Operación

In this study, the neighbourhood was an important site of natural language learning for Bhutanese because they were more likely to be surrounded by native English speakers in this context. However, not all Bhutanese experienced the same degree of access to, and acceptance from, their English-speaking neighbours. The Bhutanese who lived in a

neighbourhood with a high level of ethnic tolerance had relatively more exposure to English than those who did not. In this section, I will distinguish Hem’s neighbourhood from that of other Bhutanese and discuss how the supportive or hostile attitudes and behaviours of native English speakers influenced the natural language learning of Bhutanese in the neighbourhood context.

Unlike other Bhutanese who lived in an ethnic enclave (see chapter 10.2.3), Hem made a deliberate decision to move to a very homogenous white-dominant neighbourhood in the hope that this would offer him opportunities to practice his English in various

communicative contexts and thereby get a better understanding of Australia. Hem’s family was the only family of his ethnic group in this neighbourhood and therefore his skin colour, physical features and ethnic dress naturally made him very visible to his English-speaking neighbours. In Hem’s situation, his “racial visibility” (Colic-Peisker, 2005) yielded positive outcomes for establishing English-speaking social networks. His exposure to the

neighbourhood with his distinctly different physical features led the local residents to approach him with curiosity in order to discover his ethnic and personal background. For

Hem, this kind of English-speaking contact was beneficial for his learning of English and integration into Australian society. Hem commented:

When I walk on the street, the white people often ask me “Where did you come from? Where do you live?” They ask me several questions of this type. My family might be strangers to them because of our dress and skin colour. But this has helped me a lot to practice my English and build a good rapport with them. This has helped me to build my confidence and feel like I am mingling with them. They treat me in a polite manner. They ask me “How is your study? How do you feel about Australia?” They tell me that learning English is difficult and needs a lot of practice. They also

encourage and provide support for my learning. When I don’t understand any words of English, I ask them and they explain those to me.

Being surrounded by egalitarian native speakers in his neighbourhood gave Hem access to a supportive environment for natural language learning. His social interactions with the native English speakers in authentic and meaningful situations nurtured his confidence in speaking English. Furthermore, his compatible relationship with his neighbours served as an advice network (Krachardt & Hanson, 1993) for his learning of English. This network helped him to reduce his affective filter (Krashen, 1982) such as anxiety and also provided him with motivation and inspiration. From the perspective of social integration, developing friendly ties with mainstream neighbours contributed significantly to his sense of being accepted by and integrated into the society at large.

On the contrary, many other Bhutanese (such as Rama, Drona, Puja and Maya) lived in ethnically-heterogeneous neighbourhoods along with a large number of Anglo-Australians. These Bhutanese inhabitants reported very limited intercultural contact through English with their neighbours. The main problem, they said, was the lack of mutual trust between the Bhutanese and English-speaking residents. Putnam (2007) suggests that “the more ethnically diverse the people we live around, the less we trust them” (p. 147). The inter-ethnic social capital that could be accessed through bridging social networks was very weak among inhabitants in these localities. Respondents reported not having any English-speaking friends or acquaintances with which they could interact and practice their English.

Ethnic homophily was strong among Bhutanese living in these neighbourhoods. See chapter 10.2.3 for the example of homophilic binding of Puja with her ethnic networks. When I personally visited these regions during my field work, I observed several times a quite large number of Bhutanese walking together and speaking to each other in their native language in shops, public transport and on the street. The high level of ethnic embeddedness among Bhutanese in these neighbourhoods was the outcome of not only the overwhelming access of social capital through their internal social networks (see chapter 10.2.3) but also the

persistence of racism and opposition from the English speakers surrounding them. The insights emerging from these findings concur with Portes and Sensenbrenner’s (1993) study which claims that “the greater the level of prejudice the immigrants encounter from

mainstream society, the stronger the sentiments of ethnic homophily among its members” (p.1329).

Respondents blamed the prejudicial attitudes and racist behaviour from mainstream residents as being the major obstacles to intercultural participation through English at the neighbourhood level. Some Bhutanese shared stories of verbal racism and even physical harassment especially from the young adults and teenagers of white skin. Maya reported that she was repeatedly harassed by her English-speaking neighbours who often threw empty cans and bottles at her home and made racist comments such as “Asian dog” or “monkey”.

Respondents believed that they were racialized and marginalized by English-speaking

neighbours because of their relatively limited power in a new society based on their ethnicity, immigration status and language ability.

In summary, access to social and verbal activities of English-speaking neighbours is central to identity development of language learners in the neighbourhood context. However, other than Hem, the Bhutanese in this study did not experience a sufficient degree of access to an open social environment which allowed for investment in English interaction with their

English-speaking neighbours. Many Bhutanese faced racism and resistance from those who were in the position to offer them English language input in real life situations and to engage the novices in meaningful social interactions. As a consequence, the existence of this

unsupportive environment not only prevented the Bhutanese from making an investment in their identity as language users in a neighbourhood context but also amplified their ethnic identity. The high level of ethnic homophily and racial prejudice may in turn lead to eventual separation (Berry, 1997) rather than mutual accommodation between the Bhutanese and their receiving society.