURE: THE SURVIVAL OF

AMERICA'S LANGUAGE RESOURCES
Predicting the future is always risky and it is particularly risky for criteria as
attitudinally colored as those that we have been considering. The difficulties
encountered are further compounded by the very different age and generational
constellations that characterize the non-English languages of the United States.
Spanish and German, the two most widely claimed non-English mother
tongues, are really worlds apart in these respects, as well as with respect to use
claiming as a percent of mother-tongue claiming. If we also keep in mind the
most recently arrived, largely non-European languages claimed as mother
tongues and as spoken languages by even younger constituencies, then it
becomes clear that we are dealing with a very diversified group of language- (or
language use- and language attitude-) communities indeed. Nevertheless, some
cautious predictions may be possible, at least for the individual languages for
which 1979 estimates were derived (Table 14) and that had over 20,000 claim-
ants in that year as well as at least some institutional presence (Fishman et al.
Chapter 7, this volume, Table 1) in conjunction with non-English press, radio/
television, schools or local religious units.
u Tt • « t o MS
υ Η
§ 4 ON O 00
>
o Ν o O « o so r^-oo o c\ c\ ^ ν 93 o
• -o 4 Ks I-« SO O "Ν Ν HH 0 *"··
• c
' t 1Λ. 00 ON 00 TÍ" Tf r - Ν

o r-^ r^ so ©s ν 4 CS ^ 1-1 c\ o CN
"Φ ^ CN v-s \0 Cs Μ*, ι— o 00 Cs m\

o r^ ~ ~ so' v»-s Ν «<-·> o «Λ ^
Ν Η Ν •«t Ν <-• Ν Ν Ν
SO 00 C\ m-\ M SO 00 00 Çs SO 00 MS GS
CN Cs Ο 4 Cs 4 00 CN «A Ó MS MS 4 «A 0 SO
« Ν Ν r^ MS Ν Ν l-H Ν MS -Φ »-1 MS M"\ NM Ν
υ
s».
N cs so Ν » ^ Η Ç\ 00 s£> h Ν Tj- O ΟΟ
O Cs Ζ •φ Ν Ο Ο Ο Μ r- co
ON O ON 00 Cn Cs 00 00 f Ό OO Ί" ^ Ί"
o h- cc >Λ 4 ^ H oc oò Ο Φ oô
1" 1" · ? ~ Ί" ON Ν Os Ν ο ~

^ Tf Ν 00 v-s · SO ^ Ο Ò «
t «
o
ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο
o
H
-σ
va > N ^ O S ^ T j - r - ^ OO τ}- i-< OO
tí O > ι- * f 00 »1 00 so so . CN ^
O 00 ON wx ON Ν M*\ Ν
« "2 Ν \0
u «c
G ôû
2 S
3
M υ 00
ci 'G
C -S
ω o
aß bo o
C C D J3 J3 o-
• — tn (Λ <Λ
s
M S O
ε ¿t -Ü <υ Vcs<J a - -fi
.¿Γ (Λ c 2
it
rt M C υ 3
ο δ a, IL S O O : t3 O
s H CL- ΙΛ M u £ Ü O Ä a, a- (Λ >1 Ο ζ
SELECTING A CRITERION OF "SURVIVAL"
"Survival," of course, pertains to the future. Since we have no future data we

must decide what current data has the strongest implications for the future. A t
least two quite different criteria of "survival" present themselves for serious
consideration on the basis of our data. (For other criteria and lively d e b a t e —
still largely non-empirical—concerning the question of criteria of ethnolin-
guistic vitality see Husband and Saifullah-Kahn 1982.) The first is the number
of claimants (or estimated claimants) per se. It does not seem entirely un-
reasonable to say that those languages with the largest numbers of claimants
today have the best chance of surviving into the 21st century, even without
further immigrational contributions to their ranks, with some adjustment, of
course, for the average age of the current claimants such that younger claimants
would count for more than older ones. We will call this criterion the "adjusted
claimants" criterion and can proceed to ask several questions in connection
with it, e.g.,
(a) how do the 37 non-English mother tongues for which we have 1979
estimates rank relative to each other when their total number of claimants is
adjusted for the average age of these claimants?
(b) what combination of the other measures that we have collected pertain-
ing to these same languages best predicts this "adjusted claimants" criterion?
Another, quite different, criterion of survival would be one that disregards
sheer number of claimants and emphasizes institutional resources instead. The
view can be advanced that individual claimants do not constitute functioning
language (speech and writing) communities and that without community
resources, such as periodicals, radio/t.v. stations, schools and local religious
units, language communities do not really survive in any sociofunctional sense.
From this point of view one would say that those languages with the largest
numbers of institutional resources would have the best chance of survival into
the 21 st century because their institutions would maintain them as vibrant
vehicles of communication. W e will call the criterion that this approach implies
the "institutional" criterion, although in practice we will utilize a ratio of the
number of institutions to the number of claimants (since a language that has a high
ratio of institutions to claimants may be viewed as healthier than a language with
a low ratio of institutions to claimants, even if the latter has twice as many
institutions as the former).
Given this second criterion we could proceed to ask two very similar
questions to those we noted in connection with the first criterion, namely:
estimates rank relative to each other with respect to their institutional ratios
(or, more parsimoniously, with respect to a grand total across all of their
institutional ratios)?
ing to these same languages best predicts these total institutional ratios?
Finally, yet a third criterion of "survival" could be defended, one that was a
compromise between the primarily claimant-centered criterion mentioned first
and the primarily institution-centered criterion mentioned second, above. This
compromise criterion would consist of an index that reflects both number of
claimants and total ratio of institutions to claimants. In connection with the
compromise criterion (reflecting both claimants and institutions) we could, of
course, also ask the same two questions we have indicated previously, namely:
estimates rank relative to each other with respect to their standing on this
compromise criterion that reflects both claimants and institutions?
ing to these same languages best predicts their compromise criterion
ranking?
PREDICTORS TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH

THE CRITERIA
A small battery of measures is available to help us either to predict the foregoing

criteria or to constitute them, namely,
V ^ Number of mother-tongue claimants, 1970
V 2 : (Estimated) number of mother-tongue claimants, 1979
V 3 : Index of dispersion, 1970 (see Appendix 1)
V 4 : % increase 1970-79 (calculated as percent increase or decrease plus 100,
thereby converting all negative values—i.e., decreases—to positive
ones)
V 5 : % increases 1960-70 (calculated in the same fashion as V 4 , above)
V 6 : Number of radio/t.v. "stations", 1982.
V 7 : Number of local religious units, 1982
V 8 : Number of periodical publications, 1982
V 9 : Number of ethnic mother-tongue schools, 1982
V 1 0 : Sum of "institution/claimants ratios" across above four institutional
fields
V i ! : Size sextile (6 = largest)
V 1 2 : Religion (distance from mainstream Protestant which = 1) Western
Catholics = 2, other participationist Christians = 3, Non-Christians = 4,
Non-participationists = 5
V 1 3 : Prevalent racial stereotyping: none = o, features or pigmentation = 1,
features and pigmentation = 2.
ι6ο II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
V 1 4 : Median age of claimants in 1979: 1 = 50 and over, 2 = 40-49, 3 — under

40
V 1 5 : Period of major immigration: 1 = pre-WWI, 2 = post-WWII, 3 = on-
going or indigenous
The "adjusted claimants" criterion, hereinafter Criterion 1 (Crj), will be
represented by Variable 2 multipled by Variable 14. The "institutional" crite-
rion, hereinafter Criterion 2 (Cr 2 ), will be represented by Variable 10. The
compromise criterion (Criterion 3 = Cr 3 ) will be represented by Variable 10
plus Variable 2 (both being converted to standard scores). In predicting each
criterion certain variables will be excluded from functioning as predictors.
Thus, in predicting Criterion 1, Variables 1 and 11 will not be permitted to enter
the multiple-prediction equation because of their redundancy with the criterion
(Variable 1 is known to have an exceptionally high correlation with Variable 2
and essentially measures the same phenomenon at a point in time 9 years earlier
than its measurement by Variable 2, and Variable 11 is merely Variable 2 ex-
pressed in sextiles). Similarly, Variables 6 and 8 will be excluded because they are
also already known to have very high correlations with Criterion 1. In pre-
dicting Criterion 2 Variables 6, 7, 8 and 9 will be excluded since they also
figure in the ratios that constitute Criterion 2. Finally, in predicting Criterion 3,
Variables i, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 will be excluded for similar reasons of redundancy,
these being the variables previously mentioned either in connection with
predicting Cr¡ or in connection with predicting Cr 2 .
PREDICTING THE "ADJUSTED CLAIMANTS":

CRITERION (CRj)
The "adjusted claimants" criterion is not hard to predict if only predictors 1 and
11 are excluded (as was foreseen above). This is due to the fact that V 6 (Radio/
t.v. stations) and V 8 (Periodical publications) have already been found to have
extremely high correlations with V 2 (Estimated mother-tongue claiming 1979;
see Table 15). However, if these two predictors are also blocked from coming
into the multiple-prediction equation, then quite an interesting and powerful
set of predictors still obtains (Table 19) namely V 7 , V 9 and V 1 0 (all still dealing
with institutional strength), V 1 5 (Period of immigration), V 1 2 and V 1 3
(Religious and "racial" distance from the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant main-
streams) and V 3 (Dispersion).
The only two predictors that do not enter in at all are V 5 and V 4 (%-Increase
1960—1970 and %-Increase 1970-1979). Whichever approach we adopt in
deciding where to cut off the cumulative prediction (the most demanding
approach would be at step 2, after which the first non-significant variable, V 1 0 ,
enters the prediction; a less demanding approach would be at step 7, at which
point the adjusted R square begins to decline), it is clear that the Adjusted
Table 19 Predicting the "Adjusted Claimants Criterion" (CKl)
Variable F to Signi- Multiple R Overall Signi-

Entered Enter ficance R Square F ficance
ι. V 7 14.9 .001 •537 .288 14.19 .000

2. V9 15.67 .000 .716 •SM 17.90 .000
3. Vio 2.50 .123 .740 .548 13.30 .000
4· Vi j 6.05 .020 .787 .619 13.01 .000
5. V12 4.20 .049 .815 .664 12.29 .000
6. Vi 3 2.44 .125 .830 .689 il.15 .000
7- v 3 3-17 .086 .849 .721 10.70 .000

8. V , •54 .470 .852 .726 9.28 .000
9. V 4 •72 •404 .856 •li2· 8.24 .000
Claimants Criterion is best predicted by institutional numbers. The relationship

between magnitudes of claimants and magnitudes of institutions is high enough
that although these two criteria provide a quite different rank ordering of
languages, institutional magnitude variables are, nevertheless, the best predic-
tors of the Claimants and Adjusted Claimants criteria. Whether the reverse will
also be the case remains to be seen (i.e. whether claimants will also best predict
our institutional criterion, Cr 2 ).
RANK ORDER OF SURVIVAL POTENTIAL AS OF

1980, BY CRITERION 1
The rank ordering of languages with respect to survival potential by The

Adjusted Claimants Criterion is as follows:
I. Spanish 15· Norwegian

2. Italian 16. Cambodian/Vietnamese
3· French 17· Slovak
4· German 18. Swedish
5· Polish 19. Ukrainian
6. Chinese 20. Hungarian
7- Hebrew 21. Czech
8. Greek 22. Russian
S'- Japanese 23· Dutch
io. Portuguese 24- Lithuanian
II. Yiddish 25· Korean
12. Tagalog 26. Serbo-Croatian
!3· Amerindian 27· Armenian
ΐ4· Arabic 28. Finnish
IÓ2 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Table 20. Predicting "lnstitutions\Claimants Ratios" Summed across Four Institutional Fields
(CK,)

Entered Enter ficance R Square F ficance
I. V 4 15.52 .000 • 552 .304 15.52 .000

2. V 5 15-97 • OOO .726 •527 18.92 .000
2. V u 2.48 .12; .748 .560 13.99 • OOO
4. V3 .635 •75° .562 10.30 .000
5. V 1 3 .21 .645 •752 .566 8.09 .000
6. V i .24 .622 •754 .570 6.62 .000
7. V2 .29 .588 •757 •574 5.58 .000
8. V 1 2 •52 .476 .765 .582 4.87 .001
29. Danish 34. Welsh/Irish

30. Turkish 35. Thai/Lao
3 1 . Hindi 36. Albanian
32. Slovenian 37. Rumanian
33. Persian
Although the above rank order is roughly the same as it would be for
Claimants alone, some languages are clearly displaced downwards (e.g.,
Yiddish, Norwegian) and others upwards (e.g., Hebrew, Greek) due to the
relatively older or younger nature of their claimants. The adjustment we have
used furthers the relative advantage of Spanish and Italian (they not only have
many claimants but, in addition, their claimants are relatively young on
average) and exaccerbates the relative disadvantage of Rumanian and Slovenian
(they have few claimants and, in addition, their claimants are relatively old on
the average). Many aspects of this ranking are intuitively appealing, but some
are not. Institutionally and societally vibrant languages such as Ukrainian,
Korean and Armenian seem to rank far too low merely because their claimants
are few in number. In order to permit institutional strength to "carry the field"
we will have to turn to Criterion 2.
PREDICTING THE INSTITUTIONAL (RATIOS):

CRITERION (CR2)
By the strictest interpretation of Table 20 only two predictor variables ( V 4
and V 5 ) may be combined in order to provide the highest multiple prediction of
our criterion by means of the predictors we have permitted to be utilized. The
two predictors, V 4 : 1 9 7 0 - 7 9 % increase and V 5 : 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 % increase, when
combined, yield a multiple correlation of .726 (and, therefore, account for 5 3 %
of the total variance in our criterion). If we remain with this strict statistical
interpretation of Table 20 (as I am strongly inclined to do) since these are the
only two variables with significant Fs of their own) it is, nevertheless, interest-
ing to note those variables that did not make it into the multiple prediction. V i 1,
a reflection of magnitude perse, is the only additional predictor that can be said to
have "made it" (after it the adjusted R square begins to drop) and that is
interesting too, since the direct expressions of magnitude (V1 and V2) are much
further down in order of entry. Thus, our conclusion from predicting the above
institutional (ratios) criterion is that those languages which experienced the greater
increases in proportion to their own baselines, both from i960 to 1970 and from 1970
to 1979, are the ones most likely to attain the particular type of survival
(institutional survival) that this criterion represents. Other predictors such as
dispersion, racial distinction and religious proximity to the mainstream make
no real contribution at all to the total prediction of this criterion. This is not to
say that these others are not important variables in their own rights, but in
combination with V4, V 5 and V 1 1 they do not provide significant amounts of
additional clarification of this particular criterion.
RANK ORDER OF SURVIVAL POTENTIAL AS OF 1980

BY CRITERION 2
Given Criterion 2 and assuming its relevance for the future, the 37 languages for
which we have sufficient predictive information line up as follows:
ι. Hebrew 19. Portuguese

2. Korean 20. Japanese
3. Albanian 21. Serbo-Croatian
4. Thai/Lao 22. Persian
5. Armenian 23. Finnish
6. Welsh/Irish 24. Russian
7. Amerindian 25. Czech
8. Cambodian/Vietnamese 26. Polish
9. Ukrainian 27.5 Spanish
10. Greek 27.5. Slovak
11. Rumanian 29. German
12. Hindi 30. Turkish
13. Lithuanian 31. Dutch
14. Slovenian 32. Danish
15. Chinese 3 3. Swedish
16. Yiddish 34. French
17. Arabic 3 5. Italian
18. Hungarian 36. Norwegian
37. Tagalog
Many aspects of the above rank ordering agree closely with findings of other
research on non-English language institutional strength in the U.S.A. (Fishman
et al in press). Accordingly, the " B i g Six" come rather low in the list (Spanish,
e.g., is wed with Slovak for the 27.5 th position) whereas various smaller, non-
mainstream Protestant or Western Catholic groups (including several non-
European and non-Christian groups) come rather high. This is a "fact of life" in
connection with this particular criterion that may take some getting used to, but
it obviously reflects the special position of Hebrew as the inescapable co-
language of Jewish education and Jewish worship, on the one hand, and the
general institutional strength (relative to their numbers) of various non-
mainstream and non-European groups, on the other hand. If we insist on the
institutional definition of "survival" we must accept the fact that some very
atypical non-English languages on the American scene are, apparently, in the
best shape.
However, after all is said and done, the above criterion and the rank ordering
it produces seem to be overly related to institutional factors alone and underly
related to the number of claimants involved. Therefore, let us attempt yet
another rank ordering based upon a third criterion in which numbers them-
selves will play a much larger direct role but in which institutional ratios too
will receive their due.
PREDICTING THE COMPROMISE CRITERION:

CLAIMANTS A N D INSTITUTIONAL RATIOS (CR3)
In predicting Cr 3 , six variables have been blocked from entering into the
multiple regression equations (i, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11). Since the criterion itself also
exhausts or consumes two variables (2 and 10), that only leaves us seven
variables that are available for predicting Cr (Table 21). These seven yield a
modest multiple correlation of .52 at best (and .46 at worst), perhaps because
the strongest available predictor variables have been blocked. Even under
these circumstances, however, it is interesting to note that Variable 4 (1970-
79 percent increase) and Variable 14 (median age of claimants) approach
significance as they enter the regression equation. Whereas Variable 4 has
proven to be significant before (in connection with Criterion 2), this is the
first time that Variable 14 appears in the ranks of significant predictors. This is
an eminently sensible addition since we would certainly expect the average age
of their claimants to be related to the survival potential of non-English lan-
guages in the United States.
Table 21. Predicting the Compromise Criterion ( Claimants and Institutions = Cr 3) via
Seven Available Predictors

Entered Enter finance F Square F ficance
ι V, 1.23 .276 .187 •035 1.23 .276

2 V4 3.09 .088 •343 .118 2.20 .127
3 V14 3.89 .057 .462 .213 2.89 .051
4 V} 1.42 .243 •497 •247 M5 .059
5 V12 •43 .516 .508 .258 2.09 .095
6 V13 •17 .678 .512 .263 1.72 .151
7 V15 .09 .761 •515 .265 1.44 .228
RANK ORDER OF SURVIVAL POTENTIAL, AS OF 1980,

BY CRITERION 3
T h e rank order of languages with respect to survival potential, in accord with

Criterion 3 (a c o m p r o m i s e criterion that recognizes b o t h n u m b e r of claimants
and total institutional ratios) is as follows:
I. Spanish 20. Czech

2. Hebrew 21. Welsh/Irish
3· German 22. Serbo-Croatian
4· Polish 2
3· Russian
5· Yiddish 24· Arabic
6. Greek 25· D u t c h
7· Amerindian 26. Finnish
8. Italian 27· Swedish
9· Chinese 28. Slovenian
10. French 29. N o r w e g i a n
I I . Ukrainian 30. R u m a n i a n
12. H u n g a r i a n 31· Thai/Lao
13· Cambodian/Vietnamese 32· Albanian
14. Japanese 33· Hindi
M· Lithuanian 34· Danish
16. P o r t u g u e s e 35· Persian
17· A r m e n i a n 36. Turkish
18. K o r e a n 37· T a g a l o g
19. Slovak
T h e above ranking has much to recommend it. A l l of the " b i g s i x " are still
among the top ten, but four smaller but institutionally strong languages
(Hebrew, G r e e k , " A m e r i n d i a n " and Chinese) are also in the top-ten category.
Old-immigrant European languages tend to come at the bottom of the ranking,
particularly if they are institutionally w e a k , but so do many new-immigrant
non-European languages. T h e middle of the distribution consists of languages
that are o f middle magnitude on one or another criterial dimension, if not on
both. T h u s , this w o u l d seem to be the most sensible rank order of the three that
w e have reviewed, although it too has its shortcomings. Amerindian, o f course,
is not a language but a categorical conglomerate o f smaller languages most of
which (actually almost all of which except for Navajo) are in far weaker shape
than the ranking of the total category implies. Similarly, some of the smaller and
institutionally weaker languages may be (or may become) so concentrated and
their claimants are so racially distinctive that their survival potential may
actually be far greater than their ranking implies. Nevertheless, for most of the
languages listed, barring further massive immigration or other large scale
phenomena of either an integrative or disintegrative nature, their "state of
health" as vibrant sociolinguistic entities should be roughly in accord with their
ranking. Large, institutionally strong or non-participationist language com-
munities seem to be in the very best position in this respect. Other criteria will
produce other rankings, of course, and it is difficult to be a prophet. Under such
circumstances it is doubly inadvisable to be a prophet of d o o m . Many non-
English languages in the U . S . A . will certainly be in very g o o d health in the year
2000.
SIMILARITIES, DIFFERENCES AND CLUSTERS
We end our quantitative explorations with a brief glimpse at patterns of

similarity and difference across languages as revealed by the variables analyzed
above. These have also been glimpsed more than once in various other forego-
ing analyses but will be addressed directly and measured precisely at this point.
The "scoring patterns" of the 37 languages whose status in the early 80s and
whose survival for the rest o f the century w e have just attempted to predict, can
be intercorrelated with each other (via a Q analysis after converting all variables
to ζ scores) and, as a result, w e can n o w quantify the similarities and differences
between these 37 language patterns, as well as the clustering of these language
similarities and differences. Instead of determining, as w e did before, the
correlation o f one variable with the other across 3 7 languages, w e can determine
the correlation of one language with the other across 15 variables.
INTER-LANGUAGE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

WITH RESPECT TO VARIABLE PATTERN
Table 22 reveals a number of familiar interlanguage differences and similarities
in very clear detail. With respect to the 15 variables discussed above, European
languages tend to be most similar to other European languages, on the one
hand, and different from non-European and non-Christian languages on the
other hand. Within the European languages, the generally Northern and
Central tend to be most similar to each other. Languages of similar scale also
frequently cluster together even across regional/cultural lines, e.g., Welsh/Irish,
Rumanian, Finnish; Amerindian, Korean, etc. Some languages of Orthodox-
Christian groups also tend to cluster together, e.g., Ukrainian, Armenian,
Albanian. Some languages are essentially isolated, being neither greatly similar
to nor greatly dissimilar from others, e.g., Slovenian, Hebrew and
Cambodian/Vietnamese.
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE LANGUAGES EXAMINED

A factor analysis of the 37 languages on which we have concentrated, tends to
confirm the similarities and differences mentioned above, as illustrated by the
highest positive and negative loadings reported in Table 23.
Factor I would seem to be the Northern and Central European pattern. Factor
II suggests the small language pattern. Factor III represents the non-European
pattern. Factor IV suggests the Eastern Orthodox pattern. American reality has
witnessed an ongoing decrease of most of the early arriving languages rep-
resented by Factors I and II and a recent increase in most of the languages
represented by Factors III and IV. It also seems quite likely that, in addition to
Spanish, the languages represented by Factors III and IV will continue to
increase for the remainder of this century and may come to constitute as
important a segment of America's language resources in the future as did the
languages, characterized by Factors I and II in the past. However, whereas the
former were largely languages of white European Catholic and Protestant
Christendom—that is, of populations that ultimately became the American
mainstream—the latter still have to find a recognized place for themselves in
the American ethos. Their lesser acceptedness may serve to foster their con-
tinuity until they can design the kind and degree of continuity they desire.
CONCLUSIONS
We have found out so many things in the course of this exploration of non-
English mother-tongue claiming that it is hard to summarize them. We have
ι68 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Table zz. Interlanguage Similarities and Differences (p.oi = . 5 9 ; p.05 = . 4 5 )
V pattern most V pattern most

Language similar to different from
I. Welsh/Irish Rumanian .8319 Chinese -.6144

Finnish .5638 Japanese — .6062
2. Norwegian Swedish .9215 Hindi -.8344
Czech .8804 Armenian -.7185
3- Swedish Norwegian .9215 Hindi -•785 5
Czech .9198 Albanian -.6965
4· Danish Czech .8045 Chinese -•7755
Dutch •7935 Portuguese -.7292
5· Dutch Swedish •8577 Chinese -.6294
Danish •7935 Japanese — .6264
6. French Norwegian .7844 Thai/Lao — .6829
Slovak .6713 Korean -.6795
7- German Polish .6635 Korean -.8077
Swedish •5797 Thai/Lao — .6840
8. Polish Hungarian .6968 Hindi -.8259
Slovak .6791 Thai/Lao -•7424
S'- Czech Swedish .9198 Hindi -•7633
Norwegian .8804 Japanese — .7601
io. Slovak Norwegian .8147 Persian -.7946
Polish .6791 Thai/Lao -.7586
II. Hungarian Serbocroatian .7463 Hindi — .6980
Lithuanian .7300 Persian -.5476
1 2 . Serbocroatian Dutch .7910 Japanese -•6873
Hungarian .7463 Chinese — .6712
!3· Slovenian Armenian .5013 Tagalog -.3902
Serbocroatian •4499 Chinese -.3209
>4· Albanian Armenian .8792 Norwegian -•7715
Hindi •6776 Slovak -•7133
:
5 · Finnish Czech .8408 Japanese -.7823
Danish •7479 Chinese -.7561
ι6. Lithuanian Hungarian .7300 Hebrew -•4759
Serbocroatian .7070 Hindi -•4337
17· Russian Yiddish •7431 Amerindian -.5898
German •4585 Thai/Lao -.4659
1 8 . Ukrainian Armenian .6803 Danish -.3980
Albanian •5471 Tagalog -.3938
1 9 . Rumanian Welsh/Irish .8319 Portuguese — ·779 2
Danish .6416 Chinese — .6922
Table 22. (cont.)
V pattern most V pattern most

Language similar to different from
20. Yiddish Russian •74} ι Thai/Lao -.5130

Slovak •5519 Danish -•39I4
21. Greek Portuguese .5884 Finnish -.5386
Arabic .5042 Amerindian -.4519
22. Italian Spanish .6417 Rumanian -•55°4
French .6225 Welsh/Irish -.5091
2). Spanish Italian .6471 Arabic -.5074
Polish .6402 Persian -•4573
24. Portuguese Greek .5884 Rumanian ~·779 2
Italian •5635 Danish -.7292
25. Armenian Albanian •8792 Norwegian -,7I85
Ukranian .6803 Swedish -.6585
26. Persian Turkish •9957 Slovak -.7946
Hindi .9239 Polish -.7486
27. Hebrew Slovenian .3081 Lithuanian -•4759
Ukranian .2839 French -.4659
28. Arabic Turkish •7°55 Spanish -.5074
Persian .7009 Polish -.4468
29. Turkish Persian •9957 Slovak -•7675
Hindi .9083 Polish -.7186
30. Hindi Persian .9239 Norwegian -.8344
Turkish .9083 German -.8259
31. Korean Thai/Lao .9396 German -.8077
Amerindian •7744 Polish -.6885
32. Cambodian/Viet. Finnish •2843 German -•5452
Korean .2720 Greek -.4519
33. Japanese Chinese •95 54 Finnish -.7823
Hindi .6669 Czech — .7601
34. Chinese Japanese •95 54 Finnish -.7561
Portuguese .5206 Rumanian — .6922
35. Thai/Lao Korean .9396 Slovak -.7586
Amerindian •7059 Polish -•7424
36. Tagalog Turkish .6366 Welsh/Irish -.5256
Persian .6126 Slovak -.5256
37. Amerindian Korean •7744 German -.6135
Thai/Lao .7039 Russian -.5898
170 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance inthe USA
ν τ-- ON
VO r- Γ-
NO " ^ Ν
CN r- so
-Φ Φ
-o
e
'C
oí O
a t
<Î
Ν O •Φ Cs 00 ι—
o Ν "Ν Ν
ON •Φ Ο Ι - 00 Ν
0 NO 0 ΟΝ ON
•Φ •φ Φ- »Λ
Μ χ
O (Λ C
•H -S u
IB «
m a
rt 3 S i g . 2§ u
Η Η < D < 55 a
•Φ
ON • φ ON 00 m 0 m
ON
ON Ν Ν 0 ON NO
r— O 00
NO NO 0 Φ NO NO
Ι— NO NO NO
I I I I
s
H > 4 3 J -c S -β
c .2 <3 .a
g J2 'S -a .3 8 5 ?
3 ¿! I % ^ S. 2 ^
Uh ( K ^ Q H Ä (Λ U î*
O H - C N O N C N N N
ο «Λ o ο o r- vo •<·>
Ν ΙΛ « Ô N ^ O O «-CO
00 Is- h- CN C v h - h · ^t
o o o o o o r--oo r- r- r-
I I I I
^ S §
t ΐ τ * ι § . Β
u
s o ^ "o -S o
ΰ . CL.
z £ & χ *
found that there was a large and virtually "across-the-board" increase in non-
English mother-tongue claiming from i960 to 1970 and that this increase
probably cannot be explained away as merely an artifact of wording changes in
the Census. We have found that this increase primarily occurred in the native-
of-native generation and that it was greater for those languages that were most
concentrated. We have found that this increase did not continue from
1970-1979, and that Spanish (not to mention other, even more recently arriving
languages) was primarily responsible for keeping the overall proportion of non-
English mother-tongue claiming on an even keel from 1970-1979. Most of the
older (and particularly older and larger) non-English languages actually de-
creased from 1970-1979, even though large pools of potential claimants still
existed for them at attitudinal or identificational levels. Seemingly, between
1970 and 1979, large contingents of younger individuals of such language
backgrounds ceased to claim the non-English mother tongues they had claimed
(or that had been claimed for them) at the earlier date. Nevertheless, 1979
mother-tongue claiming magnitudes provide our best correlates of the current
magnitudes of ethnic community mother-tongue institutions in the U.S.A. The
survival potential of non-English mother tongues can be very appreciably
gauged both by combinations of the individual magnitudes as well as by
combinations of the individual magnitudes plus the institutional magnitudes
associated with them. All in all, the story of non-English languages in the
U.S.A. is by no means over. The most recent to arrive are both numerous and
vigorous and may yet come to be better appreciated than their predecessors.
Perhaps this is the most basic lesson of all: we do not know when new
immigration from various parts of the globe will arrive again in the U.S.A. The
picture of our language resources is tremendously diversified. Although some
of the older (and particularly, the smaller and older) languages have begun to
"run dry," others (more recent and, particularly, larger and more recent ones)
are clearly still vigorous. Even the former have an attitudinal life which
bespeaks activization potentials not fully glimpsed by the naked eye and the
unsympathetic mind. But beyond the list of traditionally reported languages,
there are the new arrivals, particularly from Asia and the Pacific, some of which
do not even figure as yet in most of our tables. These will grow most rapidly of
all for years to come. As a result, while some non-English languages may
virtually disappear from the American language reservoir by the end of this
century (and even these may surprise us more than once with bursts of new life),
most will not, and many will still be strong and useful resources indeed even at
that point.
Economic and educational mobility have long served to vitiate America's

non-English language resources (Argle 1978). In i960 the correlation between
educational level and maintenance rank for "the big six" (Fishman et al., 1966)
was —.43. In 1979 the correlations between " % college attendance" and ratio
of ancestry claimers that also claimed their corresponding mother tongues

(again, only for "the big six" because only for them do we have such data)
varied from —.87 to —.98 (depending on sex of claimant and the particular
ancestry ratio selected). The correlations between average family income and
language maintenance ratio varied from —.85 to —.89. These findings are
totally expected and, therefore, do not deserve extended discussion other than
to pinpoint the nature of the problem for the future. Economic and educational
mobility within the mainstream counteract intergenerational linguistic and
ethnic continuity, as they always have in multilinguistic settings where
dependence-interactive social mobility is possible. What is needed, therefore, is
a reordering of values so that cultural diversity too is given high priority, at the
same time that English acquisition and social mobility are fostered. A new
valuation of "pluribus" is needed, making possible social arrangements on its
behalf. Americans, including American social scientists, have usually viewed "e
pluribus unum" as related to sequential developments rather than to simul-
taneous and mutually-enriching possibilities. Social mobility may well be
slower in the future than it has been in the past in America. May that not turn
out to be the major reason why our language resources will remain with us for
generations to come!
NOTES
ι. In common American usage the expression "non-mainstream ethnicity" appears redundant

since "ethnicity" presumably pertains to non-mainstream (and, hence, minority) identity.
More generally, however, ethnicity refers to the cultural identity dimension of any aggregate,
whether as attributed by others or as self-attributed. Obviously, the mainstream also has its
ethnicity, taken for granted ("unmarked") and unconscious though it may be. Thus, the
expression "non-mainstream ethnicity" is really not a redundancy and is intended to high-
light the questions raised in Fishman, in the Epilogue of this volume, namely: when do main-
stream and sidestream ethnicities merge?; when do they separate?; when do surface mergers
and deeper separatenesses coexist?
i. In actuality, the wording of the Census' mother tongue question has changed twice in this
century. Through to 1940 it pertained to the respondent's own mother tongue (except in the
case of the very young, these being assumed to have their mothers' mother tongue). From
1940 to i960 the relevant question asked for the language spoken in the respondent's
household during his childhood. In 1970 and 1979 the wording was changed again and asked
whether the respondent had heard any language other than English spoken in his household
during his childhood. The latter wording being more permissive or suggestive, it is pre-
sumed to be largely responsible for any increases in non-English mother-tongue claiming
from 1960—1970. T h e latter figures are assumed to be less valid than the former.
}. This was also the order of the big six in 1960, although Spanish increased much more than did
most of the others since then.
4. Linguists would not agree with all of the "languages" named (nor with the distinctions
drawn between "languages" in Table 2. Nevertheless, most of the designations are quite
serviceable for our purposes. A few languages listed in the bottom part of the table have been
listed intermittently in earlier years, e.g., Arabic, Chinese, Japanese.
There is, naturally, a strong tendency for the more populous states also to have larger
numbers of non-English mother-tongue claimants.
Spanish mother-tongue figures do not include Puerto Rico and, generally, are considered to
be underestimated, both because of the difficulty encountered in counting illegal aliens in
particular and poverty populations more generally.
Table 4 does not easily permit the computation of exact median ages. A 1969 Bureau of the
Census study (Series P-20, N o . 2 2 1 , 1 9 7 1 ) reports median ages of 49.4 years and 26.8 years for
the foreign-born and native-born (the latter being our second and third generations com-
bined) respectively, a difference of 23 years.
These three languages also revealed a far younger-than-average age distribution for their
second generations and, to a smaller extent, also for their first. In these respects they were also
approximated by the "not reporteds", usually assumed to be highly Hispanic in composition.
The fact that the "all other" category shared the second and third-generation age charac-
teristics of most documented languages, on the one hand, and the first-generation age
characteristics of Greek and Chinese on the other hand, is indicative of a new influx of non-
English mother-tongue claimants that had not yet produced second and third generations of
its own.
Russian mother-tongue claimants have previously been found to be largely Jewish. This was
probably less true in 1970 than it had been in earlier census due to a long-term trend for J e w s
from the former Czarist empire to decrease Russian mother-tongue claiming and increase
Yiddish mother-tongue claiming from one census to the other. The mid— and late 1970s and
early 1980s witnessed a new influx of Jewish immigrants who could more legitimately have
claimed Russian mother tongue in 1980 than was the case for their counterparts arriving early
in this century.
This approach is least adequate for Serbo-Croatian/Slovenian and German. In both cases
additional countries of origin for sizeable contingents of mother-tongue claimants of these
languages have had to be ignored. The resulting "maintenance quotients" for these two
"languages" are, therefore, more overestimated than are the quotients of the others.
Overestimates must be considered the general state of affairs in Appendix 2, the denominator
of each fraction (country of origin) having been less exhaustively accounted for than the
numerator (mother-tongue claiming), due to the fact that some Swedish claimants are
derived from Finland, Polish claimants from the U.S.S.R., Hungarian claimants from
Rumania, Chinese claimants from "overseas-Chinese" communities, etc. For additional
estimates of this kind see Table 10, in which a few more languages are examined.
The German case is somewhat special. The West is the primary settlement area for the post-
World War II settlers, the only ones with a sizeable second generation at this time. Older
German settlements are now characterized as third generation and beyond.
Since 26.5 % of all those claiming a non-English mother tongue in 1970 reported having been
raised monolingually (PHC (E)~9 (1974), Veltman considers their claims to non-English
mother tongues to be patently invalid. Be this as it may, it still leaves an unexplained increase
of major proportions and its dynamics deserve serious study. As for myself, I see no necessary
contradiction between being raised monolingually and being raised in a home in which a
language other than English was spoken.
In my 1966 study of the language resources of the U . S . A . I referred to magnitude as "external
concentration" and to concentration per se as "internal concentration" (Fishman and Hofman
1966, pp. 47-49). A t that time the former seemed to be more important than the latter. I
return to this issue now in order to examine it more stringently as well as more currently.
The high correlation between degree of concentration and number of L R U s or schools is
174 II The Ethnic Revival and language Maintenance in the USA
primarily a result of the co-occurrence of both phenomena among Yiddish, Spanish, Chinese
and Amerindian claiming populations/institutions. If German and Pennsylvania German
could have been tabulated separately (unfortunately, the U.S. Census does not consider
Pennsylvania German to be a separate language) the resulting overall correlation would have
been higher yet.
14. 1979 mother-tongue data is reported in Ancestry and Language in the United States: November
19J9. Current Population Report Special Studies Series p. 23, N o . 1 1 6 . Issued March 1982.
Other reports derived from this 1979 survey were planned but have remained unpublished,
due to budgetary restrictions, as of this date (September 1983).
15. The estimation method utilized involved adding to the 1979 totals for the 14 reported
"languages" a proportion equal to that for 1970 claimants below lfyears of age. Other languages
were given overall percent changes ( 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 9 ) similar to one or another of the 14 reported
languages or, where available, percent-change based upon other information (e.g., pertaining
to recent immigration). The resulting final estimates are shown in Table 14. The utility of
these estimates will be examined below.
16. Both German and Yiddish may ultimately be maintained in the U . S . A . by their non-
mainstream mother-tongue claimants, Old Order Amish, Menonites and Hutterites, on the
one hand, and ultra-Orthodox J e w s , on the other hand. The latter are already producing a
rapidly growing non-English speaking third generation (Fishman 1982) and, accordingly,
have been listed among the groups requiring special attention by bilingual education agencies
(Oxford et al. 1981).
17. " % change" in Table 1 ; is operationally defined as % loss or % gain plus ioo°/0 in order to
obviate the need for working with negative values. Stricdy speaking, therefore, our " %
change" findings pertain to percent positive change.
18. Our detailed studies of the E M T press and community leaders (Garcia et al., Chapter 10, This
Volume; Gertner et al., Chapter 9, This Volume; L o w y et al., Chapter 8, This Volume; Fish-
man et al., Chapter 7, This Volume) confirm the Hispanic and the Franco-American develop-
ments suggested above. However, no such confirmation is forthcoming in the German-
American fold from the above studies. Apparently "mainstream" native-of-native, German
mother-tongue claiming increased in 1970 without having any corresponding institutional
follow-through. By 1979 German mother-tongue claiming was again on the decline.
19. Our index of concentration is really an index of dispersion and that explains why the negative
correlations in Table 15 imply "more concentration is related to more positive change from
1970 to 1979"·
20. Yiddish is a clear counter-example to the overall trend: it was very concentrated in 1970 and
yet lost 2 4 % of its claimants from 1 9 7 0 - 7 9 . The age distribution of Yiddish claimants may be
strongly responsible for this unique development, as may its particular position as the less
prestigeful vernacular of a very socially mobile population whose erstwhile religious classical
(Hebrew) had recently also become vernacularized. Nevertheless, a new period of growth is
foreseen for Yiddish in the near future (Oxford 1981).
21. The Bureau of the Census defined ancestry as "ethnic origin, nationality group, lineage or
d e s c e n t . . . based on self identification." Series P-23, N o . 1 1 6 , p. 19.
22. This is not to say that "ancestry" response and generation of the respondent are unrelated.
Native-of-native respondents, e.g., were much more likely to claim " A m e r i c a n " and multiple
ancestry than were other respondents.
23. Even for "single ancestry claiming" German and Swedish, the two biggest " l o s e r s " for
which ancestry data is available, show the greatest mother-tongue underclaiming.
24. I have estimated elsewhere (Fishman 1981) that in 1970, 2 ; % of American J e w s claimed
Yiddish as their mother tongue. By 1979 this percentage might well have become 2 0 % or
less.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Angle, John. Language Maintenance, Language Shift and Occupational Achievement in the United States.
San Francisco, R and E Research Associates, 1978.
Fishman, Joshua A. Planned reinforcement of language maintenance in the United States; sugges-
tions for the conservation of a neglected national resource, in his (et al) Language Loyalty in the
United States, The Hague, Mouton, 1961, 569—$91.
. The lively life of a "dead" language, or "everyone knows that Yiddish died long ago".
Judaica Book News, 1982, 13, 7—11.
. The rise and fall of the ethnic revival in the U.S.A. This Volume, Epilogue.
. and John E. Hofman. Mother Tongue and nativity in the American population, in J.A.
Fishman, et al. Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966, 34-50.
. Michael H. Gertner, Esther G. Lowy and William G. Milán. Ethnicity in Action: The
community resources of ethnic languages in the United States. This Volume, Chapter 7.
Fishman, Shikl. Tsi iz nokh do a hofenung far yidish in amerike? Davke. 1981, 82, 62-74.
García, Ofelia, Joshua A. Fishman, Silvia Burnat and Michael H. Gertner. The Hispanic press in
the United States: Contents and prospects. This Volume, Chapter 10.
Gertner, Michael H., Joshua A. Fishman, Esther G. Lowy and William G. Milán. Language and
ethnicity in the periodical publications of four American ethnic groups. Multilingua, 1983, 2,
83-99. Also This Volume, Chapter 8.
Haugen, Einar. The Norwegian Language in America. (2 vols.) Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1953.
Hofman, John E. Mother tongue retentiveness in ethnic parishes, in J.A. Fishman et al. Language
Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966, 1 2 7 - 1 ; 5.
Hudson-Edwards, Alan and Garland Bills. Intergenerational language shift in an Albuquerque
Barrio, in Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic Aspects. J. Amastae and L. Elias-Olivares
(eds.) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982, 1 3 5 - 1 5 3 .
Husband, C. and Verity Saifullah Kahn. The viability of ethnolinguistic vitality. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1982, 3, 193-206.
Lambert, Wallace, Psychological approaches to the study of language. Part II. On second-language
learning and bilingualism. Modern Language Journal, 1963, 47, 1 1 4 - 1 2 1 .
Li, Wen Lang. The language shift of Chinese-Americans. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language. 1982, 28, 109-124.
López, David E. Chicano language loyalty in an urban setting. Sociology and Social Research. 1976,62,
167-178.
. The Maintenance of Spanish Over Three Generations in the United States. Los Alamitos, National
Center for Bilingual Research, 1982a.
. Language Maintenance and Shift in the United States Today: The Basic Patterns and Their Social
Implications. Los Alamitos, National Center for Bilingual Research, 1982b.
Lowy, Esther G., Joshua A. Fishman, Michael H. Gertner, Itzek Gottesman and William G. Milán.
Ethnic Activists view the ethnic revival and its language consequences. Journal of Multicultural and
Multilingual Development 1983, 4, 237-254 (Also, This Volume, Chapter 8)
Oxford, Rebecca, Louis Pol, David Lopez, Pal Strupp, Murray Gendell and Samuel Peng.
Projection of non-English language background and limited English proficient persons in the
United States to the year 2000: Educational planning in the demographic context. NABE
Journal, 1981, 5, no. 3, 1-30.
Skrabanek, R.L. Language maintenance among Mexican Americans. International Journal of
Comparative Sociologi, 1970, 1 1 , 272-282.
Stevens, Gillian Anne. Minority Language Loss in the United States. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1982.
Veltman, Calvin. Anglicization in the United States: The importance of parental nativity and
language practice. International journal of the Sociology of Language, 1981a, 32, 65—84.
. The retention of minority languages in the United States. Washington, D.C., NCES-
U S D E , 1981b.
. Language Shift in the United States. Berlin. Mouton. In press.
Waggoner, Dorothy. Language and demographic characteristics of the U.S. population with
potential need for bilingual and other special education programs. Washington, D.C., NCES-
USDE, 1981 (Mimeo).
* * * * * *
00 00 00 r- 00 os Ό SO Tj-
c Ν Γ- r- OO 0 Ν Ό
rt «fr Ν r·^ N ΟΟ ^ 00 «-1 r-^
εu so" 00 CN CS cA OO tS Ν SO
<υ
Ό s© 0
so
SO
Ν £ "-1
O so
•Ι- Ν
Ü
GS ffv »Λ ^ O 00 Ν f-
00 Cs Cs •^"OO 11
I-. h- Ν -H C s SO
-Γ N* n" ^ -Γ Ν S -Γ -φ
••t κ- Tj- O "I" 5 ν 00 Ν
Uh
ON WS im I—
00 ο Γ- Ο -Φ
"1- r- r-~ r- o
3 ^ C\ M"
α Ν f· Ν
o
Γ - v-s
r A SO
M « M. h- Ν
* * *
OO 0 Γ - Cs O so Tf Ν CS ΟΟ 00 r-
^ e s ΟΟ Ν r- ΗΝ CS -φ »•Η Cs
OO 00 C S SO CN so^ -Φ NO ^ fTl
Ι-Γ Ι-Γ θ" •«fr 00 «·Λ\ 4 00 so" so" Ν ^ so"
** Γ- Ν Ν O **
(Λ
ÜO
ns Ν O s 00 rfr Cs 00 Ν CS Ν Η> s o M
υ Ν so r«S r-
CS s o h- CS TJ- O Ν
so ffv C s CN C\ v. Γ^ 00
t T? »Λ κ·\ _T Ν so" 00 OO so"
O
Ν so
Ζ -
Ν 00 Γ- Γ- 00 00 Ν r- 00 00 O
V-s Ν Η« ι— (— -fr CS 0 O «YS Ν SO
r- Tfr Cs CS Ν
<e vi <-Γ Ν" WS so"
o
t/3 <
d "s
Ü
s
fi s
ε I
« CÍS 'S u
Η
(Λ
ì rt
>
<
-a z
rt «
u
ιλ c -S
α .3 2
χ » a e <Λ t>0 C
* s υ I c
'θ
I
ω « -S o cl Λ 8
* o § κ ζ C U V)
C5 Λ)
§^
O -O u u
u £ „ ^ Í2
S Ζ S QÍ U 2 Z Z O ¿ 3 HH » S
* et S
S
o O «
ζ Ζ
i78 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
00 0O
00 00SOΝ Ν 0CsΟ -Ο
ΓΟ C
Νs ο00ο ΟO Oso^ Vs
r-
Cs 00 0 ο 0
0 Ο Ν Γ
Cs <D νο Ν*so*Ό 00ν-- CN
^ O s0
art ^
ε u« SO
OO0 SO
0 00 0o0"oo*Γ-00 Ν0 Ν Μ 1-1
o
Ô
O r·» r-* cs Ό
Ά Tf M
H Nh-GO
CS ^ «
Ô h h-
• ©
Ph
00 Ν wn Ν TΛfv τC
)·N\0tt-iN0080 C
Ο S Ι-
«V M Ô •»fΝ^Ν
Û 3
ΟΟ so C
ιΝS- ^κ·\ ΝS0 00C
— N SO0Λ
0ΝS -C
Ν ί0 Νh>"-Ν
ι-" Ν040 -φ Cs Η
•
"
>-<
<> •-Γ Η Γ
< · r-vtJ-
»^> o os mr-
TJ- Ό
SO
»tjM
Λ- ôTofrVûoN t^ M
o- ·_so O
r-Os Ô
75
w
te T
C-sj «-0C
0NΝ-Cvvû00^ ν-χΝ Ν
r-- ^«Λ—
h >
r-,νώ~^xj-r--CO
sO*<C
\-svs\oCs00oW
N
*
l
ζo
O O O os Cs m Γ- OO sO
s^\0Oso -t
oC^S esΝ~ o_ i" CN ^ Ν O O
00 00 OO 00
a
< 00 Ν Ν
«
ε
2ο aο o S« SO V
rtf
υ * •s. c•υυ
3
υ U C
-S •a
c -oc <>
* S U « α, Λ
rt U ZV vi •a 3o
° u-S -S S 3 Κ'Π^ΐί& J3 Jt •Ά2 <Λ
SS Ζ 5 s C<
O g u « ï 0ί ΐ « .5 .S ^ O Ξg (Λυ fiH J3S S <
D
o
cow
Ο ws \D » ο\ » t Tt
MS Ν 1- va •ψφ φ Os Μ Ο SO
-ψ
ο -- Ν ^ Ο φ" MS Μ Ο
c\
oc r oc >- Ν 00 •t O SO Ν CS SD 00
0\ r- Ν 00 00 r- Cs Cs CS O 0
^ tft « φ os οο f^ »Λ V-»
Ν ι-Γ SO o" o Ν ίΛ •TS

es
Ν
r - 00
00
es
0
Ν ·-< Ν 00 Ν
ι-Γ N*
σ\ o •Φ 0 0 Tf 0 00 r^ r - es ν o
•t
Cs
es Ν ι- φ '
1 Î Ν ? ν-«
CS
00
^
Ν-
Cs
CS
^ »Λ \D N V 4
h- Ν GS
3
bO
G
Ws r-- O Η* Ρ. SO Tj- r- Γ- r - CS f M 0 0 CS Ν
CS O SO
^ r» SO^
r- 0 r - so Ν cs CS O - Ν ν- r - SO
Γ- Ν Cs Cs Ν O Ν ^ Tf
Ν Ν Ν »Λ S •Λ ^ CTN
N ΟΟ h- so CN
ν- r- r - r*» 00 CS M C S 00 es ι- r - ν 00 •ι CS τ}- 00
r - vo Cs 00 O O so CS « Ν o
00 <D sO f t Os 00 ^ Ν Ν
00 CÑ 4 S ^ 00 «χ
Μ » η >* «
OS Μ « I o ~
»-ι r- «s ο -φ Ν MS MS Os
« -Φ 4 Ν ο" vî
« SO τΤ
τ)- Os i^, so Ν O
Φ r- o so c s 00 00 MS so
CS Φ MS ^ so MS T j " Ν Ο M o, r^
00' Ν" Ι-Γ 00 SO
J
<
P¿
c Η
o
Ζ
Ή
c ' - S PJ
OI
s
rt « ε
•a j a o o 5 3 u
_e « -fi m <2
• 3 J3 o o
o * 2
>
« «
u «
j ;
τ »
-3
δ
S
Χ 3
< Η 6J0
J O ^ o < O υ
Χ
ai
O
Ζ £
t oG\
N «ft
Ν
r-
r·»
m
Ν 00 SO
IM r - Γ-
Ν Ν
00 SO
Ν IX M!
ON ON Ν
\0 00 τί- vö Ολ CN CN CN q,
Ι-Γ Ν
3 Ν J Ν SO* Ν
•"-1
« « r - -ο N es r^
Λ (ft ^ h Λ ν t^
-Φ Ο, Ν »ft Tf Ν OO O »ft
•r, 1— O
00 r* >ft \o o
00 O 00 c\ Ν
O - vo
Λ oo, 0, r^
»ft I— CN
r^ r-^
(Λ υ
Ν *0 «ft Ν »ft O
Ν O
u> Tf Ν
•ft »ft Tj- 00
•ft »ft i-t C\
c
3 «ft »ft «ft
r p—. r-J
X
00 OV »ft O r^ ^ O r^ 00
Os ^ >ft Ν θ\ r^ Η o ft
Ν HH M m Ν «ft 00
-í
* * *
v-s Ν es so 00 ο 0 "Φ CS rrs Ν TJ- 00
0 ~ so 0 0 ο Ν W-v CS «TN 00 OO
N Ν Ν SOä Ν CN <3 00 σ\ C\
Ν" Ν Ν ο" OO
KS — so Ν Ν
* * * *
^ CS so Ν O so Ti- «TN Ν
00 >-1 00
- O 00 0 00 cs Ν CS -Φ »Ts SO
Ν <3 00 >-> r^ so o, SO CS NM NM
Ν r^ TS Tp 0 Tt Ν" so" o" 00 C\ <Λ ^
CS r- -φ 00
O ** I- Ν Ν Ν —·
P-
S
< 1
CL
-o
c 3 S >•
ñ s S
el β υ
t*
C/i
S
J3
ε
rt
3 I 9 ΐ ï ζ υ
C - S J3
a
X
3
<
rrl s¡° qj
C
I O <H —
ω
ö
-S
S O «
-a a
O Λ
«
60 β
o
υ
~
S
o
7
Ζ χ ω •«i *
u
§ jy
O T3
s* *
u
Ζ
Λ ^ a
υ « ^
§ £
w
Ρ-
Ρ
c¿ *
υ S ζ u j Z Z * £ O í a S £ s S s
α. O Ζ S o ω
<
ζ
Ν V-S Ν οο ·*· sO W-N VO 00 00 r- sO Ο Ο W-Sr-.

Γ- GN Ο 0 Ν Ν ~ CN es ^ CN Ν 00 GN CN SO r- 0
Ν Ν os σ\ SO ΟΟ GN Tj-
•Η Ν ι- ο" Ν
o « ν-* ι— r O O
ν ι— SO Ν o o
,-. so WS M
ei ** ON 00 « r- 00 Ν Ν Ο CN Ν Ν 00 Ν Η 00 00 SO
Ό SO «Ν ο ^ Tj- «/-ν Ν 00 h- SD Ν 00 00 οο CN
0Λ Ο-Ν Ν σν Ν « Tf SO Ν Ν Ν
"-1 <-* ** μ Ν I-I
os so os r- C\ C\
o o O OC Γ
Ν Ν SO • SO H- SO 00 f - Tt·
\o m ^ í Ν SO 00 00 Ν o
O O Os ~ O O t - C S O O ^ N O O O N O Ρ cT
^ ^
^ Os
.-i ws Ά Οι ·η S 10 Ν I— o Tt-
^ Ν ν r^
«^s Cs SO 0 H* M m g«-s Ν \0 Ν SO SΟ **·> r--

Ν CN 0 SO 0 SO C\ O CN 00 ·- Ν
SO^ «K ^ TÍ- r^ SO Ν 00 Ν Tj- r - ν 00 00 o
so" SiT Ν CN
O SO N Ο Ο -φ
^ i*s Ν τ)- ~ Os \0 st ws r-- o SO WS oo s}-
Os cc CS r r so - r-^ o,
—' ri
SS «
3 « ο
O O υ υ •S .S c §
Λ .S « >
•o
c
«
υ Ό ο « f•a
£ ζS w? υ
u
VI ií
•S. υ VJ ^
« c
•os - ι3 ja
«Ul (A
e
i5bΖtí u 3
•s
3
60
·• -a o
3 3 Ό
C/3 C ¡ I
(Λ
•a o
Ό,
Ρ CO ü
g
3
I s « 2
υ α s ·5 3 á ·ΐ ·Ϊ ·ΐ o § Ç J2 flj
ζ Ζ χ W Η < S «
Ρ ω S
C/3
II The Ethnic Kevival and Language Maintenance in the USA
*
CS 00 Tf- NO r- NO CS Γ-
OO Ό NO
ι- Ν \o r^ »Λ Ν
ON OO "Φ
Ολ ΝΟλ CS
rt CS CS
Os Ον Ν ^
0
Νθ_
rS J- ΜΓ 0\ CN
Γ- Ν NO
Ο O CS Ν Ο NO OO —
Ι οο NO ΟΟ CS
^t CS 00 Ν NO MI 00 Ç Γ- •Ί- NO Ν Ν
Ν £ Ν 1- Ν ΝθΛ Γ^ ΝΟ^ Ν
ΗΓ ^ Ι-Γ Ν
00 ^
*
OO Ν o NO ON ΝΟ NO Ν r- Ν 00 Ν Γ-
OS NO Ν NO r- CS 00 0 ^
ι- Ό V-v 00 CS Μ ι- VN
- 00 Tt;
yS _r _Γ o
rr^ NO Γ- ΗΓ CN
NO M
I Μ( •Ί"
Ν Tf
Ο 00 CS Γ- NO 00 NO Γ- ΝΟ Γ-
r- O NO Ν ΟΟ O Tf VD OS ΟΟ Γ- CS
Ν Ν Tt V-v Ν ν- vs Ολ I- Ολ Γ^ -Φ
· - rvf Ν _Γ CS Γ— Γ- Γ—
ON
Tf Ν r«- NO Os Ν Γ- Ν Ν 00 NO
00 NO O Ν 00 00 00 Ο Ν 00 Γ- ON NO
00 r^ NO Ν r^ CS Ν >- ΝΟλ ΝΟλ V-S
N* tS Ν ·-
00 ^Γ— vΓ-C vΝC Ν o"
Ν V-s »Λ
σ\ 0 es Γ- οο Γ- 00 Γ- Ν Ν Ν
no OO NO r- CS r- οο Γ- Ο
Ολ NO ΟΟλ NO »<\ t ON Ν Γ^ »- OO
Ν 00 Γ- _
Γ Cv Ν
Ν NO «t es
Ν
Ν r- O O 0 OS Γ- NO 00 NO Γ- 00
ON 0 r- NO Ν ο NO »Ts
Ό Ν CN 00 00 00 00 Ολ NO tf 1- Ν ^ Ολ CS
NO* Ι-Γ o" Ν* -Γ ι-Γ Νθ" no" Ν Γ-
00 0 Ν
Οα •Φ
·- Ν ^
C
ο «
ta
.5
a a
T3 c co εo
-e 15 M 'S -S ¡3
o o 'S
a
ζ υ s 1« k 3
Ρ Ζ u ^ O O <
J
Χ
« bC
β υ rt
CU
£
* * *
r- 00 rTN 0 Ν Tf •0 -t σ\ r--
Ν 00 O ^ Ν Ν r-- 0 ^fr
rT-, v-s \0 >- CN v-s ** o„
H-" Ν ff NO* no" τ? 00"
CS Ν Ν Ν
O ·-
0 0
r-
0 M
00 ^
00
Ν
0 Ν CN Ν 1-4 b* CN
NO ON NO CN CN NO Tf ON 0
Oä h- V-N Os 00 Cs Ν V-v IT, Ν Ν ·-<
J-T ι-Γ CN ff 00 θ" 4 T? 00*"
-O CN ·- Ν ers 00 »Ts V3
-a
«
00 o O \D 00
ε σ\ σ\ o
00 r^ o
r-
^
3
ai
0 * * *
"fr CN KS Ν MS Sû hH CN ^ 00 O Ό N r-
vô 0 CN CN 0 00 Ν r- ^ 00 CN CN OO Cs
Ov >0 r-- CN 00 OO O CN Ν OO Tf NO
c
c ι~· M Ν M ff Ν 00 00* Ν CN 00"
iTN
£ "Φ
<-
* * * *
NO o MS TÍ GN Ν CN \0 \0 " t CN Ν 00
Ν « Γ » CN r - h- O 0 Ν f>T\ 0 NO
3 O^ N *«N Ν crs 00 Cs ^ NO Ν Ν Ν
Λ ι-Γ 0 GN o" 0" cÑ Ν ^ Ν S
fA Ν « «
CN 00 ^ CN OO Ν NO Ο •«fr Μ Ν 00
« W Ν ^ Κ-Ν V-S NO Μ CN r- M 00 00 CN ISS f*s
»Λ \0 Νθ_ 00 Ν 00 00 >- CN
-Κ 4 Ν" 00 Ι-Γ 00 Μ* -φ tS
MS Ι- ι-
Ρ
3 1 c «
α
-ο
β
£ u 0 Ö
-ο
Η
(Λ
c
α ε
« 3 (Λ Ι S _
^
υ
'c
S s c
U
-fi
_ rt «
<
"μ
c
χ J3
§ 3 £
- ' S
S r u
2
§
2
0 2
rt
60
0 δ g
g
0
Q
-s -s
a
W
ω* trt Ο C υ S Ζ g g
χ cd βί
•S -β
Q TI
M ü u §
o
S
C « g I
υ S ζ S oí ÛJ
-o Z Z £ 3 § ^
M § O
S Ζ ΙΛ
δ * ë
δ ζ o
ON o Ν Ν 00 Ο
r- \o Ν Ν τ}- -O Γ^ οο
WS- Ο»Λ
ON Ό II ^ Τ}" ι- Ws-
>-η Ν Ν rr-, Ν η- Ν
O
CN Ν "t Ο Tt νΟ ο Ο 00 »Λ
Ν ΚΝ I·* Ο »<•% Ο Ο Γ- -<t Ο
Ν Ν 00^ ν-. ο •Ί- - Ν ^ Ν- 00
-α Ν O t «
Ό
- Ο
Ν
ε Ν Η-
3
Pi
C
2
'S 1- » Μ Ν ·<(· 00
Ο
cd
3
Χ,
- XJ- σν σ\ οο ** m Η CO » t ΙΛ h ν- Ο νο
•S
Α Ν Ο Ν Ο «-> ο σν
U« •3- Ν t ^ » •Λ ΙΛ Ο
3
«
IB
E
3
ö .S C
υ e o ô
« Ό O δ) -s ti
cd C ^ ς» α S «
Χ
5ζ
trt .3 5 υ
« « ja I S . s .S
bo w
υ
s
I
Β s J5
a
•&-U
1/3
.¡2
«(Λ Cdç ε
« -S3 S 'S
o
— « cd
λ "u « .a • Ü Si3« 1 » s s <υ -s
·
ω Ζ )¿ 3 0 2 Q > ^ Ζ o ο ε
(Λ H <
β
S <Λo O 3 Β
J Ο Η
Cu o
ΙΛ
<cu <d
W
•t O Ν 00 Ο r- M Ο M CS
CS 00 Ο 00 Ti- 00 S
O CS
cs so ** Ν cs ri; Ν so^
M
I Ν Ν r^ Ν 00
NMS OSO
Ν ι- Tí- rf
VN
- ΟΟ Η
Η h- H-Tf ^ W S
moo I k-
C\ r^- c\ H M C\ O SO Cs i·C\ C S
V Û
Η
Ν -
.Η Tf Ό τ}- O O O O ~ h. ^ r^- v
^s xt
o\- 00 4
O S O S O
Ο Ν Ν - M
~ o r--
00 r- so
^ "t
Τ}
- o O 00 Ό O C\
00 Os "O
Cs 00
r^ o* C
N
so r-- r- r- r- Ν W S >H- ·-. 00 r-- Tf 0

CS 0 O ^t es 00
S 00 C S -<t cs Cs CS Ν
H4 ·-> Ν Ν v^· CS ·- Ν C S 00
HTMI" Ν SO*
" Ν
"t O Ν C S
»
H Ν -φ
1-1
Ν O SO ~ o O o
CS Ν ΙΛ 00 C S 00
O 00 ^ h es
V. S
O ·- o -«t
•J
<1
o
u c
'κ o
υ fe Ζ
e
S
e .S Ό
« - S s' C 2 -a
«„
c
c
-
o es
υ
Μ
-S >
« S 2 S o W ) w u «
a
§
§ -s s.·"o •c
£
δ S
u "S •
iur »
c 73 ^
ä S
«s κ
* * Äχ 3
S 2 2 ^ υ X Η Η η Η „ Μ
rt
0-
S
1 Ο Ο g g J-
1 Η
^ Ζ Ζ ΙΛ ? ί-1 *
* * * *
SO 00 «S Ν 0 OO O N r- SO Ν v-s r- Ν
00 r-. s o CN ers ON Ν CS es Cs O r- r- 0 Γ- O Ν
Xl SO 00 ν». r^ so
Ν 4
Ν r^ »<s Tf
Ν* Ν 00 Ν m
"7
S ι-Γ Ν
Γ^ CN Ν
•H Ν I- I- Ν
*
90 90 )Λ «Λ i· 00 00 VN ΟΟ TJ- 00 Ν
Ν τ}- er» SO ·- CS CS CS
00 Cs SOa sO 5 0, SÛ Cs CTS «
Ο* h ^ "i Ν
•fi Ζ ~ r-
υ
Tj- 00 hH NM w-s - φ oo so
υ •G
- ν
oo
r - vo
-Φ
r- ί- 0
«•TN
so Ν OS
0
oo
CS SO
0 00
00
^
*r\
s ο o
α. Ν
υ *
3 Ν -«t V. IM V-s SO r- t « va t
60 «*n CS - Cs O SO 00 N Ν Cv
3 »TN ι- r^ 00 H-
S Ν 00A so" 00
o Ν rr»
CU
0 so
CS
0 Γ- CS Ν 00 OS o 00 M o M M
00
Ν m CS
KS
Ν οο r- so CS 00 00 Γ- 0 oo
00 "fr Ν >- S0A SO 00 "«t S0Ä CN ^
M oo
"t
4 oo" SO
SO
oô r-
so"
SO OS 00
oo"
Ν
rA 0
Ν
M
α
Ν Ν Ν
(Λ
Μ-Ι O « vo o αν oo
Ν Ν ** 00 Tf
ι— »-> oo ^ r- cj. -φ
o"
sä 2
Β-Ό Ο
<
&
t¡
Sì
a
Ι-ι U
¿4
o
rt
^ s
eΛ J 3 S £ z ^
fïi
CS -S J3
Ι - Μ Ι ι 'C Q
X
HH χ Β υ
—
-r
^
tu
U S » ! i
3 „
S
Q
Ζ
S i l Ψ. g 1 a α ψ. & PC
p -6 Ζ S
O
ΐ
ω
ο. S 2 5 Sí rä Sì
o- o «
< ζ ζ
C S er, 00 r- Ν I» r- ΟΓ- so ers eTr*i- Ν O No 3· 0 ΝO j- ^SΓ-fTs

O
fTs »-1
r- 00 eT\00Οso er,
0 SO σν ers er« Ό »Λ T
r- Ν 00 00 CN O>- C
N
Ν
T
f> Ά Ι-Γ Ι-Γ ΝΓ ΝsΓo"
C
N t 1 ^^ C\ so * Γ- es brv Cs 00
Ν CSso Cs C
CSs
O
Ν^ OO O oΉ »«sTf 00«s wr--
s GS ΟΟ ΝCs so r- Cs
ι-· so"
T
of •o<í H V O Ov h- so
^ Ν
es «GSos cs
•Φ -os
x-s OO
SO OS ^ CS ift -
~ Νrr\ Η Tf « Ν OS
00oO
o•Φ00sΝr^^ Ν OS00
Ν 00 Ν
0 Γ- ΝC Ν
er.S00 SO 0
rv. rj" CTS "Φr- 00 ers SO
Ν sO so
CN
rf 4 « m" ers ers OO so" OO" νΐ Ν Ν ter»
tf
er\
09 C
r^S
f*
M"r- Ti- 0 CS Ν ers er, ers 00

er» ers Ν
Ν 00e0rΑ» Γ
M r- er, M Cs S
SO
SO o0c tcs
SO
so^ T·í Νώ Ολ CNr- so
so es ersi^vers ©
Ν ^ so 00 00 O
ter\
so" Ι-Γ 0•T"S •«t 00
M tA vi ti vi 00tS
**
•«frWS er, N" θer," ers Ν
w
CL
α. srt 0s
'vi 3
•a O •s Ji
« .¡s (Λ •3 -3
o £
aβ oc
< S s J O I s
s
r oc
υ
IS
ν
CN Ν CN ? οΛ
CN ~
00
MN
r«· Ό
M
^
Μ NM m
CN v*\ CS ^ 00 •«t ON Ν Ό 00
m i-oo r- o 00 r - ΙΛ ( λ ^ 0 Ι— r- •PS
11 >— γΛ CN h CS Ν °„ ~ Μ Ν Ν
t
00* _Γ Γ^ οο" Vs
CS * * Ν 00 Tí-
U *rs
* *
υ 0 OO 00 ff\ CS Ό r- O -φ
««Λ 00 00 00 CS r - Cs
& 5 00
c r - so r- Ο
Ts 00 00 oo OO or» CN ~ Ν
a Ν trs Os 00*
Ν Ν Ν
ΡΤ,
00
0
υ *
3
to
3
οο
»Τ,
V-S ν~< 0
ο SO CS
«s SO
0
V-S SO SO SO
r-
Ν 1-1
oo
Ν
0
o
« r - «- ν r- ΝCS so CN •Λ
Μ o" oo" 00 so" Ν
o Ν so"
IX Ν or,
W-v VN 0 CS SO Ν r - O Ν NM NO r - »Ts r-
SO 00 00 Ν SO SO 0 SO N so r-» 00
Ν NO SOä 00 Tf so^ w-s 00 «'S <3 cr\ 00 V-v
es
CN
Ν Ν
so* ^ Ν
0
KS o" 00 so"
CS CS Ν
CL —Ν so 00
(Λ Ν Ν r^ Ν
o
Os
•Tv
CS
O
0 CS 0 Zs Cs 00
T*· 0
SO
Ν
Ν
0
0
Cs
-<t
»Ts
00 \ 0 ois 0
Ν
Ν 4 4 oo" 0Ν
CN so"
t
00 O* r^
r- J
00A SO fs»
Ν •í
J
<
ei
§
Η
«
« ¿¡ g l
f - 8
'î 2 o
c Ό υ
Μ)
o o .a '•S
S υ
> <J
φ ^ «Η 1 υ α
3
^ O 5 Ζ · δ
Ä
0 u <
2s S
χ - S 60
Cu
I o ο
Ê Ζ ζ ps i * -
a . G.
o O
a.
H O Ο Ό Ν Μ <0 Ν Os KS Μ Ν Γ- KS
Ν Ό ORS sO Os so sO 00 Os Ν Ν
S o Γ- Ο Γ- OS ^ Ό R- οο Ν
Ι- Ν Ν KS Ν Ν Ν 0 ** Ν Η
tì H
e o Ν
00
KS h s VS O 00 Ν*
KS
H· S O
r - r -
^ O •'T Ο -φ Ο ο so so
o 00 ** 00 Os •o <D Os
'3 β 00
CS OO
00 t-
KS
NfiT οο
HS s o CS
ο"
Os
Os
O Γ-
Ô Ν
• « " 3 2 <3 Ν^ r^ SO M ΟΟ 00 00
s a w KS 00 ΗΓ θ" £ M 00 HS Ν
ι®
Η
£>
a- o
>-« ΗΝ
Os sO r - SO _ HI IM s o 00 Os
KS S O S O
ON O s
TF S O os HS 00 s o TJ- Γ - SO
00 MS 00 00 »TN KS O^ »H
ti so" HS WA Cs Ν ^ CT CN Ν 00"
r - so 00 00 O s KS Os OS os 00 sO
Η
5
3 2
C L , t/3
M KS Ν 00 HS 00 OS HS Ν ON 00 KS
^ O Ι-Γ FST Ι-Γ
ω a- o
00 OS R- R- 00 «TN KS KS Ν
τ}· ι—ι ^ Ν »Λ es Ν- N O 00 Ν OS 0 00
"Ν ON Ο ^ Ό KS «TS r ^ SO^ W-S
•fi ""
CN Ν KS KS Ι-Γ tS
M
ON SO Ν 0 00 KS KS
<
I S
ÍÜ
υ
< 1
α
OS υ
ο e •= •a • a n S
U
Η ^ S · *
I â I « *
a - a i » ! 1 S
i ä 1 ι g ¡ 1 i 2 • 7 i ï à j J J i J z i g
i l l -
es « s
o z t 2 Ο ω £
ζ ζ z
«
(Λ
Cu &O
CL 0-
H •Ν 0O
Φ0r- ΝN0
Ν on >O
0νNΙ-O
SON
oO
n0 — I-·
I N t^
Os Ν N
ΓO
*-. »O
Λ
s ο N
ω 0 Ο
ΝΝΟΝ 1-1 000 0 0 0 0 Οο 0 Ν
ό Nr- •
«Ν ο Ν
ο ο ο 0
ν» ί- Η 0Γ- 0 NΝ O NO O n ON NOOO 0
O C ONNO ο O
«Ν ON—I•tN NO o„ 0 NO00 N
r-
ON
O„Νr-;
3 a NO" Γ- Ν"NO* Ν NO*0 0 -
» tΝ θ (Ä (Λ
" 00 00 00 ΝNi sΝ
o"
73 s s r-
ONON
N O00 •Ψ
NO Ν
CTS 0 0
O, ON r^ Ν O
oO •ί *-* ν" »Λ •i Ν •ί NO* ιΛ W N Ν
H Ou o
co Ν tWn- t 00(SΟ < Ό Ν CN 0 CS Ν os sONCs 0 Ν

•a M o O O 00 h- 0^ 00 Ν o
Ν
O 00c 0O
0 Ι- Γ- Ι-·
-I 3 UN 00 ift ^ Ν
OO 00 ^
0 C
N 00 Ν
Φ
' CS r- vv
OC0ο*SO
α *r> Ν CN
Οoι ιλ
o
M M r- r- OO M
IΝ Γ "- Μ ONΝ
ONON00r- Ό soN r- ON0
<3 Ν
V^v 0 TJ-•O
o N( T, -Φ ON
Ρ <ω
oΝ 00 00 CN »Λ Ν
•Λ CNCN Ν
3o « .s
o u
•a
a rt α
'C Q Ω c u T3 0 p5,«.s 3
eÊf Z.
3 -^ (Λ (Λ «* .S
S .H
κ ·33 S u u.c .3 « -6
sia
2 "g X¡ S 5 3
-ο
C a o •s s Λ δ I S^
S Ζ ζ S Q £ ^ Ζ (Λ Ο E
8.
<α. (Λ
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming Since i960: Trends and Correlates
<
—N h-
C OCNO^ OO
CO
N ΝΝΝΝΚ\\ΟΓ--*Ν·^
H CNNOOVO ^CN CΝN ^
ÔÔN«00ff
\Ο ΝΓ-*"O OO f^
Ν-
0"-ON '-tee
' Owoe
1-1 l—1 ^N csN
^ "fr O O C
N
,ΜΝ-NMrTs O t
Νt Μ oO
o Ν s>O-
**
r-S•
O 0s SO CN0»
o TS 00 s•
N0C0N r--K 4 "Φ Ν CN ,Λ r-Ν
t t t
C0 CN N rS ^ o 00 O 0K0s ^ CN0
000
Ν o os Os
t
CN so
Tf
vo
is
ΝΝ o
) »Λ o rr^-w
" s CN00 CN O c
<3 »S00 O t CN O
T0o
KSsr
0
-»
rf
Ολ rN
TfSO Ν
C"
^
Ν ι-Γ Ν* S « ίΛ Ν cnSO*sΝo
κ\ S O SO W
K-
So N00 O--SO r ΝNSM HH O 0 M Ν
SrO-0
O
0 r-
0Ν SC
rN^00S0\
_ tT
0 Cj
CN-Ks Γ
CN Ν 0-»C ON O
C C N w
•*N
}• C0N0 0K0S O t CN 0
ä _Γ
sKoN Noo*
" CN C
SO Ν KS
oCoN C KN
SoN* K
Tt- Νso0"Sκ
O\ o" o
4Ν
" C N so "
Ν 00 w-vΗΓ- Ν «
so " CS r-
ΝTN00 Νt
Ν 4 rf00* vi »TS
- -o- oso ON Ν 0O
0SΝ _ SO M K
o
0h0 00«
N 0T0f00 C
CA Ν so SO 00 S
O 00 ? Ν CNS0
0r0- Sr O O Ks Ν
0 0 SO W-S
Ολ s
Ν CN θ" άN
** "fr
M so" I^S so"Ν Ν M sC"0O0 Ν"
oN o"
KS
κ\ Cs Ν SO 0r0^
ι-Γ
ο
U G
'υ
Β ο
3α (Λ
s Τ3 •S S -χ
¿4 3 ο 11 t
"Í3 > U <Λ
ΗΗ 2 ^υ ζ láSÉ Ο £υ"3
c/5
ω
H
S
c
00 Ν Ο Ν 00 Ν
8 , 0 00 -Φ Ν O 00 Ν
00 00 00 Ν <3 CN SO 00 Ν 00 J
s o ris TJ-
§ 'S ο" 0CN so O f^
Ν Ο CN 00 J »«•ν σν Ν 00
Κ υ Ν * ι- sû
Η |Μ r - IM w-,
Cs O Ν
S CN 0 0 SO 00 TT O r-
CN r^ r- CN
J3 so" O CN so" CN CN Ν
tn
TJ- Ν 00 SO ^ CN S Ν N «M «f
o 00 s o CN CN SO SO r-» **
"θ Ο
Cu u Ν· h- so 00 SO
H
S
IM 00 r- Ν 0 r-
W Ν CS Ν 00 SO Ν
Γ- SO CN Ν Ν Ν Ν 00 CN
Ν* SO* CN θ" Ν 00
'S
rt r i cT SO so"
0 SO O Ν Ν CN 00
α Ν -«fr «•ν
H
S
J3 00 O 0 |M CN Γ- 1-- 00
O r - so Ν 0 00 ΟΟ 00 r-
Τ ) Uri CN Ν 0 o,
υ Ν Ν CN r ^ r- Ós Ν
o C\ Tp 0
00 r - SO r- 00 l-l CN Ν O Cs 00 Ν
v¡ U so **
Η
S
C
rt
'So SO Ν 00 00 0 CN Ό
r- O O r- Cs 0 Ν SO va
so Ν CN Ν sO„ Ν r - 00
SO Ν N
O o
Ò
r^ 0 so"
Ν SO SO CN r - Cs Ν
^ Ν •ί
Ζ U SO "Φ Ν SO Î °°
α c c c c
' a 'So ' a ' a "So
o - o - o - o - o -
s»- >-s
tH £r tH
•i-I 4-t
C G C c c
3 3 3 3 3
υ υ
O O O O O
υ υ υ
c
i>
υ
< •fi
£
•S
o3
C
c/i o o
Ò Ζ Ζ (Λ
6. Mother-Tongue Claiming Since i960: Trends and Correlates
H
S
υ
(Λ
c O o xO r oc
rt " ' ν "t
CU o o*
o p-
A u Ν Ν
H
S
r- ΟΟ r-- Os 1·^ es r--
0 oc so 00 Γ-
Ν SO^ Ν 00 ΟΟ
o 00 r- es 00 00 so" r^ 0
Ν so Ν «TN SO SO CS 00
o H4 Γ- h- SO r-
H
S VN SO 00 so pm •Λ ΟΟ 00
O CS r-- Ν Tj- 00 es r-- CS
Ν Cs SO SO Tt; Ολ 00 •*f 00 Os
a o 00 SO* _r so Ν CN so" Cs es »S r-
0 0 CS h* so so 00 Ν KS CS Ν * 0
Ο υ Ν Ν 00 »-« 00 r- Γ- r-
H so so ΟΟ Ν Cs so r- Ν
S Cs 00 SO Ν r- SO TT
so Ν Ο, Cs Ν Ολ Ν
rf so" so" 00 so •rf OO OO 00 _
r- Ν Cs SO r- 00 SÄ Ν Ν »Λ Ν
0 Ν r^ 00 SO Ν Ν Ν
U Ν Γ- M Ν r- r- Γ-
c
3
'c ΟΟ SO Γ- CS _ M
ce 00 r- 00 CS SO CS M
3 00 Cs OO Ν CN SO Cs Ν
00 o Ν
J3 Ν
so
CN Ν
»Λ 00 r-
Μ*
r- Ν
o N"
Ν CS
Ν so S0 so
c c g
'So
c g
'3d
'5b 'So 'So
o - o - o - o -
>•» £
Ui IH 1-1
C tí tí c
3 3 3 3
O O O O
υ υ υ υ
c
υ
«
υ υ
J3
ti 3
O o O
Ζ ζ C/3
II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Μ Ν Ν Ν Γ- •φ
Ν 00 00 "Ι- r-» CS Ν ι— o
ON 00 ΟΝ r^
ο" os ι-» ο" ηΓ er-» ^
0 so ON Ν CS »Λ r-- •Λ SO î 8
o r^ Ν <3 SO
Ν "Ι"
o
H Ν «TS so ** SO
3 o
< o
"t
Β
uυ C
o
« o.
O Β
u
ω
o
.2
M S
s § N WN
- H· OS
U .3 CS SO
Λ G Cv Ν SO o r- 00 r - Ν
Ο υ 0 CN Ν Cs SOä O r -
Χι
Κ O
> \θ"
00
^ so"
T}-
00 o "Φ oo" so" CTS S
so" SO
Os SO CS -<t SO
>- SO SO
Η
S
-Ü
«
>
Ελ O 00 Tí- r-- o 00 oo
_¿ Ν Ν 0 r-- so
O so Cs ΙΛ Ν "«t Ν OS GS SO
Tp οο" 00 οο" σ\ 4 ν" so" ecv 00
Ν o r- Os Ν ο •φ SO SO Cs T}- Ν
υ u w os Ν Ν Ν Ν os 00 00
g
"3D
e c e
'5b 'So '3D
o - o - o - o - o -
c c c α
3 f-H 3 £ °
tS Ou υ
O G o
S u
S υ
c
υ
υ
< λ
t¿
c/i o 3
o O
D Ζ Ζ c/5
Chapter 7
Ethnicity in Action: The Community Resources

of Ethnic Languages in the United States
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN, MICHAEL H.

GERTNER, ESTHER G. LOWY and WILLIAM
G. MILAN
INTRODUCTION
The non-English ethnic mother-tongue populations of the United States typi-

cally function as communities—often interactionally and even more often
referentially—and, accordingly, they maintain community institutions that
both express and foster their communal processes, goals and values. These
institutions have commonly been commented upon and studied by scholars
investigating individual ethnic communities in the U.S.A., but their nationwide
scale, demography and operations have generally been overlooked. A primary
reason for this gap in the American research literature may be the magnitude of
the task involved. However, there is also reason to suspect that the long-
standing assumption that these were "temporary," "transitional," "shrinking"
or "doomed" institutions (not unlike similar assumptions concerning the
populations and communities whom they served, as reviewed in Metzger 1971)
discouraged most from undertaking the arduous task involved. As a result,
next to nothing has been known concerning the actual number of such insti-
tutions in the U.S.A., whether they were actually growing or shrinking in
number and, in either case, at what rate, and, finally, what goals they were
pursuing or what problems they were facing and with what consequences,
whereas in neighboring Canada, where such institutions and their sponsors are
considered to be permanent and valuable assets, research on them is much more
common (e.g., see Breton 1964, Reitz 1980, Richmond 1969). Although our
study will not pretend to answer definitively all these and yet other possible
nation-wide questions concerning such institutions, it may, nevertheless, be

viewed as a serious probe in that direction. It deals with four different insti-
tutions: periodical publications, radio/television stations, schools and local
religious units (churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.). Unfortunately, it does
not attempt to explore comparable questions pertaining to non-English ethnic
mother-tongue using theatres, choruses, children's camps, libraries, publishers,
etc. in the U.S.A. Since a beginning had to be made, we hope we have chosen
wisely, both from the point of view of magnitudes (we wanted to study the most
widespread institutions so as to obtain some data from even the smaller ethnic
groups) as well as from the point of view of the range of the functional and
structural characteristics involved. In addition, the four institutional types
selected for study also provide the best opportunity for trend studies and for
scholarly continuity, two intellectual characteristics to be greatly desired in all
social research.
INSTITUTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS ACROSS

LANGUAGES AND ACROSS STATES
The current number and ubiquity of institutions maintained by and serving the
non-English mother-tongue populations of the U.S.A. are clearly surprising
(Tables 1 and 2). These institutions are found in every state of the Union, and
language groups whose period of mass immigration occurred three or more
generations ago (for example, the Scandinavians) are still represented among
them. A l l in all, we have located nearly 24,000 units 1 of the four kinds that we
had focused upon and, clearly, there may be many more since the numbers
shown must be considered underestimates in most cases and serious under-
estimates in some cases. 2
INTERINSTITUTIONAL CORRELATIONS ACROSS

LANGUAGES
With respect to interinstitutional correlations across languages (Table 3 A - 1 or

3 A - 2 , depending on whether territories are included or excluded; the former
table will be the basis of our discussion here), it is apparent that these are largest
(and very substantial, indeed) between broadcasting and press, on the one hand
(.89), and between schools and local religious units (hereafter referred to as
LRUs) on the other (.85). The latter correlation reveals the widespread struc-
tural pattern of schools and LRUs operating under joint auspices. It also
suggests that schools frequently assist in attaining the literacy and the linguistic
facility necessary for participation in L R U services. Similarly, the L R U often
provides an out-of-home functional criterion for non-English ethnic mother-
The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the USA 197
.,0 00 so O ^ O O O O ^ o o o o o Ο ά C\ O vö C N ^
=>
Ν σ Ν Ο ^ Ν ^ Ο Ο Ο Ο ^ ^ Ο Ν Ν Γ ^ Γ ^ ' ^ Γ ^ ' Α ' Α
Tj- M _ VN
C o r- ·- r- ο ο o N ^ J - n - O Ν ^ Ν V-S^^N-S©
Tj- 00 r- - -
No 00 o o o 00 o o o o ^ 0 0 0 o r^ ^ o ^ τΐ- ^
r-- o ^ Ν o o o o o » \¿ 4 c\ Ά cv Ά
•«t o o o
^ 00 so ο Η OO ^ O 0 0 0 0 0 O o o o o o ^ o
• 4 "o"· ' j~ Ν 4 o 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 σνοο
00 o τ)1 t »Λ ^ ^ o
Ν Ό
CNN - O ÛC Tf o ON
o "O 00 00 o o o o ·-' o o i o 00 » t ao r- r-
O O N f - O O O O « C\ O ** Ν lA ιλ O* Η ri- sO
Nl-> OO Ν >-. Η- Μ Ν H M «O
C so — O'-'-'^í'O — ^SOOOON — Ν
s
to
c
<Λ
s
•υ
e (ñ .2
g ·Π 2 o ^ a a §
J3 g
a s
CO <M •I-H -3§ >>-><4
-§1
cQpqpacopouuuu d á á s á ω
t C\l·vû CT\ -
t- o
o
H
ra
O
o
O O -Ί- Ν « OV O O I- - O
Χ! ? 5
r^ 00 r^- CN 00 O oΤ}- κ- 00 00 o « ^ 0 0
ν -φ v¿ •Ν
ή- «Γô o «^00 "-t O « 00
r- o ^ Ν o o
-O
3.
Û
•o o o ô o o o H CN O O Ό 00 C
N
\C
0NO
^ «Ao
• o ^t- o vN
«% - 00 o
H
H h
H 00 00
tó C
D
r^
Tf 0"0i o o - - cv\û "·> r- o ·-< οο00-7.
oo o ο ~
00
•B &
S «8
•S .2 ν o o r^ σν Ν Ν 00
S -O
pa
crt
60 u
•β *C i .2c _rt * 60 c0 o cΒ IU S» 1ΐCä•3
c
c2 çï, <Λu *· U <flj.¡s— ) uS.2 -G S· 3 N c
« •S a α.w O,ν O
.ν O
« «X ¿υ 1 ε
·
Η ° ι -S s « 3 rt Oo -a
1-1 u. u, i X X1 : HH -H l H H— II J J
j. The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the USA 199
r^ so ^H
o «
ο ο ο ο o ο ο • ^ " O S O N O O O O O 00 ο ο ^ ^J· o o ^
r» w 0 0 0 0 o ó ο 4 4 o o 4 ó o' o
so -ί-
0 0 0 0 0 0 SO O Ν Ν "J" O O O
Ν ·φ
Tí" o# 0 0 0 •t o O GS O os o o o
« 00 4 o o o' o o o o o' o Μ o o r-
- o o o o o O T t " O O a o C s O N O > ~ « O r ~
o o o q o o o_ o o so os o Ν o Ν I— O O
4 o o' 4 o'
« o o
00 SO SO O - Ν CS Ν o Η O O
Ì-. SO
Tt·
Ί" o o o r^ o os so O « o o 00
~ o o o
o
o'
o
Ο Ν ** O
r^
"· SO
Ν
o ι~·
O O - ' - O ' f l - O O ' ^ - f ^ o o l ^ O Ν O Ν 00 O O

zoo II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
I-" r^ C\ « O Os Ν Ν >~> ^ Ν
o 4
H
o o o o o o o00 O O O
odo o o o o o o o
o NOOOooOOCNOOO
o
Λ
OsOOÔ OOOOO o \o o o - o o o
o 4 d 4 d d o o ò o o oó o o o o o
C
O
•3
CSTJ-OÔI-IONOONONOO Ν O O SO «
Λ
3
CU
vo r^ o O o o r- o o o o o o >-
Ά v¿ O -φ Μ
\· o
3
O w « O II oo 00
- 0\ M vo
eí Ρ
Γ o ^r o o - o o o es o o o ο
O O O 1-1 o
ao
e E.
•a
υ ι- C\ i- . 1- Η- Ν H- l-l o so o o o
-o
1-1 OS C
C
\ o
CL.
3
•Ό
ε
<
C tn
> •a a
•3 .„· § 2
c c -m
rt
8.
^TJS3
ν i* l s
> -s
c "3 3
•a J3 «ι ε υ •2 «
3M O- c S1 -S
s I 2 ^ 'S û 5 « S 1.S - Ï Ï ' S I S 3 fi -5 ^ υ Π
C J
β u C · g Jj ä Έ .§ 3 I
3
C I I i % 6 8*1
w Ji
J ιλβιλιοΗΗΗΗ
γ. The Community Resources of Ethnic languages in the USA 201
Table 2. Institutional language Resources of U.S.A. Ethnic Communities, 1982, by State
Local
Religious
Broadcasting Units Publications Schools Total
NORTHEAST (9)
New England
Maine 9 55 2 27 95
New Hampshire 16 50 3 28 97
Vermont 5 18 1 11 25
Massachusetts 150 473 31 278 932
Rhode Island 33 41 6 33 113
Connecticut 88 286 13 177 564
Middle Atlantic
1
New York 237 2,931 209 .547 4>724
New Jersey 82 805 52 415 1,354
Pennsylvania 164 1,263 64 587 2,078
NORTH CENTRAL
(")
Èast North Central
Ohio 132 906 41 337 1,412
Indiana 51 437 3 112 603
Illinois 142 533 115 328 1,016
Michigan 104 328 35 182 626
Wisconsin 45 184 14 88 331
West North Central
Minnesota 47 119 18 60 244
Iowa 22 96 10 51 179
Missouri 18 121 12 75 226
North Dakota 5 38 1 11 55
South Dakota 4 208 1 49 262
Nebraska 13 37 10 21 81
Kansas 21 30 5 12 68
SOUTH ( 17)
South Atlantic
Delaware 3 31 o 25 59
Maryland 32 iji 8 127 298
District of Columbia 9 30 25 26 90
Virginia 6 78 6 72 162
West Virginia 3 26 o 16 45
North Carolina 2 HI 5 41 159
South Carolina 4 31 3 21 59
Georgia 10 52 3 34 99
Florida 64 291 32 178 565
Table 2. (cont.)
Local
Religious
Broadcasting Units Publications Schools Total
East South Central

Kentucky 2 28 I 2
3 54
Tennessee 5 41 0 38 84
Alabama 0 2
7 39 4 70
Mississippi I 43 I 20 65
West South Central
Arkansas 4 20 I 17 42
Louisiana 41 48 5 2
9 I2
3
Oklahoma 8 367 2 Μ 39 2
Texas 188 683 40 150 1,061
West (13)
Mountain
Montana 0 94 0 47 141
Idaho 15 35 0 4 54
Wyoming 8 17 0 9 34
Colorado M 79 II 33 174
Arizona 52 288 3 68 411
New Mexico 56 198 15 35 304
Utah 2
7 38 4 8 77
Nevada 6 20 0 II 37
Pacific
Washington 42 90 10 52 194
Oregon 2
7 51 9 17 104
California 38} I I
, 97 175 677 2,358
Alaska 18 209 5 26 258
Hawaii 26 2
7 8 77 138
P U E R T O RICO 92 265 9 387 753
GUAM 7 10 2 15 34
VIRGIN ISLANDS I 4 0 I 6
AMERICAN SAMOA 2 0 2 0 4
MARIANA ISLANDS 0 0 0 I I
CAROLINE ISLANDS 0 6 0 0 6
MARSHALL ISLANDS 0 I 0 0 I
TOTAL
NORTHEAST 784 5>922 381 2
>9°3 9.99°
N O R T H CENTRAL 604 3>°37 265 1,326 5>232
SOUTH 389 2,050 •3 2 856 3>427
WEST 7" 2
>343 240 1,064 4,35 8
OTHER 102 286 J
3 404 805
TOTAL 2,59° 13,638 1,031 6,553 23,812
γ. The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the USA 203
T a b l e 3A-1. Correlations between Institutional Units by Language, in U.S.A.*
ω w (5) (4)
Broadcasting LRU's Publications Schools
(1) B r o a d c a s t i n g — .55 .89 •27

(2) L R U s — •49 .88
(3) P u b l i c a t i o n s — .26
(4) S c h o o l s —
* = for 90 individual languages and "Amerindian" total
T a b l e 3 A - 2 . Correlations between Institutional Units by Language, in U.S. A. (excl. Territories)
(0 w (3) (4)
Broadcasting LRU's Publications Schools
(1) B r o a d c a s t i n g — .51 .89 •14

(2) L R U s — •45 .85
(3) P u b l i c a t i o n s — •Μ
(4) S c h o o l s —
* = for 90 individual languages and "Amerindian Total"
T a b l e } A - 1 . 1 . Correlations between Institutional Frequencies and Demographic Characteristics

of their Ethnic Mother-Tongue Claimants
(5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Total NN MT % NN Total % Change Total
MT Claim MT MT MT MT
Claim 1970 Claim Claim Claim Claim
1970 1970 1979 70-79 60-70
(1) Broadcasting .84 .90 .27 .94 -.01 •37

(2) LRUs .43 .47 .24 .50 .69 .36
(3) Publications .82 .83 .13 .89 —.06 •33
(4) Schools .18 .20 .03 .23 .89 •35
(5) T o t a l M T C l a i m 1970 — .94 .25 •97 -IO •43
(6) N N M T C l a i m 1970 — .34 .96 — .06 •53
(7) % N N M T C l a i m 1970 — .29 -.07 .76
(8) T o t a l M T C l a i m 1979 — -.03 •44
(9) % C h a n g e T o t a l — .03
M T Claim ' 7 0 - ^ 9
( i o ) M T C l a i m *6o—'70 —
N u m b e r of L a n g u a g e s 41 41 41 59 39 23
Variation in η from one column to the other is due to the variable availability of United States
Census data for particular languages in particular years.
204 H The Ethnic Revival and"LanguageMaintenance in the USA
Table jB-i. Correlations between institutional Units by Location, in U.S.A.*
(a)
Broadcasting
«
LRU's
(3)
Publications
(4)
Schools
(1) Broadcasting — .83 .87 .83

(2) L R U s — .88 •95
(3) Publications — .91
(4) Schools —
*for 90 languages and "Amerindian" total
Table 3B-2. Correlations between Institutional Units by Location, in U.S.A.*
(0 w (3) (4)
Broadcasting LRUs Publications Schools
(1) Broadcasting — .82 .88 .82

(2) L R U ' s — .88 .96
(3) Publications —
•93
(4) Schools
* f o r 90 individual languages and " A m e r i n d i a n " total
tongue schools to aim at in terms of competency-based instructional criteria.

The functional interaction or interdependency between ethnic mother-tongue
publications and radio/television broadcasting is less clear-cut but the
frequency of interlocking sponsorship here (as in mainstream U.S.A. as a
whole) is noteworthy. Furthermore, as Table 3 A - 1 . 1 reveals, both the numbers
of publications and of radio/television "stations" 3 are substantially related to
the magnitudes of mother-tongue claimants (whether in toto—.84, .82 in 1970
and .94, .89 in 1979—or in the third generation—.90, .83 in 1970). The larger
the potential " p o o l " of readers and of listeners, the more non-English ethnic
mother-tongue periodicals and stations there are. However, the same is de-
monstrably not true for schools or for LRUs, both of which are much less
dependent on the incidence of non-English mother-tongue claiming. In part,
this is due to the fact that so many schools and LRUs are associated with non-
English languages that are not actually mother tongues at all (e.g., Hebrew, 4
Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Pali, Sanskrit, etc.). In addition, schools and LRUs
may well be the most basic or traditional community institutions, such that even
numerically small communities tend to establish them, particularly where they
are neither mainstream Catholic nor Protestants in religion (note the "over-
representation" of Armenian, Greek, Jewish and Ukrainian schools and LRUs).
As such they seem to be quite responsive to proportional changes in their
j . The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the USA 205
communities, that is to the percentage of individuals claiming non-English

mother tongues, rather than to the number of such individuals per se in the
manner of broadcasting and publications (see below). However, all our insti-
tutional fields are positively correlated with demographic concentration, par-
ticularly the LRUs (.42) and the schools (.33), indicating again that demography
influences societal totals.
INTERINSTITUTIONAL CORRELATIONS ACROSS

STATES
As interesting as the foregoing correlations between institutions across languages,

are the correlations between institutions across states (Table 3B— 1 and 3B-2). The
latter are quite regularly higher than the former. Apparently those states that
have many or few institutions of one kind also tend to have many or few of
other kinds, and this is truer across states than it is that language groups that
have many or few institutions of one kind also have many or few of the other
kinds. This is a reflection of the demographic concentration of non-English
ethnic mother-tongue populations in just a few states (only 6 states were
required to account for half of all non-English mother-tongue claimants in
1970: N e w York, California, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania and N e w Jersey)
even though, as we have seen, every state has sufficient numbers of such
populations to host some institutions of the kinds we are studying. The
geographic concentration of non-English ethnic mother-tongue institutions
may also be facili tati ve across language lines. Stations that broadcast in one
non-English language may more readily broadcast in several of them.
Distributors that handle one non-English publication may more easily and
willingly handle several of them. Cities that already maintain ethnic schools and
LRUs may be more hospitable to new units of both kinds, both with respect to
the same ethnic groups as well as for additional ones. Neighborhoods that are
already ethnotraditional may be hospitable to other ethnotraditional efforts,
provided social class discrepancies are not too great. 5 A t any rate, the clustering
of non-English ethnic mother-tongue populations and their institutions is a prime
fact of social organization vis-à-vis ethnic America and its intergenerational
language continuity.
INSTITUTIONAL FREQUENCIES AND THE

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THEIR
ASSOCIATED MOTHER-TONGUE CLAIMANTS
We have already noted, in passing, that the incidence of non-English language

periodical publication, on the one hand, and of radio/television broadcasting,
2o6 II The Ethnic Revival and'LanguageMaintenance in the USA
on the other hand, is highly intercorrelated and also correlates well with the
total (as with the specifically third generation) numbers of claimants of their
respective non-English mother tongues (Table 3 A—1.1) whether in 1970 or in
1979. 6 We have also noted that neither LRUs nor ethnic community mother-
tongue schools are as closely related to the actual numbers of language claim-
ants as are publications or broadcasts utilizing these same languages. An
obvious difference between these two sets of institutions in the U.S.A. is that
the latter (publications and broadcasting) are commonly private business
(profit-making) ventures even when they have genuine community roots. They
are much more dependent on mass followings for their continuity than LRUs or
schools which are neither businesses nor profit-making ventures but are service
institutions of rather charitable bent. As such they may draw on much more
community sympathy and support, on the one hand, and may require a far lesser
expenditure of funds, on the other hand, than do either publications or broad-
casts. Indeed the LRU and the school may constitute the very bedrock of ethnic
mother-tongue America, both in terms of stability as well as in terms of relative
independence from outside control, influence or even attention. They reflect the
private internal life of the community more than do broadcasting or periodical
publications, both of which are more exposed to public awareness and scrutiny.
The responsiveness of LRUs and ethnic community schools to the proportion
of change in mother-tongue claiming is particularly noteworthy. As service or
charitable enterprises, they seem to react to moods and to drifts in interest and
sympathy. This seems to be particularly true insofar as schools are concerned.
Their incidence is very meagerly related to the numbers of claimants either in
1970 or in 1979. Indeed, even the third generation figures (that being the
youngest generation and, therefore, the most likely to contain individuals of
school age) correlate negligibly with the number of such schools. However, the
percent change in total mother-tongue claiming between 1970 and 1979 yields
a correlation of .89 with the incidence of ethnic mother-tongue schools. This
may be an indication that incoming immigrants in relatively small language
groups founded such schools even when the actual numbers of pupils involved
were small. Small and new language groups may turn more readily to their
house of worship and to schools than to costlier efforts such as publications and
broadcasting. On the other hand, in terms of a "revival of ethnicity" sentiment
(Lowy et al, 1983) schools and LRUs may be the first frontiers—for old
groups as well as for new ones, but particularly for small groups of all kinds. In
small language communities relatively small numerical changes constitute relatively
large proportional changes. Thus, our attention should be drawn to the smaller
language communities of the U.S.A. rather than primarily to the large ones that
are most frequently focused upon, in order to fathom the dynamics of ethnic
mother-tongue institutional efforts.
OVER- AND UNDER-REPRESENTATION OF

INSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS
Our data also permit us to ask whether particular languages are o v e r - or under-
represented in the institutional sphere relative to their representation in the
universe of 1979 non-English mother-tongue claiming per se. If Spanish claim-
ants constitute roughly 30% of all 1979 non-English mother-tongue claimants
(see Table 4), we would like to know whether 30% of all non-English using
periodicals, broadcasts, schools and LRUs are associated with Spanish. Let us
see.
One striking fact that our data (Table 5) reveals is that the big six non-English
languages of the U.S.A. today and during the entire 20th century (Spanish,
German, Italian, French, Polish and Yiddish) all tend to be rather under-
represented insofar as the numbers of their formal institutions are concerned.
Perhaps economies of scale are involved in their cases; otherwise, the insti-
tutional activity of these groups (with the exception of radio/t.v. stations for
Polish and Spanish and press for Yiddish) is rather lacking, 7 as it is by now for
such old and small groups as the Dutch and the Scandinavians. O n the other
hand, there are other non-English mother-tongue communities whose insti-
tutional numbers far outpace their proportions in the non-English mother-
tongue claiming universe. A m o n g the latter are the Armenian, Greek, Korean,
and Ukrainian communities and, with one institutional exception in each case,
also the Albanian, Chinese, Finnish, Japanese, Lithuanian, Rumanian, Thai and
Tibetan communities. The prominence of non-Christian and non-mainstream
Christian groups among the institutionally over-represented groups is note-
worthy. These are the groups that find it easiest to maintain sociolinguistic
intactness in the U.S.A., even without ongoing immigration. Most language
groups are institutionally under-represented even when non-English mother-
tongue claimants are used as the base-line for determining o v e r - or under-
representation. If all immigrants and their offspring were to be used as the base-
line, the degree of institutional under-representation would be far greater.
It is clear from the distributions in Table 1, above, that institutional emphases
differ from one ethnolinguistic group to the other. Several patterns emerge in
this connection. One recurring pattern is that of relatively great literacy em-
phases (publications and schools, although in the latter, literacy may be
ritualized in the directions of L R U functions). Armenian, Korean and
Ukrainian are all examples of this pattern which bespeaks relatively prominent
indigenous intelligentsia (and, often, doctrinal/political differences as well). A
far more common pattern is quite the opposite of the foregoing, namely, one in
which the number of publications is noteworthy primarily because of its
meagerness. French, German, Hebrew, Polish and Spanish fit the latter descrip-
2o8 II The Ethnic RevivaI and Language Maintenance in the USA
CN
be £
C ?
« 7
J3 I
υ o o vo i— i— o r^r^r^voô o o o r-so
I I
I— sD I— rf~·.
ω s ο Ν
ν?"*- τ?
s^ ο H
Ό Ν -«fr Ό σν O KS SO M 00 Ν 0 O Γ- IM Ν Ο Ν VO
ON o Γ- 00
I-- r - Ν r - SO o CS CS Ν Ο ^ 00
ees 00 »-« ΟΟ «»-< N Ν ν·» Ks 00
c •_Γ so" r^ o" ¿i
SO Ν Ν t í KS
·-·
cT cf Ν Ν m ΝΓ τ ί
ri r- O r- 00 oo K·, 00 SO Ν ON Ν 00 00 Ν CS CS SO
SO NM κ» r- 'φ Ν >- Κ\ Ν
«
ω
s
o
•ψ
Ov O«
r- ~ ** »*
H
»Λ Ν Ν Ν Ν r - 00 Ν OO Ν SO r - Ν Ν oo 00
Μ SO SO O SO •Λ Ο Ν Κ\ ΗΗ SO CS Ν 0 00 so so >-i
^ 00 -Φ Γ^ CN OO κ\ t •Φ «s 00 KS · - « SO^
H
S
οο" Ν*
00
SO*
Ν CS
Ν" 00
Os
Ν Ks r^
er» CS KS
Ν o C> Ν*
KS 00
GS •«t tí
"fr
so so •<fr •t Ν Ν KS KS
θ" Ν so" Ν
SO
60
S
to
a
o r^r^rô r ^mi ^ rM^ iM^ ι·» ι-- r-

« « Μ O i-t r-- ^ 00 M r^ ^ r^ r^ "Λ
r^ τ, Tf σ\ σν ο ο ο o ι-1
Ν H 0 0 so Cs 0 so 00 r- Ο «TN CS O Ν O 00 r- Ν
00 SO Ν ON 00 r- CN SO OS "t SO Ν ΟΟ rr·, Ο
CN ON <D so WS 00 -φ ^ CN "φ CN CS 00 SO, CN 00 Ν^
CN "t «ΝΓ O <> r^ O so* oo IM" VC so 0 Ι-Γ Ι_Γ ΗΓ so"
r- O r» ** Ν Ν ** 'Ί- Ν Os Ν 00
Ν
£
τ}· O O rfi ô vo
o o o o o \o o
O prs 00 OS »TN 0 00 O OS 00 IX Ν Η ΝSO ΙΛ r- Γ-

Os OS 00 OS 00 0 O CS Ν 00 Ν 00 00 Ν •«fr
O *<\ V -v OO CS 0 οο
CN sO^ ««"> CN sö CS CN CN *<\ -fr Ν CS SOÄ
so" HT 00 »Λ VC OO* θ" >-* so" Ν 00 00 HH cT 0
Os Ν O Ν O Os Ν Ν Ν
Tf 4 00 so M
0 Ν
HT 4
S
3 <è?
ε
o V) (H
bjO
C ò
TJ c s
ai § a e .
»>'3 'S
S « Jí Ç
υ M ^ i - l
S s I ε -- S-l s -c
S =3
§ T3 s » I J .S a I *Ρ J it ο Β
Ρΐ £
O a. co < cu Ä < <1 < Χ AÖ S H £ <
210 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the U S A
U ON
M) £
β 2"
£ r u
^ g. >>eurt
jrô
— 2 .cS J5
M« 19 E
í/3 ^ Λ
υ
r· 2 ~ G ι>
>
Η l"ïi -so ΟΜ
2 «« a « ^ α
w Ίs
3
e fl r
> Ud .0 « U= C
-S (Λ >>
S U -o
§.:s -o
ξ 2S
I S-·-
W U V)
0 «C
ΙΛ\«
o r- y,
—' uÛ,
^ S
W dj
H S Si O >s
S « \ (Λ J ce
^ 15 «
Ν » OO1 "£S ρ« s <Λ bO
5 Ms ^" c -S
â S3
•
g
IS O-.00u Ε a E.Ξ
•c, 3 wt-rt o
u uS
*-> S W ^^ w 3
¿s ΰ § « § ÙO
' U «5
5 ΐ a
H ί οε
S ? -S
U Ί3
S í S (Í 3" e ε
•;S mS.T C
«τ g
ο H &
^ uΛy<Λ
lys
SP s M
Jw ¡
- S MI
Ì δ .^ "c υ>
σ ν Ν 00
r
r^- ογο- Γ-
η· £ o 1 Jd3
H S 0o
0
^
r- o" § Ss
oo Ν È -S
c
1 CN »TS E £
£ «s O o S. O
Ν
- Q 1
•«o «. gS cu S
T>
8„-ûο υg
. -cο•ί 13
w1?-C c
o
O
u Jt t
(Λ0
ti bû ce ¿a
n
O
eu S 5 'C u 3 'C
υ «
t» «= Ma">3 .j
j S
Pi
s
Ö ¡5 « σν Ν
-a + o
H „ · rt 60M i-
o
S H Ζ u S ω Èu1 0
&
3
8. S S
υ ω «î
+
iL ó i Γ" OΙΊCA
« ζ is u
Ml ^ M S M E 8
C
« S 3 O C ω 2
ij 3 o
Ζ Hh ω ci.2"o> cu
c«
E
W
υi C "J
6 1S3 o
= gs 'trt Λ v¡ η« rt
rt
>> -Ç •3 is υ S .S -ß jL S « •s S e
S
o oC S-π 'S eu .2 «C S
ω ΓΞ Ο COU. O
G
CU3 CU
C 3 .-»3BÄ C
O PiPi
ifí
h η·-
•S3/ U
CU CL, C L C C3/
\0
ò
** •-«^
o
Í Τ
rt 3
.-hη c ri i_i 1 c
— 1,, 1.. eo sυ. «O .Jij
u
tO >> <υ £V C r- rt c .s u
I n C « •a υ α,
ri tr
ηΧ g X ν. o Sm o ca uc
< < < < β β Β β3β ^υ υ υ υ υ υ â t¿
M '£ £
Τ* * °
OO * * ~
P.
ρ
Pi
*
η o *
η-
« §
.S
rt rt ωs
4> .β > > 'S Λ Ό Û 'S , { J* g .5 3 S "5 1? υ -α
c
«
J
1% %(Λ
.e _o _o
(Λ (Λ (Λ <S> (Λ
•à i £ I § S a J21 Έ .S g I a- 3
Ρ
Βύ
J
CQ
4 >
(-1 G G .2
υ G s •Λ2 u G
SP c ií S0'S 0 (υ «υ Oc
c g e O
s M .2 G C rt rt _ Ό
tao υ a § «> rt 0 •β .3 G Ν ΚΌ C
8 'rt *
e « λυ G ε § u -o « Já o OΌ
0 « 3 O « Λ
J Ü I χ I XXX S ¡i! J J a s
7· The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the USA 213
M
•υ
3
ω
α υ
Χ
S 2
M S
S ε
3
ÛO
C
0 60 >
C
O
O T3
c
0> JA
-S
JK -a
So . s 2
3
00
§ I
G ¡2¿
s a $ 1 D
• 2 · , ï f BS
« y Λ3 O
J
1 c 3 =
M S
•S 60
. υ «ä 3
S -a H ? M
« Ί-
-S 3 » S
=β -
¿§
-S Ό o 0 3 «
S- 3
18 ΐ f · Ή
O 3
in υ
1 1 t
§ -s ·
. gS
s
J=
«Λ
U n i - )
• -β ε t» M>
oj u ν
c S
3 G : c
CL. u CL, ώ V
! 3
s 0 G rt O
O u O 3 J3
υ öo «
tfí w en «
Jä § Ü Û W *
H U bi
c u
α — * 3
60 60 60 t;
3 3 ><
3 3 te <c « §
8 I S
•a 8 o o « «Λ
a a a
«Λ «Λ
a « W W W )
C C
O ω G 3
Ζ -s Ζ 3 η <3 ΰ « u
Il II II II II
* « .Û u -σ
214 H The Ethnic R evival and Language Maintenance in the USA
tion which seems to characterize groups marked by low rates of adult func-
tional literacy in the E M T . Another recurring pattern is that which stresses
broadcasting (and, at times, local religious units as well). Spanish best rep-
resents this pattern although others approximate it too, e.g., Basque, Polish.
Cultural influences, vernacular/classical functions of the languages involved,
immigrational recency and anglification experience are all reflected by these
varying patterns.
THE ETHNIC MOTHER-TONGUE PRESS IN THE

UNITED STATES, 1982
THE NON-ENGLISH-USING PERIODICAL PRESS AND

THE TOTAL USA PRESS, 1962-1980 8
As we will see below, and contrary to "popular wisdom," the ethnic mother-
tongue press in the U.S.A. constitutes a vigorous institutional field of activity.
At its best, it is characterized by considerable self-awareness and by attempts to
attract the younger American-born generations by publishing material specially
written for beginners. These characteristics are indicative of conscious con-
tinuity strivings as well as of continuity accomplishments.
All in all, the non-English mother-tongue press has increased markedly as to
number of publications since the early 1960s and at almost every frequency of
publication (Table 6). 9 This is all the more remarkable if we but realize that
during the same score of years the general American press suffered some
reverses in the daily, weekly and monthly categories (although it made up for
these by a large upsurge in the Other category). The score of years we are
referring to is generally considered to have been a difficult one for the press, a
period beset by rising costs and dwindling income due to increased competition
from non-print media. That the EMT-using press could maintain itself and
even increase its numbers during such a period is testimony to the ingenuity of
its sponsors, on the one hand, and to its community roots, on the other.
NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS
At this point in time the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean presses (and to some
extent also the Armenian, Greek and Russian presses) are particularly outstand-
ing with respect to the large proportions of their publications that are dailies.
(Table 7). Spanish, on the other hand, accounting for more publications than any
γ. The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the USA ζ 15
M
C Ν τ)· Ο
Ν Ν so_
« 60
C c »Λ 4 Μ VO
O 'S Ν SO
I Ν
Ζ Ρ
OS
υ
M
S *
<
(J o (Λ
Ρ
Ο Ό SO ΟΟ O
•ψ Os 0 0
SO Ó MS ò
Ν Ν •ί- 0
60
ωC
c c SO Ν I-- ο
O SO f ο κ\
Ν Ν ν-\ 0
Ζ Ρ
ΟΟ 0 Ν ο o
fS 0
00 Ρ-- KS ο" 0
Ν Ν 0
< 0" •Φ Ν Ο ο so
MS
o
00 ;:·
(Λ χ :
SO 00
σ\ •ί
Ρ ^
Os 0 0
Ο r^ SO 0
Os Òs 0
KS ι-< 0
W)
C
tì
c S "t 0 Ν 00 -ί-
O 'S SO 00 Ν Ks ο
Ζ Ρ Ν Ν r^
Os •Φ SO 0
MS "-· OS 0
Os .Α KS Η •" 0
Ν 0
Tf KS Ο 0 r^
<¡ Λ 00 •J" SO
o 00 00 SO„ KS Γ^
SO
ON θ" •<f Ν
Ρ ^
"7? -5 *
'« S o
o -5
Û ^ S O
Table 7. Ethnic Mother-Tongue Publications by Language and Frequency of Publication
Language Daily Weekly Monthly Other* No Data Total /o
Albanian 0 l 3 5 1 10 0.9
Amerindian 0 I 2 2 10 15 1-5
Arabic 0 4 5 0 8 17 1.6
Aramaic 0 0 I 0 4 5 °-5
Armenian 5 7 7 9 6 34 3-3
Bulgarian 0 0 I 0 0 I O.I
Byelorussian 0 0 I 3 0 4 0.4
Cambodian 0 0 3 2 11 16 1.6
Cape Verdean 0 0 0 0 I I O.I
Carpa tho-Rusyn 0 2 2 I 9 5 0-5
Chamorro 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.2
Chinese 15 8 I 2 16 42 4.1
Croatian 0 2 4 4 2 12 1.2
Czech I 4 10 8 4 2-1 2.6
Danish 0 I 4 0 I 6 0.6
Dutch 0 2 I 0 2 5 0.5
Estonian 0 2 0 2 3 7 0.7
Finnish 0 6 I I 5 13 1-3
French 0 4 5 5 7 21 2.0
Frisian 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.2
German 2 M 4 8 52 5.0
Greek 2 8 8 I 3 22 2.1
Haitian Creole 0 0 0 I I 2 0.2
Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.2
Hebrew 0 2 I 3 I 7 °·7
Hmong 0 0 0 I 2 3 °·3
Hungarian I M 7 5 M 42 4.1
Irish 0 2 0 I 14 17 1.6
Italian I 15 13 4 12 45 4-4
Japanese 7 4 I I 9 22 2.1
Judezmo 0 0 0 0 I I O.I
Korean 10 I I 0 10 22 2.1
Laotian 0 0 3 0 7 10 O.9
Latvian 0 I 0 0 0 I 0.1
Lithuanian 2 5 12 II 8 38 3-7
Macedonian 0 I 0 0 0 I 0.1
Norwegian 0 I 6 3 2 12 1.2
Pa. German 0 0 4 I 4 9 0.9
Persian 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.2
Pilipino 0 I 4 0 4 9 0.9
Table 7. (cont.)
Language Daily Weekly Monthly Other* No Data Total %

Polish 4 II 14 13 65 6-3
Portuguese 0 9 3 0 12 2
4
Rumanian 0 0 3 3 2 8 0.8
Russian 2 2 6 4 5 l
9 1.8
Samoan 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.2
Serbian + 0 2 I 2 0 5 0.5
Sicilian 0 0 0 I 0 I O.I
Slovak I 6 12 4 4 2
7 2.6
Slovenian 0 3 6 0 0 9 0.9
Spanish 10 36 40 16 72 174 16.9
Swedish 0 4 5 0 4 13 1-3
Tai Dam 0 0 0 0 I I O.I
Thai 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.2
Turkish 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.2
Ukrainian 2 Ï 10 7 8 3* 3-1
Vietnamese 0 I 8 3 33 45 4.4
Welsh 0 0 I I 0 2 0.2
Yiddish I 8 10 !
7 0 36 3-5
Total 66 212 247 151 355 1,031

Percent 6.4 20.6 24.0 14.7 34-4 100.0
* Other = quarterly, semi-annually, annually, irregularly

+
Includes Serbo-Croatian
other EMT (roughly 17%), is noticeably under-represented, not only relative to

the proportion of Spanish mother-tongue claimants among the entire non-
English mother-tongue claiming universe in the U.S.A., but, more specifically,
relevant to the overall proportion of dailies among E M T publications. Indeed,
the same is true for the other "big six," with French having no daily at all, and
Yiddish and Italian having only one each! Thus, we note again the prominence
of smaller, non-Protestant and non-Catholic ethnolinguistic groups. Although
all of the above named ethnolinguistic groups have experienced recent immig-
rational growth, so have Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. Yet the latter do not
have disproportionately active presses and the former do. Although virtually all
languages have experienced some increase in numbers of publications since the
early 60s, these increases are particularly great in the former cluster, dis-
proportionately so in connection with dailies.
FREQUENCY OF PUBLICATION AND CIRCULATION

SIZE
However, the number of publications is one thing and the circulation of such
publication is (or can easily be) quite another. H o w has the E M T press held up
in this latter respect? O n the basis of the periodicals for which such information
was available (81 % of all those whose frequency of publication was known) the
answer is: not badly at all (Table 8). In 1962 the average circulation of E M T -
using publications was roughly 7677 (Fishman, Hay den and Warshauer 1966).
In 1982 it was roughly 12,541. This represents a growth of 6 3 % , i.e., àn increase
greater than the increase in numbers alone. Lest this growth be considered
specious it should be pointed out that circulation figures must now be published
and certified annually to the United States postal service in order to maintain
eligibility for the low publication-rate mass-mailing privileges. A s a result, most
circulation claims must be assumed to be more accurate today than they were a
score of years ago when no such requirements obtained and when periodicals
may have tried to impress advertisers with artificially inflated circulation fi-
gures. In addition, the above figures do not reflect "pass along readership," i.e.,
the number of readers (rather than merely purchasers) of the publications in
question, a figure which may well be quite a bit larger than the circulation
figures per se.10 A l l in all the average circulation of E M T publications in 1982
was less than most of their English counterparts, but it was not a circulation to
be sneezed at.
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES CONCERNING

RECENT INCREASES IN THE NON-ENGLISH
LANGUAGE ETHNIC COMMUNITY PRESS.
The demise of the non-English using periodical press of the United States has
been predicted many times during the 20th century. Some of these predictions
were doubtlessly not only premature but also due to wishful thinking. Even
now the closing of a Czech publication in Omaha or of a Yiddish publication in
N e w York is a newsworthy event in the general press. It confirms an expec-
tation that is part of our national mythology. However, the non-English using
press has demonstrated far greater longevity than most of its o w n readers
and their children (let alone unsympathetic A n g l o observers) expected.
Accordingly, no such prediction can or should be repeated at this time. Indeed,
as with so much else in the area of non-English ethnic America, what now needs
explaining is the seeming resurgence of the non-English using press since its
documented decline from 1910 through i960. (Fishman, Hay den, and
Warshauer 1966). Several alternative hypotheses present themselves, none of
7· The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the USA ζ 19
CN G"\ O v. O -Φ Ν O ίΛ 't » Os O t vo ov O
00 »Λ IT. »Λ O ·«· --t 00 00 r- so
rf Ν O ΟΟ Os O ••τ Ό Ό Ό ^ Os Ν Os Os ~ tí;
Ν ©S Ό ν so r - 00 τt Ν
r - o - c s o o o o o r- o o o
o ^ o 00 o _ _
r- o - o c s c n o os r- TJ- oo^
h- N-> Ν r^ r- o Ό 00 O I-
<
Η «
O o
Η Η
ι- o r- Ί-
O Os o O O
O Th O o o
M » VO - - -H Tt >0 «
tT O CS Os O
O O 00 O sä
^ ^ C\ h h- Ν
Ν TJ- r- O 00
00 Ö o
J o o o" «"
X
Η υ
ζ
2
S
SH
h m ^ 00
00 I-·
0 0 0 0
o « o o o r- o
CN ν r ^ 00 c\
r^ ^ ι— r— r-^
η -4- Μ η
• « • 0 0 0
>< .s
à -a υ
S o I- M
Q H c
.2 o
-o
.s
5 . ea
-g 3 T3 h*
•S υ ce G w Ui Ο "S O c
Wi ·-* S u 3
w Xi ε g i » I ç J= » S) S
ε s
g. ε e S ί J5 c ^ 8
s ε t r « w 2 ri •S
< <
ί h a u 3 • o
χ
rt X „ ..
< < β « Ô U U U U jU ¡ 5 Q ω β. ο ο i a J
- Tf - O? Ό Ν r- Ti- Ν o 0 CO
ON r-
00 00
\o CN r-
sO r- CN o Tj- N
CS 00 Ν 00 •o" Ν Ν o" Ν N r-
Ο Ο Ν- •· O - OS o Ν o 0 ΗΝ O
Cv Ο Ο o. Cs «o £ •o ^
r^ cÑ o O NO Ν CN r- CN
Γ- Γ- O 0Ν
0 •«t Ν ?
CN 00 Ν
J .s Ν SÛ
< υ
H rt
O o
H H c
ΟΟ ΟΟ O
CN 00 - Ñ NO - oo \o N¿T C
ON
£ CN 00 O O «
NO O,
Ν 00
o _ O O
Ολ
•φ ~ ~ Ν- •o 00
oí £ Ό Ό Ν
Ολ
ω
Χ
Η
Ο Η α
υ
•«-Ι Ό Ν „ Ν
Ν "Φ Ό
NO
ΟΝΌ ^Ν CN «O N o Γ— O
^ CN >— UN
O 0·*
Tf 0 00 Tf Γ-
Ι-·· r»- 0 Ν r-
0 <r\
NO* Ν o" ^ Ν NO*
Ο Ο ^ Ο Ο " ν«, o Ν o O o o o Tf O "<t

^ CN ^ Ν Ν - ζ £ Tf Ν NO
•J es O Ν CNNO Ν
Χ £ Ν 00 r- 000 CN Cs
Η - Ν ?
¡ 1 00 - s Ν 00 NO r- CN £ •Φ
S Η
CN
Ν
4 Ό" Ν
IΧ - -
c
ο ο
ο ο
ο Ο
0 Ο Γ- ο
ο ο
ο NοO o o
Ν 0 0Ν
Λ Ο λ Ο Ολ 0
"Β Ν«fr
θ" Nο"
O 00 NO* CN ηΓ r-
ο - o ^fr O
r- Ν
hl
ΰ
^ .S
d υ
< ο
Ο Η α
"s I
1 < Λ
ν) C cσι > I wi
s G
Ml I S β c S ~ '5
•<S« 13
.3 g Ι «χ Ü s «
g ο S Ά I S <α Ho —'
o 2 3 ö .y j i 2^ a
l1 3 W Ji
¡ζ «Ε α. ai i> &
which can be fully supported at this time. It seems highly likely that the total size
of the non-English using ethnic-community press has never been correctly
gauged before and that what seems to be an upsurge is merely a comparison
between current better estimates and former under-estimates. It may well be in
addition, that the former Anglo-ethnic press now more commonly includes
some material in the ethnic mother tongues and that, therefore, it serves to
swell the ranks o f the latter. It may well be that many of those w h o cannot
themselves read the non-English ethnic community press have, of late, been
drawn into its community of supporters and appreciators. If that is, indeed, the
case, it still remains a question, how long such support will continue. Just as the
demise of the non-English press was too long and too much taken for granted,
so the continuity of that press may also be too easily romanticized and taken for
granted. Some of our research has posted storm signals in this very connection.
The French, German, Spanish, Yiddish and Anglo-Jewish presses that we have
studied intensively (Garcia et al. Chapter 10 This Volume) show very little E M T
consciousness. They devote little positive attention to their E M T s , either as
symbolic values or as overtly functional channels of intergenerational ethnocul-
tural continuity. If what we have found in the above five samples (samples that
we now know reflect rather under represented and weakly growing segments of
the total E M T periodical press universe) is generally true of the non-English
using EMT-community press, then its growth (or even its ability to count on
community support and devotion) may be short-lived. Only painstaking trend
studies with respect to numbers of subscribers, numbers of publications and
contents of publications can answer the questions that remain unanswered at
this point. It can be said, however, that we are dealing with a far larger and a
far hardier phenomenon than had generally been expected heretofore. O n the
other hand, the average frequency of publication of this press now falls in the
"monthly" category. In 1962 it fell in the " w e e k l y " category. This decline
itself has language maintenance significance.
DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTER OF RESPONDING UNITS

AND SOME INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN THEM
Roughly 29% (n = 295) of the 1031 non-English ethnic community publi-

cations 1 1 regularly utilizing a language other than English replied to a brief
questionnaire. We will first discuss the descriptive data yielded by their re-
sponses, then the intercorrelations between those responses and, finally, we will
put these intercorrelations to some predictive use.
Two-thirds of the periodical publications that responded to our question-
naire were weeklies or monthlies (the latter being the largest single category),
with relatively few appearing either more frequently (dailies) or less frequently
(quarterlies, etc). Two-thirds of these periodicals were published either entirely

or primarily in the ethnic mother tongue with the remainder either balanced
between that language and English (6%) or published primarily in English
(27%). A b o u t 1 0 % of the respondents were aware of new publications in their
own ethnic community mother tongue that had begun appearing during the
past year. Moreover, more than half of our respondents (59%) claimed to
publish special material intended for those still learning the language, with a
third claiming to do so often or regularly. Half of all publications were
sponsored by societies, organizations or "orders" while the remainder were
free-standing units related to ethnic mother-tongue communities by virtue of
the personal interests and commitments of their editors, writers and sub-
scribers. Finally, it should be noted that 9 % of the publications were multilin-
gual. The latter published material in several non-English languages pertaining
to groups that shared either past or present cultural and regional proximity
(e.g., Scandinavian, Indochinese, Micronesian, Amerindian, etc.).
As might be expected, there is a tendency for those periodicals that are
published most frequently to have higher circulations (r = .39). In addition,
Spanish publications tend to have higher circulations than do others (r = .30),
clearly as a result of the larger pool of mother-tongue claimants on which they
can draw. Related to the foregoing is the fact that the more broadcasting
stations there are for a particular language, the more frequently its publications
appear (r = .31). Those respondents w h o know of new periodicals that have
begun to appear in their language during the past year also tend more often to
publish material intended for those still learning the language (r = .37). Those
periodicals that are organizationally sponsored tend not to be associated with
ethnic mother-tongue communities that have experienced an increase in
foreign-born claimants since i960 (r = -.33), but they do tend to be associated
with communities whose pre-immigrational homelands are currently under
communist rule (r = .36). Finally, periodicals that are multilingual (i.e., publish-
ed in more than one non-English language) tend to be associated with non-
European derived communities (r = .31).
PREDICTING THE FREQUENCY OF PUBLICATION

VIA MULTIPLE CORRELATION
We have already noted that frequency of publication and circulation are sub-
stantially interrelated (r = .39). The next best predictor of frequency of publi-
cation (in terms of unique variance not already accounted for by circulation)
appears to be whether the individuals responding to our questionnaire on
behalf of their publication indicated their names and/or titles. Frequency of
publication was greater for those w h o give more information along these lines
(or, perhaps, vice versa, where frequency of publication was greater, re-
spondents felt secure enough or proud enough to identify themselves rather
than remain shrouded in anonymity). Combining these two predictors raises the
overall (joint or multiple) correlation to .48. Going further (since neither of the
foregoing are conceptually interesting predictors), organizational affiliation,
which itself is negatively correlated with frequency of publication (r = - . 1 3 ) —
probably because free-standing publications have a slight tendency to be publish-
ed more often than organizationally affiliated ones, as well as because organi-
zations can afford to publish small-circulation publications—boosts our cumu-
lative multiple correlation to . 51 and begins to fill out our understanding of the
structural dynamics of frequency of publication in the world of non-English
mother-tongue publications. Our understanding of these dynamics is further
aided by the next most contributory variable: proportion of the publication in
the ethnic mother tongue. This variable is positively correlated (r = . 1 1 ) with
frequency of publication and its introduction into the predictive equation
boosts our final cumulative multiple correlation to .54. From this point on,
three more variables make minuscule contributions to the overall prediction and
clarification of frequency of publication: whether the respondent volunteered
additional information (e.g., names and addresses of new or other publications
in the ethnic mother tongue) on the back of the questionnaire; Factor 15 (with
high loadings for awareness of new publications in the ethnic mother tongue,
responses from Hungarian publications and responses from Lithuanian publi-
cations [negative]); and, finally, non-European ethnolinguistic affiliation. All in
all, our multiple correlation reaches a magnitude of .57, which accounts for
approximately one third of the total variance in the dependent variable (Table 9).
Of all of the above predictors, the cluster made up of free-standing sponsor-

ship, ethnic mother-tongue preponderance, awareness of and interest in the
appearance of new publications and Hungarian or non-European community
affiliation may be viewed as a substantive cluster that provides us with the
clearest understanding of the circumstances that make frequent publication
possible in non-ethnic mother-tongue America today.
NON-ENGLISH RADIO AND TELEVISION

BROADCASTING IN THE UNITED STATES, 1982 12
NON-ENGLISH AND TOTAL BROADCASTING IN

THE USA, 1960-1982
In i960 it seemed that commerical radio broadcasting in the U.S.A. had peaked
and that commerical television alone was destined to increase rapidly in the
224 H The Ethnic Kevival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Table 9. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: Current Frequency of

Publication
Order of Cum Cum

Entry Name of Variable r R R2 F
ι Circulation .39 .39 .15 47.15

2 Name and/or title signed .24 .48 .23 43-54
3 Organizational affiliation —.13 .51 .26 34-55
4 Proportion in EMT .11 .54 .29 28.91
5 Additional information on back .15 .55 .30 25.14
6 Factor 15* —.21 .56 .31 22.08
7** Non-European ethnic group .11 .57 .32 19.71
* The factor analytic method employed was that of unrotated principal axes. Fifteen factors were
extracted. The items with highest loadings on Factor 15 are: (a) awareness of new periodicals
utilizing the respondent's E M T that have begun publication during the past year or two: loading
. 4 1 4 1 1 ; (b) Hungarian publications: loading . 4 7 1 1 2 ; (c) Lithuanian publications. A possible name
for this factor might be "Publications serving smalL language groups with relatively recent (post
World War II) immigration from Communist dominated homelands."
* * N o other variables met the .05 significance level for entry into the model.
future. Relative to 1950, radio in i960 had increased by 65% from 2229 to 3688
stations. On the other hand, during the same period, television stations had
increased from 107 to 530; i.e., by 395%. From i960 to 1980, however, the
growth of television slowed considerably (41.8%), whereas the growth of radio
spurted ahead at a surprising rate (112.89%). this same period the growth
patterns for non-English radio and television broadcasting are quite different
than those for broadcasting as a whole (Table 10). Since no non-English
television at all was found in i960, the 275 t.v. " s t a t i o n s " 1 3 broadcasting in
non-English languages located in 1982 represent an astronomical rate of in-
crease, far higher than that for the industry as a whole. On the other hand, non-
English radio "stations" increased by only 43.84 from i960 to 1982; i.e., at a rate
only a third as great as that for the commercial radio industry as a whole. On the
whole, however, both non-English radio and non-English television were very
sizeable, lucrative and still expanding enterprises in 1982 and their longevity
intentions as well as potentials were palpably clear.
The growth rate for non-English broadcasting is obviously far different from
that which we previously encountered for non-English language periodical
publications. Although both publications and broadcasting are highly inter-
related and similarly dependent on numbers of potential "consumers," publi-
cations not only increased in absolute terms from 1962 to 1982 but did so in
relative terms as well, in comparison to English periodical publication in the
same period. On the other hand, non-English broadcasting increased only in
γ. The Community Resources of Ethnic languages in the USA 225
60
.S
Vi
Ρ
J3
(Λ
"m
c
ωι
ι e O
o o
SO Ov
<5\ Ζ
M
β
«
< r- o\
υ
J3 r- 00 00
vi
Ν
M ·* 0
00 Ν 0
0 C\ 0
0 Ov 0
C\ 0
ÛO
•a 0
c Cs
o Ν
Ζ c Ν Ν
o vo 0
00 Ν 0
Ov M oô o
σ\ 0
(«Λ *J
< - r Ν c\
• O t- σν
00 J3 00 00
D 2s c r^ 00
0 0
0 0
a
tao
a
«O ws
vo
Ζ D C <~*
o
SO
C —
^ O
(Λ J3
^« > O1
oä Η Η
22Ó II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
absolute terms between i960 and 1980, but did not do so at the same rate as did
commercial broadcasting as a whole. O n the other hand, the ability of non-
English broadcasting to enter the television field, at a time when that field was
growing at a far slower rate than heretofore, is a sign of its capacity to adapt to
and to utilize new opportunities rather than remain only with comfortably
traditional ones.
Apparently, different phases of growth (rather than mere rates of growth)
are involved, both between media as well as between the non-print media in the
U.S.A. as a whole and the non-English non-print media in particular. The non-
English non-print media have apparently just recently gone through a phase
similar to that of the non-print media in the country as a whole a few decades
ago; i.e., a phase in which radio is growing slowly, but television, only
minusculely present heretofore, is experiencing very rapid growth. Further-
more, unlike the non-English press, non-English radio broadcasting was still
on the increase (in terms of total number of hours of broadcast time) in i960
relative to the years just prior to that time (Warshauer i960). Unlike the
non-English press, it did not have to "snap b a c k " during the sixties and the
seventies, but merely to increase its forward movement. A s a result, the growth
of non-English radio from 1960-1981 appears to be sizeable (an increase of
43.84% is nothing to sneer at) but much smaller than either the growth of non-
English television (increasing from nothing to anything is always an infinitely
large rate of growth) or that of the non-English press (snapping back from its
previously unrelieved decline).
NUMBER OF "STATIONS"
Large though it is, the broadcasting field, radio and television, is obviously
dominated by Spanish. Thus one language involves 36% of all radio "stations"
and 60% of all television "stations" engaged in non-English broadcasting
(Table 11). However, since Spanish mother-tongue claimants constitute roughly
30% of all non-English mother-tongue claimants in 1979 the "over-represen-
tation" of Spanish in the universe of non-English radio broadcasting is not
nearly as great as is the "over-representation" of Spanish in the field of non-
English television broadcasting. In both instances the magnitude of the Spanish
"slice" is, of course, related to the magnitude of underlying demographic facts:
the over-11 million (and many more, if Hispanic "ancestry" is to be counted,
and even more, if corrections for unreported and unlocated individuals are to be
made) claimants of Spanish mother tongue in 1979. However the relative under-
representation of Spanish in all other institutional fields also must be kept in
mind. With relatively few ethnic community publications, schools and churches
under their own auspices and control (all of the foregoing being literacy-related
vΝ ^ OΝ O nO N i - 'κ-N T j - ^T j i-- C N
o
Η
ι-· -Ί- o o r- O 00 o
Q
o
Ζ
J3O
3
ι a
o3
JS
Tj. CTS
o 00 00
•3CS X!O
3
tó
<
«Λ Tt· (Λ o O o o 00
o Ά r^
•CO
3
Ν 00 Tí- h - · ^ -
O O O O 9ο Άo . "J
3 v=N
J3O o
Cv σ\
9o o¿ -tΤ o o vo
00 O
-CO
3
- MI
c
c.a c 3
w.
V) a "rό
υ3 3 * 8 J3 «β χJ -sc- Ss
MC tr d i ft.· ;δ -ôe . .. Ο« ΐ o c ε
<;<;<iaBfflBUUu U ΝUυ 1¿5 | Q Ua n .s. ba Û«
o
H
V3 O -Φ O O OO ^ T}- f + « O
o
H- Q
o
Ζ Ν rî O O
3 o
O O
Χ
OO O
3
O
J3
o o
3 O 00 Ov
O «-· Ν ^
-C
f o o o QN GN ^ o
- o o o" Ν ^ o CN . o
Ν -φ
o o o o O O Ν
o o o o "Φ ^D Tj- O O
o o Irt φ »Λ Η
Ν HM M HM Ν rr* H- Ν M C\
c
«
uευ
o
α
c §
c .a
(JO c
rt c c o 3 ._
3 rt rt -o u >. ÙO .O JB ^ '3 -C 3
C (ή Γ75
60 •a c -g 3 ·'—. C *Λ « '3 .2
C a. λ χ:
C o -a c; c 5
s ι i l ι g e = | s § j s s - s ac ο δ « ρ
hJ J J
7- The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the USA 229
0 ^ 0 0 0 Ο \0 CN v-v
o oo γ-- ν cn
Ο Ν Ν- hi Ν
Ν M 00
·- O O ^ O Ν h ί» 90
ó 4 ~ ~
γ^ ο
\ό ό
r^ ο ΓΑ Ο
ί^ν Ο »TS Ο
» Ον OC 't
ο ^ o o ^ O C\ "Λ 00
O (Λ ΙΑ û » Ν Ά Ν ι-
Ν I- Ν
ι— Ν Η
Η Κ
Η O Tf Ν
G
« Ö
Λ
t * e3 « S S
« y a ε M c c J3 .2
* -S
s o .sc ε
c a e og o
^
ο χ S X ï X X m H
230 II The Uthnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Ν so Ά
O r* »«%
· Η·\
O ^ Η Ν
V"» ffN <·<"*
ο ο
ο ο v¿
Ν I— ΟΟ
Ν VO 00
Λ M Ç e e -β · 3
.2 o /S _ a a .a e
IM
•3 « Ο ^ SP·* Έ •3 "«
y 60 .a e G U
£ σι « « 3 ο
ιλ h Η h Η Η H0 H 3P- « Η
7· The Community Resources of Ethnic L,anguages in the USA ζ 31
O N - * t O N O O O O O O N . - 0 0 0 0 0
o
Ζ Β
3
o
J3
I
•O"
3
O
J3
3
> O
J3
Η
cri
3
O
JS
3
O o-
J3
c
c CA
o 3
υ
e Έ (j
cd C
Λ C .2
V 3 υ '3 '2 3 « P- -c
60 S Ö 2 ε s υ ì àC
3 C £ Β eι- i«>jt Βι-,C
σ> g 3 J» U O i r j ' j O A
î C U S Î û§ ê-a S S B
< << < < o « υ 3 s ν .2 .5 <» .5
c Q m e u u u u u u Q Q u - i t t . p H O O
23 2 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance inthe USA
O O M - N O ^ O O - O s
Ο Ο Ο "Γ N. O
o o o »Ano
U § .2 υ
ca -.3 * * » ' g S Sp5 grt 2S
Mi
a SJ L· o 60 S
« «η υ .¿η Sεe c§s -β
o
ν J
o
Η
o
Ζ α
3o 0
00
VO
« C
ι
-i-
00
3 o^
O
J3
31
O
Λ
σ\
3
O
.C
« C
3
O
J3
3 <
0
J3
«|N
1
C rt c
ao •I ' a .3c gS u
3 ._
C s _Q ΜΛ O e Ç
3 i.-
3 « "β flj eCn .S J= be
3 «
Λ S
O S.3 jü« j<m-au -s-a a¡3
to
e •S
rt s - s rt G C o.
i» υ 3 O
.a Β
O 'c
3 e« ω -S- .S• J2 1CU «^
^ ^ rt
JjjSSSZCuCuOiP-CuCupáqát/íc/it/ítAiGOc/ít/)
234 H The Ethnie Revival and hanguage Maintenance in the USA
o O - Ν O o
fields) the community dynamics of hispanidad express themselves dispropor-

tionately through the broadcasting media.
Although Spanish is " k i n g of the hill" in the universe of non-English broad-
casting, mention should be also made of other languages that are "over-
represented" in this field: Basque, Polish and Hindu (for all of w h o m broadcast-
ing is the only institutional field in which they are overrepresented), as well as
Albanian, "Amerindian," Arabic, Armenian, Finnish, Greek, Hungarian,
Japanese, Korean, Lithuanian, Persian, Portuguese, Rumanian, Serbian,
Slovenian, Thai, Tibetan, Ukrainian and Welsh (actually Irish) (Table 5). There
is little that is noteworthy about this group after recency of immigration and
non-mainstream religion have both been controlled. They each make only
modest contributions to the total non-English broadcasting enterprise (Polish,
the largest among them, involves only 10% of non-English radio units) so that
their respective over-representations have relatively little impact on the national
scene.
HOURS PER WEEK OF BROADCASTING
The total number of hours per week of broadcasting for particular languages is
not strongly related to the number of stations engaged in broadcasting in those
languages. This can most easily be seen in the case of Pilipino, a language that
involves only 15 stations in the entire U.S.A. and yet one of them broadcasts in
that language between 84 hours and 168 per week (i.e., between half and all of
the possible broadcasting hours). A l l in all, it must be said, the average
broadcasting time per week is very modest, between 1 and 3 hours per week,
whether radio or television is involved. This, it should be pointed out rep-
resents a decrease relative to i960 and 1950 when the average number of hours
of broadcasting time were 4.6 and 5.4 respectively. A s was pointed out above,
the non-English ethnic community press, for all of its amazing growth in
number of publications since i960, also has receded insofar as average
frequency of publication is concerned. This, then, represents a pattern of
growth in numbers but decrease in intensities that bears keeping in mind.
Ethnolinguistic institutions that are omnipresent ("a mile wide") but of minor
intensity ("an inch deep") may well play too marginal a role in the lives of the
populations they serve to be of any functional significance as far as language
maintenance is concerned. Because languages are symbolic of ethnicity rather
than merely channels of communications for ethnic, social and cultural interac-
tion, they can "hang o n " at purely symbolic levels, i.e., at very low levels of
daily implementation, almost endlessly. This does not make them unimportant
(as the Irish case so amply reveals), but it does make them fairly vestigial (or at
least peripheral) as far as functional fluency is concerned.
A m o n g the few languages that do support intensive broadcasting, Spanish

plays an even more major role than it does in the non-English language
broadcasting universe as a whole. O f the 75 radio "stations" that devote
between half and all of the hours of their broadcasting week to some non-
English language, fully 67 (i.e., 89%) are associated with Spanish. O f the 13
television stations that are devoting between half and all of the hours of the
week to some non-English language, all 13 are associated with Spanish. 1 4
"Amerindian," Chinese, Japanese, Pilipino and Portuguese each have one or
two radio "stations" that devote between full and half time to them. Due to
their markedly smaller associated populations (relative to Spanish and relative
to the cost of television broadcasting) none of them can support intensive
television broadcasting (half to full time). 1 5
DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDING

UNITS A N D SOME INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN
THEM
Roughly 29% (n = 742) of the 2 5 90 identified non-English radio and television

broadcasting units ("stations" or, stricdy speaking, "language-program-
stations") in the United States replied to our brief questionnaire. Nearly 40% of
our respondents were broadcasting in Spanish and roughly 10% each in
German, Italian or Polish. French, Portuguese, Greek and Amerindian lan-
guages were each utilized by roughly 5 % of our respondents. All in all, the
distribution of languages utilized by our respondents and the distribution of
languages among all identified broadcasting units approximate each other
closely and we may, therefore, consider our respondents to be a reasonably
faithful (i.e., respresentative) reflection of the universe in this respect. 1 6
T w o thirds of our respondents broadcast only once a week in any given non-
English language. The modal amount of time devoted to these broadcasts is
two hours. The modal power of A M broadcasting is 1000 watts, whereas that
for F M broadcasting is 5000 watts. A m o n g those engaging in television
broadcasting ( 9 % of our responding "stations"), modal power is 100 k w for
those engaged in V H F broadcasts and 1640 kw for those engaged in U H F
broadcasts. Given the huge ranges in the power of the broadcasts reported, it is
not surprising that the range in number of estimated listeners is also huge, the
modal claim being 15,000 and the mean coming to 48,600.
The distribution of program time available to broadcasts shows interesting
substantive emphases. Modally, no time is devoted to general news (although
14 stations devote more than 50% of their time to such news); 5 % of total
broadcasting time is devoted to ethnic community news; roughly that same
proportion of total time is devoted to ethnic cultural material (literature,
history, education, religion); a negligible amount of time (modally, no time at

all) is devoted to miscellaneous other material broadcast in the ethnic language
and the remaining time (modally, some 3 5 % of total program time) is devoted to
broadcasting via English. The above distribution clearly reveals the exceed-
ingly "popular" and non-demanding nature of non-English broadcasting in the
U.S.A. today. N o t only is English utilized on an average of 3 5 % of the total
broadcast time during the E M T program, but songs utilizing the ethnic
language make up almost all of the remaining time, only 1 0 % of total broadcast
time (modally, 12 minutes a week) being devoted to ethnic news or culture.
Roughly 60% of all responding "stations" indicated that they provided
special material for beginners, 2 5 % of the total replying that they do so often or
regularly. This is particularly interesting, given that fully 8 2 % of our respond-
ing "stations" are commercial. Thus, it obviously cannot be the case that only
non-commercial stations are of the opinion that they provide special material
for beginners, although, given the huge amount of broadcast time devoted to
songs/music, it would clearly be unrealistic to expect most of such material for
beginners to be of any great length or formality.
We have noted above that the four types of ethnic-community mother-
tongue institutions that we are studying tend to cluster by state even more than
they do by language. It should be no surprise, therefore, that as a result of the
foregoing, a majority of "stations" (54%) broadcast programs in more than one
ethnic community language. Although the modal number of such languages
utilized by any particular "station" is 2, the mean is 3.3, with some "stations"
broadcasting in 10, 25 and even 30 languages in any given year.
There is a totally expected high correlation between the number of days a
week that a language-program-station broadcasts and the total number of
minutes of broadcasting time/week (.63). Less redundant, but equally under-
standable, is the fact that the number of days/week of broadcasting in a
particular language is negatively related to the percentage of foreign-born mother-
tongue claimants of that language (— .30) but positively related to increases in
the number of such foreign born claimants ( + .32). Obviously, American-born
listeners are needed for sustained growth in terms of days/week of broadcast-
ing. More minutes/week of broadcasting is positively related to the number of
program-"stations" available for a particular language (.34); the number of
local religious units available in that language (.30); and even the number of
periodical publications in that language (.32). Spanish broadcasts have more
minutes/week of program time than do those in most other languages (.35), but
this is generally true for languages reporting growing numbers of foreign-born
claimants.
Program "stations" that devote more time to ethnic community culture seem
to devote less to music ( — .34), these two ingredients being the only ones that
are substantially negatively correlated.
238 II The Ethnic Revival and "Language Maintenance in the USA
Table 12. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: Total Minutes of Broadcast
Time per Week in a Particular Language
Order of Cum Cum

I Number days/week of broadcasting in

the language .63 .63 •39 482.01
2 Number of periodicals in the language •31 .65 .42 273.62
3 Number of multilingual stations
broadcasting in the language .18 .66 •43 187.49
4 Broadcasting both on radio and t.v. -.04 .66 •43 144.07
5 Commercial station .10 .67 •44 117.90
6 Broadcasts material for beginners .06 .67 •45 99.78
7 Broadcasts in VHF -.06 .67 •45 86.76
8 % of time devoted to ethnic culture* -.09 .68 •46 76-73
* N o other variable met the .0; significance level for entry into the model.
The station broadcasting in a large number of non-English languages (here-

after referred to as "multilingual" station) appears to be a very special insti-
tution, different in many ways from the station that broadcasts in only one such
language. The more languages a station broadcasts, the fewer the mother-
tongue claimants of these languages (—-39), the smaller their increase since
i960 ( — .36); the lower the proportion of native-born claimants of these
languages ( — .40), the fewer the total number of stations broadcasting in these
languages ( — .40), and the fewer the number of churches (—.34), periodicals
(—.37) and schools ( — .25) functioning in these languages. Spanish does not
tend to be broadcast on such stations ( — .37) as much as other languages.
PREDICTING TOTAL BROADCAST TIME/WEEK AND

PROPORTION OF TOTAL TIME DEVOTED TO
ETHNIC CULTURE
We have already noted several variables, each of which is appreciably related

to the total number of minutes of broadcasting in a particular language at a
particular station. The best single such predictor, as mentioned before, is the
total number of days/week of broadcasting in that language (r = .63), which by
itself accounts for 3 9 % of the variance in this criterion. Seven other significant
predictors can be added into the overall prediction which ultimately attains an R
of .68 and accounts for 46 % o f the total variance in broadcast time (Table 12).
Among these additional predictors are such significant ones as the availability
of periodicals in that language (many periodicals stimulate radio listening

among their readers, particularly given the common pattern of joint owner-
ship), and commercial (rather than academic or other non-commercial) spon-
sorship of the station, the inclusion of materials for beginners and (negatively)
the percentage of total broadcasting time devoted to ethnic culture (rather than
music). Apparently, programs devoting much of their time to ethnic culture
tend to be briefer (perhaps because they are more intellectual and less "popu-
lar") than programs that have other (primarily musical) emphases.
The proportion of total broadcasting time devoted to ethnic culture (litera-
ture, history, education, religion) is itself also "predictable," a final cumulative
R o f . 5 8 being attained by 15 predictors (Table 13). Devoting broadcast time to
(i) matters other than music and broadcasting associated with (ii) ethnolinguis-
tic communities that have a liturgical language of their own (e.g., Jews, Old
Church Slavonic and Orthodox churches in general) are the major predictors of
this criterion. The number of days of broadcasting per week and the power of
the station (two understandably related dimensions) are also useful predictors
of total broadcasting time devoted to ethnic culture other than music. All in all,
therefore, we are dealing primarily with considerations of magnitude (broad-
casting "days" and broadcasting "power") and with considerations of
literacy/liturgy in a non-English language of ethnic significance. To the extent
that both of these dimensions are rather atypical for non-English language
broadcasting, songs and music dominate it rather than ethnic cultural content
of other kinds.
NON-ENGLISH ETHNIC MOTHER-TONGUE

SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1982
THE ETHNIC COMMUNITY MOTHER-TONGUE

SCHOOL AND GENERAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SCHOOLING IN THE U.S.A.: 1960-1982 17
There have recently been indications in various parts of the United States that
the number of private schools has grown during the past few years, as a result of
growing parental dissatisfaction with the public schools for a variety of reasons
(busing, unsatisfactory academic achievements levels, presence of uncertified
teachers, prevalence of drug use, violence, crime, etc., among students). If those
indicators are to be believed, they are, nevertheless, not yet reflected in national
statistics (Table 14; also see Porter 1979 and the Bureau of the Census's Data
User News, 1982, 17, no. 12, p. 10). Instead, the latter actually show a rather
large decrease (23.61%) between i960 and 1978 in the number of Catholic
Table 13. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: Proportion of Time Devoted to Ethnic
Culture
Order of Cum Cum

I Proportion of time devoted to songs/music -•34 •34 .12 96.90

2 Currently broadcasting .09 •39 •M 64.63
3 Proportion of broadcast time devoted to
miscellaneous programs -.07 •42 .18 53-03
general news -.06 •4! .18 53·°3
5 Number of days/week of broadcasting .09 .48 •23 44-07
ethnic news -.03 •50 •25 40.11
7 Name of respondent given .09 •51 .26 37-47
8 Total number of minutes/week of broadcast in
the particular language -.09 •53 .28 Î5-67
9 Factor 12* — .02 •54 .29 33-41
10 Speech community has its own liturgical
language .18 •55 •3° 31.31
II 8th most frequently responding group =
Hungarians .12 .56 •31 29.64
12 9th most frequently responding group =
Lithuanians .09 •57 •32 28.03
13 Factor 16* — .01 •57 •32 26.46
14 ι st most frequently responding group =
Spanish -.03 •57 •32 25.00
M** Reported AM power in watts .09 .58 •33 25.83
*The factor analytic method employed was that of unrotated principal axes. Twenty factors
were extracted. The items with the highest loadings on Factor 12 are: (a) willingness to review our
list of all broadcasters utilizing respondents' EMT, loading: .29544; (b) time devoted to ethnic
news, loading: — .26727; and (c) awareness of new programs in respondents' E M T that have begun
broadcasting during the past year or two, loading: .22146. A possible name for this factor might be
"Alertness and helpfulness with respect to broadcasting in the respondents' E M T . " The highest
loading items on Factor 16 are: (a) Lithuanian E M T broadcasting, loading: —.32649; (b) respon-
dent signs name, loading: —.24800; and (c) time devoted to E M T songs, loading: .21268. A
possible name for this factor might be "Large language, undiversified programming."
**No other variable met the .05 significance level for entry into the model.
schools. F o r the two-year period 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 7 8 , Catholic schools decreased 1 . 1 7 %

whereas the all-day schools of all other religious groups decreased 1 . 2 4 % and
religiously unaffiliated all-day schools decreased by 5 . 4 4 % . A l t h o u g h there is as
yet no 1 9 7 8 data f o r public schools, these schools were increasing in number
regularly by roughly 4 % every t w o years between 1 9 7 0 and 1 9 7 6 .
L o n g e r term trends are discernible only for public, Catholic and ethnic
mother-tongue schools. T h e latter t w o categories overlap somewhat with
Table 14. GrowthlDecline in Number of Elementaiy and Secondary Schools: 1960-1982*
i960 1982 Change
Public" 64,000 I04,000b + 62.50%

d
Private 19.665e —
Catholic 12,893 9.849e - 2 3 . 6 1 %
Other religious groups d

5,870e —
Religiously unaffiliated d
3.944e —
Ethnic 2,OOOe 65 53f + 227.65%
* Public school and private school figures are from Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1980, pp.
15 3 and 155. Only schools with equivalent of compulsory attendance are counted.
a. Number of principals rather than number of schools. Number of schools per se not reported.
b. Data is for 1976 (latest year reported).
c. Data is for 1978 (latest year reported).
d. Only prior year for which data is available is 1976: All private schools: 20,081; other religious
groups: 5,944; and unaffiliated schools: 4,171. The 1976 figure for Catholic schools is 9,966.
e. Estimate, Language hoyalty in the United States, 1966; includes all-day, week-day afternoon and
Sunday/Saturday schools.
f. Actual count; includes all-day, week-day afternoon and Sunday/Saturday schools.
roughly 2 0 % of the ethnic mother-tongue schools being Catholic sponsored.

Comparisons between the long-term trends for these three types are further
complicated by the fact that the i960 estimate of ethnic mother-tongue schools
was a rather tentative one (Fishman and Nahirny 1966) and was much more
likely an underestimate than an overestimate. All in all, then, perhaps the most
that can be said at this point (when equally dependable counts of the various
types of schools are either unavailable or unavailable for the years that interest
us) is that the universe of ethnic mother-tongue schools is not only a huge one
but that it may, indeed, be a substantially growing one as well. Little attention,
scholarly or popular, has every been paid to these schools, and it would seem to
be high time to correct this oversight (as was partially recognizable by Powell
1980 in his comments on the recent "discovery" of private schools as a subject
for educational research) in the light of recent evidence that private schooling
may be more effective than had been anticipated and, by and large, more
effective than the schools of the public sector (Coleman 1982, Fishman 1981 and
Fishman, Riedler-Berger et al, This Volume, Chapter 12). Ethnic schools are
generally not counted within the private sector unless they are all-day schools
attended in lieu of compulsory education. Since, as we will note, only a quarter
to a third of ethnic schools are all-day schools, a major issue that should concern
us is whether these schools, all-day or not, are of a nature (intensity, quality,
program) likely to enhance language maintenance on an intergenerational basis.
Their possible growth in numbers is an interesting phenomenon indeed but not
a decisive one for the question posed.
NUMBER OF ETHNIC-COMMUNITY MOTHER-

TONGUE SCHOOLS
T w o things immediately become apparent when we turn our attention to the

list of ethnolinguistic communities supporting non-English schools: the list is
shorter than the ones we have encountered before (compare Tables 7 and 11
with Table 15), that is fewer languages are represented at all, and it is more con-
centrated in a few major pockets than either the press or radio/television. The
Jewish efforts (Hebrew plus Yiddish) account for nearly half of all school units
thus far located. If Spanish, Pennsylvania German and Greek are added to the
Jewish units, then nearly three-quarters of all ethnic-community schools utiliz-
ing non-English languages have been accounted for. True, there are more
groups than these that are over-represented (and actually Spanish is not over-
represented), e.g., Amerindian, Armenian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
Lithuanian, Romani, Thai/Lao, Tibetan and Ukrainian, but most of these are
relatively tiny and relatively recent arrivals, in addition. Conspicuously under-
represented are all of the big six 1 7 a with the exception of Yiddish (which would
also be under-represented if it had to rely on its own schools rather than ride
piggy-back on the broad and omnipresent shoulders of Hebrew). Similarly
under-represented are the proud literacy-related traditions of smaller European
groups of mainstream Protestant or Catholic traditions, e.g., Polish, Swedish or
Croatian. Also under-represented in the school domain, finally, are several
groups that are over-represented in the closely related LRU domain, e.g.,
Albanian, Arabic, Finnish and Rumanian. All in all, therefore, although ethnic-
community schools are relatively immune to problems of demographic suf-
ficiency, their immunity is far from absolute. Although they are the second most
numerous ethnic community-based language-immersed institution, this fact is
overwhelmingly attributable to only three or four ethnolinguistic groups, two
of which (Jews and Pennsylvania Germans) are stressing sanctified languages
rather than their community vernaculars. Few, indeed, therefore, are the groups
whose vernaculars can count upon a sufficient number of schools to facilitate
literacy, not to mention intergenerational language maintenance.
AMOUNT OF INSTRUCTIONAL EXPOSURE (SCHOOL

TYPE)
O w i n g to the difficulties encountered in obtaining reliable and valid informa-

tion from a large number of schools as to the number of hours of non-English
ethnic mother-tongue instruction per year, the ethnic community schools have
been grouped according to a roughly related variable: number of sessions per
week (Table 15). Even by this rough grouping, slightly over a third of the
Table 15. Ethnic Mother-Tongue Schools by Language and Frequency of Attendance
Weekday Saturday/
Daily Afternoons* Sunday** No Data
Language η /o η /o η /o η % Total
Albanian ! 100.0 !
Amerindian 37 2 5·7 ιο 7 74-3 I44

Arabic 2 28.6 5 71.4 7
Aramaic I 100.0 I
Armenian 12 13.8 3 3-5 43 49-4 29 33-3 87
Bulgarian 2 100.0 2
Byelorussian 3 75·° I 25.0 4
Cambodian I 100.0 I
Carpa tho-Rusyn I 50.0 I 50.0 2
Chamorro 6 46.2 7 53.8 13
Chinese 5 2.9 15 8.7 18 10.5 134 77-9 172
Croatian I 6.7 6 40.0 8 53-3 15
Czech I 7-7 6 46.1 6 46.1 13
Danish 3 100.0 3
Dutch I 100.0 1
Estonian 7 43.8 9 56.2 16
Finnish 3 100.0 3
French 23 19.5 95 80.5 118
German 6 3-3 3 1-7 39 21.3 135 73-7 183
Greek 20 4-5 31 7·° 22 5-0 369 83.5 442
Haitian Creole I 100.0 I
Hebrew 5OI 19.4 1,659 64.1 406 15-7 23 .8 2,589
Hindi 4 80.0 I 20.0 5
Hawaiian I 100.0 I
Hungarian 2 2.4 I 1.2 14 16.9 66 79-5 83
Hutterite 6l 100.0 61
Italian 2 2-7 4 5-3 7 9-3 62 82.7 75
Japanese IO 5-9 8 4·7 29 17.2 122 72.2 169
Korean 5 4.1 116 95-9 121
Laotian I 100.0 I
Latvian 2 4.0 I 2.0 13 26.0 34 68.0 50
Lithuanian I I.I 2 2.4 18 21.2 64 75-3 85
Norwegian 5 100.0 5
Pennsylvania German 584 99.8 I .2 585
Persian I 100.0 I
Pilipino 5 100.0 5
Polish 9 7·1 3 2.4 14 I I.I 100 79-4 126
Portuguese I M 7 I5.9 I 2·3 35 79-5 44
Punjabi I 100.0 I
Romani 2 100.0 2
244 H The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Table 15. (cont.)
Weekday Saturday/
Daily Afternoons* Sunday** No Data
Language η % η % η % η % Total
Rumanian 2 100.0 2
Russian I 14.0 6 86.0 7
Sanskrit I 100.0 I
Serbian I25.0 3 75-0 4
Slovak 2 10.0 I 5.0 I 5.0 16 80.0 20
Slovenian 6 50.0 6 JO.O 12
Spanish 54 7-4 2 •3 3 •4 672 91.9 731
Swedish 2 17.0 10 83.0 12
Thai 5 100.0 5
Tibetan 2 100.0 2
Ukrainian 6 6.8 40 45-5 42 47-7 88
Vietnamese I I 1.0 8 89.0 9
Yiddish 108 25.6 284 67.3 3° 7-1 422
Totals 1,45 3 22.2 2,027 30.9 743 II.3 2>33° 3 5-7 6,553
* This column includes all classes meeting two or more times per week including a Saturday or
Sunday.
* * T h i s column includes all classes meeting once per week or less.
located schools (35.7%) are still unclassifiable. Nevertheless, the distribution

revealed by the remaining 4223 schools is useful indeed. On the whole, the
modal ethnic-community mother-tongue school meets twice a week (typically
one afternoon during the school week and one morning during the weekend).
Only a third of all schools for which such data is available are day schools which
fulfill compulsory education requirements in addition to providing an ethnolin-
guistic course of study. However, this proportion is primarily dependent on
four sizable groups: Amerindian, Hutterite German, Pennsylvania German and
Yiddish, the middle two of which can boast that all or essentially all of their
schools are all-day schools. 1 8 These four groups are all characterizable by a
single attribute: well-defined cultural (and often even physical) separation from
the American mainstream. Only in such cases are sizable proportions of the
located schools (and perhaps, therefore, a sizable proportion of the school-aged
younger generation) oriented toward education entirely under ethnic-com-
munity auspices. In all other cases, ethnolinguistic education is supplementary,
and, therefore, quite probably too meager to be a serious contribution to
language maintenance.

UNITS AND SOME INTERCORRELATIONS OF
INTEREST
A 7 . 5 % sample (n = 400) of the 6553 identified ethnic community schools
teaching (or teaching in) a language related to their ethnicity (including a
handful, η = 11, that had discontinued doing so in the past few years) replied to
our brief questionnaire. 19 The largest numbers of respondents were teaching
(and/or teaching in) Greek (13.78%), Spanish (11.88%), Hebrew (9.26%),
German (9.03%), Amerindian languages (5.94%), Armenian (5.70%),
Japanese (5.5%), Chinese (4.99%), Polish (3.8%), Ukrainian (3.5%) and
French (3.32%). This distribution corresponds fairly closely to that of the
universe of such schools, although it departs from it, by design, via undersamp-
ling (Jewish, German and Chinese respondents) and oversampling (Greek,
Spanish, Amerindian and Armenian respondents) so as to make sure that as
many groups (and corresponding curricular patterns) as possible would be
substantially represented in our data.
One third of our respondents were day schools, a quarter were weekday
afternoon supplementary schools, another third were Saturday/Sunday or other
once-a-week schools, with the remaining 8 % were made up of combinations of
the above types. Most respondents offered nursery/kindergarten, elementary
(grades 1 - 6 ) or secondary (grades 7 - 1 2 ) instruction (41%), with another large
proportion offering both elementary and secondary (22.5%). Our respondent
schools were, for the most part, organizationally sponsored (95.5 % ) and tended
to teach their E M T (ethnic mother tongue, defined so as to include liturgical
languages and liturgical/ecclesiastic varieties) during every year of instruction
that they offered, particularly so during the pre-secondary years. The schools
were smallish, by general standards, averaging about 100 students in the
elementary grades and half that number in the secondary grades. The schools
enrolled an overwhelmingly English-speaking student body from the very
first grade (87.8%); only 50% were reported to be able to speak the ethnic
mother tongue with at least moderate fluency at that point. By the year of
graduation, the proportion reaching this same standard of fluency in English
was judged by the school respondents to be 92.6%, whereas the proportion
judged to be moderately fluent in the ethnic mother tongue was 72.8%. Thus,
although both proportions were judged to rise during the period of school
attendance and although the increase in ethnic mother-tongue fluency was
judged to be greater than that in English, the latter was nevertheless judged to
be ahead of the former throughout.
There is some evidence from our data that larger schools are also more
demanding with respect to ethnic mother-tongue instruction. Thus, the re-
lationship between total number of students and total hours of ethnic mother-
246 II The hthnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
tongue instruction is .55. On the other hand, the total number of students in a
school seems to be negatively related to the proportion that are able to speak
English both upon entry (—.32) as well as upon graduation (—.41). The
corresponding correlations with ethnic mother-tongue fluency are positive but
smaller. Moderate fluency in speaking English upon graduation is judged to be
lowest for Spanish schools ( — .43). Thus, clearly, although the schools we are
studying primarily serve an English-speaking student body, the availability of a
pool of students that speaks little or no English not only increases total
enrollment but also increases the number of hours of ethnic mother-tongue
instruction.
PREDICTING SCHOOL CRITERIA VIA MULTIPLE

CORRELATION
The best predicted school criterion (Cum. R = .75) is the percentage of stu-
dents that already has at least moderate speaking facility in the ethnic mother
tongue upon entering the school (Table 16). Such pre-school facility is, of course,
substantially related to at least similar facility upon graduation. Less redund-
antly, pre-school facility in the ethnic mother tongue is substantially negatively
related to prior mastery of English, to the number of schools maintained by the
particular ethnic community, to non-European ethnic community sponsorship
and to the copresence of several ethnic groups in the same school. On the other
hand, such pre-school mastery of the ethnic mother tongue is positively related
to Spanish community sponsorship and to the degree of increase in total mother
tongue claiming between i960 and 1970. All in all, the above predictors fall
into a distinctive pattern that points to recent immigration, lack of English
mastery, Spanish community affiliation, under-representation in terms of the
number of schools sponsored by the ethnic community relative to its number of
mother-tongue claimants, and presence of single, strong ethnic community ties
(rather than multilingual schools). Generally speaking, the above picture does
not suggest that second or subsequent generation children typically arrive at
ethnic community mother-tongue schools speaking the ethnic mother tongue
at least moderately well.
The predictive pattern for pre-school mastery of English (at least "mode-
rately well") corresponds, in large part, to the pattern for pre-school mastery of
the ethnic mother tongue (Table 17). The final cumulative multiple R of .73 is
derived from positive correlations with the extent to which English is spoken at
least "moderately well" at graduation and the number of sessions per week that
schools are in session. On the other hand, this same multiple R (and the criterion
that it relates to) is to a substantial degree negatively related to pre-school
speaking knowledge (at least "moderately well") of the ethnic mother tongue
j . The Community Resources of Ethnic languages in the USA 247
Table 16. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: Percent of Tintering Students
Speaking EMT at Least "Moderately Well"
Order of Cum Cum

I Percentage E M T "moderately well" at

graduation .66 .66 •43 3IO-57
2 Percentage English "moderately well" on
entry -.40 -•71 .50 194-75
3 Spanish ethnic-community schools .26 •7 1 •51 135.21
4 Increase in mother-tongue claimants:
1960-1970 .10 •72 •5 2 106.19
5 Percentage of claimants of "mixed"
percentage -•15 •73 •53 88.12
6 Non-European ethnic community schools -.18 •73 •54 76.62
7* Factor 7 .09 •74 •55 67.74
8 Ethnic community has a liturgical
language/variety -.03 •75 •56 60.98
9 Number of schools sponsored by ethnic
community -•27 •75 .56 55-67
10 Polish ethnic-community schools -•13 •76 •57 50.88
II** Multilingual school ( = more than one
non-English language) -.16 .76 •57 47-24
* The factor analytic method employed was that of unrotated principal axes. Seventeen factors were
extracted. The items with the highest loadings on Factor 7 are: (a) Polish E M T respondents:
loading — .285 3 5 and (b) German E M T reipondents: loading .26431. A possible name of this factor
might be "Recent Protestant Immigration."
* * N o other variable met the .05 significance level for entry into the model.
and the extent to which there are third-generation claimants of the ethnic
mother tongue. The only surprising ingredient in the above pattern is the
school itself. Since we are dealing here with pre-school mastery of English, the
importance of number of sessions/week must indicate that the very consti-
tuency that is most oriented toward utilizing day schools (variously referred to
as parochial, all-day, full-week) for their children is usually so substantially
English-speaking that their children already have at least moderate English-
speaking facility prior to attending these schools. Day schools usually have
important. English-related goals (while maintaining social-cultural boundaries
vis-à-vis the mainstream) and they are, therefore, also attractive for anglified
ethnics and their children. If we remember that day schools are primarily
Amerindian, Jewish, Old Order Amish, Old Order Mennonite (both Pennsyl-
vania German) and Hutterite, we will realize why it is that their students
Table 17. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: Percent of Entering Students
Speaking English at least "Moderately Well'
Order of Cum Cum

I Percentage English "moderately well" at

graduation .65 .65 .42 284.72
2 Percentage EMT "moderately well" at
graduation -.40 .69 .48 181.40
3 Percent native-born claimants, 1970 -•44 •72 •5* 140.17
4 Reports new schools started during past
year -.05 •72 •52 108.}4
5* Factor 14 -.08 •73 •53 88.22
6** Frequency of sessions •25 •73 •53 74-99
* The factor analytic method employed was that of unrotated principal axes. Seventeen factors were
extracted. The items with the highest loadings on Factor 14 are: (a) French E M T schools, Loading
— .45496; (b) Armenian E M T schools, loading .30617; and (c) German E M T schools, loading
.30142. A possible name for this factor might be "Schools of relatively recent non-Catholic
immigrants."
more frequently speak English upon entering the " E M T school" than do the
children attending other school types.
When we turn to the prediction of ethnic mother-tongue speaking facility
("moderately well") by the time of graduation, it is clear that the pattern has
changed considerably (Table 18). While pre-school speaking facility is still the
most substantial positive predictor in arriving at a final cumulative R of .71,
both the total number of years of E M T instruction and the total number of
hours of E M T instruction make sizeable positive contributions as well.
Negative contributions to E M T speaking mastery ("moderately well") by the
time of graduation are made by the availability of local religious units (LRUs)
utilizing the EMT, sponsorship by European (rather than non-European com-
munities), and the establishment of multilingual schools with weak links to any
single ethnic community. The most surprising ingredient in the above predict-
ive pattern is the negative role of local religious units vis-à-vis E M T speaking
facility. Seemingly, LRUs are more anglifed than the schools themselves and/
or they utilize an ecclesiastic or ritual language/variety that does not foster
speaking facility in the E M T per se. This would certainly be so in the case of
Jews, Pennsylvania German, and many Eastern Orthodox/Eastern Catholics.
Finally, we turn to the prediction of English speaking (at least "moderately
well") upon graduation (Table 19: final cumulative R = .71). Except for the
percentage of students who already spoke English "at least moderately well"
Table 18. Formará Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: Percentage of Graduating
Students Speaking EMT at least "Moderately Well"
Order of Cum Cum

I Percentage E M T "moderately well" on

entry .66 .66 •44 310.57
2 Number of LRU's of the E M T
community -.29 .68 .46 171.30
3 Total number of years of E M T in school's
program •23 .69 .48 124.04
4 School sponsored by non-European
ethnic community — -23 .70 .49 95-39
5 Total number of hours of E M T in
school's program •27 •71 •50 78.17
6 Multilingual school ( = more than one
non-English language) -.19 •I1 .50 66.66
7 Visitors welcome* .02 •71 •51 58.15
Table 19. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: Percentage of Graduating
Students Speaking English at least "Moderately Well"
Order of Cum Cum

I Percentage English "moderately well" on

entry .65 .65 •42 284.72
2 Total number of students -.41 .69 •47 173.16
3 Spanish ethnic-community schools -•43 •70 •49 125.12
4 Willing to help review our list of schools -•43 •7° •49 96.02
5 Total number of hours in school's E M T

program -•39 •71 .50 78.69
6 Level (elementary or secondary) of
program -.06 •71 •51 66.92
7 Number of E M T periodicals supported by

ethnic community -•33 •71 •51 58.44
* N o other variables met the .05 significance level for entry into the model.
2 jo II The Ethnic Revival and hanguage Maintenance in the USA
upon entering the school, all other significant predictors are negative. The total
number of students in the school, Spanish community sponsorship, total hours
devoted to E M T instruction and the number of E M T periodicals available to
the ethnic community are all negatively related to the proportion of students
speaking English at least "moderately well" upon graduation. Thus, just as we
have found that English and anglification are negatively related to E M T
achievement (Table 15), so now we see that E M T stress is, in turn, negatively
related to English-speaking facility.
This finding should probably be interpreted in terms of self-selection of
students (i.e., in terms of the sorting process whereby student with certain
characteristics wind up in schools with certain characteristics). Students derived
from homes and communities with greater historical depth in the U.S.A. not
only are more likely to arrive in their E M T schools speaking English at least
moderately well but also tend to attend schools with relatively minor E M T
stress. Conversely, students derived from homes and communities with lesser
historical depth in the U.S.A. not only more commonly arrive in their E M T
schools not speaking English at least moderately well, but also tend to attend
schools with relatively greater E M T stress. By the time of graduation, the
former have made less E M T progress than the latter have progressed in
English. Nevertheless, the greater and the more recent the impact of immigra-
tion on the make-up of the school, the less likely that its graduates will speak
English moderately well upon graduation.
All in all, the role of the E M T school as a guarantor or safeguard of
intergenerational language maintenance does not seem very great. As with the
E M T press and E M T radio/television, we seem to be faced with a larger (indeed,
increasing) number of units that make only the most modest contribution to
overt language maintenance. Pre-school (home-and-community based) E M T
mastery is a far stronger predictor of E M T mastery at graduation than is
anything the school does and such pre-school E M T mastery itself, is recency-
of-immigration related and, therefore, lack of English-mastery-at-home related
rather than typically an intergenerational phenonenon. Thus, while American
society—rather than the E M T school—ultimately provides the children of
non-English-language-related homes and communities with English, minority
ethnolinguistic society only provides them with their E M T s in generationally
fleeting or culturally atypical (nonparticipationist) cases. Yet such schools
continue to be founded, in greater numbers than in the past, particularly by
groups that are at two different extremes of the American time-depth con-
tinuum (old timers and newcomers). Perhaps the common denominator that
characterizes them is the availability of cultural boundaries—safeguarded on
the one hand and immigration transported on the other—which define an
ethnic cultural mission for their schools, a mission in which the E M T s play a
greater or lesser (but rarely and overriding) role. Indeed, there is far less E M T
utilization and more minority ethnocultural activity than E M T schools imply,

either by their numbers or by their emphases.
LOCAL RELIGIOUS UNITS UTILIZING LANGUAGES

OTHER THAN ENGLISH 20
O f all the ethnic community institutions that we studied, the most numerous by
far is the local religious unit ( = LRU). Given the almost legendary religious
diversity of the United States (few other countries, regardless of size, can boast
1200 religions; Melton 1980!) and given the greater demographic independence of
local religious units in comparison to the other types of units we have been
studying, it need not surprise us that even relatively small ethnic networks often
support a substantial number and variety of local religious units of their own.
As a result, we have located nearly 14,000 such units and the true total number
may still be a thousand or more off. A s major maintainers and defenders of
traditional values and behaviors more generally, local religious units could be
extremely important ethnic mother-tongue defenders and maintainers as well.
A s such, therefore, they deserve particularly careful scrutiny.
THE LOCAL RELIGIOUS UNIT AS AN ETHNIC

MOTHER-TONGUE BASTION
If ethnic-community mother-tongue schools have been little studied by

sociolinguists and other social scientists, then LRUs have, of late, been almost
totally ignored from the point of view of non-English language use and
language maintenance. More is the pity, since LRUs utilizing languages other
than English are very much a part of the American scene and, in a peculiar sense,
they constitute the most legitimized American expression of non-Anglo eth-
nicity. Both the value placed upon freedom of religion, on the one hand, as well
as the value placed upon separation of church and state, on the other hand, put
LRUs utilizing languages other than English in a relatively unassailable po-
sition. Less easily than any other ethnic institution can they be criticized as "un-
American," given the continued strength of the popular association between
Americanism, religious liberty and religious diversity. In addition to ubiquity
and protected moral and legal status, LRUs also foster a stabilization of
sociocultural patterns as a whole and counteract or mitigate the impact of the
rapid rate of social change which typifies modern life. LRUs can influence home
and community life more fully than do periodicals, radio/television programs
or even schools. Indeed, as we have noted earlier, LRUs frequently sponsor and
maintain schools in which non-English languages are taught, used and legiti-
mized. More than three-quarters of the schools we have located are under L R U
sponsorship and there is little doubt as to which is the chicken and which is the
egg in the symbiotic relationship between the two.
The fact that LRUs can be ubiquitous, moralizing, stabilizing, school-
supporting bulwarks for non-English language use and maintenance in the
U.S.A. does not mean that they do not present certain definite problems for
such maintenance. The very fact of unprecedented religious diversity in the
U.S.A. (unprecedented also as an interactive societal context for many ethnolin-
guistic minorities in the U.S.A.) may also be destabilizing to some extent. It
results in "peculiar" or at least novel ethnoreligious combinations: Protestant
Armenians, a growing proportion of Protestant Hispanics, far-larger-than-
traditional proportions of Catholic Christian Arabs and Christian Chinese, etc.
These new or atypical ethnoreligious possibilities probably destabilize ethno-
traditional society and, in the long run, tend to close the cultural (and, therefore,
the language use) gap between ethnic and mainstream society. It has already
become clear that not a single mainstream Protestant group has successfully
maintained a non-English language in its LRUs on a "3 + " ' intergenerational
basis. While there has been a Catholic about-face in conjunction with per-
missiveness toward and, on occasion even cultivation of non-English language
efforts in local church activities (an "about-face" certainly relative to the period
up to the early 60s), nevertheless, no predominantly Western ("Roman")
Catholic group has been able to reach the third generation benchmark in LRU
language maintenance with the possible exception of isolated Chicano com-
munities whose rurality/separation (rather than whose LRUs) must be credited
for their language maintenance.
Generally speaking, LRUs have yet to demonstrate long-term dedication to
non-English language maintenance in the U.S.A. outside of Eastern Orthodox,
Jewish, Islamic, Far Eastern, Traditional Amerindian and nonparticipationist
Protestant circles—that is, outside of groups that are separated from the
mainstream by many boundaries in addition to religion. Even in the latter
religious groupings, the vernaculars perse (in contrast to their liturgical varieties)
are really not well protected and, at best, are assisted more by genetic similarity
to their corresponding liturgical counterparts or by established diglossia pat-
terns involving the vernaculars in sanctity-proximate contexts, rather than by
L R U focus on these vernaculars in their own right. Probably the most note-
worthy abandonment of a vernacular by a religious body during the past quarter-
century was the final "liberation" of the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church from
its German-speaking origins. This was the culmination of a long and painful
historical trend, set in motion by the First World War and accelerated by the
Second World War, which has resulted in the Missouri Synod today having
hardly any German L R U s at all while having, at least temporarily, quite a
number of Spanish and Vietnamese ones (see Haugen 1953 and Hofman 1966 for
similar "liberations" among American Scandinavian churches). All in all, non-

English vernaculars are most often simply pragmatic/customary instruments
rather than necessary ¡sacred ones for most LRUs that employ them and, therefore,
they may be discontinued when they do not "serve" or, indeed, when they
impede, or when it is feared they might impede,these LRUs from attracting and
serving larger clienteles. In modern America, LRUs compete for clienteles,
much as businesses do, and minority vernaculars can be viewed as hindrances in
such competition. Faced by displacive anglification in the community and,
often, by rising residential dispersion and intermarriages with English-
speaking Americans, even the most EMT-conscious churches cannot but turn
to greater use of English as the only route to survival. At some point, therefore,
LRUs may cease to be bulwarks and, instead may well become perpetrators of
a coup-de-grâce. At this very moment, Greek churches and Armenian
churches are making crucial decisions in this connection.
The fact that liturgical languages are substantially better protected than are
vernaculars against discontinuation on pragmatic grounds does not mean that
they are totally free from such treatment. The diminution that Hebrew has
experienced in Conservative and Reform worship (accounting for at least two-
thirds of all synagogue members in the U.S.A.) has its counterparts today in a
growing number of LRUs associated with other classicals. These liturgical
languages may never be completely discarded (although that has been the
official fate of Latin in Western Catholic LRUs), but they may nevertheless
become increasingly vestigial. Buddhist-related sacred languages may also be
undergoing a similar process today, as are various Native American liturgical
languages, but little precise information is available about them at present.
All of the above cautions are not meant to detract from the crucial role of
LRUs as possibly the primary extrafamilial institutions of language mainte-
nance in the U.S.A., but, rather, to place this role in its realistically problematic
sociointeractive context. There are some 333,000 local religious units in the
U.S.A. today (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1980, p. 56). Some 5% of
these utilize languages other than English to some extent and in one way or
another. This small proportion, although probably larger in absolute terms
than ever before and quite staggeringly large all in all, is exposed to mighty
influences from society at large (except in the case of nonparticipationist sects)
and to the example set by the 95% of all LRUs that now utilize English only,
even though many of them are descended from units that formerly did employ
non-English languages. Thus, it is probably unwise to expect LRUs themselves
to serve as impregnable bastions of language maintenance. That is rarely their
avowed purpose, and, even where (in a very few instances) that is the case, it is
probably beyond their power to be such. Ethnic-community-based language
maintenance may benefit considerably from a non-English language using
L R U , but the continuation of such use depends not only on its liturgical
2 54 H The Ethnic Revival and luinguage Maintenance in the USA
acceptability but, ultimately, on much broader issues related to immigration,

social interaction and economic (as well as geographic) mobility. These factors
ultimately determine the LRU's language pattern. We examine some of these
patterns below.
NUMBER OF LRUs UTILIZING LANGUAGES OTHER

THAN ENGLISH
The massive Jewish (Hebrew and Yiddish) contribution to the world of ethnic
mother-tongue schools (46%) has its somewhat smaller counterpart in the
world of LRUs (3 2%). Accordingly, larger representations in the latter world
are attained by Pennsylvania German, Amerindian, Greek, Chinese and
Ukrainian (all of which are over-represented) and by Spanish and Polish as well
(although they are both under-represented as before). Also over-represented,
although numerically small in absolute terms, are Albanian, Armenian, Finnish,
Korean, Rumanian and Tibetan (Table 20). The latter, it should be remembered,
is also a sacred language for varieties of Buddhism. Sanctity is also claimed for
Arabic (in Moslem worship), Aramaic, Ge'ez, Latin, Old Church Slavonic and
Sanskrit, many of which do not appear in any other institutions and are note-
worthily also absent in the E M T community school world as well.
Under-represented are all the rest, including those of the big six not yet
mentioned above as under-represented, namely French, German 2 1 and Italian.
Once again, therefore, (and for the fourth time) we are confronted by the
under-representation of the large, mainstream-proximate groups and the over-
representation of the small, nonmainstream (and, usually, recently immi-
grational) groups. The lesson to be learned from this recurring finding cannot
be ignored.
DENOMINATIONAL DIVERSIFICATION—
UNIFORMATION OF LRUs: INTERGROUP A N D
INTRAGROUP PERSPECTIVES
The degree of denominational diversification of L R U s is striking, certainly for

anyone who is familiar with the state of affairs in this connection prior to
exposure to mainstream America. Monodenominationalism (or essentially that)
is encountered only for Albanian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Finnish,
Hebrew, Karshuni, Latin, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malayalam, Norwegian,
Pennsylvania German, Polish, Sanskrit, Slovenian, Swedish, Tibetan,
Vietnamese and Yiddish (to mention only languages represented by more than 5
7· The Community Resources of Ethnic languages in the USA 255
LRUs). Normally, Protestant groups seem, by and large, to have remained so.
However, several languages that normally had no (or small) indigenous
Protestant constituencies seem to have acquired such in the U.S.A.: e.g.,
Armenian, Chinese, Haitian Creole, Japanese, Korean, Pilipino, Portuguese,
Rumanian, Slovak, and Spanish (not to mention Amerindian, in the case of
which Protestantization is a long established trend related to Christianization
more generally). Six of the just-mentioned cases pertain to originally Catholic
groups, one to an originally Orthodox group and four to originally non-
Christian groups. Western Catholicism is also over-represented in several inst-
ances, e.g., among Arabic, Greek, Korean, Old Church Slavonic, and
Ukrainian. Several of the above instances represent "Byzantine Catholic"
branches of Western Catholicism, and, as such, they are of course quite tradi-
tional in their respective communities. On the other hand, the proportions of
their representation in the U.S.A. are quite a lot larger than has traditionally
obtained.
In terms of overall, nationwide figures, most units are Protestant (34%). If
Christianity-related units alone are considered, this is even more true (51%).
Nevertheless, even though some groups have undergone a degree of
Protestantization in the U.S.A., most of the Protestant-related LRUs that utilize
a language other than English are either Amerindian, Pennsylvania German,
Spanish or Chinese. 22 Otherwise, we are dealing with smallish groups often
marked by recent immigration, racial distinction, schismatic conviction or
commemorization of vernacular. The latter typifies most of the Scandinavian
LRUs (but also Frisian and Wendish) which designate services once or twice a
year for mother-tongue use. Although these services commonly attract larger
than usual numbers of worshippers and have about them a more than usually
festive air, they are nevertheless indicative of vernaculars that have become far
more symbolic than communicative in any of the usually interactive senses of
the word.
Catholicism (by which we mean Western or Roman Catholicism) remains
ethnolinguistically diversified, although certainly not so much in the church as a
whole as in the world of its LRUs utilizing languages other than English.
Although Spanish looms large in this sphere (42% of the Catholic total) several
other languages also make considerable contributions: Polish, Italian, French,
"Amerindian" and even such Byzantine Catholic tongues as Ukrainian and Old
Church Slavonic. Indeed, this continued (and certainly still growing) linguistic
diversification of American Catholicism refutes both the older preferences and
policies of the Church leadership (DeMarco i960, Lemaire 1966, Nahirny and
Fishman 1966) as well as the predictions of sociologists of religion (Herberg
1955). To some extent this is due to the relatively new worldwide church
emphasis on vernacular (rather than Latin) services. T o some extent it reflects
new immigration of Catholics to the U.S.A. To some extent it also reflects the
new spirit of ethnicity (Polish American Congress 1968, Wenk 1972), even
though in many cases, this may entail more of a reversion to a first language,
after retirement from the active workforce and from the competitive daily,
interactive "rat race" in mainstream America, than its intergenerational
continuity.
Eastern Orthodoxy (which in Table 20 also subsumes such other churches as
Coptic and the Churches of the East) is, first and foremost, associated with
Greek (43%) although largish Amerindian, Armenian, Carpatho-Rusyn, Old
Church Slavonic, Russian and Ukrainian contingents are also present. The
Amerindian representation can be traced back to the Russian presence in
Alaska (early 18th century to 1867). Languages other than English continue to
play a role in Eastern churches, although there is already a goodly number,
primarily Russian, in which this is no longer the case. For Eastern Churches,
with their tradition of being ethnoreligious (more so than is the case for
Western churches), anglification also implies de-ethnification and, therefore, a
sharp historical break rather than merely a linguistic one. As for "Other
Christian" LRUs, this designation is an umbrella term that includes Mormons,
Seventh Day Adventists and, in the Amerindian case, a variety of indigenous
Christian groups. In none of these cases does a strong language focus obtain as
in the Eastern Orthodox sphere.
"Asian" LRUs are primarily Japanese (68%) and Chinese (16%), but may
well be undercounted in our data since neither Islam, Hinduism nor Buddhism
seem to have been fully enumerated due to the data-collection difficulties that
they represent for outside investigators. Continued Asian immigration may
make Asian languages even more important research targets in the U.S.A. than
they are today. The apparent Christianization of the speakers of these languages
in the U.S.A. may, accordingly, be a result of the underrepresentation of their
non-Christian counterparts and, therefore, more apparent than real. 2 3
Within the Jewish fold we should note the presence of Judezmo (often also
referred to as Ladino, Sephardic, or Judeo-Spanish), the vernacular of Eastern
Sephardim, a language previously almost unmentioned in our tables. Since this
language is disproportionately represented in the LRU sphere, it might be
appropriate to point out that unlike other languages of similar disproportionate
L R U association (e.g., Latin, Sanskrit, etc.), Judezmo is a vernacular rather
than a sanctified classical.
All in all, and notwithstanding the caveats expressed throughout our discus-
sion, there are evidences of Protestantization (and of more rapid anglification as
a result), of continued (and ever growing) linguistic diversification within
Western Catholicism and of a strong and often overlooked stability among
Eastern churches. The extent to which the languages employed in all of these
LRUs, and in non-Christian LRUs as well, are ritualized or still vernacular in
nature, will be considered in the sections that follow.
Table 20. Local Religious Units by Language and Denomination
Other
Language Protestant Catholic Orthodox* Christian Asian Jewish Totals
Albanian 18 '9
Amerindian 1,014 143 81 34 1,272
Amharic I I
Arabic 66 10 4 80
Aramaic II 17 28
Armenian 21 4 89 114
Bisayan 2 2
Bulgarian I I
Carpatho-Rusyn 3 62 65
Chamorro 7 7
Chinese 343 8 2 22 375
Croatian 37 37
Czech I 34 35
Danish 6 6
Estonian 5 5
Finnish 71 71
French 5 169 174
Frisian I I
Ge'ez 1 I
German 196 65 261
Greek I 34 443 478
Haitian Creole 4 4 8
Hebrew 3> 2 °9
Hindi 2 2
Hmong 1 I 2
Hungarian '7 56 73
Ilocano I I
Irish I I
Italian 267 267
Japanese 5° 4 93 147
Judezmo 20 20
Karshuni 7 7
Korean 12 14 26
Laotian 2 2
Latin 10 10
Latvian '7 I 18
Lithuanian 56 56
Macedonian I I
Malayalam 16 16
Marshallese I I
Mortlockese I I
Norwegian 12 12
Old Church Slavonic 131 "7 2,8
Palauan 2 2
Pa. German 1,705
Table 20. (cont.)
Other
Language Protestant Catholic Orthodox* Christian Asian Jewish Totals
Pitipino 9 2 II
Polish 462 462
Ponapean I I
Portuguese 3 55 I 59
Punjabi 2 2
Rumanian 3 II II
Russian 2 I 97 I ΙΟΙ
Ruthenian 3 3
Sanskrit 6 6
Serbian 2 2
Slovak 53 75 128
Slovenian II 11
Spanish** 1.075 1.414 2 î.491
Swedish 13 13
Tagalog 3 3
Thai I I
Tibetan 6 6
Tongan I I
Trukese I I
Ukrainian I 124 89 214
Ulithian I I
Vietnamese 44 I 45
Welsh 2 2
Wendish I I 2
Yápese I I
Yiddish 1,168 1,168
Totals 4,646 3.346 1.075 39 136 4>398 13,638
* Includes other Eastern churches.

** Spanish entries include Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. Corresponding figures for the 50 states alone are:
Protestant 1,059, Catholic 1,166, Other Christian 2, Total 2,227.

UNITS A N D SOME INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG
THEM
The average year of founding among the 962 responding LRUs 2 3 " was 1917, with
a few units dating back to the 18th century and quite a number (25% in all) to
the 19th century. Apparently, current L R U s represent the longest continuing
tradition of non-English resources in the U.S.A., older by quite a bit than the
average age of extant schools or periodicals. Almost all L R U s are organization-
ally affiliated, a little less than half being Western Catholic, a little more than a
fifth being Protestant, about 1 2 % being Eastern Orthodox, 8% Jewish, 2 4

and the rest being scattered among smaller Christian groups, Moslems and
Eastern religions. The average membership size was 1406, with a range from 5
to 30,000.
On a five point self-rating scale, our respondents yielded an average rating of
4.3 (between always and often) with respect to using a language other than English
in their services. Roughly similar self-ratings obtained for home/family tradi-
tions and rituals (4.0) and for sermons or oral announcements (4.0). Several
areas of L R U activity were self-rated between often and rarely, e.g.,
educational/cultural activities for adults (3.7); family interaction at home (3.8);
recreational/social activities for adults (3.7); vocational/personal guidance for
adults (3.6); publications/newsletters of the L R U (3.4): and educational/cultural
activities for children (3.1). T w o areas of activity were self-rated between rarely
and never, namely recreational/social activities for children (3.0); and
vocational/personal guidance for children (2.8). A rather clear progression is
noticeable from the above. Services/ritual activities are rated higher (i.e., more
often ethnic-language using) than are educational/cultural activities. The latter,
in turn, are rated higher than vocational/personal activities. Activities involv-
ing adults are uniformly rated higher than those specifically focused on chil-
dren. Where both adults and children are copresent (e.g., during services, and
at home), the ethnic language still tends to be used often. When only children
are present, it tends to be used rarely. Clearly, non-English language use in the
total activities of our responding L R U s is positively correlated with age of
interlocutors.
Quite a number of our responding LRUs utilize two languages other than English
and do so in at least three areas, and when this is the case (usually due to
recently arrived "other ethnics"—i.e., parishioners of a different ethnicity than
the one a particular L R U was originally associated with—but occasionally also
due to ¿»/ragroup diglossia arrangements), these languages tend more often to
be used at home and with children. In very few cases (5%) are plans reported to
discontinue using either language. Quite the contrary. In some 2 5 % of all cases,
increased use of the primary non-English language was being planned and
usually in services or sermons. With respect to the primary non-English
language, an average of 44% of the members were said to speak it natively with
some 2 3 % having learned it as a second language. Where additional non-
English languages were involved, only 2 3 % of the members (on an average)
were claimed as speaking them natively and 1 6 % as having learned them as
second languages. Claimed reading knowledge lagged far behind claimed
speaking knowledge in both cases.
Neither year of establishment nor organizational affiliation tend to have
significant correlates, but denomination does, at least insofar as Western
Catholic LRUs are concerned. The latter tend to have more members (r = .34),
2Óo II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Table 21. Interfunctional Linkages in Non-English Language Use
Β C D E F G H I J Κ
A. Services .66 .50 •44 .41 •37 •45 •41 .46 •43
B. Sermons, announcements — .62 .41 .61 •49 .60 .46 •57 •5° •55
C. Adult educational, cultural activities — .62 .68 •59 •74 .62 .56 .62 •54
D. Child educational, cultural activities —
•49 •71 •52 •75 •49 •50 • 42
E. Adult vocational, personal guidance — .68 •74 •57 •55 •56 •57
F. Child vocational, personal guidance — .61 •79 •54 •51 •55
G. Adult recreational, social activities — .67 .58 .61 •57
H. Child recreational, social activities — •55 •51 •49
I. Publications, bulletins, newsletters — •54 , 4 8
J. Home rituals — ,6 }
K. Daily family interaction
as well as to serve larger ethnic groups (.42), groups that have more broadcast-
ing (.37), more periodical publications (.37) and more total increase in number
of mother-tongue claimants from 1960-1970 (.35). Perhaps it should be pointed
out that none of the above characteristics is unduly related to serving Hispanics
(.30) since Polish, French and Italian LRUs are also well represented in our
sample. The only other noteworthy denominational correlate is the tendency
for Jewish LRUs not to be organizationally related (—.25): i.e., to be free-
standing units in the traditional Orthodox pattern. Denominationally related as
well is the fact that LRUs that do utilize liturgical languages ( J e w s , Eastern
Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Asian religions) tend not to be the larger ethnolin-
guistic groups in the U.S.A. (— .40). However, such groups do tend to have larger
proportions of foreign-born individuals (.52), that is, to be associated with
more reCent immigrants.
There seems to be an appreciable tendency for our responding LRUs to claim
to use their associated non-English languages across the entire gamut of
functions, if they use them at all. Nevertheless, there are still differences between
functions and functions, i.e., some functions are more linked to each other and
some are more independent of each other in this very respect. As Table 21
indicates, the greatest linkage exists between adult educational/cultural ac-
tivities and all other activities (with six of which correlations of .60 or higher
obtain). The highest linkage for child-related activities is in the area of recre-
ational and social programs (with 4 of which correlations of .60 or higher
obtain, two of these being with educational/cultural activities for children, on
the one hand, and vocational/personal guidance for children, on the other
hand). Indeed, these are the highest intercorrelations in the table so that it is
particularly true that if the ethnic language is usedfor any activities related to children, it
is usedfor the other activities as well. On the other hand, as we have noted before,
non-English languages are less likely to be used in child-focused activities than

in adult-focused activities.
The least linkages appear in the areas of L R U publications (no correlations
above .60) and services (only 1 correlation above .60, namely, with use of non-
English languages in sermons). Services may well be constrained by broader
policy considerations that go beyond the local L R U itself. Thus, entire religious
bodies frequently shift out of, or remain attached to, non-English use in their
liturgies, as a result of top-policy decisions that local units are not at liberty to
modify. As for the language of local publications, it may be erratically in-
fluenced by the availability of requisite personnel (e.g., typists who can type the
ethnic mother tongue) or equipment (typewriters for the ethnic mother
tongue).
Aside from other functions in the LRUs themselves, conducting services in a
language other than English is most highly correlated with whether par-
ishioners can read that language (r = .33), while giving sermons in a language
other than English is most highly correlated with whether they can speak it
(.42). Whether the target populations can speak and read a given non-English
language are the two highest non-LRU correlates with respect to conducting
L R U functions in that language. Generally the correlation with speaking is
higher than that with reading, but services and publications are exceptions: both of
them require literacy more than speaking skills. A 1960-1970 increase in
foreign-born claimants of any particular ethnic language is also appreciably
correlated with whether child activities are conducted in that language
(educational/cultural = .29; vocational/personal guidance = .32; recreational/
social = .34; family interaction = .31). Finally, LRUs utilizing more than one
non-English language usually, because they are serving more than one ethno-
linguistic group, tend to use the "other ethnic" language in more functions
(.29), more frequently in child/family-related functions (.37), and plan to
increase the number of these functions even further (.41). 2 5
PREDICTING LRU CRITERIA VIA MULTIPLE

CORRELATION
Five LRU functions (all of them yielding cumulative multiple correlations (Cum
R) of .60 or higher will be examined from the point of view of (a) the entire set
of questions contained in our L R U questionnaire plus (b) various demographic
characterizations available to us from the 1970 U.S. Census. These functions
will be examined in order of decreasing magnitude of the overall multiple
correlations obtained.
The use of a non-English language for vocational/personal guidance for
children (Table 22) is clearly related to use of that language in other non-
liturgical functions, both in the parishioners' homes. Where such a relationship
2Ó2 II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
T a b l e 22. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: LRU Use of a Non-English
Language (NEL) in Vocational/Personal Guidance for Children
Order of Cum Cum

Entry N a m e o f Variable r R R2 F
I Recreational/social activities f o r child-

ren in N E L •79 •79 .63 1,622.50
2 V o c a t i o n a l / p e r s o n a l g u i d a n c e f o r adults
in N E L .68 .84 •71 1,161.88
3 E d u c a t i o n a l / c u l t u r a l activities f o r
adults in N E L •71 .85 •73 848.96
4 Size o f m e m b e r s h i p o f L R U .16 .86 •73 657.41
5 Recreational/social activities f o r adults
in N E L .61 .86 •74 5 3 5 -iS
6 E M T is usual l a n g u a g e o f f a m i l y / h o m e
interaction •55 .86 •74 457-72
7 H e b r e w is l a n g u a g e associated w i t h
LRU — .1 I .86 •74 595.88
8* Factor 5 -.09 .86 •75 348.91
F r e n c h is l a n g u a g e associated w i t h
LRU — .12 .86 •75 312.58
10* Factor 7 -.14 .87 •75 283.42
E d u c a t i o n a l / c u l t u r a l activities f o r child-
ren in N E L •59 .87 •75 259.29
12 A m e r i n d i a n is l a n g u a g e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
LRU -.07 .87 •75 239.17
13 P r o p o r t i o n o f m e m b e r s that speak
s e c o n d N E L natively — .004 .87 •75 221.88
14** W i l l i n g n e s s t o b e o f assistance t o
project •14 .87 •75 206.96
* The factor analytic method employed was that of unrotated principal axes. Ten factors were
extracted. The items with highest loadings on Factor ; are: (a) number of functions in which
increased use of N E L is being planned, loading .55789; (b) functions planned for increase are
primarily child- and home-oriented, loading .53283; and (c) percentage of individuals in ethnolin-
guistic group of generationally mixed (first and second generation) parentage, loading — .48046. A
possible name for this factor might be " L R U s experiencing increase in N E L use." The items with
highest loadings on Factor 7 are: (a) functions of non-English language are home-and-child-
oriented, loading —.50498; (b) number of functions in which non-English language is employed,
loading — .47266; and (c) Ukrainian is associated with L R U . A possible name for this factor might
be " L R U s associated with meager use of their non-English language both in the L R U as well as in
parishioners' homes because of its liturgical nature." Note that liturgical use loads .32953 on this
factor and Eastern Catholicism: .34429.
Table 25. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: LRU Use of Non-English
Language ( NEL ) in Kecreational\Social Activities for Adults
Order of Cum Cum

I Educational/cultural activities for adults

in NEL •74 •74 •55 1,178.18
2 Vocational/personal guidance for adults
in NEL •74 .81 •65 895.18
3 Recreational/social activities for children
in NEL •67 .83 .69 698.53
4 Home/family traditions and rituals in
NEL .61 .83 •70 547-07
5 Number of schools sponsored by ethno-
linguistic group -.07 .84 •70 456.37
6 Vocational/personal guidance for
children in NEL .61 .84 •71 39'-33
7 German is the language associated with
the LRU -.04 .85 •72 342.50
8 Proportion of members speaking NEL
non-nafively •15 .85 •72 305.07
9 Proportion of members reading NEL .42 .85 •72 274·79
10 Educational/cultural activities for
children in NEL •52 .85 •72 249.82
II Publications/newsletters/bulletins in
NEL .58 .85 •73 229.08
12 Ethnolinguistic group is non-European -.11 .85 •73 212.49
13 Increase in native-born claimants,
1960-1970 -.06 .85 •73 197-79
'4* Number of functions for which in-
creased NEL use is planned — .01 .86 •73 184-93
does not obtain (Hebrew, French, Ukrainian, certain Amerindian groups) and
where membership size is low, this function is discharged, if at all, in English.
These few items explain a huge amount (over 75 %) of the variance with respect
to this criterion.
The use of a non-English language in connection with recreational/social
activities for adults (Table 23) is practically as predictable as the foregoing
function but it is based, at least in part, on quite a different set of items. Among
the predictive functions that appear in this connection (but that did not appear in
conjunction with predicting vocational/personal guidance for children via such
a language) are use of the non-English language in the L R U s ' own

publications/newsletters and bulletins (these presumably being major avenues
of publicizing social and recreational activities for adults) and use of the non-
English language in some traditions and rituals. Other major predictors of this
criterion are the proportion of members that speak the non-English language
natively, the proportion that can read it and the non-European extraction of the
ethnolinguistic group (negatively correlated with criterion). All in all, some
three-quarters of the variance in the use of a non-English language in connec-
tion with LRU-conducted recreational and social activities for adults is explained
via a rather small subset of predictors.
Turning next to use of a non-English language for sermons and oral an-
nouncements (Table 24), we note that its two best predictors are whether
services are conducted in a non-English language (.66) and Factor 1, "Demo-
graphic and institutional size of the ethnolinguistic group" (.63). Skipping over
other L R U functional predictors (e.g., steps 5, 8, and 9), the remaining major
predictors are the proportion of L R U members that speak a second N E L other
than the LRU's primary one ( — .22), the proportion who are non-native
speakers of the primary non-English language (.15) and the multilinguality of
the church due to the copresence of several ethnolinguistic groups ( — .15). All
in all, it would seem that monoethnic LRUs in which the services themselves are
held in non-English languages, serving either rather sizeable and organiza-
tionally active ethnolinguistic groups or rather small groups outside of the
American mainstream, are most likely to hear sermons and oral announcements
in a language other than English. Interestingly enough, current generational
composition does not seem to play any role, although 1960-1970 total increase in
mother-tongue claiming and, particularly, in foreign-born mother-tongue claiming
correlate moderately (mid .20s) with this criterion.
Turning penultimately to providing educational/cultural activities for child-
ren in a non-English language (Table 25), we find that this is best predicted
through a combination of just such activities for adults (.62) plus use of a non-
English language in social/recreational activities, whether for adults (.52) or for
children (.75). The other functional areas that predict this criterion are use of a
non-English language in vocational/personal guidance for children (.71) and in
religious services per se (.44). The only appreciable predictor from outside the
fold of L R U functions is Factor 4 ("Jewish/Israeli community L R U s " ) , which
correlates .34 with the criterion. Indeed, there is something Jewish about this
criterion (note that Hebrew correlates . 1 1 with it), perhaps because the vast
majority of Jewish L R U s also sponsor schools and it is the rare Jewish-
sponsored school, indeed, that does not use some Hebrew (or, less frequently,
Yiddish) as the (co-) language of instruction or of school events. Mainstream
Protestantism correlates negatively with this criterion ( — .14), whereas Islam
and minor "other Christian" groups correlate negligibly with it, whether
positively or negatively. All in all, therefore, use of a non-English language in
Table 24. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: LRU Use of Non-English
Language (NEL) for Sermons and Oral Announcements
Order of Cum Cum

I Religious services are in a non-English

language .66 .66 •44 746.03
2* Factor 1 .63 .76 .58 653·47
3 N u m b e r of LRUs sponsored by ethnolin-
guistic g r o u p — .02 .80 .64 5 7°·74
4 German is language associated with LRU .002 .81 .66 459·°°
5 Educational/cultural activities for adults
are in N E L .62 .82 .67 388.46
6 Percentage of mother-tongue claimants
with one native-born and one foreign-
born parent .02 .82 .68 337·9 6
7 Native American language is associated
with LRU -•13 .83 .69 298.54
8 Family interaction at home is usually in a
NEL •55 .85 .69 269.84
9 Recreational/social activities for children
are in a N E L .46 .84 •70 245.04
10 Eastern Catholicism is associated with
LRU — .12 .84 .70 224.10
11 Proportion of L R U members w h o speak
a second N E L — .22 .84 •70 2Ο6·79
12 N u m b e r of functions for which primary
N E L is planned for discontinuation .02 .84 •71 192.24
.3* Factor 10 -.06 .84 •71 179-67
H Ethnolinguistic groups that are officially

nonparticipationist .03 .84 •71 Ι68.Ι7
M Non-Catholic, non-mainstream
Protestant, non-Orthodox Christianity .04 .85 •72 158.41
16 Multilingual church (over and above
traditional diglossia) -•15 .85 •72 149-95
1 7 ** Proportion of members speaking prin-
cipal N E L nonnatively •15 .85 .72 142.15
* T h e factor analytic method employed was that of unrotated principal axes. Ten factors were
extracted. The items with highest loadings on Factor 1 are:
(a) number of stations broadcasting in given languages, loading .75316;
(b) number of periodical publications in given languages, loading .72254; and
(c) Spanish as the language associated with the L R U , loading .702 ; 6. A possible name for this factor
might be "Demographic and institutional size of ethnolinguistic g r o u p . " The items with highest
loadings on Factor 10 are: (a) Greek is language associated with L R U , loading .60781; (b) Eastern
Orthodoxy is religion associated with L R U , loading .53902; (c) liturgical language is associated
with L R U , loading .29984. A possible name for this factor is "Eastern Orthodoxy hailing from
outside of the Iron Curtain." (Note that Communist occupation loads —.29022 on Factor 10.)
266 II The Ethnie Kevival and Language Maintenance in the USA
Table 2;. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: LRU Use of Νon-English
Language for Educational/Cultural Activities for Children
Order of Cum Cum

Ί Recreational/social activities for children

are in a N E L •75 •75 •57 ι,255·5<>
are in a N E L .62 .78 .60 725.05
3* Factor 4 •34 •79 .63 5 Î9-38
4 Vocational/personal guidance activities
for children are in a N E L •71 .81 .65 450.98
5* Factor ; .08 .81 .66 778.66
6 Protestantism is religion associated with
LRU - 1 4 .82 .67 328.88
7 Hebrew is language associated with
LRU .1 I .82 .68 287.81
8 Recreational/social activities for adults
are in a N E L •J* .83 .68 255.22
9 Number of functions in which an
additional language is planned for
discontinuation -.06 .83 .68 229.84
10 Religious services are in a N E L •44 .85 .69 209.06
II Islam is religion associated with LRU -.06 .83 .69 191.99
12** Non-Catholic, nonmainstream
Protestant, non-Orthodox Christianity .04 .83 .69 177.01
extracted. The items with highest loadings on Factor 4 are: (a) Hebrew is the language associated
with the ' L R U , loading .7700; ; (b) Judaism is the religion associated with the L R U , loading .73771 ;
(c) number of schools maintained by the ethnolinguistic group in the U.S.A., loading .74967; and
(d) number of L R U s maintained by the ethnolinguistic group in the U.S.A., loading .67725. A
possible name for this factor might be "Jewish/Israeli community L R U s , " although note should be
taken that non-European ethnolinguistic extraction has a loading o f . 5 ; 469 on this factor and is not
limited to Israelis by any means. The items with highest loadings on Factor ; are: (a) home and
family functions are expected to increase re N E L use, loading .54174; (b) number of functions in
which N E L use is planned for increase, loading .49374; and (c) proportion of members of
generationally mixed parentage, loading —.49168. The highest non-generational loading is for
native born (.24666). A possible name for this factor is "Renativization of a non-English language
by L R U serving the American b o r n . "
Table 26. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable: Use of Non-English
Language (NEL) in Home Rituals and Traditions
Order of Cum Cum

I N E L is usual language of family interac-

tion at home .63 .63 .40 628.70
in NEL .62 .69 •jo 486.54
3 Hebrew is language associated with LRU •03 •73 •53 355.62
4 Recreational/social activities for adults in
NEL .61 •74 •55 295.04
5* Factor 6 .11 .76 •57 254-95
6 Publications/bulletins/newsletters in N E L •54 .76 •58 218.78
7* Factor 2 — .12 .76 •58 191.75
8 Child- and home-oriented functions plan-
ning to increase N E L use •13 •77 •59 168.95
9 Willing to help us revise our LRU list for
their N E L .1 I •77 •59 151.20
10** Vocational/personal guidance for adults in
NEL .56 •77 •59 137.09
extracted. The items with the highest loadings on Factor 6 are (a) percentage of claimants of N E L as
mother tongue who have one foreign-born and one native-born parent (loading .48244); (b)
number of functions in which increased N E L use is anticipated (loading .35116); and (c) functions
in which increased N E L use is anticipated are child- and home-oriented (loading .39797). A possible
name for this factor is "Second and third generation language revival related to home-country
tribulations." Note that Polish language loads . 3 1 4 2 1 on this factor and communist rule in country
of origin loads .32381. The highest loading items on Factor 2 are (a) multilingual L R U due to
multiethnic nature of membership (loading .64509); (b) number of languages employed in L R U
(loading .60783); and (c) total size of mother-tongue group (loading .57617). This factor might
possibly be called " L a r g e ethnolinguistic groups nevertheless often in multiethnic L R U s . " Note
that Spanish loads . 5 5 3 94 on this factor while percent native-born among mother-tongue claimants
loads .50134
educational/cultural activity among children has both general and specific

antecedents and concomitants.
Finally, and somewhat related to the foregoing function, is the function of
non-English use for home and family rituals/traditions. This criterion is almost
entirely predicted by other L R U functions or by factor scores (Table 26). The
most predictive function of all is (understandably enough) whether a non-
English language is the usual language of family interaction (r = .63), but close
behind the foregoing is whether the non-English language is employed by the
LRU for educational and cultural activities for adults. Seemingly, traditional
ritual use of non-English languages at home derives from two sources, one
natural (the language is still used as the daily language of family interaction) and
one reinforced in adulthood via the L R U itself. A b o v e and beyond these and
other LRU-related functions, the criterion is also appreciably and positively
predicted by Factor 6 ("Second/third generation language revivals related to
home-country tribulations") and appreciably and negatively predicted by Factor 2
("Large ethnolinguistic groups nevertheless often in multiethnic LRUs"). Note
also that nothing succeeds like success: those LRUs whose members are most
likely to utilize non-English languages for home rituals and traditions are also
those most likely to expect an increase in such use in the near future. Note, finally,
that only a little more than half of the total variance on this criterion has been
accounted for, which is significantly less than was the case with the more LRU-
focused functions we considered before. LRU data is more predictive of other
LRU data than it is of home and family data; nevertheless, we have seen that the
two data sets are also appreciably interrelated.
RECURRING PREDICTORS OF LRU FUNCTIONS IN

NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGES
In every one of our criteria, there is one predictor that has recurred again and again:
educational and cultural activities for parents. LRUs that utilize their non-English
language for this function not only seem to utilize it more frequently for other
functions as well, but it is invariably a major predictor of these other functions.
Beyond this central function, insofar as L R U utilization of a non-English
language is concerned, the various functions tend to reinforce each other
appreciably. Another recurring predictor is the multilingual/multiethnic
nature of the L R U . This condition is contraindicative with respect to
sermons/announcements and home traditions/rituals. Seemingly it leads to
English as a common denominator and, therefore, to the more rapid dis-
continuation of non-English languages from the L R U s ' efforts. Size factors are
also of recurring importance: for one criterion the size of the local membership
is important and for another the size of the ethnolinguistic group perse. Various
individual languages (liturgical languages, Hebrew, French, Native American,
Spanish); religions (Jewish, Protestant); and ethnic groupings (non-European);
frequently achieve importance, indicative of the fact that certain groups epi-
tomize certain sociocultural experiences that are conducive or discouraging
insofar as L R U use of non-English languages is concerned. Generational factors
(including normative speakers) also crop up in a number of factors and as
predictors of a few criteria. A l l in all, therefore, the prediction of L R U criteria
has been accomplished not only to a substantial degree and in a parsimonious
manner but in conceptually meaningful ways as well.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS: DEMOGRAPHIC AND

SOCIOFUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
INSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE
Over and above all the foregoing details, it is crucial that the forest not be
missed out of concern for its trees. A number of findings and interpretations
stand out as truly significant.
The vastness—and the continued dynamic growth—of the institutional
non-English language resources of the U.S.A.—particularly of its ethnic com-
munity schools and churches—must certainly be stressed, but yet the ease with
which they can be (and are!) overlooked or ignored must also be acknowledged.
Indeed, it is hard to tell which is of greater significance. Their "overlookability"
can, of course, be attributed, in part, to the enormous size and populousness of
"mainstream America," but it is certainly due, even more, to the nonobstreper-
ous, nonstrident posture of non-anglo ethnicity in the U.S.A. Even now, after
having arrived at new visibility and greater dignity since the mid-sixties,
non-anglo ethnicity in the U.S.A. is generally so quiescent as to "fade into the
woodwork" for all except those who are looking for it or who know it is there.
Twenty-four thousand ethnic institutional units would rarely be so quiet unless
they were commonly viewed (and had come to view themselves) as merely an
aspect of everyday American life. They do not shout, by and large, but neither
because they have nothing to say nor, by and large, because they are in hiding.
They do not shout because what they have to say amounts to the quiet
affirmation that there are various ways of "being American" and, in the current
phase of American reality, non-English language ethnic-community insti-
tutions are very much within the normal range of "being American." Relative
to other periods in American history, there are proportionately fewer who
would contest this claim and fewer yet who would deny it, either to themselves
or to others.
Clustered primarily in half-a-dozen states, but found to some extent in every
state of the Union, non-English language ethnic-community institutions are
proportionately over-represented among nonmainstream Christian and non-
Christian groups. To some extent, this doubtlessly also points to race as an
additional interactional and communicational boundary, over and above eth-
nocultural considerations per se. However, the racially different Asian and
Pacific ethnolinguistic groups are also disproportionately rather recent arrivals
as well as non-Christian. Obviously, their language institutions are maintained
by multiple boundaries. But it is the strength of boundaries vis-à-vis main-
stream society rather than their number that is crucial. Ultra-Orthodox Jews
are characterized by structurally ferver boundaries between themselves and the
American mainstream than the Hmong (the former lacking racial distinction
that the latter have), and Hutterites or Amish possess fewer still (they are both
ζηο II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
White Protestant groups in a predominantly White Protestant country), and yet

the few that they have, foster amazingly many and amazingly vibrant insti-
tutional resources, indeed. The very ubiquity of large ethnolinguistic groups
often leads to arrangements that undercut institutional independence or sep-
arateness. Hispanics, for all their numbers (or, indeed, perhaps because of their
numbers), are proportionately more often encountered in multiethnic units
together with others, in mainstream churches not under their own leadership or
control. Clearly, institutional numbers and population numbers pertain to two
different demographic orders of reality. While both are important, one can also
vitiate or compensate for the other other.
THE PERIODICAL PRESS
Of the four sets of institutions that we have studied, the periodical press is by far
the smallest numerically. In addition, ethnic community periodicals employing
non-English languages not only tend to be of limited circulation and low
frequency of publication (weeklies, monthlies), but they require an increasingly
rare skill: active literacy in a language other than English. Since the same
cannot be said about the three other institional universes we have studied, it
pays to reflect why it is that periodicals are so atypically restricted (even though
we have found them to be more numerous than they were roughly a score of
years ago). One of the more likely explanations is that literacy traditions are
weak among most American ethnolinguistic minorities. 2 6 With the well-nigh
complete anglification of third-generation German, French, Yiddish and
Scandinavian language speakers in the U.S.A., none of the remaining groups
are both sufficiently literate and sufficiently sizeable to support much of a press.
In addition, budgetary problems plaguing the publication and distribution of
periodicals have been sufficiently severe in recent years, even for English
language units, that it comes as no surprise that those utilizing languages other
than English would find it exceedingly difficult to remain in operation. Finally,
each of the other institutions can hold an audience that only partly understands
its ethnic mother tongue, but the press often requires a higher functional level
of language mastery from its public. While English publications for ethnics do
exist, they are amazingly few in number and generally even smaller in size than
their E M T counterparts (unless they have undergone the metamorphosis into
"religious" rather than "ethnic" publications as, seemingly only the Anglo-
Jewish press has succeeded in doing to any great extent). Indeed, English
publications for ethnics are now introducing E M T pages or columns in order to
attract and hold a larger readership. This contrasts starkly with an earlier
pattern in which E M T publications introduced English columns, pages and
sections in order to attain similar goals.
All in all, the E M T press today is diluted (relative to its earlier status even as
y. The Community Resources of Ethnic L.anguages in the USA 271
recently as a quarter of a century ago) in terms of frequency of publication.

Nevertheless both its numbers and its circulation may well have increased. It
has shown a hardiness and an ingenuity that delights its constituency and
surprises those whose only intellectual and philosophical expectations vis-à-vis
the E M T press are that it diminish and die (Metzger 1971). Confounding
cocktail party wisdom, this press has managed to live and perhaps even to
expand (although this is not clear due to the inadequacy of earlier data).
Although it is dependent on demographic and fiscal considerations, it has
managed to elicit support, devotion and dedication, both from writers/editors
and from readers/advertisers. Institutions and organizations have stepped in
where individual funds and effort were lacking. There is a dynamic here: the
dynamic of struggle. The struggle to preserve community creates and
strengthens the experience of community. A t the same time the press as
an E M T institutional alternative does not remain unchanged. It is more
Americanized, even more anglified than its predecessors, but, like all gradual
cultural change that proceeds under its o w n control, it has preserved the sense
of continuity that is the epitome of all cultural experience and of minority
ethnocultural experience as well.
RADIO AND TELEVISION
N o single language dominates the periodicals field as does Spanish in the world
of radio and television. This is obviously a case of media and community that
seem "made for each other." In addition, since Spanish speakers are both
numerous and concentrated, a number of full-time stations have arisen in both
media in order to serve them. Otherwise, the typical non-English program is
broadcast no more than once a week, for no more than two hours, and claims no
more than 15,000 listeners/viewers. In either case—i.e., whether broadcasts
pertain to Spanish or to other languages—significantly more than half of their
broadcast time is devoted to ethnic songs and music. Obviously, we are dealing
with an undemanding institution. It does not require much from the listener,
neither in terms of language competence nor in terms of undivided attention,
and that may be the very secret of its success. Both non-English language radio
and non-English language television have grown and are continuing to grow at
a very healthy pace, and the current trend toward deregulation and smaller
stations should foster its further growth. Finally, it should be noted that the
incidence of broadcasting is highly correlated across languages with the in-
cidence of periodical publication, and it seems very likely that the former
subsidizes the latter. These two institutions also seem to be symbiotically
related in another sense, with periodicals primarily serving the first (and more
literate) generation and radio/television primarily serving the subsequent (and
less literate) ones.
ETHNIC-COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
The linkage between ethnic-community schools utilÌ2Ìng languages other than

English and ethnic-community religious units is even more intimate than the
above-mentioned linkage between broadcasting and ethnic-community peri-
odicals utilizing languages other than English. The linkage between broadcast-
ing and periodicals is no more than a marriage of convenience, a business
arrangement. The linkage between schools and houses of worship is a function-
ally organic one with the former needed (and often traditionally so) in order to
prepare for roles in the latter. As a result of this linkage, ethnic-community
schools are widely available (i.e., they are more culturally than demographically
determined) even though they are quite smallish in average enrollment (50-100
students).
Like broadcasting (and to a lesser extent, even like ethnic periodical publi-
cations), ethnic-community schools are not primarily oriented toward immigrant
children still highly fluent in their respective ethnic mother tongues. Indeed,
their students are primarily American-born and this is particularly so in the all-
day schools among them. The latter now seem to serve primarily students w h o
are English- dominant upon entering the schools. Students in these schools may
also most frequently attain ethnic mother-tongue fluency (or its literacy
counterpart in the case of ecclesiastic varieties) by graduation, since level of
language attainment seems to be rather closely related to the total number of
hours of exposure to school instruction. Nevertheless, the attainment of such
fluency is not necessarily a school goal. Day schools necessarily devote far more
time to English than to the ethnic mother tongue, since more than half of
their school day is preempted by state education department requirements. In
addition, religious sponsorship of such schools implies primary concern for
ritual/ecclesiastic use, so that vernacular speaking, writing or even understand-
ing facility are often either not stressed or are entirely beside the point. Finally,
many school principals are of the view that time spent on ethnic mother-tongue
instruction lowers achievement in English, and others, on the contrary, believe
that time spent on English undercuts ethnic mother-tongue achievement. Thus,
there is often an underlying tension between the two languages, as there is
between any curricular areas that must compete for school time. Clearly,
English is the functionally stronger of the two languages in the lives of most
pupils, but, on the other hand, it is the ethnic mother tongue that gives the
school part of its raison d'être and part of its claim on community support.
The universe of ethnic-community schools seems to be one that is still
expanding. The current widespread dissatisfaction with public schools may
have contributed to this growth in the day school area, but, basically, these
schools have their deeply indigenous community and religious roots and are
not dependent on outside circumstances for the bulk of their support. O n the
one hand, they have always been and will probably always remain a segment of
the American educational and community scene. On the other hand, they
neither focus on language maintenance, nor, were they to do so, would they be
able to guarantee it as an independent force. They may contribute to language
sophistication and, even, in small part, to the total language maintenance effort,
but they can do so only if family and community processes are strongly oriented
in that very direction and only if, as a result of such an orientation, the
sociocultural interactional boundaries on which language maintenance depends
are adequately maintained.
LOCAL RELIGIOUS UNITS
Language maintenance is also a secondary goal, at best, in the most ubiquitous,

most legitimized (i.e., accepted by the general community) and oldest es-
tablished ethnic-community institutions utilizing languages other than English:
the local religious unit. At such units, there is an appreciable tendency for non-
English languages to be employed across a rather extensive range of functions
(particularly if they are also employed for child-related functions), although
such use is most common of all in services and sermons. Non-Christian and
nonmainstream Christian groups are particularly likely to utilize non-English
languages in the latter functions (note the prevalence of Hebrew-using units
which are actually still undercounted due to the impossibility of locating the
hundreds of small quorums (minyonim) maintained by ultra-Orthodox) and,
additionally, in the child-related functions of their local religious units. On the
other hand, there are also at least two other common routes to non-English
language use in local religious units. One of these is the predictable route which
depends on recency of immigration (the greater the recency, the greater the
use). The other is the less predictable route that depends on home-country
tribulations (the greater the tribulations—e.g., those due to communist in-
spired deethnification, detraditionalization or vindictive denial of civil
liberties—the greater the use). The latter route often compensates for growing
distance from immigrant origins and evidently derives from a renewed non-
English language stress in educational and cultural activities for adults. In
Catholic local religious units, the latter route is, at times, vitiated by the arrival
of large numbers of immigrants of a different ethnonational origin. This results
in multiethnic and temporarily multilingual local religious units, but the tactical
solution to the above anomaly (an anomaly from any traditional point of view in
which local religious units are ethnoculturally homogeneous) is one of acce-
lerated mutual self-denial, i.e., doubly rapid anglification. All in all, therefore,
the only seemingly stable route for non-English use in local religious units is the
very first one which depends primarily on greater traditional distance from the
274 ¡I The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
English-using mainstream. Interestingly enough, all of the ethnocultural con-

stellations that can be typified in this fashion (Old Order Amish and
Mennonites, Hutterites, Hasidic Jews, traditional reservation Navajos, Russian
Old Believers, etc.) are fully bilingual—i.e., the young all understand and use
English in addition to (and usually as well as or better than) ethnic/ecclesiastic
language(s)—notwithstanding the antisecular, antimodern and physically as
well as culturally separated nature of their communities. The major sociolin-
guistic atypicality of these very unusual groups is that they have been able to
compartmentalize (control or tame) English so as to deny it access (except
fleetingly, metaphorically) into their central language maintenance domains
(home and/or religious institution). Whatever the price they pay for their
self-distancing from the American social mobility and social interaction ex-
perience, they accomplish thereby something that all those unwilling to pay
the price have failed to attain: a relatively stable and widespread diglossie
situation in which their non-English language(s) receive(s) the functional
protection requisite for its/their continuity on a community-wide and society-
wide basis.
Interestingly enough, none of the foregoing are combatively language-
conscious or jingoistically aggressive ethnocultural constellations. Indeed, the
notion of interethnic conflict (political, economic and cultural) is essentially
unusual for them and for the bulk of the minority ethnoreligious experience in
the U.S.A. as a whole. Ethnicity itself has generally been a quiet, quotidian,
unconscious and relatively private ingredient in the American experience,
particularly insofar as its non-English mother-tongue populations are con-
cerned. O f course, like every basis of social aggregation, ethnicity, too, has the
potential of being exploited for its power-struggle payoff, but it is not essen-
tially a conflict-oriented dimension any more than sex, religion or occupation. It
first has to be ideologized and mobilized for conflictual purposes and it tends to
be opposed by those w h o are chagrined by their failure to do so. N o t only has it
infrequently been primarily conflicted in the U.S.A., but the early 80s were
definitely not such a period.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS: LANGUAGE AND

ETHNICITY IN THE UNITED STATES.
O u r institutional review of language maintenance processes has found inter-

generational linguistic continuity to be not only generally weak but uncon-
scious, unfocused, unspotlighted and undramatized. This does not mean that it
is unwanted, unvalued or unlikely to endure. Quite the contrary. It is likely to
endure (perhaps less at a vernacular than at a ritual level and, therefore, at least
metaphorically, as an aspect of everyday "contrastivity" as well), precisely
7- The Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the USA 275
because it is stability-related, quiet, and tinged by family, intimacy and sanctity.

Most of social life leads exactly such as liminal existence. Intellectuals may fuss
and fume about ethnolinguistic continuity (thereby understanding, at best, only
ethnic fussings and fuming), but, apparently, quite a bit of ethnolinguistic
continuity has survived their darts and arrows. It has become part and parcel of
the American experience of millions: an intimately meaningful, "special" way
of being American. As such, it often includes some non-English speech acts as
well. It may occasionally flare up from that steady state, or it may seem to drop
even further into forgetfulness. However, the American role and the American
strength of ethnolinguistic continuity are to be found precisely in the fact that
such continuity usually involves neither shooting nor a target to shoot at. It has,
by and large, been tamed and has found a modus vivendi in accordance with
(although not at all identical with) American middle-class norms and values. It
has risen out of its lower-class, immigrational or sidestream origins and
become more fully American and more unobstreperously "legimate" at the
same time. It has learned to become both more and less simultaneously—more
widespread and less intensive. It has learned to "feel the same" while becoming
and remaining partially different, by combining mainstream and sidestream in
new ways, ways that feel comfortable to insiders and seem nonthreatening to
outsiders. In that configuration, non-English mother tongues have a role to
play but, when all is said and done, it is a small role rather than a central one.
NOTES
ι. The names and addresses of all units w e have located have been sent on to the National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (Rosslyn, V A ) , where it is hoped that they will be kept
" o n line" so that they can be retrieved upon payment of a minor service charge. T w o pre-
liminary hard-copy directories (press 1982 and radio/television 1983) were published by
N C B E but these pertain to an earlier and, therefore, less exhaustive stage of enumeration.
1. Underestimates are probably most serious in the cases of Arabic, Russian, and Indochinese
language groups, indicative of the ideological, historical and practical limitations that impact
research on ethnicity in the U.S.A.
3. "Stations" are defined as "language-program stations," i.e., any station that broadcasts in
three languages is counted three times. This usage was adopted by Warshauer (1966) and is
followed here to facilitate comparative and trend study.
4. In a small minority of instances Hebrew is a mother tongue, e.g., in those L R U s , schools,
radio/t.v. programs and periodicals serving recent immigrants from Israel.
;. Let us note in passing that although the number of third-generation claimants of non-English
mother tongues is generally substantially related to institutional numbers, thus suggesting
that the third generation too may be involved in institutional functioning, the proportion that
the third generation constitutes of the total non-English mother-tongue pool is a more
negligible factor with respect to the number of such institutions. The dynamics underlying
this last relationship require additional attention and are briefly discussed below.
6. In this chapter we will again utilize "mother tongue" as our index of ethnic community non-
English language interest or vitality. It is an imperfect index, to be sure (as is any other), and
many researchers justifiably prefer to investigate (and predict) non-English language use
claiming rather than mother-tongue claiming, particularly since the former is related to many
public services and funded research opportunities. Although not denying the importance of
non-English language use claiming or of the burgeoning research or the data pertaining to it
(e.g., Veltman 1 9 8 1 , Veltman in press, Waggoner 1 9 8 1 , etc.), we have concentrated on non-
English mother-tongue claiming in our work for two reasons: (i) The tradition of mother-
tongue data in the U . S . A . , and (ii) mother-tongue claiming reveals interesting socio-
attitudinal variations of interest to us over and above the empirical confirmability of
most claiming perse. Language and ethnicity attitudes are demonstrably well reflected in such
claiming and constitute the core of our interest. F o r further discussion of this point see
Fishman, Chapter 6, This Volume.
7. Table 5 reveals that Yiddish is also over-represented in L R U s and schools but in both cases, it
should be noted that these units were estimated on the basis of sample studies, and are
primarily Hebrew-using in so far as their non-English emphases are concerned. In its
vernacular institutions Hebrew is under-represented but in its ritually-related institutions it
is strongly over-represented. These two types of institutions differentiate between recent
Israeli and long-standing general Jewish use of Hebrew.
8. A good introductory bibliography of social research on the non-English language ethnic
community press in the U S A is given in Gertner et al., This Volume, Chapter 9.
9. Methodological note·. The increase in E M T - u s i n g publications from 1962 to 1982 may be more
apparent than real since it may reflect little more than improved data collection procedures on
our part after 20 years of additional contacts and experience. Although this factor is an
intangible one and cannot be quantified, it must be kept in mind in discussing E M T
institutional increases, below. A t any rate, the size and spriteliness of the E M T press remains
a remarkable and usually overlooked phenomenon.
10. Table 8 also reports the circulation of the Anglo-Jewish press, the last remaining substantial
ethno-English press in the U . S . A . (its German counterpart having largely disappeared
during the past score years). These figures (both in numbers and in circulation) have also
increased since 1962, by 5 3 . 7 7 % and 1 3 7 . 7 0 % respectively.
11. Our universe of interest does not include non-English publications in the U.S. A . that are not
ethnic-community sponsored, e.g. scholarly or professional journals published by foreign
language teachers' associations or journals published primarily for students of foreign
languages in non-ethnic schools and colleges. Throughout this chapter "responding units"
for Spanish pertain to the mainland alone. Puerto Rico is included under Spanish only for non-
questionnaire data.
12. The following references constitute a useful introductory bibliography of social research and
related publications on non-English radio and television broadcasting primarily in the
United States: Arnheim and Bayne 1941; Clyne 1982 (Australia); Cox 1969; Dunn 1975; Enos
Roceric 1982; Roucek 1945; Schement 1976, 1978; Schementand Singleton, 1981; Smolicz in
press; Tebbel 1968; Warshauer 1966; Yankelovich 1981. Smolicz in press; Roceric 1982;
Roucek 1945; Schement 1976, 1978; Schementand Singleton, 1 9 8 1 ; Tebbel 1968; Warshauer
1966; Yankelovich 1981.
13. Strictly speaking, no comparisons can be made between stations and "stations." However,
since relatively f e w stations broadcast in many non-English languages, a few such com-
parisons at this juncture may be instructive.
14. When Spanish radio and Spanish television are compared, the Yankelovich survey (1981)
reports that the former comes out slightly ahead, both in terms of time spent listening as well
as in terms of number of listeners. On the other hand, 9 3 % of all Hispanics reported
availability of Spanish television in their area.
15. Lest it be suspected that the inclusion of Spanish figures for Puerto Rico has unduly
influenced our broadcasting findings, it should be pointed out that the Spanish totals without
Puerto Rico would be 764 for radio and 142 for television. All in all, Puerto Rico accounts for
only 11 % of Spanish radio and 8% of Spanish television in the U.S.A. Puerto Rico makes an
even smaller contribution to the total Hispanic press in the U.S.A.: 9 out of 174 publications
(·,%)• In comparison, all Chamorro publications and radio or television broadcasts listed in
our tables originate in Guam, and all of the Samoan publications, all of the Samoan television
and a third of the Samoan radio listed in our tables originate in American Samoa. We have
included Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands in our institutional
research in order to make it possible to trace the possibly growing impact of English in those
small island cultures a decade or two from now, as well as in order to observe the
transferability of those languages to the mainland where their indigenous standing no longer
obtains. Non-mainland responses are not included in any of the multiple correlation analyses
reported in this chapter.
16. It was not feasible for us to differentiate between ethnic-community based non-English
broadcasting and academic broadcasting of this type. However, many non-English language
broadcasts sponsored by university stations serve both purposes, fostering language learning
on campus and being listened to avidly by neighboring (off campus) ethnolinguistic
communities.
related publications on (non-English) ethnic mother-tongue schools, primarily in the United
States: Ackerman 1975; Bachand and Louis 1938; Burch 1983; Eradunas 1982; Clyne 1982
(Australia); Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in School 1976 (Australia);
Commonwealth Schools Commission 1983 (Australia); Dulon I860; Fishman 1964, 1980a,
1980b, 1980c, 1981, Chapter 11 in This Volume; Fishman and Markman 1979; Fishman and
Nahirny 1966; Fishman, Riédler-Berger, Koling and Steele: Chapter 12 in This Volume,
Gerhart 1943; Greeley 1975; Helmreich 1982; Inbar 1979; Kawarabayahi; 1969; Kloss 1962,
1969; Krashaar 1972; Kuznicki 1978a, 1979b; Lau 1967; Linguistic Minorities Project 1984
(England); Macias 1975; Markman and Fishman 1979, 1980; Mias 1970; Norst 1982; Parker
1981; Pollack 1981; D. Porter 1968; S. Porter 1979; Powell 1980; Roceric 1982; J . Sanders
1977; Z. Sanders 1979; Stellhorn 1973; Stach 1942; Zaleska-Onyshkevych 1979.
17a. Spanish is even more underrepresented on the U.S. mainland than meets the eye since 386 of
its 731 located schools are nonpublic schools in Puerto Rico.
18. The 6 Chamorro day schools (constituting 46.2% of all located Chamorro schools) are all
located in Guam or in the Marianas. The one Haitian Creole day school (constituting 100% of
all located Haitian Creole schools) is located in New York. Generally speaking, few, if any
day schools may be expected to be included in the "no data" category since day schools were
always the easiest to locate in any ethnolinguistic community.
19. Actually our sample size was 8% since no questionnaires were mailed to Pennsylvania
German or to non-Orthodox Jewish congregational schools, in both cases due to the fact that
their ethnic mother-tongue policies have been extensively researched in the past. Sample sizes
for all questionnaire studies were determined on the basis of universe size, so as to obtain
roughly 300 responses or more of a representative nature.
related publications pertaining to Local Religious Units utilizing languages other English
primarily in the U.S.A.: Barry 1953; Clyne 1982 (Australia); DeMarco i960; Dolan 1975;
Douglass 1939; Dietz 1949; Greeley 1972; Fecher 195;; Hofman 1966; Kayal 1973; Kloss
1966; Koolman 1946; Lemaire 1966; Mol 1968; Nahirny and Fishman 1966; Nelson i960;
Parket 1961; Polish American Congress 1968; Roceric 1982; Slivka 1978; Tavuchis 1963;
Wenk 1972.
21. If Pennsylvania German and German are added together to form one grand total for German
(a more defensible practice in this institution than in any other since the "Luther German" of
the Pennsylvania German LRUs and the High German of other German LRUs (including
Hutterite LRUs), are more similar than are vernacular Pennsylvania German and vernacular
German of the press and radio/television broadcasting), then German is no longer under-
represented in the LRU world. However, that would be an artifact that averages out the vast
underrepresentation of mainstream Protestant and Catholic German LRUs and the even
vaster overrepresentation of Pennsylvania German LRUs. The underrepresentation of
mainstream German institutions is so great in the E M T school world that it cannot be
disguised even by averaging it with the overrepresentation of Pennsylvania German and
Hutterite schools.
22. The Protestantization of Spanish LRUs is particularly a mainland (as opposed to an insular
Puerto Rican) experience. Of the 2227 mainland Spanish-using LRUs, fully 4 7 % are
Protestant. In Puerto Rico only 6% of the 264 LRUs are Protestant-affiliated.
2 3. Even more under-represented in our data are the indigenous Amerindian religions. Informa-
tion as to the institutional implemetation of indigenous Amerindian religions is very difficult
to obtain and, indeed, no such implementation may generally obtain. As is the case of most
religions outside of the Judeo-Christian mainstream, the family dwelling and natural habitats
(rivers, mountains, forests) may be the places in which most religious rituals or services take
place. In addition, often no clear distinction between religion and other aspects of culture is
recognized and tribal meetings as well as customary behaviors as a whole (including hunting,
dancing, eating, etc) are governed by sanctity considerations. Under such circumstances the
demographic enumeration of LRUs also becomes impossible and tends to be identical with
the enumeration of residential units or "cultural spaces" as a whole.
23a. We canvassed only some 7000 units. Our response rate was roughly 20%. From the initial
1380 respondents, we selected 962 for analysis in such a way as to maximize ethnolinguistic
diversity.
24. Undersampled by design in order to maximize the contribution of other ethnic groups.
2;. Because our LRU sample is larger than any other for which we have obtained questionnaire
responses, it may be of interest to examine the following demographic intercorrelations
derived from this sample. The total number of LRUs utilising non-Finglish languages varies ap-
preciably across ethnolinguistic communities and is substantially related not only to the
number of claimants of the corresponding mother-tongue (.48) but with whether the
community is Jewish or not (.60); with whether it utilizes a liturgical language (-.34); with the
extent of its 1960—1970 increase in foreign-born mother-tongue claimants (.41); and with
whether its parishioners stem from a country currently under communist control (-.38). To
the extent that our sample is representative (although Jewish and Spanish responses were
arbitrarily curtailed), these relationships may obtain more generally as well.
26. The Yankelovich survey (1981) reports that 57% of the Hispanics surveyed said that the
language of Spanish newspapers/magazines was easy to understand. The corresponding
percentages for Spanish radio/t.v. were 66%/65°/0. Each of the above figures is higher than
the corresponding figures for the English media (as far as Hispanics are concerned). The
difference between the figure for Spanish newspapers/magazines and the figures for Spanish
radio/t.v. may not be entirely due to the literacy factor alone.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackerman, Walter. The Jewish school system in the United States, in D. Sidorsky (ed.), The Future
of the Jewish Community in America. New York, Basic Books, 1973.
Arnheim, Rudolf and Martha Collin Bayne. Foreign language broadcasting over local American
stations, in Paul Lazersfeld and Frank Stanton, eds. Radio Research, 1941, New York, Duell, Sloan
and Pearce, 1941, 3—64.
Bachand, T.R.P. and Louis, O.M. L'ecole paroissiale francoaméricaine. La Croisade Franco-
Américaine, Deuxième Congrès de la Langue Française, Québec, 1937. Manchester, L'Avenue

Nationale, 1938.
Barry, C.S. The Catholic Church and German-Americans. Milwaukee, Bruce Publishing Co., 1953.
Bradunas, Elena. Ethnic heritage and language schools: from one generation to the next. Folklife
Center News, 1982, July, 1 0 - 1 3 .
Breton, R . Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and the personal relations of immi-
grants. American Journal of Sociologi. 1964, 70, 1 9 5 - 2 0 5 .
Burch, Betty Ann, ed. Minnesota's Ethnic Language Schools: Potentialfor the go's. St. Paul, Immigration
History Research Center, 1983.
Clyne, Michael G . Multilingual Australia. Melbourne, River Seine Publications, 1982.
Coleman, James S., Thomas Hoffer and Sally Kilgare. High School Achievement: Public, Catholic and
Private Schools Compared. N e w Y o r k , Basic Books, 1982.
Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Language in School. Report of the Committee on Migrant
Languages in School. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service, 1976.
Commonwealth Schools Commission. Report on the Commonwealth Ethnic Schools Program. Canberra,
CSC, 1983.
Cox, Sue Dorritt. Spanish-language television in the United States: Its audience and potential. M . A .
Thesis. University of Illinois, 1969.
DeMarco, A . A . The Church of Rome and the Problem of the Vernacular Versus the Liturgical Language.
Washington, D.C., Catholic University of America Press, i960.
Dietz, P.T. The transition from German to English in the Missouri Synod from 1 9 1 0 to 1947. The
Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly, 1949, 22, 9 7 - 1 2 1 .
Dolan, Jay P. T h e Immigrant Church: N e w Y o r k ' s Irish and German Catholics, 1 8 1 5 - 1 9 6 ; . Notre
Dame University of Notre Dame, 1975.
Douglass, Paul F. The Story of German Methodism: Biography of an Immigrant Soul. St. Louis, The
Methodist Book Concern, 1939.
Dulon, R . Aus Amerika: Über Schule, Deutsche Schule, Amerikanische Schule, Deutschamerikanische
Schule. Leipzig and Heidelberg, Winter, 1866.
Dunn, Edward W. Mexican-American media behavior: a factor analysis, journal of broadcasting,
1975, Fall, 3 — 10.
Enos, Daryl D . and Ronald W. López. Spanish-language-only T V . Educational Broadcasting Review,
1973, September/October, 1973, 9 - 1 1 .
Fecher, Vincent J . A Study of the Movement for German National Parishes in Philadelphia and Baltimore,
iySj—1802. R o m e , A p u d Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1955.
Fishman, Joshua A . The ethnic-group school and mother-tongue maintenance in the United
States. Sociology of Education, 1964, 34, 3 0 6 - 3 1 7 .
. Minority language maintenance and the ethnic mother-tongue school. Modern Language
Journal, 1980a, 64, 1 6 7 - 1 7 2 .
. Ethnic-community mother-tongue schools in the U S A : dynamics and distributions.
International Migration Review, 1980b, 14, 235—247.
. Language-related ethnic-community schools in the U S A : A catalog of school-in-society
language resources, in his Non-English Language Resources of the United States ( A Preliminary Return
Visit). New Y o r k , Yeshiva University (Report of Research Section, International Studies
Branch, Department of Education, re Grant G-00-79-01816), 1980c.
. Ethnocultural dimensions in the acquisition and retention ofbiliteracy. Basic Writing, 1 9 5 1 ,
3, no. ι , 1 8 - 6 1 .
. Mother-tongue claiming in the United States since i960. Chapter 6, This Volume.
and Barbara R . Markman. The Ethnic Mother- Tongue School in America: Assumptions, Findings,
Directory. N e w York, Yeshiva University (report to N I E re Grant G - 7 8 - 0 1 3 3 , Project No. 8-
0860), 1979. (Mimeo).
28ο II The Ethnic Revival and Language Maintenance in the USA
and Vladimir Nahirny. The ethnic-group school and mother-tongue maintenance, in J.A.
Fishman et al. Langmge Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966, 92-126.
and Riedler-Berger, et al. Ethnocultural Dimensions in the Acquisition and Retention of
Biliteracy: A Comparative Ethnography of Four New York City Schools. This Volume, Chapter
12.
Garcia, Ofelia, Joshua A. Fishman, Silvia Burunat and Michael H. Gertner. The Hispanic press in
the United States: Contents and prospects. This Volume. Chapter 10.
Gerhard, E.S. The history of Schwenkfelder schools. Schwenkfeldiana, 1943, 1, no. 3, 5 - 2 1 .
Graham, Robert. Spanish-language radio in Northern Colorado. American Speech, 1962, October,
207-211.
Grame, Theodore C. Ethnic Broadcasting in the United States. Washington D.C., American Folklife
Center, Library of Congress, 1980.
Greeley, Andrew M. The Church, the National Parish and Immigration: Same Old Mistakes. Staten
Island, Center for Migration Studies, 1972.
Greeley, Andrew et al. Catholic Schools in a Declining Church. Fairway (KS), Andrews and McMeel,
'975·
Gutiérrez, Félix. Spanish-speaking media in the United States. Chicanismo (Stanford University),
>973, Spring, 7 - 1 1 .
Gutiérrez, Félix. Spanish-Language Radio and Chicano Internal Colonialism. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Stanford University, 1976.
Gutiérrez, Félix and Jorge Reina Schement. Spanish Language Radio in the Southwestern United
States. Monograph No. Center for Mexican American Studies, 1979, University of Texas (Austin).
Gutiérrez, Félix. Mexico's television network in the U.S., in Herbert Dordick (ed.) Proceedings of the
Sixth Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference. Lexington, Lexington Books, 1979.
Gutiérrez, Félix. Latinos and the media, in Michael Emery and Ted C. Smvthe, (eds.) Readings in
Mass Communications, 4th ed. Dubuque, Brown, 1980a.
Gutiérrez, Félix. Latino media: An historical overview. Nuestro, 1980b, October, 25-28.
Helmreich, William B. How successful are yeshivos in reaching their goals?; A sociological
analysis. The Jewish Observer, 1982, March, 14—27.
Herberg, Will. Protestant, Catholic and Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology, New York,
Doubleday, 195;, Rev. Ed.
Hofman, John E. Mother-tongue retentiveness in ethnic parishes, in J . A . Fishman et al. Language
Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966, 1 2 7 - 1 5 5 .
Inbar, Efraim. The Hebrew day school: The Orthodox communal challenge. Journal of Ethnic
Studies, 1979, 7, 13-29.
Jeffers, Leo W. and H.K. Kyan. The forgotten media consumer: The American ethnic. Journalism
Quarterly, 1981, Fall, 1 0 - 1 7 .
Kawarabayahi, Yasuke. The Japanese language in America. The Pacific Historian, 1969, 13, no. 1,
21-24.
Kayal, Philip M. Religion and assimilation: Catholic "Syrians" in Americans, international Migration
Review, 1973, 7, 409-426.
Kloss, Heinz. Die deutschamerikanische Schule. Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien (Heidelberg), 1962, 7,
141-175.
Kloss, Heinz. German-American language maintenance efforts, in J . A . Fishman et al. Language
Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966, 206-25 2 ·
Koolman, William J . De Nederlandsche Luthersche Gemeenten in Noord-Amerika, 1649-1772.
Amsterdam, W. ten Have, 1946.
Kraushaar, O.F. American Nonpublic Schools: Patterns of Diversity. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
Kuznicki, Sr. Ellen Marie. The Polish-American parochial schools, in F. Mocha (ed.), Poles in
j . The Community Resources of "Ethnic languages in the USA 281
America: Bicentennial Essays. Stevens Point (Wise.), Worzalla Pubi. Co., 1978(a), 435-460.
Kuznicki, Sr. Ellen Marie. A historical perspective of the Polish-American parochial school. Polish-
American Studies, 1978(b), no. 1 - 2 , 5 - 1 2 .
Lau, Leon L . Y . The Chinese language schools in Honolulu. Ball State University Forum, 1967, 8,
36-40.
Lemaire, Herve B. Franco-American efforts on behalf of the French language in N e w England, in.
J . A . Fishman et al., Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966, 2 5 3 - 2 7 9 .
Lewels, Francisco J . The Uses of the Media by the Chicago Movement. N e w Y o r k , Praeger, 1974.
Linguistic Minorities Project. The Other Languages of England. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1984.
López, Ronald and Daryl Enos. Spanish-language-only television in Los Angeles County. A^tlán
( U C L A Chicano Studies Center), 1973, Fall, 2 8 3 - 3 1 3 .
Macias, Renaldo et al. Educación Alternativa: On the Development of Chicano Bilingual Schools. Hayward,
The Southwest Network, 1975.
Markman, Barbara and Joshua A . Fishman Why do some ethnic mother-tongue schools accomplish
more than others?, in Joshua A . Fishman and Barbara Markman, The Ethnic Mother-Tongue School
in America: Assumptions, Findings and a Directory. N e w Y o r k , Yeshiva University (Final Report re
N I E Grant G - 7 8 - 0 1 3 3 , Project 8-0806), 1979.
Markman, Barbara and Joshua A . Fishman. Why do some ethnic community schools in the U S A
accomplish more than others with respect to ethnic mother-tongue retention, in Joshua A .
Fishman, Non-English Language Resources of the United States (A Preliminary Return Visit). N e w
Y o r k , Yeshiva University (Report to Research Section, International Studies Branch,
Department of Education, re Grant G-00-79-01816), 1980.
Melton, J . Gordon. The Encyclopedia of American Religions. Wilmington, N . C . , McGrath, 1980.
Metzger, L.Paul. American sociology and black assimilation. American journal of Sociology, 1 9 7 1 , 76,
627-647.
Mias, Josef. The History of the Education of Polish Immigrants in the United States. N e w Y o r k ,
Kosciuszko Foundation, 1977. (Translation of the Polish original published in 1970.)
Mol, J .J. The Breaking of Traditions: Theological Convictions in Colonial A m erica .Berkeley, Glendessary,
1968.
Nahirny, Vladimir C. and Joshua A . Fishman. Ukrainian language maintenance efforts in the
United States, in J . A . Fishman et al. Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton,
1966, 3 1 8 - 3 5 7 .
Nelson, E . Clifford. The Lutheran Church Among Norwegian Americans: A History of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church. 2 vols., Minneapolis, Augsburg Pub. House, i960.
Norst, Marlene J . National Ethnic School Survey: Report with Recommendations. Canberra,
Commonwealth Schools Commission, 1982, 4 vols.
Parker, Sandra. A n educational assessment of the Yiddish secular-school movement in the United
States, in J . A . Fishman (ed.) Never Say Die'. The Hague, Mouton, 1981.
Parket, E . C . Spanish-speaking churches. Christian Century, 1 9 6 1 , April 1 2 , 466-468. (Also see: A .
Cotto-Thurner. Reply to 'Spanish-speaking churches' by E . C . Parket. Christian Century, 1 9 6 1 ,
June 28, 801.)
Pasqua, T o m . Newspaper readers' news values: an exploratory comparison of Chícanos and
Anglos. A^tlán U C L A Chicano Studies Center), 1975, Fall, 3 4 7 - 3 6 1 .
Patterson, Rosalind. The origins of ethnic broadcasting: Turning the dial in Australia, journal of
Intercultural Studies. 1 9 8 1 , 2, 3 7 - 6 0 .
Polish American Congress. Petition of the Polish American Congress to His Holiness Pope Paul VI in the
Matter of the Ethnic Parishes in the United States. Chicago, Polish American Congress, 1968.
Pollak, George. Teaching Yiddish in Jewish Schools. N e w Y o r k , American Association for Jewish
Education, 1981. ( = Better Personnel Practices, Information Bulletin Number 50).
Porter, D . A . Factors Influencing Catholic High School Enrollment. Danville (IL), Interstate, 1968.
Porter, Sargent S. (ed.). The Handbook of Private Schools, 60th ed. Boston, Porter Sargent, 1979.
Powell, A . G . Observations on the discovery of private schools as a subject for educational research,
in S. Abramouritz and E . A . Stackhouse (eds.) The Private High School Today. Washington, D . C . ,
U S D O E , N I E , 1980, 9 9 - 1 1 0 .
Reitz, Jeffrey G . Community organization: Internal momentum, in his The Survival of Ethnic Groups.
Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1980, 2 1 5 - 2 2 5 .
Richmond, A . H . Immigration and pluralism in Canada. International Migration Review. 1969, 4,
5-*3·
Roceric, Alexandra. Language Maintenance Within an American Ethnic Community: The Case of
Romanian. Grass Lake-Jackson (Mich.), Romanian-American Heritage Center, 1982.
Roucek, Joseph C. Foreign language broadcasts, in Francis J . B r o w n and Joseph C. Roucek (eds.)
One America. N e w Y o r k , Prentice-Hall, 1945.
Sanders, James W. The Education of an Urban Minority: Catholics in Chicago, 1S33-196;. New York,
Oxford University Press, 1977.
Sanders, Zinta. Latvian education in the United States: antecedents and development of sup-
plementary schools. Journal of Ethnic Studies, 1979, 7, 31 - 4 2 .
Schement, J o r g e Reina. Primarily Spanish-Language Radio as a Function of Internal Colonialism:
Patterns of Ownership and Control. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University, 1976.
. Voice of the people: the onus of Spanish-language radio. Journal of Chicano Research, 1978,
Summer/Fall, 6 2 - 8 3 .
and Loy A . Singleton. The onus of minority ownership: F C C policy and Spanish-language
radio. Journal of Communication, 1981, Spring, 78-89.
Slivka, John. Historical Mirror: Sources of the Rusin and Hungarian Creek-Rite Catholics in the United
States of America. Brooklyn, Author, 1978.
Smolicz, J . J . and M . J . Secombe. Multicultural television for all Australians. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language, 1984. In press.
Stellhorn, August C. Schools of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. St. Louis, Concordia, 1963.
Stach, J o h n Frederick. A Histoiy of the Lutheran Schools of the Missouri Synod in Michigan, 189;-1940.
Ann Arbor, Edwards, 1942.
Tavuchis, N . Pastors and Immigrants: The Role of a Religious Elite in the Absorption of Norwegian
Immigrants. The Hague, Nijhoff, 1963.
Tebbel, John. Newest T V boom: Spanish language stations. Saturday Review, 1968, J u n e 8, 7 0 - 7 2 .
Veltman, Calvin J . The Retention of Minority Languages in the United States. Washington, U S G P O ,
1982
. Language Shift in the United States. Berlin, Mouton, 1983.
Waggoner, Dorothy. Language and Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Population with Potential Need
for Bilingual and Other Special Education Programs. Washington, D.C., N C E S - U S D E , 1981
(Mimeo).
Warshauer, Mary Ellen. Foreign-language broadcasting, in Joshua A . Fishman et al. Language
Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966, 7 5 - 9 1 .
Wenk, Michael G . and S.M. Tornasi. Cultural Pluralism and Ethnic Heritage in a Catholic Dimension.
Staten Island, Center for Immigration Studies, 1972.
Yankelovich, Daniel. Spanish USA : A Study of the Hispanic Market in the United States Conducted by
Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., for the S.I.N. National Spanish Television Networks. N e w York,
S.I.N. National Spanish Television Network, 1981.
Zaleska-Onyshkevych, Larissa. Aspects of the preservation of Ukrainianness: language and
schools. Plastovy Shliakh, 1979, 58, J u l y - S e p t e m b e r , 3 3 - 5 0 (in Ukranian).
Chapter 8
Ethnic Activists View the Ethnic Revival and

Its Language Consequence 1
ESTHER G. LOWY, JOSHUA A. FISHMAN,

MICHAEL H. GERTNER, ITZEK GOTTESMAN
AND WILLIAM G. MILAN
INTRODUCTION
According to 1979 census figures for the United States as a whole, nearly 38
million individuals out of a total population of 217 million (i.e., roughly 1 7 % of
the population) claimed a language other than English as their mother tongue.
This figure is proportionately higher than its counterpart in various decades
prior to 1970 (Fishman, Chapter 6, This Volume). An "ethnic revival" of similar
or greater dimensions has been documented throughout much of Western
Europe in the mid-sixties and early seventies (Allardt 1979, Beer 1980). In the
United States, a somewhat similar phenomenon made itself felt by giving rise to
an increased awareness of "roots" in many ethnic groups (Novak 1973). How
this awareness is manifested and explicated by several samples of ethnic "activ-
ists" is the subject of this paper.
We have chosen to interview a cross-section of organizationally or otherwise
communally active respondents from three different language groups whose
communities are located in five different areas of the country. We will refer to
them all as "activists" although they differed appreciably in their views, be-
haviors and actual involvements in ethnolinguistic maintenance. The nature of
these differences between them (between groups) and among them (within groups)
constitutes the focus of this report. We interviewed French "activists" in
Louisiana and in New England; Spanish "activists" in California, Florida and
New York City; and Yiddish "activists" also in New York City. The inter-
viewees were selected (with the help of local site-coordinators) to represent a
wide variety of backgrounds, occupations, educational levels, knowledge and
use of their "ethnic" mother tongue (hereinafter E M T ) , age, birthplace and
interpretation of the ethnic heritage itself. The interviews were conducted in

both languages wherever possible, the extent of the use of the E M T depending
on the ease and competence of the person being interviewed. Linguistic anal-
yses of the English and E M T usage of the respondents are planned for future
publication.
Five general areas of interest were explored via our interviews: (i) the ethnic
revival, (ii) E M T maintenance, (iii) domains for use of E M T and/or English,
(iv) stability or change in the E M T itself, and (v) hopes and expectations for the
future of the E M T in the United States.
SITE SELECTION
Since not all Franco-Americans come from the same country of origin or live
under the same sociohistoric contextual circumstances, two sites as maximally
different as possible were picked for our interviews: (a) Lafayette, Louisiana
and the surrounding area in the heart of Acadiana, where the French speakers
are divided among Cajrns and Creoles (Allain 1978, Hallowell 1979, Rushton
1979, Thibodeaux 1977, Waddell 1979) and (b) Nashua, New Hampshire, a
centrally located "Franco-Canadian" community, permitting the researcher
also to collect data in nearby Lowell, Massachusetts and Manchester, New
Hampshire, as well. Both of the latter towns and the surrounding countryside
were centers of the textile industry where many French-Canadians came to
work and settled at the beginning of the century (Hendrickson 1980).
The Hispanic population is by far the largest non-English speaking group in
the United States today and since Spanish speakers come from a variety of
different countries of origin, we chose three widely separated sites, correspond-
ing to three major Hispanic cultures. Chícanos ("Mexican-Americans") were
interviewed in Los Angeles, California (Metcalf 1974, Thompson 1974),
Cuban-Americans in Miami, Florida (Argiielles and MacEoin 1980, Solé 1979,
Solé 1982) and Puerto Ricans in New York City (Wolfram 1973 and Zentella
1981).
The greatest concentration of Yiddish speakers in the United States is in New
York City. Therefore, that city was chosen as the site for interviews in Yiddish
(Fishman 1965).
SAMPLE SELECTION
We attempted to interview between 20 and 30 individuals at each site.

Restrictions of funding, time and availability, both of the subjects and re-
searchers, account for the slightly varying numbers of individuals actually
interviewed in each group. All in all, 142 interviews were conducted, 23 with
S. Ethnie Activists View the Ethnie Revival and Its L.anguage Consequences 285
Franco-Americans in Louisiana (Fri), 21 with Franco-Americans in New

England (Fr2), 22 with Chícanos in California (Spi), 22 with Cuban-Americans
in Miami (Sp2), 24 with Puerto Ricans in New York (Sp3) and 30 with Yiddish
speakers in New York (Y).
THE INTERVIEWS
The interviews were conducted, whenever feasible, in both languages, suited to

the ability and ease of the person being interviewed. A conversational pattern
was established, geared to the interests and background of the speaker, and
directed around five general topic areas grouped approximately according to
the questions listed, but not necessarily in that order (depending on the natural
flow of respondent interest).
I. ETHNIC REVIVAL
ι. Was there an ethnic boom?

2. Did it increase respondent's E M T use?
3. Did it improve respondent's attitudes toward E M T ?
4. Did it renew respondent's customs of culture?
5. Did it increase E M T usé in the community?
6. Did it improve attitudes toward E M T in the community?
7. Did it renew customs of culture in the community?
8. What caused revival? I N T E R N A L F O R C E S ?
9. local group?
10. local person?
11. national group?
12. national figure?
13. What caused revival? E X T E R N A L F O R C E S ?
14. government funded programs?
15. other ethnic movement?
16. legislation? (bilingual education, voting rights, civil
rights, fair employment practices, etc.)
17. other?
II. EMT Maintenance
18. Can your group maintain its ethnicity without E M T ?

19. Would it be a L O S S if group ceased to be separate?
2 86 II The Ethnic Revival and language Maintenance in the USA
20. Is there a G A I N from separateness?

21. Are there more important problems than E M T maintenance?
22. D o you know other people w h o feel this way?
23. Has another group been more successful in EMT/ethnic maintenance?
24. D o you know why?
2 5. Can it be copied?
III. DOMAINS OF EMT/ENGLISH USE
26. Are there domains for E N G L I S H ?

27. Are there domains for E N G L I S H WITHIN ethnic community?
28. Are there domains for E M T ?
IV. STABILITY OR CHANGE IN THE EMT
29. Has E M T changed recently?

30. Has it improved?
31. Has G R A M M A R improved?
32. Has P U R I T Y improved?
33. Is change related to boom?
34. Should change be counteracted?
3 5. D o changes inhibit communication?
36. Should there be a standard?
37. Value-judgements on variety?
V. THE FUTURE OF EMT IN THE UNITED STATES
38. Exclusively E M T ?
39. Equality of E M T and English?
40. Positive E M T attitude among ethnics?
41. Positive E M T attitude by outsiders?
42. Linguistic assimilation?
The conversations were taped with the agreement of the subjects so that the
interviewers took very few notes and were able to create a freer atmosphere of
informal conversation. Our hope was to elicit natural speech patterns in the
E M T rather than the formality of the standard language.
The interviews were conducted by three different researchers, a native
Spanish speaker, a native Yiddish speaker, a native French speaker fluent also in
8. Ethnic Activists View the Ethnic Revival and Its Language Consequences 287
Spanish and Yiddish. All three were fully bilingual and able to switch back and
forth between English and the E M T in accord with interviewee preference and
facility.
THE ANALYSIS
Responses were coded on a "yes/no/don't k n o w " basis, for the purpose of this
report. However, since the interviews were invariably in the form of conver-
sations, statements and replies were usually qualified or explained. Such qualifi-
cations were noted while "scoring" the tapes for the purpose of the report and
form the source of all descriptive comments cited below.
GENERAL ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS
Do activists believe that there was an ethnic boom? If so, did it affect their own
attitudes and did it cause any kind of change in their community? Did it increase
the use of the E M T or change people's attitudes towards their ethnicity?
Interviews were initiated by asking whether subjects believed that an ethnic
revival had occurred during the sixties and early seventies, and if so, whether it
had affected their own attitudes/behaviors and/or those of their own com-
munity. Overall, 8 3 . 1 % (Q1/GT/T) 2 of all respondents said that there was an
increased awareness in their own community, though they were not always sure
what was happening elsewhere. In general, attitudes, reactions and perceptions
differ substantially between different ethnic groups. As can be seen at various
points in Table /, the Hispanic activists are generally most optimistic and felt
strengthened by recent political gains and new immigrational influx. The
French activists have long felt isolated, seem depressed, saw very minor gains
and did not feel that any ethnolinguistic help provided by the government was
meant for them, since they have been in the United States for a long time and are
not disadvantaged immigrants. Among most Yiddish activists, Yiddish is not
viewed as the most important factor in keeping either overt or attitudinal
ethnicity alive among Jews, despite the fact that in some segments of the Jewish
population it was "always" used and goes hand-in-hand with the maintenance
of religious and cultural practices, on the one hand, or participation in a secular
literary-theatrical-educational subculture, on the other hand.
INDIVIDUAL VS. COMMUNITY
There is often a substantial difference between what respondents say they

themselves do and what they perceive is happening in their community. This
a Ο 0 ^ SO O oo o O N- 0 Ν CPs r^ o
00 ο ^
V- ΌΆ SO
¿s Ν «Λ \¿ d o C\
ζ
< Γ- On οο •«fr $ Ρ- £
(XI
o
χ
ΙΛ
S
g \o 00 o Ks o o OO Ks O •φ O Ν o
Ks o ri κ*
£ 00 Ks
00 r^ OO •ί- oo Ν 0 OO ri KS Ν ri SO
O ri
00
o" vo' o'
00
O sq ο ^ -s· o ^
o 00 Ν O Os 0 Ν 0
oo Ν 00 so 4 oô WS N Ν so" Ö Ks 00 0
O so 00
α. 00 O SO -Ί- oc SO r^ SO 00 00 00 Os 00 00 00
(Λ
00 os SO ks Ν Os o KS O r^ O r^ r^- r^ o
r^ 4 oo Ö Ks 4 0 o o" 00 vo Ò
IX Os 00 - 00 op 00 ί - •ί- V5 O so O o\ SO
(Λ
q O Ί* o o •Φ o o SO ο ο r^ o O •Φ O O 00 o o
Χ Ν ò
o oí CN
0
? ? 00 soo S(Λ
O
o ρ Ν o"
o
o' o'
oí o 00 00
o
0
ΓΛ (Λ
52 CU
Ζ CS o "t VO \ο o r^- Os ο r-- O oo Os Os r^ o
<
Cu β.
- Ν o 00 ri Ks Ñ Ν vô
CN 0 CN r^ "Λ vO oo o r^ Os r^ 00 oo r^ oo
Ν ri o o
OS oo Os 00 0
(Λ <Λ
r^- Ν SO O ^ Ks o Ν ο Ν 00 o o Ν O 00 o
GO \o 00 SO 6 4 o o KS CÍs ο 00* VO o" 4Ks O ri o
so \0 SO f-·. o Ks ri- o rt ο Ν o O o
Β.
r- o η o » gi- o Os 00 ο KS » ο » « O so o
Ν 0 00 ri o «si so ο' Κι (si ο cc «si o" oô
Χ S p o r- 0 o Ks 0 TS o Ν •Φ o Ks 00
U Uh
ζ SO o N 00 o o SO ο -s- so q o KS o ». VO o
ω WN o" o O o Ks 4 ο 4 Ks o" Ks ri
Ρί Π SO o SO* o Ks ? o •φ ο o Ν o so 4 o
o Ν o
UH PU
co m η m pa pa pa pa pa pa m CQ pa
NB
ζ BU Η Ζ UH H ζ bu H Ζ ÜU Η Ζ UH Η ζ UH H uu
M
-α
IH
«
is
o
3
Η T3
3 ω
> s
ω "Ο
υ«_« IH
Λ
is
ε ο
ο
ο -ο "O 3
J2 c G Τ3 •S
C Η 3
C
a EL Ο s
JC CU ω
8 υ(Λ
>
o is
>
Ο
it ν S Ut
Ζ α α CU
Ο ε ε
s
Ρ -o •Ό Ό -o -ο -σ
(Λ
ρω δ δ δ δ δ
ri
σ 4 SO
S. Ethnie Activists View the Ethnic Revival and Its Language Consequences 289
Ν Ο 00 ο_ SO Ms MS Os 0 MSSO 00 vs « O ο so 00
Ο
r •fr
ο soMS 00 oö -ί- 4 Ν Ν οό Ms θ' Ν so" 00 Γ^ <ΐ\ SO SO SO SO 0'
Ν MS -ί- »Λ Tfr
»Λ Ν 00 0 ο Ν Ms Ο Ο MS Ν SO O 0 Ο 0 Ο M\ ο Ο 0 O
»Λ SO so οό 0 ο SO 4 Ο Ο r-- 00
00 0 Ο Ms Ν O 00' Ο o"
O 0 Ν 4 o'
Ν o0 Ο Ο
O O
0 ç\ Ο Ν Ν 0 so 00 0 os SO 0 (_( Ο (Ts 0_ SO 0_ sfr ^ 0 ^ so

00 Γ
„
0 SO Ν Ν r^ Ο 4η SO os so 4 00 ο 00
Ο 4 Ό Ν
00 Γ •Ί- - - Ν Ν Ν Γ-* ι^ SO SO
00 0 Ν MS KS « «s Ο Ο Ν • f r MS ο_ » SO ιΛ ΟΟ Os O 00
r^ ο Ós Ν so OO » SO SO οό O οό
00 - - Ν οο 4 4 ^ 0
•fr
Ο 0r^
00 SO
0 ο Ο Ο •fr 0 0 _ Ο O 0 0 « 0 0 0 0 so Ο 0 r- 0 0 Tf
0 ρ Ο ο •o O Cv o" Ós ο 0' o" 0MS N 0' Ο 0' N
r- O 0OS S00
O
0 ο -fr »Λ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ο
so ο Ν so 0 MS »Λ 0 Ν MS O »Λ Os 0 -fr 0 SO M Os ^ CTN Ms
00 00 00 •ί- O Ν Ν 4 N pj 4 Ν
Γ- ρ Γ^ ¡^ r^ 4 <7 Ν -fr 0' ? 00 CS 00 Ò
CN SO ?
•fr •ψ Ν Ms 0 0 0 ο ο_ ο_ -fr 0 O ^ O 00 0 Ν MS 0. MS
M\ MS Η* »Λ Ν Ο 6 ο ο" ο" 0 Ν Os 0 Ν θ" SO ¿s 0 00 ¿s O r^
so MS \ο - MS 0 Ν 0 Ν ο ο ο 0 0 O 0 Ν O Ν
SO 0 SO so ο Ο 0 0 ο ο ο 0 o_ O o_ 0_ Ο MS O 00 so o_ vo ^ O ^
Ν 0 ο M S Ο 0 0 ο" ο 0 0' 0' 0' 0' Ò 4 0' 00 0 Ο OS
0 • f r MS MS Ο 0 o ο ο 0 0 0 0 Ν 0 O 0 Ν O
ο Ν ο Ν σ- 0 ο_ ο ο so 0 • f r 0 0 o_ η O » 0 -fr O ^
N ο MS 00* (Ts ο' ο ο" 4 0' 4 o 00 0' <Γ\ θ" oò 0 00
ο Γ- so οο SO ο-fr 00 ? Ο
MS
ο ο ο 0 0 0 0 0 O -fr
« S3 m « CQ CQ pa m CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ
Ζ IL, Η Ζ tu Η Ζ U. Η ζ Η Ζ Η Ζ Η Ζ UH Η Ζ tt<Η Ζ ÜH Η
other ethnic movement?
government program?
r\. Λ.
(Λ (Λ
ω ω
υ u
Pi oí
national group?
national figure?
0 0
local person?
ü-
local group?
Ü-,
legislation?
-ι J
< <
Ζ Ζ
oí oí
ω PJ
Η H
Ζ XI
a
η. rv.
> >
υV- a
Όυ T3
υ
3« 3rt
U υ
J3
^
«
I
οο òs 0 » Η 4 so
Ν ΟΟ CS Ο ν C\ οο ο 0 NO o 0
« οτ)- +4 τ}- »Λ00 0Ν
Ο 00Cs00-. Η
ό.
Η rA^ ^»ΛΝ 00 n4o .ΛNO
O
Ζ
<
O
P¡¡
<
ΧΛ
l·—ι
Q Ν ο 0 NΝ 00
>-Η
Ω
NΝ
O r^-
O ON¿ NO NO* ρ N4
O0r^ O Ν Nc 00NO NΝ
oO O no'
Ν
NO
000Νθ'
^
Ν NΝ
O O ο00 Ο "t r^ O t-^ Ν Ο Cs Cs ^
00
α.
(Λ •t
ο
ο0 00 0 Ν VONO 0Ο 0 OO00 NO r^ r^ N 0
O
Ν r- 0 ο 0 0 »«ΝΟ Ο 't rrs 0 r^ CN
\¿ Ν θ' 4 N
NO
Oo Ν 0 ο0 00 0 UNN0O O •4Φ NΝ O4 T)-000no" O O
^ ^
α.
(Λ no NO 00
0 ONO O ο r- ο 0 0 Ο 0 Γ^ O 0 Cs 0 0 r^ 0
χC/Î Cu 0
V1
0N O
O4 OΝΝ
O Ν οο0 00 0 ο 000 0 00 ON0CN 0 0 r^ 0
0
Ζ
< » Ν Ν NO O "Φ ο 0 0 Ο 0 f C Ps CN ΙΛ
ΟW N ο ο0 00 O 0 σ\ 0
0 N4 0 00 Ss Ν CN00 0 N4
^ « ^ ^
α.
(Λ (Λ α, "í CN O
W N00 00 r^-NO NO Γ^-0 0 NO O •Φ 0 0 NO
"S UN ON
NΝ NO
O c\
M Ν NΟ
Oρ 4 0 04N oO
öΟ O 0 NO 0 0 NO
[χ.
O 00 Ο σν Ν 0 0 00 0 Ν 0 "t NΝO
Ν 0 00
•Ί- O NU
ONΟO •Ν
ψ 040 0 0 NrO OO
^* NO0
»
0 00 0 04 0
»
Χ
υ 0
Ζ 0 Ν Ο Ν 0 Ν NO 0 f NO 0 Ν NO 0 OO
ω N 0 nΝ
o" OO 0 0O0* 0
0 40 0 4 NO 0 0 40 0 no'
» ^
C
EUÍ Ν 0 0 N »TN
PQPQ » P Q « « η PQ pa η CQPQ PQ
Bu Η BU
crt
C<u
c rt
ï* •cG
OJ
'rt Η
Η H
6 S
S S tì
ω ω c
3 c« JO
£3
ΛΟ Μ
Ο J3
C
Ou
e O
G α tQ
-i. Λ o
λ
3 ζ o ε
Ο < S •s C
3u rvυ.
>«
o U
Oi o Ο
•β c
Ζ 3 Ι(Λ Jα, Jí,
Ο
ΗΗ Ο
Ο
Λ υ O3 λυ
ο Ü
.
e
5
Η
C/3 C
« J u
O O c«
ω υ S Û < ε
α
S. Ethnic Activists View the Ethnic RevivaI and Its 'Language Consequences 291
r - 00 o
0 ο o Ν S0_ 0 oo 0 Ν r-^
Ν 0 Ν ο 0 iJ 00 0 Ά 4 0 00 Μ «Λ
•t -fr "3- 0 00 r^ 00 es so 00 00 00 oo 00
0 00 0 Gs ο Ο r^ ^
0 C\ 0 r^- „ 0 r^
r^ 0 00 οο Ν 0 V«-N Ο 00 0 re-, VO Ν r^
so so SO Ν Ν Ο c\ CS ^ es c\ o\ o\
0 so rr, Ν •t Ο Ν Ο 0 0 •t 0 0 0 00 0
.A vA Ά 4 4 0 σ\ 0 ó 0 4 Ν 0 6 0 r^ 0
^ ^ 'ί- Ν Ν 0 0 0 •ί- Γ- O 0 0 0 r- 0
0 » 0 Ο ο 0 00 0 0 0 ο 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
Cs 0 0 Ο ó 0 6 0 ο 4 0 0 0 0
SO V-v 0 ί- 0 0 0M 0 V-s 0M 0 0M 0 CS
^ SO « ο Ο NO ο 't ο O V- qs 0 0
Ν ,Α ΗΗ Ò Ò rA 4 ,Α O Ν 0 0 0
SO SO Ν Ν ο 0 00 o so Ν σ\ 00 o\ 0 0
0 SO Ο so 00 ο ο OO VO 0 ^
^
0 00 J 0 ¿S (Ts 0 ON 00 so M 0 SO so
O KS 0 Ν 0 r^ SO r^ •TN r^ 0 tJ- so
0 so M ο M ^ 0 VN Ν 0 0 M M- 0 SO Ο
Ò Ν Ò oô Ο
hH ο CS 4 0 »A Ν ó 00 oc 0 M Ν O
0 -a- "f ο ο 00 0 00 •Ί- 0 0 K-v V^
0 -Φ ο r^ η ο 0 SO Γρ 0 00 0 Çs 0
0 0 N ο <ís ο 00 Ν 0 Cs Ν 0 iJ 0 Ν 0 0
0 US Ν 0 Ν ο 0 SO Ν 0 Ν OO 0 OO ^ 0
«
P3
Cu H
PQ η
Ζ μ-, Η
m η
Ζ tt. Η
η
Ζ
P3
Η Ζ
03
tu Η
CQ PQ
Ζ ÜH Η
s
Ζ
β
Ει*
α OS WS W\ ·Λ 00 Ο ws ws Ν ^ w, Os ο-
ζ< •Φ 00 SÛ 00 1^· 00 «- o 4 νο Ν W, ΟΟ OS ^ οο
ο so'
Ν ws w\ Ν so •>t SO
oí
O
a
(Λ
hH
Q
αHH 3 Ν «rs
Ν „ vo WS WS SO O Ν
Ν 4 WS r-· 4 so" Ν 00' 0 so'
» SO •Λ
so' Wï oΝ
ô
WS Ν so' <s| Ν Ν
0 Ο 00 Ο w\ 00 ο 0 Os ο
00 Ós 00 4
Ν O „
SO O w\ Ν Ο r^- Ν
oô WSSO Ο r^
CL 4
Ν 4 - ? O s
WS 5· O
* 00 SO Ν 00 Os OS
„ „
(Λ
Μ 0 0 Ν Μ ο Ν SO ο O Ν Ν ^ r^· 0
»Λ ^ 0 OC 0 4 » 0 4 só Ο 0 4 Ν SO Ν νο" 0
α. 0 - 0 0 - •ο- 00 Ν so 0 00
(Λ
Ο • VO O 0 Ν ο ο 0 ο •Φ 0 0 Ο 0 WS 0 0
Μ Ο 0 d 0 οο ό W* 0 0 Ν Ο 0
Κ O
(Λ H O Ν ο ? ι 0 W\ Ν 0 os OS
Ρ —
HH <Λ
Ζ SO 0 Ν » o sa ο ο 0 Ν « 0 WS ο 0 « r- 0 •f
α. 00 0 00 r~· 0 4 ο 0 0 Ν r- 0 ο Os 0
t/5 Ν 0 0 0 0 0 « Ν o ο Ν^ 00 0 S
Μ
0 so WS CPs 0 »Λ WS ο 00 SO WS Os ^ WS •Φ 0 0 Ο Ν WS
kl 4 WS
WS
Ν 0 Ν 0 SO 4 W S
WS
Os (Λ d ο 0 Ο
WS Ν 0 0 O - SO Ν
U. 0 ο so
w* 0 00 0 0 ο ο WS 0 00 00 0 o ο ο O Os 0 Os
Ν
U SO 0 Ν 0 0 ο O 0 W
ο 0 Ós SΝ S 0 Os 0 ο Ο 0
0. Ν 0 o 0 0 0 0 «SI 0 ο O 0 SO
ζ \0 0 r^ SO 0 νο 0 \0 0 r~ 0 0 0 0 "t 0
w 4 ó oò 4 4 4 ó 4 4 0 00 Ν 0 0 0 WS
Ν 0 Ν £ 00 •φ
Fri
0 8 0 0 0 ο 8
Ê
η α sa α « PQ 03 β 03 η ®
ζ Ρ3 η
NB
Ζ b H ζ KL Η ζ Β, Η Ζ Q-. Η Ζ tL Η U. Η OH Η
α
o
•a
m
υ
•a3
s «3
i
o s0 "Τ
•s -α
Μ Ί3 g
5 U
•ο -C &C -o
υ υ υ υ
> ΙΊ Λ
Ο « Jυ
V4 Ε υ 4J
CL
ζ
ο
ε Ε
η 3 -O
ff •S
NN
Η 6 CL •3
2
•3
(Λ O O o
X
-O χ (Λ Q
£ ω
ο
α
Ethnic Activists View the Ethnic Revival and Its Language Consequences
tj- ο -Φ r-- φ oo o o N o
•A r-- 00 s o
Ν v-s o o VO 00 Cv ι^- ο f/S 0 ο 0 νθ 0

VO vd Ν o" vo 00 VO 00* Ν VO νθ «Ν
0 ο d ο
o r^ r^ r^ VO •Φ ο ο 0 ο
Ο
νθ'
o
4 4
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
o
oo
00
0
Γγ- o
cv oo
VO
CJv
„ ο
ο
V0
^
σν
^
ο
ο
0
ο
0
ο
Ν
Μ"* 00
φ Ό
0 o 0 ο ο
« o Ν o o o oo ^ oo O Ν Γ^ ο ο ο ο <J\
0 4 0 o o 0 4 00 νό ο ο ο Ν
» 0 0 o 0 r^ <7\ 00 •φ 00 VO ο ο ο
0 o o o o o 0 Cfs o ο •Φ ο ο •φ ο ο ο Ν ο Ν
0 0 o o o o O o o o ο ο ο ο Ν Ν
0 Ν o o o 0 CJ\ <?\ 0 ? 0 ? ο 0 0
f o VO o o o ^ o o σν 0 •φ ο ο ο •φ οο Ν
o o o o Ν o o 0 ο ο ο ο Ν
Ν o 0 o o <7\ 00 σ\ Ν »o ? ο ο ο
Ν 'r r^- νθ Μ »^ν

ΙΟΟ.Ο
Ν Ν νθ" •Λ 4 Ν Ν -0- 5
oo.o
oo.o
VO'
oo.o
oo.o
oo.o
oo.o
VO
o
r^ οο.ο
o o O 0 o o oo O M o q 0 Ο •Φ »Λ ο 00 σν Ν _
o o O d o o vó O 00 d Ο 0 4 Ν
o o O o 0 o cri r^ o 00 I— ο
o o O 0 o o VO o Ν VO 0 Ν GV 0 Μ 0 ο ο Ν Ι-
0 o o 0 0 o MV o ο 0 0 ¿V ο ο 0 Ν Ν
o o o 0 0 0 VO 0 νθ" VO o ν? Ο ο 0 0
CQ m CQ η m PQ m PQ 03 η β PQ pa m
Ζ u. Η Ζ Η Ζ b Η Ζ Η Ζ U, Η ζ U. Η
ζ ε
J
3 Is
can be consistently seen when we examine the tabulated responses for questions
2 through 7.
Individual Community
Totals Totals
Did "ethnic revival" increase E M T use? (32:41.6% Q5: 5 9 . 2 %
Did "ethnic revival" improve attitudes? Q3: 6 2 . 0 % Q6: 69.0%
Did "ethnic revival" renew customs? Q4: 40.1 % Q7: 5 5 . 6 %
The same three questions also reveal marked inter-ethnic group differences:
Individual Community
Totals Totals
Spanish E M T Q i - 54-4% Qy. 80.9%
Spanish E M T Q3: 73-5% Q6: 8 8 . 2 %
Spanish E M T Q4: 66.2% Q 7 : 82.8%
Yiddish E M T Q*·· 2 3·3% Q2: 60.0%
Yiddish E M T Q 5 : 30.0% Q 3 : 80.0%
Yiddish E M T Q4: 13-3% Q4: 5 3-3%
French E M T Q2: 34.1% Q2:25.o%
French E M T Q3 : 43-7% Q5: 31.8%
French E M T Q4: 18.2% Q * 15.9%
Whereas in the Spanish and Yiddish samples our respondents viewed their
respective communities as changing in a more "positive" direction more often
than they themselves (our respondents often viewed themselves as having been
"positive" even before the revival), we find the opposite situation among the
French E M T sample. The individual French activist increased E M T usage and
came to feel more secure in being "French" overtly, but did not as often see such
changes transpiring in the ethnic community. Wherever substantial gener-
ational differences obtain, the native generation's view is more positive than the
foreign-born generation's view in these connections (in agreement with
nation-wide statistical findings reported in Fishman et al. Chapter 7, This
Volume). Among Yiddish activists in particular, the individual figures appear
proportionately rather low. This can be accounted for by the fact that the 19
individuals (out of 30 in our sample) who answered that their use of the E M T
had not increased, qualified their statement by saying things like, "It didn't
increase because it never decreased;" "I personally have always spoken
Yiddish." This view obtained even more commonly among those who were
Orthodox (i.e., among 6 out of 8 self-styled Orthodox Jews) than it did among
those who were conscientious secular Yiddishists (13 out of 22). For a similar
reason, we note that the largest claimed increase in Spanish use is among Chícanos
with 6 3 . 6 % ( Q î / S p i / T ) , i.e., among those who have been exposed to the
influence of English the longest, whereas those who qualified their negative
statements saying, "I never stopped speaking Spanish," "In the family we
always speak Spanish" were primarily Cubans and Puerto Ricans. There was
and is both in Florida (Sp2) and in New York City (Sp3 ) a constant influx of new
monolingual Spanish speakers, either from Puerto Rico itself or, in the case of
Miami, from different Caribbean, Central and South American countries. They
also come either as tourists or to do business, and " w e are, of course, forced to
speak Spanish to them since they don't speak English." Thus, all in all, it is the
more Americanized ethnic "activists," those less exposed to newcomers or
traditional enclaves, whose personal behavior, linguistic and cultural attitudes
changed the most during the "ethnic revival." The re-ethnization of a hitherto
de-ethnicized (proto-) elite has previously been documented as a recurring
aspect of ethnic reawakenings (Fishman 1972, Allardt 1979, Beer 1980).
INTERNAL VS. EXTERNAL CAUSATION OF ETHNIC

REVIVAL
Did internal or external forces cause the revival? Only 22.5% (Q13/GT/T) of
our respondents suggested that external forces brought about the revival,
whereas 7 1 . 8 % (Q8/GT/T) felt that this had been achieved by the efforts of the
community itself. It was often admitted, however, that there was a general
atmosphere conducive to success and that the time to push was " n o w . " The
younger generation of all groups, i.e., those born in the United States, with the
exception of the Cuban young people (Q17/SP2/NB) brought up such reasons
for the prevailing atmosphere as opposition to the Vietnam War, " O u r parents
and grandparents have been pushed around long enough," and, among young
Jews, a desire to fight back as a reaction to the Holocaust. Only the French in
Louisiana often indicated that a particular local group and individual were
instrumental in bringing about new awareness (Q9/Fri/NB and Qio/Fri/NB).
Hispanics in general were the only ones to report frequently being influenced by
"another ethnic movement" (Q15/SpT/T:76.5 % ) , which was usually identified
as the Black Civil Rights movement, with Chícanos comparing César Chávez to
Martin Luther King (Qi5/Spl/T:9o.9%). Similarly, a Hispanic role in the
"ethnic revival" was, at times, mentioned by the French and Yiddish activists,
who attributed the strength of the Hispanics to "sheer numbers." Interestingly
enough, the Spanish activists more frequently report that they know why "the
other ethnic movement" succeeded (Q24), and, also, that they believe that "the
other group's success strategy" can be copied (Q 25).
ETHNICITY WITHOUT EMT?
Is ethnicity without E M T possible? This question prompted a good deal of

emotion, soul-searching and ambivalence. Most respondents were adamant that
such a combination was not possible, and the 38% who admitted that it was
feasible (Q18/GT/T) qualified their statement by saying, " O f course, it would
not be the same kind of ethnicity!" "It would not be the real thing!" Yiddish
activists tended to be most permissive in this connection (Q18/Y/T); 56.7% of
the Yiddish activists saying that Jewish ethnicity could survive without
Yiddish. Both French and Spanish activists almost invariably spoke of the E M T
as being an integral part of the culture, "It is the expression of the soul," "Our
culture without it would be like a body without a heart," " Y o u cannot express
your really intimate feelings in any other language," " I t is the language that
gives warmth and love to our family unit." Many young people talked of
learning or relearning their E M T , of regret that their parents, for reasons they
well understood, had not taught them the language, of their pride and interest
in their heritage and of the value of possessing two languages: "L'homme qui
parle deux langues vaut deux hommes," (a man who knows two languages is
worth two men), while their elders recollected the suffering they had ex-
perienced as children when they were punished for speaking another language
on the school grounds. They were relieved that their children "would not have
to go through that" and were pleased that their children and grandchildren
were more and more interested and dedicated to their ethnolinguistic
background (Hansen 1938). Spanish activists tended to be the most convinced
that "another ethnic group" has been more successful on behalf of its own
ethnic interests than they themselves had been. The French activists were least
convinced of this. The former usually pointed to the Blacks; the latter, to the
Hispanics (as did the Yiddish activists). This is doubly interesting because the
Hispanics were also the most emphatic with respect to their own gains while the
French activists were least so. Seemingly, the French activists were simul-
taneously most isolated with respect to the ethnic revival as a general pheno-
menon and least impressed by it as an intragroup occurrence.
All respondents reported that it would be a great loss if their group ceased to
be separate (Q19/GT/T: 85.9% of all respondents—i.e., 100% of the Spanish
activists, 7 5 % of the French and 70% of the Yiddish), citing loss of identity of
the group as well as part of the self. This is almost equally important to both
native-born and foreign-born activists. Clearly, total assimilation was un-
wanted and the melting pot was not invoked as an ideal.
Despite the above sentiment, 77.5% of the activists (Q21/GT/T) allowed
that there were problems for many of their communities that were more pressing
than the maintenance of the EMT. Economic mobility and acceptance in the larger
Anglo-community were the most often cited, and if giving priority to English
was what such mobility and acceptance demanded, it was very regrettable, but
understandable, if in so doing some part of one's ethnicity (such as language)
fell by the wayside. In all groups, maintaining one's E M T without learning
English was rarely preferred and, indeed, was equated by the younger native-
born activists with backwardness and poverty.
DOMAINS OF EMT AND ENGLISH
Where and when does one speak in the E M T and where and when in English? Is
there a place for English within the ethnic community itself? Eighty-eight
percent of all activists (Q26/GT/T) replied that there were separate domains for
English and for the E M T . Whether English would be used by them within the
ethnic community was qualified by 53.5% as depending on the subject matter
under discussion, and generally also the age of the speakers (Q27/GT/T), with
significantly more English reported as being spoken by the Native-Born than
by the Foreign-Born (Q27/NB:Fr/T;Sp/T;Y). Matters pertaining to business
and professional activity, as well as those relating to school and studies, were
very often reported as being discussed in English because that is the language in
which these activities are transacted, and frequently the speaker does not
command the necessary vocabulary in the E M T . However, on the other hand,
young Puerto Rican activists in New York, often more fluent in English than in
Spanish, explained that they were studying the E M T in college for pragmatic
reasons. They felt that they needed to improve their E M T mastery because the
language is needed in order to communicate with the older generation in the
community and to render services to those recent arrivals who had not yet
learned English. Most of these young people were preparing to work in service
fields and felt that knowing both English and Spanish was an asset which would
yield practical benefits for the community as well as for themselves.
EMT CHANGE
Has the E M T changed recently? Many of the activists pointed to what all
linguists know: that all languages change over time. " I f we don't adapt and
accept the changes, the language will not be alive, it will become like Latin, a
dead language only found in books and that no one speaks any more." Many of
the 78.2% of our respondents who said that their E M T had indeed changed
recently (Q29/GT/T) qualified this by saying that it has not changed for the
better, an opinion most often expressed by the older foreign-born respondents
in all groups. Thus, although many French activists said that more Franco-
Americans were learning the language and attempting to attain standard French
(Q36/Frl/T—5 2.3%), they also commonly reported (as did other activists) that
a great deal of English had crept into daily speech, even into the media, where it
"definitely has no business being," and "even teachers use it," which is wrong,
because "children should be taught correctly in school at least." Some re-
spondents were purists and felt that there should be an English-free standard,
even if not everyone will or can use it. Highly mixed varieties known as
Franglais, Yinglish and Spanglish are resented by many and definitely anger some
(Varo 1971). Most activists, however, make no value judgments on the variety
298 II The Ethnic Revival and'LanguageMaintenance in the USA
spoken; in fact even the French activists don't care very much about how their
neighbors speak it, the important thing being to speak it, to use it and keep it alive.
HOPES FOR THE FUTURE
And what of the future? Almost none of the activists wants a self-contained
ethnic group where only the E M T would be used and almost none wants
linguistic assimilation either. The ideal for many would, of course, be some
stable form ofbilingualism and biculturalism, and 4 5 . 1 % (Q41/GT/T) hope for
respect and acceptance of their language and culture by outsiders and for a
supportive attitude from their own people (Q40/GT/T: 57%). Only an ex-
tremely small percentage, merely 0.7% (Q42/GT/T), fear that linguistic assimi-
lation is in the cards for the future, because "English is a powerful language
which is spreading all over the world."
DIMENSIONAL SUMMARY
Activists of the three American ethnolinguistic groups studied have in common

a conscious and strong desire to maintain their particular ethnicity alongside
their Americanism and consider the E M T to be its most vital and visible
expression. They are concerned about teaching it to their children and generally
refuse to admit that it could entirely die out in the U.S.A. Some mixture of the
E M T and English is generally considered inevitable and the price one has to pay
to keep one's language alive in an Anglo/English-dominated environment
(Rayfield 1970), particularly since it causes no problems of intragroup
communication.
The French activists are just beginning to sense new possibilities for foster-
ing intracommunal use of their E M T and most frequently relate their efforts to
feelings of pride in their background and love for the "elegant beauty" of their
language. The Yiddish activists have relatively modest aspirations, given the
prevalent view even among them that Jewish culture is ultimately not based on
the Yiddish language and can therefore survive without it if need be. The
Hispanics are far more numerous than the other two groups and Spanish
activists are savoring the strength of numbers. Their language will never die
out, they say, since even when English is spoken within the community (and
even within the family), the E M T will prevail, constandy renewed by new
immigration and frequent visits to the mother country.
The French activists in Louisiana have very recently become more vocal and
are encouraged by bilingual education laws in their state. The latter have
enabled them to make some small gains in the use of their E M T despite the fact
that they are still fairly isolated from the mainstream of French speakers (Gold
1980). In the N e w England states, no such legislative assistance is available to
activists, but the close proximity to French Canada, and the constant visiting of
relatives and friends there, both helps to keep language sentiment alive (even if
it does not actually strengthen its use very much) and, on the whole, keeps it at a
more consciously positive level than in Louisiana.
The Chícanos are the most EMT-positive of the Hispanic groups. Claiming
to have taken their cue from the Black civil rights movement, they feel that
they have made substantial gains in ethnic awareness, which in turn may have
encouraged the Puerto Ricans, the least EMT-positive Hispanic group, to start
organizing themselves to take greater advantage of federal occupational and
educational programs with language "possibilities." The language positiveness
of the Cubans is still largely a reflection of immigrational recency plus political
sophistication.
French and Yiddish activists point to "Hispanics" as the ultimate source of
the ethnic revival within their own communities. Thus, an implicit chain of
influence is revealed in popular wisdom: from Blacks to Hispanics, and from
Hispanics to other ethnics. The empirical confirmation of this chain of influence
is not yet at hand (and may even be more a product of popular fantasy than of
historical reality), but its attitudinal reality is nonetheless impressive.
There are a few generational differences which show the native-born activists
(and particularly the hitherto most Americanized among them) to have positive
E M T attitudes/expectations/evaluations more commonly than do the foreign
b o m , e.g., the native-born more commonly attribute increased personal E M T
use to the ethnic boom, they more commonly attribute the ethnic boom to
internal forces, and they more frequently anticipate even more positive E M T
circumstances in the future, both among insiders and outsiders. O n the other
hand, native-born activists are less commonly inclined to be satisfied with
vnxx&community improvement in E M T use or attitudes, less likely to interpret
ethnic separateness as an unambiguous asset for language maintenance and are
less commonly concerned about a puristic standard of E M T usage. A l l in all, the
"ethnic revival" views of language activists reveal complex interethnic and
intraethnic differences, as well as many interethnic and intraethnic similarities, and
the interaction between all of the factors involved will require much additional
scrutiny.
NOTES
ι. W e a c k n o w l e d g e with gratitude the assistance of the f o l l o w i n g local site-coordinators:

Philippe G ü s t i n , C O D O F I L , Lafayette, L A ; Père Jean-Marie Jammes, St. Martinville, L A ;
Claire Quintal, A s s u m p t i o n C o l l e g e , Worcester, M A ; N o r m a n d D u b é , N a t . Materials
Development Center, Bedford, NH; Carmen Silva-Corvalán, University of Southern

California, Los Angeles, CA; Rosa Castro Feinberg, L A U Center, University of Miami, FL;
Lisandro Garcia-Marchi, N Y C Board of Education, New York, N Y : José Cruz-Matos,
Hostos Community College of City University of New York, New York, N Y ; Silvia Burunat,
The City College of the City University of New York, N Y .
z. Qi/GT/T-jQuestion /, Grand Total Column, Total row. This notational form will be used
repeatedly, below, with ethnolinguistic specification (French, Spanish, Yiddish or Native-
born, Foreign-born) indicated as necessary.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allain, Mathé. Twentieth Century Acadians, in Glenn R. Conrad (ed.), The Cajuns: Essays on Their
History and Culture. Center for Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana,
Lafayette, L A , 1978.
Allardt, Eric. Implications of the ethnic revival in modern, industrialized society: a comparative
study of the linguistic minorities in Western Europe. Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium.
(Helsinki), 1979.
Arguelles, Lourdes and Gary MacEoin. El Miami Cubano. Areito, 1980, 7, No. 28, 4 - 1 5 .
Beer, William R. The Unexpected Rebellion: Ethnic Activism in Contemporary France. New York, New
York University Press, 1980.
Bullivant, B.M. Are ethnic schools the solution to ethnic children's accommodation to Australian
society? Journal of Intercultural Studies. 1982, 3, 1 7 - 3 5 .
Eckstein, A. What is the role of ethnic schools in education for a multicultural society? Journal oj
Intercultural Studies, 1982, 3, 48-69.
Fishman, Joshua A. Language and Nationalism. Rowley, MA, Newbury House, 1972.
. Yiddish in America: Sociolinguistic Description and Analysis. Bloomington, Indiana University
Press, 1965.
, Robert L. Cooper, Roxana Ma et al. Bilingualism in the Barrio. Bloomington, Indiana
. Mother-tongue claiming in the United States since i960: Trends and correlates related to
the "revival of ethnicity." Chapter 6, This Volume.
, Michael H. Gertner, Esther G . Lowy and William G . Milán. Non-English ethnic mother-
tongue institutions in the United States: Demographic and functional characteristics. Chapter 7,
This Volume.
Gold, Gerald L. The Role of France, Quebec and Belgium in the Revival of French in Louisiana Schools.
Quebec, International Center for Research on Bilingualism, 1980.
Hallowell, Christopher. People of the Bayou—Cajun Life in Lost America. New York, E.P. Dutton,
1979.
Hansen, Marcus L. The Problem of the Third-Generation Immigrant. Rock Island, IL, Augustana
Historical Society, 1938
Hendrickson, Dyke. Quiet Presence: The True Stories of Franco-Americans in Nev England. Pordand,
M E , Guy Gannett Publishing Co., 1980.
Lewins, F. The political implications of ethnic schools. Journal of Intercultura! Studies. 1982,3,36-47.
Metcalf, Alan A. The Study of California Chicano English. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language. 1 9 7 4 , 2 , 5 3 - 5 8 .
Norst, M. Ethnic schools: What are they and what would they like to be? Journal of Intercultural
Studies. 1982,3, 6 - 1 6 .
S. Ethnic Activists View the Ethnic Revival and Its Language Consequences 301
^ Novak, Michael. The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics, New York, Macmillan, 1973.
Rayfield, J.R. The languages of a Bilingual Community. Hague, Mouton, 1970.
Rushton, William Faulkner. The Cajuns: From Acadia to Louisiana. New York, Farrar, Straus,
Giroux, 1979.
Solé, Carlos A. Selección Idiomàtica entre la Nueva Generación de Cubano-Americanos. The
Bilingual Review, 1979, 6, No. i, 1—10.
Solé, Carlos A. Language loyalty and language attitudes among Cuban-Americans, in Joshua A.
Fishman and Gary Keller (eds.), Bilingual EducationforHispanics in the USA. New York, Columbia
Thibodeaux, John Smith. Les Francophones de Louisiane. Paris, Editions Entente, 1977.
Thompson, Roger M. Mexican-American language loyalty and the validity of the 1970 Census.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 1974, 2, 7 - 1 8 .
Varo, Carlos. Consideraciones Antropológicasy Políticas en Torno a la Enseñanza del"Spanglish" en Nueva
York. Río Piedras, PR, Ediciones Libreria Internacional, 1971.
Waddell, Eric. French Louisiana: An outpost of L'Amérique Française, or another country and
another culture? Projet Louisiane, No. 4, 1979, McGill University, Université Laval, York
University, Canada.
Wolfram, Walt. Sociolinguistic Aspects of Assimilation: Puerto Rican English in New York City.
Arlington, V A , Center for Applied Linguistics, 1973.
Zentella, Ana Celia. Language variety among Puerto Ricans, in Charles A. Ferguson and Shirley
Brice Heath (eds.), Language in the USA, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 218-238.
III THE ETHNIC MOTHER-TONGUE
PRESS AND SCHOOLS AS
COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS
Chapter 9
Language and Ethnicity in the Periodical

Publications of Four American Ethnic
Groups 1
MICHAEL H. GERTNER, JOSHUA A.

FISHMAN, ESTHER G. LOWY AND
WILLIAM G. MILAN
INTRODUCTION
America's ethnic press, like America's ethnic communities, exhibits con-

siderable diversity. It is possible to classify the many hundreds of ethnic
publications in numerous ways, besides the most obvious criterion of ethnic
affiliation. One possible classification is by language. We can indicate whether a
periodical is in the ethnic mother tongue (EMT), in English or bilingual. The
last category offers further possible variations: a publication may be anywhere
from totally or primarily in English to totally or primarily in the E M T , or reveal
a rather even balance between the two languages. In some cases, a periodical at
one time was published almost entirely in the E M T , but in order to attract the
younger and more Americanized generation, most items are now in English,
with an occasional column in the E M T , either for the benefit of the older
generation or to teach the language to the young. Sometimes the only item in
the E M T (or English) language is a translation of the identical content
(frequently an editorial) written in English (or the E M T ) . Many periodicals
maintain a strict segregation between languages: the E M T section comes first,
with English at the end, or vice versa. At least one periodical alternates the
order of languages from one issue to the next.
Another important distinction to make in the ethnic press is the source of the
material. Some American publications function primarily as conduits for news
from the old country, with little reference to the ethnic community in the U.S.;
sometimes even news of the U.S. comes from press services in the old country
3o6 III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
that provide it in the E M T and thus obviate the need to translate American
(English) wire service material. O n the other hand, other ethnic periodicals are
concerned almost entirely with local news, and the old country is mentioned
only as it affects the local community.
One can also classify periodicals by frequency of publication. A daily or a
weekly may not treat the news in the same way as a monthly or quarterly, and
each type of publication may attract different kinds of readers.
A l l the foregoing classifications (according to ethnic group, language, source
of material and frequency of publication) can be made by an almost cursory
glance at the publications to be studied. Content analysis on the other hand,
requires a more painstakingly detailed study of subject matter and the attitudes
of writers (and readers). It is the latter approach that we have adopted in this
study of ethnic themes in a sample of the periodic press of four American ethnic
groups, (Franco-American, German-American, Jewish-American and Hispanic-
American). 2 As a result, many patterns have emerged, some of which support
the above surface classifications, and others that transcend them in important
and novel respects.
RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF MOST COMMONLY

MENTIONED ETHNIC TOPICS
A m o n g the thousands of items of ethnic interest studied in the 1980

French/Anglo-French, German/Anglo-German, Spanish/Anglo-Spanish and
Yiddish/Anglo-Jewish press of the United States, fifty-one common topics
were examined (see Appendix Table Β on Content Analysis Variables). It is not
surprising that the most frequent ethnic topic was ethnicity per se, or rather
identification with one's ethnic group. Ethnicity was referred to in 9 5.9% of the
items studied (see Table 1). This was by far the most common ethnic topic
encountered in all four groups, whether the items were in English or in the
EMT.
After the topic of ethnicity, the four groups diverge. N o one topic appears in
second place for all groups, and the percentages of frequency drop substan-
tially. However, even if the topic rankings are not identical, they are often very
similar from one group to another. A l l eight ethnolinguistic press samples share
the same five topics among their top ten: ethnicity, accomplishments of in-
dividual ethnics, the old country, the E M T and ethnic products or services
available in the United States. For each of the ethnolinguistic press samples, at
least seven (usually eight, and in one case ten) of the top ten topics come from
the top ten of the composite total. Despite the many differences from one
ethnolinguistic press sample to another, all tend to find roughly the same topics
to be of major interest to their readers.
9· Language and Ethnicity in Periodical Publications 307
H >< O
M
<
H z J O S 2 « 3 e i Z e i S í l i l K U Ü t ¿ H ¡ < ¡ D h M O Ú B . <
•S "t Cv Ο ^ Ό r- 00 Cs Cs NTfrtOÔOÔ^l'O'i-
S 3Τ
ω Ν Ν so ^ sO Cv es >- so Tf· —
r . — ^ » 00 Ov h Ο Ν-
β os ι*·» »Λ cv o 0 0 v^ Ν- -4- ws . vO ce ΙΛ Ν I"-- SO 4 >- Ν ^
,ω -
o 00 r- w
— ^ Ν Ο Ν 00 Μ v-rfO
Ο· S vû νΟ O Os Ο v¿ ¿s Μ ^ Ν
I= ίΛa.
crt i»
.Sí
« a° ^ βο ο 00 ο Ο ν^ 00 00 ^ ιλΟ Ο
οο >- ιλ ο \ö 4 ν ^to — o r^ so so «so
. ir ω CS «-> Ν
ι-- νο es ffv t h ^ w> OSCO Ν w, TÍ" «. Tf't"

g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
S G ä
Ε
υ M
c o >Ό ^ » ^ Ο CV Ç\ Ο CS ^
,0 ω N
•C X
o, ^ Ν «ftff\CsO ^ C V O — so -Λ ^ Ο ΟΟ OS ·*->
Ó Ó Ν ο - ο
I
•S I
S 60 «so r-Mso ^ 0 es ·Η os ^ o so ο Γ-- οο w - r - c s ' ^ N ο
h· CV ο 4 «Ο Ο Ο Ν 0\ Ò Ο Ν Ο ο
W £ ω
« o
ON ΙΛ ^ ^ \3 OC ^ Ο so r~- >- o es 00 00 r--
ιΑ ιΑ Ν «Α-^-Ν Os Cn «Α O O* ¿s Cs 00 r-r-sOsOsO A
OS ^fr ^ Ν N N M «H N-
δ =3 »
Η e
A§
X «o _s ν» sO Γ- 00 Os O — SO Γ- 00 OS o
fi S.
Ό
aÜ υ
W
CM c
5 o
S S O o •3
η
S» 3 "2 > t-l
» s ΈΛ to __
Ö 8. 'S rt
-S *c3 ® fe
1 1 1
¡2 'C >.
ja CL K.2 υ G ri
É (2 S •£ 2<> .S2 ES
Η O Hω ω IL EL,
^ ω
H (J H υ u M ^ . S f c ? - ω V S ω 5
S S S I M Ô H Ô S Ï Z R W S S û u z û h s o d S
00 o c\ es ι/-< ν-- Ν Ν Ν Ν M M M M
4 J \¿ m O ο* ο ο ο ο ο ο* ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο* Ο Ò O
« ^ M M M M MM
o o o o o « o o o o ò 6 o o o o o o o o o o o
r^ σ\ Tf o o — ι- ^ 00 Ν Ν go r - 00 o Ν Μ Ν M
Ò ^ Ò « Ν O ^ Ν M* o o M' M Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ò O Ö o
O 00 v-\ 00 o rr\ O O w. 00 »Λ
<A Ν cn Μ O M VN O o o o o o ó
Μ -O Ν Ν μ ^ M Tj· M^, Μ M
O O O O O O O O Ò O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o
Ο «
τ ^ 9 τ
o o * o o - ö o o « ^ o o o o « o o o ' o o o o o o
¿a Ν 00 Ν v-vN C N ^ ' ^ C N ' ^ . ' ^ V - · ^ Ν

ν O
o' O « Ν o' o' Ò 1- o' o' o* o* o o o o o o o o o
Ν Uh (l*
1 1
r - \o oo es CN Ν 00 "Γ Τ N N ν
Β ϊ O* «- O Ν o Ò Ο Ν
- ρ- ω O M N M O O O O O O O O O
O CN 0
o' ó o' o' ó ó ó o ó ó o ó o* o' o* o' o'
• 2 i=3 c
H
11
c _
OÍ Ä
e c
υ υ
H ô ε H ε
•Ό
c S C« ^
υ
Έ.
s
ω
w
"S.
«
Λ
ω ^ e H M »o >
.s ε a S p
.S o >
.S s ω
' ^ 2s ä
.y s • S Si u £ u ÎT
s Ic Il
• a
-Η
2 a(β cU T*
>1 :s ^ c° Η : == 9 -
u ·£ .2 ζ •S s
c « ^ Ί " V « — υ fri
3 JS
Ό ü S — u - .Ü ç ü è s α
M
O C
J3
S
O X Ο «
+5 ta V « 3 •U o s a s 1» U
g" >
•S
JO
2 í
jj 2
U
J:
w
C
«
c
ν
iJ «
3
υ
w ρ & 3 Î
s
Λs
ω
c » I3 3 «¿j Τ
-a 8 S
C rt
3 ε
3 « ο
3 a
ΐ §
ε
8
j £ δ « Ι Λ < 0 ί ι Λ ί Λ < Ι ι 1 u ω OÍ X O ζ β ω (Λ η
9-^Languageand Ethnicity in Periodical Publications 309
However, even greater similarities are found within ethnic groups. The
percentage frequencies of Table 1 were correlated across ethnolinguistic press
samples and the resulting correlations revealed an interesting pattern of ranking
{Table 2). Correlations between the topical emphasis of the English and the
E M T press samples within any one ethnic group are the highest. Next come
correlations between EMT press samples of different ethnic groups, followed by
correlations between English press samples of two different ethnic groups. The
remaining correlations (between English press samples of one ethnic group and
E M T press samples of another ethnic group), true to their miscellaneous
nature, were scattered throughout the ranking. Clearly, the ethnolinguistic
press samples do differ from one another, but they differ from each other even
more when English is employed than they do when their E M T s are employed.
Could it be that their separate English-speaking/reading generations have
moved off in more different directions than originally characterized their non-
English parents and grandparents?
Each ethnolinguistic press sample also distinguishes itself by the frequency
ofparticular topics. The French ethnic press, for example, is especially interested
in the E M T . Whether published in English or in French the topic of the E M T is
the second most frequent, constituting almost the only case where a topic other
than ethnicity appears in a majority of the content-analyzed items for a par-
ticular press sample. Even the topic of E M T use, not very common outside the
French ethnic press, has a relatively high percentage both in its English and
E M T items.
The German ethnic press devotes relatively more attention to community
events, this being the second most frequent topic, appearing in over a third of
both English and E M T items. The German ethnic press is also the least
interested in religion, whether in English or in the E M T , perhaps as a result of
the fact that German-Americans are significantly divided in religion. (Our
sample design did not provide for separate Protestant and Catholic publi-
cations, and nonsectarian publications may tend to avoid that topic).
Only the Hispanic press refers to economic and political advances, E M T or
ethnicity advocacy and transcendental nationalism in more than 1 0 % of its items,
usually in both languages.
The Jewish press mentions religious observances far oftener than the other
ethnolinguistic press samples and also attends more to persecution and to
"another ethnic language" (Hebrew), a topic practically unmentioned in any
other press sample.
Looking across the eight ethnolinguistic press samples, we see that the use of
the E M T or English is related to substantially different frequencies of interest in
certain topics. For example, reference to ethnicity, the commonest topic in any
case, is slightly more frequent in English than in the E M T . On the other hand,
references to the old country, cultural events, religious events and persecution
310 III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
^ 00 ο ^ Ι*- NO
on οο "Μ ο "ν οο
r-- oo oo es οο οο es
M Ό NO Ν Ν Ν ft
C Ο Τι ff* ^ Ν ^
f— 00 Γ"-- 00 00 00
, w
Λ s C \ 00 ^ Ό
Ο Ο
t (Α Λ OS OS CN CN
3 £ &
c3 1/5
I
. ï ω
M
c c
os rt
J4
H E α
IH t-i HS ^
υ υ Ν V-S « ^ \ο οο
χ Κ η Η - -
ON CN
Ο Ο
a
a · «
Ë Üo
U C
. ο «
Ν 00 Ν — SO v-v Τ}" — \0 Ν 00
Ν ΝΗ GS
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Γ""-
a,
£ NO
ON
Ν ÜH ÜH
§
_¿ "β
»
C tlû
M
α ο e
«
« Β, Μ • so r- on o ~
Pi
s
Λ
ΙΛ J3
~5D "3ο
C
ε
υ
«
CU
3
öß Ό
ω
c 8 ω
I
ο
I
(Λ C -o
b
ύ ω * c
.a a
-C J3 § s
<j υ
J3
- O
§ ε ' Si Ά
ε S G
υ
«Ν
υ
££
ρ« -g
^ .. t- * *
- «Ω ο ο κ c Tf T f VO ^ 00 ON ON NO Ο Γ--
O O NO « ^ « T N F R S N O O O O OS oo
H » Ν • so r-- oo ζ^ ON OS CN On On On Cn o n On On oo 00
Language and Ethnicity in Periodical Publications
O
t ^ \û Ν
Ζ
α
α 3
0
9
0
2 *S
ω τ3
H H
I « S
ω
Η S
Μ uiJK
S i a
ω S -o
.S -a
» ω
= H a
C Ä
ω ω
are substantially higher in the E M T . Religious observances, however, are gener-

ally also much higher in the E M T than in English in most press samples but are
only marginally higher in the Yiddish press sample than in the Anglo-Jewish
press sample.
In general, the second-most-frequent topic addressed by the ethnic press is
"accomplishments by individual ethnics," usually treated more frequendy in
the E M T than in English. The ubiquity of this topic would suggest pride in
one's ethnic background. Curiously, however, explicit mention of ethnic pride
(as an abstract topic) occurs rarely; only in French publications does it pass the
1 0 % mark, and there it is frequently accompanied by discussion of ethnic shame
and feelings of inferiority.
Reference to the old country is the third-commonest topic across all lan-
guages and groups. Once more, however, language makes a difference (Table
3). The Franco-American press in English refers to French Canada more often
than to France, Belgium, or French Switzerland, whereas the reverse is true for the
Franco-American press in French. In general, as we have noted before, the
E M T press makes old-country references more frequently than does the
English press in each group. In all instances, however, it is interesting to note
that a variety of "old countries" must be recognized. Indeed, with so many
references to different communities of origin of fellow ethnics, one might
expect considerable interest in transcendental nationalism ("We are all of the
same ethnicity, despite our varying countries of origin"), but this topic appears
rarely except in the Hispanic press in both languages.
For most press samples there is a noticeable pattern of decreasing frequency
from community events to cultural events to religious events. Reference to
religious tradition is generally far higher than to religious events (services,
processions), suggesting that interest in religious values is greater than interest
in religious practice. However, the opposite seems to be the case with respect to
secular ("high") culture. References to institutionally connected cultural
events (e.g., lectures and concerts) are generally much more frequent than are
references to cultural products such as music, art, drama and literary works,
except among Hispanics.
Not all the ethnic experiences of American ethnic minorities have been of a
positive nature. The subject of rejection, oppression and persecution appears in
over ten percent of all items. Despite major differences from one group to
another (the Jewish-press writes about these topics most, the German press
least), this topic is always more frequent in English than in the E M T and often
by quite a wide margin. Every people has known historical suffering, but
apparently not all groups write about it to the same extent. The twice-repeated
embarrassment of having Germany as an antagonist of the United States may
make the German ethnic press particularly reticent with respect to discussing
the war-related rejection/persecution of Germans, whether in the U.S.A. or
9· language and Ethnicity in Periodical Publications 313
Pi
H OO ι-
£
υ
o
o
Η
cri
" t O »
υ υ υ υ
•C Χ J3 J3 J3 Χ J3 - f i
•S ?
υ υ
•s < Λ 4 Λ ι Ι Λ < Λ Ι Λ ( Λ Ι Λ Ι Λ
o Ξ ω Ξ Ξ Ξ Ξ Ξ Ξ
oí Ο Γ—· Ο
^ σ\ ~ Ν
^ ί ί Λ ο
HD
c¿ B¿
rt
C
Ά <Λ
Έ
υ c/5 ( Λ
a Ρ D
c
υ Ι ?Λ -o" -ό
-g c c
Ό
c ε"
«
3 -α
"C
υ
^ υ
<υ
α,
U
α.
'So rt
Ν ο ο
a k4 H
13
η
C
d I Ι?
cΛ Λ
3
ω
3
ω
U
c c
υ JS
υ u u
u ω"
υ
c e c c -5 -a
rt u « rt S «
μ h b ^ α û.
CL, BU BU BU t/3 ΙΛ
oí Ο ^ GO
r^ rj·
\ Ν
Ι--
es
VX
-
Ν
o
a
&
o
iL
o
H t-t
1/1 « 3 3
w ω
c e a
e υ
.2 s 3 υ υ
C C
o
"S
Ό JS>
V < <„ 'u
o
-V
qj
c
£ ε ε ω ω
« sr
S < <
ë ε ε s s
2
oí £ O O J 3 Ά
i X « M S3
3 .S y
C
s
60
«
be
-f.
C
—
c U
ε
••s M ε '-a
;; c
3? u Λ
α. iJ C C « >1
O
S "S
.S .3
J3 J3
S? κ
•û
Λ m vt ^ ^ a
o
w <υ
H eu tì Bu BU O O X SC H
314 HI The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
abroad. The grands dérangements of the eighteenth century, when the British
expelled the French from Canada, and they sought refuge in N e w England and
Louisiana, is the historical tragedy most frequently discussed in the French
press, but given its remoteness by now the frequency of its mention is currently
rather low. The rejection, oppression, persecution topic most common in the
Hispanic press in 1980 was the misery of the refugees from Mariel (in Cuba) in
connection with their efforts to escape to the United States. For Jews the
Holocaust is the persecution topic of most frequent publication treatment.
Except among the Hispanics, economic and political advances of the ethnic
group are somewhat less frequently mentioned than persecution, rejection, etc.
The relatively frequent attention given to economic and political advances by
the Hispanic press, especially in English, can be related to the slow but steady
progress of Hispanics in approximating the mainstream, and the priority that
this goal receives in Hispanic circles. Economic and political setbacks are closely
related, thematically, to economic and political advances, but there appears to be
little relationship between the two sets of figures. In general, the latter theme is
less frequently mentioned than the former and, with the clear exception of the
Jewish press samples, both themes are usually more common in the English
than in the E M T press samples.
ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHNIC TOPICS
Frequency percentages show how often a topic occurs, but they ignore attitudes
toward the topic. Accordingly, our content analysis coding also indicated
whether the attitude expressed toward a particular topic was negative, neutral
or positive, scaled respectively as 1, 2 and 3. By adding the scores assigned to
each topic and by noting the frequency distribution of score sums for all items,
we can arrive at a general impression of relative attitudes in each ethnolinguistic
press sample.
As further refinement, rather than merely examining the scores for all fifty-
one topics separately, w e classified the topics according to a block system that
grouped them into six major themes: concrete manifestations of ethnicity,
concrete manifestations of the ethnic mother tongue, concrete manifestations
of both ethnicity and the E M T , on the one hand, and abstract manifestations of
ethnicity, abstract manifestions of E M T , and abstract manifestations of both
ethnicity and E M T , on the other hand (see Appendix Table C). For each block,
the sums of scores will reflect attitude toward the topics included in that block:
the higher the sum, the more positive the attitude (obviously, when a topic does
not appear in an item, the contribution of that topic toward the sum will be
zero).
Table 4 shows the distribution of sums of scores. In Block 1, for example,
since there are six topics, the highest possible sum for an item would be 18 (6
χ 3). In fact, the highest sum was 15. A zero sum reveals that for one particular
item no topic in the block was mentioned. Since higher sums indicate a larger
number of positive attitudes, Table 5 shows the percentages of highest sums in
each block for each ethnolinguistic press sample. It is noteworthy that in three
of the six blocks (1, 4, and 6), English items in the French ethnic press have the
largest percentage of high scores, reflecting the recent resurgence of interest in
French language and ethnicity. O n the other hand, German items in the
German ethnic press have three of the lowest percentages of high scores, and
English items in the German ethnic press have two of the three remaining lowest
percentages of high scores, reflecting the continuing and unrelieved decline of
German language use and use attitudes or aspirations in the United States.
Correlations between the percentages of highest scores in the different press
samples (Table 6) yield results that resemble the results previously discussed in
conjunction with Table 2: by and large, correlations between English and E M T
press samples o f the same ethnic group and correlations between E M T press
samples of different ethnic group are higher than between English press samples
of different ethnic groups. Interestingly enough, the lowest correlation between
English and E M T press samples of the same ethnic group obtains in the
Hispanic fold (as was also the case, although less dramatically, in Table 2).
INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES
We are dealing with 77 variables: 51 content analysis topics, six blocks, four
press samples in the E M T , four press samples in English, ten genres, frequency
of publication and length of item, yielding 2875 possible intercorrelations all in
all (not counting correlations of a variable with the block which includes it).
O f them, 3 only 91 correlations are of any notable magnitude ( + . 1 9 0 or
greater). One of the largest correlations is also at first glance quite startling.
Between items in Spanish and the general topic of ethnicity there is a correlation
of-.37484. This figure is substantially higher than the corresponding corre-
lations between ethnicity and the other ethnolinguistic press samples and is a
reflection of the more frequent negative context ("problems") of their ethnicity
for recent Spanish speaking immigrants (see also Garcia Chapter 10, This
Volume). There is nearly as high a negative correlation between Spanish and
the block of topics involving ethnicity in the abstract:-.32007. Between this
same block and frequency of publication, there is also a high negative cor-
relation:-.32074. It is not surprising that the most frequently appearing
publications, the dailies, are more concerned with reporting the everyday news
(whether ethnic or not) and therefore devote proportionately fewer items to
attitudes toward ethnicity. It is noteworthy that the length of an item correlates
o tJ-
" \oO
•<t Ν G \ 00
ιλ Ν
c
-C
«Ö
a,
o
<
oo « \o oo o* M »
Ν o o σν -φ Ν
t Β Tt νο Ν ** σν οο
£
m e/i§
υ t » ί
'Ε,
Ο
-Û
<
t O Ο Ο
υ ^ ΟΟ
t-1
Γ^ Μ
Ο
"1
"Φ " ϊ CJ.
s
Ο Ί;
Ν ο"
S %·
pa -
<
JC O •Ί- Γ Ο Ο Γ ο >— ο
m
ε3 Ο ~ οο
Ο
οο
^
σ\ ο
οο οο
(Λ
e J3 Λ
<υ ' - -C Λ
Μ U M
Μ öJO •Ä G s- 9 3 Ό
3 -
S ü â «S*
Ό
60 γ § CU
.. e w C G â £
.S .S g
υ ο •S
a.
-s -s
c c
ε
t¿ A cd Jh
ΙΛ
ss
S S "S
« .S
(Λ (J g
υ
g
υ ΙΛ <ΛΕp
Û - CL - g
e W kl
χ Λ
1/1
«
υ Άa t . u , O Ü S β
(Χ tì • \D r - oo
9- Language and Ethnicitj in Periodical Publications 317
o ^»-soo o
o r- 00
^ so ν m ^r-esΝ00
ν- o«o~r--
soI
S "S o
I ä .W
§ α
h CO vo Ν ON"·* 0 OC 'e -C
NM-SO'-'CNNI-«^
^ SO Ν *•· ^ CV 90 X S 2 O no r^ es
Λ
( C4
2/3
o α.a Β
Χ oΟn-
"iï α.
- OΝ » O
SO
IN
O
»1° O O O
3 2ω «o
ο
ι
6C0
010 r- 0 so ur--s o 0T0i- Ν Ν «f\ •a .1 ^ OΝN
OM
0 •«•s00 0M0 vO TN ^ N υ υ
üO Μ
α. -5 iì!
N 00 ΝSO 000 so so
O 00 Ν J32u Ζ
Ν so £ft< li-s
cq teuo r^- ^
O ω
O N CN
is
_oc 1
JS •φ O N
O - Tf
H
r- 00\ûon» o»ccr*\
rj-oGN^ aco Si) ti. [L,
00or--or-
Ό
1 U LS
60
£Κωe
00 O O
üë
JS
» J3
w §!
-β e M bc '3 H cυ υ" s
υou ν)
» a2 "
M
òo «—g a i â α S S
WW U l « Χ" 3T3
f» ν ΙΑ
g ON 0
£ g < λ β Γ2 t/5
.s H ^ S ·3 •fio Β I 1NI NO
jj β c β o u .2 -S "3 « 2 3
O
i
cη
CL, ti gÇ? SΛÍ ίΛí (Λ •sVi·3fi
6 υ (J I C ΙΛL,(ΛCLρ. ·Γρ «gao αu>w
(«g Π -M
Λ I' 'SfcS^Β.S üΟü υS >5 H ä>c
£ II -Q
rt
υO
& (S Ν * - Η 5 ή Ν
•Γ Ό Tf >-ι
& -g Ν Ό ν o
— SO Ν ^ 00 GS
X "S
(Λ
Xä
'3 M o ·- "t 00 cs r-
*r\ Γ - SO CS
SO Γ-- CN
ο., Ή
« rt
χ £
C -ft
rt • £
û - -¿¡ η
•Ïï c
• χ ω
c c
rt rt
ε G
u uε ^ CS I- sO Γ"- o© Cs O >—
<υ ν h- 00
Tf oo so
• o o
S -fi
π üb Tj- 00
«¿ e
CS 00
00
. 0 ω
Cs r - 00 Cs VN t Ό Ò ^ Γ-
« s o •Ί" r- W O SO Ν SO
SO V- -Ί- ^
Ν ÜM ÜN
υ
w
S£ G
M
C
~ a, m \0 Γ-- OO Os O
Γ-» >»- ON 00 rT\ O Cs oo

v-s ^ oo oo s o Ό ν- O Cs
Cs 9s Cs oo oo oo oo oo OO Ι*"-
Language and Ethnicity in Periodical Publications
υ
o oo r^
3 a
O
υ
O
O
ζ
oN M α
M H- 3O
u
Q. ta
3 υ
O
I
«cu υd
εω -αi
I I Η
•5 S S
β ω
Η υ
S ¿J
(il S
¿(Λ • 91/3
60
α 2 C
ω ω ω
ί Ν
Ο \0
3 io III The Ethnic Mother- Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
positively with seven ethnic variables (ancestry, abstract ethnicity, old country,
other ethnic language, persecution, ethics and religious observance), all. 19 5 or
higher. Ethnic topics would seem to come up more often in longer articles,
particularly those that appear in nondaily publications (these also being the
publications that have the largest proportions of longer articles).
The press sample yielding the largest number of important ethnic corre-
lations is that in Yiddish, correlating positively with six ethnic variables (concrete
ethnicity, Israel, religious observance, other ethnic language, abstract ethnicity
and "other"). On the other hand, Anglo-Jewish press items correlate positively
with three variables (ethnic literature not in the E M T , Israel and other ethnic
language), all at the level of .194 or higher.
Block 2, dealing with abstract manifestations of ethnicity, shows six positive
correlations (with concrete ethnicity, abstract E M T and ethnicity, ethnic ad-
vocacy, Yiddish, religious observance and old country) and one negative corre-
lation (with Spanish) of .210 or more.
Religious observance has five important positive correlations (with religious
events, other ethnic language, Yiddish, ethics and abstract ethnicity), all over
.21. We may compare references to religious traditions with mention of actual
religious events, which has only one important correlation—with religious
observance. We recall that in terms of the percentage of items, references to
religious observance were more than twice as often as references to religious
events.
There are 28 correlations between the eight press samples of which five are
.22962 or greater. This proportion (17.9%) represents the highest concen-
tration of sizable correlations for any grouping of variables. Furthermore, not
only these five but all 28 correlations are negative, a unanimity not to be found
elsewhere. Clearly, each ethnolinguistic press sample is also importantly
unique, and its use of either English or the E M T is appreciably individualistic in
choice of topics.
Let us now, as our final analytic endeavor, attempt to use our intercorre-
lations cumulatively, in order more fully to account for the occurrence of two
topics of major concern to us: (i) E M T and (ii) E M T use.
THE CUMULATIVE PREDICTION OF REFERENCE

TO EMT AND TO EMT USE
A relatively high positive correlation of .417} exists between reference to E M T

and reference to E M T language use so that each topic is the best single predictor
of the other. The next best predictors of reference to E M T (Table 7) are Factor 5
(with high loadings for concrete manifestations of E M T and ethnicity, ethnic
products and services and financial appeal) and Factor 9 (with high loadings for
Table 7. Forward Selection for Dependent Variable EMT
Order of Cum Cum

entry Name of Variable r R R2 F
I Language use .41750 •4173 .1741 2,649.27

2 Factor 5* .17430 .4851 •2353 1,933.19
3 Factor 9* -.05309 .5025 .2525 1,414.29
4 Ethnic financial appeal — .00204 .5164 .2667 1,141.98
5 Ethnicity -.13789 .5308 .2817 985.38
6 Item in Spanish language -.18875 •5477 .3000 897.11
7 Factor ι* .03501 •5 5 59 .3090 802.38
8 French item in English .18842 .5617 •3155 723.58
9 Paid advertisement •15314 .5676 .3222 663.22
10 Ethnic literature •22753 •5734 .3288 615.16
11 Factor 6* .04606 •5771 •3331 570.07
12 Length of items .12125 .5815 .3382 534-7'
1} Item in French language .14890 •5857 .5430 504.06
14 Ethnic superiority .04194 .5888 • 3467 475-71
15 Religious event — .04620 .5914 •3497 450.03
16 German language .01000 •5941 •3529 427.76
17 Language and ethnicity linkage .10809 •5951 •3542 404.89
18 Item in Yiddish language .07969 .5962 •3 5 5 5 384.51
19 Ethnic codes of ethics — .05480 •5972 •3567 366.12
20 News item -.15003 .5983 •3580 349.85
21 Israel -.01139 .5992 •359' 334·67
22 Ethnic music, art, drama .05650 .5998 •3 598 520.48
Factor 4* — .00946 .6012 .3614 308.57
Religious observance -.05839 .6017 .3621 296.64
Advocacy without implementation .06446 .6021 •3625 285.25
26 Traditional behaviors .01042 .6023 .3628 274.65
27 Hispanic item in English .00065 .6026 .3631 264.81
28 Race and ethnicity linkage .01842 .6029 •3635 255.68
*9 How to maintain the EMT .10982 .6031 •3637 247.15
30 Factor 8* .11074 •6034 .3641 259.23
31 Renewed interest in ethnicity .02551 •6037 .3644 2 1
î -77
32 Accomplishments of individual
ethnics — .06410 .6038 .3646 224.78
33 English influence on the EMT .06139 .6041 •3649 218.21
34* Source of the ethnic revival .04121 .6042 .3651 211.97
extracted. The variables with highest loadings on Factor ; are (a) concrete manifestations of
language and ethnicity, loading .59874; (b) ethnic products and services, loading .45473; (c) ethnic
financial appeal, loading .41564; (d) religious event, loading — .40756. A possible name for Factor ;
might be "material ethnic activity." The variables with highest loadings on Factor 9 are (a) E M T
standard, loading —.65658; (b) the ethnic boom of the 1960s, loading .33636; and (c) implemen-
Table 7. (cont.)
tation of the boom, loading .32012. A possible name for Factor 9 might be "nonstandard E M T
arising from the ethnic b o o m . " The variables with highest loadings on Factor 1 are (a) abstract
manifestations of ethnicity, loading .72317; (b) length of items, loading .54986; (c) ethnic ancestry
and history, loading .43293; and (c) abstract manifestations of E M T and ethnicity, loading .40687.
A possible name for Factor 1 might be "attitudes toward the ethnic past, as shown in long articles."
The variables with highest loadings on Factor 6 are (a) the source of the ethnic revival, loading
.50416; (b) ethnic pride or shame, loading —.40269; and (c) the ethnic boom of the 1960s, loading
.38881. A possible name for Factor 6 might be "the lack of ethnic sentiment associated with the
b o o m . " The variables with highest loadings on Factor 4 are (a) concrete manifestations of E M T and
ethnicity, loading .52487; (b) ethnic financial appeal, loading .50480; (c) religious event, loading
.47466; and (d) religious observance, loading .40684. A possible name for Factor 4 might be
"financial and religious commitment to ethnicity." The variables with highest loadings on Factor 8
are (a) abstract manifestations of E M T and ethnicity, loading —.48430; (b) EMT/ethnicity
advocacy, loading — .434; 2; and (c) ethnic superiority, loading .40001. A possible name for Factor
8 might be "feelings of ethnic superiority unaccompanied by other ethnic attitudes."
+No other variable met the .05 significance level for entry into the model.
E M T standard, the ethnic boom of the 1960s and implementation of the boom).
The following two best predictors of reference to E M T are ethnic financial
appeal and ethnicity per se. A n item written in the Spanish language is the next
best predictor (and, as we have noted before, it is negatively correlated with the
EMT). With the addition of the variable "Spanish" the overall cumulative
multiple correlation is raised to .5477. From this point on, additional variables
make minuscule contributions to the overall prediction of reference to E M T
which reaches a total multiple correlation of .6042. This is not an insignificant
multiple by any means, but, nevertheless, it still leaves two-thirds of the variance
in E M T reference to be explained by future research.
We can now examine the variable EMT language use and attempt to account
for its occurrence (Table S). The first predictor, as we have seen, is reference to
E M T . The second best predictor is, not very surprisingly, reference to in-
creased use of the language. The next best predictor, E M T or ethnicity ad-
vocacy with implementation, is likewise understandable since a person wishing
to increase use of the E M T will advocate it. The first language serving as a
predictor of the topic of E M T use is German, with a negative correlation
(reflecting its declining use). The next best predictor is the topic of ways to
maintain the language, a topic which is closely related thematically to E M T or
ethnicity advocacy. These six variables form a multiple R of .5023. Additional
variables contribute little more to the multiple correlation; the final value
attained is .5226. In this case, therefore, three-quarters of the variance still
remains to be explained. Our predictive difficulty, in both instances ( E M T
mention and mention of E M T use), is that these topics both come up rather
rarely and, accordingly, their multiple prediction is curtailed because of
"restriction of range".
Table 8. Forward Selection Procedure for Dependent Variable Language Use
Order of Cum Cum

entry Name of Variable r R R2 F
I EMT .41730 •4173 .1741 2,649.27

2 E M T increase .28064 .4706 .2215 1,787-71
3 Advocacy with implementation .18797 .4859 .2361 1,293.94
4 Item in German language -.09513 •49 2 5 .2426 1,006.07
5 H o w to maintain the E M T .18489 .4985 .2485 830.62
6 Traditional behaviors .09896 .5023 .2523 706.35
7 Paid advertisement -.00488 .5047 • 2 547 613.27
8 Announcement -•07543 .5068 .2568 542.45
9 English influence on the E M T .10949 •5087 .2588 487.14
IO Cultural pluralism .08505 .5099 .2600 441.24
11 Item in Yiddish language -.08318 .5112 .2613 403-73
12 Factor 2* .21968 •5135 .2637 374.62
13 Source of the ethnic revival •03459 •5151 .2653 348.71
14 Hispanic item in English •05679 .5160 .2663 525.46
ι; Religious event -•ΟΪ593 .5168 .2671 504.90
16 Language & ethnicity linkage ••4393 •5175 .2678 286.90
17 Ethnic superiority or inferiority .02987 .5181 .2684 270.87
18 Renewed interest in ethnicity .06639 .5187 .2691 256.63
'9 Race and ethnicity linkage .01389 •5193 .2697 243.88
20 Israel .03039 .5200 .2704 232.43
21 Acculturation and assimilation .10027 .5204 .2708 221.80
22 Nature of ethnicity .03088 .5207 .2711 212.12
News item -.05536 .5211 .2715 203.25
Frequency of publication -.07391 .5214 .2719 195.15
25 Photograph with little text -.05832 .5218 .2723 r8 7 . 7 2
26 Transcendental nationalism .08107 .5221 .2726 180.73
27 Ethnic boom & ethnicity
implementation .02350 .5223 .2728 174.22
28t Ethnic boom of 1960s .03238 .5226 .2731 168.19
* T h e factor analytic method employed was that of untotated principal axes. Ten factors were
extracted. T h e variables with highest loadings on Factor 2 are (a) concrete manifestations of
ethnicity, loading —.49110; (b) other ethnic languages, loading —.39615; (c) Spanish language,
loading .393 50; (d) ethnic pride, loading .3 8494. A possible name for this factor might be "Hispanic
pride with no practical application."
^No other variables met the .05 significance level for entry into the model.
)24 III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
ISSUE PROFILES
Our content-analysis project was able to study only the most ethnically oriented
items in the issues under consideration. Many other items had some more
marginal ethnic content, like general news from the old country or advertise-
ments subdy oriented toward ethnic audiences, but all these had to be neglected
because of the magnitude of the content analysis study. The issue profile
substudy, therefore, examined all items, whether content analyzed or not,
whether ethnic or not, in every issue studied in the content analysis project. In
this way, a somewhat broader overall view of each press sample was obtained.
For all press samples, whether in the EMT or in English, the commonest
ethnic category for a nonadvertisement is an old-country reference (see Table 9,
category 8). However, the relative frequencies of mention are substantially
higher for EMT than for English items of the same ethnic group. Indeed, in the
English items, non-ethnic references are usually more frequent than old-country
references, suggesting that ethnics who write in English have more predomi-
nant general (non-ethnic) interests than do those that write in the EMT.
Ethnic items without reference to the EMT are always far more numerous
than items which do refer to the EMT, whether they are written in the EMT or
not.
Ethnic advertisements yielding the highest frequency of occurrence are
usually for food or restaurants. These percentages are generally higher in
English than in the EMT, particularly for food and restaurants, entertainment
and travel to the old country. In these three categories, the EMT is obviously
not a prerequisite for enjoying the ethnic products or services being offered.
Ethnogastronomy and ethnotourism can outlast ethnolinguistic usage or con-
cern. Furthermore, in most EMTs the total frequency of all ethnic advertise-
ments taken together is higher than for non-ethnic ads taken together, whereas
in English the reverse is generally the case. Again we note the lower frequency
of ethnic emphasis in English than in the corresponding EMTs.
French ethnic publications are most notably characterized by their high
frequency of references to the old country, both in English and in the EMT.
Given the popular association of France and haute cuisine, we are not surprised
that the percentages for advertisements of ethnic food and restaurants are
higher among the French than among any other group, in both languages.
Non-ethnic items other than advertisements are more frequent in the German
press (whether in English or in the EMT) than in any other press sample. If
items in English in the German ethnic press are indicative of the future, the
outlook for German ethnicity in the U.S.A. is not bright because non-ethnic
items occupy nearly three-quarters of all items in English. Among the content-
analyzed items (i.e., among items of ethnic content), the German press also has
the lowest frequencies in English. The only ethnic category with a relatively
SO V-.
ν 4 r^· O O O O I O I
•s -Ό
CN OO M
0 0 0 0
l°l
Λ 2- ο ο ~ · - ο ό ο ό ο
•3 »
a.
1 3
H) o - r-- so 1-
c o o o o I o o o o* « o* o o o
w
•Λ CN \ 0
o o o o I
S u
ß
μ o o o I O O O - ^ - O O " - -
I ^ I"- o
a.
1
a,
3
o r - 00
u>
<c
» 3
Ν Çv
- Ó ά
•β
â
Λ 2L
•ä <"
S.
ä |
'So
â
e
rt
E
«ri
ι υ
g u
g
<SS
"ôû
e
ω
X
ë
a
•C β-
Ι
Um <Λ
S l-J 00 Cv « f4
£
Öß ¿
·§ h
Έ S
Β ω
¿ S Ji J¡ -
a ε ~
'Ξ S 3 -
•S S 2 -Ξ *
o
to
-S -S H ^
O O ζ ζ W w Ξ w
ni % U £
9- Language and Ethnicity in Periodical Publications 327
high frequency in the German language press is reference to the old country, a
reflection of the past.
In many ways, however, the Hispanic press strikes one as being no more
ethnically oriented than the German press. Non-ethnic ads in the EMT are the
highest of any press sample, and in English they are more than twice the
percentage that they are in Spanish, although still below the overall percentage
for English items in the German ethnic press. One could argue that non-ethnic
advertisements reflect the general business community's awareness of the
importance of the Hispanic market, thus constituting a positive sign for
ethnicity. However, the percentage of non-ethnic non-ads in English is also
higher than in any other press sample; in the E M T the percentage is the second
highest after German. Obviously, there are more indicators of deethnization (or
of non-ethnic priorities) in the Hispanic press—whether in English or in
Spanish—than has generally been recognized.
Originally the ethnic press published entirely in English was also to be
compared with English items in EMT periodicals. The scope of this subproject
was necessarily reduced, owing to lack of time and funds, and only the Anglo-
Jewish press was sufficiently represented to allow a three-way comparison:
items in Yiddish, items in English published in a periodical also publishing in
Yiddish and finally, items in an entirely English periodical (Anglo-Jewish). The
frequency distribution for the three types of items indicates many differences
(Table 9), but correlations of the issue profile percentages clearly show (Table 10)
that the Anglo-Jewish press is more similar to the Yiddish press than to English
items in the Yiddish press (not to mention English items in other press
samples). In other words, English is the E M T for the Anglo-Jewish press. The
Anglo-Jewish press attempts to provide as much ethnic exposure as does the
Yiddish press whereas the English items in the Yiddish press are much more
topically restricted. The Anglo-Jewish press published entirely in English is
unique in the annals of the American ethnic press, both in size and in topical
focus (Fishman, Hayden, Warschauer 1966). It should be noted, however, that
both in the content analysis and in the issue profiles studies, the Yiddish press
sample still shows the highest incidence of reference to ethnicity in comparison
to other press samples.
To return to the more general point, we have noted that the correlations of
issue profile percentages by language (Table 10) reveal a much less clear pattern
than the correlations of content analysis topics by language (Table 2). It should
be recalled that our content analysis study is ethnicity-oriented, whereas eth-
nicity is simply one aspect of a total issue profile, even in the ethnic press.
Therefore, the differences between our content analysis findings and our issue
profiles findings reflect the differences between items of ethnic interest and
items with little or no ethnic interest.
1- O » so "Φ O « so
g
"1
3
et* O s£> « »λ ό 00
v-s w-s r«-
σ\ <1 \0 Ό SO
so so 00 s o Os
£ T3 ίΛ Ό OO «Λ Ό Ό
u r ; so V s ι-< SO TJ-
0\ ^ Η M I« SO
* g 5 so Os O SO
ι-, es Ν oo r--
ö(Λ- S« l· M t » ^
KN Ν Ν Ν ^
S O" Ό v-N Γ-- s o oo
«y\ κ·\
o» "3d c\ o
•!2 C
Cs
.ac ω
c g
rt rt
u u
ε
υ υ
ε
u
Ο
00 e s s o
SO SO
0 0 0
-«t Ν
r^ ι-
O s o
y ^ ·Λ »Λ Ν Ν
• o o
E
ί:
ä
M « a<Λ
ο e Ν 00 • so r-- 00 os o **
O Pi
, Ο ω
g c
u υ
IH IH
Ν li, li,
4- * <•- •+ *
Χ Ό Η Η Ό o Ν OS 00 00
Ν <-ι Ο Γ-- SO SO 00 SO SO
SO SO SO V-S V», ^ Tf ^
<J 3
G ùo
S C
« ft, W
G
« »
• so 00 es o
Λ - (A
J=
(Λ (Λ
Λ
-C
•G
a Λ-
PÄ
(Λ
:3 υ l e g SP g
-T3
S? s
G
¿3
U
fh
.S
w
CL,
ιλ
ÙO
c 3 t
Λ
ω £ ¿ a ύ ύ ω
«
§ § "S ^
§ g S, ö , - s
u ϋ .2 .S ί*
Ml
C
J2
iL, U- O O I Ï " < Ü

C
+4
Cs ·"·
••
'-· W-s SO SO
•«•ν 00 ww.
•*}·
Ν
o 00
»Λ ιΛ
r--
Q Ν SO
(J Os Os O s 00 00 ι- r- so so so so
. SO I"- OO Cs
-ÜÍ
G
U M Tj-
j<¡ï cην +,-, e_, Ν
O
u
o
Ζ
α
α, 3
3 Ο
ο ΜΙ
•a
Χ!
Β
« 3Β. ε <*
»4J Ο
^ tuO TJ
J3 60 Ν
C .S
Η
1 S
«
Η s a
« 'S
ω Ιΐ
τι ^
•s - a
J3 O
Ρ
ω
3
e 11
ω « ω S
3 3o III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
CONCLUSIONS
We have shown that despite the great diversity that exists between eight
ethnolinguistic press samples, certain patterns emerge. The different ethnic
presses tend to write most frequently about very similar topics, both in their
EMT and in English, but more so in their EMT. Nevertheless, in spite of the
similarities, each ethnolinguistic press sample reveals itself to be unique, and
each ethnic group distinguishes itself from the others in its pattern of topical
emphases.
The French ethnic press is more concerned than others with the EMT, the
old country and ethnic pride and exhibits the most positive attitudes toward
most ethnic topics. The German ethnic press shows the least positive attitudes
toward ethnic topics, writes more about community events and generally has
lower frequencies of ethnic topics than do the other ethnic presses studied. The
Hispanic ethnic press is, perhaps, the most ambivalent of the four we have
examined. It writes far more frequently than others about economic and
political accomplishments, EMT/ethnicity advocacy with implementation and
transcendental nationalism, and it shows the most positive attitudes toward
abstract ethnicity. On the other hand, it often displays very negative attitudes
toward concrete ethnicity and has the highest percentage of nonethnic items.
The Jewish ethnic press writes more about religion, persecution and a second
ethnic language, and generally has the highest rate of reference to most ethnic
topics.
In general, items published in the EMT mention ethnic topics more
frequently (but not necessarily in a more positive way) than do items published
in English. This is least true in the Jewish case, where the Anglo-Jewish press
has almost as much ethnic emphasis as does the Yiddish press itself.
Two different methodological approaches (content analysis and issue profile
study) have both revealed that the various EMT press samples are appreciably
more similar to each other than are the various English press samples. A basic
similarity in immigrant interests and experiences across ethnic groups, on the
one hand, and growing differences between the second and third generations of
various ethnic groups (including differences in social mobility and in the
indiginization of their ethnicity), on the other hand, are implied by these
findings.
Less unexpectedly, EMT and English press samples from the same ethnic
group are more similar to each other than are EMT and English press samples
of different ethnic groups. Interestingly enough, it is in the English press
samples that EMT and ethnic advocacy are most marked. Finally, although
EMT references and mention of EMT use are both highly predictable topics in
the eight press samples we have studied, appreciable amounts of unexplained
variance still remain in connection with both of them as intriguing tasks for
future research.
9- Language and Ethnicity in Periodical Publications 3 31
NOTES
ι. The coauthors are indebted to Ofelia García for her helpful critique of an earlier draft.
2. See Appendix Table A for a list of the periodicals studied and several basic descriptors
characterizing them.
3. Owing to the size of the complete 77 by 77 matrix, no table of all intercorrelations will be
presented here. What follows, therefore, is a brief discussion of the most interesting larger
correlations (all of which are "statistically significant" because of the large numbers
involved).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
As an aid to future research, this bibliography attempts to be inclusive (although it is probably not
exhaustive) with respect to studies of the non-English press in America. Accordingly, it lists
references in addition to those mentioned in the body of the paper.
Arndt, Karl J . R . The German Language Press of the Americas, volume 1 , 3 r d edition. München: Verlag
Dokumentation, 1976; volume 2, ibid, 1973; volume 3, München: K . G . Saur, 1980.
Ayer Directory of Publications. Bala Cynwood (PA): Ayer Press, 1980.
Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glencoe (IL): Free Press, 1 9 ; 2.
BirziSka, Vaclovas. The American-Lithuanian publications, 1 8 7 5 - 1 9 1 0 . journal of Central European
Affairs, 1959, 396—408.
Carney, Thomas F. Content Analysis: A Technique for Systematic Inference from Communications.
Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1972.
Castillo, Lupe and Herminio Rios. Mexican-American newspapers 1 8 4 8 - 1 9 4 2 . El Grito, Summer
197°. i7~*4·
Castillo, Lupe and Herminio Rios. Toward a true Chicano bibliography: Mexican American
newspapers. El Grito, Summer 1972, 40—47.
Chyz, Y . J . 22; Years of the U.S. Foreign Language Press. N e w Y o r k : American Council for
Nationalities Service, 1959.
Clyne, Michael G . Multilingual Australia. Melbourne, River Seine Publications, 1982.
Del Olmo, Frank. Chicano Journalism: N e w Medium for a N e w Consciousness, in Michael C.
Emery and Ted C. Smythe, Readings in Mass Communications. Dubuque: Brown, 1972.
Directorio Chicano: A Resource Listing of Chicano Print Media. Hayward (CA): Southwest Network,
March 1 9 7 ; .
Fishman, Joshua A . N e w Y o r k ' s non-English dailies and the deliveryman's strike. Journalism
Quarterly, i960, 37, 2 4 1 - 2 5 4 .
. and Heriberto Casiano. Puerto Ricans in our press, in Bilingualism in the Barrio.
Bloomington: University of Indiana Publications, 1975, 4 3 - 5 5 .
. and Gella Schweid Fishman. Separatism and integrationism: A social-psychological
analysis of editorial content in N e w Y o r k newspapers of three American minority groups. Genetic
Psycholog) Monographs, 1959, 59, 2 1 9 - 2 6 1 .
. Esther G . L o w y , Michael Gertner and William G . Milan. Language Resources in the United
States, volume r: Guide to Non-English-Language Print Media. Rosslyn (VA): National Clearinghouse
for Bilingual Education, 1981.
. Robert G . Hayden and Mary E . Warshauer. The non-English and the ethnic group press,
1 9 1 0 - 1 9 6 0 , in Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton, 1966, 50-74.
Garcia, Ofelia, Silvia Burunat, Joshua A. Fishman and Michael H. Gertner. La prensa hispana en los
Estados Unidos. Un análisis sociolingüístico. boletín de la Academia norteamericana de la lengua
española. In press.
García, Ofelia, Joshua A . Fishman, Silvia Burunat and Michael H. Gertner. The Hispanic press in
the United States: Contents and prospects. This Volume, Chapter 10.
Grove, Pearce S., Becky J. Barnett and Sandra J. Hansen. New Mexico Newspapers: A Comprehensive
Guide to Bibliographical Entries and Locations. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 197;.
Gutiérrez, Félix. Latino media: an historical overview. Nuestro, 1980, 4 (no.7), 25-28.
Hagood, Patricia, ed. The Oxbridge Directory of Ethnic Periodicals. N e w York: Oxbridge Publications,
1979.
Holsti, Ole. Content analysis, in Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, eds., The Handbook of Social
Psychology. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley, 1968.
. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley,
1969.
Justman, Marilyn, ed. Minority/Ethnic Media Guide USA, 1981. Evanston (IL): Directories
International, 1980.
Marty, Martin E., John G . Deedy, Jr., David W. Silverman and Robert Lekachman. The Religious
Press in America. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.
Marzolf, M.T. The Danish-Language Press in America. New York, Arno, 1979.
Pilli, Arja. The Finnish-Language press in Canada, 1901—1959. Turku, Institute of Migration,
1982.
Pool, Ithiel de Sola, ed. Trends in Content Analysis. Urbana (IL), University of Illinois Press, 1959.
Quintal, Claire, ed. Vie Française: Lejournalisme de languefrançaise aux Etats-Unis. Quebec, Le Conseil
de la Vie Française en Amérique, 1984.
Roceric, Alexandra. Language Maintenance Within an American Ethnie Community: The Case of
Romanian. Grass Lake-Jackson (Mich.), Romanian-American Heritage Center, 1982.
Sebald, Hans. Studying national character through comparative content analysis. Social Forces, 40,
June 1962, 318—322.
Sokes, M. The Yiddish Press: An Americanizing Agency. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1923.
Stone, Philip J., Dexter C. Dunphy, Marshall S. Smith, Daniel M. Ogilvie, et al. The General Inquirer:
A Computer Approach to Content Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge (MA): The M.I.T.
Press, 1966.
Tolzmann, D o n Heinrich. German-Americana: A Bibliography. Metuchen (NJ): The Scarecrow
Press, 1975.
Wasserman, Paul and Jean Morgan, eds. Ethnic Information Sources of the United States. Detroit: Gale
Research, 1976.
Wespiec, Jan. Polish American Serial Publications. Chicago: author, 1968.
Williamson, John B., David A . Karp and John R. Dalphin. Content analysis, in The Research Craft:
An Introduction to Social Science Methods. Boston: Little, Brown, 1977, 287-317.
Wittke, Carl. The German Language Press in America. University of Kentucky Press, 1957.
Wynar, Lubomyr R. Ethnic newspapers and periodicals in the United States: Present status and
problems of bibliographic control. Ethnic Forum. 1982, 2, no. 2, 4 0 - ; 1.
Wynar, Lubomyr R. and Anna T . Wynar. An Encyclopedic Directory of Ethnic Newspapers and
Periodicals in the United States. Littleton (CO): Books for Libraries, 1976.
Zubrzycki, J. The role of the foreign language press in immigrant integration. Population Studies. 12,
1958. 73-82.
APPENDIX
NOTE ON CONTENT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The content analysis study is based upon a sample of ethnic periodicals published in the United
States by four groups: Franco-Americans, German-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Jewish-
Americans. The titles chosen represented a wide distribution by geography, frequency of publi-
cation and, of course, language (see Table A).
Originally we had hoped to study an equal number of ethnic periodicals in the E M T and in
English, but practical constraints necessitated an emphasis on publications in the E M T . Of the
ethnic press entirely in English, only Anglo-Jewish periodicals were fully studied, as well as one
Anglo-Spanish title, Nuestro. In addition, most of the French press studied was bilingual, as was one
German tide, Der Deutsch-Amerikaner, and two Spanish periodicals, El Clarín and Ea Gaceta. The
two Yiddish dailies also publish weekly English supplements, which were analyzed as well.
We studied all issues of periodicals appearing twelve times or less per year. For the more frequent
periodicals, we chose four sampling periods: January, March, June and Mid-October to mid-
November (to include election coverage). In each of these four periods, three issues of a weekly or
six to eight issues of a daily were analyzed. We attempted to maintain a balance between weekday
and weekend issues, and some adjustments were made. The issues for this study were from the year
1980, but in connection with a comparative historical study (to be reported elsewhere), issues of
some of the same titles were analyzed from 1968, 1972 and 1976, using the same methods.
Even with a limited number of representative issues being studied, it would have been impossible
to analyze every item (article, announcement, advertisement, etc.) with ethnic content, and we
found it necessary to impose numerous restrictions. Articles concerning ethnic communities
outside the U.S. ("old country" items) were analyzed only when they contained cultural references.
Advertisements were analyzed in only four cases: 1) schools and educational programs teaching the
EMT; 2) E M T books and other published matter; 3) ethnocultural, religious and charitable
institutions; and 4) promotions focused heavily on ethnic content and/or E M T or ethnicity advocacy.
(Ethnic items excluded here from content analysis were accounted for in the issue profile; see
below.)
In each issue, the analyst selected all items according to the above criteria and then coded
appropriate information for computer processing. General information indicated both the lan-
guage of the item (English or EMT) and the ethnic group, publication title, item number, length,
genre and frequency of publication. Content information covered fifty-one ethnic topics (Table B).
The coding indicated not only whether the topic was mentioned, but also whether the attitude
toward it was positive, negative or neutral. Many of the fifty-one topics are related and perhaps
dependent on one another. Garcia (in press) grouped the topics into six blocks, according to E M T ,
ethnicity, and E M T and ethnicity combined, along two different axes: abstract (ideology and
attitude) or concrete (use and events) (Table C). Accordingly, some of our analyses deal with
individual topics and others deal with blocks of topics.
A total of fourteen different coders worked on the content analysis, over a period of nearly two
years, with two different supervisors. The consistency of methodology (and thus the reliability of
the coding) was of continued concern but time did not permit more than a few rather informal
reliability studies. When the statistical analyses were completed the overall consistency of the
findings was indicative of at least a good measure of reliability.
For practical reasons it was not possible to analyze all items of interest in the 667 issues studied in
the content analysis project. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis of ethnicity-related items tends to
slight a broader examination of each issue as a whole, obscuring the relative concentration of other
topics within an issue. The issue-profile substudy took up where the content analysis left off. The
same issues studied for content analysis were also used in the issue-profile substudy. Every item,
whether content analyzed or not, was classified in one of twenty-three issue profile categories. The
first seven categories applied to items previously coded, and the remaining sixteen categories
identified those items not analyzed before (as shown in Table 9).
334 Hi The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
Table A. Publications Studied: A Bird's-eye View
Total Total
Issues Items
Frequency* Location Analyzed Coded
French: 6 titles
Le Cañado-Américain L NH 4 53
Le Farog-Forum L ME 8 351
France-Amérique W NY 12 "3
Journal Français d'Amérique M CA IΊ 75
Louisiane M LA 12 340
L'Union L RI 6 49
Total French 53 1,071
German: 9 titles
Abendpost und Milwaukee
Deutsche Zeitung D WI, IL 3o 278
Amerika Woche W IL 12 118
California Freie Press W CA 12 187
Cincinnati Kurier W OH 12 i*3
Detroiter Abend-Post W MI 12 245
Der Deutsch-Amerikaner M IL IO 183
Eintracht W IL 12 267
New Yorker Staats-Zeitung und
Herold W NY 12 563
Washington Journal W DC 12 359
Total German 124 *>3*3
Spanish: 11 titles
El Clarín/The Call W-M IL 12 63
El Continental D TX 34 98
Diario Las Américas D FL 33 1,096
El Diario La Prensa D NY 32 1,388
La Gaceta W FL 12 79
Gráfica L CA 4 67
El Hispano W NM 12 50
El Informador W IL 6 32
Nuestro M NY IO 370
La Opinión D CA 32 949
Temas M NY 11 194
Total Spanish 198 4,386
ç). Language and Ethnicity in Periodical Publications 335
Table A. (cont.)
Total Total
Issues Items
Frequency* Location Analyzed Coded
Yiddish: 14 titles
Afn Shvel L NY 2 32
Der Algemeyner Zhurnal W NY 12 554
Forverts/Forward D NY 38 768
Kultur un Lebn L NY 5 84
Morgn Frayhayt/Morning Freiheit D NY 36 494
Pionern Froy/Pioneer Woman L NY 5 6
Di Toyre Veit M NY II 487
Tsukunft M NY 9 136
Undzer Tsayt M NY IO 87
Der Veker L NY 5 51
Der Yid W NY 12 209
Di Yidishe Heym L NY 2 15
Dos Yidishe Vort M NY 6 124
Yidisher Kemfer W NY 12 84
Total Yiddish 163 3>I3I
Anglo-Jewish: i) titles
Commentary M NY 12 46
Hadassah M NY 10 90
Jewish Digest M NY II 128
Jewish Life L NY 3 27
Jewish Spectator L NY 4 59
Jewish Student Press Service M NY 9 73
Jewish Week W NY 12 729
J TA Daily News Bulletin D NY 37 167
Judaism L NY 4 62
Midstream M NY IO 108
Moment M NY 10 110
Present Tense L NY 4 46
Tradition L NY 3 28
Total Anglo-Jewish 129 1,673
TOTAL 4 ethnic groups, 5 languages, 5 3 titles 677 12,584
* Frequency of publication: D = 4 - 7 times/week; W = 3 - 1 j times/month; M = 1 o - 3 5 times/year;

L = less often
o
bO
I
"Φ
a
XI
o
CL·
ε <
o rt= Oi
Η
S i
ω .2
^ X
Co" ^
s 1 ι W
.2 " ¿ 8.
"2 S — V)
g o XI 3
, iñ o
J .S
is X
.s s
ι« u
T3 S. § .
o ? "O ÒC
Ο-· (Λ
O * 3 X '
I Ο ω
C υ ¡>% Xï
o be u υ
o a «
ω υ 4-1 X
^ ¿2 § O S
c
M O « jO «β 3
XI C rt 3 S.
*
Ù0 c « U o J*·
υ ° S
C o .2 ? O >· . .
-Si R Ha ' S ο
0 a β- S ι >
υ «
ΙΛ Μ
„3 S
S
CL, u
"
« •-S
C ac u
Ή , J3 g §•
ε Wi ? s c -α
%
8
S3 -β
Χ
rt
3 ë ,8 o •Ρ ·£> •S o
W
U 0 o tu. Ü o ï » Cu 1 υ -ß
Η
S E H -S
ο s
υ ω t/iω s
I
3 c 3
Μ ο υ c c
C
Ο C
§ . sÍ
u O U XI
3 .a
te T3 C C O
C rt
U — »-,
C -O -o CS
XI
S •β
J3 "o u υ
υ 3 -(« "y ^ ζ
u C υ υ
υ ^Λ
c ^C o S
ω ω ω ωc - ωS e¿ a¡
ι- Ν Λ ^ o r
c
o
χ
s - 'S y Η
> ζ W
g c U
•s» Xi <
H H
XI S
ω ω Ρί
« ω ω
9· hanguage and Ethnicity in Periodical Publications 337
Ό -Λ C C
c/3 U
u
3 V
u ιέ
D O £
c cl y
cu
J3 Ο
(Λ Λs
Ì* ^ .S
ο Π
C i. * I
υ
κ
« ^ vD
v— 3
M O
C 'S s
a .2 iS 3
J3 a Λ
υ <J3 ' \0 Ό
<ε I I
; Tf
J3
(«Λ 1U 60
Ο Τ) I n ο ο
ω* α V4-1 XI J3
O ^ t-« Ό 3 w O
"o ir H
J3
0 _Qoe J3 «
0 •β
o
—
.3
ε Ü Ζ Η λ α
u 1u υ3 s I -δ
o 3 » s ω •Ί-
Ή .3 tao
A u· C
>•i os
W ό a
e oU tx> <3 ε υ "i Ó o o
H •c a i l sIft V
<. c
C S Ό <ε α, cu
0 3 ρ J3 •ξ Λ •s u ON CO
C J= "" u 32 s ο ^ G"
1
Ό
3
2 «
a tO ~
^
.2 ¡/Γ C ώ V
. Λ. 1
8 2 § le Ε 1-1 C .0 G —
C CQ S ο U 00 Ϋ S "3 (Λ Il >.H H
I I ε «
n -O -o w §
V (iι s «« «ε
OO « e a >2 Λ 8· .2 S3 ^ ^
« w> « υ« υ « C"!». et 3 « TJ Ό
υ « Ό s- I
Λ .tj :3 "
'S ss A e y •S C O TI TI
8 β υ uΛ ¿, Μ Fi a 2 'υ 'C
0 O-JJ
g s> s>
c -fí «λ .S Κ <» .a Jm υ •s a M ' S S ^
< Λ> « *u XS S o •s "§ S <8
c« o ¿«g έ έ
.S Ρ cu « r^ eχ 2 ε u o .S trt u ο. α.
3
o
ίΛ •5
ΙΛ
c
α> h w
Λ o-
0 o 2 .H
0 ε(A
fj
0 rt
u ω π
"a υ
ce Q 21 c 0
I-U C e υ TJ .S c
a .0 0 0 > Λ (Λ c σ. fjì
Mi rt T> > o 0 M.
Ό
u
U 3 -S 0 O
C rt
O ΙΛ
S « C V
U
u
0 I .2 > .0 eu U l V4
2P Ή u C U
Λ c u CJ Ul rt
VI
^ ft. 3 0 Wi
•o c a
CJ
O •ν 13 Μ. 3 <u
e»• auc -s JC 0 "cl 3Ζ Cu C
υ -C
0
-S 0
υ w ta υ cu 3 υ u U υ
8 o 8 H H S s '3 0e "3 'c C Ö υ ' aΉ
ë 8 2 * 9 S 2 .2 •5 υ υ 3 •S -S 'u •s •ß
< Ρ O T3 2 ω ω ω Χ S υ cû ίύOd ω ω
< H
0
Ν
ai H Ü u H 3 H
Ζ S c/3 (Λ J H u HH
H J J ω ω J
1/3 U ^ Ζ P.
aj
y S Ρ Ü
U U U J
Ζ Q pî h ω U I—I Ρ oí tì Ζ
< o < H ω χ < η υ a, a. w
33» III The Ethnic Mother- Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
ON tH 60
-ο •o e ι
ι a
υ 3 13 m·
w c
C
le
Ο o
-Q
«3 I
-ψ NO
I ON
O I
α. ,33 ?I υ« G -α
3
o s s
J3 k
^ ^ a 3
S u
O -o
I U
ε c
ι
Ζ Ml ti - Τ3
υ
>
o
o^ « s I o
ι 2 J e " » Ο Ο
Ι-ι
¿ ε Η CU Ë
^ υ
c g S
o o -S U u e
x> u
u
"
τι
o u
ω
X
J¿
il
o c e NO NO
on ü « I I
I ,fi ι o
ι Λo . 60 ON o
·· 60 ο
^ CU C s* .s
ο NO o • •
fs
S
eu
I
g I
•Φ δ
J3
I α « .. Λ
o
Λ
o
ι U 5b ' > M • 3 • • 3 X ^
S Ό O g C •fi '
o o oo §
iH S ö 3 0 ON
" M ω C 1 I
CU " o J" + 0 Γ
2s u -O , ; ce w
o « § H C 3 a
c il
H
S
O
υ E x
«
υ >
<
' « I Λ S 1
"w tì W
^ e 3 ω "S T3 r - -s ε aj
^ -o
P-H Ο
M jQ 60 <Λ
- - o·ϋ ο- -a
υ NO
ν o
60 •a i
•Β <Λ
Í(Η
! (Λ" ^ S 50
ι C ι a . o υ
f*s O <4
•L o
O *> υ I <•> u< 3 5 - Ό -Û
α
u M
—' o
c o
no O
S o 'So e g>
6o
- υ 3
O
υ
—
-S
o
y
' o o Iί §Ο Μ
I I
NO ,
¿i
60 60 ON g
u .C
a
on m
~ 60
8 J o
n
Cu
.
u o *
C
υ £ '3 'So ^
8 o 3 -β
^ S S « .s ^ . 2 - a> H o ε " —· δ
&
£
s à- ι -a o o u => rt rt aj
s υ ü
<8 S ,o S a
JJ è £ ε Ü
H 2 ι- «
a. " IH UH ω
o
-Û Ρ c g. e o e
u ·£
'S
•a
-S Ui
•υ
S 0 «
2 S
Λ >
υ tj
«a
i ë O w 3
-O (Λ
υ
-α Η '«
> •S
5 £ ^ O 0 e υ
.sy (Λ NO
ε ¿ •Ο Ό ζ
c
<Λ ON •a
S e
S C « J3 M 3
0 ft- S fi
•ft
•Β g Nti
a
O
_
«S
2 Λ >-
-o
8. U ω υ ε
Ut
. t^ - er
S
¿3 Ρ
ΙΛ
rt
α , χι
ε
•fi o
u Γ OJ 0 o ^s Ζ T3
'Ξ ' 3 ' 2 U υ
u '3 ε a M e 'υ o — « υ
H "S e ε -O · § ^ 2 TD Ό -α
» ñ ε 2 ε σι 0 S «J υ
3 .Sá ^ u ε S -S g 8 ° Κ 45 «
e
G tn S § ε 3 u
M JLj
e
y:
0
t-1 3 c S 2
8 δ U
ε s 8 2 w g ¿ C
u u ε (j W W W υ V ~îr 3 υ u ε o o «
4-1 Λ
u » -a e
'2 'S o e e e e ^ '3 'e t» ^ ü υ A V
•S - S u
o o
υ I I I •S - S •5 « • 5 •fi Μ Ό
S C
ω ιϋ < ω ω ω ω ω ω « ω ω ω .1 S ω £ S
Η CU
u hJ (Λ
> S
S ω
co ω M
α
υ
H h Q O CU S S υ
fi U 7 V α. O O
< »i s a <s> co υ g
Cu < η η η CO
c s
U rt
aS . OJ
>
ι
3
bo
a c
•s
•C
υ
>
·- -s
O -TJ
C _ 3
O T3
0 ê2
' i
afi
a
ο
H P *
•a
c
0
« = m-
λ -£ o
M
es
3
M
e
OD c
2 I
«j G u a
• s i i o
•a
Ο ω o CL,
O
ÙO
.3
•3 « •υ
g o
3 -g
>- ü
.2 S
« ρ z J SP o
S ϋ < w S >"
•s η c
S < J < o
H rt H tó υ ω O
O h O Ö
8 u
o O
j
J
pa ta
O > mJ u H
Ζ > W> β O< Q Ζ
<
j
>
S ω h w ο S « ο
< U
(J J J J ο ρ Q
Η Ζ Ο Ρ ö ω u ω PÄ J
O in U Ρΐ βί tì (Λ Η O
60 Η Η 8c
« «
3
öß 3 S
ω W3 > «
C υ υ « υ" >υ
U T3
•C § .a 'ey <
·π
β CΟ
fc 1 ε > ·»i
(Λ C 4)
2 O ο
u -S C ο uΟ
G
1Ο
-1
υ> o υo
u uo lio
3
υ Μ« 3 o d "rt S Ζ υ
V
«4 § g6 2 .2 So .y y S •υυ
α I -βs· eU
^ H
IU
O -S .Ε 5Ο.• Ό u
ε
3
R 3
3D A
S % M5
5s )
» υ Ό ΙΛ υ ε εο a Κ.
3 κ .s" εο υ Ή υ υ υ u Ου u υ Ο8
'3
J3 •5 Ή 'Ξ ^ CC '5 'S
^ Η s -s ·° -S -5 i l i •S -S
l a Μω u ω W W« a l ω ω δ
8 υ
o Ο
J
η pa
u
HH C/3 u
cη ü
Β ^ FH
-
H U si J Ö
τ: Ζ
QH
H Ζ Q Ζ s
O H g < s s < £ υ Μ
ζ < BÍ t-1 3 ai û «
a mmS m i ω H ω K H < < β
§2Γ
'3 «3
rs
S
"O
ε ν
·> Ι ü
a3 «Λ .g, Ν
1.8 I
Ρ S
' S o r υ έ !
) Ü0 S g υ •us .y3
: c S S J3
< Β ed si Ρ < co
HflDNOX ΉΉΗΧΟΙΜ
DINHX3 ÄXDINHX3
8
ο
J
m
υ -1
•J > <
ω c/3 ω
<
α cu
Pi οί cu
(Λ 0- c
υ
3
-O û<
O
O. M
H . g
2 S
ω ρ <s
υ
Η e
_C J3
ω a
8
o
-J
oa
Ρ υ ω ω t/3
<
υ Χ υ
hJ ω Ζ υ 7 ω
O «s Η ο
OH ΙΛ η, <-> >
•J ζ O S ρ ω
Ρ M
Οί Η υ
ο α
υ
UÌ i o o Ο ο 2 j <
Χ CU ω pa η (Λ Ο (Λ
S
.β
=8 •a Ό
ΰ
•fi
υ •S fr § 5 κ S
OH υ υ
Cu
•s O -a
β e e
o
•2 -S
. c
•s
υ
I I
§ -S S
ε <*η
£
3 o
¡J 8.-B " ο Ο «Λ
e & .s
3 . <S
Jr e
E .8. ο.
ε
> a £ 8
S o υ S
Χ Β
- J «
•3
u
^
ω
^ S
u, ί § Ë £ Ë
Ä1IDINHX3
V XIV3
Chapter io
The Hispanic Press in the United States:

Content and Prospects
OFELIA GARCIA, JOSHUA A. FISHMAN,

SILVIA BURUNAT and MICHAEL H. GERTNER
INTRODUCTION
Although there were over thirty-eight million people in the United States who
claimed a language other than English as their mother tongue in 1979
(Fishman, Chapter 6, This Volume), the shift to English among all ethnolinguis-
tic groups in the United States by the third generation is a continuing and well-
known phenomenon (Fishman 1966, Fishman et al. 1982, Veltman 1983).
Despite recent legislative and judicial policies that seem to encourage, protect or
even require the use of ethnic mother tongues in public domains among those
whose English is limited or nonfunctional, the anglification of ethnolinguistic
minorities in the United States continues at a relentless pace (see also Hudson-
Edwards and Bills 1982, Lieberson and Curry 1971, López 1976 and 1982,
Skrabanek 1970, Stevens 1982). In the absence of public policy that would effec-
tively safeguard ethnic mother tongues in the United States even after English is
acquired by those who use these tongues, ethnic institutional support would
appear to be doubly essential for the maintenance of non-English languages and
non-Anglo ethnicities in the United States. One such institution might be the
ethnic press which can serve either to maintain foreignness, develop ethnicity as
an indigenous system in the United States, or to accelerate assimilation. The
purpose of this paper is twofold: (a) to examine the size and content of the
Hispanic press in comparison with the press of three other major American
ethnolinguistic groups: French, German and Yiddish, and, (b) to compare the
views toward the Spanish language and Hispanic ethnicity held by the Hispanic
press written in Spanish and that written in English.
344 M The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
Table ι. Growth in number and circulation of Hispanic Press, 1960-1980.
Number Circulation
i960 49 (40)* 507,000

1980 ,65 (86) 2,499,014
Change 1960-80 + 236.7% + 392-9%
* Numbers in parenthesis represent the number of publications for which circulation figures are
available.
Sources: Joshua A . Fishman et al. 1966, and Fishman et al., Chapter 7, This Volume.
SIZE OF THE HISPANIC PRESS
The non-English press in the United States traces its origins back to Ben
Franklin's Die Philadelphische Zeitung of 1732 (Fishman, Hayden and Warshauer
1966). Some 75 years later, in 1808, the first issue of ElMisisipi appeared in New
Orleans. This bilingual four-page periodical marks the beginning of the Hispanic
press in the United States (Gutiérrez 1980). Since then, several periods of
growth have been followed by others of decline (See e.g., Grove et al. 1975).
In i960 the Language Resources Project (Fishman et al. 1966) identified 49
Spanish language publications in the United States with a total known circu-
lation of 507,000. An update of this data has revealed enormous growth
(Fishman et al., Chapter 7, This Volume). By 1980 the Language Resources III
Project had identified 165 Spanish language publications in the United States.1
This indicates an increase of 236.7 percent from i960 to 1980. The 86 publi-
cations for which circulation figures were available show a total known circu-
lation of 2,499,014. This represents a dramatic 392.9 percent increase in circu-
lation from i960 to 1980 (Table 1).
The proportion of the entire non-English press in the United States that is
represented by the Hispanic press has also increased (Table 2). Whereas in i960
Hispanic publications represented only 9.5 percent of the total number of
mother-tongue publications, in 1980 they represented 16.1 percent of the total.
This 16. ι percent figure is particularly noteworthy when we realize that the
Polish press, which follows in number of publications, accounts for only 6.4
percent of all mother-tongue publications. Thus, the Hispanic press is more
than twice the size of the next largest non-English press in the United States.
The circulation data reveals the same type of increase (Table 3). Although the
circulation of the Hispanic press represented nearly 13.5 percent of the total
circulation of all non-English publications in i960, in 1980 it represents nearly
39 percent of the total. This increase is all the more impressive if we realize that
the Italian press, which has the next largest circulation, represents only 8.7
io. The Hispanic Press in the United States: Content and Prospects 345
Table 2. Total number of Hispanic publications and total number of non-English mother-tongue
publications, i960 and 19So.
Hispanic Total non-English Hispanic percentage

Publications mother-tongue pubi. of total
i960 49 517 9-5%

1980 165 1022* 16.1%
Change 1960—80 + 236.7% + 97-7% + 6-6%
"This total represents all non-English mother-tongue publications identified by Language

Resources III as of August 1982 but omits 9 publications published in Puerto Rico.
Sources: See Table 1.
Table 3. Circulation of Hispanic publications and total circulation of non-English mother-

tongue publications, i960 and 1980.
Hispanic Total non-English Hispanic percentage

Publications mother-tongue pubi. of total
i960 (40)* 507,000 (471) 3.759» 000 13-49%

1980 (86) 2,499,014** (542) 6,414,166** 38.96%
Change 1960-80 + 392-9% + 70.6% + 2 5-47%
* Numbers in parenthesis represent the number of publications for which circulation figures were
available.
" T h e s e figures omit the circulation of 4 publications published in Puerto Rico.
Sources: See Table 1.
percent of the total circulation of non-English publications. Indeed, the

Hispanic proportion of circulation increased even more substantially from i960
to 1980 than did the Hispanic proportion of the number of non-English
mother-tongue publications.
The increases in both number and circulation of the non-English press in
general, and of the Hispanic press in particular, may, to some extent, be more
apparent than real, i.e., it may be due to nothing more than possibly greater
success encountered by the Language Resources Project in 1 9 7 9 - 1 9 8 2 in
identifying every known non-English publication in the United States relative
to its success in i 9 6 0 - 1 9 6 3 . However, the expansion of the Hispanic press vis à
vis the other ethnic press is obviously also directly related to the dramatic
growth of the Hispanic population in the United States. Thus, although the
trend figures seem encouraging regarding the vitality of the Hispanic press, it is
worth remembering that the 1980 census accounts for 1 1 . 1 million home-
speakers of Spanish over five years of age, out of the almost 23 million home-
speakers of non-English languages (PHC 80-Sl-i, March 1982). From these

figures we can determine that although Spanish accounts for almost 50 percent
of all non-English speakers in the United States in 1980, Hispanics are served by
only approximately 16 percent of all non-English publications. Thus, Hispanics
are actually grossly under-represented with respect to having a mother-tongue
press of their own, when compared to various other ethnolinguistic minorities
(Fishman et al., Chapter 7, This Volume). It appears, then, that the increase in
number and circulation of the Hispanic press is not as impressive as the increase
in the Hispanic population itself and, indeed, the press increase is far from
indicating a growing or even proportionally equivalent institutional base for
Spanish language and ethnicity in the United States.
SPANISH LANGUAGE A N D ETHNICITY IN THE

SPANISH LANGUAGE PRESS
In an effort to determine the view of the Hispanic press toward Spanish

language and ethnicity, Language Resources III conducted an intensive content
analysis of a 1980 press sample of 11 Hispanic publications (see Appendix 1)
stratified by region and frequency of publication. Comparison samples of the
French, German and Yiddish press in 1980 were also content-analyzed (Gertner
et al., Chapter 9, This Volume). All articles in that sample which contained
explicit references to either the ethnic mother tongue or ethnicity in the United
States were pulled out for analysis. A coding manual with 51 topics pertaining
to the ethnic mother tongue and ethnicity was developed. 2 Any explicit men-
tion of a specific ethnic topic was noted.
In an effort to analyze the results of the content analysis of the Hispanic press
vis-à-vis the French, German and Yiddish press, the 51 topics mentioned above
have been grouped under two major themes in this paper: (a) the ethnic mother
tongue (Spanish) and (b) Hispanic ethnicity. Although our sample consisted of
both ethnic mother tongue and English language items in the Hispanic press,
we will limit our analysis of the data in this section to the content expressed in the
ethnic mother tongue itself. Below we will review the data derived from
English items in the Hispanic press pertaining to the Spanish language and to
Hispanic ethnicity.
If we compare the percentages of references about the ethnic mother tongue
and ethnicity that appear in the four ethnolinguistic press samples studied, we
immediately realize that the non-English press in the United States is over-
whelmingly more interested in ethnicity than in the ethnic mother tongue
(Table 4.).
Table 4. Percentages of references to the ethnic mother tongue* and to ethnicity in four non-
English press samples (EMT items only).
French German Yiddish Spanish Overall
EMT 50.1%** 2 4·4% 2 9-4% 14-8% 2 3·7%
Ethnicity 87.7% 94-7% 97-3% 95-4% 95-3%
* Ethnic mother tongue appears hereinafter as E M T .

** All figures indicate the percentages of items in a particular press sample which refer to the
indicated topic. The percentages are rounded to one decimal place. The figures in each column can
add up to more than 1 0 0 % because one content-analyzed item may cover both topics.
Table 5. Percentage of positive, neutral or negative references to the ethnic mother tongue in four
ethnolinguistic press samples (EMT items only)
French German Yiddish Spanish
Total items analyzed 641 211} 2972 3977

Total ref. to EMT 321 516 876 588
% Negative ref. °% •4% •7% 54-3%
% Neut. or pos. and neg. 100% 99-4% 99· 2 % 43-9%
% Positive ref. 0% • 2
% i-9%
The Spanish language press also reflects this greater interest in ethnicity (95.4%
of all items) over interest in the ethnic mother tongue ( 1 4 . 8 % of all items).
With regard to the ethnic mother tongue, however, it is clear from Table 4
that the Spanish language press sample showsfar less interest in this topic than do the other
three ethnic mother-tongue press samples. Furthermore, it is significant that while
most of the references to the ethnic mother tongue in the French, German and
Yiddish press samples express a neutral attitude toward the language, more than
half of the references in the Spanish language press sample reveal a negative
attitude toward the language (Table 5).
It is common, for example, to find columns, editorials and letters to the editor
that repeat the prevailing negative attitude toward the Spanish language in the
United States that is summarized in the following quote from an article in L a
Opinion, the Los Angeles daily: " E n el castellano actual abundan las palabras y
expresiones corruptoras, que empobrecen el lenguaje." (In today's Spanish
there is an abundance of corrupting words and expressions that impoverish the
language.) In Miami, El Diario Las Americas runs a daily column devoted to the
Spanish language and its use in the United States entitled "Cuestiones
Gramaticales."Olimpia Rosado, the Cuban author of the column, constantly
and severely chastises those who use English loans and caiques when speaking
348 III The Ethnie Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
and writing Spanish, purportedly in order to defend the puristic, old-country

standard. For example, the use of the loanshift "casual" in an advertisement that
appeared in the same newspaper was the subject of the most vehement criticism
in one of her columns. She accused Spanish users in the United States of being
careless and lazy and ended by saying: "¡Claro! es más fácil echar mano del
homonimo." ("Of course! It is easier to grab the homonym.") Her criticism is
far sharper and more memorable than her defense.
The attitude expressed by the mostly foreign-born journalists toward the
Spanish language is pervasively negative. Spanish in the United States is seen as
debased and corrupted by the English influence. These journalists hold an old-
country purist mentality toward the standard and refuse to accept changes
introduced by bilingual speakers and writers of Spanish in the United States. As
Fishman (1972) has pointed out, this stigmatization of the prevailing dialect by
purists who only accept the old-country standard could, in effect, promote shift
to English. Thus, the Spanish language press can wittingly or unwittingly be a
promoter of shift to English and function in opposition to Spanish-language
maintenance in the United States.
Foreign-born journalists are not the only source of criticism of the Spanish
language in the press. American businesses that advertise in Spanish for
Hispanic clientele are explicit about the uselessness of Spanish in the United
States. A chiropractic clinic in Los Angeles finished the Spanish-language ad it
ran in the June ist issue of La Opinión by saying: "Lamentamos no hablar
español. Traiga su intérprete." (We regret that we do not speak Spanish. Bring
your interpreter.) Another advertisement in the same issue of the newspaper by
the California College of Dental Training, also written in Spanish, ends by
shifting to English and saying: "Some English please." Thus Spanish in the
United States must be seen as not only structurally impoverished, but also as
functionally limited by those who read the Spanish language press.
It is instructive to realize that most of the Spanish-language press is not owned
by Hispanice who live in the United States, but either by Americans who are
non-Hispanic or by foreign-born Latin American entrepeneurs. This signals an
important difference with the press of other ethnolinguistic minorities in the
United States, which is generally owned by members of the communities
served. The non-Hispanic majority's prevailing negative attitude toward the
Spanish language in the United States is indeed the one that permeates the
Spanish language press. Thus, it seems that the Spanish-language press sample
is not only less interested in the ethnic mother tongue than are the other three
comparison press samples in theirs, but it is also far more often negative regarding
the Spanish language. This negative attitude is even more destructive than the
almost complete lack of ideologized support toward the ethnic mother tongue
that characterizes all of the studied press samples. Thus, although the Spanish-
language press may serve as a valuable vehicle of communication with a
monolingual foreign-born population, it is not only uninterested in developing

loyalty toward Spanish but attacks that language as well.
The Spanish language press sample seems to be as concerned as the other
three presses with ethnicity more generally (Table 5). However, we again find it
expressing more negative attitudes toward Hispanic ethnicity than do the other
ethnolinguistic press samples toward either French, German or Jewish eth-
nicity (Table 6).
Table 6. Percentage ofpositive, neutral or negative references to ethnicity in four ethnolinguistic

press samples (EMT items only).
Total items analyzed 641 211} 2972 3977

Total ref. to ethnicity 562 2000 2891 5796
% Negative ref. •1% 54-4%
% Neut. or pos. and neg. 100% 99.8% 99-9% 44-4%
% Positive ref. 0% •1% 1·*%
Whereas the French, German and Yiddish press samples express a mostly
neutral attitude toward their own ethnicity, slightly over half of the references
to Hispanic ethnicity in the Spanish language press express a negative attitude.
This overwhelming negativism toward both Spanish language and Hispanic
ethnicity is further indicative of the fact that the circulation growth and
commercial importance of the Spanish-language press are due only to increased
Hispanic immigration into the United States rather than to positive program-
matic advocacy on the part of that press. Indeed, the Spanish-language press
seems to concern itself primarily with problems of a foreign-born minority still
largely involved in searching for "the American dream" of economic mobility
and sociocultural assimilation. As a result, it avoids issues of positive ethnic
activism which have recently become more pertinent (although not unconflic-
tedly so) to second and particularly third-generation Hispanics writing prim-
arily in English (See below). 4
The negative self-image of Hispanics projected by the Spanish language
press is possibly also a result of majority ownership of that press. This points to
the similarity between the United States Spanish-language press and the United
States Black press, both mostly owned by the white Anglo majority. The fact
that Blacks and Hispanics in the United States have not been structurally
incorporated into the mainstream has made it more difficult for them to develop
a strong network of minority-owned sociocultural institutions which could
promote a positive ethnic identity. However, the civil rights movement in the
United States resulted in the development o f a militant Black press which has
helped shape the identity o f the Black community in the United States since then
(La Brie 1974, Tinney and Rector 1980). Furthermore, since the 1960s the
militant Black community has pressed for extensive coverage o f Black issues by
the white media. Thus, Blacks have made strides in gaining support for their
ethnicity from the majority at large, as well as from the institutions serving them
directly. In contrast, Hispanics, by continuing to rally solely around language
rights have failed to reap all the benefits o f the civil rights movement. T h u s ,
they have been left with little support f r o m the United States majority and in the
hands o f either a foreign-born, well-to-do Hispanic minority or o f non-
community interests that do not share their lot.
T h e fact that the Spanish-language press is so negative toward the mainten-
ance o f the Spanish language and Hispanic ethnicity seems contradictory since
it w o u l d seem to threaten its o w n existence. H o w e v e r , the Spanish-language
press can still afford to be relatively negative vis-à-vis these matters since there is
a continuous influx of monolingual readers. This overreliance on newly arriving
monolinguals also characterized the flourishing German press and the b o o m i n g
Yiddish press (Fishman 1965) at the beginning of the century. In 1910 the
German press accounted for 53.1 percent o f the non-English ethnic mother-
tongue press (Fishman, Hayden and Warshauer, 1966). T h e fact that in 1982 the
German press accounted for only 5 percent o f the ethnic mother-tongue press
should serve as a warning to the Hispanic community. If maintenance o f
Spanish language and ethnicity is important to Hispanics, then the support of
an ethnic-owned Spanish press may well be essential, and not only in order to
bolster Hispanic ethnolinguistic continuity, but in order to maintain the Spanish
press itself.
FOREIGNNESS, ETHNICITY AND ASSIMILATION
In order to determine further the v i e w o f the Spanish press with regard to

Hispanic identity in the United States, the ethnicity topics that were included in
our content analysis have been divided according to a continuum that w o u l d
indicate whether the press serves to maintain foreignness, develop ethnicity as
an indigenous system or accelerate assimilation. T h e f o l l o w i n g six categories
were constructed.*
ι. Foreignness. O l d Country orientation. Alienation from mainstream.
2. Push from the United States. Rejection. Alienation.
3. Pull toward O l d Country. Nostalgia for old ways. Alienation.
* For a complete listing of the topics pertaining to these categories and the percentages of references
obtained in each, see Appendix 2.
io. Tèe Hispanic Press in the United States: Content and Prospects 3 51
4. Ethnicity in the United States. Acculturation.

5. Ethnic activism. Active Cultural Pluralism.
6. Assimilation. Melting Pot.
For the purpose of our analysis, the first three categories reveal a foreign
orientation, the next two emphasize adapting but maintaining ethnicity in the
United States, while the last serves as an indicator of assimilation. By classifying
content analysis topics into these categories we can determine whether the
ethnic press reveals a foreign orientation, an ethnic maintenance orientation or
an assimilationist orientation (Table 7).
Table 7. Percentage of ethnicity references in four ethnolinguistic press samples by categories and
orientations (EMT items only)*
Old country 42.i%* 38-9% Î 1 -9% 39-3%

Push •7% •5% 5-6% 5·ΐ%
Pull 4-4% 2·°% 7·°% 6.8%
I. Average Foreign Orient. 15.7% 13-7% 38·"% '9-7%

Ethnicity U.S. 11.0% 11
-3% 16.1% 13-7%
Ethnic activism 2.2% •9% 5·°% 3-6%
II. Average Ethnic Orient. 6.6% 6..% 10.6% 8-7 %

III. Assimilation Orientation •5% 0% •3% •8%
Total items analyzed 641 2113 2972 3977
* All figures indicate the percentages of items in a particular press sample which refer to the
indicated category.
The percentages are rounded to one decimal place. The figures in each column do not add up to 100
percent because one content-analyzed item may cover many of these categories or none at all.
An analysis of the percentage of references dealing with each orientation

reveals that each of the studied press samples is overwhelmingly old country
oriented. The Yiddish language press sample shows the highest degree of
interest in such topics (51.9%)· Indeed, it yields the highest percentages of
references pertaining to the foreignness orientation as a whole, and to each of its
individual components. A t the same time, it also yields the highest percentages
for the ethnicity orientation. The fact that the Yiddish press sample obtains
the second lowest percentage of references in the assimilationist orientation
coupled with the high percentages in the first two orientations, indicates the
commitment of the Yiddish press to the preservation of Jewish ethnic con-
35i III The Ethnic Mother- Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
tinuity in the United States. The Holocaust experience is probably contributory

to this development since Yiddish journalists in the United States may well feel
that theirs is a special responsibility to maintain and develop the memories and
the culture so cruelly exterminated in Eastern Europe.
How does the Spanish press sample compare to the other three ethnic
mother-tongue press samples? The Spanish press sample seems to be slightly
more oriented toward the foreignness or alienation of the ethnic group than
either the French or the German press samples, although it is only half as
interested in the old country and in issues of alienation from the mainstream as
the Yiddish press sample (See Table 7). If the press is an accurate reflection of its
community, then the alienation of Hispanics, whether as a result of "push"
experiences (rejection in the United States) or of "pull" commitment (attraction
toward the old country), is second only to that felt by Yiddish journalists and
readers in the United States, although it is less so than that of the French or the
German press samples (See Table 7 , 1 . Average Foreign Orientation).
In response to "push" (alienation due to rejection by others) Hispanics are
beginning a process of self-categorization based on ethnic values and ideology.
This is reflected in our data by the fact that the percentage of references to
"pull" (nostalgia for old country, old ways) is slightly greater (6.8%) than the
percentage of references to "push" (5.1%). In fact, it seems that for all four
language groups, the alienation and separateness referred to in the ethnic press
is more a result of "pull" (self-categorization) than of "push" (categorization
by others).
With regard to ethnicity maintenance, the Spanish press sample is slightly
more interested in topics dealing with cultural pluralism and ethnic activism
than either the French or the German press samples, although it again is sur-
passed by the Yiddish language press sample in this orientation (See Table 7).
It is noteworthy that the Spanish-language press sample is slightly more
preoccupied with assimilation and integration than is either the French, German
or Yiddish press sample. Although the Spanish press sample demonstrates a
slightly higher interest in both ethnicity in the United States and ethnic activism
than either the French or the German press, it in no way seeks to be separate
from the mainstream. The Spanish-language press can be said to be a foreign-
dominated press for an ethnic audience that feels its alienation and is still
fighting to be equal in order to be incorporated into the mainstream. In
contrast, the Yiddish-language press reports the unique interests and culture
patterns of its readers and cultivates their separateness as equal but distinct
participants on the American scene.
It is important to realize that, on the whole, the support that the French,
German and Spanish press samples show for their respective ethnicities is quite
similar. Only the Yiddish press sample seems to be significantly firmer in its
support of Yiddish ethnicity in the United States. However, the fact that the
Spanish-language press sample is so similar in orientation to the French and

German is significant, since it indicates that the Spanish press is already at the
point of the French and the German, although its readers are more recent and of
lower income.
SPANISH LANGUAGE AND ETHNICITY IN THE

HISPANIC PRESS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH.
Items in the ethnic mother-tongue press written in English often show more
interest in the ethnic mother tongue and in ethnicity (and show it more
frequently) than do items written in the ethnic mother tongue itself (Table 8).
This is an important finding and worthy of further discussion and inquiry.
Table 8. Percentage of references to EMT and ethnicity, in EMT and in English items offour
ethnolinguistic press samples
EMT references
EMT items 2
5°· , % M4% 9-4% 14-8%
Eng. items 6j.i% 2
4·3% 19-3% 26.8%
Ethnicity references
EMT items 87-7% 94-7% 97-3% 95-4%
Eng. items 89-8% 99·°% 99- 2 % 98-5%
The Hispanic press sample consistently reflects this trend (as does the Franco-
American press sample), and thus we find higher percentages for both ref-
erences to Spanish language and Hispanic ethnicity in the items written in
English than in the items written in Spanish (See Table 8). Indeed, an overall
topical comparison of the ethnicity orientation of the items written in the E M T
and the items written in English in our four press samples yields further
interesting results (Tables 7 and 9).
There seems to be a slightly lower orientation toward the old country (I.
Average Foreign Orientation) in the English language items (Table 9) than in
the Ethnic mother-tongue items (Table 7). Yet, except for the Yiddish press
sample, the English-language items reveal a somewhat higher interest in
maintaining ethnicity in the United States and in ethnic activism than do the
corresponding E M T items. This is consonant with the social characteristics of
recent ethnic activists in France identified by Beer (1980). In his survey of such
activists in France, Beer found that they tended to be people who had con-
sciously adopted the cultural characteristics of their ethnicity after childhood as
354 HI The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community institutions
Table 9. Percentage of ethnicity references in items written in English in four ethnolinguistic

press samples by categories and orientation
Old country Jz-6%*

2
7-2% 43-4% 33-8%
Push 1.8% •6% 7-5% 9·'%
Pull 5-4% 2
·9% 9-o% 4-7%
I: Average Foreign Orient. '3-3% ,0.2% 20.0% 15-9%
Ethnicity U.S. 8.6% 8-7 % 10.7 % "•4%

Ethnic Activism 6.1% 4·°% 1.8% 7-3%
II. Average Ethnic Orient. 7-4% 6-4% 6-3% 9-4%

III. Assimilation Orientation 5-1% •5% •4% 2
·5%
Total items analyzed 430 2o6 1828 400
• A l l figures indicate the percentages of items in a particular press sample which refer to the
indicated category. The percentages are rounded to one decimal place. The figures in each column
do not add up to 100 percent because one content-analyzed item may cover many of these categories
or none at all.
part of a general search f o r identity. Similarly, f o r the most part, young

Hispanic activists in the United States are not characterized by E M T monolin-
gual fluency or even by good literacy skills in their ethnic mother tongue and,
therefore, prefer to write in English. H o w e v e r , it is instructive to realize that
although ethnic activists in France had to learn their vanishing ethnic languages
in courses and field trips, most young Hispanic activists in the United States are
native hispanophones.
The category Assimilation Orientation also shows a greater percentage of
references in the English-language items than in Spanish items. This indi-
cates that the writers of these English items, besides having a somewhat higher
interest in Hispanic identity in the United States, also identify more strongly
with the United States. They may therefore be ambivalent, in conflict, or
working out a compromise between their Americanization and their ethnic
maintenance/activism.
Items written in English in the Hispanic press present the most ethnically
active orientation, while at the same time the most assimilationist orientation.
As shown in the Beer analysis (1980), these two factors seem to g o hand-in-hand
in promoting a revival of ethnic activism. In fact, the 1980 Hispanic items in
English are an example of the continued use of bilingual alternative media

(originating in the mid-6os) in order to organize Hispanics around important
social and political issues (Gutiérrez, 1980).
The Hispanic items written in English move away significantly from an old-
country orientation, and focus on a new Hispanic ethnicity in the United States
which consists of a closer interaction or coordination of Hispanic and American
identity and of the Spanish and the English languages. This growing
bilingual/bicultural identity of Hispanics in the United States has been pro-
moted, especially with regard to Puerto Ricans in New York, by the Center for
Puerto Rican Studies (Attinasi 1979, Flores i98i,Pedraza 1981). Similar centers
in the West and Southwest have related to Chícanos. However, it is important
to remember that stable societal diglossia and di-ethnia can only survive if sep-
arateness between ethnic groups and the mainstream, on the one hand, and
functional compartmentalization between ethnic mother tongues and English
on the other hand, are established and retained (Fishman 1980, 1981). In the
absence of continual mass immigration and visiting, both of which may become
progressively more difficult in the future, Hispanics cannot expect to maintain
their identity and their mother tongue beyond the third generation without
strong communal and institutional support for their own separate ethnicity and
language within the framework of general American culture. The appearance of
such continuity is deceptive to Anglos and Hispanics alike. Beneath the surface,
the attrition is already major as far as a third generation and beyond is
concerned.
CONCLUSIONS
Some conclusions regarding Hispanic publications in the United States flow

from our data:
ι. The Hispanic press has grown tremendously since i960, both in number of
publications and in circulation. However, its growth is a reflection of increased
Spanish-speaking immigration to the United States and not of stabilized com-
munal institutional support for Spanish language and ethnicity. In fact, the
Spanish population remains grossly underserved by an ethnic press of its own in
the United States when compared to other ethnolinguistic minorities.
2. The Spanish-language press is less interested in the Spanish language than
the French, German and Yiddish presses are in their respective ethnic mother
tongues. It also shows a much more negative attitude toward its own ethnic
mother tongue and toward its own ethnicity.
3. Although the Spanish-language press is as interested in ethnicity as the
French, German and Yiddish presses, it shows a much more negative attitude
toward Spanish ethnicity than do the other press samples we have studied.
356 III The Ethnic Mother- Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
4. The Spanish-language press expresses a stronger foreign orientation (which

promotes alienation from the mainstream) than do the French or German press.
Yet, the fact that it also manifests a slightly stronger assimilationist orientation
is indicative of its attempt to fight for the right of Hispanics to be successfully
incorporated into the mainstream. This ethnically active orientation is con-
firmed by the higher percentage of references to this orientation in the Spanish-
language press than in the French and the German press samples. However, the
struggle reflected by the Hispanic press is not for separateness and autonomy (as
is the case of the Yiddish press), but for equality and integration.
5. The Spanish-language press sample is, on the whole, quite similar in ethnic
orientation to the French and the German press samples, with the Yiddish press
sample being the most committed to its ethnicity. This finding regarding the
Spanish-language press is noteworthy since it shows that it is already at the point
of the French and the German, although its readers are more recent and of lower
income.
6. Although fewer in number, the Hispanic items written in English represent
the most frequent ethnic activism of all studied press samples in English. The
fact that the English items in the Hispanic press also project the most frequent
assimilationist orientation is indicative of a new interactive Hispanic ethnicity
being shaped in the United States.
7. The Hispanic press, whether in Spanish or in English, must provide stron-
ger institutional support for the compartmentalization of its languages and the
separateness of its ethnic identities. Only then might it be possible for Spanish
language and ethnicity to be maintained into the third generation and beyond in
the interactive urban environments in which most American Hispanics now
live.
The case of Hispanics in the United States differs from that of other
American ethnolinguistic groups. Although linguistic assimilation to English
has occurred in most cases, Hispanics have not achieved the same degree of
structural assimilation into the American economy as the other ethnolinguistic
groups. Out of the 1 1 . 1 million people over 5 years of age who claimed to speak
Spanish at home in the 1980 census, 8.3 million (or 75 percent) claimed that they
spoke English very well or well, a startling fact ot those who continue to assert
that Hispanics have not achieved economic well-being in the American
economy because they do not speak English. Yet, when we compare the median
income claimed in the 1980 census by families of Spanish origin ( $ 1 4 , 7 1 1 ) with
the median income claimed by white families ($20,840), we see that Hispanics
are not doing well. The economic marginality of Hispanics in the United States
may well account for some of the pervasive lack of institutionalized community
support for either the Spanish language or Hispanic ethnicity. Cultural factors
(e.g., the relatively low literacy tradition among many Hispanics) and historical
factors (e.g., the federal and local efforts on behalf of Hispanics, as well as their
long-term under-representation in American Catholic institutions) must, as

always, also be considered in arriving at a fuller explanation of this
phenomenon.
NOTES
1. The 16; total claimed here for the Hispanic press differs from the 174 total identified by
Language Resources III. This is due to the fact that for our current analysis the 9 publications
appearing in Puerto Rico have been omitted.
2. For a full list of the content analysis variables and their coding alternatives, see Gertner et al.,
Chapter 9, This Volume.
3. For results of the content analysis of all 51 topics in all four press samples see Gertner et al.,
Chapter 9, This Volume.
4. The issue of the resurgence of ethnic activism in the second and third generations has been
studied by Beer (1980) and Fishman et al. (1982), among others.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alba, Victor. El lenguaje mágico. Diario La Opinión. January 1980:

Attinasi, John. Language attitudes in a New York Puerto Rican community, in Padilla, Raymond
V . (ed.), Bilingual Education and Public Policy in the United States. Ypsilanti, Eastern Michigan
University, 1979,408-460.
Beer, William R. The Unexpected Rebellion: Ethnic Activism in Contemporary France. New York, New
Fishman, Joshua A. Yiddish in America. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1965.
. Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966.
. The Sociology of Language. Rowley (MA), Newbury House, 1972.
. Bilingualism and biculturism as individual and as societal phenomena. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1980, 1, 3 - 1 5 .
. Language maintenance and ethnicity. Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism. 1981, 8,
229—248.
. Mother-tongue claiming in the United States since i960: Trends and correlations related to
the revival of ethnicity. Chapter 6, This Volume.
, Robert G . Hayden and Mary E. Warshauer. The non-English and the ethnic group press,
1910-1960, in Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.). Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague,
Mouton, 1966, 51—74.
, Michael H. Gertner, Estner G . Lowy, William G. Milan. Language maintenance, the
"ethnic revival" and diglossia in the U.S.A. Journal of Intercultural Studies. 1982, 3, no. i, 5-24.
, Michael H. Gertner, Esther G. Lowy and William G. Milan. Ethnicity in Action: The
Community Resources of Ethnic Languages in the United States. Chapter 7, This Volume.
Flores, Juan, John Attinasi and Pedro Pedraza, Jr. La carreta made a U-turn: Puerto Rican language
and culture in the United States. Daedalus. Spring 1981, 1 9 3 - 2 1 7 .
Gertner, Michael H., Joshua A. Fishman, Esther G. Lowy and William G . Milán. Language and
ethnicity in the periodical publications of four American ethnic groups. Chapter 9, This Volume.
}58 III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
Grover, Pearce S., Beck J . Barnett and Sandra J . Hansen. New Mexico Newspapers: A Comprehensive
Guide to Bibliographical Entries and Locations. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press,
1975·
Gutiérrez, Félix. Latino media: A n historical overview. Nuestro. 1980, 4, 2 5 - 2 8 .
Hudson-Edwards, Alan and Garland D . Bills. Intergenerational language shift in an Albuquerque
barrio, in Amastae, J o n and Lucía Elias-Olivares (eds.), Spanish in the United States: Sociolinguistic
Aspects. Cambridge, Cmmbridge University Press, 1982, 135 — 153.
Kloss, Heinz. The American Bilingual Tradition. Rowley (MA), Newbury House, 1977.
La Brie, Henry G . Perspectives of the Black Press: 1974. Kennebunkport (ME), Mercer House, 1974.
Lieberson, Stanley and Timothy J . Curry. Language shift in the United States: Some demographic
clues. International Migration Review. 1 9 7 1 , 125-157.
López, David E . Chicano language loyalty in an urban setting. Sociology and Social Research. 1976,62,
167-178.
. The Maintenance of Spanish Over Three Generations in the United States. Los Alamitos, National
Center for Bilingual Research, 1982.
Pedraza, Pedro J r . , J o h n Attinasi and Gerard Hoffman. Rethinking diglossia, in Padilla, Raymond
V . (ed.), Theory in Bilingual Education. Ypsilanti, Eastern Michigan University, 1 9 8 1 , 7 6 - 9 7 .
Provisional Estimates of Social, Economic and Housing Characteristics. 1980 Census of Population
and Housing. P H C 8 0 - S l - i , March 1982.
Rosado, Olimpia. Cuestiones Gramaticales. Diario Las Americas. January ι , 1980: 4.
Skrabanek, R . L . Language maintenance among Mexican Americans. International journal of
Comparative Sociology. 1970, 1 1 , 2 7 2 - 2 8 2 .
Stevens, Gillian Anne. Minority Language Loss in the United States. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1982.
Tinney, James S. and Justine J . Rector. Issues and Trends in Afro-American Journalism. Washington,
D.C., University Press of America, 1980.
United States Census of Population. 1970, Report PC(2) 18: National Origin and Language. Bureau of
the Census.
Veltman, Calvin. Language Shift in the United States. Berlin, Mouton, 1983.
III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions 359
A P P E N D I X ι . Hispanic Publications Analysed*
Total Total
Issues Items
Titles Frequency Location Analyzed Coded
El Clarín/The Call W-M IL 12 63

El Continental D TX 34 98
Diario Las Americas D FL 33 1096
El Diario La Prensa D NY 32 1388
La Gaceta W FL 12 79
Gráfica L CA 4 67
El Hispano W NM 12 50
El Informador W IL 6 3*
Nuestro M NY IO 37°
La Opinión D CA 3* 949
Temas M NY II 194
Total Spanish — — ,98 4386
Source: Gertner et al., Chapter 9, This Volume.

* The sample for dailies consisted of 4 random weekday and 4 random weekend issues during the
following four periods of 1980: January, March, June, and October i ; - N o v e m b e r i j . For
weeklies, three out of four issues during the above mentioned periods were analyzed. For any
publication that appeared less often than weekly, every single issue throughout the year was
content-analyzed. Similar sampling procedures were followed for the French, German and
Yiddish press in the United States.
APPENDIX 2. Listing of topics pertaining to 6 main categories and percentages of references

obtained in each.
A. ITEMS IN THE ETHNIC MOTHER TONGUE

ι. Foreignness
Old-country references 4Z-i% 38.9% 5'-9% 39-3%
Average Foreignness 42.1% 38.9% J'-9% 39-3%
2. Push
Ethnic personal tragedies •6% •5% 5-4% 9-5%
Ethnic political-eco. setback •5% •3% 10.1% 3-9%
Adversity of migration •8% •1% «•4% 7-9%
Xenophobia •0% ·*% •6%
Rejection, oppression, persec. •8% 16.9% 6-5%
Race and ethnicity 0% 0%
Average Push •7% •3% 5-6%
5··%
}. Pull
Traditions 8-9% 6-5% 7-4% 16.0%
Ancestry, History 13-3% 6.6% 21.8% 16.0%
Roots 2.0% •4% 3-6% 5-5%
Ethnic family values •3% •4% 4-4% 4-3%
Ethnic code of ethics •3% 11.0% 4-5%
Ethnic superiority, inferiority •9% •4% •3% ι-5%
Ethnic pride, shame 4-8% •6% 4-9%
Transcendental nationalism 5· 2 % •9% 6-5% 12.0%
Average Pull 4-4% 2·°% 7-o% 6-8%
4. Ethnicity U.S.
Accomplishments individual 33·ΐ% 39-6% 56.4% 47-9%
Ethnic scientific discovery ,.6% ·*% •4%
Ethnic literary wks. EMT 8-7% 6-9% 16.8% 5-8%
Ethnic literary wks. not EMT 4-8% •7%
Ethnic music art drama !2.0% 13-8% 15.5% I9-4%
Ethnic community events 16.4% 4°·9% 21.0% 34-0%

Ethnic cultural events 17.9% '7-5% ζ°·7% 13-5%
Ethnic religious events 9-9% 5-8% «7·*% 9·»%
Ethnic religious observance 13-9% 6-4% 36.6% "•5%
Ethnic political econo. advn. 1.6% •5% 9·»%
Success ethnic endeavor •5%
Cultural pluralism •5% o% •3% •8%
Biculturalism •9% •o% ·*%
Ethnic products and services 37-3% 15-7% ι6·ΐ% 3 2 ·7%
Average Ethnicity U.S. 11.0% "•3% ι6..% 13-7%
A P P E N D I X 2. (cont.)
A. ITEMS IN T H E E T H N I C M O T H E R T O N G U E (cont.)
5. Ethnic activism
Ethnic advocacy 3-3% •8% 6.6% 7-5%
Ethn. advoc. w/o implement. i-4% •7% •5% •7%
Ethnic financial appeals 1
-9% M% 8.0% 2.6%
Average Ethnic Activism •9% 5·°% 3-6%
6. Assimilation
Acculturation, assimilation •5% •3% •8%
Average Assimilation •5% •0% •3% •8%
362 io. The Hispanic Press in the United States: Content and Prospects
B. ITEMS IN ENGLISH
ι. Foreignness
Old-country references 3 2 -6% 2 7· 2 % 43-4% 33-8%
Average Foreignness 3 2 -6% 2 7· 2 % 43-4% 33-8%
2. Push
Ethnic personal tragedies •7% •5% 16.1% 4-5%
Ethnic political-eco. setback •9% •5% 6-7% 7-5%
Adversity of migration >-2% •5% •6.5%
Xenophobia o% •5% 2.0%
Rejection, oppression, persec. 9-3% 2 ·9% 2 1·4% 2 2 ·3%
Race and ethnicity • 2 % •o% 2 ·3%
Average Push 1.8% •6% 7-5% 9··%

5. Pull
Traditions •7% •5% 16.1% 4-5%
Ancestry, History 22.1% •5·ο% 26.1% 2.8%
Roots 2 ·3% 3-4% 4.ο% 6.ο%

Ethnic family values •5% 6.0% 4-3%
Ethnic code ethics •7% 7-9% 6-5%
Ethnic superiority, inferior. 2.8% 1.0% •4% ΐ·5%
Ethnic pride shame ii.6% •5% 7-3% ·ΐ%
Transcendental nationalism 2.8% 2 -4% 3-8%
Average Pull 5-4% 2 ·9% 9·°% 4-7%
4. Ethnicity U.S.
Accomplishments individual 28.1% 2 3·8% 37-6% 51 -3%
Ethnic scientific discovery •9% !·°% •4% 9-5%
Ethnic literary wks, EMT i.6% Ι·°% 5-3% 6-3%
Ethnic literary wks not EMT •7% •0% "•9% 4-5%
Ethnic music art drama ΐ·9% 3-4% ΙΟ ·9% 17-8%
Ethnic community events i6.7% 4 2 ·7% 3-6% 6.ο%
Ethnic cultural events ΐ3·ο% 5·»% 2 4·3% 4-5%
Ethnic religious events 3·°% ΐ·9% 3-7% ΐ·5%
Ethnic religious observance 6-3% ι·5% 35·ΐ% 4-ο%
Ethnic political econo. advn. 4·°% ·°% 6-5% 2 7·°%
Success ethnic endeavor • 2 % ·°%

2 ·5%
Cultural pluralism ••2% ΐ·°% 3·ο%

Biculturalism •5% •0% ·ΐ% 5-3%
Ethnic products and services 41-6% 3ΐ·6% ΙΟ·9% ι6.ο%
Average Ethnicity U.S. 8.6% 8-7% ΙΟ ·7% "•4%
5. Ethnic activism
Ethnic advocacy 9-5% 6-3% 2.8% 2 °·3%
Ethnic advoc. w/o implement 5-8% 3-9% •3% •8%

Ethnic financial appeals 3·°% Ι·9% 2 ·5%
•·°%
Average Ethnic activism 6.1% 4-0% ι.8% 7-3%
6. Assimilation
Acculturation, assimilation •5% •4% 2 ·5%
5··%
Chapter 11
The Significance of the Ethnic-Community

Mother-Tongue School
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN
THE TITLE VII BLINDERS
Our collective fascination (or is it horror?) with respect to publicly subsidized

and conflicted bilingual education in the U.S.A. (usually referred to cryptically
as "Title V I I " bilingual education, after the section of the Federal Elementary
and Secondary Education Act which first appropriated funds for it) has made us
blind to several other kinds of bilingual education that abound—and that have
always been plentifully present—in our own midst and, indeed, throughout
educational history. Glyn Lewis (1976) has done us a distinct service, one
among many such, by introducing us to the early history of bilingual education
in the Euromediterranean basin. For literally thousands of years before the
appearance of mass ("public") education, political, religious, commercial and
cultural elites educated their children bilingually. The recognized local/regional
and supralocal/supraregional languages of record, administration, justice, trade
and enlightenment changed over the centuries in accord with the fortunes of
war, royal alliances, migration (forced and voluntary), language spread, and
intergroup contact, but again and again a bilingual education pattern appears
among those fortunate enough to receive literacy-related education. Bilingual
education, formal education and social advantage were synonymous for cen-
turies, and remain so to this very day, for the children of elites throughout the
world. The pattern involved is clearly different from that of Title V I I , where
disadvantage rather than advantage is the hallmark both of bilingual education and
of the population involved in it.
Coming closer to home, Shirley Heath has begun to reveal to us the early role
of bilingual education in the fashioning of American public education (1977;
also see Heath and Mandach 1983). From the beginning of education in the
colonies (and continuing into the twentieth century in many areas), newcomers
(Catholics and Jews in particular) sent their children to bilingual parochial

schools maintained by their churches. When public education later arose and
sought to attract these same children to its schools and programs, it also often
began, and in some instances long remained, in a bilingual education mold. Up
until World War I, such bilingual public schools existed in many Northeastern
and Midwestern urban school districts (Kloss 1966, 1977). The Commissioner
of Education regularly commented upon them favorably in his annual reports
to Congress and considered them conducive to adjusted, healthy, literate and
patriotic citizenship (see, e.g., Viereck 1902). H o w different the picture of
public bilingual education in those days (though it still remains to be studied in
depth) from that which is associated with Title VII's efforts today!
Finally, and most recently of all, the bilingual education efforts of note-
worthy schools have been written up in detail. Whether in Germany (Mackey
1972), in Florida (Mackey and Beebe 1977) or in Montreal (Lambert and Tucker
1972), they involve enrichment for the relatively fortunate, give or take a degree
of language maintenance (to suit particular local needs). These schools should
remind us of the thousands upon thousands of nontransitional bilingual education
units functioning all over the world today, indeed in almost every country
(Fishman 1976). O f course, the U.S.A. is by no means the only country with a
huge investment in transitional bilingual education. Such also exist in the
U.S.S.R., particularly for smaller and non-European nationalities, in Latin
America and Australia for indigenous/aboriginal populations, in northern
Europe for children of southern European (im)migrant laborers, in a growing
number of African and Asian settings where English or French (rather than any
of the local vernaculars) are still the unmarked languages of education (even
though few mother-tongue speakers of either exist and even though elementary
school enrollments continue to expand beyond the T E S O L capacity of the local
educational system). However, the U.S.A. does probably hold the unenviable
record among advanced societies for supporting transitional programs within
the public bilingual education sector almost to the exclusion of all others.
OVERLOOKING THE ELEPHANT AT THE ZOO: THE

ETHNIC-COMMUNITY MOTHER-TONGUE SCHOOL
IN AMERICAN BILINGUAL EDUCATION
O f all the foregoing examples, only that pertaining to the early bilingual origins
of American public education touched upon the existence of ethnic community
mother-tongue schools ( E C M T S ) in the U.S.A. Those schools did not disap-
pear from the American scene when public schools arose to compete with them.
A s we noted in Chapter 7, they exist to this very day in very substantial numbers
(roughly some 6600 in all), proudly trace their history back to before the birth
Ii. The Significance of the Ethnic Community Mother-Tongue School 365
of the Republic, and, to the extent that they are all-day schools—which some
1500 of them are—they are bonafide(but commonly overlooked or forgotten)
members of the enure bilingual education enterprise in the U.S.A. Perhaps a
very rich and wasteful country, such as ours, can afford to overlook or forget
1500 schools, but certainly our bilingual education success or our second
language teaching success is far from being sufficiently outstanding to excuse
doing so.
Indeed, most of the ECMTSs in the U.S.A. are engaged in bilingual edu-
cation whether or not they are day schools. Some are totally engaged in
language-maintenance efforts and (ideally) utilize the ethnic mother tongue
alone for instructional purposes. Others teach the ethnic mother tongue but do
not (and presumably could not, given their students' level of achievement)
employ it as a language of instruction per se. The latter two school types, more
than 75% of the entire ECMTS pie, are supplementary, i.e., they are attended by
children who attend other schools—most usually public schools—in lieu of
compulsory education. Thus, these schools too, deal with students who are of
necessity bilingual at least to some extent and, as such, they too should be of
interest to anyone concerned with the language resources of the United States.
Unencumbered by the shackles of Title VII, the ECMTS teachers, administra-
tors, parents, school board members and ideologists more openly and fully
verbalize several major assumptions that are also mentioned (albeit in more
muted tones) by their Title VII counterparts. Indeed, these assumptions fully
merit careful analysis and evaluation not only by the bilingual education
constituencies, but by all who are interested in the sociology of language and in
the sociology of education more generally. Let us mention these assumptions
here:
Assumption 1: The Language and Ethnicity Link: A Central Verity

Many sponsors, school boards and educators associated with ECMTSs are
unequivocally committed to the view that their particular language and eth-
nicity linkage is vital and, hopefully, eternal. The linkage between Xish (be it
Greek, German, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Navajo, etc.) and Xishness (Greekness,
Germanness, Hungarianness, Ukrainianness, Navajoness, etc.) is perceived as
having been forged in the prehistoric—indeed, perhaps even in the
preterrestrial—past, indeed, as being in the category of the sacred mysteries.
The link is viewed as the essence of identity, of authenticity, of uniqueness. It is
often experienced almost as a palpable, bodily reality and it is vibrantly ex-
pressed with the metaphor of the body: blood, tears, bones, milk, heart, etc. The
ethnic mother tongue presumably reverberates in all of these and the ethnicity
with which it is associated is "felt" and enacted through all of these.
Obviously, such views are quite discrepant from more pragmatic (and more
accurate, or, at least, more confirmable) views—much more widespread and
intellectually established on the American scene—that deny all of the foregoing

and that claim that languages are, at least primarily, merely means of communi-
cation, that their links with particular ethnicities are historical and alterable
developments, and that ethnicity itself is nothing more than a reflection of the
outer limits of a stable and satisfying reward system (and, as such, that it is both
eminently arbitrary and eminently changeable).
Assumption 2: The Language and Ethnicity Link has Causal Consequences

The purportedly holy bond between a particular language and its associated
ethnicity is not merely assumed to be a precious verity, but it is viewed as a
powerfully causal action system as well by leading networks within the ECMTS
boards, sponsors and supporters. The particular structural characteristics of a
given language are believed to cause, lead, force, constrain and require their
speakers to know, do, intuit, appreciate and resonate the way they do. The
ethnic mother tongue is viewed and experienced as a dynamo that generates
sensitivities, skills, abilities and understandings unique to its community of
speakers. It has a force, a rhythm, a character, a taste, a sensitivity, a quality of
beauty, humanness and greatness of soul that fosters the same characteristics
within the community of those who speak (read, write, think) it consistently
and zealously.
This view is importantly different from the one more common in American
intellectual life that merely claims that a people's history and culture are most
fully, easily and parsimoniously expressed via its own language. The view held
by a good proportion of ECMTS activists maintains that languages not merely
reflect their associated cultures but that they create them, protect them and
energize them.
Assumption y. Language Maintenance is a Moral Imperative Since it is Essentialfor

the Maintenance and Furtherance of the Ethnomoral Tradition
Given the two previous assumptions, the third comes as no surprise. If the link
between a language and its associated ethnicity is itself holy and if it is causal
of the uniqueness that authentically constitutes the ethnic tradition, then,
obviously, one must do all that is in one's power in order to maintain and
foster that language. The most moralistically infused ethnic events and
activities—ethnicity itself being best understood as an ethnomoral
imperative—birth, death, marriage, rites de passage: these are inextricably
linguistically intertwined, interpenetrated, interconnected. An entire moral
order must be defended and encouraged to blossom and to give fruit. Wherever
inroads of translinguification appear, there the danger of transethnification
lurks. These dangers must be resisted and removed. Self-defense is the basic law
of nature and of society. Language maintenance is often viewed in ECMTS
circles as the very foundation of defending the ethnomoral tradition, and, as
i l . The Significance of the Ethnic Community Mother-Tongue School 367
such, it often receives open, unembarrassed, topmost priority under the most
difficult educational circumstances.
Assumption 4: Stable Bilingualism\Biculturism is a Possible (and, under American

Circumstances, a Necessary) Societal Arrangement
The lion's share of minority ethnic communities in the U.S.A. can hardly avoid
acquiring English. Even the separation formerly due to spatial distance is no
longer a barrier to the spread of English as telephone, radio, television and
rapid-transportation linkages multiply. However, although spatial and interac-
tional barriers shrink and even disappear, most ECMTS advocates maintain
that ethnolinguistic separation can, nevertheless, be attained and retained.
Furthermore, it is generally assumed among ECMTS spokesmen today that this
goal can be achieved (a) on a societal basis, rather than merely on an exceptional
individual basis alone, and (b) on a stable or permanent basis, above and beyond
a three-generation criterion, rather than on a transistional basis alone.
Among the most encouraging and confirmatory developments in this con-
nection for ECMTS activists has been the "rebirth of ethnicity" experience.
This experience, worldwide on the one hand and, on the other, reaching into
the very ranks of those who had apparently transethnified and translinguified
into the greater American ("unmarked") mainstream, is fully in accord with the
activists' assumption that minority ethnicity in the U.S.A. has an infinite ca-
pacity to "overcome" and to creatively stabilize itself while maintaining interac-
tion with the mainstream.
Assumption /: By Means of Planning and Organisation the Future of Bilingualism and

Biculturism in the U.S.A. Can be Rendered Different from the Past.
The priority given to language maintenance in ECMTSs is merely the reflection
of community-wide determination to "do something for (or about) the lan-
guage." ECMTS spokesmen in the United States, not unlike their mainstream
counterparts, are more convinced than ever that action is required in order to
implement their ideals. They have become experts—and are becoming even
more so—on how to participate in American political processes of bargaining,
pressuring, arriving at trade-offs and more generally, twisting arms, kissing
babies, organizing, mobilizing and consciousness-raising among their con-
stituencies. Even more than that, ethnic communities in the U.S.A. have learned
how to reinterpret their own goals and priorities into statements that lay claim
upon the public interest. Not only are General Motors, the NAM and the AFL-
CIO "altruistically" interested in "the general welfare," but so also are the
various ethnic associations of our country. Indeed, the latter are among the
most active planners and organizers in our country today, departing from the
assumption that in this fashion they can more fully reach their goals.
368 III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community institutions
Assumption 6: The Ethnic-Community Mother-Tongue School Makes a Major,

Independent Contribution to Ethnic Mother-Tongue Maintenance.
The American Anglo-mainstream—intellectuals and laymen alike—are cur-
rently experiencing a crisis of belief vis-à-vis the schools as independent forces
in the attainment of either narrowly academic or broader societal goals. From
being oversold on education in the 50s and 60s, various sectors of the general
public (and certain leading public figures) have swung, pendulumlike, to the
other extreme and are now often undersold on education as a national priority
and need to be "resold" by educational spokesmen. Not so in the world of the
ethnic community mother-tongue school. Here there is still substantial confi-
dence that "the right program of studies and cocurricular experiences" can,
does and will significantly help to accomplish the goals that are so warmly
desired: language and ethnicity maintenance within the framework of stable
bilingualism/biculturism. Of course, not all E C M T S s are considered to be
making the contributions that they could or should to the attainment of these
goals, but the basic confidence and trust in the effectiveness of "the optimal
school" is there. Hope that their school will reach the optimal level springs
eternal among E C M T S activists and educators who have maintained such
schools by means of their own time, effort and funds.
The above six assumptions have an importance above and beyond their truth
or falseness when tested in accord with the canons of science. They represent
deep convictions and, as such, they motivate, focus, activate, orient and il-
luminate the lives of millions upon millions of Americans. As such they are
important far beyond their "truth value." They are principles of cultural action,
and it is neither the function nor the goal of cultures to be either efficient or
confirmable; rather it is their function to provide meaning, direction, continuity
and identity. These assumptions do just that for the most active leadership of
the E C M T S .
WHAT CAN SCHOOLS ACCOMPLISH, AND WHAT

NOT?
Various chapters in this volume devote attention (empirical or theoretical,

historical or current, America-centered or international in perspective) to one
or another of the six major assumptions enumerated earlier. At this point, let us
turn to the sixth assumption listed above and examine the proposition thatgood
E C M T schools, properly oriented toward language maintenance, can make a
significant independent contribution toward that task.
H. The Significance of the Ethnic Community Mother-Tongue School 369
THE SCHOOL AS A REWARD SYSTEM
The vast majority of any speech community comes to speak (read, write) in the
ways it does—monolingually or bilingually—because of its long and intricate
involvement in reward systems requiring such speech. The rewards in question
are social rewards (enforcing and recognizing membership in the family, in the
community, in the society, in the people); fiscal rewards ( jobs, promotions, raises,
bonuses); political rewards (election, appointment, public acclaim); religious
rewards; etc. What kind of reward system does the ECMTS constitute and how
strong are its rewards relative to those of the other reward systems to which
minority ethnolinguistic children are exposed?
Schools are obviously social microcosms, litde societies in and of themselves,
and, as such, they do socialize to membership within them. They deal with
young, impressionable and weak organisms to begin with—organisms initially
aware of few other memberships or reward systems—and dispense to them
rewards such as approval, grades, prizes and promotions. These rewards come
to be desirable in and of themselves and their differential possession provides
differential status to members of the school "community." However, above and
beyond the rewards that the school—including, of course, the ECMT school—
dispenses for appropriate behavior within its own boundaries, the school
prepares for appropriate behavior in other reward systems that are not only
outside of its own control but that, indeed, control the school. This is par-
ticularly so insofar as elementary schools are concerned. The school provides its
own rewards for learning the skills, attitudes, values and knowledge required
for success in extraschool reward systems, but, obviously, those extraschool
reward systems ultimately provide their own reward directly to those whom
they ultimately accept within their own ranks. In this respect the school as a
reward system—no matter how effectively it may operate—is significantly
different from other social reward systems. Increasingly, as students progress
further and further through the school system, they become increasingly
oriented (indeed, they are prepared by the school itself to become increasingly
oriented) to the rewards not of the school itself, but of some agency or
institution outside of the school over which the school has no control. It is this
peculiar difference between the school and other social reward systems, a
difference that is particularly noteworthy in modern society, that leads us to
designate schools as secondary reward systems, i.e., as social reward systems that
are generally weaker, later, briefer than and subservient or subsidiary to primary
reward systems, i.e., systems that are stronger, earlier, longer and more directly
the stuff out of which intergenerational continuity is constituted. Increasingly,
as students progress through the grades, schools are able to influence them,
teach them, and train them only to the extent that more primary reward systems
are available that functionally and predictably reward and require the in-
fluences, teachings, and skills that schools stand ready to impact. Accordingly,
as ordinary graduates go about the business of life after their school days are
over, they maintain and refine and even extend the influences, teachings and
skills originally obtained in school to the extent that these are required and
rewarded by the primary institutions of society such as the family, the church,
the work sphere and—in some culture—the government. Wherever the latter
do not require and reward school outcomes, these outcomes generally tend
increasingly to weaken, atrophy, and become lost as the years roll by. This is so
whether we are speaking of algebra, history, literature, chemistry, or language
(be it the particularistic ethnic mother tongue or a lingua franca "other tongue").
Thus, even ή good schools do effectively teach for language maintenance within the
short span of years in which students attend them, we must nevertheless ask, as
we do for all other subjects, what primary reward systems above and beyond the
school will reinforce, require and reward ethnic mother-tongue use in that
"real, live world" that exists beyond the ECMT school and schooling?
THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS OF PRIMARY

REWARD SYSTEMS IN THE U.S.A.
Consider the minority-language home-and-community (optimally: home-in-

community) as if it were the center of a series of concentric circles. When
language maintenance obtains, the center operates in terms of intragroup
communication either monolingually (i.e., essentially in the ethnic mother
tongue alone, albeit with some degree of inevitable unmarked language bor-
rowings, influences or caiques) or bilingually (with the marked and the un-
marked languages being employed in minimally overlapping functions). Now
let us consider other institutions as additional circles surrounding the minority
home-and-community. They are arranged in the order in which they are
encountered as children's social experiences expand and as they increasingly
interact with social processes that do not originate from their home-and-
community base. Under the best of circumstances (from the point of view of
language maintenance) the school and church also operate monolingually in the
marked language alone. However, if the school is to serve in lieu of compulsory
education in the U.S.A., it must be a bilingual school, at the very least, so as to
instruct a designated number of required subjects/hours in the generally
unmarked language (English). Similarly, if the church seeks to serve those
ethnics (not to mention "other" ethnics) who have no mastery of the marked
language, it too must become bilingual to some degree. Thus it has happened
that even community institutions originally established for language mainten-
ance purposes ultimately make contributions to the broadening of the child's
/ /. The Significance of the Ethnic Mother- Tongue School 3 71
experiences and to the extension of his or her interactions with the world of the
unmarked language and its speakers, behaviors, values, skills, understandings,
beliefs and attitudes. This is not necessarily the "beginning of the end."
Bilingual schools and bilingual churches, if carefully related to compartmenta-
lized home-and-community arrangements, can be fully consistent with lan-
guage maintenance, as they are, e.g., in the Amish and Hasidic cases. However,
such arrangements do require constant vigilance because their underlying
dynamics lead their constituencies ever so easily and ever so naturally to the
world of the unmarked language. Schooling leads to greater schooling and to
the rewards of greater schooling. Religion commonly leads to broader-than-
ethnicity associations. (There are far fewer religions than ethnicities and this is
but one reflection of the tendency for religions to develop into supraethnic or
panethnic sociocultural systems even when they did not—as did Christianity—
do so early on.) Thus, even the first networks beyond the immediate home-and-
community pose potential problems for minority language maintenance.
Unless controlled by home-and-community authorities so that sociolinguistic
compartmentalization is reinforced rather than counteracted, these institutions
can seriously weaken rather than foster language maintenance because of their
own links to primary institutions in the unmarked language. Indeed, in the case
of the school, it is the home-and-community that provides, preserves and
directs its language maintenance contributions, i.e., the flow of language
maintenance influence is much greater from home-and-community into the
school than, vice-versa. This is particularly so when there are no other language-
maintenance-oriented domains outside of the home-and-community that can
foster language maintenance in the school (and that can serve to reward
students who do well in their ethnic-mother-tongue subjects).
Once we move to more distant primary domains, e.g., the work sphere and
the Government Service sphere, the likelihood of deriving from them out-of-
home-and-community support for school language-maintenance efforts be-
comes dramatically smaller. Very few minority communities have an economic
establishment of their own that operates in their ethnic mother tongue. Even
fewer have received recognition of their mother tongues for use in government
records, proceedings and services. Therefore, to an overwhelming extent, these
two domains undercut and weaken the carry-over of marked efforts on the part
of the bilingual/ethnic community mother-tongue school. Econotechnical in-
volvement, interdependence and interaction with, or participation in, govern-
mental activities and services, two of the major post-school arenas of modern
life, are likely to be crucially counterproductive for minority ethnolinguistic
language-maintenance purposes. Indeed, this is so not only because of their
negative feedback on the minority language-maintenance efforts of the school,
due to their almost exclusive unmarked language association, but also because
of their direct rewards for unmarked language use in home-and-community per
se. Both the economy and the government are normally language-maintenance
"disaster areas" and the minority-language school cannot hope to compete with
them or to counteract them or even to control or compartmentalize them,
particularly at their higher levels, and most particularly when they are in an
active, expanding, incorporating, rewarding posture or phase.
WHAT DOES THE SCHOOL CONTRIBUTE TO

LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE?
a. Literacy
The purpose of our analysis is not to argue that minority E C M T schools are of
no significance whatsoever for language-maintenance purposes but merely to
question their independent contributions thereto. However, even as secondary
reward systems, schools have a role to play in language maintenance because they
significantly coprepare for literacy-related participation in all domains of life,
whether home-and-community per se, close-to-home-and-community, or
distant-from-home-and-community. Minority-language maintenance increas-
ingly requires literacy because it is only via literacy that most modern and
encompassing reward systems become operative. Unless they are entirely with-
drawn from the modern world, minority ethnolinguistic groups need to be
literate in their mother tongue (as well as in some language of wider communi-
cation), both for the symbolic reward of literacy as well as for its material value.
If there is ever to be effective ethnic-mother-tongue use in most out-of-home-
and-community domains, such use will require the school's active assistance to
assure ethnic-mother-tongue literacy (as well as to assure acquisition of those
spoken varieties that are proximate to litetacy, i.e., formal speech). Schools are
crucial literacy-imparting institutions, even though they need outside help,
even in this respect, if what they teach is to take hold and be maintained later in
life (Wagner 1983).
b. Morality
In addition, schools can and do point a direction: they legitimize or dignify or
recognize that which should be, as well as that which is. Schools are moral,
ideological, and idealistic institutions and therefore they speak eloquently to the
kind of America that minority ethnolinguistic groups want to build for their
children. Schools and schooling constitute a modern arena in which the most
serious issues of public policy and national well-being, including language
maintenance perse, can be examined, discussed, argued, analyzed and in which a
climate of opinion is generated among pupils (and parents) from an early age
and for many years. Schools and schoolmen do not decide public (nor even
ethnic) issues independently, but they are a crucially visible stage for raising
issues as moral imperatives. In the American tradition, it is the school more than
the church that raises and keeps before our eyes the serious moral issues of our
¡i. The Significance of the Ethnic Mother-Tongue School 373
national life. In the E C M T S , language maintenance is very often among the

issues that the school recognizes and elevates among parents, teachers and
students alike.
c. L.eadership
There is yet a third reason why the school is of potential importance for
language maintenance. As mentioned above, it is obviously the institution for
(bi)literacy acquisition on a massive basis. It is also the peculiarly American
forum for guided discussion of the great moral issues of national and ethnic life.
In addition—secondary reward system though it be—it plays a significant role
in leadership training within minority ethnic communities perse. If there will be
future generations of ethnic leaders who can organize and ideologize their
"own kind" for effective econotechnical and political action on behalf of
language-and-ethnicity maintenance, if there will be future generations of
ethnic leaders who can talk to the heart and mind of the general American
public, if there will be future generations of ethnic leaders who will be familiar
with the breadth and depth of their own evolving traditions, as with that of the
American mainstream and the world at large, then the ethnic-mother-tongue
school experience will have a major hand in fashioning them, in stimulating
them, in directing them and in focusing them. Both at a conscious and at an
unconscious level, the school motivates, elevates, clarifies (focuses) and dig-
nifies. However much it requires other processes and institutions—many of
them more mundane, more petty, more conflicted, more stressful, more
materialistic—to make the school's work "stick," to make it "take," to give it
substance and an arena for implementation, the school is nevertheless a signifi-
cant input and design factor in ethnic-community life. It is, in large part,
through their schools that ethnic communities define themselves, define their
past, define their future, define their goals and orient their future leaders
and spokesmen. Weak as they are from the point of view of independently
accounting for causal variance, ethnic-mother-tongue schools are part of the
delicate web of language maintenance in the U.S.A. and in other unmarked
language contexts today. Minority language maintenance and minority ethnicity
maintenance would be weaker without them and their future would be even less
hopeful.
THE SCHOOL IS NEEDED FOR LANGUAGE

MAINTENANCE, BUT IT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH
The inadvisability of relying on schools alone for minority-language mainten-
ance is clear enough. Setting aside brief experimental programs that are sus-
ceptible to "halo" experimental effects (Cohen 1975), it can be safely concluded
that nowhere in the world have major programs of language maintenance,
language revival or language revitalization succeeded if their major " b e t " was
374 m The Ethnie Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
on the school rather than on other, more primary social processes. Thousands
of Hebrew courses in Temples and Jewish Community Centers throughout the
U.S.A. do not produce Hebrew-speaking youngsters (much less a future
generation of Hebrew-mother-tongue children). Why not? And why are the
results of the Greek Orthodox community schools, Armenian community
schools, Ukrainian community schools, Chinese community schools, etc., etc.
equally disappointing when they deal with second or subsequent generation
children? On the other hand why are the 6oo-or-so Pennsylvania German
schools and the hundred-or-so Hasidic Yiddish-L<mä« kqydesh schools so success-
ful at their intergenerational ethnolinguistic tasks? Seemingly, the difference in
community structure, in community control of its own residential and eco-
nomic bases, and in community regulation of the domains and degrees of
interaction with Anglo-America are the crucial factors in the differences that
obtain. Stable bilingualism and biculturism cannot be maintained on the basis
of open and unlimited interaction between minorités and majorities. Open eco-
nomic access, and unrestricted intergroup interaction are undoubtedly good for
various practical and philosophical goals and, indeed, they strike most of us as
highly desirable legal and social principles, but they are destructive of minority
ethnolinguistic continuity. This is not to say that self-segregation or apartheid is
necessary for minority language maintenance when ethnolinguistic minorities
are faced by conditions of residential proximity and economic interdependency.
Neither the Amish nor the Hasidim are hermetically sealed off from Anglo
society. It is to say that without strong and statusful areas of compartmentalized
primary reward systems in which mainstream access and interaction are effect-
ively restricted, those who seek minority ethnolinguistic continuity (and they
too have rights and contribute to the public " g o o d " ) cannot prevail and the
secondary reward system, which is the school, cannot compensate for the
ethnolinguistic attrition that then occurs. The choice is not between diametric
opposites, but between two extreme (though opposite) monolithic solutions,
on the one hand, and an eclectic selection and combination of features, on the
other. When such a selection and combination are arrived at—and it may well
be that only nonpublic associations can engage in such—the E C M T school will
have its role to play in the overall language-maintenance design, but it will do
so by serving a vibrant and purposeful community—a community with a mo-
dicum of economic, political and religious power of its own—rather than being
called upon to do the impossible: to save the community from itself.
THE COMMUNITY ITSELF: A LIMITATION ON

THE LANGUAGE-MAINTENANCE ROLE OF THE
ECMT SCHOOL
As an earlier study has revealed, the number of E C M T schools throughout the
50 states is much more closely related to the total number of "non- English-back-
Ii. The Significance of the Ethnic Mother-Tongue School 375
ground" individuals (persons whose usual or second household language is not

English, or, if over 14 years of age, whose mother tongue is other than English,
whether or not the mother tongue is usually spoken, N C E S 1976) in these states
than to the numbers of school-age children (ages 6-18) of non-English-language
backgrounds (Fishman 1980). In addition, viewed language by language, the
numbers of these schools are far more closely related to the numbers of native-
born school-age children of these backgrounds. These are important findings for
an understanding of E C M T school realities in the United States since, taken
together, they stress both the community-wide and the characteristically
American nature of the dynamics of these schools. Although these schools
benefit from the selfless dedication of thousands of parent/teacher activists,
these schools are generally even more meager language-maintenance auxiliary
agencies than they might or could optimally be. This is precisely because their
sponsoring rank-and-file constituencies do not stress or pursue language main-
tenance as a primary home-and-community goal, quite regardless of whether
school activists and ideologists per se do so. These schools are primarily
attitudinally socializing rather than ideologizing or activating agencies and
they have been such for quite a while (Fishman 1964). Rather than being
instruments of language maintenance in any conscious, focused and determined
fashion, ethnic-community mother-tongue schools are far more commonly
instruments for combining both ethnicity and controlled mainstream exposure.
The schooling they provide commonly fosters the indigenization of par-
ticipatory ethnicity, i.e., the stabilization of particularly American ways of being
ethnic, much more than they foster language maintenance. Attending an ethnic-
mother-tongue school may well be an almost obligatory second generation
ethnic experience in the United States, whereas learning to speak, read and write
the ethnic mother tongue with facility at such schools is clearly the exception
rather than the rule. Just as being ethnic is now a legitimate way of being
American (and this may be the greatest accomplishment of the ethnic revival),
so attending an ethnic-community mother-tongue school, regardless of how
little of the ethnic language is either taught or learned, is now the nonimmigrant
ethnic child's unique way of being American, whether or not he is of non-
English-language background. Thus, the ethnic-community mother-tongue
school moderates and modulates ethnic uniqueness at the same time that it
channels Americanness via the community's own institutions. In both respects,
it makes contributions that neither its internal nor its external observers expected,
even though language maintenance is generally very far from being among
them. Teachers, activists and community ideologists regret this state of affairs,
but the rank-and-file parents and school-board members are not similarly
concerned. The number of such schools will continue to grow for the fore-
seeable future. (Spanish speakers, South East Asians and Pacific Islanders are
just beginning to organize such schools now.) They will continue to provide
exposure to the ethnic mother tongues and to provide positive experiences with
them, but they will not be able to foster language maintenance of any more
active or maximal sort until the communities they serve are ready to pursue such
goals themselves out of school.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cohen, D. Bilingual schooling and Spanish-language maintenance: an experimental analysis.

Bilingual Review, 1975 2, 3 - 1 2 .
Fishman, Joshua A. The ethnic-group school and mother-tongue maintenance in the United States.
Sociology of Education. 1964, 37, 306—317.
. Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective. Rowley, Newbury House, 1976.
. Ethnic-community mother-tongue schools in the USA: Dynamics and distributions.
International Migration Review. 1980, 14, 235-247.
Heath, Shirley B. Our language heritage: a historical perspective, in June K . Phillips, ed. The
Language Connection: From the Classroom to the World·. Skokie, National Text book Co., 1977,
23-52.
. and Frederick Mandach. Language status decisions and the law in the United
States, in Cobarrubias, Juan and Joshua A. Fishman (eds.), Progress in Language Planning. Berlin,
Mouton, 1983, 87-106.
Kloss, H. German-American language-maintenance efforts, in J . A. Fishman et. al. Language Loyalty
in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966, 206-252.
. The American Bilingual Tradition. Rowley, Newbury House, 1977.
Lambert, W. and G.R. Tucker. Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley,
Newbury House, 1972.
Lewis, E. Glyn. Bilingualism and bilingual education: The ancient world to the renaissance, in J.A.
Fishman, Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective. Rowley, Newbury House,
1976, 150—200.
Mackey, W.F. Bilingual Education in a Bilingual School. Rowley, Newbury House, 1972.
. and Beebe Von Nieda. Bilingual Schools for Bilingual Communities. Rowley, Newbury
House, 1977.
Wagner, Daniel A. (ed.). Literacy and ethnicity. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 1983,
42, Entire issue.
Chapter 12
Ethnocultural Dimensions in the Acquisition

and Retention of Biliteracy: A Comparative
Ethnography of Four New York City Schools
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN, CAROLE RIEDLER-

BERGER, PHYLLIS KOLING AND J. MARK
STEELE
Given the apparent difficulty experienced by many American urban school

systems in attaining adequate levels of /ara/wliteracy, it may seem rather in-
delicate of us to stress, as we intend to do, that Miteracy—the mastery of reading
in particular, and also of writing, in two (or more) languages—is not at all
a rare skill among that portion of mankind that has successfully attained
literacy. We do so, however, not only because societal bilingualism happens to
be our particular area of professional interest but because ¿/literacy particularly
lends itself to appreciations that may also help us understand »oweliteracy
differently and, perhaps, somewhat better than before.
VARIOUS KINDS OF BILITERACY
Perhaps the major force for biliteracy today, on a world-wide basis, is the
continued spread of English as a second language almost everywhere (Fishman,
Cooper and Conrad 1977). The ability to read English has become no more than
a taken-for-granted characteristic of the average younger Dutch, Scandinavian
and German and is close to approaching that status among educated (i.e.,
literate) younger Israelis, Arabs, Japanese and Indians (from India). In geograph-
ically smaller spheres of influence, French and Russian, too, are having the
same effect outside of their own national borders. On a still smaller scale, the
movements for one or another international auxiliary language also result in the
spread of biliteracy, since literacy in any one of them is always acquired by
individuals who are already literate in an ethnocultural language. Let us call this
type of biliteracy language-of-wider-communication-based biliteracy. It is usually the
result of the expansion of econotechnical, commercial, religious, ideological or
cultural establishments to such an extent that ethnoculturally diverse first-
language users find it advantageous not only to use the language of wider
communication (LWC) when addressing mother-tongue speakers of that lan-
guage (that being its initial and major function), but to use it with one another as
well for limited functions in the above-enumerated realms. The "outside
origin" of "the other language" continues to be well recognized and, indeed,
this may add to its status or appeal.
Quite a different constellation of biliteracy is that which may be labeled
traditional. This much-overused word means many different things, but one
thing that it always means is assumed historical depth. There are a few biliteracy
traditions that may have started via the spread of languages of wider communi-
cation, but that have indigenized "the other language" to such an extent that it
has become a well-established vehicle of /«/ragroup literacy. Indeed, when the
two languages are genetically related they are sometimes viewed as one. Thus
traditional Jewish biliteracy in Hebrew and Judeo-Aramaic was and is
frequently interpreted in this fashion (the two together being designated Loshn
koydesh). So is Greek facility in Classical and Katarevusa, and now in Demotiki
texts, and Chinese facility in Classical Mandarin and in modern Pekingese, not
to mention regional, e.g., Cantonese, texts. However, Old Order Pennsylvania
German traditional biliteracy is not of this two-in-one kind. The two—Luther
Bible German and English—are definitely two and not one, although English is
also used primarily for /«/ragroup purposes. The Old Order folk may, now and
then, write a letter or send a bill to an outsider, but what they publish in English
they publish primarily for their own edification. This, then, is the hallmark of
traditional biliteracy, regardless of the historical or linguistic provenance of the
languages involved. Unlike LWC biliteracy, where one language is primarily
inward-looking and the other is a window to the outside world, traditional
biliteracy utilizes two languages primarily for /»/ragroup purposes (Ferguson
!979)·
Finally, we come to (im) migration-based biliteracy. This type of biliteracy shares
some features with each of the foregoing types. It is like LWC biliteracy in that
one literacy tradition is obviously acquired from and directed primarily toward
/'«/éTgroup communication. It is like traditional biliteracy in that the own-
literacy tradition has a strong authenticity or language-maintenance stress as
well. It differs from L W C biliteracy in that instead of a language having moved
or spread to a new speech community, a speech community has moved to a new
language environment. On the other hand, it differs from traditional biliteracy
in that the newly acquired literacy tradition is exactly that: new rather than
indigenized. Such is the nature of mass migrations in the modern world that
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in Biliteracj: Comparative Ethnography 379
quite a bit of (im)migrant biliteracy is in evidence. One finds ample examples of

(im)migrant-based biliteracy in expatriate European communities in Latin
America, diaspora communities of Indians (from India), Armenians and
Lebanese, the worldwide (particularly: Third World-wide) phenomena of con-
sular and diplomatic/commercial/technical staffs and their families, not to
mention the honest-to-goodness immigrants and refugees that have resettled en
masse throughout the world—not the least of all, in the U.S.A. If their biliteracy
becomes stabilized on a recurring intergenerational basis, then it may be
regarded as "traditional." Certainly New York City is a natural laboratory for
the study of biliteracy of all three kinds.
FOUR SCHOOLS
For the better part of two years, we studied four schools sponsored by
ethnolinguistic minorities in the Greater New York Metropolitan Area. These
schools were selected so as to facilitate the investigation of specific null hypo-
theses concerning factors that might influence the acquisition of biliteracy, most
particularly the null hypothesis that two different scripts need not pose any
particular difficulty for the acquisition of biliteracy if societal, pedagogical and
standard/dialect issues are all conducive to the pupils' initiation into their
respective cultures of reading and writing. Accordingly, we studied an
Armenian-English school, a Greek-English school, a Hebrew-English school
and (for control purposes) a French-English school (i.e. a school in which "the
other language," above and beyond English, utilizes a script that is for all
intents and purposes very similar to that of English). The French school is an
example of LWC-based biliteracy. The Hebrew school is an example of tradi-
tional biliteracy since both English and Hebrew have been languages of
American Jewish literacy for over three generations. The Greek and Armenian
schools are examples of immigrant biliteracy, since most of the parents as-
sociated with them are of the first or second generation in America, but they
may yet become examples of traditional biliteracy in the future, in view of their
strong church ties.
Although the schools we studied were purposively rather than randomly
selected, they strike us as being rather typical of the universe of some 1500
enumerated ethnic-community all-day schools in the United States today
(Fishman et al., Chapter η, This Volume). As was noted earlier, these, sponsored
by local ethnolinguistic communities throughout the country, are frequently
associated with an ethnoreligious tradition rather than merely with an ethnosec-
ular one. Once again, the French school in our sample serves as a control in this
connection since it has neither an ethnocommunity basis nor an ethnoreligious
linkage of any kind. It is simply one of the two dozen or so French-English day
3 8o III The Ethnic Mother- Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
schools that are scattered throughout the U.S.A. and that primarily serve the
children of parents who regard French as a language of intellectual, social,
literary and artistic advantage ("enrichment") for themselves and for their
children.1
THE HISTORICAL DEPTH OF ETHNORELIGIOUS

BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN THE U.S.A.
Although none of the four 2 schools that we studied is particularly old (the
oldest having been established some forty years ago), they represent a type of
education that has deep historical roots in our country. Such schools predate
public education in the U.S.A. and, indeed, go back to colonial days when
education was typically private, ethnoreligiously associated and bilingual (often
involving German or French and, less frequently, Hebrew, Dutch, Swedish or
Spanish). For some three centuries, schools of this kind have continued quietly
to serve their clients here and to do so bilingually. Since the advent of public
education (not to speak of public bilingual education), they have receded in
general visibility but not in importance vis-à-vis their particular constituencies.
They are often part and parcel of ongoing ethnocommunity functioning and, as
such, are expressions of Gemeinschaft (of intimacy, of bonds of affection, in-
common fate, in-common norms, in-common expectations and in-common
values) at a time when large-city public education has become, at best, an
expression of little more than Gesellschaft. To some extent, such schools have
also enabled some White ethnics to avoid the turmoil of school desegregation
that many urban areas have experienced during the past few decades.
UNEXCEPTIONALITY IN SOCIAL CLASS AND IN

EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE OF SCHOOLS
STUDIED
Lest their class-basis be misunderstood, it should be said at once that none of

our schools is upper class. The French school comes closest to such a desig-
nation in terms of the occupational distribution of its clients, with the Hebrew
school coming a close second. Nevertheless, even these two schools reveal a
modal middle-class parental occupational distribution (largely small shop-
keepers, teachers, accountants). In the Armenian and Greek schools, the
socioeconomic status mode moves distinctly toward a middle-class and even a
lower-middle-class constituency. The modest means of most families associated
with such schools is even clearer when one turns to those that are under
Catholic (Spanish, Italian, Polish); Eastern Orthodox (Ukrainian); or
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in illiteracy: Comparative Ethnography 3 81
Protestant (Amish) sponsorship. A l l in all, except for the clearly exceptional

school here and there (usually, French), we are clearly dealing more with
ethnoreligious exceptionality than with "class position" vis-à-vis mainstream
society.
The universe from which our sample schools were derived is also (as a whole)
unexceptional educationally. By this we mean to say that although bilingual
education is their n o r m — a n d in this they are clearly exceptional—their stan-
dards of attainment (of achievement, of pupil progress, of how much or how
well pupils are taught and h o w much or how well they learn and retain that
which they have learned) is quite comparable to that of their monolingual,
public, mainstream counterparts. These schools, as a whole, practice no ped-
agogic magic and they do not attain dramatically superior academic results.
However, their students do leave them positively bilingual and ethnorelig-
iously self-identified, and these are goals that have considerable value and
meaning to the supporting communities, parental bodies, and professional
staffs involved. This is even more so the case with the four schools that we
selected for intensive study because of their respective reputations as good schools
for children of average ability and from average homes. We did not want to study
schools intendedfor the very rich, the very pious, the militantly ethnic or the intellectually
gifted. Such schools would be too unusual—too o f f b e a t — t o teach us anything
that might have generalizable significance.
OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

POPULATIONS STUDIED
The schools we have studied are rather similar to each other demographically,
above and beyond their educational-qualitative and socioeconomic similarities.
The lion's share (at least 80%) of the pupils in all schools are native-born and
English-dominant. A similar share come from bilingual homes in which both
English and the ethnic language are spoken (or at least read/prayed: Hebrew),
except in the case of the French school, which, as we have already explained,
does not pertain to an ethnic community. Those homes that are bilingual are
also biliterate, although the amount of parental reading and writing in any
language tends to be quite modest. None of the schools has enough non-
English speaking new arrivals to set up special classes for them. A s a result, they
all tend to "handle" those few recent arrivals that they may have, in the regular
classes to which they would otherwise be assigned, on the basis of age or prior
education. Such children are given some special attention (but rarely are they
provided with any special learning materials). The only pardal exception in this
connection is the Hebrew school. The latter school does have special teachers to
work with children that are having reading/writing problems in either language,
but these children are as likely to be native speakers of English as native

speakers of Hebrew.
Only the pupils attending the Greek school tend to live in the vicinity of their
school to any great extent. In all other cases, the vast majority of pupils travel
considerable distances to and from school every day and do not reside in intact
ethnic neighborhoods. There is also some slight demographic exceptionality
attached to the Hebrew school, in that even its small contingent of foreign-born
(Israeli, Latin American) children are often English speaking by the time they
arrive at the school. In addition, a rather sizeable proportion of the Israeli
children studying at the school are likely to return to their homeland once their
fathers' consular or business assignments in New York are completed.
The teaching and administrative personnel in all schools tends to be bilingual
and biliterate. Nevertheless, teachers of the ethnic languages tend more often to
be foreign-born and older than do the teachers of English. Some of the latter
(particularly in the French school) are not of the same ethnic extraction as that
which is normally associated with the particular comedium of instruction which
is unique to their school. Others speak English with an accent related to their
ethnicity, even though they may be American-born. This same accented
English is often heard from the parents and pupils, just as their ethnic mother
tongue is sometimes heard with an English coloring.
FOCUS AND METHOD
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT, AND WHAT

WE ARE NOT TRYING TO FIND OUT
We are not trying to find out whether private bilingual schools are generally
better than public bilingual schools. (We studied no public schools.) We are not
trying to find out if money or fanaticism "makes a difference" in student
achievement. (We don't have enough of a range on either of these variables to
utilize them as independent variables.) We are not trying to find out whether
Hebrew schools are better than Armenian ones or whether French schools are
better than Greek ones. We are trying to find out whether differences in script, in
dialectal distancefrom the school norm, in pedagogic styles and in societalfunctions vis-à-
vis the languages being taught are noticeable concerns (issues, preoccupations)
in the schools under study as they pursue bilingualism, biliteracy and ethnocul-
tural socialization. We are concerned with whether the routes taken by the
schools toward these goals are similar or dissimilar. We are concerned with
whether they experience difficulties in any (or all) of the four areas of greatest
interest to us. We are concerned with whether they approach their non-English
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in Biliteracy: Comparative Ethnography 383
languages differently from English. We wonder whether they each have a

different approach to English, or whether they are all more similar vis-à-vis
English (how they teach it, how they rationalize it, what they want with it) than
they are vis-à-vis their respective non-English languages. We wonder whether
they are trying to be "traditional" (i.e., "old country" oriented vis-à-vis their
respective non-English languages) or whether they have been influenced by
American pedagogic thinking and practice in this respect. In each and every
school, the pupils we studied became biliterate before our very eyes and did so
practically without exception. Our question, therefore, is primarily: H o w did
that happen? What helped? What hindered? That it happened is no longer a
question,.
All in all, we are interested in how four (reasonably good, reasonably normal,
reasonably distinctive) bilingual ethnic community mother-tongue schools pursue bili-
teracy. N o one has ever bothered to inquire about this before. We think the
answers might be of general interest, particularly since (a) many public bilingual
schools seem to be having difficulty attaining biliteracy and since (b) many public
monolingual schools seem to be having difficulty attaining monoliteracy. Perhaps a
little contrastive perspective might help. A t the very least, it should provide us
with food for thought.
A WORD ABOUT METHOD AND ORDER OF

PRESENTATION
T h e method of data collection we have employed is that commonly referred to

as school ethnography (Green and Wallat 1981). We have administered no tests.
We have restricted ourselves fairly severely to observation and unobtrusive
conversation. Although we have asked many questions about home, neighbor-
hood and church influences, we have made no observations in any locales other
than the schools themselves. Thus we know only what we have seen and heard,
as tempered by what we have been told, with both of these data pools stemming
from the school, its personnel, its places, its pursuits and its practices. Our data
is both of a general (school-wide, even community-wide) as well as of a highly
specific nature (a particular act or event). Accordingly, our discussion will
weave back and forth between various levels of observation, analysis and
interpretation.
N o single school was the province of any single ethnographer and the
ethnographic project staff frequently met with one another and with the project
director to discuss their observations, impressions and interpretations, and
either to resolve differences of opinion or to agree on the types of further
observations that were needed (including focused discussions and interviews),
so that these differences could be resolved on an empirical basis, regardless of
the level of analysis involved. Finally, when data collection ceased, two coders
(both of whom had previously served as ethnographers) independently coded
the same ethnographic data and then compared their codings in order to
determine discrepancies in interpretation and difficulties in the coding design.
The coding manual was then revised and the process of independent "try-out"
coding was recommenced. Although a few further minor revisions in the
coding manual were still made as coding progressed (necessitating some ad-
ditional recoding of passages coded earlier), the manual remained essentially
unaltered after its initial major revision.
Coding the mass of observational data obtained on four or so grades in four
different schools was a slow and difficult operation that required roughly half a
year. An observational unit (an "occurrence" was operationally defined as any
field note reference to a specific act, event or observation along a dimension of concern to the
project. Each "occurrence" was initially coded directly on the page of the
observational protocol ("ethnographic record") on which it was encountered.
Each coded "occurrence" was later also cut out and pasted up on a separate data
card. As a result, we could ultimately examine "occurrences" in two ways: (a) in
their original sequential imbeddedness in the total ethnographic record (con-
textualized occurrence) and (b) separated from any surrounding context (de-
contextualized occurrences). While the data in format (b), above, was useful for
tabulation purposes, the data in format (a) needed to be consulted recurringly in
order to fully understand why an "occurrence" was coded as it was. All in all,
slightly more than a thousand specific "occurrences" were recognized (1014 to
be exact), the exact number varying from one dimension of interest to another
due to the fact that in schools, as in society more generally, all possible
"occurrences" are not encountered equally often.
The order or progression of our topics will be from the theoretically nar-
rower to the theoretically broader, starting with the sociographic and sociolin-
guistic and ending with the sociopedagogic and sociofunctional. By following
this order, we will also progress from concerns that are linguacentric to
concerns that are increasingly aware of more than language, indeed, of more
than education, in relation to biliteracy. In this way, we hope to explore the
possibility that literacy per se (and a fortiori biliteracy) may be dependent to a
significant degree not merely on factors beyond language, but perhaps upon
influences that reach beyond the school itself.
THE SOCIOGRAPHIC DIMENSION 3
It makes good intuitive sense to suspect a sociographic dimension in biliteracy

acquisition. Some writing systems are just more similar to English than others
and such similarity may help (or, in terms of differentiating small differences,
hinder) the overall process of mastering two writing systems. Other "theoreti-
cally" problematic sociographic considerations above and beyond overall simi-
larity, are whether different writing and printing systems for a given language exist,
and furthermore, whether there is a distinction between uppercase and lowercase
letters in both of these systems. Finally, there is the potentially troublesome
issue of whether reading and writing are taught sequentially or simultaneously and,
to top it all off, whether the English and the non-English reading/writing systems
are taught sequentially or simultaneously. Theoretically, quite an imposing set
of interacting difficulties can be enumerated, each posing etic problems in the
mind of the researcher and of the concerned parent and pedagogue. Be that as it
may, the theoretical sociographic thicket appears to be entirely that: strictly
theoretical. It bears no relationship whatsoever to any ranking across schools in
reading/writing achievement nor to any empirical relationship whatsoever to
any real problems observed or reported to us in connection with biliteracy ac-
quisition. The reason for this is simply because no school seemed to pay much
attention to this dimension and certainly no school (i.e., no cluster of teachers
and no group of parents) interpreted it as an independent problem in the
acquisition of biliteracy. Hebrew, Greek/Armenian and French may be said to
be ordered on a continuum of decreasing sociographic divergence from
English. Our global impression, based upon months of observation, was that
students in the Hebrew and Greek schools had no more difficulty reading and
writing both English and their ethnic mother tongues than did students in the
French. In other words, with respect to mastering the various graphic systems employed
in the ethnolinguistic schools we have studied, it was our impression that divergence
from or proximity to English made no noticeable difference in the rate or level
of literacy acquisition by the time the second or third grade was reached.4
Table 1 reveals the distribution of sociographic "occurrences" across lan-

guages. A little under a third of all sociographic "occurrences" pertained to
English; a little over a half to the ethnic tongues (hereinafter: EMT). The
remaining 1 2 % pertained to contexts in which both languages were involved.
In all cases (English, E M T or both), most sociographic "occurrences" per-
tained to (c) writing print or (a) reading print or (a,c) both reading and writing
print. The progression of frequencies is in that order in all cases. Clearly the
printing system is treated as primary and the writing system as secondary. This is
reflected by the meager percentages in either (b) reading writing, (d) writing
writing or (b,d) both reading and writing writing.
Table 2 reveals that the above-mentioned tendency to give priority to the
printing system obtains not only both for English and the E M T but in all four
schools. It is most striking in the Greek and French schools where the fewest
number of sociographic "occurrences" were encountered pertaining to the
writing system. It is least true in the Hebrew school (where only 5 5 % of all
"occurrences" pertained only to the printing system and where 34% of all
III The Ethnic Mother- Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
o o o o
4 o 4
ο ο o o
o o o o"
«
r- o
Ν O o o
4 \0
o o o
r- o
4 »'
t
Ν SOΤ
Tf KS
s§
£ ^
b 0 Q a¡ * -
^ Bí o
m 8
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in Έ>ίliteracy: Comparative Ethnography 387
•φ
is 2
o o
BÄ Η
o o
ο ο ι-
« O
+
o o O o VO o O o
o o o ó
ÍT 8
o o 4
-q
00 -φ f- βο Tf
4 ri 4 « O
- o o o σ\ o o o
- o o o ν o ΙΛ o
- VO
o ·<»- σ \ vo "Γ Ί "

ri o ν o s s oô ri
o o o o 1—
o o o o 4
î
•à r^ o
« \¿
¡
i
£
I S o
£
§
< t0 -
0
ai e¿ U
m
ÜJ I
ô
-
m
Pi
CQ
£ >!?
Λ
Η
« (Λ
o í <£
U S 8
-J
"occurrences" pertained only to the writing). This might imply that although
all schools initially stress the printing system over the writing system, there is neverthe-
less proportionately more attention given to writing systems when they differ
maximally from each other, as in the Hebrew-English case.
Finally, grade also seems to be a consideration in accounting for the dis-
proportionate attention given to the printing system. In the earliest grades
(nursery/kindergarten and first grade), there were virtually no "occurrences"
that involved the writing system, most particularly insofar as writing the
writing system is involved. Indeed, the most sizable proportion of sociographic
"occurrences" involving the writing system in the early grades in "ungraded,"
i.e., such occurrences transpire not in the classroom proper but in hallways,
cafeteria, library, etc., where written notices or posters are displayed. The
writing system is thus generally emphasized later rather than earlier and in out-of-
grade contexts rather than in grade, whereas the printing system is both emphasised
earlier (for reading as well as for writing) and in more classroom-focused contexts.
Our schools did, of course, attend to the shapes of letters and the differences
between them in the two languages of concern to them. The Chinese school was
a stickler along these lines and the French school had a special handwriting
teacher (particularly for French but, derivatively, also for English). Indeed, the
schools did point out certain problematic differences between English and non-
English writing (or printing) systems, both on the board and for class exercises.
Teachers did correct children's writing and reading in ways that called explicit
attention to particular letters and their sounds or shapes. Finally, many children
did have brief contrastive-writing/printing-system problems, and some few
children did have more substantial problems along these lines. All of the above
did occur, but none of these occurrences were either common or long-term
phenomena. There were some reversals of direction in the Hebrew and Chinese
schools. There were some mix-ups between similar English and Greek or English
and Armenian letters. There were also some mix-ups between upper-case and
lower-case letters in Greek, in French and in English. However, all in all, none
of these problems seemed to cluster disproportionately in one school or an-
other, none seemed to be exacerbated or remedied by "order of presentation"
considerations, and none seemed to be entirely avoided by stressing one
language or one system (e.g., the printing system alone rather than both the
printing and the writing systems together). There was actually a tremendous
variation in approaches, across schools (and also within schools), to the man-
ifold complexities of multiple writing and printing systems. Nevertheless, the
outcome was rather similar everywhere. Within a few weeks to a few months,
the entire issue disappeared from the agenda. Thereafter, a rare child here and
there needed a rare reminder but, in general, all children learned both graphic
systems without much fuss, without much effort and, seemingly, without much
attention focused upon the issue of the differences between them. Sociographics
became a nonissue much earlier than expected and remained such thereafter.
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in Biliteracj: Comparative Ethnography 3 89
•s S
0 0
Ρΐ Η
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ó ο
+
ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο ο ο ο' ο ο Ò
-o
-O
ο ο
ο ο
ο ο ο ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο ο ο ο' ο
^ ο ο Ν »Λ
τϊ- ο' ο « 4
»Λ
ο ο 0 0 0
ο ο" ο' ο ο
*
δ
υ
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο Ò
.ν*
m
F
I
Q
•Io ^
od -ν?
ίϊ „ Sí r li Ξ. * ξ: δ ^
ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο £ Ο Ο
Sleí υ οί υ οί υ βί υ o « i u J
ο £ δ
DOES NO AWARENESS OF A PROBLEM IMPLY NO

PROBLEM?
If our observations with respect to the sociographic dimension revealed little of

etic note, relative to problems or differences in the rate or level of biliteracy
acquisition, our queries and discussions with pupils, parents, teachers and
administrators revealed even less. As we will see, below, this was not because of
lack of interest in sociographic issues. Interest was present aplenty but problem
suspicion, recognition, or interpretation were not. Of course, the absence of
problem-awareness does not necessarily imply the absence of a problem.
Problems may be ignored or suppressed or projected onto other dimensions.
However, since our data along this dimension is not merely derived from what
we were told, but relates primarily to what we observed, we can safely say that we
also saw no general sociographic problems of any prolonged significance. Thus
it did not seem to us that sociographic problems were being swept under the rug
or pooh-poohed rather than admitted and coped with. Quite the contrary.
Rather than the parents, teachers or others associated with the schools avoiding
a problem that manifested itself as real to us as investigators, they ultimately
came to suspect that we were trying to find a problem that was unreal for them.
Our etic compulsions had "manufactured" a problem-nexus and we were often
incredulous and disappointed not to find anything that corresponded to it.
Seemingly, the miracle of monolingual reading/writing acquisition is suf-
ficiently within the "limits" of the human mind to leave ample "space" for the
further miracle of bilingual reading/writing acquisition, where sociocultural
support for biliteracy is available, even where writing systems differ substan-
tially. Not only do all of these schools accomplish biliteracy in rather short
order, but the great range of writing and printing systems, both within lan-
guages and between languages, does not appear to tax the biliteracy-acquisition
process for any but a very minor proportion of children, and the latter, it should
be remembered, might also have found /»»««literacy acquisition taxing.
THE POSITIVE TONE OF SOCIOGRAPHIC INTEREST
Our "problem" orientation with respect to sociographic differences left us

rather unprepared for the positive tone that frequently surrounded this dimen-
sion. We stumbled on this fact quite accidentally while trying to explain our
"problematic suspicions" to a teacher in the Armenian school. Since she did not
understand why it would occur to us that children might have "a problem"
when simultaneously learning to read/write Armenian in the Armenian
printing/writing system and English in the English printing/writing system,
one of us tried to explain our concern by suggesting that it might be far easier
for the children if only one writing system were employed—the English one, of
course—for both languages. Ours was not a serious programmatic suggestion
(and even less an ideological one). Indeed, it was merely offered as an example in
order to make the entire realm of discourse more understandable to our
interlocutor. Imagine our surprise when the result was quite different from
what we had expected. Instead of "seeing the point," at least theoretically, the
interlocutor reacted both in horror as well as with some suspicion concerning
our venture as a whole. Anyone who could suggest that the Armenian writing
system be abandoned deserved to be suspected of Anglo cultural imperialism
and, perhaps, even of favoring genocide rather than merely assimilationism.
We, who had always realized that writing/printing systems were sociocultural
"investments" were, nevertheless, unprepared for the depth of feeling, intellect
and symbolism which surrounded them.
WRITING/PRINTING SYSTEMS AS CULTURAL

CONTENT AND AS CULTURAL SYSTEMS
The English mother-tongue world is generally so secularized and de-mystified

that its writing/printing system has no special symbolic meaning to it over and
above its communicational functions. Not so for Armenians and Greeks whose
writing/printing systems are associated with specific saints (St. Mesrob, in the
Armenian case, is fêted annually), with Orthodox Christianity more generally,
and with millennial persecution by ethnoreligions associated with other
writing/printing systems than their own. Whereas both Armenians and Greeks
have remained loyal to their own ancient writing/printing systems, their
common archenemy, the Turks, abandoned their own Arabo-Persian writing
system in the 1920s and thus revealed their infidelity to their own tradition (whereas
previously only inhumanity toward outsiders had been ascribed to them). Any
culture capable of the former was thereupon conclusively demonstrated to be
capable of the latter as well, both of these interpretations being clearly and
equally unacceptable to the Armenian and Greek image of themselves.
The Hebrew and Chinese cases are different from the foregoing only in detail
rather than in degree. In both cases, the Latin writing/printing system is
Christianity- rather than authenticity-related. Even for Chinese who are
Christian (and some are, particularly in the U.S.A., although often only syn-
chretistically so), the Chinese characters are symbolic not only of deep cultural
attachments but of mysteries of creation. For Jews, the Hebrew alphabet is
explicitly associated with the Creator and with the very act of creation. Indeed,
even before creation, the Hebrew writing system purportedly existed in the
form of black fire on white fire and through its invocation all creation was
implemented.5 Only the French school in our sample reported no other-
worldly link for its writing/printing system, but it, too, was quite adamantly
insistent that its diacritics could not be disposed of for mere reasons of
convenience, learning ease, etc.
It might be interesting to speculate whether the cultural significance of the
non-English writing systems would have been as adamantly held to if they had
posed biliteracy-acquisition problems. O u r impression is that this would,
indeed, have been the case. 6 However, the main point that our research revealed
is sufficiently strong, even given the fact that no such dilemma presented itself.
Efficiency (ease, least effort in an objective time-and-motion sense) is not a
cultural universal. We must take care not to apply it blindly to matters as
symbolically culture-specific and as intensely culture-laden as many writing
systems are apt to be.
THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC DIMENSION
One of the recurring problems mentioned in the literature on child and adult
literacy acquisition is the fact that the language of texts or of writing often
differs substantially from the language of everday speech (see, e.g., Baratz and
Shuy 1969). In some contexts, such as those of most white, anglophone New
Yorkers, the difference between their two varieties is rather slight, whether in
the area of lexicon, syntax or phonology. Nevertheless, even though the
difference is slight, teachers of English are still wont to complain that their
pupils are unfamiliar with the structural conventions of written English and
that they tend to litter their written work with unacceptable markers of spoken
informality. Be this as it may, it has not been conclusively demonstrated
whether the many slight discrepancies between informal spoken English and
more formal written/printed English pose much of a problem in the acquisition
of monoliteracy. If they do, it is an inescapable problem7 and can serve as a baseline
against which to examine the parallel process of ¿/literacy acquisition.
THE "HOME-COUNTRY" SOCIOLINGUISTIC

SITUATIONS OF ARMENIAN, FRENCH, GREEK AND
HEBREW
Minority ethnolinguistic community schools in the U.S.A. are often con-

siderably exposed to educational and other societal conventions that obtain in
the former "home countries" of their teachers, administrators and sponsors. T o
some extent, this is due to no more than the power of inertia or cultural lag that
leads some immigrant enclaves to be more traditional and unchanging than
their home-country counterparts. However, there are more overt link-factors as
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in illiteracy: Comparative Ethnography 393
well that may also lead to a sociolinguistic transfer from "there" to "here." One
of these factors is recent immigration itself which brings a steady trickle of
pupils, parents and teachers who are oriented toward old-culture ways. Another
link factor is old-country financial or pedagogic supervision. Teachers in the
Greek schools in the U.S.A., e.g., are regularly sent to Greece for refresher
courses and seminars and receive a pension from the Greek government that is
akin to the one they would receive had they been teaching in Greece proper.
Teachers in Armenian and Hebrew schools are encouraged (and partially
subsidized) to visit their respective "home countries" and to utilize textbooks
specially prepared in those countries for use by schools in the diaspora.8
Although no official links of this kind exist in the French school, it is the explicit
goal of that school to utilize French methods, materials and standards as far as
possible. All in all, therefore, there is ample reason to inquire what sociolinguis-
tic forces impact the monoliteracy processes in the old country in order to
determine whether these processes are felt here as well.
Soviet Armenia has standardized a variety known as Western Armenian. This
variety differs appreciably from the Eastern Armenian that has traditionally
been used in Armenian diaspora schools in the Near East, Western Europe and
the Americas. Recently, two minor processes have begun to disturb the reliance
of diaspora schools on Eastern Armenian texts. First of all, a growing number
of Soviet-subsidized texts has been made available to the diaspora schools, some
of these being in Western Armenian. Secondly, a trickle of new arrivals has
begun coming to the U.S.A., hailing not from Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere in
the diaspora, as heretofore, but, rather derived from Soviet Armenia proper
and, therefore, Western Armenian speaking and reading. Finally, there is the
background presence of Ecclesiastic Armenian, needed for participation in
church services, which, although often still recognizable from modern
Armenian, is substantially different from either the Eastern or the Western
standard. All in all, the Armenian sociolinguistic situation is one whose com-
plexity fully merits examination from the point of view of biliteracy acquisition
in the U.S.A.
French has one (and only one) "universal" norm since, as far as French
schools are concerned, sociolinguistic variation either does not exist at all or, if
it does exist, it does not belong within the school. The fact that our French
school does not correspond to any native-speaking ethnolinguistic community
further restricts the amount of nonschool French with which the school needs
to cope. There were a few pupils who are native speakers of French at the
particular school we studied, but all teachers insisted (as they do in France
proper) that these pupils did not speak local dialects of any kind and that they
were speakers of standard ("Parisian") French and nothing else. That such
claims are grossly exaggerated in France per se is clear from a good number of
studies recently published by scholars there (Tabouret-Keller 1981). Whether or
not the French mother-tongue students in our school are really monovarietal
(and they just might be), we would expect far less sociolinguistic repertoire
complexity at our French school than at any of the other four that we have
studied, precisely because so few students are of French ethnicity or have any
normal societal access to French out of school.
The Greek sociolinguistic situation in Greece itself was, until recently, an
excruciatingly complex one. In addition to a host of regional varieties of
demotike—none of which was taught in school—there was both a largely
artificial "compromise" semiclassical variety (Katarevusa), which alone was
taught in school and which was long considered the only dignified language of
reading/writing, from elementary school on through to tertiary and
postgraduate education, on the one hand, and the considerably older ecclesiastic
Greek of the Orthodox Church service, on the other hand. As recently as 1976,
the above situation was simplified considerably be demoting Katarevusa and
adopting a demotic standard for school and governmental use. However, this
new vernacular standard necessarily originally lacked texts, teachers who knew
it and who could teach it, and an educated class who speak it. If all of these
aspects of vernacular standardization are still being worked out in Greece
proper, it is certainly worth inquiring how they are being worked out in the
U.S.A., in general, and in the school that we observed, in particular.
Furthermore, with a constant trickle of new arrivals coming from various parts
of Greece, it is doubly advisable to look carefully into the interaction between
sociolinguistic variation and biliteracy acquisition in our Greek school.
The sociolinguistic situation vis-à-vis Hebrew in Israel resembles that of
French in France to some extent. The revival of the language is recent enough
so that native regional varieties are not yet available. However, country-of-origin
differences are clearly noticeable, most European-derived ("Ashkenazi")
speakers of the language having a different phonological repertoire than do
most Afro-Asian-derived ("Sephardi") speakers. Furthermore, among the
former, there are still some who utilize a variety of Hebrew in ritual and worship
which is characterized by yet a different (Central or Eastern European) pro-
nunciation and accentuation pattern. Finally, a recent tendency to introduce
anglicisms into the language, particularly among young people and in econotech-
nical domains (Allony-Fainberg 1977), has become very pronounced (so
much so that a parliamentary investigation was called for in 1982). Thus, even
though the bulk of the students at the Hebrew school are not native speakers of
the language (nor are their parents), their exposure (and that of their teachers) to
Israeli influences is certainly great enough to merit attention to the sociolinguis-
tic dimension within its setting. In addition, if the foregoing is not sufficiently
suggestive of problem possibilities, most parents of pupils at this school have
been trained to pray or participate in rituals in a Central/Eastern European
variety of Hebrew which is phonologically distinct from that which the school
itself employs.
Clearly, from all of the foregoing, sociolinguistic distance between the

language/variety of everyday speech and the language/variety of literacy is part o f the
intellectual and pedagogic heritage influencing most (if not all) of the minority
ethnolinguistic schools we are studying. 9 As in the case of the sociographic
dimension, we seem to have "the makings of a problem" that could impact
biliteracy acquisition. N o w let us see if that was, indeed, found to be the case.
THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC OCCURRENCES
"Occurrences" of nonschool dialect were exceedingly rare in the schools we

visited. T o the very minor degree that such occurrences were recognized, they
were almost entirely associated with E M T instruction rather than with English-
medium instruction (Table 4). This does not mean that nonschool English is
relatively unknown in these schools. Rather, it means that these schools do not
correct nonschool English (perhaps leaving it to the A n g l o environment to do
so or perhaps accepting such English in the school as long as its distinctiveness
is associated with the sponsoring ethnic community). E M T nonschool dialect,
on the other hand, rare though it may be, is more consciously corrected by the
language guardians of the school.
The foregoing tactic would seem to apply most particularly to the Greek,
Armenian and French schools (Table 5). In the Hebrew school, hardly any
correction "occurrences" were noted, probably because of its nonvernacular
status for most students. A l l in all, nonschool dialect tends to " o c c u r " in terms
of phonological discrepancies. However, as grade level increases, even such
discrepancies decrease and finally disappear entirely (Table 6). The triumph of
the school variety over the home variety is undoubtedly facilitated by the fact
that many homes are not only weakly associated with E M T literacy but that
they are only weakly associated with the E M T as a whole.
VARIOUS KINDS OF INTER-VARIETY DISTANCE AS

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS IN THE ACQUISITION OF
BILITERACY
There are at least two other types of intervariety distance that w e have not yet
discussed, namely (a) the distance between the learner's (nonnative neophyte
speaker's) variety and the school's target variety for speaking and writing, on
the one hand, and, on the other hand, (b) the distance between substantially
interfered varieties (whether English-influenced ethnic-minority language or
ethnic-minority-language-influenced English) and the school's more puristic
standard. Generally, neither of these types of intervariety distance possesses
III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
VO
o
Ο »λ Ο 4
ο 4 §
ο ο
ο ο -ο
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο ο
ο ο
ο ο
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο ο"
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ó ο
Ü 0-3
Sáó
il. Ethnocultural Dimensions in Biliteracj: Comparative Ethnography 397
o vo
4 o
O oo
o 4
I— o o o o ••t
I— o o o o
o o o o o o
Ò o o o o o
Ο Ο 00
Ο ο 00 Ν·
o o W» O o o o o
o o ve g o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o ffi O o o
O Ò \¿ o o o
o. O o o o o
o o" o o o o
£
§ à χΟ «5 ^ £ -I
f-i
§
O^
fc-
S»
m
*
CQ
ί ^ ν ς
to T0í
£ *
Ss
ü
S j eá
£
U
tt, 8
is _
O rt
Pd o
H
o o
o ^
+
o o »Λ O o o
o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o
tJ· o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o Ò o o o o
o o o o o o o
\¿ o o o o o o o
O
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
¡
m
Q
X
ai
U ^
& 1
KV O o
&
o _o > _
o o o o 2; o ~5
-û il»; υ Oí U Oí U Od U o « υ •J
i ü 2: 8
either intellectual acceptance or culturally positive significance. All in all, there-

fore, teachers may need to engage in three types of "language correction" rather
than only in the type which is related to home-country spoken language vs.
written/printed language distance (which we will henceforth refer to as Type
C). Each of these three types of correction occurs in the schools we have
studied, but Type C was definitely least in evidence.
There was one school in which language correction due to Type C inter-
variety distance virtually did not occur at all, namely the Hebrew school.
Although Type C correction did occur, on occasion, in the French, Armenian
and Greek schools, their occurrence was so rare that they clearly could not be
considered a real problem. Children arriving in the Greek school speaking
discrepant regional demotic varieties and children arriving in the Armenian
school speaking Western Armenian (or Arabic-influenced, Russian-influenced
or French-influenced Armenian) do require some special correction now and
then, but they do not require much, not even to begin with and almost none
soon thereafter. The corrective transformations seem to be few enough and the
schools' reading/writing programs are sufficiently structured (patterned if not
programmed) that children accustomed to discrepant varieties quickly make the
necessary adaptations in their reading/writing work. Spoken discrepancies do
last somewhat longer, but even they are few in number and frequency, and
teachers in both schools were not at all inclined to call attention to them or to
correct them as they correct the children reading, writing or speaking. 10 The
children involved adapted to the school norm quickly, effortlessly, as if it were
the most natural thing to do. There were also no parental pressures to the
contrary (i.e., neither on behalf of Katarevusa nor on behalf of Western
Armenian) to cope with and that, too, may have helped. As for the ecclesiastic
varieties of both of these languages, neither school considered them to be its
responsibility. Children were expected to learn those varieties by dint of long-
term and frequent church attendance and participation, rather than at school.
TYPE A INTER VARIETY DISTANCE AND TYPE Β

INTERVARIETY DISTANCE
All the schools provided much evidence of correction due to both remaining
types of intervariety distance. Type A corrections in English were limited to
recently arrived non-English mother-tongue children. Type A corrections in
the minority languages were almost entirely encountered in the French and in
the Hebrew schools (i.e., in the schools where most children did not have these
languages as mother tongues or as family/community languages). Type A
corrections are indicative of insufficient language mastery for the
reading/writing task at hand. Only in the Hebrew school were such insufficien-
cies vis-à-vis English directly tackled by assigning recent arrivals to special
remedial teachers. On the other hand, such deficiencies vis-à-vis the ethnic
minority languages were everywhere considered part and parcel of the regular
classroom teachers' responsibility. Such deficiencies were most common in the
French and Hebrew schools, where almost all beginners were new to these
respective languages. Overcoming Type A errors in these two schools in these
languages was therefore viewed as the essence of the teaching-learning enter-
prise. Such errors were far less common in the Greek and Armenian schools,
where almost all children arrived speaking these languages at least moderately
well and where the few who could not do so upon arrival were expected to learn
more by dint of immersion than by more focused teacher-initiated effort. Type
A correction did regularly decrease as the semester progressed and decreased
again from first to second grade in both languages and in both schools.
Type Β correction was primarily encountered in the very schools in which
Type A correction was rarest, namely, in the Greek and Armenian schools, 11
most particularly in the former, and in both languages. In the Greek school, it
was not only quite usual to hear pupils speak and read Greek "with an English
flavor" but both pupils and teachers could be heard speaking and reading English
with a Greek flavor. In pupil speech at least (far less so in writing since little
free writing goes on in the early grades), Type Β distance was recognizable at all
levels of language (phonological, syntactic and lexical). Among several teach-
ers, Greek (and also Armenian and Hebrew), phonological influences on
English were not uncommon. Although these were generally encountered in
the speech of foreign-born teachers, American-born teachers were also not
entirely free of them. The latter would imply that Greek-Americans particularly
may still populate neighborhoods that are substantially their own and that in
these areas normative phonology was (and perhaps still is) intergenerationally
transmitted and adopted by some native-born members and maintained by
them into their adult years.
Teacher correction of Type Β errors was rather rare insofar as English
influences on the minority ethnic mother tongue are concerned. Seemingly, in
this connection, teachers were of the opinion (consciously or unconsciously)
that any use of the minority language needed to be encouraged or rewarded
rather than interrupted and corrected. There were no special exercises to help
pupils free themselves from anglicisms in phonology or in grammar. Lexical
interferences were corrected only in writing, but most writing in the early
grades is so controlled (copying, etc.) that the opportunity for such correction is
quite minimal. Perhaps as a result of the tolerant attitude taken toward English
influences on the minority language, there seemed to be only a very small
decrease in their frequency over time, particularly in speech. Insofar as Type Β
errors in the other direction (speech community-based foreign influences on
English), these were corrected most often in the very schools in which they
occurred least (French and Hebrew) and were corrected least often in the schools
in which they occurred most (Armenian and, particularly, Greek). In the latter
schools, these errors did decrease but only very slightly during the year, or from
grade to grade. In both directions of Type Β interference, it may be that rather
stable varieties have developed that are not likely to disappear quickly. They
seem to have no impact on the acquisition of biliteracy (through grade 2) but
might be much more troublesome in higher grades when individual com-
position writing is required. In the lower grades that we observed, those
children and those schools most commonly associated with Type Β discrepan-
cies between their spoken and their written languages seemed to be reading and
writing as much and as well as the others. It may be that this is due to the fact
that in the lower grades speech, rather than reading/writing, is the main arena in
which such errors are able to express themselves. A t any rate, they do not seem
to result in problems for early biliteracy acquisition.
THE SOCIOPEDAGOGICAL DIMENSION
English literacy instruction in the United States (and perhaps elsewhere in the
English mother-tongue world as well) has long been a rationalized and demysti-
fied undertaking, informed by one or another "scientific" pedagogic school,
theory or method. Accordingly, the methods employed have not remained fixed
and unaltered but, rather, they have changed in the light of empirical evidence,
theoretical perspectives and broader educational perspectives or emphases. In
other parts o f the world, however, more traditional sociopedagogies were (and
still are at times) involved in literacy instruction. These traditional literacy-
imparting approaches were usually embedded in equally traditional larger
educational patterns that were themselves related to persuasive ethnoreligious
systems that influenced all aspects of both daily life (low culture, little culture,
part culture) and of high culture as well. The traditional Eastern European
Jewish approach to the introduction of literacy (Roskies 1978, Shtern 1950)
involved not only the use of child-level motivators (e.g., dropping coins, nuts
and raisins on the page of Hebrew print as the learner repeated the names and
sounds of the letters), but choral repetition of Hebrew Biblical texts and their
Yiddish translations as well as the committing of lengthy hallowed texts to
memory so that they were not so much read as recited. Somewhat similar
teaching-learning methods have been reported for different parts of the Islamic
world (Jones 1983, Wagner 1983), for Korean and even for Latin study in
various parts of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire through to early
modern times. A l l of these sociopedagogies stress(ed)- ritualized, "out l o u d "
reading/recitation and assign(ed) to it a higher priority than to understanding
(as well as a much higher priority than to writing), which was (and often still is)
considered quite a separate and necessarily rarer goal and more advanced skill.
Since four o f our initially five schools served rather traditional ethnoreligious
communities (Armenian, Chinese, Greek and Hebrew), w e were interested in
observing whether any such traditional methodologies of teaching
reading/writing were still to be observed in their midst. If so, w e were also
concerned with whether these methods might not have been generalized from
the ethnic-minority language alone to the teaching o f English reading/writing
as well. O n the other hand, the other direction of influence was also a distinct
possibility that deserved to be investigated, namely, whether the more modern,
"scientific" pedagogies for teaching English reading/writing might not have
spread into literacy instruction with respect to the ethnic-minority languages as
well.
PEDAGOGY AND SOCIOPEDAGOGY IN THE

TEACHING OF ETHNIC-MINORITY LANGUAGE
READING/WRITING
A l t h o u g h it has recently become rather fashionable to extol the virtues o f

traditional ethnocultural approaches to teaching reading/writing (see, e.g.,
Bettelheim and Zelan 1981), none o f the four schools w e observed most
intensively has been gripped by any nostalgia for the " g o o d old d a y s " in this
respect. 1 2 T h e French and the H e b r e w schools appeared to be fully pro-
fessionalized in a modern sense in this respect. Their teachers and adminis-
trators often referred to recent publications or experiments that justified the
approaches/methods they were currently employing or the materials they had
selected for use. E v e n in the Greek and Armenian schools, the rationales offered
for methods and materials were empirical or practical ones (utilizing either an
implicit or explicit level o f success or a time-and-motion criterion) rather than
traditional or ethnoideological ones. T h e widespread postponement of writing
until reading/printing was well established is one example of this rather modern
bent, whether or not it is, in fact, a scientifically confirmed "superior"
approach.
A MINOR DIGRESSION: WHICH LANGUAGE FIRST?
Before proceeding, it should be noted that the w o r l d w i d e controversy as to

which language to teach first, " m o t h e r t o n g u e " or "other t o n g u e , " is not in
evidence at our schools. A l l schools attend to both languages f r o m the very
outset. A t the kindergarten/nursery level, "reading readiness" is pursued in

both languages. From the first grade on, reading instruction is pursued for both
languages. The Canadian dictum that the weaker language should be given
initial attention is not observed. In all schools that would generally be the E M T .
By that dictum, literacy in that language should be strongly grounded first,
before it is pursued in the second. Nevertheless, only in the French school was
there some sympathy to such an approach (based on the view that French
spelling was "more phonetic" and therefore "easier to begin with") and even
there, no hiatus of more than a month was in evidence between teaching French
reading and teaching English reading. In the other three schools, the unani-
mous view was that, on the one hand, parents would be upset if English reading
were delayed and, on the other hand, if E M T reading were delayed, that would
constitute a dereliction of duty. " A n y school can teach English. Ours is one of
the few schools that teaches X ! " Brief exceptions to the rule of (virtual)
simultaneity were made only for a few monolingual E M T newcomers.
Otherwise, it was full steam ahead in both languages at almost all times.
PROPORTIONALITY OF EMPHASES: READING,

WRITING, SPEAKING
From the point of view of the focus of classroom activity, there appeared to be
much more attention given to reading than either to writing or to speaking (Table 7), and
this was true regardless of medium of instruction (English, E M T or both).
Apparently, many of the "occurrences" of "writing the printing system" that
we reviewed earlier were for the purpose of reading rather than for the purpose
of writing per se. Indeed, speaking too was a more common focus than writing
in the early grades, particularly when an E M T was either the medium or
comedium of instruction. This was doubtlessly a reflection of the fact that all the
schools we studied (and particularly the French and Hebrew schools) had a
contingent of pupils for whom the E M T was unknown (and a smaller contingent
for w h o m English was unknown) when they arrived in school. Relative to
reading and speaking, writing was given negligible attention indeed in the
grades we studied.
Table 8 confirms the fact that the reading> speaking> writing progression held in
every school. Table 9 adds to this picture by revealing that speaking was stressed
somewhat more in nursery/kindergarten (i.e., at the pre-reading stage), in
second grade (after the first grade emphasis on reading) and in nongraded (out
of class) contexts. A l l in all, therefore, it would appear from both Tables 1,2 and
3 and 7, 8 and 9a that the schools we have studied tended to pursue a
reading/printing stress in the early grades. This stress may be more apparent
than real. As ethnographers interested in literacy acquisition, we may merely
oo O
μ o
'"Γ
ν O
OS 00 00
4 r^
r~- oo Ο Ν
00 4 oo' 4
w> r - \ο ο
r·^ « es ο
oô 4
r·^ o
Os SO
c C
£ J
> °
s * -
U b o H S "o Ρ
ί ζ Pá O S Βί U
m s
& a
α h
ν «
•Φ
ei
J
Ν \0
Pi
00 Ό
r^ o
t/3
en
"Φ \£> SD « o II
« μ Ν •t
in
J
*Τ·
« s¿
Pi
•J
Ο 00
ω
ai *
I c c
a
•V
"1 55 1
& J
S r.c
S
J
S»
Ï ä,
J
I a -j
m o^ ô
o m
x> o Ì - * I - Ρ
rt M pi δ S «s «3
h δ
§ (§ δ
¡c i*
4o6 III The Ethnic Mother- Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
12. Etbnocultural Dimensions in illiteracy : Comparative Ethnography 407
have been more attentive to reading "occurrences" than to speaking "occur-

rences." On the other hand, while there may be some validity to the above
cautionary note, it would not at all explain the paucity of writing-related "occur-
rences." Writing is obviously part of literacy and a traditional area of school
responsibility as well. Therefore, although we may perhaps doubt that speaking
"occurrences" were as rare as our records indicate, the emphasis on reading
relative to writing is probably a valid reflection of how our four schools
addressed biliteracy acquisition in the grades under study. The fact that this
hierarchy recurred in nongraded "occurrences" (Table 9b) reinforces our con-
viction that it was indeed a reality in the contexts we have studied.
In all schools, teachers were obviously concerned that the pupils enjoy
learning to read and write. They wanted the texts to be attractive and child-
oriented (and complained when this was not always the case). They were on
guard against texts that were too difficult ("homeland" texts, e.g., were often
considered too difficult because local pupils did not speak/understand the
minority languages as much/well as did monolingual home-country children)
or uninteresting. All of the above are essentially modern pedagogic orientations,
as is the constant teacher interest in new and better texts, exercises, methods,
etc. All in all, truly unreconstructed traditional approaches were remarkable
only by their absence. Teachers of ethnic minority literacy are by no means
oriented to retain the methods/materials by means of which they or their
grandparents were taught reading/writing. Nor does there seem to be any
parental pressure to return to or retain the "good old methods" (whatever they
might have been). On the contrary, teacher orientation is overwhelmingly
modern, although in the Armenian and Greek schools (particularly in the latter
school), there was little outside empirical information made available to teach-
ers along these lines. Nevertheless, even each of these schools is affiliated with
its own curriculum center which tries to provide pedagogic materials and
methodological guidance to its affiliates.
As for the phonics vs. whole-word controversy, it does not seem to rage or
to have raged in ethnic-minority-language literacy instruction. A combination
of both approaches is very common, with the phonic approach clearly being
emphasized in every school with the exception of the Hebrew school. In the
Hebrew school, the level of whole word decoding in English and in Hebrew
was far higher than it was for any language at any other school. This is really
quite a starding finding since the traditional Jewish pedagogic approach was
phonic/syllabary with a vengeance, due both to the nonvernacular nature of the
language (children did not—and did not need to, it was thought—understand
what they were reading), and due to the absence of vowel letters in the writing
system. Perhaps a sociopedagogic reaction against the traditional system trans-
pired in this particular, very modern, American Hebrew school, leading it to
abandon the phonic approach "with a vengeance" in favor of the whole word.
•<4- SO
00
τ «1 ·
g
»J
I - ί—; ο ο
¡π * 1 I
8
0¡ Ó ^ eä o g ¿ d
g
The usually encountered preponderance of phonic over other decoding

strategies (with the exception noted above) was primarily implemented in
nursery/kindergarten, first grade and ungraded contexts. In the second and
third grades, on the other hand, sentence reading becomes a very important
strategy. Indeed, sentence reading was clearly a grade-related phenomenon,
rising consistently from grade to grade, from nursery/kindergarten, through to
second grade, and, correspondingly, both the phonic and the whole word
strategies continued to fall from grade to grade. There does not seem to be a
transition grade during which whole-word approaches are more common
than phonic ones before sentence reading becomes established. Rather, phonic
approaches remain consistently more common than whole-word ones, even as
sentence reading approaches regular build-up in frequency.
All in all, there is some evidence for sociopedagogies here. With the possible
exception of the Hebrew school (in which whole-word decoding seems to
prevail or to be consistently more common than elsewhere), the phonic method
is widely stressed in the early grades. However, this stress on phonics could be
either an American-influenced "back to basics" emphasis, on the one hand, or,
on the other hand, a continuation of traditional, classical, Old-World pedagogic
emphases which all tend to be phonic or syllabary. It is impossible at this stage to
tell whether sociopedagogies are definitely revealed by this stress on phonic
decoding or whether this stress is due to the happy cooccurrence of both ethnic
and American pedagogic preferences. Teachers remember earlier periods of
inflexibility with respect to "phonics alone" or "whole words" or on memoriza-
tion and oral reading (still sometimes employed in almost all schools). Indeed,
in all schools, all teachers are pleased that their current approaches are more
flexible and eclectic than their counterparts were in "the good old days." O n the
other hand, some teachers bemoaned the fact that although their methods have
improved in the long term, child mastery of ethnic-minority languages has
decreased in the interim. A s a result, children are not reading or writing as well
as others used to do in the same grades and better methods do not seem to
compensate for the weakening presence of the ethnic language in the very social
fabric surrounding the school themselves.
PEDAGOGY A N D SOCIOPEDAGOGY IN THE

TEACHING OF ENGLISH READING/WRITING
Another possible dimension of sociopedagogic practices is the number of

students that constitute a unit of instruction. "Traditionally", the entire class has
been the usual unit. In more " m o d e r n " practice, however, small groups and
even individual students are given as much attention as possible. From Table
10, it is evident that "complete class" instruction was the most common
\ 0 VO ^ »Λ
00
r oo
VO vo VO
vo « σ\
o
I
f
rs
I -
u σ\ oo
4 ~
§
t
5
υ
M
¡
-Q j
Ml Η
¡ξ *
o Q
o Ρ θ g
m m
practice regardless of the medium of instruction. This was particularly true

whenever English was utilized, whether as a medium or as a comedium of
instruction. However, although this finding is not inconsistent with the ex-
istence of sociopedagogies, it would be premature to conclude that such really
obtain. It may be, for example, that the pupil populations are generally more
homogeneous with respect to English mastery than they are with respect to
E M T mastery. If that indeed were the case, then the overall preference for using
the class as the unit of instruction (derived purely from time-saving consider-
ations) might be modified or mitigated to attend to the more disparate mastery
subgroups that pertain to E M T instruction.
As far as interschool differences are concerned, the predominant unit of
instruction was the entire class only in the Greek and Hebrew schools. The
Armenian school revealed only a mild preference for the class as the unit of
instruction (and also revealed more frequent individualized instruction than
any other school). The French school, however, clearly revealed a preference
for small-group work and was quite unique in this connection. Indeed, as Table
11b shows, this preference of the French school was constant regardless of
language of instruction and was, if anything, even greater in French medium
instruction than in English medium instruction. The French school, it must be
remembered, was our numerically smallest school insofar as average class size is
concerned. Thus, from a purely practical point of view, it could more easily
organize instruction on a complete class basis. Its preference for the small-
group approach is either a sociopedagogic heritage or simply a resultant of the
interaction between its particular financial, philosophical and demographic
characteristics.
The overall preference for utilizing the entire class as the unit of instruction
was manifest in every grade. In ungraded occurrences, however, the individual
became the most usual unit, but this is so almost by definition and, therefore, of
lesser interest than the fact that the individual was increasingly the unit of instruction
(although always less common than either of the other two possible units) as
grade increased. This may be class-size-related again, and prompts the overall
observation that the smaller the class size, the more likely that units of instruc-
tion other than the entire class will be implemented (Table 12).
All in all, some of our evidence in connection with unit of instruction is not
inconsistent with the sociopedagogies hypothesis. This is also true in connec-
tion with oral vs. choral vs. silent reading (with the last being limited primarily
to English). On the whole, however, class size, grade and other objective
factors are also clearly involved, and it is far from clear that sociopedagogies
really function to any great extent.
Generally speaking, the pedagogic dimension is even more "professional-
ized" and, concomitantly, more deethnicized in connection with the teaching
of English reading/writing than it is in conjunction with teaching
4i 2 III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
o
ei\
* 2
o o
«S H
'φ o o
η 4 ο ο
ο ο ^f «Ό
ο ó O w
Ν I- 00
•ψ O
so
O oo
•s
Ν ΟΟ
.s γ--
"δ
O
νο ** « C\
4 «A
^ P?
a
£
i
5
- J
« *_
ί<
«
Βΐ
5
S
« s S m o o
Ο] ο ο ξ Pi U δ
2 i BÍ
2 * υ
H GO s
£
£ S
o o
(¡tí H
O o o
-Φ o o
o o
o o VO
O o
00 o
J*
1" o
r|
"8
.« υ
O 00
0 λ
O -Φ
\ 0 -O
5
•'S Λ
öß
C
-I
U o
£ OÍ
m
*
O
U
-
m
*
o
oí
Sia
£ Ö
o o
o¿ H
Ν ο ο
Ν ~ ο ο
ο ο
4 ο" ο
υ
•ß
ΟΟ σ\ οο
ON v¿ Cs Ν
vo Ν
« ^ ο \ο
οο r- C\ -ί-
ο ri
ΝΌ
I«
υ CN
ν
Λ * ζ: ? Ι is -
"ti o o OO o o
« 2 s i PÍ υ
ο ο
oí υ oí υ PÍ υ
H Ü £
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in illiteracy.: Comparative Ethnography 415
o o
ο ο
ο ο \ο
ο ο
ο ο
ο ο
«
Q
Βΐ
ο ι-1
£
i 8
4i6 III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
reading/writing of the ethnic-minority language. Any gap between approaches

to the two languages is least apparent in the French school, where the ped-
agogies of teaching French literacy are conscientiously derived from con-
tinental experience and theory, both of which have a substantial research base
and a professional literature of their own, although not of the same order of
magnitude as those which are available for English. In the Hebrew school, too,
the difference between the professionalization surrounding the school's two
languages is merely a matter of minor degree. Jewish educators have long
researched the methods and materials of teaching Hebrew as a second language
in the U.S.A. and various Israeli educators have also assisted materially in this
process (Rabin and Schlesinger 1977) with respect to the modern diaspora more
generally. Teachers of Hebrew in modern day schools (such as the one we have
studied) have visited Israel frequently, met educators, received bulletins and
monographs dealing with various approaches to the teaching of Hebrew and
have also been exposed to the counterpart literature dealing with English
reading/writing. Thus, the main difference between them and the English
teachers in their schools is not so much one of orientation and methods as of the
availability of curricular and pedagogic materials per se. In the latter respect, of
course, Hebrew is a "thin market" and teachers often create their own instruc-
tional texts and exercises because of the relative paucity of American-prepared,
commercially-published material for Hebrew as a second language.
In the Armenian and Greek schools, the difference between the pedagogic
approaches used for their two languages is more noticeable. Although teacher
attitudes toward their ethnic languages are certainly both modern and positive,
there is far less specific awareness of the "ethnic-mother-tongue teaching field"
as an area of research and experimentation, and less assistance or encouragement
along those very lines from their respective home countries than in the French
or Hebrew schools. The world of English literacy gets through to the English
teachers at the Greek and Armenian schools every so often—with methods,
materials, theories, conferences and even equipment—whereas the world of
Greek (or Armenian) literacy or of Greek (or Armenian) literary instruction
does so far more rarely. As a result, there is a flavor and spirit of continuity
about Greek and Armenian reading/writing instruction, but it is not continuity
with authentic tradition as much as continuity with a decade or more of
relatively stable texts and methods and own-made materials. On the other hand,
English literacy pedagogic styles and materials fluctuate more, even though
they do so less markedly than at the French and Hebrew schools. Comparatively
speaking, however, methods of teaching English literacy in the Greek and
Armenian schools are infinitely more change-prone and more responsive to a
professional atmosphere than is the case with Greek and Armenian literacy
efforts perse. Teachers of English remember or have heard of no such pedagogic
controversies (although they have heard of "home country" controversies along
the sociolinguistic dimension). Thus, whatever pedagogic transitions may have

occurred with respect to English literacy instruction in the Armenian and
Greek schools during the past decade seem to have occurred slowly and by the
introduction of increasing numbers of American-born (or long-term American-
resident) and American-trained teachers, rather than as a result of overt ped-
agogical influences in their field.
OVERALL SIMILARITY IN METHODS, BUT SOME

DIFFERENCES PERSIST
The absence of any overriding or adamant sociopedagogic tradition in the

teaching of reading/writing of any of the languages encountered is further
demonstrated by the essential similarity in the pedagogic emphases employed.
Although different pedagogic rationalizations are encountered, the actual prac-
tices are rather similar. The Chinese school, e.g., consciously utilized a ped-
agogically unique progression, namely that from less complex to more complex
characters-and-tones. However, the notion of complexity was also approxi-
mated in the other schools (in terms of controlled vocabularies and grammatical
considerations), particularly with respect to their minority ethnic mother-
tongue texts and materials. Even English texts shared this notion in the sense of
initially avoiding many English orthographic problems as well as avoiding
words not considered to be part of the child's vocabulary. If there was a literacy-
related sociopedagogic distinction between the English-literacy-acquisition
classes and the minority-ethnic-language-literacy-acquisition classes, it bordered
on the sociofunctional (about which there will be more to be said below).
English-literacy acquisition was less accompanied by songs, by word games,
by plays (and their accompanying "parts" to be learned), by choral/cooperative
efforts and by holiday/ritual "events" than was minority-ethnic-mother-tongue
teaching and learning. English-literacy acquisition was more serious, more
businesslike, less fun and less intimacy-related than was minority-ethnic-
mother-tongue-literacy acquisition. English literacy was /^-motivated insofar
as pupil attitudes were concerned. Minority-ethnic-mother-tongue literacy, in
every school but the French, was more of a collective enterprise, a collective
effort, a communal undertaking that had as its goal to arouse, capture and excite
the hearts and minds of the pupils who might otherwise be insufficiently self-
motivated. Functionality and affectiviity are thus aspects of sociopedagogy.
English is viewed as functionally all-pervasive and affectively neutral. The other
languages (even French) are viewed as more functionally focused and they are
much more affectively suffused. These differences often translate themselves
into minute but important differences in teacher-pupil relations and in class-
room atmospheres and they may contribute substantially to the ease, rate and
4i 8 III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
level of minority-language literacy acquisition, more than making up for any

absence of "professionalism" in the teachers insofar as any firm, "scientific"
basis of their efforts is concerned.
THE SOCIOFUNCTIONAL DIMENSION
From our immediately foregoing discussion, it should be clear that the schools
we have been observing are not particularly unusual insofar as either ped-
agogies or sociopedagogies are concerned. There are no novel or unique
methodologies known to and utilized by teachers or administrators in these
schools that are of a different order or intensity of efficaciousness than those that
are widely known and practiced in American monoliterate schools, public or
private. Nor are the general conditions or circumstances of these schools clearly
different than those that would be encountered in American monoliterate
education. While it is true that class size is rather small in some of our schools
(averaging just below 20 in the French, Hebrew and Armenian cases), this is not
at all so in one school (Greek) where class size is clearly on a par with that in the
public system (averaging just over 40). Although the average teacher in all four
schools struck us as technically adequate and as motivationally positive, few if
any of them impressed us as being absolutely or exceptionally superior or head-
and-shoulders above the public school average. While it is true that most
teachers were very pleased to be teaching in their particular school rather than in
the impersonal, turbulent and problem-ridden public schools, it was not they,
the teachers, who accounted for any substantial part of the difference between
these schools and the public school average in New York City today.
Nevertheless, the schools themselves were different, almost palpably so, and
"the difference" was primarily a sociofunctional one, i.e., a difference that
pertained to the extent to which the schools were societally maintained, super-
vised and linked, although the degree of difference and the emphasis placed
upon it were often far less than we had expected.
FRENCH IS "SOMETHING ELSE"
Even the French school, which had no real ethnic base, had a real consciousness
of self, of purpose, of distinction, an élan or spirit that imparted a certain
dignity to its administrators, teachers, pupils and parent body. There was an
intimacy about the school. Everyone involved with the school had chosen to be
there and, in turn, was chosen (selected) to be there. They were appreciators of
(although not necessarily participants in or contributors to) French culture, a
noble, intricate and beautiful creation. French would, could and did enrich
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in illiteracy : Comparative Ethnography 419
them and it was obviously something to be learned, enjoyed, treasured and

savored even if it was not necessarily stressed or to be given highest priority in
life. The function of the school was to make an extra dimension available to its
pupils, even though this was but one dimension among many in which parents
and teachers were interested. The elderly headmistress had a regal air about her
as she discussed her lifelong dedication to bringing the benefits of "a little bit of
French and French culture" to several generations of American children. She
stressed that the children were American and should be treated as such (the staff
at this school invariably spoke English to each other and to the pupils outside of
class) but that they would be uplifted, refined and ennobled by the French
exposure of the school. The school had a mission. Its mission was to enable the
French language and culture to function as an "open sesame" to a host of
advantages, material, aesthetic, literary and, yes, even intellectual.
French language and culture, it seemed, does not need an ethnic-community
base nor a "homeland" in which it is natural and unchallenged in order to
achieve its mission. It is perhaps the only non-English language in the U.S.A.
that operates on quite so detached and rarefied a societal basis. The world is its
oyster and the omnipresence offrancophonie on every continent contributes to
this sense of worldwide standing and worldwide appreciation. French is viewed
as a key to the best that humanity has achieved and the mission of the school is
to make this best available to all who are members of its family, even though it
will probably play a very small role in their total life.
THE ETHNIC COMMUNITY AS A GEMEINSCHAFT
If there is a "Gemeinschaft of the spirit" about the French school, then our other
three schools are characterized by Gemeinschaft both in a spiritual and in a
corporeal sense. They add ethnicity, and, therefore, the myth 1 3 of kinship to the
élan that cultural elevation provides. The other three schools are maintained by
ethnic communities and their missions are not only to socialise for membership in
these communities (along "being," "doing" and "knowing" lines) but to
strengthen and safeguard the communities per se by doing so. Like the French school,
they too stress their "nobility of the spirit" (martyrdom for high principles and
true religion and democracy being among their unique contributions to hu-
manity in each case) and, therefore, the ennobling, elevating and altogether
exquisite natures of their ethnocultures. However, in addition, they stress
loyalty to immediate and broader family and responsibility for maintaining and
strengthening persecuted or otherwise endangered, unique traditions. In these
traditions, as they are realized in American ethnic communities, a meager degree
of minority ethnic literacy is a sine qua non for participation, for recognition, for
adult standing, for adult rewards. The mission of these schools is to foster
access to such standing and rewards as well as to foster involvement in such

recognition and participation. Minority-ethnic literacy may be far more hon-
ored than used, but it is honored and the school reflects and implements this
status.
ENGLISH AS BEARER OF ETHNICITY
However, English literacy, too, is fostered for ethnic functions, although

English literacy obviously also has very broad extracxhmc functions as well.
Thus, English literacy not only stands for "them" (the nonethnics, the Anglo-
mainstream) but also for "us." English literacy is related to the work sphere, to
governmental interaction, to staying abreast of world events and to recreational
reading. However, in the work sphere, it is commonly as necessary for
ethnically controlled or associated occupations as for nonethnic ones. Within
the ethnic communities themselves, English is commonly (often even pre-
dominantly, and, within the Jewish community, almost exclusively) utilized for
business and professional reading/writing even between coethnics. English is in-
creasingly the language of record for ethnic organizations serving all gener-
ations (although in the Greek and Armenian cases their ethnic mother tongues
still serve this function predominantly for their respective first generations).
English is even the increasingly common language of letters to the homeland
both among the Jewish population studied as well as among second-generation
Greek parents.
Thus, all in all, literacy in the minority ethnic language and in English
must be viewed functionally as substantially overlapping circles. There are
some ethnic functions—particularly those related to ethnoreligious reading/
prayer—that are rather exclusively dominated by minority-ethnic-language
literacy. The result is that without at least a minimum of such literacy (pre-
pared for, but not always actually taught and practiced, at school), one is
effectively cut off from some central traditional rituals and statuses of the ethnic
community. On the other hand, there is for nearly every Greek-American,
Armenian-American and Jewish-American several crucial functions of a non-
ethnic sort for which only English literacy will serve. However, although the
substance of these English-dominated functions is nonethnic, their successful implemen-
tation leads to ethnic-community recognition as well. Finally, there is yet a third subset,
namely, that which consists of linguistically overlapping functions. Depending
on the particular networks involved in implementing them, they may be
implemented either via minority ethnic language or English literacy, both
languages now having achieved legitimacy and been accorded recognition for
these purposes within the ethnic community perse. So great is this third subset
of functions for many second- and third-generation members that their ethnicity
has become a distinctive way of being American and to that extent, English is an
expression of their ethnicity rather than merely of their supra-ethnic involvements.
Indeed, the English aspects of their lives are expanding as English takes on
more ethnic functions and the schools cannot but reflect the language spread
that their communities are experiencing.
BILITERACY ACQUISITION AND BILITERACY

RETENTION
The above observations reinforce and complement our earlier conclusion that
our three ethnic community schools have no conflict vis-à-vis English literacy.
They not only teach it but stress it, and they not only value it as an indispensable
key to success in the world at large, but also as a key to ethnic approbation,
ethnic leadership and ethnic responsibility. English is not "the enemy," but, on
the contrary, an obviously admired, desired and required desideratum.
Although in the long run this may render coliteracy in the minority ethnic
language increasingly difficult to maintain in any functions other than those
directly associated with ethnoreligious core sanctities, it is, nevertheless, the
current state of affairs and helps explain why it is precisely literacy in the ethnic
minority language rather than in English that is often most difficult to maintain
in the higher grades of the ethnic community schools. In those grades, their
pupils become more and more competitively oriented toward high-school
studies, primarily under nonethnic auspices, 14 and these are, of course, in
English only. Thus, the major literacy-related problem of the minority-ethnic-
language school is not so much the acquisition of biliteracy on the part of their
pupils as the maintenance of such biliteracy past adolescence, particularly in the
minority-language arena. Adult members of these communities want their
children to acquire literacy both in English and in the minority ethnic language,
but the latter typically serves as no more than a rite-de-passage, i.e. as a
socialization symbol. As little as the adults read and write in English, they
generally read and write even less in their minority ethnic language. They have
almost all lost a good bit of the reading/writing fluency that they once had, in
their own childhood and adolescence, in this language and it is the rare pupil,
indeed, who will not recapitulate this cycle of acquisition and loss.
Nevertheless, it will also be the rare pupil who will not continue to respect (and
even honor or treasure) the symbolic socialization function of minority ethnic
language for his/her children, as well as for him/herself. Thus, the functions and
missions of these schools will remain biliterate and, at least in the early grades
we have studied, these schools are certainly reasonably successful instruments
of the societies that have established these goals for them.
WHERE LITERACY IS FOSTERED: HOME OR

SCHOOL
A delicate balancing act would seem to be called for in connection with ethnic
community biliteracy. O n the one hand, the ethnic language provides unique-
ness, is identity-related and even sanctity-proximate. O n the other hand, English
is of overriding value, in the world at large and even within the ethnic
community per se. H o w do parents, on the one hand, and the schools, on the
other, "carry off" this unbalanced balance and yet retain its stability?
Both via indirect conversation and direct questioning, we have sought to
determine the out-of-school contribution to biliteracy acquisition. Ultimately
literacy must serve societal-interactive functions. It is therefore desirable to
determine the extent to which society anticipates the ultimately societal func-
tion of literacy, by participating in and providing for the inculcation and
elicitation of literacy even outside of school. Such societal participation, were it
to be active and sustained, could also contribute to ethnopedagogies within the
school per se.
O u r data reveal very little evidence of out-of-school coparticipation in the
biliteracy-acquisition process (Table 13). A l l in all, 83% of all relevant "occur-
rences" observed or reported are school-based with the corresponding propor-
tion being even higher ( 9 1 % ) for English and lowest (78%) for E M T literacy
acquisition. Although school-home and school-community coparticipation are
rather rare "occurrences," it is interesting to note that to the extent that they do
obtain, they are far more likely to be EMT-related than English-related. Thus,
while home and community are overall relatively weak literacy-imparting
agencies in our four schools, whatever contribution they do make to biliteracy
is connected with the E M T rather than with English. This may be a function of
generational differences. The parents of a substantial number of our pupils are
often not native English speakers whereas they are, more frequently, native
E M T speakers. Thus, they may be better prepared to assist their children in this
connection and, at any rate, the fact that they have elected to send their children
to an E M T school may be indicative of a distinctive (even though not an
overbearing) parental interest in their offspring's progress in this connection.
Indeed, so huge is the dependency on school for literacy acquisition that
there is almost no room for school or grade variation with respect to this
variable. Nevertheless, it is interesting to find that whatever school-home
interaction there is in this connection occurs primarily in the Hebrew school
(Table 14) whereas community involvement (always less common than home
involvement) is highest in the Armenian context. With respect to grade, there is
a very slight tendency for both home and community to make whatever
contributions they are going to make in the earlier grades rather than in the later
ones (Table 15).
va o
ο οό
-Ί-
o
Ov
Ov
1" 9
"> o
Ο Ο
Ο Ο
νο
ο
§ I ΞΓ £ * - i
Η O O t o o
CÄ Ó ^ * U t « U
£
m m 8
(Ts
o
σ\
c\
o o
ο ο
Μ %
ο ο o o
ο ο o o
00 νο SO Ν ^ t
00 ο CTv Ν
o r^- ο Ο
ο ο
£
I <0 vP § 2
§ S V ^
m * o "o * 1 ~
Βί oc; § es υ ^ S r9
oí 8
<ο (i,
o o ο ο
ο ο ο ο
o o ο ο ΟΟ ΗΗ
ο ο o ó CÑ
ο
σ\ ο r^ ο
ο ο ο ο
ο ο ο ο
ο Γ ΟΟ
ON Ν
ΟΟ ~
ο
•t
*Ο Ο1 ο ο Ο Ο
οΐ υ pí υ
III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
%a
oo
pí H
ο
Ον
υ
Χ
υ
c/ï
?
2
C/J
-φ
r1- ••ί-
ο Ν
?9
Ü
QJ
Sí
υ
Μ £
«
Η Ο 1
All in all, there is little evidence that the ethnic communities to which our
schools correspond are particularly active partners in the literacy-acquisition
process. In this respect, they have been fully "Americanized." The out-of-
school sociofunctional role of literacy is that much weaker, both for English as
well as for the EMTs. Strong out-of-school involvement in biliteracy acquisition is
predictive of strong out-of-school functionality for literacy in the life pattern of a
particular speech community. The absence of the one sounds an ominous note
with respect to the predictable absence of the other.
TOPICAL EMPHASES (ETHNIC/NON-ETHNIC) OF

TEACHING/LEARNING MATERIALS
From a supporting set of tables not reproduced here, it is clear that most literacy-
relevant reading/learning materials in the four schools we have studied are
classroom and student focused (as distinct from adult or community focused).
Indeed, this appears to be true from grade to grade and regardless of language
of instruction. A related, and perhaps more interesting, issue deals with the
relative emphases on ethnic vs. non-ethnic topics. In this connection, our data
reveal a decisive preponderance of non-ethnic topics regardless of medium of
instruction but particularly when English is the medium (Table 16). While
ethnic topics do receive considerably more attention when the EMTs are
utilized as media, even then non-ethnic topics continue to show a slight edge.
This topical distribution is again indicative of the fact that ethnic schools
discharge a joint role: they ethnicize in an American way and they Americanize
in an ethnic way (Fishman, Chapter 11, This Volume). In either case, their
American role is not only substantial but often more substantial (more certain,
pervasive and established) than their ethnic stress, which is constantly being
moderated and mediated by non-ethnic concerns.
Non-ethnic topical emphases are particularly strong in the French school
(which actually has no ethnic-community base in New York) and in the Greek
school (Table 17). The latter school is coping with an influx of new arrivals and
may, therefore, be preparing them for American roles and interactions even in
literacy related "occurrences" that utilize Greek as a medium. The Hebrew
school, on the other hand, tends toward exactly the opposite orientation. It
shows such a clear predominance for ethnic topics that many of its English
language literacy-related "occurrences" are clearly devoted to ethnic topics as
well. Thus, ethnic schools seem to vary their ethnic/non-ethnic topical emphases
depending on the needs, experiences and concerns of their sponsoring
constituencies.
There is also a tendency for the proportion of non-ethnic topics to decrease as
grade level increases (Table 18). Apparently these schools start off with common
Ill The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
5
Ν
\¿ M
VÛ
o
o o
o
O vo
V
O ^
Ν Γ
T-t 00 Ν
4
O
o oo 00 r^-
V
O
β
¡o oSí ro h £ ^ !
£ d υ ^ 0¿o υo
m m 8
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in illiteracy : Comparative Ethnography
429
r^-
VO
Ο ο o o o
ο ο Μ O 4 o
C\ o
O o vo
o o o
o 1"
- 4 4 00
o r^- o o
M NO o o
VO
c
i
fi o-- Ô m s -
S * S * r
ω o o Bí * - £
o o
Ì
< 0 0 CQ O O
«¡ Oí U S sí υ Oí U g eá υ
u s 8
43° HI The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
ο vo
•*i· oo
~ ο
t^ O
Ν
•Φ
O O
O O
Ί" ^
VO Ν
•O o
cN —.
> o Ì ~
(§ δ
I "
c¿
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in Biliteracj: Comparative Ethnography 43 1
Ν 00
os
»Λ OO
OO M
Ο -
¿, Tj- Ó
O
00 Ó
vo
C
Ιϋ
Q
^
oí
<0
2; o o
1
o OÍ υ
8
43 ζ HI The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
American topics, which all students can recognize and react to acceptingly, and
then slowly introduce increased ethnic emphases in accord with the particular
backgrounds and interests represented in their student bodies.
THE SUBSTANTIVE SIDE OF MINORITY ETHNIC

LITERACY
How can the low stress on ethnicity and the low level of home and community
involvement in E M T literacy nevertheless result in continued school and
community attention to, and concern for, the EMT? The answer seems to be:
emotional priority makes up for functional and pedagogic restrictions. The
ethnic-community school is surrounded by general American society and that
society generates both indirect messages, as well as direct rewards, that foster
English-literacy acquisition, much above and beyond those that are fostered by
the ethnic home, school and community per se. Minority-ethnic-language
literacy, on the other hand, is fostered only by the smaller ethnic community
and by the school as its agent. What specific functions can the latter literacy
fulfill? First of all, in our ethnic schools (and in the French school as well),
minority-language literacy fulfills school requirements and these, particularly
for "elementary school ages, can be significant motivators since they are as-
sociated with grades, compliments, promotions, graduations, etc. However,
above and beyond school functions in and of themselves, such literacy is
constantly related to kin and community; to history and authenticity; to God
and to sanctity; to morality and to martyrdom. Minority-language literacy,
meager though it be, is related to home rituals (and, therefore, to being a good
son or daughter); to church/synagogue rituals (and, therefore, to the ultimate
mysteries); to community rituals (and, therefore, to fellowship and Gemeinschaft
norms). The texts employed and the assignments given deal with family rituals,
holidays, obligations and commemorations. These materials often involve
verbal art forms: songs, proverbs, collective recitations, poems, folktales,
adaptations from hallowed texts (or, in the Hebrew school, these texts
themselves). All in all, there is a concentration on artistically-heightened
and emotionally-heightened literacy-related material. There is some rote
memorization (not as much as there was a generation ago and, at any rate,
not directly related to literacy), but even /Vis placed in a functional setting that is
preparatory to literacy-proximate worship or holiday ritual. Furthermore,
minority-ethnic literacy is often given intergenerational visibility. It is "dis-
played" at holiday celebrations and historical commemorations when parents
and other elders are present. All in all, this is pretty powerful stuff and, indeed,
as long as pupils are primarily home-family-church oriented, i.e., through to
adolescence, it is probably among the most powerful stuff (the most heightened,
the most colorful, the most evocative) impacting their young lives. Indeed, its
impact may outlast by far the literacy by which it is initially accompanied and, in
connection with literacy acquisition per se, it more than compensates for the
pedagogical-methodological "ordinariness" of the school.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SPECIFIC FINDINGS
Each one of the major dimensional foci that originally prompted our research
has been associated with a good amount of across-the-board regularity, i.e., it
has been associated with rather clearcut findings across all media of instruction, all
schools and all grades. In con j unction with the sociographic dimension, it is clear that
the welter of writing-system differences and writing/printing differences is
reduced and rendered more manageable by stressing the printing system (whe-
ther via reading print or writing print) throughout, but particularly in the
earliest grades. With respect to our sociopedagogic concerns, we have found that
reading is attended to ever so much more than writing and that writing is
attended to much more than speaking. Insofar as sociofunctional issues are
concerned, we have noted very little evidence of out-of-school participation in
literacy acquisition and, correspondingly, little topical emphasis on matters
pertaining to home or community. Finally, in connection with the sociolinguistic
dimension we have discovered that there is hardly any awareness of or concern
with nonschool dialect, interlanguage contrasts or interlanguage variation.
To a very large extent, the above quantitatively documented findings agree
with our more qualitative impressions. Nevertheless, our appreciation of them
(particularly the last three) benefits considerably from more restricted con-
textual considerations.
FINDINGS RELATED TO MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION
None of our sociographic findings require qualification related to medium of

instruction. With respect to our sociopedagogic concerns, however, it is note-
worthy that in EMT-medium instruction, teacher-made materials are more com-
monly employed than basal readers, whereas in English-medium instruction the
opposite is the case. In the latter connection, it is also interesting to remember
that silent reading (rare though it was in the early grades on which our research
was concentrated) was much more common in English-medium than in EMT-
medium instruction. Both of these findings provide inconclusive support for
the hypothesis of ethnopedagogic differences, a hypothesis which requires and

merits further investigation. In connection with the sociofunctional dimension,
we have found that the little out-of-school impact on literacy acquisition that
can be documented occurs primarily in EMT-medium contexts. This is also the
case in connection with the sociolinguistic issue of nonschool dialect.
FINDINGS RELATED TO SCHOOL
None of our sociographic or sociolinguistic findings differ from school to school.

School differences do crop up in connection with one of the sociofunctional
findings in that ethnic topics are more commonly encountered than nonethnic
topics (and by a wide margin at that) only in the Hebrew school, whereas in all
other schools the reverse is true. However, it is on the sociopedagogic front that
most differences between schools are encountered. The Hebrew school alone
stresses analytic decoding methods more than synthetic ones (and does so in
both languages). The Greek school is inordinately fond of choral reading. The
French school engages in individual reading (and in small group instruction
more generally) more than do any other schools (in most of which the entire
class is the favorite unit of instruction). In the Hebrew and French schools,
teachermade materials are more commonly employed than basal readers,
whereas the opposite is true in the other two schools. All in all, although every
school is distinctive, there are a number of similarities between the Greek and
Armenian school, on the one hand, and the French and Hebrew school, on the
other hand. The latter two schools are smaller and have the smallest propor-
tions of E M T speaking and non-English speaking pupils.
FINDINGS RELATED TO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

GRADES
ι. Certain between-grade differences "favor" the lower grades in the sense that
they reveal higher incidences of certain phenomena than do the higher grades.
In the lower grades, there are more "occurrences" of teacher-made materials, of
choral reading (both of the foregoing possibly pertaining to sociopedagogic issues)
and of nonschool dialect correction (pertaining to sociolinguistic issues). On the
other hand, certain between-grade occurrences "favor" the higher grades, In
the higher grades there are more "occurrences" of writing (a matter of sociograph-
ic interest to us), as well as more "occurrences" of sentence reading, individual
instruction and individual reading (all of these being sociopedagogic issues).
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in Illiteracy: Comparative Ethnography 43 5
MORE GENERAL IMPRESSIONS AND TENTATIVE

CONCLUSIONS
The pupils we observed seemed to experience much pleasure and little pain in
becoming biliterate. Although some "selection for success" was doubtlessly
involved both in deciding who should attend these schools as well as in who
remained in them (rather than dropped out of them), the majority of the pupils
involved were very far from being geniuses, the teachers very far from being
paragons of pedagogy, and the parents very far from being single-minded rein-
forcers of the schools' efforts. In fact, perhaps too little has been said about the
mediocrity and counterproductivity of much that we observed. That being the
case, we feel all the more certain that universal biliteracy is well within the
ability of almost all children, almost all schools and almost all school com-
munities. Generally speaking, the pupils we observed seemed to read and write English
at least as well as those we had observed and heard or read about in the generality of
monoliterate schools, if not a little better. We administered no tests and, therefore,
we cannot say so with any great exactness, but it seemed to us that given the firm
but modest literacy of their respective home environments, many of these
students were reading English better and more enjoyably than their counter-
parts do in most monoliterate schools and were reading another language at
least reasonably well (by community standards rather well) in addition. Indeed, it
seems to us that the pupils we observed lost nothing and gained greatly by their experience
with biliteracy, and that these gains were probably predictable for at least afew more years
into the late elementary period.
2. The four dimensions to which we were alert seemed to have had very little
differential bearing on the outcomes that we have noted above. Discrepant
writing systems rarely posed much o f a problemfor biliteracy acquisition among the children
whom we observed. This seemed to be true regardless of which language was
taught first (English or the minority language) or, indeed, regardless of whether
or not reading was taught in both languages simultaneously. Popular pedagogic
notions as to which writing systems are "more phonetic" are usually mistaken
(or only partially correct) at any rate, and seem to be quite irrelevant to the
biliteracy-acquisition process across most of the real range of discrepancy or
interference that obtains between writing systems. A clearly discrepant system
like the Chinese does take more time to acquire, but does so whether learned in
a monoliterate or in a biliterate context. While it does seem wise to concentrate
on the printing systems until they are mastered before introducing the writing
systems (wherever the two differ), this too may be more "popular wisdom"
than a confirmed empirical finding and its limits remain to be tested. Within any
printing system, there seems to be no substantial difficulty in learning lower case
and upper case letters (where these differ) simultaneously. All in all, the writing-
system factor seems to be an exceedingly negligible one for biliteracy acquisition, at least
across the range of Euro-Mediterranean divergences and, most probably, across the entire
range of grapheme¡phoneme correspondences. Leftward/rightward directional dis-
crepancies probably also pose no problem whatsoever for the bulk of elemen-
tary school learners. The majority of all children can probably acquire literacy
and biliteracy with roughly equal facility and can do so approximately equally
easily, regardless of what writing systems are involved (but with the noted
exception that the Chinese writing system does take appreciably longer to
master whether acquired monoliterately or biliterately). "Strange writing sys-
tems" may seem like little more than "unnecessary burdens" to Western
researchers, but to members of their native-speech-and-writing communities,
these systems are not only imbedded in their accompanying cultures but their
cultures are imbedded in them (Block 1980, Scribner and Cole 1981).
3. Discrepancies between the spoken language and the printed language do not seem to
complicate biliteracy acquisition any more than thej do monoliteracy acquisition. Dialect
speakers do not necessarily take longer to learn the proper (i.e., standard)
spelling (Firth 1980) or reading of the standard variety, particularly when
teachers are familiar with and accepting of their students' dialects. The standard
dialect, too, is just that, a dialect, and it is learned at roughly the same rate when
tackled in a monoliterate or in a biliterate context. Where the standard is so
discrepant from the dialect as actually to be incomprehensible to the pupil, the
problem at hand is one of basic language learning rather than of biliteracy.
Where "understanding" is a goal of literacy training (this is not universally so),
the target language will usually be taught for comprehension before literacy in it
is pursued. Once more, however, this is not a distinctive problem of ¿/literacy
acquisition. Some gap, greater or lesser, necessarily exists between the spoken
variety and the printed variety of all literary languages. This may be coped with
in a variety of ways (ignoring it if it is not too great being the usual approach in
the francophone and anglophone worlds; accommodating writing to the
spoken language being the usual approach in Holland; learning the book
variety by successive "small approximations," starting first with similar struc-
tures in both varieties and slowly moving toward increased dissimilarity, a
recent approach in Egyptian children's television). Whatever the approach, it
can just as well be followed in biliterate schooling as in monoliterate schooling.
A colony of Dutch- and Arabic-speaking children in Egypt would not find their
Dutch literacy impeded by their problems with standard (classicized) Arabic,
nor would they find their problems with standard (classicized) Arabic literacy
facilitated or complicated just because these problems did not exist in Dutch
literacy.
4. There are a small number of "partial remains" of earlier traditional ped-
agogies for teaching reading and writing. These are everywhere retreating
under the onslaught of a small number of so-called scientific pedagogic meth-
ods (at times: empirically validated against a criterion of rate or level). As a
12. Ethnocultural Dimensions in illiteracy : Comparative Ethnography 437
result, it is more than likely that biliteracy acquisition will be attained via the
learners' two languages, both being taught by roughly the same methods.
Nevertheless, even where this is not exactly the case, there is no reason to suspect
that the methodological differences that obtain really influence the rate or level of literacy
in either language in comparison with the monolingual norm for each. All in all, reading
can probably be taught equally effectively by a very large variety of (but not
necessarily by all) methods. Teaching methodology is usually such a minor factor in
literacy acquisition that relative to other variables influencing this process, it is probably of
negligible importance in and of itself. (For other views, see Bloom 1980 and Bridge
et al. 1979.)
5. The "problem orientation" (discrepant writing systems are "a problem,"
discrepancies between the spoken language and the written language are "a
problem," discrepancies between method a for teaching literacy in language A
and method b for teaching literacy in language Β are "a problem") is partially
rooted in a widespread bias against societal bilingualism (and therefore against
societal biliteracy) and partially rooted in the overprofessionalization and
undersocialization of literacy acquisition. To the extent that biliteracy itself is seen as
abnormal, atypical, elitist or undesirable, it will constantly be suspected of being problem-
ridden. In actuality, it is no more unnatural than being binocular or binaural. It is not a
superhuman feat and is the common experience of millions upon millions of
individuals served by scores of educational establishments throughout the
world. If it can be increasingly achieved in India (e.g., provincial language,
Hindi and English); in the Arabic world (e.g., Arabic and French or Arabic and
English); and on the Chinese mainland (e.g., Pekingese and Cantonese) there is
no technical reason why it cannot be achieved in the U.S.A. and in other
technologically advanced Western societies. However, not only is the goal of
societal bilingualism (and, therefore, of societal biliteracy) ideologically
"suspect"—both on the part of capitalist and communist protectors and
prospective indoctrinators of the "masses" alike—but, in addition, the reading
process per se has been surrendered to technicians whose stock-in-trade is to concentrati on
smaller problematic side effects rather than on dominant main effects. Teachers and
parents alike have been traumatized and tyrannized by reading methods and
reading problems rather than devoted to the major task of jointly building a
literacy (or biliteracy)-focused school-in-society relationship. Mid-century bilin-
gualism, too, was regarded primarily as a "problem" and as psychoeducation-
ally contraindicated by most American social and educational spokesmen. Some
thirty years later it is widely recognized that society can make a problem out of
bilingualism, but that bilingualism per se is an asset rather than a problem. This same
realization is now needed vis-à-vis biliteracy.
6. Nothing more is ultimately required in the mind of the learner for the
acquisition of biliteracy than is required for the acquisition of monoliteracy. In
all cases, the major stimulus and sustenance is early and pleasurably rewarding
immersion in a sociocultural milieu in which reading and writing are not

only overtly admired, practiced and rewarded but in which they are required for
social memberships, social statuses, social mobility and social roles and in which
they are socially recognised accordingly when mastered. The school itself can
briefly function as such a sociocultural milieu when it is not undercut by the
stronger outside reward systems that surround it. On the other hand, even the
best school by itself is not strong enough to clinch (bi)literacy past the adolescent
years. Massive reading problems are ultimately massively derived from massive
societal failure to encourage, reward and sustain literacy (Stahl 1975). Massive
incredulity with respect to the possibilities, pleasures and profits of societal
biliteracy are derived from massive incredulity (nay, suspicion, if not hostility)
toward societal bilingualism. Societal biliteracy cannot be provided with life-
cycle and intergenerational stability by schools alone, any more than can
monoliteracy (or algebra, or history, or any other "subject") be provided with
such stability when societal functions and rewards are lacking. At best, schools
can briefly attain these goals when learners are sufficiently young and im-
pressionable, when school still looms large in their order of influences. At
worst, even this brief period of grace is denied to schools by societal negativism
and dislocation. However, beginning with adolescence, other influences
become continually stronger and, ultimately, dominant—the peer society, the
work sphere, the larger (regional, national, international) opportunity system.
If these are apathetic, derisive, rejective or ignorant of school-based expertise,
the latter withers and is abandoned. If such negative circumstances become
ingrained in long-term social structure, even the best school's potential vis-à-vis
literacy acquisition during childhood may go by the board.
Basically, (bi)literacy is no more class dependent than artistry, poetry, rhythm or

creativity. It can be successfully maintained by poor societies and small societies, by
minorities and by premodern traditions, as long as they are able to establish and protect
their own cultural mainsprings and provided (bi)literacy is emotionally heightened
and made into an accessible cultural skill. Basically, (bi)literacy is less a guaran-
tee of social mobility than it is a resultant of it. Literacy (and biliteracy) as a
societal phenomenon is an outgrowth of very basic sociocultural values and
processes. It, in turn, fosters these values and processes, be they ethnoreligious
or econotechnical. In an optimally just and nurturing society, concerned for the
optimal development of the intellectual, aesthetic, moral, emotional and ma-
terial development and well-being of all its children, literacy (and biliteracy)
could easily be made available to all and attained by all. Our observations of
four schools that are pursuing it (admittedly imperfectly but, at least, univer-
sally within their own walls) convince us that both literacy and biliteracy are far
rarer skills and appreciations than they need to be.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of our study of biliteracy is a deeper realisation of how much
is gainedfrom it, at so little additional expense, by children differing hugely in ability and
temperament, when their worlds (their schools, homes and communities) are so organised
as to foster it. Under those circumstances, it becomes not a rare skill nor an esoteric
refinement but an ingredient of various basic, societally encumbered processes, that is: an
ingredient of sociocultural membership per se.15
NOTES
ι. Although the French school we have studied is not ethnic-community-related, it too will be
referred to in the pages that follow when formulations such as "ethnic-community mother-
tongue schools investigated in this study" are employed, unless specifically excepted.
2. Initially we also studied biliteracy acquisition in a fifth school, namely, one that was Chinese-
English. However, this school paid minimal attention to Chinese from the very outset and
then dropped it from its curriculum entirely. We will refer to it from time to time but make no
attempt to include it in all of our comparisions.
3. Although Fishman originally called this dimension " e t h n o - G R A P H I C " (1980), and al-
though that designation has found favor with some (see, e.g., Wagoner 1983), we have
decided to change to "sociographic" in order to avoid confusion (particularly aurally) with
"ethnographic."
4. Our curtailed observations in the Chinese school did lead us to the conclusion that a
considerably more prolonged period of biliteracy acquisition was necessary there than in any of
the other schools. This may be attributable only in small part to writing-system factors, given
that the class also devoted rather little time per week to Chinese literacy.
5. In the upper classes of the Hebrew school, an additional font (or typeface) called ktav rashi is
taught in order to study the writings of the 11th-century commentator, Rabbi Shlomo
Yitskhaki, which are customarily printed in that distinctive typeface. Although ktav rashi is
quite different from ordinary Hebrew type, it is customarily learned in a few hours by
students w h o are already moderately advanced in Hebraic studies, in contrast to the many
hours required to learn the Hebrew alphabet initially, even when pointed (vocalized) texts are
employed.
6. Although this was not the practice in the Chinese school we had begun to study, there are
other Chinese community schools in the U . S . A . that have begun to utilize one or another
romanization or simplification system to facilitate Chinese reading among children who do
not speak the language natively (De Francis 1972). E v e n with native speakers, however, the
traditional characters do significantly slow down the process of reading/writing acquisition
(5 or more years vs. 1 - 3 years for the other systems we have studied). Nevertheless, even in
this case, the greater amount of time taken is viewed as nonproblematic (precisely because
this slower acquisition pace has traditionally obtained) and the sanctity of the characters
remains unquestioned. Currently the reform of Chinese writing seems to be of less interest
than, e.g., the reform of Arabic writing (Mahmoud 1980), in which the absence of vowel
diacritics is felt to be burdensome because it assumes a grammatical competence not usually
found in newly literates.
7. Only in the Netherlands has the norm for written Dutch been changed repeatedly (three times
in this century!) in order to repeatedly reapproximate the spoken language (Geertz et al.
«977)·
8. Although mainland-Chinese authorities still have little influence in Chinese-American
schools, the Taiwanese authorities provide free (or highly subsidized) textbooks, as well as
summer vacations in Taiwan, for students in the U.S.A.
44° Iii The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community Institutions
9. The Chinese case also reveals considerable sociolinguistic variation. Most of the schools
teach a "City Cantonese" reading of the characters initially and a Mandarin reading of the
same characters in their advanced classes. Although this is rationalized on the basis of the fact
that most pupils are of Cantonese extraction, in reality they are of rural origin by and large,
speaking dialects that are often neither mutually intelligible among themselves nor intel-
ligible to speakers of City Cantonese. Finally, even texts with City Cantonese notations
adhere to a variety of the language that departs significantly from the current vernacular.
10. Although it seems somewhat difficult to believe, the teachers at the Chinese school also
claimed that non-Cantonese-background children adapted earily to Cantonese reading-
pronunciation and even to the spoken Cantonese of the teachers and of their classmates.
Although the traditional characters remain the same in both cases, the distance between
spoken standard Pekingese and spoken standard (city) Cantonese is great; indeed, perhaps
comparable to that between French and Russian.
11. A modicum of Type Β correction also occurred in the Hebrew school (among Israeli students
who had begun to speak English in Israel proper) and, even more infrequently, in the French
school (on the part of a very few American students who had lived in France for a year or
two).
12. The Chinese school, although it devoted rather little time to Chinese literacy, followed a
rather traditional pattern of endless copying and unison recitation of texts or repetition of the
teacher's utterances designed to emphasize tonal differences, The characters selected for such
exercises were initially rather simple, and complexity of characters rather than either lexical
understandability or story coherence seemed to determine the order of their presentation.
13. The term "myth" is used here not to imply absence of truth but, rather, to imply the
importance of a particular ethnocultural tradition above and beyond any objective confirma-
tion or confirmability. Coethnics often respond to each other as kin above and beyond any
objectively documented kinship ties that they may have with one another.
14. There is only one Greek high school in the New York Metropolitan area and no Armenian
high school at all. While there are several Hebrew high schools, most day-school students
transfer to general high schools on completion of elementary school.
ι ;. For a more detailed study of reading-focused sociocultural-pedagogic efforts in the Greek
and Armenian schools reported upon in this chapter, see Riedler-Berger 198;.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allony-Fainberg, Yaffa. The influence of English on formal terminology in Hebrew, in J . A .

Fishman et al. The Spread of English. Rowley, Newbury House, 1977, 225-228.
Baratz, Joan C. and Roger W. Shuy, eds. Teaching Black Children to Read. Washington, Center for
Applied Linguistics, 1969.
Bettelheim, Bruno and Karen Zelan. On Learning to Read: The Childs Fascination with Meaning. New
York, Knopf, 1981
Blook, Doris E. The script as a cohesive factor in Cham society, in Gregerson, Marilyn and
Dorothy Thomas, eds. Notes from Indochina on Ethnic Minority Cultures. Dallas, WIL Museum of
Anthropology, 1980, 55-44.
Bloom, Benjamin S. Better Learning in the Schools: A Primerfor Parents, Teachers and Other Educators.
New York, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
Bridge, R. Gary, Peter R. Moock and Charles M. Judd. The Determinants of Educational Outcomes: The
Impact of Families, Peers, Teachers and Schools. Cambridge, Ballinger, 1979.
DeFrancis, John. Language and script reform in China, in J . A . Fishman, ed. Advances in the Sociology
of Language. The Hague, Mouton, 1972, 450-475.
Ferguson, Charles A. The role of Arabic in Ethiopia: A sociolinguistic perspective. Georgetown
Roundtabk on Language and Linguistics (1970), j 5 5 —3 70 and Patterns of literacy in multilingual
situations. Georgetown Roundtahle on Languages and Linguistics (1979), 582-590.
Firth, Uta, ed. Cognitive Processes in Spelling. London, Academic Press, 1980. (See Chapter 4 on lack
of dialectally based spelling errors by dialect speakers.)
Fishman, Joshua Α., Robert L. Cooper and Andrew W. Conrad. The Spread of English. Rowley,
. Ethnocultural dimensions in the acquisition and retention of biliteracy. Basic Writing, 1980,
j , no. ι , 48-61.
Geerts, G., J . van den Broeck and A. Verdoodt. Success and failures in Dutch spelling reform, in
J.A. Fishman, ed. Creation and Revision of Writing Systems. The Hague, Mouton, 1977, 179-246.
Green, Judith and Cynthia Wallat, eds. Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings. Norwood
(NJ), Ablex, 1981.
Jones, Sidney. Arabic instruction and literacy in Javanese Muslim schools. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 1985, 42, 83-94.
Mahmoud, Youssef. On the reform of Arabic writing. Journal of Reading. 1980, 23, 727-729.
Rabin, Chaim and I.M. Schlesinger. The influence of different systems of Hebrew orthography on
reading efficiency, in J . A. Fishman, ed. Advances in Language Planning. The Hague, Mouton, 1974,
5 5 5-572·
Riedler-Berger, Carole. An Ethnographic Study of Biliteracy Reading Acquisition in Two New
York Non-Public Schools. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yeshiva University Ferkauf Graduate School,
.985.
Roskies, Diane. Alphabet instruction in the East European heder: Some comparative and historical
notes. YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science, 1978, 17, 2 1 - 5 3 .
Scribner, Sylvia and Michael Cole. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, Harvard University Press,
1981.
Shtern, Yekhiel. Kheyder un heys-medresh [The traditional elementary school and traditional place
of study and prayer]. New York, Yiddish Scientific Institute ( = Y I V O Institute for Scientific
Research), 1950.
Stahl, Abraham. The cultural antecedents of sociolinguistic differences. Comparative Education
(i975)> ! 4 7 ~ 1 5 2 -
Tabouret-Keller, Andrée, ed. Regional languages in France. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 1981, no. 29, 1 - 1 6 3 (entire issue).
Wagner, Daniel A. and Abdelhamid Lotfi. Learning to read by rote. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 1983, 42, 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 .
Wagner, Daniel A. Ethnographies: An introduction. International Journal of the Sociologi of Language,
'9 8 3. 42, 5-8·
IV ETHNOLINGUISTIC PLURALISM IN
HERDERIAN AND WHORFIAN
PERSPECTIVE
Chapter 13
Positive Bilingualism: Some Overlooked

Rationales and Forefathers
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN
"Modem" man, and even modern social science (including modern linguistics),
has had difficulty conceiving bilingualism positively. The overwhelming ma-
jority of references to this phenomenon are in terms of poverty or disharmony
or disadvantages and debits of other kinds. The reasons for such a negative
view of bilingualism are not hard to find. They derive from monolingual
economic, political, cultural, and ideological investments or establishments and
from the self-serving world views that they have fostered. Opponents who
differ greatly in other respects—e.g., unreconstructed capitalists and equally
unreconstructed communists—come together with amazing agreement as to
the purported evils of bilingualism, each seeing in it a stumbling block to the
image of progress, peace, and plenty that each consciously or subconsciously
subscribes to and that each would (or does) consciously or subconsciously
benefit from.
THE MYTHOLOGY OF MONOLINGUALISM
Three sociophilosophical myths or Weltanschauungen have fostered monolingual-

ism for as many millenia of Euro-Mediterranean experience: the myth that
monolingualism = universalism; the myth that monolingualism = freedom;
and the myth that monolingualism — rationalism. Just as some psychoeduca-
tionalists have pictured bilingualism as intellectually penalizing and some
linguists have characterized it as a carrier of the dread disease known as
"interference," so some social theorists have cast bilingualism as implying
(and even causing) provincialism/particularism, slavery/oppression and
irrationalism/disruption. The counterclaims of equally ancient vintages are
446 IV Ethnolinguistic Pluralism in Herderian and Whorfian Perspective
often lost in the shuffle, and the most distinguished spokesmen as well as the
most telling arguments f o r positive bilingualism are often unknown to, and
forgotten by, those w h o would most agree with them and who, in ignorance of
their own forefathers, are forced to reinvent views that were already formulated
a long, long time ago.
UNIVERSALISM = MONOLINGUALISM?
The view that mankind is purportedly headed toward a greater, ultimately all-
encompassing sociocultural unity has frequently been associated with a linguis-
tic counterpart: a purported need for and an espousal of a unifying language of
mankind. This view—expressed by the Western Empire and by Western
Christianity on behalf of Latin; by Western capitalism on behalf of French and,
more recently, English; by early communism on behalf of German; and, more
recently, Russian ("the interlanguage of the Soviet peoples")—slipping easily
from an auxiliary to a replacive stance toward the own favored language, has
too often confused universalism with uniformity. A s a result it has simplified
and falsified the complexity of human society and has ignored the simultaneity
of broader and narrower attachments that so often characterizes social man.
Family members, tradition keepers, neighbors, bread winners, political
animals, citizens, believers in transcendental truths (and often synchretistically
in several such, at one and the same time)—these are the roles via which human
beings express their many attachments, pursue a variety of goals, and attain
both broader and narrower rewards at various times of the day, of the week, of
the year, and of their life spans. There is a multifacetedness to the human
experience—including linguistic repertoire variety or breadth—that must not
be fluffed off or watered down in the name of universalism, for if this is done,
then universalism is converted into its opposite, namely, restrictive parochial-
ism. It is the so-called primitive parochial society in which all are purportedly
constrained into a single path, in which all roles coincide and in which only one
truth, one vision, and one vehicle of truth can be permitted.
The view that universality is genotypic rather than merely phenotypic, that it
pertains to deeply underlying traits and values rather than to surface manifes-
tations, is also an old and proud view, but one that modern man has found
increasingly difficult to hang on to. In the Hebraic view, this is expressed as a
rejection of a monolingual mankind (represented by the effrontery of the T o w e r
of Babel) and by the affirmation of a permanently multiethnic and multilingual
mankind (70 peoples and 70 languages being considered fundamental to the
God-given order of human life), via which true universality can be perceived
and grasped. 1 Universality is viewed as achievable not by vitiating this diversity
but by orchestrating it, by harmonizing and orienting it toward a higher and
i}. Positive Bilingualism: Some Overlooked Rationales and Forefathers 447
fuller awareness of sanctity. The Eastern Mediterranean provides two other

expressions of this same vision: the classic Greek (and Greek Christian) and the
early Islamic. In the former, all churches are "national" (that is, ethnically
defined), autocephalic and function in their own ethnic tongues. In the latter,
" G o d sends to each people prophets in its own language so that he can be fully
known to them" (Sura, 14,4). Languages of sanctity, languages of government,
languages of trade, and languages of home life differ and co-exist, with the
former—the language of sanctity—naturally being more stable than the latter.
Populations migrate, lose languages, gain languages, but those peoples who
retain their sanctified values, traditions, and missions also maintain their sancti-
fied tongues, at least for the most central, sanctified purposes. The notions of
periphery and core behaviors, of behavioral (and linguistic) "repertoire" (and,
therefore, of variety rather than sameness in intergroup and in intragroup life),
are fundamental, and it is through these notions that universality is sought as a
growing, enriching, broadening appreciation and realization of the unity
underlying diversity, rather than as a uniformizing and stultifying "triumph"
over diversity.
Both the universalism = monolingualism myth and its opposite, the
universalism = multilingualism myth, have their blind spots. The pseudouni-
versalistic myth that multilingualism is divisive (splitting off Christians from
Christians, peoples from peoples, proletarians from proletarians) and invidious
(leading to or supporting ethnocentrism and racism) overlooks the calumny,
hatred, pain, and desolation that would-be universalists have heaped upon
those who would not or could not join their ranks (Talmon 1952). Every
expanding establishment incurs the risk of interpreting its own self-interest as
being equivalent to panhuman interest. In addition, such establishments tend to
overlook and to hide from public view the internal disharmony, antagonisms,
tensions, rivalries and power grabs that continue, within their own folds, even
after the disturbing outsiders have been beaten, transethnified, translinguified
and (at least temporarily) erased as separate entities. There is a liberal in-
tegrationist bias here that equates ethnolinguistic multiplicity with invidious-
ness and hatred whilst incorporative monolingualism (incorporative into one's
own language, to be sure) is equated with peace and plenty. This is often
nothing but cruel self-aggrandizement, sanctimoniously masquerading as
sanity and progress. Similarly, the universalism = multilingualism myth often
seeks to hide its self-protective self-interest. In addition, it is often insufficiently
aware of the fact that modernization inevitably adds yet an additional range of
shared behaviors, preferences, values, and attitudes to the lives of peoples all
over the world. These shared manifestations often pose a dire problem for
traditionally varied repertoires and often elicit self-protective rejections rather
than positive reinterpretations and monitored expansions of indigenous sys-
tems. The backlash of small multilingual systems is no more broadminded nor
good-hearted than the thrust of large monolingual ones. How could they be,
when the dangers to them are greater and when the universalist, integrationist
posture seems to deny them the right to exist, while claiming to do so on behalf
of humanity and the higher virtues to boot (Sennett 1976, Patterson 1977,
1978)?
EFFICIENCY = MONOLINGUALISM?
It should be obvious from the foregoing that monolingualism has received its
most spirited defense from conscious and unconscious spokesmen for large-
scale vested interest. Whether it is General Motors or the American Federation
of Teachers or the Interethnic Brotherhood of Deracinated Intellectuals, the
pious view is advanced that "proper" monolingualism is the only sane solution
to poverty, backwardness, and powerlessness. If only all those wild little
peoples out there would speak English (or French, or Russian, or . . . ), they
could solve all their problems (Epstein 1977). They could build stable and
efficient industrial, educational and political systems—"the way we have."
They could become decent, hard-working, thrifty, upwardly mobile and sober
citizens—"the way we are." The practical healing power of English (or French,
or Russian, or . . . ) is limitless. Via a Whorfianism that out-Whorfs Whorf by a
long shot, it is claimed that English improves the crops, raises the gross national
product, avoids drought and earthquakes, and improves television. It assures a
rational life, a rational society, a rational future. Modernity is the pursuit of
rationality in all things. Everything must be known and demystified. There is
no mystery of mysteries, no sanctum sanctorum. Knowledge enables its possessors
to control, to regulate, to maximize efficiency. Since modern society is the child
of the modern marketplace, that marketplace is viewed as rationality and
efficiency-enthroned. In order to produce more inexpensively and distribute
more widely, the market must be efficient in all things. It must reward good
management and good workmanship and place talent where it is needed with
minimal delay. It cannot afford to waste time and money on factors that are
unrelated to efficient and effective production, distribution, and merchandizing.
The assumption that ethnolinguistic differences are contra-indicated on the
basis of their purported inefficiency or nonproductivity has permeated modern
sociology and economics for the past two to three centuries. The purported
inefficiency of "little languages" (whose speakers must become bilingual be-
cause they do not have political of economic strongholds exclusively their own)
condemns them to oblivion. Gemeinschaft is dead (with all of its "superstition"
and "parochialism"); long live Gesellschaft (the triumph of impersonal ef-
ficiency)! Marxism and capitalism may differ fundamentally as to who should
control the producers and the means of production. However, they agree
completely that ethnolinguistic differences merely hamper and fracture that
i). Positive Bilingualism: Some Overlooked Rationales and Forefathers 449
control and, therefore, such differences deserve to be "eliminated".

Nonpartisan sociology agrees wholeheartedly. Ethnolinguistic differences are
irrational and irrelevant to efficient operations and, therefore, they will in-
evitably disappear. They are meaningless, "empty vessels" in the basic pro-
cesses of modern life (Parsons 1975).
However, modernity merely deals with the means of production rather than
with its goals or purposes. The assumption that increased productivity is its
own reward has come to be increasingly questioned on several grounds:
economic, environmental, philosophical. Indeed, there are those who maintain
that it is efficiency and productivity themselves—as directionless and value-free
pursuits—that are empty and meaningless, rather than the ethnolinguistic
diversity that most managers and planners oppose. There are those who now
claim that unless efficiency and productivity serve an indigenous value system
and are attuned to and controlled by indigenous customs, preferences,
priorities, tastes and beliefs, that they are merely disguises for foreign control
and enemies of local self-determination. Sure enough, as local middle-level
econopolitical control increases around the world, i.e., as it grows increasingly
rational and efficient under the control of local ethnolinguistic establishments
(rather than under the control of extralocal establishments), it is attacked in the
more industrial West as being irrational, inefficient, partisan, biased, divisive,
etc. from the point of view of those who are being displaced.
Obviously, efficiency is as efficiency does. Ethnopolitical collectivities seek
economic control for themselves, as a means of maintaining and fostering their
own self-interest. As they rationalize their own economic apparatuses, they
must, invariably, play down certain ethnolinguistic differences within their area
of control and play up others, namely, differences between themselves and those
with whom they are in competition. Thus, modern mid-level econopolitical
establishments around the world have become protectors of locally useful
ethnolinguistic diversity and uniformity. There are more such establishments
today than ever before—at least at the level of intermediate control, and
rationality/efficiency are finally being put to use on behalf of the continuity of
some smaller languages rather than merely in opposition to them all. Thus,
today, there are more languages of modern middle technology, education, and
government than ever before in modern history, at the same time that only a few
languages have worldwide currency at the highest levels (Fishman et al. 1977).
As a result, it now increasingly behooves the former movers and shakers of
monolingual efficiency and rationality to cultivate and foster their own multilin-
gualism if they are to maintain their economic advantages in world markets, just
as middle management everywhere must cultivate one or more world lan-
guages. The Japanese do not sell worldwide in Japanese. Can Americans insist
on doing so in English alone? If not, can they afford to overlook the Japanese
speakers (and speakers of almost every other language) in their own backyard?
Is that an example of much-touted American efficiency?
The association of bilingualism with enrichment is nowhere more apparent

than among the already rich. The fact that English monolingualism is bad for
business (and, therefore, obviously inefficient) may be the most telling argu-
ment for bilingualism on the American scene today. Both efficiency and ratio-
nality require bilingualism, to say nothing of such soft-hearted notions as
decency and humanity. Just as universalism can be pursued on a multilingual
track, so can efficiency and rationality. In a multilingual world it is obviously
more efficient and rational to be multilingual than n o t — a n d that truism
increasingly applies to the whales as well as to the minnows.
FREEDOM = MONOLINGUALISM?
There is a long Western tradition of equating ethnicity with heathenness,

paganness, uncouthness, wildness, peripherality to the (Christian or Judeo-
Christian) mainstream (Fishman, Chapter 2, This Volume). That interpretation
is related not only to universalist aspirations vis-à-vis escaping from the confines
of "narrow ethnicity", but to psychodynamic aspirations of escape from any
and all ethnicity. Whether ethnicity is related to marginality and lack of civility
(which is a widespread mainstream-American view), or whether it is interpreted
as peopleness-relatedness (i.e., being French, being Italian, being Polish, being
X - i s h — a widespread Eastern European view), it is, in either case, often viewed
by the deethnified as a restriction on individual freedom, a blinder on the mind,
a limitation on the soul. Little languages—and it is the mother-tongue speakers
of little languages that more typically need to be bilingual—are similarly
viewed as restrictive and as intrapunitive with respect to cognition, personality,
and happiness per se. Thus, the escape from little languages is viewed as
liberating, as joyful, as self-fulfilling, as self-actualizing.
The latter view, which equates mainstream monolingualism with freedom,
goes one step beyond the former view, which merely equated it with greater
universality and efficiency. Universality and efficiency may still result in a higher
order, a broader, a more inclusive ethnicity: all the world will be Roman,
Americans all, the united proletariat, internationals unlimited, etc., etc.!
However, ultimately, even broader ethnicity can be limiting. Therefore, some
opponents of ethnicity and multilingualism hold that each person should strive
to be just that: a person, an individual, a free soul, a blithe spirit; untrammeled,
unfettered, unbound, unobliged by stultifying conventions; spontaneous, un-
rehearsed; true to his/her inner self, inner needs, inner longings, inner creative
urges. Were we only flower children, one and all, living naturally, naturalisti-
cally, all of our inner talents would develop, our inner goodness would blossom
forth, love would triumph in the world, and light would vanquish darkness
once and for all.
ij. Positive Βι lingua lism: Some Overlooked Rationales and Forefathers 451
From Epicurus to Rousseau to Abbie Hoffman to Devereux (197 5 ), there is a

continuous search for tension release, for guilt avoidance, for natural man,
natural joys, childish innocence, and blamelessness. And in modern days, as in
earlier ones, it plays down language per se (and, of course, language differences
and language diversity) as unimportant at best, and as highly undesirable at
worst. At most, mankind needs but one tongue, and even then "at most" (Baker
1950). The ultimate blessing is that of silence, of phatic communion, of smiles,
of kisses, of hugs, of sunsets and sunups, of flowers, and of love. Thus, it is not
enough to strive for a world of one universal brotherhood and of one universal
tongue. One must "push on beyond zebra" to a world of free-floating individ-
ualists who accept themselves and each other well enough not even to have to
talk at all. Let us shrug, grunt, wink, and sigh our way to freedom!
The myth of monolingual or alingual freedom—of freedom to be
unrelated—is counterposed by the myth of freedom to be associated, connected,
related. The counterclaim to blissful silence is one that stresses that I am not
really " m e , " the true me, the real me, the whole me, unless I am free to speak my
language whenever I want to, unless I am free to maintain my customs, to raise
my children so that they will be able to continue and treasure those ethnolin-
guistic gifts that I continue and treasure, and in terms of which I define myself,
know myself, express myself, and relate myself to my nearest and dearest. If I am
a mother-tongue speaker of a small language and a native member of a small
ethnic collectivity, I may very well have to add other languages and member-
ships to my repertoire, but unless I am enabled to retain that which is initially
and fundamentally mine, my initial language and my initial people, I am not
free, not true to myself, but am shut off from the most meaningful and intimate
relationship with man and God. What greater good, what greater joy, what
greater spontaneity, what greater naturalness, what greater loveliness, than to
be amongst one's own, than to express and experience Gemeinschaft. If the world
beats a path to our door and offers us the stars and the moon, what profit is there
in it for us if we have not yet made peace with ourselves, with our origins, with
our own kith and kin? "Behold, thou hast been careful for us with all this care;
what is to be done for thee? . . . And she answered: Ί dwell among mine own
people' " (2 Kings, 4:13), and, therefore, presumably I am content, I know true
happiness; who could ask for anything more?
Obviously, these two longings, the longing "to be free to be unrelated" and
the longing "to be free to be related," have different implications for bilingua-
lism. Both longings are frequently present together in the same society and,
indeed, in the same individual. They can follow each other as the dominant
themes or sentiments of successive historical periods. Thus our flower children
often became roots seekers. These are not necessarily antithetical, because the
ethos of small-scale experience permeates them both. They are both defenses
against the dehumanization pressures of large-scale government, industry,
45 * IV E tòno Unguistic Pluralism in Herderian and Whorfian Perspective
labor, ideology, warfare, education, communication media and conferences.

However, the difference between them is a vital one. It is only the latter path
that leads to communitas, and, therefore, only it can foster multilingualism in
a way that both protects the core and expands it.
HERDER AND WHORF: HEROES OF

MULTILINGUALISM
I have tried to show that the most common myths on behalf of monolingualism
can be and are also used on behalf of multilingualism. Multilingualism is not
some outmoded "hand-me-down" from the poverty pockets of America and of
the world at large. Multilingualism can be defended as leading to true universal-
ism. Multilingualism can be viewed as consonant with meaningful efficiency
and rationality. Multilingualism can be regarded as a defense of freedom. None
of the foregoing benefits need to be surrendered to the monolingual establish-
ment. Let me now attempt a similar rehabilitation for two such overlooked
champions of diversity as Herder and Whorf. When fully understood, they can
both be regarded as heroes of a positive multilingualism rather than of its
opposite, a narrow monolingual chauvinism.
Johann Gottfried Herder (1744—1803) is best remembered as the apostle of
German ethnolinguistic self-acceptance in the face of French cultural snobbery,
political domination, and economic control. He was tireless in admonishing
German princelings, intellectuals, and men of affairs that they would amount to
nothing in their own eyes and in the eyes of the world until they accepted
themselves and asserted themselves as Germans. Beyond that, Herder was the
champion of the still-unspoiled Slavs—and the champion, indeed, of any people
that had not lost its language and its soul, its authenticity and its uniqueness, in
the struggle with modernity. Herder's rhetoric still rings throughout the world
today wherever an ethnolinguistic group seeks to become "the master of its
own house," i.e., "to become modern but in its own X-ish fashion," in its own
X-ish language, and with its own X-ish establishment in control. However, if
this is all we remember of Herder (and usually it is), then we are likely to
misinterpret him as opposing multilingualism and as espousing linguistic
discontinuity ad infinitum. Nothing could be further from the truth (Ergang
1931).
Herder is full of admiration for the Jews, the Chinese, and the Hindus, three
people who have been conquered, forced to immigrate, and to learn other
languages, but who have purportedly never lost themselves or their own
languages. In his treatment of the Jews, Herder is particularly insistent that
the Western Christian world understand them as they view themselves, as
a complete, fully functioning ethnolinguistic entity, rather than as harbingers
i j . Positive Bilingualism: Some Overlooked Rationales and Forefathers 453
o f some greater unity yet to come under Christian auspices. Via an under-
standing o f the Jews, in their o w n right, Herder leads to an understanding and
appreciation of all small and weak (but still wonderfully creative) peoples. His
deepest conviction is that nothing benefits a country more than to treasure the
languages and cultures o f its various peoples because in doing so, it fosters
intergroup understanding and realizes greater dividends in the f o r m of origi-
nality, creativity, and versatility. Herder is, therefore, an advocate o f language
planning o n behalf o f shared multilingualism, advising the princelings o f his
day and age that " a ruler [should] not only tolerate but honor the various
languages of his nationalities . . . [in order] to plant the seeds of well-being for
the most distant f u t u r e " (Herder 1877—1913.^01. 17, 58—59). T h u s , Herder
holds not only that small and unfortunate peoples may well have to be multilin-
gual, but he urges that strong and dominant peoples should be multilingual as
well. Languages that are maintained can be shared. O n c e they are lost, not only
their original speakers, but the rest o f mankind as well, becomes irreparably
impoverished. Universal multilingualism is, for Herder, the only sensible
universalism.
W h o r f , too, has been understood too narrowly. O f course, he c l a i m s — i n his

strongest s t a n c e — t h a t different grammars bring about fundamentally different
and inescapable ways o f v i e w i n g reality (Fishman i960). But he also claims
more than that, and more important (and more valid) things than that. H e
claims, first o f all, that every language must be understood in terms o f its o w n
categories, rather than in terms of any purportedly universal but, more likely,
Standard A v e r a g e European ( S A E ) categories. H e claims, secondly, that seeing
the world through another grammar is a beneficial, enriching, valuable ex-
perience, particularly for intellectuals and scientists associated with powerful
establishments since they are most likely to confuse reality with a single set o f
unconscious, culture-laden biases. This conviction leads one Whorfian to assert
that Einstein w o u l d have benefited enormously if he had only thought through
the theory o f relativity in Hopi, a language in which energy and matter are
purportedly conceived o f jointly, or at least differently than in S A E (Chase
1956). Regardless o f whether that claim is true or not, w e must v i e w it as an
attempt to stress that ethnolinguistic communities have their unique ways o f
viewing the world, and that their languages give us systematic clues to what
those views are. In that case some A n g l o s should learn H o p i , even as the H o p i
learns English, so that A n g l o s too can be enriched by another perspective,
rather than mistakenly regard their parochialism as G o d - g i v e n universal truth.
Basically, W h o r f was arguing against the excessive pride o f English monolin-

guals and o f those w h o w o u l d save the w o r l d by popularizing English.
[To] restrict thinking to the patterns merely of English, and especially to those
patterns that represent the acme of plainness in English, is to lose a power of thought
which, once lost, can never be regained. It is the "plainest" English which contains
the greatest number of unconscious assumptions about nature. This is the trouble
with schemes like basic English, in which an eviscerated British English, with its
concealed premises working harder than ever, is to be fobbed off on an unsuspecting
world as the substance of pure Reason itself. We handle even our plain English with
much greater effect if we direct it from the vantage point of a multilingual awareness (my
italics: J A F ; Whorf 1 9 4 1 : 268).
E v e n though w e must reject many of W h o r f ' s best-known premises today

(as to grammatical constraints on cognition), I doubt that w e can improve on his
pluralism premises. Multilingualism is valuable to society. It does bring man
closer to true universalism. It is more rational than monolingualism in the
multinational w o r l d of today and t o m o r r o w . It is more liberating without being
alienating. In this day and age, English speakers need it most.
NOTE
ι. The "seventy nations" is a concept based on the list of the descendente of Noah given in
Genesis 10, usually called "the table of the nations." According to the table, all nations of the
earth may be classified as descended from one or another of Noah's three sons: Shem, Ham
and Japeth. The principle behind the classification is generally geographic proximity rather
than ethnic or linguistic connection. Just as there were 70 nations, so there were 70 languages
(cf. Targum Jonathan, Genesis 11.7 and Deuteronomy }2.8). Thus the law engraved on the
tablets on Mt. Ebal (Deuteronomy 27:2) was written in 70 languages (Sotah 7:5), so that all
nations might read it. For the same reason, the divine voice that made itself heard at Sinai
divided itself into 70 tongues (Shabbat 88b et al.). The motif of the 70 nations is widely used
in rabbinic literature, as is its derivative 70 tongues. Thus, the 70 sacrifices offered on
Tabernacles are said to atone for the 70 nations (Sukkat ;;b). The 70 members of the
Sanhédrin were likewise thought to correspond to the 70 nations of the world and to speak all
the languages of the world (Targum Yerushalmi, Genesis 28:3). For an early Christian
attempt to cope with the concept (or, rather, with the "problem") of 70 nations, see Saint
Augustine's The City of God, Book X V I , topics 1 0 - 1 2 . For a review of issues encountered in
counting and classifying the nations, see Krauss 1899.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, S.J. The pattern of language. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1950, 42, 25-66. Chase, Stuart.
Foreword to: Carroll, J.B. (ed.), Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf New York, Wiley, 1956.
Devereux, George. Ethnic identity: Its logical foundations and its dysfunctions, in de Vos, G. and
L. Romanucci-Ross (eds.), Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change. Palo Alto, Mayfield,
1975, 42-7°·
Epstein, Noel. Language, Ethnicity and the Schools. Washington, D.C., The George Washington
Institute for Educational Leadership, 1977.
ιj. Positive Eilingualism: Some Overlooked Rationales and Forefathers 45 5
Fishman, Joshua A . A systemization of the Whorfian hypothesis. Behavioral Sciences. 1960,

323-339·
. Language, ethnicity and racism, in Saville-Troike, Muriel (ed.), Georgetown University Round
Table on Languages and Linguistics 1977· Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 1977,
297-309. Also, revised, Chapter 2, This Volume.
. Robert L . Cooper, Andrew W. Conrad, et al. The Spread of English, Rowley (MA),
Herder, J . G . Sammtliche Werke. Edited by B. Suphan, E . Redlich, et al. 33 vols. Berlin, 1 8 7 7 - 1 9 1 3 .
Krauss, Samuel. Die Zahl der biblischen Volkerschaften. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft und die Kunde des nachbiblischen Judentums. 1899, 19, 1 - 1 4 .
Parsons, Talcott. Some theoretical considerations on the nature and trends of change of ethnicity, in
Glazer, N . and D.P. Moynihan, Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. Cambridge, Harvard University
Press, 1975, 5 3 - 8 3
Patterson, Orlando. Ethnic Chauvinism: The Reactionaiy Impulse. N e w Y o r k , Stein and Day, 1977.
. Hidden dangers in the ethnic revival. New York Times. February 20, 1978, O p - E d page.
Sennett, Richard. Pure as the driven slush. New York Times, May 10, 1976, p. 27.
Talmon, J . L . The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy. Boston, Beacon, 1952.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language and logic. MIT Technology Review. 1 9 4 1 , 2 5off.
Chapter 14
The Whorfian Hypothesis: Varieties of

Valuation, Confirmation and Disconfirmation
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN
In the mid 1930s, an American anthropological linguist, Benjamin Lee Whorf

(1897-1941), kindled widespread academic interest in a hypothesis that is in
reality a very ancient one insofar as the history of ideas within the Euro-
Mediterranean world is concerned. This hypothesis claims that the vastly
differently structured languages of mankind lead their respective speakers to
vastly different views and experiences of reality, of nature, of life itself. Although
this hypothesis had been of interest as far back as Herodotus (who suspected
that Egyptian behavior was often opposite to Greek behavior because
Egyptians wrote from right to left whereas Greeks [by then] wrote from left to
right ), and although it became a theme in such modern European intellectual
and literary movements as romanticism, nationalism, the rise of modern anthro-
pology and the birth of modern social psychology, it was Whorf who was
interpreted by many as having restated it in ways that made it intellectually
exciting and, above all, testable for modern American linguists, anthropol-
ogists, psychologists, general semanticists and others concerned with the cen-
trality of language in human affairs. Indeed, thanks to Whorf, who may actually
have been stressing other things (Fishman, Chapter 15, This Volume), this
hypothesis has achieved the status of a legend of mankind, i.e., the status of a
view that provides insights into the history of ideas more generally and that
continues to be stimulating above and beyond its confirmability, above and
beyond science, above and beyond empiricism and even rationality per se. N o
wonder then that the sociology of language, too, has had to face this hypothesis
and ponder its meaning and its validity. Let us temporarily set aside the
question of whether or not Whorf really intended to say what so many have so
long interpreted him as having said. Let us assume that Whorf really was a
Whorfian to the fullest degree and let us see where that assumption takes us.
WHORF IN THE COMPANY OF THE "GREAT

DETRACTORS"
In terms of the above interpretation of the hypothesis that bears his name,
Whorf is, in some ways, comparable to various other "great debunkers,"
towering intellectuals who have cut mankind down to size and counteracted its
generally inflated view of the centrality of the human species in all of creation.
One such "debunker" was Copernicus, who advanced the realization that our
planet is only a mere speck in an entire system-of-systems-of-planets, and, as
if that were not enough, that it is not even at the center of its own subsystem.
This shocking view is injurious to our amour propre and to our most hallowed
theologies to boot. Another "great debunker" was undoubtedly Darwin. He
stressed that mankind is not an independent species but part of the huge animal
kingdom with which it shares many characteristics and regulatory processes.
Another blow to our self-esteem! As if Copernicus and Darwin were not enough
to dethrone mankind, Marx contributed further in this same direction by
stressing that much of human culture and identity are no more than "super-
structure," i.e., they are no more than the byproducts of the control of material
resources, shaped and fashioned by those who control the means of production.
As if that were not enough, Freud further demasked and diminished our claim
to rationality. In human behavior the instinctual passions, he tells us, are never
far below the surface and it takes no more than a minor scratch to reveal and
release them in all of their urgency and destructiveness.
What do all of the "great debunkers" have in common? Underlying all of
their views is the message that mankind is far from being a free and independent
entity. Indeed, humanity is merely part of a much larger, much prior and totally
inescapable system of constraints, influences and relationships. These constitute
powerful but hidden forces that govern our lives, our consciousness and our
purposes. And why is Benjamin Lee Whorf in this company of "great detrac-
tors," notwithstanding his rapture for the sociocultural diversity of the human
species? Because the hypothesis that carries his name implies a powerful and
relatively hidden constraint or bond that differentially controls the behaviors of
various human populations: the structures of the languages that they speak.
Because of the radically different morphosyntactic patterns of human lan-
guages, a great variety of different realities confront the separate sociocultural
collectivities that constitute the human species. Each is unable to "simply see
what is really out there" or to think, imagine, remember or problem-solve
freely and impartially. Each is constrained in all that it understands, feels, and
aspires to by the mold, by the shape, by the stencil, by the contours of its
particular grammar and forced thereby to recognize and interpret reality only
and always in accord with those patterns that the particular grammar recognizes
and imposes on every thought and on every formulation.
i j . The Whorfian Hypothesis: Confirmation and Disconfirmation 459
Regardless of how we view the other "greater detractors," it would probably

be erroneous to consider Whorf as a pessimist at heart with respect to the future
of mankind. Whorf may be understood as saying (perhaps along with Freud)
that there are very definite and normally unrealized limitations to sociocultural
behavior. As a result, it is doubly necessary that we become aware of these built-
in blinders and of their variety (their frequently striking differences, particularly
across language families) so that we can more readily share the insights of
various language-dependent worldviews rather than remain ignorantly and
smugly locked into our own without realizing that other worldviews exist;
others that we can share if we but take the trouble to become familiar with them.
Precisely because Whorf can be interpreted as believing that there are only a
limited number of language-based perspectives available to mankind, he must
also be interpreted as basically arguing for the benefits of language pluralism:
the world will be a better place and humanity will be more successful in solving
its ever more serious problems if we all master more (and more dissimilar)
languages, because then we can share perspectives and shift perspectives more
appropriately. The height of rationality, for Whorf, is the ability to select from
among many language-dependent perspectives and to combine them produc-
tively. Thus, Whorf may not be a detractor or debunker at all. Indeed, he may be
an admirer of a human potential that is, regrettably, all too often lost: the potential
to learn several languages and to be enriched thereby. In either case, however,
the question remains: is he right? Are sociocultural behaviors seriously, fundament-
ally, powerfully and differentially shaped by the different language structures through which
they are expressed?
THE MANY FACES OF BENJAMIN LEE WHORF AND

OF THE WHORFIAN HYPOTHESIS
Whorf's message is a mind-boggling and all-encompassing one. No wonder

then that it has been variously interpreted and variously tested. The very same
linguistic constraints that pertain everywhere else in sociocultural behavior
must also pertain to grasping and wrestling with the Whorfian hypothesis itself.
Furthermore, the hypothesis of differential linguistic determinism was not his
invention. Not only classical Euro-Mediterranean thought but much modern
social theory posits the dependence of all we know and do, and the variety of what
we know and do, across sociocultural entities, on language and on the basic
language discontinuities within humankind. Did not Herder consider all of
human history to be maintained in motion by the differential tempos of the
languages of mankind? Did not Humboldt and various other early fathers of
modern anthropology consider each language to be a precious jewel, an
irreplaceable source of human understanding, such that the loss of any one of
them was an irreparable loss not only for science but for mankind as a whole?
Does not much of anthropology and folklore, as well as innumerable social
movements on behalf of cultural democracy and cultural pluralism, share this
view even today and derive it from sources of inspiration, conviction and
confirmation other than Whorf (Fishman 1972)? If so, what is WhorPs unique
contribution to this ancient area of discourse? Basically his contribution is
twofold:
(a) He served as a bridge, probably unconsciously so, bringing this ancient
idea—in modern dress to be sure—to the attention of a formative generation of
American anthropological linguists. As a student and protégé of Edward Sapir
at Yale, Whorf was able to influence other students of Sapir, many of whom
subsequently attained eminence in the annals of American anthropological
linguistics (e.g., Mary Haas, Morris Swadesh, George Trager, Carl Voegelin),
to become seriously interested in the hypothesis themselves and to pass this
interest along to their own students (many of whom in turn remain interested in
it to this very day);
(b) He formulated the hypothesis simultaneously in more exact terms and in more
mystic terms than heretofore, thereby generating both rational and supernatural
conviction in connection with it. As a fire engineer (a field that he pioneered at
M I T and in which he remained active even while his anthropological linguistic
interests blossomed and constantly gained priority in his undertakings), Whorf
was able so to state and generalize the hypothesis in terms of basic human
abilities, that a sizable number of cognitive psychologists and anthropologists,
accustomed to rigorous and quantitative experimentation, pursued the
hypothesis (explicitly assigning WhorPs name to it) in terms of their natural
science model of inquiry. On the other hand, as a deeply religious and
humanistic thinker and as a mystic interested in Zen and in the occult, Whorf
was able so to state the hypothesis that it reverberated strongly (and does so to
this day) in circles that are far from the natural science model of knowing and
proving, even though some of them are fully engaged in a part of the total
enterprise known as science. Given such divergent facets in WhorPs own
writings, and given their appeal to equally (if not more) divergent circles of
thinkers in the sciences, humanities and occult fields, little wonder then that
Whorf continues to be differently understood, tested and evaluated to this very
day.
RELATIVE LINGUISTIC DETERMINISM A N D

LANGUAGE X
Let us initially follow the experimental cognitive tradition of inquiry with

respect to the Whorfian hypothesis that was clearly dominant in the 1950s. As
¡4- The Whorfian Hypothesis: Confirmation and Disconfirmation 461
Table 1. A Systemiâtion of the Whorfian Hypothesis (Fishman i960)
Data of Language Characteristics Data of (Cognitive) Behavior
Language data Nonlinguistic

"cultural themes") data
Lexical or "semantic" characteristics Level 1 Level 2
Grammatical characteristics Level 3 Level 4
an example of how this might be done, let us consider language X (a real

language, spoken natively by some six million speakers and nonnatively, i.e., as
a second language, by half as many again) and let us try to imagine what its
structure might " d o " (how it might shape, fashion, mold, constrain) the
cognitive processes of its speakers. In particular, let us ask ourselves: what
might be the differential impact on cognition of the Xish " v e r b , " given that it
has the following rather unusual characteristics relative to the English verb:
ι. It is not inflected (conjugated) by person but in accord with whether it is
followed by a noun, pronoun, or has no word following it.
2. It has no inflection by tense. Tense is indicated by the associated pronoun
system rather than by the "verbal" particle per se.
3. Each "tense" has three different pronoun systems indicating affirmative,
negative and emphatic/contrastive.
4. Thus, there is a present, with its three pronoun systems; a past, with its three
pronoun systems; and T H R E E futures (uncertain, somewhat certain and
entirely certain), each with its three pronoun systems.
5. Thus, all in all, the X verbal system is associated with 15 different pronoun
systems.
What might be the impact on cognition of the X "verb"? Several lines of
inquiry can hypothesized: Perhaps with "verbs" like that, speakers are more
likely to express (encode) negative, positive and emphatic occurrences (level 1 of
the Whorfian hypothesis according to Table 1, Fishman i960). Perhaps the
speakers are more likely to remember whether heard, observed or otherwise
experienced stimuli were positive, negative or emphatic (level 2). Perhaps the
speakers more accurately communicate certainty and uncertainty with respect
to the future (level 3). Perhaps they are more aware of degrees of future
uncertainty in life since every future action must be encoded for degree of
uncertainty (level 4).
All in all, these four levels of the Whorfian hypothesis (or, as we should more
carefully say, the Whorfian hypothesis) have been studied, evaluated and
commented upon repeatedly during half a century or more of cognitive re-

search. The consensus reached with respect to each level is roughly as follows:
SCHEMATIC SYSTEMIZATION OF THE WHORFIAN

HYPOTHESIS (FISHMAN i960)
Level / of the Whorfian hypothesis predicts that speakers of languages that make
certain lexical distinctions are enabled thereby to talk about certain matters (for
example, different kinds of snow among speakers of Eskimo and different kinds
of horses among speakers of Arabic) that cannot as easily be discussed by
speakers of languages that do not make these lexical distinctions. Similarly, level
) of the Whorfian hypothesis predicts that speakers of languages that possess
particular grammatical features (absence of tense in the verb system, as in Hopi,
or whether adjectives normally precede or follow the noun, as in English vs.
French) predispose these speakers to certain cultural styles or emphases (time-
lessness; inductiveness vs. deductiveness). These two levels of the Whorfian
hypothesis have often been criticized for their anecdotal and fragmentary nature
vis-à-vis language and behavior as well as for their circularity, in that they utilize
verbal evidence for both their independent (causal) and dependent (consequen-
tial) variables. Level 2 of the Whorfian hypothesis predicts that the availability of
certain lexical items or distinctions enables the speakers of these languages to
remember, perceive, or learn nonlinguistic tasks more rapidly or completely
than can the speakers of languages that lack these particular lexical items or
distinctions. This level of the Whorfian hypothesis has been demonstrated
several times, e.g., in connection with the differing color terminologies of
English and Zuni—but it is difficult to argue that the absence of lexical items or
distinctions in a particular language is more a cause of behavioral differences
than a reflection of the differing sociocultural concerns or norms of its speakers.
As soon as speakers of Zuni become interested in orange (color) they devise a
term for it. Linguistic determinism should be more stable and less manipulable
than that! Level 4 of the Whorfian hypothesis is the most demanding of all. It
predicts that grammatical characteristics of languages facilitate or render more
difficult various nonlinguistic behaviors on the part of their speakers. This level
has yet to be successfully demonstrated via experimental studies of cognitive
behavior.
With respect to the fourth level of the Whorfian hypothesis, it is clear that the
linguistic data of interest (let us call it A) is all-encompassingly morphosyntactic
in nature rather than merely one or another lexical item or even one or another
semantic typology. On the other hand, the nonlinguistic data of interest (let us
call it B) is clearly and all-encompassingly cognitive and pervasive, rather than
verbal and partial. It is the Whorfian fascination with the striking variety of
human languages, with their individuality and uniqueness, and finally the
Whorfian need to appreciate them most fully in their own terms (rather than in any
abstract universal terms or in any concrete Greco-Latin terms) that moved
cognitive specialists to seek ever-more-refined ways of gauging the impact of A
upon Β or, to put it more carefully, to discern characteristics of A-linguistic
structure in the performance structure of B. The most famous study of this kind
was the Southwest Project of the mid 50s wherein a team of outstanding
psychologists, linguists and anthropologists set out to compare Hopis, Anglos
and Hispanos in order to investigate the differential causal link from A-
structure to B-structure (Carrol and Casagrande 1958). Thus, since the Hopi
transitive verb requires that the shape of objects of verbs be encoded (pre-
sumably the verb "to hit" would be structurally different if one were to refer to
hitting something round, something square or something elongated), one
study investigated the object-categorizing behavior vis-à-vis differently-colored
round objects, square objects and long objects by monolingual Hopi children
and monolingual Anglo children. The English transitive verb does not
automatically encode either for color or shape and, therefore, one might
hypothesize that monolingual Anglo children would categorize objects as
frequendy by color (across shapes) as by shape (across colors). On the other
hand, since the Hopi transitive verb automatically encodes the shapes of the
objects of any action, one might hypothesize that monolingual Hopi children
would categorize objects more frequently by shape (across colors) than by
colors (across shapes). This did not turn out to be the case; indeed, Anglo
children tended to make somewhat more Hopi-like categorizations than did the
Hopi children themselves, (although overall, the two groups of children did not
differ significantly). As a result, Whorfian-inspired sociocognitive experimental
research has ground to a near halt ever since. 1
COPING WITH FAILURE: SIX CRITICISMS OF

WHORF
The inability of the sociocognitive school to confirm the Whorfian hypothesis

on the basis of repeated efforts in accord with its own research strictures and
scruples has resulted in at least six different types of criticism being directed at
their interpretation of Whorf and Whorfianism:
i . i . Model of difference. How can we tell whether language structures are
significantly different? Whorf does so by translating morph by morph from a
variety of contrast languages (most often from Hopi) into English. However,
there is no reason at all to assume that the cumbersome and distorted English
that results from such translations in any way reflects the thought pattern of the
typical speaker of the contrast language. The fact that Spanish se me cayó de las
464 IV Rthnolinguistic Pluralism in Herderian and Wborfian Perspective
manos and Yiddish mir aroysgefalnfun di hent both translate as "it to me fell out
of the hands" (rather than " I dropped it") should not at all be interpreted as a
tendency for blame avoidance or an inability to perceive causality ("it fell because I
dropped it") on the part of Spanish or Yiddish speakers who have no other
handy way of saying " I dropped it" short of " I threw it down." Whorf is too
taken up with the surface differences between languages that his translation
method reveals and fails to recognize that these may be irrelevant to basic
cognitive similarities.
2. Model of language-in-society. Whorf is often unconsciously imprisoned with the
view that all speech communities are naturally monolingual (one culture = one
language). Furthermore, even with respect to generally monolingual societies
he is apparendy unaware of structurally different varieties within the "one
language" of the community. The varieties utilized by monolingual
communities may differ grammatically from each other every bit as much as do
the languages of multilingual communities. Furthermore, in both cases, many
members of speech communities adeptly implement a repertoire and, as a result,
are accustomed to utilizing (navigating) different grammars in conjunction with
different functions rather than being irrevocably locked into any one of them.
Thus, in a sense many, if not most, speech networks have already (and have
always) attained the liberating and perspective-generating grammatical and
behavioral pluralism that Whorf so forcefully championed.
3. Model of alterabilitj. Language itself is not as fixed, by any means, as Whorf
assumed. Not only do grammars change over time but grammars are
consciously changed by their speakers. The entire enterprise known to us as
language planning was either unknown to or ignored by Whorf. By virtue of
this enterprise, which entails the authoritative allocation of resources (time,
money, effort, negative and positive sanctions) to language (Fishman 1974,
1980), speech communities have not only altered and elaborated their writing
systems and lexicons, but they have also changed various tight and pervasive
structural systems of their languages such as color typologies, kinship
typologies, pronoun systems, number systems, honorific system, verb systems,
etc. (Fishman 1975, Fishman 1977, Ferguson 1983, Milan 1983). Whorf's view
of language structures as basically given and unmodifiable, reflecting a mystic and
mythic antiquity beyond the memory of mankind, is probably unfounded and
certainly exaggerated. To whatever extent language structures do impede what
speakers want to or need to say (assuming e.g., that outsiders or bilingual
insiders could inform or convince them of such wants or needs), they can modify
their language, even its basic pervasive structures, in order to make that
possible. It is therefore clear, once more, that the various segments of mankind
are not trapped by their various grammars, certainly not to the degree that
Whorf claimed.
4. Model of directionality. Whorf is one among several champions of language-as-
prime-cause. Most students, however, consider the relationship between

language and society to be a circular one. While language obviously functions
to reinforce a certain prior reality, it is insufficient in order to bring that reality into
being by itself. Changing common usage from chair/*«» to chairperson, from
mailman, congressman and weatherman to whatever nonsexist equivalents
women's liberation advocates may prefer, are not themselves sufficient steps in order
to bringabout social change with respect to how women are perceived/reacted to or
with respect to their available and acceptable social roles and statuses. As a
result, those who advocate social changes in these respects obviously do not rely
upon language change and usage change alone. On the one hand, they advocate
and implement fargoing legal and overt behavioral changes. On the other hand,
they advocate and implement language changes to indicate, and to solidify (to
implement) the legal and overt behavioral changes that they seek to foster.
Language usage and language structure thus point to a social reality and reflect a
social reality, but they are not themselves the sole or even the prime causes of
that reality.
5. Model of human communication. The human species is far more versatile in
coping with the inevitable limitations in its communications systems—
languages being the prime ones involved—than Whorf acknowledged.
Languages, admittedly, are imperfect systems and their imperfections are
neither identical, calibrated, nor comparable across languages. Nevertheless,
humanity struggles more successfully with this problem than Whorf admitted.
We often weigh our words, choose our metaphors, select our prosodies,
gesticulate and engage in other kinemics, in order to stress or modify what we
are saying. We seek and utilize eye contact and, increasingly, when all else fails,
we resort to numerical or other symbol systems to supplement or replace
human language. All in all, we are far more valiant, nimble, experienced and
successful strugglers and jugglers with language-and-communication problems
than Whorf realized. Whorf dealt with "the other side of the coin," the dark and
problematic side of cross-cultural and interdisciplinary communication. The
sunny side of the coin is equally (or even more) impressive, however, and must
certainly not be overlooked, for in doing so we also overlook much that is most
distinctively human about diverse speech communities, namely, their readiness
to find a way out of communication impasses and language shortcomings.
6. Model of cognition. Many of the pervasive cognitive processes that have been
investigated in conjunction with the Whorfian hypothesis are now known to be
or suspected of being prelingual rather than posdingual in human development.
Thus, instead of being constrained by the rise of prior linguistic structures, they
are more likely themselves to be prior circumstances, processes and structures
that shape human language and that do so along rather universal neuro-psycho-
bio-linguistic lines. If there is a chicken-and-egg problem, and (in the view of
his cognitivist interpreters) Whorf implies that there is, and that it is language
466 I V Ethnolinguistic Pluralism in Herderian and Whorfian Perspective
that is the original cause, then it is likely that mind fashions language as much as,
or even more than, language fashions mind.
All in all, a rather large body of critical literature has accumulated dealing
with Whorf and Whorfianism from the vantage point of experimental, hard
science, cognitivistic research. From this point of view (and we will see below
that there are other, more positive points of view as well), there is simply no
justification for focusing on differential language structures as the causal factors
in value structures, Weltanschauugen, cultural outlooks, and cognitive styles,
whether viewed across cultures or within any one or another of them.
ON THE OTHER HAND: BENEFICIAL BY-PRODUCTS

OF THE COGNITIVI ST STRUGGLE WITH WHORF
A good theory produces valuable findings even when it is ultimately dis-

credited. If the Whorfian hypothesis has been discredited (and it is not at all clear
to nonexperimentalists that it has been), then its saving grace is certainly the fact
that there have obviously been several very positive by-products of struggling
with it. In addition to the above lines of criticism, several highly productive
research traditions and areas of specialization have been derived from the effort
to test, clarify and delimit the Whorfian hypothesis.
ι . Ethnosciences. While no longer viewing folk typologies as inescapable blind-
ers vis-à-vis their speech communities, the view that such typologies provide
incomparable clues to the culturally-invested views, biases, preferences and
expectations of their speakers remains an unshaken article of faith among many
social scientists (particularly among anthropologists) and humanists. As related
approaches to the study of culturally invested predispositions, ethnolinguistics,
ethnosemantics, ethnostylistics, and ethnocognition, all continue to focus
squarely upon language and to remind us again and again that it was Whorf who
underscored the role of language in encoding and protecting such structured
predispositions. For some, the admission that no demonstration of original causality
is implied is an admission that Whorf has been defeated even on his own
supracognitive home-ground. For others, however, this is far from being the
case. Indeed, Whorf is once again being interpreted within the ethnoscience
tradition as being interested in more all-encompassing, more culturally-based,
more emotion-laden, more attitudinally- and value-permeated Weltanschauungen
than cognitivists have ever tried (let alone succeeded in) grappling with
(Mathiot 1979, Friedrich 1979). The whole notion of experiments, of demoting
the rich and subtle web of language to nothing more than dry-as-dust gram-
matical structures, and of demoting the infinite web of culturally patterned
behaviors to insipid experimental tasks such as object sorting, is viewed as
vulgarizing Whorf rather than as testing (let alone disconfirming) him. What is
/4• The Whorfian Hypothesis: Confirmation and Disconfirmation 467
needed, from this point of view, is not so much to experimentally separate

language from culture (this is likened to 19th-century psychometric efforts to
separate mind from body so that the two could be studied in terms of the impact
of the one on the other, as if one could ever exist without the other), but an ever
richer, more holistic realization of the intricate and endless intertwining of the
two. For this purpose—a purpose which many attribute to Whorf—the eth-
nosciences (and, more holistically inclined areas of specialization beyond
them, focusing upon poetry, verbal art and imagery, folksongs, folk tales,
proverbs, etc.) constitute attempts to appreciate and understand Whorf more
fully. They have certainly formulated basic analytic approaches and have
yielded enlightening insights in the process of so doing.
2. Theories of Language Universals. Whorf aimed a spotlight at the differences
between languages in order to stress the uniqueness, individuality, and authen-
ticity of each language. Nevertheless, even Whorf admitted that some lan-
guages were more different than others. The languages whose differences did
not really interest him were those of the Indo-European family. He dubbed
them all Standard Average European (SAE). However, even more short-
sightedly, Whorf had no generalizable conceptual approach to differences
between languages, i.e., he had no concept of dimensionality with respect to
interlanguage differences. If he had had such notions, he would certainly have
realized that the more esoteric non-Western languages (let us call them the
Really Different Languages) also come in families or clusters, each of which
have their Standard Average Characteristics every bit as much as do the Indo-
European languages. Pursuing this line of thought, he would have arrived at the
realization that language universals (the ways in which all languages are similar to
each other) and language differentials are merely two sides of the same coin,
neither of which can be fully appreciated without appreciating the magnitude
and the dimensions of the other. However, that is exactly the appreciation that
developed in some circles as a result of grappling with Whorf. Alongside the
one-sided Whorfian (and even a more general linguistic) predisposition of the
time to be concerned disproportionately with the uniqueness or "differentness"
of each language, there developed various new approaches to studying the
family similarities of some languages and even the universal similarities of all
languages. At least some of these new approaches to universals derive explicitly
from the stimulation of struggling with Whorf (Greenberg 1963).
3. Sociolinguistics. The modern sociolinguistic enterprise that has developed

since the early 60s is, to some extent, also a by-product of struggling with
Whorfian notions of causal directionality in connection with the language-
society nexus. In distinction to the Whorfian claim (or, at least, the experimental
cognitivist interpretation of his claim) that language structure A molds
sociocognitive structure B, modern sociolinguistics has explored various alter-
native directions of causality: the impact of society upon language, the circular
468 IV• Ethnolinguistic Pluralism in Herderian and Who rfian Perspective
impact of society upon language and of language upon society, the identity (or
interpénétration) of language and society, and the correlation of language and
society as a result of both being dependent upon common third factors
(Grimshaw 1971). There is evidence (or, at least, argument) for all of these
alternatives but, of them all, modern sociolinguistics provides least confir-
mation for Whorfian unidirectionality in the classical cognitivist tradition and
most evidence for either circularity¡interdependency between the two (particularly
wherever one or the other is clearly an independent variable undergoing
authoritative manipulation or "guided change") or their interpenetrated identity
(when social change is minimal). Thus, in many ways modern sociolinguistic
theories and findings are at odds with unidirectional interpretations of
Whorfian linguistic relativity and of Whorfian linguistic determinism, as well as
with earlier social theories along these same lines. Nevertheless, the stimulation
provided by these alternative views of causal directionality—including the
Whorfian view—has been a healthy and productive experience for the many
theoretical and applied concerns of this young discipline.
In view of the foregoing useful by-products of the contest with Whorfianism
during the past two decades, each of them developing into robust research fields
in their own right (one of them even developing into the new [or re-] incar-
nation of Whorfianism as liberated from cognitivist experimentalism), it is clear
that even if Whorf was substantially mistaken (as positions 1 and 3 above,
would maintain), even if any separation between so-called independent and
dependent variables must be considered excessively artificial (as even position
a, above, would admit) in a social universe increasingly marked by multiple
influences and by feedback loops between them, the intellectual struggle against
Whorfianism has been eminently worthwhile. The countervisions and correc-
tives to which this struggle has given birth are themselves positive and produc-
tive intellectual endeavors.
YET ANOTHER SIDE TO WHORF AND TO

WHORFIANISM
However, we have not yet fully sampled either the thinking of Benjamin Lee
Whorf or even his language-related views. If, as many of the neo-
ethnoscientists maintain, cognitivist experimentalism represents a vulgari-
zation of Whorf and Whorfianism, then, to some extent, so do the ethnosciences
that seek to salvage and rehabilitate them both via the doctrine of causal
innocence or the identity of language and society. Not only may this view too be
wrong but it too may not fully grasp what it is that Whorf had in mind, what it
was that motivated and moved him. Very much like Herder—whose basically
pluralistic social vision is rarely fully appreciated (Fishman, Chs. 15 and 15)
This Volume) and w h o is likely to be vulgarized as a causal and, therefore, as a

philosophical m o n i s t — s o Whorf is a pluralist at heart. Even more than Herder,
whose romanticism was constantly confronted by the surrounding rationalism,
empiricism and realism of contemporary advanced British, French and German
thought, Whorf had a mystic, suprarational side to him. This religious, philo-
sophical and value-suffused Whorf must also be understood if the full meaning
of the man and of his message are to be grasped. We must try to understand the
adolescent and the young man w h o was so disconcerted over the "spurious"
conflict between science and religion that he wrote one 130,000—word manu-
script (in the form of a novel) articulating his philosophy of religion and another,
mercifully briefer, on why he had rejected the theory of evolution. In both
instances he concluded that (a) linguistic errors and ignorance had caused
misunderstandings and mistranslations of original sources and that (b) these
errors could be rectified and counteracted by deeper morphosyntactic analyses
reaching down into generally hidden but controlling systematic meanings. We
must also try to understand his lifelong conviction that combined aspects of
Rousseau with aspects of Spengler: The non-West (where the Really Different
Languages are still alive) is the repository of sublime beauty and wisdom; the
West (where Standard Average European holds sway) is both smug and played
out. If there are only a limited number of solutions available to humanity in its
attempts to cope with ever greater conflicts and cataclysms, then it is imperative
that the West learn from the non-West the startlingly and refreshingly different
views of reality that non-Western languages encode.
Far from viewing Western civilization as representing the pinnacle o f human
development (survival of the fittest?), he views the West as the perennial
predator and corruptor, debaser and debaucher. The history of linguistics itself
provides the evidence for W h o r f s historiosophy:
So far as our knowledge goes, the science of linguistics was founded, or put on its
present basis, by one Panini in India several centuries before Christ. Its earliest f o r m
anticipated its most recent one. Panini was highly algebraic, i.e. pattern-symbolic in his
treatment; he used formulas in a very modern way for expressing the obligatory
patterns of Sanskrit. It was the Greeks w h o debased the science. They showed h o w
infinitely inferior they were to the Hindus as scientific thinkers, and the effect of their
muddling lasted t w o thousand years. Modern scientific linguistics dates f r o m the
rediscovery of Panini by the Western world in the early nineteenth century" (Whorf
1940 [1956, 232]).
Just as the fortunate discovery of non-Western linguistics literally saved

Western linguistics from its fatal intellectual errors, so the discovery of non-
Western thought more generally can save the West from the evils that it
perpetrated on itself and on all of mankind. A n d upon linguistics rests both the
47° IV Ethnolinguistic Pluralism in Herderian and Whorfian Perspective
responsibility as well as the opportunity to lead the West back to sanity, back to
sensitivity, back to an appreciation for the intricate beauty and wisdom of the
non-West (1941a [1956, 21]). The West confuses brute power and sheer size
with elegance and truth (c. 1936 [1956, 84—85]). But it is precisely the smaller,
rarer wisdoms that have the greatest and the most overlooked potentials for
providing the new and startling insights and perspectives needed if humanity is
to saved (1941b [1956, 269-270]). Ultimately, only a multilingual mankind will
be able to set aside its parochial biases and view reality from a variety of
tentative perspectives. In the struggle toward such potentially saving plural-
ism, it is English that looms as the greatest obstacle and the greatest threat
(1956, 244).
Here, then, we have another perspective on the Whorfian hypothesis, one
that is neither cognitivistic nor ethnoscience-holistic. Here we have a perspec-
tive that is pluralistic, millennary and universalistic, all in one. Here we find a
Whorf who unabashedly embraces all those other languages and peoples "out
there" as a means of attaining pan-human sanity and salvation. Here we have a
Whorf who is relevant for much of the world, a world in which both spreading
languages of wider communication and the careful cultivation of local lan-
guages are not only "good for business" or "good for local pride" but essential
for the protection of the entire human enterprise.
Here, in sum, is another side of Whorf, a side that provides him and his
hypothesis with an even broader and longer-term claim upon our attention than
has hitherto been the case, a side of Whorf which, strangely enough, has been
overlooked, even within our own sociolinguistic ranks.
NOTE
ι. Laitin (1977) and Bloom (1981) have recently reported "positive results" but, as I have
explained elsewhere, they have merely demonstrated language-and-culture/society
relationships—these being the very heart of the sociolinguistic enterprise—rather than
linguistic determinism per se.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bloom, Alfred H. The Linguistic Shaping of Thought: A Study in the Impact of Language on Thinking in
China and the \Vest. Hillside (N.J.) Erlbaum, 1981.
Carroll, J.B. and J.B. Casagrande. The functions of language classifications in behavior, in
Maccoby, Ε., T. Newcomb and E. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New York, Holt,
1958, 1 8 - 3 1 .
Ferguson, Charles. Language planning and language change, in Cobarrubias, J. and J . A . Fishman
(eds.), Progress in Language Planning: Internationa! Perspectives. Berlin, Mouton, 1983, 29-40.
14. The Whorfian Hypothesis: Confirmation and Disconfirmation 471
Fishman, Joshua A. A systematization of the Whorfian hypothesis. Behavioral Science, i960, 8,

523-339-
. Language and Nationalism. Rowley (MA), Newbury House, 1972.
. (ed.). Advances in Language Planning. The Hague, Mouton, 1974.
. What do we know about language planning? A preliminary report, in Herbert, R.K. (ed.),
Patterns in Language, Culture and Society: Sub-Saharan Africa. Columbus, Ohio State University,
1975· 1 - 3 ·
. The sociology of language: Yesterday, today and tomorrow, in Cole, Roger W. (ed.),
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1977, 5 1 - 7 5 .
. Bilingual education, language planning and English. English World Wide. 1980, 1, 1 1 - 2 4 .
Friedrich, Paul. Poetic language and the imagination: A reformulation of the Sapir hypothesis, in
his Language, Context and Imagination. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1979, 4 4 1 - 5 1 2 .
Greenberg, J . (ed.). Universals of Language. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1963 (first edition).
Grimshaw, Allen D. Sociolinguistics, in Fishman, J.A. (ed.)., Advances in the Sociology of Language,
vol. ι. The Hague, Mouton, 1971, 92—151.
Laitin, David D. Politics, Language and Thought: The Somali Experience. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press, 1977.
Mathiot, Madeleine (ed.) Ethnoiinguistics: Boas, Sapir and Whorf Revisited. The Hague, Mouton, 1979.
Milan, William G . Contemporary models of "standardized New World Spanish": Origin, develop-
ment and use in Cobarrubias, J . and J . A . Fishman (eds.), Progress in Language Planning:
International Perspectives. Berlin, Mouton, 1983, 1 2 1 - 1 4 4 .
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. A linguistic consideration of thinking in primitive communities [circa 1936],
in Carroll, J . B . (ed.)., Language, Thought and Reality. New York, Wiley, 1956, 85—86.
. Linguistics as an exact science. Technology Review (MIT), 1940, 43, 61-63 and 80-83;
reprinted in Carroll, J.B. (ed.), Language, Thought and Reality. New York, Wiley, 1956, 220-232.
. A brotherhood of thought. Main Currents in Modern Thought. 1941 a, 1, no. 4 , 1 3 - 1 4 ; cited in
Carroll, J.B. (ed.), Language, Thought and Reality. New York, Wiley, 1956, 21.
. Language, mind and reality. The Theosophist (Madras, India). 1941b,63,no. 1, 281-291; no.
2. 25-37; reprinted in Carroll, J.B. (ed.), Language Thought and Reality. New York, Wiley, 1956,
246—270.
Chapter 15
WHORFIANISM OF THE THIRD KIND:

ETHNOLINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AS A
WORLDWIDE SOCIETAL ASSET
JOSHUA A. FISHMAN
We are currently witnessing a revival of Whorfianism in linguistics and anthro-

pology, and it is a wonderous sight to behold (see, e.g., Alford 1978, Friedrich
1979, Silverstein 1979, Kay and Kempton 1984). This revival is all the more a
phenomenon worth pondering, given that previously some two generations of
researchers (primarily working within research traditions that come closest to
replicating natural science paradigms within the social sciences) had over-
whelmingly passed negative judgments upon what they considered to be the
most crucial as well as the most stimulating hypotheses of Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Indeed, for some 25 years (at least from the late 1950s to the late 1970s) it was
exceedingly hard to find a good word on behalf of Whorf in hard-nosed,
quantitative, experimental social-science circles per se, or in the philosophical-
theoretical circles derived from and influenced most directly by such social
sciences. During many of these years only a few courageous stalwarts among
the leading lights of the language-related disciplines (Dell Hymes first and fore-
most among them [1966]), kept the faith insofar as Whorf and Whorfianism are
concerned; but even they obviously did so in conjunction with more holistic
and nonquantitative "poetic" perspectives than the empirical tradition of
American hypothetico-deductive science is either accustomed to, comfortable
with, or impressed by. What was generally overlooked during this long period
of widespread skepticism or outright rejection of Whorfianism was that his
defenders and his detractors were not always reacting to the same facets of
Whorf's thinking, were not apparently always concerned with exactly the same
theories and, finally, were therefore not impressed by the same data, proofs, or
tests.
474 IV E-thnolinguistic Pluralism in Herderian and Whorfian Perspective
METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES:
INTERPRETATIONAL DIFFERENCES
Now, as the worm turns (or begins to do so), it seems clear to me that for a
quarter century many of us in the language-related disciplines have been so
mesmerized (positively or negatively) by two theories commonly associated
with Whorf (the linguistic relativity hypothesis, which I will call W l 5 i.e., "Whorf-
sub-one," and the linguistic determinism hypothesis, which I will call W 2 , i.e.,
"Whorf-sub-two") 1 that the rest of Whorf s work remained correspondingly
obscured. It was all the more difficult to recognize that much of Whorf was
being substantially neglected in the process, when not only were W; and W 2
recurringly found wanting, but when they were so found by what was then a
new breed of researchers who themselves initially represented and expressed a
significant expansion of what the language-related disciplines had formerly
been. Let us remember that the 1950s and 60s (and even the 70s) constituted a
time in which a definite methodological tradition matured and diversified
within the language-related disciplines: the tradition of quantitative experi-
mentation following classical independent variable-dependent variable lines of
inquiry, proof, and argumentation. This tradition, let us also remember, was
drastically different from the more text-analytic, descriptive-anecdotal, ethno-
graphic, holistic, and nonlinear commentary and analysis that Whorf had em-
ployed and that most of his adherents preferred (and prefer to this very day).
Given these major differences as to the nature of evidence and the nature of
proof that obtained between Whprf and his critics (and, more recently, between
his staunchest defenders and his critics), it is now evident, insofar as W j and W 2
are concerned, that not only do the critics and the defenders disagree as to what
has been proven but that they also disagree as to what Whorf's hypotheses were
to begin with.
Clarification of "what Whorf really meant" is no easy matter. It is com-
plicated by the fact that Whorf died in 1941 at the regrettably early age of 44. All
of his professional writing transpired between 1925 and 1941. Thus, he has now
been dead for almost two-and-a-half times as many years as he had available to
clarify and finalize his own hypotheses. During his own life time he was aware
of some doubts and misunderstandings—even in the circle of his friends and
admirers, including Sapir—and began to revise, restate, and reinterpret his
own views and the inconsistencies that inevitably were to be found among
them, given the fact that they were always evolving rather than fixed and final in
his own mind. Nevertheless, he was granted very little time for such revisions
and emendations, and as a result, left us only the equivalent of one slim volume
of professional writings (totaling under 300 pages). Interpretations, tests, and
evaluations of W j and W 2 are by now obviously much more voluminous than
Whorf's work itself. Although he has become a legend (hero or failure, as the
ι j. Whorfianism of the Third Kind 475
case may be), that status had added nothing to either the clarity of his own
writings or to the uniformity of interpretations to which they have been
subjected.
THE CRITIQUE OF CRITICISM
Increasingly, current-day defenders of Whorf attack his detractors as either

never having read his work, or vulgarizing him. The "never having read
Whorf" criticism seizes upon the extensive anti-Whorf literature and accuses
the critics of having largely read one another, thereby merely contributing
exegeses of each other's texts, rather than having examined WhorPs original
views. Whether justified or not in this particular case, there is an obvious danger
for methodologically different traditions to be ideologically disinclined to read
each other. This disinclination stems not only from the formalized and avowed
higher level differences that separate them, but also from the fact that reading
each other's literature is often a truly aggravating and unenlightening ex-
perience, given that it is accompanied every step of the way by lower-level
disagreements as to what is data, what is interpretation, and what is demonstration.
The "vulgarization of Whorf" criticism is also precedented in the annals of
cross-methodological and cross-philosophical/ideological debate. Not unlike
criticism of Marx or Freud, much criticism of Whorf has been labeled simplifi-
cation, reductionism, atomization, distortion, and so on (e.g., note Alford's
1978 criticism of Brown 1976, Berlin & Kay 1969, Cole & Scribner 1974, Slobin
1971; on the other hand, note the critiques of Whorf in each of the above-
mentioned sources. For an exhaustive list of quantitative-experimental criti-
cisms of Whorf in connection with W 2 in particular, see Sridhar 1980). Similarly,
the defenders of Whorf have not escaped unscathed, having been dubbed
mystics, romantics, dogmatists, and anecdotalists.
The underlying point here is one of wide significance, its implications going
far beyond Whorfian hypotheses W ¡ and W 2 , and even beyond linguistics or
the language-related disciplines. The problems sketched above with respect to
defining and confirming various theories may be expected to multiply rather
than to diminish, precisely as a by-product of disciplinary growth and inter-
disciplinary stimulation. The broader and the more inclusive a field of inquiry
becomes—and the language-related disciplines taken together are certainly
among those that have experienced the most remarkable flowering and expan-
sion during the past quarter century—the more likely just such problems are to
arise. What is data, what constitutes proof, what is disconfirmation—indeed,
just what is the problem—these all become less rather than more consensual as
interdisciplinary perspective increases. Indeed, this is the price we pay (and that
work on the Whorfian hypotheses has paid) whenever we focus disparate
methodological perspectives on the same problem. Different methodologies are

different languages. They are not duplicates of one another. They intertranslate
only roughly, rather than exactly. They are different Weltanschauungen and,
therefore, rather than being articulated in any fine-grained manner, they are
immediately valuable precisely because they highlight different aspects of
reality. Ultimately, a type of bilingual/bicultural accommodation may be at-
tainable between them, but that takes more time, effort, and good will than
science or scientists can frequently spare. W ¡ itself would have predicted that
maximally different methodological languages would be maximally divergent
in defining and discussing W j and accordingly in deciding on its validity.
Quite understandably, the rise (or return) during the past decade of ethnog-
raphy, holism, linguistics or intent, and anthropology of meaning has resulted
in a new view of WhorPs work and in new hope among those who are
intuitively or philosophically "attuned" to him, not to mention those few who
stood by him during the long dry spell from the 1950s through to the late 1970s.
For many others, however, the recent change in Zeitgeist (Methodengeist?) has left
the basic issue either unresolved or in a distinct state of contention—and
particularly so with respect to W 2 — n o t only as to the truth of the matter (i.e., as
to what has or has not been proven), but even with respect to the issue itself (i.e.,
as to what Whorf himself did or did not claim in that connection). While I will
not dwell upon my own views on these matters here, 2 I will briefly reiterate my
considered opinion that regardless of what our (or posterity's) personal judg-
ment with respect to the above matters may be, the past quarter-century's
intellectual struggle with these hypotheses has been eminently worthwhile. Not
only have W j and W 2 been reexamined and possibly rehabilitated, but more
importantly, the struggle has stimulated and even fathered a number of related
fields of unquestioned worth and vitality. Such fields as language universals (at
least in their Greenbergian realizations, see Ferguson 1978), ethnosciences
(including ethnotypologies and ethnocognition as a whole) and sociolinguistics
might all be weaker today if some of their leading formulators and adherents
had not quite consciously been either struggling with or for Whorf (i.e., with or
for W t and/or W 2 ), as they rightly or wrongly understood him. Even if W 2 in
particular were ultimately to be discarded as untenable, the stimulation that it
has provided, both to its erstwhile supporters and its erstwhile detractors—not
unlike the stimulation provided by certain unconfirmed hypotheses of Freud
and Marx—will have resulted in permanent gains for the disciplines on either
side of the issue that have considered it seriously. This too, should be a lesson to
us for the future: the interaction between Zeitgeist in methodology of the social
sciences, on the one hand, and Zeitgeist in the sociology of knowledge, on the
other—inescapable though it may be—may nevertheless be worthwhile. Every
orthodoxy, being simultaneously an orthodoxy in both of the above respects
(i.e., in respect to what is known and in respect to how knowledge may be
pursued)—whether this be Chomskyism, ethnomethodologism, ethnograph-

ism, or natural scientism in the language-related disciplines—leads away from
certain topics, sensitivities, and questions as well as toward others. If we are
lucky, the gain may equal or exceed the loss, and if we are wise, no o r t h o d o x y —
not even our o w n — w i l l remain unchallenged for very long.
YET ANOTHER SIDE TO WHORF: THE VALUE OF

ETHNOLINGUISTIC DIVERSITY
As mentioned earlier, interdisciplinary and intermethodological struggles with

and about W j and W 2 have tended to obscure from sight another aspect of
Whorf. I am referring to Whorf as a neo-Herderian champion (linked to Herder
by the usual intellectual linkage system of students to teachers and the teachers,
in turn, to their teachers, and in this particular case via Sapir, Boas, Wundt, and
von Humboldt—this complete linkage system not yet being fully confirmed
but quite clearly reasonable, see Y.M. 1974) of a multilingual, multicultural
world in which "little peoples" and "little languages" would not only be
respected but valued (Fishman 1978). The advisability of such a world order has
long been a bone of contention in Euro-Mediterranean thought in which for
some three-and-a-half thousand years distinctly opposite views with respect to
this issue have been recurringly restated and reexamined (Fishman, Chapter 1,
This Volume). The two poles mentioned above were occupied, on one hand, by
ancient Hebrew and Greek prophets and social philosophers, and, on the other,
by spokesmen for the Western Roman Empire and the Western Catholic
Church. As I have indicated elsewhere (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, This Volume),
and as I still hope to show some day in all the detail that it entails, the former
conceived of the world ethnocentrically, perhaps, but yet ethnopluralistically,
viewing ethnolinguistic diversity as part and parcel of the fundamental nature
of human society, ethnolinguistic stability or the intactness of any ethnolinguis-
tic collectivity as sanctified (and, if "properly" enacted, i.e., enacted in accord
with the highest mission or design that existed for each and every people, as
eternal). In accord with this view, transethnification and translinguification
were viewed as cataclysmic tragedies, whereas ethnolinguistic intergenerational
continuity, if "properly" enacted, was viewed as its own reward: ennobling,
authentic, fulfilling, humanizing. This tradition, initially encoded via classical
Judaism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity and early Islam—all of which yielded
systems of thought and valuation which are still generally in accord with these
views to this very day—first reached Central Europe via Slavic (i.e., Eastern
Orthodox) influences on Czech and German medieval social philosophers
(Jakobson 1945). It was then available—with ever increasing stress on a
language aspect of authenticity—to become an ingredient of early Reformation
thinking and, subsequently, has had numerous Western as well as Central and
Eastern European spokesmen and defenders (Deutsch 1942).
Meanwhile, the Western Empire and the Church that it adopted (and that
finally became its major heir), had developed a theory of language and ethnicity
more in accord with their own needs, opportunities, and much greater technical
capacities. From their point of view, small and localized ethnolinguistic col-
lectivities were quite natural and even desirable early stages of social organiza-
tion, but no more than that. As greater opportunities, rewards, understand-
ings, and benefits (spiritual as well as material) became available, populations
were expected to reethnify and relinguify accordingly, in pursuit of their own
best interests. Thus, except for lags attributable to temporary breakdowns in
the reward system and to the self-seeking stubbornness of local leaders (always
accused of being afraid of being deprived of their prerogatives), what the East
viewed as sanctified and eternal the West viewed as open, changeable, and
reward-determined. Any particular ethnolinguistic boundary came to be
viewed in the West as no more than a functional and possibly temporary
reflection of the authoritative flow of rewards in the past, and, therefore, as
naturally and even joyfully invalidated by newer, more effective, more benefi-
cial reward arrangements. The outer limit of this process—both for the
Western Empire/Church and its more modern, secular substitutes and
replacements—was a unified mankind within a single unified realm, subscrib-
ing to a universal value system and, as a result of all of the foregoing, speaking a
universal language (See St. Augustine in his City of God). Thus, what has come
to be viewed by some as the epitome of rational self-interest and enlightened
pan-human concern—including predominant present-day liberal, statist,
Marxist, and neutralist sociological schools of thought—is viewed by others
(usually operating on a more local and intimate scale) as the epitome of
dehumanization and self-destruction. Many modern societies—including the
U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.—have simultaneously inherited major segments of
both of the above traditions and, therefore, are internally conflicted as well as
being conflicted with viewpoints from outside their own borders. In this
respect, as in many others, Whorf is an avowed Easterner rather than a
Westerner. To show this clearly requires another brief detour in order that we
may review Herder's major premises.
JOHANN GOTTFRIED HERDER (1744-1803):

PRAECEPTOR SLAVORUM 3
Herder's unique contribution to the above-sketched arena of competing values

and purposes was to sidestep either extreme—or to coopt them both—via the
view that the entire world needs a diversity of ethnolinguistic entities for its
ι j . Whorfianism of the Third Kind 479
own salvation, for its greater creativity, for the more certain solution of human
problems, for the constant rehumanization of humanity in the face of materia-
lism, for fostering greater esthetic, intellectual, and emotional capacities for
humanity as a whole, indeed, for arriving at a higher stage of human function-
ing. It is precisely in order to arrive at this higher stage and in order to
participate more fully in it that less powerful ethnolinguistic collectivities must
be protected, respected, and assisted, because it is they who have the most vital
contribution to make to these desirable goals.
While he shared the Hebreo-Greek view that loyalty to one's authentic
tradition is a sine qua non that inevitably brings its own rewards, he went beyond
that tradition in two major respects. Within any authentic tradition he stressed
the authentic language as constituting the very center on which all else de-
pended. Furthermore, the rewards of fidelity to language and way of life he
considered to be available not only to the community in which these originated
but to all of mankind. For Herder, and for genuine pluraliste since Herder, the
great creative forces that inspire all humanity do not emerge out of universal
civilization, but out of the individuality of separate ethnic collectivities—most
particularly, out of their very own authentic languages. Only if each collectivity
contributes its own thread to the tapestry of world history, and only if each is
accepted and respected for making its own contribution, can nationalities finally
also be ruled by a sense of reciprocity, learning and benefiting from each other's
contributions as well. In this fashion Herder encompasses both the particular
and the universal. He considers political and economic arrangements that unite
and that transcend individual peoples as possible and desirable, but only if they
are built upon and derive from a genuine prior cultivation of ethnolinguistic
individuality, because it is only the latter that can render the constituent parts
active, creative, contributing, self-respecting, and other-accepting members of
any supranational design. For Herder, the two levels, the smaller and the larger,
are ultimately simultaneously ongoing, rather than the latter displacing the
former.
Even from the above brief paraphrasing it should be clear how much of
current thinking (and how much more of current feeling) in the language-
related disciplines is Herderian in origin. Members of these disciplines are often
deeply saddened to learn of mother-tongue loss and of cultural assimilation on
the part of small and powerless ethnolinguistic entities. Indeed, in deeply
unconscious and prescientific ways, convictions such as these are among the
very ones that brought many of us to linguistics, to anthropology, to bilingual
education, and to a variety of ethnic studies. It is Herder who most clearly and
forcefully formulated these views. He did not wince at their romanticism, as
many of us do now, for, unlike us, rationalists at least in our professional guises,
he firmly believed that it was at the level of the intuitive or prerational that the
most profoundly human and creative experiences were to be encountered.
Nevertheless, though our science clothes our prerationality far more fully than
did Herder's literary, historical esthetic, and folkloristic interests, most of us
can still recognize in him hidden parts of ourselves. If we are also attracted to
Whorf on some prerational, intuitive level, it is because Whorf, too, is an
unabashed Herderian. Via his hypotheses W[ and W2 he seeks to control and
tame or discipline the Herderian passions within him. But the passions are there
nonetheless, and, scientific or not, it is high time we looked at that part of Whorf
directly rather than indirectly.
WHORF AND HERDER: OVERLOOKED

SIMILARITIES IN BASIC VALUES
Herder's defense of backward Slavic Europe, a defense which stresses the

untutored refinement and wisdom of peoples that have not capitulated to the
massive blandishments of Western materialism, who experience life and nature
in deeply poetic and collectively meaningful ways, are paralleled by Whorf in
his defense of Native-Americans in particular and of non-Western wisdom and
perspective in general. For Herder, the specter of uniformation hovering over
Europe appears in a French guise; for Whorf, the danger that approaches is
predominantly Anglo-American and English in nature. It is not only that he
views the Hopi language as revealing " . . . a higher plane of thinking, a more
rational analysis of situations than our vaunted English in .. (which) compared
to Hopi is like a bludgeon compared to a rapier" (1956 [1936]: 85), but that he
recurringly finds the West in general, and the English-fostering West in
particular, to be conceptually inferior, intellectually biased, and interculturally
overly proud, even haughty. WhorPs view that the Greeks "debased"
linguistics after the Hindus (Panini) had founded it at an exceptionally advanced
level (1956 [1940]: 232) is too well known to require citing here. Less well
known is his view that
. . . the ideal of worldwide fraternity and cooperation fails if it does not include ability
to adjust intellectually as well as emotionally to our brethren of other countries. The
West . . . has not bridged the intellectual gulf; we are no nearer to understanding the
types of logical thinking which are reflected in truly Eastern forms of scientific
thought or analyses of nature. This requires . . . the . . . realization that they have equal
scientific validity with our own thinking habits (1941: 21).
Here we find not only Herder's theme that the universal is a fraud, a mask for
the self-interest of the dominating over the dominated, but an insistance on
putting the case precisely in terms of science itself. This, indeed, is one of
Whorf s major themes: that science itself must accept the non-West as an equal
ι j. Wborfianism of the Third Kind 481
and must come to view itself as no more obviously rational and objective than
the so-called mysterious East. The West is highly irrational in Whorf's eyes,
particularly Western science, since it tends to confuse power with insight and
understanding.
... ( D o ) our cultivated wheat and oats represent a higher evolutionary stage than a rare
aster restricted to a f e w sites in the Himalayas (?). F r o m the standpoint of a matured
biology it is precisely the rare aster which has the better claim to high evolutionary
eminence: the (Western) wheat owes its ubiquity and prestige merely to human
economics and history. T h e eminence of our European tongues and thinking habits
proceeds f r o m nothing more ( 1 9 5 6 [ 1 9 3 6 ? ] : 84).
As with Herder, therefore, there is a sharp antiestablishment bite to Whorf.

Herder attacked French and Francofied interests in Europe as a whole and
among Germans in particular; Whorf points his finger at the West as a whole
and at Anglo-American imperialism in particular. In so doing, both Herder and
Whorf not only are opposing long-standing (taken-for-granted) intellectual
assumptions, but they are also foregoing the safety and patronage that normally
come from siding with the social and political establishment. Whorf s digs at
the English language are particularly noteworthy if we consider that Anglo-
American and other Western linguists were (and often still are) hard put to
detach themselves from its purported superiority.4 Not only was Whorf com-
pletely free of any such popular wisdom vis-à-vis English, but he was par-
ticularly dubious about schemes to foster Basic English or some other natural
or artificial auxiliary language as the basis of world unity. There was no easy
road to world unity as far as Whorf was concerned, and the best that native
speakers of English (particularly scientists who were native speakers of
English) could do in pursuit of that goal was to supplement their English with
"the point of view of multibilingual awareness (1956 [ 1941 ]: 244)". More
generally he warned that,
... those w h o envision a future w o r l d speaking only one tongue, whether English,
G e r m a n or Russian, or any other, hold a misguided v i e w and w o u l d do the evolution
o f the human mind the greatest disservice. Western culture has made, through
language, a provisional analysis of reality and, without correctives, holds resolutely to
that analysis as final. T h e only correctives lie in all those other tongues which by aeons
of independent evolution have arrived at different but equally logical, provisional
analyses ( 1 9 5 6 [ 1 9 4 1 ]: 244).
Although Whorf s overriding interest in language and cognition permeates

all of his writing—even most of that which is of a semipopular or lay nature
(and which we also tend to overlook today, even though he was immensely
involved in such writing as a public service)—his Herderian stress on diversity,
on "all those other tongues," on genuine universality being attainable only via a
"multilingual awareness" which accepts and utilizes the languages and per-
spectives of non-Western peoples, shines through and underlies all that he
writes. Like Herder, he believes that the world's little languages and peoples are
a treasure trove of wisdom and refinement. Only if this human treasure is valued
and shared can biases be set aside and a genuine (rather than a self-serving
imperialistic) universal perspective be attained. It is no wonder that among
American linguists Hymes has been the most outspoken opponent of the
impoverishment that would result from seeking universale based on English
alone (1970 [1974]), doing so precisely by invoking Herder.
The Whorf of W 3 is directly linked to much of the social consciousness of the
language-in-society-related disciplines. A s such he is related to pluralistic lan-
guage policies, to cultural democracy and language maintenance efforts, to
enrichment bilingual education, and to sympathy and assistance for the Third
World in efforts to attain pan-human sanity and salvation. Whorf died still
hoping against hope that a bilingual awareness might arise to reform the
misguided Western world before it was too late, before "the impending dark-
ness" (1956 [1942]: 270) that he feared would descend upon us all — i n c l u d i n g
the world of science—without such an awareness. It is W h o r f ' s abiding faith
in the benefits of linguistic diversity that attracted many of us to him and to the
language-related disciplines and that may well continue to do so regardless of
the fate of W ! and W 2 .
COMING FULL CIRCLE: THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS

AND METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF W 3
Can the Herder-Whorf vision of a better world based upon sharing a multi-
plicity of little languages and appreciating a variety of little peoples be tested,
confirmed, or revised and refined? Does it have a scientific rather than "merely"
a humanistic or philosophical future? I think so, because even though neither
Herder nor Whorf was marked by much econopolitical sophistication (which,
of course, is not to say that they were apolitical, much less to deny that their
views have political consequences; see Bernard 1983), they might nevertheless
both have been right (or wrong) on an empirical sociopsychological level alone.
Much of the recent and ongoing work on global consciousness and inter-
national understanding has consistently demonstrated that active and advanced
multilingualism is a significant independent variable in their prediction
(Barrows, Clark, & Klein 1980). In addition, much of Wallace Lambert's work
on the greater cognitive flexibility of bilinguals (1962, 1973) is in direct agree-
ment with the W 3 school of thought. There has thus far been no explicit link
between W 3 and either of the above research endeavors, but that is largely
because W t and W 2 have substantially hidden W 3 from sight. However, if that

were no longer to be the case and if a veritable ground-swell of interest in W 3
were to develop, I predict that the consequences would be manifold, quite
independently of their directionality in any substantive sense.
Some W 3 researchers will doubtless seek to render the status of this hypo-
thesis more precise by operationalizing quantitative measures of its indepen-
dent and dependent variables and by assigning subjects to randomly con-
stituted, maximally contrasted treatment groups for the purposes of controlled
experimental comparison. Other researchers, however, will quite definitely take
a quite different and more qualitative route toward testing W 3 . The two
approaches may well disagree with respect to some of their findings, interpre-
tations, and, indeed, with respect to their claims of fidelity to the original W 3
hypothesis. Still other researchers will continue to believe (or, indeed, to
disbelieve) in W 3 , entirely as a matter of devotion, as a value, regardless of what
the findings might be, since the language-related disciplines, like all disciplines,
are themselves also value systems (and in the West, internally conflicted value
systems). As such, they are protective of kindred values and of those w h o
subscribe to them. Finally, midway between the more internally consistent
approaches to W 3 mentioned above, there will be those w h o will seek to
combine both this world and the next, that is, to refine their "values" via
"science" and to guide their "science" via "values." The hypothesis as such is
necessarily too broad ("necessarily" because it derives not from science per se
but from values more basic than science), and science as an enterprise is too
variegated to entertain only a single interpretation, operationalization, or for-
mulation thereof. It is consistent with the entire spirit of W 3 to conclude that
such must be its fate in any free scientific climate.
THE LEGACY OF W 3 FOR LINGUISTICS AS A

SCIENCE
The past quarter-century's experience with W j and W 2 , and the coming quarter-
century's experience with W 3 , can serve to remind linguistics-as-a-science that
linguistics is also very significantly a humanities field and an applied field as
well. A s a result, even more so than were linguistics to be a science and only a
science, it corresponds to certain pervasive, soul-satisfying, meaning-and-value
needs of its "members." These needs can also have dignifying and protective
value for the discipline qua science. Our frequent advocacy of the weak and as
yet unappreciated peoples and languages upon which W 3 focuses, dignifies not
only them but us, safeguards not only them but us, for it keeps us from
following (or straying) in the footsteps of Hitler's professors (Weinreich 1946)
along a path which glorified W t and W 2 without experiencing the tempering

impact of W 3 .
Certainly, linguistics as a science and linguists as scientists cannot and should
not try to escape from the values and loyalties, dreams and intuitions, visions
and sensitivities that move them and that touch them. If these prerationalities
are not self-aggrandizing (and neither Herder's nor Whorf's were, if they lead to
greater assistance, appreciation and dignity for the world's little peoples and
little languages), then these are prerationalities to be proud of. If we each of us
will but carry them on our sleeves within our o w n country rather than merely
vis-à-vis someone else's—whether our o w n country be the U.S.A. or Israel,
Egypt or Mexico, Canada or Yugoslavia, China or the U . S . S . R . — t h e n these are
prerationalities that will be good for us as individuals, good for linguistics as a
discipline, and good for mankind as our common concern. That, ultimately,
was the very kind of linguistics that Whorf envisioned.
NOTES
ι. I d o not consider it necessary, at this late date, more than to mention the well-documented fact
that neither W i n o r W 2 were hypotheses original to W h o r f . Others in W h o r f ' s immediate
circle o f colleagues had acknowledged interest and sympathy for these v i e w s prior to W h o r f ' s
f o c u s u p o n them, and such v i e w s had been articulated f o r approximately t w o centuries by
various E u r o p e a n (particularly G e r m a n ) thinkers (e.g., Herder, v o n H u m b o l d t , and W u n d t ,
to name only a f e w ) , and the basic notions in one or both o f these hypotheses o c c u r several
times t h r o u g h o u t two-and-a-half thousand years o f Euro-Mediterranean language-related
speculation (Culjak 1968, Fishman 1980) and are probably o f at least similar vintage in India,
China, and perhaps e v e n elsewhere. Nevertheless, today w e not only parsimoniously but also
rightfully call these hypotheses " W h o r f i a n , " because it was precisely W h o r f ' s stimulating
focus u p o n them that returned them to m o d e r n debate and inquiry, particularly in the United
States. T o call these hypotheses Whorfian is, therefore, as technically mistaken as to call the
Western Hemisphere The Americas (after A m e r i g o Vespucci) but, at the same time, it is also
equally justified and, by n o w , equally traditional to d o so.
i. M y documented v i e w (Fishman i960, 1977, 1980) is that W h o r f did entertain both o f the
hypotheses here referred to as W ! and W 2 ) although he was considerably less certain and less
consistent with respect to the latter than the former. Furthermore, my evaluation o f the
empirical literature leads me to the conclusion that W t has been confirmed o v e r and o v e r
again, n o t only by W h o r f and since W h o r f , but prior to W h o r f , whereas W 2 has not been
confirmed as a stable p h e n o m e n o n at the lexical level by methods that recognize the
independent variable-dependent variable distinction and the canons o f publically confirmable
reliability and validity. E v e n less confirmation o f W 2 has been f o r t h c o m i n g in accord w i t h
the a b o v e research paradigm at levels higher than the lexical. (See H a u g e n 1977 f o r recent
further confirmation o f this conclusion.) If investigators f o l l o w i n g ethnographic, holistic,
and nonlinear research strategies w e r e to b e c o m e fully c o n v i n c e d o f the validity o f W 2 (I d o
not sense any such c o n v i c t i o n a m o n g them at this time; indeed, I sense a tendency a m o n g
such researchers to ascribe W 2 not to W h o r f himself but, rather to those w h o misunderstand
h i m , e.g., A l f o r d 1978, Silverstein 1979), I w o u l d conclude that the t w o different
ι j. Whorfianism of the Third Kind 48 5
interpretations/operationalizations of the hypotheses involved were responsible for the

difference in findings. These methodological differences might or might not prove re-
concilable. As long as they were not, I would tend to consider the hypothesis contested or
unconfirmed (but, hopefully, in a state of productive tension) regardless of my own pre-
ferences in the matter.
3. Since a paper on Whorf is hardly the right place for extensive quotations from Herder, I will
satisfy my urge to use such quotations by summarizing Herder's views on various topics and
referring the reader to the original sources where these views can be found. The best account
of Herder's life is Haym 1877-8 5. For a fine account and interpretation of Herder's manifold
direct and indirect interests in language and ethnicity/nationality, see Ergang 1931. It is
directly to Herder's Sammtliche Werke ( 1 8 7 7 - 1 9 1 3 ) that the reader must turn for the full
treatment of the view that there is nothing more central than language in the life of any ethnic
collectivity (Volk) (see e.g., X I 225, X V I I 58, X V I I I 337 and 384); neither individual nor
collective creativity are possible if the authentic ethnic language is lost (see e.g., X V I 46,
X V I I 59 and 288-89, X V I I I 387); learning from other peoples and languages poses no
problem if one does it without forgetting or dishonoring one's own (see e.g., I 407, V I 217,
VIII 336); early and consistent education in the mother tongue is a necessity regardless of
whatever else one learns (see e.g., 1 3 8 0 - 8 1 and 406, IV 301, X X X 129); the universal can be
participated in fruitfully (rather than slavishly) only through the authentic (see e.g., X I V 448,
X V I I 2 1 1 - 1 2 , X V I I I 248). A typical formulation of the latter view urges: "Let us contribute
to the honor of our nationality—and learn incessantly from and with others—so that
together we can seek the truth and cultivate the garden of the common good" (XVII
211 - 2 1 2 ) ; also "Let us, therefore, be German, not because Germans are superior to all other
nationalities, but because we are Germans and cannot well be anything else and because we
can contribute to humanity at large only by being German" (Ergang 1931: 265).
4. Whorf s lack of positive hyperbole with respect to English is all the more remarkable given
sentiments such as the following which were nurtured by linguistic culture just prior to his
time: (a) "The Anglo-Saxon language is the simplest, the most perfectly and simply symbolic
that the world has ever seen . . . [B]y means of it, the Anglo-Saxon saves his vitality for
conquest instead of wasting it under the juggernaut of cumbersome mechanism for convey-
ance of thought" (McGee 189;). (b) "The English language is a methodical, energetic
business-like and sober language that does not care much for finery and elegance, but does
care for logical consistency and is opposed to any attempt to narrow-in life by police
regulation and strict rules, either of grammar or of lexicon. As the language is, so is the
people.... It must be a source of gratification to mankind that the tongue spoken by two of
the greatest powers of the world is so noble, so rich, so pliant, so expressive and so
interesting" ( Jespersen 1938 [1905]: 235). Ironically, the latter author's laudatory view that
"as the language is, so is the people" would probably be characterized in recent days as
revealing "extreme Whorfianism," whereas Whorf's sharply critical views insofar as English
is concerned have nevertheless not spared him from being similarly characterized.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alford, D.K.H. (1978). The demise of the Whorf hypothesis (A major revision in the history of
linguistics). Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics Society. 485-499.
Barrows, T., Clark, J . , & Klein, S. (1980). What students know about their world. Change 1 2 : 1 0 - 1 7
and 67.
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bernard, F.M. (1983). National culture and political legitimacy: Herder and Rousseau, journal of the
History of Ideas 44: 231-254.
Brown, R. (1976). Reference: In memorial tribute to Eric Lenneberg. Cognition 4: 125—53.
Cole, M. & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and Thought: A Psychological Introduction. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Culjak, M. (1968). The Theory of Linguistic Weltanschauung and B.L. Whorf's Hypothesis: Historical
Sources and Critical Assessment. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Delhi.
Deutsch, K.W. (1942). The trend of European nationalism: The language aspect. American Political
Science Review 36: 533-541.
Ergang, R.R. (1931). Herder and the Foundations of German Nationalism. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Ferguson, C. A. (1978). Historical background of universals research. In J . H. Greenberg, C. A.
Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Fishman, J.A. (i960). The systematization of the Whorfian hypothesis. Behavioral Science 5: 323-379.
. (1978). Positive bilingualism: Some overlooked rationales and forefathers. In J . E. Alatis
(ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1978. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press; also Chapter 13, This Volume.
. (1980). The Whorfian hypothesis: Varieties of valuation, confirmation and disconfirmation
I. International journal of the Sociologi of Language 26: 25-40; also Chapter 14, This Volume.
Freidrich, P. (1979). Poetic language and the imagination: A reformulation of the Sapir hypothesis.
In P. Freidrich (ed.), Language, Context and the Imagination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Haugen, E. (1977). Linguistic relativity: Myths and methods. In W. C. McCormack & S. A. Wurm
(eds.), Language and Thought: Anthropological Issues. The Hague: Mouton.
Haym, R. (1877-188;). Herder nach seinem Leben und seinen Werken dargestellt. 2 vols. Berlin.
Herder, J . G. (1877-1913). Sammtliche Werke. B. Suhan, E. Redlich et al. (eds.). 33 volumes. Berlin.
Hymes, D. (1966). Two types of linguistic relativity (with examples from Amerindian ethnog-
raphy). In W. Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics: Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964.
The Hague: Mouton.
. (1970). Bilingual education: Linguistic vs. sociolinguistic bases. Georgetown University
Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 23: 69-76. (Revised in his Foundations in Sociolinguistics.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.)
Jakobson, R. (194;). The beginning of national self-determination in Europe. The Review of Politics
7: 29-42.
Jespersen, O. (1938 [190;]). Growth and Structure of the English Language. 9th edition. Garden City,
N.J.: Doubleday.
Kay, Paul and Willet Kempton. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 1984,
86, 65-79.
Lambert, W. E. & Peal, E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological
Monographs 76: No. 27 (Whole No, 546).
Lambert, W.E., Tucker, G. R., & d'Anglejan, A. (1973). Cognitive and attitudinal consequences of
bilingual education, journal of Educational Psychology 65: 141—159.
McGee, W . J . (1895). Some principles of nomenclature. American Anthropologist 8: 279-286.
Silverstein, M. (1979)· Language structure and linguistic ideology. Proceedings of the Chicago
Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 193-247.
Slobin, D. I. (1971)· Psycholinguistics. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman.
Sridhar, S. N. (1980). Cognitive determinants of linguistic structure: A cross-linguistic experi-
mental study of sentence production. Ph.D. Dissertation. Champaign-Urbana: University of
Illinois.
//. Whorfianism of the Third Kind 487
Weinreich, Μ. ( 1946). Hitler's Professors: The Part of Scholarsbip in Germany's Crimes Against the Jewish
People. New York: Yiddish Scientific Institute-Yivo. (Yiddish version: 1947).
Whorf, B. L. (1941). A brotherhood of thought. Main Currents in Modern Thought 1: 1 3 - 1 4 .
. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. J . B. Carroll,
ed. New York: Wiley.
Y.M. (1974)· Editorial comment: a Herder-Humboldt-Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Romance Philology
28: 199.
Epilogue
The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in

the USA
THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION FACES A

RIDDLE
There is a vast amount of evidence pointing to the conclusion that an "ethnic

revival" of sorts occurred in the U.S.A. between the mid-sixties and the mid-
seventies and that it had significantly declined by the late seventies. The
evidence for the revival consists of "across the board" increases in non-English
mother-tongue claiming (even for mother tongues experiencing neither im-
migrational nor natural increases; Fishman, Chapter 6, This Volume); increases
in the number of ethnic community mother-tongue periodical publications
(Gertner et al., Chapter 9, This Volume; Garcia et al., Chapter 10, This Volume);
increases in the number of ethnic community mother-tongue schools (Fishman
et al., Chapter 7, This Volume); increases in the number of ethnic community
local religious units utilizing languages other than English in some part of their
total effort (Fishman et al., op. cit.); increases in the number of radio stations
and television channels broadcasting in languages other than English (Fishman
et al., op. cit.); all of the former increases involving 1960-1970 comparisons, as
well as increases in ethnic studies (courses, departments) at American colleges
and universities (Gambino 1976); ethnic awareness on the part of minority
leaders and community members (Lowy, Chapter 8, This Volume); ethnic
pageants and festivities (Esman 1982, Esterik 1982); and, not least of all,
increased ethnic concerns in the mainstream press and other mass media as well
as increased ethnic "sensitivity" on the part of the mainstream political parties.
An Ethnic Heritage Act was passed by the Federal government (1974: see
Congressional Record, v. 1 1 8 , no. 168, Oct. 17, 1972), and an ethnic heritage
question was asked by the Census Bureau (1979). Within a period of ten to
twelve years, sidestream ethnicity became a more publicly visible and openly
49° Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA
presentable aspect of local and national life, whether in advertising, entertain-

ment or education. However, by the late 1970s and early 1980s, the "ethnic
boom" seemed to have subsided very considerably. Although it was not as
quiescent an area as it had been in the early 1960s, another public agenda had
come into prominence (depression/inflation in the economy, the
nuclear/missiles arms race, the oil shortages, oil gluts and energy problems
more generally), and several of the above-mentioned indicators of an "ethnic
revival" now showed a downturn (Fishman, Chapter 6, This Volume).
Both the "revival" and the subsequent "decline" deserve considerable atten-
tion, not only because they had their counterparts throughout the Western
capitalist democracies (Allardt 1979, Olzak 1983), but because they pertain to a
major blind spot in the modern social sciences: the nature of ethnicity and the fac-
tors influencing it as a dependent variable (Rosen 1980). The ethnicity revival of
the mid-6os was totally unanticipated, both as to time and place by the very
disciplines presumably best equipped to do so. T o social theoreticians, open,
postindustrial societies seemed to be the last ones in which sidestream ethnic
revivals would occur (Beer 1980). Generally favorable economic trends seemed
equally contraindicative insofar as "reversions" to ethnicity were concerned.
The established sociological imagination, focused as it was (and as it largely still
is) on social class and economic factors as the prime forces (and only legitimate,
"rational" bases of aggregation) in modern society (see e.g., Patterson 1974 and
1977, Steinberg 1981), could not envision ethnicity as either a constructive or as
an effective force in modern society, least of all in those very societies in which
the recent ethnic revival proclaimed its presence (Ra'anan 1980). Not having
predicted nor understood its "revival," it is similarly unenlightened with
respect to its renewed relative quiescence. However, it is basically ethnicity as
such, as a social process, that is not really understood. Its rise and fall cannot be
grasped in the absence of understanding the "thing itself." The immigrant-
minorities context of the lion's share of the language-related revival in the
United States poses an additional complexity over and above all of the above
(Gilbert 1982), and one that should certainly not be overlooked.
T w o misconceptions have monopolized the mini-theories that pertain to the
ethnic revival. One of these considers it "nothing more than nostalgia"; the
other: "nationalism" or, what is worse, "chauvinist tribalism." Neither of these
explains either the rise or the decline, since they are both more inclined to
explain away than to explain the matters that should interest us. Not only have
neither of these mini-theories coped with the issues of time and place, mentioned
above, but they haye not even recognized such related issues as cooccurrence
throughout the Western capitalist democracies, likelihood of recurrence, possible
differences between indigenous and immigrant ethnic minorities, political-
cultural and other possible goals of the revivals, etc.
THE ETHNIC REVIVAL: AN EXERCISE IN

"NOSTALGIA"
The ethnic revival as "mere nostalgia," mocking put-down though it be,

deserves a few words of serious criticism. Although "nostalgia" is obviously
not a technical social-science concept, its connotations deserve our attention,
not only for what they tell us about h o w the revival is viewed by those w h o seize
upon this term, but for what they tell us about the viewers themselves.
"Nostalgia" implies past-orientedness to begin with, i.e., it is a state of being
out of touch with current realities and, in that sense, an irrationality, albeit
usually of a trivial kind. However, above and beyond past-orientedness and
triviality per se, "nostalgia" connotes a lacrimous ineffectiveness, a romantic
longing for the setting sun after the sun has set, a hopelessly ineffectual intellectual
or practical posture, a pitiful confusion of substance and shadow, a fascination
with things dead that should be over with and forgotten rather than re-
membered, respected, activated or celebrated (Plumb 1970).
Interestingly enough, in his Human All Too Human, Friedrich Nietzsche
formulates an aphorism which not only pertains to nostalgia but which does so
in the context of minority ethnicity as well. It would be difficult, I think, to find
a better example of the nostalgia point of view with respect to the ethnic revival:
We call to mind that Greek city in southern Italy, which once a year still celebrates its
Greek feasts, amid tears and mourning that foreign barbarism triumphs ever more and
more over the customs its people brought with them into the land; and nowhere has
Hellenism been so much appreciated, nowhere has this golden nectar been drunk
with so much delight, as amongst these fast-disappearing Hellenes (Nietzsche 1879,
quoted f r o m a 1974 English translation).
The "nostalgia" view of the ethnic r e v i v a l — a view encountered at every

academic cocktail party but never in the technical literature—starts off with the
premise that American ethnolinguistic minorities are fast disappearing and
inevitably doomed (the prevalence o f this view is documented by Metzger
1971). It is then further assumed that these nearly extinguished aggregates
engaged in a final and futile gasp of self-recognition and self-assertion in the
mid-6os (Steinberg 1981). Without any research to guide the conclusion, and
without any theory to structure it, even this purported last gasp was viewed as
doomed to be unproductive, self-indulgent and passing, rather than as part of a
process with long-term origins and implications. The insinuations of "nostal-
gia" are meant to be at least faintly funny, as if those who could no longer
engage in sex could do no more than talk of it, think of it, remember it.
Nietzsche's discussion is in terms of "the afterglow of art." The nostalgia view
492 epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA
of the ethnic revival considers what occurred from the mid-6os to the mid-70s
to be the afterglow of ethnicity: merely a pale shadow, a memory (perhaps even
figment) of "the real thing." Indeed, there is one school of thought that even
questions whether "the real thing" exists or should exist. It despises ethnicity
and, even more so, any implied "nostalgia" for that phenomenon. This view
constituted the liberal counterpart to racist "myths of the blood" (Biddiss
1966, 1970a, 1970b, 1979, Field 1981, Hoffman 1983). It is itself a myth pro-
pagated by those w h o usually debunk myths, particularly myths that depend
on suprarational notions such as intuition and spontaneous longing.
The nostalgia view has achieved no empirical basis whatsoever. It is a case of
fighting romanticism with romanticism. Why should nostalgia (which is, after
all, a distinctly human behavior that "lower orders" of life are incapable of)
obtain at all, and, more specifically, why should it have obtained in the mid-6os,.
in the particular places and populations where it was manifest? Has it occurred
before? Will it recur? Or is it strictly a one-shot affair? Was it stronger in some
ethnolinguistic groups than in others? Was it generationally patterned? Was it
related to social class, and if so, how? We look almost in vain for research on
ethnic nostalgia (note, however, Raspa 1984). It is a fuzzy, woolly term that
leaves us just as unenlightened in the end as it found us at the beginning. It is
a nonanswer, a nonexplanation, an evasion of intellectual responsibility. In
addition, it is a negatively loaded term. While its negativism may be justified
or unjustified, it is certainly necessary to marshall evidence and theory before
judgements are passed. T o call the ethnic revival "an exercise in nostalgia" is
to be judgemental prior to evidence and smacks of opposition to the need for
evidence. Those who use the term need no evidence, for they know "intui-
tively" that the ethnic revival cannot and should not be enduring. They lack
both the objectivity and the discipline necessary in order to refine their private
wisdom and, possibly, to convert parts of it into publicly confirmable evidence
and theories.
THE ETHNIC REVIVAL FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF

"NATIONALISM"
If "nostalgia" provides an unresearched, judgmental and anti-intellectual per-
spective on the ethnic revival, then the perspective derived from inquiries into
"nationalism" provides an embarrassment of riches. Here we are dealing with a
perspective that has produced a rich harvest of historical, sociological and
political science treatises, empirical and theoretical, quantitative and qualita-
tive, by scholars all over the world. (Indeed, the exhaustive bibliographies of
such studies, e.g., Winkler and Schnabel 1979 or Bentley 1982, the annual
bibliographic supplements of the Canadian journal of Studies in Nationalism and
the topical bibliographies of language and nationalism per se, e.g., Fishman 1972a,
epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA 493
Fishman 1984, not to mention such magisterial general surveys as Seton-

Watson 1977, commonly list more research than any one person can possibly
follow, let alone digest and integrate.) Thus, our problem in this connection is
how best to be parsimonious and yet locate the most relevant works that can
give us maximum insight into what this topical area might possibly contribute
to an understanding of the ethnic revival.
EARLY RESEARCH ON NATIONALISM
The continental divide separating early from modern studies of nationalism is

probably Karl Deutsch's Nationalism and Social Communication (1953; second
edition 1966). Prior to that time, most publications stressed either the ideas of
noteworthy nationalist spokesmen and intellectuals, on the one hand, or the
differences between separate ideological, chronological and geographic cooc-
currences, on the other hand. A distinction was frequently drawn between the
"good nationalism" (rational, voluntarist, contractual) of Western Europe and
the "bad nationalism" (irrational, "organic," aggressive) of most other parts of
Europe. Whereas the former was derived from the libertarian traditions of the
French revolution and from the free association of citizens in order to accom-
plish popular participation in national sovereignty, the latter was derived from
German and Italian experiences initially, and from Eastern Europe sub-
sequently, each with its legacy of totalitarianism, extremism and abandonment
of democratic freedoms. It is particularly the latter brand of nationalism that has
come to stand for the total phenomenon in the eyes of many of the modern
liberal and Marxist critics of the ethnic revival as well (for a critique of this view
see Rothschild 1981). The leap from Frisian demands for use of their own
language in local administrative jurisdictions, or from Chicano mobilization on
behalf of bilingual education, to charges or suspicions of "racism," "chauvin-
ism" or "nazism" is quickly and unjustifiably made (for a critique of this view
see van den Berghe 1981), perhaps because of the common romantic stress on
inherited ethnic identity, responsibility and continuity in each of these
instances.
Although it is common to find the modern origins of "organicist" national-
ism in Herderian imagery (thereby reinforcing the German nature of such
nationalism), the stress on innate authenticity, on the desirability of dis-
continuity between one ethnocultural aggregate and another, and on the
imperatives of such discontinuity, is much older than Herder or his immediate
intellectual progenitors (Fishman 1982). Indeed, it is older than the medieval
snippets that have often been grudgingly conceded by nonhistorians (Symmons-
Symonolewicz 1981), as amply demonstrated by Kantorowicz 1950—51 and
Armstrong 1982 and even older than the early Eastern Christian accommoda-
494 Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA
dons to Balto-Slavic realities (Jakobson 1945). Its earliest sophisticated Euro-

Mediterranean attestations are Greek (Fishman 1977, Juthner 1923, Dickinson
1896) and Hebrew (Hengel 1980; D. Fishman, Mayerfeld and J.A. Fishman,
Chapter 2, This Volume) and probably reflect the sanctification of small-scale
econotechnical and sociocultural establishments. Since such establishments
were originally the rule throughout the world, they were undoubtedly
sanctified and stabilized elsewhere as well, but research on ancient Southeast
Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas is lacking in this connection. Our
Euro-centeredness—both in building theories of ethnicity and in critiquing
those that have been advanced by others—leads us to overstress our own
intellectual, ideological and sociopolitical origins in these respects (as well as in
many others). Similarly, the notion of a rationalist compact (and, therefore, of
rational reethnization in the direction of greatest mutual advantage) does not
really originate in revolutionary France. It has definite Alexandrian (Toynbee
1981), Roman ('avis romanus sum), Western Christian (Galatians 3:28; McNair
1982) and triumphant Islamic precursors as well (Baali and Wardi 1981).
Modern Western students of nationalism have only recently recognized the
extremely varied and heterogeneous nature of the forms that it can take.
Organic and political; rational and irrational; contractual and inherited; left and
right; democratic and authoritarian; secular and religious; stable and chan-
geable; conflictual, competitive and cooperative—these are all possibilities
within the nationalist mix, and contending possibilities at that. To relate the
"ethnicity boom" of the mid-6os to mid-70s to this entire area of discourse is
therefore merely to relate it to a particular stress on ethnicity rather than to
necessarily similar goals or levels of intensity.
THE OBJECTIVE REALITY OF NATIONALISM,

NATIONALITY AND NATIONS
Most of the commonly attributed characteristics of nationalism posited in the

early studies of this phenomenon can now be recognized as merely pertaining to
a restricted sub-set of its possible (and at times incidental) sociofunctional
"colorations." Like all other social categories and processes, nationalism has
more situational characteristics than it has fixed ones. American familiarity with
our two major political parties, and their constantly shifting ideological grounds
for accomplishing practical ends, should have made American students of
ethnicity more attuned to this very aspect of nationalism than it evidently has.
And do not social scientists realize that religious systems are highly changeable
and contextual in their beliefs and emphases and that they are, in essence, much
more invented and created than discovered or received? Is this not even more
true of social class as a force in American political life? Instead of expecting one
epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA 495
class or another to have a certain interest or a certain level of awareness

eternally, we now generally recognize that class is just one of several crosscut-
ting allegiances and that it cannot be expected to be predictably on one side or
another of issues that arise. Certainly, the distinction between class and class-
consciousness is universally made and the lack of correspondence between the
two is not taken to imply that one or the other is "false" or "useless" or "base".
Although few abstract concepts have more strongly influenced modern social theory
and ideology than the notion of class, in advanced countries the theoretical concept is
rarely transformed into an actual consciousness of class solidarity strong enough to
overcome the effects of other attachments, more primordial and often more parochial,
formed out of the experiences of daily life.
(Dahl 1982, p. 64)
However, the fact that class does not have the power that some would wish (or
that some have predicted it would have) in American life, has not only not
invalidated the concept but has led to more refined understandings of its
situationality.
Yet in connection with nationalism-related phenomena, their situationality
and subjectivity not only came as a great surprise but, for some, have seemed to
question the very tenability of the concept. For Kedourie, "nationalism is a
doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century" (1961, p. 20).
For Turner, "nations are not so much discovered as created by the labours of
the intelligentsia" (1978, p. 55). Similar statements can be cited from most other
major syntheses, commentaries and critiques of earlier work on nationalism,
including my own (Fishman 1972). Nevertheless, the subjective and situational
nature of nationalism, however much it has come to be accepted and under-
stood within the field of nationalism research itself (e.g., Hobsbawm 1977,
Lonsdale 1977, Moerman 1965), still exacts a high price of opprobrium when it
is rediscovered in connection with American ethnicity phenomena.
Seemingly, the authenticity claim, on the one hand, and ongoing ideological,
artifactual and behavioral innovation and syncretism, on the other hand, make
not only difficult but odd bedfellows. It is as if critics were saying: " A move-
ment that advocates 'authenticity' is nothing more than a hoax if it is other than
authentic." The unauthenticity of pro-authenticity movements then becomes
an intensifier of the nostalgia charge. The ethnic revival is charged not only
with pining for a past that is over, done with and irretrievably lost, but (which is
worse) of pining for the past that never even was. However, aside from the fact
that the creation of self-fulfilling prophecies and the formulation of usable pasts
are part and parcel of all social movements and social institutions (Lazzerini
1982), it seems to me that what should be of concern to us is not so much that
this activity also typifies authenticity quests as much as that such quests occur
and recur and require satisfaction. Furthermore, manufactured authenticity is

commonly as moving, as stirring and as commanding as "the real thing." This
is no more than testimony to the symbolic needs and symbolic capacities of the
human species. The very strongest symbols apparently deal with "primordial"
and "parochial" experiences that are (purportedly) derived from and that
(purportedly) validate everyday life (Shils 1957, 1981; Mazrui 1982). To the
"ordinary member" (as distinct from the social scientist), it is often not the
empirical objective validity but the emotional subjective validity that counts.
During the mid-6os to mid-70s, the /«//-validity of their sidestream ethnicity
counted more than it previously had for many people, and we must try to under-
stand why, rather than ask whether the symbols that were honored at that time
were "really real." The latter is a technical, factual matter and reveals a
detached, external perspective, rather than an insightful idea. The phenomenon
that we are trying to explain, moreover, is largely a subjective one and requires,
at least in part, an appreciation of internalized feelings and goals rather than
merely the external dating of customs and social boundaries.
THE DEUTSCHIAN CONTRIBUTION TO STUDIES OF

NATIONALISM
Karl Deutsch's main contribution to the study of nationalism (a contribution

that has, of course, exacted its own price) was first and foremost to take it out
of the hands of historians primarily and to place it more squarely in the hands
of social scientists, particularly social scientists with quantitative inclinations
(Calvert 1982). However, even more substantively important (and even more
pertinent to our own sociolinguistic interests), was Deutsch's interpretation of
nationality as "the ability to communicate more effectively and over a wider
range of subjects" (1953, 96) among a "large number of individuals from the
middle and lower classes, linked to regional centers and leading social groups
by channels of social communication and economic intercourse" (1955, 101),
thereby altering the focus from intellectual positions and historical events to
social processes more generally and to language and communication in parti-
cular. His stress on "the middle and lower classes . . . linked to leading social
groups" would probably be restated nowadays in ways that would be less
oriented toward late-19th and early-20th century Central and Eastern Europe,
but his stress on "ability to communicate effectively," "regional centers,"
"leading social groups" and "economic intercourse" have become the building
blocks of most theories and studies since his own appeared. Just below the
surface in his stress on "social communication" are the basic notions of
urbanization (core and periphery), dislocation (social and cultural change),
elites (change agents) and economic interests (material modernization), all of
them ingredients which figure in my own as well as in many other recent
theories of nationalism (e.g., Wallerstein 1974, Hechter 1975, Chirot 1976,

Wiber 1976, etc.). Others since have introduced other formulations or refine-
ments (mobilization, modernization—e.g., Gellner 1964, Nairn 1977), and I
myself have tried to pay particular attention to "ethnic consciousness" as the
crucial distinction between ethnicity and nationalism (Fishman 1972a), but
basically we have all merely rearranged, documented and expounded upon
(revised and explained) one or more of the original Deutschian notions. It is
thanks to these notions and their revisions that we can now demonstrate the
cultural and ideological innovation and consciousness-raising that literally
create a nationality where before there was only a passive, unrealized, un-
activated ethnic potential.
In the above-mentioned process, language is not only inevitably used, but it
becomes symbolic of the mobilization on behalf of which it is used, as well as the
natural arbiter oí those who can be reached and included. Of course, nationalism
involves a new use of language (for new purposes), as well as new varieties of language,
but the result is that the most sophisticated symbol system normally available
to us becomes both symbolic of, as well as an ingredient and index of, the
mobilized, modernized consciousness on behalf of which it is employed. The
part (language) not only stands for the whole, but renders the whole conscious,
binds the whole together and implements the whole. In the process of doing so
(a process that takes time and effort and is far from being as inevitable,
"natural" and unidirectional as it appears in retrospect to be), an awareness of
identity is created that often overrides the other interests (religious, economic
and political) of the population involved. Once created, a nationality may be
self-perpetuating (which, of course, does not mean fixed or unchanging) until it
is overcome by forces greater than those that it has mobilized.
CRITIQUE OF DEUTSCHIAN AND NEO-

DEUTSCHIAN THEORY
There are several alternative (and, in part, complementary) versions of

Deutschian theory today, among which the Hechterian is currently most
popular (see, e.g., Beer 1980, Khlief 1979). Hechter (1975) is primarily con-
cerned with the mobilization along ethnic lines of late modernizing peripheral
areas. His data pertains to Welsh and Irish nationalism and its varying and
wavering electoral appeal over a period of generations to its potential con-
stituencies. He interprets their support of nationalist efforts as constituting a
belated awareness and rejection of their "internal colonialism". Thus, ethnic
revivals of the Hechterian type are basically responses of peripheral and late
modernizing ethnic groups whereby they undertake to struggle for the rectifica-
tion of their basically economic grievances with respect to the established
"ethnic diversification of labor." Hechter's interpretations of ethnic revivals are
clearly Deutschian, but (at least until their very recent and unexpected revision.
Hechter et al. 1982) they were, if anything, more "conflict"-oriented than were
Deutsch's, the latter's views being rather more "competition"-oriented.
Hechter also stresses the earlier stages of industrialization-urbanization-
modernization as being most conducive to ethnic revivals, whereas Deutsch
himself, Fox, Aull and Cimino (1978), Eisenstadt (1978) and others stress later
stages. Much research on the most recent period of the ethnic revival among
Belgian Flemings (see the review by Nielsen 1980) reveals that Flemish causes
appeal most to those that are urban middle class and professionals rather than to
workers (for similar conclusions about earlier periods see van Alboom 1982,
Jansegers 1982). They imply that stalled, urban mid-modernization (rather than
late-peripheral modernization) provides the dynamics for mobilizing along
ethnic lines in order to advance basically economic goals. At the other end of the
modernization continuum, we find Eisenstadt's analysis (1978) which focuses
on ethnic revivals in various African settings in which modernization has been
"defeated." The economic and technological collapse of modernization results
in a return to regional ethnic identities over and above the prior thin veneer of
integrative national identity.
The Deutschian studies, regardless of the particular stage in the moderni-
zation process on which they focus and regardless of their conflict-competition
differences, all rely on a basically economic dynamic. They view ethnic revivals
as elitist-manipulated programs for attaining economic goals. Undoubtedly,
such revivals do obtain and, even more undoubtedly, economic goals and
grievances do play a role in ethnic movements (e.g., Blauner 1969, Bonacich
1972, Fenwick 1982, Glazer 1983, Keyes 1981, Rothschild 1981) and in ethnic
survival (Bonacich and Modell 1980, Melville 1983), just as they do in religious
and secular movements and experiences of all kinds. Many ethnic groups are
obviously class-defined as well ("ethclasses", as Milton Gordon calls them) and,
equally obviously, ethnicity has to mean something different for middle and
lower class Chícanos, Poles, Italians, etc. What is more dubious, however, is
the implication that economic issues are somehow at the core of the human drama
in general and of ethnic revivals and experiences in particular (note the dis-
appointment of Olzak 1982 when such is «β/found to be the case and the constant
need of most confirmed empiricists to ponder other variables, e.g., Reitz 1974,
Lieberson 1981). Those who posit economic primacy a priori (not unlike those
who claim that ethnicity is imaginary and that only social class is real) inevitably
wind up viewing ethnicity as a "mere by-product of more basic forces" and,
therefore, as expendable if not entirely unnecessary and even undesirable (Stern
and Hill, 1977, Steinberg 1981). Culture per se becomes an epiphenomenon!
Unfortunately, "Marx and Engels left no clear theoretical guideline for con-
ceptualizing the phenomenon of nationalism" (Turner 1978, p. 60) and, there-
Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the OSA 499
fore, their followers are left with "no explanation of how to deal theoretically
with the ethnic divisions of mankind when confronted with divisions based on
class" (Kolakowski 1979, p. 48), and few of their disciples have had the temerity
to strike out on their own to seek out an explanation (note, however, Nairn
1975, Lowy 1976, Jakubowicz 1981, among others calling for more initiative
along these very lines and the variety of views covered by Davis (1973) and
others.). Instead of seeing ethnicity as a factor in interaction with others (class,
sex, age, religion), influencing others and being influenced by them in complex
fashions that always required empirical elucidation, ethnicity becomes "some-
thing" merely to be explained away as an economic residue. This view, of
course, is in conflict with Berlin's diametrically opposed view (1972), according
to which the ethnic revival of the mid-6os to mid-70s was a rejection of the
heartless, soulless economic determinism in modern life and its requirement
that we disguise our true feelings and beings for the sake of maximizing the
efficiency of the modern marketplace. Most seriously, however, the economic
emphases that derive from Deutschian studies (as well as the countless Marxian
and neo-Marxian studies whose ultimate appreciation of ethnicity is infinitely
less than that of the Deutschian school) do not agree with the basic thrust of our
evidence-anchored view (arguable though it may still be) of the ethnic revival
in the United States, namely, that it was basically a generalized response over
and above any economic differences between the groups that manifested it
(Fishman, Chapter 6, This Volume).
The non-American, non-immigrant contexts of the Deutschian and neo-
Deutschian research reviewed above present yet another hurdle in successfully
applying it to the ethnic revival in the U.S.A. Instead of modernization
problematics, we are dealing in the U.S.A. primarily with post-modernization
problematics (Etzioni 1968). Instead of indigenous minorities wavering back
and forth between central integration and peripheral autonomy, we have
primarily immigrant minorities reassessing their original identities in a country
with no deeply historical, "indigenous" ethnic center, indeed, in a country in
which immigrational diversity is the center. Instead of a Deutschian program-
matic and politicized opportunity, the ethnic revival in the U.S.A. was more a
diffuse reaction to mainstream characteristics and blandishments (rather than
restrictions), in the context of particular events and opportunities. Instead of
Deutschian ideological and cultural innovation and transformation, the recent
ethnolinguistic revival in the United States was primarily a rearrangement of
identificational priorities and components. Instead of being the by-product of
Deutschian proto-elite initiatives, the non-English-language-related ethnic re-
vival in the United States was largely an instance of leaderless drift. Instead of a
Deutschian stress on autonomy in matters of language, religion, education and
economy, its stress was on self-understanding, self-righteousness, self-
acceptance and, perhaps, even self-indulgence. Instead of a progression from
500 Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival' in the USA
ethnicity to nationality to nation (which I first clarified in 1968 and which has
since then become widely accepted in studies of nationalism; see, e.g., Magosci
1978), we generally find no more than an acknowledged interest in ethnicity
that remains far below the level of intensity that would be necessary for the
nationality and nation stages to obtain.
Indeed, if the ethnic group-into-nationality transition is usually rather
dubious in the case of the ethnic revival in the U.S.A., then the nationality-into-
nation stage is almost always entirely absent, both in ideological as well as in
concrete organizational or practical terms (Sagarin and Moneymaker 1979;
McCord and McCord 1979). Even the virtual absence of much feared ethnic
politicization (Foster 1980, Bruckner 1980) in connection with the ethnic
revival in the U.S.A. (which is not to say that there was no ethnic politics, a
veritable staple of the American political scene since the days of Benjamin
Franklin; see Estrada 1983; Heath 1977, Lucas 1980, Waltzer 1980, Glazer 1982,
Spinrad 1983) cannot be attributed to the factors usually involved in the absence
or presence of politicized nationalism in Deutschian theory. Normally, such
politicization is attributable to the impenetrability and hostility of the
established power structure. Accordingly, the absence or shrinkage of politiciza-
tion should be attributable to the presence of an easily penetrable and accom-
modating power structure (Mayer 1980, Pristinger 1980). However, it would be
more accurate to say that in the American case the absence of serious ethnic
politicization (see Parenti 1967 and note his critique of Wolfinger 1967) was due
to the basically non-instrumental nature of the ethnic revival per se and to the
weak role of any intelligentsia in the revival as a whole, notwithstanding the
general rise in ethnic saliency that transpired.
Although ethnic studies at colleges and universities grew amazingly, and
although this growth was a crucial aspect of the revival per se, these programs
did not prepare "new men" to join with already-politicized proto-elites in
the acceleration and expansion of nationalist activism in the manner so con-
vincingly demonstrated by Hobsbawm (1962, 1977) for various European
settings. The third-generation-derived college students of most ethnolinguistic
backgrounds were hardly "new men" and, at any rate, higher education, on the
whole, may have remained the enemy of ethnicity and of sidestream ethnic
continuity that it traditionally has been in America. Rather, the ethnic revival
entailed a detachment on the part of "ethnolinguistically interested" students
from the total higher education experience of pre-professional training, just as
the revival perse entailed their detachment from the values, goals and processes
of the mainstream more generally.
Even among Hispanics or Amerindians, where more "new men" did come
into being and where a new leadership was trained on American college
campuses (a leadership far different in make-up than that which preceded it),
frustrated careerism was hardly an ingredient in the overall make-up of these
new leaders (Limon 1982). Unlike the Deutschian models, their protest was not
against a mainstream or central system that excluded them (as detailed by Smith
1981, Khlief 1982a and many others w h o " o v e r d o " the role of disappointed
elites and proto-elites in ethnicity movements), but, on the contrary, against
one that eagerly included them as exemplars of "affirmative action," an es-
tablishment that transethnified more than it gratified in any material way.
Instead of breaking with internal traditional forces (ethnic churches and
ethnic schools), the revival ultimately dug in around these very institutions of
daily life. A s a result, none o f the three stages proposed by Hroch (1968) with
respect to the life of all nationalist movements (small groups of ideologically
innovating intellectuals, wider networks of patriots-agitators and, finally, se-
rious popular mobilization) usually obtained and the latter two, by and large,
were totally absent. The revival occurred during a period of relatively easy
social advancement, rather than during one of curtailment, and it was, there-
fore, partially a rejection of such advancement as the be-all-and-end-all of
meaningful life. "Righting the balance of uneven development" (Nairn 1977)
does not seem to have been widely involved. Indeed, neither the absence nor the
experience of social mobility may have been involved as much as the downgrad-
ing of such mobility from its previous position as the pinnacle of triumph and
the attainment of the good life. The revival was neither a "liberal education for
traditional individuals" nor "a kind of professional education for individuals on
the move into the bourgeoisie" (Womack 1980). It was neither a questioning of
loyalty to America nor a search for a higher loyalty. Indeed, it was far too
innocent and unfocused even to be an enduring ethnic revival.
All in all, therefore, our review of Deutschian and neo-Deutschian concepts
and theories has been helpful largely because it has helped highlight our
contention that the ethnic revival in the United States represented a different
type and intensity of ethnic process than that which has hitherto been explored
in the fameword of nationalism research. Exploring this revival further may
throw light on various, as yet little-understood, aspects of ethnicity
transformations—particularly those going on in post-modernization,
immigration-based contexts—aspects and transformations that call into ques-
tion several relatively unquestioned assumptions concerning the relationship
between sidestream ethnicity and social class, liberalism-conservatism, elites,
ethnic-consciousness, social conflict and political activism (Newman 1973).
Indeed, our inquiry into the ethnic revival in the U.S.A. may ultimately help us
better understand some aspects of modern minority ethnicity everywhere.
SITUATIONAL ASPECTS OF ETHNIC SALIENCY
A major problem with the Deutschian and neo-Deutschian approaches to

variation in ethnic saliency is that they are overly categorical or macro-oriented.
Even at the macro-level, however, they have been criticized as insufficiently

predictive (e.g., it is difficult to explain when ethnic competition/conflict will
occur relative to the onset of consciousness of disadvantage, internal
colonization or change in central priorities). Accordingly, it is to the level of
middle-range specificity—i.e., a level of analysis that is neither overly macro-
nor micro-level in orientation—to which we now turn, doing so, admittedly, in
terms that parallel sociolinguistic theory as it has been developed during the
past two decades.
Immigrant-derived ethnicity in the United States today (and also Chicano,
Amerindian and indigenous minority ethnicity in many settings throughout the
world), implemented as it largely is in a context characterized by interethnic
contact and by culture change more generally, is largely a repertoirial pheno-
menon. By this I mean to say that it coexists together with a number of
"varieties" of socially-patterned behaviors, some of which are sidestream
ethnicity-derived, others of which are mainstream ethnicity-derived, and yet
others of which bear the stamp of modern generality that is not (or is no longer)
indicative of any particular ethnicity whatsoever within its context. The first
and second generational pangs of conflict and double marginality, documented
so tellingly in the '30s and '40s (e.g., Child 1943), are still present in some cases,
but they are much more muted and mellowed. Relative to earlier periods and to
the concerted Americanization pressures that were formerly applied by both
mainstream and sidestream institutions, it is now not only possible to "be
American" in a variety of different ethnic ways, but sidestream ethnicity per se
has also become much more modern and American. The spirit of the times is
different and the vast majority of Americans reveal sidestream ethnicity-
associated ways of doing, feeling and knowing within their total repertoire of
social behaviors. An American ethnicity, too, is coming into being (Hraba
1979), slowly but massively, for ethnogenesis is occurring in America too,
rather than merely elsewhere (Grigulevich and Kozlov 1981, Jones and Hill-
Burnett 1982), but it is criss-crossed by minority ethnic realizations, just as the
latter are totally criss-crossed by American doings, feelings and knowings. The
total repertoire is increasingly experienced as a highly integrated whole (rather
than as bits and tatters of disparate cloth), although it is made up, as are all
modern cultures, of old and new threads of diverse ages and origins. It is the
totality of these threads which constitute the total repertoire, but they are never
implemented totally, all at the same time. As with repertoires more generally,
the ethnic repertoire is selectively (i.e., contextually) implemented, on the basis
of socioconsensual principles of appropriateness and in pursuit of individual
goals within a framework of social norms and expectations. Identity is a matter
of social location, Berger (1961) tells us. Accordingly, particular combinations of
threads ("varieties" of behavior) are selectively implemented, sometimes
combining sidestream and mainstream ethnicity, and sometimes combining old
(arguably "authentic") and new aspects of either or both. Old bread and new
wine are constantly brought together (Gallo 1981) and, as a result, newness is
less overwhelming and disorienting. The principles of selection between the
myriad of possible combinations are both macro- and micro-determined.
THE CONTEXTUALIZATION OF SIDESTREAM

ETHNICITY
Several approaches have been advanced from the point of view that ethnicity is
first and foremost situational (e.g., Handleman 1977, Moerman 1965, Paden
1971). In accord with principles that have now been well-established for the
utilization of one language/variety or another within a bilingual community
(Fishman, Cooper, Ma 1975), the implementation of one ethno-behavioral
variety or another can be conceptualized at various corresponding levels of
abstraction. At the most micro-level, we can recognize ethno-acts and ethno-
events. The transitions of birth, death, marriage, coming of age, etc. (Hareven
1978, Fried and Fried 1980) may well be more heavily characterized by side-
stream ethnicity behaviors (including more snatches of ethnic mother-tongue
use) than are most other acts, events or "scenes" of modern urban life. Certain
persons are particularly likely to be interacted with in terms of shared sidestream
ethnicity: grandmother, the parish priest, the community poet, the teacher of
the local ethnic mother-tongue school. Similarly, certain places and their con-
gruent topics and role relationships (the three together being the building blocks
of situations) are also markers of sidestream ethnicity, particularly if they are
ritualized (highly predictable or formalized). If getting grandfather to do you a
favor when interacting with him privately at the big table in the family dining-
room is a recognizable sidestream-ethnicity-stressing situation (Gallo 1981),
then conducting the Passover seder with the immediate family at the same table
is even more likely to be so (Schneider 1972, Shils 1981).
However, it is not necessary to conceptualize sidestream ethnicity episodi-
cally (even though that may be the level of preferred data collection or of
disciplinary reward). Entire slices of social life {domains) may be more colored by
sidestream identity and its implementation than are others: religion more than
work, home/family more than street/neighborhood, school more than en-
tertainment, etc. (Fishman 1972b). Domains, related as they are to the major
institutional channels of society, constitute parsimonious cognitive, affective
and overt behavioral boundaries in the organization of social life. It is not
necessary to insist that they always obtain as clearcut and exclusively sidestream
or mainstream situational aggregations in order to recognize that they might
very well be exactly that for some networks and in some historical junctures.
Clearcut and uniform or not, they may nevertheless appear to be so phenome-
nologically for "actors" and they may well constitute legitimate investigatory
targets for researchers.
Network types may also usefully differentiate between sidestream and main-
stream ethnicity behaviors or particular combinations thereof. In certain closed
networks, i.e., networks in which individuals are united by bonds of intimacy
and shared experience that transcend and override status differences (and,
therefore, ones in which they are relatively inhospitable or closed to outsiders),
sidestream ethnicity may be particularly salient, relative to its salience in open
networks. Similarly, in personal interactions (in which shared qualities of the
participants are stressed, rather than the transactional or instrumental goals of
their particular encounter), sidestream ethnicity may come to the fore ever so
much more than in interactions focused upon practical outcomes (Barth 1969).
Finally, at the very highest level of generality, there are cultural value clusters
that contextualize socially-patterned behavior. Whereas Gemeinschaft and
Gesellschaft most certainly coexist in modern life, they are not equally salient on
each and every occasion. Values of intimacy, primary relationships, feelings of
sympathy, or co-responsibility, of interest and involvement in one's fellows, of
face-to-face experience and emotional commitment to "those of one's own
kind" (Boas 1909, Fischer 1982), with whom one can really "let one's hair
down", may be ever so much more associated with sidestream ethnicity than
are all of the powerful, efficient, productive and competitive interactions that
constitute the effective achievement-oriented component of modern life (Findling
1972). Not surprisingly, the former context may reveal far more sidestream
ethnic being, feeling and knowing (as well as ethnic mother-tongue use or semi-
use) than the latter.
OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ETHNICITY REPERTOIRE
The contextualization and interpénétration of ethnicities of one kind or another

(as distinct from categorical "all or none" ethnicity throughout) does not
exhaust the notion of ethnicity repertoire. It merely gets to the issue of when.
There are other repertoirial issues (even above and beyond the issue of why, an
issue to which we will soon come). One of these is the issue of repertoire range.
How many and how disparate are the sidestream ethnicity contexts that are
societally recognized? For some, they will be limited to family contexts alone or
to family and religious ritual. That would constitute a smaller repertoirial range
than one that realized sidestream ethnicity in the educational and occupational
domains as well. An even more fundamental issue is that of repertoire com-
partmentaliâtion, i.e., the extent to which mainstream and sidestream ethnicity
may be implemented in one and the same contexts (acts, situations, etc.). Where
sidestream ethnicity and mainstream ethnicity are jointly permissible in one and
the same situation (i.e., where compartmentalization is absent or very meager),

the blending of the two will proceed more rapidly than where specific situations
are allocated to either one ethnicity or the other and the t w o are kept studiously
apart. The compartmentalization of dual ethnicity is generally difficult to
maintain in modern, interactive urban contexts (Fishman 1980; Chapter 3, This
Volume). A s a result, not only does di-ethnia seldom obtain at the societal level,
but ethnic discontinuity also becomes rare. The daily or festive rounds that
typify one ethnicity are increasingly found in the other that is co-present with it
in time and place, and this redundancy or parallelism both reflects and fosters
the lack of compartmentalization and the ongoing melding that has been men-
tioned above. While modernization of once-rural sidestream ethnicities increase
their ability to cope with urban American social, economic and political re-
alities, it also increases the melding potential between modernities even if they
stem from two different ethnocultural sources or points of origin, precisely
because boundary maintenance (Haarmann in press, Strassoldo 1982, Paulston
and Paulston 1980) on a cultural basis is difficult when one modernity faces
another. Ethnocultural boundary maintenance may be anathema to the liberal
disposition with its penchant for untrammeled interaction. However, boundary
maintenance is a minimal characteristic of all life, from the most elementary to
the most complex. It entails the basic need and right to define one's own system
and the circumstances under which others may enter it. VCithout boundary
maintenance the crucial ability to exercise "controlled acculturation", that even
certain tiny pre-modern societies such as the Old Order Amish and the Hasidim
can engage in (Eaton 1952a, Thompson 1981), becomes impossible even for
much larger groups such as most Hispanic-Americans, German-Americans and
Italian-Americans. For modern urban minorities, primary institutions are the
very sinews of boundary maintenance (Hechter et al 1982, Breton et al 1980.) As
recent Hispanic experience reveals, numbers alone merely facilitate but do not
by any means guarantee boundary maintenance (Massey and Mullan 1984) on
behalf of intergenerational cultural continuity.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

NARROWLY ETHNOLINGUISTIC AND BROADER
ETHNOCULTURAL TRANSITIONS
Language is both part of, indexical of, and symbolic of ethnocultural behavior.
A s ethnicities meld, change or absorb and replace one another, it is inevitable
that the languages of these ethnicities will be modified as well. Language
change, per se, in the usual linguistic sense of alteration in lexicon, semantics,
syntax and phonology, is, or course, always ongoing, particularly between
5o6 Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA
languages in contact (Weinreich 1953), even without the problematic context

which we are here examining of the overlap and co-occurrence of ethnic reali-
zations. Of course, ethnocultures too are constantly changing, notwithstanding
the authenticity claims and the authenticity experiences of their members. But
what I am interested in at this point is not so much change as replacement or
substitution, i.e., the adoption of what is consensually regarded as a new or
different language in conjunction with a particular ethnic identity or behavioral
realization. Essentially, therefore, what I am referring to is the possibility of
language shift and its co-occurrence with apparent or experienced ethnocultural
constancy. Such co-occurrences, contraindicated though they may be in national-
ist dogma, do occur and have occurred massively in the U.S.A., and they need
to be examined for what they imply for language and ethnicity as well as for
language and culture more generally.
For students of the American ethnolinguistic scene, it has been clear for
nearly a quarter century that although both language and ethnicity are capable
of repeated transformation, these need not occur in tandem. Indeed, of the two,
language, on the one hand, and its associated total ethnicity package, on the
other hand, the former is the far more labile of the two (Fishman 1966). The
subsystems of language, as well as given languages as wholes, are capable of
change and of being exchanged far more rapidly and discontinuously than is the
total ethnicity constellation (although it, too, is constantly subject both to
change and to exchange). Up to a certain point, the language associated with a
given sidestream ethnicity is considered to be merely influenced by the language
of mainstream ethnicity. After that point, a sense of real transition obtains and
the language of the mainstream may be utilized for sidestream ethnicity, in
addition to all its other uses. This point is reached more definitively and more
consciously in print than in speech. In either case, however, it is indicative of the
fact that no matter how all-embracing language is experienced to be as the
vehicle or as the symbol of the total ethnocultural package (Fishman 1972a), it
is really only a part, and a detachable part at that, rather than the whole of that
package. This is all the more so when, as in the case of the American ethnic
revival, language ideologies and language movements per se are almost entirely
lacking (Svensson 1974; Sagarin and Moneymaker 1979), when those for whom
language itself takes the place of the country they have left are vanishingly few
and considered off-beat even by their closest friends and neighbors. All the
more reason, therefore, why ethnocultural experiences as interconnected ways
of doing, feeling and knowing have been phenomenologically much more
robust than their linguistic accompaniments. The former may and do change
and meld tremendously and yet they can be experienced (and interpreted by
outsiders) as "authentic" and as intact continuity phenomena.
A few salient rituals, a few foods, a transition commemoration here and
there, a dance, a melody, these may be enough to maintain the sense of
ethnocultural continuity in the midst of far-flung social change and ethno-

cultural innovation and melding (Alba and Chamlin 1983). The "authentic"
community cannot be "saved" but neither need it be "lost" (Tsai and Sigelman
1982). The ethnocultural self-concept, the notion of group identity, can remain
intact and unchanged far beyond any similar experience with respect to lan-
guage. Indeed, in the case of language, detachments occur, and often con-
sensually so, and yet the total ethnocultural experience—traumatized though
it may temporarily be—can recover a sense of stability and continuity. Thus, I
am not saying that the replacement of one language by another does not exact a
huge price in terms of ethnocultural authenticity and continuity and in terms of
societal organization and stability as a whole. What I am saying is that the price
is contingent on the degree of internal management and control of the total
change process and that ultimately, after the worst is over, a sense of basic
ethnocultural continuity and authenticity can be recaptured, notwithstanding
the linguistic detachment and replacement that has occurred and notwith-
standing the overall ethnocultural innovation and melding that has transpired.
Learning the ethnic mother tongue as a second language and camouflaging
mother-tongue loss by institutional "gains" at very modest levels of intensity
of second-language use (Fishman et al., Chapter 7, This Volume) are powerful
examples of the simultaneity and confoundability of mother-tongue loss and
ethnocultural continuity and change.
The experience of language continuity and the experience of ethnic con-
tinuity are both highly attitudinal; however, the latter is a much more robust
attitude than the former. It is particularly for written language that dis-
continuity and detachment are clearly evident. For spoken languages, the
continuity-discontinuity transitions are not as sharp but the morphosyntactic
and phonological systems can bend only so far before they are considered to be
"something else." The combination of relative linguistic inflexibility and rela-
tive ethnocultural flexibility finally results in the triumph of overall ethnocultural
continuity experiences over ethnolinguistic discontinuity experiences, if the
latter can be brought under ultimate control. The hammer is experienced to be
the same even though on one occasion the head was replaced and on another the
handle. Ethnolinguistic and ethnocultural continuity in the U.S.A. are both far
greater at an attitudinal level than at an overt behavioral one, whether viewed
experientially (from within) or evaluationally (from without). In addition, the
latter (ethnocultural continuity) is greater than the former (ethnolinguistic
continuity). The ethnic revival consisted of a rise in the saliency of both and at
both levels, even though the former was already much weakened and the latter
much transformed, from an external evaluation point of view. The revival did
not compensate for or overcome either the weakness, on the one hand, nor the
transformations on the other. That it occurred at all is its claim to fame, rather
than that it triumphed or that it stabilized. It did neither, and yet it was an
jo8 'Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Reviva/" in the USA
unexpected and significant occurrence. On the language front, it was generally

related to increased institutional concern for language and increased retrospec-
tive mother-tongue acquisition (second-language learning at best) rather than to
genuine language movements or renativization. However, some of the most
traditional communities proved capable of the most "radical" steps on behalf of
language maintenance via boundary maintenance (Calhoon 1983, St Clair and
Leap 1 9 8 2 ) .
THE ETHNIC REVIVAL IN AMERICA: WHEN AND

WHY
The ethnic revival in the United States between the mid-6os and the mid-70S co-
occurred with somewhat similar phenomena in many other parts of the de-
mocratic capitalist world. Although most of the other occurrences involved
indigenous minorities (Welsh, Irish, Scots, Bretons, Alsatians, Frisians
Catalons, Basques, etc.,), several immigrant settings also revealed a quickening
of minority ethnocultural effort: e.g., among Gastarbeiter immigrants in
Western and Northern Europe, among "non-Founding" minorities in Canada,
among Euroimmigrants in Australia, etc. Any theory of the ethnic revival in the
U.S.A. must cope, therefore, with its co-occurrence in time with both indigen-
ous and immigrant revivals in many and quite separate parts of the Western
world. That is to say, it must be enlightening in the specific case but yet be based
on generalized theory.
Let us remind ourselves of what the mid- to late-6os were like, particularly in
the U.S.A. The Vietnam War was continually intensifying and eliciting the
opposition of liberals and the young. The Civil Rights movement had ground
to a halt even before the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968, adding to
the general disenchantment with the Anglo-establishment and to the Black
conviction that Black (and Black alone) was beautiful. The rising tide of Black
pride should not be ignored as a stimulant for the White ethnic revival, but
neither should it be overstressed. The two circles overlap only in part, have
essentially their own dynamics and their own course, intensity, focus and time
frame (Lowy et al., Chapter 8, This Volume). The "flower children" and the
hippies expressed the disenchantment of broad segments of American youth
(including ethnic American youth)—a disenchantment with big business, big
labor, big government and the entire fixation on material or financial success.
Most strikingly, however, was the fact that these young people were not the
only ones gripped by a counter culture. "Do it yourself," "small is beautiful,"
environmental protection of air, water and nature against the inroads of a
rampant profit motive, were widely acceptable and implemented indications of
alienation from previously uncritically agreed-upon mainstream practices and

values. It was an affluent period. Unemployment was low; inflation, minor.
Funds were apparently available for any and all ventures. The space program
was in high gear and so were city-center efforts in education and urban renewal.
Nevertheless, or, perhaps, therefore, with all of the verve that the times
revealed, there was a deep and abiding youth and young adult disaffection
which clearly expressed the questioning and even the rejection of mainstream
values, priorities and processes. Indeed, many of those that appeared to be most
disaffected were exactly from backgrounds which were most comfortably
middle class and Anglo or anglified-third-generation (Bender and Kagiwada
1968). Much before sociologists began to do so (Shils 1969, Riesman 1981),
untold ordinary citizens began to re-examine and even question the dream of
mere abundance. Several of the other causes that they later championed related
to those who had long been slighted by the mainstream: women, homosexuals,
Blacks, followers of various alternative lifestyles, of new departures in music,
art and culture more generally (Martin 1981) and of religious fundamentalism.
In this context, it was quite natural for many of them also to liberate and dignify
ethnic aspects for their own identities as well.
What took the form of campaigns for local cultural autonomy in Europe
took the form of advocacy of ethnic studies programs and invocation of ethnic
dress, food, hairdo, song, dance and music in the U.S.A. Both were "anti-
central" expressions, rejective of the power and the ethos, the values and
priorities, the rewards and the blandishments of mainstream cultures and their
constituted arbiters and authorities (Fox, Aull and Cimino 1981). However, the
American version of this luxuriant growth was, if anything, more anarchic. It
generally lacked political program or sophistication. It was often incoherent
rather than merely inchoate. On the "left", it covered the waterfront from
revolutionary activism to principled inactivism, from "Weathermen" to
"flower children," with greater overall similarity in levels and manners of
sexual gratification and drug-culture tolerance than in political platforms,
programs or analyses. Among some, anyone over thirty was suspect and the
number of years under thirty is extremely finite and fleeting. On the "right",
a return to "true religion" began to spread. Distancing from the mainstream
was, therefore, bi-directional: that of the liberal counterculture and that of
a budding fundamentalism among those shocked by the mainstream's permis-
siveness (Harrell, 1975, Kelley 1972, Liebman and Wuthnow 1983, Sandeen
1970, Shoupe and Stacey 1982). The ethnic revival in America was part and
parcel of two counterculture "movements," and like these "movements" it was
more an expression of mainstream alienation than of serious analyses of main-
stream evils or serious intent to force or manipulate the mainstream into a new
accommodation with sidestream ethnicity. It was not a "youth rebellion" or
even a "youth movement" in the classic sense in which such phenomena have
5 io Epilogue: The Rúe and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival' in the USA
been described and analyzed previously in the sociological literature (Eisenstadt

1971). Given the American context, the ethnic revival both failed and succeeded
far more drastically than its protagonists themselves ever imagined; it in-
fluenced the mainstream more than an outright rebellion would have, but it was
co-opted more fully and more quickly than would have been possible if a full-
blown breach had occurred.
In terms of our contextualization discussion, the ethnic revival in the United
States succeeded in bringing sidestream ethnicity out of the family and neigh-
borhood closet (Mangione 19 81 ) and made it salon-worthy. It could be revealed
(and gratified) in college and in church, in public places rather than merely in
private ones. It could present itself as being for the general good (e.g., in the
case of bilingual education). Its little personal networks—restaurants, theaters,
churches, radio/television programs, neighborhood clubs and schoolhouses—
came to be viewed as the spice of life without which all would be anglobland,
tasteless and inert (Gans 1965, Fischer 1982, Greeley 1977). The ethnic revival,
as part of the total counterculture experience of the times, represented an
expansion, both in the public as well as in the private spheres of life, of the
sidestream ethnicity repertoire. At the same time, its compartmentalization and
ideologization remained as weak as it had been. While third generations never
really return to the life of the first (Bender and Kagiwada 1986, Goering 1971,
Nahirny and Fishman 1965), the ethnic revival was not even an attempt along
such lines.
Although, on the one hand, it spilled over into everything, on the other hand
it remained low in intensity and nonspecific in goals, very much as the total
counterculture movement of which it was a part. When the latter dissipated, so
did it, leaving a vague but recognizable imprint on the general tone and tenor of
American life to the effect that there was no "one model American" (Lopez and
Vogel 1979). Before the "revival," minority ethnicity was peripheral to, but
connected with, the larger developments and forces of co-territorial social
history (Chirot 1976). In the revival it became part and parcel of that history.
THE ETHNIC REVIVAL AND THE FORMATION OF

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
The ethnic revival in the U.S.A. shares certain characteristics with most of the
other ethnic revivals of approximately the same time. It reflected a pervasive (but
ultimately muted) alienation from the central ethos and institutions of mainstream
society. However, given the shallower depth and greater plasticity of "American
ethnicity," it was also a formative experience in the ongoing saga of the
formation of the American people (Gans et al. 1979). Out of thousands of
religions, there has arisen an unestablished American view of religion that
places religion on a pedestal. Religion is nonspecific, nonfunctional or nongoal-

oriented for American society as a whole but yet it is all-pervasive, comforting and
altogether approved and desired by the vast bulk of Americans and, therefore,
religion is an integrative force notwithstanding the diversity of religions
(Berger 1961, Fenn 1972, Hammond 1963,1964). Religion in America is neither
lower class nor upper class; it is neither liberal nor conservative. It no longer
controls law, nor education, nor government, nor health, nor business, nor
culture; yet it is a recognizable ingredient and determinant of all of them and in
the daily lives, happiness and well-being of the bulk of the population. Without
controlling very much, it has become a verity. Americans expect each other "to
be religious"; any religion will do and all religions are equally valid (Greeley
1972). Religion (rather than any particular religion) has become part of the
common, overarching "American experience." To have no religion is, in the
eyes of most Americans, to be both suspect and impoverished simultaneously.
Some religions are more exotic than others, but, in contrast to earlier days
(Moore 1982), any religion is distinctly better than none in popular estimation.
De Tocqueville's analysis in this connection rings truer today than when he
originally wrote it: "If it be of the highest importance to man, as an individual,
that his religion should be true, it is not so to society . . . Provided the citizens
profess a religion, the peculiar tenets of that religion are of little importance to
its [American society's] interests" (de Tocqueville [1835] 1945, p. 314).
Thanks to the revival, sidestream ethnicity has come to play a public role very
similar to that of religion in American life (Schneider 1969). A sidestream
ethnicity is recognized as being not only "natural" but as being humanizing and
strengthening in some very general sense, and those who implement or display
it situationally are not outsiders in urban America (Sibley 1981). It controls no
domain of behavior completely but it is "a good influence" and makes for a
more interesting, colorful, rooted life. It is family-stablity-related,
neighborhood-stability-related, personal-stability-related. Americans now
expect each other to have some sidestream ethnicity; any sidestream ethnicity
will do and all ethnicities are equally good (well, almost all) because their
role is no longer to help or hinder "being a success in America" (Sowell 1981)
but to provide "roots": meaningful cultural depth to individual and family life.
Thus a sidestream ethnicity as part of one's background (rather than any
particular sidestream ethnicity) has become part of an enriched and overarching
American experience in ways adumbrated by Handlin (1957) and Greene (1975).
There is no need to hide it. In fact, it would be churlish and putting on false airs
to do so. What is worse, it would be denying an aspect of American identity
(Shanabruch 1981, Alba and Chamlin 1983).
But, of course, a shared, "common American" ethnicity is growing too (just
as is the shared American civil religion), particularly among the young (Gleason
1980). The liberal dream of a modern society in which ethnicity is secondary to
512 Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the US A
the central social processes and individual aspirations and involvements is being
approximated via innumerable and mighty mainstream forces. This is, of
course, a case of ethnogenesis (Bromley 1974, Gallagher 1974, Salamone 1975,
Singer 1962), rather than of the "disappearance of ethnicity," as liberals had
mistakenly hoped and believed because of their association of ethnicity with the
sidestream alone. It proceeds via the fact that the two, the sidestream and the
mainstream, are not greatly compartmentalized and, indeed, are co-present not
only in most domains but in most situations as well. The family and the church,
the school and the mass media, all are appropriate contexts for implementing,
combining and innovating either or both. As a result, the extent of overlap and
of parallelism between the two streams increases. The boundaries between the
two are far less clear than they would be in a European context where histori-
cally deep indigenous ethnicities come into contact. In addition, the plasticity of
the concept of "American ethnicity" is still quite substantial and, as a result, the
sidestream more easily becomes part of the mainstream. Indeed, they become
tributaries and variants or versions of the mainstream itself, rather than arriving
at a stable, diglossic/di-ethnic compartmentalization vis-à-vis the mainstream
(Kutsche 1979). The ethnic revival in the U.S.A. has therefore contributed to
a simultaneous broadening of the permissible limits of the notions of
"American" and of sidestream ethnicity, making both notions more all-
inclusive, more all-embracing, more similar than they were heretofore.
The ethnic revival has hastened ethnic change rather than halted it (Banton
1981). Instead of becoming a major arena of conflict, in fact, instead of being
assumed to be a major source of conflict (a charge—as Dubnow revealed long
ago [1906/1970]—usually made by establishments against aggrieved minori-
ties), ethnicity has become just one legitimate interest among many. In modern
America, ethnicity is most often a behavioral/attitudinal repertoire experience
rather than an all-or-none boundary or category. Increases in its saliency or
implementation involve hardly any corresponding "identity" changes or ac-
commodations elsewhere in the repertoire. The two streams are symbiotically
rather than displacively implemented in the lives of multitudes who are in the
mainstream rather than apart from it. Bromley (1983) believes that in the
U.S.S.R. the various nationalities have become more similar to each other while
still retaining their individuality. The ethnic revival simultaneously brought
about both of these conditions in the U.S.A. Ethnicity became an open, visible
part of social identity, but it remained no more than that, i.e., it remained only
part of social identity (Gleason 1983), and therefore, became more modern than
primordial in nature.
On the language front, the ethnic revival in the United States from the mid-
60s to the mid-7os accomplished even less, in any overt sense, than it did on the
broader front of ethnocultural behaviors more generally. Non-English lan-
guage use did not increase and there was no more concerted approach to non-
English language maintenance than there had been before the revival. There
were no language "struggles" (at least none that would not have occurred
without the revival), no real language movements, no surge to language
consciousness or beyond language consciousness to language use. However, at the
attitudinal level, so closely allied with identity definition, non-English mother-
tongue claiming did rise dramatically and practically across the board in the late
sixties. But non-English mother-tongue claiming was heritage claiming, family-
roots claiming, mainstream de-identification. It was an attitudinal gesture with
only indirect and institutional consequence. By the mid-to-late 70s, it too was
largely dissipated among the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of older
immigrant extractions. It could return, but even if it did, that would still be a
long step away from any increase in non-English language use.
It is hard to imagine that the mid-6os and mid-yos were only a decade apart.
From a time of plenty and conspicuous rejection of the establishment on the
part of the young, the United States had entered a period of new concerns:
gasoline shortages and gluts, high unemployment, substantial inflation and a
new seriousness (and new materialism) on the part of the young. College
cohorts became more grade-conscious, more job-conscious and more
propriety-conscious in dress and in public behavior. Public ethnicity emphases
withdrew somewhat into their former private recesses. In the early eighties,
a bill to establish a National Commission for Utilization and Expansion of
Language Resources (H.R. 4389) in order to "utilize the more than 28 million
people in our nation" who speak languages in addition to English (Gonzalez
1981), died in committee and the entire bilingual education Title V I I edifice was
threatened (S. 2412). Mainstream comforts, positions, rights and privileges
became more salient again, particularly among the very age groups that had
previously deprecated them, perhaps because their availability was now un-
certain. Non-English mother-tongue claiming plummeted, most particularly in
those groups in which its attitudinal base was furthest removed from overt
language-use experience (Fishman, Chapter 6, This Volume). There is once
more the danger of stylish liberal predictions regarding the "end of ethnicity"
(Fishman 1982), temptations to trumpet the "triumph of straight-line theory"
(Gans 1979, reclaimed but endlessly qualified in Gans 1980), and the uselessness
of an ethnicity that is "purely symbolic." Apparently, the cultural time, cultural
space, sense of history and quest for unique dignity of minorities are not easily
appreciated or kept in mind. Most social theoreticians simply have different
functional expectations of ethnicity than do the ethnic minorities themselves,
and without sympathetic sensitivity the "death wish" vis-a-vis ethnicity will
once again come to the fore. Most social scientists are uncritical liberals;
unfortunately, few of them have sensed that "what is illiberali s homogenization
in the name of liberalism" (Novak 1977), something that Dubnow (1906) and
other minority spokesmen realized many decades ago.
THE FUTURE OF SIDESTREAM LANGUAGE AND

ETHNICITY IN AMERICA
It is difficult to predict the future of sidestream ethnic phenomena because they
carry within them the seeds of their own regeneration. Functioning, as they do
in the United States, at the private and attitudinal levels (even more so than at
the public and overt behavioral levels), it is easy to assume that they have ceased
to exist merely because they are not visible to the outside (particularly to the
unsympathetic outside) observer. Furthermore, since they flourish in direct
proportion to distancing and alienation or detachment from the mainstream
(but not only because of unmet economic or career expectations, as claimed by
the Marxist, Deutschian and their derivative schools), there is a major historical
or unique component in their occurrence. Will a period crystalize again when
indigenous and immigrant minorities in Europe and ethnic as well as counter-
culture identities in the United States will be treated in very similar ways, and in
which sidestream identity will be publicly proclaimed again as more colorful,
touching, praiseworthy and decent than losing one's self in the mainstream?
W h o can tell? But to the extent that massive disappointment is inevitable in
modern urban life (Berman 1981), to the extent that modernization is its own
worst enemy (as all of the great founders of modern sociology have claimed), to
the extent that Gemeinschaft has learned to cope with and to " w o r k around"
Gesellschaft, to the extent that the adversity of Gesellschaft is itself a prime
factor in the pursuit or creation of Gemeinschaft (Levin 1980, Callo 1981), to
the extent that ethnic social institutions and structures remain (indeed, even
increase) when cultural assimilation obtains (and, therefore, the former con-
tinue to provide channels for cultural memories, aspirations and revivals, far
more than has been generally appreciated, viz. Gordon 1964, Stryker 1981,
Taylor 1981, particularly given the intellectual penchant to artificially separate
structure from culture), to that extent the seeds of sidestream ethnicity will
bloom not only again, but again and again (Castile and Kushner 1981). Berlin's
metaphor of the pent-up force of "the bent twig" (1972) that ultimately snaps
back all the more forcefully (to break loose from the oppressive mainstream pres-
sures of modern life), may on occasion be quite appropriate. O n the other hand,
ethnic revivals need not be the backlash that Berlin implies, any more than they
need be economically inspired in the trite Marxist sense. They can be unfocused,
unchanneled, unpoliticized and relatively unexploited in any material sense.
That they can still occur three and more generations after immigrant in-
corporation into a relatively open and mobile society has begun is testimony to
the emotional depths which revivals plumb, and to the length of the hibernation
that even remnants of sidestream ethnicity can survive (Berger et al. 1973).
But perhaps the major lesson of the ethnicity revival in America is that terms
such as "emotion" and "hibernation" are basically unjustified. Ethnicity re-
Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival' in the USA 515
vivais are precisely ethnicity repertoire changes: changes in repertoire saliency,

range, compartmentalization and discontinuity or contrastivity. They are not a
return to life of that which was dead. In that sense, they are really not revivals at
all. They are awakenings and reforms (or at least reformulations) in a very long
and honorable progression of revivals, awakenings and reforms that have led to
new visions of America (McLoughlin 1978). The social-science vocabulary of
references to sidestream ethnicity has tended toward conceptually impoverished
good-bad, active-passive (live-dead) polarities. Obviously fresher, more diver-
sified and conceptually more integrated approaches are needed, both with re-
spect to indigenous as well as with respect to immigrant minorities (Weinberg
1976, Petersen 1980). This is particularly so since so much of sidestream
ethnicity is situational, attitudinal and private, constantly interacting with the
mainstream and changing it, as well as being changed by it. The "American
Dream" has included both the promise of assimilation (Rodriguez 1981, Mann
1979), the promise of ethnolinguistic self-maintenance (Deloria 1970), and the
promise of freedom to choose between them (Pratte 1979)· However, when
major shocks, disappointments and barriers to cultural syncretism occur (as
they must, even in relatively open and affluent societies), the private often
becomes more public, the attitudinal: overt, the quiescent: active, the inter-
active: exclusive, the accepting: rejective, the background: salient. Periphery
and core, sidestream and mainstream always co-exist and many factors (rather
than just one) are capable of changing the focus from the one to the other.
When viewed in worldwide perspective, the limits and intensities of ethnicity in
the United States remain innocent indeed, and I would predict them to remain
so, gaining thereby far more than they lose.
To predict the future course of sidestream language and ethnicity in the

United States would require us to do the impossible: to predict America's
future. That is clearly a task that is beyond anyone's capacity. The number of
possible intervening variables between characteristics of the sidestreams and
characteristics of the mainstream are simply too numerous to contemplate.
Historical contingencies and cohort influences represent the unpredictable
borderline between humanistic and social-scientific endeavor (Cherlin 1981).
But given the special nature of mainstream "American ethnicity," its historical
shallowness, plasticity and permissiveness, it would certainly seem safe to say
that it will be host to and influenced by myriad sidestream ethnicities rather
indefinitely. While non-English languages may generally be expected to play
rather weak functional roles in most sidestream ethnicities on the American
scene past the first generation (in this connection, racially recognizable and
recent Hispanics, South and Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders may con-
stitute the chief exceptions for the rest of this century), such languages,
nevertheless, can continue to be present massively at an attitudinal level (and,
consequently, they are the recipients of community institutional attention),
given particular historical junctures. Sidestream ethnicity has been projectively

discounted and given a short lease on life all too often in the past. Indeed, it is
virtually impossible for those who desire and predict the death of minority
ethnicity—and this has included most of the major lights of modern liberal
sociology—to be more than surprised at what they consider to be mere
"momentary blips" rather than indications that their conceptions of ethnicity
are fundamentally mistaken. Otherwise it would be apparent to them that to
predict once again the general "straight line" demise of minority ethnicity is
not only a mistaken view, and not only a statement about the prognosticators,
but a blinder that hides from vision part of the process that needs to be better
understood.
Sidestream ethnicity is a phoenix in modern life; it constantly arises anew
from its apparent ashes. But the ashes are more apparent than real. If Western
Europe can accommodate both increased regionalism and increased extra-
regionalism (not only in terms of the E.E.C, but in terms of increasingly
being the periphery to an America-centered Western world [Khlief 1982b]),
then America itself can accommodate both its own sidestreams and its
mainstream as interactive systems. If we recognize sidestream ethnicity as
situationally governed (rather than as categorical or all-or-none in nature), as
a continuing and often innovative cultural process of boundary maintenance
and reconstruction (Horowitz 1977), as going through stressed and quiescent
phases (with either direction of development being possible—as per Leach 1954
and Keys 1979—rather than merely the progression from quiescent to stressed
that the Deutschian school has fixated upon), as also being purposefully
rational, comforting, reassuring, orienting in culturally meaningful time and
space and, therefore internally stabilizing (deVos and Romanucci-Ross 1975,
Hsu 1979, Greene 1975), rather than primarily irrational, manipulative, com-
batitive or externally destabilizing (e.g., Parot 1981, Holli 1981, Chrislock 1981,
Tudjman 1981), as reflecting sidestream-mainstream relations in generalized
and affective terms, rather than only in focused and instrumental respects
(Cohen 1974), as being cultural-identity- and cultural-democracy-related
(Chrisman 1981, Klein and Reban 1981), rather than only incivility-and conflict-
related, then we can better appreciate both its longevity as well as the difficulty
faced in predicting its future. Ethnicity is "a far more durable and powerful
phenomenon than is usually depicted,... it draws on far deeper historical roots
and sociological conditions" and, here one might add, goes through many more
transformations, overt and attitudinal "than many would allow" (Smith 1981).
This would not be nearly so surprising if modern, liberal thought had not
pretended to the contrary for so many years (and not only in the United States
but in Europe as well, as Krejci and Velinsky have shown, 1981), and if, like
Isaiah Berlin, it had developed pluralistic rather than monistic models of the
future (Manent et al 1983; see particularly the essay on Berlin and "liberal
pluralism" by Hausheer).
Most probably there is no "non-ethnic tomorrow" in the offing, not even in

the "post-separatist world"; only a tomorrow in which the ethnic and the
supraethnic (the sidestreams and the mainstreams) will be more intimately
linked (Boulding 1979), as they are in the United States today. Furthermore,
just as its stress in recent European history has rarely aimed at political
separatism (Allardt 1979, Williams 1982), so its recent quiescence in the United
States does not presage its demise (Rollins 1981). Minority ethnicity is con-
stantly restructuring and recreating itself and its future, all around us (Benkin
and DeSaints 1980 Crispino 1980), well into and beyond the the third genera-
tion. It is because so many social scientists—particularly sociologists and
political scientists—have recognized only one extreme of sidestream ethnicity
or the other (either political separatism strivings and disturbances of civility or
amalgamation into the mainstream and total disappearance) that most of the
more moderate and subtle dimensions of post-modern sidestream ethnicity
have been so little understood (Cohen 1978, Hsu 1979). Like most other aspects
of culture, ethnicity waxes and wanes and changes in response to more powerful
and encompassing developments. Like most other aspects of culture, it does not
follow a straight line. If our attention to the ethnic revival in the U.S.A. of
the mid-6os to mid-70s has highlighted some of these generally overlooked
dimensions, if it has spotlighted the pan-human nature of symbolic and at-
titudinal, nonprogrammatic ethnicity, and if it has placed the complexity and
subtlety of such ethnicity more squarely on the agenda for further empirical
attention and theoretical elaboration, then it has been an eminently worthwhile
effort.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alba, Richard D. and Mitchell B. Chamlin. A preliminary examination of ethnic identification

among whites. American Sociological Review. 1983, 48, 240-247.
Allardt, Erik. Implications of the Ethnic Revival in Modern Industrialized Society. Helsinki, Societas
Scientiarum Fennica, 1979.
Armstrong, John A. Nations Before Nationalism. Chapel Hill, University North Carolina Press, 1982.
Baali, Fuad and Ali Wardi. Ihn Kbalden and Islamic Thought-Styles: A Social Perspective. Boston, G . K .
Hall, 1981.
Ban ton, Michael. The direction and speed of ethnic change, in Charles F. Keyes (ed.). Ethnic Change.
Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1981, 3 1 - 5 2 .
Barth, Frederik. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston, Little-Brown, 1969.
Beer, William R . The Unexpected Rebellion: Ethnic Activism in Contemporary France. New York, New
Bender, Eugene I. and George Kagiwada. Hansen's law of "third generation return" and the
study of American religio-ethnic groups. Phylon, 1968, 29, 360-370.
Benkin, Richard L. and Grace De Santis. Creating ethnicity: East European Jews and Lithuanian
immigrants in Chicago. Sociological Focus. 1982, 15, 231—248.
Bentley, G . Carter, Ethnicity and Nationality: A Bibliographic Guide. Seattle, University of
Washington Press, 1982.
Berger, Peter L. The Noise of Solemn Assemblies. Garden City (NY), Doubleday, 1961.
., Brigitte Berger and Hansfried Kellner. Modernity and its discontents, in their The
Home/ess Mind. New York, Random House, 1973.
Berlin, Isaiah. The bent twig: A note on nationalism. Foreign Affairs, 1972, ; 1, 1 1 - 5 0 .
Berman, Marshall. All Thai is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. New York, Simon
and Schuster, 1981.
Biddiss Michael D. Gobineau and the origin of European racism. Race: Journal of the Institute of Race
Relations. 1966, 7, 225—270.
, ed. Gobineau: Selected Political Writings. London, Cape, 1970a.
. Father of Racist Ideology: The Social and Political Thought of Count Gobineau. London,
Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1970b.
, ed. Images of Race. New York, Holmes and Meier, 1979.
Blauner, R. Internal colonialism and ghetto revolts. Social Problems, 1969, 17, 463-472.
Boas, Franz. Race problems in America. Science, 1909, 79, 839-849.
Bonacich, E. A theory of ethnic antagonism: The split labor market. American Sociological Review,
197*. 37. 547-559·
Bonacich, Edna and John Modell. The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Business in the Japanese
American Community. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1981.
Boulding, Elise. Ethnic separatism and world development. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts
and Change, 1979, 2, 259-281.
Breton, Raymond, Jeffrey Reitz and Victor Valentine. Cultural Boundaries and the Cohesion of Canada.
Montreal, Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1980.
Bromley, Yu Y . Soviet Ethnology and Anthropology. The Hague, Mouton, 1974.
Bromley, Yulian. Ethnic processes in the modern world. Social Sciences (Moscow). 1 9 8 3 , 1 4 , 9 8 - 1 1 4 .
Bruckner, D.J.R., ed. Politics and Language: Spanish and English in the United States. Chicago,
University of Chicago Center for Policy Study, 1980.
Calhoun, Craig J . The radicalism of tradition: community strength or venerable disguise and
borrowed language. American Journal of Sociology. 1983, 88, 886-914.
Calvert, Peter. Karl Deutsch and political science. Political Studies, 1982,30, 445-448.
Castile, George Pierre and Gilbert Kushner. Persistent Peoples: Cultural Enclaves in Perspective.
Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 1981.
Cherlin, Andrew J. Explaining the postwar baby boom. Social Science Research Council Items, 1981,
35, 57-63·
Child, Irvin L. Italian or AmericanÌ The Second Generation in Conflict. New Haven, Yale University
Press, 1943.
Chirot, D. Social Change in a Peripheral Region. New York, Academic Press, 1976.
Chrislock, Carl H. Ethnicity Challenged: The Upper Midwest Norwegian-American Experience in World
War I. Northfield (Minn.), Norwegian-American Historical Association, 1981.
Chrisman, Noel J . Ethnic persistence in an urban setting. Ethnicity, 1981, 8, 256-292.
Cohen, Abner, The lesson of ethnicity, in his (ed.) Urban Ethnicity. London, Tavistock, 1974, ix-
xxiv.
Cohen, Ronald. Ethnicity: problem and focus in anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 1978,
7, 379-403·
Crispino, James A. The Assimilation of Ethnic Groups: The Italian Case. Staten Island (N.Y.), Center
for Immigration Studies, 1980.
Dahl, Robert A. Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy vs. Control. New Haven, Yale
Davis, Horace B. Nationalism and Socialism: Marxist and Labor Theories of Nationalism to 191/. New
York, Monthly Review Press, 1973.
Deloria, Vine, Jr. We Talk, You Listen: New Tribes, New Turf. New York, Macmillan, 1970.
Deutsch, Karl. Nationalism and Social Communication. Cambridge, M I T Press, 1953 (Revised 1966).
de Tocqueville, Alexis. Principal causes which tend to maintain the democratic republic in the
United States, in his Democracy in America, V.I 18} ; . New York, Vintage Books/Random House,
1945·
De Vos, George and Lola Romanucci-Ross. Ethnicity: Vessel of meaning and emblem of contrast,
in their (eds.) Ethnic identity: Cultural Continuities and Change. Palo Alto, Mayfield, 1975, 363-590.
Dickinson. Goldsworthy L. The Greek View of Life. London, Methuen, 1896.
Dubnow, Simon. The ethics of nationalism [1906], in his History: Essays on Old and New Judaism
(Edited, with an introductory essay, by Koppel S. Pinson). New York, Atheneum, 1970.
Eaton, Jospeh W. Controlled acculturation: A survival technique of the Hutterites. American
Sociological Review, 1952, 17, 331-340.
Eisenstadt, S.N. Sociological analysis and youth rebellion, in his From Generation to Generation. New
York, Free Press, 1971, vi-xlix.
Esman, Marjorie R. Festivals, change and unity: The celebration of ethnic identity among
Louisiana Cajuns. Anthropological Quarterly, 1982, 55, 199-210.
Esterik, Penny van. Celebrating ethnicity: Ethnic flavor in an urban festival. Ethnic Groups. 1982,4,
207—228.
Estrada, Leobardo F. Language and political consciousness among the Spanish-speaking in the
United States: A demographic study, in D.J.R. Bruckner, ed. Politics and Language: Spanish and
Englishinthe United States. Chicago, University of Chicago Center for Policy Study, 1980, 1 3 - 2 2 .
Eisenstadt, S.N. Revolution and the Transformation of Societies. New York, Free Press, 1978.
Etzioni, Amitai. The Active Society. New York, Basic Books, 1968.
Fenn, Richard K . Toward a new sociology of religion. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 1972,
i l , 16-32.
. Talking past one another: Notes on the debate. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
1975, 12, 35 5-359·
Fenwick, Rudy. Ethnic culture and economic structure: Determinants of French-English earning
inequality in Quebec. Social Forces, 1982, 61, 1 - 2 3 .
Field, Geoffrey G . Evangelist of Race: The Germanic Vision of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. New York,
Columbia Univ. Press, 1981.
Findling, Joav. Bilingual need affiliation, future orientation and achievement motivation, in Joshua
A. Fishman (ed.). Advances in the Sociologi of Language, vol. II. The Hague, Mouton, 1972,
150-174.
Fishcher, Claude S. To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago, University
of Chicago Press, 1982.
Fishman, David E., Rena Mayerfeld and Joshua A. Fishman. 'Am and goy as designations for
ethnicity in selected books of the Old Testament. Chapter 2, This Volume.
Fishman, Joshua A. Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague, Mouton, 1966.
. Nationality-nationalism and nation-nationism, in Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A.
Ferguson and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.). Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York,
Wiley, 1968, 39-52.
. Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays. Rowley, Newbury House, 1972a.
. Domains and the relationship between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics. Directions in
Sociolinguistics, John J . Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.). New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1972b, 435-453·
. Language, ethnicity and racism. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and
Linguistics, 1977, 297-309.
. Bilingualism and biculturism as individual and as societal phenomena. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 1980, 7, 3 - 1 5 .
. The lively life of a "dead" language, or "everyone knows that Yiddish died long ago."
Judaica Book News, 1982, 13, no. 1 , 7 - 1 1 .
. Mother-tongue claiming in the United States since i960. Chapter 6, This Volume.
5 20 Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA
. Studies of language as an aspect of ethnicity and nationalsim (A bibliographic introduc-

tion). Sociolinguistics, 1984, 14, no. 2, 1 - 6 .
. Michael H. Gertner, Esther G. Lowy and William G. Milan. Non-English ethnic mother-
tongue institutions in the United States: Demographic and functional characteristics. Chapter 7,
This Volume.
. Robert L. Cooper, Roxana Ma, et al. Bilingualism in the Barrio ( = Language Sciences
Monographs7). Bloomington, Indiana University 1971, 1975 (Second edition).
Foster, Charles R. (ed.). Nations Without a State: Ethnic Minorities in Western Europe. New York,
Praeger, 1980.
Fox, Richard G., Charlotte Aull and Louis Cimino. Ethnic nationalism and political mobilization in
complex societies, in Given N. Kennedy (ed.). Proceedings of the Southern Anthropological Society No.
12: Interethnic Communication. Athens, University of Georgia Press, 1978.
, Charlotte H. Aull and Louis F. Cimino. Ethnic nationalism and the welfare state,
in Charles F. Keyes (ed.). Ethnic Change. Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 - 2 4 ; .
Fried, Martha Nemes and Morton H. Fried. Transitions: Four Rituals in Eight Cultures. New York,
Norton, 1980.
Gambino, Richard. A Guide to Ethnic Studies Programs in American Colleges, Universities and Schools.
New York, Rockefeller Foundation, 1976 (Mimeo).
Gallagher, J.T. The emergence of an African ethnic group: The case of the Ndendeule. International
Journal of African Historical Studies, 1974, 7, 1-26.
Gallo, Patrick J . Old Bread, New Wine: A Portrait of the Italian-Americans. Chicago, Nelson-Hall,
1981.
Gans, Herbert J . The Italians of the West End: Place, Class, culture and social structure, in his The
Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans. New York, Free Press, 196;,
17-39·
. Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America, in Gans,
H.J. et al. (eds.). On the Making of Americans: Essays in Honor of David Riesman. Philadelphia,
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979, 193-220; also, abbreviated, in Ethnic and Racial Studies,
1979, 2, 1—20.
. Preface, in Crispino, James A. The Assimilation of Ethnic Groups: The Italian Case. Staten
Island (N.Y.), Center for Immigration Studies, 1980, v-x.
García, S. Ofelia, Joshua A. Fishman, Silvia Burunat and Michael H. Gertner. The Hispanic press
in the United States: Content and prospects. Chapter 10, This Volume.
Gellner, Ernst. Thought and Change. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1964.
Gertner, Michael H., Joshua A. Fishman, Esther G . Lowy and William G. Milan. Language and
ethnicity in the periodical publications of four American ethnic groups. Chapter 9, This Volume;
also Multilìngue. 1983, 2, 83-99.
Gilbert, Victor. Current bibliography on immigrants and minorities: Monographs, periodical
articles and theses, 1971-80: U.S.A. Immigrants and Minorities, 1982,1, 89-141 and 200-232.
Glazer, Nathan. Politics of a multiethnic society, in Lance Liebman (ed.). Ethnic Relations in
America. Englewood Cliffs (NJ), Prentice-Hall, 1982.
. Ethnic Dilemmas, 1964-1982. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983.
Gleason, Philip. American identity and Americanization, in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic
Groups. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1 9 8 0 , 3 1 - 5 8 .
.Identifying identity: a semantic history. Journal of American Histoty, 1983, 69, 9 1 0 - 9 3 1 .
Goering, John M. The emergence of ethnic interests: A case of serendipity. Social Forces, 1971,49,
379-384.
Gonzalez, Henry B. National Commission on Foreign Languages. Congressional Record, 1981,
August 4, E 3902.
Gordon, Milton. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origins. New
York, Oxford University Press, 1964.
Greeley, Andrew M. Unsecular Man: The Persistence of Religio». New York, Schocken, 1972.
. The ethnic miracle, in his Neighborhood. New York, Seabury, 1977.
Greene, Victor R. For God'and Country: The Rife of Polish and Lithuanian Ethnic Consciousness in
America, 1S00-1910. Madison, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 197;.
Grigulevich, I.R. and S. Ya. Kozlov, eds. Ethnocultural Processes and National Problems in the Modern
World. Moscow, Progress, 1981.
Haarmann, Harald. Ethnicity and the role of ethnic boundaries in processes of ethnic fusion and
fission. In his Language in Ethnicity. In press.
Hammond, Phillip E. Religion and the "informing" of culture. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 1963, 3, 97-106.
. Religious pluralism and Durkheim's integration thesis, in Alan W. Eister (ed.). Changing
Perspectives in the Scientific Study of Religion. New York, Wiley, 1974, 1 1 5 - 1 4 2 .
Handleman, D. The organization of ethnicity. Ethnic Groups. 1977, 1, 187—200.
Handlin, Oscar. Race and Nationality in American Life. New York, Little Brown, 1957.
Hareven, Tamara Κ . (ed.). The Family and the Life Course in Historical Perspective. New York,
Academic Press, 1978.
Harrell, David E. Jr. All Things are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America.
Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1975.
Hausheer, Roger. Isaiah Berlin and the emergence of liberal pluralism, in Pierre Manent et al.
European Liberty. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1985.
Heath, Shirley Brice. Our language heritage: A historical perspective, in The Language Connection:
From the Classroom to the World, June K . Phillips (ed.). Skokie, National Textbook Co., 1977.
Hechter, Michael. Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, i;j6-ip66.
London, Routledge &Kegan Paul, 197;.
, Debra Friedman and Malka Appelbaum. A theory of ethnic collective action.
International Migration Review. 1982, 16, 412-434.
Hengel, Martin. Jem, Greeks and Barbarians. Philadelphia, Fortress, 1980.
Hobsbawm, E . J . The Age of Revolution. New York, World Publishing Co., 1962.
. Inventing traditions in nineteenth century Europe, in his (ed.). The Invention of Tradition in
Past and Present Society. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1977, 1 - 2 4 .
Hoffman, Richard. C. Outsiders by birth and blood: racist ideologies and realities around the pe-
riphery of medieval European culture. Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History. 1983, 6, 3-34.
Holli, MelvinG. Teuton vs. Slav: The Great War sinks Chicago's German Kultur. Ethnicity, 1981,8,
406-4; I.
Horowitz, D.L. Cultural movements and ethnic change. The Annals, 1977, 433, September, 6 - 1 8 .
Hraba, Joseph. American Ethnicity. Itasca, Peacock, 1979.
Hroch, Miroslav. Die Vorkämpfer der nationalen Bewegung bei den Kleinen Volkeren Europas. Prague,
Universita Karlova, 1968.
Hsu, Francis L . K . The cultural problem of the cultural anthropologist. American Anthropologist,
1979, 81, 517-532.
Jakobson, Roman. The beginnings of national self-determination in Europe. Review of Politics,
1945,7, 29-42. (Reprinted in J . A. Fishman (ed.). Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague,
Mouton, 1968, 585-597).
Jakubowicz, A. State and ethnicity-multiculturism as ideology. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Sociology, 1981, 17, 4 - 1 3 .
Jansegers, L. Onmachtspositie van het Brusselse flamingantisme (1884-1895). Taal en Sociale
Integratie, 1982, 6, 107—140.
Jones, Delmos J . and Jacquetta Hill-Burnett. The political context of ethnogenesis: an Australian
example, in Michael C. Howard, ed. Aboriginal Power in Australian Society. Honolulu, University
of Hawaii Press, 1982, 214-246.
Jüthner, J . Hellenen und Barbaren, Das Erbe der Alten. Leipzig, Neue Folge VIII, 1923.
522 Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival' in the USA
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. Pro Patria Mori in medieval political thought. American Historical Review,
1 9 5 0 - 5 1 , 56,472-492.
Kedourie, Elie. Nationalism. London, Hutchinson, 1961.
Kelly, Dean M. Why Conservative Churches Are Growing: 'A Study in Sociology of Religion. New York,
Harper and Row, 1972.
Keyes, Charles F. (ed.). Ethnic Adaptation and Identity: The Karen on the Thai Frontier with Burma.
Philadelphia, Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1979.
, ed. Ethnic Change. Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1981.
Khlief, Bud B. Language, Ethnicity and Education in Wales. The Hague, Mouton, 1979.
. Ethnicity and language with reference to the Frisian case: Issues of schooling, work
and identity, in Koen Zondag (ed.). Bilingual Education in Friesland. Franeker, Wever, 1982a,
175-203.
. Ethnicity and language in understanding the new nationalism: The North Atlantic region,
in International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 1982b, 23, 1 1 4 - 1 2 1 .
Klein, George and Milan J . Reban, eds. The Politics of Ethnicity in Eastern Europe. Boulder (CO), East
European Monographs, 1981.
Kolakowski, Leszek. Marxist philosophy and national reality: Natural communities and universal
brotherhood. Round Table, 1979, no. 253, 4 3 - 5 ; .
Krejci, Jaroslav and Vitezslav Velimsky. Ethnic and Political Nations in Europe. London, Croom-
Helm, 1981.
Kutsche, Paul (ed.). The Survival of Spanich-American Villages (= Colorado College Studies, 1979, no.
ι ;). Colorado Springs, Colorado College, 1979.
Lazzerini, Edward J . Ethnicity and the uses of history: The case of the Volga Tatars and Jadidism.
Central Asian Survey. 1982, 1, no. 2/Ç, 67-70.
Leach, Edmund R. Political Systems of Highland Burma. London, Bell, 1954.
Lehman, F.K. Who are the Karen, and if so, why? Karen ethnohistorv and a formal theory of
ethnicity, in Charles F. Keyes (ed.). Ethnic Adaptation and identity: The Karen on the Thai Frontier
With Burma. Philadelphia, Instutute for the Study of Human Issues, 1979, 215—253.
Levin, Hannah. The struggle for community can create community, in Gallaher, Art Jr. and
Harland Padfield (eds.). The Dying Community. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press,
1980, 257-278.
Lieberson, Stanley. A Piece of the Pie: Blacksand White Immigrants Since i960. Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1981.
Liebman, Robert C and Robert Wuthnow, eds. The New Christian Right. New York, Aldine, 1883,
Limón, José E. El meeting: history, folk Spanish and ethnic nationalism in a Chicano student
community, in Jon Amastae and Lucia Elias-Olivares, eds. The Spanish Language in the United
States. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982, 301-332.
Lonsdale, J.M. When did the Gusii (or any other group) become a "tribe"? Kenya Historical Review,
1977, 5, 1 2 3 - 1 3 3 .
Lopez, Thomas R. and Albert W. Vogel (eds.). No One-Model American. Toledo, University of
Toledo, College of Education, 1979.
Lowy, Esther G., Joshua A. Fishman, Michael H. Gertner, Itzek Gottesman and William G . Milan.
Ethnic activists view the ethnic revival and its language consequences. Chapter 8, This Volume;
also Journalof Multicultural and Multilingual Development. 1983, 4, 237-254.
Lowy, Michael. Marxists and the national question. New Left Review, 1976, no. 96, 8 1 - 1 0 0 .
Lucas, Isidro. Political demands of Spanish-speaking communities in the United States, in D.J.R.
Bruckner, ed. Politics and Language: Spanish and English in the United States. Chicago, University of
Chicago Center for Policy Study, 1980, 1 3 3 - 1 5 4 .
McCord, Arline and William McCord. Ethnic autonomy: A social-historical synthesis, in Hall
Raymond L. (ed.). Ethnic Autonomy: Comparative Dynamics. New York, Pergamon, 1979,
426-436.
Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA 5 23
McLoughlin, William G . Revivals, Awakenings and Reform: An Essay on Religion and Social Change in
America, ι6ογ-ι^γ. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1978.
McNair, Raymond F. A universal language. The Plain Truth. 1982, January, 7 - 9 .
Magocsi, Paul Robert. The Shaping of a National Identity: Subcarpathian Rus', 1848-1948. Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1978.
Mangione, Jerre. Mount Allego: A Memoir of Italian-American Life. New York, Columbia
Mann, Arthur. The One and the Many: Reflections on American Identity. Chicago, University of
Chaicago Press, 1979.
Martin, Bernice. A Sociology of Contemporary Cultural Change. Oxford, Blackwell, 1981.
Massey, Douglas S. and Brendan P. Mullan. Processes of Hispanic and Black spatial assimilation.
American journal of Sociologi, 1984, 89, 836-873.
Mayer, Karl. Ethnic tensions in Switzerland: The Jura conflict, in Charles R. Foster (ed.). Nations
Without a State: Ethnic Minorities in Western Europe. New York, Praeger, 1980, 189-208.
Mazrui, Ali A. Africa between nationalism and nationhood: A political study. Journal of black
Studies, 1982, 13, 23-44.
Metzger, L. Paul. American sociology and black assimilation. American journal of Sociologa, 1971,
76, 627-647.
Moerman, Michael. Ethnic identification in a complex civilization: Who Are the Lue? American
Anthropologist, 196;, 67, 1 2 1 5 - 1 2 3 0 .
Moore, R. Laurence. Insiders and outsiders in American historical narrative and American history.
American Historical Review, 1982, 87, 390-412.
Nahirny, Vladimir and Joshua A. Fishman. American immigrant groups: Ethnic identification and
the problem of generations. Sociological Review, 196;, 13, 3 1 1 - 3 2 6 .
Nairn, Tom. The modern Janus. New Left Review, 1975, no. 94, 3-30.
. The Break-Up of Britain: Crisis and Neo-Nationalism. London, N L B , 1977.
Newman, William M. A theory of social conflict, in his American Pluralism: A Study of Minority
Groups and Social Theory. New York, Harper and Row, 1973.
Nielsen, Francois. The Flemish movement in Belgium after World War II. American Sociological
Review, 1980, 4;, 76—94.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Human All Too Human. [1879] New York, Gordon Press, 1974.
Novak, Michael. Further Reflections on Ethnicity. Middleton (Pa.), Jednota Press, 1977.
Olzak, Susan. Ethnic mobilization in Quebec. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1982, 5, 2; 3 - 2 7 ; .
. Contemporary ethnic mobilization. Annua! Review of Sociologi, 1983, 9, 355-374.
Paden, J . N . Urban pluralism, integration and adoption of communal identity in Kano, Nigeria, in
R. Cohen and J . Middleton (eds.). From Tribe to Nation in Africa. Scranton, Chandler, 1971,
242—270.
Parenti, Michael. Ethnic politics and the persistence of ethnic identification. American Political
Science Review, 1967, 61, 717-726.
Parot, Joseph J . Polish Catholics in Chicago, rp8j-i?2o: A Religious History. DeKalb, Northern Illinois
Patterson, Orlando. Context and choice in ethnic allegiance: A theoretical framework and
Caribbean case study, in Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan
(eds.). Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1974, 305-349.
. Ethnic Chauvinism: The Reactionary Impulse. New York, Stein and Day, 1977.
Paulston, Christina Bratt and Rolland G . Paulston. Language and ethnic boundaries. Language
Sciences. 1980, 2, i ( j i ) , 69—101.
Petersen, William. Concepts of ethnicity, in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups.
Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1980, 234-242.
Petrella, R. Nationalist and regionalist movements in Western Europe, in Charles R. Foster (ed.).
Nations Without a State: Ethnic Minorities in Western Europe. New York, Praeger, 1980.
5 24 Epilogue: The Rise and Fall of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA
Plumb, John H. The Death of the Past. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1970.
Pratte, Richard. Pluralism in Education: Conflict, Clarity and Commitment. Springfield, Thomas, 1979.
Pristinger, F. Ethnic conflict and modernization in the South Tyrol, in Charles R. Foster (ed.).
Nations Without a State: Ethnic Minorities in Western Europe. New York, Praeger, 1980, 1 53-188.
Ra'anan, Uri, ed. Ethnic Resurgence in Modern Democratic States. Elmsford, Pergamon, 1980.
Raspa, Richard. Exotic foods among Italian-Americans in Mormon Utah: food as nostalgic enact-
ment of identity, in Linda K. Brown and Kay Mussel, eds. Ethnic and Regional Foodways in the
United States. Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press, 1984, 185 — 194.
Reitz, Jeffrey G . Language and ethnic community survival. Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology, 1974, 1 1 , 1 0 4 - 1 2 2 (Special issue).
Riesman, David. The dream of abundance reconsidered. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1981,45, 285—302.
Rodriguez, Richard. Hunger of Memory: An Autobiography. The Education of Richard Rodrigueζ.
Boston, Godine, 1981.
Rollins, Joan (ed.). Hidden Minorities: The Persistence of Ethnicity in American Life. Washington, DC,
University Press of America, 1981.
Rosen, Philip. The Neglected Dimension. Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.
Rothschild, Joseph. Ethnopolitics: A Conceptual Framework. New York, Columbia University Press,
1981.
Sandeen, Ernest R. The Roots of Fundamentalism. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Schneider, David M. What is kinship all about?, in Priscilla Reining (ed.). Kinship Studies in the
Morgan Centennial Year. Washington, DC, Anthropological Society of Washington, DC, 1972,
32-64.
Seton-Watson, H. Nations and States. London, Methuen, 1977.
Shanabruch, Charles, Chicago's Catholics: The Evolution of an American Identity. Notre Dame,
University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
Shils, Edward. Primordial, personal, sacred and civil ties. British journal of Sociology, 1957, 8,
130-145.
. Dreams of plentitude, nightmares of scarcity, in S.M. Lipset and P. Altbach (eds.). Students
in Revolt. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1969, 1—3;.
. Tradition. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Shupe, Anson and William A. Stacy. Born-Again Politics and the Moral Majority. New York, Edwin
Mellen Press, 1982.
Sibley, David Outsiders in Urban Societies. Oxford, Blackwell, 1981.
Singer, L. Ethnogenesis and Negro-Americans today. Social Research, 1962, 29, 419—432.
Spinrad, William. The politics of American Jews: an example of ethnic group analysis, in Joseph B.
Maier and Chaim Waxman, eds. Ethnicity, Identity and History: Essays in Memory of Werner J.
Cahnman. New Brunswick (NJ), Transaction Books, 1983, 249—272.
St. Clair, Robert and William Leap. Language Renewal among American Indian Tribes: Issues, Problems,
and Prospects. Rosslyn (VA), National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1982.
Stein, Howard F. and Robert F. Hill. The Ethnic Imperative: Examining the new White Ethnic Movement.
University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977.
Steinberg, Stephen. The Ethnic Myth. New York, Atheneum, 1981.
Strassoldo, Raimondo. Boundaries in sociological theory: A reassessment, in R. Strassoldo and G .
Delli-Zotti (eds.). Cooperation and Conflict in Border Areas. Milan, Franco Angeli, 1982, 245-271.
Stryker, Robin. Religio-ethnic effects on attainments in the early career. American Sociological Review,
1981, 46, 2 1 2 - 2 3 1 .
Svensson, Frances. Language as ideology: The American Indian case. Etudes de Linguistique
Appliquée, 1974, 15, 60-68.
Symmons-Symonewicz. National consciousness in medieval Europe: some theoretical problems.
Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism. 1981, 8, 1 5 1 - 1 6 6 .
Epilogue: The Rise and Vail of the "Ethnic Revival" in the USA 525
Taylor, Patricia Ann. Education, ethnicity and cultural assimilation in the United States. Ethnicity,
1981, 8 , 3 1 - 4 9 .
Thompson, William E. The Oklahoma Amish: Survival of an ethnic subculture. Ethnicity, 1981, 8,
476-487.
Toynbee, Arnold. The Greeks and Their Heritages. New York, Oxford University Press, 1981.
Tsai, Yung-mei and Sigelman, Lee. The community question: A perspective from national survey
data—the case of the USA. British journal of Sociology, 1982, 33, 579— ; 88.
Tudjman, Franjo. Nationalism in contemporary Europe. Boulder (CO), East European Monographs,
1981.
Turner, B.S. Marx and the End or Orientalism. London, Allen and Unwin, 1978.
van Alboom, R. Aspecten van de Waalse beweging te Brüssel (1877—1914). Taalen Sociale Integratie,
1982, 6, 3-106.
van den Berghe, Pierre L. The Ethnie Phenomenon. New York, Elsevier-North Holland, 1981.
Wallerstein, Imanuel. The Modem World System. New York, Academic Press, 1974.
Waltzer, Michael. Pluralism in political perspective, in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic
Groups. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1980, 781-787.
Weber, Eugene J . Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernisation of Rural France, iSyo-1914. Stanford,
Stanford University Press, 1976.
Weinberg, Daniel E. Ethnicity: A Conceptual Approach. Cleveland, Cleveland State University, 1976.
Weinreich, Uriel. Languages in Contact. New York, Linguistic Circle of New York, 1953.
Williams, Colin H. (ed.). National Separatism. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press,
1982.
Winkler, Heinrich and Thomas Schnabel. Bibliographie \um Nationalismus. Göttingen, Van den
Hoeck and Ruprecht, 1979.
Wolfinger, Raymond E. The development and persistence of ethnic voting. American Political
Science Review, 196;, 59, 896-908.
Womack, J . Mariateque, Marxism and nationalism. Marxist Perspectives, 1980, 3, 170-174.
INDEX
A c t o n , L o r d 6, 7 Bilingualism
Abstand ιοοη ' B i g Six' l a n g u a g e s 1 1 1 , 1 2 2 , 124, 127, 128, 144,
A k k a d i a n 69 145, 154, 156, 164, 167, 207, 217. See also
A l b a n i a n 167, 207, 235, 242, 2 J 4 French, German, Italian, Mother-tongue
A l p h a b e t s a n d w r i t i n g s y s t e m s 65, 81, 83, 98η, claimants, Polish, S p a n i s h , Y i d d i s h
379. 3 " 4 - 9 2 > 4 3 5 - 3 7 . 4 3 9 " . 457· See also B i k , Y a n k e v S h m u e l 80, 88-91, 99η, ιοοη
Biliteracy Bilingual e d u c a t i o n 59, 74, 298, 363-76, 380,
A l s a t i a n 60, ;o8 382, 493, 510. See also Biliteracy, S c h o o l s
A m e r i n d i a n 44, i n , 119, 120, 166, 167, 174η, B i l i n g u a l i s m xiii, 39-56, 298,344,367-68,380,
177-79. * " > 2
35> 236, 242. 244. 245. 247. 381, 437, 445-55, 482, 503. See also Bilite-
253, 254, 255, 256, 262, 263, 265, 268, 278η, racy, D i g l o s s i a
48ο, 500, J02. See also E s k i m o , H o p i , N a v a j o , Biliteracy 377-441. See also A l p h a b e t s , Bilin-
Zuñi g u a l e d u c a t i o n , Schools.
A m h a r i c 47 Black E n g l i s h 5 9
A m i s h 40, 49, 6 1 , 1 7 4 η , 247, 274, 3 71, 3 81, B r e t o n 7, 60, 146, 508
505 B r o a d c a s t i n g 223-39, 2 5 ° , 271. ij6n--/jn. See
A n c e s t r y 1 5 3 - 1 5 5 . ' 7 4 " , 226, 307, 337, 340, also E t h n i c i n s t i t u t i o n s
360, 362 B u d d h i s t s 253, 2J4, 256
A n g l i f i c a t i o n . See A s s i m i l a t i o n B y z a n t i n e C a t h o l i c 254, 255. See also E a s t e r n
A n g l o Press (ethnic press in E n g l i s h language) Catholic
221-2, 270, 276η, 305-41
A r a b i c 17,40,48, 6;, 69, 71, 78, 119,146,173η, C a m b o d i a n 167
186-88, 235, 242, 252, 255, 275η, 377, 399, C a n a d a 43, 60, 299, 312, 403
436, 437, 4 3 9 n , 462. See also Y a h u d i c C a n t o n e s e 40, 378, 437, 440η. See also C h i n e s e
A r a m a i c 69, 79, 97η, 98η, 99η, 254. See also C a r i b b e a n C r e o l e 40
Loshn-koydesh C a r p a t h o - R u s y n 256
A r m e n i a n 162,167, 204, 207, 214,235, 242,24;, Catalán 60, 69, 92, 508
252, 254, 255, 256, 374, 379-441 Catholics 164, 167, 204, 239-42, 252, 255, 256,
Aristotle ; - 6 258, 259, 273, 309, 357, 364, 380, 478, 494
A s h k e n a z i m 71, 92, 394. See also Y i d d i s h Census. See M o t h e r - t o n g u e claimants and U . S .
A s s i m i l a t i o n 337, 343, 350-56, 361, 362, 427, Census
491,515. See also D e e t h n i f i c a t i o n , L a n g u a g e C h a m o r r o 277η
shift C h í c a n o s 120, 252, 284, 285, 294, 299,355, 493,
A u g u s t i n e vii, 454η, 478 502. See also Hispanics
A u s b a u 85, ι ο ο η C h i n e s e 65,69,119,122,127,131,145,151,154,
A u s t r a l i a n 44 166, 173η, i86—88, 207, 214, 236, 242, 245,
252, 254, 255,256, 374, 388, 391, 402, 417,
Basic E n g l i s h 481 435, 436, 4 3 9 n - 4 4 o n , 452. See also C a n t o n -
B a s q u e 60, 2:4, 23;, 508 ese, M a n d a r i n , P e k i n g e s e , P u t o n g h u à .
B e l g i u m 43 C h u a d i t 79
Berlin, Isaiah ; 14, ; 16 C h u r c h e s . See L R U s
Bible 15-38, 44, 79, 82-88, 89, 91, 401, 446, C o m p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n xiii, 41—42, 49-50, 61,
4 5 ' . 4 5 4 " , 477. 4 9 4 274. 355, 356, 372, 5 0 4 - 0 5 . 510, 512, 515.
B i c u l t u r a l i s m 39-56, 298, 35;, 367-68. See also See also L a n g u a g e d o m a i n s
528 Index
Creole. See Caribbean Creole, Franco- 206, 273, 28;, 287-89, 292, 295, 308, 338,
Americans, Haitian Creole 341, 367, 489-525
Croatian 2 1 3 , 242, 254. See also Serbo-Croatian Feder, T u v y e 80, 8 5 - 9 1
Cuban-Americans 284, 285, 295, 299, 347. See Filipino. See Pilipino
also Hispanics Finnish 7-8, 167, 183-8;, 207, 23;, 242, 254
Czech 137η, I 8 O - 8 2 , 218, 254, 477. See also Flemish 69, 498
'Czechoslovakian' Franco-Americans 150, 174η, 283-301,
' C z e c h o s l o v a k i a ^ 145, 151, 154 305-41, 343, 3 4 6 - 4 7 , 349. 3 5 ° - 5 6 , 359n,
360-62. See also French
Danish 1 1 6 , 119,127, 138, 177-79, 2 5 4· See also Franglais 297
Scandinavian Franklin, Benjamin 81, 344, 500
Deethnification 138, 256, 273, 295 .See also A s - French 40, 60, 68, 69, 72, 81, 88, 116, 119, 123,
221
similation, Language shift. 146, 150, 153, 177-79, > 245> 248n, 254,
Demography. See Mother-tongue claimants and 25 ;, 260, 262, 263, 268, 270, 284, 286, 294,
U S Census 296, 297, 306, 309, 315, 321, 347, 349-
Demotic 40, 377, 394. See also Greek, 56, 3 6 4 , 377. 379-441, 446, 4 5 2 , 4 6 2 ,
Katharevusa. 480, 481, 493. See also 'Big six' languages,
Deutsch, K a r l 493, 496—501, 514, 516 Tsarfatic
Diethnia 47-51, 555, 505, 512 Frisian 92, 255, 493, jo8
D i g l o s s i a 39-56, 68, 78-79, 87, 91-92, 99η,
2J9, 26J, 274, 291, 3 ; ; , 367, 438, 512 Galician 69
Dinomia 46 Gauch, Hermann 11
D u t c h ioon, 129, 146, 177-79, 2 °7> 377, 38°, Geez 48, 254
436,439η G e r m a n 40, 44, 51, 68, 78, 80-88, 90, 93, 98η,
ioon, 116, 119, 120, 122,123, 127, 146, 150,
Eastern Catholic 248, 256, 260, 262η, 265 151, 153, 156, 173η, 174η, 177-79,221,236,
Eastern O r t h o d o x 167, 252, 2; 256, 259, 260, 245, 2 47 n > 2 4 8 n , 252, 254, 26}, 26;, 270,
277-78n, 3°6, 3 ' 5 . 322. 323. 347,
265η, 38ο, 391, 394, 477
Economic factors 171 —172,490, 494—495,498— 3 4 9 - 5 6 , J 7 7 , 3 8o > 446, 4 5 2 , 4 7 7 , 4 8 1 , 4 8 5 η ,
499 493· See also 'Big Six' languages, Pennsyl-
ECMTS (ethnic community mother-tongue vania German, Swiss German
schools). See Schools German-Americans 150, 174η, 305-41, 343,
E M T (ethnic mother tongue). See Language 3 4 6 - 4 7 , 3 4 9 - 5 6 , 3 5 9 ° , 3 6 0 - 6 2 , 505
and ethnicity, Mother-tongue claimants G o e t h e 81
Engels, Friedrich 7, 498 G r e e k 11, 16, 27,37, 69, 78, 122, 127, 129, 146,
E n g l i s h 40, 58—9, 69, 72, 73-74, 88, 90, 123, 162, 166, 173η, 183—85, 204, 207, 214, 235>
131, 364, 377, 420-21, 446, 45 3-54. 462, 236, 242, 245, 253, 254, 255, 256, 265η, 374,
463-64, 481-82, 485η. See also A n g l o press 379—441, 447, 469, 480, 491, 494. See also
Eskimo 462. See also Amerindian Demotic, Katharevusa, Yavanic
Estonian 254 Guaraní 40, 47
Ethnic activism 283-301, 309, 349—50, 351,
354, 493, 501. See also Ethnic revival. Haitian Creole 25;, 277η
'Ethnic boom'. See Ethnic revival Hasidim 40, 49, 61, 81, 89, 274, 371, 374, 505
Ethnicity and language. See Language and Haskole 79-91
ethnicity H e b r e w 8, 1 1 , 1 5 - 3 8 , 40, 69, 79, 81-91, 98η,
Ethnic (or non-English-language) institutions i62, 164, i66, 167, 174η, 207, 213η, 242,
116, 141-143, 148-151, i;6, 157, 163, 164, 245, 2;4, 2Ô2, 263, 264, 266, 267, 268, 273,
195-282, 238, 251,489, 501, 503, 508, 510, 2 7 ; n , 276η, 309, 3 7 4 , 3 7 9 - 4 4 1 .See also J e w -
515. See also Broadcasting, LRUs, Press, ish languages, Loshn-koydesh.
Schools. Herder, J o h a n n G o t t f r i e d 8-10, 67, 452-53,
Ethnic revival x i i - x i i i , 107, 109, 128, 146, 150, 459, 468—69, 478—82, 484, 485η, 493
Index 5 29
Herodotus 457 Kallen, Horace 8-9

Hindi 40, 116, 23;, 437 Karshuni 254
Hindus 52, 256, 452, 469, 480 Katharevusa 40, 378, 394,399. See also Demotic,
Hispanics 150, 173η, 174η, 226, 252, 276η, Greek
278η, 283-301, 3 ° 5 _ 4 Ι , 343 - 62, 463, 5θο, Khasidim. See Hasidim
5ο;, j i j . See also Chícanos, Cuban-Amer- Korean 116, 145, 162, 167, 207, 214, 235, 242,
2 2
icans, Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans 5 » 2 55, 4oi
Hmong 269
Hopi 45 3, 462, 463, 480. See also Amerindian Ladino (Judezmo) 79, 256
Humboldt, Wilhelm von 459, 477, 484η Language and culture xi
Hungarian 7-8, 127, 173η, 180-82, 223-24, Language and ethnicity xiv, 3-13, 15, 46—48,
2
35 57-76, 77-103, 107-194, 195-282, 283-
H u t t e r i t e 174, 244, 247, 269, 274, 277η 301, 305—41, 346, 350, 365—68, 420, 432,
447, 479, 505-08
I m m i g r a n t l a n g u a g e s 58-6;, 107—194, 378-79 Language and nationalism 71-73, 492
India 377 Language and religion 15—38,93,164,391,432.
Indochinese 222, 275η. See also Cambodian, See also Liturgical languages, LRUs
Hmong, Lao, Thai, Vietnamese Language domains 43, 45, 49, 54, 286, 297,
Indigenous languages lost 57, 65-67 343. See also compartmentalization, Di-
Institutions. See Ethnic institutions, Broadcast- glossia
ing, LRUs, Press, Schools Language laws 44, 58—60, 343, 513
Irish 3, 4j, 68, 69, 167, 213, 235, 497, 508 Language loyalty 71—73,479. See also Language
Islam. See Moslems and ethnicity, Language maintenance,
Israel 264, 307, 320, 323, 339, 341, 377, 394, Mother-tongue claimants, Relinguifìcation
440η Language maintenance 57-76, 274, 285-86,
I t a l i a n 43, 68, 78, 116, 122, 123, 162, 186-88, 290, 296, 308, 338, 343, 355, 365-76, 378,
236, 254, 255, 260, 344, 380, 493, 505. See 421, 482, 513, 515. See also Language
also 'Big Six' languages, Italkic loyalty, Language shift, Prediction of lan-
Italkic 79 guage survival
Ivrit 40, 93. See also Hebrew Language of wider communication 40, 92,364,
372» 377—79, 446, 47°· $ee also Universal
Japanese 119, 127, 131, 14;, i ; i , 154, 173η, language, Lingua franca
186-88, 207, 214, 2 35, 2 ) 6 , 2 4 2 , 245> 2 5 5, Language planning 90, 464
256, 377, 449 Language resources 156, 513. See also Ethnic
Jewish languages 40, 9 7 0 - 9 8 ^ See also institutions
Aramaic, Chuadit, Hebrew, Italkic, Ivrit, Language revival. See Ethnic revival, Relin-
Judezmo, Loshn-koydesh, Tsarfatic, Yahu- guifìcation
dic, Yavanic, Yiddish Language shift xi, 61, 65-66, 72, 286, 293
Jews and Judaism 4, 8,77—103, 154, 164, 173η, 297—98, 343, 348, 479, 507. See also A s s i m i -
174η, 204, 242> 247> 252> 2
5 9, 2
6o, 264, lation, Indigenous languages lost, Language
266η, 268, 269, 277η, 278η, 283—301, 364, maintenance
391,401,407,421,452-; 3,477,494. See also Language universale 467
Ashkenazim, Bible, Hasidim, Jewish Lan- L a n g u a g e u s e 143-45, >5 5-56, 503
guages, Sephardim, Talmud Lao, Laotian 213η, 242
Judeo-Arabic (Yahudic) 79, ι ο ι η Latin 37, 40, 68, 92, 204, 253, 254, 255, 256,
Judeo-Aramaic. See Aramaic, Loshn-koydesh 297, 401, 446, 478, 494. See also Liturgical
Judeo-French (Tsarfatic) 79 languages
Judeo-German. See Yiddish Latvian 254
Judeo-Greek (Yavanic) 78 Lefin-Satanover, Menakhem Mendel 80-91
Judeo-Provencal (Chuadit) 79 Lingua franca 73. See also Language of wider
Judeo-Spanish (Judezmo) 79, 256 communication
5 30 Index
Linguistic determinism ( W 2 ) 460-62, 474, 475, Old Church Slavonic 204, 254, 25 5, 256. See also
476, 480, 483, 484η Liturgical Languages
Linguistic relativity ( W , ) 474, 475, 476, 480, O l d c o u n t r y 307, 309, 312-14, 337, 340, 348,
483, 484η 350—55. 3 6 ° . 3<>2> 3 8 3. 39 2— 95. 4°7. 416,
L i t h u a n i a n 127, 183-85, 207, 223-24, 255, 240, 419
242. *54
Liturgical languages 204, 239, 245, 253, 259, Pali 204
260, 262η, 26; η, 268, 278η. See also Arabic, Panini 469, 480
Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Loshn- Pekingese 40, 378, 437, 440η. See also Chinese,
koydesh, LRUs, Old Church Slavonic, Mandarin, Putonghuà
Sanskrit Pennsylvania German 40, 174η, 242, 244, 247,
Loshn-koydesh 40, 43, 49, 68, 83-84, 87, 248, 254, 25 5. 277". 57«
93, 97n-98n, 99η, 374, 378. See also Periodicals. See Anglo Press, Ethnic insti-
Aramaic, Hebrew, Liturgical languages tutions, Press
LRUs (Local religious units) 207, 248, 251-70, Persian 23;
273-74,276η, 371,383. See also Ethnic insti- Philippine languages 145, 151. See also Pilipino,
tutions, Language and religion, Liturgical Tagalog
languages Pilipino 41, 69, 154, 235, 236, 255
Lue 77 Plato 5
Lutherans 25 2 P o l i s h 81, 93, 123, 127, 173η, I 8 O - 8 2 , 214, 235,
L u t h e r - G e r m a n 49, 277η, 378 236, 242, 24;, 247η, 2J4, 255-56, 26ο, 267η,
LWC. See Language of wider communication 344, 380. See also 'Big Six' languages
P o r t u g u e s e 119, 145, 146, 151, 186-88, 217,
Malayalam 2 ^ 4 235, 236, 255
Mandarin 40, 78, 378, 440η. See also Chinese Prediction of language survival 156-172. See
Maori 4; also Language maintenance, Language shift
Marshall, John ;8 Press 214-23, 226, 250, 258, 260-61, 265η,
Maskilim. See Haskole 270-71, ιηητί, 305-41, 343-62. See also
Marx, Karl 4, 6, 7, 514 Anglo Press, Ethnic institutions
Mazzini, Giuseppe 8-9 Protestants 167, 204, 242, 247η, 255, 256, 259,
Mendelssohn, Moses 79, 80, 81, 8 5, 86 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, 278η, 309, 381
Mennonites 174η, 247, 274. See also Pennsyl- Provençal. See Chuadit, Occitan
vania German Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans 129, 173η,
Micronesian 222 267-77n, 278η, 284, * 9 5 , *97. *99. 35 5.
Mill, John Stuart 6,7 357n
Moslems 52, 61, 256, 259, 264, 266, 401, 447, Putonghuà 40. See also Chinese, Mandarin,
477. 494 Pekingese
Mother-tongue claimants 107-194, 203, 205-
14, 226, 237, 238, 264, 26;, 283, 343, 513. Quebec 60, 72, 1 ;o. See also Canada
See also US Census
Racism 3-13, 37
N a t i o n a l i s m 71-73, 493-501 Radio. See Broadcasting, Ethnic institutions
Native-American. See Amerindian Rebirth of ethnicity and language. See Ethnic
Navajo 166, 274. See also Amerindian revival, Reethnilication
Nietzsche, Friedrich 491 R e e t h n i f i c a t i o n 48,59,61,62-6;, 107, 295,478.
Norwegian 120, 127, 138, 145, 151, 154, 162, See also Ethnic revival
177—79, 2 5 4* $ e e a ^ s0 Scandinavian Religious institutions. See Ethnic institutions,
LRUs
Occitan 40, 60, 69, 92. See also Chuadit Relinguification 59, 61, 62-65, 478. See also
Official language ;8, 73 Reethnification
Index 5 31
Revival of ethnicity. See Ethnic revival, Tagalog 41

Reethnification Talmud 79, 83, 89, 97η, 98η, 454η
Romansh 68 Tamil 40, 78
Romany 242 Targumic. See Aramaic
Rousseau, Jean Jacques vii, 469 Television. See Broadcasting, Ethnic institu-
Rumanian 7 - 8 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 7 , 1 8 3 - 8 5 , 2 0 7 , 235, 242, tions
2
54, 2}5 Territoriality principle 41
Russian 6 ; , 69, 78, 122, 1 2 3 , 1 7 3 η , 180-82, 214, Thai 207, 213η, 235, 242
274, 275η, 399, 44on, 446 Three generations 4 ; , 48, 50, i n , 1 1 6 , 1 2 0 -
122, I 2 7 - I 2 8 , 1 3 1 - 4 1 , 173η, 196, 204, 2o6,
Samoan 277η 247, 268, 270, 294, 299, 309, 355, 357η, 374,
Sanskrit 40, 65, 69, 204, 254, 256, 469. See also 379. 4*°, 5°9· 513, 517
Liturgical languages Tibetan 207, 235, 242, 254
Scandinavian 146, 196, 207, 222, 255, 270, 377. Tocqueville, Alexis de vii, ; 11
See also Danish, Norwegian, Swedish Translinguification 45, 48, 62, 366
Schools 206, 239—51, 252, 258, 272—73, 276η, Tsarfatic 79
363-76, 377—441. See also Ethnic insti- Turkish 7 - 8 , 116, 391
tutions
Scots 508 Ukrainian 129, 162, 167, 183-85, 204, 207, 235,
Sephardim 394. See also Ladino 242, 24;, 254, 25;, 256, 262η, 263, }74, 380
Serbian 213, 235. See also Serbo-Croatian Universal language 377, 446-48, 478, 480-81
Serbo-Croatian 129, 137η, 173η, 180-82. See U.S. Census 108, 109, n o , 128, 136, 145, 148,
also Croatian, Serbian 150, 1 5 1 , 153, 154, 155, 174η, 239, 345, 356,
Sidestream ethnicity 5 0 2 , 5 0 3 - 0 4 , 5 0 6 , 5 1 0 , 5 1 1 , 489. See also Mother-tongue claimants
512, 5 1 4 - 1 7
Sinhalese 40 Vietnamese 167, 252
Slavs 452, 478
Slovak 137η, 164, 180-82, 2 ; ; W,. See Linguistic Relativity
Solvene, Slovenian ι ι 6 , 137η, 162, 167, 173η, W 2 . See Linguistic Determinism
I8o-82, 2 3 ; , 2J4, 255 W 3 . See Whorf
Social class, see Economic factors Webster, Noah 58
Spanglish 297 Welsh 7, 92, 213, 235, 497, 508
Spanish 40, 47, 7 1 , 1 1 6 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 4 , 127, 129, Wendish 25 ;
1 3 : , 138, 146, 150, 1 5 1 , 154, i ; 6 , 162, 164, Whorf, Benjamin Lee 67, 448, 452, 453-54,
1 6 7 , 1 7 3 η , 174η, I86-88, 214, 221, 222, 226, 4 5 7 - 7 1 , 473-87
235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 242, 24;, 246, 247, Writing systems. See Alphabets and writing
249, 250, 252, 255, 265, 267η, 268, 271, systems, Biliteracy
ij6-jyn, 278η, 284, 286-87, 294-95, 296,
2
97> 306, 315, 3 2 1 » 3 " , 323> 343-62, 374, Yahudic 79, ioin
380, 463—64. See also 'Big Six' languages, Yavanic 78
Judezmo Yiddish xii, 40, 4 1 , 43, 49, 69, 7 1 , 7 7 - 1 0 3 , 116,
Spengler, Oswald 469 119, 122, 123, 124, 127, 146, 1 5 1 , 153, 162,
Sumerian 69 173η, 174η, 183-85, 213η, 221, 242, 244,
Swahili 6; 254, 2 ( H, 270, 283, 284, 285, 286—87, 294,
Swedish 100, 127, 138, 145, 1 5 1 , 154, 173η, 296, 297, 298, 306, 320, 321, 323, 343,
174η, 177—79, 242, 2J4, 3"o. See also 346-47, 349-56, 359n> 360-62, 374, 401,
Scandinavian 464. See also 'Big Six' languages
Swiss German 40, 51 Yinglish 297
Switzerland 43—44
Syriac. See Aramaic Zuñí 462

Fishman Et Al - The Rise and Fall of The Ethnic Revival - 1985 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fishman Et Al - The Rise and Fall of The Ethnic Revival - 1985 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival:

Perspectives on Language and Ethnicity

MOUTON PUBLISHERS · BERLIN · NEW YORK · AMSTERDAM

Michael H. Gertner, Esther G. Lowy and William G. Milán

MOUTON PUBLISHERS · BERLIN • NEW YORK • AMSTERDAM

Fishman, Joshua Α.:

l^ibrary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

ι. Language and culture—United States. I. Title.

Printed on acid free paper

All political societies are composed of other, smaller societies of different

Preface: Language and Culture, the Ethnic Revival and the

I Historical, Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Perspectives on

ι. Language, Ethnicity and Racism 3

II The "Ethnic Revival" and Language Maintenance in the

6. Mother-Tongue Claiming in the United States Since i960: Trends

III The Ethnic Mother-Tongue Press and Schools as Community

9. Language and Ethnicity in the Periodical Publications of Four

IV Ethnolinguistic Pluralism in Herderian and Whorfian Perspective 443

13. Positive Pluralism: Some Overlooked Rationales and Forefathers 445

14· The Whorfian Hypothesis: Varieties of Valuation, Confirmation and

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE, THE ETHNIC

ETHNIC REVIVALS AND THE ETHNIC REVIVAL

This volume, we would hope, also contributes directly to an understanding of

BRINGING LANGUAGE INTO SOCIOLOGY AND

sociology and the language sciences. A study of language and ethnicity in

Although this volume was conceived of as an integrated whole, most of its

Language, Ethnicity and Racism

JOSHUA A. FISHMAN In Irish, not merely does our mind react

tic and fundamental biological 'essences' and, therefore, histories or missions of

Ethnicity as disruptive, irrational, and peripheral. The darker side of ethnicity is

Thus, the confusion of ethnicity with politically troublesome collectivities,

Ethnicity as creative and healing. Autochthonous ethnicity theories commonly

sheer beauty of cultural pluralism provide an unending rhapsody. This view

Dimensions of language-and-ethnicity. The foregoing themes provide us with many

No individual, no country, no people, no history of a people, no state is like any other.

Concluding sentiments. These remarks must not be taken simply as a defense of

Barzun, Jacques. Race: A Study in Superstition. N e w York, Harper, 1937.

'Am and Goy as Designations for Ethnicity

DAVID E. FISHMAN, RENA MAYERFELD,

'AM, GOY AND ETHNICITY

BIBLICAL SEMANTICS: PROBLEMS AND

opposition to 'am and, therefore, we cannot really appreciate the earliest

'AM IN THE PENTATEUCH: NARROWING THE

'AM AS A PEOPLE IN THE PENTATEUCH

GOY AND GOY GADOL IN THE PENTATEUCH:

The primary distinction necessary before t r e a t i n g ^ qua nation is that between

expansion of his fold. In time of famine, G o d tells Jacob to go down to Egypt,

GOY AS A PEOPLE IN THE PENTATEUCH

Generally translated in English as "nation," the 13 instances of goy in the

THE FUNCTIONAL THEORY—JEWS AND GENTILES

The contextualization principles and semantic fields developed above concern-

THE "EXCEPTIONS PROVE THE RULE": BOTH 'AM

Jews Called Goy

Jacob's relating this promise, to Joseph (Genesis 48:4), he omits the

Gentiles Called 'Am

'Am in this context is used to stress closeness and family-like unity.

THE RULE IN THE PENTATEUCH

Before such a sweeping reformulation can be confidently accepted, par-

'AM AND GOY AS ETHNICITY DESIGNATIONS IN

EXCLUDED 'AM USAGES

ι. A m o n g the excluded usages of 'am were several encountered before, e.g.:

6. 'Am aher (a different or unusual 'am) occurs only once (Chronicles I

EXCLUDED GOY USAGES