The Negotiation of Bilingual Identity and Agency in SecondLanguage Production

Baejamin Novak The University of Oregon Linguistics 407 Bilingualism Seminar

Introduction
Models of linguistic identity are plentiful and well researched (Eckert 2008; Coupland 2001; Rampton 2006; etc.); refinements to these models have been made over time with collaborative assisting in the unification of many definitions. Widely debated is to what degree register is controlled by a speakers ability to make conscious choices about their speech, otherwise known as linguistic agency. Language accommodation theory and the Labovs attention to speech model are two of the most prominent paradigms referenced in sociolinguistic research. Due to the highly conscious nature of bilingual L2 use that spawns from bilingual proficiency itself, as well as a generally larger sociolinguistic knowledge base (Bialystok, E., & Barac, R., 2012), exhibits bilingual linguistic agency. What does this mean for research in the field of bilingual identity? Supported research shows that bilinguals are more sociolinguistically aware; during production we can assume that they employ more choice (agency) in their expressions of identity in their L2. Bilinguals are more aware of public perception than their monolingual peers in their use of style, positioning and tactics of intersubjectivity. Additionally, they are more acutely tuned-in to personal and group identity as well as the ideologies of their community; linguistic ideologies which present themselves as the promotion, repression, tolerance and assimilation of bilingualism. I propose that linguists are not doing all that they can to properly classify bilinguals. Currently, researchers make distinctions such as postpubescent on-set and early on-set bilinguals, or highly proficient L1 speaker in an L2 environment (pre-activation).These classifications are void of identity as a function of speech production. As I will present indepth, early on-set bilinguals could easily be separated into grouping by their communitys ideologies or personal identity; bilinguals are products of their linguistic lifetime experiences, they are not exclusively defined by what languages they know and when they learned them. By addressing

bilingual identity researchers create more finely-graded categories of bilinguals which will produce more accurate and productive data. In no way do I want to challenge any previous research, instead, I wish to highlight concepts, models and research that function together to offer us a clearer understanding of bilingual identity. By interlacing functional definitions (such as positioning) into primary research (youths awareness of linguistic bias) and linguistics models (Tactics of Intersubjectivity) my goal isnt to deconstruct or criticize the work of the many linguists whose research came before me, but to offer a frame through which bilingual identity can be interpreted and discussed.

Adolescent and youth bilingual sociolinguistic awareness and bias

Adolescent bilinguals and monolinguals of similar age are able to retain the same amount of lexical items but they are organized differently. Previously seen as a deficiency, bilinguals knowledge of concepts (an equal amount of concepts as that of a monolingual) can be found distributed between their L1 and L2. (Pearson, Fernandez, and Oller, 1993) Though adolescent and youth bilinguals may lack vocabulary in their L1 and L2 when compared to their monolingual counterparts, bilinguals often display other beneficial attributes. Bilingual children have shown higher syntactic awareness, word awareness and to a lesser extent phonological awareness. (Galambos and Goldin-Meadows, 1990; Cummins, 1978; Campbell and Sais, 1995) Additionally, bilingual youths have shown a higher propensity for executive control, and the ability to focus on relevant information and ignore distractions (not exclusively words but in pictures as well). (Bialystok, 1992) One experiment which exemplified this ability to consciously switch tasks was performed by Bialystok in 1999 and repeated in 2004 by Bialystok and Martin. Children were put through a Dimensional Change Card Sort task (Fig. 1), a test developed by Zelazo, Frye, and Rapus published in 1996. Children were asked to first sort the cards by color, the cards were then randomized and participants were asked to sort the targets

by shape. Last, they were given new cards and targets (both of which were new colors) and asked to sort by shape. This process was used to show the ability of the participant to respect rule shifts and hold conflicting concepts in their head simultaneously.

(Hanania, 2010) Fig. 1. Standard DCCS task with two phases using the same cards and switching sorting dimensions. White = blue; gray = red.

Bilingual children ages 4 and 5 years old consistently outperformed their monolingual counterparts in each phase (most importantly the final phase). From this, researchers concluded that bilinguals were not only more adept at inhibiting non-target languages during production, but also had an increased ability to inhibit non-target nonverbal facilities. This higher level of linguistic (and non-linguistic) awareness suggests that youth bilinguals are quite sensitive and responsive to rule shifts. That sensitivity (and responsiveness) is not an anomaly that can only be found only in a research lab; bilinguals also adjust to the social rule shifts in their environment. Research in developmental psychology shows that by fourth grade, a majority of children are thinking about social identity. More specifically suggesting that not only were youths between 4th and 8th grade aware of racial bias, but they had witnessed or even been a target of it. (Brown, C. S. et al., 2011) The effect these biased interactions have on a monolingual child and a bilingual child are different. For monolingual children, a critique about the color of their skin or their heritage can cause a questioning of self, manifested in multiple ways; for example, some children separate themselves from the parent who possesses the

stigmatized feature (race or culture) or even develop self-hatred because they have a certain feature. For a bilingual child, the monolinguals problems also apply, and more. Bilingual children are highly aware of the connection between language and their audience; they recognize to whom they can speak their L1 and their L2 respectively. If both parents are fluent in only one of the childs languages then the home becomes an important domain for that language and the child, a (metaphorical) haven of belonging that stems from the relationship between family and the heritage language. (Garden, R., 2010) After researching youths awareness of bias, Brown et al. (2011) found that youths belonging to groups that were negatively stereotyped will accentuate their other belonging to more valued (less stigmatized) groups; this explanation offers insight into the psyche of an out-grouped bilingual child. Phenomena like linguistic selfrepression (bilinguals choosing to exclusively speak one of their two languages in certain domains) and voluntary assimilation (willingly transitioning to the more socially prominent language) can be easily explained by Brown et al.s research. As bilinguals attempt to not be socially out-grouped, they make their target speech the less stigmatized option. Monolinguals are not immune to similar effects, dialectical change occurs in a similar fashion (Cutler, C.,2010), though a shift between two languages is simply not possible because the monolingual (by definition) possess only one language.

Ideologies on Bilingual/Tactics of Intersubjectivity

The ideological environment that a bilingual lives in contributes greatly to the way an individual and community negotiates their bilingual identity. Linguistic ideologies are imposed through lobbying, policy making and through the educational system. Often conceptualized as a spectrum between promotion and repression (Wiley, 2002; Wiley and Wright, 2004), ideologies fall between Pluralist and Ethnist. In his 2011 book Baker highlighted four ideologies that operate within the narratives of many bilinguals: Pluralist ideology promotes liberal language policy. Pluralists believe that it is the liberty of an individual to speak as many or as

few languages as they please. They believe that all tax payers are a responsibility of the government and that funds should be (proportional to population and burden) distributed to bilingual/minority group activities. Also, all government administration and even education should operate bilingually when and if at all possible. Civic ideology revolves around the public values of the politically dominant community. While individuals have the freedom to express their culture in any manner and that it is not the responsibility of the state to support or restrict languages or cultures. Civic ideology is often described as an ideology of tolerance. Assimilation ideology encourages bilinguals to suppress their minority language and culture. Assimilationists believe that it is the duty of the state to administer monolingual programs to promote the dominant social language. The intensity at which they proceed can either be integrative (allowing for assimilation over multiple generations) or aggressive (exclusion from public schooling without high dominant language proficiency). Ethnist ideology forces minority linguistic communities to give up their heritage language. While promoting the linguistic assimilation of minorities, ethnists attempt to prevent linguistic minorities from assimilating socially or even legally. Linguistically, this repressionoriented ideology isolates bilinguals stripping them of any identity; other ramifications can be apartheid, ethnic cleansing and even genocide. Linguistic ideologies influence policy making and help explain social climates, factors that we can place external of bilinguals. These forces act upon bilingual individuals and communities, metaphorically speaking, a social weight that presses upon them. Balancing the external attitudes imposed upon bilinguals are the internal motivations of the bilingual speaker. These intrinsic values are presented in a tripartite model by Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall, labeled Tactics of Intersubjectivity. The authors meticulously named this model

with speaker agency in mind; the word tactic itself invokes the situated and improvised nature of the negotiation of bilingual identity, while intersubjectivity emphasizes the meaningfulness of the interactional negotiation between bilinguals and their interlocutors. Both terms respect the agent and patient relationship within every social interaction. The tactics of intersubjectivity is a tripartite model with six definitions paired and each pair defined in opposition to one another: 1. Adequation and Distinction The most important of the three pairs of definitions, adequation and distinction revolves around the purposeful pursuit of recognized sameness or difference. Linguistic adequation is the process of finding likeness between speakers, not exclusively for status but often as a means for achievement and success. A common example are bilinguals in a multilingual communities who emphasize usage of the dominate language to display similarity between themselves and their bosses and supervisors (strategic essentialism). In contrast, distinction is the mechanism where salient differences are strategically produced. This is often witnessed in socially stratified communities of bilinguals where linguistic association with one group may inhibit ladder climbing. Unlike adequation, distinction functions by out-grouping or othering a (usually lesser valued) group of speakers. 2. Authentication and Denaturalization Layered (somewhat) underneath the aforementioned concepts are authentication and denaturalization. Authentication is the agentive process whereby realness is asserted. Often performed within adequation, linguistic authentication is how speakers prove their fundamental belonging to a group of speakers. Many of these situations have political ramifications, as is in the case of the standardizing of a national language. Unifying different cultural groups under one language, positions the most standard forms as tools of authentication. By performing the national language it is implied that a speaker has a since of nationalism; proficiency can

often be seen as a range of nationalistic value in this example (the more proficient the more patriotic). Just as authentication signifies the want for a speakers legitimacy to be recognized, denaturalization is the process by which a speaker destabilizes their position in a group. In group bilinguals who introduce code-switching into their normally monolingual environment, for example, are denaturalizing themselves from heritage speakers of their language. Often the destabilization of social norms cause a new system of authentication to develop, taking into account the new environment. 3. Authorization and Illegitimation The third and final pairing is authorization and illegtimation. Both are related directly to institutional forms of power, Bucholtz states that authorization may involve invoking language in ways recognized by the state. Authorization operates on the use of language and the structural power of the institution, allowing bilinguals to access social meaning (level of education, status, wealth, etc.) through the conscious choice of language. Practically applied, a shift is occurring in Senegal as an increase in the use of a Wolof hybrid that now indexes an urban, sophisticated identity. The practice of authorization in this example can either allow access to or restrict the authentication and adequation processes. By quite the same process illegitimation removes power and can be used to undermine authority by restricting access to disempowered groups. Often manifested as a form of resistance to state mandated languages, says Bucholtz and Hall illegitimation may in turn result in a new set of authorizing practices. The ideologies of a bilinguals direct and general community in cooperation with an individuals employment of the tactics of intersubjectivity form and continually renegotiate the linguistic identity of a bilingual. Covert prestige can operate within overt prestige, in many cases motivating a speakers attempts to adequate and authenticate themselves with marked speakers. Cutlers work with bi-dialectals in 2010

offers incredibly resourceful data to deepen our understanding of linguistic ideologies and tactics of intersubjectivity.

Applications of Ideologies and Tactics of Intersubjectivity

In her research Cutler studied European immigrants who associated linguistically with African American Vernacular English, much (if not all) of which they acquired listening to hip-hop music. The participants were ages sixteen through eighteen attending high school in New York City and they all self-identified as White. Each of Cutlers four participants felt that they could more easily express themselves (love, fear, hopes, etc.) in AAVE. Their personal ideologies could be defined as Civic in nature, with emphasis on linguistic tolerance towards their choice to express themselves in non-standard English forms. By adopting AAVE they began the process of adequation with African-Americans in their community, using language as a communication of ethnic and social self-classification. At the same time, they are denaturalizing themselves from their White classmates by speaking in a fashion dissimilar to their ethnically similar peers. Many of the participants peers said things like, [I think that] they are trying to talk black as well as questioning their fluency and competence. This shows a semi-repressive environment, their peers (by discrediting the participants ability to speak AAVE) are illegitamizing their speech. As for the participants African-American friends, Ivy, an Israeli immigrant living in Harlem, was supported in her use of AAVE by her African-American friends; she even performed in a rap group as the only White member. Chronologically stated: Ivy adequated herself to the African-American peers in her neighborhood of Harlem by speaking AAVE. By doing so she created a distinction between herself and her White Israeli and Jewish peers.

Authentication occurred (and still occurs) as she was accepted into the African-American community (by joining a rap group) and she was denaturalized from her White peers, a community that doesnt often participate in rap groups. Ivy used illegitimation to undermine the standard of White standard English, while still achieving her goal to find belonging outside of her heritage community. Fig.2 Peers overwhelmingly classified the participants as White Americans. They themselves even stated that they were White but culturally they were not completely American. They retained habits from their heritage culture. This misclassification as White Americans contributed heavily to the participants propensity to self-distinguish from White American culture. By denaturalizing, it allowed them to redefine themselves as AAVE speakers on their own terms (agency). As an aside, hyper-production of target features can hinder authentication, it can seem unnatural and often is perceived as mockery or satire; this is a common mistake my many target language AAVE speakers. This affect was often mentioned when recording of the participants were played for both White and African Americans. Speaker agency was apparent in the participants production of AAVE. Subject Bobo, a college bound, studious football player who under-performed AAVE features. He used AAVE lexical items, t/d deletion and minor postvocalic, preconsonantal r-lessness (all features of AAVE) rarely but enough to state adequation with his African-American teammates. Through his choice of linguistic expression, Bobo strategically balanced his two linguistic identities, that of a studious White college bound male immigrant and also friend of African-American football players at his school.

Conclusion

The discussion of bilingual identity has remained largely unapplied to primary data research. This has left a gap between the hard data and the models that seem to function in a vacuum; this proves problematic for sociolinguists and bilingual researchers alike. Researchers who shy away from scrutinizing their bilingual participants identity are perhaps missing large contributing factors to their production of an L2 (or L1 for that matter). By finding patterns in bilinguals motivation for code-switching, borrowing and using domain specific information, researchers could deepen their understanding of the complex dynamics between a bilingual and their environment. As for the models of bilingual identity, more rigorous testing would push linguistic identity research forward. It is negligent of researchers to not test their models to the limits of its application, even if this exposes short-comings. Those areas where a model begins to falter are the areas that require more research and further clarification. It is the responsibility of bilingual researchers to thoroughly examine the identity of their subjects. If that is not feasible, then it is important to define the linguistic environment (ideologies) that the subject hails from. Creating patterns of bilingual identity, how and why they decided to adequate themselves to a particular group, and what process did they go through when authenticating themselves, et cetera, this will aid bilingual researchers and teachers in the future by providing hyper-specific groupings. For example, with distinctions made within groups, such as, locally repressed early on-set bilinguals and locally promoted early onset bilinguals researchers will be able to more accurately work with such data. Though it may seem tedious, by describing subjects in this way it may bring us closer to answering questions like, Who is a bilingual? and What types of bilinguals are there?

References
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (Vol. 79). Channel View Books. 390 Bialystok, E., & Barac, R. (2012). Cognitive Effects. The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism, 192. Brown, C. S., Alabi, B. O., Huynh, V. W., & Masten, C. L. (2011). Ethnicity and gender in late childhood and early adolescence: Group identity and awareness of bias.

Developmental Psychology, 47(2), 463-471 Bucholtz, M. (2003). Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 398-416. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. A companion to linguistic anthropology, 369-394. Cutler, C. (2010). Hip-Hop, White Immigrant Youth, and African American Vernacular English: Accommodation as an Identity Choice. Journal of English Linguistics, 38(3), 248-269. Davila, B. (2012). Indexicality and Standard Edited American English Examining the Link Between Conceptions of Standardness and Perceived Authorial Identity. Written Communication, 29(2), 180-207. Garden, R. (2010). Language, Identity, and Belonging: Deaf Cultural and Narrative Perspectives. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 21(2), 159. Hanania, R. (November 2010, 2010). Two types of perseveration in the Dimension Change Card Sort task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 3, 325-336 Hatoss, A. (2012). Where are you from? Identity construction and experiences of otheringin the narratives of Sudanese refugee-background Australians. Discourse & Society, 23(1), 47-68. Wiley, T. G. (2001). Policy formation and implementation. Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource, 99-108. Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the age of accountability. Educational Policy,18(1), 142-168.