Ideologizing age in an era of superdiversity: A heritage language learner practice perspective

2.1 Ideology/ language ideology

Blommaert and Verschueren (1998) defined ideology as “any constellation of fundamental or commonsensical and often normative ideas and attitudes related to some aspect(s) of social reality” (p. 25), which are often unchallenged by members of a society. ^[2] More recently, Verschueren (2012) put forward four theses on ideology:

1. Thesis 1: Ideology is any basic pattern of meaning or frame of interpretation … [that is] felt to be commonsensical, and often functioning in a normative way

2. Thesis 2: Discrepancies exist between (1) ideology and direct experience, and (2) implicit meaning and what is said explicitly

3. Thesis 3: Ideology is manifested in language use or discourse

4. Thesis 4: Ideology is discursively reflected, constructed, and legitimates attitudes

When linked to language (i. e., language ideology), ideology in multilingual contexts, in particular, pertains to how social actors view language and the values they ascribe to linguistic forms and practices (Heller 2007). Language ideology, Li and Zhu (2013) add, “is a product of higher-level local and global social structures and processes and closely linked to the developmental trajectories of the community and individuals” (pp. 529–530; emphasis added). Recognizing that different languages do bear different values, Blommaert (2005), however, asserted that language ideologies also need to be examined together with related ideologies because language ideologies often do not exist in a vacuum. In his study on scholarship students in a Singapore school, De Costa (2015), for example, illustrated how the circulating ideology of a being ‘scholar’ was inextricably linked with the expectation that these students speak standard English. Taking into account Blommaert’s ‘language ideology + related ideology approach’ and Li and Zhu’s (2013) observation that language ideologies are linked to community and individual trajectories, and recognizing the need to interrogate ideologies which are discursively constructed and manifested in language use, we turn next to an investigation of how age has been conceptualized in mainstream SLA.

2.2 Unpacking the ideologies underlying mainstream SLA age research involving heritage language learners

As noted by Birdsong (2014) and Muñoz (2008), SLA research on age in naturalistic contexts has examined learners’ ultimate attainment, while instructed research has emphasized the rate of learning. Focusing on naturalistic contexts, Muñoz and Singleton (2011) raised the crucial question of whether such effects are to be predominantly explained through (1) a maturational constraint account, or (2) in terms of the influences of a multiplicity of factors. The former account – maturational constraint – was first extended to second language (L2) learning by Johnson and Newport (1989), who reported that only English learners that arrived in an immigration setting at an early age could reach native-like scores. This account was a development of Lenneberg’s (1967) Critical Period Hypothesis, which postulated an age threshold (before puberty) for which a second language could be learned. While some researchers such as Scovel (2000) and Singleton (2005) have gone on to argue that there are multiple and not single critical periods, other researchers (e. g., Hyltenstam and Abrahamson 2003) who support a critical period of learning have maintained that purview of SLA should be postpubescent learners. Even though the timing of learning continues to produce varied findings and challenges (Douglas Fir Group 2016), two common threads that appear to bind critical period SLA researchers is the (1) central belief that age is a biological phenomenon, and (2) ‘native speaker’ benchmark against which L2 learner competence is measured. The latter thread, in particular, has come under much criticism both in sociolinguistics (e. g., Leung et al. 1997) and sociolinguistically-oriented SLA (e. g., Leeman 2015) because it ignores the ideological aspects of language learning in that it overlooks the fact that different languages and varieties of a given language are accorded different values. Put differently, basic patterns of meaning and the frame of interpretation (Thesis 1; Verschueren 2012) that underpin much of the earlier SLA research on age has failed to take into consideration the different values accorded to languages. Further, much of this work has normatively (Thesis 1; Verschueren 2012) examined age through a biological lens in that age is seen as a determining factor that influences the cognitive processes of language acquisition. Third, much of this work did not consider how learners see themselves in relation to the heritage language and overlooked “the individuals’ agentive role in constructing their own identities” (Leeman 2015: 104). These developments, coupled with the recent interrogation of the notion of the native speaker, suggest the need to reinterpret age from a social lens.

Encouragingly, even though nativeness continues to be an enduring objective, some SLA researchers have started to explore age effects in terms of a multiplicity of factors, constituting what may be seen as a ‘social’ turn in L2 age research. In her book, “The Social Construction of Age,” Patricia Andrew (2012) observed that age is:

1. a dynamic enterprise … [and it] is accomplished by means of discursive interaction … in accordance with the particular discourses offered by a specific culture at a given historical moment (p. 65)

2. linked to the notion of subjectivity, which in turns allows a person to take up or be assigned a number of positions as part of their age identity, depending on the specific circumstances (p. 61)

More recently, Birdsong (2014), who examined the relationship between age and language dominance among bilinguals, treated dominance as a continuous and dynamic construct, arguing that the earlier-learned language is not necessarily the dominant language. Further, he illustrated that the dominant language of heritage learners may vary in different contexts (e. g., from home to school/community). ^[3] Relatedly, Moyer (2013) called for a dynamic approach to understanding learner engagement, while Kinsella and Singleton (2014) observed that a number of affective variables seemed to play a more significant role than maturational factors. Thus, from an ideological perspective, recent research on age highlights the discrepancy between the ideology underlying biologically-oriented SLA age research and the direct experiences of language learners as mediated through an examination of their sociolinguistic realities (Thesis 2; Verschueren 2012). These new developments which (1) challenge the traditional view that there is a lack of learning opportunities after puberty, and (2) emphasize the significance of social factors behind language learning are best summarized in Moyer’s (2013) call for L2 age research to focus more on:

socio-psychological factors … including concern for … [the] sense of identity in L2 motivation, and positive attitudes towards the target-language culture. New insights from empirical research highlight these relationships between age, affect, and linguistic experience, signalling a welcome shift in the critical period paradigm

(p. 19).

In recognizing this new shift, and building on the social turn in SLA (Block 2003), which focused on the social dimensions of language learning, SLA scholars have more recently embraced the “practice turn” (Pennycook 2010). This practice turn, which is described in the next section, is pivotal in advancing our investigation of the ideology of age because it is in line with the notion that ideologies are (1) manifested in language use (Thesis 3, Verschueren 2012), and (2) discursively reflected, constructed, and legitimates attitudes (Thesis 4, Verschueren 2012).

2.3 The practice turn in SLA

According to Pennycook (2010), the practice turn requires concomitant rethinking about central concepts such as language, competence and place (local), which suggests a significant break from how they have been conceptualized in the earlier linguistic research. First, the conceptualization of language as practice and as a form of action located in a particular social activity challenges a traditional framing of language as an abstract entity or an autonomous linguistic system that prefigures a social activity. A practice-oriented perspective also challenges an understanding of competence as a cognitive capacity that is dictated by fixed, immutable biological and demographic variables, including age. Instead, competence from a practice perspective is conceived as knowing how to participate in social activities and what semiotic resources to draw on to engage in a social interaction (see Pennycook and Otsuji [2014] for an extension of this perspective and their discussion of metrolingual multitasking, which is “the ways in which linguistic resources, activities and urban space are bound together” (p. 161)).

Further, an investigation of language practices affords us opportunities to study how language ideologies are also associated with fundamental notions such as community, nation, histories, culture and place surrounding the language user. Crucially, as Pennycook (2010) reminds us, practice is a meso-political action which sits between the level of human action (micro or human agency) and the social level (macro or social structure), or as Pennycook (2010: 123) puts it, between the little “d” discourse (everyday language use) and Big D discourse (the abstraction of worldview) (Gee 2011). This theory problematizes how the micro and macro levels connect, or how this meso political level organizes local activity with respect to its broader social, cultural or historical organization.

What is more, in examining the (social or cultural) relations of the micro and macro levels of everyday practices, two research directions have emerged: representational and non-representational. The first direction (Fairclough 2003) holds that things we do that organize the more local event (i. e., practice) reproduce the larger social structure, hence a fairly neat mapping between language and society. Green (2009) also argues that representation (or reproduction) can serve as a resource for interaction or as an aspect tied to experience and reflection (of shared social, cultural and ideological structures). The second direction, on the other hand, asserts that discourse (as mirrored by a discursive practice) is about movement, not fixity, which leads to the creating of the world via the re-contextualization ^[4] (or reconstruction) of knowledge or some aspect of reality (e. g., language) (van Leeuwen 2005). This facet of re-contextualization entails the rewriting of practices (and of the knowledge about them) and opens up the possibility for change and transformation. Further, as a result of its constructional/re-contextualizing capacity as mentioned earlier, practice may become “a new discourse” (Pennycook 2010: 110). Quoting van Leeuwen (2005), Pennycook (2010) elaborates:

we engage in social practices; when we turn them into language in order to describe, report, complain to others about these practices, we have re-contextualized the social practice as discourse. And this discourse is always about knowledge: it is always a socially constructed knowledge about some aspect of reality.

(pp. 121–122)

Drawing on this observation and in keeping with what was discussed earlier, this paper focuses on the linguistic practices of transnational Burmese youth in order to illustrate how age was socially constructed by them to reflect their contemporary transnational reality.

5.1 The Burmese diasporic community

This Burmese community is situated in a large metropolitan area in the U.S. East Coast and comprised of approximately 1,000 ^[9] Buddhist households. It was relatively close-knit; its members, young and old, often engaged in a wide range of local and transnational activities all year round. These activities, embedded in three major spheres: social, political, and religious, played a vital role in sustaining a profound sense of unity and symbolically reminded them of a shared national and cultural origin.

5.2 Age-based ideology in this Burmese community: yin-kye:-lein-ma

Our focal community, like in Burma, is predicated on social relationships, statuses and roles, and functions on an age-based hierarchy. The Burmese children, through socialization, were fully cognizant of this social hierarchy. In general, younger members of the community are expected to display deference to older members as an emblematic act of yin-kye:-lein-ma, the Burmese cherished cultural values which encapsulates the notions of “politeness” (yin-kye:) and “obedience” (lein-ma^[10]). Yin-kye:-lein-ma is what Burmese parents always seek to inculcate in their children and use as a criterion for judging their linguistic behaviors.

Interviews with a group of Burmese parents revealed yin-kye:-lein-ma is tied to the children’s linguistic conduct, especially their speaking styles and linguistic choices. Burmese parents generally preferred a low-pitched, slow, soft and sweet-sounding speech because such prosodic speech displays politeness and deference towards older interlocutors, as opposed to a high-pitched, fast, loud and aggressive-sounding talk which a Burmese father associated with American speech styles. Another symbolic marker of yin-kye:-lein-ma is the speaking of Burmese with Burmese (family and non-family) adults. According to some Burmese teens, speaking Burmese symbolized deference, and children were expected to fulfil the adults’ wishes. Compliance with the adults’ linguistic expectations seemed in line with the Burmese cultural values of lein ma, or “obedience.” By contrast, the use of English was associated with being culturally Americanized and projected an image of disobedience and rebellion, which is illustrated in the excerpts below.

In short, the linguistic practices of the Burmese were undeniably linked to a complex age-based social structure, a link which becomes more evident in the following section.

6.1 Burmese personal reference

As observed by Tracy and Robles (2013), personal reference, which indicates the terms people use to refer to another person in his or her presence, is a form of discursive practice that is comprised of five major sub-types: proper names, kinship terms, social titles, nicknames or endearment terms, and demonstrative pronouns. This study, however, focuses only on proper names and kinship terms, which we found salient to the Burmese age-graded ideologies and to be reflective of intergenerational interaction in this community. Burmese kinship terms include literal and displaced meanings. Literal kinship refers to blood and affinal (i. e., in-law) kin, whereas displaced kinship denotes non-biological linked others, such as close or distant family friends. Common senior kinship terms addressed by younger people include Daw (Aunty), U (Uncle), Ko and Ko Gyi (Older and Oldest Brother or Big brother), and Ma and Mama Gyi (Older and Oldest Sister). Exemplification of the usage of senior address terms is provided in Table 2.

The above kin terms such as “U” or “Uncle,” “Ădaw” or “Aunty,” which can be used as a single address term, may be combined with a part of a person’s name; for example, individuals in junior positions may address a male adult named “Zaw Zaw Aung” as “U Zaw” or “U Zaw Zaw,” depending on their mutual preference, and in such a case, “U” is considered a “pronominal honorific.” In short, the Burmese proper names and kinship terms/titles are almost always inseparable in this personal referencing practice.

6.2 Burmese address terms, social identities, and underlying age-inflected ideologies

Address terms have sociocultural significance: they demarcate social roles, positions and relationships. Therefore, to properly deploy Burmese address terms, interlocutors need to have both lexical and syntactic knowledge of these words as well as a sociocultural understanding of the structured social relationships between the speaker and the addressee. Address terms are also powerful indicators of social identities for they index speakers’ social positioning within a particular sociocultural world, and through this positioning, they exhibit a grasp of and compliance with socio-culturally defined roles and relationships. As noted, the normative use of Burmese address terms is determined by the interactants’ age: the young are expected to address the older (both family and non-family members) with respectful kinship or honorific terms, regardless of the closeness and/or social status level. This practice is contrary to the western customs in that “familiarity” (i. e., closeness vs. distance) is one of the main determinants in the selection of terms (Tracy and Robles 2013), and this explains why in the US a professor and a (younger) student, for example, may address each other using their first names.

The Burmese age-based referencing practices (i. e., with Uncle, Aunty ^[11]) apply to both family and non-family individuals across all age groups. Yet, it is important to note that the Burmese address terms do not necessarily imply distance and formality between the older and younger individuals. In contrast to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory, age hierarchy and solidarity in Burmese are not always polar opposites but are similar to Korean (Hwang 1990; Song 2009), Chinese (Blum 1997) and Japanese (Matsumoto 1988) cultural norms. With these indexical options and flexibility proffered by the hierarchy and solidarity (familiarity) spectrum, this discursive practice could generate myriad outcomes. For example, younger community members may choose to reproduce the Burmese hierarchy-oriented addressing norm, adopt an American egalitarian norm, negotiate such competing ideological norms, or create novel ways of indexing other social meanings. In what follows, we examine how our focal teenagers, who comprised English-oriented (May, Kay and Tun) and Burmese-oriented (Lin and Suu) youth, used Burmese address terms with non-family elders. Aree, who collected the data for this study, refers to the first author of this paper.

6.4 The use of “aunty”

6.5 The use of U (uncle)

Unlike the address term “Aunty,” the children here tended to address senior men of their parents’ age as “U” instead of its English translation “Uncle. ^[15]” But like “Aunty,” “U” is used as a single address term or in combination with (a part of) a person’s name (see Table 2). Three instances of their usage of this term, drawn from the email messages of a Burmese-oriented (Suu) and English-oriented (Tun) youth that were sent to two Burmese adult males, are presented next. Like many of these youths who were unable to type in Burmese, ^[16] Suu and Tun were left with little option but to write in English. ^[17]