Over the past several decades, John Edwards has written extensively and authoritatively on issues related to minority languages and identity. The themes that he deals with in Minority languages and group identity: Cases and categories are not new to his work; in many ways, this book reprises and expands on the analyses and views that Edwards has advanced in earlier work. This does not in any way lessen the value of the book or its relevance; rather, it is to say that readers familiar with Edwards' work will not be particularly surprised by what they find in this volume.

In his introductory chapter, Edward informs the reader of his purpose in writing this book: “My general hope for this book is that it may help to show that the single most important aspect of human language—beyond its obvious instrumental and communicative function—lies in its relationship to group identity” (3). He goes on to point out that in order to properly understand how language shift occurs, especially with regard to minority indigenous and immigrant languages, we must understand this process as a symptom of social interaction, as “one cell in a complex socioeconomic matrix” (4). Therefore, he asserts, “intervention in language matters should be part of a broader social strategy. Historically, this has sometimes been called revolution” (4), an outcome he claims that is generally not contemplated or supported by most advocates for language maintenance, enhancement, or revival. Edwards then summarizes his criticism of much of the academic literature often lumped together under the rubric of language ecology. His principal objection is that to be worthy of the name ecology, any serious movement to support the plight of endangered languages “must attend to all aspects of the web of linguistic life, even those that bode ill for ‘small’ languages… [it] cannot simply be… an extended argument on behalf of diversity” (6). Having discounted the feasibility of societal revolution, Edwards submits that language shift need not imply cultural shift, that is, groups that assimilate to a dominant language may still maintain social and psychological cohesion for a considerable time even though the vast majority of members no longer have fluency in their minority language. While Edwards admits this will not quell the concerns of “ethnonationalists, language revivalists and group apologists of various stripes… a ‘symbolic’ retention may be a welcome quantity, one that signals a continued desire for social cohesion” (6). Although Edwards does not necessarily endorse assimilation, this characterization of the “world as we know it” lends itself to a bipolar view of things: revolution on the one hand (impossible), and linguistic assimilation on the other hand (usually inevitable), a view that seems in the end deterministic, if not fatalistic.

Edwards demonstrates the inevitability of shift in subsequent chapters and through three detailed case studies of minority languages (Irish, Gaelic in Scotland, and Gaelic in Nova Scotia). Although the cases differ in historical details of setting, rate of change, policy types, and socioeconomic factors that have had an impact on rate and nature of shift, shift to dominant languages is the common theme.

In Ch. 2, Edwards takes to task those scholars “who are philosophically unwilling to find anything of moral value in modern, western, capitalist society” (16) and who lament the loss of “authenticity” in a globalized economic system. He finds that this critique of western civilization “naturally extends to the scientific culture per se, indeed to the generalities and ‘universals’ which many would see as the pivots of progress” (17). To back up his claim, he cites the British intellectual C. P. Snow (Reference Gellner, Lakatos and Musgrave1959:27) who concluded that “industrialization is the only hope of the poor,” and Ernest Gellner (Reference Forster1968:405) who argued for the superiority of the “scientific-industrial” way of life and that modern society offered the best chances for individual freedom and “material liberation” (cited on p. 17). Later, he hedges a bit by stating that his fairly extensive discussion of the merits of western civilization and liberal democratic forms of government should not be interpreted to mean that these societies are superior to other societies, even though he believes this to be the case. Rather, if one looks at what people actually do when they have social choices it “demonstrates that the preferences of most ordinary people themselves are rather different from what one might gather if one were only to read some of the scholarly comments and admonishments to be found in the social-scientific literature” (18).

The author then immodestly asserts that “it is perfectly obvious that Steiner, Snow and Gellner are right. To argue otherwise is to attempt to hold a philosophical position that cannot be sustained outside the academic cloister” (17). Edwards is certainly entitled to his opinion, but his characterizing of the academic literature on minority languages as being “anti-scientific,” “romantic,” and “west-bashing” is not documented beyond a few well-chosen examples. Further, he fails to mention that at least two of the three “experts” he cites to support his position (George Steiner and Ernest Gellner) had long and distinguished careers as university professors inside the “academic cloister.” In addition, Edwards' style of argumentation—that is, a strong assertion followed closely by an equivocation, followed by reaffirmation of the original claim—occurs in other parts of the book, suggesting that Edwards is either not so sure of his arguments, or that he anticipates criticism of his strong views and perhaps wishes to appease his critics (even those very academics he views as having misguided views). In either case, this bobbing and weaving tends to undermine his credibility, in part, because in attempting to dismantle or dismiss what he perceives to be the ideologically driven motivation of some scholars who research and write about minority languages and their communities, he very clearly reveals his own ideological orientations, despite his best efforts to deny he has them.

The strengths of this book are the case studies: Irish (Ch. 6), Gaelic in Scotland (Ch. 7), Gaelic in Nova Scotia (Ch. 8), and Esperanto (Ch. 9). In the chapter on Esperanto, Edwards presents pros and cons of “artificial” languages; there is a scholarly balance and objectivity that is often missing in Chs. 2–4. In Chs. 6–8, Edwards provides a wealth of historical and sociolinguistic information and description that will be of interest to scholars working on these languages and in these settings. Ch. 5 is perhaps the best chapter in terms of its contribution to the scholarly literature in the sociology of language and language policy. Relying on his previous work and the work of many other scholars (e.g. Foster, Ferguson, Stewart, Kloss, Haugen, Giles, and Haarmann), Edwards proposes an 11 × 3 framework (100) that cross-tabulates speaker, language, and setting variables with eleven disciplinary perspectives identified as relevant to the analysis of minority-language settings. Edwards cites the work of various scholars who have commented on earlier versions of this model (101–3), and he also points out that this model is more inclusive than Fishman's GIDS (Graded Intergenerational Dislocation Scale; 1996), which is useful mainly to highlight the challenges faced by “small” languages (102). He cites Vail (Reference Snow2006:140) who refers to Edwards' typology as “the most robust model” of both macro- and microlevel approaches to the ecology of endangered languages. I have no reason to doubt this claim. Whether it is practicable is another matter, given the myriad definitional and measurement problems associated with counting speakers, accounting for migrations, measuring linguistic proficiency, let alone problems with other, more impressionistic variables suggested by the thirty-three questions proposed by Edwards that require answers (100–101).

The chapter on Esperanto (Ch. 9) is an excellent and comprehensive discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of “artificial” languages, as well as research findings on public attitudes towards the teaching of international languages, where the languages mentioned were “natural” languages and not constructed ones, such as Esperanto. Another fascinating finding reported by Edwards concerns the demographic profile of Esperantists. He cites Forster (Reference Fishman1982) who reported findings from a questionnaire given to British Esperanto Association (BEA) members. Based on responses from 343 people, Forster reports that most BEA members were male; almost half were over sixty years old; over half the women members were single; most were of middle to high socioeconomic status; family size was small; and many members were teachers (191). This skewed representation has been found in other surveys. These figures do not augur well for the future growth of Esperanto, although Edwards argues that the “strong quasi-religious commitment that has animated Esperantists and their counterparts in other constructed-language communities” helps explain the longevity of Esperanto that had it origins in the late nineteenth century and that has stood the test of time better than any of the other constructed languages over the last century (180).

I agree with Edwards that scholars interested in the fate of minority languages need to formulate research agendas that lead to “a clearer and broader awareness of the real forces in the real world that bear upon language matters” (70). This should include a far more critical analysis of the ways in which globalized economic systems and institutions affect individual decision-making in terms of the perceived value of local nondominant languages. Simply describing “reality” uncritically is contrary to the fundamental tenets of rationalism and the very western civilization that Edwards champions. We need more research that reveals the ways in which the current regime of neoliberal economic policy promoted by the rich countries has had major effects on the choices individuals have with regard to employment opportunities, social mobility, and on the role of particular world languages, especially English, in this process.