Читать книгу The Multilingual Adolescent Experience - Malgorzata Machowska-Kosciak - Страница 7
ОглавлениеFrom a Bilingual to a Multilingual Country
During the last decade, Ireland has experienced a substantial influx of immigrants. According to the 2011 census, a total of 544,357 non-Irish nationals were living in Ireland in April 2011, representing 199 different nations. The growth in the number of non-Irish nationals has continued since 2006, although at a slower pace than earlier years. The main immigrant groups include Polish (2.7%); British (2.5%); Lithuanian (0.8%); Latvian (0.5%); Romanian (0.2%); Slovakian (0.2%); and German (0.2%); and the largest non-European groups include Nigerian (0.4%); Indian (0.4%); Filipino (0.3%); US American (0.2%); and Chinese (0.2%) (Central Statistics Office, 2011). From 2006 to 2011, there was a steady increase in the number of Polish nationals, from 63,276 to 122,585, marking this group as the largest ethnic minority group ahead of UK nationals with 112,259. By 2016, the situation was unchanged with the Polish population stabilizing at 122,515 (2.57% of the population), according to the 2016 census figures (Central Statistics Office, 2016). After Poland joined the European Union (EU) in 2004, Ireland, along with the United Kingdom and Sweden, was among three existing EU members to open its borders and welcome Polish workers as relatively cheap and qualified laborers. Ireland quickly became a key destination for many young Poles seeking work outside Poland. Work service officer dealing with employment patterns abroad from Poland’s largest HR company, Andrzej Kubisiak says that even though Ireland has a far smaller Polish population than Britain’s estimated 831,000, the country is in the top three countries most-liked by Poles, with 34% of Poles in Ireland saying they would like to remain there permanently. Anecdotal evidence points to the fact that Ireland is becoming even more popular among Polish migrants, particularly those residing in the UK, as there is much uncertainty in Britain since the Brexit referendum in 2016 and Britain’s decision to leave the EU.
Due to the dramatic increase in the immigration of speakers of other languages to Ireland, schools are faced with the linguistic challenges of adapting their curricula to meet this new trend. As experience in other countries has shown, the development of school programmes to serve the children of immigrants has often been slow and sometimes did not serve the best interest of immigrant children (Glenn & de Jong, 1996: 404–503). The situation is similar in Ireland. Although Ireland officially adopted an intercultural education policy in 2005 and developed a new language curriculum in 2017, it has paid little attention to children’s multilingualism and multiliteracy development. This situation often leaves children and their families without much guidance and support necessary for their multilingual development. Thus, families often develop their own ideas and ways of language maintenance and language learning. Informal family language policies differ among families as they make certain choices when it comes to the multilingual development of their children. For these reasons, this study is about four Polish families, specifically four adolescents: Kasia, Wiktoria, Janek and Marcin.
Educational environments can be developed either as places where everyone can grow and become aware of their emerging linguistic repertoire and its value, or as places offering limited choices, often perceiving one linguistic competence as more favorable and ignoring the other. Not speaking a majority language is considered problematic and children continue to be seen as having some sort of ‘deficit’. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a discrepancy in the ways that immigrant children’s languages are seen by their educators depending on the languages they speak. If their mother tongue belongs to the group of modern European languages, the children are more likely to be offered explicit recognition and overt support toward the maintenance of their language. Over the last 30 years, language educators, applied linguists and sociolinguists have documented and discussed various monolingual practices worldwide (May, 2014; Meier & Conteh, 2014), which have been referred to as ‘damaging deficit approaches’ (Ortega, 2014: 32). This has led to a call for collective research action (Ortega, 2014) and for greater teacher guidance (Weber, 2014) to question monolingual thinking/norms worldwide.
Researchers such as Devine (2005), Darmody (2011), McGillicuddy and Devine (2018) and McDaid (2011) have observed and identified these same practices in Ireland. McDaid (2011: 20) goes even further by saying that children are given a clear message that their first language (L1) is a barrier to succeeding in the Irish education system; therefore, ‘the issue of minority language recognition is fundamentally an issue of inequality’ within the Irish education system (2011: 20). Teachers’ misrecognition of children’s linguistic capabilities is articulated through a pedagogical commitment to the acquisition of English based on an approach rooted in the time-on-task argument (Imhoff, 1990). Other studies in Ireland discuss similar problems (see McGorman & Sugrue, 2007; Nowlan, 2008; Wallen & Kelly-Holmes, 2006). Devine (2005) argues that this perspective originates in the construction of children in deficit terms, and asserts that it is underpinned by a concern that children cannot integrate socially without the requisite proficiency in English. It presents English language speakers as normative and minority language speakers as deficient or inferior. Proficiency in L1s is ‘devalued and condemned’ (Lynch & Baker, 2005). Many of the children experience the message that the solution to these ‘failings’ lies in the successful acquisition of English.
One might believe that the situation has changed since 2011; however, McGillicuddy and Devine’s (2018: 90) study on ability grouping practices in Ireland shows that many schools still ‘funnel and filter’ children into differentiated ability groups with learners assigned to the ‘weaker’ groups, mostly composed of boys and minority ethnic/migrant children. These children are often described as ‘turned off’ because of their ‘language problems’ or among learning difficulties, whereas other children are ‘ready to fly’ through the education system (McGillicuddy & Devine, 2018: 93). This is alarming and exposes ‘the process of legitimation underpinning this symbolically violent act is shaped by a system which maintains social order by defining boundaries of difference in the classroom’ (Devine & McGillicuddy, 2016).
Taking on a multilingual framework instead, one sees great value and potential in ‘all languages a person can use in society and learns inside and outside of educational environments, including language varieties, dialects, signed languages and partial languages’ (Busch, 2012). This framework is based on the idea of plurilingualism, which indicates personal bi/multilingual language competences as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001). This theoretical framework is embedded in the concept of critical multiculturalism/interculturalism, as Antonsich (2016) argues that integration of immigrants is ‘the right to have one’s difference recognized and supported in both the public and private spheres’ which is central to equal citizenship and uniform membership of all members of society. Education systems are, however, slow in adapting to these changes and conceptual frameworks. Their reluctance is rooted in more systemic struggles to develop policies and curriculum guidelines based on equity and informed by the newest research advancements. In Ireland, there is still no provision for home languages for children who speak other languages than English. Multilingual children are often perceived from ‘deficit’ perspectives. Many studies report that there is very little awareness of ‘multiliteracy’ and pedagogies recognizing children’s linguistic potential except for Kirwan (2019) or very recent initiatives such as an organization called ‘Mother Tongues’.
This book not only documents how four multilingual children and their families navigate through these complex and often ‘pervasive’ monolingual and monocultural norms but it also illustrates fascinating ways in which they exercise their own agency, the choices they make and the plans they have for their future. These families, the children in particular, develop unique strategies to cope with the challenges of migration. I take a multilingual turn (Meier & Conteh, 2014; May, 2014), specifically I critique the monolingual norms that have become pervasive worldwide, including in Irish schools, and that have indirectly/implicitly influenced many of the strategies and practices of the families that took part in this study. Based on this, I see the participating families, their multilingual socialization and their practices and strategies as a driving force for change, in the form of an alternative structure for holistic reflection and potential transformation in Irish society. While the recent immigration of Poles to Ireland has inspired several studies, none has so far provided the kind of close up, intimate and detailed view of the experience of adolescent children and their parents that I have attempted in this book. I followed four Polish families, specifically teenagers as they expressed in their own words their feelings as they grappled with issues of conflicting identities and the accommodation of competing goals of language learning (English) and language maintenance (Polish). All the children participating in this research achieved B2+ language proficiency according to their schools and were not availing of any support programmes. The data collected provide a snapshot of their lives, illuminating the complexities of the process of growing up in a new place, a new country and a new society. This book contributes to our understanding of how older learners negotiate family internal and family external socialization processes and how parents’ ideologies and practices, peer socialization, language status and societal demands come together in adolescents’ lives. The book integrates the socio-historical context and adolescents’ attitudes with parents’ roles.
The rich data provided by the participants of this study were subjected to a rigorous analysis of interview transcripts and field notes collected over a period of one academic year per family, informed by current theories of language socialization (LS), discourse analysis, positioning and stance-taking, which will be discussed in the following sections of this chapter.
This book presents a thorough examination of the relationships of language, power and identity, exposing that, even for the youngest speakers, such associations are always indexed in talk and social behavior. There is still relatively little information on how older learners negotiate family internal and family external socialization processes or how parental ideologies and practices, peer socialization, language status and societal demands come together in adolescents’ lives, particularly among Slavic immigrants. A few studies in the European context are investigating the home–school community dynamics of minority LS. Thus, this study adds to studies conducted in the European context (Gafaranga, 2010; García-Sánchez, 2014; García-Sánchez & Nazimova, 2017; Said & Zhu, 2019; Van Mensel, 2016), specifically by investigating first and second language socialization both in the family and outside of the family contexts and by integrating the socio-historical context with adolescents’ identities and ways of belonging. Specifically, the current study can be positioned among European studies featuring youths’ transnational multilingual practices and identities, such as García-Sánchez’s (2014) analysis of everyday school interactions between Moroccan immigrant children and their Spanish peers; Corona et al.’s (2013) analysis of the way high school students of Latin American descent used hybrid registers to construct diasporic identities in Barcelona; Codó and Patiño-Santos’ (2013) study of the relationship between language, social categorization and ideologies of social class at a high school in Barcelona; and Karrebæk and Charalambous’s (2018) study in which she argued that older youth deploy their multilingual repertoires in progressively more playful and politically sophisticated ways to challenge authority or negotiate group membership.
As García-Sánchez and Nazimova (2017) point out, there is a certain need for such studies in the European context to facilitate understanding of the issues involved in good integrational practices of language minority children and parental involvement in schooling or heritage language maintenance in a broader socio-historical context of unequal power relations. These issues are discussed in the current study by addressing the following questions: what is the role of the external environment in LS? How do the socio-historical context, adolescents’ attitudes and parental involvement in contexts outside of the home come together in adolescents’ lives? What is the role of future projections and imaginings in shaping children’s multilingual competencies? Is the role of parental ideologies and practices less important for adolescent learners? What role do external contexts of heritage LS play for children’s ethnic identities and language maintenance? Indirectly, this research also contributes to how we view language learning and socialization as well as how we understand integration and intercultural competence in recent immigrants to Ireland. It is also an addition to Singleton et al.’s (2013) study of linguistic and cultural acquisition in a Polish migrant community in Ireland. As their study focused primarily on adult immigrants, the present study supplements this unique perspective by offering insights from the youngest group of Polish immigrants. It is hoped that by understanding their experience, we can plan for the advancement of multilingual education, multiculturalism and the integration of immigrant minorities in the European context with greater clarity.
Language Socialization Perspective
Taking an LS approach to the study of adolescent immigrant experiences across children’s communities of practice in these two educational–linguistic contexts allows us not only to unravel social processes and the relationships between human actions and social systems but also to trace connections between them through multiple scales of social organization, from the micro-family through the mezzo educational level to macro national curricula and policy levels. For a long time, the field of LS, along with sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, has sought to understand the complexities of the relationships between languages, individuals, contexts, communities and cultures. The process of ‘growing up’ in bilingual or multilingual settings has been of particular interest to many researchers. Perceiving ‘growing up’ as socialization to and through language over the entire lifespan of the individual is most often the approach taken, especially when the research concerns multilingual or bilingual contexts. As Auer and Wei (2007: 90) point out, ‘the reproductive and potentially the transformative process of growing up multilingual’ can no longer be studied from the perspective of linear language development because, as many studies show, the process is complex and illustrates dynamic developmental and socio-historical trajectories. Similarly, Garrett and Baquedano-López’s (2002: 355) suggest that LS is present ‘in language as a formal system, of social structures, and of cultural knowledge and practices’ and that it can be ‘central to – and in some cases a driving force in – dynamic processes of transformation and change’. Hanks (1996: 229) indicates that in order to communicate effectively, individuals need to share not only the same grammar but also and to a different degree, the ability to ‘orient themselves verbally, perceptually and physically’ to each other and their social worlds. From this perspective, LS can be defined as being concerned with how novices and children achieve this kind of ‘mutuality with others’ (Hanks, 1996: 229). When children are socialized to use language and to engage in particular communicative practices, they are also socialized into culturally preferred ways of dealing with them (see Fader, 2000a; Field, 2001; Garrett, 1999; Meek, 2001; Riley, 2001). Nevertheless, as numerous studies have shown, multilingual individuals, especially children, take positions in order ‘to renegotiate, challenge, or transcend the existing social categories that are constituted and indexed by the codes and communicative practices at their disposal’ (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002: 345). Thus, children and novices must be ‘regarded as agents with the potential to transform language as well as the cultural systems of meaning that it so thoroughly interpenetrates’ (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002: 346). As some cases demonstrate, LS practices can be centrally involved in shaping notions of ethnicity, cultural identity, morality and personhood (Baquedano-López, 2000; Fader, 2000b; He, 2002; Smith-Hefner, 1999) or illustrating social orientations as in the studies by García-Sánchez (2013) on exclusion; Cook’s (2011) ‘Language Socialization and Stance-Taking Practices’; Fader’s (2011) ‘Language Socialization and Morality’; Goodwin and Kyratzis (2012) on peer socialization; and Wright-Fogle (2012) on agency. There are important parallels between definitions of LS and the notion that monolingual – or multilingual – norms can be represented in domains of ‘socio-political, socio-historical ideologies, wider school, school practice, language itself, learning and teaching, as well as identity and self-concepts’ (He, 2010). By examining adolescents’ own local discourse contexts/communities – such as peer groups, family and the wider school community – this book investigates how, and to what extent, these processes operate in the case of immigrant children and their families in Ireland. It also examines how these adolescents develop their understanding of the historically and culturally rooted values and beliefs of both Irish and Polish communities. The following sections discuss the role of small stories, narratives and discourses in the socialization process. Also, the concept of agency and the researcher’s background are presented.
Role of Narratives and Discourses in Examining Identity
This study is an identity study with ‘narrative’ used as a tool for examining identity. Scholars such as De Fina and Georgakopoulou (2008, 2015) propose to reanalyze narrative as an interactive practice through which interlocutors elicit, explain, justify, tell and solve problems; establish cultural norms, ideologies and values; and negotiate their identities.
Moreover, Baynham and De Fina (2016) suggests, ‘affordances of narrative as a genre make it a privileged site for identity work’ and the repeatability of narrative offers the settlement of identity positions within habitus. The characteristic of involvement binds the interlocutor into the identity positions being constructed. While many narratives were constructed by co-participants (including the researcher), a significant number of small stories were spontaneous and were often initiated by the participants themselves. These small stories or threads from these stories were very important as they recurrently appeared in children’s conversations, whenever the chance to talk about them arose. They included events from the distant or more recent past or were concerned with retrospective accounts of different situations, generalizations, assessments of or justifications for particular behaviors or choices. Wiktoria, for example, kept returning to the theme of ‘liars’ each time she talked about her classmates. These narratives formed the basis for interview analysis. Some of the stories told concerned future projections and imaginings. Some small stories exposed socialization that had already occurred as opposed to occurring in day-to-day conversations. This, however, was not seen as an impediment. These retrospective accounts, often evaluative, were seen as central to the establishment of agency and categories of difference and value as in Goodwin and Kyratzis’s (2012) study of peer play where judgmental and negative labels indexed more local cultural values. Retrospective accounts of practices used for membership categorization were also very noticeable in small stories and are themselves acts of socialization.
Gee’s theory of D/discourse provides a very useful tool for examining discourse and social practice that emphasize the interconnection between language, language learning, social identity and social context. The term ‘discourse’ has been typically used to denote interactions and sequences of utterances between interlocutors. Gee (1989, 1996, 1999, 2007), however, proposes to make a distinction between ‘discourse’ and ‘Discourse’ – with a capital D. This distinction proposes recognition of the interconnectedness of social relations, contexts, social identities and particular instances of language use.
‘Discourses’ with a capital ‘D,’ that is, different ways in which we humans integrate language with non-language ‘stuff,’ such as different ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, believing, and using symbols, tools, and objects in the right places and at the right times to enact and recognize different identities and activities, give the material world certain meanings, distribute social goods in a certain way, make certain sorts of meaningful connections in our experience, and privilege certain symbol systems and ways of knowing over others. (Gee, 1999: 13)
In other words, language among other symbolic expressions of thinking, feeling and doing and props can be used to identify oneself as a member of a ‘socially meaningful group or network’ (Gee, 2007). This is how we signal what role we are playing within this group. Gee (2007: 113) highlights that here language and grammar are as important as ‘saying(writing)–doing–being–valuing–believing combinations’. In his works, Gee (1999, 2007) refers to extra linguistic factors combinations with a capital D in the word ‘discourse’ whereas considering ‘discourse’; lower case as part of the ‘Discourse’, which is always more than ‘just language’.
Interestingly, Gee (2007) makes a connection with Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of ‘hybridity’, suggesting that ‘what Discourse we are in is often a matter of negotiation, contestation, and “hybridity”’. Gee (2007) points out that Discourses are often mixtures of ‘several historically distinct’ Discourses. According to Gee (2007), Discourses can ‘capture’ people to speak throughout history (Fleck, 1979; Gee, 1992) or people can ‘capture’ Discourses to make strategic choices, maneuver or simply survive (Bauman & Briggs, 2003; Giddens, 1984). It is important to note that many factors limit these notions and contestations of discourse, including the historical and cultural setting, the economy, the joint histories of the groups or individuals, power relations and many more. It is theorized in the present book that the ‘agency’ that takes place, often happens within these spaces. In spite of limitations, adolescents can negotiate their positions, values and future projections.
In this manner, Discourses can be perceived as ‘identity kits’ or ‘forms of life’ (Gee, 2007). As people form numerous theories about their reality, ‘cultural models’ can distinguish what is common sense, what is typical, what is normal and what is not. Gee claims that certain cultural models prevailing within certain social groups are likely to affect our agency, basically providing some limitations or boundaries. It is not to suggest that these discourses are set in stone, the opposite is true. Discourses that constitute each person change as our life trajectories change. In some cases, certain Discourses can be in opposition with each other (Gee, 1989: 7) and cause tension between values, beliefs, attitudes, language choices and ways of being in the world. As this book shows, this issue becomes critical for adolescent immigrants and their families. Gee’s theory implies that ‘meaning’ in a language is situated. It is bound with people’s experiences and ‘perceptions relative to the Discourse they are presently using language within’. In this perspective, ‘words mean only as they are situated within a Discourse and they take on other meanings if they are situated differently within that Discourse or another Discourse’ (Davies & Harré, 1990: 346). ‘Discourse’ is therefore about ‘the creation and limitation of possibilities, they are systems of power/knowledge (pouvoir/savoir) within which we take up subject positions’ (Pennycook, 1994: 128). As Kramsch (2011) suggests, there is a link between ‘discourse, ideology, and identity’ particularly in language learning and teaching as has been shown by Young (2009: 1), who argues: ‘Discursive practice is the construction and reflection of social realities through actions that invoke identity, ideology, belief, and power’. If culture is being gradually seen as discourse and the production of meaning, ‘the development of intercultural competence is not only a question of tolerance towards or empathy with others, of understanding them in their cultural context, or of understanding oneself and the other in terms of one another’ (Kramsch, 2011: 3).
This book contributes to this discussion by integrating the complexity of a socio-historical context and discourses operating within these contexts with adolescents’ agency and parental roles. It attempts to unravel some of the discourses present in their lives through an exploration of children’s small stories or narratives in which children often relate to the particular people, situations or places. These small stories and narratives along with ethnographic observations provide snapshots of their lives. This book further problematizes the notion of interviews as inauthentic ways of gathering information because narratives and small stories can be unexpected, spontaneous and rich (see De Fina, 2016b). This study also acknowledges the importance of parental involvement in contexts outside the home in children’s negotiations of their ethnolinguistic identities. In this way, the present study makes a contribution to the area of multilingualism, pointing to the importance of family external opportunities for language maintenance (sometimes the only opportunity). It is, however, evident that it is not only parental ideologies or socio-historical contexts and their discourses that shape children’s competencies, but also the kind of future they plan for themselves and their families. Agency is thus key to their socialization practices.
Some scholars have critically viewed ‘socialization’ as over deterministic and goal-oriented toward adulthood (Rogoff, 2003; Zentella, 2005). As Duranti et al. (2012) note, the same criticism applies to the concept of ‘enculturation’. This view often depicts children as passive recipients of ‘socialization’ practices aimed at the transmission of local norms and culture. For example, Boas (2004: 144) claims that children naturally conform to ways of acting, thinking and speaking. However, what this conceptual framework implies is that cultural knowledge is ‘reproduced through imitation and internalization without modification’ (Duranti et al., 2012).
Similarly to this, scholars such as Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) believed that educators instill and inculcate knowledge and learners internalize implicit and explicit practices of a given habitus, gaining different types of cultural or social capital. It is, however, important to note that both Bourdieu and Passeron saw these pedagogic outcomes as oppressive – as ‘symbolic violence’. This is in strong opposition to Boas (2004) who sees cultural transmission as smooth and fruitful and not oppressive. Ochs and Schieffelin (2011) note that the term ‘socialization’ in ‘language socialization’ differs from these usages and draws inspiration from Sapir’s understanding of language and culture with language the driving force of socialization. He also argued for conceptual and behavioral independence of individual and culture in ‘Culture, Genuine and Spurious’ (Sapir, 1924: 114): ‘The major activities of the individual must directly satisfy his own creative and emotional impulses, must always be something more than means to an end’.
This leads to notions of agency and its importance for LS where ‘novices participation in communicative practice is promoted but not determined by culturally informed persons’ (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). Duff (2012: 413) notes, for example, that agency and identity are closely related in the contexts of second language (L2) learning – ‘learners are not simply passive or complicit participants in language learning and use, but can make informed choices, exert influence, resits […] or comply, although their social circumstances may constrain their choices’. LS studies document the social and communicative positionings of children and other novices in different activity settings and the affordances of such positionings for situational and cultural competence.
My interest in this project grew following my immigration to Ireland in 2004, just after Poland’s accession to the EU, making it possible for me to travel to Western Europe for the first time without any particular restrictions or special visa requirements. I am part of ‘generation zero’ that constitutes more than 60% of the Polish immigrant population in Ireland (Poliski Express, 2007). Wandachowicz describes those who comprised the baby boom in the late 1970s and the early to mid-1980s as ‘generation nothing’ or ‘generation zero’. This generation grew up in a changing political system and experienced tremendous changes to social order. I was educated in a communist country but ultimately entered adulthood in a capitalist world. In a sense, many say that this generation can be perceived as a cross-linking element of both systems, a kind of ‘comm-capitalist’ hybrid (Singleton et al., 2013).
I spent my childhood and younger years in the shadow of the Western world. Through little spaces in the Iron Curtain, this world presented itself to me as a world of prosperity and a place where even the boldest dreams could come true. Western records, colorful books, toys and tapes with English language stories were sent to us (myself and my brother) by an aunt (grandfather’s cousin) and later by my father who moved to New York for two years. At the time, this increased my fascination with Western culture – in my eyes synonymous with the English language. I pursued a career as a teacher of English but always dreamt about experiencing this culture more personally. Therefore, when it finally became possible, I decided to travel abroad and thus became part of the 2004 immigration wave. Ireland seemed a great choice at the time and soon after arrival, I was employed as a part-time literacy and language community education tutor with the local Vocational Education Committee. My main duties involved delivering not only English as a second language (ESL) classes but also classes where the emphasis was on improving students’ self-advocacy skills, sociological or intercultural knowledge and general oral language literacy skills. I also taught personal development courses to immigrant parents, students with mental disabilities and students from disadvantaged social backgrounds including juvenile offenders, young people from the Travelling Community (an officially recognized ethnic minority in Ireland) and refugees from all over the world. Many of the adult learners I taught during these years came from Slavic countries such as Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. It is believed that these immigrants integrate well within Irish society because their ‘Whiteness’ makes them ‘invisible immigrants’, where linguistic features and not race distinguish them from the rest of society.
For many years, I worked with individuals who had experienced learning difficulties or who had come to Ireland with very little or no English language skills. Most of these individuals came from socially disadvantaged backgrounds and some lacked basic literacy skills in their L1 and L2. They often felt culturally distant and alienated from their new society. Some of them had spent many years in Direct Provision (a number of years in a refugee camp). Many brought traumatic experiences with them to their new country, creating enormous educational challenges for most of them.
Most of the parents I met during that time wanted to be part of their children’s education but felt lost in a new system, or were confused about home language maintenance, often receiving contradictory messages from their schools, friends and extended family members. I started noticing power relations operating in society that were having a profound impact on individual people’s trajectories, especially those at the bottom of the social hierarchy. I started asking numerous questions related to culture, cultural hegemony more precisely, and the role of language and education in the process of becoming a member of a given society. This was the first time I had questioned my own identity and my own role as an educator.
It was a breakthrough moment in my professional and personal development because I then decided to resume my education and undertake a research project within the migrant community, with the most vulnerable people, the immigrant children. I wished to hear the voices of those who were not heard or were underrepresented within societal power relations. I embarked on a longitudinal investigation in Trinity College Dublin (a PhD study) on the multilingual and multicultural experiences of immigrants in Ireland. It felt natural to start with my migrant community, with the children going through the transition from childhood to teenagerhood as, in my opinion, they were among the most vulnerable. Whereas some LS researchers such as Baquedano‐López (2011) are now researching in their communities, there remains a need for more LS studies to be undertaken in researchers’ communities. Researching a community from an insider perspective offers numerous benefits, in particular it allows one to study an issue in-depth and with special knowledge about the issue. The unique position of an insider offers access to people and information that can be difficult for an outsider to obtain. As in Fader’s study, her in-depth knowledge of the Hasidic Jewish communities in Brooklyn allowed her to unravel very complex issues of the socialization of morality.
I have two main goals in this book. The first is to examine the social and cultural worlds of Polish immigrant adolescents in Ireland, the way they seek membership and belonging to their communities of practice, the ways in which they develop socio-historical understandings across the languages and cultures of which they are part. The second goal is to shed light on schooling and family communities and the role they play in the socialization processes for these immigrant children and how this is set within a wider societal context. Four adolescents and their families took part in this study and are referred to as Kasia’s, Wiktoria’s, Janke’s and Marcin’s family. Janek and Wiktoria were attending Polish weekend schools at the time of data collection in addition to English medium schools. This situation provided a unique opportunity to observe and examine the role that a heritage education context played in their lives. Marcin and Kasia did not attend Polish weekend school so their socialization trajectory differed in many ways. The book is organized around three main themes: developing belonging and membership within communities of practice (Chapter 3), negotiation of socio-historical competences through languages and exercising agency (Chapter 4) and parental language ideologies and socializing practices (Chapter 5).
Chapter 3 discusses the ways in which the four children obtain access to and membership of different social circles and communities of practice. The children employ specific strategies when negotiating their own understandings of selves with respect to others, often either differentiating themselves from certain groups or trying to display allegiances and loyalty to a group. By reflecting on these examples, including the educational settings, I illustrate and describe different approaches that the children take during these negotiations. The first part illustrates how the children seek membership and participation in certain communities of practice or how they reject participation or are rejected by it. In the second part, I show how accent and specific language choices play an important role in the process.
Chapter 4 conceives that ‘language socialization’ is embedded in the notion that immigrants are socialized into using languages (L2 and L1), not only by acquiring their languages in the local D/discourse contexts, but also by developing their own agency, understanding the historically and culturally rooted values and beliefs of the host society while trying to maintain the values and beliefs developed within their previous cultural communities. This often results in transformation and change but can also be a source of personal conflict. This chapter shows the various ways in which the four children develop their own understandings of L1 and L2 cultural and socio-historical norms and values. The first part of the chapter illustrates the children’s language practices in addressing others and the second part discusses the ways in which the children construct an understanding of sociocultural norms and traditions across two cultures and two languages. It also exposes allegiances and affective aspects of these negotiations.
Chapter 5 illustrates parental attitudes and ideologies with respect to the languages their children speak in Ireland, namely, Polish, English. Particular attention is paid to parental/family practices together with heritage language and culture maintenance strategies. The status of Irish and English is discussed within a greater societal context, highlighting dominant and ecological perspectives on language and culture.
Additionally, in Chapters 3 and 4, special attention is given to issues of emotions and the socialization of morality as they were salient for two families. Background information about the Polish migrants in Ireland and key issues in socialization are provided in Chapter 1 and more specific information about the participants and the contexts in which the present research is rooted are discussed in Chapter 2. This chapter also describes the methods and research tools used. Final thoughts and concluding remarks are presented in Chapter 6.
