Native Language and Identity Maintenance in Immigrants

Introduction

Individuals categorize the social world and perceive themselves as members of various groups. These groups may include race, ethnicity, language, place of birth and so on. This knowledge of membership in a social group as well as the value and emotional significance of belonging to a group is defined as social identity (Giles & Johnson, 1987; Tajfel, 1982). Social identity may be positive or negative depending on how a group compares itself to a relevant outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). One of the arguably most significant markers of group identity is language, because language may signify a person’s race, nationality, ethnicity and social status. Some scholars even argue that linguistic competencies of an individual may impact how strongly he or she identifies with the relevant group and how other in-group members perceive his/her membership and loyalty to the group (Gaudet & Clément, 2009). Thus, arguing that in order for someone to affiliate to a group s/he must be knowledgeable about the group’s culture and able to speak its language.

Global immigration has put immigrants in a difficult place where they face the dilemma of choosing between their native language and the language of their host nations. Preserving native language may be perceived essential to an individual’s ethnic identification but some immigrants are afraid that it might hinder their children’s academic success in the educational system where the language of the host nation is dominant (Park, 2019). While adopting the dominant language may reduce intergroup distance, promote acculturation, and convergence towards the dominant group, but it may create a generation gap within the immigrant’s ingroup (Nguyen & Hamid, 2019).

Scholars have varying opinions on whether or not losing native language will weaken an individuals’ sense of belonging to his/her original ethnic group and whether or not language plays a central role in an individual’s ethnic identity and association to their social group. This literature review explores the correlation between group identity and native language and factors that affect linguistic decision-making of immigrants which leads them to maintain or lose their native language.

Literature Review

Language and Identity

Sociolinguistic scholar Fishman (1991) suggests that members of an ethnic group who natively speak the language associated with the group are more authentic members of the group as compared to those who do not natively speak the language. Several studies on immigrant populations in Australia, United Kingdom, Belgium, United States and Canada support the argument that higher proficiency in heritage language translates into stronger identification with heritage culture and identity (see, e.g., Hava, 2018; Jaspal & Coyle, 2010; Nguyen, 2017; Sook, 2002). Thus, suggesting that native language is central to an individual’s ethnic identity and association to the social group. For example, a study of Turkish immigrants in Belgium, reflected that some of the Turkish immigrants see their language as the symbol of their Turkish identity and culture. The study found that to some Turkish immigrants “Forgetting Turkish language or not being able to speak it well is considered as an act of being unfaithful to their ancestors, their past and their homeland” (Hava, 2018, p. 76). Similarly, some Indian immigrants in the UK consider ethnic language to be related to ethnic identity, for some “knowing the language is really the first step to being Indian” (Jaspal & Coyle, 2010, p. 209).

In contrast, other sociolinguists undermine the role of language as an essential component of identity. Instead, they see language merely as a tool of communication rather than a symbol of identity. For instance, Myhill (2003) argues that the idea of language being central to the individual’s identity and belongingness to the group may hold true for some groups and individuals but it is not true for all groups. Myhill finds that many diaspora Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Indians and Chinese people define their identity in ways other than native language which may include religion, tradition, and/or ancestry. Likewise, the data from a study by McNamara (1987) also suggests a massive shift from native language to English in the second generation Israelis living in Australia.

Factors Affecting Native Language Maintenance and Erosion

International immigration has given birth to multiculturalism and multilingualism which in turn leads to construction of dual or hybrid identities, or sometimes erosion of native language and native identity and assimilation to new culture and construction of new identities. As discussed earlier, all groups and cultures are not the same when it comes to the significance of language and the role it plays in a group’s identity. In addition, the literature suggests that there are multiple factors affecting linguistic decision making that leads to erosion or maintenance of immigrant’s native language. These factors are including but not limited to the following:

Ethnolinguistic Vitality

According to Giles and Johnson (1987), minority groups may be less motivated to maintain their language when they perceive their group’s vitality to be low; do not consider language as an important symbol of their identity and identify strongly with social categories other than language. Giles and Johnson further argue that these conditions may “promote strong motivations for acquiring nativelike proficiency in the dominant group tongue, and ultimately foster ingroup language erosion or outgroup assimilation…” (p. 73). Similarly, in a study of English-Canadian and French-Canadian students, Noels & Clément (1996) found that native language maintenance and identifying with it is highly influenced by ethnolinguistic vitality. Which means, if the speakers of a language represent a minority group hence, have lower ethnolinguistic vitality, they are more likely to not strongly identify with their native language instead they will identify with their second language. The authors note that Francophones, who are a linguistic minority in English-dominated society of Canada, have higher second language group identity than Anglophones. This is because Anglophones have higher ethnolinguistic vitality in Canada which may lead them to identify stronger with their original ethnic identity. In other words, if the minority group’s language is perceived to be less prestigious and less socially functional, the group is likely to replace it with the dominant one (Kraus & Chiu, 1998). Such erosion of ethnic language of the minority group in order to embrace the majority language is referred to as subtractive bilingualism. In contrast, additive bilingualism occurs when a minority group retains their native language and identity while adopting the majority language and identity (Lambert, 1990). Therefore, Lambert argues that bilingualism and biculturalism subtracts and divides one’s sense of personal identity. This suggests that lower ethnolinguistic vitality leads to subtractive bilingualism which ultimately fosters erosion of native language in immigrants.

Socioeconomic status

Social status and ethnic identity are important mediating factors in linguistic decision making (Komorowska, 2019). Moving from lower social, economic, professional and educational status to a higher one may require immigrants to acquire language of the host/majority group which may pave the way for integration and/or assimilation into the host communities. Thus, language acquisition is an important step in moving up immigrants’ social status as it might open up more communication, contact and job opportunities for the minority/immigrant group (Komorowska, 2019). This is evident in other studies as well. For example, Ross and Mirowsky (1984) found that Mexican-Americans who have higher paying jobs; living in a middle-class neighborhood are more likely to be pulled into English-speaking networks and assimilated to the people around them. On the other hand, the authors note that a Mexican-American with a low paying job, living in a lower-class neighborhood is likely to have more contact within their ingroup Spanish speaking communities and therefore not assimilated to the majority/Anglo culture and maintain their native language. Similarly, in a study of ethnic minority students in Vietnam, Nguyen and Hamid (2019) notes that individuals in the minority groups generally adopt the language of the majority group in an attempt to pass into the dominant group; construct more positive identity; change their unfavorable status; decrease social distance between them and the dominant group; and seek alternatives to the existing power relations. The authors notes that in the process of adopting the majority language, ethnic minorities may lose their native language. Such outgroup assimilation that comes at the cost of losing ingroup language and identity is not appreciated among some cultures. For instance, Indian immigrants in the United Kingdom derogatorily call second-generation Indians who have lost their native language as “coconuts”, to imply that they are brown (Indian) from outside but white (British) from inside (Jaspal & Coyle, 2010).

Individual Motivations

Past literature suggests that those who individually strongly associate and identify with their ethnic identity will have a stronger desire for maintaining their heritage language (Jaspal and Coyle, 2010). Native language maintenance becomes especially difficult when there are no bilingual programs in the school (DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2009). Hence, individuals who have strong motivations for maintaining their native language, utilize various techniques and strategies in order to preserve their native language and pass it on to their succeeding generations. These techniques and strategies are including but not limited to: frequently visiting native country for allowing children to have more exposure to their native language and culture (DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2009; Morales, 2016); parental imposition of only native language to be spoken at home (Jaspal & Coyle, 2010); one parent one language rule, where one parent speaks only native language with the children; and joining local community groups/organizations (DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2009). However, it is worth mentioning that regardless of the strategies parents may use and no matter how strongly they identify with their native language and not matter how strongly they are motivated to maintain their native language, past research indicates that in the United States the native language of most immigrants has rarely continued beyond the third generation (Portes & Hao, 2002).

Afghan Immigrants in the United States and their Language Attitudes

Since 2001, the war and conflict in Afghanistan has caused 5.9 million Afghans to either be internally displaced or to flee their country (Noah Coburn et al., 2021). Nevertheless, prior to 2001, a large number of Afghans fled their country due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Even though the majority of these refugees resettled in neighboring Pakistan and Iran, but a large number of them also immigrated to the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2019), there are approximately 132,160 Afghans living in the United States. In addition, there has been a significant influx of Afghan refugees into the United States through the Special Immigrant Visa program which intends to bring those interpreters and contractors who worked along with the U.S. army in Afghanistan (Alex Nowrasteh, 2021).

Prior research on Afghan immigrants and their native language maintenance and significance of language in the construction of the perceived Afghan identity is scarce. However, historian and anthropologist Barfield (2010) notes that the Afghan people commonly identify with a combination of values such as language, religion, cultural practices, place of birth, and ancestors. As discussed earlier, the role of language as a symbol of social/ethnic identity differs from group to group, thus, robust studies are required to clarify the correlation between the two among the Afghan immigrants in the United States.

Future direction

A large number of studies on how immigrants define language and what role immigrants perceive language plays in constructing their identities in host countries, are done outside the United States (Hava, 2018; Jaspal & Coyle, 2010; McNamara, 1987; Nguyen & Hamid, 2019) and studies in the United States are often concerning Latino communities and the Spanish language (Morales, 2016). Future research must take into account smaller minority groups such as South Asians and subgroups such as Indians, Afghans, and Nepalis to see how strongly these groups identify with their language and to explore the correlation between language identity and language maintenance. In addition, past research indicates that some groups identify strongly with religion, culture, and ancestry. However, it is not clear what motivates this decision making and how it affects their language maintenance attitudes.

Furthermore, future research might also consider the role of intergroup contact on native language erosion in immigrant communities. Past research lays the ground for exploring language erosion and maintenance in the intergroup context. For example, Ross and Mirowsky (1984) found that having a better job leads immigrants to higher socioeconomic status and living in middle-class neighborhoods thus, leading them to more contact with the majority group which in turn causes them to lose their native language and identity. Future studies must explore if this equally holds true for individuals who identify stronger with their language and perceive language as a vital part of their identity.

In addition, Giles and Johnson (1987) argue that perceived lower ethnolinguistic vitality in immigrants may motivate them to acquire proficiency in the dominant group’s language and to lose their ingroup language. Similarly, Kraus and Chiu (1998) suggest that if a minority group language is less socially functional, the group may replace it with the dominant language. Future research may explore the motives of groups and individuals in lower ethnolinguistic vitality groups as to what motivates them to maintain their language despite its low vitality (if they do).

References

Alex Nowrasteh. (2021, August 16). There is no good reason to block Afghan refugees. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-good-reason-block-afghan-refugees

Barfield, T. (2010). Afghanistan: a cultural and political history. Princeton University Press.

DeCapua, A., & Wintergerst, A. C. (2009). Second-generation language maintenance and identity: A case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235880902965672

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Revising language shift: Theoritical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters.

Gaudet, S., & Clément, R. (2009). Forging an identity as a linguistic minority: Intra- and intergroup aspects of language, communication and identity in Western Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(3), 213–227. http://10.0.3.248/j.ijintrel.2008.08.003

Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: a social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1987(68), 69–100. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1987.68.69

Hava, Z. Y. (2018). Assessing the Link between Language and Identity: The Construction of Identities among Belgian-Turkish Migrants. Human & Society / İnsan ve Toplum, 8(1), 67–84. http://10.0.49.114/M0225

Jaspal, R., & Coyle, A. (2010). “My language, my people”: language and ethnic identity among British-born South Asians. South Asian Diaspora, 2(2), 201–218. http://10.0.4.56/19438192.2010.491299

Komorowska, H. (2019). Languages and the self. Neofilolog, 52(1), 15–28. http://10.0.57.154/n.2019.52.1.3

Kraus, R. M., & Chiu, C.-Y. (1998). Language and social behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 41–88). McGraw-Hill.

Lambert, W. E. (1990). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In J. R. Mallea & J. C. Young (Eds.), cultural diversity and Canadian education (pp. 233–261).

McNamara, T. F. (1987). Language and social identity: Israelis abroad. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(3–4), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8763005

Morales, P. Z. (2016). Transnational practices and language maintenance: Spanish and Zapoteco in California. Children’s Geographies, 14(4), 375–389. http://10.0.4.56/14733285.2015.1057552

Myhill, J. (2003). The native speaker, identity, and the authenticity hierarchy. Language Sciences, 25(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(01)00023-7

Nguyen, T. T. T., & Hamid, M. O. (2019). Language choice, identity and social distance: Ethnic minority students in Vietnam. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(2), 137–161. http://10.0.5.235/applirev-2017-0037

Noah Coburn, Neta C. Crawford, Norah Niland, & David Vine. (2021, August). Afghan refugees cost of war. Watson Institute. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/refugees/afghan

Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1996). Communicating across cultures: Social determinants and acculturative consequences. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 28(3), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400X.28.3.214

Park, M. Y. (2019). Challenges of maintaining the mother’s language: marriage-migrants and their mixed-heritage children in South Korea. Language and Education, 33(5), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582662

Portes, A., & Hao, L. (2002). The price of uniformity: language, family and personality adjustment in the immigrant second generation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(6), 889–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141987022000009368

Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1984). Language networks and social status among Mexican Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 65(2), 551–564.

Sook, J. (2002). The korean language in america: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310208666638

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In A. William & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hill.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). American Community Survey. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Afghanistan&tid=ACSSPP1Y2019.S0201