Abstract
The paper argues that ethnolinguistic vitality depends on four crucial social psychological factors: perceived strength differential, intergroup distance, utilitarianism and intergroup discordance. The influence of these factors on the vitality of subordinate and dominant groups is outlined. It is proposed that the vitality of both types of groups could be measured on the same scale. The low end of this scale indicates group members' disposition to dissociate themselves from the in-group's cultural values and practices. The high end indicates a perception of cultural distinctiveness, superiority, closedness and derogation of out-groups, i.e. high level of ethnocentrism. A theoretical model is proposed explicating how the interaction of vitality profiles of the dominant and subordinate groups leads to different acculturation orientations of subordinate groups [assimilation, integration, segregation, or marginalisation].
Address for correspondence: Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics, University of Tartu, Ülikooli 18, Tartu 50090, Estonia. e-mail: .
Published Online: 2010-06-15
Published in Print: 2010-June
© 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York
In this chapter, the authors describe the following scenario:
"Dele is from Nigeria, and Anibal is from Argentina. Both young men completed secondary education in their own countries and then came to the United States to study. They studied at the same university, lived in the same dormitory their first year on campus, and chose agriculture as their major. Eventually, they became roommates, participated in many of the same activities for international students, and had many classes together. After completing their bachelor's degrees, they enrolled in the same graduate program. After four more years in the United States, each returned to his home country and took a position in the country's Agricultural Ministry. In emails, phone calls, and the occasional visit with each other, both comment on the difficulties they are experiencing in working with farmers and the larger agribusiness interests within their own country."
Would Dele and Anibal's interactions with farmers in their respective countries be considered more or less intercultural now than interactions they might have had with them prior to their studies in the United States?
In this chapter, the authors describe the following scenario:
"Dele is from Nigeria, and Anibal is from Argentina. Both young men completed secondary education in their own countries and then came to the United States to study. They studied at the same university, lived in the same dormitory their first year on campus, and chose agriculture as their major. Eventually, they became roommates, participated in many of the same activities for international students, and had many classes together. After completing their bachelor's degrees, they enrolled in the same graduate program. After four more years in the United States, each returned to his home country and took a position in the country's Agricultural Ministry. In emails, phone calls, and the occasional visit with each other, both comment on the difficulties they are experiencing in working with farmers and the larger agribusiness interests within their own country."
Would Dele and Anibal's interactions with farmers in their respective countries be considered more or less intercultural now than interactions they might have had with them prior to their studies in the United States?