Introduction to sociolinguistics 2018/19 Iva Dozet

Language and Ethnicity: The View from Within – A Review

1. Introduction
The article aims to provide a better understanding of the concept of ethnicity and the importance of its
role in the relationship between the individual and the collective. In order to achieve greater clarity,
Fishman (1998) firstly deals with the origin and modern definition of the term. Secondly, the article
focuses on ethnicity’s connection with language and religion, afterwards addressing the dangers as well
as strategies that an ethnically favored language is prone to face inside an ethnicity and language frame.
The review is organized into three distinct parts, without accounting for the introduction and conclusion,
with the first part covering the problem of defining ethnicity in the past and present, the second looking
at its linkage to other concepts and the third dealing with languages that are ethnically favored and the
troubles they may encounter.

2. Defining Ethnicity
2.1. The History of the Term in English

In order to understand the diverse semantic load that accompanied the term ethnicity when it first came
to be used in English, its origin firstly needs to be made clear. The term itself was derived from the
Greek ethnos, which originally intentionally carried a negative semantic load, one that marked a human
by ‘’heathenish, unsavory, unrefined, and undesirable qualities’’ (Fishman, 1998: 1). To explain further,
ethnos, along with its counterpart laos, was part of the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible,
more specifically the distinction made between the god-obeying people on the one hand and the god-
disobeying people on the other. Due to the fact that the term was negatively associatively marked in the
source language the negative connotations were transferred alongside the term into English, visible
when looking at its earliest recorded usage in the 16th century.

Although the ‘’ “non-complimentary” penumbra’’ (Fishman, 1998: 1) can still be found lingering in
expressions such as ‘’ethnic food’’, the term has become detached from the negative semantic load when
it comes to its academic usage. The disengagement of the connotative meaning happened primarily
because of the influence of social sciences, but also due to racist thought (Fishman, 1998). To further
elaborate, the term race stood to denote ethnonational origin before the Second World War. This meant
that race signified not only the distinction between African American and Caucasian, but also the
difference between German and Irish people. However, after the Second World War the term was

1
Introduction to sociolinguistics 2018/19 Iva Dozet

thought to be in too close a proximity with the concept of Nazism and was therefore discredited.
Moreover, the term that was meant to replace it, national origin, was not accepted either, as it was
thought to be too narrow of concept since it did not encompass distinctions between non-migrant groups.
Because of this, and the fact that culture could not be taken as a suitable substitution due to its
connotative and denotative meanings ranging from ‘’high culture to consumer culture’’ (Fishman: 1998:
2), a concept gap was in need of being filled. Ethnicity was, at that point ‘’a relatively unencumbered
term’’ (Fishman, 1998: 2) and could therefore stand in place for the concept of race and all others that
were found to be unacceptable replacements.

2.2. What is Ethnicity?

After its ‘’checkered history’’ (Fishman, 1998: 1) the term ethnicity has come to have a relatively stable
definition in academia and is now defined as ‘’the macro-group “belongingness” or
identificational dimension of culture, whether that of individuals or of aggregates per se’’ (Fishman,
1998: 2). Fishman (1998) points out that ethnicity is a concept that is both narrower and more
perspectival than culture. To firstly tackle the claim of narrowness, it is stated that some aspects of
culture are no longer seen as identificational on the level of collectives e.g. a word processor would be a
representative of Western culture to non-Western ones, but would not be a differentiating object within
it. As for the claim that ethnicity is in fact more perspectival, it is stated that ‘’its specification or
attribution is fundamentally subjective, variable and very possibly non-consensual’’ (Fishman, 1998: 2).
In other words, the idea of ethnicity is not only changeable through time, but is relative on the
individualistic level as well and may not be agreed upon by the parties in question.

3. Linking Ethnicity
3.1. The Link Between Language and Ethnicity

Due to the fact that ethnicity as a concept is situational and perspectival, its connection with other
concepts should be of the same nature. It is evident that language, as a symbolic system, is taken to be
the basis for forming different speaking monolingual collectives. However, ethnicity’s linkage with
language, is not one that is set in stone. In other words, some groups might see language as one if not the
dominant indicator of their ethnicity, while others will see only a peripheral connection with it. Here, it
is important to note that although the interconnectedness of the two concepts is variable, claiming that
‘’it is a specious basis for social action’’ (Fishman, 1998: 3) is dangerous in so far as it tends to overlook

2
Introduction to sociolinguistics 2018/19 Iva Dozet

the main idea under discussion i.e. the dependency of the two concepts not just on one another, but on
the strength of their connection and the factors that play a crucial role in forming it (Fishman, 1998).

It would seem that one of the factors that should be looked into and that appears crucial in making the
link between language and ethnicity ‘’more salient in consciousness’’ (Fishman, 1998: 3) is the process
of modernization. Because of the fact that intergroup contacts are becoming more frequent and
traditional life marginal as a result, the aforementioned link has become more notable. The
‘transformation’ of the connection from something unconscious to something noteworthy that can now
call a group to social action can have the power to transform an ethnicity into a nationality (Fishman,
1998). Modernization does not have to be the be the crucial instigator of the connection, but its
‘’ideologized language and ethnicity link’’ (Fishman, 1998: 3) through Western-European history has
not only proven a salient one, but has spread around the world and is now, with the respect to locally and
historically conditioned circumstances, as common as it was in its place of origin.

3.2. The Perceived Moral Basis of the Language and Ethnicity Link
Another connection of relevance is the one that ethnicity has with religion. As Fishman (1998) explains,
religion is received and professed through language and a great number of the world’s ethno-cultures are
intertwined with one particular religion. This, in turn, creates a three-way connection that ‘’provides a
moral dimension to ethnolinguistic identity and ethnolinguistic consciousness’’ (Mews 1987 as cited in
Fishman, 1998: 3). This moral dimension is perceived in different ways. Some, as is the case with
Hebrew, believe the language and spirit of a nation to be connected so that the former ‘’emerges from
the same fiery furnace from which the soul of the people emerges” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 3).
Moreover, some see the language and the materia santa to be undistinguishable form one another.
However, the most radical of views assumes the vitality of the people to be dependent on the vitality of
the language. Because of this, the disappearance of languages such as Basque is believed ‘’would cause
the ruin of the nation ‘’ (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 4). To be aware of the links given above, the factors
that come into play when forming them as well as the scale of salience on which they appear, is to be
conscious of the fact that under heightened ethnolinguistic circumstances the need and want to protect
the ethnicity-suffused language is predictable one.

4. The Favored Language and the Dangers That It Faces

4.1. The Ethnic Suffusion of the Favored Language

3
Introduction to sociolinguistics 2018/19 Iva Dozet

Although the direction in which language and ethnicity bring forth one another is debatable, both sides
of the argument affirm that a connection between the two does indeed exists and that once it becomes
prominent there is little chance of it disappearing. Moreover, the linkage has to be expressed in some
way by the people in whose consciousness it has begun to appear. The favored language can therefore be
seen through kinship terms as is the case with Tamil which is observed to be a “mother capable of
feeding courage” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 4) or even as the primordial home of the people who speak

it as the Bengali urge one another to “go back to your home” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 4). The

association becomes even more clear once it comes to envelop history and ethno-

emotional characteristics leading to such claims as that Bokmal carries with itself the “the

mighty breath of genius, sighing to awake and urge the masses onward’’ (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 4).
Through the aforementioned claims and the ones that state that their language is ‘’a “reflection of the
world view and the essence of’’ their ‘’personality’’ (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 4) it becomes obvious
that the bond between language and ethnicity can be strong enough to constitute its own partisan
cosmology, one that encompasses all languages and all peoples within it.

4.2. The Imperative to Foster and Improve the Ethnically Favored Language

Although a protective stance might exist towards a favored language, this is sometimes not enough since
the language in question faces dangers on two fronts. Fishman (1998) states that the first of these issues
concerns the language’s status i.e. whether its implementation is satisfactory within the community and
beyond it, whereas the second problem arises when talking about the corpus of a language i.e. the
adequacy of its lexicon, grammar, etc. However, both of these concerns can be dealt with through a
frame that encompasses both language and ethnicity and creates the ‘’arena of language planning’’
(Fishman, 1998: 5).

4.2.1. Status Planning

Status planning requires the first step for status improvement to be the rejection of all insults that have
been ascribed to the language over time. It is fairly obvious from claims such as that the Ainu language
‘’will not go into the museum” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 5) that the survival of a language is for many
directly connected to the survival of the collective. With such a claim being made, it is not surprising to

4
Introduction to sociolinguistics 2018/19 Iva Dozet

see Swahili wholeheartedly reject ‘’its status as “a lowly language, below the prestige of the European
ruler's English” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 5). It would seem that all of these insults, whether they come
from the same or other-ethnic sources, have the same underlining implication that the ethnically favored
language is not an adequate tool to express emotion and thought in the modern world. Fishman (1998)
makes it a point to note that this issue is not without its complications, ones that stem from the fact that
the beloved language carries traditional verities that are held to be sacred and non-negotiable concerning
modifications. The assertions that a language is inadequate are not the only concerns that an ethnically
favored language faces. Rather, complications arise from sources as near as neighboring collectives, as
is the threat that Belarusian sees in Russian and Polish, and as far as overseas colonizing forces, as
French remains to Haitian. In order for the beloved language to (re)affirm its position it will often refer
to classical tongues to highlight the fact that great classical works were written in vernaculars rather than
in older more refined forms of that period. Furthermore, the European tradition of abandoning classic
languages in favor of individual vernaculars will be stressed when talking of the status of ethnically
favored languages today. Another reinforcement on the side of a beloved language is the argument that it
is a collective’s obligation to preserve the language and help it achieve its aspired status. Following this
train of thought is the idea that ‘’Irish is “a sacred national trust” whose enhancement is “a national
duty” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 6). With no intention of weakening the previously stated claims,
Fishman (1998) points out that there are still more serious ones that see the fight for language status as
part of a still greater fight for ‘’life with dignity’’ (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 6), as is the case with
Serbian which speaks of using “language in a war for the liberation of intellectual and political
consciousness” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 6).

As can be seen from the previous paragraph, status planning of a favored language receives support
from many sides, from those that rely on classical tongues and the ones that focus on duty to the ones
that argue in favor of saving not only the dignity of a language but of its people. In this way it becomes
obvious that status change is part of a much larger and immensely complex interethnic endeavor and that
the fight for status is in many ways a fight for the language’s (self)respect, which is inevitable and in
many cases long overdue.

4.2.2. Corpus Planning

The other potential threat to an ethnically favored language is the danger to its corpus. To further
elaborate this point, it is crucial to note that one cannot expect a language to attain the status it strives

5
Introduction to sociolinguistics 2018/19 Iva Dozet

towards, if the corpus of the language in question is inadequate. A beloved language has to be rendered
more perfect in order to fulfill all the functions it has not yet found itself in need of fulfilling. This, as
was the case with status planning, is no easy task since the supporters of the favored language will in
most cases not look too fondly upon the idea of change. However, another similarity that the planning
of a corpus shares with that of a status is the fact that it is achievable and done by firstly rejecting the
insults associated with the beloved language. It is not uncommon for languages to feel as if they are
peripheral in comparison to another, as English in the USA sees itself as “a vulgar dialect … to be used
only with deprecation,” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 7) when compared to British English. However, if
one were to try and adapt a beloved language so as to fulfill functions it had previously not, this would
not automatically require a separation from the language’s roots since these can serve as guidelines for
the collective to help and ‘’ follow it along its own path” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 7). This in turn
means that the beauty, purity and elaboration of the language do not have to be lost in the process of
adaptation. Rather, they have nothing to fear due to the fact that if the corpus planning is done properly
“a resonant, profound and sublime symphony” (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 7) as is Bengali will only
have its beauty emphasized.

The focus of modernization will at most times put primary focus on the writing system which will serve
as yet another connection between the corpus and status i.e. their co-causative and co-dependent
relationship. The reason for doing this is because it is not simply ‘’a tool for written communication’’
(Fishman, 1998: 8), but is rather ethno-culturally colored. However, what has come to be evident, as a
result of modernization, is the tendency of non-Latin based scripts to compromise and adapt to it. This
has become clear with scripts such as German and Spanish, which have taken out letters that did not
evidently fit the Latin-based mold. However, it would be largely unfair to say that the Latin-based script
associated with only negative connotations, since it has served as a writing system in communities
where a writing system had not previously existed. From this perspective, the script in question has been
praised and said to have marked an unforgettable day for Somali since their ‘’language is to be written”
(as cited in Fishman, 1998: 8). Through the passing of time and with sufficient adaptation of the original
even a scripts that was firstly thought of as foreign can become one that is a true representation of the
collective, as was the case with Turkish which came to adapt the Latin-based script gradually and over
time (as cited in Fishman, 1998: 8).

5. Conclusion

6
Introduction to sociolinguistics 2018/19 Iva Dozet

Throughout the article the relevance of ethnicity and its linkage to language has been affirmed by
various arguments. It has been shown that ‘’almost every aspect of language is replete with ethnic
significance and associations’’ (Fishman, 1998: 9) and that this linkage has been and remains to be
fostered from numerous sides. Although the present is soaked with ‘’heightened salience of language
and ethnicity linkages’’ (Fishman, 1998: 9) that cannot for sure be said to remain stable as time elapses,
one thing remains abundantly clear throughout the article and that is the fact that once a language and
ethnicity connection has been created it will continue to exist indefinitely.

References:
Fishman. Joshua A. (1998). Language and Ethnicity: The View from Within. In: The Handbook of
Sociolinguistics (ed. Florian Coulmas). Hoboken, New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing (327-343).