ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY AND MINORITY EDUCATION

JoLIE 2:1 (2009)

   ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY AND MINORITY EDUCATION

                                            Martin Ehala
                                    University of Tartu, Finland

Abstract

To respect and protect linguistic and cultural diversity is one of the core principles of
UNESCO and EU. Yet globalisation has considerably challenged the sustainability of small
ethnic and linguistic communities. Increased mobility, concentration of wealth, and new
information technologies are inevitably working towards the decrease of cultural and
linguistic diversity. However, the maintenance of diversity depends also heavily on various
cultural and social psychological factors that could be influenced by education and mass
communication. The paper outlines the main social psychological factors influencing the
ethnolinguistic vitality of a culture or ethnic group and reveals their structural relationships,
for example the prestige of the culture, cultural distance and utilitarianism and discordance.
Based on this model, suggestions are made how to enhance the ethnolinguistic vitality of
lesser used languages and cultures in the broad framework of bilingual and minority
education.1.

Key words: Ethnolinguistic vitality; Multiple identity; Self-categorisation.

1. Introduction

One of the core principles of UNESCO, the Council of Europe and EU is to respect
and protect linguistic and cultural diversity. The “UNESCO Universal Declaration on
Cultural Diversity“, adopted by the UNESCO’s General Conference in November
2001, declares that “as a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural
diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it
is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the
benefit of present and future generations“. The Article 22 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, adopted in Nice on 7 December 2000,
states that the „Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity". The
Council of European Union’s resolution of 14 February 2002 on the promotion of
linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of
the objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001 emphasises that „all
European languages are equal in value and dignity from the cultural point of view
and form an integral part of European culture and civilisation“.

          1
            This paper is a part of the project “Ethnolinguistic vitality and identity construction: Estonia
in Baltic background” supported by Estonian Science Foundation grant no 7350.

38   Martin EHALA

         Yet at our time, the time of the global village, to protect cultural and
linguistic diversity is not an easy task. Admittedly one language becomes extinct in
each week. Although there are at present around 6000 to 7000 languages, from 50%
to 90% of them could become extinct within this century (see Krauss 1992, Crystal
2000). While there is some international recognition that a few domains such as
science and higher education might be threatened in national languages
(Communiqué 2003: 6), generally the endangered languages are those that have
neither official status nor legal protection.
         While it is important to work for legal protection of minority languages, it
may not be enough: in our era of global information exchange, the fate of a language
may depend less of its legal status than the attitudes of its speakers. There are a
number of known cases where the linguists have been more concerned by protecting
an endangered language than the speakers themselves. Generally, such attempts have
doomed to fail: unless the attitudes of the speakers do not favour language
maintenance, it is little what the specialists can do to protect the language. The
question that needs to be answered is whether there is anything that could be done to
change the negative attitudes of an endangered language. To answer this question
one needs to understand the nature of ethnolinguistic vitality and how it is formed.
This knowledge could then be purposefully used in minority language education in
order to promote a change in attitudes.

2. The nature of ethnolinguistic vitality

2.1. The definition of ethnolinguistic vitality
Ethnolinguistic vitality is usually defined as what “makes a group likely to behave as
a distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup situations.” (Giles, Bourhis and
Taylor 1977: 308). Deep down, it is a group identity issue. According to Tajfel
(1978: 63), social identity is “that part of an individual's self-concept which derives
from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with
the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.” Ellemers,
Kortekaas and Ouwerkerk (1999: 386) argue that these three components of social
identity – cognitive, evaluative and emotional – are conceptually distinct aspects of
identity; and that only the “group commitment appears to be the key aspect of social
identity which drives the tendency for people to behave in terms of their group
membership.” Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) call this commitment bounded
solidarity, which is the feeling of unity that often arises from real or perceived threats
to the group. Thus, ethnolinguistic vitality could be defined as the group’s will to act
collectively, deriving from its members’ emotional attachment to this particular
group membership. The stronger the affective commitment is, the more vitality the
group possesses.
         Of course, the affective commitment is not the sole cause that motivates
group members to behave collectively in intergroup situations. It is often that people
are morally forced to participate in the actions of the group even if they do not
approve of the action. Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) refer to this phenomenon as

Ethnolinguistic vitality and minority education 39

enforceable trust, which is defined as the group’s capacity to sanction those who do
not obey the norms.
         To be more precise, bounded solidarity and enforceable trust could be seen
as two facets of what Bourdieu (1991: 170) calls symbolic power – a power of
“making people see and believe, of conforming or transforming the vision of the
world and, thereby, action on the world … by virtue of the specific effect of
mobilization … capable of producing real effects without apparent expenditure of
energy.” All of the factors mentioned above – emotional attachment, bonded
solidarity, enforceable trust and symbolic power are all built communicatively in
public and private discourses. Educational discourse is one of the main tools that is
used by groups to construct social cohesion and rise ethnolinguistic vitality.
         In order to influence these discourses it is necessary to know how precisely
ethnolinguistic vitality is generated what are its main components. These questions
have found a an answer in the V-model (Ehala 2005, 2008) that specifies the
structural relations between four key variables of ethnolinguistic vitality: perceived
strength differential between a group and its most prominent outgroup (PSD);
perceived inter-group distance (R); the level of utilitarianism (U) in the value system
of the group studied; and the level of inter-group discordance (D).

2.2 Perceived strength differential
Most researchers agree that the driving force behind language shift is power
differences between the dominant and minority groups and that identity maintenance or
shift depends on the opportunities and rewards, real or symbolic (including more positive
social identity) that the two groups can provide to their members. I have called all these
factors together as the cultural mass (M) of the group (see Ehala 2005). However, for
group vitality, the crucial factor is not the cultural mass itself, but the differential of
cultural masses between the two groups – the ingroup and the prominent outgroup. If the
cultural mass differential (PSD) is small, the benefits from shifting one’s group
membership would not outweigh its emotional and social costs. The larger the PSD is in
favor of the outgroup, the more beneficial it would be to shift the identity. Needless to
say, what counts is the subjective perception of, or to be more precise, the socially shared
vision concerning this difference. Thus, provided that the influence of all other factors is
absent, the vitality (V) of the group would be equal to the differential of the cultural
masses (M1 and M2) of the minority (G1) and majority (G2) groups:

(1)                       V = S1 – S2
                          If V

40   Martin EHALA

2.3. Inter-group distance
Although the PSD is the driving force behind identity and language shift, it is hardly
unaffected by other factors that either hinder or enhance this tendency. One such
factor is inter-group distance (R). This is a complex factor that refers to the various
components making up group boundaries defined as “patterns of social interaction
that give rise to, and subsequently reinforce, in-group members’ self-identification
and outsiders’ confirmation of group distinctions.” (Sanders 2002: 327). A loss of
vitality follows the loosening of these patterns and their replacement by patterns that
work for some other identity. Thus, all factors being otherwise equal, the vitality of
the group is higher the larger the perceived distance between the groups is, i.e. the
clearer the groups’ boundaries are and the more distinct the groups appear. As
intergroup distance is a complex notion, it can be divided into two subfactors: extent
of intergroup contact and cultural distinctiveness.
         The former expresses the minority’s ability to maintain their networks while
the environment offers opportunities for the development of a different network that
unavoidably would loosen the strength of the heritage network (Landry, Allard and
Henry 1996). Sanders (2002) refers to numerous cases where ethnic entrepreneurship
was able to provide resources for the community, thus reducing the need for contacts
with outside communities. The segregative networks created and maintained by this
process have been shown to enhance the vitality of the group despite large
differentials between the cultural masses. Even in cases where intergroup contacts
eventually become more widespread and “acculturation moves forward, some aspects
of assimilation are resisted by groups who have developed effective social networks
and institutions for generating and distributing scarce resources to group members”
(Sanders 2002: 333).
         Network structure in turn is heavily interrelated with language usage: as
intergroup contact often involves two languages, the network structure will
determine the language usage patterns. The tenser the contacts with the dominant
outgroup are the more the dominant language is used. This means that the language
usage pattern is often a good indicator of the extent of intergroup contact. On the
other hand, language is also a boundary feature for many groups and as such
indicates the cultural distinctiveness of the group (Barth 1969).
         Cultural distinctiveness is determined by the number and vividness of the
boundary features of the group. Some of the features are essentialist by nature such
as racial features; some are socially constructed such as religion. While latter features
could be abandoned by group members, the essential features may not. Language,
although a constructed feature has strong essentialist characteristics – the native
accent is hard to conceal. Often language is the defining boundary feature for a group
(see also the notion of core values of Smolics 1981; Smolics and Secombe 1989), but
the boundary could also be a marked by other features such as religion and related
cultural practices (Myhill 2003).
         The vitality of the group further depends on its cultural distinctiveness – the
number of features defining the group and the extent of essentialism of these
features. Sanders (2002: 342) refers to a number of studies indicating the inhibitory

Ethnolinguistic vitality and minority education 41

effect that individuals’ distinctive racial features have on their choice of possible
ethnic identities.
    Ultimately, the intergroup distance is determined by symbolic and discursive
factors of vitality that set the norms concerning the acceptability, extent and nature of
intergroup contacts, as well as the wish to maintain cultural distinctiveness. Hornsey
and Hogg (2000: 147) report a number of cases where a perceived threat to identity
brought in by gradual convergence in intergroup contact has eventually led to
symbolic actions to reduce intergroup contact and to stress cultural differences. So,
the intergroup distance could be an effective factor affecting a group’s vitality.
Mathematically, its relation to the other factors could be expressed as in (2):
    (2)                       V = (S1 – S2)/R

The minimal value for R is 1. This would correspond to minimal intergroup distance
both in terms of social network terms and cultural distinctiveness. In such cases, r has
no impact on the vitality V which is determined only by the PSD. When R is larger
than 1, it starts to reduce the negative cultural mass differential and by this V starts to
approach zero. The larger R gets, the closer V gets to zero, i.e. the point of
ethnolinguistic stability.

2.4 Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a broad discursive mindset that justifies pragmatic and economically
beneficial courses of action. According to Scollon and Scollon (1995) the basic
principles of utilitarian discourse are as follows: 1) humans are defined as rational
economic entities, 2) ‘good’ is defined as what will give the greatest happiness for
the greatest number, and 3) values are established by statistical (i.e. quantitative)
means.
          Each culture, though, functions as an interplay of innovation and tradition
and the utilitarian principles are balanced by what could be called the identity
discourse: 1) the essence of humanity is emotional; 2) the notion of “good” is set by
the moral authority; 3) values are defined by tradition. The success of identity
discourse relies on the emotional attachment of a person to their group members and
heritage, as well as to their immediate surroundings – the cultural landscape. In a
balanced culture, the utilitarian discourse and the identity discourse are in a modest
conflict of innovation and tradition, which is a characteristic of many well-
functioning societies.
          As the utilitarian principles are discursive, different groups may differ in
respect to the salience of the utilitarian principles in their culture. The less salient
these principles are the more conservative the culture is. For example some religious
groups (like the Amish or Russian old-believers) are so conservative that they almost
do not assimilate at all despite the large negative PSD. In this case the utilitarianism
is virtually zero. If the society is totally utilitarian, the assimilative effects of the
cultural mass differential are enforced; and if the utilitarian and identity discourses
are well balanced, U does not affect the impact of PSD on vitality. From this, it could
be reasonable to let the values of U to change in the diapason 0≤U≥2 and to include
it in the formula in the following way:

42   Martin EHALA

        (3)               V=U(S1-S2)/R

This means that if the value of U is 1, its impact to the overall vitality can be
disregarded. If its value is greater than 1, the effects of PSD start to be increased. In
the case the U value reaches its maximum value 2, the effect of PSD gets doubled. In
the case of a typical minority group, which has a negative PSD, high U value causes
it to increase. The reverse is also true: if the value of U falls below 1, it starts to
reduce the negative value of PSD. When U reaches 0, the whole equation becomes
equal to 0, indicating that this particular group is stable due to its extremely
traditional and conservative value system.

2.5 Inter-group discordance
Intergroup discordance, or D-factor, expresses perceived illegitimacy of intergroup
power relations as well as the dehumanisation of the outgroup. Although legitimacy
and stigmatisation are clearly distinct concepts, they are interrelated. A pilot study
conducted in Estonia to design an instrument for measuring D-factor revealed that,
both amongst the ethnic Estonians as the majority and ethnic Russians as a minority,
the perceived legitimacy of the interethnic situation in Estonia and the level of
stigmatisation of the outgroup were statistically significantly correlated: for
Estonians r = 0,202 (P

Ethnolinguistic vitality and minority education 43

large and situation is considered legitimate. This would signify lower vitality. When
the D-factor is incorporated, the V formula obtains the following form:
        (1)      V=U((S1-S2)+D)/R

This means that we can say that the low vitality of the minority group depends on the
perceived high stability of its low status in the situation where the intergroup distance
r is small (that reduces the costs of identity shift) and the attitudes of the members of
the group are utilitarian (which favours social mobility and identity shift). The
vitality of the minority group is thus higher, the more unstable the situation is
perceived; the larger the intergroup distance are and the more prominent the
traditional and conservative values.
         An interesting feature is that V is culture specific. There is no objective value
for V; it can only be calculated from the point of view of G1 to have some predictive
force for this group’s behaviour. The reason is that assimilative processes are made
on an individual level by the people who belong to the same group G1. This means
that all the values of the variables in this formula are also culture specific, not
objective. As the parameters are subjective, their values are to some extent variable:
they depend on the particulars of cultural discourse in G1. By gradually changing the
discourse, it is possible to increase the perceived strength of the group (i.e. S1) or to
reduce the value of U, R or D. For this, it is important to know the discursive
processes that govern this process.

3. Promoting ethnolinguistic vitality

According to the hypothesis, presented above, the main tool for protecting linguistic
and cultural diversity is ultimately discursive: constructing a positive group identity,
(increasing S1), enhancing its cultural distinctiveness (increasing R), rising in-group
loyalty and solidarity (reducing U) or to rise the level of intergroup discordance (D).
Of course, some would at this point certainly see here a ghost of xenophobia,
intolerance and violence that attempts have generated.
         For example Mikael Hjerm (1998) argues, relying on the Swedish and
Norwegian data from the 1995 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP)
“Aspects of national identity”, that nationalist sentiments are in a strong correlation
with xenophobic attitudes. Based on these findings, he calls into question any
possibilities of constructing ‘good’ nationalism. He states that “first, even if
nationalism is based on national independence the reason for this independence often
boils down to that the people of one nation imagine that there is a difference between
themselves and some other people and that in the long run they are better off with
their own nation-state. Therefore, they in some sense are superior to other peoples
and nations” (Hjerm 1998: 52).
         One has to agree that the manipulation of D has in the history of humankind
been used by far too often and with too dangerous consequences and should be
avoided as discordance has tendency towards exponential growth. This means that a
careless attempt to slightly increase a group’s vitality goes quickly out of hands and

44   Martin EHALA

leads to a full blown interethnic conflict. However the other variables in the model
are much stable, although a manipulation of these could increase xenophobia and
out-group discrimination. The question is whether there is a possibility to avoid it.

3.1. Optimal intergroup distinctiveness
Social psychological research on minimal groups (i.e. arbitrary groups, created for
the experiment only, groups that have no history, no shared beliefs etc) has shown
that even ad hoc group categorisation leads to in-group favouritism and out-group
discrimination (Tajfel 1970). The same results were obtained even when the
assignment to the groups was made explicitly random (Billig and Tajfel 1973). This
indicates that out-group discrimination is a phenomenon that is inherent in the
intergroup situation itself (Tajfel and Turner 1979). If the in-group bias is indeed so
universal, the behaviour may well have biological roots. Be as it may, so long as
humans have social groups of any type, there will always be in-group bias. This may
not necessarily be a bad thing.
         As Tajfel and Turner (1979) argue, individuals strive to sustain or enhance
their self-respect. Social groups however may have either high or low prestige, and
thus, by comparing one’s own group with reference to other relevant groups, one
tries to maintain a positive social identity. Accordingly, the in-group bias is a natural
result of a person’s positive self-esteem. There is little hope to get rid of it, there can
only be possibilities to find an optimal balance between the respect towards one’s
own social identity and the respect towards others. I call this optimally intergroup
distinctiveness (OID). The hypothesis is that groups with OID will maintain healthy
and stable intergroup relations in contact settings.
         Although the in-group bias is a natural phenomenon, it is possibly also
dangerous as it is hard to determine at which point the OID is exceeded and the
group is constructing a conflictual identity discourse, particularly as the in-group
favouritism is often employed by politicians to mobilise the masses for social
change. This is especially evident when the identity discourse is constructed on a
single feature, be it ethnicity, religion, social class or gender. Identities constructed
on one feature are inherently more conflictual, as they do not allow overlapping of
group membership. In reality individuals belong simultaneously into different social
groups and have potentially multiple social identities. This is particularly true for
minorities.

3.2. Developing multiple identities
One of the most effective ways to promote the perceived strength of the ingroup is to
use the notion of multiple identities. According to Barvosa-Carter (1999: 113)
multiple identity is „a concept in which the self is made up of a number of different
but integrated identities. Each identity is a frame of reference that includes a scheme
of values and a set of meanings and practices. These identity frames of reference (or
identity frames) are related to a nearly endless array of possible social identities“.
         An important feature is that people use their partial identities situationally
and relationally, i.e they foreground the identity that best serves their immediate
needs in that particular situation and the one which is shared with others in this

Ethnolinguistic vitality and minority education 45

context. This phenomenon is called identity adaptiveness and the empirical social
psychological research has shown that people tacitly make good use of the positive
stereotypes that are associated with some of their multiple identities, depending on
situation (Pittinski, Shih and Ambady 1999). Of course, if negative stereotypes of
one’s social identity is made salient in a situation where these stereotypes are
relevant, this debilitates performance. For example Steele and Aronson (1995) found
that African American students underperformed in a verbal test when the stereotypes
about black people were made salient.
         Thus, multiple identity is beneficial in two respects, first, it reduces the
possibility of confrontational social distinctiveness and it enables individuals to
optimally perform in different social contexts and situations. Constructing multiple
identities is a communicative process by which shared social beliefs are generated
over various social categories. For some categories the identity construction is more
intense, for some other categories less so. Consequently, the corresponding identities
have different salience within the totality of one’s multiple identity.
         To promote multiple identity, the main features of a given group’s identity
discourse should be analysed and assessed about the content, whether positive or
negative symbols prevail, what is their meaning and possible impact on group
behaviour. Based on this analysis the curriculum and its content should be modified
for OID.
         There are a few central themes that help to promote vitality. First, it is
necessary to give a meaning to the existence of this group in this particular setting
and by this a hope for the brighter future. One should analyse what could be the
raison d’etre of this group. For this the available cultural material myths, literature,
customs, beliefs etc should be analysed to find motives that could rise group
members’ pride in their group membership. If necessary, it should be invented. Most
of the successful nations have constructed their identity to a large extent artificially,
using available cultural material. Minority language educationalists and activists
should engage in a similar type of social creativity to promote perceived group
strength.
         Second, the concept of salvation, the turn of the status should be provided.
Hope should be given that there is something by which the group could become great
and enhance it status. Either task is not an easy one, as the small low status groups
usually have a shortage of suitable cultural material.
         Parallel with the search for the raison d’etre, ways to signal group membership
should be promoted. This, of course depends on the level of existing intergroup distance
configuration. If a group is already very distinctive and may even be stigmatised for this
distinctiveness, ways should be found how to change the value of this distinctiveness.
Instead of being ashamed of these features, a conscious discourse should be created that
values these features as positive. A prime example here is the “Black is beautiful”
movement in US in the early 60ies.
     Third line of work should be directed towards reducing utilitarianism in the value
system. Utilitarianism is the main cause that makes the minority members to opt for
social mobility for personal advancement. This itself is not to be condemned as it is also
a source for wealth and self esteem. The crucial factor here is to combine utilitarianism

46   Martin EHALA

and traditionalism. As recent studies have shown (Ehala forthcoming), utilitarianism and
traditionalism are not correlated, but independent. This means that for supporting
utilitarianism, one needs to reject traditionalism. Empirical evidence shows that both can
be easily accommodated. One of the goals of minority education is to promote
traditionalism, attachment of heritage cultural values while also supporting utilitarianism.
In fact, modern welfare society promotes utilitarianism itself. It is important not to
criticise utilitarianism as something that brings decay – these arguments won’t work for
people who strive for better life. The goal here needs to be explaining that being
utilitarian does not force one to abandon heritage. If this goal is achieved, a substantial
step in promoting vitality has been made.

4. Conclusion

Influencing the identity discourse is not an easy task, as there are multiple societal forces
that are in a constant work in maintaining or modifying it. These forces may have partly
different views about the identity of the group, its position and future development. Also,
the cultural patterns are not easily changed. Thus, it is not at all guaranteed that such
attempts through the minority education would be successful. One that must be taken into
account is that the process should be very subtle and long-lasting. As said, societal
beliefs do not change easily, and every attempt to force a change is most likely to have
the opposite effect.
         This article outlined some basic processes that have effect on intergroup
relations. By knowing and using these processes, it is in principle possible to design the
identity discourse disseminated through minority. How this is to be done, and how much
intervention is needed, could only be decided on each particular case separately, taking
into account the cultural and historical circumstances.
         For this the first step should be to study the particular minority group to find out
what its vitality is and particularly what the values are for S1, U, R and D. Using the V-
model for obtaining a synopsis of the actual vitality of a group would be the first step.
The V-model is fully operationalised for quantitative research (see Ehala and Niglas
2007; Ehala 2008) and could be easily applicable to any minority. On the basis of
research, it could be decided where intervention is needed and how to conduct it. In any
case, this is a vast task, demanding extensive work on analysing the particular identity
discourse and also a fair amount of creativeness to find the best symbolic expression for
the features to be introduced or changed.

Editors’ note:
This article is the author’s contribution to the Proceedings of the Exploratory
Workshop Linguistic and Intercultural Education in the Process of Europeanisation
of Higher Education CLIE-2009, Popescu, T & Pioariu R (Eds.). Aeternitas: Alba-
Iulia, pp. 136-147 (reproduced with permission).

Ethnolinguistic vitality and minority education 47

References

Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared beliefs in a society. Social psychological analysis. Thousand
Oaks, London: Sage.

Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic groups and
boundaries: The social organisation of culture difference (pp. 9-37). London: George Allen
and Unwin.

Barvosa-Carter, E. (1999). Multiple identity and coalition building: How identity differences
within us enable radical alliances among us. Contemporary Justice Review, 2, 111-126.

Billig. M. & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27-52.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.

Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ehala, M. (2005). The role of MTE in language maintenance and developing multiple
identities. In S. Kiefer & K. Sallamaa (Eds.), European identities in mother tongue education
(pp. 36-50). Trauner Verlag: Linz.

Ehala, M. (2008). An evaluation matrix for ethno-linguistic vitality. In S. Pertot, T. Priestly,
& C. Williams (Eds.), Rights, Promotion and Integration Issues for Minority Languages in
Europe (pp. 123-137). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

Ehala, M. & Niglas, K. (2007). Empirical evaluation of a mathematical model of
ethnolinguistic vitality: The case of Võro. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 28, 427-444.

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J.W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to
the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European
Journal of Social Psychology 29, 371-389

European University Association (2003). Realising the European Higher Education Area.
Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on
19 September 2003.

Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y., & Taylor, D.M. (1977). Towards a theory language in ethnic group
relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 307-348).
London: Academic Press.

Hjerm, M. (1998). Reconstructing "Positive" Nationalism: Evidence from Norway and
Sweden. Sociological Research Online, 3(2). Retrieved February 17, 2009, from
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/2/7.html.

Hornsey, M.J., & Hogg, M.A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of
subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143-156.

48   Martin EHALA

Krauss, M. (1992). The world’s languages in crisis. Language, 68, 4-10.

Landry, R., Allard, R., & Henry, J. (1996). French in South Louisiana: Towards language
loss. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17, 442-468.

Myhill, J. (2003). The native speaker, identity, and the authenticity hierarchy. Language
Sciences, 25, 77–97.

Pittinsky, T.L., Shih, M., & Ambady, N. (1999). Identity adaptiveness: Affect across multiple
identities. Journal of Social Issues, 3, 503-518.

Portes A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: notes on the social
determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1320–50.

Sanders, J.M. (2002). Ethnic boundaries and identity in plural societies. Annual Revue of
Sociology 28, 327–57.

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Smith, A.D. (1999). Myths and memories of the nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smolicz, J.J. (1981). The three types of multiculturalism. In M. Garner (Ed.), Community
languages - their role in education (pp. 1-12). Melbourne & Sydney: River Seine
Publications.

Smolicz, J.J., & Secombe, M.J. (1989). Types of language activation and evaluation in an
ethnically plural society. In W. Ammon (Ed.), Status and function of languages and language
varieties (pp. 478-514). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96-
102.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel
(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin,
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.

Turner, J.C., & Brown, R.J. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup
relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social
psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 201-234). London: Academic Press.