SYDNEY a Multilingual City in a Multilingual World

1 SYDNEY A multilingual city in a multilingual world

Alice Chik, Lid King and Robyn Moloney

According to the 2016 census, a language other than English is spoken in at least 38.2 per cent of households in Greater Sydney. This figure places Sydney as the most multilingual Australian city, outranking Melbourne at 34.9 per cent (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017). Surprisingly, the Sydney figure is considerably higher than the reported figure of 22.1 per cent in London from the most recent census survey in 2011 (Office for National Statistics 2013). Considering that there is no official language policy in Australia and English is only a de facto national language, language diversity is frequently framedinthemediaastheindicatorofmigra- tion trends. This edited volume started from conversations with various people on multilingualism and new urban diversities at a one-day symposium held at Macquarie University, Sydney, in November 2016. While the conversations continued and expanded with additional researchers and community leaders joining in, this volume gave us the perfect opportunity to examine the different facets of multilingualism in Sydney. However, we would like to first anchor Sydney among other multilingual cities around the world and argue that language diversity is one inevitable facetofnewurbanrealities.Todothis,we will take a short detour to visit a European project, Languages in Urban Communities: Integration and Diversity for Europe (LUCIDE) coordinated by and documented in The Multilingual City (King and Carson 2016).

Urbanism and a research deficit – a LUCIDE response The LUCIDE project began from a premise that multilingual cities are significant indicators of future possibilities –‘amicrocosmofwhatistobe,and... a powerful generator of ideas, both for understanding what is, and for driving what is possible in the future’ (King and Carson 2016: 179). It was our belief that cities are a working model of the future, places where new policy discourse 4 Alice Chik et al. can be created and where the constraints of national policies and the limitations of national discourse can be modified or overcome. Not only is multilingualism a vital element in the modern urban space, multilingual cities also provide the arena where new realities can be created, not least through the links that exist between cities. LUCIDE brought together 14 partners from 13 cities in Europe and two from Canada and Australia1 to set out to answer a number of key questions about the realities of the multilingual city. We wanted to understand more about the ways in which languages are encountered, used and learned in city life, and to this end we decided to investigate five (inevitably overlapping) spheres in which multilingualism plays an important role: education, the public sphere, economic life, the private lives of citizens, and urban spaces or the ‘cityscape’ (King and Carson 2016). The city has long been a topic of academic, policy and development discourse and in recent years there has also been significant interest in the potential of the city to resolve social and economic problems – the city as a model of the future (see, for example, Barber 2013; Glaeser 2011). We also found that there had been a persistent underestimation of the importance of linguistic diversity as a catalyst for such creativity and change (Duarte and Gogolin 2013; Piller 2016). What research there has been has tended to be in the domain of the sociolinguist, investigating ‘the multiple, everyday social practices that are necessary to the mundane negotiation of being in the city’ (Mac-Giolla Chriost 2007: 202–203) or the observation and description of urban linguistic landscapes (Blommaert 2013; Shohamy, Ben-Rafael and Barni 2010; Smakman and Heinrich 2018). Research on urbanism, urban politics and urban planning by sociologists, geographers and political scientists has tended, however, to overlook multilingualism, which is considered under the headings of migration and cultural or ethnic diversity, usually rather cursorily and often as a problem to be addressed (Cochrane 2006; Gottdiener and Budd 2005; Piller 2016). While state and institutional responses to the ethnic and cultural mix of cities are discussed extensively, the linguistic mix of cities is rarely mentioned. The Encyclopedia of Urban Studies (Hutchinson 2010), for example, has no entries for ‘multilingualism’ or ‘language’, and its article on ‘ethnic enclaves’ discusses the formation of transnational and diasporic neighbourhoods in global cities without referring to the crucial role that language plays in their development. The LUCIDE network sought to rectify this lack of attention in a modest way by examining the realities of multilingualism in 18 cities. The research activities occurred in two stages: a phase of secondary data review, followed by primary data collection. The first phase involved meta-surveys of recent secondary data on multilingualism in the network’s cities: as well as academic or policy documents on multilingualism, research teams collected practical examples of multilingual practices. These varied in each sphere, but included artefacts (printed/visual/ digital) which illustrated the multilingual reality of the city, such as websites, advertising campaigns, public or private documents (biographies, diaries, official A multilingual city in a multilingual world 5 correspondence). The secondary research phase yielded a considerable quantity of data which allowed the consortium to generate hypotheses regarding language visibility (which also includes audibility), affordances and challenges. In the second phase of data collection, LUCIDE’s research teams identified a sample of stakeholders from the five key spheres of city life, and interviewed them about the reality of multi/plurilingualism in their city. A series of semi-structured interviews was conducted on the visibility of different languages, about the challenges involved in creating and managing multilingualism in an urban context and about some of the difficulties posed for individual city-dwellers (King et al. 2010; LUCIDE 2015).

What are the common threads? One central question to be answered was whether there were any general themes which might indicate the future for multilingual cities. Or does every city tell a diﬀerent tale? Despite the homogenisation of globalisation, it would appear that diversity is indeed one striking characteristic of our urban world. The idea of ‘unity in diversity’ has been a central theme of European Union policy, certainly until very recent times. The Maalouf Report (2008) suggested that

a common sense of belonging based on linguistic and cultural diversity is a powerful antidote against the various types of fanaticism towards which all too often the assertion of identity has slipped in Europe and elsewhere, in previous years as today. (p. 5)

This may provide the most helpful framework for understanding our common binding threads, and for suggesting some overall conclusions, even if they often lead to further questions. Six broad conclusions were drawn from The LUCIDE project (King 2016), and they could serve as a basis for a new discussion for multilingualism of Sydney:

1. Urban diversity is itself diverse. The model is not one of ‘the multilingual city’, but of a more complex typology of cities. There are some shared characteristics, but essentially these cities are distinctive and rooted in particular landscapes. Our multilingual cities ranged from ‘hyper diverse’ cities built on immigration to cities seeking a place in the global sun, and those which had traditionally been places of emigration now confronted by the mass mobility of the 21st century. Inevitably their political and social priorities varied signiﬁcantly, as too did the impact on language policy and planning in the provision of public services or priorities in languages education, and on issues of national and local identity. 6 Alice Chik et al.

2. Multilingualism has different meanings. The multilingual city (or town or institution) may simply be taken to mean a place where many languages are spoken. This can, however, be misleading. Even in the major hyper diverse cities this celebrated ‘multilingualism’ often means multiple separate bilingual (or even monolingual) communities. ‘Multilingual vitality’ of a city thus would be indicated rather by the extent to which linguistic communities interact, the degree of public acceptance of linguistic diversity and, more importantly, the ways in which ‘multilingual capital’ is part of the political, economic and educational infrastructure. 3. Some kinds of multilingualism are more visible than others. The LUCIDE research revealed a clear distinction in many people’s perceptions between ‘valued’ and ‘non-valued’ languages. The relatively invisible – non-valued – languages tend to be the languages of relatively recent migrants, which are seen as ‘different’ from the super central languages of communication, such as English, French, German or Chinese. In some of our cities, ‘multilingualism’ tends to be interpreted as knowledge of the national language plus English. 4. People interpret multilingual realities in different ways. Just as the realities of multilingual cities are diverse, so too are the multilingual images of the cities varied. For many city authorities, an image as ‘multilingual’ is seen as highly desirable. They market themselves as ‘multilingual hotspots’, ‘open cities’,or‘places that can do business with the world’. If this is the kind of positive image that the city authorities wish to promote, it also seems that individual inhabitants have a less settled view. For some, these are indeed the vibrant, cosmopolitan, creative places where they want to live. For others, it is a more uncomfortable environment where the very speed of change has also been unsettling rather than inspirational. 5. The ideals and practices of multilingualism are under threat. The economic crisis is encouraging more extreme forms of nationalism and insularity and attacks on the very idea of positive multilingualism, or, in broader terms, multiculturalism (Maalouf 2008). Such attacks are no longer confined to overtly xenophobic parties and groups. In recent years politicians of all colours have joined a chorus of concern about the consequences of globalisation and a reaffirmation of the need to strengthen national identities. Such statements, along with the more strident comments of nationalist politicians, constitute the dog whistles which encourage intolerance, focused in particular on ever more explicit opposition to immigrants, asylum seekers and minorities more generally. Many of the accepted liberal consensual views about the value of diversity and the role of the state, particularly in promoting inclusive education, are being called into question. The emphasis at a political level now is on assimilation rather than on unity in diversity. 6. Policy and politics can be changed from below. Despite the negative political discourse there is an inescapable logic to reality from the city level. National policy may exclude (by means of quotas, restrictions, walls, for example), or may favour assimilation over community cohesion (for instance, through A multilingual city in a multilingual world 7

language priorities in education, or through restricting public access to non- majority languages). However, local authorities and local and community institutions are more concerned that their communities are functioning. This means that they are less concerned with ideological positioning than with solving actual everyday problems for real people. One consequence of this is that local authorities are more orientated towards inclusion and integration than the dominant political rhetoric would suggest. Cities are also places where community action and interventions by voluntary groups can have a major impact; for example, in the provision of bilingual education. Gener- ally, we have seen that although there can be city-wide coordination or at least endorsement of such endeavours, more often there is no such explicit policy but a more pragmatic ‘getting by’ in response to local needs and aspirations, which has a sometimes imperceptible but permanent eﬀect on political discourse and on the attitudes and expectations of the inhabitants of the city.

Some reflections on the future of our cities A great deal has happened since 2014 that has underlined the relevance of the LUCIDE project – the migration crisis in the Middle East and Africa and its impact on Europe; the growth of anti-globalization, anti-immigrant and nationalist movements in many countries, not least in Europe and the USA; and the continuation of the economic crisis and its effects. This has cast what was a modest piece of research and political analysis into even sharper relief. The challenge for the future is not whether globalization will continue to affect our city dwellers, but how. Will we and they move in the direction of assimilation or of cooperation and mutual learning? Of conformity to an imagined past ideal or of embracing the more demanding delights of diversity? A cosmopolis is multicultural and multilingual, and the diversity drives progress: a city of solutions and invention, of cultural richness, economic growth and communication with the world. It looks outwards to other cultures and cities. It is above all a powerful, democratic and progressive force, respectful of the views and aspirations of its diverse populations and building a genuine unity in diversity. On the other hand, there are global and national factors inimical to such a future. The present global economic crisis is giving rise to social and political tensions in which many people take refuge in an imagined, and illusory, ancient past of national uniformity while rejecting the ‘other’. The growth of xenophobic, nationalist and anti-immigration politics and ideologies since the late 2000s, in particular, has become a major block to cosmopolitan progress. Future uncertainty and limited resources pose long-term challenges to the rational organization of diversity, which inevitably undermine our multilingualism. When ‘difficult choices’ have to be made, it is easier to justify the lack of planning and resources for universally accessible social and civic services, to reduce educational and interpreting provision for immigrant 8 Alice Chik et al. adults and to cut back on the all-important school educational opportunities. However, we remain positive and optimistic. The factors which underpin these major changes in the ways we live and the operation of our cities – new kinds of work, mass mobility and electronic communications – are part of the current of history.

Sydney: a multilingual city in a multilingual world It is with such optimism that we examine the degree, context and operation of multilingualism in Sydney. A multilingual city is shaped by the particular history and circumstances of the country in which it has developed. Thus, to provide contextual background to the studies which follow, we sketch the linguistic profile of Australia. Australia has always been multilingual, as a country with over 250 Aboriginal languages, before British settlement. Aboriginal people have long been multilingual, commonly knowing, in addition to their own language, the languages of the adjoining countries. In the first hundred years of the British colony, whilst all the civic and administrative work of the colony was conducted in English, many early settler groups included Italian and German language communities, amongst others. These groups developed schools and newspapers. Community Languages Australia, an umbrella body supporting the proliferation of community language teaching, traces the development of ethnic schools from 1857. The notion that monolingualism was necessary to support national unity and common purpose grew with Federation in 1901 and was exacerbated during World War I (Crozet 2008). Migration to Australia has been a focus of demographic studies since the end of World War II, as people relocated in the 1940s and 1950s predominantly from war-ravaged Europe. Since that time, other sites of conflict have created waves of migration and refugee resettlement in Australia (Welch 2010). Australian Multicultural Policy was designed by the Whitlam Government (1972–1975) to support social cohesion, encourage the acceptance and celebration of cultural difference, and to redress the racist immigration policies and assimilationist attitudes of previous decades. This movement brought about positive change, and public celebration of diversity in ‘visible culture’ (such as food, festivals and folk dancing) in Australian society. Importantly, it also supported both the provision of English teaching for migrants, and the growth of community language maintenance. Today, in the community, contradictions abound. The two ‘ethnic-minority’ radio stations established in 1975 expanded to Special Broadcasting Services (SBS) full-time television broadcasting in 1980. Today, SBS On Demand service boasts a huge audience and screens a variety of programs and movies, 70 per cent of which are in languages other than English. According to Wikipedia, there are about 44 community language newspapers currently in print in New South Wales (Wikipedia 2017). In Sydney, every weekend more than 30,000 students are learning one of 57 languages in Community Languages Schools, and this A multilingual city in a multilingual world 9 movement continues to expand (see Chapter 11 by Cruickshank). Meanwhile, the teaching of languages within the secondary school curriculum continues to shrink, with only 7.6 per cent of students in New South Wales studying a foreign language for their Higher School Certificate (public matriculation examination). With the exception of volumes such as this, however, there is little public discourse about multilingualism. Linguistic diversity is only mentioned in the public media during the release of national census data every five years. Attitudes towards linguistic diversity remain ambivalent, and Australia’s recognised monolingual mindset in leaders in many sectors of Australian society may continue to be an ‘impediment to the development of plurilingual potential’ (Clyne 2008: 347). However, there is a general public consensus and government acknowledgement that cultural and language diversity is a current fact and also a future certainty. The four sections in this edited volume attempt to open the discussion on challenges we identified earlier that a multilingual city faces. Part I, ‘A multilingual city in a multilingual world’, establishes the extent of multilingualism in Sydney. Benson and Hatoss (Chapter 2) use the 2016 Australian census data set to give an overall picture of linguistic diversity, and the key issues related to the presence and maintenance of this diversity. One issue of disparity identified by Benson and Hatoss is the gap between policy discourses and everyday discourses about the value of multilingualism. This issue is further taken up by Chik, Forrest and Siciliano (Chapter 3) in examining language diversity at home and in public. The census data only show linguistic diversity at home, a limitation on possible census sampling technique, but this diversity is not necessarily reflected in online public space. Otsuji and Pennycook (Chapter 4) take up the challenge of exploring everyday multilingual interaction. They argue that it is only through looking at the boundary objects and semiotic assemblages that we will have a better understanding of the spatial repertoires of multilingualism in Sydney. While Part I discusses multilingual repertoires, representations and potentials, Part II, ‘Policy, ideologies and practice’, opens up the discussion on frontline implementation and realities. Rascon (Chapter 5) argues that some everyday disadvantages faced by culturally and linguistically diverse groups are structural and recurrent, but government policies could be used to promote social justice. One such disadvantage is facing negative language attitudes of the general public. Hatoss (Chapter 6) investigated young university students’ attitude towards languages to explore the pervasiveness of Australian monolingual ideologies, and propose possible ways forward. In Chapter 7, the discussion on learning Korean through a passion for K-pop may be the much-needed positive step forward. Keith shows popular culture artefacts provide access points for learners from non- Korean-heritage backgrounds to engage with East Asian language and culture. Among the CALD communities, another pressing issue is access to health services. Roger (Chapter 8) suggests that speech pathology professionals have to adapt their practices, and he provides models of bilingual practice that could fully utilize the language repertories of the professionals. 10 Alice Chik et al.

In a multilingual city, learning languages can be controversial in various domains (Part III, ‘Learning languages’). For migrants and international students, learning English is assumed to be essential for mobility. Yates and Zielinski (Chapter 9) open the section with issues relevant to migrants learning English from an ecological perspective. They found that migrants’ interaction and experiences in the city became opportunities for learning. Turning her attention to life plans among Korean international students in Sydney, Cho (Chapter 10) suggests that these students have to negotiate between their idealistic dreaming and realistic encounters of English to make sense of English learning. Such negotiation is also found among community language learners in Cruickshank’s work (Chapter 11). His ﬁndings with community language learners and families show that translanguaging practices, travel and family technology use are changing community language learning and teaching in Sydney. Moloney (Chapter 12) further argues that by recognizing multilingual teachers’ identities and language capability as teaching and learning resources, new multilingual communities of practices can be formed in school to support multilingual students. In a similar vein, Gorﬁnkel and Gong (Chapter 13) show that this recognition of learners’ multilingual capabilities should be adopted at tertiary level by allowing and encouraging learners to use non-English discipline-relevant resources to support a linguistically inclusive approach to learning. Language learning happens in educational and community contexts (Part IV, ‘Languages and communities’). In this last part, we turn our attention to impacts of language loss and learning in the communities. Steele (Chapter 14) discusses Aboriginal languages rediscovery programs in Sydney by tracing the loss and rediscovery in the last two hundred years. Language shift and maintenance is also an issue for various CALD communities. Rubino (Chapter 15) shows that Italian is being used as a linguistic resource to signal communicative and symbolic meanings to and beyond Australians of Italian heritage. Crittenden and Murray (Chapter 16) indicate that language maintenance among young Australians of Arabic language background could be a personal choice. But Lising (Chapter 17) suggests that the historical mobility of the people, in this case, speakers of the Philippine languages in Sydney, also seems to impact how these languages are maintained or lost. Murray (Chapter 18) made the observation that mobility could have unexpected results when Australian-born speakers of Greek found their spoken Greek deviated from the standard Greek used in Greece. Finally, Heugh and Benson (Chapter 19) conclude the volume by discussing the range of perspectives and approaches represented and pointing to directions for future research.

Conclusion As aforementioned, this edited volume originated from a series of expanded conversations during a one-day symposium at Macquarie University in 2016. We hope this volume would extend a much-needed conversation on multilingualism to A multilingual city in a multilingual world 11 more researchers, community leaders and policy makers in and beyond Sydney. We also hope this volume will entice our readers to revisit multilingualism research in Sydney with fresh eyes.

Acknowledgement The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the LUCIDE project and King (2016) to the thinking and development of the current chapter.

Note 1 Athens, Dublin, Hamburg, Limassol, London, Madrid, Melbourne, Osijek, Oslo, Ottawa, Rome, Soﬁa, Strasbourg, Utrecht, and Varna.

References Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017) 2016 Census Quickstats. Online. Available at: www.abs. gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/2016%20QuickStats (accessed 22 November 2017). Barber, B. (2013) If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities, New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Blommaert, J. (2013) Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Com- plexity, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Clyne, M. (2008) ‘The monolingual mindset as an impediment to the development of plurilingual potential in Australia’, Sociolinguistic Studies, 2: 347–366. Cochrane, A. (2006) Understanding Urban Policy: A Critical Approach, Oxford: Blackwell. Crozet, C. (2008) ‘Australia’s linguistic culture and its impact on languages education’, Babel, 42: 19–22. Duarte, J. and Gogolin, I. (eds.) (2013) Linguistic Superdiversity in Urban Areas: Research Approaches, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Glaeser, E. (2011) Triumph of the City, London: MacMillan. Gottdiener, M. and Budd, L. (2005) Key Concepts in Urban Studies, London: Sage. Hutchinson, R. (2010) Encyclopedia of Urban Studies, London: Sage. King, L. (2016) ‘Multilingual cities and the future: Vitality or decline?’, in L. King and L. Carson (eds.), The Multilingual City: Vitality, Conflict and Change, Bristol, UK: Multi- lingual Matters. King, L., Byrne, N., Djouadj, I., Lo Bianco, J. and Stoicheva, M. (2010) Languages in Europe Towards 2020, London: The Languages Company. Online. Available at www.languages company.com/wp-content/uploads/letpp_languages_in_europe-1.pdf (accessed 19 December 2017). King, L. and Carson, L. (eds.) (2016) The Multilingual City: Vitality, Conflict and Change, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. LUCIDE (2015) City Reports. Online. Available at: www.urbanlanguages.eu/cityreports (accessed 15 December 2017). Maalouf, A. (2008) A Rewarding Challenge: How the Multiplicity of Languages Could Strengthen Europe. Proposals from the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue, Brussels: European Commission. Online. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/ rewarding-challenge-report_en.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018). 12 Alice Chik et al.

Mac-Giolla Chriost, D. (2007) Language and the City, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Oﬃce for National Statistics (2013) Language in England and Wales: 2011. Online. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/language/arti cles/languageinenglandandwales/2013-03-04 (accessed 12 January 2018). Piller, I. (2016) Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shohamy, E., Ben-Rafael, E. and Barni, M. (eds.) (2010) Linguistic Landscape in the City, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Smakman, P. and Heinrich, D. (2018) Urban Sociolinguistics: The City as a Linguistic Process and Experience, London: Routledge. Welch, A. (2010) ‘Cultural diﬀerence and diversity’, in R. Connell, C. Campbell, M. Vickers, A. Welch, D. Foley, N. Bagnall, and D. Hayes (eds.) Education, Change and Society, 2nd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Wikipedia. (2017) List of Non-English-Language Newspapers in New South Wales. Online. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-English-language_newspaper s_in_New_South_Wales (accessed 12 January 2018). 2 MULTILINGUAL SYDNEY A city report

Phil Benson and Anikó Hatoss

Multilingualism in the history of Sydney Sydney is Australia’s largest city, with a resident population of 4.82 million (19 per cent of the national population; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017). The demographics of multilingualism in the city have been shaped by migrations that go back to the occupation of Aboriginal lands around Sydney Harbour and the Parramatta River in 1788. At that time, the land on which Sydney is now located was home to Aboriginal clans, who probably spoke several closely related languages, although knowledge of these languages and their distribution was largely lost with the decimation of the Aboriginal population in the early years of colonization (see Steele in this volume). Subsequent migrations took place under British colonial rule in the 19th century and an Anglo-Celtic dominant political system after 1901. In consequence, Australian multilingualism developed under the dominance of English. The tendency in language maintenance and shift has, thus, been for English-speaking migrants and their descendants to retain their language (albeit in the form of recognizably Australian varieties), while non- English-speaking migrants have tended to lose their languages progressively through the first, second and subsequent generations (Clyne 2003; Forrest and Benson in press). The languages that remain, which are largely transmitted outside the formal education system, are often called ‘community languages’ (Clyne 1991). Non-English-speaking communities that played significant roles in the early development of Sydney include Aboriginal populations who survived or migrated from nearby areas and Chinese, Lebanese Christian, Greek and Italian market gardeners and produce traders (Jupp 2008). However, the implementation of a ‘White Australia’ policy in the first half of the 20th century and trade union opposition to employment of overseas labour in the Australian shipping industry 14 Phil Benson and Anikó Hatoss meant that Sydney was far less multicultural than port cities elsewhere in the world. During the turmoil following the end of World War II, migration of non- English-speaking Europeans increased dramatically with the arrival, first, of refugees from Eastern Europe and, later, of free immigrants from Italy, Greece and Malta. The relaxation of the White Australia policy in the 1970s led to the arrival of migrants from the Middle East and Southeast Asia, first as refugees from war-torn areas, and later as free migrants from China, Hong Kong, Korea, the Philippines, India and Sri Lanka. Post-war European migration had a greater impact on the demographics of Australia’s second most populous city, Melbourne (population 4.48 million), than it did on Sydney, whereas later non-European migrations have had a greater impact on Sydney. As a result, the two cities have culturally and linguistically diverse populations, but somewhat different profiles of diversity (Clyne, Hajek and Kipp 2008; Lo Bianco 2015). Based in Melbourne, the late Michael Clyne’s research programme generated a considerable number of studies on multilingualism in Australia based on data from the five-yearly Australian Census (see, e.g., Clyne 2003; Clyne, Hajek and Kipp 2008). However, relatively little has been published on the 2006 and 2011 censuses, or on multilingualism in Sydney (Forrest and Benson in press; Forrest and Dandy 2018). Data from the 2016 Australian census, released in late 2017, therefore, create an opportunity to take stock of current patterns of language use in the city. Census statistics are apt to oversimplify the richness and complexity of relationships between language and the multilingual city (Clyne 2003; Pauwels 2016; Rubino 2010). Data on the use of community languages comes from a question that asks whether respondents use ‘English only’ or ‘a language other than English’ (LOTE) in the home. The data from this question undoubtedly underestimate the use of community languages: the question allows respondents to specify only one language and disregards language use outside the domain of the home. Nevertheless, they can be used to contextualize in-depth qualitative studies. More importantly, they are a main source of data on language maintenance and shift, they allow exploration of relationships between community language use and social and biographical variables, and support fine-grained analysis of patterns of multilingualism at suburban and neighbourhood levels. Table 2.1 shows that the populations of Australia’s two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, have much higher proportions of first-generation (born overseas) and second-generation (one or both parents born overseas) migrants than the nation as a whole. The proportions are slightly higher in Sydney than they are in Melbourne. The concentration of first- and second-generation migrants in Sydney and Melbourne is also reflected in the statistics for community languages use. The figures for Sydney (35.8 per cent) and Melbourne (32.3 per cent) are considerably higher than those for the other five state and territory capitals. A little over 65 per cent of community language speakers live in Sydney and Melbourne, compared to only 7 per cent in regional Australia outside the capital cities. The proportion of community language speakers in Sydney rose from 32.4 per cent in 2011 to 35.8 per cent in 2016, a net increase of 21.4 per cent A city report 15

TABLE 2.1 Place of birth, parents’ place of birth and the use of languages other than English in Greater Sydney, Greater Melbourne and Australia

Sydney (%) Melbourne (%) Australia (%)

Born overseas 36.7 33.9 26.0 Father or mother born overseas 60.4 57.2 44.5 Uses a language other than English 35.8 32.3 20.8 (LOTE) at home

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017

(304,380 people) compared to an increase of 3.1 per cent (84,366) for speakers of English-only (.id 2017). An initial data release for the 2016 census showed that, among the 250 or more spoken languages recorded in Sydney, 44 had more than 5,000 speakers in Sydney. Among the ten most frequently spoken languages, seven are used by migrant populations from Asia and the Middle East; Greek and Italian represent the languages of post-war European migrant groups; the position of Spanish reflects recent migration from South America, rather than Spain (Table 2.2). Table 2.2 also gives an indication of the different profiles of multilingualism in Sydney and Melbourne. The higher rankings of Arabic, Cantonese and Korean speakers in Sydney and of Greek and Italian speakers in Melbourne are the most striking features of this comparison. This suggests that more recent patterns of migration have had a greater linguistic impact in Sydney than in Melbourne, although the picture is complicated by the presence of Punjabi and Sinhalese in the Melbourne top ten that rank much lower in Sydney.

TABLE 2.2 Top ten LOTEs in Sydney, 2016, compared to Melbourne

SydneyRank (%) MelbourneRank (%)

Mandarin 1 (4.7) 1 (4.1) Arabic 2 (4.0) 6 (1.7) Cantonese 3 (2.9) 5 (1.7) Vietnamese 4 (2.1) 4 (2.3) Greek 5 (1.6) 2 (2.4) Hindi 6 (1.3) 8 (1.1) Italian 7 (1.3) 3 (2.3) Filipino/Tagalog 8 (1.3) 9 (0.8) Korean 9 (1.2) 26 (0.3) Spanish 10 (1.2) 12 (0.8)

Source: .id 2017 16 Phil Benson and Anikó Hatoss

While some community languages are growing in Sydney, others are on the decline. The number of Italian speakers fell by 8 per cent between 2011 and 2016, while the number of Greek speakers fell by 6 per cent (.id 2017). The remaining languages in the top ten showed net increases. Other languages with falling numbers were Turkish, Macedonian, Serbian, German, Polish, Maltese, Dutch and Hungarian. The most striking trend in the data as a whole is the rapid growth in Mandarin Chinese, which has replaced Arabic in Sydney and Greek in Melbourne as the most widely spoken community language. The number of Mandarin speakers in Sydney increased by 71 per cent between 2011 and 2016. This clearly reﬂects population increase due to inward migration, although relatively high levels of language maintenance in the Chinese community may also be a factor.

The temporal dynamics of multilingualism The temporal dynamics of multilingualism in the city are influenced not only by migration, but also by short-term sojourns. Census statistics exclude people who have been resident in the city for less than one year, many of whom speak languages other than English. These include many international students and short-term international visitors. In the year ending March 2017, 193,567 international students were enrolled in New South Wales, an increase of 15.8 per cent on 2016 and 57.9 per cent on 2013 (Destination NSW 2017a). International students stay for three months on average and many come to study English. Chinese students represented 33 per cent of the total, an increase of 29.5 per cent on 2016 and 89.2 per cent on 2013. In the year ending June 2017, there were more than 3.2 million short-term international visitor arrivals in New South Wales, an increase of 10 per cent from the previous year and almost 50 per cent from June 2013. More than 65 per cent of visitors arrived from non-English- speaking countries, with China (16.4 per cent) representing the highest proportion, followed by South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and India. Visitors from China had increased by 90.5 per cent since 2013, and visitors from India by 81.1 per cent (Destination NSW 2017b). In terms of temporal dynamics, the use of community languages is most intense among recently arrived migrants, international students and short-term visitors. This has a considerable impact on the linguistic life of the inner city, especially, but it also means that the dynamics of multilingualism in the city depend on intensified mobility and the constant renewal of transitional and transitory populations. Despite the plethora of opportunities for settled migrants to converse with visiting speakers of community languages, the Australian education system does not have a strong record of integrating community language learning into the mainstream curriculum (see chapters by Cruickshank and Moloney in this volume) and community language education is largely confined to after-hours voluntary schools. Considering these factors, it is not surprising that the languages of migrant populations tend to be lost in one generation and to virtually disappear A city report 17 by the third generation. However, language shift trends vary across languages, and analysis of 2011 census data shows relatively high maintenance rates through to the third generation for some languages (ranging from 25 to 70 per cent for, for example, Greek, Macedonian, Turkish, Lao, Khmer, Vietnamese and Lebanese Arabic ancestry groups; Forrest and Benson in press). With the increasingly transient nature of communities, new vitality factors emerge, such as the possibility of maintaining transnational ties with home countries through social media, popular culture and home visits, opportunities for interaction with short-term sojourners and more positive social attitudes towards multilingualism. Fine-grained analysis of 2016 census data will tell us a great deal about how these factors may be influencing language maintenance and shift.

The spatial dynamics of multilingualism The spatial dynamics of multilingualism in Sydney are influenced both by the concentration of short-term sojourners in the inner city and the suburban distribution of settled migrant populations. Sydney media reports on the 2016 census have tended to focus on the rising number of Asian-born residents (e.g. Brennan 2017), renewing fears of the formation of ethnic enclaves or ghettoes in the city. Research has shown that the historical tendency, in both Sydney and Melbourne, has been toward dispersion, rather than concentration, of migrant populations (Clyne, Hajek and Kipp 2008; Forrest and Dunn 2010). This tendency is also confirmed by research on the 2016 census (see Chapter 3 by Chik, Forrest and Siciliano). Table 2.3 shows the top five community languages in a selection of Sydney suburbs as they are reported in the 2016 census. The pattern that emerges is that each suburb has its own distinct pattern of multilingualism. Although the proportion of community languages users ranges from 60 to 80 per cent in some suburbs, the most frequently used language is typically used by less than 50 per cent of community languages speakers. Suburbs with high proportions of community languages speakers, such as Punchbowl and Mount Druitt (in South West and Greater Western Sydney), tend to have higher populations of recent migrants with lower median incomes. Suburbs such as Eastwood, Hornsby, Haberfield and Rose Bay have higher median incomes and fewer community languages speakers. They also have patterns of multilingualism that reflect either older European migration or recent professional migration from Asia. The only linguistic enclaves in Sydney are, in fact, those suburbs that tend to persist around the outer fringes of the city, which are largely composed of monolingual English-speakers: for example, Cronulla, where 82.7 per cent of residents speak only English at home. In these respects, multilingualism in Sydney reflects the phenomenon of ‘superdiversity’ (Vertovec 2007), or diversity within diversity, arising from the widen- ing of Australian migration categories (Hugo 2011) and layering of migration settlements that has characterized the history of the city (Jupp 2008). TABLE 2.3 Top five LOTEs for selected Sydney suburbs

Median weekly LOTE users household income ($) (households, %) #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

Punchbowl (South West) 1,153 76.9 Arabic 35.1 Vietnamese 7.1 Greek 4.2 Bengali 3.3 Cantonese 3.2 Cronulla (South) 1,794 11.7 Greek 0.9 Spanish 0.9 Portuguese 0.7 Italian 0.7 German 0.6 Rose Bay (East) 2,272 23.5 Hebrew 2.5 Russian 2.3 Greek 1.4 Mandarin 1.3 Spanish 1.2 Mount Druitt (Outer 1,268 65.2 Urdu 8.5 Arabic 7.6 Tagalog 7.2 Chaldean Filipino 3.5 West) Neo-Aramaic 4.0 Eastwood (North West) 1,648 64.1 Mandarin 25.0 Cantonese 14.9 Korea 9.4 Tamil 1.4 Indonesian 0.9 Haberﬁeld (Inner West) 2,164 43.9 Italian 20.7 Greek 2.1 Mandarin 3.2 Spanish 0.8 Cantonese 1.9 Hornsby (North) 1,696 49.8 Mandarin 13.2 Cantonese 5.1 Korean 4.5 Nepali 2.9 Persian 2.4

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017 A city report 19

Issues and challenges of linguistic diversity We now turn from the demographics of multilingual Sydney to what increased diversity within diversity means in terms of language policy and services, and language ideologies and attitudes. Australia’s de facto multilingualism is embedded into a social milieu where diversity is officially supported through the policy of multiculturalism. According to this policy, the government is ‘committed to a just, inclusive and socially cohesive society’ where services are ‘responsive to the needs of Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds’ (Department of Immigration and Border Protection 2011). While the recognition of immigrants’ needs for multilingual services is not new and dates back to the 1970s, the rapidly changing demographics pose multiple challenges to service providers to meet newly emerging language needs (see Chapter 5 by Rascon). Australia boasts a long-standing accredited translation and interpreting system overseen by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) which was established in 1977, and the world’s first Telephone Interpreter Service (TIS; established in 1973), these services are constantly put to the test (Ozolins 2010). Currently, in New South Wales these services are available in 104 languages and dialects, including Auslan, the Australian sign language (Multicultural NSW 2017). However, services are limited in their capacity to support job seekers (Joint Standing Committee on Multiculturalism 2012). Health is another area where language services are vital, as effective language services reduce social inequalities and improve health outcomes for refugee and migrant populations, but also limited in capacity (Yelland et al. 2016). The limitations of these services are largely attributable to the shortage of qualified translators and interpreters and the shortage of training. For example, while NAATI provides accreditation in over 60 languages, there is insufficient supply of training in emerging languages (Ozolins 2010). As these languages are typically spoken by refugee communities who are most vulnerable and at risk of successful integration, the gap is a risk factor in the well-being of these communities and demands policy attention. A related challenge concerns the language required for education, employment and general integration into Australian society (see Chapter 9 by Yates and Zielinski). Migrants are eligible to receive 510 hours of free English tuition classes through the long-established Adult Migrant Education Program (AMEP). Those arriving with limited prior education and difficult pre-migration experiences (e.g. survivors of torture and trauma) are eligible for additional tuition classes. School-aged children enter the Australian schooling system and receive English as an Additional Dialect (EALD) support, which is run during school hours in the form of withdrawal classes or integrated with the regular classrooms. While these programs are critical to assist the early adjustment, they do not serve the needs of all immigrants. Refugees with limited formal education in their own country often drop out as they cannot keep upwiththelinguisticdemandsofthesyllabus.Refugeewomenareparticularlyat high risk of non-participation or non-completion, due to their child rearing 20 Phil Benson and Anikó Hatoss responsibilities, even though AMEP offers a home tutoring program where volun- teers visit the household to teach English. For male refugees, one of the main causes of attrition is that they are keen to join the workforce and financially support their family in Australia and overseas. Therefore, low-paid casual work often takes a toll on their ability to develop their English proficiency. In the area of languages education policy and relevant curriculum planning, there is a contradiction between the increasing complexity of the linguistic landscape on the one hand, and the government’s one-size-fits-all ideology driving simplification and reductionism in the development of the national foreign language curriculum – for example, by prioritizing economically bene- ficial languages (Scarino 2014). These tensions between policy and practice illustrate that the increasing linguistic diversity is still largely seen as a problem that Australia’s society needs to tackle, and foreign languages are often seen as an obstacle to successful integration into mainstream society. Unlearning monolingualism (Scarino 2014), however, needs to start at the heart of the social fabric, and therefore the next section will focus on attitudes to multilingualism.

Everyday multiculturalism: attitudes and ideologies In addition to the demographic picture, theoretical affordances also need to be made to incorporate subjectivities in the study of how multilingualism is enacted and lived on a daily basis in Sydney (see Chapter 4 by Otsuji and Pennycook), and the role that attitudes towards multilingualism play in shaping language practices in diverse spaces of multilingualism. The idea that subjective evaluations of one’s own linguistic group can inform language vitality studies was a step in the right direction; however, even subjective vitality measures cannot predict language maintenance and shift patterns. Therefore, subjectivities on the individual level need to be taken into consideration, such as language attitudes, identity positioning, ideology and awareness (Hatoss 2018). Also, in the context of the broader linguistic ecology of immigrant groups, it is equally important to study how immigrants perceive their host environment and how the host environment perceives them. Societal attitudes to languages come about in the broader policy context. Before multicultural policies were introduced in 1971, Australia had strong assimilationist propaganda, expecting immigrants to learn English almost imme- diately and assimilate into the Anglo-Australian way of life. Australia’s multiculturalism model was borrowed from Canada and introduced in 1971. This was the first policy to explicitly recognize immigrant communities’ need to maintain their own languages. It was also the first official discourse to describe community languages as a benefit to both immigrant communities and Australia as a nation. Societal attitudes, however, did not change overnight and it has taken several decades for the English-speaking majority to accept and appreciate linguistic diversity and for immigrants to consciously and actively maintain their heritage languages. This journey is far from being complete. Even today, we find reports A city report 21 from the media where speakers of community languages have been targeted due to their use of their languages in a public space. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald reported the following incidents of racial attacks:

• A Spanish-speaking woman is verbally abused on a Sydney train for speaking Spanish (Aubusson 2015a). • A woman was ﬁlmed allegedly hurling racial abuse at a Chinese-Australian passenger on a Sydney bus (Aubusson 2015b).

From these reports, it seems that discrimination based on colour and ethnic background continues to tarnish Australia’s image as a tolerant and leading multicultural democracy. Unfortunately, proposed changes to Australia’s citizenship policy, which may require applicants to pass a university-level English language test, do not help in enhancing positive attitudes to newcomers. This new requirement would make immigrants feel less welcome in Australia. The policy discourse put forward reflects a government agenda that conflates issues of national security with refugee settlement by linking tightening up citizenship laws to tightening up national security. Unfortunately, such measures lead to a potential increase in xenophobia, which often goes hand-in-hand with linguicism (language-based discrimination). In terms of the linguistic expectations towards immigrants, Australia still carries a strong ideological legacy of a monolingual English- speaking nation and an expectation that others will conform to this monolingual ideology (see Chapter 6 by Hatoss). While there was relatively strong resilience to these negative attitudes in some communities (for example, the Greek and Vietnamese), others, for example the Dutch, Germans and other European communities, showed the highest rates of intergenerational language shift (Forrest and Dandy 2018; Pauwels 2016). These discrepancies were explained in terms of the core cultural theory, suggesting that those communities where the ethnic tongue was a core element of culture maintained their language, while others relinquished, becoming monolingual English speakers (Smolicz 1999). Therefore, researchers working in the field of multilingualism should not lose sight of these subjective factors and contextualize the study of language choices in the broader social milieu which can enable and enhance multilingualism, but also has to potential to drive towards linguistic assimilation and favouring monolingualism in English. New contexts require new methods and in the next section we will briefly describe the main methodological and ontological challenges and shifts.

Changing ecology and changing methods As we have seen, Sydney’s linguistic landscape is changing rapidly as new speakers enter the linguistic market and mobilize their repertoires (Pennycook and Otsuji 2015; also Chapter 4 Otsuji and Pennycook), and this constant flux 22 Phil Benson and Anikó Hatoss demands new methods and approaches. Since Fishman’s (2000) seminal paper ‘Who speak what language to whom?’ was first published in 1965, there have been significant changes in the way scholars approach this topic. With increased awareness of qualitative and quantitative changes occurring in the interactional scene of multilingual urban spaces of ‘superdiversity’ (Vertovec 2007), the research foci have shifted from the study of language use in relatively static ‘places’ (Fishman’s ‘domains’), to more dynamic ‘spaces’, where social actors negotiate their ethnic identities and mobilize their language resources daily. There is an increased theoretical affordance given to the variability of multilingual practices within domains, and an increased recognition of the speakers’ agency in language choices. Additionally, language choices are not restricted to standardized languages, as speakers mix various dialects. Responding to this new dynamism, researchers working within the framework of the sociolinguistics of globalization (Blommaert 2010) have argued for a new epistemology in defining, counting and accounting for languages and their users, and they have called for a critical approach (Pennycook 2001) that deconstructs ethnocentrism, linguicism and language ideologies by de-essentia- lizing language itself (Makoni and Pennycook 2005). As the primary tool through which immigrants establish their new life in the host community, language provides a visible and audible channel reflective of the cross-cultural dynamics of multicultural societies. Linguistic landscapes, applied in the broader metaphorical sense to incorporate objectivities and subjectivities, can be useful methods to take stock of the prevalence of various languages in the city and, combined with census data they can gauge aspects of conviviality (Blommaert 2014), social harmony and change. Innovative multimodal methods of the study of language use can contribute to a better understanding of how multiculturalism works in everyday life and allow us to move away from a purely objective census-based ideology of counting languages and speakers. The language ecology of the city also transcends national boundaries. Motiva- tions to learn new languages and maintain heritage languages are deeply intertwined with the imagined and real connections across countries and continents. These transnational vectors demand that we move away from looking at language use within the confines of nation states, and adopt a cosmopolitan outlook (Beck and Sznaider 2006; Grande 2006; Hatoss 2013) that allows us to see diaspora communities and their languages as connected across physical and geographical boundaries.

Conclusion Sydney is a dynamic multilingual city with a rapidly changing linguistic landscape. Census data provides a useful objective account of multilingualism on the horizontal axis and this information is crucial for policy makers and service providers. However, as we have argued, it does not paint the full picture and needs to be treated with caution. While comparing census data across years allows A city report 23 us to decipher main trends in terms of the longitudinal changes in the horizontal linguistic landscape, the changes on the vertical axis are not shown. For example, in terms of vertical bilingualism, researchers need to explore whether the multilingualism inherited through immigration is sustained over generations and what factors lead to language shift. We also need to monitor the degree and development of individual multilingualism in the whole population (native speakers of English), and not only in the immigrant context. Researchers also need to use new analytical lenses which do not only capture the present status of aﬀairs, but the changes over time, across and within communities. Contemporary speech communities are far from being static and homogenous, and the old concept of an immigrant who settles into a new country and stays there for the rest of their life is replaced by the image of a global citizen who manoeuvres their lifeworld and linguistic resources in transnational spaces where stasis and locality are replaced by temporality and transition.

References .id (2017) Australia: Language spoken at home. Online. Available at: http://profile.id.com. au/australia/language (accessed 22 November 2017). Aubusson, K. (2015a, 18 December) ‘Spanish speaking woman is verbally abused on a Sydney train for speaking Spanish’, Sydney Morning Herald. Online. Available at: www. smh.com.au/nsw/we-speak-english-in-this-country-woman-films-racial-tirade-on- sydney-train-20151218-glr6kj.html (accessed 25 November 2017). Aubusson, K. (2015b, 26 September) ‘A woman was filmed allegedly hurling racial abuse at a Chinese-Australian passenger on a Sydney bus’, Sydney Morning Herald. Online. Available at: www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-arrested-after-racial-tirade-on-sydney-bus- 20150925-gjv4nt.html (accessed 25 November 2017). Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017) 2016 Census Quickstats. Online. Available at: www.abs. gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/2016%20QuickStats (accessed 22 November 2017). Beck, U. and Sznaider, N. (2006) ‘Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda’, British Journal of Sociology, 57: 2–23. Blommaert, J. (2010) Sociolinguistics of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (2014) ‘Infrastructures of superdiversity: Conviviality and language in an Antwerp neighborhood’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17: 431–451. Brennan, S. (2017, 28 June) ‘2016 Australian census reveals Sydney is now “more Asian than European”’. The Daily Telegraph. Online. Available at: www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ news/nsw/2016-australian-census-reveals-sydney-is-now-more-asian-than-european/ news-story/f59b37efefc7305ce4e2ef5bbf14be63 (accessed 22 November 2017). Clyne, M. (1991) Community Languages: The Australian Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (2003) Dynamics of Language Contact, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M., Hajek, J. and Kipp, S. (2008) ‘Tale of two multilingual cities in a multilingual continent’, People and Place, 16: 1–8. Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Australia) (2011) The People of Australia: Australia’s Multicultural Policy. Online. Available at: www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/ 24 Phil Benson and Anikó Hatoss

settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/publications/the-people-of-australia-australias-mul ticultural-policy (accessed 22 November 2017). Destination NSW (2017a) International Student Visitors to NSW, Year Ended March 2017. Online Available at: www.destinationnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ International-Student-Visitors-NSW-FS-YE-Mar-2017.pdf (accessed 22 November 2017). Destination NSW (2017b) Short-Term International Visitor Arrivals and Departures: NSW, June 2017. Online. Available at: www.destinationnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/ 10/OADs-Snapshot-Jun-2017.pdf (accessed 22 November 2017). Fishman, J.A. (2000) ‘Who speaks what language to whom and when?’, in L. Wei (ed.), The Bilingualism Reader. New York: Routledge. Forrest, J. and Benson, P. (in press) ‘Multicultural but increasingly monolingual? Linguistic shift and heritage language retention in Australia’, in S. Brunn (ed.), The Changing World Language Map. New York, NY: Springer. Forrest, J. and Dandy, J. (2018) ‘Proficiency in English, linguistic shift and ethnic capital: An intergenerational analysis of non-English speaking background immigrant groups in Sydney, Australia’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39: 111–123. Forrest, J. and Dunn, K. (2010) ‘Attitudes to multicultural values in diverse spaces in Australia’s immigrant cities, Sydney and Melbourne’, Space and Polity, 14: 81–102. Grande, E. (2006) ‘Cosmopolitan political science’, British Journal of Sociology, 57: 87–111. Hatoss, A. (2013) Displacement, Language Maintenance and Identity: Sudanese Refugees in Australia, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. ——— (2018) ‘Language awareness in diasporic contexts’, in P. Garrett and J.M. Cots (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness. London: Routledge. Hugo, G. (2011) ‘Changing spatial patterns of immigrant settlement’, in M. Clyne and J. Jupp (eds.), Multiculturalism and Integration: A Harmonious Relationship. Canberra: ANU E Press. Joint Standing Committee on Multiculturalism (2012) Inquiry into Migration and Multi- culturalism in Australia, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Jupp, J. (2008) ‘Immigration’,InThe Dictionary of Sydney. Online. Available at: https:// dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/immigration#ref-uuid=78421a2e-0e11-68e5-cd1b- 7a8d23773ce6 (accessed 22 November 2017). Lo Bianco, J. (2015) Multilingualism in Melbourne: LUCIDE city report. Online. Available at: www.urbanlanguages.eu/cityreports (accessed 22 November 2017). Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (2005) ‘Disinventing and (re)constituting languages’, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 2: 137–156. Multicultural NSW (2017) Interpreting and Translation. Online. Available at: http://multicul tural.nsw.gov.au/our_services/interpreting_translation/ (accessed 22 November 2017). Ozolins, U. (2010) ‘Factors that determine the provision of public service interpreting: Comparative perspectives on government motivation and language service implementation’, The Journal of Specialised Translation, 14: 194–215. Pauwels, A. (2016) Language Maintenance and Shift, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pennycook, A. and Otsuji, E. (2015) Metrolingualism: Language in the City, New York, NY: Routledge. Rubino, A. (2010) ‘Multilingualism in Australia: Reflections on current and future research trends’, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33: 1–21. A city report 25

Scarino, A. (2014) ‘Situating the challenges in current languages education policy in Australia – Unlearning monolingualism’, International Journal of Multilingualism, 11: 289–306. Smolicz, J.J. (1999) ‘Core values and cultural identity’, in M. Secombe and J. Zajda (eds.), J.J. Smolicz on Education and Culture. Albert Park: James Nicholas Publishing. Vertovec, S. (2007) ‘Super-diversity and its implications’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30: 1024– 1054. Yelland, J., Riggs, E., Szwarc, J., Casey, S., Duell-Piening, P., Chesters, D., Wahidi, S., Fouladi, F. and Brown, S. (2016) ‘Compromised communication: A qualitative study exploring Afghan families and health professionals’ experience of interpreting support in Australian maternity care’, BMJ Quality & Safety, 25: 1–9. 3 LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN SYDNEY At home and in public

Alice Chik, James Forrest and Frank Siciliano

Introduction Sydney is a multilingual city. Less than two-thirds (62 per cent) of the Greater Sydney population speak English only at home (see Chapter 2 by Benson and Hatoss). We begin by asking: where are the multilingual households? We do not believe that all Chinese-speaking households are in Chinatown, just as it is not plausible that all Italian-speaking households are located in just two Sydney suburbs, Haberfield and Leichhardt (see Chapter 15 by Rubino). Then, if linguistically diverse households are distributed across Sydney, is such diversity also represented accurately in public online spaces? Therefore, this chapter has several objectives. First, it develops a geolinguistic approach to analyse the pattern of languages used at home, then proceeds to examine self-assessed proficiency with English among immigrant groups from different cultural backgrounds as well as intergenerational linguistic shift towards English as the only language used. Since 1986, the Australian census has collected information on languages used at home and proficiency with English. Geolinguis- tics, the geography of language use (Williams and van der Merwe 1996), is used to examine the distribution and mix of languages used in Sydney in the 658 suburbs making up the Greater Sydney urban area. The result is a fascinating map of Sydney’s mosaic of linguistic diversity, of multilingual multiculturalism, accompanied by some understanding of intergenerational linguistic shift, as immigrants, their children and grandchildren adjust to their new society and circumstances. Then, ways in which this linguistic diversity plays out are examined as it is represented on websites maintained by local government authorities, property agencies and schools using a critical discourse analytical approach (van Leeuwen 2009). We focused on two of the most diverse suburbs in Sydney: Auburn and Fairfield. While the geolinguistic approach gives us a mosaic view, the critical Language diversity in Sydney 27 discourse analysis looks at how linguistic diversity is represented in significant public online spaces. We conclude with suggested new directions emphasising the value of consolidating a geolinguistic approach to research language policies, to help understand the nature and dynamics of the distribution and representation of linguistic diversity, patterns of acquisition of English by immigrants from non- English speaking backgrounds, former (heritage) language maintenance and intergenerational linguistic shift.

Sydney: a multicultural, multilingual city? Multiculturalism, a national policy introduced by the Australian Federal Govern- ment in 1973, encouraged immigrants from non-English speaking backgrounds to maintain their cultures and promote survival of their community (often called ‘heritage’) languages while in other respects becoming fully absorbed into the mainstream of Australian life and its institutions (Department of Immigration and Settlement 2007). In a speech accompanying the tabling of a government report on post-arrival programmes and services for immigrants in 1978, then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser referred to ‘multicultural Australia’ and the value of linguistic and cultural maintenance (reported in Ozolins 1993: 3). Sydney has long been Australia’s major immigrant-receiving city. Between 1991 and 2016, the city received 33 per cent of all new arrivals, followed by Melbourne with 26 per cent and Perth with 12 per cent (Department of Social Services 2017). Those now residing in Sydney, according to the 2016 census, come from almost every part of the world, but with no one group comprising a major proportion of today’s population (see Table 3.1). On the 2016 census household survey form, Question 16 asks: ‘Does the person speak a language other than English at home?’ (original emphasis). If so, respondents were asked to nominate one such language. This of course neglects heritage languages spoken outside the home, but as Clyne (2003: 22) has remarked, language spoken at home is a good predictor of maintenance: ‘If a language is not transmitted in the home, it is not likely to survive another generation’. Throughout the following analyses we refer to those aged 10 and older, omitting younger children who are often assessed for competence with English based on their progress within the school system. Among the 38 per cent of Sydneysiders who speak a language other than English in the home, the two major Chinese languages, Mandarin and Cantonese (6 per cent all together), come ﬁrst, with a further 2 per cent using other Chinese dialects. Then comes Arabic (4 per cent) and Indian (Hindi, plus other Indian languages) at 4 per cent, followed by several languages spoken at home by between 1 and 2 per cent – Greek, Italian and Spanish among European languages – Vietnamese and Korean, then a wide range of languages each spoken by less than 1 per cent of Sydneysiders. In linguistic terms, Sydney is a polyglot city. No one linguistic group absolutely dominates. While there are immigrant enclaves, there are very few areas where any one ethnic group forms a local majority, either of Asians or a religious group like Muslims (Forrest et al. 2017). TABLE 3.1 Proportion of each language present in the Greater Sydney region

Language Per cent Language Per cent Language Per cent Language Per cent

English 69.10 Bosnian 0.07 Turkic 0.34 Khmer (Cambodia) 0.22 Dutch 0.39 Croat 0.45 Armenian 0.15 Vietnamese 1.83 German 0.14 Macedonian 0.43 Kannada (India) 0.06 Lao 0.12 Afrikaans 0.11 Serbian 0.38 Malayalam (India) 0.17 Thai 0.41 Danish 0.04 Slovenian 0.02 Telugu (Indian) 0.45 Indonesian 0.47 Swedish 0.05 Czech 0.06 Tamil (Indian) 0.19 Malay 0.04 Finnish 0.02 Polish 0.26 Bengali (Bangladesh) 0.46 Tagalog (Philippines) 0.75 French 0.46 Slovak 0.04 Gujarati (India) 0.30 Filipino 0.39 Greek 1.79 Romanian 0.04 Hindi 1.17 Cantonese 2.57 Portuguese 0.41 Kurd (Iraq) 0.04 Marathi (India) 0.09 Hakka (China) 0.03 Spanish 1.23 Pashto (Afghan) 0.03 Nepali 0.40 Mandarin 3.91 Italian 1.60 Dari (Afghan) 0.14 Punjabi (India/Pakistan) 0.43 Wu (China) 0.03 Maltese 0.40 Hazaraghi (Afghan) 0.06 Sinhalese 0.16 Min Nam (China) 0.12 Lithuanian + Latvian 0.03 Persian (Iran) 0.37 Urdu (Pakistan) 0.44 Japanese 0.33 Hungarian 0.13 Hebrew/Yiddish 0.07 Fiji Hindustani 0.03 Korean 0.97 Russian 0.35 Arabic 3.69 Burmese 0.07 Mongolian 0.03 Ukrainian 0.03 Assyrian (Iran/Iraq) 0.44 Rohingya (Burma) 0.01

Source: 2016 Census. Language diversity in Sydney 29

020 km

Language groups 1 (319) 2 (77) 3 (100) 4 (85) 5 (61)

FIGURE 3.1 Languages spoken at home in Sydney. The composition of the groups 1–5 is explained in Table 3.2

Ethnic groups in Sydney are widely dispersed across the city. They are largely intermixed with others from a wide range of backgrounds, including members of the host or receiving society. This is reflected in a map of languages spoken at home based on Question 16 from the 2016 census (Figure 3.1). These data are available online from the TableBuilder facility maintained by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017b). To compile the linguistic map we use an entropy grouping procedure which, in summary, groups Sydney suburbs in terms of their whole profile of, in this case, 23 of the most common languages spoken at home (for details of this procedure, see Forrest and Johnston 1981). Results show the reality of the mix of languages commonly spoken in groups of suburbs (Table 3.2). There is some degree of concentration of particular languages in different districts, as shown by Groups 2–5 on the map. But common misconceptions of major ethnic group/ language concentrations, reflected in a ‘Little Italy’,a‘Chinatown’,ora‘Vietna- matta’ (a suburb with a historically high concentration of Vietnamese refugees), for example, are not to be found, at least, not in linguistic terms. 30 Alice Chik et al.

Figure 3.1 thus comprises five groupings of Sydney suburbs with broadly common language-spoken-at-home profiles. The languages with an above-average presence in each of the five groups are set out in Table 3.2. Group 1 is dominated by those speaking English only (87 per cent). A range of Western and Northern European languages also have an above-average presence here. Insofar as suburbs in this group are concentrated, they are mostly found in middle to higher status (income) areas: the eastern suburbs, the lower North Shore, the lower northern beach suburbs, Sutherland, the inner city, the outer southwest, north western Sydney and a wide swathe of outer northern–north western districts and in the Blue Mountains. But Group 1 suburbs are also located across considerable parts of the inner and outer western suburbia, which raises questions of linguistic shift in these largely immigrant-settled areas, to be discussed in the next section. Groups 2–5 show a lower-than-average presence of English only in the home, but with different, and overlapping, non-English languages. Group 2 suburbs (58 per cent English only in the home), with an above-average presence of southwest Asian (Iranian-Iraqi-Afghan), Indian and South Asian languages generally, along with Filipino, are again widely scattered, but with concentrations in the inner city, inner and outer western suburbs, and pockets among the North Shore suburbs and middle to outer north-western districts. Group 3 suburbs (60 per cent speaking English only at home), embracing more people speaking Southern, South-eastern and Eastern European languages, but intermixed with some Asian, including Chinese languages, are again widely dispersed, but with concentrations on the Upper North Shore, the northern Beach suburbs and across southern Sydney, but mainly in Sydney’s western suburbs. Of the remaining two groups, Group 4 (48 per cent English only) shows an above-average presence of Asian languages, dominated by Mandarin, Cantonese and Korean, as well as those from South (especially Indian languages) and South East Asia, accompanied by elements of Russian and Ukrainian. Yet again, Group 4 members are widely scattered, but with local concentrations on Sydney’s Upper North Shore, especially in the Chatswood region and in parts of middle north- western suburbia (such as Eastwood and Epping). Finally, Group 5 suburbs (34 per cent English only spoken at home) bring out above-average proportions of a wide range of Eastern and South Eastern European languages, those from the Middle East, and elements of South and South East Asian languages. Main concentrations of this group are located in Sydney’s inner west with its above- average presence of Muslims, but also further north and in some of the outer north western and northern suburbs.

Competence with English among the ﬁrst generation immigrants, linguistic shift and language maintenance For some time now, immigrants have been required to demonstrate their English language skills for all the main classes of Australian visas (Department of Language diversity in Sydney 31

TABLE 3.2 Signiﬁcant presence of languages spoken at home: descriptions of language-mix groups portrayed in the geolinguistics map of Sydney

Groupings shown in Descriptions of prominent language mix characteristics in each group Fig. 3.1

Group 1 English only among 87 per cent of respondents (all generations). Above-average presence of English and languages from Western and Northern Europe: Dutch, German, Afrikaans, Danish, Swedish and French, also Maltese and Hebrew-Yiddish. Other languages have a noticeably below-average presence in these areas. Group 2 English only among 58 per cent of respondents (all generations). Above-average presence of South West Asian, Indian, South Asian generally and Filipino languages: Kurdish, Pashto, Dari, Persian, Hazaraghi, Turkic, Arabic, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu, Nepali, Punjabi, Hindi Sinhalese and Urdu especially, Fijian Hindus- tani, Burmese, Tagalog and Filipino especially. Group 3 English only among 60 per cent of respondents (all generations). Above-average presence of Southern, South Eastern, and Eastern European languages and some Asian, including Chinese languages: Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Maltese, along with Arabic, Turkic, Cantonese and Mandarin. Group 4 English only among 48 per cent of households (all generations). Above-average presence of Northeast, Southern and South Asian languages, together with languages from Iran and Eastern Europe: Cantonese and Mandarin are strongly present, as is Korean, along with Russian, Ukrainian, Persian, Armenian, Kannadan, Malayalam, Telugu, Tamil, Sinhalese, Thai, Indonesian and Malay. Group 5 English only among 34 per cent of households (all generations). Above-average presence of Eastern and South Eastern European, Middle Eastern, elements of South Asian and South East Asian languages, along with minor Chinese dialects: Ukrainian, Bosnian, Croatian, Macedonian, Serbian, Slovenian, Polish; Kurdish, Pashto, Dari, Hazaraghu, especially Arabic, Assyrian, Turkic, Urdu, Fijian Hindustani, Burmese, Rohingyan, especially Khmer (Cambodian), Vietnamese, Lao; Hakka and Min Nam.

Source: 2016 Census

Immigration and Border Protection 2017). The required English language proficiency levels vary according to visa categories. However, in terms of finding employment and fitting in to Australian society, competence with spoken English is an important measure of how well new arrivals are able to operate in their new circumstances. Every census respondent speaking an additional language (other than English) was asked to answer Question 17 in the census Household Survey Form: ‘How well does the person speak English?’ (originalemphasis);theoptionsare‘Very well’, ‘Well’, ‘Not well’,and‘Not at all’. Responses derived from Tablebuilder have been used to provide information on competence in English in the first generation 32 Alice Chik et al.

TABLE 3.3 Intergenerational linguistic shift and proﬁciency with English in the Greater Sydney urban region among ancestry groups (aged 10–79). All ﬁgures are percentages of relevant populations

1st generation speaks 2nd generation speaks 3rd generation speaks

Own Own Own Ancestry English English English language + language + language + groups only only only English well English well English well Dutch 62.29 37.42 92.50 7.45 98.54 1.46 German 47.50 51.41 83.19 16.62 98.39 1.53 Italian 24.85 65.65 60.36 39.05 94.11 5.65 Greek 11.25 64.38 30.15 69.05 68.91 29.60 Bosnian 11.02 72.18 31.57 68.13 89.55 10.45 Croatian 18.87 68.22 50.78 48.93 86.02 13.47 Macedonian 8.47 71.49 29.29 69.97 60.38 38.13 Serbian 8.89 72.76 33.08 66.52 78.99 21.01 Polish 34.25 60.10 73.45 26.21 97.27 2.73 Russian 18.96 71.09 61.29 38,50 93.06 6.72 Lebanese 7.88 72.49 27.85 71.10 80.52 18.58 Iranian 8.95 74.92 37.35 62.23 84.85 15.15 Turkish 10.75 65.62 23.20 75.68 68.60 30.43 Vietnamese 3.59 56.94 16.82 81.70 50.95 46.67 Indonesian 12.87 78.67 50.23 49.13 97.48 2.52 Filipino 20.10 78.39 80.26 19.20 97.64 2.36 Chinese 5.72 67.57 30.47 68.62 94.86 4.40 Japanese 14.69 71.47 38.18 60.88 94.95 5.05

Source: 2016 census

(Table 3.3). Focusing on those who speak English only, or English ‘very well’ or ‘well’, self-assessment of competence with English speech largely match expectations among diﬀerent immigrant groups. Immigrants from Europe generally show more than 90 per cent with a self- perceived ability to speak either English only, or well to very well. Exceptions are those from Greece and the countries of the former Yugoslavia, but all with levels between 75 and 89 per cent ‘well’ or ‘very well’.Manynon- European immigrants express similar levels of ability with spoken English. Those with heritage language backgrounds from the Philippines and Indonesia both recorded in excess of 90 per cent as competent in spoken English. Most of the others were in the 80–89 per cent range. Exceptions included those with Chinese language backgrounds (73 per cent self-assessed as speaking English ‘well’ or ‘very well’), and Korean (67 per cent), along with those whose heritage language was Khmer (Cambodian) or Vietnamese, both only reported a little higher than 60 per cent. Language diversity in Sydney 33

Of greater importance, however, is what happens in the second and third generations relating to linguistic shift (loss of heritage languages) and heritage language maintenance, as shown in the middle and right-hand columns of Table 3.3. In general terms, by the third generation many heritage languages have effectively been abandoned, in the home at least. This was especially true of European (though not of Greek or Macedonian) and North East Asian languages along with Filipino and Indonesian. Clyne and Kipp (2006: 19) have argued that the rank ordering of linguistic shift is the same in the second generation as in the first (i.e. those with, say, the highest level of shift to English only in the first generation would also be the highest in the second). This was generally the Sydney experience: Dutch, German and Polish speakers ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the first generation, and 1st, 2nd and 4th in the second; at the other end of the scale, Vietnamese speakers ranked 22nd in the first and 23rd in the second generations; Afghan speakers similarly ranked 21st in both generations. The most noticeable exceptions were Greek speakers, who dropped from 13th place in the first generation to 17th place in the second, Lebanese speakers, who dropped from 16th to 19th, and Iraqi speakers, who increased their ranking from 23rd to 20th. The most notable changes occur between the second and third generations. The rank ordering of linguistic shift changed considerably. Those with Chinese and Japanese linguistic backgrounds moved from 14th and 9th positions in the second generation to 7th and 6th respectively in the third generation, while those speaking Korean moved from 16th to 9th position in the ranking. These changes represent a significant move away from heritage language maintenance. At the other end of the scale, heritage languages like Vietnamese and Khmer, along with Turkish, are strongly retained among half to two-thirds of people from those ancestral backgrounds. The information from the 2016 census, presented here in geolinguistic form for perhaps the first time, and the discussion of linguistic shift among a range of ancestry groups from different, non-English speaking cultural backgrounds, acts in two ways. First, it demystifies notions of ‘ethnoburb’ homogeneity across Sydney, rather placing the emphasis on the overarching mix of languages spoken at home at the local level right across the city. Second, it emphasises the short-lived retention of heritage languages among some groups, though not others. This raises several questions, not least why the differences, and what might be done to encourage the value of linguistic diversity, as part of cultural, maintenance across different cultural groups in a multicultural Sydney. One domain we would like to examine is the representation of such linguistic diversity in online public spaces.

Urban diversity: Auburn and Fairfield Nowadays, websites are an especially useful tool to get first-hand information about a country, a city and a suburb. Many prospective residents rely on the following websites before making relocation choices: property agencies, schools, 34 Alice Chik et al. and city councils. Website visitors would expect these websites to provide a true- to-life representation of a suburb in words and images. In this section, we ask: when linguistic diversity is an established reality, how is this diversity being represented online? Is linguistic diversity reflected in the written and visual components on websites of local institutions and business? To answer these questions, we examined websites from two highly diverse suburbs (Auburn and Fairfield) in Western Sydney. The 2016 census shows the estimated resident population of Auburn is 37,366 and Fairfield is 18,595 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017a). We have chosen to present the population figure at the State Suburbs level (SSCs) because it is at this level that matches our layman’s understanding of the geographical suburbs (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016). Both Auburn and Fairfield have much more diverse populations in terms of ancestry, language, and religion than Sydney as a whole. The figures for use of languages other than English in the home are 83.5 per cent in Auburn and 77.7 per cent in Fairfield, compared to 38.2 per cent for Sydney. The top languages spoken are Arabic, Mandarin and Turkish in Auburn, and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Arabic and Vietnamese in Fairfield. Both suburbs have a relatively higher settlement level of migrants who arrived between 2011 and 2016 (35.6 per cent in Auburn and 30.8 per cent in Fairfield). Fairfield City, in which the Fairfield suburb is located, has been chosen as one of the welcoming destinations for humanitarian refugee settlement in Australia (Fairfield City Council 2017). This explains the much higher concentration of population with an Assyrian/Chaldean ancestry (20.7 per cent) than the 0.6 per cent in Sydney as a whole. The two suburbs certainly are among the most diverse suburbs in Sydney.

Languages in public online spaces We investigated the representation of languages and cultures in publicly accessible digital spaces by choosing local institutional (city council and school) and business (real estate) websites. These websites contain essential information for settlement in the suburb: local governance, education and housing. In general, city councils, real estate agents and schools try to use their websites to communicate a positive image of their communities to their target audience. Website visitors usually form their first impression about these organizations on visiting the homepage (Ha and James 1998). Organizations thus use both words and images selectively and carefully in pages like ‘About us’ or ‘Message to (investors/customers/parents...)’ for public communication. We conducted a website analysis of 27 local institutional and business websites: 14 in Auburn and 13 in Fairfield. These websites include those of the city councils, real estate agencies (2 in each suburb), and schools (11 in the catchment areas of Auburn and 10 in Fairfield). Website structure varies widely, even for websites in the same category. Some websites contain many more subpages than others. So we selected a few commonly shared pages such as ‘Homepage’ and Language diversity in Sydney 35

‘About us’ to provide a consistent comparative analysis. All together we compiled 10,756 written words and 2,199 images from these local institutional and business websites. For the written words, we analysed what was written about ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘multilingualism’ on these websites by looking at some keywords (e.g. ‘multicultural’, ‘diverse’, ‘community’, ‘languages’). For the images, we examined who were represented and the kinds of activities they were engaged in. For images taken from school websites, most show everyday snippets of both regular learning routines and special excursions and celebrations (e.g. a trip to the museum, mid-year drama performance, etc.). Finally, we examined how the written words and images work together.

Impression management: seeing and reading diversity Officially, Australia adopts a multicultural policy that acknowledges the heritage, cultural and linguistic diversity of the country; but the acknowledgement might not be fully represented in all domains of Australian life. Our analysis indicates that what you see is not what you get. We found that by providing detailed descriptions of the suburbs, property agency websites are forthcoming in packa- ging diversity as an attractive feature. In property agents’ words, Auburn is ‘one of the most culturally diverse areas in Sydney with nearly 60 per cent of residents born overseas’ (Domain 2017a). It is now an up-and-coming suburb for families that appreciate multiculturalism for the ‘dining experiences’, and save by shopping at Costco while spending on home designing and decorating. Auburn is also great for workers in ‘city offices’. This sales pitch is certainly targeting the professional new migrants who would be working in the Central Business District. While the written texts portray Auburn as a ‘family-focused neighbourhood’ for people from different parts of the world, ‘including families from China, Vietnam and Korea’ (RealEstate 2017), the visual representation is different. All photos on the website showed a suburb with a predominantly Muslim population: photos of women wearing hijab and men in prayer caps in different activities, shops selling hijab fashion, ethnic grocery stores with writing in Arabic. There is a clear disjunction between the textual and visual references to the suburb. In both written and visual texts, linguistic diversity in Auburn is only implied, as visitors would naturally assume that ‘families from China, Vietnam and Korea’ would speak an additional language other than English. But Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean are were not visually presented at all. Meanwhile, Fairfield is ‘another one of Sydney’s cultural melting pots’ with nearly 70 per cent of residents born overseas (Domain 2017b), and another agency states that each of their staff members is able to speak at least two languages ‘in order to service our very multi-cultural community and make it easier for our clients and customers to be able to communicate with ease and confidence in their native language’ (Century21 2017). The collage of photos on the website shows colourful and exotic ethnic dishes from Fairfield restaurants. Property agencies in both suburbs frame diversity as strengths and play to cater for 36 Alice Chik et al. the diverse markets, and the websites are filled with photographs of shop signs, pedestrians and staff members, and cuisines to indicate the visible presence of diversity. But the only visible language was Arabic writing in one photo. So, linguistic diversity is only implicitly included in this representation of cultural diversity and melting pots. While property agencies appear to be very adaptive on their websites, local councils stated the extent of their diversities through census statistics. Textually both city councils do not provide much information about the cultural and linguistic diversity of the residents other than pointing website visitors to the Australian Bureau of Statistics for further information. However, there is very little writing about the people of the city. Both city council websites enabled the Google Translation function, which suggested that some website visitors would prefer to read information in a language other than English. And both councils provide some public services with language support, for instance, library and senior services. Fairfield City Council adopts the slogan of ‘Celebrating diversity’ on its website. However, linguistic and cultural diversity are only briefly mentioned in an infographic on a subpage (‘Snapshot of Fairfield City’) to show that 71 per cent of the population speak a language other than English at home and 52 per cent of the residents come from non-English speaking countries. The Cumberland Council, serving the Auburn suburb, currently does not post any website information related to population diversity. Website visitors seeking such information are directed to census survey data. Visually, both city council websites contain little presence of diversity. The exceptions are photographs of cultural celebrations. School websites provided the most ambivalent reading of cultural and linguistic diversities. From the public information available on My School website, almost all schools in the two suburbs have over 80 per cent (and 99 per cent in some schools) of their student population with a language background other than English. In the word frequency search, words associated with diversity (e.g. multicultural, diversity) appeared infrequently. Almost all schools mentioned in one sentence that their schools encourage the learning of multiculturalism, but only five out of 21 schools stated that they have students from non-English backgrounds. A school might aim at cultivating students with skills to ‘contribute responsibly and purposefully to our culturally diverse society’, but there is no clear suggestion these currently enrolled students are already from diverse cultural and language backgrounds. Another common observation is that the teaching team is not referred to as being multicultural or multilingual at all. Only two Fairfield schools explicitly mentioned that they provide community languages programs in Arabic, Assyrian, Khmer, Spanish and Vietnamese. However, all schools mentioned additional English support is available for non-native English speaking students. This then suggests clearly that there are enough students who are bilingual or multilingual and speak English as an additional language to warrant such language support. Language diversity is also mostly used in reference as a deficit for ‘Intensive English Language Programme’ (a 12-month English Language diversity in Sydney 37 programme for non-native English speaking secondary school students) and other remedial English programmes (for instance, special classes and specialist teachers for English as an Additional Language/Dialect students). In other words, linguistic diversity is represented as a deficit. Although there were few textual references to the diversity of the student body, school websites usually contained images of both everyday and special learning activities (e.g. sports days, excursions, special events). It is in these images that we see strong visual references to ethnic and faith diversity, which implicitly represent some degree of linguistic diversity. About 90 per cent of our corpus of 2,122 images from school websites shows students of diverse ethnic and faith backgrounds. However, there is only limited explicit suggestion of linguistic diversity, for instance, photos of community language classes or student works presented in multiple languages. Again, linguistic diversity can only be assumed as schools do not actively post photos of language-related activities (other than English literacy learning). Examination of the online public spaces in two of Sydney’s most diverse suburbs (Auburn and Fairfield) indicates that there is not much acknowledgement of multilingualism in public. So far, our findings suggest that on important public and commercial websites, multilingualism is scantly mentioned. Businesses, via property agencies, acknowledge and welcome linguistic diversity as a feature of multicultural suburbs. Real estate agencies are the most direct in showcasing linguistic diversity as an idiosyncratic characteristic and are catering to the market with multilingual staffs. City councils provide statistical data and language support on some webpages. Both city council websites use the standard web translation tool to cater for linguistically diverse audiences, but Google Translate does not necessarily provide culturally and linguistically sensitive and accurate translation all the time. In addition, website visitors have to work quite hard to find additional information about language diversity in the relevant suburbs. Schools are the least forthcoming in writing about language diversity, though images suggest a multi- ethnic and multi-faith student population. Language diversity is more likely to be positioned as a deficit attribute that links to the need for English learning support. But the textual and visual gap in diversity representation on school websites needs to be improved (Allard and Santoro 2006; Burridge and Chodkiewicz 2008).

Conclusion We began this chapter by asking ‘where are the linguistically diverse households’ and ‘how is linguistic diversity represented online’? While the map on languages spoken at home clearly shows Sydney’s linguistic diversity, such diversity is contained within the private domain. We also show that linguistic diversity is distributed in a more complicated manner than just pockets of ancestry groups from diﬀerent cultural backgrounds. Diﬀerent language groups are basically co- sharing suburbs to varying degrees of intensity without one particular group being overwhelmingly dominant. 38 Alice Chik et al.

Our use of a geolinguistic approach to ﬁrst scout the whereabouts of linguistic diversity has given us a baseline understanding which we use as the basis for further critical discourse analysis. We also want to emphasize that we made full use of TableBuilder, a public access online self-help tool for any interested parties to create tables, graphs and maps of census data. Our website analysis shows that business and public institutional websites should be more proactive in showcasing language diversity, in addition to cultural and faith diversity. Language diversity is part of an everyday experience, especially in the two suburbs we examined in this chapter (see also Chapter 4 by Otsuji and Pennycook), so it should be given a more prominent and positive acknowledgement in online space. This acknowledgement should be clearly stated in both written and visual texts. This is especially on school websites as young people could well be more sensitive to how their language heritages are perceived by their schools, teachers and peers. Multicultural education is an essential component of the Australian curriculum, and schools can embrace linguistic diversity in addition to the tokenistic cultural festival celebration. For a claim to be made that a city is multilingual, such diversity should be celebrated in all aspects of everyday life, not just in census data. We believe that by taking an interdisciplinary approach, we can extend the discussion on urban multilingualism.

References Allard, A. and Santoro, N. (2006) ‘Troubling identities: Teacher education students’ constructions of class and ethnicity’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1): 115–129. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016) Gazetted Localities & State Suburbs. Online. Available at: www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/factsheetsglssc?opendocument (accessed 22 November 2017). Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017a) 2016 Census QuickStats. Online. Available at: www. censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC10106? opendocument (accessed 22 November 2017). Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017b) TableBuilder. Online. Available at: www.abs.gov.au/ websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilder (accessed 22 November 2017). Burridge, N. and Chodkiewicz, A. (2008) Representations of Cultural Diversity in School and Community Settings, Sydney: University of Technology Sydney. Century 21 (2017) Fairfield Real Estate Agents & Property Management. Online. Available at: https://fairfield.century21.com.au/ (accessed 22 November 2017). Clyne, M. (2003) Dynamics of Language Contact: English and Immigrant Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M. and Kipp, S. (2006) ‘Australia’s community languages’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 180: 7–21. Department of Immigration and Border Protection (2017) Which English Language Tests Are Accepted by the Department? Online. Available at: www.homeaffairs.gov.au/Lega/Lega/ Form/Immi-FAQs/aelt (accessed November 2017). Department of Immigration and Settlement. (2007) Fact Sheet 6 – Australia’s Multicultural Policy, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Social Services (2017) Settlement Reporting Services. Online. Available at: www. dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/programs-policy/settle ment-services/settlement-reporting-facility (accessed 22 November 2017). Language diversity in Sydney 39

Domain (2017a) Visitors Come from All Parts of Sydney to Sample the Cuisine in Auburn.Online. Available at: www.domain.com.au/suburb-profile/auburn-nsw-2144 (accessed 22 Novem- ber 2017). Domain (2017b) Another One of Sydney’s Cultural Melting Pots. Online. Available at: www. domain.com.au/suburb-profile/fairfield-nsw-2165 (accessed 22 November 2017). Fairfield City Council (2017) Refugee Settlement Plan Launched for Fairfield City. Online. Available at: www.fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au/news/article/142/refugee_settlement_plan_ launched_for_fairfield_city (accessed 22 November 2017). Forrest, J., Johnston, R., Siciliano, F., Manley, D. and Jones, K (2017) ‘Are Australia’s suburbs swamped by Asians and Muslims? Countering political claims with data’, Australian Geographer, 48(4): 457–472. Forrest, J. and Johnston, R.J. (1981) ‘On the characterisation of urban sub-areas according to age structure’, Urban Geography,2:31–40. Ha, L. and James, E.L. (1998) ‘Interactivity re-examined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42: 457–474. Ozolins, U. (1993) The Politics of Language in Australia. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. RealEstate (2017) Auburn New South Wales 2144. Online. Available at: www.realestate. com.au/neighbourhoods/auburn-2144-nsw (assessed 22 November 2017). Van Leeuwen, T. (2009) ‘Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide’,in R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed.), London: SAGE Publications. Williams, C.H. and van der Merwe, I. (1996) ‘Mapping the multilingual city: A research agenda for urban geolinguistics’, Journal of Multicultural and Multilingual Development, 17: 49–66.