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 Quarterly45(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

Student Identity in the Indian University: Language and Educational Stereotypes in Higher Education

Jessica Sujata Chandras, Wake Forest University

Abstract: This article explores how language ideologies and the use of different languages in colleges and universities in Pune, a city in the western Indian state of Maharashtra, create ways to categorize and stereotype student identities based on language proficiency, caste, rurality, and religious background. Through ethnographic and sociolinguistic methods of participant observations and interviews at two prestigious Pune higher education institutions, I describe multilingual classroom discourse along with perceptions and reflections on language use. The analysis is as much about identity formation in higher education as it is about the education system’s orientation towards Anglo-centric scholarship in India. In Pune’s higher education, formal recognition of ways Marathi and Hindi assist students in English medium education are largely overlooked and unstandardized. In conclusion, this article demonstrates how multilingual education addresses diversity and inclusion in theory, but in practice, many students confront additional obstacles through language policies that impede their educational aspirations.

Résumé: Cet article explore la manière dont les idéologies linguistiques et l’utilisation de différentes langues dans les collèges et universités de Pune, une ville de l’État du Maharashtra, dans l’ouest de l’Inde, conduisent à la catégorisation et à la stéréotypisation des identités des étudiants en fonction de leurs compétences linguistiques, de leur caste, de leur origine rurale et de leur appartenance religieuse. En m’appuyant sur des méthodes ethnographiques et sociolinguistiques d’observation et d’interview d’étudiants et d’enseignants de deux prestigieuses institutions d’enseignement supérieur de Pune, je décris l’ensemble des discours tels qu’ils se manifestent dans des salles de classe plurilingues ainsi que les perceptions et les réflexions de ces mêmes étudiants et enseignants sur l’usage linguistique. L’analyse porte autant sur la formation identitaire dans les milieux d’enseignement supérieur que sur une orientation du système éducatif en Inde qui privilégie une approche centrée sur l’anglais. Actuellement, dans les milieux d’enseignement supérieur à Pune, la reconnaissance formelle des façons dont le recours au marathi et à l’hindi par certains étudiants dans des institutions de langue anglaise est largement négligée et non standardisée. En conclusion, cet article montre bien que, même si elle aborde en théorie la diversité et l’inclusion, l’éducation plurilingue continue de faire en sorte que de nombreux étudiants sont confrontés à davantage d’obstacles découlant des politiques linguistiques mises en place.

Keywords: identity, language ideology, multilingualism, higher education.

Introduction

This article explores how language ideologies and the use of different languages in higher education classrooms in Pune, the second-largest city in the western Indian state of Maharashtra, creates ways to categorize and stereotype student identities based on language proficiency, caste, and socioeconomic backgrounds. I use theories of language ideologies (Gal, 2005; Woolard, 1992; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) and identity formation (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Gal & Irvine, 2019; Kroskrity, 2000) to contextualize language use in Indian higher education as critical for the production of linguistic identities. My goal is to illuminate the ways these languages are currently used and associated with student identities. In doing so, this article is as much about identity formation at work, through classroom discourse in higher education, as it is about the higher education systems’ orientation towards Anglo-centric scholarship.

Language In The Indian University

In the current education system in Pune, formal recognition of ways that Marathi and Hindi assist students in English medium higher education, or classroom settings where English is the language of instruction, are largely overlooked and unstandardized. As demonstrated in this article, there is a disconnect in the ways that multilingual education addresses diversity and inclusion in theory but not in practice. Many students confront additional obstacles through language policies that have negative impacts on their ability to succeed academically. The evidence thus suggests a need for formalizing the productive roles of students’ multilingual language practices in college and university classrooms and a recognition of ways the current educational structures categorize and produce stereotypes of student identities.

Historical Context of Language in Education in India

The British colonial period provided fertile ground for English language educational pedagogies due to opportunities for Indians to work and study, providing they could confirm to British ideals in education and occupation. However, during the late colonial period, Mohandas K. Gandhi addressed audiences from 1916-1928 over English linguistic colonization in education. He called for education in vernacular languages stating, “The question of vernaculars as media of instruction is of national importance,” by criticizing how “English educated Indians are the sole custodians of public and patriotic work [and the] neglect of the vernaculars means national suicide” (1922, p. 307). Nevertheless, English remains an important language in the subcontinent and current policies about language.Higher education in India has adapted to contemporary situations and conditions but are no less extensions of a deeply ingrained British colonial educational ethos where the English language remains key (Bhattacharya, 2017; Kachru, 1983; LaDousa, 2010; 2014).

While current trends in English medium education stem from a colonial precedent, liberalization of India’s economy in the 1990s made way for education in English to be part of India’s stake in a competitive global market (Lukose, 2009; Pennycook, 2006; Proctor, 2014). As the state-run university education system grew and more subsets of Indian society had access to higher education, issues around the instructional languages in these institutions grew as well. It is common to hear opinions that an English language higher education provides a linguistic common ground for students across the country and a window to globally positioned scholarship and occupations. Today, English in India is a language of globalization, a lingua franca connecting the country, and an Indian language among other regional languages (Chandras, 2020; Kachru et al., 2009; Pattanayak, 1981). Despite the long history of the English language in India, a great divide in opinion and policy remains over how different languages are used or sanctioned in higher education. The exploration of language in higher education outlined here shows that student identities are pigeonholed along a singular language, while almost all students are multilingual with multifaceted identities and various definitions of academic success. Moreover, this stereotyping along linguistic identities occurs within a hierarchy of languages in higher education and through ideologies held about language and educational success.

Theoretical Framework

Socializing Language Ideologies

In multilingual settings, language indexes various aspects of identities (Schieffelin et al., 1998; Woolard, 1998) and language ideologies play a role in the indexical process (Blommaert, 1999; Lee & Su, 2019). Speakers attribute meaning to languages and individuals, to connect identities to speakers through “language ideologies” which reveal motivations and behavioral organization as a “mediating link between social forms and forms of talk” (Woolard, 1998, p. 3). Additionally, language ideologies reflect politically charged, purposeful, and directed ways of using language as well as representing shared beliefs about language (Blommaert, 1999). Therefore, viewing identity as a social construction and as part of belonging to social groups indicates that individual’s awareness of themselves and their authorship of social contexts and conditions are “contextually situated and ideologically informed” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 605). Identity as located in the social aspects of community belonging indicates that one’s identity is less “a matter of innate characteristics and more […] a process involving socialization in early childhood into socially-constructed ways of being, or learned ‘roles’” (Preece, 2009, p. 28). People hold and act upon these attitudes about languages, or language ideologies, which produce and perpetuate inequalities in society constructed around how language use relates and maps onto other categories of identities (Vivanco, 2018).

Multilingual Classroom Discourse Defining Linguistic Identities

Studies of multilingual classrooms and discourse management explore how language ideologies and language use affects an overall view of students and a construction of student identities (De Costa, 2016; Paris, 2013). A “linguistic identity” then contributes to student identity in how well a student meets the expectations of education as set by the academic institution and, in this case, language is a major factor in academic success (Bartlett, 2007; Bartlett & Garcia, 2011; De Costa, 2016). A structure of success is defined by the institution rather than by students or individual teachers and is a process of standardization of education and educational institutions. The institutional model at these colleges and universities in Pune favors students with high English fluency. Therefore, academic identities of successful students are ones that also claim high English fluency as part of their linguistic identities.

A linguistic identity defines the ways teachers interact and treat students based on their linguistic backgrounds in the higher educational setting (De Costa, 2016; De Kock et al, 2018; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). While De Kock et al (2018) define linguistic identities as creating cohesive social groups, I extend this notion to explore dissonances of social cohesion in pedagogy that stereotypes student identities. Language ideologies that emerge through discourse in multilingual classrooms define not only the linguistic identities of students but  also shape avenues for academic success. Therefore, the following questions guide this analysis: How are classroom interactions in higher education organized around student linguistic identities and what defines student linguistic identities in these interactional spaces?

Methodology

Research Sites

Data for this article comes from ethnographic research through participant interviews and observations in 90-minute, multilingual lectures (Hindi, Marathi, and English) at one state university and one college in Pune, Maharashtra (see Table 1 below). Savitribai Phule Pune University, referred to from here on as Pune University, was established in 1949 and is the city’s largest and most prestigious university. The university has forty-six departments and roughly 14,500 students spread across Bachelors, Masters, and PhD degree programs. Affiliated with Pune University, Fergusson College was founded in 1885. Both a junior and a senior college where students earn Bachelor degrees, Fergusson College has about 4,500 students across 29 disciplines. Like Pune University, Fergusson College is ranked highly for the arts and science education it offers. These two higher education institutions have policies that exams and assignments can be completed in either Marathi or English.

InstitutionPune UniversityFergusson College
Hours ObservedThree hours/week for 2016-2017 academic year and two months in 2018Three hours/week for six months in 2016-2017
Locations Observed90-minute lectures in Anthropology, English, Sociology, Physics departments90-minute lectures in Sociology and Political Science departments, Sociology student club, 60-minute club meetings
Interview Sample25 hours of interviews, six professors and ten students, recruited through snowball sampling with written and verbal informed consent15 hours of interviews, three professors and five students, recruited through snowball sampling with written and verbal informed consent

Table 1: Data Collected

Data Collected

Participant observations and interviews are the primary data sources for this study. Interviews I conducted and lectures in which I collected observational data required a high level of comprehension, attention, and active participation and took place in both English and Marathi. The native Marathi-speaking students in classes at Pune University who come from rural Maharashtra have low English proficiency as well as some of the students at the university from European and Middle Eastern countries. Indian students from urban centers in Maharashtra and those from outside the state at Fergusson College and Pune University have high levels of English fluency and most have also attended English-medium schools. All the Indian students speak and understand at least a colloquial level of Hindi. Upon arriving at these institutions, students expect their classes to be in English, especially since almost all written material at the university is in English.

Data Analysis Procedures

In terms of data analysis, I searched my observational notes and interview transcripts for topics relating to language ideology and identity, and coded instances in the collection of data where teachers and students classified behavior by belonging to a linguistic community and practices where translation was used and explicitly noted. Then, I organized these results according to teacher interventions and student experiences to define language connected to socioeconomic class and identity assumptions as stereotypes. These categories include instances of language negotiation interactions in classrooms that defined students by their language proficiency levels in English and Marathi and statements about student identities in relation to their linguistic upbringings and educational backgrounds. Based on the coding of my observation notes, I read the interview transcripts for common themes. These included attitudes about students that grouped them according to their linguistic strengths in English or Marathi, and in terms of the linguistic ideologies driving pedagogy and teachers’ interactions with students. Key themes that emerged were teacher interventions, perceptions, and student reflections of the impacts of classroom interactions on language ideologies to define linguistic identities and identity stereotypes by language.

Results

Teachers

Professors across departments at both Fergusson College and Pune University are astutely aware of students’ linguistic and educational backgrounds and use different languages when addressing students with different language backgrounds. Of the nine professors I spoke with across the two schools, all could give me detailed accounts of where each of their students were from, the language medium of their educational backgrounds, and what languages they were most comfortable using. Elaborated below, teachers’ attitudes towards the Marathi-speaking student populations, framed in part to the professor’s language ideologies about Marathi, politicize rural student identities.

Perceptions

Professor Pandhe (all names are pseudonyms), the head of the sociology department at Pune University, explained the classroom as a political space where, “Students who speak Marathi sometimes insist upon using it rather than using it out of necessity.” In her experience, “The village students are very militant about their use of Marathi and how they demand an education in Marathi. They demand to pass just for showing up in Marathi, like they should be treated specially for representing a Marathi-speaking population.” Similarly, another professor in the sociology department, Professor Chanda-Apte, noted that, “Marathi is an identity issue and some students feel targeted because they are rural Maharashtrian,” and went on to explain that in her experience, students may feel that they have been given a bad grade or are asked to work with another student because of their mother tongue.

Interventions

As my interviews with professors revealed instances of changing classroom practices allowing for more inclusive multilingual interaction in classrooms, each professor made allowances for Marathi in different ways. Professor Chanda-Apte explains how she incorporates multilingual educational policies in her teaching:

Depending on their language strengths, some students will ask questions in Marathi and some do so in English. I am often at a loss for how to grade exams and assignments when they are submitted in Marathi and in different levels of English. Students’ low English levels can obscure the fact that they may be uncertain of exam material where the quality of work differs greatly among students who have a strong command of English, the students who do not, and the students who write in Marathi even though most of their materials and sources are in English. As a result, most students attempt exams in English. This offers students a chance to gauge their level of English and some students with poor English also feel that professors will be lenient with their grades and favor their attempt at using English over the quality of their English. Also, due to the differences between Roman and Devanagari scripts used for English and Marathi, it is a challenge to standardize page or word limits on assignments because the scripts drastically change the amount of information that can be provided.

Professor Chanda-Apte detailed to me how she implements multilingual pedagogy in her lectures to motivate and evaluate students’ academic attitudes and performance. Professors feel they must teach in ways that build rapport with groups of students based on their linguistic backgrounds, which signal and index other aspects of their identities such as rurality, caste, and socioeconomic class. Linguistic practices therefore layer and indicate differences between identity categories as connected to politics, histories, and social positions (Gal & Irvine, 2019). Classroom cohesion, therefore, is divided along differentiations among linguistic identities, as also explored by De Kock et al (2018). While rules that allow students to complete exams and assignments in Marathi are intended to make evaluation processes easier for students with limited English skills, it often adds an extra challenge for students to mediate the language of material and the classroom to the language of exams. The efforts to provide access to information in different languages bring into question the purpose of translating materials and lectures into Marathi in the first place as the burden is then put on students to re-translate material into English for their evaluations and for teachers to develop two systems of evaluation.

Another mode of intervention used by professors was to adapt language norms to foster inclusivity. In an interview with sociology students, Mayank, Naina, and their teacher, Professor Majumdar at Fergusson College, explained how their language proficiencies and extracurricular activities are a bridge for the academic success of students who share their Marathi medium educational backgrounds without their added high proficiency in English. The two students organize sociology club events and are both Brahmins from semi-urban Marathi medium schools.

Naina: A year earlier we used to only use English at these events as students thought of them as extensions of lectures.

Professor Majumdar: Soon after, some Marathi-speaking students complained to me saying that they felt excluded and while they could not feel fully comfortable participating in classes due to a language barrier, they did not want to remain excluded from these extracurricular events as well. They felt their classmates who spoke English were also getting extra help and there was no extra help for the Marathi speakers, and they had a good point we had not considered. So I officially relaxed the English-only rule outside of class so that there was a conscious effort to use Marathi and Hindi at these meetings.

Mayank: More students began to come to meetings and participate.

While the purpose of the sociology club meetings at Fergusson College are to elaborate on and debate topics from lectures, participation falls along linguistic lines. These meetings are meant for linguistic inclusivity, the social rules that guide participation reproduce student identities within linguistic categories. Students take it upon themselves to organize extracurricular events outside the classroom such as discussions and film viewings that focus on classroom material.

Since the club is student-led and meetings take place outside classroom hours, students are explicitly encouraged to speak in any language they feel most comfortable using. Some students are extremely comfortable in English and due to learning class material in English or a desire to help improve other students’ English, these students continue a discussion of class topics outside of class in English. However, the club is intended for conversational involvement unlike a classroom lecture so most students use conversational Hindi. Hindi becomes the inclusive language at these events used to bring together the Maharashtrian and non-Maharashtrian Indian students in a more colloquial atmosphere. It is also important to note that all students (excluding foreign exchange students) are expected to know Hindi fluently, so teachers who make accommodations for Marathi to be used in their classrooms do not make similar allowances for Hindi. In these ways, Marathi use along with English is not smoothly integrated into the educational models and classroom discourse at the two prestigious institutions. The process Professor Chanda-Apte and Professor Majumdar describe above, divides students within single classrooms based on language and brings to the surface linguistic identity as the main identifying category for students.

Inadvertent Consequences and New Expectations

Professor Chanda-Apte’s attention to the linguistic abilities of her students created a norm for translation in her classes from English to Marathi. With the intention of all her students comprehending classroom material equally, she once spent an entire class organizing students into groups for presentations based on language proficiencies, to create groups with mixed linguistic abilities. The resulting presentations all started with students using English, followed by the second students who translated the English material into Marathi. The students joked with each other before presentations to, “Get ready to understand nothing but nod your head to pretend like you do!” The constant mixing and changing of languages takes a significant amount of class time and often requires great attention for students not proficient in all three languages to follow the lectures, often resulting in resigned frustration.

Despite Professor Chanda-Apte’s planning, students paid attention to the language that they understood best. The expectation for translation was demonstrated on various occasions. In one example, a student, who previously stated that she never pays attention when the teacher or her classmates speak in Marathi, mimed to me during one of the presentations by nudging the classmate sitting next her and saying, “Translation! Translation!” while snapping her fingers. These attitudes towards the multilingual policies in classrooms map onto an intersection of student identities who speak, or are known by their professors and peers by their linguistic identities, which contribute to language ideologies that index interactions categorizing identities (Blommaert, 1999; Lee & Su, 2019).

Student Reflections

Marathi in higher education is defined in discussions with professors as associated with students from non-Brahmin, low socioeconomic statuses and disadvantaged educational backgrounds, often from rural areas who generally struggle when adjusting to the urban academic culture in Pune. Associating Marathi proficiency with non-Brahmin students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds becomes a powerfully motivating ideology placed upon students who speak better Marathi than English.

Rakhee’s Caste and Urban Social Class

In an interview soon after my interview with Professor Majumdar and her students, I met with Rakhee, an alumna from Fergusson College. Rakhee is Brahmin and she attended a prestigious Marathi school in Pune, so while she has a Marathi medium education, she has a socially privileged urban Brahmin caste background, and a prestigious and comprehensive education similar to the pedagogical rigor she found at Fergusson. When I asked about her participation in college clubs before her graduation she described to me her thoughts on language use:

I remember feeling that those moments are important for me and other students from Marathi medium schools. When explicitly offered by other students and the teachers, I think a space to respond in Marathi makes us feel like we can participate as equals with the content of the discussions in our most comfortable language rather than preoccupying ourselves with what language to use and trying to use a language we are not as comfortable using.

These events reinscribe linguistic identities upon students based on the conscious effort to encourage the use of languages other than English. These extracurricular opportunities become spaces that extend the classroom whereby students fall into linguistically labeled categories, though with more freedom to converse. Rahkee continued in our conversation, detailing her thoughts on transitioning from a Marathi medium school to an English medium college:

I had a difficult transition to the school when I first started my studies at Fergusson. I felt like I did not have a lot of English vocabulary, even though I knew I had strong study skills and could understand concepts in class. But people seemed to give so much importance to English and not to understanding the concepts. When I could use Marathi I made sure to try and show I understood the ideas really well. Even when there is a small Marathi-speaking group, I feel it is necessary that the professor slips into Marathi now and then. Given the class-caste-rural/urban disparity reflected through the linguistic component, I feel that Marathi-speaking students should be treated as a group that needs special attention. So, using Marathi is double-edged.

Such moments create specific spaces for students to speak based on the language they feel most comfortable, while so doing clearly marks them with a Marathi linguistic identity and the assumptions or stereotypes that come along with being non-Brahmin, poor, and educationally disadvantaged. Her urban and caste privilege allowed her to adapt from a Marathi medium education more easily than some of her classmates to the English medium educational norms and structures, such as the use of translations explained earlier.

Balu’s Rural, Non-Brahmin Educational Challenges

Balu, a non-Brahmin sociology student at Fergusson College, is new to English-medium education and comes from an agricultural village east of Pune. He had stopped by the classroom to ask Professor Majumdar a question and joined our interview. The professor had just explained how students who previously study in Marathi choose the English medium stream at Fergusson because they want to learn English and this is the first opportunity for them to do so. Balu, being one of these students, explained the pressure he felt to learn English:

Balu: I study at least six hours a day to keep up because I am from a rural and Marathi-speaking background but I wanted to study in English. My whole first year [the level of] my English was so low. I was going to pay for a spoken English class. Instead, my friends helped me improve my English.

Professor Majumdar: These classes are exorbitantly priced and offered through many private institutions around the college here. They are intended for students like Balu who struggle with their English curricula.

Naina: Just a week before, I edited and made Balu re-write a Sociology paper about twelve times! I did it to help improve his English writing.

In this conversation about revisions, the focus was entirely on producing an essay in English, regardless of how well Balu grasped the content or could communicate it in Marathi. It was more an evaluation on English proficiency than about an understanding of sociological concepts. While Balu was getting help through the kindness of his classmates and professors, his language abilities were an insurmountable hindrance that was compounded with financial challenges, family obligations, and employment insecurity in his hometown. Balu left this program of study before completing his degree at the end of the 2017 academic year.

Vinay Resists a Rural, Non-Brahmin, Linguistic Identity

Vinay is a recent graduate of the Environmental Science MS degree program at Pune University. He was a strong student and top of his classes throughout his schooling in his rural hometown in central Maharashtra, until he began higher education. Like Balu, Vinay’s caste is non-Brahmin, he is also from a rural Maharashtrian background, and dropped out of his course of study and went home after his first year largely due to language pressures. Vinay recalled his emotional distress while making the decision to drop out of his classes:

I cried on the phone with my father after my first semester. In my classes students spoke Hindi and Marathi with each other but in my degree, the professor and materials were too challenging (in English). The only future I could see for myself was to return home to begin a career as a farmer like my father when I saw I failed three out of my four classes in my first semester, something I had never done before! It was too difficult to keep up in classes that were already conceptually challenging with the added pressure to use only English. In my hometown, Marathi is so prevalent that I also had to learn Hindi as an adult. The mix of English, Marathi, and Hindi in my classes at Pune University, and moving away from home with other social pressures were overwhelming!

Unlike Balu, Vinay eventually returned and completed his degree but not without securing support for learning English through friends and classmates. These efforts are ones Vinay decided to take on his own to ensure he improved his English. He, like many students, undertakes actions that go above and beyond the assistance provided institutionally, to not only learn English, but also to succeed educationally. Vinay’s improvement in English ultimately facilitated his educational success and completion of his degree. Vinay and Balu represent only two of the many students who are marginalized by their rural and non-Brahmin identities, which becomes a synonym for Marathi-speaking in higher education. This is due in part to the reserved admission spots for students from rural schools that make rural students’ identities more visible and politicized. This mix of rural and urban student backgrounds is unique to higher education in Pune as the city is a large hub for higher education in Maharashtra.

Mina’s Social Class Background

Mina is a Sociology Masters student at Pune University who said she has never felt marginalized at the university in Pune due to her Marathi medium background nor her non-Brahmin caste. She made friends easily with the foreign students and spoke English exclusively in class. Unlike Balu and Vinay, she attended schools in the urban center of Mumbai, about 300 kilometers west of Pune. She explained her transition to English medium education:

I think it was that my urban, middle-class upbringing prepared me to move to Pune for university. It is not too different from Mumbai. In terms of language, mixing languages in education is familiar to the style of speaking in many public spaces in Mumbai that I visited as a student anyways. I can speak with everyone, even the foreign students due to the English classes we had in my Marathi schooling. I also watch a lot of English television and films.

Her socialization and upbringing in middle-class urban settings, though non-Brahmin, are key factors that contribute to her comfort level at Pune University. Mina and her teachers do not tie her identity as closely to Marathi, because she grew up in Mumbai and quickly learned to speak English fluently. Although she attended Marathi-medium schools through her educational career until her MA at Pune University, Mina found that she easily adapted to using English for conversing and academics with the non-Marathi speakers in her classes. She is therefore able to position her identity among the English-medium educated students from urban backgrounds, rather than the students who typically identify by their Marathi-medium education from rural areas or non-Brahmin castes. Mina’s position as an English-speaking student allowed her more access to resources and cultural capital in her education and the more she used English over Marathi, the more she became identified based on her English-speaking ability and association to other students with English-speaking linguistic identities.

Unintended Consequences of Multilingual Practices

It becomes clear that students engage with material differently in different languages. In one example from a sociology club meeting with about fifteen students in attendance, students had taken turns presenting their views on a debate topic in English. Finally, the student leader during that meeting paused and said, in Marathi, “Now let’s hear from the Marathi students” who were all sitting to one side as a group, granting them space to speak based on language proficiency. The group of four Marathi students sat quietly, listening to the other students speak some Hindi and English, with no intention of contributing to the discussion prior to the student leader calling upon them to participate. When explicitly told to contribute to the discussion based on their language background, which had become their linguistic identities in class, two students provided their opinions on the topic in Marathi. Linguistic identities are therefore internalized by students as well. Statements from students and alumni who participated in this study show an acknowledgement that their student identities solidify around language use in educational interactions such as this one, which in turn affects the course of their studies.

Discussion

Language ideologies reflect politically charged, purposeful, and directed ways of using language, as well, as representing shared beliefs about language. In the examples provided above, language ideologies about Marathi shape professors’ views of students and their students’ identities.

Impact on Language Practices on Linguistic Identity

Key statements from interviews with teachers reveal how teachers structure class activities to balance the language strengths of students in addition to their overall thoughts and attitudes towards students with stronger Marathi language proficiency than English. In classrooms, teachers unofficially divide students into two categories based on their educational linguistic backgrounds: Marathi or English speakers. Analyzing language ideologies provides a key method of linking these micro-level observations of practices to macro-level systems and doing this allows for stronger consideration of political economic structures, power, social inequality, and constraints on language behavior (Woolard, 1998). Marathi speakers are assumed to be from rural, educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, which in turn reinforces Marathi use in classrooms to be conflated with educationally disadvantaged student identities. English, therefore, is associated with educational advancement (De Costa, 2016; Paris, 2013). 

The examples here show how language ideologies are created and perpetuated around the use of Marathi, English, and Hindi in higher education classrooms. In addition, this study shows how these ideologies play into identity construction on behalf of professors ascribing identities onto students (De Costa, 2016). Some non-Marathi speaking students showed a resigned frustration, as evidenced by student comments indicating an attitude of derision for the need to accommodate multiple languages in the classroom.

The structure of the multilingual educational policy alienates students and socializes translation rather than normalizing multilingual comprehension (Bartlett, 2007; Bartlett & Garcia, 2011). The non-Marathi speakers interpret the regular and expected translations from English into Marathi as an accommodation for Marathi-speakings students which squanders valuable class time. However, this can be juxtaposed with Marathi-speakers who disengage from the English portion of lectures and presentations as well. Studies have shown students attend to ways different languages signal different functions in classroom discourse (Probyn, 2009; Proctor, 2014). Therefore not all of the Marathi-speaking students remain attentive throughout English instruction, which is always the first language used in formal lectures and presentations. Only some of the students with limited English and strong Marathi attend to the English used in class due to socialization to English instruction or personal interest. However, the students without Marathi fluency do not approach the Marathi portions of lecture or presentations in the same way as a means to learn Marathi. The effect is that there appears to be two classes held simultaneously based on language— one in English and one in Marathi.

Linguistic Identities and Learner Experiences

Students coming to universities in Pune from rural backgrounds are often assumed to have an education that inadequately prepares them for the rigor of urban higher education. This persists as a stereotype of rural education and a pressure of liberalization and globalization in India (Kachru et al., 2009; Lukose, 2009; Proctor, 2014). A linguistically inclusive approach presents comprehension challenges to all students, requiring professors to identify students’ needs based on their language proficiencies, so they can teach towards students’ strengths for greater equality of information dissemination. Students’ attitudes and interactions show that during Marathi instruction, students comfortably fluent in English disengage. The result is often a stereotype conflating students from Marathi medium educational backgrounds with socioeconomic, non-Brahmin caste forms, and educational disadvantage (Pattanayak, 1981; Proctor, 2014). In multilingual settings where values are attributed to speakers’ different linguistic strengths, languages index inequalities between identity categories (Schieffelin et al., 1998; Woolard, 1998).

This study showed that teachers negotiate language strengths in the classroom, and how student identities become categorized based on dichotomies of urban versus rural, Brahmin versus non-Brahmin caste, and Marathi-speaking backgrounds. The three non-Brahmin students included in this study present a dynamic sample set of Marathi speaking student identities in higher education. Where Balu and Vinay are both from non-Brahmin rural backgrounds, they faced challenges in their abilities to adapt to the medium of English in higher education in an urban setting. The attitude about access, exposure, and socioeconomic status related to English relates to LaDousa’s (2010) and Lukose’s (2009) studies where rural backgrounds are often conflated with regional languages and relative rural poverty. The intersection of rurality and socioeconomic class contextually situated in urban higher education institutions produces and perpetuates the language ideology attached to Marathi-speaking students in these settings (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005). These connotations display an ideology of Marathi as a sort of deficiency or disability where speakers need special attention from a professor who can use the language when they feel a need to do so (Bartlett & Garcia, 2011).

Student attitudes of respecting allowances made for Marathi and students who prefer to speak Marathi in classrooms, demonstrates that higher education is not only for higher degrees and specialization, but for students like Balu and Vinay, it was the first time in their educational careers where they branched out of familiar settings— socially and linguistically. Mina found that it was a time to shape her identity along English medium educational forms, and she did this through aligning herself with the English-speaking foreign students and by using only English in her classes and assignments to excel in her studies (Bartlett, 2007). Coming from Mumbai, the large, urban state capital, Mina never faced the difficulties that Vinay and Balu faced as students from rural backgrounds. Her socioeconomic class from an urban setting intersected differently with her Marathi educational background. She effectively distanced herself from her Marathi medium background and differentiated herself from her classmates from rural backgrounds who speak primarily Marathi in class. Semi-urban and urban, Brahmin, Marathi-speaking students like Naina and Rakhee at Fergusson College, express that for higher education to be more inclusive and egalitarian, it should be necessary and accepted to appreciate and use Marathi in higher education. Although teachers and students in various departments in the two higher educational institutions know that they are to only use English, they “smuggle the vernacular into the classroom,” as there are institutional and ideological barriers to allowing for complete English medium classrooms (Probyn, 2009).

Implications

This study explores language ideologies based on language use in relation to pedagogy, identities, and power-structures in education. Ideologies surrounding Marathi in higher education organize students into hierarchical categories based on who the education works best for— those who can speak English as an academic and global language, and those who speak Marathi who need linguistic concessions to be made for their inclusion and participation in higher education. On top of the social adjustment students make from secondary school to colleges and universities, English is seen to be an academic language necessary for  success in higher education. Students who can conform to expected and accepted academic speech styles are then viewed as good and successful students. The structure of education set up by Maharashtra’s higher education system, and the informal roles Hindi, Marathi, and English play within the system, assign meanings to the languages and the assumptions tied to those languages, labeling students based on their language proficiencies. Since university students pay attention to moments when the professor speaks different languages or translates parts of the lectures, as a sign that the professor is speaking either to them or to another linguistic group, students and teachers have internalized which language applies to them, which shapes or pigeonholes student identities.

Having multilingual structures and well-intention teachers as educational policy is not enough. Inclusive language strategies benefit some students who are able to conform their identities in ways that intersect through class, caste, and language to the institutionalized spaces for Marathi in an English medium higher education system. Impacts of social class and caste as mediators of multilingualism in higher education categorizes student linguistic identities monolinguistically where a “Marathi” identity is stereotyped as a Hindu, rural, non-Brahmin, and educationally disenfranchised. This takes into consideration that the socially stratified caste systems in India place Brahmins at a position of privilege within education and other social spheres. Therefore, implementing multilingual policies for diversity and inclusion of educationally and linguistically marginalized students are more complicated when viewed in practice. Language becomes a contentious divider marking students based on caste and opportunities, facilitated through urban, middle-class backgrounds when teachers identify and categorize students by linguistic abilities and teach towards those abilities. Teachers need to be aware of how their perceptions of student linguistic identities affect pedagogy that impacts various groups of students differently, and be more critical of the power-structures aligned with intersections of identity categories that shape the backgrounds of their students.

References

Bartlett, L. (2007). Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories. Linguistics and Education, 18(3–4), 215–31.

Bartlett, L, & Garcia, O. (2011). Additive schooling in subtractive times: Bilingual education and Dominican immigrant youth in the heights. Vanderbilt University Press.

Bhattacharya, U. (2017). Colonization and English ideologies in India: A language policy perspective. Language Policy, 16(1), 1–21.

Blommaert, J. (1999). Language ideological debates. De Gruyter, Inc.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.

Chandras, J. (2020). Multilingualism in India. Education about Asia, 25(3), 38–45.

De Costa, P. I. (2016). The power of identity and ideology in language learning: Designer immigrants learning English in Singapore. Springer.

De Kock, T., Sayed, Y., & Badroodien, A. (2018). ‘Narratives of social cohesion’: Bridging the link between school culture, linguistic identity and the English language. Education as Change, 22(1), 1–29. 

Gal, S. (2005). Language ideologies compared. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 23–37.

Gal, S. & Irvine, J. T. (2019). Signs of difference: Language and ideology in social life. Cambridge University Press.

Gandhi, M. K. (1922). Speeches and writings of M.K. Gandhi. (3rd Ed.). G. A. Natesan and Co.

Kachru, B. (1983). The indianization of English: The English language in India. Oxford University Press India.

Kachru, B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. (Eds.) (2009). The handbook of world Englishes. Wiley-Blackwell.

Kroskrity, P. (2000). Regimes of language: Ideologies, politics, and identities. School of American Research Press.

LaDousa, C. (2010). On mother and other tongues: Sociolinguistics, schools, and language ideology in northern India. Language Sciences, 32(6), 602–14.

Lee, W. H. & Su, H. Y. (2019). ‘You are in Taiwan, speak Chinese’: Identity, language ideology, and sociolinguistic scales in online interaction. Discourse, Context & Media, 32, 1–11.

Lukose, R. (2009). Liberalization’s children: Gender, youth, and consumer citizenship in globalizing India. Duke University Press.

Paris, D. (2013). Language across difference: Ethnicity, communication, and youth identities in changing urban schools. Cambridge University Press.

Pattanayak, D. P. (1981). Multilingualism and mother tongue education. Oxford University Press India.

Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Channel View Publications.

Preece, S. (2009). Posh talk: Language and identity in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Probyn, M. (2009). ‘Smuggling the vernacular into the classroom’: Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching in township/rural schools in South Africa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 123–36.

Pennycook, A. (2006). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. Routledge.

Proctor, L. M. (2014). English and globalization in India: The fractal nature of discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology24(3), 294–314.

Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K. A., & Kroskrity, P. eds. (1998). Language ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford University Press.

Vivanco, L. (2018). Language ideology. In A Dictionary of Cultural Anthropology. Oxford University Press. 

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

Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–50). Cambridge University Press.

Spanish language ideologies in New Mexico and their impact on Spanish language learners

Volume 2(1): 2018

SARAH O’BRIEN, Trinity College Dublin

ABSTRACT

This article explores how U.S. students’ receptiveness to Spanish language learning is impacted by the social perceptions of the language that exist within their surrounding community. In particular, the article questions how Spanish language use is impacted by contemporary language ideologies in New Mexico that distinguish Spanish speaking speakers as either stemming from a European colonial linguistic legacy or, conversely, from a more recent Latin–American immigrant linguistic tradition. The research underlying the article was carried out within three school districts in New Mexico, a state with protracted historic ties to the Spanish language yet which nonetheless struggles to develop Spanish language proficiency within its school-going population. Drawing from mixed–method sourced data collected over a seven month period in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Española, the article reveals the stratified views of high school students, teachers, parents, educators and community members to the Spanish language in New Mexico, explores ideologies that Spanish language evokes in the sampled population and makes suggestions on how these research findings can be used by language-planners to improve outcomes for Spanish language learners in the United States.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article examine à quel point la réceptivité des étudiants américains à l’égard de l’apprentissage de l’espagnol est influencée par les perceptions sociales de la langue dans leur communauté. En particulier, cet article examine comment l’utilisation de l’espagnol est influencée par les idéologies linguistiques contemporaines au Nouveau-Mexique qui distinguent les hispanophones ayant un héritage linguistique colonial européen et ceux émanant d’une plus récente tradition linguistique d’immigrants d’Amérique latine. La recherche qui appuie cet article a été réalisée dans trois districts scolaires au Nouveau-Mexique. Malgré l’importance historique de l’espagnol dans cet état américain, la population étudiante éprouve de la difficulté à développer une bonne compétence linguistique. En utilisant une approche mixte pour la collecte de données, effectuée pendant une période de sept mois à Albuquerque, à Santa Fe et à Española, cet article révèle les opinions divisées des élèves du secondaire, des professeurs, des parents, des éducateurs et des membres de la communauté envers la langue espagnole au Nouveau-Mexique. De plus, cet article examine les idéologies évoquées par l’espagnol dans la population échantillonnée et explique comment les résultats de cette étude pourraient aider les aménageurs linguistiques à faciliter l’apprentissage de l’espagnol aux États-Unis.

Keywords: Spanish–American/ Latino identity, Spanish language, New Mexico, bilingual education, language ideology.

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, New Mexico’s Public Education Department has engaged in the provision of bilingual Spanish/ English education programmes designed to expose students to a language that was widely spoken by Hispanics within New Mexican homes and communities until the middle of the twentieth century.i These programmes also aim at maintaining Spanish as a native language for first generation Latino students in New Mexico’s public schools as well as developing Spanish language amongst Anglophone populations with no historic connection to the language. By consequence, Spanish language learning in New Mexico encapsulates a complex community of students from culturally disparate backgrounds.

Despite the expansion and delivery of Spanish/ English language programmes, consecutive New Mexico Public Education Department Bilingual Multicultural Education Annual Reports (BMEAR) published since 2010 have stated that the vast majority of Spanish language students score at non and limited proficient levels (New Mexico Public Education Department, 2014). Moreover, Census data returns (Ryan, 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) have illustrated the increased linguistic domination of English over Spanish within New Mexico’s Hispanic families, indicating the perpetuated vulnerability of Spanish language within the state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). These findings are reflected at national level—Beaudrie and Fairclough (2012) have found that Spanish as a first language is unsustainable for third generation Latino immigrants in the United States.

In order to understand these outcomes, I begin with the premise that second language and literacy development must be analyzed within its broader sociocultural context (Goldenberg & Reese, 2006). To explore this, I used questionnaires and structured interviews completed by teachers, parents, community members and high school students—in essence, the population making up a school district—to address the following research questions: How do participants perceive the use of Spanish in the school, home and community; how do attitudes to the use of and learning of Spanish in social and educational contexts vary across different language learning communities in New Mexico; what is the relationship between social attitudes to Spanish language use and Spanish language program performance in New Mexico?

By paying attention to the wider social world in which Spanish language learning is enacted in these three locations, I argued for the existence of various sociolinguistic ecosystems in New Mexico, which are shot through with a pervasive Spanish language ideology. My aim in this article is to establish how such ideologies impact Spanish language students’ responsiveness to learning the language.

My use of the term language ecosystem is based on Haugen’s (1972) definition of language ecology as the study of interactions between any given language and its environment. While Haugen has been criticized for using ecology as a somewhat shaky metaphor for language, his conceptualization of how language interrelates in a given environment nonetheless plays a significant role in capturing the multifaceted and dynamic interactions that occur in and through language. Since Haugen’s coining of the term language ecosystems, there has been increased growth in linguistic and language-learning research that has examined language as a network of interactions as opposed to a thing. Couto (2009) pointed to the psychological and social undercurrents of this network, suggesting that a linguistic ecosystem involves interactions that take place between members of the population and the world, in the neuronal connections of the brain, and between language and society. This study is primarily focused on this latter strand (language and society), and pays particular attention to the political, ethnic, and historic environment in which the Spanish language operates in New Mexico. This study is also based on the premise that language functions socio-politically, in order to valorize or trivialize marginalized identities (Leeman, Rabin, & Román-Mendoza, 2011; Loza, 2017; Valdés, 1998). In essence, it recognizes the persistence of language ideologies (Leeman et al., 2011) and perceives the relationship between language and minority identity as a crucial mediating factor in the acquisition of Spanish language in New Mexico’s public education system (O’Brien, 2017).

To date, research on Spanish language ideology in the U.S. has tended to focus on the linguistic marginalization of U.S. Spanish and the prioritization of so-called pure Spanish in the Castilian form (Ciller & Flores, 2016). According to Valdés, Menken, & Castro (2015), U.S. Spanish occupies a lower status than ‘pure’ Spanish due to its association with a bilingual, bicultural community of speakers. Monolingual Spanish speakers, Loza (2017) argued, are championed as a linguistic ideal while Spanish heritage speakers (SHS) are castigated for deviating from the standard through language interference, informal grammatical constructions and code-switching. However, while the current study recognizes the existence of such language ideologies, I suggest that Valdéz et al.’s (2015) hierarchical delineation of Spanish language along a monolingual European or U.S. bilingual divide is over-simplified and fails to take into account the internal social tensions within U.S. Spanish speaking communities that create and perpetuate their own set of linguistic hierarchies and language ideologies.

More theoretically helpful in capturing this phenomenon is Leeman’s (2012) broader conceptualization of language ideologies as relating to the political interests and agendas of particular dominant groups, which operate at regional as well as international levels and which might include, as in the case of this study, a majority Hispanic or (to use the term employed by the sample participants in this study) Spanish–American population of heritage Spanish speakers who share a territory with a minority Latino immigrant population who speak Spanish as a mother tongue. As shown by Leeman (2012), it is those with social power who make decisions on the language varieties that are considered standard. Galindo’s (1991) examination of how Chicanos (Mexican-Americans born in the USA) disparage the Spanish spoken by Mexican immigrants illustrated the manifestation of such social power between a similar, yet distinct U.S. based Spanish–speaking community. In the subsequent sections of this article, I reinforce Galindo’s findings, illustrating how Spanish language in the surveyed districts in New Mexico has been ideologically sub-categorized so as to prioritize Spanish–American speakers—the term appropriated by New Mexico Hispanics with an extended history of living in the state—and to marginalize recently arrived Latino immigrant speakers, thus rationalizing the subordination of the latter group over the former (Loza, 2017).

RELEVANT LITERATURE AND THEORY

To date, a number of scholars have examined the relationships between the social context of language learning in language policy, such as Reece and Goldenberg’s (2006) analysis of community print literacy in the development of Hispanic biliteracy in Los Angeles, Eder’s (2007) analysis of critical language learning strategies within Native American communities, and Valdés’ (2015) California-based study of the effectiveness of bilingual education for Latino youth. Each of these studies lead to a cautionary note on the issues that impede bilingual/ multicultural program effectiveness, which include perpetuations of colonial discourses and dynamics within the language-learning classroom, superficial literacy and linguistic opportunities in the second language classroom and community, and a misalignment of the inherent linguistic dynamics of languages with classroom practices. Research on second language acquisition that has increasingly linked language learning with the development of new identities and notions of self (Leeman et al., 2011) also proposes new possibilities to more fully understand how social processes impact on students’ acquisition of given target languages. That notions of self and group identity develop and crystallize in opposition to or in alignment with philosophies such as nationalism and colonialism (Anderson, 1991) is deeply relevant for all bilingual communities and particularly those situated within New Mexico, an area that has experienced the destabilizing effects of colonialism since the early twentieth century along with nationalist rhetoric that has developed in response to the growth of the Latino community in the United States in recent decades (Hanna & Ortega, 2016).

Paris (2010) highlighted that the Spanish-speaking population in U.S. public education is made up of a linguistically and culturally complex and diverse community of learners and speakers, while Guglani (2016) discussed the extent to which Spanish language is used to validate Latino identity in the U.S. Both authors highlighted the intergenerational shift that has occurred in recent years around Latino identity politics amongst school-going youth. In the present article, I add a new dimension to these findings by examining a wide range of social attitudes to Spanish language from the perspective of a geographically and culturally distinct community that has heretofore received little academic attention.

A relevant aspect of this study is that learning Spanish in New Mexico schools is not simply a process of second language acquisition but also constitutes a heritage–focused effort to maintain a language traditionally spoken by a large proportion of the state’s population. This, therefore, requires engagement with language revitalization theory. Here, Fishman’s (1991) research on reversing language shift proves helpful. The findings illustrate that the family and local community play an indispensable role in heritage language maintenance. Indeed, Fishman (1991) concluded that heritage language support policies at state level can only be effective if they co-exist with linguistically goal-oriented families and communities who are committed to transmitting the heritage language from one generation to the next. Despite the weight of this finding, there is little evidence of state engagement with the family and community linguistic dimension in New Mexico and to date, no attempt has been made to relate the language ideologies to which students are exposed through their social ecosystems with their language learning outcomes.

Post-structuralist understandings of the relationship between language and identity, of the self and of the collective, also provide a theoretical foundation for this study. As pointed out by Kallan (2016), language presents a tangible sense of place. However, this inter–relationship can become mutilated by processes of colonization and globalization (Kallan, 2016; O’Brien, 2017), and there is often a re–modification and degradation of the places and spaces in which these exiled and disenfranchised communities speak and perceive their languages (Anderson 1991; Coole 1996; Fought 2006). Foucault’s (1980) theories on discourse suggest the social and cultural conditions that lead to the production and consolidation of power. His treatise on the extent to which socially-embedded power structures determine who can speak and what can be spoken as having important implications for language users and language learners is particularly useful for the present study. Investigating disparate Spanish language ideologies in New Mexico aims at revealing the cultural legacies and social hierarchies that produce systems of power. Following from this, I examine how such systems of power are articulated through the learning and use of the Spanish language within the sample populations.

RESEARCH DESIGN

I used the 2014-2015 Bilingual/ Multicultural Education Annual Report (New Mexico Public Education Department, 2014) as starting point. This revealed Spanish language proficiency rates in each of New Mexico’s school districts and allowed me to select school districts with varying degrees of Spanish language proficiency in order to generate comparisons across school districts (See Table 1).

School District Proficiency Level (%)
Beginning Intermediate Proficient
Albuquerque 35.68 39.00 25.32
Santa Fe 43.98 44.81 11.20
Española 48.94 41.26 9.81

Table 1: Spanish Language Proficiency in the Sampled Areas (Source: Appendix B, New Mexico Public Education Department Bilingual Bulticultural Education Annual Report 2014-2015)

Thereafter, current U.S. Census data was used to select three school districts within New Mexico featuring socio-economically distinct populations so as to test and compare the relationship between language ecosystems and the learning of Spanish. The populations of Albuquerque, Española, and Santa Fe proved suitable in this regard, with each providing a unique sociolinguistic landscape (See Table 2 below).

Importantly, the borders of each of these city’s school districts closely overlapped with the city borders defined by the U.S. Census, meaning that the socioeconomic data generated by the latter could reliably be used to ascertain the social characteristics of each school district community. Finally, each of the selected school districts had an established, state-sponsored Bilingual/ Multicultural Education Programme, guaranteeing that all participants had some exposure to the learning and teaching of Spanish within the school district.

Española Albuquerque Santa Fe
Population 10, 224 545,852 67,947
Hispanic or Latino 87.1 46.7 48.7
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 8.8 42.1 46.2
Foreign-born persons (2010-2014) 13.8 10.7 12.9
Language other than English spoken at home by persons age 5 years + 64.6 29.9 33.4
Persons in Poverty 27.7 18.5 18.1
Spanish speaking population

(% of total population)

54 26 32

Table 2: Social Characteristics of the Sampled Areas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011)

I used two data collection tools: surveys and structured interviews. Bourhis, Giles, & Rosenthal’s (1981) Subjective Vitality Questionnaire, was appropriate in illuminating participants’ perceptions of the ethnolinguistic vitality of and reception to the Spanish language within their school district community. As Ehala and Niglas (2006) noted, the main limitation of the questionnaire is its focus on participants’ objective view of language vitality, as opposed to representing the participant’s emotional relationship with the language. Consequently, I adapted the survey, drawing from Baker’s (1992) socially-framed questionnaire design in order to gather information on participants’ personal perceptions of the specific cultural dynamics of the Spanish language in New Mexico. In total, the student survey had 27 statements, categorized in terms of positive orientation or negative orientation toward the Spanish language. I included additional statements to ascertain nuanced differences between each school district’s perceptions of both Spanish language and Hispanic culture that fell outside of the positive/ negative dichotomy. School principals distributed the surveys. I provided students over the age of 16 years of age in each school district with information on the research one week prior to the dissemination of surveys, so students understood their choice to participate or not. Bilingual surveys were available to all students, though only two of the respondents opted to complete the survey in Spanish. In total, 469 students completed the survey across all three districts, with Española returning the highest proportion of completed surveys. A total of eighty-one percent of participant respondents identified as Hispanic. Due to a formatting error on the survey form, the gender breakdown of the survey sample population was not captured in two of the three sampled population. Nonetheless, surveys were disseminated in high schools with a relatively even distribution of male and female students.

As noted by Pavlenko (2009), quantitative methods are often too rigid a collection tool to represent the dynamic, fluid and shifting cultural forces that shape language attitudes. In order to overcome this limitation and to further explore the data generated by the surveys, I included a qualitative interview component in the research design. Structured interviews were carried out with 32 participants, fulfilling the normal distribution criterion recommended for qualitative research (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011) (see Appendix B for interview questions). Teaching and learning are understood as socially situated practices; therefore, participant samples from each of the three school districts were made up of at least two of each of the following: secondary school teachers, school administrators, parents, educational stakeholders and community members. Seventeen interview participants were female and 15 were of Hispanic descent, providing a more balanced gender and ethnic distribution than the survey sample. A bilingual research assistant conducted the interviews. Three of the 32 participants completed the interview in Spanish. I informed participants of the study by dissemination a participant information leaflet in each school district, which allowed candidates to self-select as research participants. I also used non-probability snowball sampling methods in order to ensure a balanced proportion of participants from each language community.

The mixed methods study followed a convergent design (Creswell & Creswell, 2017) with concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection, separate quantitative and qualitative analyses and the eventual merging of the data sets to answer the research questions. Survey data generated by the sample population were analysed using SPSS software, specifically via a cross-tabular descriptive analysis of the three school districts surveyed. Concepts interrogated in both the questionnaire and the structured interview included: personal attitude to the use of Spanish in New Mexico; uniformity as preferable to diversity; awareness of anti-Hispanic sentiments within New Mexico; Spanish language as declining in the community; cultural prioritization of English; and Hispanics as “Other.” Interviews were structured, with questions asked in a pre-designated sequence and with little deviation from the pre-formulated list of questions. I carried out an initial thematic analysis of participants’ responses in order to orientate myself to the data collected and to ensure the suitability of my analytic framework. Thereafter, I categorized responses according to positive or negative orientations to Spanish language and Hispanic culture and then compared these data with the survey results, using the school district from which responses were generated as the prime variable.

Linguistic Ecosystems of the Sampled Population

Española is 88 miles from Albuquerque and 25 miles from Santa Fe. As shown in Table 2 above, Albuquerque has by far the largest population of the three surveyed areas, with half a million residents. By contrast, Española’s population is just over 10,000 while Santa Fe’s is almost 70,000. Due to space limitation, I have not examined the implications of these varying degrees of urbanism on Spanish language learning in the present study. Instead, I focused on the ethnic, socioeconomic status (measured by the persons in poverty row), and linguistic features of each site, as these are considered indispensable to an understanding of the social dynamics of the targeted ecosystems (Williams, 1991).

As shown in Table 2 above, Española has the highest proportion of Hispanic residents, foreign-born residents, people living in poverty and people identifying as Spanish speakers. The latter is surprising, given that BMEAR shows that Española school district students had the lowest proportion of proficient Spanish speakers of the sampled populations (Table 1 above), with Albuquerque had the highest proportion. This inconsistency may be explained by Española’s Spanish-speakers being an older non–school going population or may reflect its citizens’ tendency to claim that Spanish language is used within the home as a marker of identity politics, even if the younger generations are only beginner or intermediate speakers of the language. These data provide subtle evidence for the existence of a language ideology in Española that prioritizes a heritage of Spanish language use.

Figure 1:  Surveyed New Mexico School Districts
Source: Author

U.S. Census data allows deeper insight into the distinct levels of bilingual confidence in each research location. For example, Santa Fe’s Spanish speakers reported much lower rates of English language proficiency than those in Española, suggesting that the former constitute a first or second generation Latino immigrant population, while Española’s population may be formed from a heritage Spanish–speaking community, thus reinforcing its use amongst an older population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). That over 96 percent of Española’s 5- to 17-year-old Spanish-speaking population was reported as speaking English “very well” also indicates that young people in Española strongly identify with two languages, whereas their counterparts in Santa Fe do not. In Albuquerque, Census results suggest that the majority of Spanish speakers are first generation immigrants in the 18- to 64-year-old category, one-third of whom reported limited English language proficiency. The children of these immigrants are identified as strong bilinguals in Spanish and English, though in slightly lower proportions than in Española.

At a state level, the reality of Spanish language loss is obvious (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), with only 28 percent of New Mexico respondents reporting an ability to speak Spanish, in spite of over 70 percent of its population identifying as Hispanic. Significantly, the majority of Census respondents who reported Spanish language proficiency were in the 18- to 64-year-old age bracket. According to Fishman’s (1991) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), this suggests the potential for the maintenance of Spanish language in New Mexico, since languages are most vital when spoken by a younger and childbearing population. However, this finding is hinged on a presumption of social inclusion; if younger minority language users feel themselves to be socially isolated, their native language will continue to regress. Also significant is that the second largest majority of Spanish speakers were recorded within the 5- to 17-year-old bracket, which reinforces the potential for Spanish to gain momentum in New Mexico, if the language is being engaged with in authentic ways within this population. Outcomes of language policies to reinvigorate the speaking of the Irish language in the Republic of Ireland may present a relevant caveat here: studies show that where the population of Irish speakers soars in the 5- to 17-year-old age bracket, it sharply declines in the 18- to 64-year-old age bracket, since the Irish language is principally being engaged with through formal primary and secondary school language classes, often without any application or resonance in the broader community, thus creating an unsustainable and ineffective pathway for language revitalization (O Ríagáin, 2009). That those over 64 years of age constitute the smallest proportion of Spanish speakers suggests that the majority of New Mexico’s Spanish speakers are younger, generational immigrants from Spanish speaking countries, a finding that aligns with the systematic growth of Spanish in the United States between 2005 and 2011 (Ryan, 2013).

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Quantitative Analysis of High School Students’ Attitudes to the Use of Spanish

Quantitative analysis found overwhelmingly consistent levels of positive receptiveness to the use of Spanish among the surveyed students. Indeed, even ostensibly dramatic statements in support of Spanish language were received liberally by the surveyed cohort, as exemplified in the responses below to Statements 2 and 6 (see Appendix A for complete survey results).

Statement 2: All students in New Mexico should learn a second language, especially Spanish.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 18.3% 50.0% 28.3% 3.3% 100%
Española 25.5% 59.4% 12.1% 2.9% 100%
Santa Fe 24.0% 56.5% 16.2% 3.2% 100%
Total 24.1% 57.2% 15.7% 3.1% 100%

Table 3: Responses to Statement 2

Statement 6: Learning Spanish is important for my country’s future.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 16.1% 48.4% 30.6% 4.8% 100%
Española 20.6% 51.7% 22.7% 5.0% 100%
Santa Fe 20.4% 47.1% 27.4% 5.1% 100%
Total 19.9% 49.7% 25.4% 5.0% 100%

Table 4: Responses to Statement 6

Mean results generated by survey data illustrated moderate levels of variance between school districts on responsiveness to Spanish language and Hispanic culture. Española’s school district returned highest levels of receptiveness to the use of Spanish, Albuquerque returned the least proportional support for the same concept, and Santa Fe’s student responses were only slightly less positive toward the role of Spanish in the school and community than their peers in Española, with each school district rating Spanish language highly. However, both Santa Fe and Española’s students also articulated a strong sense of identification with Anglophone-oriented questions (Statements 5, 22, 23).

The questionnaire succeeded in drawing out interesting socio-economic profiles of the surveyed communities. Albuquerque students were most likely to assert that their families struggled financially and to indicate the Hispanophone nature of their community (Statements 11, 24). However, this immersion in a Spanish language community did not correspond with high levels of Spanish language advocacy amid Albuquerque’s students and instead, some consistently negative tendencies toward the use of Spanish in the community were observed within Albuquerque’s body (Statements 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14).

Statement 9, “Spanish speakers are not discriminated against in our community,” produced some polarised opinions among the Albuquerque cohort, with 18% strongly agreeing with the statement and 16% strongly disagreeing. When compared to Santa Fe and Española, however, they emerged as the least likely group to claim discrimination against Spanish speakers in their local community.

Santa Fe students were more likely to agree that their families struggled financially than their peers in Española, a finding that might be surprising given the lower socioeconomic profile of families living in the latter district (see Table 2 above). Overall, Santa Fe students exhibited the lowest level of tolerance for statements that suggested the Otherness and inferiority of Spanish language and culture (Statements 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 20, 26) and they emerged as the only surveyed cohort to express as a majority their belief that Spanish speakers were discriminated against within their community (Statement 9). However, they were less convinced about the prioritization of Spanish than their peers in Española (Statements 1, 2, 12,16, 17) and emerged as a community that tended to be more supportive of the cultural role of Spanish language users as opposed to its use as a formal, academic languagein New Mexico (Statements 1, 7, 17, 22).

Española’s students returned consistently positive responses to the relevance of Spanish language in the curriculum and community and their high levels of confidence in their Hispanic language and culture is demonstrated in their responses to Statements 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 29, 26 and 27. Survey feedback also confirms their biculturalism and aspirations to bilingualism; though they tend to support the use of Spanish they also favour statements that advocate for Spanish-English bilingualism (Statements 5, 7, 12, 13), a finding consistent with the returns of the U.S. 2000 and 2010 Censuses, in which young people in Española strongly identifying with both English and Spanish. Finally, the Española cohort exhibited the most concern about the regression of Spanish language use in their community (Statements 11, 24).

School District Proficiency Level (%) Language Attitude (Mean)*
Beginning Intermediate Proficient
Albuquerque 35.68 39.00 25.32 2.8142
Santa Fe 43.98 44.81 11.20 2.8601
Española 48.94 41.26 9.81 2.8739

Table 5: Relationship between language proficiency and language attitudes (Source: Appendix B, New Mexico Public Education Department Bilingual Bulticultural Education Annual Report 2014-2015)

*Mean average for language attitudes was achieved by a software generated means comparison of statements 1,2,4, 6, 8, 12,16,17,19, 22, 25, 26. A Scale from 1 to 4 was used to establish the mean, with 1= Strongly Negative Attitude and 4= Strongly Positive.

Table 5 illustrates a statistically opaque relationship between language ideologies and language performances. While the language mean results show marginal differences, they suggest that though Española returned the lowest rates of Spanish language proficiency, these students reported the most positive language attitudes of the three surveyed districts. In contrast, though the Albuquerque school district has the highest percentage of proficient language users, these students reported the lowest levels of support for the language of the three communities. Qualitative data were, however, much more effective in illuminating the existence of the relationship between language proficiency and language attitude. Specifically, the interviews affirm that the most proficient users of Spanish in New Mexico are not necessarily surrounded by communities that positively perceive their language use. Conversely, and as developed in the interview data that I present shortly, while school districts such as Española purport to support the use and learning of Spanish, their learners continue to struggle with proficiency, suggesting a disconnection between learners’ cultural and linguistic responsiveness to Spanish language and their ability to communicate in Spanish.

Interview Data and Analysis

Data from the structured interviews confirm the influence of Spanish language ideologies on the Spanish language learning classroom. Interviewees often unambiguously articulated how receptiveness to Spanish amongst communities and students hinges on whether the Hispanic speaker is related to a ‘Spanish–American’ or to a Latino immigrant community.

As shown in Table 6 below, the overwhelmingly positive attitude to Spanish language that Española students indicated was replicated in interview data from the same district. On the contrary, 45% and 50% of the interview data from Albuquerque and Santa Fe, respectively, included more negatively oriented discourse on the same questions while consistent levels of neutrality were maintained across all three surveyed communities. In essence, the data revealed the influence of wider social attitudes to the Spanish language on students’ responsiveness to their Spanish language learning.

Interview Responses by School District Positively Oriented Discourse* Negatively Oriented Discourse* Neutral Discourse*
Albuquerque 4 5 2
Española 8 0 3
Santa Fe 2 4 2

Table 6: Qualitative Cross Tabulation of Interview Responses

*Orientation of positive vs. negative discourse was evaluated by responses to interview questions 4, 5, 9 and 11.

Apart from this, the interview responses provided deep-level insight into the language ideologies that exist within New Mexico. First, interview data revealed the extent to which Spanish language in New Mexico was seen to represent either a Spanish-American or Latino immigrant population. Specifically, Spanish language was positively viewed both by students and their surrounding social community where Hispanic identity was associated with a European Spanish cultural legacy. Conversely, it was negatively viewed in the districts where the Spanish language was psychosocially equated with Latino immigrants. This is illustrated by the fact that the Albuquerque cohort, where Spanish speakers are mostly first- or second-generation immigrants, reported the highest level of resistance to Spanish, as reflected in the following statements:

Something I notice is that some students tend to be embarrassed about speaking Spanish. . . .I think that the media has actually done us a disservice and really has portrayed Hispanic bilinguals and Spanish-speaking immigrants as a negative. (AB3A)ii

People that don’t speak a lot of English that are recent immigrants often times I only see them on the news interviewed if a crime happened in their community or something. They are not profiled as being a great language and culture resource for us. (AB2A)

I think that Spanish-speaking immigrants are still viewed upon somewhat negatively and I think that we need to encourage people to learn the language and not be ashamed to use it. (AB3A)

I’ve run across a lot of people who say it’s [the immigrants’] job to learn to speak English: ‘I don’t have to learn to speak with them’. So, I think there’s some bias there, whether it’s racial bias or just, you know, ‘you’re in my country, you need to be like me.’ (AB4B)

[in the media] If it’s a crime. . .ethnicity is always pointed out [. . .] if it’s something like a heroic thing they almost go overboard like ‘look how great they are even though they’re just a Spanish speaking.’ (AB5B)

In Santa Fe, Spanish language ideologies were more clearly articulated. For example, one participant stated that:

Most people here in Santa Fe have a very positive attitude towards Spanish, the people I’ve met, especially those that know this place’s origins, or that their family come from Spain from past generations. My perception is that it goes hand-in-hand with the socio-cultural status. The higher the socio-cultural status, the more respect and admiration there is toward learning Spanish. (SF2A)

Where SF2A related Spanish language in Santa Fe to a Spanish colonial legacy, an oppositional opinion is expressed by another Santa Fe participant, who sees her students psychosocially relating Spanish language to a Latino immigrant minority, leading to rejection by the students:

Even my own students have to. . .maybe in order to belong, in order to not be losers, to not feel like losers, to be part of the ‘cool’ people, and to be part of a perhaps victorious or prevailing culture, they prefer to not speak Spanish even if they know it. So, the Spanish language is being lost considerably because the Spanish language is associated with uneducated and backwards people. (SF3A)

There’s definitively in the United States a scale of clout, I guess [. . .] it kind of goes down the list and the last on the list is usually Mexicans [. . .] when you look at the media at Mexican Americans, or different Mexican ethnicities, they’re usually portrayed as maids or things like that in the media, in the movies. As for Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz is [sic.] star power of Spanish, from Spanish descent. (SF5B)

Interview data from Española reasserted the existence of language ideologies that positively associated the speaking of Spanish with a prevalent Hispanic or Spanish–American culture. This linkage of language and a certain community of people was seen by interview participants as promoting Spanish language learning within the school district:

I just think that people like to speak Spanish, you know, especially local Hispanics; they like to chat with their neighbours that way and. . . . I think that it is [a] real important part of the sort of present culture. (ES4B)

Crucially, however, responses from Española show that Spanish language use is carefully constructed as representing a European colonial legacy as opposed to a Latin American immigrant community, thus creating an imagined, often mythicized, community of language users with which Spanish language learners and users struggle to relate:

I think Española holds on to an identity with a cultural heritage dating back to Spain, whether they still actually have real connections to that or not [. . .] I think Northern New Mexico people here will even say like ‘our Spanish is different than other places,’ and I think it might be to a certain extent, but I don’t know how much that serves kids if the goal is to become bilingual in a sense of being able to use it in the larger world. (ES2B)

In Española the people connect themselves with Spain and Spanish heritage, not anything else. It’s a sense that that language is pure. It’s their Spanish and it’s from Spain, and all the other ones are almost less than Spanish in a way; and the immigrants coming in and people from other areas coming in are lower in status, so, therefore, [they] don’t want to learn your language. (SF5B)

This statement echoes Leeman’s (2012) argument on the desirability of European Spanish over all other varieties in the U.S. However, it is important to also recognize that communities such as Española, which lay claim to owning the so-called pure Spanish variation, also represent those that struggle most with maintaining Spanish language proficiency in their school districts. This suggests that, far from promoting the use and learning of Spanish, Española’s—and to a lesser extent, Santa Fe’s—language ideologies and its real or imagined tradition of descending from a mythicized European colonial linguistic and cultural legacy has rendered Spanish language acquisition an increasingly exclusive and largely inaccessible goal for Spanish language learners. Furthermore, the persistence of these language ideologies has demotivated Española’s sizeable native Spanish-speaking Latino immigrant population from maintaining their first language, because it is seen to represent an inferior linguistic and cultural tradition. In practical terms, this creates a Spanish language hemorrhage in which the most proficient speakers of Spanish in each of the sampled communities are those that are most likely to be discouraged from speaking it, due to the cultural biases that exist within their linguistic ecosystems.

Interview data also revealed a tangible sense of psychosocial distinctiveness in each of the communities. A strong sense of regional and linguistic exceptionalism stratifies New Mexico’s language ecosystems and is identified by the research participants as a Northern New Mexico (Española and Santa Fe) and Southern New Mexico (Albuquerque and south) sociolinguistic divide:

In Northern New Mexico Spanish is highly regarded, whereas in Southern New Mexico they are very clear that they do not want you to speak Spanish. And when I was in school you were segregated. So, if you came from Santa Fe they would sit you on one side, even in Los Alamos they would sit you on one side and they would say inaccurate or inappropriate things to you. (SF1A)

As a consequence of these diverse perceptions and experiences of Spanish language learning, Spanish in the surveyed populations is not conceived of as a world language of communication but rather as a reflection of the state’s heterogeneous and hierarchically-organized micro–cultures. Crucially, Spanish language ideologies in the surveyed populations are impacted by racial legacies that originate with Spanish colonialism and that are perpetuated by contemporary stereotypes around Latino immigration to the U.S. Whereas this bolsters the social status of Spanish language in Española, which maintains an ideal image of itself as a European colonial–Spanish community, it negates it in immigrant–occupied pockets of Albuquerque, where Spanish language use is associated with a recently arrived Latin–American, and especially a Mexican, population.

It is worth noting that the interview data focused particularly on the role of immigration in shaping language attitudes. As one respondent stated, recent immigration from south of the U.S. border has increased feelings of ambiguity toward Spanish language education, especially among state residents who self-identify as “Spanish–Americans.” This was clearly articulated by one participant in the following way:

The issue, though, is including Mexican or immigrant families in the language program. That’s a whole, another discussion that sometimes is difficult to have because these very proud traditional New Mexicans, who identify more with Spain than they do [with] Mexico, see a need for these programs for their children but to include the Mexicano, it’s still a politically charged issue here for many communities.

These insights reinforce the necessity of looking at Spanish language ideologies within the U.S. in all of their complexity and of recognizing that tangible social distance exists between Hispanics who trace their origin to a European-Spanish colonial legacy and Latino immigrants who have more recently made their home in the American southwest. That these intra–ethnic differences have heretofore gone under–acknowledged is problematic, particularly given that language ideology has been used to validate the social distance between these two groups. The use of Spanish as a tool of socio-cultural subversion within the Hispanic community itself may contribute to increasingly negative attitudes to the language among marginalized Hispanophones, thereby eroding the linguistic motivation of its most proficient speakers.

CONCLUSIONS

As shown above, narrative responses reveal the existence of a pervasive Spanish language ideology in New Mexico and the contemporary external and internal political, social and cultural influences that continue to shape its development. Conversely, questionnaire data illuminated a burgeoning student population shaped by 21st century additive bilingual programmes and multicultural worldviews, yet still vulnerable to and influenced by the ideologies of their surrounding community. Indeed, cross tabulation of survey data with interview data revealed a direct correlation between students’ language outlooks and those of their parents, teachers, and community members. Arguably, this has an important implication for Spanish language school language programmers, who should not only consider the cultural dynamics of the language learning classroom when planning for minority language development, but should also find ways to amplify and draw from positive language models in the community and to mitigate or learn from the surrounding community’s more negative language ideologies.

Furthermore, in spite of very progressive attitudes towards the use and development of bilingualism within the surveyed communities, there remains an anxiety among Latin–American immigrants in New Mexico to prove their American-ness by losing Spanish as a native language. This was most visible in Albuquerque and was seen by interview participants as a reaction particularly influenced by contemporary media perceptions, political ideologies, and language ideologies around the “Otherness” of Hispanophone communities. Moreover, the persistence of language ideologies in New Mexico that prioritize Spanish–Americans speakers over Latin–American immigrants is clearly evidenced in the data. This finding is significant not just because it highlights the ineffectiveness of measuring Spanish language ideology purely along a U.S.-European linguistic divide, but also because it calls into question current research on language ideology that associates language prestige with monolingual Spanish or English speakers. In the case of this research, bilingualism was not the important variable in categorizing a language as standard or ideal; rather, the identification of the speaker as either Spanish–American or immigrant emerged as the most important factor in influencing whether his or her Spanish language use was viewed positively or negatively in the surrounding community.

Overall, the data show an overwhelming preference of New Mexico’s high school students to become proficient Spanish speakers. However, to realize this goal, there is a crucial role to be played by their families, teachers, and surrounding community in modelling positive and inclusive attitudes to the Spanish language, regardless of its origins or etymologies.

REFERENCES

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections in the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Beaudrie, S., & Fairclough, M. (2012). Spanish as a heritage language in the united states: The state of the field. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

New Mexico Public Education Department (2014). Bilingual and multilingual education annual review (BMEAR). Retrieved from, https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/bureaus/languageandculture/bilingual-multicultural-education-programs-bmeps/

Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., & Rosenthal, D. (2010). Notes on the construction of a ‘subjective vitality questionnaire’ for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2(2), 145-155.

Ciller, J. F. C., & Florez, C. F. (2016). On attitudes toward spanish varieties: A bilingual perspective. Todas as Letras-Revista de Língua e Literatura, 18(2), 98-116 .

Coady, M., & Laoire, M. Ó. (2002). Mismatches in language policy and practice in education: The case of gaelscoileanna in the republic of ireland. Language Policy, 1(2), 22-49.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Oxon: Routledge.

Coole, D. (1996). Is class a difference that makes a difference? Radical Philosophy (May/June), 17-25.

Couto, H. (2009). Linguística, Ecología y Ecolinguística: Contato de Línguas. Sao Paulo: Contexto.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage publications.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Eder, D. J. (2007). Bringing Navajo storytelling practices into schools: The importance of maintaining cultural integrity. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(3), 278-296.

Ehala, M., & Niglas, K. (2006). Language attitudes of Estonian secondary school students. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 5(3), 209-227.

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages (Vol. 76). Philadelphia: Multilingual matters.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge (C. Gordon Ed.). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Press.

Fought, C. (2006). Language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Galindo, D. L. (1991). A sociolincuistic study of spanish language maintenance and linguistic shift towards enclish amonc chicanos. Lenguas Modernas, 18, 107-116.

Goldenberg, C., Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992). Effects of literacy materials from school on latino children’s home experiences and early reading achievement. American Journal of Education, 100(4), 497-536.

Guglani, L. (2016). American, hispanic, spanish-speaking? Hispanic immigrants and the question of identity. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 15(6), 344-360.

Hamilton, C. (2008). On being a’good’interviewer: Empathy, ethics and the politics of oral history. Oral History, 36 (2), 35-43.

Hanna, A.-M. V., & Ortega, D. M. (2016). Salir adelante (perseverance): Lessons from the mexican immigrant experience. Journal of Social Work, 16(1), 47-65.

Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605-609.

Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kallan, J. (2016, April). Language, space and place: The persistence of memory. Paper presented at the Trinity Week Public Symposium, Dublin, Ireland.

Leeman, J., Rabin, L., & Román-Mendoza, E. (2011). Identity and activism in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 481-495.

Leeman, J. (2012). Investigating language ideologies in Spanish for Heritage Speakers. In S. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a Heritage Language in the US: State of the Science. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 43-59.

Loza, S. (2017). Transgressing Standard Language Ideologies in the Spanish Heritage Language Classroom. Chiricú: The Politics of Language, 2, 56-77.

Mac Giolla Phadraig, B. (2003). A study of parents’ perceptions of their involvement in gaelscoileanna. The Irish Journal of Education / Iris Eireannach an Oideachais, 34, 70-79.

O’Brien, S. (2017). Linguistic diasporas, narrative and performance: The Irish in Argentina. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Paris, D. (2010). “The second language of the united states”: Youth perspectives on Spanish in a changing multiethnic community. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 9(2), 139-155.

Passel, J. S. (2006). The size and characteristics of the unauthorized migrant population in the US. Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center Research Report.

Pavlenko, A. (Ed.) (2009). Narrative analysis in the study of bi- and multilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Portelli, A. (2012). They say in harlan county: An oral history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rampton, B. (2014). Crossings: Language and ethnicity among adolescents.  London: Routledge.

Reardon, S. F., Greenberg, E., Kalogrides, D., Shores, K. A., & Valentino, R. A. (2012). Trends in academic achievement gaps in the era of no child left behind. Evanstown: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.

Reese, L., & Goldenberg, C. (2006). Community contexts for literacy development of latina/o children. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(1), 42-61.

Riagáin, P. Ó. (Ed.) (2009). International norms and domestic language policies: The republic of Ireland and the EU. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Romero-Little, M. E., McCarty, T. L., Warhol, L., & Zepeda, O. (2007). Language policies in practice: Preliminary findings from a large‐scale national study of native american language shift. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 607-618.

Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011. American Community Survey Reports, 22, 1-16.

Safty, A. (1992). Effectiveness and French immersion: A socio-political analysis. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 17(1) 23-32.

Schiffrin, D. (2003). Linguistics and history: Oral history as discourse. In D. Tannen &  J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Linguistics, language, and the real world: Discourse and beyond (84-113). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz: Centre for Research for Education, Diversity & Excellence.

U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Population of New Mexico: Census 2010 and 2000 interactive map, demographics, statistics, and quick facts. Retrieved from http://censusviewer.com/state/NM

Valdés, G., Menken, K., & Castro, M. (Eds.). (2015). Common core: Bilingual and English language learners: A resource for educators. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Caslon Publishing.

Valdés, G. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4-18.

Williams, C.H. (1991). Language planning and social change: Ecological speculations. In D. Marshall (Ed.), Focus on language planning: Essays in honour of Joshua A. Fishman. Vol. 3 (53-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wright, S. (2007). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalization. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Statements and Responses Cross-Tabulated by School Districts

Note: A Statement 15 was not included in the survey due to a clerical error. As a result, Statement 16 follows directly from Statement 14.

Statement 1:Spanish should be an official language of the U.S.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 22.2% 38.1% 33.3% 6.3% 100%
Española 17.3% 45.1% 29.1% 8.4% 100%
Santa Fe 21.4% 37.7% 32.5% 8.4% 100%
Total 19.4% 41.6% 30.8% 8.1% 100%
Statement 2: All students in New Mexico should learn a second language, especially Spanish.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 18.3% 50.0% 28.3% 3.3% 100%
Española 25.5% 59.4% 12.1% 2.9% 100%
Santa Fe 24.0% 56.5% 16.2% 3.2% 100%
Total 24.1% 57.2% 15.7% 3.1% 100%
Statement 3: Being Hispanic is not the same as being American.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 16.7% 28.3% 33.3% 21.7% 100%
Española 11.9% 29.8% 37.4% 20.4% 100%
Santa Fe 14.2% 21.3% 32.9% 31.0% 100%
Total 13.3% 26.7% 35.3% 24.2% 100%
Statement 4: Our community would be stronger if we all spoke English instead of speaking different languages.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 7.9% 27.0% 42.9% 22.2% 100%
Española 12.6% 22.3% 39.1% 26.1% 100%
Santa Fe 11.5% 22.9% 40.1% 25.5% 100%
Total 11.6% 23.1% 40.0% 25.3% 100%
Statement 5: Teachers should have native English proficiency.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 23.3% 43.3% 30.0% 3.3% 100%
Española 14.1% 57.7% 23.5% 4.3% 100%
Santa Fe 12.3% 59.1% 24.0% 4.5% 100%
Total 14.7% 56.3% 24.6% 4.2% 100%
Statement 6: Learning Spanish is important for my country’s future.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 16.1% 48.4% 30.6% 4.8% 100%
Española 20.6% 51.7% 22.7% 5.0% 100%
Santa Fe 20.4% 47.1% 27.4% 5.1% 100%
Total 19.9% 49.7% 25.4% 5.0% 100%
Statement 7: People who want to be Americans should learn English.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 30.2% 41.3% 17.5% 11.1% 100%
Española 25.7% 43.9% 21.1% 8.0% 100%
Santa Fe 27.1% 46.8% 18.2% 7.1% 100%
Total 27.1% 44.5% 19.6% 8.1% 100%
Statement 8: I am not interested in learning to speak Spanish fluently.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 9.8% 26.2% 23.0% 41.0% 100%
Española 9.7% 17.4% 35.6% 37.3% 100%
Santa Fe 8.3% 14.7% 44.2% 32.7% 100%
Total 9.3% 17.7% 36.9% 36.2% 100%
Statement 9: Spanish speakers are not discriminated against in our
community.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 17.7% 45.2% 21.0% 16.1% 100%
Española 15.0% 43.3% 31.3% 9.9% 100%
Santa Fe 14.8% 30.3% 40.0% 14.8% 100%
Total 15.3% 39.1% 32.9% 12.4% 100%
Statement 10: Spanish speakers speak too much Spanish at school.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 13.1% 32.8% 29.5% 24.6% 100%
Española 8.5% 16.9% 53.4% 21.2% 100%
Santa Fe 7.7% 14.1% 47.4% 30.1% 100%
Total 8.8% 18.1% 48.1% 24.7% 100%
Statement 11: There is more Spanish spoken around here now than there was several years ago.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 22.6% 48.4% 21.0% 8.1% 100%
Española 12.3% 39.6% 38.7% 8.9% 100%
Santa Fe 17.9% 43.6% 28.2% 9.6% 100%
Total 15.7% 42.2% 32.7% 9.1% 100%
Statement 12: All teachers in New Mexico should be bilingual.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 13.1% 29.5% 44.3% 13.1% 100%
Española 17.3% 42.2% 35.4% 4.6% 100%
Santa Fe 18.3% 35.9% 35.3% 10.5% 100%
Total 17.1% 38.4% 36.6% 7.8% 100%
Statement 13: People who speak both Spanish and English fluently are more successful.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 31.1% 41.0% 26.2% 1.6% 100%
Española 29.7% 47.3% 16.3% 6.7% 100%
Santa Fe 29.5% 34.6% 26.9% 8.3% 100%
Total 29.8% 42.1% 21.3% 6.6% 100%
Statement 14: You have to learn English if you want to be successful.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 28.6% 33.3% 27.0% 9.5% 100%
Española 13.1% 33.1% 41.5% 12.3% 100%
Santa Fe 9.7% 31.0% 38.1% 21.3% 100%
Total 14.1% 32.4% 38.3% 15.0% 100%
Statement 15: Spanish should be taught alongside English in all schools in New Mexico.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 30.6% 43.5% 24.2% 1.6% 100%
Española 30.4% 56.1% 11.8% 1.7% 100%
Santa Fe 18.3% 51.0% 23.5% 6.5% 100%
Total 26.3% 52.7% 17.5% 3.3% 100%
Statement 16: There should be classes taught entirely in Spanish at my school that are mandatory for graduation.
School
District
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Total
Albuquerque 4.9% 23.0% 52.5% 19.7% 100%
Española 14.2% 24.3% 45.6% 15.9% 100%
Santa Fe 7.3% 16.0% 48.7% 28.0% 100%
Total 10.7% 21.3% 47.6% 20.4% 100%
Statement 17: I dislike Spanish music and culture.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 4.8% 11.1% 38.1% 46.0% 100%
Española 5.6% 9.9% 39.9% 44.6% 100%
Santa
Fe
3.3% 5.3% 37.7% 53.6% 100%
Total 4.7% 8.5% 38.9% 47.9% 100%
Statement 18: Schools should teach more of our Spanish colonial history.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 13.3% 53.3% 28.3% 5.0% 100%
Española 19.7% 49.4% 28.8% 2.1% 100%
Santa Fe 11.7% 47.4% 26.6% 14.3% 100%
Total 16.1% 49.2% 28.0% 6.7% 100%
Statement 19: Mexicans in New Mexico don’t like to learn English.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Total
Albuquerque 5.2% 20.7% 50.0% 24.1% 100%
Española 10.3% 20.1% 46.6% 23.1% 100%
Santa Fe 10.0% 18.0% 42.7% 29.3% 100%
Total 9.5% 19.5% 45.7% 25.3% 100%
Statement 20: Since I am in the U.S.A, people should assume I only speak English and should not address me in any other language.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 12.9% 19.4% 33.9% 33.9% 100%
Española 8.4% 19.7% 49.0% 23.0% 100%
Santa Fe 9.3% 18.5% 40.4% 31.8% 100%
Total 9.3% 19.2% 44.0% 27.4% 100%
Statement 21: If I were born again, I would choose to be born into an English-speaking family.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 8.3% 21.7% 45.0% 25.0% 100%
Española 12.7% 26.7% 34.7% 25.8% 100%
Santa Fe 12.4% 31.4% 26.1% 30.1% 100%
Total 12.0% 27.6% 33.2% 27.2% 100%
Statement 22: In public, bilingual students prefer to speak English rather than Spanish.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 15.0% 35.0% 36.7% 13.3% 100%
Española 9.0% 47.4% 34.2% 9.0% 100%
Santa Fe 5.4% 40.5% 41.2% 12.8% 100%
Total 8.6% 43.4% 36.9% 10.9% 100%
Statement 23: I often see Spanish newspapers and advertisements in my local area.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 13.1% 32.8% 29.5% 24.6% 100%
Española 11.1% 34.9% 41.3% 12.8% 100%
Santa Fe 13.8% 38.2% 35.5% 11.8% 100%
Total 12.3% 35.7% 37.7% 14.1% 100%
Statement 24: I feel proud of the Spanish traditions and the Spanish language here in New Mexico.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 26.2% 54.1% 14.8% 4.9% 100%
Española 39.9% 48.3% 10.5% 1.3% 100%
Santa Fe 37.9% 41.8% 11.1% 7.8% 100%
Total 37.4% 46.9% 11.3% 4.0% 100%
Statement 25: There are times and places when Spanish should not be spoken.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 9.7% 29.0% 38.7% 22.6% 100%
Española 11.0% 28.0% 39.0% 22.0% 100%
Santa Fe 7.2% 22.9% 41.8% 28.1% 100%
Total 9.5% 26.4% 39.9% 24.2% 100%
Statement 26: My family struggles financially.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 6.9% 32.8% 36.2% 22.4% 100%
Española 4.8% 23.8% 36.8% 34.6% 100%
Santa Fe 4.0% 30.0% 34.3% 30.7% 100%
Total 4.8% 27.1% 36.2% 31.7% 100%
Statement 27: There is more strength in uniformity than in difference.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 23.3% 43.3% 21.7% 10.0% 100%
Española 14.4% 39.3% 34.1% 10.0% 100%
Santa Fe 14.3% 28.6% 39.5% 17.7% 100%
Total 15.6% 36.6% 34.2% 12.6% 100%

Appendix 2: Structured Interview Questions

  1. Please begin by stating your date of birth, place of upbringing, occupation and ethnicity
  2. Describe your language background
  1. Did you have choices around what language(s) you spoke or used?
  2. What motivated you to speak/ learn a certain language?
  1. Describe the people that you interact with through this school district, mentioning their roles (e.g. students/ parents/ teachers), their dominant languages, socio-economic status, traditions, political & social views)
  2. How would you describe the general attitude toward learning minority or native languages such as Spanish within this school district today (positive/ negative/ tense/ active/ passive/ contentious/ accepted/ innate/ developing/ regressing)?
  3. What are your feelings about the introduction of the Seal of Biliteracy to New Mexico Schools?
  4. Do you think that the Spanish taught in the classroom equips students to converse with native Spanish speakers in Northern New Mexico/Albuquerque?
  5. Tell us about times you got involved in your child’s second language learning
  6. Do you think there is a role for community members in the Spanish language classroom?  If so, what is it?
  7. How does the local media (e.g. radio station, newspapers) portray (a) Hispanic Bilinguals (b) Spanish speaking immigrants?
  8. In ten years’ time, what status do you think Spanish will have in Northern New Mexico?
  9. Do you think that language attitudes in Northern New Mexico might be different to language attitudes in other parts of the State or outside of the state?
  10. Who is primarily responsible for keeping Spanish and other minority languages alive?

 

i Hispanic is a generic term used by the U.S. Census to identify a Latino or Spanish ethnic community. In this paper, the term ‘Hispanic’ is frequently replaced with either ‘Spanish–American’ or ‘Latino.’ This reflects the terminology used by the study’s participants when self-identifying their language and ethnic background. Notably, I do not use the term ‘Chicano’ to describe the sample participants because they themselves do not identify with that categorization.

ii Interview responses were coded with numbers and letters. ‘AB’ represents ‘Albuquerque’. ‘SF’ represents ‘Santa Fe’; ‘ES’ represents ‘Española.’ In turn, ‘AB1’ refers to ‘Albuquerque Participant Number 1; ‘SF5’ refers to ‘Santa Fe Participant Number 5; ‘ES4 would represent ‘Española Participant Number 4’ etc.

css.php