DRAFT
The Challenge of Diversity:
Ethnic Identity Maintenance and
Heritage Language Retention
in the Canadian Mosaic
Henry P. H. Chow
Department of Sociology and Social Studies
University of Regina
3737 Wascana Parkway
Regina (Saskatchewan) S4S 0A2
Email: Henry.Chow@uregina.ca
Telephone: (306) 585-5604
Fax: (306) 585-4815
Commissioned by the Department of Canadian Heritage for the
Ethnocultural, Racial, Religious, and Linguistic Diversity and Identity Seminar
Halifax, Nova Scotia
November 1-2, 2001
Available on-line in English and French at www.metropolis.net
The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
2
Introduction
Canada has become an increasingly diverse and complex society, composed of a
multitude of linguistically and ethnically different groups. At the turn of the century, the
population in Canada was predominantly made up of French Canadians (30.7%) and
British Canadians (57%). The 1996 census has, however, demonstrated that
approximately one third of Canada’s population claimed ethnic origins other than French
or British (Statistics Canada 1998) and that those whose mother tongue1 was neither
French nor English accounted for nearly 17% of the total population (Statistics 1997).
This paper is concerned with the issue of ethnic identity maintenance and heritage
language retention in Canada.
The first section of the paper deals with the importance of language to
identity, arguing that language is the central marker of ethnic identity
within minority groups themselves, as well as within the context of the
broader, dominant society. As such, arguments are made in defense of
the notion that retention is a positive goal. The second section provides
a review of recent empirical studies that have been undertaken, with a
particular focus on studies related to the socio-cultural, socialpsychological, and economic dimensions. The key variables associated
with ethnic identity maintenance and heritage language retention will be
identified. The final section addresses the issues that require further
empirical investigation.
Operationalizing the Key Concepts: Heritage Language and Ethnic Identity
Heritage Language
Official multiculturalism in Canada is situated within the framework of official
bilingualism 2 , in addition to the broader context of Aboriginal 3 and other heritage
languages. “Heritage language” is used in this paper to refer to a language other than
English or French. In fact, a review of the literature demonstrates that the various
heritage languages in Canada are commonly referred to as “ethnic languages” and
“minority languages.” Other terms that have been used include “world languages,”
“international languages,” and “community languages” (e.g., Fleras and Elliot 1999;
Tavares 2000). Based on the 1996 census, the top 10 common heritage languages in
Canada included: Chinese, Italian, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, Punjabi,
Ukrainian, Arabic, and Tagalog. It is peculiar to note that the number of people
indicating Chinese as their mother tongue increased sevenfold in the 40 years from
1941 to 1981, and almost tripled in the next 15 years. By 1996, Chinese had become
the most common heritage language in this country (Harrison 2000).
Attending an ethnic language school from an early age is common practice for many
immigrant children in Canada. This is especially the case in large metropolitan areas,
where heritage language classes have been incorporated in the public school
curriculum 4 or offered by community organizations. In fact, Pannu and Young’s
3
(1980: 259) study of 76 ethnic language schools in various Canadian metropolitan cities
pointed to the tremendous potential of these schools for the development and
inculcation of ethnic identity, training of future ethnic leaders, reproduction of ethnic
elites at both the community and national levels, and drawing together of community
members by galvanizing them through various symbolic activities. As well, the fact that
minority students’ literacy in their ethnic language can contribute to their academic
achievement, which supports the view that advanced bilingualism promotes academic
excellence, has been well documented (Bankston and Zhou 1995; Cummins 1981;
Cummins et al. 1984; Duran 1983; Lindholm and Aclan 1991).
Ethnic Identity
Ethnic identity is determined by a complex interplay of social, cultural, developmental,
personal, and situational influences that help shape any individual’s sense of self
(Ichiyama, McQuarrie and Ching 1996). Because of its complexity, operationalizing
ethnic identity is surely not an easy matter 5. The sociological definition proposed by
Isajiw6 (1981:2-3) is indeed quite noteworthy. More specifically, ethnic identity can be
divided into two basic aspects: external and internal. External aspects refer to
observable behaviour patterns, including (a) cultural behaviour patterns, such as
speaking an ethnic language and practising ethnic traditions, (b) participation in ethnic
personal networks (i.e., family and friendship), (c) participation in ethnic institutional
organizations, such as churches, media, enterprises, and schools, (d) participation in
ethnic organizations, and (e) participation in functions sponsored by ethnic
organizations, whereas images, ideas, attitudes, and feelings comprise the internal
aspects.
Without doubt, it is crucial to study the way in which individuals in ethnic groups identify
themselves7, as well as the factors that contribute to one’s ethnic identity. As argued by
Chen (2000), studies of ethnicity help the larger society better understand the situations
and feelings of ethnic minorities, and encourage respect and learning about cultures
different from the mainstream. As well, these studies help ethnic minority group
members, especially the children, who straddle cultures, learn and experience positive
aspects of their ethnic identities and cultural origins. They may also become more
aware of the problems related to society’s misunderstanding of their ethnic origins. As a
result, members of the various ethnic groups may feel more self-confident, gain strength
in their daily lives, and actively participate in the mainstream society.
The Importance of Heritage Language to Ethnic Identity
Groups can engender sentiments of likeness which will persist…The political
community in particular can produce such an effect. But most directly, such an
effect is created by language group, which is the bearer of specific ‘cultural
possession of the masses’ (Massenkulturgut) and makes mutual understanding
(Verstehen) possible… Common language(s)… everywhere are conducive to
feelings of ethnic affinity, especially since the intelligibility of the behaviour of
others is the most fundamental presupposition of group formation.
—Max Weber
4
The notion that language represents a central aspect of identity and culture is certainly
not a new one. Even when conceived of at the most basic and general levels, language
enables communication among members of a group, enabling thoughts and
descriptions of the world, understandings and justifications for our connections with
others, as well as the “rightness” and “wrongness” of behaviour in our midst. In
essence, thought would be impossible without language. Yet the crucial role of
language is not exhausted in these obvious functions. Language, through permitting
interpretation and evaluation of the world, constructs the notion of “group.” It is precisely
those shared evaluations of the world, reached through and communicated by
language, that form the core of the bonds to others that structure our lives.
When the notion of “ethnic minority identity” is introduced to a discussion concerned
with language, the role played by communication becomes strikingly more critical. The
general importance language holds for all individuals is replaced by a significantly more
important function in the context of minority groups within and among majority groups.
In other words, language becomes much more significant in such a situation. Not only
does the heritage language provide a basis for individual and psychological security in a
situation of possible anomie, it also legitimizes and provides the basis for collective
political action in the face of a foreign and often intimidating ethnocultural status quo.
Language is indeed one of the most significant markers 8 of ethnic identification
(Feuerverger 1989; Fishman 1977; Giles and Johnson 1981; Giles, Bourhis, and
Taylor 1977; Isajiw 1981, 1990; Li 1995; Lieberson 1970; Reitz 1985; Sengupta 1987).
Indeed, language and its importance often manages to “survive” its own demise, as has
been documented among second and third generations of immigrants, retaining a
symbolic value and meaning even after the purely communicative functions have been
replaced by host languages (Isajiw 1984). Whether language is maintained in a
communicative role or dissipates into the function of symbolism or political action, the
concept remains central to the notion of ethnicity. Fishman’s (1977:25) remark on this
issue is rather succinct:
Language is the recorder of paternity, the expressor of matrimony and the carrier
of phenomenology. Any vehicle carrying such precious freight, indeed, as
precious in and of itself…Anything can become symbolic of ethnicity, but since
language is the prime symbol system to begin with and since it is commonly
relied upon so heavily (even if not exclusively) to enact, celebrate and ‘call forth’
all ethnic activity, the likelihood that it will be recognized and singled out as
symbolic of ethnicity is great indeed.
Early attitudes and policy directed towards new immigrants was informed by
assimilation theory. In essence, this perspective foresaw the eventual but inevitable
disappearance of different languages, traditions, institutions and the complete
absorption of different ethnic groups into Anglo-Canadian society. Informed largely by
ethnocentric and racist attitudes, theories such as Robert Park’s Race Relations Cycle
viewed this process as inevitable, desirable, and universally applicable to all ethnic
groups (Park 1937). Gradually, assimilation theory was abandoned as a theoretical
5
pillar when it became empirically obvious that the inevitability, universality, and, maybe
most significantly, the desirability of assimilation did not materialize or become an object
of consensus. However, the debate over whether or not new arrivals should maintain
their distinctive cultures, languages and institutions has managed to survive to the
present.
The Benefits of Heritage Language Retention
A plethora of studies has confirmed the benefits of maintenance and development of
heritage languages in the educational sphere. Evidence exists that heritage language
development and maintenance is related to newly arrived students making better social,
emotional, and educational adjustments upon arriving in the host country
(Bhatnagar, 1980). The positive role heritage language maintenance and development
plays in general cognitive development and academic skills has been well documented
(Danesi 1983; Swain and Lapkin 1982; Wells 1981).
A strong first language (L1) has also been found to be a prerequisite for successful
majority language learning (Ramirez 1985). Various Canadian studies have shown that
heritage language development and maintenance is positively related to students
developing a third language (French) in bilingual programs (Swain and Lapkin 1991;
Swain et al. 1990).
Beyond the sphere of childhood L1 development and maintenance, some studies have
indicated that heritage language learning not only promotes group cohesion within
ethnic-identifying groups, but also facilitates what has been termed “ethnic rediscovery”
in groups and individuals attempting to reconnect with their ethnicity (Isajiw 1981).
Furthermore, studies have ascertained that heritage language maintenance and
development can be pursued without any loss in proficiency, or chances for future
proficiency, in the majority language (Cummins 1983). As well, Chow (1997, 2001a) has
identified heritage language retention as an important dimension of minority immigrants’
adaptation experiences.
On other hand, the disastrous effect of first-language loss, in terms of any further
language development and future academic success, often results in chronic academic
failure for affected students (Neito 1996). Recent studies have shown a strong link
between linguistic acculturation (erosion of L1) and diminishing ethnic identification
(e.g., Laroche, Chankon and Hui 1998).
Heritage language maintenance could well prove to be important in other respects as
well. Although this line of argument has received relatively little attention, it seems that
with the increasingly integrationist nature of the economy of Canada, coupled with the
phenomenon of globalization, a relatively new vein of argument in defense of heritage
language maintenance would suggest that these languages represent significant capital
in the realm of an increasingly interdependent global economy. Critics of heritage
language maintenance would have to acknowledge the reality of globalization and
6
internationalism, and by extension, the value and advantage of many of the heritage
languages in Canada, as well as the need to protect, nourish, and encourage them.
Recent Studies on Ethnic Identity Maintenance and Heritage Language Retention:
The Socio-Cultural Dimension
A 1990 study examining the use of heritage languages in Canada concerned with the
processes and dynamics which initiate either maintenance or shift, stressed the
centrality of the relative age of the linguistic group as a factor in determining whether
first languages would be maintained, or whether the group would make a shift to the
majority languages. The proportion of new immigrants within the group and the age
structure of the group were also identified as significant predictors (Pendakur 1990). As
expected, this study revealed that the vast majority of shifts away from non-official
languages occurred in the direction of the majority language. Shifts in the heartland of
Quebec were generally towards French, towards English in the rest of Canada and,
interestingly enough, in both directions when the Canadian metropolitan area (CMA) in
question was Montreal. In a 1991 extension of work that identified similar variables as
above, the relationships between ethnic origin, immigrant status, mother tongue,
language usage, and knowledge of official languages were examined in an attempt to
discern the degrees and determinants of generational heritage language maintenance
and shift (Kralt and Pendakur 1991).
Using the 1981 and 1991 census data to explore factors associated with the process of
intergenerational transmission of the mother tongue, Swidinsky and Swidinsky (1997)
have found that the picture for maintaining heritage languages was a rather bleak one.
Probabilities that children would learn the language in families where both parents had
non-official mother tongues dropped from 1981 (50.9%) to 1991 (44.9%). Marriages
where one parent spoke an official mother tongue, as well as the natural succession
from immigrant generations to Canadian-born generations, were identified as both
inevitable and threatening to the chances of heritage language maintenance.
In Schrauf's (1999) macro-study of the patterns of mother tongue maintenance in
North America, residential settlement patterns and religious practice were identified as
central in predicting maintenance. Of all the related variables, Schrauf argued that
religious practice was significantly associated with L1 retention well into the third
generation.
As well, Kalbach and Kalbach’s (1999) census-based study attempted to conceptualize
and theorize ethnic identity by designing a unique "index of ethnic connectedness." By
combining ethnic origin and religion instead of relying on simplistic markers such as
“place of birth” or “ethnic origin,” they tried to elude the simplifications that characterized
the majority of past census-based research. They hypothesized that indications of an
affiliation to a traditional ethnic church would represent a more significant ethnic
consciousness than that of individuals whose religious attachments are to major
Canadian churches or who designate themselves as individuals with no preference
concerning religious affiliation. Once again the general finding that ethnic language use
7
declined in general, especially in the natural progression from immigrant generations to
Canadian-born generations (the older, established groups logically showing further
decline), has been documented. They concluded, on a positive note, that the
percentage decline in ethnic language use in the home from foreign-born generation to
the native-born tended to be lower for the more ethnically connected groups than for the
less ethnically connected by religion.
In addition, Jedwab (2000) explored the relationship between ethnic identification and
the knowledge and use of heritage languages among the Chinese, Greek, Italian,
Polish, Portuguese and Ukrainian using the data of the 1991 and 1996 censuses. His
analysis showed that, based on the 1996 census, the language transfer rates to either
French or English in these six non-official language communities were 14%, 43%, 50%,
35%, 36% and 81% respectively and indicated that language transfers were related to
the time of arrival of a particular community in a given region. On the issue of ethnic
identity and heritage language use in the home, this study demonstrated that, based on
the data of the 1991 and 1996 censuses on single ethnic origin, persons of Chinese
ethnic origin were more likely to use their language of origin in their home than the other
five groups. His conclusion was that heritage knowledge and maintenance largely
depended on four major factors, including time of arrival of an immigrant group, length
of residence in Canada of that group, size of a given community, and degree of mixing
or exogamy between persons of different linguistic communities.
Generally speaking, the more recent census-based research has identified age at
immigration, place of residence (higher likelihood of intergenerational transfer of
heritage languages in Quebec, least likely on prairies), residency in a major CMA, level
of schooling (L1 transmission most likely in families with lowest levels of schooling),
employment status of wife/mother (L1 transmission most likely in families where
mother/wife never worked), place of birth of parents (L1 transmission most likely if both
parents are foreign-born), and mother tongue of parents (L1 transmission most likely in
families where both parents have a heritage mother tongue) as factors strongly linked to
heritage language continuity (Jedwab 2000; Kalbach and Kalbach 1999; Swidinsky and
Swidinsky 1997).
Most contemporary research findings on the issue of heritage language retention have
mirrored the results of earlier studies. In essence, a major variable identified in the
cumulative body of research concerning heritage language maintenance is, quite
simply, the opportunities one encounters in daily life wherein they can use their heritage
language. One of the most important aspects affecting survival of L1 is the frequency
with which parents use the language in the home with their children (Isajiw 1985). The
importance of the home and familial interaction has been reiterated again and again in
studies on heritage language retention (e.g., Abu-Laban 1980; Cheung 1981; Lan 1992;
Reitz and Ashton 1980; Xiao 1998). Isajiw and Makabe (1982) have also emphasized
the importance of the ethnic neighbourhood, the ethnicity of closest friends, as well as
the importance of endogamous dating and marriage along with social disapproval of
exogamic dating and marriage as factors promoting L1 maintenance.
8
Finally, a review of literature has revealed that quite a number of master’s theses and
doctoral dissertations 9 have been written on ethnic identity maintenance
(Karumanchery 1996; Mitsopulos 1989; Nakahara 1991; Noro 1987), ethnic identity
maintenance and language retention (Feuerverger 1986; Lan 1992; Lee 2001;
Okuno 1993; Sengupta 1987) as well as language retention (Chan 1989; Kwak 1990;
Lerthirunwong-Diong 1989; Man 1997) in Canada. These studies dealt primarily with one
particular ethnic group and most adopted a case-study approach.
Recent Studies on Ethnic Identity and Heritage Language Maintenance:
The Social-Psychological Dimension
In an effort to research the psychological components underlying heritage language
maintenance, Giles et al. (1977) conceived of "objective group vitality" as an index to
identify groups of variables that were considered vital to determining the structural and
situational societal forces that either aided or inhibited heritage language maintenance.
They argued that three groups of variables best identified the societal forces affecting
heritage language maintenance. Social status variables, represented by the wealth and
political clout of a group, the status of the language the group used, as well as the
group’s socio-historical position within the broader society, were one category.
Demographic considerations, such as the total population of the group and their
concentration and distribution, were deemed a second group. Especially important in
the demographic cluster were birth rates, immigration, and emigration rates. The last
cluster of variables, institutional supports, referred to the amount and extent of support
afforded the group and language within informal and formal institutional contexts. Of
special importance here were considerations of mass media, government services and
education.
A research interest has subsequently emerged in attempting to differentiate between
objective interpretations of the societal forces at work on heritage languages and the
individual cognitive representations of those societal conditions by and within the groups
themselves. The subjective vitality questionnaire (SVQ) emerged to tap these cognitive,
collective representations among different ethnic groups (Bourhis et al. 1981). Much
work has been done using the notions of objective and subjective vitality (Bourhis and
Sachdev 1984; Guimond and Dubé-Simard 1983; Inglis and Gudykunst 1982; Sachdev
and Bourhis 1984). In fact, institutional support has emerged as the most important
factor in both subjective and objective vitality investigation (Giles et al. 1985).
Similar work in the Canadian context has identified a number of social-psychological
factors affecting L1 maintenance and retention. A study based in Toronto’s Chinese
community revealed that interethnic relations were crucial in determining a group’s
approach to heritage language maintenance and the prospects for success
(Guthrie 1983). Chung (1991) has suggested that different individual conceptions of
identity, varieties of ethnically-based experiences, as well as individual family histories
all affected the salience of internal and external expressions of ethnicity, including
heritage language use and maintenance.
9
Individual motivations with regards to L1, as proposed by Clement (1980), were
determined to a large extent by the push-pull dynamics of two opposing forces: a desire
to be accepted in the host society and integrate, and a fear of assimilation and loss.
Other work has been done, examining the role of motivation in the context of L1
retention or loss (e.g., Genesee et al. 1983). Additional variables, such as definitions of
ethnic membership, the extent to which languages in question are perceived as having
prestige or represent a valuable tool, and less L1 instruction were found to be related to
weaker perceptions of group cohesion, whereas differing sociopolitical climates related
to motivational orientations with regards to learning or maintaining language.
Furthermore, contact with one’s ethnic group, such as homeland visits, were found to be
associated with positive attitudes and perceptions concerning the group and language
(Feuerverger 1983, 1989; Hamers and Blanc 1982; Lambert 1982).
The notion of institutional completeness (Breton 1964), referring to the number of social
institutions 10 providing services in the language concerned and suggesting that this
measure exerts much influence on the chances of L1 retention, has also been
extensively researched. One 1998 study relating to the enduring debate over the link
between ethnic language and ethnic identity stressed that institutional completeness
might be a more important factor in ethnic persistence than the use of an ethnic
language for certain ethnic groups (Van Dijk 1998). Cheung’s (1981) study of the role
and effect of parents in L1 retention emphasized cohesive ethnic communities
(i.e., institutional completeness) as a major factor in the retention of heritage languages.
As well, Lan (1992) largely attributed the high vitality and the pride Chinese respondents
felt in their ancestry to the level of institutional completeness of the local Chinese
community.
Recent Studies on Heritage Language Maintenance:
The Economic Dimension
Another enduring debate in the context of ethnic studies and research on heritage
languages is the question of whether ethnocultural persistence and heritage language
maintenance represent an obstacle to social mobility and economic integration. Some
researchers have argued that because new immigrants seek out their ethnic
communities in the new society, and since opportunities for mobility and economic
success are fewer and farther between within smaller ethnic enclaves, social mobility
and success are put even further out of reach because new arrivals immerse
themselves in the community, culture, and language. In other words, ethnic persistence
(including L1 maintenance) impedes mobility (Porter 1965, 1975; Wiley 1967). This
perspective was challenged by research that reported the growing mobility among all
Canadian ethnic groups except, of course, Aboriginal peoples. This argument came to
be known as the “convergence thesis” (Darroch 1979).
In a similar vein, contemporary research has not managed to settle the question. Using
a special 3-city micro-data sample from the 1991 Census of Canada to ascertain the
labour market effects for individual workers of both major and minority language
knowledge, Pendakur and Pendakur (n.d.) have concluded that, contrary to human
10
capital theory, majority language knowledge was associated with higher earnings but
non-official language knowledge rarely improved labour market outcomes. Similarly,
Chiswick and Miller (2000) examined the effects of language usage on earnings of adult
male immigrants in Canada and concluded that earnings increased with schooling, preimmigration experience, duration of stay in Canada, and proficiency in official
language(s). Conversely, immigrants who lacked official language proficiency had lower
earnings. They proposed that immigration policy should further screen to ensure
immigrants have official language proficiency in order to compete in the labour market
and that language training programs should also be offered to newly-arrived immigrants.
However, much support still exists for the notion of convergence and the rejection of the
hypothesis that ethnic persistence and L1 retention are detrimental to mobility or
success in the labour market (Isajiw, Sev’er and Driedger 1993; Reitz and Sklar 1997).
Future Directions
First of all, a comparative approach should be employed to study ethnic language
retention and ethnic identity maintenance among the various minority groups. As
pointed out earlier, most previous empirical studies tended to focus on one particular
ethnic group only.
Secondly, future research should investigate the positive effects that heritage language
knowledge has on self-identification and ethnic and racial preference. In other words,
studies should be undertaken to more clearly establish the dynamic between language
and self-identity. As well, research attention should be given to other determinants of
self ethnic-identification.
Thirdly, although the focus of this paper is not on Aboriginal languages, in light of the
fact that language is one of the most tangible symbols of culture and group identity, the
rapid decline of Aboriginal languages (see endnote #3) warrant special research
attention. It must be stressed that one of the major objectives of the official multicultural
policy in Canada is to facilitate the acquisition, retention and use of all languages that
contribute to the multicultural heritage of this country.
Finally, the theoretical foundations of ethnic studies must be widened in order to
consider the possibilities that conventional interpretations of ethnic minorities that rely
on the central notion of “separateness,” either self-imposed or structurally achieved, be
re-evaluated to take into consideration the fact that “communities” in the traditional
sense no longer exist. Communication around the globe is instantaneous, and the
notion of “international” identity is no longer far-fetched or improbable.
11
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Liam Conway of the Department of Sociology and Social
Studies at the University of Regina for his research assistance.
12
References
Abu-Laban, Baha. (1980). An Olive Branch on the Family Tree: The Arabs in Canada. Toronto:
McClelland & Stewart.
Bankston, C. L., and M. Zhou. (1995). “Effects of Minority-Language Literacy on the Academic
Achievement of Vietnamese Youths in New Orleans.” Sociology of Education,
68: 1-17.
Bhatnagar, J. (1980). “Linguistic Behaviour and Adjustment of Immigrant Children in French
and English Schools in Montreal.” International Review of Applied Psychology,
29: 141-59.
Bourhis, R. Y., H. Giles, and D. Rosenthal. (1981). “Notes on the Construction of a ‘Subjective
Vitality Questionnaire’ for Ethnolinguistic Groups.” Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 2: 145-55.
Bourhis, R.Y., and I. Sachdev. (1984). “Subjective Vitality Perceptions and Language Attitudes
in Hamilton.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3: 97-126.
Breton, Raymond. (1964). “Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Communities and the Personal
Relations of Immigrants.” The American Journal of Sociology, 70: 193-205.
Breton, Raymond, W. W. Isajiw, Warren E. Kalbach, and Jeffrey G. Reitz. (1990). Ethnic
Identity and Equality: Varieties of Experience in a Canadian City, Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Canada. House of Commons Debates. (1971). Statement of P. E. Trudeau, October 8.
Canada. Statistics Canada. (1998). “1996 Census: Ethnic Origin, Visible Minorities.” The Daily,
February 17.
Canada. Statistics Canada. (1997). “1996 Census: Mother Tongue, Home Language and
Knowledge of Languages.” The Daily, December 2.
Chan, Ivy. (1989). The Process of Mother Tongue Maintenance Among Chinese Adolescent
Students. Unpublished Ed.D. thesis. University of Toronto.
Chen, Zhuojun. (2000). “Chinese-American Children’s’ Ethnic Identity: Measurement and
Implications.” Communication Studies, 51(1): 74-95.
Cheung, Yuet-Wah. (1981). “Effects of Parents on Ethnic Language Retention by Children:
The Case of Chinese in Urban Canada.” Sociological Focus, 14(1):33-48.
13
Chiswick, B., and P. W. Miller. (2000). The Complementarity of Language and Other Human
Capital: Immigrant Earnings in Canada. Working papers for Vancouver Centre of
Excellence #00-08: Vancouver.
Chow, Henry P. H. (2001a). “English-Language Use Among Chinese Adolescent Immigrants.”
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XLVII(2): 191-195.
Chow, Henry P. H. (2001b). “To Learn or not to Learn: What Motivates Second-Generation
Chinese-Canadian Adolescents to Take Ethnic Language Classes.” Paper presented at
the 2001 Annual Meetings of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association,
Laval University, Quebec, May 27-30.
Chow, Henry P. H. (1997). In Search of Land Flowing with Milk and Honey: The Adaptation
Experiences of Uprooted Chinese and Black Immigrant Students in a Multicultural
Society. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.
Chung, Leeva C. (1991). “Ethnic Identity: A Book Review Essay” International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 15(4): 491-500.
Clement, R. (1980). “Social and Individual Factors in Second Language Acquisition.” Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 12: 292-302.
Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and Minority Language Children. Toronto: OISE Press.
Cummins, J. (1983). Heritage Language Education: A Literature Review. Toronto: Ministry of
Education.
Cummins, J., and M. Swain. (1986). Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research,
and Practice. London: Longman.
Cummins, J., M. Swain, K. Nakajima, J. Handscombe, D. Green, and C. Tran (1984). “Linguistic
Interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese Immigrant Students.” In C. Rivera
(ed.), Communicative Competence Approaches to Language Proficiency Assessment:
Research and Application. England: Multilingual Matters, 60-81.
Danesi, Marcel. (1983). “Early Second Language Learning: The Heritage Language Experience
in Canada.” Multiculturalism 7(1): 8-12.
Darroch, Gordon. (1979). “Another Look at Ethnicity, Stratification and Social Mobility in
Canada.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 4: 1-25.
Dashefsky, Arnold. (1975). “Theoretical Frameworks in the Study of Ethnic Identity.” Ethnicity
2: 1-15.
De Vries, John. (1990). “Language and Ethnicity: Canadian Aspects.” In Peter S. Li (ed.), Race
and Ethnic Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
14
Driedger, Leo. (1989). The Ethnic Factor: Identity in Diversity. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Duran, R. P. (1983). Hispanics’ Education and Background. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
Feuerverger, G. (1989). “Jewish-Canadian Ethnic Identity and Non-Native Language Learning:
A Social-Psychological Study.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 10(4): 327-357.
Feuerverger, G. (1983). An Exploratory Study of the Ethnolinguistic Vitality of Italo-Canadian
Students in Toronto. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Toronto.
Feuerverger, G. (1986). Jewish-Canadian: Ethnic Identity and Non-Native Language Learning.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.
Fishman, J. A. (1977). "Language and Ethnicity.” In Howard Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity, and
Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.
Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliot (1999). Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race,
Ethnic, and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada. 3rd ed.. Scarborough, Ontario: PrenticeHall Canada.
Genessee, F., P. Rogers, and N. Holobrow. (1983). “The Social Psychology of Second Language
Learning: Another Point of View.” Language Learning 33: 218-229.
Giles, H., and P. Johnson. (1981). “The Role of Language in Ethnic Group Relations.”
In J. Turner and H. Giles (eds.), Intergroup Behavior. Oxford, UK: Blackwell 199-243.
Giles, H., R.Y. Bourhis, and D. M. Taylor. (1977). “Towards a Theory of Language in Ethnic
Group Relations.” In H. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations.
London: Academic.
Giles, H., D. Rosenthal, and L. Young. (1985). “Perceived Ethnolinguistic Vitality: The Angloand Greek-Australian Setting.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
6(3&4): 253-69.
Guimond, S., and L. Dubé-Simard. (1983). “Relative Deprivation Theory and the Quebec
Nationalist Movement: The Cognitive-Emotion Distinction and the Personal Group
Deprivation Issue.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 526-535.
Guthrie, G. P. (1983). The Toronto Chinese Community / School Study. Toronto Modern
Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Hamers, J. F., and M. Blanc. (1982). “Towards a Social-Psychological Model of Bilingual
Development.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 1: 29-49.
15
Harrison, Brian. (2000). “Passing on the Language: Heritage Language Diversity in Canada.”
Canadian Social Trend, Catalogue No. 11-008-XPE,. 58, Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Inglis, M., and W. Gudykunst. (1982). “Institutional Completeness and Communication
Acculturation.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 6: 251-72.
Ichiyama, Michael A., Edward F. McQuarrie, and Kristine Ching. (1996). “Contextual
Influences on Ethnic Identity among Hawaiian Students in the Mainland United
States.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(4): 458-475.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. (1990). “Ethnic-Identity Retention.” In R. Breton, W. Isajiw, W. Kalbach,
and J. Reitz. Ethnic Identity and Equality: Varieties of Experience in a Canadian City,
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. (1985). “Learning and Use of Ethnic Language at Home and School:
Sociological Issues and Findings.” In M. R. Lupul (ed.), Osvita: Ukrainian Bilingual
Education. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of
Alberta, 225-230.
Isajiw,
Wsevolod W. (1984). “Three Contexts for Heritage Language Study.”
In J. Cummins (ed.) Heritage Languages in Canada: Research Perspectives. Report of
the Heritage Language Research Conference, Ottawa: OISE, 11.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. (1981). “Ethnic Identity Retention and Socialization.” Paper presented at
the annual American Sociological Association Meeting, Toronto.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W., Aysan Sev’er, and L. Driedger. (1993). “Ethnic Identity and Social
Mobility: A Test of the ‘Drawback Model.’” Canadian Journal of Sociology,
18: 177-96.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W., and Tomoko Makabe. (1982). Socialization as Factor in Ethnic Identity
Retention. Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
Research paper No. 134.
Jedwab, Jack. (2000). Ethnic Identification and Heritage Languages in Canada. University of
Montreal Centre For Heritage Languages and Les Éditions Images.
Kalbach, M. A., and W. E. Kalbach. (1999). “Persistence of Ethnicity and Inequality Among
Canadian Immigrants.” Canadian Studies in Population, 26(1): 84-105.
Karumanchery, Leeno. (1996). Ethnic Identity Retention: A Cross-Generational Analysis of
Malayalees in Toronto. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Manitoba.
16
Kwak, Kyunghwa. (1990). Second Language Learning in a Multicultural Society: A Comparison
Between the Learning of a Dominant Language and a Heritage Language. Unpublished
M.A. thesis, Queen’s University.
Kralt, J., and R. Pendakur. (1991). Ethnicity, Immigration and Language Transfer. Ottawa:
Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Multiculturalism Sector, Policy and Research.
Lambert, W. E. (1982). “Language as Factor in Personal Identity and Intergroup Relations.”
Mimeo, Montreal: McGill University.
Lan, K. S. (1992). Cultural Identity: A Case Study of the Chinese Heritage Language Schools in
Calgary. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Calgary.
Laroche, M., K. Chankon, and M. K. Hui. (1998). “Test of a Nonlinear Relationship Between
Linguistic Acculturation and Ethnic Identification.” Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 29(3): 418-433.
Lee, Wen-shya. (2001). The Effect of Ethnic Identity and Language Learning on Chinese
Adolescents’ Self-Esteem. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Calgary.
Lerthirunwong-Diong, Malai. (1989). Problems of Adjustment and Attitudes of Indochinese
Refugees Towards their Language Maintenance: A Case Study of the Lao Community in
Toronto. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.
Leung, K. H. (1984). Ethnic Schools and Public Education: A Study of the Relationship Between
Ethnic Schools and Public Education in Alberta. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University
of Calgary.
Li, J. J. (1995). Heritage Language Retention in Second-Generation Chinese Americans.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Lieberson, S. (1970). Language and Ethnic Relations in Canada. New York: Wiley.
Lindholm, K. J., and Z. Aclan. (1991). “Bilingual Proficiency as a Bridge to Academic
Achievement: Results from Bilingual/Immersion Programs.” Journal of
Education 173, 99-113.
Man, Evelyn. (1997). Language Use and Language Behaviour of Hong Kong Chinese Students in
Toronto. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.
Mitsopulos, Anna. (1989). Ethnic Identity Among Second-Generation Greek-Canadian
Adolescents. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Toronto.
Nakahara, Yoko. (1991). Ethnic Identity Among Japanese Canadians in Edmonton: The Case of
Pre-World War II Immigrants and their Descendants. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
University of Alberta.
17
Neito, S. (1996). Affirming Diversity—The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education.
USA: Longman.
Noro, Hiroko. (1987). Family and Language Maintenance: An Exploratory Study of Japanese
Language Maintenance Among Postwar Japanese Immigrants in Toronto. Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.
Norris, Mary Jane. (1998). “Canada’s Aboriginal Languages.” Canadian Social Trends.
Catalogue No. 11-008-XPE, 51, Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Okuno, Aoi. (1993). Ethnic Identity and Language Maintenance: A Case Study of Third
Generation Japanese-Canadians in Toronto. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of
Toronto.
Pannu, R. S. and J. R. Young (1980). “Ethnic Schools in Three Canadian Cities: A Study in
Multiculturalism. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 26(4): 247-260.
Park, Robert. (1937). “The Race Relations Cycle in Hawaii.” In E. C. Hughes et al. (eds.) Race
and Culture, vol. 1 (1950). Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 188-95.
Pendakur, K., and R. Pendakur. (n.d.). Speaking in Tongues: Language Knowledge as Human
Capital and Ethnicity. Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage.
Pendakur, R. (1990). Speaking in Tongues: Heritage Language Maintenance and Transfer in
Canada. Department of the Secretary of State, Ottawa: Multiculturalism Directorate.
Porter, J. (1965). The Vertical Mosaic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Porter, J. (1975). “Ethnic Pluralism in Canadian Perspective.” In N. Glazer and D. P. Moynihan
(eds.), Ethnicity, Theory, and Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
267-304.
Ramirez, A. G. (1985). Bilingualism Through Schooling: Cross-Cultural Education for Minority
and Majority Students. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Reitz, J. G. (1985). “Language and Ethnic Community Survival.” In R. M. Bienvenue, and
J. E. Goldstein (eds.), Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Canada (2nd ed.). Toronto:
Butterworths and Co. (Canada).
Reitz, J. G., and M. A. Ashton. (1980). “Ukrainian Language and Identity Retention in Urban
Canada.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, XII(2): 33-54.
Reitz, J. G., and S. M. Sklar. (1997). “Culture, Race, and the Economic Assimilation of
Immigrants.” Sociological Forum 12(2): 233-277.
18
Sachdev, I., and R. Y. Bourhis. (1984). “Minimal Majorities and Minorities.” European Journal
of Social Psychology, 14: 35-52.
Schrauf, Robert W. (1999). “Mother Tongue Maintenance Among North American Ethnic
Groups.” Cross-Cultural Research, 33:2: 175-92.
Sengupta, Smita. (1987). Integration and Maintenance of Ethnic Identity: A Case Study of
an East Indian Heritage Language Program in Greater Toronto. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Toronto.
Swain, M., and S. Lapkin. (1982). Evaluating Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Swain, Merrell, and Sharon Lapkin. (1991). “Heritage Language Children in an English-French
Bilingual Program.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 47(4): 635-41.
Swain, M, S. Lapkin, N. Rowen, and D. Hart. (1990). “The Role of Mother Tongue Literacy in
Third Language Learning.” In S. P. Norris and L. M. Phillips (eds.) Foundations of
Literacy Policy in Canada. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises, 185-206.
Swidinsky, R. and Michael Swidinsky. (1997). “The Determinants of Heritage Language
Continuity in Canada: Evidence from the 1981 and 1991 Census.” Canadian Ethnic
Studies, 29(1): 81-92.
Tavares, Antonio J. (2000). “From Heritage to International Languages: Globalism and Western
Canadian Trends in Heritage Language Education.” Canadian Ethnic Studies,
XXXII (1): 156-167.
Van Dijk, Joanne. (1998). “Ethnic Persistence Among Dutch-Canadian Catholics and
Calvinists.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, 30(2): 23-49.
Weber, Max. (1987). “Ethnic Groups.” In Leo Driedger (ed.), Ethnic Canada: Identities and
Inequalities. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.
Wells, G. (1981). Learning Through Interaction: The Study of Language Development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiley, Norbert. (1967). “The Ethnic Mobility Trap and Stratification Theory.” Social Problems
15: 147-59.
Wurm, Stephen A. (ed.) (1996). Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger of Disappearing.
Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Xiao, Hong. (1998). “Chinese Language Maintenance in Winnipeg.” Canadian Ethnic Studies,
30(1): 86-96.
19
Notes
1
According to Statistics Canada (1997), “mother tongue” is the first language learned at home
in childhood and still understood by the individual at the time of the census. It should also be
noted that Chinese as a mother tongue has been experiencing rapid growth since the 1980s
due to increased immigration, primarily from Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China.
In fact, the number of people who reported Chinese as mother tongue between 1991 and
1996 increased 42% to 736,000. As a result, Chinese has become the most frequently
reported non-official mother tongue among Canadians.
2
On October 8 1971, the federal government, in response to Book 4 of the Report of the Royal
Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, proclaimed a policy of multiculturalism
within a bilingual framework. According to the policy, the government will seek to (a) assist
all Canadian cultural groups that have demonstrated a desire and effort to continue to develop
a capacity to grow and contribute to Canada, and that have demonstrated a clear need for
assistance, be they small and weak or strong and highly organized groups, (b) assist members
of all cultural groups to overcome cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society,
(c) promote creative encounters and interchange among all Canadian cultural groups in the
interest of national unity, and (d) assist immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada’s
official languages in order to become full participants in Canadian society (House of
Common Debates 1971).
3
According to UNESCO, Canada’s Aboriginal languages are among the most endangered in
the world (Wurm 1996). As pointed out by Norris (1998), as of 1996, only 3 out of Canada’s
50 Aboriginal languages had large enough populations to be considered truly secure from the
threat of extinction in the long run. Among the 800,000 persons who claimed an Aboriginal
identity in 1996, only 26% indicated an Aboriginal language was their mother tongue.
4
School acts in various provinces were amended to allow instruction of non-official languages
in the school system in the 1970s (e.g., Alberta in 1974, Ontario in 1977, Quebec in 1978,
and Manitoba in 1979). In 1974, the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism
recommended federal funding to the teaching of languages other than the two French and
English (Lan 1992:5). As well, the federal government introduced the Cultural Enrichment
Program in 1977, with the objectives of encouraging and supporting projects and activities to
strengthen the cultural identity of different ethnic groups (Leung 1982:4-5).
5
As noted by Driedger (1989:137), there is a great deal of confusion concerning the nature of
ethnic identity, as both sociologists and psychologists have examined ethnic identity at macro
and micro levels. This problem is due in part to the different theoretical biases which
researchers bring to their studies. Dashefsky’s (1975) classification of four theoretical
frameworks, including socio-cultural (macrosociological approach in which social structure
and culture are the primary foci), interactionist (microsociological approach, focussing on the
social-psychological concern with symbols and their importance for social relationships),
group dynamicist (macropsychological method in which the group context is taken into
consideration), and psychoanalytic behaviourist (micropsychological approach in which
identity is explained in terms of reinforced responses to stimuli) is noteworthy.
20
6
Isajiw et al. have recently provided a less explicit definition, as follows: “one aspect of the
way in which individuals conceive of their location within and their relationship to the social
system at large and to others in it” (Breton, Isajiw, Kalbach, and Reitz 1990:11).
7
Perhaps it is crucial to stress that ethnic identity is the sense of identity developed by each
citizen as a unique individual. One’s ethnic self-identity does not necessarily reflect the
individual’s national allegiance.
8
De Vries (1990) points out that ethnicity and ethnic groups may be marked by language,
religion, national origin or citizenship, and/or physical characteristics and argues that “race”
(i.e., division between Caucasians/Whites and Native Canadians or Inuit, Metis, North
American Indians) and language are the two different markers of ethnicity used in Canada.
9
These theses and dissertations focused on the various ethnic groups in Canada, including the
Chinese (Chan 1989; Cheung 1981; Kim 1992), East Indian (Sengupta 1987), Greek
(Mitsopulos 1989), Japanese (Nakahara 1991; Noro 1987; Okuno 1993), Jewish
(Feuerverger 1986), and Malayalee (Karumanchery 1996). It should also be noted that a largescale study on ethnic identity maintenance and heritage language among Chinese-Canadian
adolescents is currently being undertaken in Calgary under the auspices of the Department of
Canadian Heritage (see Chow 2001b).
10
Similarly, Giles et al. (1977) have presented a taxonomy of variables which appeared to be
crucial in adducing some of the structural factors promoting or impeding the maintenance of
an ethnic language, including status (i.e., economic, social, socio-historical, and language),
demographic representation, and institutional support (i.e., mass media, education,
government services, industry, religion, and culture).