Ethnolinguistic vitality of Punjabi in Pakistan: A
GIDS approach
Abbas Zaidi

Abstract

Health or vitality of a language depends upon a number of societal factors such as its status in a community, the number of its speakers, and institutional support it has. The Objective Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model aims at diagnosing vitality of a language by determining what societal factors affect it and to what extent. However, it is far from all compassing. One way to expand the scope of this model is to draw upon Fishman’s Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) to account for a language’s objective vitality in broader terms. Combining the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model with the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale, this paper looks at Punjabi’s objective ethnolinguistic vitality in Pakistan.

Keywords

Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model; Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale; language vitality;literacy; media; objective ethnolinguistic vitality; Punjabi; reversing language shift; sociolinguistic setting

Introduction

Language vitality as a sociolinguistic field of inquiry has been discussed and understood using the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model formulated by Giles, et al in1977. A number of linguists have so far used this model (e.g., Giles and Rosenthal, 1985; Cenoz and Valencia, 1993; Currie and Hogg, 1994; Kraemer, Olshtain, and Badier, 1994; Mann, 2000; and Sayahi, 2005) and found it helpful in determining the health of the languages of their various foci. The model, however, has been singled out for its shortcomings too (e.g., Williams, 1992; Landry and Allard, 1994; see Section 3 below). There is, thus, a possibility to take a fresh look at the model and try to make it more inclusive in scope. This paper proposes to expand the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model by incorporating Joshua Fishman’s classic Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) (Fishman, 1991), and understand the objective ethnolinguistic vitality of Punjabi in Pakistan. By doing so, it is hoped that a methodology will be evolved to understand Punjabi’s objective ethnolinguistic vitality in far broader terms than is possible by using the Giles et al’s model only.

Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model

What makes a language viable? In 1972, Fishman wrote that “visible vitality” affected a language group’s language attitudes or beliefs. By “visible vitality”, he meant “interaction networks that actually employ them natively for one or more vital functions” (Fishman, 1972: 21). In 1977, Giles, Bourhis and Taylor presented a theoretical model which they believed could point to the sustainability of a language. Theirs is known as the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model (hence, EVM). Vitality of an ethnolinguistic group, argue Giles et al,
is that which makes a group likely to behave as a distinctive and active collective entity in inter-group situations. From this, it is argued that ethnolinguistic minorities that have little or no group vitality would eventually cease to exist as distinctive groups. Conversely, the more vitality a linguistic group has, the more likely it will survive and thrive as a collective entity in an inter-group context. (Giles, et al, 1977: 308)
The parameters described in EVM can be summarized thus:

Status

Economic, social, sociohistorical (within and without)

Demography

Distribution (national territory, proportion, concentration), numbers (absolute, birthrate, mixed marriages, immigration, emigration)

Institutional Support

Formal (mass media, education, government services), informal (industry, religion, culture)

Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model: A comment

The economic status, according to Giles et al, is “the degree of control a language group has gained over the economic life of its nation, region or community” (Giles et al, 1977: 310). Baker (1993), commenting on the economic status, says that where a minority language community experiences considerable unemployment or widespread low income, the pressure may be to shift to majority language. Rindler-Schjerve (quoted by Saxena, 1985: 38) supports the significance of economic status in Language Maintenance and Language Shift (LMLS) by giving the example of Sardinia where Italian, because of its association with modernization, industrialization and urbanization, was given preference over other languages by the speakers of those languages. 
It has been observed that an economically dominant class is able to manipulate other classes (Taylor, 1993; Pieter, 2001). This is done through different means such as media, education, and culture. It is usually the case that the economically dominant classes are the ruling classes in their respective polities. It is their values which become national values, and it is their icons, which become national icons (Boggs, 1984; Duong, 2002). One of the repercussions of economic domination can be linguistic domination of economically dominant group’s language over other languages in a given scenario and its usually serves as the lingual franca (Bisseret, 1979; Adler, 1980). Korth’s research backs this argument thus:
The acceptance of Russian as superior language consequently led to the negation or rejection of Kyrgyz language and culture. In order to fit into society’s norm and to be accepted many Kyrgyz children Before independence claimed to be Russian” (Korth, 2005: 146).
In the maintenance of a language , social status and socio-historical status are two important factors and are closely related. People whose language has a low social status or who themselves have a low view of it are likely to shift to another language. On the other hand, a socially high status language is more likely to be maintained. If a language is supposed to have played a significant part in the past, it can still have symbolic value for its speakers in the present. Thus, Giles et al’s statement about language status: “. . . . history, prestige, and the degree of standardization may be a source of pride or shame” (Giles, et al, 1977:312). But the question is: Who imparts a certain status to a language? As per what parameters is a language deemed to have had (and still has) a prestigious history? What is a superior language and why? These are difficult questions to answer, to begin with. Nevertheless, a few observations can be made. If, for instance, Arabic is considered a superior or even a divine language, it is because it is the language of the Koran. But why is it that any conspiracy against Urdu in Pakistan is a conspiracy against the very idea of Pakistan and Islam?
Urdu is a ‘high’ language  because it is regarded as a language—indeed, the language—with an ideological history which other languages like Baluchi, Pashto, Punjabi, and Sindhi do not have (Rahman, 2002; Jaffrelot, 2004). Thus, the claim: Had there been no Urdu, there would have been no Pakistan. There is another way to understand how a language takes precedence over other languages: the process of inclusion and exclusion in a country’s media. Language planning plays a great part too: What language(s) is chosen to be the medium of instruction in a country can relegate un-chosen languages to the periphery in terms of use, (perceived) importance, and prestige because language, says Terdiman, is “always engaged with the realities of power” (Terdiman, 1985: 38; also see, Zuengler 1985, and Tollefson 1986).
The demographic parameter refers to the geographical distribution of a linguistic group.  Migration and emigration affect viability of a language. If members of a linguistic community are scattered in different locations, a shift might well be on its way; but if after moving out from their provenance they settle down as a (linguistic) group in the host community, there is no reason why they cannot maintain their language. Li’s (1982) study of Chinese-Americans supports this view: The Chinese living in Chinatowns have maintained their language compared to the Chinese living elsewhere in the United States. Similarly, Clyne (1982) found that in Australia those ethnic Maltese who were living close-by as a community were able to maintain the Maltese language.
Tabouret-Keller (1968) in Senegal, Gal (1979) in Oberwart, and Clyne (1982) in Australia found that mixed/inter-ethnic marriage led to shift to the languages that were majority, more prestigious, and had higher social and economic status: French, German, and English, respectively. Gal’s view is that “where there is inter-marriage between a German monolingual and a German-Hungarian bilingual, the children will grow up monolingual in German, no matter which parent speaks German” (Gal, 1979: 107).
Institutional support should be interpreted in terms of power in its various manifestations. Take the media, for instance. The media can undermine minority groups just by ignoring them (Wilson and Gutierrez, 1985). If a minority’s language and culture are excluded in the mainstream media, its prestige and prospects are likely to suffer (Siapera, 2010). Reading (1999) chronicles Scottish and Welsh campaigns in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when these two languages did not find much place in the mainstream (English) media. In these campaigns, “linguistic rights and minority language mass media” were closely bound up (Reading, 1999: 179). Speakers of minority languages in Zimbabwe, especially those belonging to the districts of Beitbridge, Binga, and Plumtree, have long expressed their frustration with the little coverage given to their languages on TV. Since these languages are excluded from the mainstream media, their speakers “feel excluded from mainstream Zimbabwe society in the sense that they are forced to endure information blackout in their own languages” (Ndhlovu, 2009: 158). Dei and Shahjahan give the example of Ghana where non-Akan languages are considered “minority tongues which are often excluded by the mainstream media, schools, and learning centers” (2008: 58).
Official support and patronage of a language is crucial. If a language is used for administrative purposes (police, immigration, official correspondence), for public (health, postal services), and education (language planning), it will have wide-ranging ramifications for it. In the words of Baker and Jones, “When majority language mass media enter minority language home, the effect may be a subtractive bilingual situation” (Barker and Jones, 1998: 270). They give examples of England and North America where English has made inroads into the homes of minority language speakers.
If a minority carries out its religious activities in its own language, the language will likely be maintained for a long time given the emotive significance of religion. Religious activities, medium of instruction, and the employment world, are some of the greatest factors supporting and strengthening a language’s vitality. We may conclude that EVM tries to give a wide-ranging account of the factors behind a language’s vitality.

Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model: Criticism

There is, however, the other side to how scholars have discussed the Ethnolingusitic Vitality Model. It has been criticized for various reasons. One of the earliest criticisms was made by Husband and Khan (1982) who faulted it for being statistically inadmissible; they argued that instead of being based on ethnic groups, the model should have been based on language communities. Thus, they called it “an uncritical naming of parts” (Husband and Khan, 1982: 195). Dornyei criticizes EVM for its “oversimplification of interrelationship of ethnolinguistic groups” (Dornyei cited by McKenzie, 2010: 35). Currie and Hogg (1994) in their research on Vietnamese refugees in Australia found that EVM needed modifications. They argued that EVM should be understood in terms of language vitality, political and economic vitality, and cultural and religious vitality. Allard and Landry (1994) reconceived EVM in terms of four capitals: demographic, political, economic, and cultural.
Perhaps the most incisive critique of EVM has come from Williams (1992) who identifies a number of problems with it. He says that the model is based upon a “contradiction” which is evident all over (Williams, 1992: 206). The contradiction is that although the model is subjective, Giles et al relate it to objective social factors. Giles et al refer a group’s vitality to its esteem of its own language. But, according to Williams, if status evaluation is based upon a group’s own culturally conditioned values, then the out-group’s esteem “derives from a different set of values” (Williams, 1992: 208). Williams thinks that EVM is unsatisfactory in its claim regarding the degree of control a group exercises over economic resources because it conflates control of economic resources with “group coherence or enclosure” (Williams, 1992: 208). Another problem which Williams encounters in the model is that it does not deal with two significant dimensions of inequality: gender and social class. Besides, there is little regarding the struggle that a minority wages for its rights.
Williams continues his criticism by observing that Giles et al take institutions to be ideologically neutral which makes them appear as working towards a positive vitality, but in fact intuitions are controlled by the state and serve to “integrate the ethnolinguistic groups ideologically” (Williams, 1992: 210).
One specific problem with EVM is its episcopal subtext about the strength of a language in numerical terms. It uncritically assumes that only minority languages are fit to be subjected to EVM variables to find out their vitality. It makes no mention of majority languages, as if a majority language cannot be beset by the problems associated with minority languages. This is a serious shortcoming of EVM. Thus with reference to Punjabi, EVM needs to be modified. For example, EVM is wrong about the sociolinguistic/language vitality consequences of the power of the majority language group. The Punjabis are the most powerful economic group in Pakistan (Ahmed, 1997; Khan, 2005). In the words of Rahman, “Punjab is the most populous and prosperous province of the country, notorious for its dominance in the army and the bureaucracy” (Rahman, 1996: 191).  In Ayres’ words,
Punjabis dominate Pakistan’s major institutions: Though clear current statistics are not available, Punjabis have composed as much as 80 percent of the Pakistani Army and 55 percent of the federal bureaucracy. . . . Virtually since the country’s birth, other ethnic groups in Pakistan have accused Punjab of seizing national spoils for its own benefit at the expense of others. Punjab is perceived to have “captured” Pakistan’s national institutions through nepotism and other patronage networks. (Ayres, 2008: 920)
The power of the Punjabis, however, is not reflected in the status of their language because the Punjabis are not supportive of it. Shah narrates a significant incident thus,
. . . when a resolution was moved in 1990 to make Punjabi the official language [of the province of Punjab], it was watered down by the ruling Islamic Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) government which, when not in office had claimed to be the champion of the Punjabi cause. This attitude towards their mother tongue might suggest a certain Punjabi indifference, or at least insensitivity, to their cultural identity. (Shah, 1997: 128)
Despite its limitations, EVM can be a good indicator of a language’s vitality. For instance, institutional support given to a language, i.e., its teaching in schools, can greatly increase its vitality at the cost of other languages. Thus, sociolinguists in general have found it productive. Schweigkofler, for example, thinks that EVM is a “good starting point” to understand a language’s “capacity for progress” (Schweigkofler, 2000: 63). Meyerhoff has called it “reliable” (2006: 108). Saxena (1995) acknowledged its usefulness in his study of the Punjabis of Southall in England. Singh (2001) in his study of multilingualism in India, and Rasinger (2007) in his study of Bengali in East London also found EVM useful.

Punjabi’s objective ethnolinguistic vitality

In view of the above, we can understand Punjabi’s vitality thus:

Status
Punjabi has little economic, social, or sociohistorical status. It is associated with illiteracy and low level jobs.  Mansoor reports that Punjabi is regarded as a “low status language” (Mansoor, 1993: 129). She further says,
A growing number of Punjabis. . . feel that in Pakistan no regional language has suffered at the hands of the vested interests as Punjabi has. . . creating a cultural alienation of the worst kind (Mansoor, 1993: 17).
This view is supported  by Ayres also who says,
The confluence of two prestige languages [i.e., English and Urdu] with official patronage has created an unusual situation for Punjabi, rendering it peripheral to the longer history of an Urdu-language official sphere and the unceasing dominance of the English language at the upper levels of bureaucratic life. Thus, Punjabi is truly doubly marginal. Given the context, it is indeed surprising that the Punjabi language not only perdures in Pakistan but has sustained an effort to forge authorized space for it.” (Ayres, 2008: 923)

Demography
In Pakistan, Punjabis are the majority ethnolinguistic group. Their distribution (national territory, proportion, concentration) and numbers (absolute, birthrate, mixed marriages, immigration, and emigration) do not put them at a disadvantage in any measure. They are “well represented in political, bureaucratic, and military establishments” (Qadeer, 2006: 71).
Institutional Support
Punjabi has little institutional support. On the formal side (mass media, education, government services), its existence is negligible. Rammah (2002) in his study did not find a single Punjabi medium school in Punjab compared to 36,750 Sindhi medium schools in Sindh and 10,731 Pashto medium schools in the Northwestern Province. On the informal side (industry, religion, culture), the situation is more or less the same. Giles et al (1977) say that a language in question will have low ethnolinguistic vitality because it is not given institutional support.

Punjabi as a minority language
What makes a language the majority language of a country? The commonsensical answer is that a majority language is the one spoken by the majority of the population of a country. It is on this principle that censuses are held and languages are classified in majority-minority terms.
Table. 1. The Census of Pakistan 1998: language distribution

Source: Census of Pakistan-1991. (1998) Islamabad: Government of Pakistan.

Thus Punjabi is the majority language of Pakistan as per the country’s census. However, given the state of affairs of Punjabi in Pakistan, it would be justified to declare Punjabi a minority, and not the majority, language of Pakistan.
Bhatt and Mahboob think that the minority-majority notion is problematic. They point out the problem of defining a language’s status without taking its functional scope. They argue that a “sociological definition of the term, based on functional and ethnolinguistic vitality,” renders majority languages into monitory languages (Bhatt and Mahboob, 2008: 132). They cite Kashmiri in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and Punjabi in Pakistan whose functions are limited to home and informal domains. 
Expanding upon the notion of a language’s functions, it is useful to study a language’s functions in different domains. A domain in Fishman’s words is “a sociocultural construct abstracted from topics of communication, relationships between communicators, and locales of communication, in accord with the institutions of a society and the spheres of a speech community” Fishman (1972:442). Various studies done on Punjabi report that it is used mainly in informal domains such as jokes, friendly banters, and general interactions amongst members of a family (Mansoor, 1993; Rahman, 1996 and 2002; Imtiaz-Asif, 2005; Zaidi, 2010). The studies of Mansoor (1993), Imitiaz-Asif (2005), and Zaidi (2010) found that: (i) older generations’ lexical repertoire in Punjabi was far greater than younger generations’, and (ii) intergerational transfer of Punjabi was very low.
Punjabi has no place in Pakistan’s educational policies and language planning, and is not taught in schools or colleges (Rahman, 1999 and 2002; Mansoor, 2005). It is Urdu which, being the national language of Pakistan, is taught as a compulsory subject in schools and colleges. Interestingly, one can do an MA or a PhD in Punjabi at university, but cannot learn it in schools where it is not even an optional language (Zaidi, 2001).  But who, and with what lexical repertoire, will study Punjabi at the postgraduate level when one has not been able to study it in school? There is the market (economic) side to Punjabi too. There are very few jobs for Punjabi graduates. Since Urdu is compulsory from primary to advanced levels in both government and private educational institutions, there are thousands of jobs available to Urdu graduates at any given time. In addition, there are hundreds of Urdu newspapers and magazines, and scores of Urdu channels. Thus, Punjabi has little utility from the point of view of employment in either the media or the government.
Bourhis and Sachdev (1984) have argued that maintenance or shift of a language depends on a given ethnolinguistic group’s perception about viability and vitality of its language. It has also been argued that mother tongues are associated with the values of tradition, community, solidarity, home and family (Pennington 1998). Punjabi’s state of affairs, however, is different. The cognitive posturing (e.g., attitudes, identification, status vis-à-vis other languages in a contact zone) of the Punjabis about their mother tongue is very negative. They consider it a vulgar language not fit for serious functions (Mansoor, 1993; Rahman, 1996 and 2002). Let alone performing communicative functions, Punjabi does not perform even symbolic functions (MacNamara 1987). It, hence, is a societally powerless, culturally insignificant, and emotively repelling language as far as the Punjabis themselves are concerned. Unprivileged, unesteemed, and unseeded, Punjabi can be considered a minority language. Despite their immense economic and political power, the Punjabis have not used Punjabi to extract any cultural, economic, political, or religious benefits because they have been able to dominate Pakistan without having to resort to a politics of Punjabi language. From the very beginning of the creation of Pakistan, they have collaborated with the Mohajirs in promoting Urdu as Pakistan’s national language in order to block other ethnolinguistic groups (Bengalis, Baluchis, Pathans, and Sindhis) from demanding their linguistic rights because linguistic rights are often bound up with other (economic, political, social) rights (Rahman, 2002).
To conclude, Punjabi being a powerless language cannot be regarded as the majority language of Pakistan. This argument finds support from Skutnabb-Kangas who argues that the minority status of a language should be defined “in terms of power relationships, not number” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981: 126).
Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model: A GIDS approach
As indicated above, EVM can be expanded in order to understand vitality of a language from broader perspectives.
In his book Reversing language shift (1991), Fishman discusses what he calls a “graded typology of threatened statuses” to map out the area he calls Reversing Language Shift (RLS) (Fishman, 1991: 87). He has developed the Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) which he likens to the Richter Scale. GIDS in Fishman’s own words “may be thought of as a sociocultural reverse analog to the sociopsychological language vitality measures that several investigators have recently proposed” (Fishman, 1991: 87).  GIDS has eight stages:
Table. 2. Fishman’s Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale

Punjabi and the GIDS model
With the GIDS model in view, we can understand Punjabi’s vitality thus:
Table.3. Punjabi’s ethnolinguistic vitality using the GIDS model

Discussion
Punjabi is certainly not at the Stage 8 of Fishman’s Scale. The rest of the Stages reflect Punjabi’s vitality in the danger zone. In his discussion of Reversing Language Shift (RLS), Fishman remarks, “. . . RLS and language maintenance are not about language per se; they are about language-in-culture” (Fishman, 1991: 17). At another place, he remarks: “RLSers should view local cultures (all local cultures, not only their own) as things of beauty, as encapsulations of human values which deserve to be fostered and assisted (not merely ‘preserved’ in a mummifying sense)” (Fishman, 1991: 33). These are noble feelings, but the state of affairs of language and culture in Pakistan is hardly conducive to Punjabi.  In Pakistan, by culture is meant (Arabian) Islamic culture, and indigenous cultures including Punjabi culture are considered un-Islamic (Azam, 1980; Irfani, 2004; Mallik, 2006). In addition, unless a language exists in the mental ecology of the people, it cannot be forced into the physical language ecology, i.e., the society. The political economy of the society in which language revitalization efforts are made is another issue. David (2008) gives examples of the language revitalization programs carried out in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines, but they have not succeeded because the minority languages in question are not very relevant from the economic point of view. David makes the following observation in her study of the impact of language policies in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines,
We note that in Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines, language policies have affected minority languages and the respective governments have attempted to preserve minority languages by introducing the teaching of some of these languages as subjects in the school curriculum. Communities too have invited experts to conduct research and campaigns to promote these languages. Unfortunately, the majority of these minority languages speakers, especially the young ones, have shifted away from using and appreciating their respective mother tongues. (David, 2008: 85)
She concludes her study by affirming the centrality of speakers’ attitudes towards their language: “. . . the desire to maintain and use ethnic languages depends on how ethnic minorities perceive the importance of their languages and also their desire to use these languages” (David, 2008: 85).
With the findings of this research in view, it may be added that it is not just an ethnic/minority language whose health and viability depend on its speakers’ attitudes, but any language whether it is minority or majority.

Conclusion
This paper has tried to diagnose Punjabi’s objective ethnolinguistic vitality by combining Fishman’s GIDS model with Giles et al’s EVM. This combination has certainly helped understand Punjabi’s ethnolinguistic vitality in a broader, more comprehensive perspective than the exclusive use of EVM does.
Language shift is a slow process, and it can take a very long time for a community to shift completely to another language. From the discussion above, it should be clear that it is not just the objective ethnolinguistic vitality of Punjabi which is low, but also its subjective vitality. Studies done on Punjabi in Pakistan (Mansoor, 1993; Rahman, 1996 and 2002; Imtiaz-Asif, 2005), have found that Punjabis’ subjectivities (attitudes, perceptions, language use in the home domains) about Punjabi are negative. Punjabis of all ages get to read and watch newspapers and channels in Urdu, and students do not study Punjabi at all. Omoniyi has rightly said that the school is always a useful context for examining languages in competition for here the roles assigned to respective languages is a reflection of the evaluation of how much capital accrues to them and generally an idea of shift that may be taking place (Omoniyi, 2010). In the sociolinguistic marketplace of Pakistan, Punjabi serves as a reminder more of a primitive accumulation than a capital.

References
Abd-el-Jawad, Hasan, R.S. (1992). Is Arabic a pluricentric language? In Michael G. Clyne (Ed.), Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in different nations.  (pp. 261-0304). Berlin:  Walter de Gruyter.

Adler, Max K. (1980). Marxist linguistic theory and communist practice: A sociolinguistic study. Hamburg: Buske Verlag.)

Ahmed, Salahuddin. (2004). Bangladesh: past and present. Dhaka: APH Publishing.

Ahmed, Akbar S. (1997). Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic identity: The search for Saladin. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Ahmed, Salahuddin. (2004). Bangladesh: past and present. Dhaka: APH Publishing.

Ayres, Alyssa. (2008). Language, the nation, and symbolic capital: The case of Punjab. Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 67, No. 3: 917–946.

Azam, Ikram. (1980). Pakistan’s national culture and character. Rawalpindi: Amir Publications.

Aziz, Khursheed Kamal. (1993). The Pakistani historian. Lahore: Vanguard.

Aziz, Khursheed Kamal. (2004). The murder of history: A critique of history textbooks used in Pakistan. Lahore: Vanguard.

Baker, Colin. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, Colin and Jones, Sylvia Prys (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Barber, Alex and Stainton, Robert, J. (Eds.). (2010). Concise encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier.

Bhatt, Rakesh M. and Mahboob, Ahmar. (2008). Minority languages and their status. In Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and S. N. Sridhar (Ed.), Language in South Asia (pp. 132-152). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bisseret, Noëlle. (1979). Education, class language, and ideology. London: Routledge
Boggs, Carl. (1984). The two revolutions: Antonio Gramsci and the dilemmas of western Marxism. Cambridge, MA.: South End Press.

Bourhis, R., & Sachdev, I. (1984). Vitality perceptions and language attitudes: Some Canadian data. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3 (1), 97-126.

Personal author, compiler, or editor name(s); click on any author to run a new search on that name.Cenoz, Jasone and Valencia, Jose, F. (1993). Ethnolinguistic Vitality, Social Networks and Motivation in Second Language Acquisition: Some Data from the Basque Country.

The entity from which ERIC acquires the content, including journal, organization, and conference names, or by means of online submission from the author.Language, culture, and curriculum, 6: 113-27.

Clyne, Michael. (1982). Multilingual Australia. Melbourne: River Seine.

Cohen, Stephen P. (2004). The Idea of Pakistan. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Currie, Michael and Hogg, Michael A. (1994), Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality and social adaptation among Vietnamese refugees in Australia. International journal of the sociology of language. 108:  97–116.

David, Maya Khemlani. (2008). Language Policies—Impact on Language Maintenance and Teaching: Focus on Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. In Graaf, Tjeerd de, Ostler, Nicholas and Salverda, Reinier (Eds.), Endangered languages and language learning: Proceedings of the conference FEL XII: 24 – 27 September 2008 (pp. 79-86). Fryske Akademy, It Aljemint, Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.

Dei, George J. Sefa and Shahjahan, Riyad. (2008). Equity and democratic education in Ghana: Towards a pedagogy of difference. In Joseph I. Zajda, Lynn Davies, and  Suzanne Majhanovich (Eds.), Comparative and global pedagogies: Equity, access and democracy in education (pp. 49-70). London: Springer.

Dorian, Nancy. (1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Duong, Thanh. 2002. Hegemonic globalisation: U.S. centrality and global strategy in the emerging world order. London: Ashgate

Fishman, Joshua A. (1972). Language in sociocultural change: Essays by Joshua A. Fishman. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Fishman, Joshua A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Gal, Susan. (1979). Language shift: social determinants of linguistic change in bi-lingual Austria. New York: Academic Press.

Giles, H. and Rosenthal, D. (1985). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers. Perceived Ethnolinguistic Vitality: The Anglo- and Greek-Australian Setting. The entity from which ERIC acquires the content, including journal, organization, and conference names, or by means of online submission from the author.Journal of multilingual and multicultural development. 6: 253-69.

Giles, Howard, Bourihis, Richard, and Taylor, D.M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In (Giles, et al. (Eds.), Language, ethnicity, and inter-group relations (pp. 307-49). London: Academic Press.

Husband, Charles and Khan, Verity Saifullah. (1982). Some viability of Ethnolingusitc Vitality: Some creative doubts. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development 3: 193-205.

Imtiaz-Asif, Saiqa. (2005). Siraiki: A sociolinguistic study of language desertion. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Lancaster.

Irfani, Suroosh. (2004). Pakistan’s sectarian violence: Between the “Arabist Shift” and Indo-Persian culture. In Satu P. Limaye, Mohan Malik, and Robert G. Wirsing (Eds), Religious radicalism and security in South Asia (147-170). Honolulu, Hawaii: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. (2004). A history of Pakistan and its origins. Translated by Gillian Beaumont. London: Anthem Press.

Khan, Adeel. (2005).  Politics of identity: ethnic nationalism and the state in Pakistan. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Khan, Hamid. (2005). Constitutional and political history of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Korth,  Britta (2005). Language attitudes towards Kyrgyz and Russian: Discourse, education and policy in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Kraemer, Robert, Olshtain, Elite, and Badier, Saleh. (1994), Ethnolinguistic vitality, attitudes, and networks of linguistic contact: the case of the Israeli Arab minority. International journal of the sociology of language. 108: 79–96.

Landry, R. and Allard, R. (1994). Diglossia, ethnolinguistic vitality and language behavior. International journal of the sociology of language. 108: 15-42

Li, W.L. (1982). The language shift of Chinese Americans. International journal of the sociology of language. 38: 109-24

Malik, Iftikhar Haider. (2006). Culture and customs of Pakistan. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Mann, C. C. (2000), Reviewing ethnolinguistic vitality: The case of Anglo-Nigerian Pidgin. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4: 458–474.

Mansoor, Sabiha (1993). Punjabi, Urdu, English in Pakistan: A sociolinguistic study. Lahore: Vanguard.

Mansoor, Sabiha (2005). Language planning in higher education: A case study of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

McKenzie, Robert M. (2010). The social psychology of English as a global language:  Attitudes, awareness and identity in the Japanese context. London: Springer.

MacNamara, T. F. (1987). Language and social identity: Israelis abroad. Journal of language and social psychology, 6, 215-228.

Meyerhoff,  Miriam. (2006). Introducing sociolinguistics. London: Routledge.

Mohiuddin,  Yasmeen Niaz. (2007). Pakistan: A global studies handbook. Oxford: ABC-CLIO.

Ndhlovu, Finex. (2009). The politics of language and nation building in Zimbabwe. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Omoniyi, Tope. (2010). The sociolinguistics of colonization: A language shift perspective. Sociolinguistic Studies 3 (3).

Pennington, M. C. (1998). Introduction: Perspectives on language in Hong Kong at century’s end. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Language in Hong Kong at century’s end (pp. 3-40). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Pieter J. Fourie. 2001. Media Studies: Institutions, theories, and issues. X: Juta and Company Ltd Qadeer,  Mohammad A. (2006). Pakistan: Social and cultural transformations in a Muslim nation. London: Routledge.

Rahman, Tariq. (1996). Language and politics in Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Rahman, Tariq. (1999). Language, education, and culture. Islamabad: Sustainable Development Policy Institute.

Rahman, Tariq. (2002). Language, ideology and power: Language-learning among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Rammah, Safir. (2002). Status of Punjabi in Pakistan. Newsletter of American Institute of Pakistan Studies. 5/1, New Series No. 9.

Rasinger, Sebastian M. (2007). Bengali-English in East London: A study in urban multilingualism. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Reading, Anna. (1999). Campaigns to change the media. In Jane Stokes and Anna Reading (Eds.), The media in Britain: Current debates and developments (pp. 170-182). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Saxena, Mukul. (1995). A Sociolinguistic study of Panjabi Hindus in Southall: Language maintenance and shift. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis. University of York, England.

Sayahi, L. (2005), Language and identity among speakers of Spanish in northern Morocco: Between ethnolinguistic vitality and acculturation. Journal of sociolinguistics, 9: 95–107.

Schweigkofler, Anny. (2000). South Tyrol: Rethinking Ethnolingustic Vitality. In Stefan Wolff  (Ed.), German minorities in Europe: ethnic identity and cultural belonging (pp. 63-72). Oxfors: Berghahn Books.

Shah, Mehtab Ali. (1997). The foreign policy of Pakistan: Ethnic impacts on diplomacy, 1971-1994: London: I.B.Tauris.

Siapera, Eugenia. 2010. Cultural diversity and global media: The mediation of difference. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Singh, Shailendra Kumar. (2001). Multilingualism. New Delhi: Bahri Publications.

Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. (1981). Bilingualism or not: The education of minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Tabouret-Keller, A. (1968). Sociological factors of language maintenance and language shift: A methodological approach based on European and African examples. In J. Fishman, C. Ferguson and J. Das Gupta (Eds.), Language problems of developing nations (pp. 107-18). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Taylor,  Peter James. 1993. Political geography: world-economy, nation-state, and locality. London: Longman Scientific & Technical

Terdiman, Richard. (1985). Discourse/Counter-discourse. New York: Cornell University Press.

Tollefson, James. W. (1986). Language policy and the radical left in the Philippines: The New People’s Army and its antecedents. Language problems and language planning. 10: 177-189.

Williams, Glyn. (1992). Sociolinguistics: A sociological critique. London: Routledge.

Wilson, Clint and Gutierrez, Felix. (1985). Minorities and media: Diversity and the end of mass communication. London: Sage Publications.

Zaidi, Abbas. (1994, March, 30). Future of Punjabi amongst Punjabis. The Nation, Lahore, Editorial Page.

Zaidi, Abbas. (2001). Linguistic Cleansing: The Sad Fate of Punjabi in Pakistan. In Thomas J. Hubschman (Ed.), Best of GOWANUS: New Writing from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean (pp. 208-214). New York: GOWANUS Books.

Zaidi, Abbas. (2010). Language maintenance and language shift: A sociolinguistic study of the Punjabis in Brunei Darussalam. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Brunei Darussalam.

Zuengler, J. (1985). English, Swahili, or other languages? The relationship of educational development goals to language of instruction in Kenya and Tanzania. In N.Wolfson and J. Manes (Eds.), Language of inequality (pp. 241-54). The Hague: Mouton.

Prof Dr Abbas Zaidi
Department of Language and Communication, Sultan Saiful Rijal Technical College, Burnei
hellozaidi@gmail.com
Journal of Language and Literature Review                                                                                              23                                                                              
Vol. 1 No 1, 2011
Source Link: http://umt.edu.pk/llr/data/08102011/llr-combined-papers-ver4.pdf