Bilingualism (Ancestral Language Maintenance) Among Native American, Vietnamese American, and Hispanic American College Students Cheryl Wharry Oklahoma State University Abstract The role of attitude, motivation and other affective factors have been shown to have major effects on second language acquisition, but their role in ancestral language maintenance has been under examined. This paper explores background and affective variables affecting ancestral language maintenance and bilingualism for college students of three ethnic minority groups. Results suggest that belief about parental attitudes, view of importance of learning the ancestral language, and integrative motivation are significantly related to adoption of ancestral languages. 1 Introduction Research supporting the claim that attitudes and motivation have major effects on learning a second language is extensive, but the role of attitude and of other affective factors influencing ancestral language maintenance and bilingualism has not been given adequate treatment. Second language acquisition research on affective variables and on sociocultural factors may shed light on our understanding of why some ethnic minorities in the United States are bilinguals (speaking their ancestral language and English) while others are monolinguals who speak only English. Gardner and Lamberts (1972) seminal work on positive and negative attitudes aiding or inhibiting second language acquisition suggests that motivation plays a major role in L2 acquisition. They identified two types of motivation for learning a language: integrative and instrumental. Integrative motivation suggests that learners want to acculturate and become a full-fledged member of the target language community; that is, they want to take on the customs, values, etc. of the L2 group; learning the target language is an important vehicle for this integration. On the contrary, ____________________ 1Our appreciation goes to Mardo Salinas and Dr. Pete Coser of Oklahoma State University’s Multicultural Development and Assessment Center for providing the invaluable mailing lists and labels for the study. 117 118 Bilingual Research Journal, 17:3&4 Summer/Fall 1993 instrumental motivation is that held by learners whose reasons for taking on an L2 are largely socioeconomic or utilitarian ones (e.g. getting a job). It has been suggested that integrative motivation may be the more effective of the two types for second language acquisition. However, Hidalgo’s (1986) work on English, Spanish, and English-Spanish code switching claims that the notion of two distinct motivations, instrumental and integrative, may be inadequate. Instead, she emphasizes the importance of the local milieu on language attitudes and the influence of attitudes toward the target language on actual use of that language. She argues that there really is no practical difference between instrumentality and integrativeness;” her subjects showed a balance of integrative and instrumental motivation. The more successful language learners did not show more integrative or instrumental motivation (p. 214). Rodrígues (1988) supports Gardner and Lamberts notion of distinct motivations but suggests that Puerto Rican bilingual children are more successful at acquiring English when they have instrumental motivation rather than a desire for total integration into mainstream society. While these studies on instrumental and integrative motivation have varying and even conflicting results, none of them deny that attitude toward both native and target language affects one’s motivation to learn a given language or dialect. Several researchers have focused on major sociocultural factors influencing language acquisition, without necessarily attempting to see which of the two types of motivation is more effective. Schumann’s (1978) Acculturation Model and Giles’ (1977) Accommodation Theory both purport that sociocultural factors are crucial for L2 acquisition. Schumann suggests that the extent to which an L1 group has positive or negative feelings toward the L2 group is indicative of the extent to which the L1 group will acquire the L2, and Giles argues that uses of ethnolinguistic markers are used to varying degrees to express ethnic identity; that is, the closer the L1 and L2 groups are the less likely it is that the L1 group will use markers that will distinguish them from the L2. The more different the native and target language groups are the more likely it is that the L1 group will use markers that will distinguish them from the L2 group; this means that a great divergence between L1 and L2 groups may be closely tied to the L1 group’s need for native language loyalty and identity. Furthermore, Rodriguez-Brown & Ruesta (1987) have shown that university students in three different education tracts (bilingual, linguistic, and cultural) had different Bilingualism (Ancestral Language Maintenance) 119 attitudes and motivation toward college-level Spanish. These authors suggest that attitudes toward the L1, L2, and L2 teacher all affect L2 learning. They argue that foreign language teachers should consider the importance of motivation and attitudes toward the target language as a part of instructional objectives (p. 18). All of the studies above, along with numerous others, show a positive relationship between motivation/attitude and successful acquisition of L2s. Very few studies have been done, though, which have examined the effect of attitude, motivation and similar variables on the adoption and maintenance of ancestral languages in the United States. While Wherritt & Gonzales (1989) argue that identity and heritage are strong variables affecting Spanish maintenance in a small Iowa town, the overwhelming trend with language maintenance studies is to emphasize saving dying languages; usually these are minority languages facing extinction largely due to sociopolitical and economic reasons. Political and economic factors are often highlighted while attitude is often backgrounded or left unaddressed. This is justifiable though when dealing with dying languages, as political/economic forces are often the driving force behind language planning choices, and the desire to save as many languages as possible is a noteworthy goal. Theiberger (1990) makes a very interesting examination of reasons for preserving Australian aboriginal languages; he says that morality and social justice are important reasons for ancestral language maintenance of any type. Similarly, the fostering of bilingualism is equally valid. Since it is possible for numerous languages to be maintained without a resultant increase of bilingualism, more research needs to be done with goals of maintaining ancestral languages along with bilingualism. Furthermore, research shedding light on attitudes and similar variables affecting native language adoption and maintenance is lacking. The majority of speakers in the United States are monolingual and monocultural; although we have numerous cultures (and languages) represented in this country, our neighborhoods remain largely homogeneous and monolingual. That is, there are too many speakers of English only, Chinese only, Spanish only etcetera, and too few bilinguals in this country. This is not to suggest that multicultural and multilingual programs have not made progress; we are much further along today than fifty years ago (thanks to bilingual education and foreign language programs). But I maintain that we have yet to achieve a truly multicultural society; that is, one 120 Bilingual Research Journal, 17:3&4 Summer/Fall 1993 composed of people who have strong ties with their unique cultures and who not only appreciate other cultures but can understand them. Since language and culture are inseparable, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a society that has more multilingual speakers is one that has a better understanding of speakers who may differ socioculturally. Of special interest here is the great number of monolingual ethnolinguistic minorities in the United States (Chinese American, Native American, Vietnamese American, Hispanic American...). The purpose of this study is to explore variables which may explain why some members of these groups, whose ancestral language is a language other than English, adopt and/or maintain their ancestors language(s) while others do not. Since previous research has shown major ties between motivation/attitude and second language acquisition, it is expected that these factors also influence acquisition of ancestral languages. The subjects in the study all speak English, but some also speak their ancestral language (bilinguals) and others do not (monolinguals). Major questions in this study were: (a) What are the common background, attitude, and motivational factors among bilinguals not present among monolinguals of the same ethnic groups? and (b) Are the independent variables which affect ancestral language adoption and maintenance among the same for three groups under study (Hispanic American, Vietnamese American and Native American)? Answers to these questions should aid in finding better ways to promote bilingualism and more specifically, the preservation of rich linguistic heritages and cultural pluralism among ethnic minority groups in the United States. Methodology Subjects Subjects were 21 Hispanic American, 22 Native American, and 10 Vietnamese American college students. Subjects were students who responded to a questionnaire mailed to persons randomly selected from the college Minority Programs mailing list. Twenty four percent of the 221 persons who were mailed the questionnaire responded. Those selected included males and females, residential and commuter students, and students of varying college classifications. Bilingualism (Ancestral Language Maintenance) 121 Instrumentation The instrumentation questionnaire contained 24 items (See appendix). The first six questions were designed to obtain biographical information (ethnic identity, age, gender, birthplace, length of stay in the U.S., college classification). Questions 7-19 were language identity questions which addressed such issues as first language, language spoken in different locales, language spoken by parents and ancestors, native language and reasons for calling a certain language the native one, and ancestral language competence in comparison to English language competence. Question 20 asked for information about the strength of family, peer. minority and non-minority relationships. Questions 21-23 were probes for integrative and instrumental motivation concerning the importance of knowing and not knowing one’s ancestral language. The purpose of these questions was to determine if the bilinguals and monolinguals had different orientations toward learning their ancestral language. The final question dealt with subjects’ feelings about parental expectations concerning their children knowing the ancestral language. Analysis Using Chi square analysis, all independent variables were examined separately to find significant differences (p<.05) between monolinguals (those who speak only English) and bilinguals (those who spoke English and another language). Based on answers to questions 7-17 of the instrument, subjects were identified as monolingual or bilingual. Subjects who said that they spoke a language other than English when they were a child, that a language other than English was spoken most frequently in their parents home, and that the language they used among friends in high school also said that language was their native language; these subjects were identified as bilinguals. It was not automatically assumed that subjects who said that English was the language of use for the above situations were monolinguals (i.e. did not know their ancestral language). Instead, subjects who said that English was their native language (#12) and who said that they cannot speak, understand, read or write in their ancestors language (#14-17) were considered to be monolinguals (this is a nontraditional use of the term to refer to subjects who are not competent in their ancestral language). 122 Bilingual Research Journal, 17:3&4 Summer/Fall 1993 Subjects in the study may have learned languages other than their ancestral language, which would mean some may speak English plus some language other than that of their ancestors. However, since the emphasis of the study was on use of ancestral languages, subjects who did not know their ancestral language were not classified as “bilinguals” (though, technically they may be multilingual, speaking English, French, Swahili, Arabic, Japanese...). Thus, the two groups of subjects are as follows: monolinguals (do not know their ancestral language) and bilinguals (know their ancestral language); both groups know English. To eliminate from the bilingual group subjects who know just a few words or phrases in their ancestral language and who are not truly fluent in the language, questions about degree of knowledge of the language in comparison to English (all subjects are fluent in English) were used to determine native-like fluency (see questions #14-17). Furthermore, the question regarding which language was considered to be the native one (#12) was not used alone as a determinant for placement in the bilingual or monolingual group because, as Davies & Bentahila (1989) suggest, subjects’ reasons for considering a language to be their native one vary; therefore, question #13 attempts to determine how subjects decide which language is their native one. Subjects who identify a language as their native language (#12) but cannot speak, write, read, or understand the language well were placed in the monolingual group. Once the two groups were established, comparisons were made between the groups for the following variables: ethnicity (#1), length of stay in the U.S. (#2, 3), age (#4), gender (#5), college classification (#6), relationship with peers of the same race (#20), importance of knowing ancestral language (#21), instrumental and integrative motivation (#22, 23), and parental attitudes about ancestral language (#24). For questions #22 and #23, choices regarding usefulness for career and number of people speaking the language (choices a and b) were considered to have instrumental motivation while the choices regarding heritage, sophistication, perception... (choices c, d, and e) represented integrative motivation. Subjects who chose Strongly Agree” or “Moderately Agree” for instrumental items were identified as having instrumental motivation and subjects who chose the same for the integrative items were considered to have integrative motivation for knowing or not knowing the ancestral language. When designing these questions, it was not assumed that persons who were neutral or who disagreed with instrumental reasons would Bilingualism (Ancestral Language Maintenance) 123 automatically have integrative reasons, and vice versa; that it is possible for a person to have both types of motivation, as the two are not mutually exclusive, was taken into consideration. Results Of the ten independent variables (length of stay in the U.S., ethnic identity, age, gender, college classification, relationship with peers of same race, attitude toward importance of knowing ancestral language, instrumental motivation, integrative motivation, and perceptions about parental attitude), five had a significant effect on ancestral language maintenance at the p.>.05 level. Table 1 Raw Frequencies for Ethnicity and Gender Native Hispanic Vietnamese All American American American subjects M F T M F T M F T M F T Bilingual 5 1 6 6 4 10 5 5 10 16 10 26 Mono-lingual 9 7 16 1 10 11 0 0 0 9 18 27 *M=Male F=Female T=Total As Table I shows, there is a difference in the three ethnic groups’ knowledge of their ancestral language. All ten (100%) of the Vietnamese American subjects were fluent in Vietnamese, ten of the 21 (48%) Hispanic Americans knew Spanish, while only 6 of the 22 (27%) Native Americans knew their ancestral Native American language. Statistical analysis suggests that these differences are significant (Chi square=16.47, p>.05). Gender differences were also detected for ancestral language knowledge. While 16 of the 25 (64%) males were bilingual, only 10 of the 18 (36%) female subjects knew their ancestral language; these observed differences proved statistically significant (Chi square=4.51, p>.05). While there was a significant effect detected for gender when comparing all males to all females, gender comparisons within ethnic groups showed different results. Vietnamese American and Native American males and females were much more homogeneous in terms of ancestral language, but there was a significant difference between Hispanic American males and females; six of seven (86%) Hispanic American males knew 124 Bilingual Research Journal, 17:3&4 Summer/Fall 1993 Spanish while only four of ten (29%) Hispanic American females knew their ancestral language. As expected, subjects’ beliefs about the importance of learning their ancestors’ language did have a significant effect on whether subjects’ knew the ancestral language (Chi square=8.89, p>.05). Twenty five of the 26 (96%) bilinguals in the study felt it was important to know their ancestral language while only 17 of the 27 (63%) monolinguals believed it was important. (See Table 2) Table 2 Motivation and Importance of Learning Ancestral Language Integrative Instrumental Important to learn Motivation Motivation ancestral language YES NO YES NO YES NO Bilingual 24 2 18 8 25 1 Mono-lingual 16 11 16 11 17 10 *Three subjects did not respond to the parental attitude question. As Table 2 suggests, monolinguals and bilinguals also show differences in instrumental and integrative motivation. The greatest difference was detected for integrative motivation; while 92% (24 of 26) of the bilingual subjects had integrative motivation, only 59% (16 of 27) of the monolinguals had this type of motivation for believing that learning their ancestral language was or was not important (Chi square=7.83, p>.05. No differences were detected for instrumental motivation though; 69% (18 of 26) of the bilinguals had instrumental motivation while 59% (16 of 27) of the monolinguals had instrumental orientations. Interesting to note is that among monolinguals, there is no difference in the number of subjects with integrative and with instrumental motivation; that is, 59% of the monolingual subjects had instrumental motivation and 59% had integrative. This is not the case for bilinguals though; while 69% of the bilinguals had instrumental motivation, 92% had integrative. Integrative motivation was more evident among bilinguals than was instrumental, but neither was more prevalent among monolinguals. The greatest statistically significant effect was detected for belief about parental attitudes concerning children learning their ancestral language (Chi square=16.10, p>.0001). Eighty eight percent of the Bilingualism (Ancestral Language Maintenance) 125 bilingual subjects believed their parents wanted them to speak their ancestral language while only thirteen percent of the monolingual subjects held this belief about their parents (See Table 3). Table 3 Parental Consent for Learning Ancestral Language Yes No Bilingual 23 3 Monolingual 8 16 *Three subjects did not respond to the parental attitude question. Conclusion Results of this study show that there is a relationship between knowing one’s ancestral language and the following affective variables: integrative motivation, view of importance of learning the language, and belief about parental attitudes toward learning the ancestral language. That is, subjects who believed that learning their ancestral language was important, had integrative reasons for saying that learning the language was important, and believed that their parents wanted them to learn the language were more likely to be in the bilingual group, which was composed of subjects who spoke English and their ancestral language. Subjects for whom all three of these elements were not present were generally the monolingual subjects, who spoke English and not their ancestral language. Ethnic identity also seemed to be important. While all of the Vietnamese Americans spoke Vietnamese and almost half of the Hispanic Americans spoke Spanish, less than thirty percent of the Native Americans spoke a Native American language. One might think that the very high percentage of Vietnamese speakers is due to the comparably recent immigration of this group. That belief is held along with the notion that the longer an immigrant group stays in the U.S. the greater the chances of native language shift or death. The results of this study suggest that length of stay is not the important factor here. Whether the third and successive generations will speak Vietnamese may be more dependent upon the affective variables mentioned above (especially integrative motivation, whether Vietnamese Americans will still feel a need to reinforce their own culture via language) and on socioeconomic relationships between this group and English speaking groups in the US than on length of 126 Bilingual Research Journal, 17:3&4 Summer/Fall 1993 stay. Xia (1992) also challenges the claim that non-English languages in the U.S. will eventually shift to English over time. He says that the Chinese language will remain strong in the U.S. because of sociopolitical, sociocultural, and social demographics. The results of this study confirm Xia’s general claim and suggest that affective variables also affect individuals’ choices regarding speaking their ancestral language. The low percentage of Native Americans in the study who spoke their ancestral language also seems closely related to the three aforementioned variables; most of the Native Americans in this study reported that no one in their immediate family spoke their ancestral language, that they did not feel it was important for them to know the language, and they generally gave instrumental reasons for their beliefs. The Hispanic American group was much more heterogeneous with regard to knowledge of Spanish. It was expected that perhaps the growing recognition and status of this language in the United States would affect subjects’ views of the importance of Spanish which would show even higher percentages of Spanish speakers in the study. However, since instrumentality does not seem to carry as much weight as integrativeness for bilingual subjects, what appears to be happening is that the increased job opportunities for Spanish- English bilinguals may not be a strong enough impetus for acquiring the language. In other words, the bilingual subjects believed that their parents wanted them to know Spanish, and they felt that knowing Spanish was important not just for utilitarian reasons; a large percentage of the Hispanic Americans who spoke Spanish gave integrative reasons related to heritage and to relating to relatives and other Spanish speakers. Among the monolingual non-Spanish speaking Hispanics were subjects who thought it was important to learn Spanish in order to get a job but did not necessarily have integrative motivations. This study suggests that affective variables play an important role in adoption of the ancestral language. References Davies, E. & Bentahila, A. 1989. On mother and other tongues: The notion of possession of a language. Lingua, 78, 267-293. Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W.C. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.