CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
Family Language Planning in a Diaspora:
Marwari in Mumbai
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics
By
Mrinalini Watson
May 2017
The thesis of Mrinalini Watson is approved:
______Dr. Sharon Klein Date
______Dr. Terrie Mathis Date
______Professor Cynthia Hagstrom, Chair Date
California State University, Northridge
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, without Dr. Klein’s guidance, mentorship, encouragement when I wanted to give up, and refusal to accept my excuses about being too old, I would not be writing this
‘acknowledgement’. Though language attrition is not her area of specialization (or interest) she graciously agreed to be on my thesis committee and by giving me an ‘outsider’s’ perspective she frequently compelled me to look at the content through a different lens: and for that I am eternally grateful. In the past four years we spent numerous hours together working on different applications, conference presentations, and term papers, which all eventually filtered into this text. Additionally, on behalf of the very long list of students whose lives you have enriched … Thank you!
As a committee member, Dr. Mathis’s honest feedback, patience with my punctuation challenges, and guidance with my organizational handicap made the process more manageable and the product much more readable, for which I (and in case anyone else reads it) am very thankful. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Professor Hagstrom who, as my committee chairperson, very kindly took over the position after Dr. Field’s medical emergency and continued to encourage and guide me even after she retired from CSUN, sometimes compelling me to step outside my comfort zone to explore topics more completely.
A special note of gratitude to Dr. Salikoko Mufwene for his kindness in guiding my initial exploration into language ecologies, heritage language loss, cultural identities, and the distinction between heritage languages versus mother tongues—his wisdom continues to guide my thinking.
iii This acknowledgement would be incomplete without thanking a key contributor to the successful completion of this work—CSUN’s Graduate Studies department. In addition to providing me with the travel grant that enabled me to do my fieldwork in India, and arranging workshops that facilitated the writing process, they were always generous with their time as well as kind in their responses to my numerous questions.
Finally, to my friends (especially R. S. and Purnima Rathore), relatives (especially
Santosh Bhabhi), and the other participants in this study who answered my never ending questions about the Marwari language and allowed me into their lives - a very heartfelt khamagani. My eternal thanks to my cousin, Sunita (who I cannot thank enough for her unwavering support) and her entire family - without your generous and unrestrained participation during the interview process this thesis (and numerous papers and presentations) would have been extremely bland. And, to my mother and children – thank you for your patience, your support and for being understanding when I was unavailable.
iv DEDICATION
I dedicate this tome to Tom, my husband, without whose ever supportive and nurturing presence, this effort would have been so much harder. Thank you for catering to me, for picking up the slack in every other aspect of our lives, and for putting almost everything and everyone else on hold so I could complete this degree. As the saying should go, “Behind every successful woman there is a man”—you are the man behind my success!
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signature Page ii
Acknowledgements iii
Dedication v
List of Tables xi
List of Figures xii
List of Transcriptions xiii
Abstract xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
2.1 Introduction 12
2.1.1 Language policy 12
2.1.2 Language shift 14
2.1.3 Intergenerational language transfer 15
2.1.4 Language choices 16
2.1.5 Family language policies 18
2.1.6 Prestige of English 19
2.1.7 Impact of Colonialism 19
2.1.8 Globalization 20
2.1.8.1 Irish-Gaelic 21
2.1.8.2 Hebrew 21
2.1.8.3 Hebrew versus Irish-Gaelic 22
vi 2.1.8.4 Other minor languages 22
2.1.9 Socio-economic reality 24
2.1.10 Practice versus policy 24
2.2 Language Practice 26
2.2.1 Motivation 27
2.2.2 Functionality 28
2.2.3 In-group marker 29
2.2.4 Survival 29
2.2.5 Peer group influence 30
2.2.6 Prestige of accents 31
2.2.7 Communicating with relatives 31
2.2.8 Language between siblings 32
2.2.9 Parent’s education and family’s socio-economic status 33
2.2.10 Acculturation of the parents 33
2.2.11 Family cohesiveness 34
2.2.12 Generational variance in domain separation 35
2.3 Language Ideology 36
2.3.1 Parental Expectations 36
2.3.2 Post-colonial institutional policy 37
2.3.3 Urban versus suburban communities 38
2.3.4 Gendered motivation 39
2.3.5 Language attitudes 39
2.3.6 Generational preferences 41
vii 2.4 Language Management 42
2.4.1 Formal plan or informal strategy 43
2.4.2 Caretakers as policy makers 44
2.4.3 Supportive community 45
2.4.4 Mothers’ ethnic identities 46
2.4.5 Fathers’ parenting roles 46
2.4.6 Academic environments 47
2.4.7 Intergenerational transfer strategies 48
2.4.8 Size of the speech community 48
2.5 Summary 49
Chapter 3: Methodology 50
3.1 Participants 51
3.2 Procedure 56
3.3 Questionnaire 65
3.4 Interview questions 68
Chapter 4: Analysis 74
4.1 Does birthplace influence linguistic identity and heritage language use? 75
4.2 Is language choice reflective of the participant’s cultural quotient? 76
4.3 Does the participant’s level of education influence language use? 84
4.4 Does the participant’s medium of education influence language use? 85
4.5 Does living in a multi-generational family influence language choice? 89
4.6 What factors are potentially most influential in the implementation of IGT? 93
Chapter 5: Discussion 95
viii 5.1 Introduction 95
5.2 Language practice 98
5.2.1 Academic environments 98
5.2.2 Cultural practices 99
5.2.3 Maintaining traditions 103
5.2.4 Peer-group influence 103
5.2.5 Sibling influence 104
5.2.6 Family communication 106
5.3 Language ideology 107
5.3.1 Prestige 107
5.3.2 Attitudes 109
5.3.3 Ethnolinguistic identity 112
5.3.4 Mothers as decision-makers 113
5.3.5 In-group marker 115
5.3.6 Socio-economic advantage 115
5.4 Language management 116
5.4.1 Institutional policies 116
5.4.2 Cultural norms 119
5.4.3 Family expectations 120
5.5 Summary 120
Chapter 6: Conclusion 122
6.1 Future modifications 124
6.2 Future research questions 126
ix Bibliography 128
Appendix A: Transcription notation 139
x LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 The participants 54
Table 3.2 Family A 58
Table 3.3 Family B 59
Table 3.4 Family C 60
Table 3.5 Family D 61
Table 3.6 Family F 61
Table 3.7 Family G 62
Table 3.8 Family H 62
Table 3.9 Family I 63
Table 4.1 Cultural awareness and ethnic identity 78
Table 4.2 Membership in cultural organizations and ethnic identity 79
Table 4.3 Accessing Marwari media and ethnic identity 80
Table 4.4 High cultural quotient – Rajasthani identity 80
Table 4.5 Intermediate cultural quotient – Rajasthani identity 81
Table 4.6 Low cultural quotient – Rajasthani identity 81
Table 4.7 Low cultural quotient – Indian or Mumbaikar identity 82
Table 4.8 Cultural quotient and intergenerational language transfer 82
Table 4.9 Elementary school medium of instruction and HL use 86
Table 4.10 Impact of medium of instruction on IGT 88
Table 4.11 Family structure with reference to participants 90
Table 4.12 Family structure and intergenerational language transfer 90
xi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Distribution of languages spoken to children by age category 91
Figure 4.2 Distribution of languages spoken to parent by age category 92
xii LIST OF TRANSCRIPTIONS
Transcript (1) “the principal was VERY strict” 98
Transcript (2) “khaat” and “chumna” 100
Transcript (3) “international foods” 101
Transcript (4) “ab generation” 101
Transcript (5) “seethla saatham” festival 102
Transcript (6) “Hindi is more lively and respectful language” 106
Transcript (7) “it’s a RATRACE” 107
Transcript (8) “Marwaris are nowadays better” 108
Transcript (9) “ethics, finance, status” 109
Transcript (10) “not to speak in Gujarati” 110
Transcript (11) “Marwari takes his business very seriously” 110
Transcript (12) Stereotypically speaking 111
Transcript (13) “a very convenient issue” 113
Transcript (14) “very FLUENT in English” 114
Transcript (15) The “interview process” 116
Transcript (16) “dur: ke nahin bolte” 117
Transcript (17) “you’ll get PUNISHED” 118
xiii ABSTRACT
Family Language Planning in a Diaspora:
Marwari in Mumbai
By
Mrinalini Watson
Master of Arts in Linguistics
To identify the factors that influence linguistic choices and to examine the consequences of different generations in a family having mutually incomprehensible primary languages, this thesis will use Spolsky’s (2004, 2005) language policy theories to scaffold the analysis of the language plans of Marwari-speaking families in Mumbai (a diaspora for this speech community). Methodological triangulation—questionnaires, interviews, and observations—used to determine what were the primary influences on the language choices of participants from this speech community, revealed a complex interplay of internal and external factors on linguistic choices. Traits such as linguistic identity and individual language ideology affected implementation of institutional policies. At the same time, external influences such as socio-economic factors and institutional policies triggered internal factors that were expressed as parental expectations, sibling interactions and peer group influence. Thus, ideology, expressed in language plans that are managed by policies which influence language practice, reflected language management at institutional, communal, and individual levels. The impact of institutional policies on speakers’ linguistic and social identities, social prestige associated with a language, and the potential impact of linguistic choices on socio-economic benefits were all relevant to the family language plans
xiv that were formulated by the participants in this study. Notably, the factor that was most influential with respect to the linguistic choices made by the segment of the Marwari speech community who participated in this study, and hence to the potential for intergenerational transfer (IGT) of their heritage language (HL), was the primary caretakers’ (especially if it was the mothers’) dominant language.
Key words: family language planning, ideology, institutional policies, intergenerational
language transfer (IGT), primary caretaker
xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
On recent visits to India I had observed my younger cousins on my father’s1 side of the family speaking to their children primarily in English. What perturbed me was that none of their children who were of secondary school age or younger knew Marwari, their heritage language (HL). These were families where, in every generation, the marriages had been arranged between families from the same ethnicity so I assumed everyone spoke the same
HL. What unnerved me further was the parents’ nonchalant attitude about their children’s lack of HL proficiency. Why were they disconnecting from their language and culture?
Marwari speakers did not constitute a community that was socio-economically disadvantaged or stigmatized. As a matter of fact, some of India’s industrial giants were Marwari-speakers whose families had left Rajasthan, the homeland of the Marwari-speaking community, four or five generations ago, but who had maintained their affiliation with Mumbai’s Marwari speech-community—that is, until the most recent generation of parents.
So, what had happened in the past couple of decades to prompt this change in
Mumbai’s linguistic landscape? What was affecting the changing HL use in this diaspora?
What would happen to the Marwari language if none of the children used it? What were the linguistic consequences for the children of not learning their HL? What were the linguistic consequences for the families, especially in those families where the oldest generation was monolingual in Marwari? Was this even a problem that needed to be resolved or was this an evolutionary process that was beneficial/necessary/desired by the community? That is, I thought it was a problem especially if future generations wanted to connect with their roots,
1 My mother is a Bengali (a different Indian ethnicity), my parents did not have an arranged marriage, and I never learned Marwari at home.
1 but did the community feel the same way? Were these conscious choices not to use the HL or was the community reacting to triggers in their ecology? If so, what were those triggers?
Who was making the decisions? If change was desired by the speech community, where would this change need to be implemented? How wide-spread was the shift? What was the difference between the families that continued to use Marwari and those that did not? What was the difference between the families where the children used Marwari and those families where the youngest generation did not speak Marwari? Were these issues that other minor or even dominant language speech communities were facing in Mumbai, or other urban areas in
India? These were some of the questions that prompted my inquiry into the language practices of Mumbai’s Marwari speech community.
To understand what was prompting this shift away from HL use in this community and to answer some of these questions, this thesis will first examine the concept of language shift and how contact with dominant languages affects the way in which minor HLs are practiced. After examining the broader concepts related to attrition such as the effects of policies on language use and the speakers’ choices regarding the domains of use for the languages in their inventory, a closer examination of the factors that are relevant to the
Rajasthani diaspora within India, especially individuals and families who reside in India’s largest cosmopolitan city, Mumbai, will be engaged in.
If access to the culture and traditions that are inherent in their HLs is desired by a speech community, and if the community wants to preserve this knowledge for future generations, intergenerational transfer (IGT) of the language and culture must occur. Since the family is the primary domain for transferring cultural and linguistic information to future generations, all the factors impacting language use that will be considered in this thesis will
2 be in the context of how they affect the family—especially families who are members of minor language communities. Spolsky’s (2005) theory, that “[l]anguage polic[ies] in the family may be analyzed as language practice, ideology and management” (p. 2155) will be used to scaffold the analysis of factors that influence how language is used by speakers, their beliefs about language, and the family’s language management strategies in the context of the family’s language plan (FLP).
To understand a speech community’s language policies, it is necessary to understand the community’s language practices (Spolsky, 2005, p. 2152) because when languages are in contact, change is inevitable both to the languages and to their speech communities. In comparing them to biological ecologies, Spolsky (2005) stated, “language ecologies are complex contextualized repertoires of linguistic units of various sizes that may be seen as consolidating from time to time into recognizable linguistic varieties that are sometimes accorded a name or label” (p. 2152). The difference between biological forms and linguistic units is that the linguistic units can be either from the same language or variety or they can be from different linguistic systems. When linguistic units from different varieties coalesce to form new linguistic units, the change may or may not affect the entire speech community or language ecology.
Prompted by both linguistic as well as non-linguistic factors, sometimes these changes result in minor modifications such as linguistic borrowing, while at other times the change could be much more dramatic such as attrition of the language or even language death. When one speech community incorporates linguistic features into its own language without the inherent structure of the borrowing language being altered simple phonological, morphosyntactic or lexical changes can occur. This type of linguistic modification can be
3 seen in situations where invaders begin to use words from the languages of the people they have conquered. For example, words like jodhpur and bungalow were adopted from Hindi into English by the British during colonial times. At other times, the occurrence of more complex sociolinguistic processes can alter the speakers’ language attitudes and linguistic identity. For example, when harsh consequences are imposed upon users of indigenous languages or the languages themselves are trivialized by invaders who implement policies instigating practices that affect HL use, the indigenous populations may become reluctant to use their HLs.
The consequences of implementing policies and practices that adversely affected the vitality of indigenous languages became evident during colonial times in urban India and persisted in post-colonial times too. Similar policies and practices were evident in Native
American communities in both North and South America and had equally detrimental long term effects. Institutional policies that affect language use are one of many factors that influence which languages speakers choose to use in different domains. This thesis will examine the impact of such policies and other factors that influence linguistic choices while analyzing how those decisions impact the IGT of language and culture. In a country such as
India, where being multilingual is the norm, languages have co-existed in evolving forms for centuries. However, in recent decades, instead of using their HLs, speakers are displaying a preference for the dominant language of the ecology—generally the local variety of Indian
English (IE) or Hindi. That is, language maintenance is being supplanted by language attrition, especially in populations that have migrated to urban areas of the country. This phenomenon is not unique to India or even to Asia. It has been observed and studied in numerous countries on almost every continent. For example, in Ghana, where most
4 individuals are multilingual, children from families who have a higher socio-economic status
(SES) are tending towards bilingualism and occasionally even becoming monolingual.
Members of these communities are giving up use of their less prestigious HLs in domains that were previously reserved exclusively for these less prestigious languages (Bodomo,
Anderson, Dzahenie-Quarshie, 2010, pp. 364, 367). The authors claim that the potential for language shift is influenced by (1) a change in the attitudes towards the language both by its speakers and by members of the mainstream society, (2) by a perceived decrease in where, when, and how the language is used, and (3) by non-language-oriented processes such as urbanization, globalization, and nationalism (Bodomo et al., 2010).
Often, the functionality of a language with respect to a specific domain determines its prestige and dominance. For example, at one end of the viability spectrum for Indian languages is IE, a minor language that does not have a specific home-state within India. Yet, because it is the primary language for global enterprise, science, and technology, it has high prestige. At the opposite end are languages such as Bazaari Hindi, a pidginized Hindi that is used by people of multiple linguistic backgrounds as the communication medium for transactions in Mumbai’s local market-places (Pandharipande, 2002, p. 19).
In between these extremes are certain Indic languages that are spoken by a majority of the population in their home-states, but are considered minor dialects in the diaspora because they have not been designated as one of India’s official languages. These languages become invisible in India’s urban diaspora. As their speakers embrace the perceived opportunities provided by major languages in their ecologies, they simultaneously disconnect from their HL because speakers of minimized languages frequently seek the prestige that speaking an official language provides. Marwari is one such language. It is the dominant
5 language in the state of Rajasthan (one of the most populous states in India), and although it is spoken by the majority of people from Western Rajasthan, it lacks the power and prestige associated with being an official language.
The terms Rajasthani and Marwari are interchangeable for both the language and the people—some people consider themselves to be Marwari, but not Rajasthanis. However, for the purposes of this thesis, I have made a distinction between the terminology for the language and the ethnicity of the speakers: referring to the people as Rajasthani and using the label Marwari when referencing the language.
Although most older individuals from this ethnic community continue to identify themselves as Marwaris2, in some families who have not had any affiliation with the state of
Rajasthan for many generations, linguistic affiliations and preferences have begun to change—with certain individuals exhibiting greater degrees of language shift in some cases.
In the case of the contemporary generation of Rajasthani children growing up in Mumbai, even if they are familiar with the language, a significant portion do not use Marwari when interacting with their parents and siblings, exemplifying Mufwene’s (2007d) argument, that when children have “virtually no more exposure to their ancestral languages, ... the children are deprived of any motivation to speak it” (p. 385).
Another distinguishing fact regarding this community is that Rajasthanis do not speak one language, one dialect, or even various dialects of a single language; they speak various dialects of different Rajasthani languages. A sizeable number of Rajasthanis do speak
Marwari, however, some who claim they speak Marwari do so because they want the
2 But not as Rajasthanis since they associate the label Rajasthani with being a resident of the state of Rajasthan. Those Marwaris whose ancestors left Rajasthan a number of generations ago have no affiliation with the geographic location.
6 linguistic affiliation with the label, while others who make the claim may be speaking one of the other approximately dozen different Rajasthani languages such as Mewari, Mewati, or
Hadoti, or a dialect of one of these languages. So, although two interlocutors might indicate that they speak Marwari, their varieties might be different or they might be speaking mutually unintelligible languages—a common reason for not using HL(s) between spouses.
In addition to the large variety of languages, India’s social structure consists of different types of family situations where varied language use patterns can be seen. India’s multilingual ecology and the prevalence of joint families have generated a unique environment for FLP and language policies with respect to the impact that urbanization and globalization are having on Indian society. Traditionally, Indian joint families were both multigenerational and an association of multiple nuclear families. While in more urban contemporary communities, a growing number of adult children establish their own nuclear family households, a large percentage of Indian households still maintain co-operative households where adult brothers, their wives and children all live under the same roof with their parents, sharing one kitchen and other common spaces.
Home to 461 of the world’s 7102 known languages (Lewis, Simons, & Fenning,
2015), India’s linguistic diversity is concordant with and intimately related to the country’s cultural diversity. The country’s linguistic and cultural environment exemplifies how although certain aspects of a culture can be interpreted using different languages, a significant proportion of traditions and cultural concepts require language-specific terminology and cannot be easily translated into another language. As Fishman (1991) observed, “The traditionally associated language of any ethnocultural collectivity is associated with the total ethnocultural pattern of that collectivity” (p. 16). For example, the
7 Jewish communities that do not use Hebrew experience a different form of being Jewish from those who are still using the language (Fishman, 1991, p. 16). Any speech community that does not use the language which encapsulates the culture cannot experience the culture in the same manner as those who live in the language. Therefore, knowledge of the associated language is essential to truly know a culture, and to understand the idiomatic nuances of a language (Fishman, 1991, p. 26).
Establishing a balance between achieving goals (linguistic and non-linguistic) and maintaining the community’s cultural identity is necessary for preserving both a speech community’s linguistic identity as well as its linguistic and cultural heritage. Influenced by various socio-cultural, economic, and geopolitical factors, the choices regarding whether to use their HL, when to use it, and with whom are primarily made by individuals within a speech community, not by institutions (private or public). These decisions constitute FLP— choices that families make about which language they will use under specific circumstances.
This thesis will analyze the language practices of twenty-seven individuals and will compare the factors influencing the language plans of two families who participated in the study and whose ancestral language is Marwari.
The family is one of the primary domains where language use is managed and negotiated. When parents use their HLs with their children, those are the languages that become relevant for their interaction. However, when they choose another language, whether it is the dominant language of that ecology such as Hindi or a lingua franca such as IE, a non-
HL becomes the child’s mother-tongue and possibly an additional primary language for the child. These choices that parents make, whether overt or not, determine to what extent children will use their HLs throughout their lives. Thus, FLP is significant in the
8 determination of whether IGT of language will occur. IGT is the primary means of ensuring continued use of a language beyond the lifetimes of the current speech community and in an environment that is conducive to IGT, the language is valued by its speech community.
Without IGT a speech community shrinks. If older members of a speech community cannot transmit their linguistic knowledge to their descendants, then, as the older community members die out, for wont of new speakers, the language also begins to die. When younger generations are not using their HLs, the number of speakers decreases, the older generation has fewer people to share their language with, and the younger generations miss the opportunity to acquire the language and the related cultural knowledge. Additionally, as opportunities for use decrease, the older generation’s ability to use the language may deteriorate.
This type of attrition was evident in the case of a great-grandmother whose dominant language used to be Marwari but who was losing proficiency in it for multiple reasons—a large proportion of her Marwari interlocutors had died, she was a member of an immigrant population and lived in a community where there were few Marwari-speakers outside her home, during her daily visit to the temple and her occasional visits to the market she did not meet anyone she could converse with in Marwari, and her daily interaction with her children, daughter-in-law, and grand-daughter-in-law did not provide sufficient opportunities for language maintenance. Her family exemplified the Stage 7 conditions of Fishman’s (1991)
Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), where “the elderly Xish speakers are still societally integrated, living in homes, neighborhoods and communities among their own Y- ish speaking children, [and] grandchildren” (p. 90). When the older generations continue to use the language within limited domains if they are “beyond child- bearing age,” they can
9 only contribute to the language “sociologically” but not “demographically” (Fishman, 1991, p. 90). That is, FLP choices are susceptible to the prevalent conditions of the specific language ecology.
Ultimately, a language survives when speakers use it in their daily communications and while doing so they transmit it to future generations. Minor languages are particularly susceptible to diminishing use as major languages present opportunities to speakers that are unavailable to speakers of minor languages. Economic, social, and political benefits associated with lingua francas (such as certain varieties of English) and dominant languages
(such as Hindi) frequently influence decisions to shift from using traditional heritage languages to a language with greater power and/or prestige.
Some linguists claim language attrition is a natural result of ecological change and should not be mourned; but does such an approach short-change future generations of speakers, depriving them of their unique heritage? On one hand, consideration needs to be given to whether individuals who want to connect to their cultural heritage in its historical form can do so without the appropriate lexicon. On the other hand, for those whose linguistic needs are changing beyond the structural dimensions of their heritage language, can the language be sufficiently modified to accommodate the changing needs? To answer these questions, it is necessary to examine the motivations behind language use, especially whether preserving the historical language is in a speech community’s best interest if such use does not permit the speakers to achieve their daily and/or long-term goals.
Traveling from a global viewpoint to a local one, this thesis will consider the impact of language contact, institutional policies, and speakers’ ideologies on the languages speakers choose to use in specific domains. These choices manifest as language plans that play an
10 important role in how speakers of minor languages respond to the lure of speaking more prestigious languages. The FLPs are especially significant when speakers who are exhibiting a preference for using the dominant languages shift away from using their HLs.
Language plans that foster HL use and thus IGT within families can be an important resource for speech-communities that favor language preservation. IGT is especially critical for those communities whose HLs face attrition. Using Spolsky’s (2004) family language planning3 (FLP) model to scaffold the discussion comparing the language management of two Marwari-speaking families in Mumbai’s Rajasthani diaspora, this thesis will analyze the impact of the factors that influence the language ideology and practices of these families and how they reflect the probability of preserving Rajasthani heritage and culture in these communities.
3 FLP is alternatively referred to as family language policy in contemporary scholarship. King (2008) makes a distinction between FLP as policy versus planning (older terminology), where contemporary research argues that the P in FLP is policy. However, for the purpose of this thesis, FLP will imply planning
11 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The symbiotic relationship shared by languages and their speakers enables languages to thrive only when they are used by the speakers. And in turn, languages enable communication by users, a function that can sometimes be necessary for the speakers’ survival. It is generally within their families that speakers first encounter language, especially heritage languages (HLs). However, without a robust community of speakers and their families, speakers have limited opportunities to use their HLs and languages, especially minority ones, struggle to survive. In the initial section of this chapter (section 2.1) concepts such as language policy, language shift (LS), intergenerational transfer (IGT), and family language planning (FLP) will be introduced. That will be followed by a discussion first of how English (as a colonial language and as a global language) has impacted the use of minor languages and then of other global languages that have been affected by LS. Finally, the factors affecting language practice (section 2.2), language ideology (section 2.3), and language management (section 2.4) as they relate to FLP will be examined in the three final sections of this chapter. Although this review is compartmentalized into practice, ideology, and management, they are not discrete categories and the factors identified as being relevant to one section could under certain conditions arguably be applied to more than one section.
2.1.1 Language policy
A policy is a statement dictating certain practices, therefore a language policy would direct language use. However, according to Spolsky (2005),
If you want to find out about the language policy of a speech community, of whatever
size or nature, the first step is to study its actual language practices, in other words to
12 describe what Dell Hymes (1974) called the ethnography of communication and what
others call the sociolinguistic repertoire. (p. 2152).
That is, language policy cannot be considered without addressing language practice since factors affecting language policy and language practice form a complex interdependent web.
Policies, both linguistic and non-linguistic, affect speakers’ language-based ideologies and therefore their language practices, while a speakers’ ideologies (beliefs) about the acceptability of features of a language in turn influence linguistic practices that guide the formulation of policies. These policies and practices scaffold language plans, including FLPs which as Spolsky (2004) observed “operate within … speech communit[ies],” (p. 40), where the community is part of a larger ecology composed of numerous other speech communities.
Although language policies are putatively implemented to create choices (Spolsky,
2004, p. 217), the choices that are made available through language policies entail “efforts to constrain what is considered bad language and to encourage what is considered good language” (Spolsky, 2005, p. 2153). All policies do not necessarily target the promotion of high varieties of a language or the dominant language in the community, however they frequently curtail certain practices and encourage others.
Implementing policies necessitates managing practices that are based on speakers’ beliefs, which are influenced by both internal and external factors. In turn, these factors influence individuals’ and institutions’ language policies. The internal factors influencing beliefs include the speakers’ ideologies and their language selection, use and management.
External factors can be language policies that are implemented by academia, the government, the media, or by vocational institutions (Fishman, 2013, p. 482). Though policies may be generated at the institutional and individual levels, the long-term effect they have on
13 languages is evident only after users at the “family—home—neighborhood—community” levels respond to those policies by changing their language practices in (Fishman, 2013, p.
482). These changes in the way a language is managed could result in language maintenance
(LM) or language shift (LS).
2.1.2 Language shift
Language shift (LS), the phenomenon that occurs when a speech community opts to use languages other than their less prestigious4 communal one is frequently triggered by the perception that the dominant language is desirable because its use translates into socio- economic power for its speakers. These perceptions are generally prompted by factors in the speakers’ environments and in the ecology for that language. Haugen (1972) defines the ecology of a language as “any given language and its environment” (p. 325), where political, social, economic, and other factors in the environment affect the speakers and their lives.
Changes prompted by environmental factors often necessitate linguistic adaptations by a speech community—adaptations which can take the form of minor lexical adjustments or they can be as large as a communal shift towards a dominant, more prestigious language.
A reflection of the attrition being experienced by a language, LS can be measured by the decrease over time in the number of speakers in a speech community as well as in the domains of use for the language. Fishman (1991) divided LS into eight stages of language attrition as defined by the GIDS model. At the most troublesome level are stage-eight languages, ones in which the users are “socially isolated old folk” and the language needs to be “reassembled from their mouths and memories” (Fishman, 1991, p.88). These languages
4 Use of a language designated as less prestigious could also, in fact, equate to a subversive power (associated with covert prestige) for those who choose to associate with stigmatized communities of practice.
14 are generally on the brink of extinction. And, even if there are a few speakers left, if they do not have regular contact with each other the language is moribund if no one is teaching it to potential younger users, the next generation of speakers. At the opposite end of the GIDS scale, stage-one languages, are dominant mainstream languages that are used “in higher level educational, occupational, governmental and media efforts” (Fishman, 1991, p. 107). The prevalence of stage one languages in non-intimate domains makes them essential communication tools in mainstream settings for everyone in the community irrespective of what home-languages they use.
2.1.3 Intergenerational language transfer
IGT is the process by which a language is passed down from one generation to the next. But when children do not have the opportunity to learn or use their HLs there is an absence of IGT: an indicator of LS in the community. However, Fishman (1991) argued, that for those languages facing shift, the viability of the language should be identified. Then, by using the GIDS model, a rational and systematic approach could be utilized to reverse language shift (p. 1). The more IGT is disrupted, the higher the GIDS stage the language is at, and the lower its potential for survival. And, although Fishman (1991) claims speakers could use the “language-management activities” suggested for each stage in the GIDS model
“to resist further loss or to re-establish earlier strength” (as cited in Spolsky 2004, p. 188), the application of any theoretical model such as GIDS is viable only if the language has power and the speech community is motivated to use the language. Accordingly, for a language to have a chance of survival within its speech community, the language must be at no higher than stage six on the GIDS scale, the point where IGT is occurring (Spolsky, 2004, p. 189).
This means, at the very least, parents must use the language with their children.
15 IGT is most effective, according to Fishman (2000), when women of childbearing age are using the ethnic language with their children (as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 173); a principle that applies to men in the same age range too. However, language use is not feasible if it only occurs within isolated families. For the language to remain functional, it must be used by individuals and families within the speech community (Fishman, 2000 as cited in
Schwartz, 2010, p. 173). That is, to survive, a language needs to be functional for the larger speech community, as opposed to being used only by a handful of individuals or families.
And for IGT to succeed, it must contribute to and be supported by the community’s validation of itself and its language.
2.1.4 Language choices
The choices that are made regarding language use both influence language policy and are themselves affected by the formulation and implementation of those policies. Every aspect of language including pronunciation, spelling, lexical choice, grammar, and style can be affected by policies (Spolsky, 2005, p. 2155). Institutional language policy is approached primarily from a global perspective and is about the choices that are made with respect to how the language should be used. However, as Spolsky (2004) notes:
It may be the choice of a specific sound or expression, or of a specific variety of a
language. It may be the choice regularly made by an individual, or a socially defined
group of individuals, or a body with authority over a defined group of individuals. It
may be discovered in the linguistic behavior [language practices] of the individual or
group. It may also be discovered in the ideology or beliefs about the language of the
individual or group. Finally, it may be made explicit in the formal language
management or planning decisions of an authorized body. (p. 217)
16 That is, policies address the way the language is practiced, motivate the reasons that prompt the practice, and elucidate the types of plans that are made to accommodate such choices
(Spolsky, 2004, p. 217).
According to Spolsky (2004), conditions that influence all of this are:
1) The sociolinguistic setting of the community. The prestige of both the language and
its speakers determine whether policies will favor use of the language. “Language
varieties that are marginalized or used by marginalized members of the community
are frequently ignored by the speech community” (p. 219).
2) The identity of the community. If associated with power [whether defined at a
national, ethnic, or any other level], a minority language is empowered by recognition
and speakers feel confident about asserting themselves (p. 219).
3) The effect of global forces on the community. That is, the impact of globalization and
the consequential “value of gaining access to an economically advantageous network
by developing proficiency in the language of widest communication … [a global
variety of] English” (p. 220). It is also evident in its expanding function as a
“language of science, technology, sport, computers, popular music, trade and
commerce” (p. 76), “diplomacy, postal services, [and its use] between pilots and air-
traffic controllers” (p. 77).
4) Recognition of language choice as an important component of human and civil rights
(p. 220).
Ultimately, the actual policy of a community is evidenced by its practices, more so than by its management, “unless the management is consistent with the language practices and
17 beliefs” of the users (Spolsky, 2005, p. 2163), in which case the policy would reflect the practices of the community and vice versa.
2.1.5 Family language policies
In their study of FLPs, King and Fogle (2006) argued that the “incorporation of language enrichment, additive approaches into child-rearing practices” which were once the purview of the social elite, are being incorporated into the FLPs of middle class families who are recognizing the cognitive benefits of multilingualism as a part of child rearing practices
(p. 696). King, Fogle and Logan-Terry (2008) further discuss how language use in families is defined by the speakers’ ideologies, since the type of language plan being used and how it is being implemented in a family can influence both the children’s language competence as well as the vitality of certain at-risk types of languages (p. 907). In their study, King et al.
(2008) analyzed attitudes regarding how language was being used in specific domains, how parents’ language-related behaviors and attitudes influenced their children’s practices, and how environmental issues such as “public controversies surrounding immigration and bilingual education” impacted language choices (p. 912). They also considered studies where parents felt that their children’s attitudes were completely or partially responsible for a lack of IGT, especially in those studies where the children’s peer group influenced language choice inside and outside the home (King et al., 2008, pp. 912-913). Based on their findings, the authors concluded that parents tended to rely primarily on their own experiences with learning languages, and only occasionally did they rely on other family members’ experiences, or on societal norms regarding good versus bad parenting (King & Fogle, 2006, p. 704; King et al., 2008, p. 913). And, “the experiences of other families in the same situation … [often served as a] negative point of comparison” (as cited in Souza, 2015, p.
18 93). Additionally, expert advice played a minimal role in families’ decisions regarding bilingual parenting (King et al., 2008, p. 913).
2.1.6 Prestige of English
Implementation of policies that favor dominant languages at the cost of HLs can influence choices that alter practices at the communal and individual levels, choices that could trigger a decrease in IGT. The establishment of English as a dominant language in areas where it was not the HL of the native populations exemplifies how institutional policies can enhance the prestige of a language. The continuing prestige of English as a global language, especially in the post-colonial period in countries such as India, can be attributed to the effect of globalizing factors on local ecologies, as well as the speakers’ desire for a higher socio-economic status (SES). In considering why the English language has such high prestige in some countries where English is not one of the native languages, Brosnahan (1963) claimed that while “urbanization, industrialization, education, religion and political affiliation” are factors that influence the vitality of a language, a country’s “status as a British colony was the single best predictor” of the potential for English to dominate linguistically in countries where “English was not the native language of a substantial proportion of the population” (as cited in Spolsky, 2004, p. 78).
2.1.7 Impact of Colonialism
But, it’s not just English that assumes such privilege. In addition to the reasons cited above, in countries throughout the world when colonizing powers were exercising their dominion, policies were frequently implemented that adversely affected the prestige of indigenous languages. This discrepancy in prestige frequently persists in the post-colonial period too, driving more speakers away from their HLs.
19 To facilitate communication with the native populace, British policy in India had called for educating a small percent of the population by establishing elite English-language schools. However, this led to a language-based elitist divide where only a very small segment of Indian society could improve their financial status. Occasionally, these educated Indians also improved their social status by mastering British English, which was the “language of government, power, education and commerce” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 167).
2.1.8 Globalization
In modern times, as is becoming evident in a number of countries around the world, the impact of global forces on local ecologies is narrowing the socio-economic gap and expanding the middle-class segments of society. In many urban Indian communities, prosperity is being fueled by a growing demand for employees who are more proficient in
English. Thus, from the pre-school level on, academic institutions are implementing policies that encourage, promote, and foster the dominance of English in urban India. These policies often adversely affect the use of minor languages in intimate domains, especially those that have low prestige. As parents who can afford to enroll their children in English-medium schools, a larger spectrum of Indian society is being exposed to institutional policies that promote English.
Understanding the trajectory that has facilitated the development of English as a global language is relevant for this thesis since the increasing prestige of Indian-English has affected the language plans of some members of this diasporic Rajasthani community. As
Spolsky (2004) argued, “[t]he spread of English is a result of globalization” on one hand … and … “the growing but still limited protection provided for minority languages” on the other
20 hand (p. 185). Notably, “Dua (1996) believed that English spread more pervasively in India after independence than during the colonial period” (as cited in Spolsky, 2004, p. 179).
To develop some insight about how communal and individual practices can be a reaction to national language policies as well as how these policies intersect with speakers’ practices, we will look at a few global languages (other than English) that have faced language shift:
2.1.8.1 Irish-Gaelic
Globally, “by the end of the twentieth century, the diffusion of English as a
[dominant] language … led to a major shift in national language polic[ies]” which in turn influenced “behavior as well as judgments about the value of languages and styles” (Spolsky,
2004, pp. 185-186). For example, despite Ireland’s effort at language management, its policies attempting to reverse language shift were largely unsuccessful because language planning did not “link closely with social and economic planning” and Irish-Gaelic as a symbol of nationalist pride was negated. To the people of the Gaeltacht5, especially parents, it was “a barrier to social and political progress” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 191). Consequently, those children who attended schools where the medium of instruction was Irish found very little linguistic support in the home or in the community” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 192).
2.1.8.2 Hebrew
During the same period that the Irish government was promoting linguistic nationalism, Israelis were promoting the “revival of Hebrew [as] a central feature of Jewish territorial nationalism” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 192). The difference between Hebrew and Irish-
5 The Gaeltacht is any one of, or, collectively the geographical areas in Ireland where Irish is recognized as the vernacular language.
21 Gaelic is that Hebrew was vernacularized [so it could be used as the home language], standardized [so it was used at every stage of education from primary to post-graduate university levels], modernized [so it could be used to talk about a range of topics] and given political power [as the language of government]. All these efforts at re-vernacularizing the language enabled IGT of Hebrew and reversed language shift (RLS) (Spolsky, 2004, pp. 192-
193).
2.1.8.3 Hebrew versus Irish-Gaelic
The primary difference between the actions to save Hebrew versus the language management efforts to revive Gaelic as a national language are the speakers’ motivation to maintain their languages as vernacular languages. Where Gaelic speakers succumbed to the lure of English and its perceived economic benefits, Hebrew speakers sought a national identity through their linguistic practices.
2.1.8.4 Other minor languages
In all countries, to some degree, national language policies guide language management at institutional, communal, and individual levels, as is evidenced by how languages are used at all three levels. Based on cases discussed by Fishman (1991), Spolsky
(2004) argues that the position of languages on the continuum between survival and failure may or may not be justified by the professed benefits of language policies, especially when those policies adversely affect minority languages. For example, the management of French in Canada, Catalan and Basque in Spain, Frisian in the Netherlands, Maori in New Zealand, and Spanish, Yiddish, and indigenous languages in America are some examples of languages that have experienced shift due to unfavorable institutional policies (as cited in Spolsky,
2004, pp. 195-206). As minor languages compete for survival in linguistic ecologies with
22 dominant global languages, it becomes evident that though the narratives for these languages and their speech communities are similar (in that none of them comprise immigrant populations), communal interest in the vitality of these languages varies; therefore, their prognoses as well as their positions on the continuum between survival and death differ too.
Though language management strategies for French in Quebec and Basque in Spain have produced different results, both are showing evidence of successful RLS. In spite of anglophone opposition, francophone laws in Quebec that support academic instruction in
French, as well as support use of French in the work place and in the mainstream community have been passed and are being implemented. These laws have generated “remarkable gains” for French language revival (Spolsky, 2004, p. 196).
According to Fishman (1991), language maintenance of Spanish in the USA depends on the continued flow of immigrants into the country (as cited in Spolsky, 2004, p. 202). The number of Spanish-speaking immigrants is significant because “Spanish-speakers … [do not] appear to have had either the motivation or the power to put into place language management that might guarantee the future of the languages” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 204). Speakers of Native
American languages, such as Navajo, are faced with similar challenges. And, without an immigrant population to boost the size of their speech communities, the viability of these languages is more tenuous. Of the Yiddish speaking communities, most of whose members, are bilingual in English, Hassidic Jews are the most successful at language maintenance. By isolating themselves as much as possible from mainstream culture, they maintain the viability of their HL by using Yiddish in their homes, schools and communities (Spolsky, 2004, pp.
204-205).
23 2.1.9 Socio-economic reality
Individual responses to “social and economic factors … are likely to be the major sources of changes in language practices and ideologies involved in language shift [and ignoring these factors are frequently] the relative weakness of language management activities in RLS” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 215). When policies (whether institutional or within a family) do not take into consideration social and economic realities, they are apt to fail—as is evidenced by those policies instituted to foster revitalization of Irish Gaelic. While a language such as English in an ecology such as urban India’s has high prestige due to its association with wealth and power and influences language management via policy-making even though it is not spoken by a majority in mainstream Indian society.
The dissonance between (1) practice, (2) ideology, and (3) management of any language frequently manifests as inconsistencies between institutional policies related to the language and the use of the language by its speech community (Spolsky, 2004, p. 217). Since
“language policy exists in the wider social, political, economic, cultural, religious and ideological contexts” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 218) it cannot be viewed from a narrow individual or even slightly wider communal angle. The true gauge of the effectiveness of language policy is the manner in which factors related to the wider sphere of influence interact with language, and in doing so how they affect individual and communal language ideology and practice. A speech community’s linguistic mosaic remains indecipherable without a global perspective that accounts for external factors that influence individual use.
2.1.10 Practice versus policy
For IGT, the existence of a family language plan is as important as a consistent application of the policy. However, as observed by a number of authors, there is generally an
24 inconsistency between the ideology that prompts the formulation of the policy and the implementation of the policy. This is evidenced by the choices speakers make with respect to the domains in which their languages are used. While King et al. (2008) argue that the consistency with which a stated policy is adhered to by the family members is a key component in the children’s degree of proficiency in the minor language(s) (pp. 915-916),
Schwartz (2008) notes that there is a “discrepancy between the parents’ declared commitments to L1 maintenance and their reports on actual language practice with their children” (p. 415).
Using “data from interviews and a subjective vitality questionnaire” to study the causes of language shift in the Portuguese Kristang (PK) speech community at the
Portuguese Settlement in Malacca, Malaysia, Lee (2011) also identified conflict between language ideology and the practice of PK. She states a “discrepancy … often exists between what speakers say is important and what speakers actually do in real life” (p. 21). On the questionnaires, the study participants rated English as the most important language for
Kristang children to learn and identified PK as the language that they should speak in their homes (Lee, 2011, p. 21). However, socio-economic factors influenced language use choices as Lee’s findings indicate “[t]heir quest for wealth and economic betterment … overshadows the urgency for language issues such as maintenance of their mother tongues” (Lee, 2011, p.
22).
When a family’s language choices are evaluated against the parents’ ideology that was instrumental in formulating the language plan, conflicts between the family’s linguistic practices and specified elements of their language plan often come to light—clearly, what they say and what they do are not always the same. One potential source of conflict would be
25 when “the declared language ideology of one or both parents does not necessarily coincide with the strategies followed consciously or unconsciously in large practice with children”
(DeHouwer, 1999; Goodz, 1994; King, 2000; Kopeliovich, forthcoming; Schwartz, 2008;
Spolsky, 2004) (as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 177). Occasionally, changes in the environment can necessitate modification of the way a family’s language plan is being executed. Alternatively, family members may disagree with specific aspects of the plan and choose to use their language differently—possibly contradicting the tenets of the FLP. As
Schwartz (2010) argues, “links between the parents’ language ideology, practice, and management may be indirect and even conflicting” (p. 178).
Similarly, both Canagarajah (2008) and Lee (2011) claim that speakers can
“acknowledge the importance of the family for transmitting the mother tongue, and yet fail to act according to their beliefs” (p. 173). When a family must juggle language maintenance objectives with “social and economic pressures … [issues such as] social acceptance, economic survival, and legal status” will take precedence and have greater priority with respect to the family’s resources (Canagarajah, 2008, pp. 170-171).
Further analysis of FLP will be considered in three broad sections—language practice, language ideology, and language management—in accordance with Spolsky’s
(2004) definition of FLP (p. 43). Each section will be further subdivided by the factors that are relevant to each of the three aspects of FLP.
2.2 LANGUAGE PRACTICE
“[W]hat people actually do” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 14) with language is the essence of language practice. In addition to pronunciation, word choice and grammatical accuracy, speakers also evaluate the necessary degree of formality and the appropriateness of using a
26 variety for a specific situation. This is especially evident in multilingual societies where rules
(whether overt or unspoken) dictate the appropriate context for a language (Spolsky, 2004, p.
9). As Fogle (2013) states, the strategies employed by parents regarding which languages their children should use are guided by factors such as “the status of the majority language” as well as their personal “beliefs about affect and bonding” (p. 86). The factors influencing speakers’ use of language that will be discussed in this section are speakers’ motivation, the functionality of a language in a particular domain, the use of language as an in-group marker as well as a survival tool, the prestige of specific accents, the requirement for communication between family members, the question of how siblings influence each others’ language use and of how children’s language use is influenced by their peer group, and, finally, the impact of education and of socio-economic status (SES).
2.2.1 Motivation
A definable motivation for using a language is necessary, both when learning a language and when using a known language. Norton (2000) states that “individuals are motivated to learn a language because it will enable them to have more symbolic and material resources, and thus, more cultural capital to negotiate their identities in society” (as cited in Souza, 2015, p. 93). The cultural capital provided by knowing a prestigious language can enhance a speaker’s social identity—motivating him/her to learn the language.
However, use of a language can also be motivated by emotional connections to the language. In Ruby (2012), a grandmother’s (Piara’s) desire to “capture her childhood and pass it on to her children” and grandchildren motivated her to teach them Bangla, their HL.
Piara’s memories of her childhood were “rich and warm” and though it was difficult to maintain use of Bangla as an immigrant in London, she “felt it was the language in which she
27 could share her memories of Bangladesh and express effectively to her children her aspirations for them” (p. 73). That is, to accurately convey her emotional connection to her native homeland, Piara had to use Bangla to relate her memories about Bangladesh. Because she connected with those experiences in Bangla, she could not use any other language to communicate her emotions as effectively.
In contrast, Sri Lankan immigrants who are monolingual in English, who do not have any relatives in the homeland, and who are unable to return to Sri Lanka because they left illegally, have no motivation to include their HL in their language inventory (Canagarajah,
2008, pp. 166-167). Additionally, these Tamil immigrants feel that they could retain their cultural identity without language use, but rather by “hold[ing] on to the symbolic trappings of a Tamil identity-through dress, arts, and cultural rituals”6 (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 169).
2.2.2 Functionality
The usefulness of a language in a specific domain or relationship can also be a motivator for its use. Ruby (2012) observed that Bangla had become the functional language for Piara and her granddaughter, Aisha. Therefore, Aisha was willing to use Bangla with her grandmother but was reluctant to do so with her mother or her teacher. Since she used Bangla with her grandmother when performing the assigned task, her desire to learn the language is evident. However, she would not use Bangla with her mother or her teacher when completing the task—the same task that was assigned by the interviewer for all three sessions: completing a jigsaw puzzle.
6 However, as observed by Fishman (1991) (and discussed later) those who are connected to their ethnicity via cultural means but do not speak the HL have a different sense of their ethnicity from those who speak the HL
28 Similarly, based on their study of MPC speaking families, Pillai et al. (2014) discovered that if the children did not have a choice, MPC became the functional language for relationships with certain elders (p. 83). While “[m]ost of the older generation … [felt] that MPC needs to be spoken and learnt at home, rather than in a classroom setting”, one of
Pillai et al.’s (2014) consultants (a language teacher) noted that irrespective of whether it is spoken at home or in school “the way to maintain MPC is by speaking the language” (p. 82).
2.2.3 In-group markers
Speakers of marginalized languages often use their home languages in public places as a status symbol for their group, or to exclude outsiders from their conversation. In assessing the primary motivations for use of Malacca Portuguese Creole (MPC) (also known as Portuguese Kristang (PK), as previously mentioned), Pillai, Soh, and Kajita, (2014) observed that one of the reasons speakers would use their HL was because “[t]he use of MPC is seen more as an in-group marker and [a means] to exclude others from a conversation” (p.
80). By speaking in a non-mainstream language, in addition to being secretive if they should want to, MPC speakers can isolate themselves from the community while claiming a unique identity.
2.2.4 Survival
After arriving in their new homelands, monolingual families whose HL is different from the dominant mainstream language frequently struggle to survive because they are unable to access necessary services. As Canagarajah (2008) discovered, in immigrant Sri
Lankan families where the parents are monolingual, the family’s survival hinges on the children’s ability to learn and communicate in the mainstream language. He stated
“[f]amilies that are traditionally monolingual find after migration that they are at a
29 disadvantage when they lack English proficiency” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 164) which is why they “pressure their children to learn English, often at the cost of Tamil” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 155). The socio-economic reality of struggling to survive in a foreign culture is a critical motivator for these families. For them, HL maintenance becomes a luxury they cannot afford.
When participants feel that using their HL or teaching it to their children will not provide them with any functional or economic benefits, they neglect language maintenance
(Canagarajah, 2008, p. 165). The speed with which children are compelled to acquire English is often influenced by “how successfully elders … negotiate relationships with social institutions in the host community” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 165). If the adults are proficient enough in English to negotiate mainstream social transactions then less pressure is applied on the children to learn the dominant language. In such a case, there is a greater likelihood that families might engage in HL maintenance.
2.2.5 Peer group influence
Children frequently instigate changes in a family’s language plan. As they enter school and are in contact with children who speak other languages, changes in children’s language preferences prompted by their peer group may necessitate modifications to a family’s language plan. In an extensive study of their children’s linguistic choices, Caldas and Caron Caldas’s (2000, 2002) findings “underscored the overwhelming influence of peer control on language practice when the children enter[ed] adolescence. … [as the] children favor[ed] the behavioral system of the peer group outside the home over the one they acquire[d] at home (as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 179). Pressure to conform to their peer groups exemplifies how external factors can influence individual language use and maintenance.
30 2.2.6 Prestige of accents
The accent that is endorsed by the elite members of a community is generally the one that has the greatest prestige, is most desirable, and the one that speakers in a community will want to have. In addition to valuing the pragmatic function of being proficient in the dominant language of their new homeland, immigrants frequently appreciate the global prestige that is associated with knowing mainstream languages such as English, especially being able to communicate using more socially prestigious accents. Monolingual immigrants who learn “English after their arrival in the West, [are able to] adopt local English features”; and, having this prestigious accent helps them assert their authority over traditional bilinguals whose Tamilian English accents negate the elite status they had enjoyed in Sri Lanka
(Canagarajah, 2008, p. 162). Unfortunately, these stigmatized accents can be mocked and often elicit discriminatory practices against the speakers in certain Western societies. As
Canagarajah’s (2008) findings indicate “…the mere lack of proficiency in the locally valued accent … was treated by children as a mark of their parents’ social ineptness and cultural alienation … and often led [the children] to ridicule and insult [their parents]” (p. 163).
2.2.7 Communicating with relatives
Immigrants generally have two primary reasons for using their HL—as a home language, especially for talking with relatives who do not readily use the mainstream languages, and for speaking with monolingual relatives in their native homeland.
Firstly, habitual use of the HL between generations and acceptance of this tradition by younger generations in multi-generation homes facilitates IGT. Based on their study of the family language plans of five Malaccan Portuguese families in the Portuguese Settlement in
Malaysia, Pillai et al. (2014) observed that “those who spoke the heritage language at home
31 with their parents or grandparents were more likely to try to repeat the process with their own children and grandchildren” (p. 76-77). However, as one of Pillai et al.’s (2014) consultants reported, if the parents failed to speak the language, the children would not speak Kristang
(p. 81). When parents speak to their elders in the HL the children are exposed to their HL in an intimate domain. However, if parents do not use the language with their children, or the children are not compelled to use the language with other elders, the likelihood of the children learning the HL is slim. If speakers, especially children, can use the dominant language in all domains, they have very little incentive to know the HL. In the Portuguese
Settlement, MPC continues to be used in families where there are fluent older speakers, but
“if parents do not consciously insist on MPC being used at home” as the older generation dies they will take the language with them (Pillai et al., 2014, p. 83).
Secondly, those immigrants who are not using their HL as a home language and who do not have anybody they want to communicate with in the homeland lack any incentive to maintain use of their HLs. This was the primary reason provided by a number of participants in Canagarajah’s (2008) study for not maintaining their language proficiency in the diaspora
(p. 165).
2.2.8 Language between siblings
Based on her study of how current research addresses the conflict children experience when growing up in an environment where the mainstream language is different from their minority home language, Schwartz (2010) claims that children can play an important role in the language socialization of their family, especially in the “language literacy” of their younger siblings (p. 173). However, due to an absence of research detailing how the interaction between siblings affects their language choices and use, the specifics regarding
32 sibling influence on the process of language transmission is unclear at present (Schwartz,
2010, p. 174).
2.2.9 Parent’s education and family’s socio-economic status
As a parent’s educational qualifications do not always influence their beliefs about
HL maintenance within the family, it is not necessarily a valid gauge of the viability of a family’s language plan with respect to IGT. “Findings concerning parental education are inconsistent” claims Schwartz (2010, p. 174). Parents who have professional degrees could be as interested or disinterested in transmitting their HL as those who may not have completed high school.
Similarly, results that reflected how SES influenced IGT in families were also inconsistent. Some authors argued that high SES is likely to result in LS (Harres, 1989 as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 174). While other studies point in the opposite direction— indicating that families with lower SES were favored LS, while other families with higher
SES favored LM (Williams, 1987; Lambert & Taylor, 1996 as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p.74).
In his study of the Sri Lankan diaspora Canagarajah (2008) also reported that families with lower SES were more inclined towards language shift while those who had higher SES were more inclined towards language maintenance (pp. 158-160).
2.2.10 Acculturation of the parents
A combination of the age at which the individual arrives in the country as well as the length of time that the person has spent in the adopted homeland influences how well the person generally adapts to the diasporic culture. Age of arrival is especially relevant to the extent of language shift experienced by first generation immigrants—“the younger the age of the immigrant at arrival, the greater the language shift is” (Doucet, 1991 as cited in Schwartz,
33 2010, p. 174). Age was also a significant factor influencing the decisions made by a speaker regarding which language they would use in a specific domain, “with older members of the community being the more traditional speakers and using L1 more frequently” (Clyne, 1982 as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 174).
A factor interacting with age that affected the depth of acculturation was time. The extent of language shift was generally directly proportional to the amount of time the speaker had spent in the adopted homeland—the more time the speaker had spent in the new homeland, the better their command of the L2 and the greater the extent of their L1 loss
(Schwartz, 2010, p. 174).
A third consideration regarding the rate of acculturation was the SES of the community. Factors such as the economic and social status of the minority language group as well as communal pride in their language and culture also strongly influenced retention of cultural identity by immigrant parents in a diaspora (Schwartz, 2010, p. 175). Higher status of the speech community generally translated into less of an incentive by the speaker to replace the L1 with the L2.
2.2.11 Family cohesiveness
When different generations within a family use different languages or varieties, communication between the generations is hampered, potentially impeding IGT of language and culture. Fishman (1964) disagreed with both Weinreich’s and Hymes’s observations that
IGT of cultural practices was unaffected by language change, believing instead that there was a need for a more informed understanding of speakers’ language-related behaviors.
Additionally, as argued by a number of authors, “preservation of [the language] was … relevant … as a link between the generations and cultural values of the ethnolinguistic
34 group” (Wong Fillmore, 2000; Tannenbaum & Howie, 2002, as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p.
175). Therefore, there is a “negative effect on the family relations if adults and children speak different languages” (Wong Fillmore, 2000, as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 175).
Negative childhood experiences associated with learning a language can also result in adverse consequences—and when the language is the speaker’s L1, the experience can detract from HL maintenance. To illustrate how some immigrants distance themselves from their L1, Tannenbaum (2005) uses several examples of immigrants’ narratives that reflect a tendency to build an emotional barrier between painful childhood experiences in the country of origin and their L2 experiences in the host country (as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 175).
Thus, some of the reasons why parents prefer not to speak their native language with their children have to do with their attitudes and personal experiences with ethnicity (Schwartz,
2010, p. 176).
2.2.12 Generational variance in domain separation
Findings from Tannenbaum’s (2003) study of 307 Australian children and one of their parents (who was an immigrant) “suggest that parents and children differ in their language maintenance patterns: whereas parents differentiated between the public and intimate domains even when communicating with their child, and were rather context sensitive, the children’s choices of language were not linked to specific domains of interaction with the parents. The children had a strong tendency to use the majority language across domains. These findings have been attributed to the possible lack of relevance of domain separation for children for whom intimate interactions do not result in higher use of the home language” (Schwartz, 2010, p. 179-180). Whereas, “Tannenbaum (2003) suggested that the lack of domain effect among children may also be explained by … the fact that the
35 focus was only on the children’s language interactions with the parents, which may restrict the generalizability of the data” (Schwartz, 2010, p. 180).
2.3 LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY
Ideology or beliefs with respect to language planning is described as, “what people think should be done” (Spolsky 2004, p. 14) to acquire and/or maintain language(s). A child’s L1 is determined by their parents’ beliefs and attitudes regarding what is the most appropriate variety for their children to acquire—which may or may not be the dominant variety. If parents do not have the prestigious language or variety in their linguistic inventory they rely on schools and other adults to teach it to their children:
… children’s linguistic environments are shaped to a large degree by the parents’
beliefs and attitudes, which constitute the primary environments of early childhood.
Parental beliefs about how children acquire language or languages (L1 or L2) and
about their own roles in this process appear to have a substantial effect on the parents’
linguistic behavior [language practice and management] toward their children (De
Houwer 1999; Spolsky 2007) (as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 177)
Formulation of FLPs based on speakers’ beliefs with respect to language acquisition and maintenance can be affected by a number of factors, among them, their expectations, the impact of institutional policies, whether they are urbanites or suburbanites, gendered motivation, language attitudes and generational preferences, ones that we will now address.
2.3.1 Parental expectations
Parental expectations do not always inform children’ language use in accordance with their FLP. During the course of their six-year study by Caldas and Caron Caldas (2000,
2002), though the authors did not attempt to impose their language ideology by rigid rules,
36 they “were shocked by the pervasive nature of the social force” on their children’s preference for English over French (as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 179). In contrast, the residents of
Gapun, a village in Papua New Guinea did not make any demands on their children to speak
Taiap, their HL however, they also did not reward their children for doing so. Ironically, some of the adults in Gapun blamed the children for the shift from Taiap to Tok Pisin, claiming the children were responsible for the language attrition in the community (Kulick,
1992, p. 222).
2.3.2 Post-colonial institutional policy
An example of an external factors influencing language ideology and choice is (as briefly noted above) the sustained after-effect of colonialism. The prestige that continues to be accorded to the English language in ex-British colonies is a consequence of the indigenous people’s acceptance of colonial hegemonic appropriation of power and privilege.
Unfortunately, post-colonial elitists in the diaspora still associate “a lack of proficiency in
English with being backward and uncivilized” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 155). This is evident in the case of Sri Lankan immigrants who assume “proficiency in English … [automatically implies] increased access to educational and employment opportunities” (p. 160). Most members of this speech community also believe education is the route to financial security, social status, and prestige. Therefore, in addition to enabling access to education at a reputable institution, proficiency in English “elevate[s] the family’s social status, often eliminating caste stigma” (p. 160). Thus, English fluency is given more emphasis in Sri
Lankan homes than Tamil maintenance, because many parents believe that it is “difficult to master English when one still holds on to the HL” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 156).
37 2.3.3 Urban versus suburban communities
One of the primary objectives that prompts immigration is a desire by immigrants to improve their financial status. This goal is more significant for those who are undereducated and have a lower SES when they arrive in the host country, as they have few if any resources and cannot afford to live in the types of neighborhoods they would prefer to live in, at least when they first arrive. As Canagarajah (2008) claims, “inner-city families that came from economically lower backgrounds in Sri Lanka were more strident in declaring the importance of English and rejecting the relevance of Tamil in diaspora life” (p. 159). To be able to achieve their dreams, learning English becomes the top priority for these families.
The urgency to acquire English is generally intensified if the families’ SES inhibited the parents from becoming multilingual before they immigrated. Children from lower-class
Sri Lankan families who “use[d] Tamil more in their everyday [lives], … express[ed] opinions and sentiments that valued English” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 159) because as frequently happens in the case of undereducated individuals from lower social classes, they pressure their children to learn the dominant language of their new homeland to compensate for their own linguistic shortcomings.
In contrast, members of upper class immigrant families who can afford to live in more affluent neighborhoods exhibit less urgency in acquiring the dominant variety of a language. These parents are frequently highly educated and multilingual. Hence, the children are not compelled to use the HL in the home since the parents are usually proficient in the mainstream language and struggling to survive is not an issue for the family. As a matter of fact, there is a tendency for “[s]uburban children [to be] … less proficient in Tamil, … [and for them to] express opinions that favor heritage language and cultural preservation”
38 (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 159). Thus, socio-economic factors can provide an impetus towards proficiency in the dominant language frequently at the cost of the HL, especially if the dominant language in the diaspora is English.
2.3.4 Gendered motivation
Women who immigrate from societies where gender discrimination persists discover that proficiency in the mainstream language can liberate them from financial and emotional subjugation. For example, Sri Lankan women who could speak English were identified as
“independent, worldly-wise, and sophisticated” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 161). As these revamped identities provide the women with the self-confidence to pursue “economic, educational, and professional opportunities” they can distance themselves from their “non- traditional identities” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 161): a strong motivator for foregoing maintenance of their HL.
2.3.5 Language attitudes
Beliefs dictate attitudes, which in turn influence choices. In hegemonic cultures where a segment of society positions itself as the ideal, everyone else (automatically) falls short. In such environments speakers of minority languages are often bullied into believing that their language and culture are comparatively inferior and that acknowledging linguistic or cultural affiliation with their ethnic heritage can be a punishable offense. Members of these minority communities are burdened with guilt and fear for claiming any association with the disparaged languages and cultures. For those who identify strongly with their ethnicity, knowledge of their HL becomes both a source of pride and shame. This attitude was evident in the participants in a study of a wide spectrum of Native American youth by
(McCarty, Romero-Little, Warhol & Zepeda, 2009). Based on their findings, the authors
39 argued, that “attitudes and ideologies invoke tacit assumptions about language varieties that index speakers’ social status, and in this sense, they are hegemonic” (p. 299). Yet, despite their antipathy towards the language of the hegemon (because it represented oppression), participants in the study recognized the functional necessity for proficiency in English.
The authors further claimed that English, the language of wider communication, was considered a utilitarian language—described by participants as “a business language” and a
“language of survival”—proficiency in which was essential for the youth to be competitive in mainstream society” (McCarty et al. 2009, p. 300). Being fluent in standard English accorded the speakers higher social status while simultaneously distancing them from the “shame and guilt” generated by preconceived mainstream beliefs of how uncouth indigenous people are
(McCarty et al. 2009, p. 300).
Despite being humiliated and enduring the dishonor associated with their indigenous identities some of the youth in McCarty et al.’s (2009) study felt very strongly about their languages and their identities ( p. 300). Their concern for the future viability of their HLs was evident by their concern about how uncaring their parents seemed to be with regard to preserving their linguistic heritage. According to one of the participants, “because the language is dying out … Navajo is supposed to be spoken at all times in the house … and
[parents] should not be treating their Navajo like this” (interview, May 5, 2004, as cited in
McCarty et al. 2009, p. 301). Hence, although a few participants did not feel knowing their language had any utilitarian benefit, a number of them expressed a deep connection to their
HL, indigenous culture, and ethnicity.
Similar feelings were expressed by some of the youth in Canagarajah’s (2008)study of Sri Lankan immigrants. One of the participants in this study, Rajani, felt that she had “a
40 moral obligation to know her mother tongue” … though she admit(ted) she was “not disadvantaged by not knowing the language” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 160). Conflicts experienced by these youth regarding language use were thus due to both global ecological factors and more personal internal ideological conflicts.
In contrast, according to Lee (2011), the younger generation of Kristang (Malaysian
Portuguese) did not feel connected to the Creole language or their Creole heritage. These were children who were generally bilingual in Malay and English and who had never been
“immersed in a totally ‘Portuguese’ language socialization input” where the home language was MPC. Though the Kristang youth who participated in this study were members of a disadvantaged minority group, a situation that was similar to the Native American experience in McCarty et al.’s (2009) study, the majority of the Kristangs did not have a positive attitude towards their HL. The youth did not need MPC to be successful and the negative mainstream attitude towards their language and culture prompted a general desire by the younger generation to distance themselves from the Kristang language (Lee, 2011, pp. 22-23).
2.3.6 Generational preferences
According to Canagarajah (2008), as discussed previously, the impact of British institutional policies and other colonial influences enabled most grandparents (who participated in his study) to be comfortable using English (pp. 156, 158) since “they had been
… forced to speak English in schools, with the threat of being fined if they used Tamil”
(Canagarajah, 2008, p. 157). In contrast, participants from the parent generation who were educated in vernacular language schools (after Sri Lanka gained its independence in 1948)
“considered Tamil as their dominant language” (Canagarajah, 2008, p. 156-157). The difference in the language dominance between the two generations accounted for the
41 divergence in their language ideologies. The grandparent generation favored language maintenance and were critical of the parent generation for promoting shift towards the mainstream language of the diaspora. In contrast, the parent generation, the second generation, felt handicapped by an inability to communicate effectively using the mainstream language(s) of the diaspora. Members of this second generation were more intent on surviving in their new homeland, than on preserving their culture. Notably, Sri Lankan immigrants who immigrated to English-speaking countries tended to become monolingual in
English within one generation, while immigrants to non-English speaking countries became balanced bilinguals in their heritage language and the dominant language of their adopted homeland and sometimes, even trilinguals accommodating English (Canagarajah, 2008, p.
157).
2.4 LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT
The third pillar of FLP, language management, was defined by Spolsky (2005) as
“the formulation and proclamation of an explicit plan or policy … about language use” (p.
2153)—a plan modifying someone else’s values or linguistic practices (Spolsky, 2004, p.
186), or a direct effort by a person or group to manipulate a language situation (Spolsky,
2005, p. 2153). And, though management occurs at every level of society from individual to institutional (private and public), management at the family level is more critical for both maintaining a language as well as for counteracting attrition. Plans, especially family ones, encapsulate individual beliefs about language and how its use ought to be managed. Spolsky
(2004) recognized that “the family is an important domain in which to study language policy” both as a reflection of external factors such as the ecology and institutional policies as well as internal choices that are guided by the speaker’s ideology and beliefs (pp. 45-46).
42 This section of the literature review will look at how management of an FLP is influenced by whether a plan is formal or informal, the primary caretaker being the person formulating the plan, how supportive the community is, the mother’s ethnic identity, the father’s role as a parent, academic environments, IGT strategies, and the size of the speech community.
2.4.1 Formal plan or informal strategy
Families typically do not articulate a formal language plan. They might have a subconscious reason or preference for using a particular language or language variety in specific domains but they may not formally define their linguistic goals or strategies for achieving these objectives.
Okita (2002) and Schwartz et al. (forthcoming) found that in reality bilingual family
decisions regarding initial language use do not always involve clear processes and
arise at times spontaneously, without discussion. … [T]he absence of a clearly
defined decision at the family level may also reflect a common situation in the
country or region of the family’s residence regarding language practice, as in the case
of Israel, where there is no law defining state FLP (Spolsky and Shohamy 1999)” (as
stated in Schwartz, 2010, p. 180).
As Spolsky and Shohamy (1999) argue, articulating a formal language plan (especially for a minor HL) may be an anomalous practice in some communities. That is, if formulating a language plan is not a cultural norm for the speech community it might explain the absence of conscious effort by families in these communities to have an FLP, or to expend sufficient time and resources on maintaining minor HLs. Additionally, families frequently attempt to ensure their children’s proficiency in the language of power.
43
2.4.2 Caretakers as policy makers
In most families, parents, as their children’s primary caretakers, play an important part in the socialization of children and by default in their language acquisition process.
Therefore, to identify how “parents explain, frame and defend their particular family language policies” King and Fogle (2006) conducted a study of twenty-four families who lived in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area (p. 695). Their findings indicated that
“[w]hile in many communities fathers play an increasingly visible and active role in parenting, the brunt of the work of parenting (Thompson, 1991) and the bulk of the expectations still fall disproportionately on mothers’ shoulders (Bunnell & Beutler, 1999)”
(as quoted in King & Fogle, 2006, p. 698). This is why the authors focused primarily on the role that mothers play in the formulation and implementation of the participating families’ language plans, because as the primary caretakers in most families, mothers generally assumed responsibility for managing their family’s language plans (King & Fogle, 2006, pp.
697-698).
On occasion, caregivers other than the parents can also be the language policy-maker for a family. In “Family Language Policy”, where the authors “provide an integrated overview of research on how languages are managed, learned, and negotiated within families” a distinction is made between the roles that primary caretakers play versus those enacted by secondary caretakers (King et al., 2008, p. 907). And in a diasporic context, as
Spolsky (2004) observed, “the presence of a grandparent or another significant older person is often associated with maintenance of the immigrant language” (p. 44). In her study of the expatriate Bangladeshi community in London, Ruby (2012) showed how “grandparents are
44 instrumental in maintaining the connection between culture and language” (p. 82). Because her children spoke to each other and to their own children primarily in English, Piara, a grandmother, assumed the role of policy-maker by speaking to her grandchildren primarily in
Bangla, just as she had done with her own children when they were growing up (Ruby,
2012). She had wanted her children to experience as much of Bangladeshi culture as they possibly could even though they lived in London, so “she conversed [with them] mainly in
Bangla” and had taken on a similar effort with her grandchildren.
While acknowledging that “[t]he family unit … is a site in which language ideologies are both formed and enacted through caregiver-child interactions”, King et al. (2008) argued that the effectiveness of language policies as well as the implementation methods varied with each family, as well as with each caregiver within a family (p. 914). That is, there was no single strategy that was effective under all conditions.
2.4.3 Supportive community
For parents who seek an externally supportive “socio-linguistic environment”, living in communities where “their children [can get] maximum exposure to [their] L1” (Schwartz,
2010, p. 181) frequently enhances their own efforts at language maintenance in their homes.
Additionally, choosing a strong form of bilingual education (“that permits substantial support for the children’s L1 maintenance in an environment of two reciprocally enriching languages and cultures”) instead of a weak one (“in which children are educated only through the medium of the majority language”) provides “an important link in the practical realization of family language ideology” (Schwartz, 2010, p. 181).
45 2.4.4 Mothers’ ethnic identities
In her study on how immigrant mothers negotiate language planning in diasporic communities, Souza (2015) examines how Brazilian mothers’ identities influence their reactions to the “monolingual[izing] pressures of British society” (p. 94). Despite their awareness that the use of English in British society would both confer social prestige and provide economic benefits, most of the women who participated in this study attempted to retain their linguistic and cultural identities as Brazilians (Souza, 2015, p. 94). One group of women who melded into British society, perceived of themselves as native Englishwomen and were only superficially connected to their ethnicities as Brazilians. A second group associated more closely with their Brazilian identity and did not hesitate to speak Portuguese, preferring to maintain only superficial contact with mainstream British society. Finally, a third group had a more “cosmopolitan” identity—they maintained their Brazilian identities and assimilated with the mainstream culture (Souza, 2015, p. 95). Souza defines
“cosmopolitans” as those “who manage to participate in the majority group without being readily identified as not belonging due to their involvement with a plurality of cultures”
(Souza, 2015, p. 95). How closely these women identified with their Brazilian identities influenced the extent of HL use in their FLPs.
2.4.5 Fathers’ parenting roles
Mothers were not solely responsible for language management. As stated earlier, “in many communities fathers play an increasingly visible and active role in parenting” (King &
Fogle, 2006, p.698). That is, fathers unquestionably participated in FLP also, even if their involvement was not always explicit. In other words, both parents influence children’s LM, albeit in different ways (Souza, 2015, p. 97).
46 2.4.6 Academic environments
In addition to their homes, children encounter language policies in their academic environments; policies that are crafted to facilitate language learning (Spolsky, 2004, p. 48).
However, the language practices that are advocated and often mandated by the institutions are not necessarily the ones that are used by the children. As Spolsky (2005) observed, schools are one of the most important domains for implementation of language policies because of their function as a primary setting for socialization of language learners (p. 2155).
By providing a venue for students to interact and socialize with each other during and between academic activities, Spolsky (2005) claimed that children developed preferences and competence in specific languages (p. 2155). Thus, although each child arrives with his own idiolect, the combination of socializing and implementation of academic policies has a homogenizing effect on children’s language inventories.
Non-academic factors can also influence the type of linguistic environment in a school that may be selected by parents. In a study of young adult Russian-speaking immigrants to Israel, Schwartz et al., (forthcoming) observed that in addition to considering the academic benefits when deciding between monolingual and early bilingual education, parents also considered “the number of children in the family, the parents’ identification with
Russian culture, and the children’s well-being” (as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 182).
Additionally, ‘non-language’ related factors such as the quality of education, student-teacher relations, and the quality of educational facilities influenced parents’ decisions (Schwartz
2010, p. 182).
47 2.4.7 Intergenerational transfer strategies
The adults’ approach when transmitting a language to a child can influence the child’s willingness to use the language. Affect, how the instruction is being received, and the manner in which the language is being perceived are important criteria for facilitating HL transmission. In a study by Kopeliovich (forthcoming), the author concluded that by intermingling Hebrew and Russian … to highlight “bilingual humor based on Hebrew-
Russian word puns, rhymes, [and] deliberate misinterpretation of culturally unique idioms” a father cajoled his children into maintaining their Russian proficiency, where his wife’s coercive behavior had been ineffective (as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 183).
Similarly, Piara’s strategies were much more effective than her daughter’s or the teacher’s in getting Aisha to respond in Bangla while performing the tasks related to the study. By interacting with her granddaughter in a calm and encouraging manner, Piara provided Aisha with “the space and environment within which Aisha could explore her different learner identities” (Ruby, 2012, pp. 79, 81). Because, Aisha did not feel rushed (as she did with her mother) or feel that she had to prove her knowledge (as she did with her teacher), she was willing to interact with her grandmother in Bangla, learning vocabulary and practicing her grammar.
2.4.8 Size of the speech community
The vitality of a language does not directly correlate with the size of its speech community as much as it does with the community’s use of the language (Fishman, 1966, as cited in Spolsky, 2004). A constant influx of new speakers to a minor language speech community will facilitate maintenance of the language at a communal level while compensating for some linguistic attrition. If these communities tend to remain insular,
48 physical isolationism and language protection may be inevitable consequences, an effective management technique for maintaining a minority language. However, it is not a very practical strategy for most speech communities in modern societies.
2.5 SUMMARY
Complex interactions between linguistic choices made by language policy-makers and the numerous factors that influence those choices are reflected in every family’s language plan—plans that simultaneously reflect nations’, communities’, and individuals’ ideologies, and their uniqueness. However, the linguistic choices that formulate the plans are not always the same as those that are reflected in actual language practice—practice that is moderated via family language plans. As discussed above, the family’s role in the difference between maintenance and shift for a language is much more significant than the role played by institutions. If speakers do not comply with institutional policies, whether it is India’s three-language policy for academic institutions or a business that mandates the use of a specific language to maintain a professional work atmosphere, then these efforts at language management fail. And as Canagarajah (2008) states, the “Tamil community would agree with
Fishman that the family plays a critical role in the maintenance or loss of the HL” (p. 151) as well as “a greater role than … institutions (do) in language maintenance” (p. 153).
Ultimately, the symbiosis between languages and their speakers is functional because it is beneficial to both.
In the following chapters, we will look at the ecology for the Marwari language and their speakers in Mumbai, a diaspora for this speech community. We will also consider the linguistic and non-linguistic factors that affect the use of this language in the diaspora.
49 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The initial section of this chapter describes who the participants were, while the latter section discusses the methodological triangulation procedures using questionnaires, interviews, and observations. As stated in Schwartz (2010):
The complexity of FLP research, which addresses a wide range of socio-linguistic
contexts … demands an inter-disciplinary approach … (using) multiple methods … to
explore the largely invisible processes and influences that arise in the course of
intergenerational language transmission within families. (Kopeliovich forthcoming;
Okita 2002; Tannenbaum 2003; (p. 185)
The questionnaire and interview questions were based on the English version of a sociolinguistic questionnaire that was created for a PhD dissertation on language attrition,
Last in first out? An investigation of the regression hypothesis in Dutch emigrants in
Anglophone Canada (Keijzer, Sociolinguistic questionnaires, 2007).
The fifty-three questionnaire and interview questions used for this study were pared down from the seventy-eight questions in the source document for two logistical reasons.
First, because the time available for the fieldwork was only ten days, I had to limit the length of each individual interview and observation session. Second, most participants from this target community would have been unwilling to complete longer questionnaires or participate in extensive interview sessions.
The original questionnaire addressed individuals who spoke Dutch and/or English and had emigrated from the Netherlands to Canada. Whereas, though my study also analyzes language use by a diasporic community whose members use at least two of three languages
(English, Hindi, and Marwari), not all the participants had immigrated from Rajasthan, so
50 questions that related to the immigration experience were excluded from my questionnaire.
Questions regarding language attitude with respect to accents were also eliminated. Though variation in vocabulary due to the different varieties of Marwari and Hindi affects language use, accents do not affect the attitude most people in this community have regarding with whom they would or would not use the language. Finally, a number of questions from the original questionnaire were combined and tabulated in the effort to condense the document.
Questions from Keijzer’s (2007) questionnaire that related to demographics, education, language history, domains of use and self-assessment of the participants’ language proficiency were included in my questionnaire, while the questions about languages used with family members and evaluation of the participants’ cultural awareness were addressed during the interviews.
Additional modifications were necessary because a number of the original questions were either not relevant to my sample population or had to be adapted so they would be applicable to the population being targeted by this study. For example, the term partner from the original form was changed to spouse, because relationships outside marriage are not readily acknowledged by this community, so parents would, by default, be heterosexual married couples. Additionally, though one participant (HS) had been divorced and another
(AGDIL) was married to a divorcé, terminology that referenced divorce was also excluded, as it could potentially make the participants uncomfortable. Hence (ex) was removed from the questionnaire that I used.
3.1. PARTICIPANTS
Given that this thesis examines the impact of family language planning (FLP) on intergenerational language transfer (IGT) I will first describe the individual participants in
51 each family before describing each family. The criteria used to select the participants for this
project were:
1. the participant had to be an adult resident of Mumbai, India; and
2. the participant’s ancestors had to be from the Indian state of Rajasthan.
These criteria, though broad, were necessary to identify participants who would facilitate the
understanding of ‘why’ and ‘when’ diasporic Rajasthanis in Mumbai use their heritage
language (HL), that is, the extent of HL use and the domains of its use by this community.
All the participants were from Mumbai’s middle and upper-middle classes and most of them
were educated, having earned at least an undergraduate degree. The exceptions were two
male and five female participants who were not educated beyond a high-school equivalent
level of education.
Due to funding and time constraints a convenience sample was used, which thereby
limited the demographic variability of the sample. From a statistical perspective, using a
convenience sample produces biased results. However, Sevigny has observed that, “the
question of validity is not tested against the corpus of scientific knowledge” (1981: 70) when
a researcher is a participant in a phenomenon because their personal knowledge of an event
compensates for the limitations in the sampling techniques. This approach could be
applicable to the sample for this study since eighteen of the twenty-seven participants were
related to me. Their familiarity with me enabled these participants to be more natural and less
self-conscious when interacting with each other, enabling valuable ethnographic
observations. Eight of those participants who were not related to me were introduced to me
by my relatives, and only one person was a stranger.
52 Before arriving in Mumbai I had contacted six of my relatives who live in multi- generational families, to inform them about my study. Using instant messaging via Facebook or WhatsApp I asked them if the adults in their families would be willing to answer questions about their language use. I also asked them to introduce me to other families who would be willing to participate in my study. Seven of the other eight families I connected with were friends, neighbors and relatives of my original contacts. My connection with the fourteenth family resulted from a chance encounter in a marketplace where I heard the owners of a silver jewelry store conversing in Marwari.
A total of twenty-seven participants provided the information regarding language use in the fourteen families that are included in my study. Table 1 lists the fourteen families in alphabetic sequence (A through N) and indicates the order (1 through 9) in which nine of the participating families were observed. Those families, in which the family members were not observed, do not have numbers in the Observation column. Table 1 also indicates how many generations live in each household, the family members in each household and whether they speak Marwari (M), Hindi (H), and/or English (E). Additional information that is tabulated includes the participants’ highest level of education, the medium of their primary and secondary education, their age at the time of the study, their gender, how they identify themselves ethnically, their birthplace, and their age when they immigrated to Mumbai if they were not born there. Those who were older when they immigrated to Mumbai did not necessarily relocate from their birthplace. For example, CM lived in Kolkatta before relocating to Mumbai, whereas CDIL lived in Surat before she moved to Mumbai.
53 Table 3.1 The participants
Obser Family (# of Family Languages Educ. level; Age/ Ethnic Birthplace vation generations) Members1, 3 spoken medium gender identity (age arrived in Mumbai) 1 Family A (3) AM M, H AS M, H, E Bachelors; E 68 M Rajasthani Bikaner (5) ADIL M, H, E 9th grade; H, E 62 F Rajasthani Bikaner (17) AGS M, H, E AGDIL M, H, E Masters; H, E 32 F Rajasthani Mumbai
1 Family B (2) BM M, H, E Bachelors; E 38 F Bombay Mumbai cosmo; Rajasthani BF E, H BD infant
2 Family C (4) CM M, H 4th grade; M 83 F Rajasthani Bikaner (56) CS M, H CDIL M, H, E 11th grade; H 62 F Rajasthani Chennai (52) CGS M, H, E CGDIL M, H, E Bachelors; E 37 F Rajasthani Kolkatta (20) CGGS1 H, E CGGS2 H
3 Family D (3) DF M, H, E LLB (Law); H, 84 M Rajasthani Bikaner (15) M, E DM M, H DS M, H, E Bachelors; H 58 M Rajasthani Bikaner (21) DDIL M, H, E 11th grade; H, 51 F Rajasthani Kolkatta (7) E DGS1 H, E Post grad; 32 M Indian; not Mumbai E Rajasthani DGDIL1 H, E DGD H, E Bachelors; E 28 F Indian Mumbai DGS2 H, E Bachelors; E 22 M Rajasthani Mumbai
3 Family E (2) EM M, H, E Bachelors; E 65 F Rajasthani Bikaner (15) EF ?, H, ?
4 Family F (2) FF M, H, E LLB (Law); 57 M Rajasthani Bhinmal (23) H, E FM H, E FS M, H, ? FDIL H, ?
5 Family G (4) GM M GDIL1 M, H 8th grade; H 74 M Rajasthani Kolkatta (30) GS2 M GGS M, H, E 12th grade; E 54 M ? Kolkatta (10) GGDIL ?, H, E, GGGS H, E
54 Obser Family (# of Family Languages Educ. level; Age/ Ethnic Birthplace vation generations) Members1,3 spoken medium gender identity (age arrived in Mumbai) 6 Family H (3) HF M, H, E HM H, E HS H, E Bachelors; E 38 M Rajasthani Mumbai HDIL H, E HGD E
7 Family I (3) IM M, H, E 12th grade; H 67 F Rajasthani Kolkatta (19) IS H, E IDIL H, E Bachelors; E 42 F From Mumbai Bombay IGS1 H, E In college; E 19 M Rajasthani Mumbai IGS2 H, E
Family J (2) JF JM JS1 M, H, E Masters; 22 M Rajasthani Mumbai H, E JS2
Family K (2) KM M, H, E Bachelors; E 45 F Rajasthani Kolkatta (14) KF M, H, E KS M, H, E KD M, H, E
Family L (3) LF M LM M LS M, H, E LDIL M, H, E Masters; E 29 F Rajasthani Pune (26) LGD infant
8 Family M (2) MF M, H 10th grade; M 57 M Rajasthani Dadiba (27) MM ? MS M, H, E Bachelors; H, 25 M Indian Thane (suburb E of Mumbai)
9 Family N (3) NM M NS M, H, E NDIL M NGS1 M, H, E Bachelors; H, 31 M Bombay Mumbai E cosmo NGS2 M
1) ‘Family members’ whose identifying labels are in bold and are italicized were the participants in the study who provided information about their family’s language use. 2) Only these ‘Family Members’ (in red) in the specific ‘Family’ engaged in IGT 3) The label for each family member describes their position in the family. The first letter of each label indicates which of the 14 families they belong to. The remainder of the letters in the labels can be interpreted as follows: F – father; M – mother; S – son; D - daughter; SIL – son-in-law; DIL – daughter-in-law; GD – granddaughter; GS – grandson; GDIL –
55 granddaughter-in-law; GSIL – grandson-in-law; GGS – great-grandson. The number after the letters differentiates siblings according to their birth order, 1 being the older sibling and 2 indicating the younger one.
In six families (A, C, D, G, H, and I) I interviewed multiple respondents from different generations and observed them interacting with each other in their homes. In the case of family L, a multi-generational family, I did not observe the participant, LDIL interacting with her family so triangulation was not possible for data obtained with regards to this family. In the case of families B, E, F, M, and N, which are not multi-generational, I observed the participants interacting with either nuclear or extended family members. Finally, with respect to the other two families (J and K) that are not multi-generational, I did not observe the participants interacting with their family members.
Though the objective of the study was to investigate IGT by observing multi- generational families seven of the fourteen families (families B, E, F, J, K, M, and possibly
N) were not multi-generational families resulting in a limited perspective of IGT in these families. However, each of these seven perspectives is necessary for understanding different facets of how language plans are implemented in Mumbai’s Rajasthani families. Finally, only telephone conversations were utilized to obtain information from NS and KM who were also not observed in their homes, precluding methodological triangulation in these cases.
3.2. PROCEDURE
For a more holistic understanding of the extent of IGT in Mumbai’s Rajasthani community, data was obtained using a mixed methods design. Also known as methodological triangulation, this is described as “the use of more than one methodology” (Angouri,
2010:34) to obtain data. That is, the findings result from more than one procedure as the cases are evaluated from different perspectives (Stake, 2005:454). For this study, the
56 methodology entailed combining quantitative analysis with ethnographic methods such as participant observation and analysis of recorded interviews. Sevigny (1981) states that data collected by other means, such as “video and audio recordings … or anything which may be potentially useful to holistic assessment” generally result in a “richer understanding” of the events (1981: 70). Thus, methodological triangulation was implemented by combining observations of individual respondents’ interaction within their families with data from their questionnaire and interview responses to more accurately reflect linguistic practices in the seven multigenerational families that are included in this study – family A, family C, family
D, family G, family H, family I, and family L.
After describing the different procedures in the context of all twenty-seven individual responses, I will analyze and discuss the findings from the perspective of the families. The participants’ responses to a series of questions were the primary source of demographic and language use data. After completing a questionnaire that provided personal background information, most of the participants had an opportunity to converse with me about their language practices. The conversations were guided by a list of questions that addressed (1) their linguistic attitudes, (2) which languages they used when interacting with different family members, and (3) their cultural awareness. A triangulation strategy employed during the interviews entailed further discussion of language use issues that had been introduced to the participants while they were answering the questionnaire. Ten interviews (with ADIL,
BM, CM, DF, DS, DDIL, DGS1, MF, and MS) were recorded. Seven interviews (CDIL, FF,
GDIL1, HS, IM, KM, and NS) were not recorded and due to time constraints and/or interviewee preferences, I did not interview ten participants (AS, AGDIL, CGDIL, DGD,
57 DGS2, EM, GS, IGS1, JS1, and LDIL). They completed the interview questions themselves, treating this set of questions as an extension of the questionnaire.
Most participants completed the questionnaire themselves. However, six participants required help completing the questionnaire because they were uncomfortable reading and/or writing in English: three (CM, GM, and MF) of the six needed the questions translated into
Hindi, while the other three (ADIL, DF, and IM) could understand English but responded primarily in Hindi. In the case of two other participants (KM and NS) an abbreviated combination of the questionnaires and interviews were administered as phone interviews.
The observation segments of the fieldwork were conducted on eight separate occasions. Two sessions lasted for two-and-a-half days each, two consisted of two half-day sessions each, and four lasted from only one to two hours each. For the first observation, I stayed with my cousin, ADIL and her family. Their household normally consists of a grandmother (first generation), parents (second generation), a married grandson, and his wife
(third generation). During my visit, both the grandmother (AM) and the grandson (AGS) were away but ADIL’s daughters, one son-in-law, and all three daughters’ children were visiting for the summer.
Table 3.2 Family A
Individuals Relationship Generation Observed Interviewed AM mother 1st N N AS son 2nd Y Y ADIL daughter-in-law 2nd Y Y AGS grandson 3rd N N AGDIL granddaughter-in- 3rd law Y Y
After all the family members who were present consented to being recorded, I placed a video-recorder in the family’s dining room at different times during the day. A couple of
58 times after turning on the recorder I left the room. When I returned to the room, if whoever was present was conversing in Marwari and/or Hindi they would switch to English to avoid being rude. All three married daughters conversed effortlessly in all three languages, frequently switching between languages mid-sentence when they were speaking to each other or when conversing with their parents. However, they only used English and/or Hindi with their own children and with their sister-in-law, AGDIL. ADIL switched primarily between
Marwari and Hindi, and used English only sparingly, while her husband (AS), who was comfortable using all three languages, switched frequently between all three. Neither the topic nor the interlocutor seemed to influence which language the daughters or the parents used since they frequently switched codes mid-sentence irrespective of whether they were speaking about a recent death in the family, what the children had eaten that day, or about a dental appointment. Notably, the daughter-in-law only used Hindi and English in this environment, though she stated that she used Marwari every day when speaking with her birth parents.
Only one of ADIL’s daughters, BM, lives in Mumbai with her husband and newborn baby. Since BM’s family was staying in the house during my visit, my observation of her nuclear family is part of the first observation. BM’s husband is not Rajasthani and does not speak Marwari. Both BM and her husband cooed to the baby in both Hindi and English.
However, their primary language when interacting with each other was English, since the husband’s first language is Indian-English.
Table 3.3 Family B
Individuals Relationship Generation Observed Interviewed BM mother 1st Y Y BF father 1st Y N BD daughter 2nd Y N
59
The second observation was of my cousin CS’s family. Their family is a four- generation household consisting of a great-grandmother (first generation), my cousin and his wife (second generation), their son and daughter-in-law (third generation), and their two grandsons (fourth generation). I spent a couple of days with their family during the week.
Since the men were at work during the day, I returned a third time over the weekend and briefly glimpsed the interaction and language use between the entire family for a few hours.
CS and his wife (CDIL) spoke to only their parents, their siblings, and older relatives in
Marwari, but preferred to use Hindi with all others, both in the house and with younger interlocutors outside their home. Their son (CGS) and daughter-in-law (CGDIL) primarily used English, and infrequently Hindi, with their own children.
Table 3.4 Family C
Individuals Relationship Generation Observed Interviewed CM mother 1st Y Y CS son 2nd Y N CDIL daughter-in-law 2nd Y Y CGS grandson 3rd Y N CGDIL granddaughter-in- 3rd law Y Y CGGS1 great-grandson 4th Y N CGGS2 great-grandson 4th Y N
The third observation was at my cousin, DDIL’s home where I spent most of the first day interviewing her, her husband (DS), their children (DGS1, DGD, and DGS2), and my cousin’s father-in-law (DF). Her daughter-in-law is not of Rajasthani ancestry so she did not meet the criteria to be a participant. Though my cousin spoke to her birth family in Marwari and her husband spoke to his parents and siblings in Marwari, neither of them spoke to their children in Marwari. DDIL spoke to her children primarily in English and occasionally in
60 Hindi, while her husband spoke to them only in Hindi. All the children spoke to their grandparents in Hindi.
Table 3.5 Family D
Individuals Relationship Generation Observed Interviewed DF father 1st Y Y DM mother 1st Y N DS son 2nd Y Y DDIL daughter-in-law 2nd Y Y DGS1 grandson 3rd Y Y DGDIL1 granddaughter-in- 3rd law Y N DGD granddaughter 3rd Y Y DGS2 grandson 3rd Y Y
The fourth observation was at DDIL’s neighbor’s home where FF and his wife (FM) live with their adult son (FS) and daughter-in-law (FDIL). FF is equally fluent in Marwari,
Hindi, and English, while his wife is bilingual in Marwari and Hindi. Though their children were not home, FF and FM claimed that they always spoke to their children and grandchildren (daughter’s children) in Marwari. While, FF indicated that their daughter-in- law was not a Marwari-speaker so he spoke to her in Hindi, his wife insisted she spoke to their daughter-in-law in Marwari.
Table 3.6 Family F
Individuals Relationship Generation Observed Interviewed FF Father 1st Y Y FM Mother 1st Y N FS Son 2nd N N FDIL Daughter-in-law 2nd N N The fifth observation was at my cousin GGS’s home. GGS lives with his grandmother
(first generation), his mother, GDIL1 (second generation), his wife GGDIL (third generation), his son GGGS (fourth generation), and an uncle GS2. GGS is equally
61 comfortable in Marwari, Hindi, and English. While his mother (GDIL1) is Marwari- dominant she is equally fluent in Hindi and Marwari. His grandmother (GM) and uncle
(GS2) are Marwari speakers who might understand some Hindi. Both GGS and his wife
(GGDIL) interact with their adult son (GGGS) in English. GGGS is equally fluent in Hindi and English, since he has to interact with his grandmother in Hindi, however, I did not observe him using Marwari.
Table 3.7 Family G
Individuals Relationship Generation Observed Interviewed GM mother 1st Y N GDIL1 daughter-in-law 1 2nd Y Y GS2 son 2 2nd Y N GGS grandson 3rd Y Y GGDIL granddaughter-in- 3rd law Y N GGGS great-grandson 4th N N The sixth observation was at my cousin HS’s home, where he lives with his parents, his wife and his six-year old daughter. HS’s parents spoke to each other in Hindi and spoke to their sons in Hindi; so, HS did not speak Marwari. His father (HF) is multilingual in about eight languages including four non-Indic languages, while his mother (HM), who is conversant in English, primarily speaks Hindi. HS and his wife (HDIL) spoke to each other in both English and Hindi but HS’s daughter, who understands Hindi spoke to everyone in
English, only.
Table 3.8 Family H
Individuals Relationship Generation Observed Interviewed HF father 1st Y N HM mother 1st Y N HS son 2nd Y Y HDIL daughter-in-law 2nd Y N HGD granddaughter 3rd Y N
62 The seventh observation was at my cousin IS’s home where he lives with his wife
(IDIL), their two sons (IGS1 and IGS2), and his mother (IM). Though IM conversed with her parents and siblings in Marwari, she used Hindi with her children and grandchildren. IS and
IDIL communicated with each other and their children primarily in English and occasionally in Hindi. Neither one of them is conversant in Marwari since their parents did not use
Marwari with them during their childhood.
Table 3.9 Family I
Individuals Relationship Generation Observed Interviewed IM mother 1st Y Y IS son 2nd Y N IDIL daughter-in-law 2nd Y Y IGS1 grandson 3rd Y Y IGS2 grandson 3rd Y N
The following participants - EM, JS1, KM, LDIL, MF, MS, and NS - were not observed in their homes. They completed the questionnaires and interview forms while at someone else’s home or office or answered the questions during a telephone conversation.
The limited interaction with these participants resulted in limited data about them and their language use patterns, however their inclusion in the study results is necessary because though all of them have similar socio-economic status as my relatives, most of them exhibit different language use behavior from my relatives; providing necessary variation to the study results.
EM grew up in a home where Marwari was spoken. Though she communicated with her parents in Marwari, she interacted with her children in English and Hindi. Her husband, on the other hand, spoke to them only in Hindi. EM’s children did not speak Marwari. JS1 lives with his parents and everyone in their home interacts in Marwari. KM, who lives in a
63 nuclear family with her husband and children, communicated with them both in English and
Hindi, while her husband spoke to them in Hindi. However, KM’s children communicated with their grandparents in Marwari and occasionally used it when communicating with KM and her husband. LDIL lives with her husband, parents-in-law and infant daughter. Everyone in their home spoke Marwari. MF lives with his wife and adult son, MS. They speak only
Marwari at home. During the interview, MF stated he felt more comfortable speaking Hindi, however when his son had to interpret some of the questions in the questionnaire, MS translated them into Marwari. This difference between what the participant stated and what I observed can be attributed to the established language in their familial relationship being
Marwari, versus MF’s expressed preference for Hindi when speaking to outsiders and those he perceives as not being familiar with Marwari. The last participant, NS lives with his family and works in his family’s store selling silver jewelry and curios. While I was in the shop, NS communicated with his father and other relatives in Marwari. At that time, his father stated that their family speaks Marwari at home. However, in a subsequent phone conversation, NS stated he primarily spoke English and Hindi, even at home. MF’s and NS’s language behavior when compared to their interview and/or questionnaire responses highlight how linguistic identity influences professed language choices and how observations can frequently provide a more complete perspective of the participant’s language use.
64 3.3 QUESTIONNAIRE
I am using this questionnaire to understand how and why people of Rajasthani heritage speak different languages. It consists of 20 items, all of which may not apply to you personally. If a certain item does not apply to you, please cross out the number in front of that particular question and move on to the next item. If you don’t understand a certain question, please do not hesitate to ask me. There are no right or wrong answers!
Profile 1) In what year were you born? ……………………………………………………………….
2) Where were you born: Name of village/town/city:…………………………………………
3) If you were not born in Mumbai, how old were you when you came to Mumbai? ………..
4) Who all do you live with? …………………………………………………..……………
5) What is the highest level of education you have completed? q primary school q secondary school q # of years of university / college ……………………………………………………
6) Do you work? q yes q no a) If so, what is your current profession? …………………………………………………
7) Are you retired? q yes q no a) If so, what was your profession? …………………….…………………………………
Language History & Use 8) Do you speak a Rajasthani language(s)? q yes q no a) Which one(s) do you speak? ………………….…………………………….……… b) In a week on average how often do you speak in Rajasthani - q all the time (every day) q most of the time (almost every day) q sometimes (4 – 5 days a week) q occasionally (2 – 3 days a week) q rarely (maybe once a week) q other (once or twice a year; maybe a few times a month; etc.)
9) Which language(s) did you know before starting nursery school (mark all that apply)? q Rajasthani q Hindi q English q other …………………………………………………………………………………
65 10) Which language(s) did you use in school? a) With teachers ……………….…………………………………………………. b) With friends …………………………………………………………………….
11) Which language(s) did you use in college? a) With teachers ……………….…………………………………………………. b) With friends …………………………………………………………………….
12) If you work, which language or languages do you use at work? …………………………
13) Do you use any other language(s)? What are they? When do you use them? For example: Marathi / servants ……………………………………………………………
14) In the following table, please indicate whether you use the indicated language in the specified situations by checking the appropriate box. If a certain situation does not apply to you (for example, if you don’t have any pets or you do not go to a club, etc.), please leave the space blank.
Rajasthani never rarely sometimes frequently always With relatives With friends To pets At work When shopping At clubs or organization
15) In the following table, please indicate whether you use the indicated language in the specified situations by checking the appropriate box. If a certain situation does not apply to you (for example, if you don’t have any pets or you do not go to a club, etc.), please leave the space blank.
Hindi never rarely sometimes frequently always With relatives With friends To pets At work When shopping At clubs or organization
16) In the following table, please indicate whether you use the indicated language in the specified situations by checking the appropriate box. If a certain situation does not apply to you (for example, if you don’t have any pets or you do not go to a club, etc.), please leave the space blank.
English never rarely sometimes frequently always With relatives With friends
66 To pets At work When shopping At clubs or organization
Language Proficiency 17) If you lived in Rajasthan during your childhood, please complete the following table by writing a number from 1 to 5 (where: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5 = always) indicating how often you spoke the indicated languages at the specified ages:
Age range 0 – 5 years 6 – 12 years 13 – 17 years Rajasthani Hindi English
18) Whether you lived in Rajasthan or not during your childhood, in the following table, by marking the appropriate box (where 0 = not at all, 1 = only know a few words, 2 = know a few basic phrases, 3 = know a few basic sentences, 4 = can have a short conversation in the language, and 5 = very well) please indicate how well you think you speak the indicated languages today:
0 1 2 3 4 5 Rajasthani Hindi English
19) Please fill in the table below – about those people (upto 6) with whom you are most frequently in touch. These people can live anywhere.
The Where does this What languages How do you How long What is your person’s person live? do you speak to know this person have you relationship intials each other in? – e.g. school, known this with this work, family, person? person? friends, other?
20) You have come to the end of this questionnaire. Is there anything you would like to add? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………….…… …………………………………………………………………………………………………
67 3.4 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
The following items guided the interviews. Profile 1) q male q female
2) (Which generation moved away from) From your family who left Rajasthan? ………………………………………..….
3) In general, which language do you feel most comfortable speaking? q Rajasthani q Hindi q English q other a. why do you think that is so? ……….………………………………………………
4) If you were trying to give somebody instructions / directions and you don’t know what language they speak, what language would you use? …………………………………… a) what language do you think in? ……………………………………………………..
5) Do you use more than one language at the same time – for example, Hindi and English or English and Rajasthani in the same sentence, or in the same conversation? q yes q no q sometimes q only during/with ……………………………………………………………………
6) If you speak all three languages – Rajasthani, Hindi, and English, do you think you speak all of them equally well? q Yes q No, I speak Rajasthani best q No, I speak Hindi best q No, I speak English best q I don’t know
Language attitude 7) Do you think of yourself as Rajasthani (as in Marwari, Mewari, etc.), Maharashtrian, or from some other place / state? …………………………………………………………………………………………
8) Generally, do you think it is important for you to be able to speak Rajasthani (to anyone … about anything)? To your immediate family? q not important q not important q not very important q not very important q important q important q very important q very important
68 c) why do you think so …………………………………………………………………………………………
9) Do you think it is important for a Rajasthani child to speak and understand Rajasthani? q yes q no q maybe a) please explain why ………………………………………………………………………………………
10) If you could use Marwari at work would you? q yes q no q maybe
11) Which languages they think they should use in specific situations, especially if they can use all equally:
Rajasthani Hindi English With relatives With friends To pets At work When shopping At clubs or organization
Why / why not ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………….…… ……………………………
Family – spouse, children & grandchildren 12) Current marital status? q married q separated/divorced q widow/widower q single
If married – 13) What language or languages do you mostly use when talking to your spouse? q Rajasthani q Hindi q English q all three equally q more Rajasthani q more Hindi q more English
69
14) What language or languages does your spouse mostly use when talking to you (mark all that apply)? q Rajasthani q Hindi q English q all three equally q more Rajasthani q more Hindi q more English
15) Do you have children (including sons and daughters in law)? q no q yes, how many?: …………………………………………………………………... § Their ages are………………………………………………… years old
16) What language or languages do you mostly use when talking to your children? a) @ home b) outside the home q Rajasthani q Rajasthani q Hindi q Hindi q English q English q all three equally q all three equally q more Rajasthani q more Rajasthani q more Hindi q more Hindi q more English q more English
17) What language or languages do your children mostly use when talking to you? a) @ home b) outside the home q Rajasthani q Rajasthani q Hindi q Hindi q English q English q all three equally q all three equally q more Rajasthani q more Rajasthani q more Hindi q more Hindi q more English q more English
18) If your children can speak Rajasthani: a) Do you encourage them to speak the language? q yes q no b) Is it important that your children speak it correctly? q yes q no
19) What language or languages do you mostly use when talking to your parents? q Rajasthani q Hindi q English
70 q all three equally q more Rajasthani q more Hindi q more English
20) What language or languages do your parents mostly use when talking to you? q Rajasthani q Hindi q English q all three equally q more Rajasthani q more Hindi q more English
21) Do you have grandchildren? q no q yes, number: …………………………………………………………………... Their ages are:……………………………………………………………… years old
22) What language or languages do you mostly use when talking to your grandparents? q Rajasthani q Hindi q English q all three equally q more Rajasthani q more Hindi q more English
23) What language or languages do your grandparents mostly use when talking to you? q Rajasthani q Hindi q English q all three equally q more Rajasthani q more Hindi q more English
Culture & Cultural affiliation 24) Which Rajasthani traditions are you familiar with? q ghunghat q dances ……………………………………………………………………… (ghoomar, kalbeliya, kathputali, bhopa, chang, teratali, ghindar, kachchhighori, tejaji, parth q songs ……………………………………………………………………… (about heroic deeds, love stories, devotional songs, kanhaiya geet) q textiles / crafts ………………………………………………………………………
71 (bagaru prints, sanganer prints, zari embroidery, blue pottery of Jaipur, mirror work) q dress ………………………………………..……………………………………… (chaniya choli – women; angarkha – men) q uniquely Rajasthani festivals ……………..………………………………………… (ghangaur, teej, gogaji, makar sankranti, desert festival, Pushkar camel festival) q food ………………………………………………………………………………… (gate ki sabzi, daal baati, guwaar fali ki saag, kaddi, churma ghevar, gogri, jhajhariya, mawa kachori)
25) Have you ever attended Rajasthani culture or language classes while living in Mumbai? q yes q no
26) Did/do your children attend Rajasthani culture classes (dance, language, cooking, etc.)? q yes q no
27) Do you visit Rajasthan? q never q seldom q regularly, 1-2 times a year q regularly, 3-5 times a year q regularly, over 5 times a year
28) If you have visited Rajasthan, what were the reason(s) for your visit(s) (you may tick more than one box here)? q family matters (weddings, funerals, etc.) q tourism q other ……………………………………………………………….…………………………………
29) Are you or have you ever been a member of a Rajasthani club or organisation in Mumbai? q yes q no
30) Do you listen to Rajasthani radio programmes? q yes q no
31) Do you listen to Rajasthani music? q yes q no
32) Do you watch Rajasthani television programmes? q yes q no
33) Do you read Rajasthani newspapers, books or magazines? q yes q no
34) If you have indicated ‘no’ to any of the above 4 questions, why do you think it is?
72 q Want to but can’t get access to them q Are not interested q Prefer music/TV/radio/reading in another language (please specify which language/languages)……………………………………………………………………
q Other …………………………………………….…………………………………
73
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS
This chapter analyzes the data in terms of how language use is influenced by the participants’ birthplace, their cultural interaction and awareness, the level and medium of their education, and the domain of use especially as it relates to who their interlocutors are.
To examine the process of language transfer in this community, this study includes two categories of participants – (1) parents as initiators of heritage language use and (2) recipients of heritage language transfer who are not parents. However, only the motivation of the initiators of intergenerational language transmission (IGT) is considered significant to this study. Communal norms regarding respect for elders generally dissuade children from challenging parental decisions, especially during their childhood, thus their language choices are essentially initiated by their parents’ decisions. The recipients of heritage language transfer in this study are the young adults who do not have children (AGDIL, DGS1, DGD,
DGS2, IGS1, JS1, MS, and NS1). Information regarding heritage language transfer in their families (A, D, I, J, M, and N) is relevant from the perspective of whether they use Marwari today or not. The language attitudes of these young adults could also be predictors of whether their children in turn will be spoken to in their heritage language.
The analysis of the data will be organized around questions addressing the choice and use of languages by this speech community. The issues being are is there a relationship between the speakers’ birthplace and linguistic identity that could affect language use, could an individual’s cultural quotient significantly influence language choice, in what ways would an educational environment be relevant to the languages used by an individual, does family structure influence the languages that are spoken, and, how do all these factors affect IGT.
74 4.1 Does birthplace influence linguistic identity and heritage language use?
The twenty-seven individuals who responded to the questionnaire and/or the interview questions ranged in age from nineteen years old to eighty-four years old. Eleven
(AGDIL, BM, DGS1, DGD, DGS2, HS, IDIL, IGS1, JS, MS, NS) of the twenty-seven were born in Mumbai, while the other sixteen had immigrated to Mumbai from one of four urban
Indian cities, namely Surat, Bikaner, Kolkatta, or Pune. Of the participants in this study who are immigrants, AS was the first to arrive in Mumbai, whereas LDIL is the most recent arrival. AS arrived in Mumbai as a child and has lived in the city for sixty-three years, whereas LDIL relocated to Mumbai three years ago, immediately after she got married.
Irrespective of where they had immigrated from or how long they had subsequently lived in Mumbai, all fifteen participants (from families A, C, D, E, F, G, I, K, L, and M) who were born in places other than Mumbai identified themselves as Rajasthani. Only one, GGS, who was born in Kolkatta, did not specify his ethnic identity. Of the remaining eleven participants (from families A, B, D, H, I, J, and N), all of whom were born in Mumbai, only
AGDIL, DGS2, HS, IGS1, and JS1 considered themselves as Rajasthani. Ancestral roots in
Rajasthan and familial claims of association with the community were insufficient for the other six individuals to claim an affiliation with their ancestral ethnicity.
Six participants felt ethnically disconnected from Rajasthan possibly because they were not born and/or raised in Rajasthan. Three of those participants (DGS1, DGD, and MS), young adults in their twenties and thirties who did not identify themselves as Rajasthani claimed a more generic and possibly a more nationalistic ‘Indian’ identity, while the other three (BM, IDIL, and NS) who were in their thirties and forties identified themselves as being from ‘Bombay’, and hence more cosmopolitan. Bombay, the previous name for
75 Mumbai, is the label associated with the city’s cosmopolitan identity. Notably, all those who were ‘not born in Mumbai’ identified themselves as Rajasthani, whereas no one who identified himself/herself as Indian or from Bombay was born outside Mumbai. Thus, with respect to the participants in this study, the primary difference between those who identified themselves as Rajasthani and those who did not was that only those who were born in
Mumbai did not identify with being Rajasthani.
4.2 Is language choice reflective of the participant’s cultural quotient?
Cultural quotient (CQ) is a term that is used in business and government to indicate an individual’s adaptability in culturally diverse situations. The concept is adapted to this thesis to indicate the participants’ engagement with cultural activities in the community that would connect them to the Marwari language and to Rajasthani traditions. To assess the participants’ individual CQ they were asked a number of questions which (1) gauged their awareness of Rajasthani traditions, (2) identified their affiliation with organizations that connected the Rajasthani community in Mumbai, and (3) determined whether they read
Rajasthani literature or engaged with other forms of media in Marwari. Their familiarity with at least two or more of the identified traditions such as the practice of ghunghat (where women cover their head and face, completely or partially, with their saree), dances (such as ghoomar, kalbeliya, kathputali, bhopa, chang, teratali, ghindar, kachchhighori, tejaji, and parth), songs (about heroic deeds, love songs, devotional songs, kanhaiya geet), fabrics and crafts (such as bagaru prints, sanganer prints, zari embroidery, blue pottery of Jaipur, and mirror work), dress (such as chaniya choli for women and angarkha for men), uniquely
Rajasthani festivals (such as ghangaur, teej, gogaji, makar sankranti, the desert festival, and the Pushkar camel festival), and food (such as gate ki sabzi, daal baati, guwaar fali ki saag,
76 kaddi, churma ghevar, gogri, jhajhariya, mawa kachori) was considered high cultural awareness. Low cultural awareness was attributed to those who claimed no knowledge of any of the traditions that were addressed. Notably, a number of the dances, festivals, and foods identified above are unique to smaller communities in Rajasthan, and familiarity with these would have indicated a very high level of cultural awareness.
The participants’ level of cultural awareness was relatively high in this sample. Of the twenty-seven participants, only five (DGS1, DGD, DGS2, MS, and NS1) were considered to have low cultural awareness, one (GGS) did not provide responses to this section, and the remainder were considered to have intermediate to high cultural awareness. Notably, nine participants (ADIL, BM, CM, CDIL, DDIL, DS, DF, GDIL1, and IGS1) mentioned or described clothing, food, dances, or festivals in addition to the ones that I asked them about.
Of these nine, only two (BM and IGS1) were born in Mumbai. The other seven were born in
Kolkatta, Chennai, or Bikaner. That is, where they were born did not influence their greater awareness of Rajasthani culture. Also, of the six participants who did not identify themselves as Rajasthanis, only BM’s and IDIL’s, responses to the Culture and Cultural Affiliation section of the interview indicated that their ethnic affiliation did not diminish their CQ with respect to Rajasthani dress, food, music, and celebrations.
For the participants of this study, the confluence of age, birthplace, and their ethnic identity could be definitive in influencing cultural awareness. As identified in Table 4.1, fifteen of the sixteen participants who were not born in Mumbai identified themselves as
Rajasthani and had a high cultural awareness. Their age did not make a difference to their awareness or their identity as Rajasthanis. One of the sixteen participants who were not born in Mumbai (GGS) did not indicate his ethnic identity. However, of the eleven participants
77 who were born in Mumbai, ten were young adults (in their twenties or early thirties) and irrespective of whether they identified themselves as Rajasthani or not, five of the ten young adults claimed to have a low cultural awareness. Of these five young adults, one (NGS1) might have claimed ignorance of Rajasthani traditions because he might feel the community has low status and wanted to dissociate himself from the community and its traditions. He claimed a non-Rajasthani, ‘cosmo’ identity. However, when asked how often he travelled to
Rajasthan, he mentioned annual visits for a religious festival, dvjaa kalash, one that is specific to his ancestral village: knowledge that should place him in the category of participants who have high cultural awareness.
Table 4.1 Cultural awareness and ethnic identity.
Identify as Rajasthani Identify as Indian/from Bombay Born in Mumbai Cultural awareness YES AGDIL, HS, IGS1, JS1 BM, IDIL
NO DGS2 DGD, DGS1, MS, NGS1 Not born in Mumbai Cultural awareness YES AS, ADIL, CM, CDIL, CGDIL, DF, DS, DDIL, EM, FF, GDIL1, IM, KM, LDIL, MF
Membership in and interaction with various community service organizations and social groups was another benchmark of the participant’s CQ. There are a number of organizations in the greater Mumbai metropolitan area that provide their members with opportunities to both socialize during celebrations of festivals (such as Holi or Divali) and participate in civic activities. The civic service frequently involves sponsoring medical camps, helping women and children, and facilitating social justice for the indigent populations both in and around Mumbai and in Rajasthan.
GGS, the participant who did not indicate his ethnic affiliation also did not indicate whether he was affiliated with an organization, and therefore was not included in the analysis
78 of the relationship between cultural awareness and ethnic identity, with reference to the participants’ birthplace. As shown in Table 4.2, of the twenty-six participants who indicated their ethnic identities, only nine were members of these types of organizations. Three
(AGDIL, HS, and JS1) were born in Mumbai and six (AS, DF, EM, FF, MF, and KM) of the nine were not. However, irrespective of where they were born, all nine of them strongly identified with being Rajasthani. The remaining participants indicated that they did not participate in any organized social or civic activity.
Table 4.2 Membership in cultural organizations and ethnic identity.
Identify as Rajasthani Identify as Indian/from Bombay Born in Mumbai Membership in cultural organization YES AGDIL, HS, JS1
NO DGS2, IGS1, BM, DGD, DGS1, IDIL, MS, NS1 Not born in Mumbai Membership in cultural organization YES AS, DF, EM, FF, MF, KM
NO ADIL, CM, CDIL, CGDIL, DS, DDIL, GDIL1, IM, LDIL In the case of those who identified themselves as Rajasthanis, affiliation with a cultural organization was not influenced by whether they were or were not born in Mumbai.
However, participants whose ethnic identity was not tied to Rajasthan were predictably uninterested in associating with the larger community: membership in a Rajasthani cultural organization was not important to them.
The third benchmark, awareness of and interaction with Marwari music, literature, and/or Marwari media, had results that were similar to the second benchmark, ‘membership in cultural organizations’. As indicated in Table 4.3, almost all the same individuals who were members of Rajasthani organizations accessed some form of media, either reading newspapers such as the Rajasthan Gazette (ADIL), or listening to music such as devotional
79 songs (MF). The primary reasons given by older participants for not accessing Marwari media was an inability to find it and by younger participants it was a preference for reading and/or listening to music in other languages such as Hindi or English.
Table 4.3 Accessing Marwari media and ethnic identity.
Identify as Rajasthani Identify as Indian/from Bombay Born in Mumbai Engaging with Marwari media YES AGDIL, JS1
NO DGS2, HS, IGS1, BM, DGD, DGS1, IDIL, MS, NS1 Not born in Mumbai Engaging with Marwari media YES ADIL, CGDIL, DF, FF, GDIL1, MF,
NO AS, CM, CDIL, DS, DDIL, EM, IM, KM, LDIL Thus, when considering all three aspects of an individual’s cultural quotient together and evaluating whether they are influenced by the participant’s birthplace, the findings are mixed for those who identify themselves as Rajasthani. Of those with a high CQ (that is those who had high cultural awareness, were members of a cultural organization, and engaged with Marwari media), two (AGDIL and JS1) were born in Mumbai, whereas three
(DF, FF, and MF) were born in places other than Mumbai. See Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 High cultural quotient – Rajasthani identity.
Cultural awareness Interaction with an Engagement with organization Marwari media Born in Mumbai AGDIL, JS1 AGDIL, JS1 AGDIL, JS1
Not born in Mumbai DF, FF, MF DF, FF, MF DF, FF, MF Irrespective of whether they were born in Mumbai (HS) or elsewhere, similarly mixed findings were also evident for those with an intermediate CQ. These participants—AS,
ADIL, CGDIL, EM, GDIL1, and KM—had a high awareness and either participated in an organization or engaged with Marwari media. See Table 4.5.
80 Table 4.5 Intermediate cultural quotient – Rajasthani identity
Cultural awareness Interaction with an Engagement with organization Marwari media Born in Mumbai HS HS
Not born in Mumbai AS, ADIL, CGDIL, EM, AS, EM, KM ADIL, CGDIL, GDIL1 GDIL1, KM Those who identified themselves as Rajasthani but had a low CQ (that is they had high cultural awareness but did not participate in an organization or engage with Marwari media) were also born both in Mumbai (IGS1) and elsewhere (CM, CDIL, DS, DDIL, EM,
IM, and LDIL). See Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Low cultural quotient – Rajasthani identity
Cultural awareness Interaction with an Engagement with organization Marwari media Born in Mumbai IGS1
Not born in Mumbai CM, CDIL, DS, DDIL, IM, LDIL Only one individual (DGS2) in this group of participants who identified themselves as Rajasthani had low cultural awareness, a low CQ, and was born in Mumbai. Thus, irrespective of whether the overall quotient was high, low, or in-between, for those who identified themselves as Rajasthani, there was no definitive conclusion regarding the influence that birthplace had on a participant’s CQ.
However, in the case of those who did not identify specifically as Rajasthani, irrespective of whether their cultural awareness was high (BM and IDIL) or low (DGD,
DGS1, MS, and NS1), their overall CQ was low. Notably, all of them were born in Mumbai.
In fact, nobody who was born outside Mumbai identified themselves as either Indian or from
Mumbai, as opposed to Rajasthani. Finally, one participant’s (GGS) CQ could not be gauged because he did not respond to any of the questions in the Cultural Awareness section of the interview.
81 Table 4.7 Low cultural quotient – Indian or Mumbaikar7 identity
Cultural awareness Interaction with an Engagement with organization Marwari media Born in Mumbai YES BM, IDIL NO DGD, DGS1, MS, NS1 Not born in Mumbai
Thus, by juxtaposing the combination of all three aspects of the CQ against whether the family engages in IGT, we can evaluate whether the participant’s CQ has an impact on
IGT within their family. Those who had a high CQ engaged in some level of IGT—they would not be in the ‘no IGT’ category. However, the predictability of IGT occurring in those families where individuals had low to intermediate levels of CQ was tenuous because at both levels of CQ, there were some participants engaging in each category of IGT.
Looking at the other side of the coin, individuals who were engaged in IGT predictably would have some level of cultural awareness, might be involved with a cultural organization, and/or would probably engage with some form of Marwari media. And, those who did not engage in IGT predictably would not have a high CQ. This was evident from the data.
Table 4.8 Cultural quotient and intergenerational language transmission
IGT Partial IGT No IGT High CQ AGDIL, JS1, FF, MF DF Intermediate CQ AS, ADIL, KM CGDIL, GDIL1 HS, EM Low CQ MS, NS1, LDIL CM, CDIL, DS, DDIL, IGS1, IDIL, IM DGD, DGS1, DGS2 At the time of my fieldwork, BM’s baby was only a few months old so IGT was not yet an observable issue in their home: therefore, family B is not included in this aspect of the analysis. According to Table 4.8, the existence of a potentially positive correlation between
IGT and CQ is evidenced by the fact that if participants have a high CQ, IGT will be present
7 A Mumbaikar is someone who claims to be from Mumbai
82 in their family. However, the opposite was not true: individuals who had a low CQ could be participants in IGT, though with respect to this study they were not the decision makers regarding IGT in their families. Though LDIL, MS, and NS1 had low CQs and might not necessarily have spoken Marwari if the decision was theirs to make, they were all young adults whose parents or in-laws engaged in IGT: hence IGT occurred in families L, M, and
N. IGT was also evident in the case of family A, whose members had both high and intermediate CQs. The other two participants, JS1 and FF, who had high CQs were also members of families where IGT was evident. DF was the only other participant who had a high CQ: however, IGT in his family occurred only between the first and second generations.
When there was an absence of IGT between some generations but evident between others, the family was categorized as having partial IGT. This is the case in family D, where there is an absence of IGT between the second and third generations, DS, DDIL, DGD,
DGS1, and DGS2, who have low CQs, did not speak Marwari to each other. A similar IGT pattern was also seen in families C and G, where IGT was absent between the second, third, and fourth generations. Members of the second generation (CDIL) and third generation
(CGDIL) would interact only with the first-generation participant (CM) in Marwari, but not with each other or their children. CGDIL had an intermediate CQ, whereas CM and CDIL had low CQs. In the case of family G, data obtained from observations was used to fill in the gaps in this family’s language practices. Similar to families C and D, the older generations communicated in Marwari whereas the younger generations did not. The participant GDIL1 had an intermediate CQ while data regarding her son, GGS’s cultural preferences was unavailable. However, these families CQ values indicate that when CQ values in a family are mixed, the probability of IGT occurring is less predictable.
83 At the other end of the spectrum from family A is family I, where IGT is not occurring and all the family members have low CQs. This relationship indicates that when
IGT does not occur in a family there is a high probability that the family members will not have high CQs.
4.3 Does the participant’s level of education influence language use?
Regarding whether level of education affects language choice, the results were quantifiable by gender. Irrespective of whether the male participants had a college education or not, all those I spoke to were successful businessmen. Only two male participants did not have college degrees; neither of them was born in Mumbai, and both are Marwari speakers.
One of these men, MF (who was not conversant in English), attended a Marwari-medium school and had immigrated from Rajasthan as an adult. Whereas the other man, GGS, emigrated with his family from Bengal to Mumbai as a child, where he received his formal education in English.
Neither the absence of an advanced education nor the use of their heritage language alone or together impeded either one’s socio-economic success. Both men continue to use
Marwari daily, and they do not feel handicapped by their limited educational credentials. The difference in the medium of instruction influenced their fluency in English, but not their use of Marwari. GGS is a fluent English speaker, whereas MF cannot communicate in English.
Notably, both men were raised in families where their parents spoke to them in Marwari and they continue to be fluent Marwari-speakers.
In the case of the women participants who did not have college educations, two (CM and GDIL1) were child-brides and the other four (ADIL, CDIL, DDIL, and IM) were married shortly after they completed high school. The impact of education on financial
84 success is not a viable gauge of language use for these women since societal norms such as child marriages and the notion that ‘women do not need to be educated’ prevented some of them from getting an education. Heritage language use by this group is mixed. All six are fluent Marwari speakers. However, it is the two older women (who only had elementary school educations because they were child-brides) exclusively who continue to use Marwari as their primary language. The other four women, ADIL, CDIL, DDIL, and HM, are Hindi- dominant with varying levels of fluency in English. Of the female participants, the youngest of those who did not have college educations was fifty-years-old at the time of the interview.
Hence, all participants who were forty-nine years old or younger had, at the very least, completed an undergraduate degree.
4.4 Does the participant’s medium of education influence language use?
In the case of this sample (see Table 4.9), the level of their education does not seem to affect language use as much as the medium of instruction seems to. Those who attended
Hindi-medium schools were more likely to be less fluent in English and more fluent in
Marwari, whereas those who attended educational institutions where English was not just another subject, but was the medium of instruction, were more comfortable communicating in English and less so in Marwari. Insufficient time precluded a more complete analysis of the participants’ level of fluency in the three languages so the analysis of linguistic fluency is based on observations and the participants’ self-analyses of their language skill as indicated by them in the questionnaires (question 18) and during the interviews. The self-assessment of fluency in all three languages was based on a 5-point Likert scale which were:
85 “0 = not at all, 1 = only know a few words, 2 = know a few basic phrases, 3 = know a
few basic sentences, 4 = can have a short conversation in the language, and 5 = very
well”
Participants’ responses to questions 3 through 6 on the interview guide were also used to gauge their fluency.
Table 4.9 Elementary school medium of instruction8 and HL use.
Level of Educ. Uses Marwari Does not use Marwari Men Women Men Women High School GGS, MF CM, GDIL1, ADIL, CDIL, DDIL, IM College Degree AS, DF, DS, FF, AGDIL, BM, DGS1, DHGS2, DGD, IDIL JS1, MS, NS1 CGDIL, EM, KM, HS, IGS1 LDIL 1) The medium of instruction in the elementary school the participants attended were primarily either English, Marwari, or a Hindi/English combination.
Gauging fluency in a language without quantitative measures is subjective and depends on how both the researcher and the participants interpret the term fluency. For example, ADIL felt she was fluent in English, Hindi, and Marwari since she understood all three languages. However, hampered by an inability to express herself effectively in English, she frequently switched from English to Hindi when conversing with me2. Since fluency in a language also depends on which variety of a language the interlocutors are using, judgments regarding fluency in this study would be more nebulous.
When considering whether the medium of instruction influences language choice, it is noteworthy that only six (DGSI, DGD, DGS2, HS, IDIL, and IGS1) of the twenty-seven participants do not speak Marwari and all six attended primary and secondary schools where
2 Though I conducted the interview in Hindi as much as I could, since I am not very fluent in Hindi, ADIL tried to respond to me in English as much as possible.
86 the medium of instruction was English. However, of the twenty-one Marwari speakers in this sample, seven participants (AS, BM, CGDIL, EM, GGS, KM, and LDIL) attended purely
English-medium primary and secondary schools, eleven (ADIL, AGDIL, CDIL, DS, DDIL,
FF, GDIL1, IM, JS1, MS, and NS1) attended both English- and Hindi-medium schools at different times during their academic lives, while three (CM, DF, and MF) attended schools where the instruction was primarily in Marwari. Based on the above statistics, the medium of instruction by itself might not necessarily be a significant factor influencing language choice for these participants.
However, let us consider whether the medium of instruction at the primary and secondary level of education might influence IGT. Seventeen of the twenty-one Marwari- speaking participants are parents. Of these seventeen only nine (AS, ADIL, CM, DF, FF,
GDIL1, KM LDIL, and MF) are engaged in IGT. While AS, KM, and LDIL attended
English-medium schools, ADIL, DF, FF, and GDIL1 attended both English- and Hindi- medium schools, and CM and MF attended schools where instruction was in Marwari. The
FLPs of the other eight (BM, CDIL, CGDIL, DS, DDIL, EM, GGS, and IM) Marwari- speaking parents do not include IGT. If their children speak Marwari it is because of interaction with grandparents and other extended family members. Notably, all eight of them attended English-/Hindi-medium schools. All those who could not speak Marwari attended
English-medium schools only. Some of those who could speak Marwari also attended
English-medium schools. While others who speak Marwari were educated in a combination of Hindi- and English- medium schools. Thus, precluding other confounding factors, the medium of education could be influential in a family’s language choices and consequently affect IGT.
87 Of the fourteen families who participated in this study, IGT was in the language plans of ten families (A, C, D, F, G, J, K, L, M, and N). Notably, in three families (C, D, and G) there was IGT between the older generations only, not between the younger generations. In both family C and family G the fourth generations do not know Marwari. That is, in family
C, IGT was evident only between generations 1 and 2 whereas in family G, IGT was present between the first three generations. Similarly, the third generation of family D, a three- generation household, was unable to communicate in Marwari.
Table 4.10 Impact of medium of instruction on IGT9
Between generations … IGT No IGT One and two A, C, D, F, G, J, K, L, M, N B, E, H, I Two and three A, G, L, N C, D, H, I Three and four C, G
Therefore, in this sample the parents’ medium of education appears to be more influential for implementation of a family language plan that includes heritage language use than does the parents’ level of education. IGT appears less likely to occur if the participants
(from families B, C, D, E, G, H, and I) attended a primary school where the medium of instruction was English and more likely if it was not English (older generations of families C,
D, G as well as from families F and M). In the case of the participants from families J, M, and N who were young, unmarried men whose parents spoke to them in Marwari, though not in a position to initiate IGT, they were participants in the process.
The likelihood that the first generations of families A, and G attended English medium schools is slim since these were multi-generation families where the matriarchs were
9The medium of instruction in the primary school that the participant generation (of each family) attended was English, Marwari, or a Hindi/English combination. If the generation did not participate in the study the family is indicated in black.
88 the parents of participants who were themselves in their late sixties and early seventies.
Traditionally, if women of that generation were permitted to attend school, they usually only did so until the third or fourth grade at which point they were married and their education was generally terminated.
Education policies and the attitudes of administrators and teachers towards heritage language use were also relevant to IGT decisions. For example, MF attended a Marwari- medium school and the primary language of communication in his home is Marwari so his son MS is a Marwari-speaker. However, attendance at a school where students were punished for using their heritage language affected DDIL’s family’s language plan, one that does not include heritage language use.
4.5 Does living in a multi-generational family influence language choice?
A large proportion of the participants lived in multi-generation families.
Traditionally, multi-generation families in India are called “joint-families”, a term that continues to be applied to these types of households. However, today’s joint families rarely reflect a traditional joint family structure, where two or more brothers live under the same roof with their nuclear families, parents, and grandparents. Such multi-generation households could have four and sometimes five generations living under the same roof as each brother’s nuclear family could include adult married sons too. As indicated in Table 4.11, the participants in this study were members of households that had two, three, or four generations. Five (CM, CDIL, CGDIL, FDIL1, and FGS) lived in households with four generations while fifteen (AS, ADIL, AGDIL, DF, DS, DDIL, DGS1, DGD, DGS2, HS, IM,
IDIL, IGS1, LDIL, and NS1) live in households with three generations. The remaining six participants (BM, EM, FF, JS1, MF, and MS) live in nuclear families. See Table 4.11.
89
Table 4.11 Family structure with reference to participants
Generations 4 3 2
Participants CM, CDIL, CGDIL, AS, ADIL, AGDIL, DF, DS, DDIL, DGS1, BM, EM, FF, JS1,
FDIL1, FGS DGD, DGS2, HS, IM, IDIL, IGS1, LDIL, MF, MS
NS1
Table 4.12 juxtaposes the two types of family structure being considered in this study
(multi-generation and nuclear) against IGT (full, partial or non-existent) to evaluate whether
IGT is more prevalent in multi-generation families. Four multi-generation (A, J, L, N) and three nuclear (F, K, M) families engaged in IGT, whereas two multi-generation (H, I) and one nuclear (E) family did not. IGT in families C, D, and G was addressed in the section on the impact of the participants’ cultural quotient on IGT in their families, and as discussed in the section on cultural awareness, IGT in family B is not included in this analysis since they had a newborn baby.
Table 4.12 Family structure and intergenerational language transfer
IGT Partial IGT No IGT Family structure Multi-generation A, J, L, N C, D, G H, I
Nuclear F, K, M E
Since most participants who were 55 or older could speak Marwari, their use of the language exposed their children or grandchildren to it. However, even in the cases where parents did not use the language with their children, when grandparents did, IGT occurred.
For example, though CDIL and her husband did not speak to their son in Marwari, because he used the language to communicate with his grandparents he is comfortable using the
90 language today. Thus, when grandparents are accessible, when they speak the heritage language, and do so, their presence facilitates IGT.
Figure 4.1 shows language use only by the sixteen participants who are parents.
Figure 4.1
In Figure 4.1, which depicts the distribution of languages spoken to children by participants’ (distributed by age categories), the blue, purple and green bars represent the 8 participants who spoke to their children in Marwari either as the only language or in combination with Hindi and/or English. While those who were older than 56 were more likely to interact with their children in Marwari than in any other language, younger parents were less likely to do so. That is, though parents in the 31-55 age range did not use Marwari
91 with their own children, if their parents were 56 years old or older, there was a strong likelihood that they (participants in the 31-55 year age range) interacted with their parents in
Marwari in the presence of their children (the grandchildren of the 56-67 year olds).
Figure 4.2
This preference is evident in Figure 4.2, which shows the distribution of languages spoken to parents (by age category), where individuals who were older than 55 and still had parents, spoke to them only in Marwari. That is, they did not use Hindi or English in those interactions. Thus, the participants who were 55-years-old and older are important facilitators of IGT and their language preference provides beneficial exposure to the younger generations. Notably, in three families (C, D and G), where partial IGT occurred, the
92 youngest generations of children or grandchildren were not Marwari-speakers, but English- dominant multilinguals.
4.6 What factors are potentially most influential in the implementation of IGT?
Though the sample size is relatively small, the types of participants span both ends of each spectrum that was addressed. Participants ranged in age from teenagers to octogenarians. They were from both joint families and nuclear families, from families where the FLP included Marwari and those that did not, from familiar individuals to strangers, from families with only two generations to those that have four generations, from families where the individuals I spoke with were the first to immigrate from Rajasthan to those whose ancestors had immigrated from Rajasthan so long ago that they do not feel any connection to the state, and finally, families where individuals did not identify with being Rajasthani to those families where members still think of themselves as Rajasthani, even though their ancestors had left Rajasthan numerous generations ago.
There were three factors that appeared to affect IGT in this sample: (1) the participants’ cultural quotient, (2) institutional policies and educators’ attitudes toward heritage language use in primary and secondary school, and (3) whether the participant lived in a multigenerational family.
First, conclusions based on the participants’ cultural quotient analysis indicated some predictability at the extreme ends of the spectrum. In the case of families of participants who had a high CQ (which indicated pride in Rajasthani culture), there would be IGT with respect to all generations or alternatively there would be partial IGT, but there would not be an absence of IGT. On the other hand, when participants had low CQs, IGT did not occur in their families. However, in families whose members had intermediate to low CQs, due to
93 mixed results the predictability of IGT is blurred, especially for future generations of families with partial IGT.
The second factor influencing IGT involved policies and instructor attitudes at institutions where the medium of instruction at the primary and secondary stages of education was a language other than the participant’s heritage language. Attending English and/or Hindi medium schools could be a detractor from IGT especially if institutional policies and/or teacher attitudes are punitive towards students using languages other than the one that was used for instruction.
Third, according to the findings in this study, living in multi-generational families could be beneficial to IGT, especially when parents do not use the heritage language with the child(ren) but the grandparents do. However, with respect to the participants’ own attitudes regarding language use, two of them regretted not knowing Marwari, especially since they are unable to transfer it to their children. On the other hand, one fluent Marwari speaker also recognized how her decision not to use Marwari with her children, though influenced by punitive attitudes against heritage language use in her secondary school, had prevented them from acquiring the language, in spite of it being used in their home by her husband and her in-laws. Finally, and significantly, even the participants who used Marwari daily stated they were more comfortable communicating in Hindi and no one claimed that Marwari was their dominant language.
94 CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Increasing urbanization and globalization rates have changed how people use language. And, when individual use is guided by practical rather than esoteric reasons, language choice may be manifest in various ways, such as exercising a right to be financially stable while achieving a coveted status. This desire for socio-economic success is frequently evidenced by parents who want their children to be proficient in the language that will actualize their aspirations, generally the major language of the community or the local lingua franca (Mufwene, 2016, p. 32). In underscoring the connection between cultural identity and language use in family language planning, Schwartz (2010) references a study by Pease-
Alvarez (2003) of sixty-three, first- and second-generation immigrants to California who chose English “to improve their social status and new cultural identity” (pp. 174, 175).
Hence, when minor languages in a diaspora, such as the Marwari language in Mumbai, do not provide an advantage, some parents are less inclined to encourage its use. While in other families in the same speech community, parents are more cognizant of their linguistic heritage and recognize the language as a tool for remaining connected to their cultural identity.
To explore the conflicts in language use strategies, this chapter will compare-and- contrast the language plans of two families—cousins whose families were at opposite ends of the language maintenance – language shift spectrum. Both families were multi-generation joint families, in which the two older generations were also raised in middle to upper-middle class multi-generation multi-lingual families where Marwari was spoken daily. All the participants in the two older generations from these two families (AS, ADIL, DF, DS, DDIL)
95 had arranged marriages, were born in places other than Mumbai, identified themselves as
Rajasthanis, and had a high cultural awareness. The grandparents’ generation in each family was the generation that brought their family to Mumbai. With respect to other aspects of their cultural quotient (CQ10), other than the patriarchs in each family (AS and DF) none of the older generation in either family claimed membership in cultural organizations and none of them accessed Marwari media.
In each family, one parent in the second generation (AS and DDIL) immigrated to
Mumbai while they were still children, whereas the second parents (ADIL and DS) were teenagers or young adults when their family relocated. Both participants who arrived as children were fluent English speakers, while the parents who were not proficient in English comprehended and could communicate in English, but were not comfortable doing so. In the second generation, both fathers (AS and DS) had college degrees whereas neither of the mothers (ADIL and DDIL) attended college because they were in their late teens when they were married.
All the children (the third generation) in both families were born and raised in
Mumbai, attended English-medium schools, and heard Marwari being spoken in their homes because the second generation spoke to their elders, especially their own parents, only in
Marwari. The primary difference in the language inventories of the third generations in both families could be attributed to the different home language policies. In family A, where a
Marwari-at-home policy was implemented, the children were fluent in Hindi, English and
Marwari. Whereas in family D, because their elders did not speak to them in Marwari and they were not expected to use the language, the children could not speak Marwari. However,
10 as defined in Chapter 4: Analysis
96 fluent in both English and Hindi, the children in family D also included other Indic languages such as Gujarati and Marathi in their language inventories.
With respect to their ethnic identity and CQ, this generation also expressed themselves in opposite ways. The third-generation participants from family A had high cultural awareness and an intermediate (BM) or high (AGDIL) CQ, while the third generation participants from family D, irrespective of whether they identified themselves as
Rajasthani (DGS2) or not (DGD, DGS1), had low cultural awareness and a low CQ.
Since there were some members in each family who were either not available or did not want to participate in this study, to provide a complete picture of family A and family
D, information regarding the absent members in each family will be extrapolated from the narratives of the participants in those families. Just as Canagarajah (2008), “piece(d) together the family’s linguistic profile” using the narratives of available family members (pp.
147-149) to “develop the portrait of the Tamil famil(ies)”, similarly, for this thesis, the linguistic profiles of Family A and Family D are representative mosaics using the narratives of those family members who were available and to the extent that they were willing to participate in the interviews and complete the questionnaires.
Using Spolsky’s (2004) model to answer the questions “What are the factors that influence language ideology in this community?” and, “How are these beliefs reflected in the management and practice of their FLPs?” this discussion will highlight how their language practices, language ideology, and language management express family A’s and family D’s language plans as they affect IGT.
97 5.2 LANGUAGE PRACTICE
The factors influencing language practice that are relevant to families A and D are
(1) the linguistic culture of the academic institution, (2) the impact of maintaining cultural practices, and (3) the relevance of functional languages in specific relationships—between siblings, between parents and their children, between friends, or between children and their caretakers.
5.2.1 Academic environments
Schools provide socialization opportunities for children as they adopt idiolects in the process of testing their identities (Eckert, 1989). They are also places where academic policies regarding languages are implemented. When the children’s home languages are different from the language of instruction at their school, and that of their friends, it can prompt conflict both for the child and for the institution. Often, in an attempt to deal with this conflict, children will stop using their home languages. Thus, the combination of institutional mandates and exposure to their friend’s idiolects frequently could have a simultaneously homogenizing and attriting effect on a child’s home language.
Additionally, participants’ responses indicate that an imbalance between disciplinarian and nurturing approaches in institutional environments may have a prolonged effect on an individual’s linguistic choices. Terrified of being punished by their school’s principal, DDIL and her friends only used IE even outside the classroom, so IE became the functional language for their interactions both in and out of school.
(1)11 “the principal was VERY strict”
13.57 DDIL: the principal was VERY strict (.) and we were all very? (.) scared of
11 See Appendix A for description of transcription notations
98
her. {MW: ok}and then you know like you know you’ll get
PUNISHED you’ll get PUNISHED. it was like ◦that◦.
[…]
14.14 DDIL: =we were so scared about you know {MW: yeh} SO THEN ONCE (.)
AND THEN ONCE YOU START TALKING: then it gets into a habit.
{MW: yeh} you know and when you have to talk to our friends in
/English only\. it’s not that you want to /show off or anything\ it is just
like you were so much pressured? {M: yeh} so that was the biggest
problem.
(DDIL interview, transcript Part 1, August 16, 2015)
Not only had DDIL’s fear of being humiliated in school forced her to learn English, it had become her dominant language in non-intimate domains during her childhood. These childhood experiences also influenced her language plan for her children. Wanting to protect her children from being humiliated, DDIL felt she had to ensure they were fluent in English before they attended school; therefore, English became the functional language for her relationship with them.
5.2.2 Cultural practices
Cultural practices are an important means of engaging with a lexicon. This becomes especially significant for minority languages that have limited use or are even not used at all in non-intimate domains, especially in diasporic settings. Though DDIL’s use of Marwari decreased, she remained culturally connected to her Rajasthani roots. She visited Rajasthan frequently, practiced Rajasthani traditions and could prepare Rajasthani foods using
99 traditional methods. During the interview she described the preparation methods of two different traditional dishes – khaat and chumna.
(2) “khaat” and “chumna”
13.06 DDIL: khaat {MW: what’s that}{MLM: baajre ka} }{DS: baajre ka khaat}
13.10 DDIL: it’s like (.) you know kind of porridge that you make but it is made of
BAAJRI.{DGS2: chumna} {DS: chumna} chumna is made with
genhoo like you know it is uh uh what d’you say uh it is pounded
wheat? (.) which is COOKED in milk and it’s like cooked the gaun-
wheat is very hard. it takes VERY long time to cook so when milk is
being cooked (.) uh an the wheat is being COOKED in the milk.
{MW: yeah} it curdles up so much like how you know how the taste
of rabri rabri {MW: yeh yeh yeh } rabri is very: like you know thick.
{MW: yeah} the milk is curdled curdled curdled like its boiled boiled
boiled and it becomes very thick. {MW: right} so same way. when the
wheat is cooked in: (.) milk. it becomes very thick. {MW: ok} because
it’s cooked for a
{MW: so it doesn’t (indistinct)} even bajri is cooked like that in: (.)
curd
(DDIL interview transcript part 2, August 16, 2015).
The modern Rajasthani family living in urban India today is less drawn to traditional foods. DS acknowledged that they ate traditional Rajasthani foods less frequently because
DDIL was cooking more “international foods” and, also because her knowledge of traditional foods was not as extensive as their mothers’.
100 (3) “international foods”
24.32 DS: issne ((referring to DDIL)) international food continental food
she ((referring to DDIL)) international food continental food
kaafii seekh-liyaa hai. tho Marwari food vahaan ka kum
plenty learn-PAST has so Marwari food there of less
hogayaa thodaa […] otherwise bahut Marwari food khathe thei
become less […] otherwise more Marwari food eat-PAST did
[…] Satyam-vaali mummy, yahaan-vaali mummy, they know
[…] Satyam-POSS-F mummy here-POSS-F mummy, they know
traditional
traditional (cooking)
‘Since she (DDIL) has learned how to cook a lot of different types of food, we eat
less Marwari food. We did eat a lot more Marwari food in the past. Our mothers
still know how to cook (a lot more) traditional foods.’
(DS transcript, August 16, 2015)
DDIL also realized that most of her knowledge about Rajasthani foods, traditional preparation methods, and ritualistic practices probably would not be transmitted to future generations since her children and daughter-in-law were not interested in spending the time and effort necessary to prepare traditional recipes or practice traditional rituals:
(4) “ab generation”
27.35 DDIL: khaana peena bhi aaj kal ke jo ab generation mein kaun
food drink also today tomorrow of that now generation in who
banaane vaala hai (..) hum log tho banaa liyaa banaa liye. aur
101 makes person is (..) we people so make do make did. more
kaun? banaeyga
who will make
‘Nowadays, who in the current generation would be willing to prepare these foods?
(Responding to societal expectations) we cooked those foods. Who else will make
(cook) them?’
(DS interview, August 16, 2015)
DDIL acknowledged that she had learned how to cook traditional foods in traditional ways; however, she doubted whether anyone in the current generation would put in the necessary effort to prepare traditional foods. By disconnecting from traditional practices, family D’s
Marwari lexicon was diminishing—one more way in which the language was losing ground in this diaspora.
Contrasting with family D’s heritage language attrition, absence of IGT, and low CQ in the third generation, family A’s greater connection with their ethnicity was evidenced by
BM’s knowledge of how a non-mainstream festival was celebrated. Though she did break tradition when she married outside the community and ethnicity, BM visits Rajasthan annually and regularly engaged in numerous traditional Rajasthani practices such as celebrating the Seethla Saatham festival.
(5) “sEEthla saatham” festival
22.03 BM: /sEEthla saatham\ (..) it’s it’s the festival where you pray to the (..)
goddesses. two goddesses. sisters. if you have heard in Bombay?
Seethla Devi?
[…]
102 22.20 BM: ya ya so (..) on that day: (.) you don’t (..) basically uh (.) switch on the
gas in your house. so you prepare your food (.) a day in advance and
you have uh all the food which is prepared a day in advance. without
>reheating it<.
(BM interview, August 12, 2015)
Though she is a part of the third generation, BM’s knowledge of traditional foods and religious practices was apparent from her description of rituals associated with this festival.
5.2.3 Maintaining traditions
Pillai et al. (2014) claimed that parents will use their HL with their children if their parents had used it with them because IGT in the Malaccan Portuguese Settlement in
Malaysia is generally maintained in families from one generation to the next (pp. 76-77). A similar observation could also be applied to a certain segment of Mumbai’s Rajasthani community, such as in family A, but this is not the case with family D. Both BM and
AGDIL, third generation family A participants in this study, use Marwari with their siblings and parents just as their grandparents did with their parents. However, none of the third- generation family D participants (DGD, DGS1, and DGS2) can communicate using Marwari, even though their parents, DS and DDIL, second generation family D members, continue to use Marwari with the first generation of Family D.
5.2.4 Peer group influence
The influence of a speaker’s peer group on his/her language use manifests in two domains – school and home (their own and their friends’). While interacting with their friends in school, unless compelled by school policies to use a specific language or variety, children use the language that identifies them as members of their social group. And, when
103 they visit their friends’ homes, they are exposed to and sometimes engage with their peer group’s home languages. If a child’s home language is a minority language, they might not encounter it in their academic or social environments. A desire to fit in with their peer group might make them more self-conscious about using their HL (especially if it is stigmatized in any way) in non-intimate domains and possibly more reluctant to use it at home too. As
Caldas and Caron Caldas (2000, 2002) observed, “when the children enter adolescence. …
(they) favor the behavioral system of the peer group outside the home over the one they acquire at home” (as quoted in Schwartz, 2010, p. 179).
The influence of their peer group on their language inventory is apparent from DGD,
DGS1 and DGS2’s responses to the questionnaire. All three of them learned Marathi in school because learning the state language was mandatory; however, DGD also acquired
Gujarati and Punjabi as her friends spoke these languages in their homes. And, though
DGS1, DGD, and DGS2 were exposed to Marwari at home, none of them could speak this, their HL. In contrast, the peer group’s influence on IGT in family A was less intrusive as
AGDIL and BM continued to speak Marwari to their siblings and their relatives.
5.2.5 Sibling influence
The manner in which siblings can influence each others’ language use is exemplified by the practices in DDIL’s childhood home. As DDIL became more fluent in English, she eventually opted to use it at home with her siblings too, accordingly using Marwari less and with fewer interlocutors. As noted above, their interlocutors’ preferences can have an impact on children’s language choices. If the FLP does not mandate the use of the HL at home, children will be more inclined to favor the language of their peer group—in this case, IE.
And eventually IE became the language of choice between her and her siblings.
104 Schwartz’s (2010) claim, that children can play an important role in the language socialization of their family (p. 175), was partially true in the case of DDIL’s birth family.
Although DDIL and her siblings interacted predominantly in IE, the elders12 in her family continued to be Marwari-dominant bilinguals in Hindi and Marwari. Due to the dynamics in
Indian families, where children are expected to be respectful of their parents’ preferences,
DDIL and her siblings continued to speak to their parents and other elders in Marwari, both at home and in public.
On the other hand, ADIL (who has five siblings) did not become English-dominant.
She was raised in Calcutta, another diaspora for Rajasthanis, where the mainstream language was Bangla. Though she was educated in both Hindi and English and learned Bangla in school as the third language, she claimed Hindi was her preferred language. However, throughout their childhood she used Marwari with her siblings and continued to communicate with them in their HL. Though she was not proficient in IE, some of her older siblings could speak it comfortably while others, like her, were Hindi-dominant.
ADIL and AS’s children were polyglots who code-switch constantly. Based on my observations and recordings of their conversations, I could not determine a discernible pattern in their language use. They were equally comfortable discussing any topic in all three languages, Marwari, English, and Hindi. Whereas DDIL and DS’s children exhibited a preference for English when speaking to each other, but were comfortable using Hindi in group conversations, especially when their father or grandparents were part of the group.
Thus, by establishing functional languages for their relationships, each generation of these
12 She lived in a joint family with her fathers’ parents, his brothers and their families.
105 two families confirmed Caldas and Caron Caldas’s (2000, 2002) as well as Schwartz’s
(2010) findings that siblings influence each other’s language use.
5.2.6 Family communication
Family D exemplified Wong Fillmore’s (2000) claim that there is a negative effect on family relations if adults and children speak different languages. The grandparents (DF and
DM) and father (DS) did not use English, while children /grandchildren (DGD, DGS1, and
DGS2) did not speak or understand Marwari. Though there was a comfortable rapport between DS and his children, since the children were English-dominant and DS was Hindi- dominant, the negative effect of different generations of family D having different language inventories became evident during the interviews. The children frequently translated and interpreted for their father if they thought something that was being said in English was not clear enough for him to understand. DS also had difficulty expressing himself. For example, while discussing language choice in the work place, DS had indicated that he spoke in
Marwari to his Marwari-speaking employees in his Mumbai office and factory, but would not permit his Gujarati-speaking employees in the Ahmedabad (Gujarat) office to speak in
Gujarati. When questioned why he had this policy he initially responded:
(6) “Hindi is more lively and respectful language”
22.59 DS: aise hi. Gujarati Hindi is more (.) lively and (.) respectful language
(DDIL interview transcript Part 2; August 16, 2015)
Struggling to find the correct words, the tempo of his speech slowed down and he moved his hands, almost as though he were trying to pull the words out of the air, before he described
Hindi as being more “lively” and “respectful”. DDIL contradicted the description immediately and DGS1 reminded him that he (DS) uses Marwari at work. DS finally stated
106 the use of Gujarati in the Ahmedabad office creates a divisive environment. That is, DS’s responses highlighted both his inability to communicate his thoughts accurately while using
English, as well as his recognition that when the language being used was not understood completely by the members of a group, miscommunication resulted.
5.3 LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY
Since colonial times elite academic institutions have influenced India’s linguistic profile. And as global forces are continuing to sustain the need for fluency in English, institutional policies are being implemented to ensure that Indian children are globally competitive. These policies reinforce the speakers’ perception that mainstream languages such as Hindi and English could improve their socio-economic status. Factors influencing language ideology that are considered in this section are prestige, attitude, ethno-linguistic identity, the role of decision-makers, in-group marking, and socio-economic advantage.
5.3.1 Prestige
Two types of prestige influence language choice in this community: linguistic prestige and social prestige. Family D experienced the insidiousness of linguistic prestige while preparing their children for pre-school. DS and DL wanted to enroll their children in what they felt were the correct schools, those that were reputed to facilitate future socio- economic success. But, to successfully negotiate the screening interview for a ‘good’ school, the children had to be English-speakers. As DDIL stated:
(7) “it’s a RATRACE”
12.01 DDIL: good schools >private schools specially< like when we send our
children you see (.) now (..) now its becoming worse day by day:. the
small children since they as soon as they are two year old or three year
107 old when their admission procedure >will START
then: like you know tension starts for the parents. they start taking to
for all the classes and all that you know they: it’s a /RATRACE\
{MW: ( )} you have to get into a good school you have to get into a
good school you have to get into oh that is a very good school. oh you
have to get into that school. that is the biggest problem.
(DDIL interview transcript part 1, August 16, 2015)
DS and DL recognized that knowing the language of privilege would provide access to socio- economic benefits that were the purview of the elite. But, as parents who wanted their children to attend one of Mumbai’s elite preschools, they felt compelled to join the “rat race”: they enrolled their children in preparatory classes for the pre-school interviews.
Hinting at changing norms with respect to criteria for social status—that their financial success made them “better” than Bengalis—DS observed that the Rajasthani community’s social prestige had improved in recent decades –
(8) “Marwaris are nowadays better”
7.27 DS: […] Marwaris are nowadays (.) better than (.) what they were thirty
forty years before
(DS interview, August 16, 2015),
Yet, Marwari was not one of the languages that was associated with privilege and prestige.
As a community, financial success had enabled Rajasthanis to become members of a higher social class, and knowing English was necessary for them to achieve what they desired— social prestige. That is, fluency in prestigious languages such as English also accorded speakers a more elite social status.
108 (9) “ethics, finance, status”
7.56 DS: […] thirty forty years ago you can say Bengalis were better (.) because
they were more educated. there are some more things that’s more
important than education (.) nowadays
(0.01)
8.04 MW: /like what\
(0.02)
8.06 DS: ethics. (.) finance. (.) status? (.)
(0.02)
8.13 MW: but you can get (..) (all of) that with education
8.17 MW: Marwari they are (.) richer than any other caste.
(DS interview, August 16, 2015)
Ultimately, financial success was deemed by DS as the key criterion for achieving their desired social status.
5.3.2 Attitudes
Polar-opposite attitudes can be expressed toward a language and its speakers. Some of the participants in this study expressed very favorable attitudes towards being Rajasthanis, even though they did not feel knowing the Marwari language provided them with social prestige or was necessary for their daily interactions. During the interviews, DS indirectly expressed positive attitudes about the Marwari language. As discussed earlier, he did not have any qualms about using Marwari with his Marwari-speaking staff in his Mumbai office; however, he indirectly implied that use of the Gujarati language in a work environment was inappropriate and unnecessary.
109 (10) “not to speak in Gujarati”
22.45 DS: I have seven eight staff (.) Gujarati13 in my Ahmedabad office so they
speak Gujarati themselves. I told them not to speak in Gujarati. speak
in Hindi
22.58 MW: /kyoon\
22.59 DS: aise hi. Gujarati Hindi is more (.) lively and (.) respectful language
(DDIL interview transcript part 2, August 16, 2015)
In response to my question, “Why?” DS initially said “just because,”, then deciding to elaborate, he began his response by naming one language (Gujarati) then switched to another
(Hindi) before providing his reason. He possibly realized that what he was about to say would be offensive and found it easier to be indirectly negative about the Gujarati language by comparing it to a positive assessment about Hindi.
DS’s positive attitude towards being a member of the Rajasthani community was also evident in his recognition of and pride in the community’s improved social prestige
(compared to its reputation “thirty-forty years” ago).
Similarly, DGS1’s pride in the Rajasthani community is evident in his endorsement of the trait—being business-minded—that is stereotypically attributed to this community.
(11) “Marwari takes his business very seriously”
9.03 DGS1: like you can see a Marwari takes his business very /seriously\
(DS interview, August 16, 2015)
13 Gujarati, one of India’s 22 nationally recognized languages is the dominant language in the Indian state of Gujarat. It is not a stigmatized language and is spoken by ethnic Gujaratis, people who are traditionally from Gujarat. Ahmedabad (the city where the referred to office is located) is in the state of Gujarat.
110 Additionally, his negative assessments of Bengalis and stereotypical depictions of other ethnicities is an indirect affirmation of his positive attitude about being a member of the
Rajasthani community.
(12) Stereotypically speaking
8.20 DGS1: like {DGS2: culturally culturally also} (Bengalis also you can see)
Bengalis although they are. they seem to be the most highly educated.
they are (.) also the laziest and the (.) most laid-back. like if you
normally see a when you go to Calcutta? {MW: yeah} (..) >you you<
can /SEE\ the difference between (.) like others and (.) a Bengali is (.)
a person >who doesn’t want to work<.
[…]
8.56 DGS1: no. like you’ll see. the communities in India. have different different
traits. and it’s very very visible.
[…]
9.08 DGS1: you’ll see that a Punjabi takes (.) flashing or flaunting the money they
have or don’t have very seriously. >like the lifestyle< {MW: yeah}
they take the lifestyle? very seriously. (..) {RM: (indistinct)} uh you’ll
see the Sindhi […] to be very uh […] wanting to save money or like
being very (..) tight-fisted (.) when it comes to money. >like you can
SEE these traits< like
9.35 MW: they are they’re yah
9.36 DGS1: when you come /across people\ (yeah) {MW: /ethnically\} ya. you can
see it.
111 9.39 MW: this is supposed to be (..) traditional (.) traits.
9.42 DGS1: like a […] South Indian […] you can see very (indistinct) and MOST?
of them you will see loyalty. hardworking-ness
(DS interview, August 16, 2015)
However, DGS1 does not regret his inability to speak Marwari, because it “never occurred as a hindrance”. And though he had a positive attitude towards the Rajasthani community he identified himself as an “Indian”, not as a Rajasthani (or Marwari) (DGS1 questionnaire,
August 16, 2015).
5.3.3 Ethnolinguistic identity
Does identification with the ethnic group, when reinforced by the intermeshing of heritage language use with cultural practices, result in stronger linguistic identities—ones that might favor IGT? In families A and D, all the members of the grandparents and parents generations (1) connected with their Rajasthani ethnicities, (2) were culturally aware, and (3) used Marwari daily. However, their strong ethno-linguistic identities did not necessarily translate into language plans that incorporated the use of Marwari with the younger generations in their families. In spite of having similar profiles, family A and family D had different language plans—A’s incorporated Marwari with the younger generation, while D’s did not. Thus, as an isolated factor, ethno-linguistic identities of the members of this community probably are not a decisive factor in IGT.
The probability that a strong ethno-linguistic identity might not translate into a desire to foster IGT is exemplified by DDIL and DS. Their cultural knowledge and their connection with the Rajasthani homeland are key attributes in them unequivocally identifying
112 themselves as Rajasthanis. However, due to adverse experiences with institutional policies and having acquiesced to societal expectations, their FLP does not include their HL.
On the other hand, though IGT is taking place in family A, BM claimed a mixed identity, illustrating how younger Rajasthani women’s linguistic identity is frequently distanced from their HL as affiliation with the Marwari-speaking community cannot provide the social prestige sought by some English-dominant Rajasthani women who are born and raised in Mumbai.
(13) “a very convenient issue”
3.35 BM: uh actually it’s a very /convenient issue\ there are certain times and
places when I want to be a Marwari then I’m a Marwari and when I
want to be cosmopolitan. I’m cosmopolitan.
(BM transcript, August 12, 2015)
BM does not hesitate to distance herself from her Rajasthani heritage when she feels that claiming a cosmopolitan identity is situationally beneficial. Thus, for this community, ethno- linguistic identity was not an accurate predictor of an inclination to foster IGT.
5.3.4 Mothers as decision-makers
In King & Fogle (2006) the authors stated that though some fathers can be involved parents, mothers are more commonly the primary caregivers. Along with their role as nurturers, mothers are generally their children’s first language teachers, determining which language(s) will become their children’s childhood L1(s). A caregiver’s function—deciding which languages will be in their children’s language inventory—is an important aspect of how the family’s language plans are formulated. In the case of families A and D, who seem to be similar in most respects other than in the components of their language plans, the
113 mothers’ (ADIL and DDIL) language preferences had a decisive impact on the children’s language inventory.
The absence of Marwari and the choice of English as the children’s L1 in family D’s language plan was possibly because DDIL was the parent who was fluent in English—as the children’s primary caregiver she prepared them for their English-only pre-school interview.
As she stated:
(14)14 “very FLUENT in English”
10.56 DDIL: so then what happens like […] I have to talk to my children in
Engli:sh? since they have to be like they should be very /FLUENT\ in
English when they go for their interviews when during specially for
the admissions and all. {MW: ◦right◦} they had to be very fluent in
English. so if ◦you◦ if I don’t /TALK then how are they going to be ◦
fluent◦\
(SM interview transcript part 1, August 16, 2015)
Since no one else in their home was comfortable speaking the language, it was up to DDIL to ensure her children could successfully negotiate the interview in English.
In the case of family A, since AS was the parent who was fluent in English, his limited interaction with his children inhibited his ability to dictate their home language; while
ADIL’s limited proficiency in English (compounded by the fact that she lived in a very large
14 This excerpt is also relevant to the ‘Institutional policies’ discussion. Teasing apart the different influences and discussing them as separate factors and sub-factors is an artificial endeavor, and might even be misleading in some circumstances since more than one factor is generally at play in each situation. However, this exercise is necessary for evaluating the effect of individual influences, analyzing the impact of intermeshed factors, and enabling contemplation of alternative explanations for the speakers’ language choices and uses.
114 joint family where English was not a functional language) necessitated a language plan that incorporated Marwari. Ultimately, both sets of children (A and D) were fluent in English and
Hindi because those languages were necessary for functioning in non-intimate domains.
However, proficiency in Marwari was acquired only when the mother, as the decision-maker regarding the family’s language plan, made it a functional language for her relationship with the children.
5.3.5 In-group marker
Pillai et al.’s (2014) observation that MPC speakers use their heritage language “as an in-group marker” in an effort to exclude outsiders from their conversation (p. 80) is a characteristic that is applicable to this segment of the Rajasthani community too. In his response to the questionnaire, AS indicated that using the Marwari language in public had
“several benefits in today’s world which has become very small helps communicate in secrecy” (AS questionnaire, August 11, 2015). That is, using the language in public domains would enable him to exclude outsiders from his conversations if he chose to.
5.3.6 Socio-economic advantage
A desire for socio-economic success is frequently evidenced by parents who want their children to be proficient in the language that will actualize their aspirations; generally, the dominant language of the community or the local lingua franca (Mufwene, 2016). Thus, parents in Mumbai’s Rajasthani community who did not feel that Marwari provided a socio- economic advantage were disinclined to use it with their children. Other parents in this community felt pressured by institutional mandates that prioritized use of a dominant language. Family D’s language plan epitomized this conflict. Despite her husband’s discomfort, DDIL decided she would have to speak to their children in English because with
115 each child she only had two years to ensure they were fluent enough to successfully respond in an English-only interview.
5.4 LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT
The interaction between institutional policies, the community’s cultural norms, and individual family expectations regarding language choice affected how these two families managed their language plans. The findings indicated that language policies implemented at both the institutional and individual levels affected language choices and planning in the segment of the Rajasthani community participating in this study.
5.4.1 Institutional policies
The institutional policies that affected the participants in this study were pre-school interviews in English and an English-only in school rule. DDIL always spoke Marwari with her parents and Hindi with her husband and in-laws. English was not a language that she used at home. That is, until she and her husband (DS) decided that they needed to enroll their children in an elite pre-school. As discussed previously in ‘Mothers as decision-makers’ (see transcript (14) Fluent in English), to be considered for admission to these pre-schools, children had to successfully negotiate English-only interviews. For families like DS and
DDIL’s, whose home languages were Hindi and a minor language, academic institutions’ policies that required 2-year olds to be fluent in English could be very nerve-wracking.
(15) The “interview process”
14.50 DDIL: since the childhood days I’m telling you when school admissions
started (..) so just before the admission (.) they have uh: this uh;
/interview process\
[…]
116 15.09 DDIL: you know the schools will take interviews, and uh: (..) like you can
just imagine what they ask what they ask {MW:>right right<} such
small children
[…]
15.41 DDIL: ok parents interview you understand. but what about such SMALL
child. what interview do you take from a small child, (.) HE: is coming
to the institute to LEARN. {MW: right} at two: when at the age of
two: two and a half what do we expect the child to KNOW. other than
tho kya OK bhai abcd and all this like you know I know I know (.)] its
just:. [they ask so many questions so many questions]
(DDIL interview transcript part 1, August 16, 2015)
More than twenty years later DDIL’s anxiety was still apparent in the way she repeated phrases such as “such small children” and “so many questions” as well as in the way she emphasized words such as “learn” when referring to the institutions expectations regarding what the child should “know” before attending the school.
Policies such as these are especially onerous if one of the parents is uncomfortable communicating in English, as was the case in both these families. As DS stated, because he was less fluent in English, he was apprehensive about using it.
(16) “dur: ke nahin bolte”
4.39 DS: unh Inglish kum aati hai […] even if I want to speak to Inglis:
unh English less know is […] even if I want to speak in English
bolne ko Inglis: kum aati hain […] tho […] dur:ke nahin bolte
speaking to English less able am […] so […] fearfully don’t speak
117 […] English mein
[…] English in
‘I am less fluent in English. Even if (when?) I want to speak in English,
because I am less fluent I hesitate to use it.’
(DDIL interview transcript part 2, August 16, 2015)
Additionally, unhappy childhood memories of being humiliated in school for being a non-English speaker reinforced in DDIL the desire to protect her children from a similar fate.
Though she herself was not subjected to an English-only interview when she started school,
DDIL experienced punitive practices that were used to enforce English-only policies in her school.
(17) “you’ll get PUNISHED”
13.36 DDIL: When I used to be in school {MW: yeh} we had a principal who used
to uh: even when we are out in like SUPPOSE THE RECESS IS
GOING ON. the breaktime, and if she if she? would hear anyone
talking in HINDI (.) she would immediately you know uh confront
them, “You are not supposed to talk in Hindi. You have to talk only in
ENGLISH.”
[…]
14.01 DDIL: The principal was VERY strict (.) and we were all very scared? of her
{MW: ok} and then you know like you know you’ll get PUNISHED
you’ll get PUNISHED. It was like that.
(SM interview transcript part 1, August 16, 2015)
118 DDIL’s anxiety was apparent in the rising intonation in her voice when she referred to the principal as well as when she indicated that all the students were “very scared?” of the principal. DDIL also emphasized PUNISHED as she repeatedly said, “you’ll get
PUNISHED”. The fear of being punished effectively programmed her and other students whose home language was not IE into becoming primarily IE speakers.
5.4.2 Cultural norms
An absence of conscious language planning by a family, especially with respect to maintaining the HL, could be evidence of a cultural norm for the speech community as well as for the mainstream societies in countries such as India. As Spolsky and Shohamy (1999) observed, “the absence of a clearly defined decision at the family level may also reflect a common situation in the country or region of the family’s residence regarding language practice, as in the case of Israel, where there is no law defining state FLP” (as cited in
Schwartz, 2010, p. 180). Additionally, not only did societal norms not dictate a need for a formal language plan, having one might have even seemed absurd at some level to some members of this community. As DGS2 had stated, Rajasthanis are stereotypically business- minded, seeking success in enterprises which can range from diamonds to fabric manufacturing. So, the obvious choice for them was to become proficient in the languages that would provide such success and the financial security it would offer—thinking about which language to use in specific domains was a waste of time and effort. Thus, decisions by parents to ensure their children’s proficiency in the language of power (generally English) frequently resulted in an inadequate amount of time (if any) as well as insufficient resources being spent by these families on maintaining their minor heritage language.
119 Okita (2002) and Schwartz et al.’s. (forthcoming) observations that “family decisions regarding initial language use do not always involve clear processes and arise at times spontaneously, without discussion” (as cited in Schwartz, 2010, p. 180) were clearly evidenced by DDIL’s decision to use English with her children in lieu of speaking to them in
Marwari. Although they had considered the type of school their children should attend, DS and DDIL did not discuss the specific actions that needed to be taken for their children to get admission to those schools. Also, since cultural norms precluded discussions regarding language use, DDIL assumed responsibility for ensuring the children spoke the language that would facilitate the enrollment process.
5.4.3 Family expectations
Family expectations can be a powerful instigator for learning languages. With the focus on English fluency in their family, DGS1, DGD, and DGS2 were not expected to speak in Marwari—therefore they never learned the language and were only minimally aware of traditional Rajasthani practices. Whereas in family A, BM and her siblings were expected to communicate in Marwari with their parents, grandparents and other relatives, making it a functional language for them.
5.5 SUMMARY
To respond to the questions that were posed at the beginning of this chapter with respect to the factors that influence language ideology in this community and how these beliefs are reflected in the management and practice of their FLPs, this discussion examined the language practices, language ideology, and language management as demonstrated by two of the families who participated in this study—family A and family D. One of the more significant distinctions between these families was that institutional policies had a greater
120 impact on family D’s ideology, practice, and language management than they did on family
A’s language choices, beliefs or planning. By influencing the language dominance of the second-generation mothers (ADIL and DDIL), institutional policies affected the languages these women chose for nurturing their children as well as their expectations with respect to the languages learned by their children (the third generation). Finally, both social prestige as well as potential socio-economic benefits of the languages also played a significant role in the linguistic decisions made by participants from these two families.
121 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
At the beginning of this thesis, I posed a number of questions which outlined the issues that had prompted this examination of the Marwari speech-community in Mumbai— issues that potentially pointed at language shift away from heritage language (HL) use due to contact with dominant languages. In the process of examining how factors that were relevant to the families’ language choices reflected their ideology, a window was opened into their language use as well as into how the language plans of the families who participated in this study were managed. It became evident that factors such as institutional policies and the speakers’ attitudes towards their HL were of primary significance in influencing the language ideology of these families—families whose HL was a minor language in a diasporic environment for that speech community.
In any language ecology family language planning (FLP) is determined by both individual and environmental factors that influence language choices. In the Marwari speech community, factors such as educational experience, linguistic identity, cultural identity, socio-cultural ideology, and parents’ socio-economic aspirations for their children are particularly significant. When these socio-cultural factors prompt an FLP shift away from their HL, it is possible that exposure to the language from other sources could facilitate the process whereby children could acquire the language. When this happens, even if their parents are not speaking to them in the HL, children in joint families who are interacting with grandparents and other family members in the HL or hearing the language being used regularly, have a better chance of learning the language and being able to use it if they should choose to do so as adults. That is, when intergenerational transmission (IGT) does not occur between parents and children, based on this limited study as well as observations by Ruby
122 (2012) there is reason to believe that for the families in my study, promoting IGT between any other HL speaker who has daily contact with the child within the family environment could also be a relevant strategy for future maintenance of a language, particularly one that is experiencing attrition.
Successful strategies that foster HL use often rely on the interconnectedness of language practice, language ideology, and language management. This intricate meshing of factors that can influence language choice was evident with DDIL’s personal language learning experience, where institutional policies affected her language practices while influencing her language ideology. The punitive practices used to implement a policy that mandated students only speak in English while they are in school deterred DDIL and her friends from using any language other than IE. The practice of speaking in IE spilled over into DDIL’s home environment too, where IE became the functional language between her and her siblings. That is, DDIL’s grade school principal’s language management strategy influenced DDIL’s life-long language ideology, eventually guiding the formulation of an
FLP that did not include their HL. In turn, their language management strategy affected IGT of both the HL and culture to their children.
Sometimes, the complicated interaction of factors that results in language loss can be compensated for. As Lee (2011) observed, with the Malacca Portuguese community
“although there is a strong ideological attitude towards the maintenance of PK, there is a lack of action to put it into practice” (p. 21). Similar observations were made for the families in my study. For example, although BM responded that knowing Marwari was important, she didn’t speak to her infant daughter in Marwari too often. In a follow-up conversation two years after the initial study, BM reported that the only person who did speak to her daughter
123 in Marwari was BM’s grandmother. In the cases of DDIL and IDIL, both regretted their children’s inability to speak their HL, and because both of them wanted their grandchildren to know the language they both expressed a desire to teach their grandchildren Marwari.
However, in IDIL’s case, since she did not speak the language she would have to learn it first. Will that happen? Will these women compensate for the factors that prompted an absence of HL use in their FLPs? Although their FLPs did not include their HL, will these speakers be the grandparents who ensure IGT of their HL to the next generation? As only time, and further observations, can provide the answers to these questions, a longitudinal study comparing speakers’ attitudes towards transmitting the HL with actual practices within this speech community might be warranted—one that considers the fathers’ potentially expanding role in the family’s language plan as well as that of other secondary caretakers.
6.1 FUTURE MODIFICATIONS
Although use of methodological triangulation was the appropriate approach for this study and most of the questions were very helpful in guiding the conversations, during the fieldwork as well as while analyzing the responses I realized a few modifications to the questionnaire and interview questions were necessary for this speech community. First, the interview should preferably be conducted after one or more observation sessions, if such observations are possible. These earlier observations would enable tailoring the questions to the specific families, such as with questions regarding language use in specific situations or with certain interlocutors.
Second, conducting the interviews, whenever possible, as group sessions with each family (including as many members as are available) would enable observations of the dynamics between family members that are not possible with individual interviews. The
124 interaction between the participants could validate in some cases, and negate in others, the information that is provided in the questionnaires.
During their interviews, most of the members of family D were present for each other’s interviews and participated in the conversation irrespective of who was being interviewed. The interaction between the family members provided critical observations about the participants’ attitudes, their identities, and ideology. On the other hand, although I stayed in family A’s home for two days and recorded mealtime conversations as well as interactions between family members throughout the day, because the family did not participate in the interview process together, the discussions and conversations were not as informative regarding the participants’ attitudes, identities, and ideology.
In addition to the above-mentioned changes to the observation procedure, the following changes to the questionnaire are also necessary:
1. Options for specifying responses to the kind of clubs they participate in should include -
social (mixed ethnicities), athletic, or community service oriented.
2. Removal of the question about what language the participant thinks in. This question was
consistently difficult to answer because factors influencing language choice in a polyglot
society depend on variables such as the presence of other people even if they are non-
participants in the conversation, the content being discussed, the interlocutors, the setting,
the dominant language of the person being discussed or the language that the person
being discussed would normally communicate in.
3. The question that asks, “Do you think it is necessary to talk to everyone in Marwari?”
should be modified to “Do you think it is necessary to speak in Marwari to everyone who
can speak Marwari?” because ‘everyone’ is an unreasonably broad perspective.
125 6.2 FUTURE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
As indicated in the discussion chapter, the mother’s L1 was very influential in the decisions that led to the languages that became the children’s L1, especially with respect to their HL use. However, as more and more mothers in Mumbai’s Marwari speech-community are having careers that take them away from their homes, parents are relying on other caretakers to manage their FLPs, especially their children’s language practices. Whether the family is a joint family or not, in these cases management of FLPs are frequently done by other family members such as grandparents and other older relatives, or by domestic help.
Though this is not a unique situation, it is a novel one for this speech-community. Further investigation into how this changing social pattern is affecting HL use ought to be conducted.
A comparative analysis of the factors affecting the vitality of other minor languages in Mumbai’s ethnically-diverse multilingual ecology is also warranted. The social prestige of
English as a globally dominant language in conjunction with the “dynamics of the “glocal15” socio-economic system” (Mufwene, 2007d, p. 387) is guiding language plans that favor IE as the families’ primary language in some families. By examining the factors that are likely to be influencing how speakers in other minor language speech-communities are responding to changes in their language ecologies and comparing them to the factors affecting the Marwari- speech community, patterns and trends for these ethno-linguistic communities could possibly be identified or predicted.
Finally, as suggested by Schwartz (2010), gaining “insight into bilingual homes to examine language strategies within authentic environments using ethnographic observations”
(p. 187) though time consuming and expensive is relevant and important for this ecology,
15 Glocalization is the adaptation of global products to a local market
126 where being multilingual is not considered as necessary or economically beneficial by some parents.
Although all the questions that were posed at the beginning have not been answered, in focusing on the socio-linguistic environment of the Marwari language in Mumbai, this thesis is part of the growing debate about the importance of multilingualism both for the larger community and within the family. To answer these questions, the analysis of factors that were applicable to the broader population were whittled down to those that were applicable to the sample that participated in this study. In the final analysis, it became apparent that, as the primary caretaker, the mothers’ L1 was critical in the formulation and management of the FLP. Thus, although certain factors that are responsible for language attrition might appear to be universal, there are factors that are relevant to specific speech- communities, which highlight their uniqueness. And, as pieces of a puzzle that when properly positioned, scholarship about different ethnicities and languages contribute to the bigger picture of language loss.
127 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Angouri, J. (2010). Quantitative, Qualitative or Both? Combining Methods in Linguistic
Research. In L. Litosseliti, Research Methods in Linguistics (pp. 29-45). London,
UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2003). Who is Afraid of Bilingualism? In J.-M. Dewaele, A.
Housen, & L. Wei, Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles (pp. 10-27). Tonawanda,
NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Besnier, N. (2004). Consumption and cosmopolitanism: Practicing modernity at the second-
hand marketplace in Nuku’alofa, Tonga. Anthropoligical Quarterly, 77(1), 7-45.
DOI: 10.1353/anq.2004.0002.
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/pdf/4149867.pdf Accessed April 2017.
Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (2013). Bilingualism and multilingualism in South
Asia. In T. K. Bhatia, & W. C. Ritchie, The Handbook of Bilingualism and
Multilingualism Second Edition (pp. 843-870). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bloomaert, J. (2011). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Bodomo, A., Anderson, J., & Dzahene-Quarshie, J. (2010). A Kente of Many Colours:
Multilingualism as a Complex Ecology of Language Shift in Ghana. Sociolinguistic
Studies, 3(3): 357-379. doi:10.1558/sols.v3i3.357. jun. 2010. Retrieved 25 March,
2016, from https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/SS/article/view/6339
Canagarajah, A. S. (2008). Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan
Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(2), 143-176. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9841.2008.00361.x Retrieved July 2016 from
128 http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.csun.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid
=a3b71e66-79e1-4e2c-8351-52ac0c3bc3aa%40sessionmgr101
Choi, J. K. (2005). Bilingualism in Paraguay: Forty years after Rubin’s study. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, (26)3, 233-248, Retrieved May 2017
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434630508668406
Clyne, M. (2003). Towards a More Language-centered Approach to Plurilingualism. In J.
M. Dewaele, H. B. Beardsmore, A. Housen, & L. Wei, Bilingualism: Beyond Basic
Principles: Festschrift in Honour of Hugo Baetens Beardsmore (pp. 43-55).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Retrieved April 2017 from
http://site.ebrary.com.libproxy.csun.edu/lib/csun/reader.action?docID=10051988&pp
g=52
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2008). The Language Revolution. Cambridge, England: Polity.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2013). Family language policy: sociopolitical reality versus
linguistic continuity. Language Policy 12 (1), 1-6. https://link-springer-
com.libproxy.csun.edu/article/10.1007/s10993-012-9269-0 Accessed April 2017.
Derhemi, E. (2002). Protecting Endangered Minority Languages: Sociolinguistic
Perspectives - Thematic Introduction. International Journal on Multicultural Studies,
4 (2), 150-161. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001387/138795E.pdf
Accessed April 2017.
Dressler, W., & de, C. R. (2006). Spracherhaltung, Sprachverfall, Sprachtod Language
129 Maintenance, Language Decline and Language Death. In U. U. Ammon, H. Steger,
H. Wiegand, & A. Burkhardt, Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the
science of language and society/3. (pp. 2258-2270). Berlin, Germany: Gruyter.
Epps, P. (2015, July 28). Language Shift: Attrition and Interference. Chicago. Class lecture.
Fishman, J. (1964). Language Maintenance and Language Shift as a Field of Inquiry.
Linguistics, 2 (9), 32-70. Retrieved April 2017 from
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ling.2013.51.issue-jubilee/ling-2013-0038ad.pdf
Fishman, J. (1972). Language in Sociocultural Change. (A. S. Dil, Ed.) Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of
Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Retrieved September 2016
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.csun.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/ZTAwMHhu
YV9fMTY4MjNfX0FO0?sid=5453a93a-dd4a-4d9b-8210-
92bacf936b44@sessionmgr4006&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1
Fishman, J. (2001). From theory to practice (and vice versa): Review, reconsideration and
reiteration. In J. Fishman, Multilingual matters 116: Can threatened languages be
saved?: Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective (pp. 451-483).
Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Fishman, J. (2002). Endangered Minority Languages: Prospects for Sociolinguistic
Research. International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS), 270-275.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001387/138795E.pdf Accessed April 2017.
130 Fishman, J. (2013). Language Maintenance and Language Shift as a Field of Inquiry: A
definition of the field and suggestions for its further development. 32-70. DeGruyter.
Retrieved May 2017 from https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ling.2013.51.issue-
jubilee/ling-2013-0038ad.pdf
Fishman, J. (2014). Language Maintenance, Language Shift, and Reversing Language Shift.
In T. K. Bhatia, & W. C. Ritchie, The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism
Second Edition (pp. 466-493). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley Blackwell.
Fogle, L. W. (2013). Parental ethnotheories and family language policy in transnational
adoptive families. Language policy, 12 (1), 83-102. DOI: 10.1007/s10993-012-
9261-8. Retrieved May 2017 from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.csun.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&
sid=38a28d3a-251d-4a8d-b828-3cd8c522b41a%40sessionmgr101
Gabsi, Z. (2011). Attrition and maintenance of the Berber language in Tunisia. International
Journal of the Sociology of Languages, 135-164. Retrieved September, 2014.
https://doi-org.libproxy.csun.edu/10.1515/ijsl.2011.041.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language:Essays by Einar Haugen. Selected and
introduced by Anwar S. Dil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hornberger, N. H. (2010). Language Shift and Language Revitalization. In R. B. Kaplan, The
Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 412-420). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Keijzer, M. (2007). Sociolinguistic questionnaires. Opgeroepen op August 31, 2016, van
Language Attrition: http://www.let.rug.nl/languageattrition/Sociolingquest/SQEnglish
131 Retrieved from https://languageattrition.org/resources-for-researchers/experiment-
materials/sociolinguistic-questionnaires/
King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents' perspectives on
family language policy for additive bilingualism. International journal of bilingual
education and bilingualism, 9(6), 695-712. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20
Accessed May 2017.
King, K., Fogle, L., & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family Language Policy. Language and
Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907-922. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00076.x
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ci/people/profiles/documents/King2008FamilyLanugagePo
licy.pdf Accessed May 2017.
Kulick, D. (1992). Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self, and
syncretism in a Papua New Guinean village. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Kuter, L. (1992). Breton vs. French: Language and the opposition of political, economic,
social, and cultural values. In N. Dorian, Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in
Language Contraction and Death (pp. 75-90). Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, E. L. (2011). Language maintenance and competing priorities at the Portuguese
Settlement, Malacca. Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 30, 77-99.
http://eprints.sunway.edu.my/167/1/Lee%20EiLeen%20-
%20Language%20Maintenance%20and%20Competing%20Priorities%20at%20the%
20Portuguese%20Stttlement.pdf Accessed May, 2017.
Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fenning, C. D. (2015). Ethnologue: Languages of the World.
132 Retrieved February 2016 from https://www.ethnologue.com/
Magier, D. S. (1983). Topics in the grammar of Marwari (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
October 2015 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/91q8z6pt#page-1 (8413488)
Mathews, S. (1996). South and Southeast Asia. In B. Comrie, S. Matthews, & M. Polinsky,
The Atlas of Languages: The Origin and Development of Languages Throughout the
World (pp. 56-71). New York, NY: Quarto.
McCarty, T. L., Romero-Little, M. E., Warhol, L., & Zepeda, O. (2009). Indigenous youth as
language policy makers. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8(5), 291-
306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348450903305098 Accessed August 2016.
Mühlhäusler, P. (2010). Ecology of Languages. In R. B. Kaplan, The Oxford Handbook of
Aplied Linguistics (pp. 421-434). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mufwene, S. (1998, October 30-31). The Ecology of Language: New Imperatives in
Linguistics Curricula. Presented at the Symposium on The Linguistic Sciences in a
Changing Context. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
http://mufwene.uchicago.edu/mufw_ecol.html Accessed May 2017.
Mufwene, S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press (Virtual). Retrieved January 2015 from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.csun.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=7f603263-4ba0-
4755-bfc2-
b86f125759fe%40sessionmgr4009&vid=0&hid=4107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Qt
bGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=e000xna&AN=74372
Mufwene, S. (2002). Colonization, Globalization and the Future of Languagues in the
133 Twenty First Century. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 4(2), 162-
193. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001387/138795E.pdf Accessed April
2017.
Mufwene, S. (2004). Language Birth and Death. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 201-
222. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143852. Retrieved May 2017 from
http://mufwene.uchicago.edu/publications/languageBirthAndDeath.pdf
Mufwene, S. (2007d). How Languages Die. In J. Fernandez-Vest, Combat pour les
langues du monde Fighting for the World's Languages: Hommage a Claude
Hagege (pp. 377-388). Paris: University of Chicago. Retrieved April 2017 from
http://mufwene.uchicago.edu/publications/HOW_LANGUAGES_DIE.pdf
Mufwene, S. (2015). Colonization, indigenization, and the differential evolution of English:
Some ecological perspectives. World Englishes, 34(1) 6-21.
DOI: 10.1111/weng.12129
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Salikoko_Mufwene/publication/272752909_Col
onization_indigenization_and_the_differential_evolution_of_English_Some_ecologic
al_perspectives/links/54fc57190cf2c3f52422a6a2.pdf Accessed May 2017.
Mufwene, S. (2016). A cost-and-benefit approach to language loss. In M. Pütz, &
L. Filipović, Endangerment of languages across the planet. John Benjamins. DOI:
10.1075/impact.42.06muf file:///Users/mrinalini/Downloads/COST-AND-
BENEFIT%20APPROACH%20TO%20LANGUAGE%20LOSS%202016.pdf
Accessed May 2017.
Orcutt-Gachiri, H. A. (2011). Language Ideologies in the Discourse of Education That
134 Promote Language Shift in Kenya. In T. G. Orcutt-Gachiri, Ethnographic
Contributions to the Study of Endangered Languages (pp. 15-29). Tucson: The
University of Arizona Press.
Orcutt-Gachiri, T. G. (2011). Ethnographic Contributions to the study of Endagered
Languages. In T. G. Orcutt-Gachiri, Ethnographic Contributions to the study of
Endagered Languages (pp. 1-12). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Ostler, N. (2010). Dying words: endangered languages and what they have to tell us – by
Nicholas Evans. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (2), 274-277.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00258.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.csun.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2010.00258.x/epdf Accessed May 2017.
Pandharipande, R. (2002). Minority Matters: Issues in Minority Languages in India.
International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 213-234.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001387/138795E.pdf Accessd April 2017.
Pease-Alvarez, L. (2003). Transforming Perspectives on Bilingual Language Socialization.
In R. Bayley, & S. Schechter, Language Socialization in Bilingual & Multilingual
Societies (pp. 9-24). Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Available from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EvMwVmaoP8AC&oi=fnd&pg=PR
7&dq=Pease-
Alvarez,+L.+(2003).+Transforming+Perspectives+on+Bilingual+Language+Socializ
ation&ots=ZRPK5L05mo&sig=FykonA0i6bwAJhKbLKq4dzcgOjA#v=onepage&q&
f=false Accessed May 2017.
Pillai, S., Soh, W. Y., & Kajita, A. S. (2014). Family language policy and heritage language
135 maintenance of Malacca Portuguese Creole. Language & Communication, 37, 75-85.
DOI: 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.003
http://repository.um.edu.my/22303/1/Pillai%20Soh%20%26%20Kajita.pdf Accessed
May 2017.
Ranta, E. (2010). English in the real world vs. English at school: Finnish English teachers'
and students' views. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (2), 156-177.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00235.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.csun.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2009.00235.x/full Accessed May 2017
Ruby, M. (2012). The role of a grandmother in maintaining Bangla with her granddaughter in
East London, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, (33)1, 67-83,
Available from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01434632.2011.638075
Accessed August 2016
Schwartz, M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between family language policy and heritage
language knowledge among second generation Russian–Jewish Immigrants in Israel,
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(5), 400–418,
DOI:10.1080/01434630802147916 Retrieved September 2016 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232905459_Exploring_the_Relationship_be
tween_Family_Language_Policy_and_Heritage_Language_Knowledge_Among_Sec
ond_Generation_Russian_A_Jewish_Immigrants_in_Israel
Schwartz, M. (2010). Family Language Policy: Core Issues of an Emerging Field. In L.
Wei, Applied Linguistics Review (pp. 171-190). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter
Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110222654.171. Retrieved January 2016 from
136 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232173308_Family_language_policy_Core
_issues_of_an_emerging_field
Sevigny, M. J. (1981). Triangulated inquiry - A methodology for the analysis of classroom
interaction. In J. Green, & C. Wallat, Ethnography and language in educational
settings (p. 70). Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corporation.
Sharma, S. (2013). Challenges of English Language Teaching in Rural India: A
Synoptic Study of Elementary Schools of Rajasthan. Research Journal of English
Language and Literature, 61-67. Retrieved November 2015 from
https://www.rjelal.com/Vol1.Issue%204/Dr.SEEMA%20%20SHARMA%2061-
67.pdf
Souza, A. (2015). Motherhood in migration: A focus on family language planning. Women
Studies International Forum, 52, 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2015.06.001
Retrieved May 2017 from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539515000898
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press.
Spolsky, B. (2005). Language Policy. ISB4: Proceeding of the 4th International Symposium
on Bilingualism (pp. 2152-2164). Somerville: Cascadilla Press. DOI: 10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2007.154_2.x Retrieved May 2017 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229695499_Language_Policy
Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (2000). Language practice, language ideology, and langauge
policy. In R. D. Lambert, & E. Shohamy, Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in
honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 1-41). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
137 Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research (3rd Edition ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Th∅gersen, J. (2010). Coming to terms with English in Denmark: discursive constructions of
a language contact situation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (3),
327-353. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.csun.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2009.00249.x/full Accessed May 2017.
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic
Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press, Ltd.
Vries, J. D. (1992). Language Maintenance and Shift: Problems of Measurement. In W. Fase,
J. Koen, & S. Kroon, Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages (pp. 211-222).
Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.
138 APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPTION NOTATION
Based on the Jeffersonian transcription system, the following notations were used when transcribing the interviews:
(.) micro pause (shorter than 0.2 seconds)
(#.#) pause (measured in tenths of a second)
> text < pace quickened for the words within the arrows
< text > pace slowed for the speech within the arrows
( ) space between brackets – unclear speech
CAPs louder or shouted speech
∘text∘ softer speech text (( desc )) speech during paralinguistic behavior described within double brackets
Hu(h)m laughter within the talk
$text$ said with smiling voice wor- abrupt cutoff; truncated speech
= latched speech
:: elongated sound / lengthened syllable
/ \ rising and falling intonation
? strong rising intonation
, slight rising intonation
. falling intonation
[ ] overlapping talk
{ } backchanneling
139