Our discussion makes clear that minority languages, whether of indigenous or immigrant populations, rarely can survive in all the domains where the domin-ant language in the relevdomin-ant nation rules. Yet, it is possible for two languages to survive if each language has its own domains. As Laponce (1993: 25) con-cludes, “they [two languages] can coexist harmoniously within the same popu-lation and maintain a relatively stable balance within the same geographic niche.” But Laponce goes on to say, “However, relatively is a key qualifier.”
The reason is that few social domains remain the sole property of the minority language for long, especially if there is any prestige attached to them. The
result is, as Laponce says, the more prestigious populations “will pressure, restrict, and eventually eliminate the lesser language, that associated with less prestigious individuals and roles” (p. 25).
4.9.1 Where the L1 is maintained
But what about cases where the L1 is maintained? For example, consider the Nupe in Ibadan, Nigeria, where the main indigenous language is Yoruba and Yoruba is also the main urban lingua franca. So far the Nupe seem to be holding their own, in the home domain almost entirely but also to an extent with friends and neighbors. The same seems to hold for other multi-ethnic cities, such as Dakar, Senegal, where educated Wolofs retain Wolof but learn French, the official language. Wolof is associated with ethnicity, but French with modernity.
Specifically referring to Indian urban centers where L1s seem to be retained by in-migrants from other Indian areas, Laitin (1993) offers “uncertainty” as an explanation that may apply to all of these cases. This is uncertainty about the linguistic needs of one’s children. These multi-ethnic cities in the develop-ing world, at least, are all cases where there is uncertainty about future language policy. Speakers know what the medium of the schools is today and what languages are needed for socio-economic mobility, but what about future policies? In India, for example, will English retain its preeminence? Will Hindi’s role be expanded? Will Indian state languages retain their official, privileged position as the medium of instruction through primary school? The same sorts of questions apply elsewhere, such as in the Nupe case. Another point that Laitin also mentions applies as well: Migrants to the cities are in a tenuous position in regard to their relationship with the indigenous popula-tion. Attempts to throw out real or perceived non-locals have been made in many places in the world. Of relevance to the Nupe case is that this has happened very recently in northern Nigeria. Thus, in-migrants to cities in their own nation have two reasons to retain their L1, both connected with uncer-tainty about the future.
4.9.2 Learning an L2 as an investment of time and energy
The overall point to keep in mind is that learning a second language requires an investment of time and energy; true, it’s a major psychological commit-ment, but it also is just plain effort for anyone past early childhood. (L2 learn-ing past early childhood is discussed at length in chapter 11.) Compare the Indian situation with that in places where the major outlines of language allocation, at least in the official sector, are unlikely to change substantially.
On the basis of this comparison, one can see why Vietnamese immigrants in California are quickly shifting to English in many of their domains of activity.
There is no reason to be “uncertain” about the future of English in schools and government there. The same thinking applies to North African immigrants in France; that is, French is not going to lose its preeminence in any major occupational or institutional roles. Thus, while all immigrants everywhere may value their L1, the extent to which they give up its use in everyday life to a dominant language will vary.
Where speakers of different L1s coexist with territorial separation (under horizontal multilingualism), it is another story. Individual persons who have the need or desire to speak two languages will be bilingual, but communities can be largely monolingual. Then coexistence of two or more languages in the same nation is possible, as is the case in Switzerland where coexistence depends on territorial separation. There are four national languages (German, French, Italian, and Rhaeto-Romansch) each with territorial status, although only German, French, and Italian have official status. Romansch (a language related to French and Italian), with only about 50,000 speakers, is protected with special provisions. Still, Switzerland is unusual. One would have to look hard to find another nation with such a “strong emphasis on local particularism”
and its rejection of “the notion that minority status is a temporary phenomenon”
(Schmid, 2001: 142). Further, even in such nations, groups recognize that, out-side their home area, middle-class jobs for themselves and their children will go first to those who speak and read the languages with national or interna-tional prestige.
Finally, uncertainty about future trends in favored languages and official policies can matter to indigenous minority group members living on their own turf. How much they have to be concerned depends on their home nation. It is not only in the developing world that language policies may change; future policies in Eastern Europe, especially the former Soviet Union, are uncertain.
4.10 Summing up
In conclusion, the general pattern for minority groups and immigrants that we introduced at the beginning of this chapter remains in place.
• The same factors generally are in place when a group shifts away from its L1, but no one factor or set of factors always predicts language mainten-ance or shift; it depends on the specific hierarchy among factors in a spe-cific community.
• The importance and possibility of socio-economic mobility promotes shift away from the L1.
• Bilingualism by the second generation with the dominant and/or official language in the nation state is a typical pattern.
• Shift is slower or may not happen at all if the subordinate group lives in its ancestral home (some minority groups in China).
• Shift is also slower if bilingualism comes because the group was colon-ized or its land annexed. Consider groups in the so-called developing world whose nations became independent in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g. in Africa and Asia or various island nations). Also consider parts of Europe includ-ing the former USSR.
• Numbers of minority group speakers or immigrants may matter, but do not always. Younger speakers may shift their dominant language, but main-tain their L1 as well (e.g. many Latinos in the US).
• Members of an elite are slow to change. If circumstances give a minority group or immigrants political or economic power, they are slow to become bilingual (e.g. wealthy Chinese merchants in urban Chinatowns in various parts of the world).
4.11 Words and phrases to remember
horizontal multilingualism vertical multilingualism social network analysis ethnolinguistic vitality allocation of varieties
classic and extended diglossia
factors encouraging language maintenance factors encouraging language shift