Chapter 6 Language Maintenance and Shift within New Linguistic Minorities in Italy: A Translanguaging Perspective Gerardo Mazzaferro Abstract Taking the so-called ‘translanguaging turn’ in multilingualism studies as its point of departure, this paper aims to investigate processes of language maintenance and shift within new linguistic minorities in Turin (Italy), by focusing on young Filipinos’ strategies of (re)negotiation of identities and ideologies, through everyday translanguaging practices in either family or peer in-group interactional contexts. The findings demonstrate that Filipino youth respond to a situation of language shift in progress dynamically, by engaging in communicative modes, which favour speakers’ agency, or their ability to reflexively reconsider their affiliation to Filipino languages, cultures and identities, beyond the view of heritage languages as static and language maintenance as a unidirectional, or an ‘all or nothing’ process, as well as speakers’ identities as fixed or given a priori. What seems to emerge from our study is that the (re)negotiation of young Filipinos’ identities is the result of mutual, dialogical activity, that is, elder members of the community positively respond to youth’s identity (re)positioning, by allowing their multiple voices in daily interactional activities. On the other hand, Filipino youth reply by reconstructing heritage languages through complex, hybrid language practices. Keywords Bilingualism· Multilingualism· Heritage languages · Language maintenance and shift Translanguaging · Identities · Ideologies ____________________ Gerardo Mazzaferro University of Turin, Turin (Italy) e-mail:
[email protected]
[To appear in Mazzaferro, G. (2018). Translanguaging as Everyday Practice, Dordrecht: Springer]
6.1 Language Maintenance and Shift Migratory processes commonly lead to the restructuring of immigrants’ linguistic repertoires, influencing the ways languages and varieties are functionally used and distributed in society. Sociocultural, economic and political asymmetries, as well as language attitudes and ideologies at both societal and individual levels, may cause processes of language maintenance or shift (henceforth LMLS) (Pauwels, 2004; Potowski, 2013). In migratory contexts, language shift, or the gradual replacement of a language by another, commonly happens within the family domain, and it is mainly due to lack of intergenerational transmission of parents’ first languages, or heritage languages (Fishman, 1991). By the term heritage languages, alternatively ethnic, ancestral, home languages, we commonly refer to both ‘non societal’ and ‘non-majority’ languages spoken within society (Valdes, 2005, p. 411). It is commonly attested that by the third/fourth generation of immigrants, the shift to the dominant host languages is almost accomplished, and heritage languages cease to be spoken (Clyne, 2003). On the other hand, the latter can be maintained in some domains of social life for specific purposes and functions. According to Fishman (1991, 2001, 2004), it is the nexus of “home-family and neighbourhood”, or stage six of his Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale Model (GRID) that can reverse language shift. Both individual and societal factors can accelerate or prevent the gradual shift to dominant languages. In the realm of society, phenomena such as peers influence, social networks or the ethnolinguistic vitality of minority communities may influence language choice and use (Lanza & Svendsen, 2007; Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977; Yagmour, 2011). At an individual level, linguistic competence, language attrition and code-switching are considered as the main signs preceding language shift. The above theorizing of LMLS as deterministic, unidirectional and linear processes may prove inadequate as compared to socio-spatial mobility and dynamism, which characterise migratory processes within globalisation. The latter term has been used to represent a plurality of phenomena ranging from the development of a post-Fordist economy, namely the dislocation of production and the re-organization of work, to the development of new technologies of communication, which allowed the reduction of physical distance through ‘space-time compression’ (Harvey, 1990). Globalisation and mobility have become a central concern within social sciences, particularly anthropology, ethnography, migration studies (Ady, Bissel, Hannam, Merriman, & Sheller, 2014) and not least sociolinguistics (Blommaert, 2010). Globalisation has favoured both processes of interconnectedness and transnational flows, and the development of complex social identities, embedded in power relationships and ideologies. Mobility
represents an essential variable for the observation and theorising of the society-languageimmigration nexus. Both traditional views of fixed language behaviours within specific domains, and on the other hand, migratory processes as sedimentary social practices or “one-off event(s)” (Bell, 2014, p. 239), have been challenged by the circulation of social actors, linguistic and semiotic resources across both real and virtual as well as symbolic global spaces. Mobility has ceased to be strictly associated with the movement or displacement of people and objects from place A to place B (Cresswell, 2006) to become a meaningful social practice through which immigrants “reconstruct their histories and reconfigure their ethnic projects” (Appadurai, 1991, p. 191). As recalled by Blommaert (2015, pp. 86-87), we are all part of dense, multiple, scalar communities, and most important, this kind of dynamism has relevant consequences on how individuals renegotiate their identities and (re)create new language practices. 6.2. Language maintenance or shift: expanding the paradigm Our research differs from traditional studies on LMLS within new linguistic minorities in Italy (henceforth NLMs) (Chini, 2011), which have been commonly investigated from the perspective on diglossic relationship between specific languages and varieties (Berruto, 2009; Chini, 2004; Guerini, 2006; Goglia, 2011). The reshaping of immigrants’ linguistic repertoires has been conceived to happen through either additive or subtractive processes, commonly leading to the reallocation of immigrants’ languages at the High, Middle and Low steps of a hierarchical scale. Berruto (2009), for example, has reported how the languages, which constitute Nigerian immigrants’ post-migratory linguistic repertoires in Turin (Italy), have undergone processes of distributional overlapping along this scale. Post-migratory Nigerian immigrants’ linguistic repertoires show, at the high level, English and Italian, which function as linguae francae of communication between the members of the host community and immigrants, while Nigerian languages like Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa slip from the Middle to the Low level by overlapping with Nigerian Pidgin English and local vernaculars. We situate our research within recent critical studies of LMLS, in contrast with the theorizing of heritage languages as stable entities, which correspond to a set of fixed rules, mirroring an immutable, perennial past (Back, 2015; Block, 2008; Blackledge & Creese, 2008; Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Canagarajah, 2008, 2013a; De Fina, 2012; Hatoss, 2013). A new line of thinking about language and globalisation has challenged the idea of heritage languages as unchanging and stable. If seen from this perspective, language ceases to be conceived as an abstract entity to become a form of action, or something that we do in a specific place and time, instead of something that occurs a priori from social life (Pennycook, 2010). On the other hand, language is both a resource, which is employed by individuals to engage in processes of meaning-making, drawing from whatever language and semiotic
resources are on hand (Jørgensen, 2008; Blommaert, 2010), and a practice, or “bundles of activities that are the central organization of life” (Pennycook, 2010, p. 2). Makoni and Pennycook (2007) have shown how named languages are invented entities, that is, they are socio-historically and politically constructed: “languages do not exist as real entities in the world and neither do they emerge from or represent real environments; they are, by contrast, the inventions of social, cultural and political movements” (p. 2). The assertion that languages are ‘invented’ opens up the possibility of reconstructing them. Canagarajah (2013a), has investigated the strategies young Tamils adopt to reconstruct their heritage languages. Whereas the majority of elder people claim a direct link between Tamil identity and language, young community members do not necessarily recognise the essentialist equation of one language, one culture and one ethnic identity. For them, being Tamil does not imply being able to speak the Tamil language. They put into practice their affiliation towards heritage languages by developing new language practices, like for example codeswitching into either Tamil or Tamilized versions of English (pp. 139-147). Tamil is being reinvented in much more dynamic ways, that is, it is deprived of any fixed, stable either structural or cultural feature. The Tamil language is “kept alive” through young Tamil speakers’ heterogeneous, hybrid language and cultural practices. Young Tamils resolve the “dilemma of heritage language” in critical and creative ways, which result in the construction of new language practices, identities and ideologies (p. 152). The engagement with heritage languages and cultures is complex (Blackledge & Creese, 2008), that is, it cannot correspond to a deterministic choice between “the pole of assimilation and the pole of nativism” (Le Espiritu, 2003, pp. 179-180). Furthermore, the metaphor of language loss, which constitutes the basis of traditional scholarship on LMLS, has been considered inappropriate “while individuals …do not reject or repudiate their pasts, they also do not romanticize them or feel a sense of loss if they slowly fade to a less significant role in their lives. Indeed…they live their multilingualism and multiculturalism as prosaic, ordinary, commonplace, a fact of life and even banal: it is what it is, and it is certainly not much to get excited about, as academics so often do” (Block, 2008, p. 200). Bearing these considerations in mind, we now move on to discuss how language practices of multilingual speakers have been commonly investigated. 6.3 Bilingual/Multilingual Language Practices Language practices of/multilingual speakers have been traditionally considered from the perspective of codeswitching (henceforth CS), or in its broad definition, the strategic and intentional alternation of two or more languages or varieties within the same interaction (Gardner-Chloros, 2009).
The most common types of CS are intersential and intrasential CS, or alternatively inter-and intraclausal CS. Example 1 represents a case of intersential CS, where the same speaker, PhilG1_B, switches between Italian and English in consecutive turns during a narrative interview. Example 2, by contrast, refers to a case of intrasential CS, where PhilG1_B gives Tagalog prefix ‘mag-’, the language that supplies the grammatical framework for the clause (Matrix Language), to both English ‘to apply’ and Italian ‘riposare’/PDE ‘to rest’ verbs (Embedded Languages) (Myers-Scotton, 1997, 2002). In the case of example 2, morphological CS is also shown in the creative use of Tagalog tense marking, that is, the consonant/vowel reduplication, i.e. mag-aapply, mag-ririposo’ to mark the future of dynamic verbs (Reid, 2008). Example 1 (Bold=Tagalog, Italic=English, Roman=Italian) “Ma secondo me, onestamente sono più brava in inglese. I can explain more myself in English, since I was a child (PhilG1_B)”. [But in my opinion, I think that I can speak English better. I can explain more myself in English, since I was a child]. Example 2 (Bold=Tagalog, Italic=English, Roman=Italian) “Hindi paka ako mag-aapply para mag-ririposo ako (PhilG1_B)”. Not yet I pref. V-RDP so pref. CV-RDP I [I will not apply yet so that I can rest]
Multilingual speakers strategically engage in CS for different reasons; for example, CS has been commonly conceived as a way to signal ethnic identity, or as a defective strategy, which serves to fill in linguistic deficiencies [3, 4]. Example 3 “Non c’è problema con la signora casa sua è molto bella anche un swimming pool più grande (PhilG1_B)”. [I haven’t got any problem with the lady, her house is very nice with a bigger swimming pool]. Example 4 “Perché era sabato allora faccio un day off e ho detto alla Signora vado via (PhilG1_B)”. [Because it was Saturday, so I take a day off, and I told to the lady that I leave].
However, a new paradigm of studies dealing with how language practices of multilingual speakers are constructed and combined within present-day social configurations has recently emerged. Different labels have been coined to refer to such processes; e.g. translanguaging (García, 2009; García & Li Wei, 2014; Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015; Li Wei & García, 2017), translingual (Canagarajah, 2013b), transdeomatic (Jaquemet, 2015) and transglossic practices (Sultana, Dovichin, & Pennycook, 2015), as well as crossing (Rampton, 1995) and metrolingualism (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015).
This change of paradigm goes under the umbrella term of translanguaging (henceforth TL). Excerpt 1, a short transcript of a conversation between PhilG2_K and PhilG2_I, two 14 year-old female friends, born and raised in Turin, represents an example of TL in action. The two friends, together with R (the researcher), are sitting at a table at the Filipino Catholic Association of Turin, talking and commenting on a text message received by PhilG2_K. The text illustrates how both PhilG2_K and PhilG2_I are able to act dynamically by moving back and forth across the resources of their flexible linguistic repertoires in spontaneous and unexpected ways to construct meaning. Unlike CS, TL does not correspond to a rational choice on behalf of the speaker, that is, both PhilG2_K and PhilG2_I do not seem to weigh the costs and rewards of alternative choices (Myers-Scotton, 1993, p. 75). Excerpt 1 (Italic=English, Roman=Italian, Underlined=Taglish)
[1] R: Ma chi è? [But, who is he?]. [2] PhilG2_K: E’ uno stalker (.) ha 33 anni e mi scrive [He is a stalker (.) he is 33-year-old and he writes to me]. [3] R: Non rispondere [Do not answer]. [4] PhilG2_K: Ang pangit pangit eh, matanda na kaya 33-year-old na (.) may asawa na talaga [Ugly, Ugly, eh, he is so old, he is 33-year-old, he is actually married]. [5] PhilG2_I: (addressed to R) Guarda (.) non ha neanche capito ((laughs)) (.) no, it’s a little joke [Look (.) she has not even understood (.) no, it’s a little joke].
According to Li Wei (2011), TL deals with “the full range of linguistic performances of multilingual language users for purposes that transcend the combination of structures, the alternation between systems; the transmission of information; and the representation of values, identities and relationships” (p. 1222). The focus of attention is not on phenomena of either hybridization or mixing of linguistic systems, but rather on the performance of “creative and critical” language activities and practices in specific contexts (Li Wei, 2013), as shown in excerpt 2., where, by requesting permission to use the resources of her linguistic repertoire, PhilG1_B reacts to the researcher’s attempt to both set the scene for the interview monolingually, and ascribe a fixed identity to her (Mazzaferro, forthcoming). As made clear by Li Wei (2011), TL is characterised by speakers’ capacity to “use available evidence appropriately, systematically and insightfully to inform considered views of cultural, social and linguistic phenomena, to question and problematize received wisdom, and to express views adequately through reasoned responses to situations” (p. 1223). Excerpt 2 (Roman = Italian, Underlined = Taglish) [1] R: Allora Tita (.) quanti anni avevi quando sei andata via dalle Filippine? [So (.) Tita, how old were you when you left the Philippines?]. [2]PhilG1_B: Kung nagkamix na Taglish na pasensya ka? [Do you mind if I mix it with Taglish?]. [3] R: Ma non ti preoccupare [But do not worry].
Both creativity and criticality contribute to processes of identity repositioning. It is commonly assumed that identity corresponds to a stable set of biologically, culturally inherited features, and that language represents the main identity marker, through which individuals ascribe themselves (or are ascribed by others) to specific ethnic groups, social classes or genders. This view has been criticised for considering identities as closed, self-contained ontological realities, excluding the possibility of change or transformation. A more dynamic and fluid view of identity has informed recent studies on multilingualism. Within this paradigm, identity is seen both as open to negotiation and socially and discursively constructed. Identity refers to a dialogical activity, which implies any form of interaction, and which is given by the relationship between ‘reflective positioning’, or how one positions oneself, and ‘interactive positioning’, that is, how single individuals, groups or communities are (re)positioned by others (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004, p. 20). We now turn to method, sample and data analysis. 6.4 Method Our study is based on an ongoing (2013-) research project on language practices, identities and ideologies within NLMS in Turin (Italy), which is informed by recent developments in sociolinguistics, concerning the investigation of communicative practices of /multilingual speakers in migrant, diasporic and urban ‘superdiverse’ contexts (Li Wei, 2010, pp. 13-15). 6.4.1 Context For undocumented people, asylum-seekers, refugees, migrants from many countries and continents travelling towards northern Europe, Italy and the Mediterranean countries have become both destination and transit sites. Starting from the 1970’s, Italy has progressively changed from being a country of emigration to one of immigration (Barni & Bagna, 2008). By January 1 st 2016, there were almost 5,000,000 foreign citizens holding a residence permit in Italy, 165,738 of which were of Filipino origin (Istituto Nazionale di Statistica [ISTAT], 2016). The Filipino community of Turin, together with those of Rome and Milan, is one of the largest in the country. The presence of Filipino immigrants in the city goes back to the middle of the 1970’s, though it was only from the late 1980’s and 1990’s that their presence increased, when the Italian immigration legislation changed, and many undocumented Filipinos had the possibility of acquiring a residence permit. The new legislation also favoured the regularization and reunification of many immigrant Filipino families. Feminization and the relatively high median age are the two main features of the structure of the Filipino population in Turin. Women were the first to arrive without their families, and they were employed in domestic work and cleaning, while men worked in social service and restaurant sectors (Mazzaferro, forthcoming). The main dataset on young generations is
given by the number of students with a Filipino background. According to recent statistics, by January 1st 2015, Filipino pupils represented 2.8% of the total of foreign students in Turin (23,770). The majority of them attended secondary school, mainly vocational or technical schools (Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca [MIUR], 2015). 6.4.2 Sample Our study is based on a random sampling of 40 people, both adult and young Filipina/os who, at the time of our research, resided in Turin. Our sample of adult is composed of 13 women and 7 men, who are aged between 39 and 61 years, and have been residing in Turin between 10 and 35 years. They show different migratory trajectories, that is, before arriving in Turin, they lived in Germany, Spain, Japan, Hong Kong and Saudi Arabia for periods ranging from 6 months to 4 years. Women mainly work as caregivers and housekeepers, while men are employed in restaurant services or as doorkeepers. All of them received either primary or secondary education in the Philippines, whereas none of them attended university courses. They claim to be able to speak up to six languages, mainly Tagalog, Filipino languages such as Ilokano, Pangasinense, Kapampangan, Ibanag, Itawes, Visaya, English and Italian. Not surprisingly, most of them show a positive attitude to code-switching and assert that they commonly mix Italian and Tagalog at home, while the majority speaks Tagalog and other Filipino languages with their friends. For some people in some contexts “communication [has] always been heterogeneous. Those who are considered monolingual are typically proficient in multiple registers, dialects, and discourses of a given language….Therefore, all of us have translingual competence, with differences in degree and not kind” (Canagarajah, 2013b, p. 8). Young Filipinos, 10 male and 10 female, who participated in our research, are aged from 13 to 29 years, and they can be divided into three main categories: ▪ those who were born in Italy from both Filipino parents, ▪ those who were born in the Philippines, and who arrived in Italy at an early age, ranging from 1 to 5 years, ▪ those who were born and lived in Italy for a few months (0-9), before they were taken back to the Philippines, where they lived with their relatives for periods ranging from 5 to 11 years. The majority of them are students, attending either middle or secondary school, and show a main orientation to the Italian language and culture, though they claim to feel both Italian and Filipino, and to commonly mix the Italian, Filipino and, rarely, English languages in their daily interactions with either parents, siblings or Filipino friends.
6.4.3 Data Data were collected over a two-year- period (2013-2015) by the author of this chapter and his research assistants. Data collection involved a triangulation of participant observation, audio-recorded semiguided interviews and casual conversations of family gatherings, mainly during dinnertimes. The loci of our research were our informants’ homes and the local Filipino Association (ACFIL Piemonte) which started in 1996 and whose main aim is to strengthen solidarity among Filipinos in Turin and Piedmont and to promote Filipino language and culture in that region. Each visit lasted from one to two hours, and was designed to elicit information concerning informants’ biographies, language attitudes, ideologies and practices. The languages used for the interviews were Italian, English and Tagalog. Data analysis included field notes, transcripts of interviews and family members’ conversations. 6.5 Findings If seen through the lens of traditional LMLS scholarship, we are dealing here with a situation of language shift in progress, where the majority of elder community members lament a lack of commitment to the transmission of heritage languages, mainly on the part of Filipino parents. In excerpt 3, for example, PhilG1_K asserts: Excerpt 3 “PhilG1_K: è assurdo (.) io ho degli amici filippini (.) tutte e due (.) mamma e papa (.) però la bambina non sa neanche parlare tagalog perché i genitori parlano italiano con lei (.) e lei non è capace di parlare tagalog (.) però mantenere la nostra lingua è importante”. [I cannot believe it (.) I have got some Filipino friends (.) both of them (.) mum and dad (.) but their daughter cannot even speak Tagalog because her parents speak Italian to her (.) and she cannot speak Tagalog (.) but it is important to maintain our language].
On the other hand, and as expected, young Filipinos show a main orientation towards the Italian language and culture, as stated by PhilG2_L in the following excerpt (4): Excerpt 4 “PhilG2_L: ormai Torino è la mia città (.) qui mi sento a mio agio (.) e la lingua italiana è importante per sentirsi a proprio agio (.) se non conosci la lingua (.) non ti sentirai italiano (.) e come dire in un ristorante (.) spaghetti al sugo (.) ma manca il sugo ((laughs))”. [by now Turin is my city (.) I feel comfortable here (.) and the Italian language is important to feel comfortable (.) if you cannot speak the language (.) you will not be able to feel Italian (.) it is like going to a restaurant and order spaghetti with tomato sauce (.) but it lacks the sauce ((laughs))].
A fine-grained analysis of our data has revealed a more complex picture concerning language choice and use by young Filipinos, particularly within family or with peers. 6.5.1 Mediating Voices within Filipino families Family is commonly considered as the main site of both intergenerational language transmission and the shaping of speakers’ identities and ideologies (Pauwels, 2004, p. 731; Canagarajah, 2008). Filipino migrant families represent complex sociolinguistic realities, which are commonly constituted by individuals with different migratory trajectories, linguistic repertoires, language proficiencies, attitudes and ideologies, as in the case of PhilG1_T, a 41-year-old Filipina, who has been living in Turin for 18 years. She is married to a 32-year-old Filipino, who arrived in Italy in 2008. Both of them state that they can speak Visaya, Tagalog, English and Italian. PhilG1_T has a 3-year-old son, who can speak Italian and shows a receptive proficiency in Tagalog, Visaya and English. In addition, PhilG1_T’s sister and her husband have recently moved from the Philippines to Turin, and now they live with PhilG1_T’s family. Both of them declare themselves to be speakers of Visaya, Tagalog, English and little Italian. PhilG1_T states (excerpt 5): Excerpt 5 “PhilG1_T: ma io ho un problema con mio figlio (.) io vorrei insegnargli inglese ma lui non vuole. non vuole parlare inglese (.) e mi copre la bocca (.) dobbiamo parlare italiano (.) mio marito mi sgrida perché dobbiamo usare una lingua sola [italiano] così lui non si confonde(.) poi lui [il loro figlio] parla italiano a scuola (.) in aggiunta mio cognato parla solo Visaya (.) mia sorella parla Visaya e un po’ di italiano (.) e lui [il loro figlio] si confonde (.) e mi dice “basta” (.) e poi mi tappa la bocca (.) ma io vorrei che imparasse inglese”. [but I have a problem with my son (.) I would like to teach him English but he does not want (.) he does not want to speak English (.) and he shuts my mouth (.) we must speak Italian (.) my husband yells at me because we must use one language only [Italian] so that he [their son] does not get confused (.) then he [their son] speaks Italian at school (.) in addition my brother-in-law can speak Visaya only (.) my sister can speak Visaya and little Italian (.) and he [their son] gets confused. and he says “stop it” (.) and then he shuts my mouth (.) but I would like him to learn English].
We are here in the presence of a situation that leaves little room for the possibility of establishing family language policies by fixing or imposing language behaviours, particularly those aimed at monolingualism in Italian, Visaya or English, which would cause the failure of communicative acts, by compromising processes of meaning-making and mutual understanding. From a Bakhtinian perspective, “language is not a neutral medium that passes freely and easily into private property of the speaker’s intentions; it is populated-overpopulated-with intentions of others. Expropriating it, forcing it to submit to one’s own intentions and accents, is a difficult and complicated process” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 294). Bakhtin’s assertion on the dialogical nature of language is relevant here because it asserts that language appropriation is a “difficult and complicated” process,
which cannot be imposed, but rather it always involves the intentions and words of others. Language is neither a solipsistic nor a private activity, but rather a dialogical, interactional process, which is based on individuals’ ability to act upon the world, by constructing language practices oriented towards empathy, recognition and mutual understanding. For example, PhilG1_K, a 43-year-old Filipina, who lived for a few years in Japan before coming to Italy, and who is married to a Filipino, and a mother of two daughters, aged 12 and 17 respectively, asserts (excerpt 6): Excerpt 6 “PhilG1_K: a casa parliamo misto (.) ogni tanto qualche parola di inglese. ma io preferisco parlare in tagalog. loro [le sue figlie] parlano tagalog (.) ma capiamo che loro hanno difficoltà a spiegare la loro parte per intero tagalog (.) allora è sempre meglio tutte e due [italiano e tagalog] allora riusciamo a parlare (.) perchè se loro scelgono una o l’altra [lingua] (.) nel sangue sempre filippino (.) quello non possono rifiutare”. [at home we speak ‘misto’ (mixed) (.) sometimes some English words (.) but I prefer to speak Tagalog (.) they (her daughters) can speak Tagalog (.) but we understand it is difficult for them to explain what they want to say in full Tagalog (.) then it is always better to use both of them so we can communicate (.) because it does not matter if they choose one or the other (.) it is in their blood (.) they cannot deny to be Filipino].
Though PhilG1_K identifies her daughters as clearly Filipina, by ascribing them to a recognizable ethnic identity and a specific social domain by virtue of blood ties, she adopts the “words” of her daughters “to her own intentions”. That is to say, she legitimises their voices by allowing them to use the resources of their linguistic repertoires to construct meaning in everyday interactions. PhilG1_K acts according to what Canagarajah (2013b) has defined as “collaborative ethic, language ideologies that favour pluralised norms, and a functional view of language that accommodates intelligibility rather than correctness. These dispositions motivate [speakers] to adopt appropriate negotiation strategies for voice and favourable footing in their interactions” (p. 171). De Fina (2016, p. 168) has observed how recent studies on social identity in relation to codeswitching have been extended to include the Bakhtinian concept of voice, and its focus on the dialogic nature of interaction: “dialogue is the end. A single voice ends nothing and resolves nothing. Two voices is the minimum for life, the minimum for experience” (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 252). As observed by Blommaert (2010, p. 181), “code-switching becomes moments of voice”, in which speakers flexibly use their linguistic resources to negotiate meaning through mutuality and reciprocity. Voice, in other words, represents “the ways in which people manage to make themselves understood or fail to do so [and] the capacity to accomplish desired functions through languages” (Blommaert, 2005, p. 68). The polyphony of voices that populates Filipino families in Turin is negotiated through and in TL practices, as testified by excerpt 7, a short transcript of a recorded interaction at dinnertime at PhilG1_T’s house. TL corresponds to a communicative mode, which is part of routinised, established everyday social activities, like dinnertimes, “where members of different generations and genders
come to learn, reinforce, undermine or transform each other’s ways of acting, thinking, and feeling in the world” (Ochs & Shohet, 2006, p. 47). Excerpt 7 (Bold=Tagalog, Bold Italic=Visaya, Italic=English, Roman=Italian, Underlined=Taglish) [1] Sister: Mangaon na [It is time to eat]. [2] PhilG1_T: Mag-uno man ikaw? It’s time to eat [What are you doing? It is time to eat]. [3] Son: Si mamma mangio [Yes, mum, I eat]. [4] PhilG1_T: Mag-school ka domani? [Are you going to school tomorrow?]. [5] Son: Scuola no (.) parco si [No school (.) park yes]. [6] Sister: Apri la bocca (.) inkod raw nahihirapan ako magsungit dim [Open your mouth (.) sit down I cannot feed you]. [7] PhilG1_T: Ti piace questo? [Do you like this one?]. [8] Son: No mamma. [No, I don’t mummy] [9] PhilG1_T: Dahil hindi masarap [Why, isn’t that good?]. [10] Husband: I-prepare jaon ija pasta dakan makakaon sija [I cook pasta so he can eat]. [11]PhilG1_T: Come and eat pasta (.) vieni e mangia la pasta [Come and eat pasta (.) come and eat pasta]. [12] Son: Buona mamma [It’s good, mum].
Furthermore, it is worth noting that Filipino mothers are more sensitive to processes of mediation in everyday language practices, as in the case of PhilG2_L, a 27-year-old Filipina mother, who was born in Rome, but now resides in Turin. When she was 9 months old, she left Rome and went to the Philippines, where she lived with her mother’s family for 13 years. At the age of 14 she left the Philippines and reunited with her family in Turin, where she married a Filipino and had two children. The latter were born in Turin and are aged 4 and 5, but they grew up in the Philippines with their father’s family. They reunited with their family in Turin in 2012. PhilG2_L states that she speaks Tagalog to her husband, whose mother tongue is Visaya, while she speaks ‘a mix of Italian and Tagalog’ as well as her husband’s language to her children. PhilG2_L explains (excerpt 8): Excerpt 8 “PhilG2_L: a loro [i suoi figli] parlo un mix di italiano e filippino e anche il dialetto [lingua] di mio marito che non sono tanto capace di parlare e che si chiama Visaya (.) e che loro hanno appreso quando vivevano nelle Filippine con la famiglia di mio marito (.) non so come mai (.) vivono in Italia da un anno (.) e loro continuano ad usare la lingua che parlano lì (.) in quella zona (.) mio marito gli ha vietato di parlarlo (.) ma non riescono a smettere (.) però è bello che loro capiscano ancora il dialetto (lingua)”. [I speak to them [her children] a mix of Italian and Filipino. and my husband’s dialect [language] too that I am not able to speak very well which is called Visaya (.) and that they learned in the Philippines when they used to live with my husband’s family (.) I do not know why (.) they have been living in Italy for one year (.) and they keep using the language they used to speak there (.) in that area (.) my husband has forbidden them to speak it (.) but they cannot stop (.) however it is nice that they can still understand their dialect (language)].
TL has to do with relationships of power, it is a counter-ideology which, in the case of PhilG2_L, serves to contrast her husband’s attempts to silence their children’ voices, or their engagement with
Filipino languages. TL contributes to the construction of mothering practices, which positively evaluate and sustain the use of language resources associated with heritage languages in everyday family interactions. This, however, should not be interpreted as a case of successful language transmission. Young Filipinos express their engagement with heritage languages by evaluating the how and not the what of communication, they show what Canagarajah (2013b, pp.174-175) has defined as “performative” or “practice based” competence, which mainly corresponds to speakers’ capacity to align to their interlocutors by strategically employing different linguistic and semiotic resources. Our findings are in line with the view that the transmission and learning of heritage languages is never a linear process, which corresponds to what has been traditionally theorised as linguistic competence (Chomsky, 1965). PhilG2_E states (excerpt 9): Excerpt 9 “PhilG2_E: molto spesso un filippino si riconosce dalla lingua (.) ma non sento il bisogno di studiarlo (.) perché non ho mai avuto difficoltà nel capire quello che dicono gli altri (.) quindi penso che non mi manchi qualcosa”. [very often you recognise a Filipino by his language (.) but I do not feel the need to study it (.) because I have never had any problem to understand what other people say (.) so I think that I do not miss anything].
For PhilG2_E being Filipino does not mechanically translate into learning the language by means of formal instruction. PhilG2_E does not feel the need to move on with his proficiency in Filipino; for him enough Tagalog is enough, and most important, enough is what permits him to function as an authentic member of the local Filipino community. It is always difficult to establish the level, or how much of both proficiency and use in the heritage languages is necessary to be judged as authentic speakers and members of the community (Beinhoff & Rasinger, 2016, p. 575). As recalled by Blommaert and Varis (2013, p. 148), “the benchmark for being admitted into an identity category (as a real’ or ‘authentic’ member) is ‘having enough’ of the features specified for them”. In other words, even “limited” linguistic proficiency in heritage languages should not be interpreted as a “symptom of loss” (De Fina, 2012, p. 375). 6.5.2 Identity (Re)negotiation in Interaction with Peers The majority of young Filipinos in Turin show a sort of identity fluctuation feeling both Italian and Filipino. Their affiliation to heritage languages and cultures does not correspond to a univocal, unconditioned choice between two assumed, given identities. As in the case of PhilG2_A, identity (re)negotiation is commonly linked to daily social interactional ties and networks, or “the aggregate
of relationships contracted with others” (Milroy & Gordon, 2003, p. 117). PhilG2_A asserts (excerpt 10): Excerpt 10 “PhilG2_A: ma adesso mi sento più filippino (.) dato che ho iniziato a uscire solo con i filippini (.) prima ero proprio italiano (.) i miei amici italiani non li sento più (.) perché ho voluto cambiare il mondo (.) si (.) me la cavo a parlare filippino (.) ma con i miei nuovi amici filippini parlo misto (.) italiano o filippino (.) non fa differenza (.) è uguale”. [but now I feel more Filipino (.) because I started to go out with Filipinos only (.) before I was really Italian (.) I do not see my Italian friends anymore (.) because I wanted to change my world (.) yes (.) I can manage to speak Filipino (.) but I speak ‘misto’ (mixed) with my new Filipino friends (.) Italian or Filipino (.) it does not make any difference (.) the one or the other is the same].
Unlike what is reported in mainstream studies on social networks and language choice in minority contexts (Li Wei, 1994), the ethnic composition of networks does not seem to affect PhilG2_A’s language choices (Lanza & Svendsen, 2007). The decision of PhilG2_A “to change his world” by seeing “Filipino friends only”, does not translate into the choice of Filipino languages tout court. PhilG2_A admits that though he can “manage” to speak Tagalog, he interacts with his new Filipino friends by ‘mixing’ the resources of his linguistic repertoire, according to what most young Filipinos have defined as language complementarity “Italian or Filipino…it doesn’t make any difference…the one or the other is the same”. As explained by PhilG2_R (excerpt 11): Excerpt 11 “PhilG2_R: le due lingue (italiano e tagalog) sono complementari (.) tutte le lingue si completano (.) ma parlare in una sola lingua mi mette in difficoltà”. [the two languages (Italian and Tagalog) are complementary (.) all languages complete each other (.) but to speak in one language only causes me problems].
PhilG2_R’s view of language complementarity differs from Grosjean’s (2010) “complementarity principle”, according to which, “different aspects of life require different languages [and] rarely do bilinguals have all domains of life covered by all languages…Just one language would normally be sufficient” (pp. 28-30). For young Filipinos, language choice is not constrained by either functional considerations or the association of language choice with specific domains. This position challenges received views of situation of language behaviour, reformulated by Fishman (1972, p. 441) as domain, in which communicative activities are strictly allocated on the basis of specific interlocutors, topics and location (Myers-Scotton, 2006), and which are constrained by “a shared range of goals and obligations” (Mioni, 1987, p. 170). In addition, for PhilG2_R, being a multilingual speaker is not given by the sum of two (or more) separated monolinguals in one person; by contrast, the latter deals
with the possibility of drawing on from his language resources in ways that Blackledge and Creese (2010, p. 25) have defined as “usual, practical and not normally oppositional”. What is interesting to note here is that both language and ethnicity do not represent the only key factors in processes of identity (re)negotiation; the latter are commonly “accomplished through other arena[s]” (Lanza & Svendsen, 2007, p. 295). For example, what makes PhilG2_B and his friends similar is neither ethnicity nor language, but practising Parkour, which he defines as “a way of moving” and “a life style” (see excerpt 12). As stated by Bucholtz and Hall (2004, p. 371) “social grouping is a process not merely of discovering a similarity that precedes and establishes identity but, more fundamentally, of inventing similarity by downplaying difference”. Excerpt 12 “PhilG2_B: Mi sento sia italiano che filippino (.) Entrambi anche se non esco mai con i filippini (.) non mi piace il loro modo di comportarsi (.) non è brutto (.) però non li capisco (.) si (.) io parlo tagalog però non ho niente da dire (.) i mei amici sono italiani, marocchini, romeni (.) ma non diamo molto peso alla razza (.) cioè siamo indifferenti (.) noi pratichiamo il parcour (.) il parcour non è uno sport (.) è più uno stile di vita (.) è un modo di muoversi”. [I feel both Italian and Filipino (.) both of them even if I do not ever go out with Filipinos (.) I do not like the way they behave (.) it is not bad (.) but I do not understand them (.) yes (.) I can speak Tagalog but I have nothing to say (.) my friends are Italian, Romanian, Maroccan but race does not make any difference (.) we are not concerned about it (.) we practice Parkour (.) Parkour is not a sport (.) it is more a life style (.) it is a way of moving].
It is evident that the reality of individuals within ‘minority’ communities cannot be interpreted through fixed taxonomies, tracing back to the view of migrants’ languages and identities as static or given a priori. As researchers, we need to reconsider the epistemological horizon from which we observe and interpret ‘the other’. We need, in other words, to acknowledge migrants’ languages, identities and narratives from their own perspectives or systems of knowledge. A translanguaging lens contributes changing our “locus of enunciation”; as recalled by Garcia and Leiva (2014), “in translanguaging, the speaker is situated in a space where alternative representations and enunciations can be generated because buried histories are realised and alternative, conflicting knowledges are produced” (p. 204). 6.6 Conclusion This study has provided a look at processes of LMLS through the investigation of both everyday language practices and processes of identity (re)negotiation of Filipina/os in Turin (Italy), within and beyond the household. Without denying the fundamental contribution of traditional scholarship on the subject, we (hope to) have demonstrated that TL represents a valid perspective of analysis on LMLS. The configuration
of processes of LMLS within NLMs in Italy requires a more nuanced approach to these issues, by including both conceptions of speakers as social actors, and language as a form of action, and a practice through which individuals are able to act upon reality to promote change. This research provides support for the view of TL as a transformative communicative mode, which contributes creating new socio-cultural realities by means of human agency, or individuals’ capacity to act reflexively, that is, to have control over their actions (Ahern, 2001). As recalled by García and Li Wei (2014, p. 24), “[…] individuals are capable of responding to the historical and present conditions critically. They consciously construct and modify their socio-cultural identities and values through social practices such as translanguaging”. TL represents a challenge to traditional scholarship on LMLS and its view of language transmission as a linear, unidirectional process, and what is transmitted as fixed grammatical knowledge, which is owned and passed on by adult community members. From this perspective, young generations are commonly described as passive receivers of both linguistic and cultural practices and values. The transmission of past collective memory, including named languages, never precedes the construction of individual identities. The latter corresponds to a dynamic and dialogic process, which implies the recognition of the other and his/her autonomy and subjectivity. Individuals never act in isolation, but they are always involved in a relationship with others. Young Filipinos reclaim their belonging to the Filipino community, languages and cultures without giving up their singularity; they are able to manage linguistic and cultural similarity and difference simultaneously (Crespi, 2004). This capacity contributes to change both individual and collective identities. Language transmission, in other words, is (co)constructed by both adult and young generations. Young Filipinos respond positively to the elders’ request of acceptance of heritage languages and cultures, on the other hand, adults are ready to recognise young Filipinos’ multiple voices and identities. Transcription Key (.) pause > (0.2 seconds or more) (( )) other details ____ emphasis
References Ady, P., Bissel, D., Hannam, K., Merriman, P., & Sheller, M. (Eds.). (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Mobilities. London/New York: Routledge. Ahern, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthopology, 30, 109-137.
Appadurai, A. (1991). Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for Transnational Anthropology. In R. G. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present (pp. 191-210). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Back, M. (2015). Transcultural Performance. Negotiating Globalized Indigenous Identities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays. (Edited by Michael Holquist; translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Barni, M., & Bagna, C. (2008). Immigrant Languages in Italy. In G. Extra & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Facts and Policies (pp. 293-313). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Beihoff B., & Rasinger, S. M. (2016). The Future of Identity Research: Impact and New Developments in Sociolinguistics. In S. Preece (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity (pp. 572-585). London/New York: Routledge. Bell, A. (2013). The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Berruto, G. (2009). Ristrutturazione dei Repertori e ‘Lingue Franche’ in Situazione Immigratoria. Appunti di Lavoro. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 38(1), 9-28. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2008). Contesting ‘Language’ as ‘Heritage’: Negotiation of Identities in Late Modernity. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 533-554. Blackledge A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism. A Critical Perspective. London: Continuum. Block, A. (2008). On the appropriateness of the metaphor of loss. In Peter K.W. Tan & R. Rubdy (Eds.), Language as Commodity. Global Structures, Local Marketplaces (pp. 187-203). London: Continuum. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J., & Varis, P. (2013). Enough is Enough. The Heuristics of Authenticity in Superdiversity. In J. Duarte and I. Gogolin (Eds.), Linguistic Diversity in Urban Areas: Research Approaches (pp. 143-158). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and Identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 368-294). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Canagarajah, S. (2008). Language Shift and the Family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(2), 143-176.
Canagarajah, S. (2013a). Reconstructing Heritage Language: Resolving Dilemmas in Language Maintenance for Sri Lankan Tamil Migrants. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 222, 131-155. Canagarajah, S. (2013b). Translingual Practice. Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York: Routledge. Chini, M. (Ed.). (2004). Plurilinguismo e Immigrazione in Italia. Un’Indagine Sociolinguistica a Pavia e Torino. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Chini, M. (2011). New Linguistic Minorities: Repertoires, Language Maintenance and Shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 210, 47-69. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of Language Contact. English and Immigrant Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crespi, F. (2004). Identità e riconoscimento nella sociologia contemporanea. Roma: Editori Laterza. Cresswell, T. (2006). On the Move. Mobility in the Modern Western World. London/New York: Routledge. De Fina, A. (2012). Family Interaction and Engagement with the Heritage Language: A Case Study. Multilingua, 31, 349-379. De Fina, A. (2016). Linguistic Practices and Transnational identities. In S. Preece (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity (pp. 163-178). London/New York: Routledge. Fishman, J. A. (1972). Domains and the Relationship Between Micro- and Macrosociolinguistics. In J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Speaking (pp. 407-434). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A. (2001). Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J.A. (2004). Language Maintenance, Language Shift and Reversing Language Shift. In Tej K. Bahtia & W.C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 406-436). Oxford: Blackwell. García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. García, O., & Li Wei (2014). Translaguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Polgrave Macmillan.
García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In A. Creese & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 199–216). Dordrecht: Springer. Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. H., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a Theory of Language in Ethnic Group Relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 307-348). London: Academic Press. Goglia, F. (2011). Code-switching Among Igbo-Nigerian Immigrants in Padua (Italy). In E. A. Anchimbe & S. A. Mforten (Eds.), Postcolonial Linguistic Voices: Identity Choices and Representations (pp. 323-342). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Guerini, F. (2006). Language Alternation Strategies in Multilingual Settings. A Case Study: Ghanaian Immigrants in Northern Italy. Bern: Peter Lang A.G. Harvey, D. (1990). The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Hatoss, A. (2013). Displacement, Language Maintenance and Identity. Sudanese Refugees in Australia. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Istituto di Statistica Nazionale. (2016). Note sulla Presenza Straniera in Italia. Retrieved from http://www.istat.it/immigrati. Jacquemet, M. (2005). Transidiomatic practices. Language and power in the age of globalization. Language and Communication, 25, 257-277. Jørgensen, J. N. (2008). Languaging: Nine Years of Polylingual Development of Young TurkishDanish Grade School Students. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism. Lanza, E., & Svendsen, B. A. (2007).Tell me who your friends are and I might be able to tell you what language(s) you speak: Social network analysis, multilingualism, and identity. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(3), 275-300. Le Espiritu, Y. (2003). Home Bound. Filipino American Lives Across Cultures, Communities, and Countries. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. Li Wei (1994). Three Generations, Two Languages, One Family. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Li Wei (2010). Research Perspectives on Bilingualism and Multilingualism. In Li Wei & M. Moyer (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism (pp. 3-17). Oxford: Blackwell. Li Wei (2011). Moment Analysis and Translanguaging Space: Discursive Construction of Identities by Multilingual Chinese Youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1222-1235.
Li Wei (2013). Codeswitching. In R. Bayley, R. Cameron, & C. Lucas (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 360-378). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Li Wei, & García, O. (2017). From Researching Translanguaging to Translanguaging Research. In K. A. King, Y.J. Lai, & S. May (Eds.), Research Methods in Language and Education (3rd ed.) (pp. 227-240). Dordrecht: Springer. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (Eds.) (2007). Disinventing and Reconstructing Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mazzaferro, G. Forthcoming. The Relocation of English(es) in Migratory Contexts. The Case of the Filipino Community in Turin (Italy). In C. Boggio, & A. Molino (Eds.), English in Italy: Linguistic, Educational and Professional Challenges. Milano, FrancoAngeli. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social Motivations for Code-Switching. Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon. Myers-Scotton, C. (1997). Duelling Languages. Grammatical Structures in Codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon. Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact Linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). Multiple Voices. An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics. Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell. Mioni, A. (1987). Domain. In U. Ammon, D. Dittmar, &, K. J. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society (pp. 170-178). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2015). Notiziario. Gli Alunni Stranieri nel Sistema Scolastico Italiano. Retrieved from http://www.istruzione.it/allegati/2015/Notiziario_Alunni _Stranieri_1415.pdf. Ochs, E., & Shohet, M. (2006). The Cultural Structuring of Mealtime Socialization. In R. W. Larson, A. R. Wiley, & K. Branscomb (Eds.), Family Mealtime as a Context of Development and Socialization (pp. 35-49). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Otheguy R., García, O., & Reid W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pauwels, A. (2004). Language Maintenance. In A. Davis & C. Eldee (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 719-737). Cambridge: Blackwell. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a Local Practice. London/New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. (2015). Metrolingualism. Language in the City. London/New York: Routledge. Potowski, K. (2013). Language Maintenance and Shift. In R. Bayley, R. Cameron, & C. Lucas (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 321-339). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman. Reid, L. A. (2008). On the diachronic development of C1V1- reduplication in some Austronesian languages. Morphology. doi 10.1007/s11525-009-9142-9. Sultana, S., Dovichin, S., & Pennycook, A. (2015). Transglossic Language Practices of Young Adults in Bangladesh and Mongolia. International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(1), 93-108. Valdes, G. (2005). Bilingualism, Heritage Language Learners, and SLA Research: Opportunities Lost or Seized? Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 410-426. Yagmur, K. (2011). Does Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory Account for the Actual Vitality of Ethnic Groups? A Critical Evaluation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2), 111120.
