SPACE DISCOURSE IN A LANGUAGE CONTACT SITUATION: “US” VS. “THEM”

Multilingual practices inevitably lead to language contact phenomena. This phenomenon occurs in Estonia, where the Russian speaking minority, often defined as a Russian diaspora, differs from the socially and linguistically dominant Estonian group with respect to their language and language practices. We suggest that the analysis of one of the languages in contact, in this case Russian, allows for a deeper understanding of the role of the other, i.e. Estonian, in the multilingual practices of the Estonian population as a whole. In this paper, we will focus on “spatial indicators” (i.e. toponyms, ergonyms, linguistic landscape objects, etc.) in the discourse on space provided by participants from the Russian-speaking population living in Estonia. These sociolinguistic foci have been partially described in several existing works which underscore the influence of Estonian on the speech of the local Russian speakers. Previous research gives insights into the peculiarities that the influence of Estonian generates: in the use of toponyms, in the naming of different language landscape objects, in the everyday language practices, and in the description and evaluation of the surrounding space (i.e. in the “spatial awareness”) of the local Russian speaking population. However, little attention has been paid to the fact that the aforementioned phenomena represent a whole that reflects the development of the speakers’ apprehension of the surrounding physical, sociocultural and sociolinguistic space. This process is put into focus in this paper and is shown to be characterized by the (re)definition of space(s) as “ours” vs “theirs”. Such processes will be revealed here by giving an overview of the “spatial components” in the speech of the Russian speaking population of Estonia in several spheres of communication (newspapers, TV shows, advertisements, web forums, etc.) and by analysing interviews involving three Estonian residents, each with a different sociolinguistic background. We attempt to demonstrate how these “spatial components” reflect the interaction of Russian and Estonian speakers, with an emphasis on their affinities across certain language practices. In the analysis of the interviews, we focus in particular on the participants’ (re)definitions of “us” vs “them” in their discourse on space. Special attention is also given to the use of Estonian insertions as a tool for evaluation and the creation of the opposition between “us” and “them” in the internet communication of Russian speakers living in Estonia.

Untranslatable wounds

A good starting point for revisiting the intersections of language, gender and sexuality is to acknowledge and understand how colonial wounds and legacies play out in our everyday lives. This essay critically addresses the multiple ways in which we are all marked in one way or another by our colonial relations and their intersections. A careful unpacking of mechanisms and linkages is critical for identifying strategies and tactics of struggle that might lead to more equitable present-days characterised by esperanza (hope). Yet a desire to decolonise language and language practices without recognising the lived experience of our own messy and colonial entanglements will never be enough to resignify the systems that hold racial, ethnic, gender, sexual and linguistic inequalities in place. This essay highlights the acts of desbordar (undoing/overflowing), trasto-car (queering) and resentir (feeling again) as alternative strategies that can be used to fracture the architectures of colonialism, starting with our own.

https://doi.org/10.46425/1902518021

One of the defining markers of Jamaican students’ academic success (for teachers and students) is their ability to speak Standard Jamaican English (SJE) fluently. However, SJE fluency is challenging for many majority-speaking Jamaican Creole (JC) boys who experience language conflicts within their social and educational contexts. Consequently, this study sought to investigate the impact of systemic negative perceptions of JC and its speakers on four inner-city adolescent boys (14-17 years old), who were dominant & JC-speaking—their perceptions of self, language ability, and attitudes toward English Language Learning (ELL). The study embraced a social constructivist approach, via use of multiple case studies, anchored within a narrative inquiry, over a period spanning three months. Within this period, the boys' lived language experiences were documented, through interviews, video diaries, and graphic novels. The study revealed that the boys experienced language complexities that left them feeling inadequate and disenfranchised, with systemic language practices that positioned them as deficit language learners. The study aimed to construct new knowledge to assist policymakers and educators in developing more inclusive language practices that can provide opportunities for all students to thrive.

Multilingual Practices and Identity Negotiation among Multilingual Heritage Language Learners in New Zealand

<p>While heritage languages (HLs) have been receiving much research attention, there is still a scarcity of studies conducted on local HL communities. However, researchers in New Zealand have been actively engaged with various community languages for over four decades, providing rich insights into the dynamics of language maintenance and language shift within these communities. Although New Zealand sociolinguistic scholarship has covered a wide range of languages and ethnicities, there is no known study on the Indian Hindi community, whose HL is the fourth most spoken language in the country (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). Additionally, previous research has traditionally examined the functional aspects of language use and language attitudes in determining whether language can be preserved, viewing HL communities often as homogeneously formed. In contrast, current trends in the field of sociolinguistics aim to examine the connections between individuals and their languages (i.e. identity), taking multilingualism as a norm and focusing on dynamism in intraspeaker and interspeaker language use. This thesis addresses these issues by exploring how the realities that heritage language learners (HLLs) live connect to identity negotiation and development in social interaction. In particular, this thesis focuses on a group of learners of Hindi as a heritage language in New Zealand – a group that is under-explored. Grasping the relationship between the HLLs’ experiences and how they develop and negotiate heritage-related identities necessitates a micro-level analysis of language use by casting an eye on language practices in the language maintenance school and the home, for they constitute two key spaces of exposure to the HLs and cultures. Moreover, examining how HLLs draw upon indexicality to conceptualise their languages provides rich insights into their identity negotiation and development. The primary data for the analyses is mobilised in three dimensions adopting an ethnographic approach. The first dimension includes limited-participant observations for one school term, making a total of 20 hours of observation out of which 12 hours were recorded. The observations look at language practices in a multi-site Hindi School (HS) where families of Indian descent from various linguistic, ethnic, cultural and national backgrounds come together forming a constellation of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998b) to stay connected with their Indian heritage. I also conducted semi-structured interviews with eight parents and stakeholders in the HS to enrich the analysis and check my interpretations of the observed and recorded practices. The second dimension embraces recordings of home interaction within three families with the aim of exploring language practices in the home. A total of eight hours of recorded data were collected in different conversational encounters (e.g. in the car, at the dining table and playtime). The families participating in this research have unique characteristics in terms of their heterogeneous configuration. The first family exemplifies a transnational adoptive family which is a unique family structure that has not been researched in New Zealand. The other two families reflect multicultural New Zealand Indian families where the parents do not speak the same HL. Finally, the data in the third dimension comes from the learners through linguistic reflection drawings (Krumm & Jenkins, 2001; Seals, 2017b). Twenty HLLs participated in the drawing activity which aims at examining how they process meaning-making through the use of language-colour association and views the linguistic repertoire as embodied (Bucholtz & Hall, 2016; Krumm & Jenkins, 2001). By employing the concept of communities of practice during in-depth discourse analysis, the HS data suggests that the shared practices within the school contribute to the construction of the learners’ multilingual and national/cultural identities, emphasising the Indian identity as an overarching one (i.e. Indianness), rather than privileging other regional, national or religious identities. Additionally, the analysis of the home data suggests that no matter how committed community members are, the HL is not always actively used at home. Rather, the three families in this study take part in a wide range of language practices that index their Indian identities. They introduce aspects of the Indian culture, which is mostly indexed via music, food and cultural lexical items in their discourse (Friesen, 2008; Shah, 2013). While HL literacy skills (e.g. numeracy and the reading of literary texts) were elicited, English linguistic features that are often associated with Indian English were used to construct Indian identity. However, at times multiple memberships became problematic because it contradicted other socially constructed identities, depending on the membership that is activated in the interaction settings. The analysis offers insights into the complexities of discursive identity negotiation within the home and the intricate relationship between identity negotiation and multiple memberships. Finally, the analysis of the HLLs’ linguistic reflection drawings through an indexical lens (Ochs, 1993) reveals that the participants use their languages as direct indices to display forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986), which in turn are discursively used to index national and cultural identities. Likewise, some participants used their multilingual identities as a resource to negotiate national and/or cultural identities. Overall, this thesis sheds light on the complexities of identity negotiation and development in heterogeneous communities where community members have multiple heritage languages. As this research is the first to present non-traditional language school and family configurations in the New Zealand context, it will hopefully enrich the understanding of the dynamics of heritage language education and identity negotiation in such superdiverse settings.</p>

Multilingual Practices and Identity Negotiation among Multilingual Heritage Language Learners in New Zealand

<p>While heritage languages (HLs) have been receiving much research attention, there is still a scarcity of studies conducted on local HL communities. However, researchers in New Zealand have been actively engaged with various community languages for over four decades, providing rich insights into the dynamics of language maintenance and language shift within these communities. Although New Zealand sociolinguistic scholarship has covered a wide range of languages and ethnicities, there is no known study on the Indian Hindi community, whose HL is the fourth most spoken language in the country (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). Additionally, previous research has traditionally examined the functional aspects of language use and language attitudes in determining whether language can be preserved, viewing HL communities often as homogeneously formed. In contrast, current trends in the field of sociolinguistics aim to examine the connections between individuals and their languages (i.e. identity), taking multilingualism as a norm and focusing on dynamism in intraspeaker and interspeaker language use. This thesis addresses these issues by exploring how the realities that heritage language learners (HLLs) live connect to identity negotiation and development in social interaction. In particular, this thesis focuses on a group of learners of Hindi as a heritage language in New Zealand – a group that is under-explored. Grasping the relationship between the HLLs’ experiences and how they develop and negotiate heritage-related identities necessitates a micro-level analysis of language use by casting an eye on language practices in the language maintenance school and the home, for they constitute two key spaces of exposure to the HLs and cultures. Moreover, examining how HLLs draw upon indexicality to conceptualise their languages provides rich insights into their identity negotiation and development. The primary data for the analyses is mobilised in three dimensions adopting an ethnographic approach. The first dimension includes limited-participant observations for one school term, making a total of 20 hours of observation out of which 12 hours were recorded. The observations look at language practices in a multi-site Hindi School (HS) where families of Indian descent from various linguistic, ethnic, cultural and national backgrounds come together forming a constellation of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998b) to stay connected with their Indian heritage. I also conducted semi-structured interviews with eight parents and stakeholders in the HS to enrich the analysis and check my interpretations of the observed and recorded practices. The second dimension embraces recordings of home interaction within three families with the aim of exploring language practices in the home. A total of eight hours of recorded data were collected in different conversational encounters (e.g. in the car, at the dining table and playtime). The families participating in this research have unique characteristics in terms of their heterogeneous configuration. The first family exemplifies a transnational adoptive family which is a unique family structure that has not been researched in New Zealand. The other two families reflect multicultural New Zealand Indian families where the parents do not speak the same HL. Finally, the data in the third dimension comes from the learners through linguistic reflection drawings (Krumm & Jenkins, 2001; Seals, 2017b). Twenty HLLs participated in the drawing activity which aims at examining how they process meaning-making through the use of language-colour association and views the linguistic repertoire as embodied (Bucholtz & Hall, 2016; Krumm & Jenkins, 2001). By employing the concept of communities of practice during in-depth discourse analysis, the HS data suggests that the shared practices within the school contribute to the construction of the learners’ multilingual and national/cultural identities, emphasising the Indian identity as an overarching one (i.e. Indianness), rather than privileging other regional, national or religious identities. Additionally, the analysis of the home data suggests that no matter how committed community members are, the HL is not always actively used at home. Rather, the three families in this study take part in a wide range of language practices that index their Indian identities. They introduce aspects of the Indian culture, which is mostly indexed via music, food and cultural lexical items in their discourse (Friesen, 2008; Shah, 2013). While HL literacy skills (e.g. numeracy and the reading of literary texts) were elicited, English linguistic features that are often associated with Indian English were used to construct Indian identity. However, at times multiple memberships became problematic because it contradicted other socially constructed identities, depending on the membership that is activated in the interaction settings. The analysis offers insights into the complexities of discursive identity negotiation within the home and the intricate relationship between identity negotiation and multiple memberships. Finally, the analysis of the HLLs’ linguistic reflection drawings through an indexical lens (Ochs, 1993) reveals that the participants use their languages as direct indices to display forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986), which in turn are discursively used to index national and cultural identities. Likewise, some participants used their multilingual identities as a resource to negotiate national and/or cultural identities. Overall, this thesis sheds light on the complexities of identity negotiation and development in heterogeneous communities where community members have multiple heritage languages. As this research is the first to present non-traditional language school and family configurations in the New Zealand context, it will hopefully enrich the understanding of the dynamics of heritage language education and identity negotiation in such superdiverse settings.</p>