Bilingualism and Biculturism - Fishman 2010

8/19/2019 Bilingualism and Biculturism - Fishman 2010

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bilingualism-and-biculturism-fishman-2010 1/14

This article was downloaded by: [85.247.196.104]On: 24 July 2015, At: 05:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Bilingualism and biculturism as individual and associetal phenomenaJoshua A. Fishman a

a Yeshiva UniversityPublished online: 14 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Joshua A. Fishman (1980) Bilingualism and biculturism as individual and as societal phenomena, Journalof Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1:1, 3-15, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.1980.9993995

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1980.9993995

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of inf ormation. Taylor and Francis s hall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01434632.1980.9993995

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1980.9993995

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01434632.1980.9993995

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20



BILINGUALISM AND B ICULTURISMas Individual and as Societal Phenomena*

Joshua A. F ishmanYeshiva University

Abstract. Just as diglossia is the stable, societal counterpart toindividual bilingualism, so di-ethnia is the stable, societal counterpart toindividual biculturism. Di-ethnia requires societal compartmentalizationas well as institutionally protected functional specificity. These desiderataare hard to attain and to retain — both ideologically and structurally —under mo dern , interactive, mobile and individualistic u rban industrialconditions. However, some groups have, intuitively or consciously,displayed a talent for exactly such arrangements. Much of bilingualeducation unknowingly leads to transitional rather than stable accom-modations in the areas of language and culture.

Bilingualism and DiglossiaTh e relationship between individual bilingualism and societal diglossia is far

from being a necessary or causal one , i.e. either phenom enon can occur with orwithout the other (Fish man , 1967). As such it is but one more example of theweak relationship obtaining between various individual social behaviours andtheir corresponding societal counterparts. W ealthy individuals can be found inboth rich and poor so cieties. Trad itional individuals are recognizable w ithinboth modern and traditiona l societies. Th us diglossia differs from bilingualismin that it represents an enduring societal arrangem ent, extending at least beyo nda three generation period, such that two languag es each have their secure,phenomenologically legitimate and widely implem ented functions. T his paperraises for consideration the corresponding problem of arrangements at the in-dividual and societal levels in conjunction with the phenomenon ofbiculturism, particularly as these pertain to ethnic identity.

Kinds of Diglossia: Linguistic RelationshipsFollowing usage that has becom e widely accepted ever since F ergu son 's

seminal article of 1959, H will be used to designate the superposed variety in a



4 MULT ILINGUAL AND MULTICULTUR AL DEVELOPMENT

diglossic society, i.e. the variety that is learned later in socialization (and, there -fore, is no one s mother tongue) under the influence of one or another formalinstitution outside of the home (and, therefore, is differentially accessible to theextent that en try to formal institutions of langu age/lite racy learning [typically:school, church, government] is available). However, departing fromFerguson's initial designation, several different kinds of linguistic relation-ships between H's and L's (the latter being the universally available andspoken [mother-}tongues and varieties of everyday life) will be recognized:

(a) H as classical L as vernacular, the two being genetically related e.g. classicaland vernacular Arabic, classical or classicized Greek (Katarevusa) anddemotiki, Latin and French among francophone scholars and clergy inearlier centuries, classical and vernacular Tamil, classical and vernacularSinhalese, Sanscrit and Hindi, classical Mandarin and modern Pekinese,etc.

(b ) H as classical, L as vernacular, the two n o t being genetically related e.g.Loshn koydesh (textual Hebrew/Aramaic) and Yiddish (Fishman, 1976)(or any one of the several dozen other no n-sem itic Jewish L 's, as long as thelatter operate in vernacular functions rather than in traditional literacyrelated ones (Weinreich, 1980).

(c) H as written/formal-spoken and L as vernacular, the two being geneticallyunrelated to each other; e.g., Spanish and Gurani in Paraguay (Rubin,1968), English (or French) and various vernaculars in post-colonial areasthroughout the world (Fishman, Cooper and Conrad, 1976).

(d ) H as written/formal-spoken and L as vernacular, the two being geneticallyrelated to each other. Here only significantly discrepant written/formal-spoken and informal-spoken varieties will be admitted, such that withoutschooling the written/formal-spoken cannot even be understood (other-wise every dialect/standard situation in the world would qualify withinthis rubric), e.g., High German and Swiss German, standard spokenPekinese (Putonghua) and Cantonese, Standard English and CaribbeanCreole.

There are, of course, various more complex cases within each of the abovemajor clusters . Thus there are several instances of dual H's in conjunction w itha single L, one H commonly being utilized for ethnically encumbered or tra-ditional H pursuits and the other for ethnically unencumbered or modernpursuits. For example, in conjunction with type (a), above, we find variousstable Arabic speech communities that have both Classical Arabic and Englishor Fre nch as H and a vernacular Arabic as L. T he Old Ord er Amish also reveala complex form of (a) involving High ( Lu the r Bible) Ge rma n and English as Hand Pennsylvanian Germ an as L. O n the other hand, Hasidim reveal a complexform of type (b) involving Loshn koydesh and English as H and Yiddish as L(and in Israel: Losh n koydesh and Ivrit as H and Yiddish as L (F ishm an, 1980;Pol, 1980)). Many developing nations hope to establish a type (c) patterninvolving both a W estern L anguage of Wider Comm unication and one or more



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURISM 5

favoured standardized vernacular(s) as H s and th e sam e (or even m ore) localvernaculars as L ' s . Thu s , in the P hilippines , we find a natio nal policy fosteringEnglish and Pilipino/Filipino as H s and , e.g., T agalog as an L. Note, how-ever, that in all these mo re com plex cases an indigenous variety/language isavailable a t both the H and the L level even if modern H function s are alsoshared with a language recently impo rted or imposed from without.

Stability via Compartmentalization of theSocietal Allocation of Functions

The above rapid review of a do zen or more instances of relatively stable andwidespread societal bilingualism (i.e. diglossia) was intended to discount theview that only in connection with classicals can suc h stability be maintained.Classicals are a good example of diglossia situations, of course, b utsociologically speaking, w hat they are an example of is no t classicism pe r se (noreven of traditional religion, with w hich classicals are usually linked) but of astress on social compartmentalization, i.e. on the maintenance of strictbound aries b etwee n the societal functions associated with H and L respectively(Fishman, 1972). Sanctity/secularity, ascribed social statification such as incaste distinctions, indigenousness/foreignness, traditionalism/modernism,

these and others are all possible bases of rathe r rigid and stable com-partmentalization in societal arrangem ents a nd, there fore, in th e allocation oflanguages (or langua ge varieties) to such arrangements.

There is much in mo dern life that militates against such com-partmentalization. Among the hallmarks of modernization, as expounded bythe great sociologists of the past two centuries, is the increase in open net-works, in fluid role relationsh ips, in superficial pu blic familiarity betweenstrangers or semi-strangers, in non-sta tus-stressing interactions (even wherestatus differences remain), and, above all, in the rationalization of the worksphere (the sphere that has, presumably, become the dominant arena of humanaffairs). All of the se factors — and the constantly increa sing urbaniz ation,massification and mobility of which they are a part — tend to diminish com -partmentalization, whether in the language use repertoire or in the socialbehaviour repertoire outside of language use pe r se .

The presence or absence of social co mpa rtmentalization in language-use inbilingual settings leads to very different societal arrangements with respect tobilingualism, which, after all, is an individual behavioural manifestation.Similarly, the presence or absence of social compartm entalization in e thno-cultural behaviour in bicultural settings leads to very different societal a r-rangements with respect to bicultu rism, which , after all, is also an individualbehavioural manifestation. Thus, ultimately, if we are concerned with therelationship betw een bilingualism and biculturism , we mus t be concerned w iththe co-occurrence patterns obtaining between societally compartmentalizedand uncompartmentalized biculturism. However, relatively little has beenwritten, so far, about th e possible relationships be tween societal ethnocu ltural



6 MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

compartmentalization and individual bic ulturis m; certainly little incomparison to the literature on the possible relationships between societaldiglossia and individual bilingualism. Let us, therefore, first re-exam ine thelatter literature and then apply its concepts and contexts to the former topic.

Types of diglossia bilingualism relationships

Both diglossia and bilingualism are continuous variables, m atters of degreerather than all-or-none phenom ena, even when compartmentalization obtains.Nevertheless, for purposes of initial con ceptual clarity, it is simpler to treatthem both as if they were dichotomous variables. Treated in this fashion thereare four possible combinations between individual bilingualism and societaldiglossia as Table 1 indicates, and we will procee d to consider the m one at at ime.

F i g u r e I

Bilingualism

The Relationships Between

Bilingualism and Diglossia

Diglossia

—

1. Both Diglossiaand Bilingualism

3 . Diglossia with-out Bilingualism

2. Bilingualism with-out Diglossia

4. Neither Diglossianor Bilingualism

(a) Bilingualism and Diglossia (cell 1)The occurrence of bilingualism and diglossia has already been discussed,

above. Let us, therefore, merely sum marize our observations in this con-nection at this time. This is a societal arrangement in which individualbilingualism is not only widespread but institutionally buttress ed. (Obviouslywe are using bi/di as generics and intend that our comments with resp ea tothem also apply to more complex cases as well, i.e., to cases of t r i / ter,quadri / te t ra , e tc .) . M em bersh ip in the culture requires that the variouslanguages that are recognized as pertaining to such membership beimplemented in culturally corre ct contexts, i.e. that the H (or H s) beutilized in (the normatively appropriate) H contexts and the L (or L s) beutilized in (the normatively appropriate) L contexts. The separate locations inwhich L and H are acquired immed iately provide them with separateinstitutional supports. L is acquired at home, as a mother- tongue, andcontinues to be employed there thro ugh out life while its use is extend ed also to



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTU RISM 7

other familial and familiar (intimate, affect-dominated, emotion andspontaneity-related) interactions. H, on the other hand, is never learned athome and is never utilized to signal such interactions. H is related to andsuppo rted by othe r-than-hom e institutions: education, religion, governm ent,higher/specialized work sphere, etc. The authority and the reward systemsassociated with these se parate institutions are sufficient for both L an d H to berequired at least referentially (if not — due to possible access restrictions in the

case of H — overtly) for membership in the culture, and the compart-mentalization between them is sufficient for this arrangement not to sufferfrom leaka ge and from the resulting potential for language spread and shift.

The above picture is, of course, at least somewhat idealized. Diglossicsocieties are marked not only by compartmentalization conventions but byvarying degrees of access restriction. Similarly, in addition, Hness (whether inlexical, phonological or grammatical respects) does creep into L interactions(particularly among the more educated strata of society), viz. the case of M iddle Arabic and Lea rned Yiddis h , and contrawise Lness does creep into H interactions (particularly wh ere access restrictions are minim al; note, forexample, the completely Yiddish phonology of Ashkenazi Loshn koydesh).

Nevertheless, the perceived ethnocultural legitimacy of two languages as ou row n (i.e. neither of them b eing considered foreign, even thou gh one or theother migh t, in poin t of historical reality, be such ), and the normative functionalcomplementarity of both languages, each in accord w ith its own institutionallycongruent behaviours and values, remains undisturbed.

(b) Diglossia without Bilingualism (cell 3)Since diglossia applies to societal arran gem ents , political arrangements may

certainly be included under this rubric. Given this fact we must recognizepolitical or governmental diglossia whereby two or more differentlymonolingual entities are brought together under one political roof. Not onlywere various empires of old characterized by diglossia without bilingualism(except for small commercial, military and civil service elites) but variousmod ern states may be so classified: Switzerland, B elgium, C anada, and, at leastin terms of early Leninist idealism, the U SS R. Th is is diglossia in accord withthe territoriality principle (McRae, 1975). It requires that we set aside ourearlier mrra-societal notion of widespread bilingualism and extend it to thepolitical recognition and institutional protection thereof on an mtersocietalbasis. There is full freedom of press in Switzerland, but, nevertheless, onecannot publish a German newspaper in Geneva or an Italian one in Bern,regardless of whe ther this migh t be desirable in terms of short term p opulationmov eme nts. Similarly, Kin g Ahasuerus of old, who reigne d from Ind ia evenunto E th io pi a. . . sent letters into all the K ing's provinces, into every provinceaccording to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language(Esther 1:1 and 22). Th us , we note tha t in this great multilingual emp ire of old,




there was not only territorial diglossia at the governmental level (as between thevarious written languages for governmental use) but also societal diglossiabetween the one written and the several spoken languages of each province

Wherever an absent nobility controls a peasantry from afar by means of asmall military, governmental and commercial presence which mediatesbetween the absent masters and the local indigenous populations, diglossiawithout bilingualism is in effect. Most forms of colonialism throughout the

world (whether under capitalist or communist auspices) are, therefore, alsoinstances of political/territorial diglossia without widespread demographicindigenous bilingualism. W hen subs tantial numbers of colonizers have settledin the erstwhile colonies and access to H is not restricted in so far as indigenoupopulations are concerned a transformation may ultimately take place to that odiglossia with bilingualism.

(c) Bil ing ual ism w itho ut Dig lossia (cell 2)Both diglossia with bilingualism and diglossia without bilingualism are

relatively stable, long-term arrangements. However, since these are highlyinterpretable and judgem ental dimensions {how stable does a socio/political a r-rangement have to be before we consider it long term?) let us once more agree touse a three generational rule of thumb in connection with them. There areobviously innum erable bilingual situations around the world that do not last upto or beyond three generations. These are characterized not only by languagespread b ut also by language shift. In some instances indigenous languages areswamped out by intrusive ones (B—A=B) as in the case of many nativeAmerican, aboriginal Australian and not a few non-Russian Soviet popu-lations as well (Silver, 1974; Kriendler, in press). In other instances, im-migrant languages have disappeared as their speakers have adopted thelanguages of their hosts (B—A=A). What both of these otherwise quite dif-ferent con texts reveal in common is an absence of social compartmentalizationsuch th at the languages of hearth and hom e (of indigenous peoples, on the onehand , and of imm igrants, on the othe r) can protect themselves from the greaterreward and sanction system associated with the language of new institutions towhich they are exposed and in which they are involved.

As a result of the lack of successful compartmentalization both A and Bcompete for realization in the same domains, situations and role-relations.Since, with the exception of fleeting metaphorical usage (humour, sarcasm,etc.) bilingual functional redundancy cannot be maintained inter-generationally and gives way to the stronger functional system, the languagewith stronger rewards and sanctions asspciated with it wins out. In theAmerican and Soviet contexts three generations or less have generally beensufficient for this process to run its course where sufficiently small, impactedand dislocated groups have been involved. Large groups, groups strong enoughto m aintain or to fashion a reward system un der their own con trol (whether in-the hom e, the com munity, the church , or elsewhere) may succeed in establish




in g and maintaining the compartmentalization needed for diglossia. Evenfewer of these can opt for a completely territorial solution im pleme nting com-partmentalization via secession or isolation. Without compartmentalization ofone kind or another — at times attained by ideological/philosoph ical and evenby a degree of physical withdrawal.from establishm ent society — the flowprocess from language spread to language shift is an inexorable one. Althoug h itmay, at times, require more than three generations for its inroads to be clearlydiscerned, the functionally unbalanced n ature of the bilingualism th at ob tains(both in terms of who becomes bilingual and who remains monolingual, tobegin with, and the power d ifferentials/reward and sanc tion differentials of theremaining monolingual A and monolingual B domains) always leads dis-placively and replacively o nly in one direction.

(d) Neither bilingualism nor diglossia (cell 4)

The outcome of uninterrupted (i.e. uncomp artmentalized) bilingualism-without-diglossia is neither bilingualism nor diglossia. Some settings, how-ever, are characterizable in this latter fashion w ithout ever having gon e thro ughthe former stage. Korea, Yemen, Cuba, Portugal and Norway have allexperienced relatively little immigration within the past thre e generations andhave few if any indigenous m inorities. However, man y settings that have

initially had nume rous immigrants or linguistic m inorities or both have tran s-linguified (or exterminated) them to a very large deg ree. New Zealand, in so faras its indigenous M aoris are concerned, and Ireland, in so far as Irish speakersare concerned, are examples of the successful implementation of policies ofthis kind, as are several indigeno us and immigrant groups in the U S S R , USA,Spanish Am erica, the Arab Moslem w orld, Israel and o thers .

Strictly speak ing, of course, no socially complex speech com mu nity is fullyhomogeneous linguistically. Different social experiences (in work, education,religion) lead to different socially patterned varieties of talking (and even ofwriting) and different regional dialects may maintain themselves in a stablefashion even after former communications and interactional barriers are gone.Nevertheless, even if we hold to a definition of bilingualism as involvingconsensually separate lang uag es , there are of course numero us speech net-works, speech communities and even polities tha t may be characterized in thisfashion. N orm al foreign language instruction and touris m clearly lead neitherto stable bilingualism nor to diglossia.

What is the Ethnocultural Counterpart to Diglossia?

W e are now ready to broaden our discussion from a treatment of socio-linguistic parameters alone (bilingualism and diglossia) to one involving eth no -cultural dimensions as well. In the latter connection, how ever, we are faced bythe lack of a terminological and concep tual distinction suc h as exists betwee n



10 MULTILINGUA L AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

bilingualism and diglossia. If we employ biculturism to designate the in-dividual patte rn in the ethnocultural realm, paralleling our usage of bi-lingualism in the sociolinguistic realm, w hat can we use to designate the societalpattern in the ethnocultural realm, paralleling our usage of diglossia in thesociolinguistic realm? Most investigators use bicultu ral in both instanceswith considerable confusion and circumlocution as a result. Saville-Troike(1978) has suggested the term dinomia (two sets of norm s, i.e. two cultures) forsocietally widespread biculturism. This is certainly a worthwhile suggestion,bu t, in a sense, it is a bit too broad for our purposes. C ulture is a much broaderdesignation than ethnicity, particularly in connection with modern complexsocieties. It deals with norms pertaining to all of human behaviour, belief, andvaluation. Ethnicity is a narrower concept, particularly in modern times. Itfocuses on peopleness relatedness , that is: on those cultural behaviours,values and beliefs tha t are related to peopleness authen ticity , i.e. to member-ship in a particular people and its defining tradition (Fishman, 1977a). Atearlier stages of social development all of culture is ethnically defined anddefining. How one dresses, what one eats, the kind of work one does, how one'shouse or furniture is built — these are distinctively peopleness relatedbehaviours. At later stages of social development many of the above behaviours(and many values and beliefs as well) have become ethnically neutralizedbecause of their widespread ( international ) currency. Even though cultures

continue to coincide with broad ethnic designations, ethnicity recedes into asmaller corner, indeed, at tim es, into a residual corner of culture, so that only amuch smaller set of behaviours, values and beliefs are considered (by insid ers or by outside rs , be they scholars or not) as ethnicity related,implying, defining, because they are viewed as au the nti c and associated withdiscontinuity across ethnic boundaries and/or self-definitions. Language-behaviour (particularly mother-tongue use) is frequently considered to beethnicity related, implying, defining.

If what is of concern to us is the co-occurrence between bilingualism/di-glossia and the enactments of single versus multiple norms and identities in therealm of ethnocu ltural behaviour, beliefs and values, then we may find it use-ful to u tilize bicultural for the individual manifestations in this realm bu t whatare we to use for the societal counterpart thereto? I t is in this connection that Iwould like to tentatively suggest the term di-ethnia. Like bilingualism, bi-culturism is an individual asset or debit that corresponds to no particularsocietal institutions or concerns. Without such it is not intergenerationallymaintained. However, like diglossia, di-ethnia is a sociocultural pattern th at ismaintained by means of specific institutional arrangements. The arrange-ments, 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.Th us , not only can we find bilingualism with and w ithout diglossia (cells 1 and2), as well as diglossia with and without bilingualism (cells 1 and 3 ) but we canalso fin d




(a) multiculturism with and without di-ethnia, as well as(b) diethnia with and without either bilingualism or diglossia.

As we will no te, multiculturism and di-ethn ia do not form a four-fold table (acounter-balanced 2X2 table) as do bilingualism and diglossia. Th e reason forthis is that d i-ethnia is a rarer phenom enon th an diglossia and a far, far rare r on ethan biculturism as well.

Biculturism Di ethniain various Bilingualism Diglossia Contexts

When bilingualism and diglossia obtain (cell 1 above) di-eth nia may yet beabsent. Thus, Paraguayans do not view Spanish and Gua rani as pertaining totwo different ethnocultural memberships. The two languages are in com-plementary distribution, of course, in so far as their mac rosocietal functions areconcerned, but the y are both accepted as indicative of the same e thnocu lturalmem bership: Paraguayan. Both languages are required for full mem bersh ip inthe Paraguayan people and for the implementation of completeParaguayanness. The same is true with respect to Geez and Am haric amongEthiopian Co pts. Only one peopleness is involved, albeit different functions arefulfilled by each language an d the tw o togethe r con stitute the whole, as they do

for speakers of a vernacular Arabic who read /write Koranic Classical Arabic.Certainly, neither di-ethnia (societal biculturism) nor individual biculturismare involved in cases such as these.

When diglossia is absent bu t bilingualism is pres ent (cell 2) m ulticulturismmay well be present bu t di-ethnia n ot. This is the co ntext of transitional bi -lingualism an d transitional bicultu rism on th e one hand , and of ordinary cross-cultural contacts on the other hand . Ne ither passes the three generation testand the bilingualism they promp t is either u ltimately lost, integrated ortransitioned into translinguification, just as the biculturism they pro mpt isultimately either lost, integrated or transitioned in to transethnification. No te,however, that language shift and ethnocultural shift need not proceed apace;indeed, language shift for American immigrants has commonly proceededmore rapidly than has their re-ethnification (Fish ma n et ah 1966, 1978).Nev ertheless , ethnicity maintena nce (particularly at any creative level or in anycentral domain) requires strong institutional support, as does languagemaintenance, rendering the other culture inoperative (consensually u n-acceptable) in certain functions — or even rejecting the functions per se — iftwo ethnocultural systems are to operate side by side on a stable and wide-spread basis. Two sets of cultural beh aviours and iden tities must be in com ple-mentary distribution and strongly comp artmentalized, as must be theirlanguage usage counterparts, if they are to constitute something m ore thantransitional arrangements. It is just such complementarity and compart-mentalization tha t this cell (cell 2) lacks, and , as a result, acculturation (and,in cell 4, assim ilation) finally resu lt.

Cell 3 also is inhospitable to di-ethn ia. Since the diglossia encou ntered there



12 MU LTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

is that based upon the te rrito rially principle it is, once again, only a small classof middlemen (civil servants, commercial representatives, professionaltranslators) who have any need for being bilingual, and even most of them haveno need for either biculturism or di-ethnia.

Stable Societal Biculturism: Some USA Examples

We have m ade the rounds of our 2X2 table and have not encountered d i-ethnia in any of its four cells. Actually, stable, societal biculturism does exist inpart of cell 1, bu t the purpose of our initial go- roun d has been attained if ithas clarified th e rarity of the phenomenon we are pu rsuing. M ost of modern lifeis inhospitable — whether ideologically or pragmatically — to com part-mentalization between a people's behaviours and values. Fluidity across roleand network boundaries and, indeed, the weakening and overcoming ofboundaries, is both a goal and result of most modern behaviour and itsemphasis on efficiency and reciprocity/solidarity in social behaviour. Littlewonder then that our examples of di-ethnia will derive primarily from non-modern contexts.

The Old Order Amish and the Hasidim represent two patterns of di-ethniaon American shores. Both groups maintain a pattern of bilingualism and

diglossia (cell 1) for their own internal needs involving Luther German andPennsylvania Dutch on the one hand, and Loshn koydesh and Y iddish, on theother hand . In addition, both groups control their own schools wherein theirchildren are taught to become proficient in English (speaking, reading, writingso that they can engage in the other cu ltur e within carefully prescribed limitsof kind and degree. The other culture is viewed as necessary and the ownculture is, therefore, in necessary complementary distribution w ith it. In bothcases actualization of the othe r cultu re is restricted to economic pursu its andrelationships and even in this domain, limits are carefully observed. Electricitymay be used for pasteurization (the latter being requ ired by state law) amongthe Pennsylvania D utc h, bu t no t for refrigeration of their own food or to powemodern farm machinery (Hostetler, 1968,1974). Th e outside world must beengaged to some unavoidable degree — and for such purposes the outsidelanguage must be learned — but this degree must be a limited one andultimately, even it is rationalized as necessary for the maintenance and wellbeing of the inside world .

It is probably no t accidental that the rural Old O rder Amish and the urbanHasidim both accept another culture only in the econo-technical domain, thibeing the most universalized and, therefore, the least ethnically encumbereddomain of modern society. Nevertheless, the primary point of generalizableinterest in connection w ith them is not so much the specific area in which theistable societal biculturism is expressed as the fact that it is stabilized by:

(a) no t integrating th e two cultures involved b ut by keeping them separate, ina state of tension vis-a-vis each other, i.e. comp artmentalization is recognized asnecessary so that the outside world will not in trude upo n spread into: Cooper,




1980; displace/replace: Fishm an, 1977b) the inner world : and(b) not accepting or implem enting the other cu ltu re in its entirety bu t,

rathe r, implem enting it selectively and in a particular domain so as to keep it incomplementary distribution with their ow n H-governed and L-govemeddomains. English is specifically excluded from home use (where it wouldthreaten their own L mother tongues) and from religious use (where it wouldthreaten their own sacred H's). Thus, just as no speech community canmaintain two languages on a stable basis (past three generations) if they areboth used in the same social functions and, therefore, stable societal bi-lingualism (diglossia) depends on institutionally protected functional socio-linguistic comp artmentalization , so no ethno cultural collectivity can main taintwo cultures on a stable basis past three generations if they are bothimplemen ted in the same social functions (family, friendship, work, edu cation,religion, etc.), and therefore, stable societal multiculturism (di-ethnia) depe ndson institutionally protected ethnocultural compartmentalization.

Does Di-ethnia Exist Elsewhere As Well?Di-ethnia is a relatively rare phenom enon — much rare r than its individual

coun terpart, biculturism . It is found beyo nd the three generation cut-off in the

Moslem world where traditional behaviours, dress, diet and values dominatemost of life but where modern econo-technical roles require different dress,diet and languages and do so not only for m rergroup interactions bu t for intra-group interactions within this arena as well. Similar compartmentalization isencountered beyond the three generation cut-off among various segments ofJapanese, Chinese (Hong Kong, Singapore), Native American and non-Russop hone Soviets. Di-eth nia of a more marginal or peripheral kind is some-times also found among stable po pulations living at long-established politicalborders and sha ring m arket days and other limited collective experiences (e.g.sports contests). Finally, and even more exceptionally, di-ethnia is still en-countered at times even after language shift has eroded bilingualism anddiglossia to the vanishing point. Thus, even with the transethnification ofBlacks and aborigines, a deep-seated and often conflicted di-ethnia at timesreveals itself.

The Bicultural Thrust of Bilingu al/Bilingu al EducationT he term bicu ltura l is often introduced quite innocently in connection

with Title VII bilingual education in the USA. Neither the institutionalstability nor the functional com partme ntalization of this phenom enon , if it is tobe pursued seriously and societally, is recognized. Indeed, unknowingly, thearrangements entered into usually foster biculturism in the most dislocativesense, i.e. they are transitional and transethnifying. They are commonlycondescen ding, trivializing and peripheralizing in connection with the m arkedculture ( thingification I have called it elsewhere) and A nglo-Americanizing




even when they least suspect. The basic compartmentalization of societafunaions and the vital institutional protection of marked sociolinguistic andethnocultural behaviours, beliefs and values upon which stable societal biculturism (di-ethnia) crucially depends are not only unrecognized but wouldprobably be anathema if they were recognized. In distinction to the destructivTitle VII empty-headedness in this connection is the conscious andconscientious societal multiculturism often pursued by ethnic communit

sponsored paroc hial schools in the USA. Unfortunately, while the forme(Title VII) programmes are numerous and tragically destructive, the latte(ethnic comm unity paroch ial ) programm es are too few and, tragically, toweak to attain their goals. America is the poorer in each case but for quitopposite reasons.




Bibliography

Cooper, R. L. (1980) Tow ard a general theory of language spre ad. In R. L . Cooper (ed.), LanguageSpread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change. Arlington (Va.), Center for AppliedLinguistics (provisional titles).

Ferguson, C. A. (1959) D iglossia, Word 15, 325-40.Fishman, J. A. et al, (1966) Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton (Repr in ted

New York: Arno Press, 1978).(1967) Bilingualism with and witho ut diglossia; diglossia w ith and without bilingualism.

Journal of Social Issues, 23 (2), 29-3 8.(1972) The Sociology of Language: A n Interdisciplinary Social Science Approach to the Study ofLanguage in Society. Rowley: Newbury House, 1972.(1976) Yiddish and Loshn koydesh in traditional Ashkenaz: the proble m of societal allocationof macro-functions. In A. Verdo odt and R . Kjolseth (eds.), Language in Sociology, pp . 39-42.Louvain: Peeters.(1977a) Language, ethnicity and racism. Georgetown University Roundlable on Languages andLinguistics, pp . 297-309.(1977b) The spread of English as a new persp ective for the study of language mantenance andlanguage shift. In J. A. F ishman, R. L. Cooper, A. W. Conrad et al (eds.), The Spread ofEnglish, pp. 108-36. Rowley: Newbury House.(1980) Attracting a following to h igh culture functions for a language of everyday life. In R . L.Cooper (ed.), Language Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change. Arlington (Va.):Center for Applied Linguistics.(in Press) Language maintenance and ethnicity. Harvard Encyclopedia of American EthnicGroups.

Fishman, A., Cooper, R. L., Andrew W . Conrad, A. W. et al. (1977) The Spread of English. Rowley:Newbury House .

Hostetler, J. (1968) Amisk Society. Baltimore: John Hopkins (rev. edn.).(1974) Hutterite Society. Baltimore: John Hopkins.

Kreindler, Isabelle (in Press) Th e changing status of Russian in the Soviet Union. InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Language.

McRae, K. (1975) The principle of territoriality and th e principle of personality in multilingualstates. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 4, 3 3 - 5 4 .

Poll, S. (1980) Loshn koydesh, Y iddish and Ivrit among ultra-O rthodox Jews in Israel.International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 24.

Rubin, Joan. (1968) National Bilingualism in Paraguay. The Hague: Mouton.Saville-Troike, Muriel. (1978) A Guide to Culture in the Classroom. Rosslyn: National Clearing

house for Bilingual Education.Silver, B. (1974) The impact of urbanization and geographical dispersio n on the linguistic

Russification of Soviet nation alities. Demography, 11 , 89-103.Weinreich, M. (1980) History of the Yiddish Language (translated from the Yidd ish original

(Geshikhte fun der yidisher shprak h, New York, Yivo, 1973, 4 vols.) by S. Noble and J. A.Fishman). C hicago: University of Chicago Press.

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	daniellesousa
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Bilingualism and Biculturism - Fishman 2010

Documents