Acceso usuarios
Hiroko Noro
The link between language and ethnicity is contestable (Giles et al. 1977; Feuerverger 1986; David 1996; Naji and David 2003). While some ethnic communities consider their language to be the most crucial element of their ethnic identity (Feuerverger 1986), some other communities are more focused on non-linguistic symbols of their ethnicity (David 2003; Naji and David 2003).
This study compares two Japanese-Canadian communities in Vancouver and Toronto in terms of ethnolinguistic vitality. Its purpose is to demonstrate how locality affects the degree of Japanese ethnolinguistic vitality, based on the conceptual framework of cultural sociology of space (Flyvbjerg and Richardson 1998; Richardson and Jensen 2003).
Spaces … may be constructed in different ways by different people, through power struggles and conflicts of interest. This idea that spaces are socially constructed, and that many spaces may co-exist within the same physical space is an important one. It suggests the need to analyse how discourses and strategies of inclusion and exclusion are connected with particular spaces. (Flyvbjerg and Richardson 1998: 9–10) To fully grasp the nature of particular spaces, one must look into their unique histories. As Bender (2002: 103) argues, “there is a historicity and spatiality to people's engagement with the world around them.” As Bender contends, spaces and places are always in the process of being shaped and reshaped. Being of the moment and in process, spaces are temporal. They are connected with time. Time, however, is not either one thing or another. It is both one and another. “Different times nest within each other and draw meaning from each other” (Bender 2002: 104).
The two Canadian cities are examined for their Japanese ethnolinguistic vitality from a temporal and spatial perspective.
