It would be an exaggeration to speak of “language death,” but there can be no doubt that German in Canada is seriously lacking in vitality. Sociolinguists and other scholars have tried to conceptualize the process of “language endangerment”. Wurm, for instance, has suggested the following “levels of language endangerment” in the context of language shift:
1. decreasing use of the language by children (potentially endangered language);
2. decreasing use of the language by young adults, with very few or no children speakers left (endangered language);
3. the same by middle-aged adults, with the youngest good speakers about 50 years old (seriously endangered language);
4. the same by the remaining aged speakers whose number is decreasing as they die one after another (moribund language);
5. No speakers left (extinct language). [1]
Using these categories, German must certainly be considered a “seriously endangered language” in most urban areas of Canada, and even a “moribund language” in some. Among the more liberal Mennonite groups, the state of linguistic vitality of German ranges between “seriously endangered” and “extinct.” Among the conservative Mennonites and the Hutterites, the German language, of course, enjoys good health.
Another perspective on the issue of linguistic vitality involves conceptualizing the kind of assimilation that a language group is undergoing over time. Kloss, in one of the first such attempts suggested three types of assimilation:
1. immediate assimilation, which takes place already in the immigrant generation;
2. organic assimilation where there is at least one generation between the unilingual immigrant and the unilingual native-born generation; this transitional generation receives its education in both languages and thus exhibits a well-developed bilingualism;
3. permanent retention of the minority language. [2]
In this scenario, most post-war immigrants have been subject to “organic assimilation” as evidenced by the large number of children of German-speaking immigrants learning German in Canadian public schools, colleges and universities from the 1960s through the and 1980s. True, in many cases, assimilation was “immediate”, but then at the other end of the spectrum German has become entrenched “permanently” among conservatives Mennonites and the Hutterites.
Based on J.W. Berry’s work with a psychological acculturation model, Richard Y. Bourhis has recently developed a bidimensional model of acculturation. [3] He proposes that immigrants must confront two basic issues, viz. whether or not the immigrant culture is of value and should be retained, and whether it is desirable to adopt the language and culture of the dominant majority. [4] The interaction of the two dimensions, to which Bourhis adds a fifth, results in the following four (five, resp.) orientations:
• The integrationist orientation reflects a desire to maintain key features of the linguistic and cultural identity while adopting aspects of the majority culture, including the dominant language.
• The assimilationist orientation essentially implies relinquishing the immigrants’ own linguistic and cultural identity for the sake of adopting the dominant language and culture of the majority.
• The separatist strategy is characterized by a desire to maintain all features of the linguistic minority identity while rejecting key aspects of the dominant language and culture.
• The marginalisation orientation characterizes minority individuals who reject both their own and the dominant language and culture; they may suffer from an anomie syndrome.
• The individualist orientation suggests that individuals reject both their ethnolinguistic origin and the dominant majority not because they feel marginalized but simply because they prefer to identify themselves as individuals rather than as members of either a minority or the dominant majority.
Bourhis continued to develop the model by suggesting an interaction between “linguistic and acculturation orientations adopted by the immigrant and national minorities, the linguistic and acculturation orientations adopted by the dominant majority towards specific linguistic minority groups, and interpersonal and intergroup relational outcomes which are the product of combinations of linguistic minority and dominant majority acculturation orientations.” [5] This model takes account of the expectations and pressures exerted by the dominant culture and of intergroup relations rather than focussing on the immigrant’s orientation alone.
According to this model, most post-war immigrants from Germany and other countries subscribed to an integrationist or assimilationist orientation; a few might have felt “marginalized” (providing motivation for returning to Germany, which many immigrants did, in fact). Some persons with high self-esteem may have followed an individualistic strategy in positioning themselves in Canadian society. Certain religious groups, such as conservative Mennonite groups and the Hutterites, may have employed (and may still do so) a separatist strategy by voluntarily segregating themselves from secular society.
Prokop has suggested three patterns of approach to the preservation and cultivation of the German language and culture, which may be functionally characterized as follows:
Type A: Regular and serious participation in various ethno-cultural and social events to “preserve” the German heritage in the family and the province; preservation of a “German” life style and system of values a the home; use of German as the main language of communication in the home and in the church by the older and the younger generation; a deliberate seeking out of the company of other speakers of German just because they are German; formation of a “German island” amidst the anglophone culture, where the stated intention is to pass on German language and culture to the next generation, and members consider themselves to be “German” or “German-Canadian” with strong German background. With this approach, traditional German culture and language will survive beyond the present generation.
Type B: Occasional participation in ethno-cultural activities for nostalgic enjoyment and social mingling; immigrant parents may speak German to each other and to the children when they are still young, but they give up eventually and switch to English when talking with them; children use English among themselves; parents and children follow an increasingly Canadian life style and do not want to appear “different’; the parents may have German-speaking friends, but do not seek them out deliberately; the older members consider themselves “German-Canadian” or “Canadians of German origin,” but the younger members perceive themselves primarily as “Canadian.” In this pattern, the German cultural and linguistic heritage will not survive beyond the immigrant generation.
Type C: Virtually no participation in ethno-cultural activities; immigrants give up German as the home language very quickly, even among themselves; they adopt the Canadian life style and system of values completely; the children are raised as anglophone Canadians for whom German culture is something that was left behind in Europe; if they have German-speaking friends, this is a coincidence; the members of this group consider themselves Canadians. With this approach to the preservation of language and culture, the cultural heritage is being been abandoned. [6]
Conservative Mennonites and Hutterites could be said to follow a Type A approach to assimilation. No doubt, there were many post-war immigrants in the urban areas as well who tried to raise their children in a German linguistic and cultural environment. These children often turned out to be perfectly bilingual and had – and many still have – a strong affinity to their roots.
In most immigrant families, however, the parents made sincere attempts to teach their children German and to cultivate German culture and traditions at home, and were quite persistent initially. But over time, it became easier for all concerned to use German at home and permit their children to respond in English (Type B assimilation).
In few endogamous families of German-speaking immigrants German was surrendered very soon. But where an immigrant got married to a member of another ethnic group who did not speak any German, the language was not used at all at home or only tentatively. In some cases, such families would send their children to a private German-language school for a while. If the children’s resistance became too strong German would disappear more and more from the family’s consciousness (Type C assimilation). | 
Printer friendly
Download file
