Department of Culture Studies

Tilburg School of Humanities 2016/17

Multilingualism and identity negotiation: a literature review

Thao Nguyen

Linguistic and Cultural Changes 2016-2017 (800149)

Prof. Kutlay Yagmur and Prof. Ad Backus

January 31, 2017

 Abstract

This paper is an overview of recent literature in sociolinguistics that addresses the issue of
identity negotiation in bi- and multilingual speakers.

Keywords: bilingualism, multilingualism, sociolinguistics, identity negotiation

1

 Introduction

Speaking more than one language is more than just a useful skill, it can also have an
impact on your identity and the way you present yourself and are perceived by others. Being
multilingual, to me, has never been just about reaching a certain level of proficiency in some
languages. In intercultural contexts, I am fully aware that the languages that I can speak, and the
way I speak them, may shape how other people perceive me. My fluency in a second language
(L2) may help me to ‘integrate’ more smoothly into a new country, while my accent still betrays
me as an outsider. At the same time, my L2 adds another dimension to my identity, allowing me
to self-identify with something other than my nationality, and to distance myself from the
stereotypes associated with it.

My personal experiences with languages have prompted me to reflect on the links

between language and identity in bi- and multilingual speakers. In this paper, I propose to look at
the social meanings of bi- and multilingualism, moving beyond language itself. One of these
meanings is identity negotiation. Concretely, how do multilinguals position themselves in
relation to others through the use of their languages? What use do they make of their diverse
linguistic resources to construct their identities?

This paper will be an overview of recent literature in sociolinguistics that addresses the
issue of identity negotiation in bi- and multilingual speakers. In the first section, I will present
the present dominant theoretical approaches to language and identity with regards to bi- and
multilingualism. The following sections will explore the various ways that multilinguals engage
in identity negotiation.

New perspectives of language and identity

To raise the question of identity negotiation is already to imply that identity is not static,
but negotiable. However, this has not always been the way identity has been conceptualized.
First, we need to consider it against the backdrop of essentialist views of language and identity.
Traditionally, languages are conceived as distinct and autonomous systems of code, and the
standard variety spoken by dominant groups is considered the proper and valid language. This
hegemonic ideology of language is tied to the emergence of the nation-state in the 19th century,

2

a period in which language is an instrument of unification (Blommaert & Rampton, 2012; Heller,
2007). Therefore, language is associated with nationalism and group membership. This ideology
is reflected in social psychological theories on language and identity, which defined individuals
as belonging to national/ethnic groups and languages as markers of such national/ethnic
identities.

In this essentialist approach, any divergence from the norms of the standard language,
such as code-switching or language mixing, will not be recognized. By linking one language to
one culture and one people, this traditional view reinforces notions of speech communities and
language ownership. Language acquisition comes with language loss, with interferences between
the two that are not tolerated. This monolingual bias seems to hardly account for multilingual
speakers' experiences of identity, as it simply overlooks the complexity of their linguistic
repertoires and imposes premade identity categories on them.

Scholars in sociolinguistics have long adopted an anti-essentialist stance. According to

Auer (2007), the dominant paradigm in sociolinguistics today is constructionism. It is
thus argued that multilingual speakers produce and negotiate their identities in interaction, using
elements from their heterogeneous linguistic resources. Identity is not predefined but emergent
through discourse. Speakers can even make non-affiliate linguistic choices, i.e. using out-group
linguistic resources, those of speech communities that they don’t belong to – practices defined by
Rampton (1999) as crossing and styling. Multilinguals' use of mixed linguistic repertoires allows
them to deconstruct previous identities to invent hybrid forms of identity, ‘when the acceptability
and legitimacy of their doing so is open to question’ (Rampton, 1999).

This constructionist approach puts an emphasis on the speaker’s agency. They can cross
boundaries, become members of multiple communities, or construct new and mixed ones.
However, is the possibility for speakers to create and negotiate identities always open to question?

Pavlenko & Blackledge (2004) propose to complement the speaker- and interaction-
centered approach by a poststructuralist framework that places speakers and their language use in
wider social, cultural, historical and political contexts. This approach is inspired by Bourdieu’s
conceptualization of language as a form symbolic capital, convertible into other capitals and

3

therefore a resource of legitimacy and power (Bourdieu, 1991). If language and identity are
social constructs, then they are determined by ideologies on language and identity that circulate
in society. This means that speakers do not have total freedom; rather, they act within social
constraints (Heller, 2007). The poststructuralist framework acknowledges speakers’ agency, but
also asks what they can do within the constraints imposed on them by dominant discourses on
language and identity, and with the linguistic resources that they have access to.

Combining both the interactional sociolinguistic and the poststructuralist approaches,

Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004) conceptualize the link between language and identity as follows:
identity is both constructed through discourse and interaction, and located in social and political
systems. Concretely, it is a production of linguistic practices which are guided by ideologies on
language. Categories of identity are still imposed on individuals by official and dominant
discourses, but they are able to challenge them. Negotiation of identity in multilingual contexts is
meaningful and relevant, because of the tension between individuals’ self-identification and
the identity options that are imposed on them by others. The authors consider identity as
negotiable, meaning ‘all identity options which can be – and are – contested and resisted by
particular individuals and groups’, in areas such as ethnicity and nationality, or linguistic
competency and legitimacy in a second language. The means of negotiation, in this case, are
linguistic practices, i.e. bi- and multilingual speech, such as code-switching, code-mixing,
language choice and crossing, but also the invention of new linguistic forms and new identity
narratives.

From the articles and book chapters selected for this literature review, I have identified
three ways in which multilingual speakers engage in identity negotiation through discourse.
Firstly, they 'unconsciously' position themselves against or according to ideologies on language
and identity in society (Bailey, 2007; Koven, 1998). Secondly, they negotiate their identities in
relation to 'native-speakers' (Pavlenko, 2001; Pennycook, 2012). Lastly, they create new, hybrid
forms of identity that do not fit in any predetermined categories (Wei & Hua, 2013).

4

 Indexical meanings of linguistic forms

Indexicality, a semiotic concept coined by Peirce (1955), has been further developed by
Bakhtin (1981) to become a conceptual entrance for the analysis of social meanings of bilingual
speech. The idea is that language is indexical of sociohistorical contexts and social experiences
of speakers. Therefore, by using certain linguistic forms, or speaking in certain ways, bilinguals
position themselves in relation to the wider social world that shapes and provides the context for
their speech. Their social identities emerge within social interactions, through particular ways of
speaking.

Bailey (2007) analyzes a segment of bilingual talk between two Dominican American
high school students, using the concept of heteroglossia, defined as ‘the simultaneous use of
different forms of signs’ and ‘the tensions and conflicts between those signs’. The first aspect
captures both monolingual and multilingual forms that constitute speakers' repertoires and is not
limited to code-switching, while the second aspect points to the indexicality of such forms. The
segment of talk contains instances of code-switching characteristic of bilingual speech, but since
it is unmarked in the context of peers' interaction, identity negotiation does not take place at the
local level. The author, however, demonstrates that this talk is socially marked in the wider
context of the dominant English-only ideology of U.S. society. Concretely, the two speakers
juxtapose various linguistic resources, including African-American English, a non-standard
vernacular variety, and a Dominican variety of Spanish, associated with the lower class. These
socially marked forms of language are identified using the concepts of heteroglossia
and indexicality. By juxtaposing diverse linguistic elements in a single speech, the two bilingual
girls construct a local solidarity and challenge the linguistic boundaries created by dominant
groups. Placed against the ideology of monolingualism, their speech can be considered as a form
of resistance to the dominant discourse of assimilation.

Koven (1998) uses Bakhtin's theory of indexical meanings to study French-Portuguese

bilinguals’ experience of different selves when speaking different languages. Based on
participants' narratives, she explores how different ways of speaking in each language (French
and Portuguese) point to contrasting positional identities. The verbal repertoires of her Luso-
descendant participants consist of a variety of Portuguese marked as rural and working class, that

5

they inherited from their parents, as well as a young and suburban Parisian French, acquired
through their socialization in France. Therefore, their linguistic repertoires are locally marked,
and indexical of different identities: young urban Parisian, rural Portuguese, émigré from
Portugal and immigrant to France. These different identities are relational and dependent on the
(imagined) communities of interlocutors. Therefore, in speaking each language, they position
themselves within the social context and the cultural framework associated with it. Koven
observes that they take a more critical and irreverent stance in French, contrary to a distanced,
polite and less empowered attitude in Portuguese. Identity negotiation, therefore, consists of
creating ‘the most locally favorable impression of the speaker’.

In both of these studies, identity negotiation is rather an ‘unconscious’ process that is

only revealed through the indexical meanings of linguistic forms. The advantage of the concept
of indexicality lies in the way it offers an insight into speakers’ backgrounds and past
experiences, indicating their social classes, among others, which is often a blind spot in research
on bilingualism. However, in these two cases, bilingualism refers to specific social groups. Their
status of bilinguals is thus less problematic, as it might be considered that they have acquired
both languages, especially their L2, in their early childhood. But what about bi- and
multilinguals who are not recognized as such?

Legitimate L2 user

In this section, I will review two studies that deal with the question of language
ownership. As a result of the monolingual bias that defines bilingualism in terms of ‘native’
proficiency in both languages, many bi- and multilinguals may struggle to consider themselves
as speakers of languages that they are not ‘born into’. At the same time, features that mark them
as belonging to predefined categories, such as national and ethnic groups or social class, might
be another obstacle to their claim of language rights in the L2.

In tackling this issue, Pavlenko (2004) offers an alternative to the dominant focus on oral
interactions in sociolinguistics, by analyzing language memoirs of contemporary multilingual
American writers who recall on their experiences of becoming English-speaking American
citizens. Their reflective accounts offer a metalinguistic discourse on identity negotiation, in

6

which they explicitly occupy particular subject positions. In her analysis, Pavlenko identifies five
aspects of identity that are subject to repositioning and transformation in these authors’
discourses: linguistic, national/racial/ethnic, cultural, gender and social class, each of them
linked to particular ways of speaking. The researcher considers their autobiographies as narrative
acts of identity, a way for narrators to impose order and coherence on their prior experiences,
which are often complicated, fragmented and confusing. By creating their own life narratives,
they regain control over their own identities. Metaphors of invention (‘reinvent myself’),
imagination and re-positioning in the new language frequently appear in the corpus. By claiming
their language right and their successful appropriation of English, they challenge the dominant
discourse that associates linguistic ownership with nativeness, whiteness and speaking the
standard English of the middle-class.

The question of the legitimacy of L2 speaker is also brought up in Pennycook (2012). He

suggests abandoning the idea of reaching ‘native-speaker’ proficiency as the target of becoming
a successful L2 speaker. Instead, he introduces the notion of ‘resourceful speaker’, one who is
able to ‘perform like a local’, by using variants of language specific to a region. The point is not
to appeal to some idealized norm of nativeness, but to adapt one’s speech so that ‘from the point
of view of different speakers, our language practices evoke different forms of localness’. One’s
identity, thus, is always relative to the locality of one’s interlocutor. Pennycook rejects the idea
of an abstract language, arguing that we do not speak ‘languages’ but specific linguistic forms
within specific domains to specific interlocutors. A resourceful speaker is thus someone with the
capacity to shift between styles, discourses and genres. The context and the audience, therefore,
determine the L2 speaker’s identity.

Both Pavlenko and Pennycook emphasize the creativity of the ‘non-native speaker’,
asking what they can do with their linguistic resources and viewing multilingualism as an
advantageous resource. They consider the self as fluid, multiple and adaptable: multiple
linguistic repertoires lead to multiple selves, thus deconstructing the essentialist conception of
identity. Here is where the cross-cultural autobiographies in Pavlenko’s study are significant, as
they give rise to a discourse of resistance to hegemonic dominant ideologies of monolingualism
and monoculturalism. It is not only about these authors who reinvent themselves in their texts,
but also their empowering effect on communities. Their accounts provide new perspectives on

7

identity, showing that identity options other than one’s national or ethnic groups are possible.
This is crucial to new generations of American immigrants, but also to all bilinguals and
multilinguals who struggle with their identities and linguistic choices.

Beyond multilingualism

This latter point leads us to the actual context of globalization, where multilingualism and
multiculturalism are a reality for many people living beyond their national borders. Indeed, one
prominent feature of globalization is migration, leading to people from diverse backgrounds
coming into contact with and mutually influencing each other. When intercultural contact occurs,
cultural and linguistic repertoires hardly remain intact. Wei & Hua (2013) describe this process
as transnationalism, and individuals involved in it as transnationals. The prefix trans- emphasizes
the ideas of flow and movement, marking a definite rupture with group-oriented definitions of
identity, eliminating the borders between groups.

Transnationalism leads to new forms of identity construction, emergent in semiotic

practices and marked by in-betweenness and hybridity. Transnational individuals mobilize their
linguistic resources to reconstruct different relations and meanings, through language mixing or
invention of new forms. The author introduces the concept of 'translanguaging', which reflects
the flexible and dynamic nature of these practices and the capacity of speakers to move between
and beyond linguistic structures and social worlds. Nevertheless, their transnational experiences
are still embedded within social fields (Levitt, 2001), such as institutions, that generate
categories of identity. They will have to negotiate with identity options that are assigned to them,
that they may identify with or not.

Wei & Hua (2013) draw examples from a group of Chinese university students in London,
who have chosen to create a new transnational space for themselves, with network members
having an ‘ambiguous hybrid identity’ because of their complex migration backgrounds. The
researchers focus on moments of creative use of language in their everyday interactions,
including voicing, creating nicknames, inside jokes on their origins, language switching, but also
discussions during which they explicitly talk about issues related to their ideologies on language
use (for example, the use of traditional versus simplified Chinese characters). It is observed that

8

these transnational students prefer to identify with the present physical space, instead of being
questioned about where they really come from, thus showing a need to emphasize individual
identities rather than a group identity.

The transnational identity is a social identity created through translanguaging. It is

representative of people who have been ‘deterrioralized’ from the physical boundaries of their
countries of origin, and who want to accentuate the here and now. The process of creating this
identity is the process of language socialization. The participants carry different and competing
ideologies that have been transmitted to them, and when they communicate they have to
negotiate and adapt. By creating the transnational space, they negotiate their identity with the
wider social context. Inside this transnational space, given their various backgrounds, they also
have to negotiate their identity between each other, while mutually embracing hybridity.

According to Blommaert (2013), the transnational framework calls for a shift toward
complexity, rather than multilingualism, as the latter still carries a notion of separate units of
language, culture and identity, much as code-switching implies the existence of two distinct
codes. He thus states that there is no such thing as a ‘pure’ code, as language contact in the
linguistic repertoires of multilinguals induces change inside each language – redefined as a ‘unit’
– itself. This radical view contributes to destigmatize hybridity by considering it as a
fundamental characteristic of multilingual speakers. At this level, identity negotiation is mainly
about creating new forms of identity, and new social spaces where these identities exist.

Wei & Hua’s study differs from other works in the way that they draw attention to a
process of identity negotiation that is not necessarily problematic, but something that people do
every day, in any instance, in the pursuit of conviviality in a context that
is essentially multicultural (Blommaert, 2013). Therefore, identity negotiation is necessarily
about a struggle of power relations, as suggested at the beginning of this paper. This perspective
contributes to considering diversity as a normal reality, not an exceptional context.

9

 Conclusion

In this review of literature on sociolinguistic approaches to bi- and multilingualism, I

have considered the notion of identity as a discursive construction, negotiable through the means
of linguistic practices. The case studies presented here focus different groups of bi- and
multilingual speakers, who are sometimes referred to as L2 users, and the different ways in
which they engage in identity negotiation. It can be an implicit process taking place in either
bilingual or monolingual speech, in which speakers position themselves regarding ideologies on
language and identity in their social worlds. This process fits into the poststructuralist framework
that identity construction and language use are embedded within sociopolitical systems. Identity
negotiation can be about claiming certain identity options that are denied to multilingual
speakers, and the challenge of the status of the native speaker. Finally, multilingual talk can be a
way in which speakers create a new social space for themselves, where they transcend the limits
of identification in terms of culture, nationality or speech community. We can see an evolution
from bilinguals as an 'ethnic minority' groups, to transnationals defined solely by the 'here' and
'now' of their experience.

Both language and identity boil down to the question of belonging. Do I belong to certain
groups by speaking certain languages? Can I not belong to some groups? The question of
authenticity is inevitable: do I have an authentic culture and do I speak authentic languages when
I constantly shift between cultural worlds and mix languages?

These questions may find an answer in a perspective that embraces the complexity of
multilinguals', or translanguals' - to borrow the terminology of Wei & Hua - experiences with
language and identity. This view may have significant implications for the evaluation of policy
on bilingual education, as well as L2 teaching and learning, by calling attention to the cultural
and psychological outcomes of bi- and multilingualism on individuals.

10

 References

Auer, P. (2007). Bilingual styles and social identities: introduction to Part 1. In P. Auer
(Ed.): Style and social identities: alternative approaches to linguistic heterogeneity, p. 1-17.
Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bailey, B. (2007). Heteroglossia and boundaries. In M. Heller (Ed.): Bilingualism: a

social approach, p. 257-274. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (M. Holquist, trans.).
Austin: University of Texas.

Blommaert, J. (2013). “Complexity, Accent, and Conviviality: Concluding

Comments”. Applied Linguistics, 34(5): 613-622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt028

Blommaert, J. & Rampton, B. (2012). Language and Superdiversity. (pp. 1-36) New
York & London: Routledge

De Fina, A. & Perrino (2013). “Transnational Identities”. Applied Linguistics,34(5): 509-

515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt024

Heller, M. (2007). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In M. Heller

(Ed.): Bilingualism: a social approach, p. 1-24. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Koven, M. (1998). “Two Languages in the Self/The Self in Two Languages: French-
Portuguese Bilinguals' Verbal Enactments and Experiences of Self in Narrative
Discourse”. Ethos, 26(4): 410-455. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/640663

Pavlenko, A. (2001). “’In the World of the Tradition, I Was Unimagined’: Negotiation of
Identities in Cross-Cultural Autobiographies.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(3): 317-
344). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069010050030401

Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (2004). Introduction: New Theoretical Approaches to the

Study of Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge

11

(Eds.): Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts, p. 1-33. Clevedon : Multilingual
Matters.

Peirce, C.S. (1955). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In J. Buchler (Ed.),
Philosophical Writings of Peirce, p. 98-119. New York: Dover Publications.

Pennycook, A. (2012). Language and mobility: unexpected places. Resourceful Speakers,

p. 74-100. Bristol [etc.] : Multilingual Matters.

Rampton, B. (1999). “Styling the Other: Introduction”. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, p.

421-427.

Wei, L. & Hua, Z. (2013). “Translanguaging Identities and Ideologies: Creating

Transnational Space Through Flexible Multilingual Practices Amongst Chinese University
Students in the UK”. Applied Linguistics, 34(5): 516-535.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt022.

12