Functional domains

7.2.1. Preliminaries

Sasse (1992a: 10) argues that, regarding speech behaviour, it is necessary to in-vestigate - in Fishman's (1965) words - "Who speaks what language to whom and when". Fishman (1964, 1965, 1972: 112-119) lists variables such as the following: (i) group membership, e.g. age, sex, race, religion, reference group, (ii) situation, e.g. intimacy and distance, formality and informality, solidari-ty and non-solidarisolidari-ty, equalisolidari-ty and inequalisolidari-ty, (iii) topic, (iv) domains of lan-guage behavior, e.g. the family, the school, the church, the military, the courts, the governmental administration, (v) media, e.g. writing, reading, speaking, and (vi) role, i.e. writer, reader, speaker, hearer.

Similarly, in an approach that he termed "ethnography of speaking", Hymes (1968: 110, 113) points out that every speech event comprises the following seven components: (i) a sender (addresser), (ii) a receiver (addressee), (iii) a message form: "What words did he use?", (iv) a channel: "Did he phone or write?", (v) a code: "Was it in English?", (vi) a topic, and (vii) setting (scene,

situation). (See also Hymes 1967: 20-25.)

In the following, we shall look at some of these sociolinguistic aspects in the context of language endangerment.

7.2.2. Types of functional domains

If two languages are spoken in a given community, this often creates a situation where one may be termed the dominant language, the majority language or the like, and the other the minority language or the like. (See 5.3.2 for these terms.) The two languages are often used in different functional domains. This may be shown as in Table 7-1. The terms "low language" and "high language" em-ployed by Ruth King (1989: 140) - probably adapted from Ferguson's (1959:

327) terms "low variety" and "high variety" - succinctly summarizes this func-tional differentiation.

Table 7-1. Functional differentiation between subordinate and dominant languages Minority language Dominant language

(a) traditional life modern life

(b) regional national

(c) within the community with the outside world (d) domestic, private public

(e) inside the family outside family (inside the community)

(f) informal formal

(g) intimate not intimate

(h) for solidarity for power (i) for secrecy for non-secrecy

G) religious secular

Each pair of functional domains listed in Table 7-1 concerns one or more of the variables listed by Fishman (1964, 1965, 1972) and/or Hymes (1967, 1968).

Thus, (a) "traditional life" may refer to a speaker or a hearer who pursues the traditional way of life, to a topic that involves the traditional life, or a setting where the traditional way of life is carried out.

Also, these pairs of domains cannot be clearly distinguished from one anoth-er. Thus, the pair (d) may be considered as a rubric that covers (e), (f), and (g).

It is also closely related to (h) and (i). And so on.

Roughly speaking, the functional domains occupied by the minority lan-guage diminish as we move the table from top to bottom, while those of the dominant language increase conversely. Thus, the relevance of (e) seems to fol-low, rather than precede, that of (c). One of the last domains where the reced-ing language is maintained seems to the domain of religion (cf. Sasse 1992a:

7.2. Functional domains 67 18, cited in 5.1). This type of language death is perhaps of the Latinate pattern (cf. 5.3.5).

This functional differentiation is closely interrelated with language attitude (discussed in 6.3-[9]), as will be demonstrated in the examples cited below.

Language attitude is referred to perhaps in all the sources consulted for func-tional domains.

Perhaps one of the most frequently mentioned factor is (i) "secrecy" (cf.

Jones 1998: 42, fn. 16). An example from So (Thavung) of Thailand is cited in [3] below, and one from Scottish Gaelic spoken in Nova Scotia, Canada, in [5], For additional examples, see Dalton et al. (1995: 86), Dorian (1981: 163, 168, 1986a: 563), Hill (1983: 267), Jones (1998: 224), Kiefifer (1977: 97), Ken-dall King (2001: 84-85), Miller (1971: 119), Weinreich (1974: 95), and Wurm (1997: 45), among many others. Use of the minority language for humour or jokes - a manifestation of (g) "intimate" - is also frequently mentioned, e.g.

Kendall King (2001: 83-84), and [1] below.

A few specific accounts of this functional differentiation are cited.

[ 1 ] Paraguayan Guarani

Joan Rubin (1972) provides a fascinating study of the functional splits between Spanish and Paraguayan Guarani. The differentiation is roughly as follows.

(a) If the location is rural, Guarani will be used. If the location is non-rural, then:

(b) If the situation is formal, Spanish will be used. If the situation is not for-mal, then:

(c) If the speakers are not intimate, Spanish will be used. If the speakers are intimate, then:

(d) If the discourse is not serious, e.g. jokes, Guarani will be used. If the dis-course is serious, there are three possibilities:

(e-i) the first language that the speaker acquired;

(e-ii) the language in which the addressee is predicted to be proficient, and;

(e-iii) the speaker's sex: men tend to use Guarani, while women tend to use Spanish.

As can be seen, Paraguayan Guarani has secured its position in this stable bilin-gualism. It is no doubt because of this that Paraguayan Guarani is not endangered.

It is the only native language of South America that is not threatened (see 3.6).

[2] Nahuatl of Mexico

Hill (1983: 265-266) reports on the relationship between Nahuatl and Span-ish in the Malinche Volcano area of Puebla and Tlaxcala, Mexico, as follows:

Those two languages exhibited a functional split, Spanish used as an outside language and Nahuatl as an inside language. This split has developed into the solidarity-power split: Nahuatl functioning as a marker of ethnicity and as a

lan-guage of solidarity, as against Spanish, which is now a lanlan-guage of power, used to express ambition and mobility. "In general, the trend is toward the replace-ment of Nahuatl by Spanish in more 'public' or 'formal' contexts, such that Na-huatl retreats into the private, domestic sphere" (Hill 1983: 270). For further de-tails, see Hill and Hill (1977, 1978, 1980). For power and solidarity in Nahuatl, see also Hill (1989: 160-162). The terms "power" and "solidarity" were possi-bly taken from Brown and Gilman (1960), who discuss the use of pronouns in European languages in terms of power and solidarity.

[3] So (Thavung) of Thailand

Suwilai (1998) reports on So (Thavung) of Thailand as follows: This language is a member of the Mon-Khmer subfamily of the Austro-Asiatic language fami-ly. Where it is spoken, it is placed at the bottom of the hierarchy (in the order of the highest to the lowest): standard Thai, Northeastern Thai (or Thai-Lao), and So (Thavung). (Thai is a member of Tai-Kadai language family, and is not re-lated to So (Thavung).) The functional differentiation in So (Thavung) speak-ers' speech behaviour is as follows (pp. 155-156).

At school, standard Thai is used in the class and with the teachers. Outside the class Thai-Lao is mainly used with peers. At home, So (Thavung) mixed with Thai-Lao is used when talking with parents and elderly people in the vil-lage. In the Buddhist temple, elderly people and middle-aged people speak So (Thavung) with the abbot. The sermon is normally given in Thai-Lao; people other than So (Thavung) speakers, too, attend the ceremony. In village meet-ings, Thai-Lao is generally used; people other than So (Thavung) speakers, too, live in the village. In courtship, normally Thai-Lao is used. It is consid-ered a sweet and polite language. So (Thavung) is used for cursing and quar-reling. Also, So (Thavung) is used as a secret language by some of the mem-bers. In contrast, Thai-Lao is used outside the village and when speaking with outsiders.

So far, we have cited reports on three indigenous languages. In the follow-ing, we shall consider two enclave languages: Hungarian in Austria, and Scot-tish Gaelic in Canada.

[4] Hungarian in Austria

Gal (1989) describes the use of Hungarian in Oberwart, Austria, as follows:

Oberwart has been a Hungarian-speaking island surrounded by German-speak-ing villages for about four hundred years. Both German and Hungarian are in daily use in the Hungarian section of the town (p.316).

Hungarian is the language of solidarity and is identified with the past, with peasant agriculture, with town's minority population, and it is labeled econom-ically useless. It suffers the hostility and denigration exerted by German mono-linguals. This is in contrast with German, which is the language of power and

7.2. Functional domains 69

which is admired, associated with the state, with the prestige of education, and with the ability to provide material success in the form of mobility out of agri-culture into wage labor and skilled occupations. That is, Hungarian is the "low, in-group" language for intimacy and trust, whereas German is the "high, out-group" language associated with authority (p.317).

However, despite these restrictions on the use of Hungarian, there are con-tinuing pressures, exercised by the older generations on the younger, and by peasant networks on their members, to use Hungarian in the neighbourhood.

As Hungarian has become a language of solidarity, failure to use it locally of-ten leads to ridicule and accusations - an instance of language loyalty, dis-cussed in 6.3-[9], Such failure may also imply a failure to ensure the support of the social networks in mutual aid, labor exchange, and the like (pp.317-318).

[5] Scottish Gaelic spoken in Nova Scotia, Canada

Mertz (1989: 108) reports on the situation of Scottish Gaelic spoken in Mabou, on the island of Cape Breton of Nova Scotia: Prior to the 1930s, Gaelic was al-ready a private language used more in homes and private conversations than in public places. Indeed, children in small schools within the Gaelic-speaking sub-areas of Mabou spoke Gaelic in the schoolyards. If adults working on farms, boats, or at mines and canneries found themselves in groups composed of bi-linguals they would feel free to codeswitch. However, English predominated in the public life of the town of Mabou. Thus, many of the shopkeepers and busi-ness people of Mabou were English monolingual, and the schools were always conducted in English, including those run by the church.

Despite this, as is the case with Hungarian in Oberwart, Austria, there were pressures on the younger generations to use Gaelic - another instance of lan-guage loyalty. Although members of the grandparents' generation were bilin-gual, they felt that a proper feeling of community solidarity dictated exclusive use of Gaelic at home. "If you don't speak Gaelic to them, they'd say 'He's too stuck up to speak Gaelic'" (p.108). The situation changed after the 1930s; Gael-ic became a language for adults and/or secret conversations.

We have looked at the functional differentiation between two languages in five selected communities. For further accounts of similar situations, see Dressier and Wodak-Leodolter (1977b), Kuter (1989: 76), and Miller (1971:

119). A detailed account of a sociolinguistic situation, including this function-al differentiation, is given by Dorian (1981: 74-113) on Scottish Gaelic of East Sutherland, Scotland, and by Schmidt (1985b: 1 0 ^ 3 ) on Dyirbal of Aus-tralia.