Band 2019, Heft 255 - Special Issue: Language, heritage, and family: a dynamic perspective, Issue Editor: Christina Higgins

The notion of heritage language (HL) has recently been challenged by emerging orientations to language. That languages are always in contact, they are constructed by ideologies, and they don’t have an ontological status challenge traditional notions of HL as primordial, pure, and territorialized. In this article, I draw from data from a qualitative inquiry adopting observations, surveys, and interviews on how families of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora community in UK, USA, and Canada define heritage language and competence. I focus specifically on interview data to unveil the language ideologies of community members relating to heritage language and identity. For them, competence means having the ability to align Tamil verbal resources strategically with multimodal semiotic resources and spatial repertoires to accomplish social and cultural communicative activities. For this objective, being proficient in fragmentary verbal resources, receptive and/or conversational skills, low diglossic Tamil, and informal register are deemed satisfactory. Therefore the corpus that is considered as HL is also changing in diaspora contexts to accommodate appropriations from other languages, and metonymic uses, which develop shared indexicality for the community. I label these assumptions as constituting a practice-based ideology of HL. Such an orientation will help us understand HL as a socially constructed and changing construct, while affirming its importance for migrant communities.

While the majority of studies on new speakers focuses on language use in educational and community contexts, the family is becoming an increasingly relevant site since new speakers are now incorporating their languages into their home life. This article reports on how people of Native Hawaiian ancestry express their speakerhood with regard to their use of ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi, or the Hawaiian language, in the context of the family. It explores Hawaiians’ stances towards different ways of speaking Hawaiian with regard to authenticity, an issue which has been found to be central among new speakers of minority languages in other contexts. Drawing on interview data with six Hawaiians, this article investigates Hawaiian speakerhood by focusing on how the participants view linguistic authority and translanguaging in family settings. The article offers insights into the range of linguistic practices and sociolinguistic authenticities in families that may enhance continued language revitalization efforts.

This article argues that imagination plays a key role in whether and how members of transnational families individually and collectively maintain or relinquish their heritage languages and adopt other languages as part of their multilingual repertoires. Imagination is defined here as the vision of where and what one might be or become at some future point in time. We base our argument on linguistic ethnography over two decades with transnational families of Chinese ethnic origin in the UK. Families that seem to have kept their heritage languages and families that have given them up were invited to talk about where, what and how they would see themselves in ten years’ time, and a selection of them are subsequently interviewed and observed after the ten-year period. Their responses are analysed in terms of their constructed experiences, environments and visions of the future; their perceptions and imaginations of different places and cultures; key moments in re-evaluation, or re-imagining, that led to major behavioural changes; and self-evaluation of their imaginations. Particular attention is given to the dynamics of differences and tensions between the imaginations of individuals of the same families, as well as changes to the imaginations over time. Theoretical and methodological implications of studying imagination as a key factor for language maintenance and language shift, and for bilingualism research generally, are discussed.

In this article, we examine how parents explain their choices of transmitting certain languages to their children, a key element of family language policies (FLP), in light of their dynamic linguistic repertoires and biographic experiences. Contributing to the framework of FLP, we focus in particular on parents’ memories, their narratives of multilingual upbringing in the past, and how these are used to construct present FLP. We analyze conversations where six multilingual parents in Norway talk about their experiences and intentions regarding FLP, and in particular, their reasons for the transmission of (some of their) languages to their children. The parents of three of the families are from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and in three others at least one of the parents migrated from Germany. We find that the parents align their decisions with both prior and new experiences. They relate to their language(s), their past and their current family life, and express the wish for continuity across the lifespan. At the same time, they demonstrate a certain flexibility and willingness to adapt to the constantly changing environments that they and their children experience and in which they navigate. Through their complex accounts, their memories and lived language experiences, we can understand parents’ manifold positions as regards their children’s linguistic repertoires.

This article discusses the reflexive relationship between language shift and identity in the case of Scottish Gaelic on the Isle of Skye, Scotland, demonstrating how (Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.) concept of X versus Y as related to language is problematic in this particular context. The article posits that in many ways, the processes by which Gaelic has been alienated from a sense of Scottish identity at the macrolevel are reproduced at the microlevel and discusses the implications of this in terms of Family Language Policy (FLP). Using a nexus analysis approach, this article focuses on a second-generation member – referred to as “Seumas” (the children’s uncle) – of three generations of a Gaelic-speaking family and discusses how, although Seumas appears to see Gaelic as part of his identity in terms of “family” and “heritage”, other identity orientations often take precedence, ostensibly contributing to his high use of English. The article discusses the possible impact that Seumas’ linguistic practices have on the third generation, as well as the double-edged sword nature of using “identity” as a tool in language revitalisation.