{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030109489051094892, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.725352112676056, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of Ethnolinguistic Vitality, Ethnic Identification, and Linguistic Contacts on Minority Language Use

Recent developments in ethnolinguistic vitality research appear to place agreater emphasis on interpersonal language experiences than on the wider intergroup context of ethnolinguistic phenomena. A questionnaire was administered to second-generation Italian Australians to predict Italian language competence and use from (a) subjective ethnolinguistic vitality (SEV), (b) ethnolinguistic identification, (c) societal language support, and (d) interpersonal language experience (interpersonal networks oflinguistic contacts-INLC). Multiple regression procedures revealed, as predicted from social-identity and intergroup perspectives, that language behavior was associated with societal-level language support and, in some circumstances, with ethnolinguistic identification, but not with INLC. It was further revealed that identification was mainly predicted by societal level language support, not by INLC. Unexpectedly, SEV had little relationship with identification or language use.