Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 1 LEIDEN UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF HUMANITIES Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity How and Why Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth in Dutch Cities Use ‘Queer’ Language Author: Thesis supervisor: Abigail Lambert Dr. E. Alves Vieira Second reader: Dr. M. C. Parafita Couto A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics August 2020 Word Count: 20,338 Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Eduardo Alves Vieira for his constant support and encouragement throughout this research. Many thanks to the Pride groups at Leiden University and University College Utrecht, for their support and participation and special thanks to my husband and my family for their continual emotional support throughout this process. Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 3 ABSTRACT This study aimed to investigate the ways in which multilingual Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer/Questioning+ (LGBTQ+) youth in Dutch cities make use of English originating ‘queer’ language and why they utilise it. A mixed-methods survey was used to collect data in order to answer the research question (how and why do multilingual LGBTQ+ youth in Dutch cities make use of ‘queer’ language originating from English?) and sub- questions. The content of the survey was developed in response to past research and consisted of three sections which each investigated different aspects of the research question. The results showed which lexical items are most commonly used by the LGBTQ+ youth aged 18-30 in Dutch cities and also demonstrated that English is overwhelmingly the preferred language of use when multilingual LGBTQ+ youth wish to discuss/describe their sexual/gender identity. The results also suggest that ‘queer’ language is being used to create a sense of belonging to a community and to better integrate and socialise with others within the LGBTQ+ community. Key Words: Multilingualism, ‘Queer’ Language, LGBT Linguistics, Identity, Sexuality, Gender Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 4 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2 ABSTRACT 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 8 CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 10 1.1 Background of the Study 10 1.2 Objectives of the Study 11 1.3 Research Questions 14 1.4 Hypotheses 16 CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW 17 2.1 Introduction 17 2.2 The LGBTQ+ Community 19 2.3 Defining ‘Queer’ Language 19 2.3.1 Reclamation of ‘Queer’ 20 2.3.2 ‘Queer’ as Identity 21 2.3.3 ‘Queer’ Language Definition 23 2.4 Language and Identity 25 2.4.1 Language Choices and Code-Switching 26 2.4.2 Multilingualism 27 2.5 Multilingualism in the Netherlands 30 2.6 Hegemony of English and Language Prestige 32 Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 5 CHAPTER THREE - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 34 3.1 Characteristics of Participants, Location and Ethics 34 3.1.1 LGBTQ+ 34 3.1.2 Age 34 3.1.3 Participant Distribution 35 3.1.4 Location and Survey Distribution 35 3.1.5 Ethics 36 3.2 Method and Materials 36 3.3 Methods of Analysis 38 CHAPTER FOUR - RESULTS 39 4.1 Introduction 39 4.2 Age Distribution of Participants 39 4.3 Education Level Distribution of Participants 41 4.4 Gender Distribution of Participants 42 4.5 Sexuality Distribution of Participants 43 4.6 Lexical Items of ‘Queer’ Language 45 4.7 Multilingualism in Identity Expression 49 4.7.1 Languages of Proficiency in Participants 49 4.7.2 English Proficiency in Participants 50 4.8 Identity Communication – LGBTQ+ Labels 52 4.9 Language Impact on Identity Communication 54 4.10 Non-English Lexical Items of Reported Usage 60 4.10.1 Dominance of English 60 4.10.2 Non-English Lexical Items 63 4.11 Why Members of the LGBTQ+ Community Use ‘Queer’ Language 65 Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 6 CHAPTER FIVE - DISCUSSION 69 5.1 Main Research Question 69 5.1.1 The ‘How’ Aspect of the Research Question 69 5.1.2 The ‘Why’ Aspect of the Research Question 70 5.1.3 Main Hypothesis 71 5.2 Sub-Questions 72 5.2.1 Sub-Question 1 72 5.2.2 Hypothesis 1 (Sub-Question 1) 73 5.2.3 Sub-Question 2 74 5.2.4 Hypothesis 2 (Sub-Question 2) 75 5.2.5 Sub-Question 3 76 5.2.6 Hypothesis 3.1 and 3.2 (Sub-Question 3) 77 5.2.7 Sub-Question 4 80 5.2.8 Hypothesis 4 (Sub-Question 4) 81 5.3 Summary of Results 81 5.4 Applicability 82 5.5 Limitations 83 5.5.1 General Limitations 83 5.5.2 Drawbacks in Range in Participants 84 5.5.3 Issue of Participant Attrition 84 5.5.4 Issue of English Proficiency 85 5.5.5 Issues this Research Failed to Address 86 5.6 Implications 87 5.6.1 Practical Applications for the Findings 87 5.6.2 Implications for the Future 88 Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 7 CHAPTER SIX - CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 88 6.1 Conclusion 88 6.2 Future Directions for Research 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY 92 APPENDICES 97 Appendix 1: Glossary of Commonly Referenced LGBTQ+ Terms 97 Appendix 2: Emails – Survey Instructions 100 Appendix 3: Complete Survey (as imported from Qualtrics) 102 Appendix 4: Full Report of Results (as imported from Qualtrics) 131 Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 8 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Example of Lexical Item Likert Scale (First Lexical Item – Mesbian) 37 Figure 2: Age Distribution of Participants 40 Figure 3: Distribution of Answers for Lexical Item 1 – Mesbian 46 Figure 4: Scatter Graph – Mean Frequency of Lexical Items 48 Figure 5: How Well-Known Participants Perceive Their Sexuality/Gender Label To Be 52 Figure 6: The Effect on the Knowledge of a Label on Expression of Identity 53 Figure 7: Importance of Being Able to Put a Label to Gender/Sexual Identity 54 Figure 8: Perceived Language Impact on Identity Communication 56 Figure 9: Perceptions of Whether English Terms Dominate Description of LGBTQ+ Identity 61 Figure 10: Responses Pertaining to Use of Other Lexical Items Not Included Within the Survey 64 Figure 11: Self-Reported Reasons for ‘Queer’ Language Usage (alternative to those presented in table 14). 68 TABLES Table 1: Education Level Distribution of Participants 41 Table 2: Gender Distribution of Participants (part 1) 42 Table 3: Gender Distribution of Participants (part 2) 43 Table 4: Distribution of Sexualities Among Participants 44 Table 5: Lexical Items Included in the Survey 45 Table 6: Distribution of Answers for Lexical Item 1 – Mesbian 46 Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 9 Table 7: Distribution of Answers for Lexical Item 1 – Mesbian 47 Table 8: Table of Fluency Frequency of Languages 50 Table 9: Participant’s Reported English Skill/Perceived Proficiency 51 Table 10: Perceived Language Impact on Identity Communication 56 Table 11: Summary of Qualitative Results Linked to Figure 8 and Table 10 (in order of prevalence) 58 Table 12: Predominant Use of English Lexical Items Presented in Section 2of the Survey 60 Table 13: Perceptions of Whether English Terms Dominate Description of LGBTQ+ Identity 62 Table 14: Why Participants Use Queer Language 66 Table 15: Top 5 Reasons for ‘Queer’ Language Usage 67 Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 10 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study The field of LGBTQ+/queer linguistics research has contributed to understanding the differences in the use of ‘queer’ language within the LGBTQ+ community (often when compared to the heteronormative standards of non-queer language). It has also contributed to describing the language used by this minority group and their nuances. This is important research as it aids in understanding the use of language within a minority group which is vital to them in enabling their communication of non-hetero-normative gender and sexuality. Current discussions in research within queer linguistics often revolve around ‘queer’ language employment in small/specific communities of members of the LGBTQ+ community (Kinyua, 2017). Gay and Lesbian groups appear to be considered and researched more often in research than other members of the LGBTQ+ community who do not identify as homosexual (Chesebro, 1981; Hayes, 1981; Painter, 1981). Some research concerning this topic has also been conducted on a larger scale encompassing various cities from a country, such as the investigation by Stanley (1970) which included the distribution of a questionnaire to homosexuals across the United States of America (USA) within New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Miami and Houston (Stanley, 1970). Previous literature in queer linguistics also has a tendency towards discussing inconsistencies in the findings presented in different pieces of literature. This appears to lead to arguments about the existence of queer linguistics and thus undermining the concepts of LGBTQ+/queer linguistics (Conrad & More, 1976; Penelope & Wolfe, 1979). There is also research that criticises the availability of research into queer linguistics (Kulick, 2000). Multilingual LGBTQ+ Youth: Queer Language and Identity 11 Nevertheless, there is equally a large amount of literature that advocates for the validity of having queer linguistics be its own field of study. This includes research conducted by Kulick (2000), Stanley (1970) and Kinyua (2017). These pieces of research were highly influential and informative in inspiring this study, and thus they will each be discussed in greater depth within the consideration of literature later on. Indeed, all three pieces of literature provided comprehensive details into past research concerning the influence of queer language, including how and why it is reported to be used. A wider range of literature was also discussed to provide a thorough contextual background for this research.