1984
DOI: 10.1177/0261927x8400300202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Vitality Perceptions and Language Attitudes: Some Canadian Data

Abstract: Italian (IC) and English (EC) Canadians, in two school settings, completed the Subjective Vitality Questionnaire (SVQ) and a sociolinguistic questionnaire concerning self-reported usage and evaluations of Italian and English in different domains. SVQ results from the two settings showed that suhject perceptions do not necessarily match objective assessments of ethnolinguistic vitality. Both ECs and ICs had more realistic perceptions in a majority setting (study 2) than in an equal setting (study 1). Whereas in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
48
0
7

Year Published

1985
1985
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
(10 reference statements)
3
48
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Notwithstanding that each model of vitality has various indicators to gauge the vitality of a language, it should be noted that in applying the concepts of both ethnolinguistic vitality and language vitality, early focus is on the immigrant minority, indigenous, and endangered language. This is seen in studies on vitality assessment between Italian and English language in Canada (Bourhis & Sachdev, 1984), the vitality of Turkish and English language among Turkish immigrants in Australia (Yagmur, Bot & Korzilius, 1999), the vitality of English, Bengali, and Sylheti language among Bangladeshi immigrant in United Kingdom (Lawson & Sachdev, 2004), the vitality of Sihan language in Sarawak, Malaysia (Mohamed & Hashim, 2012) and many more.…”
Section: Vitality Language Use and Identitymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Notwithstanding that each model of vitality has various indicators to gauge the vitality of a language, it should be noted that in applying the concepts of both ethnolinguistic vitality and language vitality, early focus is on the immigrant minority, indigenous, and endangered language. This is seen in studies on vitality assessment between Italian and English language in Canada (Bourhis & Sachdev, 1984), the vitality of Turkish and English language among Turkish immigrants in Australia (Yagmur, Bot & Korzilius, 1999), the vitality of English, Bengali, and Sylheti language among Bangladeshi immigrant in United Kingdom (Lawson & Sachdev, 2004), the vitality of Sihan language in Sarawak, Malaysia (Mohamed & Hashim, 2012) and many more.…”
Section: Vitality Language Use and Identitymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Many French Canadians value their language very highly and feel threatened by the Anglophone culture that surrounds them (Bourhis, 1984; see also Bourhis & Sachdev, 1984). If more Canadians spoke French, this would increase the numerical strength of French Canadians as a group and also help them to differentiate themselves from their more powerful Englishspeaking neighbors south of the border.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The present study was inspired by that of Bourhis & Sachdev (1984) who showed that variations in the objective demography of intergroup relations can have a pertinent effect on vitality perceptions. They found that when there was a numerical balance between majority and minority groups (Angloand Italian-Canadians) in a particular school setting that the former would show far more ingroup bias in their vitality perceptions than when the immediate educational context reflected the proportions of ethnic groups common to the locale (Hamilton, Ontario).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%