Читать книгу Bilingual Couples in Conversation - Silja Ang-Tschachtli - Страница 27

Living in a bilingual relationship often means that the community languagecommunity language is a non-native language for one of the partners, which can be problematic if he or she is not proficient in this language. As Pavlenko remarks, learning or using a second languagesecond language may lead to “feelings of anxiety, shame and embarrassment” if a bilingual’s competenceproficiencylow in the community language is not as high as desired (by the speaker or his/her environment) (2005: 32). If their level of competence is low, L2 speakers may also not be able to position themselves as mature, competent adults, or may be infantilized (2005: 218). All this is potentially applicable to the English-speaking partners in my study, most of whom were thrown into a new and complex linguistic environmentenvironmentdifferent without any previous knowledge of the language. Their situation is aggravated by the fact that Swiss German is not easy to learn due to its many varieties and the diglossic situation in Switzerland. Since many Swiss would rather speak English than Standard German to a foreigner (Watts 1999: 75), learning the language can be difficult and frustrating. This was confirmed by many participants in Gonçalves’ study, who expressed frustration with their L2 language skills and the language situation in Switzerland, at least initially (2013: 151). Moreover, since many people in Switzerland view their dialect as central to “being Swiss”, being able to speak the local varietydialectideology of is crucial to the Anglophone partner’s integration (see section 2.3, “Diglossia and the ideology of dialect”).

Being in a bilingual relationship usually means that at least one of the partners has to speak a language that is not his or her mother tongue, which may be a challenge for both partners as well as for their relationship. For one, the L2 speaker might be in a weaker position in discussions and arguments, and thus have less control within the relationship. As Piller puts it, “[i]n the linguistic construction of reality, power may also accrue to a person through being an undisputed expert manipulator of a code, a native speaker” (2002a: 142). This is particularly the case if the non-native partner is not proficient in the relationship language. In addition, not speaking one’s mother tongue in one’s family environment may also be perceived as a loss of cultural identityidentityloss of. Breger and Hill argue that the language in which the partners in a bilingual relationship decide to communicate “can be symbolic of the extent to which each partner is prepared to forego her or his cultural background and incorporate new elements” (1998: 21). This can pose a problem if the relationship language is the community language, so that one partner does not speak his or her mother tongue anywhere. As Piller remarks, “[i]n intercultural relationships the partner in whose native country the couple live is clearly privileged: legally, economically, and usually socially, too. […] Being a foreigner and having to use a non-native code places a person in a doubly marginalizedmarginalization position” (2000: section 4.3, para. 1).

In the case of the couples whom I interviewed, the situation is mitigated by their choice of couple language and the non-native partners’ proficiencyproficiencyhigh in this language. Since the Swiss partners are fluent in the relationship language, the native speaker might only have a slight advantage (or even none at all) in discussions or negotiations. Furthermore, potential issues are balanced out to some extent by the fact that their (main) relationship language is not the community language. This means that while one partner has the (possible) advantage of being able to use his or her mother tongue at home, the other one is able to use his or hers outside of the home. However, it should also be noted that choosing a language other than the community language as the main relationship language can be a disadvantage in the long run for the immigrant partner, since insufficient proficiency in the community language can limit access to employment (Piller and Pavlenko 2007: 18). Thus, while the speaker of the non-communitynon-community language language may benefit from using his or her native tongue within the relationship, this might prevent him or her from becoming fluent in the community language, and thus perpetuate his or her situation in the community as a linguistic outsider (see also section 5.2.2, “Community language”).