Dimensions for Assessing Language Attitudes and Language

Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian (1982: 5-6) propose a two-dimensional model which consists of the two socio-structural determinants, standardization and vitality, which are claimed to affect language attitudes.

A standard refers to the norms that are acknowledged by dominant groups or the by the power elites of a society. The varieties recognized to be standardized are the norms which are defined to be correct usage, made available in dictionaries or grammars. Besides, a standardized variety is confirmed by formal social institutions like the government, schools, and mass media. Moreover, the variety used in written communication is the standard variety instead of the one used in oral modality. As

13

argued by Ryan and his colleagues (1982: 3), standardization is the product of social treatment in defining the attributes of a variety rather than the property of the language itself.

Vitality usually is expressed by the numbers and importance of functions serving a language (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: 4). A similar concept has been provided by Fishman (1971a) who claims that the status of a language is decided by the range and importance of the symbolic functions it serves. For example, the Quebecois view French as more vital than French Americans because the former use the language in their daily life interactions, whereas the latter only do so in limited domains such as the home or with interlocutors like relatives (Ryan, Giles, Sebastian, 1982: 4). In addition, vitality may also be bolstered by sufficient numbers of speakers and community support that is often inherent to nonstandard varieties.

Concerning the structure of attitudes toward the comparison of language varieties, Ryan et al. (1982: 8) further propose two evaluative dimensions: social status and group solidarity. The social status of the speakers is revealed by observing the use of a particular language within a speech community. In other words, the use of a standard/nonstandard language reflects the relative social status or the power of social groups within a speech community. The ascriptions of high social status are associated with the high variety speakers who have competence characteristics like intelligence, expertise, ambition and confidence. Thus, the social status dimension is viewed as an instrumental dimension. Feifel (1994: 58) further argues that the social economic status of native speakers speaking particular languages influences the perceptions of their relative prestige. Besides, the official and institutionalized uses endow language with prestige in two ways. The first concerns the structural perspective of prestige:

upward social and occupational mobility which necessitate the learning of a particular language to achieve higher social status as well as to obtain a better job. The next is

14

related to attitudinal aspect of prestige in which the habitual use of a particular language reflects its characteristics of appropriateness, intelligence and authority, which are perceptually acknowledged by the social actors.

Yet another evaluation dimension, group solidarity, contains affective or sentimental attitudes instead of the sociolinguistic status of a language, and emphasizes mainly in-group solidarity and language loyalty. Ryan et al. (1982: 8) claim that the factors enforcing the solidarity of a language variety correspond exactly to those that promote linguistic vitality. Attitudes associated with this dimension are personality traits like friendliness and warmth, which are characterized as social distance, and social attractiveness of the language user and language variety.

Generally speaking, this dimension is associated with one’s native language or non-standard linguistic variety, which represents family life, intimacy, informal interactions, and which furthermore reflects one’s belongingness and sense of attraction. The features included in this dimension thus represent a symbol of a group’s culture and identity (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: 9; Feifel, 1994: 59).

The following will address how the two-dimensional status and solidarity model is valued in a social context. Ryan and his associates (1982: 9-10) propose four types of language preferences reflected by majority and minority group speakers: majority (dominant) group preference, majority (dominant) group status/ingroup solidarity, ingroup preference, and majority (dominant) group status/minority (subordinate) group solidarity.

The first pattern, majority (dominant) group preference, refers to a situation in which all subgroups acknowledge the prestigious language variety. There are two further subtypes under the category of dominant group preference: subordinate overcompensation and partial subordinate acknowledgement. When the social groups of the inferior language variety acknowledge the prestigious variety in all aspects, this

15

represents subordinate overcompensation (Feifel, 1994). In other words, it is “a belief structure of ‘self-hate’ among the speakers of the subordinate language variety who accept the global downgrading of representatives of their own group” (Feifel, 1994:

64) (e.g., English Canadian vs. French Canadian). As for partial subordinate acknowledgement, the portion of the preference for the prestige language is smaller than the subordinate overcompensation. The members of the subordinate group might show less preference for the high variety regarding the aspect of solidarity (e.g., English vs. Spanish). Feifel (1994: 64) argues that partial subordinate acknowledgement exists when speakers show stereotypes, social mobility and psychology movements towards the variety of the dominant group.

The second pattern, majority (dominant) group status/ingroup solidarity, refers to a situation in which people are bilingual in a diglossic community with some individuals being native speakers of the prestigious linguistic variety. In this type, people acknowledge the status of prestigious variety in terms of instrumental function.

On the other hand, people still prefer their own language in terms of solidarity-related characteristics. This pattern can be found in Quechua speakers who preferred Spanish due to its status, but who favored their own language variety because of solidarity attributes like social attractiveness and integrity (Wölck, 1973). Chan’s dissertation (1994) provides a good example of Mandarin being favored because of instrumental motivation as well as social status, with Taiwanese, or Minnanyu in Chan’s term, being preferred due to integrative motivation. Further discussion about Chan’s study will be described in the chapter of results and analysis.

The third pattern, ingroup preference, is characterized by a situation where all the subgroups express their preference toward their own language in both instrumental and integrative functions. Thus, despite the fact that other varieties enjoy higher status, the members of the lower prestige variety retain their loyalty toward their own

16

language variety. In addition, the fierce or resurging language loyalty will yield a preference for subordinate group’s linguistic variety rather than the dominant group’s linguistic variety. A demonstration of this type can be found in political activists like the Black Power Movement, the Chicano Movement, and the Basque Liberation Movement (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: 10).

The last pattern, majority (dominant) group status/minority (subordinate) group solidarity, is defined when a language variety is acknowledged as a high-status one, but without yielding a sense of attractiveness to its speakers. One case demonstrating such pattern is RP in Britain. Feifel (1994: 65) provides an explanation to this pattern in which a linguistic variety is recognized as superior in terms of social status, while another one is acknowledged as superior because of group solidarity. Ferguson’s diglossia (1959) represents a good example of this type where the inferior variety rarely occurs in formal situations. Yet another instance of this pattern can be found in diglossic societies like Arab countries where the literary or classical language is viewed as the H-variety (Feifel, 1994: 65).

In brief, the four language preference types can be put into the aforementioned two-dimensional model, which contains two socio-structural factors (standardization and vitality) affecting language attitudes. The main point responsible for change in the language attitude pattern is determined by the psychological consequence of the increasing or decreasing vitality. For example, the first pattern appears when both high and low-status groups perceive no alternatives to their relative power. The second type emerges from a situation in which low-status group members show cognitive alternatives. Finally, the third pattern indicates the sense of equal status, when both groups are aware of alternatives to the status quo.

17