This section considers the role of language in the formation of identity, how it is closely linked to cultural identity, how the stage of language acquisition
influences linguistic identity and how external influences from others impacts upon the development of linguistic identity.
Language, Culture and Identity
An individual can be bilingual, bicultural or both therefore linguistic and cultural identity are not necessarily the same but may coexist (Grosjean, 2015). Despite this, language is often a carrier of shared cultural values and for many
immigrants and home-born bilinguals, the two concepts are interconnected (Byram, 2008; Kramsch, 2011). Language and identity are equally inseparable:
The connection between language and identity is a fundamental element of our experience of being human. Language not only reflects who we are but in some sense it is who we are, and its use defines us directly and indirectly. (Llamas & Watt, 2010, p.1)
Language is an essential part of who we are as human beings and how we connect with others within and outside our own communities (Francis et al., 2010). Kanno (2003, p.3) writes “bilingual individuals position themselves
between two languages and two (or more) cultures […] they incorporate these languages and cultures into their sense of who they are”. Moskal and Sime (2016) found that although their participants needed to maintain Polish for
communication purposes, it also played a pivotal role in developing a sense of belonging and identity. Therefore, it is commonly accepted that language and culture, and by default bilingualism and biculturalism, are closely intertwined. In light of this and the context of the present study, this section will discuss linguistic identity but some overlap will inevitably occur with subsequent sections on cultural identity.
According to Cummins and Swain (2014), to be told explicitly or implicitly that your heritage language and the language of your family is not valued negates one’s sense of self-worth. Feelings of belonging and identity are directly
attached to heritage languages (García, 2009). While researching experiences of bilingual Polish children in Scottish education, Moskal (2014; 2016) discovered there was a lack of recognition of pupils’ Polish cultural and linguistic heritage preventing a recognition of their identity and belonging. Similarly, research into the perceptions of teenage bilinguals in London discovered that many were self- labelling as monolingual due to the negative connotations they were picking up around their language and culture (Wallace & Mallows, 2009; Mehmedbegović, 2014).
Mehmedbegović and Bak (2017, p.156) give an example of a recently arrived Iraqi pupil who reflected on the usefulness of her two languages (Kurdish and Arabic) saying: “Miss, who needs the languages of immigrants? You need to be good at English, very good at English”. It was evident that the teenager had received low value messages in relation to heritage languages and had started to adopt these herself. Linking to section 2.2.4 ‘Dominance of the English
Language’, this illustrates issues of marginalisation, inequality and power; that the most desirable and acceptable linguistic profile is that of a fluent English speaker.
This is often reinforced in politics; for example, the former Home Secretary David Blunkett complained in a 2002 Guardian article (as cited in
Mehmedbegović & Bak, 2017, p.157) that 30% of British Asian households speak languages other than English at home, and called on them to speak English as a way to “overcome the schizophrenia which bedevils generational relationships”, and he made references to terrorism, 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. Negative rhetoric surrounding social cohesion, unemployment and terrorism has helped to create a viewpoint that immigrants threaten ‘traditional’ society, represent a burden on resources and that diversity is a threat rather than an asset (Piller, 2012; Phipps & Fassetta, 2015; Moskal, 2016).
Additive and Subtractive Bilingualism
There is also a misconception that children and families should cast off their heritage language in order to learn English, and the perception that it is better for them to prioritise learning English over maintenance or acquisition of their heritage language (Cummins & Swain, 2014; Little & Kirwan, 2019). This deficit model of bilingualism can be easily described using Cummins’ research on additive and subtractive bilingualism (1991; 1994). A term first coined by
Lambert (1975), additive bilingualism allows children to ‘add’ the new language to their existing repertoire of languages so that both are valued. In an
educational context, Cummins (2005) advises that teachers should incorporate the child’s heritage language into teaching and learning, encouraging the upkeep of this language in addition to mastering the new one.
By contrast, subtractive bilingualism, considers the two languages to be in competition with each other and that a child should learn the new language at the expense of their heritage language. If the heritage language is not
supported, valued or used enough, it will be replaced by the new one, eventually resulting in monolingualism, passive or imbalanced bilingualism meaning that the child will have lost an important element of their identity (Cummins, 2001; 2003; Baker, 2011). A child’s identity or self-worth is enhanced (or diminished) when educators value (or devalue) their linguistic and cultural resources (Cummins, 2001b; García, 2009).
Research suggests that pupils working in an additive bilingual school environment succeed academically to a greater extent than those whose
heritage language and culture are devalued by their schools and by the wider society (Cummins, 2000; Portes & Hao, 2002; Molyneux, Scull & Aliani, 2016). An example of additive bilingual education is at Scoil Bhríde Cailíní in Dublin where over 50 languages flourish in a rich, diverse environment and heritage language learning is supported and encouraged by school staff (Little & Kirwan, 2018; 2019).
An additive approach to bilingualism, and societal multilingualism, is, at the time of writing, being embedded into the Finnish education system. Their new curriculum is described as being “language-sensitive” where all pupils are considered to be multilingual and that every language is equally valuable, whether it is the language of schooling, heritage languages, regional languages, dialects or foreign languages learned in school (Alisaari, 2020, p.78). Further to this, every teacher is considered a language teacher as they are expected to value and promote linguistic diversity, consider pupils’ languages as resources for learning in the classroom, have a knowledge of language acquisition to scaffold learning, and be able to advise parents on familial bilingualism. To achieve this, a change in mind-set and investment in teacher CPD has been necessary (Alisaari, ibid).
The Influence of Other People
Kao (2008) emphasises that in a bilingual family, parents’ languages and cultures do not automatically transmit to their children. They need to provide ample opportunity for the child to absorb heritage language and culture at home but in addition to this, external conditions must be favourable too. For young learners to develop a bilingual identity and learn languages, a complex process of social interaction occurs between the child and the other people with whom they come into contact — friends, parents, siblings, teachers, members of the community and wider society (Cummins, 2003; Gregory, 2005). Fielding and Harbon’s (2013) Australian study demonstrated that children who felt that their parents,
teachers, and others viewed them as bilingual felt more able to identify as bilingual. The young participants needed other people to perceive and value them as bilingual before they could consider themselves as bilingual - which is different, but just as poignant, to the research by Mehmedbegović (2014) where
self-labelling as monolingual centred around feelings of embarrassment and stigma.
Mejia’s (2016) study found that other influences on linguistic development included demographic area, local community, economic situation, government language policy, societal language values and familial attitudes to bilingualism and heritage languages. This illustrates García’s point (2011) that linguistic identity does not evolve by itself, it occurs under certain conditions and that “differences in power, value and status conferred on each of the two languages; and pressure in a political, economic, or social form from one of the two
language groups” will influence the construction of linguistic identities (García, p.182). Evidence demonstrates that various factors influence the negotiation process of constructing a bilingual identity, and interaction in all languages of their linguistic repertoire is needed for positive identity development in bilinguals (Fielding & Harbon, 2013).
Just as bilingualism is flexible and dynamic, linguistic identity is too (Cummins, 2001; Blackledge & Pavlenko, 2004). In Ivashinenko’s (2018) study of the Russian- speaking community in Scotland, parents discussed how relationships and bonds with their children changed as a result of their evolving bilingual identities:
When my daughter started to attend the mainstream Scottish school, she began to speak Scottish, to look Scottish, and to think like them. I felt that I had lost her, and that I should do something to prevent a gap from growing between us (the Russian-speaking parents) and her.
(Alexandra, parent, Glasgow) (Ivashinenko, 2018, p.106)
One point to note, is that second and third generation children still considered their heritage language to be a key aspect of their identities, albeit to a lesser extent that first generation migrants (Kenner et al., 2008). For CEE families in Moskal and Sime’s study (2016), the preservation of heritage language was a marker of cultural identity but as children’s identity and skills in English (and Scots) developed, family and peer relationships began to change. This was also noted in Mejia’s research (2016) where mothers felt that attrition of Spanish would leave an emotional gap in their lives and in their relationships with their
children. A conflict of loyalties can sometimes occur when children struggle to navigate demands from school and society to prioritise English and pressure from parents to maintain the heritage language.