Programme: accepted abstracts

Abstract ID: 846

Part of Session 183: Contesting and reconstructing language policies in urban educational settings (Other abstracts in this session)

Becoming British, becoming bilingual: Multilingual language planning for citizenship

Authors: Khan, Kamran
Submitted by: Khan, Kamran (University of Birmingham and University of Melbourne, United Kingdom)

Following the 2001 riots in the north of England involving Asian (mostly British-Pakistani youths), far-right extremists and the police, ‘parallel lives’ (Cantle Commission 2002) led by racially-segregated communities were considered to be the root cause. The solution from the British government was a ‘citizenship revolution’ (Kelly & Byrne 2008) and the promotion of British citizenship.

British citizenship for migrants was tied to a language/citizenship test to demonstrate English proficiency (Home Office 2002). Blackledge (2005) argues that this was symbolic of a monolingual language ideology which viewed multilingualism and therefore multilinguals as problematic.

The urban setting for this paper takes place in the same area as Rex & Moore’s (1967) seminal ethnic relations book about the settlement of recently arrived migrants in one the UK’s largest cities: Birmingham. Almost 45 years later, this paper follows the last 11 months of a Yemeni migrant’s (W) journey to citizenship. As part of this journey, W passed the citizenship ‘Life in the UK’ (LUK) test. Lacking English linguistic resources, W relied heavily on Arabic to prepare for this monolingual test by translating the test materials into Arabic. Furthermore, in recognition of the multilingual realities and the limited educational opportunities available to many Yemeni migrants, W become the de facto multilingual language policy maker (Shohamy 2006) in teaching others by creating a curriculum for the LUK test. Thus, some Yemeni migrants were able to pass the test with very little English. This paper also demonstrates that an almost identical approach was adopted by members of the local Chinese community. Faced with a monolingual challenge, these communities took responsibility for their own multilingual language planning.

This research used an ethnographically-informed case study. It was ethnographic in that it was ‘continuous with real life’ (Hymes 1996:13). It is a case study in that the subject is W and the analytic frame is the journey to citizenship (Thomas 2011). Data was collected through fieldnotes, interviews, linguistic landscapes and participant photos. Emergent themes were constantly accumulated during the data collection and again at the end for more cycles of analysis so that it became an iterative, rigorous process over a longer period.

This paper concludes that despite a monolingual, top down language requirement created by the British government, the multilingual, bottom up de facto language planning response paradoxically adheres to and undermines monolingual ideologies. Becoming British does not necessarily mean being monolingual; it can also mean becoming multilingual.

References:

Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Cantle Commission. (2002) Challenging Local Communities to Change Oldham. Coventry: TheInstitute ofCommunity Cohesion.

Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrrative Inequality. London: Taylor & Francis.

Kelly, R. & Byrne, L. (2008). A Common Place. London: Fabian Society.

Rex, J., & Moores, R. (1967). Race, Community and Conflict. London:OxfordUniversity Press.

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge.

Thomas, G. (2011). How to do Your Case Study. London: Sage.

Sociolinguistics Symposium 19

Programme: accepted abstracts

Becoming British, becoming bilingual: Multilingual language planning for citizenship