THE VIEW OF TURKISH LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL IDENTITY AND ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY THEORY

THE VIEW OF TURKISH LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL

IDENTITY AND ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY THEORY

Öğr. Gör. Kadir YALINKILIÇ; Yrd. Doç. Dr. Hakan ÜLPER

INTRODUCTION

Determining the status of Turkish language and the current place of it so as to make it a world

language in accordance with its potential is one of the first steps that should be taken. Within the

framework envisaged by the theories about the study, it, in this regard, seems to be important to

provide an attention by determining the vitality status of Turkish language. In this study, the two

theories will be discussed in detail to understand the relationship between ethnic identity and linguistic

vitality. Following the detailed mention of Social Identity and Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theories,

findings related with the linguistic vitality in the countries where the Turkish people are immigrant

minority and demographic, positional and institutional support variables of vitality will be discussed.

It is significant to understand the linguistic vitality of Turkish in other countries which is one

of the most widely-spoken languages in the world and provide the Turkish minority living in these

areas an understanding of advantageous and problematic aspects of the mother tongue education and

,therefore, the protection of the culture and the identity in the current conditions. At the same time, by

the way of teaching Turkish, which is a world language, to foreigners as a foreign language, it is

believed that the prestige of Turkish language will gradually increase in economic, cultural,

educational and artistic activities, Turkish language and ,therefore, Turkish people will interact more

with the citizens of other countries and other languages and so Turkish language is believed to be

recognized as the language of science, culture and commerce in different areas of the world.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY

Language, contrary to popular belief, is not merely a communication tool. Society is closely

associated with thoughts and identity and language has an important role in determining these

elements. Language is one of the most important tools and determiners of social relations. Language is

shaped by the world which we live in while it is making sense of the relation that we connected with

the world (Aktoprak 2010: 181).

As an important socialiser, language is one of the most effective tool in determination of social

structure. Language is the main reason for the existence of the linguistic community it belongs to and

indicates its partnership in making sense of life. Language has the characteristics of being a symbol of

a social group identity and membership of this group as well as being a tool providing communication

(Grosjean 1982). One of the most important markers of identity, and perheps the most important of

them is language. A person first expresses his identity in the language (İnal 2012: 126).

The term ‘identity’ was popular not untill 20th century. Identity, as a subject, was included in

the field of social sciences as a result of social movements of 1960s and 1970s. The end of cold war

caused the awareness of ethnic identity to become widespread and so, identity became most popular

field of social sciences to research.

Identity is a sign of a characteristic and a qualification. First of all, identities showing a

characteristic or a qualification suggest differences as well. The most boadest definition, identity

includes all the qualifications of an individual. Both how the person see himself and how he is seen by

the society are the matters related to the concept of identity(Aşkın 2007: 213). Whether it is

philosophical or cultural level, the question of “Who am I?” is so important in terms of determining

the identity. Identity has an appearence resulted in ethnic, linguistic, religious, class, sexual differences

and these differences bring about a problem of belonging due to the difference in I and the other.

Discussions on idenitity are basically done through two separate psychodynamic and sociological

traditions. While in essentialist approaches it is assumed that identity is a consistent core more or less

staying same throughout the life, psychodynamic and sociological theories emphasize that the created

and established character of identity (Marshall 2009: 405).

Language, as a determinant of ethnic and national identities, takes over an important role in

conveying ethnic/national identities to future generations. In this context, language draws attention as

a poltical element. In the pre-modern period, Language was not seen as a political problem due to the

fact that the state did not need to communicate with its citizen by a standard language and did not see

the linguistic identities as a potential danger against the political unity (Sadoğlu 2000). Determining

more the religious identity than the linguistic identity as the main element of this period provided the

linguistic plurality to develop.

Being percieved as a political problem of language in terms of identities coincides with the

period of extinction of monarcy. This period is the 18th century when the nation-states started to be

founded. The perception of modernization of 18th century caused a fundamental change in all political

and social spheres of state. One of the most important goals of nation-states is to make their citizens

connected to the nation at the top level of sense of belonging. Therefore, language in this period was

recognized as one of the most effective means of nationalization. With the nationalization of language,

national education, publishing and cultural systems began to emerge. Progress towards the realization

of using public language in bureaucratic procedures provided national languages gain importance as

well as national identities (Inal 2012). In this context, the effect of two concepts of nationalism are

stated. These are German style of romantic nationalism and French style of political nationalism.

While in German style romantic nationalism, language was being used to define national unity, in

French style political nationalism, language was seen as a way of gaining national identity. In the

tradition of French or civil nationalism, nation develops in relation with instutitional and territorial

structure of the state. A unique language has a function of providing communication in common

public spheres and all the citizens speaking this language are counted as the members of that state or

nation. According to tradition of French, language is not a discriminatory but inclusive practice. In the

tradition of German or ethnic nationalism, nation is defined through a cultural unity based on race and

not a common language but only mother tongue arises as a representative of this unity (Aktoprak

2010).

There are so important theories to facilitate the relationship between language and identity in

the literature. In this context, the following social identity theory and ethnolinguistic vitality theory

will be explained by considering the relationship between language and identity.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY Social Identity Theory was developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in 1970s. This theory

is a social psychology theory which discusses the membership of groups, the process of groups and

intergroup relations. (Demirtaş 2003: 123).

Table 1. Ethnocentric Approach To In-Group and Out-Group

Members’ Approach to In-Group Members’ Approach to Out-Group

Seeing themselves flawles and an expert Seeing others’ as second class, weak and

insufficient in moral values

Seeing their own values absolutely true and

universal Rejecting others’ values

Seeing themselves powerful Seeing others weak

Establishing collaborative relations with other

in-group members

Rejecting collaborative relations with out-

group members

Obeying the authority in the group Opposing the authority in out-group

Showing willingness to maintain being a

member of the group Rejecting membership of out-groups

Placing relieance in in-group members Mistrusting out-group members

Developing positive attitudes towards other Implicating negative feelings and hatret

Tajfel (1978) defines social identity as a part of an individual’s self-concept derived from his

knowledge, value and perception of a group or groups. In another definition of social identity Turner

(1982: 7) underlined that “social identity is an individual’s sensational and significant knowledge in

relation of his membership of a social group.” The effects of being a member of a group establish the

framework of Tajfel and Turner’s approach. They tried to determine how this membership reflects on

an individual’s perception of personal identity, motive, himself and others (Madran 2012: 75).

According to this theory it’s assumed that individuals identify, evaluate and categorize themselves in

accordance with the social group that they belong to and eventually form their identity.

Another hypothesis of social identity theory is that other social groups around an individual’s

group provide a basis for him to evaluate the position of his own group and make comparisons with

others in terms of some significant behaviors and values. In this evaluation process he develops a

positive or negative identity in relation to his group. Mostly enclined to develop a positive identity, an

individual starts to develop new strategies to fix the situation if he realizes the fact that his group

beneath the others.

According to Madran’s idea (2012: 80) individuals make a distinction between their in-group

and out-group. In fact this situation provides the basis for ethnocentrism which can be perceieved as

alienation. Individual’s approach to ethnocentrism concerning in-group and out-group is summarized

in Table 1.

In general, Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory and Subjective Ethnolinguistic Vitality were

potently effected by Turner and Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory. In determining a focus society’s

language, Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory reveals the position of ethnic identity by the way of

objective cases and subjective perceptions.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY THEORY Different models suggested by researchers in order to study linguistic appearances of ethnic

groups in their in-group and out-group relations. Ethnolinguistic vitality theory is one of these models

and updated in certain time periods by different researchers. Ethnolinguistic vitality theory developed

by Giles (1977) and Bourhis (1981) is a theoretical framework helping us understand the roles of

in-group members towards out-group members

Taking credits for the success of in-group Holding out-group members responsible for

incoherency and failures of in-group

Adapted from H.A. Michener, J.D. Delamater ve S.H. Schwartz, 1990, Social Psychology,

p.433’.

social linguistic variables in in-group linguistic relations such as intercultural interactions, learning a

second language, maintaining mother language, language shift and language loss. According to the

definition of Giles and his friends (1977: 308), “Ethnolinguistic vitality is behaving as a subjective,

active and collective entity of a group in intergroup situations”.

Ethnolinguistic vitality theory has two directions; sociological and psychological. Both the

factors that form this theory’s sociological aspects like number of speakers, official rulings for

language use, ethnic groups socioeconomic and cultural situation vitality and individual behaviours

that form psychological aspects of group members like where and when they use language are

significant in terms of Ethnolinguistic vitality theory (Myers-Scotton 2006: 75).

There is a close relationship between language and ethnic identity. This relationship involves

that ethnic groups and hence the existence reason defining groups are interconnected. Language is the

most important symbol of ethnic groups, group belongings, group identity. Giles (1977) said that If

ethnolinguistic minorities didn’t have a group identity sooner or later they will stop existing. Also,

groups’ existing without an identity also mean that languages and all the code-designated elements of

language will vanish. There are some variables defining groups’ identity These are:

1. Status Variables: Economic status, social status, socio-historical status, and linguistic status.

2. Demographic Variables: The number of group members and general distribution in the area.

3. Institutional Support Variables: The measurement of the representation of a linguistic group in

unofficial activities in terms of media, education, public services, industry, religion and culture etc.

The three basic aspects of Ethnolinguistic vitality theory and details are visualized in Table 2

(Bourhis, Landry 2008):

Table 2. Language power of first language community

The assessments based on these three aspects which are suggested so as to be able to

determine ethnolinguistic vitality ratios are important in terms of categorizing linguistic vitality.

Demographic factors generally relate to first language speaker number and their distribution.

Demographic factors have an important effect on ethnolinguistic vitality. A language may be beneath

other languages in terms of social, economical and institutional support. But if the speakers of this

language specialized in a topic and that language had more speakers than other language speakers, it

can be assumed about this language that it has long range and so it will keep its linguistic vitality for a

wider period of time than others (Meyerhoff 2006: 110).

Institutional support is defined as the degree of control of a group on the fate of another group

and can be seen as the degree of social power of a linguistic group on another linguistic groups it

interacted with (Sachdev&Bourhis 2001, 2005). Institutional support factors indicate the offical and

unoffcial representation especially in terms of media, education, governmental services, industry,

religion, culture and politics. By official institutions minority groups can be represented in

government’s decision-making period. Here, politics that affect the group can both be established and

implemented. Official institutional supports can be accepted as governmental services such as

education, mass media, government supported art activities and unofficial supports can be accepted as

unofficial institutional support such as religious, industrial and cultural organizations.

Status factors, the third factor, are used to explain the variables that determine the prestige of a

linguistic community in other linguistic communities. Giles. (1977 ) defined status factors as social,

economic, linguistic and socio-cultural variables. Economic situation indicates the degree of control of

an ethnolinguistic group over country, region and society. Social status is used to indicate the degree

of self respect of a minority group. Socio-historical status can be defined as defending and protecting

their existence rights of ethnolinguistic group members who proved their existence in historical

process as a collective entity. As for linguistic status, it indicates the degree of respect shown by

minority and majority group members to the language used by minority group. The position of an

ethnic group defines the vitality of this group. According to ethnolinguistic vitality theory the group

with a better position will have more vitality than the others.

SUBJECTIVE ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITIY

Bourhis (1981) in his study; “Notes on the construction of a ‘subjective vitality questionnaire’

for ethnolinguistic groups” instead of the aspects of position, demography and institutional support

which examined the linguistic vitality of ethnic groups determined before in an objective way , he

developed a new way to measure how group members perceived these objective aspects. As a result of

this study, based on the presumption that the subjective vitality perception of a group has an effect on

the objective vitality of the group and ethnolinguistic behaviours, he developed Subjective

Ethnolinguistic Vitality theory. In relation to ethnolinguistic vitality, researchers concluded that ethnic

relation dynamics can be identified more easily by subjective and objective information’s joint

evaluation in multilingual and multicultural context.

Table 3. Ethnical Vitality Factors (Ehala 2009)

An individual’s subjective vitality perceptions shape their active identity that they

explicitly represent pending on their total group ethnolinguistic vitality degree. In this context, not

only defining indications of objective vitality, but also defining subjective ethnolinguistic vitality

perceptions reveals focus society’s profile in a clear way. (Yağmur 1996).

The basic presumption of Ethnolinguistic vitality theory is that societies with high

ethnolinguistic vitality show tendency to protect their mother language on the other hand societies

with low ethnolinguistic vitality show tendency to dominant language (like language shift and

language loss) (Yagmur 1996). The effect of Ethnolinguistic vitality on linguistic behavior are

demonstrated in Table 4.

Tablo 4. Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Its Affect on Linguistic Behaviours (Yagmur,2011)

Ethnolinguistic Vitality

(According to the factors; Position, demography and institutional support)

As can be seen in the figure above, ethnolinguistic vitality rate acquired with the evaluation of

position, demography and Institutional support factors all together produce some reflective affects on

linguistic behaviours. The first of these effects is that linguistic societies with high ethnolingual

vitality developed positive social identities and in that way provided an integration. In these linguistic

societies first language maintenance is seen as a common linguistic behaviour. In societies with low

ethnolinguistic vitality we can talk about two different results based on social identity progress.

First of these results suggests that unlike linguistic societies with high ethnolinguistic vitality

linguistic societies with low ethnolinguistic vitality are linguisticly assimilated against dominant

linguistic groups in social integrity process. In a process like that the language of minority and

immigrant’s lingual group absorbed against dominant language and these groups stops using their first

language and starts to use the dominant language. In the second situation, society encounters with

High Ethnolinguistic Vitality Perception

Positive Social Identity Preception

Integration with Society Integration with Society

Negative Positive Social Identity Preception

High Ethnolinguistic Vitality Perception

Isolation

Language Maintenance

Linguistic Assimilation

Language Maintenance

isolation instead of social integrity. This isolation results in maintaining of ethnolinguistic group its

linguistic maintenance against dominant language.

Ethnolinguistic vitality theory contributes in importantly to make sense of linguistics studies

and linguistic communication. First of all with, this theory it becomes easier to understand some

lingualistic outcomes’ working process in social contexts such as two or multilingual language

maintenance and language shift.

Linguistic maintenance and language shift became subject to many sociological studies

(Edwards 1992; Giles, Bourhis, Taylor 1977; Smolicz 1981). Linguistic maintenance is identified as

“even if individuals live another country they keep using their mother language” (Imer, Kocaman,

Ozsoy 2011: 89). Language shift is identified as “an individuals or groups relatively or directly

stopping their mother language and start using the other language.” (Imer, Kocaman, Ozsoy 2011: 88)

Kipp and his friends (1995: 123) have divided the factors, effective on language maintenance

and language shift, into two groups as linguistic group and individuals in this group both in group

context and individual context. According to this idea, while the wideness of an ethnic group, its

distribution, its dominant group politics against minority language(s), its linguistic position in cultural

value system, its closeness or distance to dominant and minority language create factors about groups,

birth place, age, period of stay, sex, knowing dominant language in advance and migration reasons

create individual factors.

OBSERVATIONS ON LINGUISTIC VITALITY OF TURKISH IN ABROAD

This section of the study will contain profiles, formed depending on subjective ethnolinguistic

vitality perception about Turkish Language used in different areas of the world where Turkish

immigrants live.

Yagmur and Akinci (2003), in their study called as "Language use, choice, maintenance and

ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish speakers in France: Intergenerational differences" studied Turkish

immigrants who live in France depending on their appearances in language use, choice of language,

linguistic maintenance and ethnolinguistic vitality in terms of intergenerational differences. In this

study where researchers evaluated the relations between social and linguistic factors, 111 second

generation and 61 first generation immigrants are the samples. As a result of the study, acquired data

showed that there are some differences in terms of linguistic behaviors. According to this acquired

data, Turkish immigrants belonging to the first generation took a more positive attitude for Turkish

than the immigrants belonging to second generation and as a result of this, Turkish immigrants

belonging to the first generation had a better ethnolinguistic vitality rate than the Turkish immigrants

belonging to the second generation. When table 5 is examined in detail, it’s concluded that The factors

increasing ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish mainly because of demographic variables. While position

factors are also observed as defining factors of linguistic vitality of Turkish, low perception on

education of Turkish in schools in France, use of Turkish in public services and mas media shows that

Turkish couldn’t have enough institutional support.

Table 5. Subjective Ethnolinguistic Vitality Rate Of Turkish People Living in France Concerning the

Linguistic Vitality of Turkish

Vitality Variables

Concerning Demographic

Factors

Ratio

Vitality Variables

Concerning Status

Factors

Ratio

Vitality Variables

Concerning

Institutional Support

Ratio

Proportion of population

nationally 2,61

Language status

locally 3,15

Language used in

government services 1,59


locally 3,50

Language status

internationally 2,41

Language used in mass

media 1,97

Birth Rate 3,85

Groups’ control over

economics and

business

2,36 Language taught in

schools 2,44

Endogamy 6,01 Groups’ status 3,22 Language used in

business institutions 2,18

İmigration 2,64 Groups’ political

power 2,15

Language used in

places of religious

worship

5,79

Emigration 2,20

Group’s pride of

cultural history and

achievements

5,41 Average of means 2,8

Average of means 3.46 Group’s cultural

representation 2,46

Groups’ strength and

activity 3,29

Groups’ wealth 3,45

Groups’ future

strength and activity 4,22

Average of means 3,21

Yagmur (2009) in her study called "Language use and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish

compared with the Dutch in the Netherlands" examined Turkish people living in Netherlands in terms

of the relations between ethnolinguistic vitality perspective and their language use, language

maintenance and language selection. In researches performed on 29 Turks and 104 Netherlander it’s

concluded that religion has an important affect on linguistic maintenance and language shift. Even if

Turkish’s linguistic vitality seems like low when opposed to Dutch, Turkish’s reaching to a high ratio

of subjective ethnolinguistic vitality is one of the remarkable results. Turkish immigrants, born and

live in Netherlands, being well organized and having interdependency helped in increasing in-group

vitality of Turkish. These reasons revealed the relationsip between the linguistic vitality of Turkish

and linguistic maintenance of Turkish language. In the research it’s also stated that the linguistic

maintenance of Turkish will keep going and developing by joining positional and institutional factors.

Table 6 shows how immigrant Turkish minority who live in Netherlands perceive the subjective

ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish depending on variables like demography, position and institutional

support factors.

Tablo 6. Subjective Ethnolinguistic Vitality Rate of Turks Living in Netherlands Concerning the


Vitality Variables


Factors

Ratio

Vitality Variables

Concerning Status

Factors

Ratio

Vitality Variables

Concerning


Ratio


nationally 2.66

Language status

locally 3,17

Language used in



locally 3.76

Language status



media 2,28

Birth Rate 4.41


economics and

business


schools 1,89

Endogamy 5.97 Groups’ status 3,65 Language used in


İmigration 3.28 Groups’ political

power 2,82

Language used in

places of religious

worship

5,31

Emigration 2.18

Group’s pride of


achievements

6,22 Average of means 2,7

Average of means 3.71 Group’s cultural 3,28

representation


activity 3,89


Groups’ future



Yagmur (1999) in her research named as " Language Attrition, Language Shift and

Ethnolinguistic Vitality of Turkish in Australia " studied the erosion process and within that period

subjective ethnolinguistic vitality perspective of Turkish people’s language who live in Australia. In

this research he tried to determine individual and social factors affecting individuals’ linguistic

behaviours. According to the research, when compared to the other countries, Turkish minority

immigrants who live in subjective ethnolinguistic vitality of Australian perspectives are beneath the

expectations. Table 7 shows how immigrant Turkish minority who live in Australia perceive

subjective ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish depending on variables like demography, position and

institutional support factors.

Table 7. Subjective Ethnolinguistic Vitality Rate Of Turkish People Living In Australia Concerning


Vitality Variables


Factors

Ratio

Vitality Variables

Concerning Status

Factors

Ratio

Vitality Variables

Concerning


Ratio


nationally 1.53

Language status

locally 1,50

Language used in



locally 3.25

Language status



media 1,38

Birth Rate 3.48


economics and

business


schools 1,60

Endogamy 5.33 Groups’ status 2,20 Language used in


İmigration 2.04 Groups’ political

power 1,28

Language used in places

of religious worship 4,53

Emigration 2.24 Group’s pride of 5,43 Average of means 2,06


achievements

Average of means 2.97 Group’s cultural

representation 2,50


activity 2,40


Groups’ future



Yagmur and Vijver’ (2011) study named as “Acculturation and Language Orientations of

Turkish Immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands” They examined Turk

immigrants in for countries in terms of acculturation and linguistic tendencies. The research provided

data collected from individuals 283 from Australia, 266 from France, 265 from Germany and 271

from Netherlands. Researchers continued their research with the presumption that in France and

Germany where pluralist climate relatively lower and also Turkish immigrants with lower social-

acculturation but with high ethnic tendency and language use, In Australia where pluralist climate

relatively higher but with an opposite image compared to Germany and France and In Netherland an in

between image will surface. The result of the research showed consistency with the presumptions of

the researchers. In all these countries while Turkish identity showed a positive defining affect on

symbolic and behavioral factors of the language, common identities showed a negative effect on these

factors. A negative relationship between Turkish identity and common identity were examined in low

pluralist climates. Findings showed that in Australia, more pluralist than other countries, immigrants

have a higher level of acculturation and lower level of linguistic maintanence.

CONCLUSION

Turkish people who spreaded out many different areas of the world because of historical,

sociological and economical reasons naturally carried Turkish language to these areas, too. Turkish

people who lives in abroad need to protect their linguistic identity as much as their ethnic and religious

identities in order to maintain their cultural existence in these areas. Politics implemented by countries

are no doubt creates different climates for protecting language and culture. It can be said that in

countries with pluralist idea, different ethnic groups will be able to live together and maintain their

own lingual and cultural existence more suitably. On the other hand in countries where homogenyy

life style and assimilation are imposed minorities are mostly seen as a problem causing elements and

these groups have great difficulty in protecting their language and culture. Turkish people also affected

from these politics. As seen in findings of the researches above, its clearly understood that the

relationship among linguistic vitality, ethnic identity and cultural tendency are formed by politics

implemented by the countries. When considered the fact that multilingualism and multiculturalism are

indispensible facts of world, Turkish must secure its position in every region. Experiencing the

linguistic and cultural diversity of other countries and in order to show that Turkish is an important

part of this diversity, the findings of sociological studies are required more. Findings concerning

Turkish immigrant minorities must be enriched with findings of historical minority Turkish

immigrants and therefore linguistic vitality of Turkish must be revealed in the most widest sense.

REFERENCES

AKTOPRAK, Elçin. (2010). “Ulusun Tahayyülünde Anadili”. Anadili Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı-

2 (30-31 Mayıs 2009), Ankara: Eğitim-Sen Yayınları.

AŞKIN, Muhittin. (2007). “Kimlik ve Giydirilmiş Kimlikler”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler

Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt 10 Sayı 2-s. 213-220.

BOURHİS, R.Y., GİLES, H. and ROSENTHAL, D. (1981). “Notes on construction of a "subjective

vitality questionnaire" for ethnolinguistic groups”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development 2, 2, pp 145-155.

BOURHİS, Richard Y.; LANDRY, Rodrigue. (2008). "Group Vitality, Cultural Autonomy And The

Wellness Of Language Minorities". The Vitality of the English-Speaking Communities of Quebec:

From Community Decline to Revial, Richard Y. Bourhis (ed.). Montreal, Qebec: CEETUM,

Univercity Montreal. 185-212.

DEMİRTAŞ, H. Andaç. (2003). “Sosyal Kimlik Kuramı: Temel Kavram ve Varsayımlar”, İletişim

Araştırmaları, 1 (1), s. 123-144.

EDWARDS, J.R (1982). Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. Attitudes

Towards Language Variation. In E.B. Ryan and H. Giles (eds) (pp. 20–33). London: Edward Arnold.

EHALA, Martin. (2009). “An Evaluation Matrix for Ethno-Linguistic Vitality”. Rights, Promotion

and Integration Issues for Minority Languages in Europe. Susanna Pertot, Tom Priestly, Colin

Williams (Eds.). Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 123-137.

GİLES, H.; BOURHİS, R.Y.; and TAYLOR D. M. (1977). "Toward a theory of language in ethnic

group relations”. Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, H. Giles (ed.), London: Academic

Press.

GROSJEAN, François. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism.

Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

İNAL, Kemal. (2012). Dil ve Politika - Dilin Kökeni, Etnik Boyutu ve Kimlikle İlişkisi. Ankara:

Ütopya Yayınevi.

KİPP, S., CLYNE, M., & PAUWELS, A. (1995). Immigration and Australia’s language resources.

Canberra,Australia: AGPS.

MADRAN, H. A. Demirtaş. (2012). “Sosyal Kimlik ve Ayrımcılık”. (Der. Kenan Çayır- Müge Ayan

Ceyhan), Ayrımcılık Çok Boyutlu Yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.

MEYERHOFF, Miriam. (2006). Introduction to sociolinguistics. NY: Routledge.

MYERS-SCOTTON, Carol. (2006). Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Blackwell.

SACHDEV, Itesh; BOURHİS, R. Y. (2001). Multilingual communication.,The New Handbook of

Language and Social Psychology, In W. P. Robinson and H. Giles (eds.) pp. 407–28. Chichester:

Wiley.

SACHDEV, Itesh; BOURHİS, R. Y. (2005) 'Multilingual Communication and Social Identification.'

In: Harwood, J. and Giles, H., (eds.), Intergroup Communication. Multiple Perspectives. New York:

Peter Lang, pp. 65-91.

SMOLİCZ, J. J. (1981). Core values and cultural identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4, 75-90.

TAJFEL, Henri. (1978). "Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour." Differentiation

betıveen social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. (Der.) H. Tajfel.

London: Academic Press. 27-60.

TURNER, J. C. (1982). “Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social Group”, Social Identity and

Intergroup Relations, (Der. H. Tajfel). Londra: Harvester Wheat Sheaf, s.2-48.

YAĞMUR, Kutlay. (1997). "Sociolinguistic Aspects of First Language Attrition Among Turkish

Migrants in Sydney". VIII. Uluslararası Türk Dilbilimi Konferansı Bildirileri 7-9 Ağustos, 1996. (Haz.

Kamile İmer-N. Engin Uzun). Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 231-241.

YAĞMUR, Kutlay; KEES DE BOT, Hubert, Korzilius. (1999). "Language Attrition, Language Shift

and Ethnolingustic Vitality of Turkish in Australia." Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development. Vol. 20, No. 1, 51-69.

YAĞMUR, Kutlay, AKINCI, Mehmet Ali. (2003). "Language use, choice, maintenance, and

ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish speakers in France: intergenerational differences". International

Journal Of The Sociology Of Language. No: 164, 107-128.

YAĞMUR, Kutlay. (2009). "Language use and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish compared with the

Dutch in the Netherlands". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Vol. 30, No. 3,

May 2009, 219-233.

YAĞMUR, Kutlay. (2011). "Does ethnolinguistic vitality theory account for the actual vitality of

ethnic groups? A critical evaluation". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 32(2), 110-121.

YAĞMUR, Kutlay, VİJVER, F.J.R. van de. (2011). “Acculturation and language orientations of

Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands”. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 1-21.

Kadir YALINKILIC,

Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Türkçe Öğretmenliği Tel: e-mail: [email protected] He was born in Samsun in 1983. He completed his primary school education at Seyfi Demirsoy Primary School and his secondary school at Cumhuriyet Lycee. He completed his higher education in the department of Turkish Education at Ondokuz Mayis University between 2001-2005. He was accepted to the post-graduate program of Turkish Language Teaching at the same university in 2005. In 2006, he was appointed as a research assistant to the same department. After completing his post-graduate education in 2007, he was accepted to the doctoral program of Turkish Language and Literature in Social Sciences Institute at Ondokuz Mayis University. The author, appointed to the Ondokuz Mayis University Faculty of Education Turkish Language Teaching Department in 2008, is currently working in the same department.

Hakan ÜLPER

Mehmet Akif ErsoyÜniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Türkçe Öğretmenliği Tel: 0248 213 40 56 e-mail: [email protected]

He was born in Demre, Antalya in 1975. He completed his primary and secondary education in his hometown. He completed his higher education in the department of Turkish Language and Literature Education at İnonu University between 1993-1997. He started his teaching life in Agrı, Dogu Beyazit. He was accepted to post-graduate program of Turkish Language

Teaching at Dokuz Eylul University in 2000. During this period, he was appointed as a research assistant to the department of Turkish Lanuage Teaching at Ondokuz Mayis University. After completing his post-graduate education in 2003, he was accepted to the department of Turkish Language Teaching for doctorate at Ankara University. He completed his doctorate in 2008. In the same year, he returned to Ondokuz Mayis University as a research assistant in the department of Turkish Language Teaching. In 2009, he was appointed as an assistant professor to the department of Turkish Language Teaching at Mehmet Akif Ersoy University. The author, who is currently working in the same department, is married and has two children named İlke and Duru.

THE VIEW OF TURKISH LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL IDENTITY AND ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY THEORY

Documents

Transcript of THE VIEW OF TURKISH LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL IDENTITY AND ETHNOLINGUISTIC VITALITY THEORY