Y-junctions based on circular depressed-cladding waveguides

The understanding of ethno-linguistic identity which informs this study is seen as the way in which individuals may index their ethnic identity through language. Block (2007a) privileges the term ‘language identity’ in place of ‘ethno-linguistic identity’; he defines this as

the assumed and/or attributed relationship between one’s sense of self and a means of communication which might be known as a language […], a dialect […], or a sociolect (pp.46-47).

In his discussion of language identity, Block highlights the notions of language

‘expertise’, ‘affiliation’ and ‘inheritance’ as conceptualised by Leung, Rampton and Harris (1997). While these concepts are discussed in greater depth in Chapter 4, here they may be summarised as relating to, respectively: proficiency in a language; the extent to which an individual feels connected to a language; and ‘being born into’ a particular language community (Block 2007a, p.47). In referencing these notions, Block argues that language identities may thus be liable to shift: while an individual may find herself born into a certain linguistic community, she may acquire expertise in another language; this may potentially signal a transfer of allegiance to a different community.

Block also draws attention to the multi-dimensional nature of identity indexed in speech; he cites Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985), for whom ‘all utterances can be interpreted as an index of the speaker’s identity’ (Block 2007a, p.47). Drawing on this, Block sees the multi-dimensionality of utterances as ‘simultaneously’ indexing

‘ethnicity, nationality, social class, gender and other dimensions of identity’ (p.47).

According to this understanding, therefore, ethno-linguistic identity cannot be seen as a discrete category, but interlinked with other dimensions of identity.

While this current study acknowledges the multi-dimensional nature of identity (see section 3.3.1), its primary concern is that of ethnic, or Polish, identity and the

associated significance of language in maintaining Polish identity. Given this, I move away from Block: rather, the understanding of ethno-linguistic identity I draw on here follows Fought (2006), who notes how ‘[a] language may have a highly important symbolic value for an ethnic group’ (p.23). Gatbonton, Trofimovich and Magid (2005) reiterate the point, noting that for individuals who ‘belong to ethnic groups for whom language is a symbol of identity’, language is used ‘to reflect, reaffirm, renegotiate, or reconstruct these identities’ (p.492). The significance of language is perhaps

particularly moot in the case of Poland, given the way language became a rallying point during the time of the partitions, embodying a defiant symbol of resistance to the

linguistic policies imposed by the ruling powers during the 19^th century (see Chapter 2).

Yet the use of a language to symbolise identity is not unique to Poland. Language has often been requisitioned in pursuit of confirming the dominance of a certain group; this includes within the UK (see section 2.4). Indeed, for Rajagopalan (2001), ‘[l]inguistic identity is largely a political matter’ (p.17). Kamusella (2001) notes how language was utilised to justify the incorporation of Austria into Nazi Germany in the 1938 Anschluss (see Rusch 1989 on the subjugation of Austrian German following this); while an accentuation of the discrete nature of the Serbian and Croatian languages

accompanied the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s (see Rajagopalan 2001, p.24;

Tollefson 2002; Dragojević 2005; Jovanovic 2017). Hence use of a particular language may be seen as a conscious act, and ‘a way of explicitly asserting ethnic identity’

(Fought 2006, p.31).

Drawing on the theory of language as the symbol of a certain identity also underpins thinking in cases where visible language use is exploited to establish the rights and validate the presence of minority ethnic groups in a particular space. Examining linguistic landscapes in South Africa, Kotze and du Plessis (2010) define linguistic visibility as ‘written language in the public space’ (p.72). They draw attention to the way that language may thus be utilised to signal to the wider society the legitimate presence of certain communities. Examples of such linguistic displays include those whereby a minority community might choose to make itself noticeable through the establishment of speciality shops or restaurants, the signage of which may be in a different language to that of the dominant majority. Work highlighting the way that contemporary Polish communities have done this in the UK (e.g. McDermott 2008; Kempny 2011; Sordyl &

Janus 2013) has been set out in Chapter 2.

However, as Fought (2006) notes, ‘the role of language in constructing ethnicity quickly becomes complicated’ (p.19). For the way that an individual actually uses a particular language may not correspond to such notions of identity. Work in socio and applied linguistics has highlighted this complexity. Building on Rampton’s (1990) work on language affiliation, Leung, Harris and Rampton (1997) question the way that

‘[l]anguage use and notions of ethnicity and social identity are inextricably linked’

(p.544). They examine the way such assumptions lead to subject positioning whereby an ethnic identity is imposed on an individual, without taking into account that

individual’s relationship with the language. In her investigation of L2 writers, Pavlenko (2001) questions the assumed correlation. She explores the way in which such writers

may feel they have changed their linguistic allegiances in the course of their writing, yet continue to be positioned by others in terms of their first language (L1). Pavlenko (2001) sees this in terms of ‘linguistic membership and ownership’ (p.328), and where others’ positioning of them does not correspond to the writers’ sense of belonging in a certain language. This brings into focus the question of the right to claim a language as one’s own. Attendant questions of legitimacy (Bourdieu 1977) and who may be able to claim ownership of a certain language, together with further discussion of issues of language affiliation and inheritance, are addressed in Chapter 4.

The extent to which language may automatically be seen as a sign of ethnicity together with the idea of ethno-linguistic identity is questioned by other scholars. In her study of linguistic use in Ukraine, Fournier (2002) observes that Russian, while officially

considered a minority ethnic language, is used as a main language by many individuals who consider themselves Ukrainian. This is echoed by Kulyk (2011), also writing in a Ukrainian context, who notes a ‘large-scale discrepancy between language practice and identity’ (p.631). Kulyk maintains that individuals may ‘identify with more than one language’ (p.629), and thus argues against the use of language as a ‘proxy for

ethnicity’ (p.628).

However, it is the tendency to see language in this way which underpins linguistic xenophobia (see Chapter 2), where language is utilised as a proxy either for ethnicity (Simpson & Cooke 2009), or for race so as ‘to exclude people’ (Weber 2015, p.2). This is reflected in an experiment reported by Duff (2012), where listeners were asked to respond to different types of language. Findings suggested that assumptions made about ‘the sociolinguistic groups’ of which the speakers were apparently a part

‘indirectly revealed attitudes and biases toward particular linguistic identities’ (p.411).

Such attitudes are seen not only to apply to the language used, but also to the way in which it is spoken. Ryan (2010) observes how ‘accent [and] languages skills […] may

influence the extent to which people define and are defined by their ethnic identity’

(p.369). Blommaert (2005) also highlights how linguistic visibility and assumed identity may be demonstrated through a speaker’s particular accent, not simply in terms of ethnicity; he notes the way in which a certain accent will ‘suggest places and rankings on several other highly sensitive scales in society’ (p.222). This is echoed in variationist linguistics research, where Drummond and Schleef (2015) note the prevalence of

‘prejudice, and accent and dialect discrimination’ (p.8); for Gatbonton, Trofimovich and Magid (2005), accent is ‘the most "visible" aspect of pronunciation’ (p.491). The way that language use and accent may lead to prejudice is especially pertinent in the case of L2 speakers. In a study on identity construction by language learners, Norton (1995) reports how one participant, Felicia, ‘resisted speaking English in front of strangers because she did not want to be identified as an immigrant in Canada’ (p.20). This links back to the idea of negative subject positioning as a migrant, and how an individual might wish to avoid such identification.

A reluctance to speak English and thus reveal a certain identity in doing so may be seen as relevant within a UK context, also. In their study comparing participation in leisure pursuits by migrants from Poland and Africa to the UK, Long, Hylton and Spracklen (2014) found that while the Africans suffered more racism because of an instantly visible difference, Poles could pass unmolested until they spoke. That participants were aware of this is illustrated by the example of one young man whose

‘Polish accent makes him more apprehensive’, as it compromises his ability to blend in with the majority population (Long, Hylton & Spracklen 2014, p.1791).

Thus, ethno-linguistic identity may be seen as a source of pride, and language use viewed as a valid manifestation of ethnic identity; yet it can also be seen that there are complications implicit within such positioning. That language can be used as a marker ties in with questions of linguistic xenophobia; as suggested in the example of African

and Polish migrants given above, it also raises the issue of whiteness. This is addressed in the following section.