Author: Journal Editor

Posted on

The Secret Handshake of Dutch: How the Dutch Have Systematically Denied Access to their Language in the Caribbean

Terri Lynne Bakker, Language Planning and Policy Coordinator: Saba and St. Eustatius, Saba Educational Foundation

ABSTRACT. Despite recent decades of intervention, the Dutch language remains inaccessible to the non-Dutch speaking populations of the Caribbean. Dutch colonialism ushered in multicultural development, yet also maintained Dutch as the de facto language of power. This article examines how the Dutch advanced their linguistic ideology throughout history and how currently, Dutch remains the language of exclusion and failure for the English-creole-speaking populations of Saba and St. Eustatius, maintaining European control over the public entities of the islands. This study analyses the relevant histories within the framework of historical persistence (Nunn, 2012) and identifies some of the underlying ideologies using ethnological methodology (McCarty, 2015), highlighting the dichotomy between the coloniser and the colonised. In sum, this examination points toward the Dutch people’s reluctance to share their language with people of other cultures, preferring to maintain sole proprietorship of the language of power. Addressing this underlying dogma is vital to any attempts to equalise the language playing field for the islands’ inhabitants.

RÉSUMÉ. La langue néerlandaise demeure inaccessible aux peuples non-néerlandais qui habitent les territoires colonisés antérieurement par les Pays-Bas, malgré les décennies récentes remplies d’interventions. Le colonialisme néerlandais apporta aux Antilles néerlandaises un ère de développement multiculturel, tout en gardant en place le néerlandais en tant que langue de pouvoir dans les faits. Le présent article cherche à comprendre comment les Néerlandais ont réussi à promouvoir leur idéologie linguistique dans cette partie du monde à travers l’histoire, et également la façon dont la langue néerlandaise est restée la langue de l’exclusion et de l’échec pour les gens des îles de Saba et de St. Eustatius, un peuple qui parlent un créole basé sur l’anglais. Le contrôle européen sur les entités publics est désormais maintenu dans ces îles. Cette étude analyse les histoires pertinentes dans le cadre de la « persistance historique » (Nunn, 2012). Nous identifions des idéologies qui sous-tendent la situation, à l’aide d’une méthodologie ethnologique (McCarty, 2015, tout en mettant l’emphase sur la dichotomie entre le colonisateur et le colonisé. Pour résumer, cette étude démontre que le peuple néerlandais refuse carrément de partager leur langue avec des gens issus d’autres cultures, choisissant plutôt de rester les seules et uniques propriétaires de la langue de pouvoir. Si l’on cherche à rendre plus équitable la situation linguistique aux Antilles néerlandaises pour les peuples colonisés, il faudra s’adresser à ce dogme.

Posted on

“Why do they have to laugh at me?”: Stereotypes and Prejudices Experienced by Immigrant Youth

DARLENE XIOMARA RODRIGUEZ, Kennesaw State University, Wellstar College of Health and Human Services
LINA TUSCHLING, Kennesaw State University, Norman J. Radow College of Humanities and Social Sciences
PAUL McDANIEL, Kennesaw State University, Norman J. Radow College of Humanities and Social Sciences

ABSTRACT. When immigrating to a new host country, the overall integration process for immigrant youth and refugees can be taxing, as experiences with prejudice and discrimination are likely to occur. This article highlights the role of contact and social identity in reducing biases such as stereotypes or prejudice for immigrant youth using the contact hypothesis. Then, we apply the contact hypothesis to twenty-five essays written by immigrant youth in Atlanta, Georgia, and analyse the essays in order to understand their attitudes and emotions before, during, and after the migration process. Further, the article addresses immigrant youth expectations and challenges during the integration process and how they were able to adjust. With the findings from the data presented, we seek to answer how immigrant youth encounter and adapt to new environments. Moreover, we examined their societal expectations and their feelings about society’s attitude towards them, as well as if these change the longer they reside in the United States increases. Recommendations for further investigation are discussed along with strategies to promote positive experiences for immigrant youth and their host country.

RÉSUMÉ. Lors de l’immigration dans un nouveau pays d’accueil, le processus global d’intégration des jeunes immigrants et des réfugiés peut être éprouvant, car des expériences de préjugés et de discrimination sont susceptibles de se produire. Cet article utilise l’hypothèse du contact pour mettre en évidence le rôle du contact et de l’identité sociale dans la réduction des préjugés tels que les stéréotypes ou les préjugés envers les jeunes immigrants. Nous appliquons ensuite l’hypothèse de contact à vingt-cinq essais rédigés par de jeunes immigrants à Atlanta, en Géorgie, et analysons les essais pour comprendre leurs attitudes et leurs émotions avant, pendant et après le processus de migration. L’article aborde également les attentes et les défis des jeunes immigrants au cours du processus d’intégration et la manière dont ils ont réussi à s’adapter. Avec les résultats des données présentées, nous cherchons à répondre non seulement à la façon dont les jeunes immigrés composent avec de nouveaux environnements et s’y adaptent, mais aussi à leurs attentes et à leurs sentiments sur l’attitude de la société à leur égard à l’évolution de ceux-ci en fonction dutemps passé aux États-Unis. Des recommandations pour une enquête plus approfondie ainsi que des stratégies pour promouvoir des expériences positives pour les jeunes immigrants et leur pays d’accueil sont examinées.

Posted on

English Learning and Family Language Policy in China: A Critical Literature Review

YUE MA, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

ABSTRACT. In this critical review of literature, I focus on English education in China and research on family language policy (FLP) with a view to informing research on FLP in China. I discuss the significant role of English in China, the promotion of English education and school English learning, as well as family language policy regarding English learning practices in China. I have found few studies of family English learning, and thus little consideration of the roles of grandparents, siblings, and children themselves in FLP in China. The purpose of this literature review is to explore Spolsky’s (2004) language policy framework and the FLP framework developed by King, Fogle and Logan-Terry (2008) as relevant for the study of home English learning in China. In addition, I analyze different research methods that have been in FLP studies and draw conclusions for research that includes the perspectives and actions of parents, grandparents, and other family members of young children in Chinese families, including those with diverse backgrounds.

RÉSUMÉ. Dans cette recension critique des écrits, je me concentre sur l’enseignement de l’anglais en Chine et sur la recherche sur la politique linguistique familiale (FLP) dans le but d’informer la recherche sur la FLP en Chine. Je discute du rôle important de l’anglais en Chine, de la promotion de l’enseignement de l’anglais et de l’apprentissage de l’anglais à l’école, ainsi que de la FLP relative aux pratiques d’apprentissage de l’anglais en Chine. J’ai trouvé peu d’études sur l’apprentissage de l’anglais en famille, et donc peu de prise en compte des rôles des grands-parents, des frères et sœurs et des enfants eux-mêmes dans la FLP en Chine. L’objectif de cette recension des écrits est d’explorer la politique linguistique de Spolsky (2004) et la FLP développée par King, Fogle et Logan-Terry (2008) dans le cadre de l’étude de l’apprentissage de l’anglais en famille en Chine. En outre, j’analyse les différentes méthodes de recherche qui ont été utilisées dans les études traitant de la FLP et je tire des conclusions pour la recherche intégrant les perspectives et les actions des parents, des grands-parents et d’autres membres de la famille des jeunes enfants dans les familles chinoises, y compris ceux qui ont des origines diverses.

Posted on

The Role of Educators in Supporting the Development of Refugee Students’ Sense of Belonging

SATINDER KAUR, University of Calgary
JESSICA SZORENYI, University of Calgary

ABSTRACT. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 2018a) designates North America as a top destination for immigrants and refugees; it had received approximately 22.5 million refugees by the end of 2017, over half of which were school-aged (Lemke & Nickerson, 2020). This intake sparked our interest in exploring the role of schools in, and barriers to, the development of refugee students’ sense of belonging. The current paper reports upon a literature review conducted using thematic analysis with a critical viewpoint. A total of 25 peer- reviewed articles were included. Our research led to the emergence of four key themes: culturally responsive teacher training; culturally relevant and trauma-informed pedagogy; academic and socio-emotional support; and the impact of first language (L1) and home culture in the development of a sense of belonging. The findings of our literature review reveal an immense need to establish policy on trauma-informed, refugee education-focused professional development for teachers who work with refugees directly. Moreover, we identify a lack of culturally responsive resources and strategies for supporting the academic and socio-emotional needs of this marginalized population. Our research highlights the importance of parental involvement; positive acculturation; peer support; and teacher-student relationships, along with a need to reduce discrimination by educators, classmates, and community, in order to support the development of refugee students’ sense of belonging in the school environment.

RÉSUMÉ. Le Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés a désigné l’Amérique du Nord comme la destination la plus populaire pour les immigrants et les réfugiés. Vers la fin 2017, l’Amérique du Nord aurait accueilli environ 22,5 millions de réfugiés dont plus que la moitié étaient en âge de fréquenter l’école (Lemke & Nickerson, 2020). Cette statistique a suscité notre intérêt à explorer le rôle des écoles dans le développement du sentiment d’appartenance des élèves réfugiés, ainsi que les obstacles à ce développement. Cet article rend compte d’une recension des écrits utilisant une analyse thématique et un point de vue critique. Nous avons revu un total de 25 articles évalués par les pairs. À la suite à notre recherche, quatre thèmes principaux se sont présentés : la formation des enseignants tenant compte des besoins de diverses cultures, la pédagogie tenant compte aussi bien des traumatismes que des besoins culturels, le soutien académique et socio-émotionnel, et l’influence de la langue première et de la culture familiale sur le développement d’un sentiment d’appartenance. Selon les résultats de notre recension des écrits, il s’avère très important d’établir une politique particulière au perfectionnement professionnel axée sur l’éducation des réfugiés et tenant compte des traumatismes pour les enseignants qui travaillent directement avec les réfugiés. De plus, nous avons identifié un manque de ressources et de stratégies adaptées aux besoins académiques et socio-émotionnels de ce secteur marginalisé de la population. Notre recherche souligne l’importance de la participation des parents ; d’une acculturation positive; du soutien des pairs; et des relations positives entre enseignants et leurs élèves, ainsi que la nécessité de réduire la discrimination de la part des enseignants, des camarades de classe et de la communauté afin de favoriser le développement d’un sentiment d’appartenance des élèves-réfugiés envers le milieu scolaire.

Posted on

Identity Construction of Places through Translanguaging in Jakarta: A Linguistic Landscape of Gambir Train Station

ANNA MARIETTA DA SILVA, ATMA JAYA Catholic University of Indonesia
DENY ARNOS KWARY, Airlangga University, Indonesia 1

ABSTRACT. Linguistic landscape studies provide a lens for examining the evolving relationship between speakers and the spaces they live in, particularly the public spaces such as commercial streets, tourism resorts, and train stations and display distinct identities of the places. This paper analyses the distribution of signs, establishments, and languages at Gambir train station in Jakarta, Indonesia to reveal the linguistic elements which contribute to Gambir’s identity transformation from a local (Jakarta) train station to an international hub and social space for both local and international travellers and non-travellers alike. The findings show that the dominant signs in Gambir station are not related to travel by train; rather they are related to either food and beverage establishments or the infrastructure of the station. The study finds that bilingual signs are dominant in the travel-by-train-related signs, whereas signs that align with conceptions of ‘translanguaging’ are dominant in among non-travel-by-train related signs (e.g. in food and beverage establishments). The analysis reveals that through the use of different linguistic resources, the identity of Gambir station has changed from local and travel- oriented to one that is muti-faceted, is encompassing a wide variety of commercial spaces and users of these commercial spaces.

RÉSUMÉ. Les études sur le paysage linguistique permettent d’examiner l’évolution de la relation entre les locuteurs et les espaces dans lesquels ils vivent, notamment les espaces publics tels que les rues commerçantes, les stations touristiques et les gares. Cet article analyse la distribution des signes, des commerces et des langues à la gare de Gambir à Jakarta, en Indonésie, afin de mettre en lumière les éléments linguistiques qui contribuent à la transformation de l’identité de Gambir, d’une gare locale à une plaque tournante internationale et un espace social pour les voyageurs locaux et internationaux et les non-voyageurs. Les résultats montrent que les signes dominants dans la gare de Gambir ne sont pas liés au voyage en train, mais plutôt à des établissements de restauration ou à l’infrastructure de la gare. Les panneaux bilingues sont dominants dans l’affichage relatif au transport, tandis que les panneaux révélant des pratiques translinguistiques sont dominants dans l’affichage non lié au transport (par exemple, dans les établissements de restauration). L’analyse révèle qu’à travers l’utilisation de différentes ressources linguistiques, l’identité de la gare de Gambir a évolué, de locale et axée sur le voyage à multifacettes, englobant une plus grande variété d’espaces commerciaux et d’utilisateurs de ces espaces.

1 The co-author of this article, Deny Arnos Kwary, sadly passed away on 4 June 2019.

Posted on

Editorial: A New Season of Quebec Language Policy

ALISON CRUMP, Marianopolis College
LAUREN HALCOMB-SMITH, Royal Roads University

Introduction

As J-BILD readers know, we are a journal interested in scholarship that advances and informs understandings of the complex interplay among the themes of belonging, identity, language, and diversity. We examine these interplays through the lenses of critical sociolinguistics and applied linguistics, meaning we are interested, for instance, in how individuals navigate, take on, and resist language identities and how power is wielded and challenged in different language policy contexts.

The recent sociopolitical developments in Quebec provide an excellent example of these issues of language, power, and belonging at play. We are referring to Bill 96, An Act Respecting French, the Official and Common Language of Quebec, presented by the Minister of Justice and French Language, Simon Jolin-Barrette (you can see the original Bill in English or French on the Quebec National Assembly website, here, though there have been a number of amendments, which are not yet posted online). The Bill states a primary goal of strengthening the current Charter of the French Language, or Bill 101, which has been in place since 1977. With a strong CAQ (Coalition Avenir Quebec) majority government behind Bill 96, it was voted into law on May 24, 2022, though not without strong criticisms from minority groups in Quebec.

A recently formed language rights taskforce provides an accessible and concise summary of key concerns with Bill 96, from the perspectives of linguistic and human rights (here), including: the right for the Office québécois de la langue francaise (OQLF) to enter, without warrant, any place other than a house, to ensure compliance with the law; the use of the notwithstanding clause to bypass elements of the Quebec Charter of Rights and the Canadian Charter, meaning that citizens will not have the recourse to fight the law; limits to enrolment in English cegeps (junior colleges in the Quebec higher education system), with additional French courses for all students in English cegeps, and the requirement for all non-Anglophone cegep students, including Indigenous students, to pass a standardised French exam before they can complete their degree.

In this editorial, we’d like to share some of the questions and concerns that Bill 96 raises for issues of belonging, identity, language, and diversity through the critical sociolinguistic lens of our journal. Before that, for the benefit of readers outside of Quebec, here is a necessarily oversimplified summary of both Bill 101 and Bill 96.

The Charter Of The French Language, Bill 101

Bill 101, or the Charter of the French Language, was adopted in 1977 and makes French the official language of Quebec. The objective of Bill 101 was to ensure French would be the common language of use in public domains. A key article that distinguished Bill 101 from previous language laws in Quebec was the end of freedom of choice in language of education for immigrants, or allophones. This put an end to immigrant anglicization (immigrant parents sending their children to English elementary and high schools), which was seen as a significant threat to the survival and vitality of the French language. Children defined in the law as historic anglophones (i.e., who have one parent who completed their education in English in Canada), however, have access to a Certificate of Eligibility, which gives them the right to be educated in the English system in Quebec. In Bill 96, historic anglophones carry certain rights to access education and public services in English that immigrants (including non-historic anglophones) and allophones do not share.

It is relevant that use of language in the private domain is not mentioned in Bill 101. Like its successor, Bill 96, is intended to confirm French as the common language of the public domain. In this sense, Bill 101 has been largely successful; French is well-established as the language of public and social life in Quebec (Bourhis, 2008). Yet, Census data that reports on home language are often cited as evidence of the threatened vitality of the French language in Quebec. According to the 2016 Census, 77.1% of the population indicated French as their mother tongue, a decrease of 1% since the 2011 Census, 7.5% indicated English as their mother tongue, a decrease of 0.2% since 2011, and 13.2% indicated Other as their mother tongue, an increase of 0.9% (Statistics Canada, 2017).

Indeed, the number of people in Quebec who use French as their primary language at home has declined. However, this alone does not tell the story of language demographics in Quebec, especially in Montreal. While Bill 101 has firmly established the use of French in the public domain, it has also increased the rate of bilingualism and multilingualism in Quebec, particularly in Montreal where most immigrants settle and most anglophones live. The rate of English-French bilingualism is continuing to grow, from 40.6% in 2006, to 42.6% in 2011, and 44.5% in 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2017). This speaks to the strength of individuals to navigate complex sociopolitical landscapes and make decisions to support linguistic capital for their families, while celebrating multilingualism. Bill 96 will likely lead to other social changes that are inconsistent with the goals of the policy.

An Act Respecting French, The Official And Common Language Of Quebec, Bill 96

Bill 96, like Bill 101, challenges the core themes of J-BILD, and you will likely find that the premise of the language bill is reductionist, based as it is on language identity categories (francophone, anglophone, allophone) that don’t fit many Quebecers, particularly in Montreal. Bill 96 also makes no exemptions or provisions for Indigenous communities, which will have consequences on their access to higher education. The identity categories that shape Quebec society in terms of rights, and which already carry significant weight under Bill 101, will carry more under Bill 96; they will determine who has what choices when it comes to higher education, whereas under Bill 101, this was restricted to elementary and high school. Effectively, Bill 96 greatly restricts the freedom of choice of language of education in higher education for allophones and francophones. A cap will be set on enrolment to English cegeps, not by the Minister of Education, but by the Minister of Justice and French Language, and three French courses will be added to students’ programs of study, in addition to the two that students in English cegeps already take, to prepare students (except historic anglophones) for a common French exit exam, the same one students in French cegeps must pass in order to complete their degrees.

There will be other sectors where language identity category will determine rights. While historic Anglophones will continue to have the right to health care and legal services in English (though judges are no longer required to be bilingual under Bill 96, meaning over time, we can imagine that fewer bilingual judges will be accessible, raising questions about how that right will be ensured), newcomers to Quebec will have the right to access health and public services in English for the first six months they are in Quebec, after which time they must be served first in French. How this will be monitored remains to be seen, but it is plausible to imagine an identification system.

In terms of monitoring the application of Bill 96, like Bill 101, this new language policy is complaints-based meaning that anyone who can submit a complaint related to a violation of the language policy to the OQLF (Office québécois de la langue française). Bill 96 goes further, however, as it gives the OQLF the judicial power to prosecute those who do not comply with the policy. As an example, a doctor could choose to provide services in English could be reported, and if a complaint is lodged with the OQLF, the OQLF would have the power to investigate the language of interaction between medical professionals, possibly putting patient confidentiality at risk.

Impacts of Bill 96 To Quebec Society In Terms Of BILD Themes

One of the key tenets of sociolinguistics that informs the scholarship we publish in J-BILD is that language shapes and is shaped by social interactions at all levels of society. The politics around language and language policy play a significant role allowing or disallowing belonging, or a recognition of and respect for diversity. When the rights and needs of one group, defined by language, supersede others, spaces for an equal sense of belonging in civic society are closed off, and it becomes more difficult to build mutual understanding needed for a multicultural society. The punitive approach of Bill 96 will likely push anglophone and allophone Quebecers and Indigenous peoples away from French. Rather than encouraging belonging, this law will exacerbate divisions in Quebec society. As we have seen in the Bill 101 era, these divisions may not follow exactly the vision of the policy writers. One of the unintended consequences of Bill 101 has been an increase in bilingualism and multilingualism in Montreal. If we project forward 5 or 10 years, it is possible that there will be a larger divide between an increasingly small, but elite class of strong bilinguals in Montreal who have been able to get into the restricted spots in English cegeps, and study in English, but with an enriched French component to their studies, and those who study in French cegeps, who will maintain their current two ESL classes, and miss out on the opportunity to develop as strong bilingualism. Allophones will more than likely continue to develop strong multilingualism, as the social capital that multilingualism affords them is not going to change under Bill 96.

We are hopeful that as we have seen with Bill 101, Quebecers will continue to find ways to express creativity with language (e.g., Lamarre’s 2014 study of bilingual winks; Sarkar’s 2009 study of language mixing in Montreal hip hop), resisting the reduction of their identities by the terms defined through this language policy. As sociolinguists, we have seen enough evidence that individuals will create spaces where they can be playful with language, embrace the richness of learning new languages, while celebrating and living, at home, in a multitude of languages and cultures.

Figure 1: Signs at a Bill 96 Protest March, May 15, 2022, downtown Montreal (photo credit: Alison Crump)

Article Summaries

Within the context of the current events explored in the paragraphs above, we are pleased to share with our readers four articles related to themes of belonging, identity, language, and diversity. We are proud to share the work of researchers from two different stages of the research cycle, including two critical literature reviews and two research studies. With the current events of Bill 96 passing in J-BILD’s home province, the issues of belonging, identity, language, and diversity as they relate to formal language policy were front of mind as we reviewed, peer-mentored, edited, and published these four articles. Each of them, in their own way, underscores the role that language diversity plays in individuals’ sense of belonging and their identity, factors which play a significant role in individual and collective wellbeing. Each article adds value to conversations about Bill 96, which must be ongoing as citizens of Quebec navigate this new season of language policy. We sincerely hope you enjoy the articles in this issue; we are immensely grateful to the authors for their act of service to the collective knowledge in sharing their learning with us, acknowledging the significant effort and work that goes into researching, writing, and publishing in academia.

Research Studies

“Identity construction of places through translanguaging in Jakarta: A linguistic landscape of Gambir train station” is co-authored by Anna Marietta Da Silva and Deny Arnos Kwary. In this article, Da Silva and Kwary report on research conducted in Jakarta, Indonesia, related to the relationship between individuals and the public spaces they navigate as part of their day-to-day lives. Specifically, the authors explore what the language of written signage suggests about the identity of the location. Da Silva and Kwary provide a comprehensive review of the linguistic landscape literature and the socio/political/geographical context of Jakarta. Data included photographs of written signs taken in August 2017, which were categorised by language and qualitatively interpreted. The analysis indicates a high level of bilingualism and language mixing in the linguistic landscape of the Gambir train station. In addition, results show that most of the signage is related to infrastructure development and travel. Da Silva and Kwary argue that the linguistic landscape of this locale presents an identity of a social space for local and international travellers and non-travellers; rather than separate or siloed from the rest of the city, this train station’s linguistic landscape reflects what is seen in malls and urban centres. As evident from Da Silva and Kwary’s article, the languages visible in public spaces shape the identity of that space, which interplay with the identity of individuals navigating those spaces. As J-BILD managing editors, we appreciate the connections made in this article between linguistic landscape and how it can shape the belonging and identity of the individuals who navigate public spaces. There are clear links to our previous discussion on Quebec language policy in terms of how language policy affects the linguistic landscape and can affect the sense of belonging, identity, and diversity of language practices among individuals.

Darlene Rodriguez, Lina Tuschling, and Paul McDaniel are the co-authors of “‘Why do they have to laugh at me?’: Stereotypes and Prejudices Experienced by Immigrant Youth,” a research study that seeks to address the question of how immigrant youth encounter and adapt to new environments, specifically those that they did not choose themselves. The researchers used data from twenty-five essays, written by young people from immigrant backgrounds who settled in Atlanta, Georgia. The authors tested the contact hypothesis, as posited by Gordon Allport ([1954], 1979), which argues that inter-group contact reduces biases, prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. The results of research confirm the contact hypothesis, especially when favourable social conditions are exigent, for example when a young person from an immigrant or refugee background joins a sports team with individuals from other backgrounds. The work of these authors adds another valued voice to the chorus of researchers and educators who have, through this journal, continuously underscored the complex interplay between belonging, identity, language, and diversity. Readers will appreciate the perspective this article brings to supporting meaningful integration of immigrants into new societies, including the richness of diversity that they bring to our schools, workplaces, and communities.

Critical Literature Reviews

Satinder Kaur and Jessica Szorenyi are the authors of “The Role of Educators in Supporting the Development of Refugee Students’ Sense of Belonging.” In this critical literature review, the authors explore the role of North American schools in the development of refugee students’ sense of belonging. Twenty-five peer-reviewed articles were included in the authors’ critical review of the literature. Through their thematic analysis, the authors identified four key themes in the literature related to the role of the school in supporting refugee belonging. The authors underscore the importance for developing and implementing professional development for teachers based on refugee-focused, trauma-informed pedagogy. The authors provide directions for future research, policy development, and curricular support for refugee students. This article will be an important read for those interested in learning more about how to effectively support refugee students in succeeding in the context of K-12 schooling in North America and beyond. Reflecting on this article in the context of this editorial, Bill 96 appears to miss the mark in terms of its duty of care for refugee students in Quebec schools; rather than supporting the socio- emotional well-being of refugee students and facilitating a sense of belonging and welcome in schools and the community, restrictive language policies like Bill 96 have the potential to make refugee students feel excluded. We look forward to further work from these authors and further research that explores the intersections between refugee student experiences and belonging, identity, language, and diversity.

“English Learning and Family Language Policy in China: A Critical Literature Review” is authored by Yue Ma. In this article, Ma explores Family Language Policy (FLP) as a framework for exploring how families in China overtly or covertly plan language use in the home. Ma provides a detailed and thorough overview of English language learning in China and situates FLP as relevant to the context. To this point, Ma locates the study within a field of research that is heavily dominated by studies about English language learning in and related to schools in China and identifies a gap in the research with respect to how families navigate overt and covert language planning within the home. Ma concludes with questions and directions for future research. This article will be of interest to anyone interested in or involved in understanding more about the relationships between formal language policy, family language practices, and bilingualism. We look forward to following the development of the field of FLP in China, as outlined by Ma in this article. As always, we would like to express our gratitude to the peer mentors and copy editors who volunteer their service and expertise in support of sharing critical voices in sociolinguistic scholarship.

References

Allport, G. ([1954], 1979). The nature of prejudice. Basics Books.

Bourhis, R.Y. (Ed.) (2008). The vitality of the English-speaking communities of Quebec: From community decline to revival. Montreal, Quebec: CEETUM, Université de Montréal.

Lamarre, P. (2014). Bilingual winks and bilingual wordplay in Montreal’s linguistic landscape. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2014 (228), 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2014-0008

Sarkar, M. (2009). “Still reppin’ por mi gente”: the transformative power of language mixing in Quebec Hip-Hop. In H.S. Alim, A. Ibrahim & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Global linguistic flows: Hip Hop cultures, youth identities, and the politics of language (pp. 139-157). Routledge.

Statistics Canada (2017). Census of Population, 2011 and 2016: Update of the 2016 Census language data. Available at https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/lang/lang-note-eng.cfm

Posted on

Nation, Religion, and Language Ideology: The Case of Postcolonial Bangladesh

Shaila Shams, Simon Fraser University

Abstract

Drawing on language ideology (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) as an analytical lens, I conduct a historical analysis of the sociocultural and political developments that led to the construction of Bangladesh as a nation-state and that have influenced people’s attitudes and beliefs toward certain languages. I argue that analyzing the construction of language ideology is important, not only for the Bangladeshi context, but also in Bangladeshi diasporic communities, to understand language practices that have been shaped by the sociopolitical and ideological developments in their home country. Immigrants’ language practices play a significant role in their language learning and settlement in the host society. Though Bangla language is at the heart of Bangladeshi nationalism (Kabir,1987), it is the শুদ্ shuddho (correct/standard) Bangla that is inculcated in the nation-building discourse. Despite nationalistic fervor around Bangla, in Bangladesh the English language has more importance in terms of functionality, power, and status. Additionally, Arabic is considered as a holy language in Muslim-majority Bangladesh. These ideological characterizations of the three languages index the identity of their users and shape their language practices and beliefs. Thus, analyzing the historical forces that contributed to the construction of the language ideologies can shed light on the language practices and language learning of Bangladeshi Bengali immigrants and their settlement.

Résumé

La nation, la religion et l’idéologie linguistique : le cas de Bangladesh post-colonial

Inspirée de l’idéologie linguistique (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) en tant que cadre théorique, je mène une analyse historique des développements socioculturels et politiques qui ont donné naissance à la construction du Bangladesh comme état-nation, et qui ont formé les attitudes et croyances de sa population envers certaines langues. Je propose une analyse de la construction de l’idéologie linguistique, que je considère primordiale, non seulement dans le contexte du Bangladesh en tant que pays, mais aussi dans le cas des communautés diasporiques, dont les pratiques langagières dépendent des développements sociopolitiques et idéologiques du pays d’origine. Ces pratiques langagières jouent un rôle important quand vient le temps d’apprendre les langues et coutumes des nouvelles sociétés où ces immigrants s’installent. Quoique la langue bengalie soit au cœur du nationalisme bangladais (Kabir,1987), c’est le শুদ্ shuddho bengali (la langue dite ‘standarde’) qui soit inculqué au discours de l’édification de la nation. Malgré le lien entre la langue bengalie et la ferveur nationaliste, c’est néanmoins l’anglais qui semble valoir plus en termes de puissance, statut, et utilité. En plus, la langue arabe se traite comme langue sacrée au Bangladesh, dont la religion principale est l’islam. La compréhension sociale de ces trois langues indexe les identités des locuteurs et aide à façonner leurs pratiques langagières et leurs croyances. Une analyse des forces historiques qui ont contribué à la construction des idéologies linguistiques au Bangladesh peut alors nous faire mieux comprendre les pratiques langagières et les idéologies associées à l’apprentissage d’autres langues pour les peuples bangladais immigrants, concernant leur intégration dans leurs nouveaux pays d’accueil.

Keywords: Language ideology, Bangladesh, immigrants, language, religion.

Introduction

This article reviews the historical development of Bangladesh as a nation-state and the role of language and religion in the characterization of the state in order to understand the language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants in Canada. I adopt a language ideology framework (Heath, 1989; Irvine & Gal, 1985, 2000; Kroskrity et al., 1992; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) to critically examine relevant historical forces, their development, and their impact on the language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants in Canada. My broader research aims to explore the language learning experiences, language practices and settlement experiences of skilled Bangladeshi Bangla-speaking Muslim immigrants and how their ethnolinguistic–religious identity intersects with their integration in Canada. My language and learning epistemology has poststructural and sociocultural underpinnings. Drawing on a poststructural conceptualization of language (Bourdieu, 1991), I see language as a marker of the accumulated capitals of its speakers that signifies the embedded power relations among them. Drawing on a sociocultural theory of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), I see learning not only as a cognitive process, but also as a socially situated activity that requires learners’ participation in practices determined by their access to communities. In this view of language and learning, learners are social agents who bring their own perceptions and attitudes toward language(s) that are shaped by their language ideologies; therefore, understanding the language learning and practices of Bangladeshi immigrants requires insight into the perceptions and attitudes toward language(s) that shape them. Understanding perceptions and attitudes calls for a critical study of the ideologies associated with the languages in the repertoire of Bangla-speaking Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants; such ideologies are a product of historical, sociocultural, and political phenomena.

In this article, I examine the historical background, development, and birth of Bangladesh as a nation-state; the intertwining nature of language and religion in the politics of the region; and the development of the religious and linguistic identities of the Bangladeshi Bangla-speaking population of Islamic faith. I then analyze how and why language ideology serves as an appropriate lens to understand the language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants.

Immigrants and Language

Proficiency in the host country language is an essential immigration criterion and is considered by some scholars a requirement for successful social and economic integration into the host society (e.g., Adamuti-Trache, 2012; Ali & Alam, 2015; Boyd, 1990; Boyd & Cao, 2009; Chiswick & Miller, 1988; Derwing & Waugh, 2012). Despite the importance of host-language proficiency for immigrants, very few scholars have explored the language learning and integration process of skilled immigrants (Giampapa & Canagarajah 2017; Han, 2007; Victoria, 2017). Being second-language (L2) speakers of English, Bangladeshis in Canada face language issues while navigating and integrating into Canadian society. In fact, Bangladeshis are unfavourably positioned compared to other South Asians in Canada (Agarwal, 2013; BIES Report, 2013; Ghosh, 2014). Bangladeshis mostly come to Canada within the skilled migration category, meaning they have the required educational and professional experience and linguistic abilities. However, according to a 2013 research report by the Bengali Information and Employment Services (BIES) in Toronto, Bangladeshi immigrants identified lack of English language skills as a significant obstacle in seeking employment in Canada. This ultimately impacts their career related decisions and trajectories. The present study demonstrates that the language-related experience of skilled immigrants is a complex phenomenon that requires careful study. I aim to understand how Bangladeshi immigrants learn English upon immigration and what their attitudes are towards both learning English and the language itself. These underlying beliefs and perceptions toward language and language learning can be explored through the lens of language ideology.

Language Ideology

Woolard and Schieffelin (1994), in their review of existing scholarly work on language and ideologies, mentioned that, although research related to language and ideology had been dominant in the fields of cultural studies, anthropology, and sociolinguistics, studies on ideologies of language were only recently becoming a field of inquiry. Twenty-seven years later, in an increasingly globalized context, it is even more important to critically engage with the field of language ideology. Mass migration from periphery to core countries, from postcolonial regions to the colonial powers, increasing influx of refugees, rising capitalism in the Global South, new technologies, and changing political scenarios all have profound impacts on people’s lives at many levels, including individual language practices, mobility, access, and meaningful participation as social agents. On the one hand, the necessity for effective communication among different language speakers, especially in immigrant-receiving countries in the Global North, such as Canada, has increased. On the other hand, the rising importance of English serves to strengthen its linguistic, cultural, and political hegemony over other languages, both locally and globally (Kachru,1985; Pennycook,1994; Phillipson, 1992). Also, Blommaert (2003) argues that globalization does not simply reinforce the top-down spread of English, but also suggests the presence of a local niche that accepts English as a resource to be included in the users’ repertoire.

The combination of these factors, such as migration, sociopolitical development around the world, the rise of neoliberalism, and the increasing polarization of ideologies and politics, impacts not only language policies within a national boundary, but also has influences on a global level. Thus, when L2 speakers of English immigrate to English speaking countries, they bring their attitudes and perceptions toward the dominant language of communication and the underlying ideology(ies) that have been shaped historically by the superior status of English. Also, the languages in L2 speakers’ repertoires are important constructs within their identities. It is therefore important to understand the language practices and associated ideologies of L2 speakers in order to explore their settlement as immigrants.

This article is part of broader research where I aim to explore the language learning, language practices, and settlement experiences of Bangladeshi immigrants in Canada with a focus on how their ethnolinguistic and religious identities intersect with their language learning and settlement. Bangladeshi immigrants are an underrepresented group in sociolinguistic research in North America, especially in Canada (Zaman & Habib, 2018). To understand the language learning and language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants, it is important to examine the language ideologies that dominate such learning and practices. In the social view of language, linguistic forms are markers of their users’ social identity, and therefore, represent the “broader cultural images of people and activities” (Irvine & Gal, 2000, p.37). Linguistic differences, therefore, index distinctions not only in language, but also in the values, beliefs, and practices of social groups. Thus, it is suggested that language ideologies reveal the origin and impact of linguistic differences on users’ practices and the subsequent implications for society. Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) stated that critical analysis of language ideologies is important, as they “serve as a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk” (p. 55). Therefore, studying the language ideology of a particular society reveals its dominant power structures and the manifestation of those structures in everyday communication. Language ideologies also “envision and enact links of language to group and personal identity, to aesthetics, to morality and to epistemology” (p. 56) and therefore shape individuals’ ways of being in and understanding the social world through their own language use. Consequently, I understand language ideology as how groups of people view the language(s) of different social groups and their users, including their own, and, vice versa, how language ideologies impact people’s attitudes and social relationships and reproduce power relations. This brings us to the question of the construction of ideologies and the historical and political forces that contribute. The authors cited above stress the importance not only of studying language ideology, but also of examining the forces dominant in constructing those ideologies.

Ideologies associated with language(s) are products of complex socio-historical and political processes that require close examination of the forces that shape language forms today. Woolard (1992) claimed that language ideology and “social, discursive and linguistic practices” (p. 235) have a dialectical relationship of influence with each other; this relationship also reproduces and represents the power relations and linguistic politics in a given society. As mentioned before, this article is part of a broader project on skilled immigrants from Bangladesh. A language ideology lens will help me to gain a nuanced understanding of the language practices and settlement of this inadequately researched community. In this article, I take a look back in history to examine the social, cultural, and political development that led to the creation of today’s Bangladesh as a nation-state. I also examine the forces and phenomena that have been profound influences on the culture and practices of the Bangla-speaking Bangladeshi Muslim population. Through this analysis, I aim to provide a glimpse into the historical development of the ideologies associated with certain languages in Bangladesh today and how they influence the language practices and social activities of Bangladeshis at home and abroad. I must mention here that I focus only on the Bangla-speaking Muslim population, partially because of my own ethnolinguistic and religious affiliation with this population. A focus on other religions and ethnic languages of Bangladesh is outside the scope and focus of this study. I also believe that it is necessary to study this ethnolinguistic and religious minority group of people and their settlement in North America as part of the backdrop of the rise in Islamophobia globally (Kazi, 2021; Kumar, 2012).

Historical Background

The following sections shed light on the history of the Bengal region and today’s Bangladesh from pre-colonial times, the spread of Islam, the way local people have interacted with Islam, the rise of nationalism and religious identity, and the construction and implications of language ideologies.

Present-day Bangladesh

Bangladesh is a Muslim majority country and one of the most densely populated countries in the world, home to almost 170 million people (Statista, 2021). Bangladesh is conceived to be and is projected as a monolingual country, drawing on the conceptualization of শুদ্ধ [correct] Bangla as “standard Bangla.” The Bangla language is associated with Bengali nationalism in Bangladesh. This nationalist zeal and the equating of “correct” with “standard” marginalizes the many varieties of Bangla and their speakers within Bangladesh. Needless to say, “standard” Bangla not only marginalizes other varieties of Bangla, but plays an imperialist role in marginalizing ethnolinguistic minorities. While the Bangla language is linked to Bengali nationalism, English enjoys a higher status in postcolonial Bangladesh (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007). Also, Arabic has a special position among the Muslims of Bangladesh, being the holy language of Islam, even though only a few Bangladeshis understand it. The Bangla language spoken in Bangladesh features many Perso-Arabic words (Faquire, 2010, Rahim, 1992; Uddin, 2006) due to the history dating back to the start of Islamic civilization in the subcontinent and in Bengal. While Persian vocabulary has seeped into the Bangla language for everyday activities, Arabic has a higher status among Muslims and has distinct functions in daily prayers and religious activities. These Perso-Arabic linguistic forms characterize language practices, especially the practices of the Muslim population, such as exchanging greetings in Arabic. Many Bangla-speaking Muslims also commonly intersperse Arabic words that have religious affiliations in their language. Thus, in Bangladesh, it is possible to guess a person’s religious affiliation through their language practices. This reflects the fact that religion is an important category in constructing language ideologies to understand the linguistic differences between social groups. It also shows the significance of nationhood and nationalism, as well as colonization and globalization, as relevant categories of ideological constructions within each language. According to Friedrich (1989), religion and nationhood are two important ideological constructs. These two constructs have both shaped and been shaped by the politics of the region, contributing to the constructed ideologies that dominate the beliefs and practices of social groups.

Thus, Bangla, English, and Arabic have distinct positions in Bangladesh among different social groups. Understanding the positions and ideologies associated with these languages requires a historical analysis. This is carried out in the subsequent sections.

History of the Bengal Region

To understand present-day Bangladesh, it is imperative to look into the history that has sewn the social fabric of the country. It is impossible to study the history of Bengal without considering the various empires that have ruled the region and the religions that have flourished in each empire. These various empires and religions left an indelible mark on the people of Bengal and its social, cultural, and political composition, and formed the nation as it is today. In fact, the different empires or eras in Bengal are marked by the distinct religious philosophies and cultural traditions brought by the rulers. Therefore, religion is an integral aspect of the history of Bengal, as it has influenced and shaped local life significantly.

Present-day Bangladesh is a relatively new nation-state; it marked itself as an independent country on the world map in only 1971, after gaining independence from Pakistan. However, the region, commonly documented as the Bengal region, has a long-standing history dating back thousands of years (Eaton, 1993). Bangladesh is part of the Indian subcontinent––composed of present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh––which was under British rule for almost 200 years (1757–1947). The subcontinent gained freedom from British colonial rule in 1947. It was partitioned in the same year, based on the “Two-Nation Theory” that viewed Hindus and Muslims as separate communities and led to the birth of a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan (Jalal, 1995). In 1947, Pakistan was comprised of two geographically separated regions: West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan) and East Pakistan, which was also known as East Bengal (present-day Bangladesh). West and East Pakistan were not only geographically separated, but also had ethnolinguistic and cultural differences (Uddin, 2006). The differences and turmoil between West and East Pakistan grew, resulting in the 1971 War of Liberation when East Pakistan gained independence from West Pakistan and Bangladesh was born as a nation-state.

This small snippet of history provides only a partial picture of the flux of different languages, cultures, religions, and their impact on the politics and ideological characterization of the region. It is necessary to delve into history and analyze the sociocultural and religious trajectories to understand the roles and ideologies associated with languages in the subcontinent and, more specifically, in Bangladesh, and their influences on Bangladeshi Muslims’ language practices.

The Pre-Colonial Age (before 1757)

The Ruling Dynasties

The Bengal region was divided into West Bengal, with Kolkata at its centre in present-day India, and East Bengal, which is present-day Bangladesh. Before the 8th Century (Common Era), Bengal was comprised of many local kings and their kingdoms (Islam, 2011). It was during the 8th-Century Pala dynasty, established by the Buddhists of the land, that the region came under one kingdom. The Pala dynasty ruled for a few centuries  until the rise of the Sena dynasty in the 11th century. The Sena dynasty was a Hindu dynasty; the rulers came to Bengal from Karnataka, South India. According to Islam (2011), the religious harmony that was achieved during the Buddhist Pala dynasty was disrupted by the Hindu rulers of the Sena dynasty. Thus, the Bengal region was initially under the rule of Buddhist and Hindu rulers, with the majority local population following Buddhism, Hinduism, and indigenous religions until the 12th century, when Bengal came under Muslim rule. Muslim rule was established in Bengal in 1204 when Iqtiak Uddin Muhammad Bakhtiar Kjilji, a Turkish Muslim warrior, conquered Bengal (Uddin, 2006). After that time, Bengal was led by different Muslim rulers. Islam flourished under the Muslim rulers and reached its peak when Bengal came under the dominion of the Mughal empire in the early 17th century (Uddin, 2006). The Mughals continued to rule Bengal, and indeed the entire Indian subcontinent, until the rise of British colonial power. It is important to mention here that the Muslim rulers of Bengal were of foreign descent, including Arabs, Turks, Abyssinians, and Afghans (Uddin, 2006). The inter-religious harmonious nature of Bengal that was disrupted by the Sena dynasty was restored during the Muslim empire (Dasgupta, 2004; Islam, 2011). This short historical overview chronicles the different ruling periods in Bengal and explains how deeply religion is entrenched in the sociopolitical developments of Bengal and in the lives of its people.

The Spread of Islam

Islam came to India and to Bengal through foreign Muslim conquerors. Today, after the Arabs, Bengali Muslims are the third largest ethnic population of Islamic faith in the world (Eaton, 1993). Though the ruling power remained in the hands of the foreign-descended Muslims, the religion spread widely in rural areas among the locals in Eastern Bengal (Bangladesh). Eaton (1993) claims that this wide spread of Islam among working-class people in the rural areas in Eastern/East Bengal deserves careful study, as such an extensive spread of Islam is not seen in other parts of India, including West Bengal. There are a number of theories, such as migration theory and “religion of the sword theory” (Uddin, 2006), that have attempted to explain this spread of Islam in Bangladesh, but they either fall short of evidence, or they do not adequately explain the phenomenon. Eaton (1993) argues that Islam did not rise in Bengal because of the ruling class Muslims, but was spread by the Sufis, who played an instrumental role in spreading Islam to remote areas in East Bengal—a low-lying land with huge bodies of water and dense forests considered almost uninhabitable. The early Sufis were of foreign descent too; however, they managed to connect with the local working-class. The ruling Muslim class of foreign descent consisted of administrators, traders, leaders, and orthodox believers. They pursued a Perso-Islamic lifestyle, and developed Persian and Arabic literature (Dasgupta, 2004). They were the Ashrafs—the aristocratic Persian and/or Arabic speaking Muslim class in Bengal—whereas the local Bangla-speaking population who converted to Islam were considered the Atrafs, who consisted mostly of the rural peasant and artisan classes (Sharif, 1987; Uddin, 2006). Thus, there was a very clear distinction between the Ashrafs and Atrafs, depending on their ethnicity, language, class, and lifestyle in Bengal (Uddin, 2006). Though the Ashrafs considered their culture superior to that of the locals in Bengal, they also assimilated with the local culture, which then resulted in the intermingling of Perso-Arabic culture with Bengali indigenous culture (Uddin, 2006 ). Also, there was intermarriage between the two classes. The later Ashrafs, being born on Bengal soil, could not continue to distinguish themselves from the locals (Uddin, 2006).

Though the increasing conversion accelerated the growth of the Muslim population, it did not come into conflict with the existing religious beliefs in the region. In fact, a syncretic cultural motif was developed with the coexistence of different religions and practices. The converted local rural Muslims’ practices were markedly different from those of the Urban Ashraf Muslims. The Ashrafs’ practices involved Arabic and Middle Eastern norms. The Atrafs incorporated their local norms and practices into their newly found belief. Thus, they practiced an indigenized Islam independent from Perso-Arabic influence and different from what was followed in the northern parts of the subcontinent (Sharif, 1987). This tradition later became a source of criticism on the legitimacy of the Muslimness of the Bengali Muslims (Uddin, 2006). This history marks the beginning of a gap between the different social groups in Bengal, as well as a potential divergence from Middle Eastern religious practices, and establishes an indigenized Islam practised by the people of Bengal.

In pre-colonial India, including Bengal, Persian was the language of the court and the elite during Muslim rule. In the pre-Muslim era, Sanskrit was the high-status language used in literature and at court. Bangla was never considered a legitimate language by the elite class and was spoken mostly by working-class people, which can be taken as an indication of the position and status of Bangla and its speakers in the society.

British Colonial Era (1757–1947)

The impact of colonial rule on the sociocultural and political history of the subcontinent is vast. Languages and religions were not exempt from the politics of the colonial powers. The British viewed Hindus and Muslims as “two separate communities with distinct political interests” (Uddin, 2006, p. 48). Consequently, different strategies were developed by the colonizers to interact with and govern the people of these two faiths. Christian missionaries also had different strategies for Hindus and Muslims to convert them to Christianity, which was presented to the locals as equivalent to modernization in India (Uddin, 2006, pp. 47-49). The missionaries spread Christianity; the initial negative responses by the local Hindus and Muslims to the conversion invitation soon turned into “internal communal debate” (Uddin, 2006, p. 49). This division between Hindus and Muslims was one of the deciding factors leading to partition and the formation of India and Pakistan as nation states. Since then, religion has been a determining force in subcontinental politics.

In 1837, English replaced Persian as the language of the court in British India. Colonial rulers used local languages for government administration purposes (Pennycook, 1994). Thus, Urdu—written in Perso-Arabic script, which derives its vocabulary predominantly from Arabic and Persian—became the language of governance in most regions in Northern India. Though Urdu was spoken by both Muslims and non-Muslims of those regions, the language gradually became associated with Muslims specifically, taking on a “cultural symbol” status for the formation of Muslim identity during the period of British rule in the subcontinent (Uddin, 2006, p. 59). Due to this iconization (Irvine & Gal, 2000) of Urdu, Muslims started identifying with it, while Hindus began to identify with the Hindi language, which is written in Devanagari script and derives its vocabulary from Sanskrit. Along the same vein, Bangla was seen as a language of the Hindu community due to its subcontinental roots. This construction of Urdu as an Islamic language for the Muslims in the subcontinent further marginalized the Bangla speaking uneducated Muslims in rural Eastern Bengal, the majority of whom belonged to the working class (Kabir, 1987; Rahim, 1992). Though Bengali Muslims considered Urdu an Islamic language, their day-to-day spoken language was Bangla. This disassociation from Urdu alienated Bengali Muslims from the subcontinental Muslim community (Uddin, 2006, pp. 108–109). Meanwhile, English became the dominant language for education and work opportunities under British rule, a legacy that has become even stronger in today’s globalized context.

Tension between Hindu and Muslim communities in Bengal was fueled during British rule, and both communities took part in the struggle for independence to realize their dreams of separate lands for Hindu and Muslim communities. Thus, colonial rule ended in 1947 and, out of the Two-Nation Theory, India and Pakistan were born.

In this section, I have portrayed the colonial rules and politics and the sociopolitical and linguistic situation of the subcontinent before 1947. The next section elaborates on the region’s history after the 1947 Partition.

The Post-Partition Pakistan Era (1947–1971)

Though Pakistan was born out of the concept of “one religion, one country,” tension soon erupted between Urdu-speaking West Pakistan and Bangla-speaking East Pakistan (previously, East Bengal). It was religion that united the West and East Pakistanis; however, it was language that led to their division. West Pakistan was the capital of undivided Pakistan. The West Pakistani rulers wanted Urdu to be the state language of newly formed Pakistan, as Urdu was the cultural symbol of the Muslims of the subcontinent. Bengali Muslims naturally objected to the proposal; Bangla language speakers were far more numerous in East Pakistan than their Urdu speaking counterparts. In addition, Urdu was regarded by Bengali Muslims as the language of the elite, whereas Bangla was the language of the working-class Bengali Muslims. Also, there were people from other faiths, and Bengal has had a tradition of cultural diversity, tolerance, and brotherhood (Islam, 2018, p.20). The then-East Pakistan therefore proposed to have both Urdu and Bangla as state languages, a proposal which was turned down vehemently by the then-West Pakistani rulers (Alam, 2007). There was even an attempt to “de-Sanskritize” Bangla and “Arabicize” it, as Sanskrit was identified as the language of the Hindu community, and thus, Bangla—being derived from Prakrit (an ancient subcontinental language dating back to the Sanskrit era) and written in a script derived from Devanagari, which was used to write Sanskrit and Hindi—was seen as a Hindu language (Uddin, 2006. pp.108-125). As a result, the Muslims of East Bengal (present-day Bangladesh) were perceived as being less Muslim than their non-Bengali counterparts, because they spoke Bangla. After the 1947 Partition, the western wing of newly-formed Pakistan was rife with the perception that the Bengali ethnicity and Bangla-speaking Muslims in East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) were different from their non-Bengali Muslim West Pakistan countrymen (Uddin, 2006, pp. 124-125). The complex political history of the subcontinent, already divided on the surface issue of religion, and the subsequent division of West and East Pakistan had the effect of politicizing the languages and religions of the region. After that time, linguistic differences between the Hindu and Muslim communities in Bangladesh began to  index their different social identities. Religion, thus, became a politicized category for constructing ideological characterizations of language forms, to differentiate between the language practices of the different communities.

East Pakistanis (Bengalis) protested the cultural and linguistic aggression of West Pakistan and the “purgation” of the Bangla language. The proposal to have both Urdu and Bangla as state languages was turned down by West Pakistani rulers. On February 21st, 1952, police fired on a student-organized procession in Dhaka. This event marked the foundation of Bangla nationalism, indicated a distinct Bengali identity, and eventually led to the War of Liberation of 1971 (Azim, 2002; Uddin, 2006, pp.125–126). During the Pakistani era, due to unresolved state language issues, English remained the language of communication between East and West Pakistan, and thus, colonialism’s legacy was carried forward. The War of Liberation  was an important historical event, not only because it laid the foundation for the liberation of Bangladesh, but also because it invoked nationalism based on language as an ideological construction of Bangladeshi/Bengali identity. In this struggle for Bengali identity based on the Bangla language, Bangla, in Bourdieu’s (1991) words, becomes an “object of mental representation” (p. 220) that created a category to imagine, perceive, and recognize Bangla speakers as a distinct community within a separate territory, thereby conceptualizing a nation as a geographical boundary within which people speak one language. Thus, the ideology of nationalism became associated with the Bangla language within an imagined nation state.

Religious perception and segregation, ethnic and linguistic differences, and economic and cultural exploitation by West Pakistan led to separation from Pakistan and gave birth to Bangladesh as an independent nation-state in 1971 (Islam, 2018). This struggle for independence also meant that East Bengal, for the first time in many centuries, regained sovereignty and the right to self-governance. The foundational stone of this newly liberated land was laid by Bengali ethnicity and Bangla nationalism, rooted in the Bangla language (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Sultana, 2014). This review of history suggests how religion has been politicized during the British and Pakistani colonial eras and how religion and nationalism as ideological constructs have become intertwined with the languages of the subcontinent.

A review of these historical events established the purpose and significance of using a language ideology framework to understand immigrants’ language practices in the diaspora. Since sociopolitical and historical developments in the Bengal region, intertwined with language and religion, have had such a profound impact on the lives of the people, it is important to review and understand these developments in order to explore Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants’ attitudes and perceptions towards languages in a very different context, where they belong to minority communities.

People’s Republic of Bangladesh (1971–present): Balancing Religion and Secularism in the Construction of the Nation

Bangladesh, as a separate nation state, was recognized on December 16th, 1971 after a nine-month war with former West Pakistan. The ideological structure and characterization of the new nation drew from Bengali ethnicity and the Bangla language, while maintaining a secular stance as one of the founding principles of Bangladesh. It is important to mention here that secularism in Bangladesh is conceived as being inclusive of all religions, contrary to the Western conceptualization of secularism that attempts to exclude religion from public life (Brubaker, 2013). Bangla became the state language of independent Bangladesh. The Bangla-centered ethnic and linguistic ideology of Bangladesh lent it a monolingual character (Sultana, 2014), and excluded the ethnic minorities of Bangladesh who are not Bengali, do not speak Bangla, and are mostly followers of indigenous faiths. Also, there are many varieties of Bangla spoken in different regions of the country. The standard variety is that spoken by the urban educated middle-class in Dhaka, the capital; it is also the official language, which marginalizes regional vernaculars. A study by Hasan and Rahman (2014) on the standard Bangla language ideology demonstrates the higher status of standard Bangla over the regional varieties.

Over the years, Bangladeshi nationalism has evolved, balancing between secularism and the religiosity crafted by political leaders. Through changes in power and government, the secular identity of Bangladesh that was a founding principle during the war of independence has been lost, and a Muslim national identity has gained prominence. The rise of the Muslim nationalistic identity can be attributed to the country’s political turmoil and the increasing influence of globalization that opened doors for an Arab- and Middle-East-oriented Islam in Bangladesh. Thus, the struggle between religion and culture in Bangladesh remains an inconclusive one that has been a source of “confusing tensions and uneasy stalemate between Muslim nationalistic Bangladeshi identity and the more secular, religiously and culturally pluralist Bengali identity” (Islam, 2018, p. 20). The urban, western-educated secular intellectuals failed to understand the religious sentiment of the majority by disassociating Islam from Bengali identity in their dominant discourses, which has further polarized the issues around language, ethnicity, and religion in the nation-building discourse of Bangladesh. This has perpetuated the confusion that Islam (2018) aptly captured in the above quote. These political and sociocultural developments contributed to language ideologies that impact the language practices of the different social groups in Bangladesh.

Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Languages

The various contesting factors in the history of the subcontinent and of Bangladesh moulded attitudes and perceptions toward the different languages that are used in this region. I now discuss the languages that have a dominant impact on the identity and practices of Bangladeshi people, especially the Muslim population.

English enjoys a position of status and power in postcolonial Bangladesh, even though the country seems to lack a clear language policy. Though English is used extensively in education and the private sector in Bangladesh, there is no explicit policy about the status of English, and it does not have official status (Hamid, 2011; Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Rahman & Pandian, 2017). However, the attitude towards learning the English language is very positive in Bangladesh, irrespective of people’s socio-economic backgrounds (Alam, 2017; Erling, et al, 2013; Erling et al, 2012) and is not viewed as a burden from the legacy of colonial rule (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007). English is seen as a vehicle of development by the majority in Bangladesh. It is also seen as the language that symbolizes modernity, progress, and membership in the elite class. English is still a language of the local elites in postcolonial Bangladesh. It acts as a gatekeeper and is responsible for social stratification (Choudhury, 2008; Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Imam, 2005). English is important for education in Bangladesh, to the extent that the schooling system is divided into three categories: English-medium, Bangla-medium, and Madrasa (Quranic) education, depending on the amount and quality of English taught in these schools. It should come as no surprise that the English spoken by the elite members of society is considered the most powerful and ‘correct’ version of the language. This creates an ideology that dominates people’s attitudes and beliefs, not only toward English but also toward Bangla, and that shapes their social lives.

Though the Bangla language is the foundation stone of Bengali nationalism and symbolizes Bengali culture, it holds a somewhat lower status than English. Due to the elite status of English in Bangladesh, English contributes to social inequality and furthers the gap between different social classes, marginalizing and disempowering Bangla and creating a ‘vernacular divide’ (Ramanathan, 2005). In fact, in recent years the use of English in Bangladesh, especially in the media, has grown to such an extent that the High Court had to provide a verdict to maintain the official language status of Bangla in Bangladesh and to reduce unnecessary use of English (HC rules on use of Bangla everywhere, 2014). Remember the standard Dhaka variety of Bangla is considered the official language. This standard Bangla dominates the practices of urban educated Bengalis and pushes the other regional varieties to the margin. Thus, even within the Bangla language and its use, there are social structures involved that encourage and perpetuate a specific Bangla over the other varieties and that contribute to the construction of ‘standard’ language ideology (Green, 1997). This totalizing character development of Bangla ignores the other varieties and removes them from standard language discourse, a process that Irvine and Gal (2000) named as erasure.

A distinctive feature of Bangla in Bangladesh is the presence and use of many Arabic and Persian words. This also reflects the historical and cultural composition of the population and acts as a marker of Bangladeshi Bangla-speaking Muslims identity. Arabic is considered a sacred language in Bangladesh, being the language of the holy Quran and the preferred language of Islam. Most Bangladeshi Muslims are taught to read the Quran in Arabic. However, the majority learn to read the Quran without understanding the language. Yet, respect toward the language is intact, as it is considered the language of Islam. Bengali Muslims recite Arabic verses from the Quran in their prayers and many Arabic words/phrases related to religion are commonly used by Muslims in Bangladesh in their speech. The Arabic language is important in the Madrasa education stream in Bangladesh.

Bangla, English and Arabic each have their distinct place in Bangladeshi people’s lives. While Bangla is the language of Bengali nationalism, English is equated with modernity and progress, and Arabic is important for the religious affiliation of Muslims. The accelerating pace of globalization has furthered the value of English in Bangladesh, where it has been treated as a language of power for centuries. This historical analysis reveals the background of the sociocultural, linguistic, religious, and political struggle and development in the Bengal region and today’s Bangladesh, and the forces that contributed to the construction of ideologies associated with the languages. The languages and their practices act as identity markers of the social groups, their social positions, and activities.

Language Ideology and the Bangladeshi Diasporic Community

This historical overview is necessary to understand the dominant ideological constructs that flourished in the region called Bangladesh today, as well as their affiliation with, and representations in, languages and society. As mentioned before, this article is part of a critical sociolinguistic research project where I aim to explore the language learning, language practices and settlement of Bangladeshi Bangla-speaking Muslim immigrants in Canada. Immigrants’ lived experience in Bangladesh is shaped by the dominant ideologies that are reflected through the languages. These ideologies influence their attitudes and perceptions toward languages, even after immigration. In fact, it becomes more important after immigration, as languages act as identity markers for social groups, and identity issues come to the forefront when people are away from their homeland. Language ideologies, therefore, can explain the impact of conceived differences between languages, language forms, language practices, and the social activities of their speakers. As Woolard (1992, p.137) stated, “ideology calls attention to socially situated and/or experientially driven dimensions of cognition or consciousness” and languages are vehicles through which ideologies are practised and sustained. Irvine and Gal (2000) claimed that people’s language ideologies “locate linguistic phenomena as part of, and evidence for, what they believe to be systematic behavioral, aesthetic, affective, and moral contrasts among the social groups indexed” (p. 37), suggesting that language ideologies are important constructs in shaping people’s beliefs, attitudes, and relationships with their languages, the languages of other social groups, and their language practices.

Analyzing language ideologies and people’s practices is important for my broader research questions. It is necessary to understand how Bangladeshi immigrants view the dominant languages in Canada and how their perceptions influence their language learning, settlement, and relationships within the Bangladeshi community and other communities. Canada promotes multiculturalism within a bilingual framework (Haque, 2012) and recognizes English and French as the official languages of the country, contributing to the dominant language ideologies and colonial legacies in the process. Bangladeshi immigrants, being postcolonial subjects and coming from a hierarchical society where English plays a role in social inequality, have experienced English as part of the colonial legacy in their own country. Globalization has further solidified the importance of English(es) worldwide. It is worth investigating how carrying this complex ideology associated with the English language in an English-speaking country shapes the social activities and relations of Bangladeshi immigrants. Han (2007, 2011, 2014, 2019) argues that language ideology needs to be conceptualized and examined when exploring immigrants and their social relations, language learning, and practices. She further claims that the notion of standard language ideology is paramount in L2 teaching, where learners are supposed to acquire a “native-like” proficiency. This native-like proficiency concept perpetuates the standard language ideology, where it is shown that there is a particular way of speaking English that must be attained by learners, and, therefore, places the speaker of that specific variety on the upper end of the hierarchy. This concept is found in Bangladesh as well, where English is the language of the elite. Thus, this elitist view of English, reinforced through a standard language ideology, shapes the social relations of the learners with the host society where English is the dominant language. Since language learning is a socially situated activity shaped by participation in social activities, access to participation is important. This raises questions about which language and language speakers are seen as native speakers of English, who has greater access to social networks, how they are viewed by other social groups, and how the concept of standard impacts social structures and relations. These questions bring us back to ideological queries; therefore, understanding language ideology and the forces that create it will shed light on Bangladeshi immigrants’ language practices, and social and power relations. I argue that adopting language ideology as a critical lens will enable a much-needed analysis of the attitudes and perceptions pervasive among Bangladeshi immigrants and in Canadian society when it comes to languages.

It is also important to understand how a loss of linguistic capital, along with other forms of social capital, shapes immigrants’ lives. The majority of Bangladeshi immigrants speak English as an additional language. French has no official status in Bangladesh, nor is it part of the education system, suggesting that not many Bangladeshis have skills in French. Bangla has little functional value in Canada outside the home or the Bengali community. Thus, the attitudes and feelings that Bangladeshis harbour toward the Bangla language, and how Bangla is perceived by other communities, impact the social activities and language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants.

Lastly, Bengali Muslims are likely to maintain their Arabic knowledge, as Ferguson (1982) observed that religion is key in maintaining language knowledge after immigration. The limited knowledge of Arabic among Bangla-speaking Bangladeshi Muslims, and their ideology toward the language, may have further implications for their social practices and relationships with other community members in Canada, given the political and historical characterization of the country.

Conclusion

My aim in writing this article was to explore the various forces that created the language ideologies within the historical, sociocultural, and political structures of the region named Bangladesh. Examining the construction of dominant language ideologies in Bangladesh and in Canada is necessary to understand Bangla-speaking Muslim Bangladeshi immigrants in Canada, their language practices, and the impact on their settlement. Reviewing the history of the land called Bangladesh and its ideological characterization, or lack thereof, prompted me to analyze the historical events that shaped the ideological constructs of the land and how the ideologies have become implicit in the languages and the people’s activities. Language ideologies index the social identity of different groups and explain how power relations are reproduced through language. They also explore our underlying beliefs and perceptions, not just about languages but also about their speakers. As Bucholtz (2001) argues, language ideologies include not just language, but also other identity constructs, such as race and class. Bangladeshi skilled immigrants, an ethnolinguistic and religious minority group in Canada, even after proving their English language skills in the immigration process, struggle to navigate Canadian society. Lack of language proficiency has been identified as one of the core reasons by the people themselves. I understand language learning as a social process that can be achieved through socialization, rather than as a classroom-based phenomenon. I argue, therefore, that it is essential to explore the language ideologies dominant among Bangladeshi immigrants and in Canadian society to examine the settlement trajectory of this group of immigrants. It will help us to understand skilled Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants’ language learning and language practices, how they view Canadian society and its dominant languages, how they are viewed and positioned in the society and why, and how they navigate their settlement journey in Canada.

References

Adamuti-Trache, M. (2012). Language Acquisition Among Adult Immigrants in Canada: The Effect of Premigration Language Capital. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(2), 103–126. DOI: IO.I 177/0741713612442804

Agarwal, S. K. (2013). Economic disparities among South Asian immigrants in Canada. South Asian Diaspora, 5(1), 7–34. DOI: 10.1080/19438192.2013.720514

Alam, M. S. (2017). Bangladeshi College Students’ Attitude Towards English Language Learning. British Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 29–40.

Alam, S. M. S. (2007). Language as political articulation: East Bengal in 1952. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 21(4), 469–487. DOI: 10.1080/00472339180000311

Ali, H. M. M., & Alam, T. N. (2015). Cultural approximation, alienation and the role of English as a second language in Canadian society. Arab World English Journal, 6(3), 275–292.

Azim, F. (2002). Language, identity, and culture. In F. Alam & F. Azim (Eds.), Politics and culture: Essays in honour of Shirajul Islam Choudhury (pp. 351–364). University of Dhaka

Bengali Information and Employment Services (BIES). (2013). A study on the status of Bangladeshi new immigrants in Ontario: Employment perspectives. BIES.

Blommaert, J. (2003). Commentary: A Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 607–623.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond. M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Boyd, M. (1990). Immigrant women: Language, socioeconomic inequalities, and policy issues. In S. Halli, F. Trovato, & L. Driedger (Eds.), Ethnic demography—Canadian immigrant: Racial and cultural variations (pp. 275–295). Carleton University Press.

Boyd, M. & Cao, X. (2009). Immigrant Language proficiency, earnings and policies. Canadian Studies in Population, 36(1–2), 63–86.

Brubaker, R. (2013). Language, religion and the politics of difference. Nations and Nationalism, 19(1), 1–20.

Bucholtz, M. (2001). The Whiteness of Nerds: Superstandard English and Racial Markedness. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(1), 84–100.

Chiswick, B. & Miller, P. (1988). Earnings in Canada: The roles of immigrant generation, French ethnicity and language. Research in Population Economics, 6, 183–224.

Choudhury, R. (2008). Examining Language Learning from a Critical Perspective. Teachers College, Columbia University. Working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 1–3.

Dasgupta, A. (2004). Islam in Bengal: Formative period. Social Scientist, 32(3/4), 30–41.

Derwing, M.T. & Waugh, E. (2012). Language Skills and the Social Integration of Canada’s Adult Immigrants. Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) Study. Montreal, Canada.

Eaton, R.M. (1993). The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760. University of California Press.

Erling, E.J., Hamid, M.O., & Seargeant, P. (2013). Grassroots attitudes to English as a language for international development in Bangladesh. In E.J. Erling & P. Seargeant (Eds.), English and Development: Policy, Pedagogy and Globalization (pp. 88–101). Multilingual Matters.

Erling, E.J., Seargeant, P., Solly, M., Chowdhury, Q.H., & Rahman, S. (2012). Attitudes to English as a language for international development in rural Bangladesh. ELT Research Papers, 12(8), 3–22. British Council. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/attitudes-english-a-language-international-development-rural-bangladesh

Faquire, A. B. M. R. K. (2010). Language Situation in Bangladesh. The Dhaka University Studies, 67(2), 63–77.

Ferguson, C. A. (1982). Religious factors in language spread. In R. L. Cooper (Ed.), Language spread: Studies in diffusion and social change (pp. 95–106). Indiana University Press.

Friedrich, P. (1989). Language, Ideology and Political Economy. American Anthropologist, 91(2), 295–312.

Ghosh, S. (2014). A Passage to Canada: The Differential Migrations of South Asian Skilled Workers to Toronto. International Migration & Integration, 15, 715–735. DOI 10.1007/s12134-013-0298-0

Giampapa, F. & Canagarajah, S. (2017). Skilled migration and global English. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(1), 1–4, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2017.1296658

Hamid, M.O. (2011). Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity: language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 289–310, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2011.532621

Han, H (2007). Language, Religion and Immigrant Settlement: An Ethnography [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Han, H. (2011). Social inclusion through multilingual ideologies, policies and practices: A case study of a minority church. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4), 383–398, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2011.573063

Han, H. (2014). “Westerners,” “Chinese”, and/or “us”: Exploring the intersection of language, race, religion and immigrantization. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 45(1), 54–70.

Han, H. (2019) Making “second generation,” inflicting linguistic injuries: An ethnography of a mainland Chinese church in Canada. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 18(1), 55–69, DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2019.1569524

Haque, E. (2012). Multiculturalism within a bilingual framework: Language, race and belonging in Canada. University of Toronto Press.

Hasan, S. M. & Rahman, A. (2004). Standard dialect ideology in Bangladesh: A field study. Language in India, 14(10), 184–197.

Heath, S. B. (1989). Language ideology. International Encyclopedia of Communications (Vol. 2), pp. 393–395, Oxford University Press.

Hossain, T. & Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Language Policy in Education in Bangladesh. In A.B.M. Tsui & J.W. Tollefson (Eds). Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts (pp.241–257). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Imam, S. R. (2005). English as a Global Language and the Question of Nation Building in Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41(4), 471–486.

Irvine, J. T. & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language (pp. 35–83). School of American Research Press.

Islam, K. I. (2011). Historical Overview of Religious Pluralism in Bengal. Bangladesh e-journal of Sociology, 8(1), 26–33. https://bangladeshsociology.org/BEJS%208.1%20Final.pdf

Islam, M. M. (2018). Secularism in Bangladesh: An Unfinished Revolution. South Asia Research. 38 (1), 20-39. DOI: 10.1177/0262728017745383

Jalal, A. (1995). Conjuring Pakistan: History as official imagining. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 27(1), 73–89.

Kabir, M. G. (1987). Religion, Language and Nationalism in Bangladesh. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 17(4), 473–487.

Kachru. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson. (Eds). English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and the Literature. (pp.11–30). Cambridge University Press.

Kazi, N . (2021). Islamophobia, Race, and Global Politics. Rowman & Littlefield.

Kroskrity, P. V., Schieffelin, B. B., & Woolard, K. A. (1992) (Eds.). Special Issue on Language Ideologies. Pragmatics, 2(3), 235–453.

Kumar, D. (2012). Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire. Haymarket Books.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Longman.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Rahim, A. (1992). The political economy of English education in Muslim Bengal: 1871–1912. Comparative Education Review, 36(3), 309–321.

Rahman, M. M. & Pandian, A. (2018). The chaotic English language policy and planning in Bangladesh: Areas of apprehension. Social Sciences and Humanities, 26(2), 893–908.

Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-Vernacular Divide. Postcolonial Language Politics and Practice. Multilingual Matters

Sharif, A. (1987). বাঙালির চিন্ চেতনার বিবর্তনধারা [The evolution of the thoughts and consciousness of Bengalis]. The University Press Limited.

Statista (2021, April 21). Bangladesh: Total Population from 2016 to 2026. https://www.statista.com/statistics/438167/total-population-of-bangladesh/

Sultana, S. (2014). Heteroglossia and identities of young adults in Bangladesh. Linguistics and Education, 26, 40–56.

HC rules on use of Bangla everywhere (2014, February 17). Dhaka Tribune, P51.

https://www.dhakatribune.com/uncategorized/2014/02/17/hc-rules-on-use-of-bangla-everywhere

Uddin, S. M. (2006). Constructing Bangladesh: Religion, Ethnicity, and Language in an Islamic Nation. University of North Carolina Press.

Victoria, M. P. (2017). English: its role as the language of comity in an employment programme for Canadian immigrants. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(1), 114–134, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2014.937401

Woolard, K.A. (1992). Language Ideology: Issues and Approaches. Special Issues on Language Ideologies. Pragmatics, 2(3), 235–249.

Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82

Zaman, H. & Habib, S. (2018). Introduction: Canada 150 Conference on Migration of Bengalis. Proceedings of Canada 150 Migration of Bengalis. http://monographs.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/sfulibrary/catalog/book/73

Posted on

Forming a Personal Multicultural Ideology: The Case of a Japanese College Student

Mitsuyo Sakamoto, Sophia University

Mitsunori Takakuwa, Meiji Gakuin University

Abstract

Despite increasing multiculturalism in Japan, little has been done on the part of the majority culture (i.e., the Japanese) to encourage ideological changes. An overarching case study investigated the effects of a year-long course that was designed to promote intercultural awareness among Japanese college students at a university in Tokyo. Of the 44 case-study participants, the current study focuses on one particular female student, Akari (pseudonym), because she was one of the students who continued with the course for two consecutive semesters; she was active in class, readily sharing her opinions; and changes in her attitude were quite dramatic throughout the year. Eighteen reaction papers––written by Akari in Japanese immediately after each class––were collected over the course of the year. A follow-up interview corroborated how the course had impacted Akari. The study revealed that Akari had limited contact with non-Japanese people prior to entering university, but her curiosity towards non-native English varieties and non-native English speakers was cultivated before taking the course. The results show how the course allowed her to advance her understanding of multicultural issues and display shifts in attitude and understanding, leading to emergent, multicultural ideologies.

Résumé

Cette étude examine les effets d’un cours d’un an dont le but était de promouvoir la sensibilisation interculturelle parmi les étudiants japonais d’une université à Tokyo. De tous les étudiants inscrits dans 44 cohortes différentes, cette étude se concentre sur une étudiante en particulier, Akari (pseudonyme), et cela, parce qu’Akari était parmi les seuls étudiants à poursuivre le cours pendant deux semestres consécutifs ; elle était active en classe, et elle était prête à partager volontairement ses pensées ; et la façon dont son attitude a changé pendant l’année était frappante. Après chaque cours, les chercheurs recueillaient des devoirs afin de connaître les réactions écrites en japonais tout le long de l’année (18 en nombre). De plus, ils ont interviewé Akari à la fin du cours afin d’examiner l’effet du cours d’une autre perspective. Akari avait peu de contact avec des non-Japonais avant d’entrer à l’université. Tout de même, les variétés de l’anglais non-natifs et les anglophones non-natifs ont suscité la curiosité d’Akari avant qu’elle ne suive le cours. Les résultats montrent comment le cours lui a permis d’augmenter sa compréhension des problèmes multiculturels et d’adopter des changements d’attitude et de compréhension, menant à une idéologie multiculturelle émergente.

Keywords: Japanese, ideology, case study, college student, language policy.

Introduction

There are currently close to three million non-Japanese citizens residing in Japan (E-Stat, 2020). While Japan has long been described as a homogeneous nation, multiculturalism is becoming the norm (Sakamoto, 2012). In such a social climate, it is pressing for Japanese society to address this quickly emergent multiculturalism, embracing the cultural, racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity it has to offer. This calls not only for an adaptive, flexible attitude on the part of minorities, but also for an open, affable, respectful, and collaborative stance on the part of the majority (Meiji Gakuin University, 2016). This exploratory case study documents the ideological transformation of a Japanese college student who comes to personally realize, 1) the importance and desirability of actualizing multiculturalism, and 2) the inherent difficulties and challenges of doing so in Japan.

This case study is part of a larger collaborative action research project (Burns, 1999) that investigated the effects of a year-long course that was designed to promote intercultural awareness at a private university in Tokyo. Of the 44-student cohort, this study focuses on one particular female senior student, Akari (pseudonym). She was chosen for three reasons: She was among those students who took the course for two consecutive semesters; she was active in class, readily sharing her opinions; and her reaction papers and interviews showed dramatic change in attitude towards multiculturalism throughout the school year.

This study is particularly relevant as Japan is very much behind North American and European countries’ national efforts to promote multiculturalism and plurilingualism (Marshall & Moore, 2018; Piccardo, 2018). Plurilingualism focuses on one’s linguistic repertoires and purposeful language use as an individual phenomenon, whereas multilingualism describes a social phenomenon of language contact and coexistence (Marshall & Moore, 2013, 2018). In this paper, we follow and document one particular Japanese student’s journey in realizing multiculturalism and re-imagining and re-defining her own multicultural ideology.

Japan has recently introduced an amendment to its immigration laws that encourages newcomers to reside and work in Japan (Immigration Services Agency of Japan, 2020a). Prior to this change, the concept of foreign language was automatically equated with English, and English teaching in Japan was modeled after Inner Circle varieties (Kachru, 1985). As a result, Japanese people understand English to be the foreign language, despite the fact that there are far more non-Japanese Asians living in Japan than there are native speakers of English.

While numerous studies have been conducted on accommodating newcomers, depicting them as needing assistance (e.g., McDonnell & Hill, 1993), little has been done to actualize ideological changes on the part of the majority (i.e., the Japanese) in living and working with those with different cultural/linguistic backgrounds. Members of minority groups are expected to adapt to the host community, but we question this monolithic topos. Unveiling the actualization process by describing the transformation of a Japanese student towards a self that embraces multicultural and plurilingual ideologies provides insight into how to best actualize a multicultural society in Japan.

Specifically, our research questions are as follows:

1) What factors triggered the student’s interest in signing up for a course on multiculturalism?

2) What ideological assumptions did the student bring to the course?

3) To what extent and in what ways is a year-long college course on multiculturalism effective for a Japanese college student to reconceptualize notions pertaining to multiculturalism?

4) What pedagogical implications can be deduced from (3) above?

The core of the current study is an assessment of the impact of a Japanese college course on multiculturalism, in response to the third question.

Literature Review

In this paper, ideology is defined as a discursive, emergent, dynamic phenomenon which arises from social interactions. What is widely disseminated and accepted becomes a societal norm, in turn shaping and dictating socially acceptable conduct, or what we often refer to as common sense. According to van Dijk (1998):

Ideologies may be very succinctly defined as the basis of the social representations shared by members of a group. This means that ideologies allow people, as group members, to organise the multitude of social beliefs about what is the case, good or bad, right or wrong, for them, and to act accordingly. (p. 8, emphasis in the original)

Social norms fabricated by widely accepted ideologies, promulgated by the dominant discourse, determine the rights and wrongs of society. Needless to say, this decision does not benefit all equally. Holborow (2012) warns that the mainstream world view might be a one-sided representation constructed by a particular social group (p. 29); representations that are widely accepted by the dominant group exert control over emergent ideologies, thereby determining and reinforcing social norms and “common sense.” Clearly, the influence of ideologies is immense, and thus creation of a harmonious, just, and equitable society largely rests on them.

Gramsci (1971) conceptualized the relations of ideology and society in terms of hegemony, describing how dominant ideologies control the minds of citizens by creating a consensus regarding an imposed social order, even among the oppressed. This, in turn, contributes to a status quo that can be oblivious to, and discriminatory toward, minorities, and reflecting neoliberal ideals the world currently embraces. According to Harvey, neoliberalism suggests that “human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills” through the promotion of individual rights, free market, and free trade (2005, p. 2). In the field of Applied Linguistics, the teaching of both skills and language have come to be appreciated as a new commodity within a knowledge economy that can be exchanged with other resources (Holborow, 2012, p. 20). In Japan, given the enmeshment of English imperialism (e.g., Phillipson, 1992; 2010) within the Japanese social fabric, knowledge of English has become one such knowledge commodity (Seargeant, 2009)––a form of socio-economic capital (Flores, 2013). English is deemed to be a necessity in the face of globalization.

Extending this argument, Appadurai (1996) proposed five human phenomena, categorized into scapes, that characterize modern globalization: ethnoscape (human mobility); mediascape (dissemination of information and images); technoscape (new technological configurations); financescape (global capital dispositions); and ideoscape (proliferation of images and ideas) (p. 33; see also Pennycook, 2007, p. 24 for a similar discussion). In keeping with this ideology, our discursive practices are propagated and conflated with various scapes that can account for what Fairclough (2006) calls neoliberal globalism, which includes new forms of communication (p. 163).

Sadly, it is commonplace to see how the current neoliberal world promotes what Cummins (2001) describes as coercive relations of power, in which individuals are eager to monopolize resources and power. In such a world, implacable greed and self-interest are pervasive, propagating vitriolic competition and neoliberal ideals, prolific market deregulations, rampant capitalism, and increased privatization of public sectors resulting in the haves exploiting the have-nots. Instead, Cummins calls for collaborative relations of power in which resources are continuously co-created for everyone’s well-being. Only when this is actualized will a true multicultural society in which diversity is deemed desirable and important be realized. Yet, despite Cummins’ (2001) admonitions, the world today remains subject to coercive relations of power. In order to challenge these and bring about a more desirable world, Cummins (2001) emphasizes how change can be instigated in classrooms, where the teacher can adopt, demonstrate and encourage collaborative, inclusive practices. Instead of designing and implementing materials that are remote from student experiences, Cummins suggests building on the skills and knowledge students bring to the classroom to address authentic and relevant topics that impact not only students but society at large.

Cummins’ (2001) suggestions are meant for educators working with minority children; we have adapted them to the majority through a year-long course for Japanese students that addresses linguistic issues that pertain to minorities in Japan.

Methodology

The course developed for this and other related studies was called Modern World and Individuals. It was offered once a week for 90 minutes and conducted in Japanese. The first semester lasted from April to July 2018, and the second semester from September 2018 to January 2019, with 28 classes total. The course began with a cohort of 44 male and female students. The course consisted of Japanese students, with the exception of one exchange student from China. Each semester, the course was taught by four instructors: the course coordinator (Meiji Gakuin University 2); a scholar specializing in bilingualism and bilingual education (Sakamoto); and two scholars whose expertise is in Japanese education and teacher training.

One senior university student, Akari (pseudonym), was selected for the current case study for three reasons: First, she was one of the students who continued with the course for the two consecutive semesters; second, she was active in class, readily sharing her opinions; and finally, she demonstrated dramatic changes in attitude through the year-long course. Akari is currently a graduate student at the same university where the course was offered; she was a senior when she took the course.

Analysis and Results

The data, in the form of reaction papers, were collected immediately after each class, amounting to 18 pages written by Akari in Japanese. No word limit was set, and she was encouraged to write freely whatever was deemed to be important for her. Her writings, because they were all hand-written, were entered into a word processor by the researchers for analysis. The authors coded and categorized the writings individually to identify recurring themes. They then shared their analyses and determined the categories that were commonly found relevant for this study. As for the interview, the first author compiled a ten-item interview guide, which was then revised by the second author, then checked again by the first author. A follow-up online interview lasting an hour and a half was conducted a year later in Japanese. The authors coded and categorized the interview data separately, then the analyses were exchanged, identifying commonalities and differences. A discussion between the authors followed to finalize the results. Their categories largely overlapped, but the first author had explored the multicultural ideologies Akari had shared in a holistic way, while the second author had focused more on the ideological shifts Akari had displayed. The analyses were then discussed and combined to formulate the final results, and the draft was shared with Akari for member checking (Heigham & Croker, 2009, p. 269), to make sure that our interpretations truthfully reflected her perceptions and beliefs.

The study revealed that Akari knew non-Japanese speakers who also were non-native English speakers. Furthermore, she was interested in non-native varieties of English prior to the course, and so was triggered to explore this interest in greater depth. Throughout the course, she managed to advance her interests and displayed important shifts in ideological attitudes and understanding, leading to an emergent multicultural and plurilingual identity.

Akari’s initial interest in non-native speakers stemmed from her school visit to Singapore. Given that English is Singapore’s second official language, she had assumed that exchanges in English would be problem-free. However, when she arrived, she quickly discovered that she was unable to understand what Singaporeans were saying.

Excerpt 1 (bold = emphasized by Akari; English translation provided by the researchers)

高校の３年生、２年生の時に行った修学旅行の行き先がシンガポールで。で、「シンガポールは英語が通じる国です。中国の方もいっぱいいて、中国語とタミール語もやってます」っていうのを事前学習でやっていて。で、ああ、英語が通じるなら、まあ英語圏行ったことがあるし、問題ないな、と思ってたんですけれど。実際に行ってみて、現地の人と話そうとすると、多分こっちが言ってることは通じるんですけど、もう、何を言っているかが分からない、と思って（笑）それがすっごく衝撃で。なんで英語なのに通じないし分からないんだろうっていうのがすっごく引っかかっていて、そこから興味を持っていった感じになります。

[We went to Singapore on a school trip when we were in grade 12, I mean, 11. Prior to our trip, we were told how “English is spoken in Singapore. There are many Chinese, and Chinese and Tamil are also used”. So I thought there won’t be much of a problem if they speak English as I had been to an English-speaking country. However, when I actually got there, it seemed that they understood what I said but I could not understand them at all (laugh). This was so shocking. It really bothered me why English could not be understood, and I became interested from there on.]

Prior to her visit, Akari knew that English had many varieties––Singaporean English being one of them––but had assumed that these were only slight variations from American English, not such huge deviations. Her realization led her to explore the notion of World Englishes, and she chose to study at a university which had an expert on World Englishes. Here, she notes how her perception of English has changed greatly:

Excerpt 2

今は、えーっと、結構変わったと思っていて。その、アメリカ英語（2秒）が軸という訳ではないな、というのもまずありますし、その、それぞれの言語によって、なんか、発音しやすいしにくいとか、聞き取りやすい聞き取りにくい音っていうのもあると思うので。そこについてはちょっと。どの言語に、寄らせていくっていうことをしちゃうと、そこからやっぱあぶれちゃう人たちがいるから。うーん。アメリカ英語が軸っていう考えは今は全然ないですね。

[Now, um, I think I’ve changed quite a bit. Um, American English (2 sec. pause) first of all, is not the most important, um, ease to pronounce or understand is also a factor. That, I think about it a bit. If you were to choose a language as the standard, inadvertently those who don’t speak the language will be categorized otherwise. Um. I totally do not see American English as the standard.]

Prior to taking the course, Akari had felt knowledge of English was a tool necessary for academic and social mobility:

Excerpt 3

授業を受けた時から、その、受ける前までは、その、試験でやる言語。で、その、学校によっては英語以外のものを必修の外国語としてやってるところもあるんで、そういう言語を、やる、って。大学に入る時とか、仕事で使いたい時にそれぞれの言語をやるっていう様な認識がすごく強かったんですけど。

[Since I began taking the course, um, till I took the course, um, language for tests. And, um, depending on the school, some required a foreign language other than English, so I would study those. I strongly felt that you do those languages when entering university or wanting to use it for work.]

However, now, Akari appreciates English to a greater extent, not merely as one of many languages:

Excerpt 4

必ずしも英語じゃなくてもいいとは思うんですけど、何かもう一個、人によってはもう一言語使えた方が、いい、人もいるかな、ぐらいの感じで思っています。

[I don’t think it needs to be English, but depending on the individual, there are some who might be better off knowing how to use another language.]

Akari further emphasizes how English- or Japanese-centeredness can give rise to social divisiveness. In fact, Akari often used the metaphor of a line to depict the separation between majority and minority:

Excerpt 5

英語とか他の言語、日本にいるからいらない、っていう認識を持ってると、やっぱり、その、最初の方に言った線引きみたいなのがくっきりしてきてしまう。

[If you have this understanding that English and other languages are not necessary because you are in Japan, it draws a line in dividing people, as I’ve mentioned earlier.]

Another factor that has affected Akari’s multilingual/multicultural conceptualization is her older brother, who is a professional Japanese language instructor. He has adamantly explained to her how it is difficult to categorize people based on such criteria as nationality or ethnicity. According to him, aggregating non-Japanese speakers into one “non-Japanese” category does not realistically describe who they are.

Excerpt 6

あかり：兄が日本語教師を始めた頃から、その、外国人ていう括りにすごい敏感になったような気がして、

R2：お兄さんが？

あかり：はい、で、なんかその、私の家族が兄に対して、その、なんか、仕事はどう、みたいな感じで話を聞く時に、外国人みたいな話が出ると、その、外国人ていうのは、なんか、その、国籍がそうなのか、日本で生まれ育ってる人がどうなのか、みたいな、そういう、その、括りがざっくりし過ぎているから、もうちょっと細かく、なんでしょう、細かい認識をもった上で、話したいみたいな感じが、あって、で、その、授業を受けていたので、なんとなくそういうのがちょっと、なんだろう、兄の言っていることがわかるようになったかなっていうのは思います。

[Akari: I think I’ve become very sensitive when people define foreigners as one lump ever since my brother began working as a Japanese instructor.

Researcher 2: Your brother?

Akari: Yes. And, um, my family would ask my brother, like, how’s work, like that and the topic of foreigners came up, um, he seemed, foreigners were described based on nationality or whether the person was born and raised in Japan, so such a label was too simplistic, so he wished a more refined, how should I say, he wanted to discuss this with a more refined understanding, and because I had begun to take the course, I think I managed to appreciate what he was saying.]

In addition to her experience in the course, Akari came to appreciate her brother’s sensitivity to labels, something she had only vaguely thought about before her conversations with him.

When asked what she remembers most about the course, she noted her increased understanding of bi- and multilinguals. She said it had never occurred to her that bilinguals could lose their first language (L1) upon learning the second (L2). Her assumption was that people just added languages as they learned them:

Excerpt 7

新しく知った知識で印象に残っているものとしては、その、バイリンガルについてのところで、バイリンガルの方が、あの、人によって、例えば、話すのは得意だけど、英語の、日本の学校で英語のテストでは点数が取れないっていうことがあること自体は知っていたんですけど、それが、すごい、細かく分類分けされていて、で、その中でも、例えば、バイリンガルなんだけど、第2言語とされるものをどんどんやっていくうちに第1言語が失われていくみたいなのがあるっていうのを全然その時知らなかったので、それが結構、印象に残っています。

[As for something new that I remember, um, it’s about bilinguals, that, I knew that, depending on the individual, a bilingual might be good at speaking, but cannot do well on English tests in Japanese schools, but that there are many types of bilinguals, that there are bilinguals who eventually lose their L1 as they continue to learn L2, was something I did not know at all, so that has left an impression.]

Refining her understanding of bilingualism was important for Akari, and left a lasting impression of the complexities and subtleties involved in being bilingual. Indeed, her struggles in defining bilingualiam is also evident in her reaction paper:

Excerpt 8

5月10日

マイノリティのレベルが多様である際に一斉教授として行う＆評価するというのはやはり難しい。”Bilingual”と一口に言っても、発音のうまさまで入れたものなのか、読み書きさえ完璧であればバイリンガルなのか…?と言った線引きは難しい

[May 10

Given the variation among minorities’1 levels, it would be difficult to teach and assess them altogether. When one uses the term “bilingual,” it is difficult to categorize an individual… do we take into consideration the pronunciation, or rather is one a bilingual if they have perfect literacy skills?]

In line with her sensitivity towards a minority’s idiosyncratic needs, individualizing instruction has emerged as something Akari now strongly believes in:

Excerpt 9

10月11日

日本政府の提示するカリキュラム自体を変更することはすぐにできる解決法（改革法）ではないが、（新カリキュラムが）教員による生徒一人一人への意識変化を生む…現カリキュラムに沿った範囲の中で興味、関心の持てる様な教育を提供

[October 11

I don’t think it is a feasible solution (or reform plan) to change the curriculum proposed by the Japanese government right away, ([the government] expecting the new curriculum) to help teachers heighten each student’s awareness… providing interesting and relevant education within the current curriculum]

She echoed this sentiment that emphasizes individualized instruction not just in her reaction papers but in the interview as well, but this time emphasizing a focus on languages beyond just English:

Excerpt 10

英語をやっぱり教えることがメインになっていて、その後ろ側。文化だとか。文化も一応扱ってはいるんですけど、その、世界中では、英語以外の言語もあるし、英語以外の言語を使っている人もたくさんいるし、っていう。なんか、その、言葉としても、もっと目を、目？視野を広げる？様な機会が与えられるカリキュラムはあった方が良いかな、と思って。

[Teaching English has been the main focus but behind those things… like culture. Culture is being taken up but, um, there are other languages besides English and many people are using languages other than English. Um, I think there should be a curriculum that provides many opportunities that focuses? Widens our perspective? about languages.]

For Akari, the current English-focused curriculum and instruction in Japan are limiting opportunities to learn about other languages and cultures.

Lastly, Akari concentrates on her views towards the mass media in proliferating certain cultural/linguistic ideologies:

Excerpt 11

10月18日

NHKで外国人の増加を取り上げられていた際、「無関心ではいられても無関係ではいられない」という言葉があったが、その現状を広める効果的な媒体がメディアや教育…テレビで「外国人問題」というニュースやプログラムがあっても視聴する人は非常に限られてしまうので、バラエティ番組で面白おかしく発信する番組が増えているのもここからきているのかもしれない。これについても偏った意見を持たせてしまう危険があるので、やはり非常に難しい問題である。

[October 18

When NHK2 took issue with the increase of foreigners, they used the expression “one might be indifferent, but one cannot remain unrelated,” but the medium that propagates the current situation is the mass media and education…. Only a handful actually watch the news and TV programs that take up “foreigner issues,” so maybe that is why variety shows portray them in silly ways. There is a danger of inciting biased opinions in people, so it is a very grave issue.]

In fact, during the interview, Akari noted:

Excerpt 12

ニュースで見ているだけだと、なんか、どこかよその問題、みたいなのがあるのかもしれないんですけど、なんか、もっと身近な場所からそういうことを、知る？…機会があれば、もっと認識が変わるのかな、と、うーん、そういう機会が足りてない。

[When watching the news, it comes across as issues unrelated to us but learning about it from our surroundings…? If we have a chance, I feel that our awareness might change, but, um, such chances are rare.]

Indifference towards minorities is a serious concern for Akari. However, it remains a non-issue for many Japanese, as the mass media continues to depict non-Japanese as an egregious, wayward, audacious group of individuals. One example that shows Japan’s attitude is its recent promulgation of a Hate Speech Act in 2016 in response to the UN’s call to eliminate discrimination. While the act was meant to reduce hate, the law still does not ban hate speech outright and there is no penalty for committing it.

Personally, Akari has always tried to accommodate non-Japanese speakers. Now, however––perhaps because of having taken the course––her approach is much more informed:

Excerpt 13

「やさしい日本語」はすごい印象に残っていて、それについては、そのー、授業で話を聞いていくうちに、意外と自分でも実践していたことだったかなっていうのは思ったんですけど、「やさしい日本語」っていう名前で、のがあるっていうのは知らなくて、で、その、なんだろ、そういう考え方があって、で、具体的にどういう、日本語の使い方をすれば良いのかっていうのを授業で聞い、たことをきっかけにして、その、アルバイト先とかで、外国の方で、なんだろ、日本語が得意ではなさそうなんだけど日本語で訊いてきてくれるお客様とかに対しては日本語で答えたいなっていうのを思っていたので、そういう時に、どういう伝え方をすれば一番わかりやすいかなっていうのを、その、授業でやったことを元にして実践は、していて、そこは結構変わったかなと思います。

[Using “Easy Japanese”3 has left an impression and as to that, as I listened to the lecture in class, I thought that I was already practicing it unconsciously but did not know that it had a term, “Easy Japanese,” so having learned its concept and exactly how to use it, at my workplace, those who might not have been fluent but asked questions in Japanese, I always wanted to reply in Japanese, so I now keep in mind how to effectively communicate with them based on what I learned in class, and this is the point; I think I’ve changed quite a bit.]

Akari noted that previously she would resort to hand gestures to communicate. Currently, however, she is more conscious of modifying her language by keeping sentences simple, avoiding complicated expressions, and emphasizing her intonation when asking questions. Furthermore, she noted how her workplace colleagues have expressed curiosity about her dealings with foreigners, and have indicated that they too wish to adopt her approach. Overall, establishing connections and learning about each other by attending to language use are important for Akari.

Discussion

According to Akari, the mediascape promulgated by the mass media and ideoscape (Appadurai, 1996) via education is perpetuating negative, simplistic, monolithic ideologies in conceptualizing minorities in Japan. Akari questions these stereotypes, and has managed to cultivate a more nuanced and complex outlook on foreigners in Japan. The two main factors she mentioned triggered her change were the course called The Modern World and the Individual taken in 2018–2019 and her brother, who has continuously shared with her his insights about non-Japanese people. Her ideological formation process is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Akari’s ideological formation process

According to Akari, one of the ways to challenge negative stereotypes is via education. She feels that instigating curriculum change may not be easy, but that an instructor’s attitude can be influential in raising students’ cultural and linguistic awareness (e.g., Cummins, 2001).

It is widely thought that a neoliberal agenda has led to a concentrated effort to cultivate English proficiency, especially in the American English variety, among the Japanese (Kubota, 2019; Seargeant, 2009), but Akari questions this, as she has come to realize the prevalence of non-native English speakers around the world. The most prominent ethnic groups in Japan are non-Japanese Asians, the most numerous being Chinese (E-Stat, 2020). Akari’s encounter with Singaporean English in Singapore had triggered her interest in exploring World Englishes, and the course provided a forum to further her interests. Realizing how the Outer and Expanding Circles (Kachru, 1985) enjoy their own English varieties, she has come to criticize adherence to linguistic conventions imposed by the Inner Circle. Her realization is in line with Japan’s evolving language policy that now embraces plurilingualism instead of native speaker norms (MEXT, 2018).

Finally, Akari’s feedback provides several important insights in addressing difficulties in establishing communication and in turn comprehending minority language speakers. Our understanding tends to be based on our past experiences only with those with similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and this could easily lead to misleading assumptions, what Holborow (2012) refers to as “one-sided representation” (p. 29). In Akari’s case, American English was the only form of the English language with which she was familiar. This changed with her introduction to Singaporean English. Akari was initially taken aback by Singaporean English; however, she came to know that there exist many viable forms of World Englishes. Likewise, Akari came to appreciate non-English speakers and to use creative means (e.g., using “Easy Japanese”) to communicate with them. By modelling how we can associate with others, Akari is affecting the ideoscape (Appadurai, 1996) prevalent among her colleagues, introducing a new perspective, and helping to disseminate a new ideology (van Dijk, 1998) in interacting with those from other ethnolinguistic backgrounds. News and social media (i.e., mediascape) are also deemed to be an important source of information, yet the number of those interested in learning more about the issue is limited, and a racially biased and flawed portrayal of non-Japanese is propagated by the media.

Conclusion

Japan has now close to three million non-Japanese citizens residing in Japan (E-Stat, 2020). Although they amount to just over 2% of the total population, the number has been steadily increasing over the years (Immigration Services Agency of Japan, 2020b). Given that Japan is amongst the nations with the most rapidly aging populations, a greater influx of migrants is expected in the future. Therefore, the ratio of non-Japanese to Japanese is expected to increase.

We consider this demographic trend to be an opportunity towards the goal of  increasing awareness of multiculturalism in Japan. As Akari pointed out pertinently in her interview, to promote a multicultural society in which the majority and the minority live together harmoniously, the former has to make ardent efforts to connect with the latter, not the other way round. It seems crucial that the majority adopt a positive attitude towards collaborative power relations (Cummins, 2001) as a response to the power imbalance that exists between the majority and minority groups in Japan.

Indeed, Akari herself is a pro-active agent of the majority who contributes to the actualization of multiculturalism in Japan by making positive overtures towards members of minority groups. Accordingly, what she acquired in the class further promoted her intercultural awareness. This heightened awareness has transformed her into someone who embraces multicultural and plurilingual ideologies. It should be also noted that this transformation has led to people in her entourage becoming aware of the importance of actualizing multiculturalism in Japan (Figure 1), thereby affecting the ideoscape (Appadurai, 1996). There might be a possibility that these individuals in turn play the role of agent as Akari has done. In this way multicultural and plurilingual ideologies could be disseminated among the majority.

Certainly, Akari had a unique background before taking the course: She had a great interest in Singaporean English and so knew, though unconsciously, about World Englishes; she also had a brother who worked as a Japanese as a second language instructor. Therefore, we cannot assert that taking the course resulted in Akari’s  ideological transformation. However, our analysis found evidence of ongoing transformation in her reaction papers and interview, indicating that at a very minimum the course influenced her multicultural ideologies in a desirable way and contributed to her transformation. This result reassures us that, although education alone may not be able to change the mediascape directly, it can exert an influence on the ideoscape by promoting intercultural awareness, insofar as ideological transformation may be actualized on the part of the majority. Further research in Japan, as well as other parts of the world where various people from different ethnolinguistic backgrounds are represented, would allow us to deepen and extend our understanding of the findings from this exploratory single-case study on addressing and heightening multicultural awareness, in turn bringing that awareness to bear on language policy in a way that is conducive to realizing a plurilingual nation.

References

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions in globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English teachers. Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). California Association of Bilingual Education.

E-Stat. (2020). Non-Japanese residents according to prefecture, citizenship/type of residence permit (resident purpose) by region [Todofuken betsu, Kokuseki/chiiki betsu, zairyushikaku (zairyu mokuteki) betsu zairyu gaikokujin]. https://www.e-stat.go.jp/dbview?sid=0003416093

Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. Routledge.

Flores, N. (2013). The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and plurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 500–520.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Prison notebooks. International Publishers.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Heigham, J., & Croker, R. A. (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.

Holborow, M. (2012). What is neoliberalism? Discourse, ideology and the real world. In D. Block, J. Gray, & M. Holborow (Eds.), Neoliberalism and applied linguistics (pp. 33–55). Routledge.

Immigration Service Agency of Japan. (2020a). Initiatives to accept new foreign nationals and for the realization of society of harmonious coexistence. Retrieved from https://www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/930004452.pdf

Immigration Services Agency of Japan. (2020b). Immigration control and residency management in recent years. Retrieved from https://www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/001335871.pdf

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30).  Cambridge University Press.

Kubota, R. (2019). English in Japan. In P. Heinrich & Y. Ohara (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Japanese sociolinguistics (pp. 110–126). Routledge.

Marshall, S. & Moore, D. (2013). 2B or not 2B plurilingual? Navigating languages, literacies, and plurilingual competence in postsecondary education in Canada. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 472–499.

Marshall, S. & Moore, D. (2018). Plurilingualism amid the panoply of lingualisms: Addressing critiques and misconceptions in education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(1), 1–15.

McDonnell, L. M. & Hill, P. T. (1993). Newcomers in American schools: Meeting the educational needs of immigrant youths. RAND.

Meiji Gakuin University, The Center for Liberal Arts & Faculty of Sociology & Social Work. (2016). Mo hitotsu no gurobaraizeishon: “Uchinaru kokusaika” ni taio shita jinzai no ikusei [An alternate form of globalization: Cultivating human resources to address “internationalization within”]. Kanyo.

MEXT [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology] (2018). Koto gakko gakushu shido yoryo kaisetsu: Gaikokugo hen/eigo hen. [High school instruction guidelines: Foreign language/English edition]. https://ssk.econfn.com/kougi/koukosidou.pdf

Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Routledge.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R. (2010). Linguistic imperialism continued. Routledge.

Piccardo, E. (2018). Plurilingualism: Vision, conceptualization, and practices. In P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education (pp. 207–226). Springer.

Sakamoto, M. (2012). Moving towards effective English language teaching in Japan: Issues and challenges. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 409–420.

Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Multilingual Matters.

Takakuwa, M. (2014). An alternative approach to foreign language education in Japan with a view toward becoming a multicultural society. In K. Shimizu & W. S. Bradley (Eds.), Multiculturalism and conflict reconciliation in the Asia-Pacific: Migration, language and politics (pp. 118–134). Palgrave Macmillan.

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.

Endnotes

1. Non-Japanese people

2. Nippon Hoso Kai, or The Broadcasting Corporation of Japan, which is a government-funded public broadcaster in Japan.

3. A simplified Japanese vernacular devoid of difficult words and syntax.

Posted on

Linguistic Trajectories and Family Language Policy: Return Migrant Families in Mexico

Dana K. Nelson, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit

Jesahe Herrera Ruano, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit

Jesús H. K. Zepeda Huerta, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit

Abstract

The political and economic situation of the United States and Mexico has contributed to new waves of transnational families whose lived experiences in both countries have created a complex family language reality. Our study analyzes the family language policies of three transnational families within the context of Mexican–US immigration and return migration. Following the arc of each family member’s repertoire development, we examine the relationship between family language policy and individual linguistic repertoires. The present study used linguistic autobiographies and semi-structured interviews to gather perceptions of family language policy and repertoire development. Our findings highlight the role of transnational children’s experiences in shaping and reconfiguring family language policy. They show how each child’s linguistic trajectory contributes to the dynamism of family language policy in both the home and host countries. These cases illustrate that an individual’s linguistic repertoire is a subjective and changing construction of the individual and a result of one’s life experiences. The family language policy is a complex and dynamic construct subject to the experiences of each member of the family.

Résumé

La situation politique et économique des États-Unis et du Mexique a contribué aux nouvelles vagues de familles transnationales qui retournent à leur lieu d’origine, dont les expériences dans les deux pays ont créé une réalité complexe de langage familial. Notre étude analyse la politique linguistique de trois familles transnationales dans le contexte de l’immigration et le retour Mexique–États-Unis. En suivant l’arc du développement du répertoire de chaque membre de la famille, nous avons examiné la relation entre la politique linguistique familiale et le développement des répertoires linguistiques individuels. La présente étude a utilisé des autobiographies linguistiques et des entretiens semi-structurés pour recueillir les perceptions sur la politique linguistique familiale et le développement du répertoire linguistique. Nos résultats soulignent le rôle des enfants transnationales dans la configuration et la reconfiguration de la politique linguistique familiale. Également, nos résultats montrent que la trajectoire linguistique de chaque enfant contribue au dynamisme de la politique linguistique familiale, autant du pays d’origine que dans le pays d’accueil, et, en plus, tout comme chaque répertoire serait une construction subjective et changeante de l’individu ainsi que le résultat de ses expériences, la politique linguistique familiale est également une construction complexe et dynamique qui tient des expériences de chaque membre de la famille.

Keywords: transnational families, family language policy, linguistic trajectory, linguistic repertoire.

Introduction

Over the last twenty years, the dynamic of Mexican–American immigration has highlighted a growing demographic in Mexico: families with lived experiences in both countries, usually identified as return migrant families. Return migration describes migrants “going home” to their country of origin, a phenomenon that is common in migration situations, but that is now happening on a greater scale, especially between the United States and Mexico (Mar-Molinero, 2018). The children in these families can be broadly grouped into two categories: those who were born in Mexico, and those who were born in the United States (Zuñiga & Giorguli, 2019). Recent research has examined these children’s experiences in the U.S. school system (Valdes, 2020) and their integration or reintegration into the Mexican context (Kleyn, 2017; Zuñiga & Giorguli, 2019; Zuñiga & Hamman, 2019). Although we studied these children as a starting point in previous work (Herrera Ruano et al., 2021), in this paper we expand our focus to the families.

Our study analyzes the complex family language policies of three transnational families within the context of MexicanU.S. immigration and return migration. To begin, we understand that the dynamics of immigration have changed as a consequence of new social, technological, and political developments over the last forty years (Blommaert, 2010; Arnaut, 2016). Before these changes, immigration was described as a well-regulated phenomenon where migrants’ profiles were usually well defined and predictable (Blommaert, 2013), but now there is radical diversification in migrants’ trajectories and profiles (Arnaut et al., 2016). The term super-diversity (Vertovec, 2007) has been coined to describe this diversification of migrant experiences, and it implies a need to reevaluate assumptions about the patterns of mobility, communication, and social networking, as well as consider the effects of information and communication technologies in immigration studies. In light of this, we have reconsidered concepts like family and language in our analysis of the intersection of linguistic trajectories and family language policy (Blommaert & Backus, 2013; Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020). For the transnational families in our study, the diversity of experiences within the family creates complexity. Within the same family, some siblings may be born in Mexico, and others born in the United States; a family may leave some members behind when it crosses borders, or some family members may travel back and forth. In addition, we look at how repertoires develop and change over the course of transnational experience. For the parents in our case studies, the transnational experience means they acquire English resources as adults and often do not reach the same level of competence as their children. For the children, the transnational experience may mean that some claim Spanish as their mother tongue while their siblings claim English, or that some children acquire early literacy skills in both languages while their siblings do not develop literacy skills in their mother tongue (English or Spanish) until late in the developmental trajectory.

In recognition of this complexity and dynamism, our study analyzes the role of family language policy in the construction of the linguistic trajectories and the individual linguistic repertoires found in three transnational return migrant Mexican families. We explore how their experiences in both the host and home countries have influenced each person’s linguistic trajectory and individual linguistic repertoire, and how each family member’s experiences have shaped the family language policy.

Family Language Policy in Transnational Families

Family Language Policy (FLP) unites child language acquisition studies and language policy studies to answer questions related to families’ language practices, beliefs and management, such as how multilingualism develops within the family unit (Curdt-Christiansen, 2009). Research in FLP often follows Spolsky’s (2003, 2009) model of language policy, which outlines three main components: language practice, language ideology, and language management. We follow Curdt-Christiansen and Huang’s (2020) model, which extends Spolsky’s triad to include directionality and influence pathways for the internal and external factors that affect FLP, such as economic and educational factors, family culture, identity, and parental impact beliefs.

Recently, researchers have called for new FLP research to address gaps in the field. In his review of FLP, Lomeu Gomes (2018) argues for a critical approach that expands the scope of FLP studies in terms of frameworks, research methods, diversity of languages, geographical locations, and family configurations. Hirsch and Lee (2018) also argue for an expansion of the FLP framework to include the temporal aspect of transnational families—when they moved and how much time they stayed in the home and host countries—and the (im)permanence of transnational moves. We recognize the need for new methods that capture a longitudinal view of FLP, because the temporal aspects affect locations, family configurations, and the external (social, educational, cultural, economic, and sociolinguistic) and internal (emotions, identity, family culture, parental impact belief, and child agency) factors proposed by Curdt-Christiansen and Huang’s (2020) model.

In her treatment of FLP, Lanza (2007) explains how the family language environment influences bilingual language acquisition when one of the family languages does not have community support. The lack of community support for a minority language intensifies the role of the family in language acquisition and language policy. As transnational families move to the host country and back again, the languages that are supported—or not—by the community also change. For transnational families who have returned to the home country, the FLP must react in accordance to each move.

FLP is also more complex for transnational families because, as Hua and Wei (2016) note, transnational experiences and bilingualism often mean different things to different generations of the same family. They argue that “more attention needs to be paid to the diverse experiences of the individuals and to the strategies they use to deal with the challenges of multilingualism, rather than the overall patterns of language maintenance and language shift” (Hua & Wei, 2016, p. 1). Taking a longitudinal approach to describe the diversity of experiences and the changing dynamic of the individual’s strategies allows us to gain insight into how transnational moves affect the development and maintenance of language.

Linguistic Repertoires and Trajectories

Given the variety of individual experiences within the family, the shifting community language support, and the changes in school language policies when transnational families relocate, family members often acquire a diverse set of semiotic resources from numerous languages and language varieties that provide them with a unique set of competencies. These resources are acquired at specific moments over the course of their lives and are used in various spaces. These semiotic resources, available to be used in interactional spaces, represent the individual’s linguistic repertoire at any given point in time.

The term linguistic repertoire was initially conceived in interactional terms by Gumperz (1964), who defined it as the way a community of people communicate with each other. In her review of the concept’s development, Busch (2015) highlights how Gumperz tended to “locate the linguistic repertoire in the linguistic community rather than in the speaking subject” (Busch, 2015, p. 345). She goes on to note that, more recently, many researchers have moved the concept “beyond the realm of the speech community” (Busch, 2015, p. 345) to locate the repertoire in the speaker or in localized spaces (see Blommaert & Backus, 2013; Pennycook & Otsuji, 2014; Rymes, 2014). Given the impact of super-diversity and new technologies, Gumperz’s conception that the repertoire is a construction of the speech community must be reexamined. Following Blommaert and Backus (2013), we see the repertoire from a biographical or individual perspective, in the sense that the repertoire is a subjective and changing construction of the speaker and their life experiences. Thus, a linguistic trajectory is a sort of biographical map of the acquisition, development, and use of these resources as the repertoire develops and changes over time (Blommaert & Backus, 2013).

How a child acquires the linguistic resources that constitute the repertoire is, of course, one of the central questions of FLP and child language acquisition. Following our view that a repertoire is variable and a direct result of life experiences, we focus on the trajectory over the course of lived experience in order to see how individuals believe their repertoires were acquired and have developed, as well as how they believe their competencies have changed.

Research Questions

Our main objective for this paper is to analyze linguistic trajectories in order to determine the relationship between linguistic repertoires and the transnational family language policy for three return migrant Mexican families. Our research is therefore guided by the following questions:

  • What is the arc of each family member’s repertoire, and what linguistic milestones mark its development?
  • What is the role of FLP in individual family members’ linguistic trajectories and the development of linguistic repertoires?
  • How do each family member’s experiences reconfigure and shape the FLP?

Methodology

The data presented here come from three transnational families with children who grew up in two national contexts, Mexico and the United States. We call them return migrant families to highlight their experiences as immigrants who left Mexico to live and work in the United States, but who ultimately returned to their “home” country. In Family 1, the parents went to the United States when their oldest child was about one year old, and their second child was born there. Family 2 went to the United States when the mother’s youngest child was about two years old and the two older children were in elementary school. In Family 3, the parents went to the United States, and their children were born there. Parts of each of these families returned to Mexico between 2008 and 2010.

When we started our research in 2016 for a previous phase of this study, we identified three undergraduate students with transnational experience in the university program where we work. All three students began their formal education in the United States and entered the Mexican educational system when they were around 12 years old. We conducted the interviews once in Spanish and then again with another researcher in English, believing that this might uncover additional themes related to their language experiences. For a previous publication, following Blommaert and Backus (2013), we used what emerged from the data to co-construct a timeline visually representing each student’s perception of their linguistic trajectory and varying competencies over the course of their lives (Herrera Ruano et al., 2021).

For this study, we have expanded our focus to the families of all three of these students. The core family members for all three families are the mothers and children; other family members were not consistently living with the children over the course of the transnational experience. Our data collection consisted of oral linguistic autobiographies (Pavlenko, 2007) and semi-structured interviews where each family member reported their linguistic histories and educational experiences in both countries. For the students, we used the interviews from the first phase of our research mentioned above and conducted new interviews with siblings and mothers or parents specifically for this phase of the research. For Family 1, interviews were carried out with the mother and two children; for Family 2, interviews were with the mother and youngest child; for Family 3, the interviews were done with the mother, father, and both children. We first asked each member of the family to tell us their life story. We then continued with an interview focused on language acquisition and use, as well as adaptation to the U.S. and Mexican contexts. We did not follow a formalized list of questions; instead, each interview varied according to the individual’s experience. All interviews were transcribed and checked for accuracy by research assistants.

We used thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006) to examine the biographies and interviews and identify themes related to each individual’s perceptions of their experiences in the United States and Mexico; this included how individual experiences shape the arc of each family member’s repertoire, including linguistic milestones, language competencies, and language ideologies, as well as the role of macro and micro factors in individual language development. The themes that emerged included language interventions, emotions, identity, parental impact beliefs, child agency, and language practices. We used these themes to construct the narratives presented below. These narratives form the basis for the subsequent discussion regarding linguistic trajectories and FLP. To maintain privacy, we have used pseudonyms for all family members.

Findings: Three Transnational Families

Family 1: Carol’s Family

Carol’s mother, Emma, grew up speaking Spanish in Nayarit, Mexico and is the oldest in a family of four. She started learning English when she enrolled in nursing school at age 17, but the classes were basic, and she only learned a few words. She got married at 19, left nursing school just before graduation, and had her first child, Carol, a year later. Before Carol’s first birthday, Emma and her husband, Marcos, decided to go to the United States to work but planned to return before Carol started school. Once they had crossed the border, the family went to live with Marcos’s sister in California. Marcos found a job quickly, but Emma decided to study English first at a community school with a daycare for Carol.

From the moment they arrived in the US, Carol’s linguistic environment changed. Her parents spoke Spanish to her, but she was surrounded by English. Emma says she taught Carol to write her name and some words in Spanish because she wanted Carol to be connected to her roots and her Mexican origins. The family ended up staying in the United States longer than they had planned; Carol soon started school, and her sister, Liz, was born in the United States. Carol learned to read and write in English at school. Her parents continued using Spanish with her and her sister, but Carol always used English with them, with her sister, with her cousins, at school, and with her friends. Carol’s sister, Liz, considers English her first language. Liz says she always understood Spanish, but when she started to speak, it was in English. Emma wanted to teach Liz to write in Spanish, like she had taught Carol, but she was working by then and no longer had time. Liz developed receptive Spanish skills, but she never tried to speak it, saying she never needed to.

Carol’s family moved three times, always living with other relatives from Mexico. They also usually had family visiting. Interaction was always in both languages at home. When they moved to Las Vegas, Emma decided to get a job as a waitress, confident with what she had learned in English. They were happy living in the United States and thought they would stay forever, but Marcos decided to go back to Mexico. Emma and her children stayed in the United States without him for almost a year before moving back to reunite the family.

When the family returned to Mexico, Carol was ten years old, and Liz was six. Emma was worried that moving back would be difficult for her children, especially at school. The children were excited to return to Mexico, but as Emma suspected, it was a difficult process for her children. Carol says she suffered a lot at school. She understood Spanish, but it was difficult for her to speak it, and she had never learned to read and write in anything other than English. The teachers ignored her, and her classmates bullied her, so she started to get her parents’ help to focus more on learning Spanish and no longer used only English. One day, however, she was talking to her cousin in English on the phone and noticed it was hard for her. She realized she did not want to forget her English. She started reading and watching more videos in English and made sure her younger sister did as well. For Liz, on the other hand, adapting to her new school in Mexico was not so difficult. Emma thinks this was because she was just starting elementary school when they came back, so although Liz only spoke English, she got used to speaking Spanish and easily learned to read and write in Spanish too.

Six years later, Emma and Marcos divorced, and Emma and her children went to live with her parents. They are in frequent contact with their relatives who live in the United States, and they speak English when those relatives come to visit. Carol and Liz usually share books in English and watch TV in English together. They say they use some phrases in English, but they never communicate with each other completely in English anymore. Carol says she has improved her English at the university, because her major includes English classes that have helped her to develop reading and writing skills in English. The family considers their experience in the United States of great value, because they have experienced other cultures and gained language resources. They believe they have more opportunities because of their experience with English and Spanish, and are eager to learn more languages.

Family 2: Irelda’s Family

Irelda’s mother, Maria, grew up with several older siblings in a monolingual Spanish-speaking household in a farming community in Nayarit. The family valued education, making it a priority even when school represented financial hardship. Maria studied to become a nurse but dropped out shortly before finishing her degree when she became pregnant with her first child. When her husband passed away, she was still young, and her sons were two and six. Due to the financial strain of being a single mother in a small town with little economic opportunity, Maria decided to go to the United States, as many others from her town had done before her. She left her young children with family and crossed the border without thinking twice about the possible linguistic challenges she would face.

Maria spoke no English on this first trip over the border and mainly moved in Spanish-speaking circles, where the need for English was minimal. She met Irelda’s father soon after crossing the border and became pregnant, although she returned to Mexico to have Irelda and reunite with her other two children. Back in Mexico, Maria maintained monolingual language practices and management. Both of her older children were in school and developing language resources in Spanish, so Irelda began acquiring language in a monolingual Spanish family environment.

When Irelda was just a year old, her father returned to Mexico and, after a few months, they all left for the United States together. Once again, Maria found a cultural and linguistic support system in the local Mexican community and reports that although she began to learn some English, it was not a priority for her. She knew the move would be hard on the older children, but she also expected they would learn English on their own as they integrated into school. There were no bilingual programs at the schools they attended. The first year was difficult for her boys, who would come home from school upset and wanting to go back to Mexico. The first year, both boys were made to start a grade behind because of their lack of English. The boys’ acquisition was largely dependent on school; the family could not afford extra English classes, and Maria’s own knowledge of English was minimal. Still, she was confident that the boys would soon catch up with their peers. After a year, she says that they were speaking English between themselves at home.

Irelda’s experience was different from that of her brothers. When she began school, her linguistic experiences already included both languages. Her home environment had provided opportunities to develop English resources from her brothers and from the wider sociolinguistic environment that the family was now exposed to, which for Irelda included going to the Boys and Girls Club. Once she started school, she had ample opportunity to continue developing a variety of resources in English.

Over the course of their time in the U.S., the family composition changed after Maria’s relationship with Irelda’s father ended. The family began moving more often, sharing homes with other friends, relatives, and partners. Maria reports that the boys, especially the middle child, began to reject Spanish. She tried to maintain the boys’ Spanish literacy development, but was unsuccessful. She says her middle child told her he did not need Spanish because he never thought he would return to Mexico. Irelda was more open, and Maria taught her basic literacy in Spanish using an elementary textbook an aunt had provided. Maria herself began to take classes in English and acquire more competencies in public interactions at her children’s schools and her job. She spoke Spanish with her children, although she could now understand when her children used English at home. She was proud that her children were speaking English.

During the economic crisis of 2008, Maria decided to return to Mexico with her family. The process of reintegration to the Mexican context was extremely difficult for the children. Educational institutions and teachers were not always receptive to students with transnational experiences. Irelda’s brother had to repeat two years of high school that he had already done in the United States because he spoke no Spanish at all upon return, and Irelda was rejected by the first school where she tried to register because her paperwork was from the United States.

Both Maria and Irelda report that once back in Mexico, it was Maria’s middle child who had the hardest time adapting. In response, the family consciously reduced their use of English in order to support his development in Spanish. Maria reports that she gradually stopped using English, and that only her children used it in the home. She supported their use of English and defended her children when relatives and friends commented that the children should not speak English in public because they were in Mexico now.

Irelda reports that until she started college, the only people she used English with were her brothers, although she also used it for watching movies and listening to music. She reports that in middle school she used mostly the vernacular Spanish of her parents’ hometown and only began to gain more literacy resources in Spanish in high school. At first, she had difficulty understanding concepts and expressing herself in Spanish even though she could speak, read, and write a little. In high school she was exempted from English classes because she was perceived by her English teachers to speak English already. Once she started college and faced a higher level of linguistic expectation, she began to feel that her competencies were underdeveloped in both languages; however, she also had the opportunity to develop them in an educational context. Now she works as an English teacher; she uses English all day and feels like it is affecting her Spanish.

Family 3: David’s Family

David’s mother, Micaela, grew up in Nayarit with her six siblings in a Spanish-speaking household that encouraged all the children to pursue higher education. Micaela decided to study nursing, and after graduation, she moved to Tijuana for work. She later moved back to Nayarit and met David’s father, Jacob. Before meeting Micaela, Jacob crossed the border for the first time, inspired by a friend’s stories of living in the United States. That first visit only lasted three months, but soon after, he decided he wanted to live in the United States. He says he did not need to learn English in California at first, but when he moved to Arizona three years later, he decided he should learn. Since then, he has mainly lived in Arizona, although he comes back to visit Mexico often.

Jacob met Micaela while visiting family in Mexico and asked her to go to the United States with him. Micaela accepted, but felt sad living in the United States and went back to Mexico after two months. Only a month after returning to Mexico, she realized she was pregnant. She decided to rejoin Jacob, and David was born in Arizona in 1999. During her second stay in the United States, Micaela took some English classes, but quit after a year and a half because she did not have time. She acquired mostly receptive resources in English; she reports that she can communicate basic needs, but she cannot maintain a conversation. In the United States, Micaela spoke Spanish to her children at home, but English was the community language everyone used outside the home. The family kept in touch with their extended Mexican family in Spanish.

Micaela taught both her children basic literacy skills in Spanish, but they did not acquire Spanish literacy skills at school while in Arizona. David acquired his literacy skills in English at school in the United States. His mother reported that he had a special education designation for part of his early educational experience in the United States but does not remember what it was for specifically. When his mother decided to return to Mexico, David was fluent in English, and he brought his movies, CDs, and games to Mexico. David says he thought his Spanish was good until he came to Mexico. He realized his vocabulary was limited, and he could not understand his classmates when they used certain expressions. The Spanish he had learned at home was not what he heard in Mexico. His classmates made fun of him because of how he spoke, and the teacher did not help him either, so he moved to another school. In the new school, he received help from his teacher and classmates, and his resources in Spanish improved. David’s family helped him at home, and he says his cousins helped him with Spanish pronunciation.

In 2004, David’s brother, Oziel, was also born in Arizona. Oziel was just starting to learn English in kindergarten when the family returned to Mexico. His Spanish quickly developed as he finished kindergarten in Mexico, and throughout elementary school, Oziel used mainly Spanish. He almost never used English except when watching cartoons, and he refused to communicate with David in English. Recently, however, he returned to the United States to live with his father and is in high school developing English resources again.

David did not return to Arizona with his brother; he decided to stay with his mother in Mexico and finish university, where he is continuing to develop both English and Spanish resources. He wants to go back to the United States when he graduates. Although David and Oziel use both Spanish and English, Jacob always insisted they speak one or the other depending on where and with whom they were speaking, saying that this was more respectful.

Discussion

One Family, Different Linguistic Trajectories

The transnational experience does not produce homogenous linguistic outcomes. The narratives for each of the three families above demonstrate that although each family member has transnational experiences, they each have their own unique trajectory. As in a complex system, each trajectory affects the trajectories of the other members, and the arc of each family member’s repertoire influences FLP.

In Family 1, the oldest child was an infant in the preverbal stages of acquisition when the family went to live in the United States. She began to develop productive and receptive skills in Spanish and English while there. When she started school in the United States, she acquired literacy resources and further developed her productive and receptive skills in English. She continued developing mostly receptive skills in Spanish. Her younger sister was born in the United States. She developed receptive skills in Spanish because of her parents and receptive and productive skills in English with her sister. The younger sister was just beginning to develop literacy in English when the family came back to Mexico. When they returned, the parents realized they needed to help both their children acquire productive skills in Spanish. The older daughter struggled with literacy in Spanish for a while and shifted her attention from English. The younger daughter was reported by her mother to slip easily into Spanish and quickly develop productive skills, too. The older sister decided to maintain her English skills and help her younger sister in doing so as well.

In Family 2, the oldest child had developed literacy skills and a wide range of oral skills in Spanish before leaving Mexico. The middle child was just beginning to develop literacy skills. The youngest child was an infant in the preverbal stages of acquisition before leaving. Upon arrival in the United States, these trajectories diverged. The two older children transferred most productive and receptive practices to English, and their Spanish resource development paused at different stages. From an early age, the youngest child developed productive and receptive skills in both languages, but predominantly in English because of her siblings. By the time they returned to Mexico, the oldest child easily slipped back into Spanish and quickly regained a wide range of pragmatic skills, but the middle child no longer claimed any productive skills and had minimal receptive skills in Spanish. The youngest child struggled with literacy in Spanish at first and later in English when she started university. The middle child’s lack of Spanish upon return to Mexico brought about a policy of increased use of Spanish in the home, and his younger sister consciously tried to use English less with her sibling to support his successful integration outside the home.

In Family 3, the older child was born in the United States and developed Spanish at home and English at school. His younger brother was also born in the United States and developed skills in Spanish and English at home thanks to his brother. The younger child was just starting his education and beginning to develop literacy in English when the family came back to Mexico. The mother returned to using only Spanish, while the father stayed in the United States and continued to use both. The older child struggled to develop Spanish literacy skills at first and needed support to do so. He also consciously looked for strategies to maintain his resources in English. His younger brother easily slipped into Spanish and quickly developed productive skills in Spanish. In Mexico, he refused to use English with his brother, perhaps due to his father’s beliefs about speaking one language or the other, depending on where they were, as a sign of respect. Now that the younger sibling is back in the United States, he has started to develop his resources in English again. The older child continues developing resources in English and Spanish and hopes to go back to the United States someday.

These three families’ trajectories demonstrate that the development of individual linguistic repertoires is complex and dynamic, with language policy being continuously reconfigured through their transnational trajectories. Time and space were instrumental in determining the language resources each family member acquired. As they moved through the space of Mexico and the United States at different points in their trajectories, they acquired a variety of linguistic resources, resulting in unique repertoires that influenced the family language policy.

Parental Impact Beliefs

For these transnational families, the narratives showed little belief in parental responsibility for interventions related to home country language development while in the host country and vice versa. These weak parental impact beliefs (de Houwer, 1999) could be seen in how parents did not make premeditated efforts to prepare for their life in the United States from a language perspective, neither for themselves nor for their children and in how, once there, parental support for both home and host country language was restricted to basic home literacy. Explicit interventions were limited—perhaps due to financial constraints, the educational policies of the states where they lived, the age of the children, and the children’s expectations about returning to Mexico. Additionally, we detected that some parents saw language development as the purview of the schools, not the home, or as a natural process that did not require supported intervention. Other studies have found that parents were conflicted about not providing support for their children in heritage language acquisition while in the host country (Curdt-Christiansen & Huang, 2020, p. 180). However, we did not find that these parents’ emotions were negatively affected in this way, perhaps because the participants in our study had returned to their home country. If the families had stayed in the United States, they may have had regret and emotion related to support for heritage language acquisition. We also did not find negative parental emotions around not providing support for continued English acquisition once in Mexico, although there were clearly negative emotions from the children’s perspectives.

Child Agency

The narratives showed that from the children’s perspectives, motivations for learning and maintaining languages were tied to a sense of belonging (Hua & Wei, 2016). Older children may not have maintained Spanish while in the host country because they had established a sense of belonging and therefore did not perceive a need for the home country language any longer. While the parents were perhaps aware that their lives would continue to inhabit both worlds and that return was possible, the older children did not think about the possibility of returning. Consequently, upon return, the older children had to reconstruct a sense of belonging from a new standpoint, concerning their repertoire.

For all the children, there were many perspectives motivating repertoire development depending on which category they belonged to. If they were born in Mexico and arrived in the United States as small children, the challenge of developing new language resources was immediate but eventually met. For the younger children or those that were born in the United States, the host country language was taken on as a mother tongue. All children maintained the home country language, but to different extents. Upon return, the parents were able to easily slide back into a comfortable language position, while the children faced additional challenges in the construction and consolidation of their repertoire.

Linguistic Milestones and Trajectories

The narratives show how family language policy is determined by each member’s linguistic milestones and trajectory. These milestones are moments of agency that influence interactional family language practices and the repertoire development of other family members. From the perspective of the trajectory, the dynamic role of the middle child in Family 2 is evident: He is integral in creating a sibling language practice of using English while in the United States, but is also chiefly responsible for shifting that same sibling practice toward Spanish upon return. The older siblings in both Families 1 and 2 channeled their own fears about losing English skills into promoting its use with younger siblings. We can see how the linguistic environment in the home responds to the cultural environment in both the host and home country.

Conclusions

The present study responded to calls to analyze the “diverse experiences of the individuals and the strategies they use to deal with the challenges of multilingualism” (Hua & Wei, 2016, p. 1), by examining the relationship between transnational linguistic trajectories and family language policy for three families in the Mexico-United States return migrant context. Our findings show that just as each repertoire is a subjective and changing construction of the individual and a result of one’s life experiences, the FLP is a complex and dynamic construct subject to the experiences of each member of the family. Language policy in the three families was continuously reconfigured through their transnational trajectories in response to a variety of factors and cultural environments. Children played a greater role in FLP because of weak parental impact beliefs. Viewing FLP from the perspective of return migration also allowed us to consider how the FLP in the host country affects the FLP in the home country. Although for our study we used each family member’s present-day perceptions of their past experiences, additional research could take a more longitudinal and ethnographic approach to documenting the relationship over time. We would like to see how these children’s transnational experiences influence future decisions about language, belonging, and family as they become adults and perhaps begin their own families.

References

Arnaut, K. (2016). Superdiversity: Elements of an emerging perspective. In K. Arnaut, J. Blommaert, B. Rampton & M. Spotti (Eds.), Language and superdiversity, (pp. 49-70). Routledge.

Arnaut, K. et al. (Eds.) (2016). Language and superdiversity. Routledge.

Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press.

Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Multilingual Matters.

Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2013). Superdiverse repertoires and the individual. In I. de Saint-Georges & J.-J. Weber (Eds.), Multilingualism and multimodality: Current challenges for educational studies. (pp. 11–32). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-266-2_2

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherleben—the lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv030

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Huang, J. (2020). Factors influencing family language policy. In A. Shalley, & S. Eisenchlas (Eds.), Handbook of social and affective factors in home language maintenance and development, (pp. 174–193). De Gruyter Mouton.

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2009). Invisible and visible language planning: Ideological factors in the family language policy of Chinese immigrant families in Quebec. Language Policy, 8, 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-009-9146-7

De Houwer, A. (1999). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Bilingualism and migration, pp. 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807820.75

Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist, 66, pp. 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00100

Herrera Ruano, J. et al. (2021). Trayectorias, repertorios y competencias lingüísticas de estudiantes transnacionales en Nayarit, México. [Trajectories, repertoires and linguistic competences of transnational students in Nayarit, Mexico]. In J. C. Carrillo Navarro, G. Medrano de Luna & A. Lucas Hernández (Coords.), Interculturalidad, educación y tradiciones populares, (pp. 127–144). Universidad de Guadalajara.

Hirsch, T. & Lee, J. S. (2018). Understanding the complexities of transnational family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(10), 882–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1454454

Hua, Z. & Wei, L. (2016). Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(7), 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1127928

Kleyn, T. (2017). Centering transborder students: Perspectives on identity, languaging and schooling between the U.S. and Mexico. Multicultural Perspectives, 19(2), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2017.1302336

Lanza, E. (2007). Multilingualism and the family. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, pp. 45–68. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198553.1.45

Lomeu Gomes, R. (2018). Family Language Policy ten years on: A critical approach to family multilingualism. Multilingual Margins, 5(2), 54-–6. https://doi.org/10.14426/mm.v5i2.98

Mar-Molinero, C. (2018). Language issues for US-raised ‘returnees’ in Mexico. In K. Potowsky(Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Spanish as a Heritage Language, pp. 555–567. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735139

Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm008

Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. (2014). Metrolingual multitasking and spatial repertoires: ‘Pizza mo two minutes coming’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12079

Rymes, B. (2014). Communicative repertoire. In C. Leung & B. V. Street (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to English Studies, (pp. 287–301). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315852515.ch19

Spolsky, B. (2003). Language Policy. Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615245

Spolsky, B. (2009). Language Management. Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626470

Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy – the critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.638072

Valdés, G. (2020). (Mis)educating the children of Mexican-origin people in the United States: The challenge of internal language borders. Intercultural Education, 31(5), 548–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2020.1794122

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465

Zuñiga, V. & Giourguli Saucedo, S.E. (2019). Niñas y niños en la migración de Estados Unidos a México: La generación 0.5. [Children in migration from the U.S. to Mexico: The generation 5.0]. Colegio de México.

Zúñiga, V. & Hamann, E. T. (2019). De las escuelas de Estados Unidos a las escuelas de México: Desafíos de política educativa en el marco de la Gran Expulsión [From U.S. schools to Mexican schools: Educational policy challenges in the context of the ‘great expulsion’]. In J. L. Calva (Ed.), Migración de Mexicanos a Estados Unidos, derechos humanos y desarrollo (pp. 221–239). Juan Pablos Editor/Consejo Nacional de Universitarios.

Posted on

Fostering Plurilingualism as a Strategic Tool for Better Learning: An Ethnic Korean High School in China

Meilan P. Ehlert, University of British Columbia (Okanagan)

Abstract

This contribution reports how a pluralistic educational model (Coste et al., 2009) was implemented in a local context, especially through a trilingual education program at a high school for a minority nationality in the ethnic Korean community school (K-MNS) in northeast China, and how it affected students’ discourses and representations of the value of plurilingualism for their lives and their future. Drawing from key findings from a four-year qualitative study of 22 teenaged plurilingual learners from the K-MNS, including ethnographic observation notes and semi-structured interviews, the focus is on how various complex and dynamic discourses concerning the importance of developing a plurilingual repertoire (Marshall & Moore, 2016) steered student participants towards the trilingual education program. Twenty-two teenaged plurilingual learners from the K-MNS participated in the study over a period of four years. The study reveals how plurilingualism and plurilingual pedagogy were valued as important resources and as initiatives that support both language learning and subject learning. Student participants consideredtheir experiences of plurilingualism through schooling under the K-MNS educational system an important process that prepared them to be more competitive citizens of the world. Learning a foreign language (FL) as a third language (L3) at a K-MNS school is a strong contributor to their academic success and career advancement. The study suggests plurilingual pedagogy supports students in developing key strategies for academic and career success.

Résumé

Cette contribution rend compte de la mise en œuvre d’un modèle éducatif pluraliste (Coste et al., 2009) dans un contexte local, au travers d’un programme d’éducation trilingue dans un lycée de la communauté minoritaire de nationalité coréenne (K-MNS) dans le nord-est de la Chine. Les données de cette étude sont tirées des principales conclusions d’une étude qualitative de 4 ans avec vingt-deux apprenants plurilingues adolescents du K-MNS, comprenant des notes d’observation ethnographique et des entretiens semi-structurés. L’accent sera mis sur l’examen de la manière dont divers discours complexes et dynamiques sur les répertoires plurilingues (Marshall & Moore, 2016) ont orienté les étudiants participants vers le programme d’éducation trilingue. Cette étude révèle comment le plurilinguisme et la pédagogie plurilingue ont été considérés comme une ressource importante et une initiative pour soutenir autant l’apprentissage des langues que celui des disciplines. Les étudiants participants considèrent que leurs expériences de plurilinguisme à travers la scolarisation dans le cadre du système éducatif K-MNS constituent un processus important qui les a préparés à devenir des citoyens du monde plus compétitifs. L’apprentissage d’une langue étrangère (en L3) dans une école K-MNS est une voie importante pour leur réussite scolaire et leur avancement professionnel. L’étude suggère l’importance d’approches plurilingues pour soutenir chez les élèves le développement de stratégies clés pour la réussite (académique / professionnelle).

Keywords: plurilingualism, plurilingual pedagogy, third language learning.

Introduction

In the past two decades, an increasing number of researchers and educators focusing on the acquisition of second (L2), third (L3), or foreign languages in formal education have been exploring ways to develop a pluralistic approach in language learning (Castellotti & Moore, 2010; Cenoz, 2009; Cummins, 2006; De Angelis & Dewaele, 2011; Gao, 2009; Hattori, 2016; Jessner, 2008; Kubota, 2014; Nan, 2008, 2015). Pluralistic education models tend to center on the learner and highlight the importance of individuals’ prior knowledge and experience in learning. These funds of knowledge are constructed mainly through the individual’s experiences and interactions with family, community, and the world. In this view, individuals learn better when they actively engage in learning by maximizing the use of multiple linguistic, cultural, and literacy resources. This “wholistic” view (Castellotti & Moore, 2010, p.1) of learning was initially developed and promoted in Europe by the Council of Europe (2001, 2010, 2018) (Moore & Gajo, 2009). Recently, various models using pluralistic approaches in education have been proposed and studied across many disciplines. Marshall and Moore (2016) recommend adopting “plurilingual pedagogy” (p.1) as a key tool for supporting an increased level of learner diversity in today’s classrooms.

Plurilingual advocates argue that the strategic implementation of pluralistic approaches can facilitate and motivate students’ deep learning, critical thinking, and academic achievement; it also helps in the active development of social skills, intercultural communication, and generally fosters more positive attitudes towards learning (Cummins, 2014; Lee & Marshall, 2012; Little et al., 2014; Moore, 2010). While plurilingualism is a common phenomenon and an essential part in the lives of many people today, its integration into formal education systems is, nevertheless, frequently questioned by educators, stakeholders, and policy makers––especially those who support stereotyped monolingual orientations toward the competence of a plurilingual speaker (Moore & Gajo, 2009).

Plurilingual education challenges the ongoing tendency in mainstream academic discourses to assume that monolingualism is a norm for all individuals and societies (Lau & Van Viegen, 2020). The same can be said about minority nationality education in China, and the minority nationality school (MNS) education system in the ethnic Korean community (K-MNS) in northeast China.

This contribution reports some key findings from a four-year, longitudinal, qualitative study which aimed to explore how plurilingual learners engage and invest in multiple representations of languages, language learning, and learner identities (Moore & Py, 2011), in a time of transition (Byrd-Clark, 2010; also see Choi, 2001; Choi, 2004; Gao, 2009). This paper intends to give voice to students engaged in a specific K-MNS school that chose to adopt pluralistic pedagogies across learning. In particular, the study examined, from a student point of view, the complex issues that ethnic Korean plurilingual teenagers face when learning an FL at school, in this case either Japanese, which has historical links to the local community, or English, which is a global language. Participants were a group of 22 plurilingual teenagers who were learning Korean, Chinese, and either Japanese or English, as part of a mandatory trilingual education program at their school. An emphasis in my study is on examining how various complex and dynamic discourses about the value of plurilingualism and plurilingual repertoires (Coste et al., 2009; Marshall & Moore, 2016) steered these plurilingual youth towards the trilingual education program at K-MNS.

In the following sections, I first provide a brief review of relevant literature, research context, and methods. I then share some key findings.

Plurilingual(ism), the multi in the pluri

In the present study, I share Marshall and Moore’s (2016) conceptualization of complexity involving the multi and the pluri. In their work, Marshall and Moore discuss where and how plurilingualism fits among other lingualisms, explore similarities and differences, and give an example of a plurilingual pedagogy in action from a university in Vancouver, Canada. As they highlight in this work:

Plurilingualism can be understood as the study of individuals’ repertoires and agency in several languages, in different contexts, in which the individual is the locus and actor of contact; accordingly, a person’s languages and cultures interrelate and change over time, depending on individual biographies, social trajectories, and life paths. The term ‘plurilingual competence’ adds emphasis on learners’ agency, and constraints and opportunities in educational contexts. (Marshall & Moore, 2016, p.2)

In this study, I use the term multi with one main denotation: To indicate an individual’s multiple repertoires of languages, cultures and literacy resources, including multilingualism, multiliteracies, and multimodal tools. This understanding conveys the plurilingual learner’s unique and multiple competence in managing various resources in their dynamic repertoires (e.g., for better learning or communication). I also use the term multilingual(ism), as it better reflects the common usage in English, Korean, and Chinese by non-specialists in the fields of education and social sciences. Despite my emphasis on plurilingualism as a lens for understanding the new and fluid configurations of language practices and language learning, in the interviews with participants, I used the term multilingual(ism) to refer to both social and individual aspects of language and cultural practices.

Wholistic versus Holistic

In this study, I use the term wholistic (Castellotti & Moore, 2010), which has a similar meaning to holistic. With a w, wholistic refers to “a whole or whole body; taking into consideration the whole body or person” (p. 1). This term highlights the connectedness of a person’s mind, body, and spirit. These two words can be used interchangeably.

Plurilingual Competences, Mobile Resources for Empowerment

The current study is based on the conceptual framework of plurilingualism and plurilingual competence. Plurilingualism does not describe separate competence in fixed and labeled languages, but rather builds language as a “mobile resource” (Blommaert, 2010, p. 43), within an integrated repertoire (Lüdi & Py, 2009) that can include translingual practices (Canagarajah, 2013). Plurilingualism (Council of Europe, 2001, 2010, 2018) can be understood as the study of individual repertoire and agency in several languages in different contexts, in which an individual is the locus of, and actor in, the context. The plurilingual framework emphasizes that a person’s language and culture are interrelated and change over time, depending on an individual’s biography and social trajectories as well as their life path (Coste et al., 2009). A specific focus of this framework is on individual speakers’ plurilingual and pluricultural competence, defined by Coste et al. (2009) as “the ability to use language for the purpose of communication, and to take part in intercultural interaction where a person, viewed as a social actor, has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures” (p. 11; also see Council of Europe, English version, 2001, p.168).

Most specifically, plurilingual learners engage in imaginative uses of their linguistic resources, constantly exploring and developing various strategies of managing the multi in their dynamic repertoires:

The speaker can throw in light or shade certain zones of his/her competence, (dis)activate, (re)invent and negotiate his/her multiple resources in context. Depending on how the speaker interprets and categorizes the situation of communication, she/he can be encouraged to use her/his repertoire as a bilingual or as a learner and sometimes, even, as a monolingual. (Moore & Gajo, 2009, p. 142)

This includes translanguaging, which is the plurilingual speaker’s ability to “shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system” (Canagarajah, 2011, p. 401).

In this study, I give special consideration to the unique features of learners’ linguistic and cultural competence, especially regarding the links between the languages they use in their daily lives, at school, and the new languages they are learning (Japanese, English). Of particular interest in this study are the complex ways participants view and intermesh sociolinguistic representations and language practices (e.g., Coste et al., 2009)

Research Context

Research Site: Peace Ethnic Korean Secondary School (PKSS)

With a population of almost 2 million, the ChaoXianZu in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter, PRC or China) [ethnic Korean Chinese or ethnic Korean; “朝鲜族” in Chinese, Chosŏnjok “조선족” in Korean] community is the second largest overseas Korean diasporic community. It consists of almost 30% of the approximately 7 million total overseas Korean population in the world (MOFA, 2019). As a main minority nationality group in China, Koreans––along with Kazaks, Mongolians, Tibetans, and Uyghurs––have had writing systems that were broadly used even before the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, and have had regular bilingual education since then (Yang, 2005). In terms of the Min-han Jian-tong (民汉兼通; mastery of both ethnic language and Chinese language) bilingual education policy, similar to the case of Uyghurs before 2005 (see New China Daily 2006; Chinese Minzu Daily, 2015), there have been some changes in the policy. Based on the new policy which was reinforced especially after 2005, some of the K-MNS schools in northeast China began to offer more Mandarin Chinese classes; as a cost, ethnic Korean class hours were reduced, and use Chinese as the main instructional medium of some school subjects (Ehlert, 2018). Nonetheless, the bilingual education system remains active in the case of the Korean community in Northeast China.

Since the 1990s, the ethnic Korean community in China has been in constant transition and transformation, marked by an increased level of mobility along with active internationalization, which has brought social, economic, and political changes to the community. Such changes have a strong connection to the rise of the ChaoXianZu community, especially through the K-MNS education system. The increased mobility has also been motivating and challenging educators to actively explore different strategies to support new generations of foreign language learners. The educators include teachers and administrators in the K-MNS, like the Peace ethnic Korean Secondary School (PKSS), which is the main research site for this study.

I now briefly introduce the main curriculum and pedagogical strategy that PKSS has implemented, to show the unique situation of this school within the K-MNS system. Then, I explain the background of the participants in the study.

Located in a small town in north-east China, PKSS is one of five ethnic Korean secondary schools in Mudanjiang region in the province of Heilongjiang, an area close to the former Soviet Russia and the Korean peninsula. PKSS has been actively developing various pedagogical approaches. Similar to many secondary schools in China, PKSS has been carrying out YingShi JiaoYu [应试教育] which is an exam-oriented education system since China re-started the university entrance exam in the late 1970s (Ehlert, 2018, pp.118-9). In recent years, students in the school have generally faced three main examinations: ZhongKao [中考; middle school graduation exam], HuiKao [会考; high school graduation exam], and GaoKao [高考; national college entrance exam]. Language programs play a key role in the exam-centred curriculum at PKSS, as revealed from the value of language subjects in its main programs.

The following two senior grades serve as an example:

At Senior level 2 (grade 11), as students prepare for the HuiKao, 25% (10 sessions out of 40) of the main sessions in a week were given to language programs. This includes 4 sessions in an FL (Japanese or English), and 3 sessions each in Korean and Hanyu [Mandarin].

At Senior level 3 (grade 12), as students prepare for the GaoKao, 33% (12 sessions out of 40) of the main sessions in a week are given to language programs. This includes 5 sessions in a foreign language, 3 sessions in Korean and 4 sessions in Hanyu.

Research Questions

Two main objectives underlie this work:

  1. to understand, from the student participants’ points of view, learners’ practices and representations of the multi as part of plurilingual learners’ repertoires and resources, especially against the background of the complex situation of language politics in Northern China;
  2. to identify how a strategic pedagogical implementation of the multi can better support and empower plurilingual speakers and learners in today’s diverse classrooms.

In particular, this study aimed to investigate how a group of 22 ChaoXianZu plurilingual youth navigated the complexity and mobility of their multiple languages and identities. Three specific questions guided the investigation. I wanted to know:

  1. What were the participants’ experiences and representations of plurilingualism?
  2. How did their experiences and representations of languages, language learning, and the value of plurilingualism affect their language learning?
  3. How did their FL learning and the development of plurilingual resources affect their life trajectory and identities?

In this paper, the focus is primarily on sharing the key findings related to the first question. I also briefly talk about some outcomes concerning the third question. With the first question, I am interested in looking at how teenagers become plurilingual while engaging in multiple language and literacy practices at school, especially through a trilingual education for minorities program in the ethnic Korean minority nationality school system. In particular, I explore the learning context of a group of plurilingual teenagers and the way their experiences in a school that has adopted a plurilingual pedagogy in teaching might affect their (foreign language) learning. This includes an examination of these students’ perspectives on trilingual education, with an emphasis on their schooling experiences at a K-MNS school, such as looking at how they practice the multi in their languages, cultures and literacies in and out of their classroom contexts. Some of the main topics explored during interviews focused on plurilingualism as a key strategy for success, and on learning an FL/L3 as an essential tool for easing transitions from one educational context to another.

Methods

Data Sources

The main study was primarily based on data collected through ethnographic visual methods (Ehlert, 2018, pp.74–80), a combined method of ethnographic (Creswell, 2007) and visual (Rose, 2007) approaches, with a consideration of the strength of ethnographic research inquiry that allows this study to provide “thick descriptions” (Geertz, 1973) of my participants. This method enabled me to have a more nuanced understanding of their lived realities, as the researcher and research participants are seen as affiliates in the co-construction of meaning. Accordingly, “the ethnographer is the ultimate instrument of field work” (Heath & Street, 2008, p. 57). Employing visual research methods, on the other hand, helped me investigate the complexity and dynamics involved in the lives of the participants, especially as regards the use of various media tools and techniques to document or produce data that increases, enriches, or clarifies our knowledge of the social world.

I focused on analyzing how the teenagers conceptualized their plurilingual resources for L3 learning. They were invited to talk about their linguistic and literacy practices, social networks, language learning, Korean–Chinese–Japanese (or English) trilingual education system for ethnic Korean minorities in China, and their aspirations as users of multiple languages, as they were preparing to transition from high school to university. In essence, the data for the main study includes interview excerpts from individual and small group interviews, my observation notes from class visits and event participation, and analysis of textbooks and other curricular material, as well as screenshots of their communication records on social networking sites (SNS) such as the observation of students’ interaction on WeChat (a popular SNS site among people in China). During the school visits, I also looked at the main textbooks used by the classes at PKSS, as well as the data related to 2008–2013 graduates.

The data presented in this paper draws from a four-year study with a focus group of 22 ethnic Korean teenagers who attended a Korean and Chinese bilingual school in northeast China, Peace Korean Secondary School (PKSS). Most participants (14) studied Japanese as an FL, but eight studied English. In their complex linguistic repertoires, Japanese or English, respectively, was the third language they studied; it was their primary FL at PKSS. When I first started the study, the participants were in grade 10. I followed them during their last three years attending high school. I then conducted another one-year follow-up interview after they entered university. To have a better picture of the participants, I also talked to their parents and teachers. Pseudonyms were used for purposes of confidentiality of the research site and the participants.

In upcoming sections, I share key findings, with particular focus on participants’ attitudes toward trilingual education, to facilitate better understanding of both why and how students develop a plurilingual repertoire. A focus is placed on participant responses to questions concerning their views on schooling through a K-MNS like PKSS, such as how they feel about learning in a trilingual program, and how they value learning and using different languages in and out of the classroom. To provide broader context, I also share findings based on observations I conducted during school visits (e.g., in classes, events), as well as from interviews with not only students, but also administrators and teachers at PKSS.

Key Findings: Multi As An Asset In Learning And For Better Transitions

At PKSS, plurilingualism was the norm in students’ daily lives. As mentioned previously, active practice of the multi, namely the strategic use of multilingual, multicultural, and multiliteracy resources, was considered an essential element by the administrators and teachers at PKSS, connecting students to better education and more promising career options. Thus, as mentioned previously, students were constantly exploring and developing various ways of utilizing multiple resources to create a wholistic educational culture at school. Along with the exam-centred curriculum, PKSS has been actively developing various pedagogical approaches. PKSS developed an exam-centered curriculum with plurality as the powerhouse, along with pedagogical strategies that foster the strategic use of multiple linguistic, cultural, and literacy resources. More specifically, practices of the multi were highly valued as a strategy for student empowerment. At PKSS, the plurilingual pedagogical strategy was mainly reflected in two areas:

  1. Raising language awareness among students, as they learn, explore, and produce a range of new knowledge in different subject matters. This can be seen from the selection of textbooks and learning material, as well as the setup of instructional media, such as in the classroom language policies;
  2. Motivating students’ active development of their voices and identities as they develop and exercise their agency in learning different languages and cultures. This includes allowing them to explore various possibilities of selecting and using their multiple resources, which is essential for the development of their representations toward different languages.

As an outcome of this kind of pluricultural educational context, during interviews, participants confirmed that they understood that plurilingual competence and translingual practices are an asset. For them, plurilingualism is the norm in their daily lives. Recurrent characteristics of student participants’ language use at school and in their daily lives were code-switching between Korean and Chinese and translanguaging (Canagarajah, 2013) between different linguistic and literacy codes while they were traveling across multiple spaces. They were constantly shuttling between different languages and semiotic codes, “treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system” (Canagarajah, 2011, p. 401). I observed this through several visits to PKSS, especially in classroom observations, as well as in interviews with students, teachers, and school administrators. I observed practices of multi as part of the students’ daily lives. Through observations and interviews, it became clear, especially from their statements, that the plurilingual competence that these youths had developed through plurilingual education at the school was essential for the enrichment of their repertoire. These practices helped them enhance their “ability [which is mainly] comprised of language learning, language management and language maintenance skill” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 160). All 22 students reported that they were actively using different languages and cultural resources in class, as well as for out-of-school assignments and in various extracurricular activities. They expressed satisfaction with their experience of learning multiple languages.

In essence, participants highlighted plurality as an essential strategic tool for active learning, especially as they navigated life transitions. For them, plurilingualism was an essential form of lifelong capital (Castellotti & Moore, 2010) in the school. While aspiring through trilingual education in this K-MNS to build a better future, students were actively developing dynamic repertoires by navigating multiple languages in and out of classroom contexts. Additionally, some of them highlighted their awareness of the complex politics involved in plurilingualism. This included their struggles in choosing between learning Japanese or English as their primary FL. For instance, as an EFL learner, Qing had a clear understanding of the power imbalance between English and Japanese. When I asked her what her main motive to choose to learn English instead of Japanese was, she answered:

英语的使用范围广，日语只是在特定的一个地方使用。英语呢？可在全世界

다 통할 수 있는  그런 언어구  유학도 편하구, 그러니깐 选了。

[Well, English can be used in a wider range, but Japanese is restricted in a certain region. I chose to learn English because English is an international language, and it’s helpful to study abroad.]

Pedagogical Strategies

Textbooks, Instructional Medium, and Extra-Curricular Activities

Similar to many K-MNS schools in northeast China, the main textbooks used for the trilingual program at PKSS are mostly in Korean or in Chinese. Math and all science books are in Chinese, the same books that are used in the Han Chinese public schools. Textbooks for the WenZong classes (i.e., comprehensive arts and social sciences subjects such as political science, geography, and history) are generally in Korean, but they are translated versions from the original textbooks used in the Han Chinese public schools; these books are generally published by the YanBian ChaoXianZu publishing house (YCPC). Both ChoSeon Euhmun [Korean language arts] and HanYu [Modern Chinese language arts] textbooks are from the YCPC. As for the foreign language program, English–Chinese bilingual textbooks are used in EFL classes, while bilingual textbooks and learning materials are used in the JFL classes. For instance, both Japanese–Korean texts (as main textbooks) and Japanese–Chinese texts (e.g., as additional workbooks) are used in Japanese classes.

Active practices of plurilingualism in the school are also reflected in the case of choosing and developing the pedagogical strategies. This is seen in the fact that students’ experiences of plurilingual pedagogy are colored by the strategic arrangement of the instructional medium, which was divided along three main lines:

(i) Mono- to bilingualism in language arts, math, and science classes: As a strategy to support students’ better transition to postsecondary institutions where Chinese is the medium of instruction, PKSS employed Chinese as a main instructional media in math and science classes; only a small number of instructors used Korean as a secondary language to help students’ understanding of particular terminology. As for language arts, Korean language arts classes were ‘purely’ taught in Korean, and over 90% of HanYu Putonghua [Mandarin Chinese] classes were taught in Chinese.

(ii) Korean–Chinese Bilingualism: Korean and Chinese bilingualism in teaching the subjects of arts & social sciences [WenZong] has a relatively long history at PKSS. Especially since the GaoKao resumed in the late 1970s, Korean–Chinese bilingualism became a main strategy for the school to help students be successful. Teachers dictate the ratio of the two languages taught, and most of the teachers in the arts and social sciences division generally choose to use a textbook written in Korean and also to deliver their classes in Korean. They were intentionally creating a learning context for students to have more opportunity to use their heritage language while learning comprehensive social science knowledge. For example, Figure 1 illustrates how students actively use their multiple resources. As a Korean–Chinese–English trilingual learner, Ahn told me that she regularly used her multilingual skills. She shared some of her multilingual class notes. Figure 1 demonstrates how she used her knowledge of Korean and Chinese to take her class notes in her senior-level political science class, strategically code-switching between the two languages. She wrote down all key terms in Chinese but inserted related reflection notes in Korean.

Figure 1. An example of Multilingual Notes (Ahn, May 1, 2013)

(iii) Bi-/Trilingualism (in FL classes): This was particularly evident in the FL classes. In the case of Japanese as a FL (JFL) program, all Japanese teachers were also fluent Korean and Chinese speakers. Perhaps for this reason, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese or English (K-C-J/E) trilingualism was a norm in the JFL classes. This can be seen in an example from Mr. Song’s class, introduced below. In the English as an FL classes, except for one sessional teacher (a Korean–Chinese–English speaker), all four full-time EFL teachers were of Han Chinese heritage and had barely any knowledge of Korean. In the class, they actively used both Chinese and English as their instructional mediums, so students’ agency in the use of their heritage language (Korean) was limited. This was mainly because the EFL teachers did not speak Korean.

Japanese as FL Class

Plurilingualism is the norm in Japanese classes at PKSS. This can be seen in Mr. Song’s class, who has been teaching JFL classes at PKSS for almost 25 years. As the Vice-principal of Education, Mr. Song was also in charge of the general set-up of the foreign language programs in the school. During my visits to PKSS, I was fortunate to visit his classes multiple times. As a Korean–Chinese–Japanese trilingual, Mr. Song was constantly exploring several ways of utilizing multiple linguistic and cultural resources in his teaching. This can be seen from Figure 2, which illustrates how Mr. Song utilizes the multi in his dynamic repertoire to help students become more engaged in the learning of the target language (Japanese). This is a scene from his vocabulary lesson in a JFL class that I captured in one of his sessions in late spring 2013.

Trilingualism in a Senior level 2 JFL class

Figure 2. Trilingualism in a Senior level 2 JFL class

Mr. Song actively used all three languages throughout his session. During the session, he used Japanese around 50% of the time while alternating between Korean and Chinese as other mediums of instruction. In vocabulary practice, for instance, he started with dictation. A group of students were invited to write down on the blackboard the words they heard. Then came self-marking: Students were asked to work based on answer keys displayed on powerpoint slides. Finally, he employed a commenting strategy: Mr. Song asked students to comment on their peers’ work on the blackboard and made further comments on that work. In the class, Mr. Song actively used his linguistic capital in teaching. While all his powerpoint slides used Japanese and Chinese (e.g., new vocabulary in Japanese but with Chinese translations), Mr. Song’s comments for further explanation were mostly in Korean. Mr. Song employed similar strategies for introducing new or complicated grammar points and reviewing difficult phrases.

Bilingualism of a Non-Korean EFL Teacher

As mentioned earlier, all the main EFL teachers at PKSS were Chinese and English speakers. They were supportive of the active practice of plurilingualism in class. Concurrently, they demonstrated their struggles in utilizing the students’ heritage linguistic knowledge––Korean––which they are not familiar with. Tina (who indicated that she preferred to be referred to by her first name), the leading EFL teacher of the class of 2013 during Senior years 1–3, affirmed this. In an interview, she commented on my question about multilingualism in her class and her role as a non-Korean EFL teacher:

对我来说， 一个在朝中工作的英语教师， 汉族， 无法用朝语沟通， 不算是多语使用者；而学生相对来说， 掌握至少3种语言， 是多语使用者 。 … 我在讲解英语知识点时，大多数用汉语， 偶尔带几个英语专业术语； 在进行阅读教学时， 更多是针对文章， 用英语提问。 很多学生英语水平有限， 会用汉语表达， 私下里用朝语。我会帮助， 鼓励他们用英语。… 平时呢一些什么简单的..嗯..可能能表达的我尽量用英语让他们说。但是在像解释一些知识点啊，嗯..更多的时候用汉语。… 由于我们学生英语水平有限，所以在课堂上会经常用汉语。

[To me, an EFL teacher at a K-MNS with Han Chinese ethnicity, I cannot communicate in Korean, so I should not be considered a ‘multilingual’; however, my students are ‘multilingual’ as they speak at least three languages. … To explain key concepts in English, I mainly use Chinese with some English terminology; in reading sessions, I ask questions in English mainly about the content. Many students have a limited level of English proficiency, so they express themselves in Chinese, and use Korean privately. I help and encourage them to use English. …Generally, for simple expressions, I have them try to use English. But I use Mandarin Chinese more when explaining key learning points. … Because our students have a limited level of English, I often use Hanyu [Chinese] in class.] (Tina Y, June 20, 2012).

During her interview, Tina mentioned that the combined use of Chinese and English is a conscious strategy in her classroom teaching. I observed such practice during my weekly classroom observations of Tina’s EFL classes when I was doing fieldwork at PKSS. Tina was keen to try using mainly English as a medium of instruction, but many students experienced difficulties in understanding instructions. During the class, she would often remind her students to use English; however, only a few high-performing students would participate in the classroom discussions. I observed that most students were taking class notes in either Korean or a Korean–Chinese combination. Tina did not make any comments to encourage or discourage these students’ practices of multi. Later on, in a follow up interview, I asked why she preferred her students use English in class. Tina explained that this was mainly for two reasons: (i) Her own insecurity in classroom management, due to her lack of knowledge of Korean; and, (ii) Her belief in supporting English as the main language of communication during the class, as a way of helping students to learn the target language. For the main reason Tina provided, the other EFL teachers at PKSS were also trying to create more English-speaking spaces. On the other hand, similarly to how Mr. Song conducted the JFL class, the EFL teachers were trying to utilize the prior linguistic knowledge that students brought into the class.

Extra-curricular Activities

The practice of multi (especially Korean and Chinese bilingualism) was also a norm in all extra-curricular activities at PKSS. Traditional Korean music and sports are the main components of these activities. As a K-MNS, the school has been investing a large amount of time and funds in these multicultural education programs, which is a good showcase of its contribution and role as a main gatekeeper (i.e., institution) not only for preserving traditional Korean cultural heritage but also for accessing trilingual education under China’s public-school system. In an interview, Principal Zheng told me these activities are an important part of the school’s curriculum, as they provide good opportunities for students to learn by doing. During fieldwork at PKSS, I observed that all students at the school were encouraged to actively participate in different traditional Korean music and dance club activities, as well as various athletic activities. Figure 3 illustrates a scene which I captured from an opening ceremony for a major regional athletic event organized and hosted by the office of minority nationalities and religion [MinZongJu] in Mudanjiang regional government and Peace City.

The PKSS: Opening ceremony for an Athletic Day

Figure 3. The PKSS: Opening ceremony for an Athletic Day

In this wholistic educational culture at the PKSS, students aspired through trilingual education in this K-MNS to build a better future. As will be introduced in the next section, for them, plurilingualism is the norm in their daily lives. They were actively developing their dynamic multilingual repertoires in and out of classroom contexts.

Trilingualism: Learning the “Right” Foreign Language

To have a better understanding of the plurilingual youths’ representations of plurilingualism, I invited them to share their self-definitions of multilingual(ism). Through individual or group interviews, I asked them their perceptions about each of their languages.

Overall, they reported that learning in the trilingual educational program at PKSS was helpful, especially as they transition to university. In the interviews, most of them showed me their fondness for their experience at a K-MNS school and a strong awareness about the significant role that the school played for their preparation for an important exam like the GaoKao. They believed that this investment would ultimately connect them with academic success and career advancement. At the same time, they also reported their struggles with the language choice dilemma upon first entering PKSS, a K-MNS school, such as when they had to make the difficult decision of choosing between Japanese or English as their FL. For instance, the EFL learners (like Qing and Min) shared their initial dilemma in choosing to learn English over Japanese; they said it was because of the status of English, as the world language, compared to Japanese which they considered was a regional language within East Asia. Intrinsically, it seems their struggles are strongly related to their awareness about the different values attached to their languages, as is discussed in the following section.

Trilingualism

As for the definition of a multilingual, some students answered that one should speak at least two languages to be multilingual; other students said one should speak three or more languages to be multilingual. In terms of their understanding of required proficiency in each language for a multilingual speaker, answers varied. Some asserted that multilinguals must be fluent in each language, while the others answered that one does not have to be perfectly fluent in every language they know to be considered multilingual. Some students asserted that skill in reading and/or writing skill was not essential for communication, especially in casual settings.

Korean as L1 (HL) – “우리 글” “어머니 글”: Almost all students stated that Korean was their heritage language (HL), which they use as the primary language (L1) in their daily lives. They each affirmed their awareness of language as a key marker of their group identity and the role of the Korean language as a symbol that allows them to feel a sense of belonging to the Korean community. They all described Korean as Uri Kuel [우리글] (our language) or MuYu [母语] Uhmerni [어머니 글] (mother tongue), while highlighting the learning of their own heritage language to be an obligation as a member of the ethnic Korean community.

Chinese as L2 (NL) – “国语” “工作语”: Most students also affirmed their awareness of the increased power of HanYu [汉语or Putonghua; Mandarin Chinese], not only as a ‘national language’[国语]—a lingua franca between different minority nationality groups in China—but also as an international language. They believed their understanding of Chinese language can also be represented as GongZuoYu [工作语; work language] and MuYu [母语; mother tongue]. Some participants considered learning Chinese to be more important than learning a FL. For participants such as Rim, who is a Korean–Chinese–English trilingual learner, Chinese is a key tool for people who aspire to gain upper level social mobility in China: “汉语是必须的, 要在中国当官 发展腾达” [Learning Chinese is a must, to secure a higher social status and be successful in China] (Rim, May 2014).

Foreign Language as L3 – “스마트폰” [A smart phone]?  Most focal plurilingual youth acknowledged the key role of foreign language in today’s globalized society. As a Korean–Chinese–English plurilingual, Min is a participant who showed great passion for learning multiple languages as well as learning English. When I first interviewed her at PKSS in early summer 2012, her level of English was high-beginner based on the College English Test. Improvements in her English were impressive when I met her for a follow up interview in the fall of 2014 in Shanghai; she had already passed the intermediate level College English Test. She had a unique view on plurilingualism, as illustrated in Interview Excerpt 1. Interestingly, Min compared foreign language learning to having a smartphone:

Interview Excerpt 1 (Min)

I: Min, 외국어对你有什么含义？[What does foreign language mean to you?]

M: 외국어는 .. 지금에 있어서 말하면 스마트폰. [Foreign language … Nowadays, it is like a smartphone.]

I: 오~ (웃음) 스마트폰? [Okay (laughing) .. A smartphone?!]

M: 그러니까 스마트폰은 꼭 있어야 하는거는 아니잖아요. 예?! 근데 사람은 스마트폰을 갖추고나면은 덩달아서 자기도 스마트해지는거 같애요. [I mean, a smartphone is not a critical item that we must have. Right? But, it makes people feel smarter once we use it.]

I: (웃음) [Laughing]

M: 예, 재밋거든요. (웃음) 그니까 외국어를 갖춘다는건 스마트폰같죠. 스마트폰은 보통 핸드폰들중에서 데기 뛰여났잖아요. [Yeah, it’s really fun. (Laughing). So learning a foreign language is like having a smartphone, the smartest one of all types of phones.]

I: 오~ [Okay]

M: 그래서 제가 같은 경쟁자들 사이에서 제가 외국어를 더 많이 장악하구 더 능숙하게 장악 하면 그 사람들속에서 제가 경쟁력이 더 돋보일거 같애요. [So learning a foreign language especially with a higher proficiency would help me to be more competitive among people in this competitive society.]

For Min, foreign language is like having a smartphone nowadays, an important asset that would enable her to be “more competitive among people in this competitive society” and promote upward social mobility. Like Min, similarly, most of the participants in this study believed that a good mastery of languages, including a powerful foreign language such as English or Japanese, would help their competitiveness in today’s increasingly globalized context. They upheld their strong awareness of the imbalanced power relationships between each of their languages, as noted in the earlier section about their views on Korean, Hanyu, and Foreign languages. These perceptions of languages and plurilingualism greatly influenced their language learning choices, as well as their development of plurilingual skills.

To learn Japanese or English?

As a whole, the development of the focal participants’ representations toward different languages is complex. Their perspectives on different languages and attitudes toward multilingual learning were diverse. All of them affirmed the positive role that knowledge of multiple languages plays in leading them to better their economic and employment opportunities. I found their view to be unique and inspiring. For example, Min made a creative connection between the key function of foreign language and having a “smart phone” as revealed in her statement in Interview Excerpt 1. Students highlighted the strategic practice of plurilingualism as an important asset in active learning. On the other hand, in the interviews, the teenage participants also confirmed their awareness of the complex power relations between different languages at school and in the social world; most of them shared their experiences about the difficulty of having to choose to learn either Japanese or English at school.

Some of the 14 teenagers who chose to learn Japanese as their primary FL asserted that English is an “irrelevant” foreign language for their future. Zheng, a JFL learner, emphasized “Japanese as a competitive primary foreign language to learn.” The majority of JFL learners shared that their primary reason for learning Japanese was to earn a better score on the GaoKao. Participants who were EFL learners, on the other hand, said that their main reason for choosing to learn English was because of the possibility of visiting many different places. Perhaps due to these factors, I observed that the Japanese program was much stronger than the English program in the case of PKSS. A good example of this strength is the ratio between JFL learners (40) and EFL learners (17) in this K-MNS: The total number of learners in the Japanese program in the class of 2013 was two times more than the learners in the English program. Besides comments of the focal participants who are from the class of 2013, this is also affirmed by an analysis of the data from the graduates of year 2008–2013 provided by PKSS.

Multi as a Strategic Facilitator: Improvisation

Despite the complex politics involved in their linguistic repertoires, the focal plurilingual youths actively navigated multiple languages to learn and create new spaces. As mentioned previously, code-switching and translanguaging were main characteristics of their language and literacy practices in and out of school contexts. To have a better understanding of their attitudes toward plurilingualism and multilingual learning, I also asked each participant about their experiences using multiple languages in and out of a school context. What follows are some examples that illustrate why and how these youth choose and use multilingual resources. These examples show how they strategically throw into the light or shade certain zones of their competence. Sometimes they activate or deactivate, invent or reinvent, and negotiate their multiple resources in context, depending on different situations and contexts. Some examples, as shown in the statements of some students in Interview Excerpts 2 and 3 in this section, also highlight how these plurilingual youths use the multi (lingual, cultural, and literacy tools) as a strategic facilitator through improvisation; in other words, how they make contingent decisions to enable or limit the use of single or multiple resources in different situations.

As is discussed in this section, students were mainly choosing between practicality, continuity of learning, and the desire to discover and learn languages. Through improvisation, the plurilingual speaker makes a contingent decision to use different languages as a key tool for negotiating their positionality in different contexts. The following examples illustrate such improvisation.

Writing or speaking in different languages is a good example of the focal participants’ practice of the multi as a strategic tool. Three student participants’ narratives around plurilingualism in Interview Excerpts 2 and 3 illustrate such a dynamic of language choice and language learning in and around their schools.

As a Korean–Chinese–English plurilingual, Qing actively utilizes different resources in her repertoire. She alternated efficiently between Korean and Chinese in her writing on a QQ (a social networking service) site. Qing generally uses Chinese on the QQ site as the common language with her peer group, whose members belong to both the Korean and Han Chinese communities. In an interview, Qing explained her preference for using Korean when she wanted to type faster because her typing skills in Korean were better than in Chinese. Interview Excerpt 2 illustrates her narratives about how she strategically used English in her interactions on QQ, but for different purposes––to keep her privacy or “secrecy” by using “indirect expressions”:

Interview Excerpt 2 (Qing)

R: 你什么时候用英文？  [When do you use English?]

Q: 不想让别人看懂的时候。[When I don’t want to share {my feelings} directly with others]

R：오~ 能不能给举个例子？  [Ah, I see. Can you give me an example?]

Q: 嗯.. 怎么说呢.. 就是.. 今天我跟谁谁谁吵架了，然后我说他坏话하는데 就是不想直接表达的时候。然后, 我就绕着弯子表达就有意义一些。[hum.., how should I say this, for example, when I had an argument with someone and especially when I wanted to express my resentment, but do not feel like speaking it out loudly. Then, I use an indirect way to talk about this.]

R: 那你能不能举个具体的例子？[Do you have any specific examples?]

Q: 어..就是语言本身方面就是绕着弯子的这么说。我感觉他/她是日语生，我是英语生的话 那就更绕弯子,直接看不懂。[humm.., I mean that indirect expressions are available in language itself. Considering I am an English learner, this strategy works better when I speak to a Japanese [non-English] learner, as he/she would not understand {what I am saying} for sure]

R: 오~ 查字典也看不懂？[Really? … You mean even with a dictionary?]

Q: 应该看不懂，我们英语有个缩写吧！ 他们看不懂 ，找不出来应该。[I guess so. Because, there are abbreviations in our English. So I think that they won’t be able to {figure out my true intention} find it in a dictionary.]

Qing uses English when she feels like recording her feelings but is, at the same time, reluctant to share her secrets. English, a foreign language for her and her peers, permits her to express, and at the same time distance herself from, her feelings, using what she refers to as “indirect expressions.” Sometimes Qing strategically used her knowledge of English when she was interacting with her friends who only know Japanese, for instance, in order to keep secrecy by preventing her peers from figuring out her true intention in her written messages on a SNS site.

Like Qing, other focal teenagers in this study also regularly used different languages for different purposes. Some students considered speaking in Korean gave them a feeling of gentleness and closeness with the listener, especially in the communication with the Korean speakers. On other hand, they considered speaking in Chinese to give them the feeling of being much “tougher” and more in control (as a speaker); speaking in a foreign language (Japanese or English) gave them the feeling of having more fun and being “foreign.” Interview Excerpt 3 is a good example to illustrate such dynamics, shared by Jinok and Yeon (a Korean, Chinese, and Japanese speaker):

Interview Excerpt 3 (Jinok & Yeon)

I: 你什么时候用日语呢？  [When do you use Japanese?]

Jinok: 전화람 하무  막 친하무, 머.. もしもし 하구 그냥 그렇게 일어, 일어로 물어보구 그럼다. [When I talk on the phone with a close friend, I use Japanese, say “moshi moshi”{hello} and ask some questions.]

I: 뭐라고 물어보는데요? [what do you ask?]

Yeon: 어..「どこにいるの」하구 물어두 보구. (笑) [ Humm.. such as “Doko-ni iru-no” {where are you}] (laugh)

I: 오~  그래~ [Ah, really?]

J: 예. 재밋슴다 (笑) 친하니까 별루 그렇게 딱 따지지두 않구 하니까나. 그럼 더 친함다. [Yeah, that’s really fun (laugh). As we are close friends and not very picky. So this {using some Japanese} makes us feel closer.]

I: 오~ 그래, 친해 보이는구나~ [Ah, I see. That makes you feel closer ~]

Jinok: 일어, 조선어, 한어 비기면은, 한어 좀 硬함다. 좀 딱딱해서, 좀, 데기 감정이 없어 보임다. [Compared to Japanese and Korean, speaking in Chinese makes me feel very harsh with no emotion.]

I: 오~ 그럼, 일본말은 조선말 다음에 감정이 있어 보여? [I see. So, do you feel emotion attached to the Japanese language, besides Korean?]

J: 예. 영 温柔하쟁까. [Yeah. {Japanese is} Really soft, right?]

I: 오~ 그럼, Yeon이는? [How about you, Yeon?]

Yeon: 嗯.. 跟她差不多。我也是.. 친구들이랑 같이 있을때, 다 조선말하구, 그리구서리는 한족말로 하면, 좀, 데게 싸가지 없어 보이구, 좀 그렇씀다. [ Yep, I have similar feeling as hers. I too mainly speak Korean with friends. And, speaking in Chinese, I feel a little bit rude, something like that.]

In the above interview excerpts, both Jinok and Yeon mentioned their feelings and strategies of using their knowledge of Japanese in daily peer group interactions. For example, they often use some Japanese phrases, such as moshi moshi, do ko ni i ru no? [hello, where are you?] when they speak to their close friends. They said this is fun. Jinok and Yeon considered Korean the softest language, then Japanese, while they thought that Chinese had a “harsh” feeling; this echoes other participants’ reference to Chinese as a “work language.” Other student participants shared similar feelings about the emotions attached to different languages.

In summary, the teenagers were actively and strategically using their multiple linguistic resources on a daily basis at home, in school, as well as in the community for better learning and communication. As shown in the interview excerpts, these plurilingual youths demonstrated their plurilingual competence and love of being plurilinguals who have the capability to utilize their knowledge in multiple languages and literacy tools to successfully cross different norms and codes in response to particular contexts and objectives (Canagarajah, 2013).

Conclusion: Multi For All

The student participants in this study constantly capitalized on their experience of plurilingualism and multilingual resources in their daily lives and at school. This study supports previous research (e.g., Coste et al., 2009; Marshall & Moore, 2013, 2016; Nan, 2008) in that it demonstrates: i) The essential value of plurilingualism as an asset, and ii) The importance of students tapping into their experiences and multilingual resources outside of the classroom, as a trigger for a more engaged learning. As Moore et al. (2020) highlight,

Pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures propose explicit referential levels and descriptors to identify and develop competences and resources across the curriculum, based on the recognition that strategic skills combine knowledge in several [languages] and across languages, and that the multilingual knowledges and literacy practices learners bring into the classroom are learning resources. (p. 23).

This research points to the continued need to adopt a more complex view and critical approach to the conceptualisations of what constitutes the pluri in learners’ multiple languages and identities (Ehlert & Moore, 2014). In particular, teenagers’ perspectives on plurilingualism and multiple identities are rarely examined in research and it is necessary to remedy this oversight. With this in mind, in this study I put an emphasis on examining 1) how plurilingual ethnic Korean teenage learners construct their multilingual resources in old and new social contexts, and, 2) what value and meaning they assign to their multiple linguistic repertoires and to learning new languages.

Key findings of this study suggest that, due to various dynamic contributing factors, the new generation of plurilingual students exhibits complex repertoires and knowledges that should be viewed as contextual and complex co-construction of different sociolinguistic, political, economic, and cognitive factors, often interwoven with each other. Although these factors may not be relevant for all student participants in this study, they include but are not limited to some student participants’ social identities, their peers’ social identities, and the classroom and educational contexts, as well as the curriculum and pedagogical strategies that the teachers and educational institutions employ. In essence, this connects to some key issues concerning the third question of my main study––that is, how the students’ FL learning and the development of plurilingual resources has affected their life trajectory and identities––which I could not explore in this paper due to the space limitation.

In conclusion, I contend that it is beneficial to actively explore and develop different strategies for capitalizing on the multi. This study brings further implications for teacher training and curriculum design, especially in terms of the value of plurilingual pedagogies in the classroom. More specifically, plurilingual pedagogies have the potential to (i) raise language awareness among students; (ii) motivate students’ active development of voices and identities; and (iii) open up spaces for their active development and the use of the multi in learners’ dynamic plurilingual repertoires as tools for learning. In this sense, when setting out to foster a more “democratic” educational “culture” (Council of Europe, 2018, p. 4) in an educational institution, strategic implementation of the pluralistic approach is important.

Acknowledgements

I am profoundly grateful for the generous support from Dr. Mela Sarkar (McGill University), Dr. Daniele Moore (Simon Fraser University), and the editors of J-BILD. My special thanks go to my peer mentor Ben Calman (McGill University) for his time and ongoing professional support for the revision of this work.

References

Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge University Press.

Boschman, L. & Ehlert, M. (2016). Expanding Linguistic, Cultural and Literacies Toolkits: Engaging Diversity in Traditional and Virtual Learning Spaces. International Journal of Communications and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 35–47.

Byrd Clark, J. (2010). Multilingualism, Citizenship and Identity. Voices of Youth and Symbolic Investment in an Urban, Globalized World. Continuum.

Byrd Clark, J. (2012). Symbolic investments in multilingualism: Toward multidimensional conceptualisations of language and identity, Introduction. International Journal of Multilingualism, special issue, 9(2), 132–137.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417.

Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice. Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. Routledge.

Castellotti, V. & Moore, D (2010). Capitalizing on, activating and developing plurilingual and pluricultural repertoires for better school integration. Document prepared for the Policy Forum ‘The right of learners to quality and equity in education – The role of linguistic and intercultural competences’ Geneva, Switzerland, 2–4 November 2010. Retrieved from https://parents.ecml.at/Portals/53/Documents/4-ValoriserCastellottiMoore_EN.pdf

Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an international perspective. Multilingual Matters.

CCHM (2011). Wholistic vs. Holistic. Canadian College of Homeopathic Medicine, June 7, 2011. https://homeopathycanada.com/blog/wholistic-vs-holistic/

Choi, S. (2004). Citizenship, education, and identity: A Comparative Study of Ethnic Chinese in Korea and Ethnic Koreans in China. International Journal of Educational Reform, 13(3), 253–266.

Choi, W.G. (2001). The Korean Minority in China: The Change of Its Identity. Development and Society, 30(1), 119–141.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Routledge.

Coste, D., Moore, D. & Zarate, G. (2009). Plurilingual and pluricultural competence, with a foreword and complementary bibliography. Language Policy Division, Council of Europe. Language Policy Division – Council of Europe: https://rm.coe.int/168069d29b

Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Language Policy Division – Council of Europe: https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4

Council of Europe (2010). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Policy Forum ‘The right of learners to qualify in education – The role of linguistic and intercultural competences’, Geneva, Switzerland, 2-4 November 2010. https://www.ucg.ac.me/skladiste/blog_7764/objava_65812/fajlovi/GuideEPI2010_EN.pdf

Council of Europe (2018). Fostering a Democratic School Culture in Montenegro. Language Policy Division, Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/mne-teacher-training-curriculum-eng/16809207e1

Cummins, J. (2000).  Language, Power, and Pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2006). Identity texts: The imaginative construction of self through multiliteracies pedagogy. In O. Garcia,T.  Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. Torres-Guzman (Eds.), Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Globalization, (pp. 51–68). Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2014). Language and Identity in Multilingual Schools: Constructing Evidence-based Instructional policies. In D. Little, C. Leung, & P. Avermaet (Eds.), Managing diversity in education: Languages, policies, pedagogies. Multilingual matters.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd Ed.). SAGE Publications.

De Angelis, G. & Dewaele, J.M. (Eds.) (2011, Eds.). New trends in crosslinguistic influence and multilingualism research. Multilingual Matters.

Ehlert, M. P. (2011). Multilingualism and language practice of minority youths in China: A case study of ethnic Korean teenagers in Beijing. LAP Academic Publishing.

Ehlert, M.P. (2018). Learning foreign languages at school: Experiences and representations of teenage plurilingual learners of Korean heritage in Northeast China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University.

Ehlert, M.P. & Moore, D. (2014). Navigating and reconfiguring the “multi” in languages and identities: Six ChaoXianZu [ethnic Korean Chinese] teenagers in Beijing. International Journal of Education for Diversity, 3, 149–183.

Gao, F. (2008). What it means to be a “model minority”: Voices of ethnic Koreans in Northeast China. Asian Ethnicity, 9, 55–67.

Gao, F. (2009). Challenges of discourses on “model Minority” and “South Korean wind” for ethnic Koreans’ schooling in Northeast China. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education: Studies of Migration, Integration, Equity, and Cultural Survival, 3(2), 119–130.

Geertz, (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz (pp. 3–30). Basic Books.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press.

Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford University Press.

Hattori, K. (2015). Multilingual and multicultural teaching materials in language teaching in Japan [日本の言語教育における多言語・多文化教材]. In 2015 Canadian Association of Japanese Language Education (CAJLE) conference proceedings, 60–66. Retrieved from https://www.cajle.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/07_Hattori_CAJLE2015Proceeding_60-66.pdf

Heath, S. & Street, B. (2008). On Ethnography: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press.

Jessner, U. (2008). Teaching third languages: Findings, trends and challenges. Language Teaching, 41(1), 15–56.

Kubota, R. (2014). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: Complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37, 474–494

Lau S. M C. & Van Viegen, S. (Eds.) (2020). Plurilingual pedagogies: Critical and creative endeavors for equitable language in education. Springer.

Lee, E. & Marshall, S. (2012). Multilingualism and English language usage in ‘weird’ and ‘funny’ times: A case study of transnational youth in Vancouver. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(1), 65–82.

Lin, A. (2013). Toward paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building plurilingual pedagogies from the ground up. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 521–545.

Little, D., Leung, C., & Van Avermaet, P. (Eds.) (2014). Managing Diversity in Education. Multilingual Matters.

Lüdi, G. & Py, B. (2009). To be or not to be a Plurilingual Speaker. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(2), 154–167.

Marshall, S. & Moore, D. (2013). 2B or not 2B plurilingual? Navigating languages, literacies, and plurilingual competence in post-secondary education in Canada, TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 472–499.

Marshall, S. & Moore, D. (2016). Plurilingualism amid the panoply of lingualisms: Addressing critiques and misconceptions in education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1–16. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1253699

MOFA (2019). 재외동포 정의 및 현황 [Definition and Current Status of Overseas Compatriots]. By South Korea: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Retrieved on April 30, 2021 from https://overseas.mofa.go.kr/www/wpge/m_21507/contents.do

Moore, D. (2006). Plurilingualism and strategic competence in context. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(2), 125–158.

Moore, D. (2010). Multilingual literacies and third script acquisition: Young Chinese children in French immersion in Vancouver, Canada. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(4), 322–342. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2010.502231

Nan, C. Y. (2015). Content-basednstruction: Teaching English grammar to multilingual learners at University. TEAL Manitoba Journal , 31(1), 1.

New China Daily (November 5, 2006). A large number of “bilingual students” and “min-Han joint schools” emerge in Xinjiang Autonomous Region [新疆自治区涌现大批“双语学生”和“民汉合校”],New China Daily or Xinhua News Agency [新华社]. Retrieved on August 20, 2021 from http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2006-11/05/content_433018.htm.

Chinese Minzu Daily (Sept 25, 2015). 60 years: Rapid development of Xinjiang Ethnic Minority Education [60年，新疆少数民族教育事业大发展].  China Minzu Daily [中国民族报]. Retrieved from https://www.neac.gov.cn/seac/c100502/201509/1085633.shtml

Marshall, S., Clemente, A. & Higgins, M. (Eds.) (2014). Shaping Ethnography in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts. The Althouse Press.

Moore, D., Lau, S. M. C., & Van Viegen, S. (2020). Mise en écho des perspectives on plurilingual competence and pluralistic pedagogies: A conversation with Danièle Moore. In Lau, S.M.C. & Van Viegen, S. (2020, Eds), Plurilingual Pedagogies, (pp. 23–45). Springer.

Moore, D. & Gajo, L. (2009). Introduction. French voices on plurilingualism and pluriculturalism. Theory, significance and perspective. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(2), 137–153.

Moore, D. & Py, B (2011). Discourse on languages and social representations (Chapter 6). In G. Zarate, D. Levy & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Handbook of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, (pp. 263–270). Éditions des archives contemporaines.

Nan, C. Y. (2008). Learners of Korean ethnic group in China vs. application of a positive dual transfer mode in English acquisition. Journal of Yanbian University (Social Science), 41(6), 83–86.

Nan, C. Y. (2015). Content-based instruction: Teaching English Grammar to Multilingual Learners at University. TEAL Manitoba Journal, 31(1).

Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials (2nd edition). Sage.

SubChina (2019, August 14). Education in China: How the GaoKao exam shapes Chinese students’ lives and futures. SubChina. Retrieved from https://supchina.com/2019/08/14/education-in-china-how-the-gaokao-exam-shapes-chinese-students-lives-and-futures/

Wu, C. (2020, July 7). Explainer: Everything You Need to Know About the Gaokao. That’s on June 6, 2017. It has been updated and republished on July 7, 2020 at http://www.thatsmags.com/china/post/13965/explainer-gaokao.

Yang, J. (2005). English as third language among China’s ethnic minorities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(6), 552–567.

css.php