Drawing on communicative resources across international contexts: Adult migrant experiences of conflicting patterns, classroom risks, and first language loss

• In Event: Diverse and inclusive education: refugee integration, remote tutoring and theatre education

Proposal

Purpose: This presentation shares findings from a comparative study of the (in)formal language learning experiences of adult migrants. The study is motivated by the intensity of contemporary global migration in a context of super-diversity (Vertovec, 2007). In this context, a dynamic interplay of variables among unprecedented numbers of adult migrants can create linguistically alien terrains where migrants are often isolated and disadvantaged by barriers that prevent full participation in host societies. The study responds to this challenge with a comparative analysis of the language learning experiences of adult migrants in three transit or destination countries characterized by an influx of newcomers: Canada; United States; and Italy. The specific focus of this presentation is on the ways adult migrants draw on the breadth of their communicative resources.

Theoretical Framework: The study is migrant-centric (McAuliffe, Kitimbo, Goossens, & Ullah, 2017, p. 175) and provides insights into the first-person perspective of migrants on their language learning needs and experiences – in a home country, in a country of transit, in a destination country. This focus is informed by a hybrid theoretical framework linking translanguaging (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015) and transnationalism (Glick Schiller, Basch, & Szanton Blanc, 1995). Translanguaging (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015) adopts a radically emic or insider perspective on language use. It is oriented to the reality that, when speakers are not prevented from doing so, they typically draw on the breadth of their linguistic resources without recourse to externally defined distinctions between formally defined languages. For its part, transnationalism challenges long-held narratives portraying migration as a unidirectional and permanent move from a country of origin to a country of residence, what one might call ‘a voyage of no return.’ This hybrid framework thus lends itself to a multidirectional understanding of migration and fluid view of language use.

Methods: Drawing on surveys and interviews, the proposed study privileges migrants’ priorities for language learning; their agency in choosing language learning opportunities; and how this language learning serves their needs. Supplementary perspectives are gathered from adult education providers and from academics in migration-related fields. Study data are analyzed qualitatively (Glesne, 2010; Lichtman, 2013) with a view to achieving thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) of how migrants construct and share meaning in their social contexts. Data analysis identifies common themes in responses to open-ended questions tapping participants’ opinions and previous experiences. Triangulation of data across three research sites enables comparative analysis of migrant experiences in diverging sociolinguistic contexts, while data from migrants and adult education providers enables comparative analysis of migrant language learning across multiple perspectives. Analysis privileges migrants’ views as they relate to social integration.

Data Sources: For this presentation, we draw on an expanded data set of 76 online surveys and 18 online follow-up interviews tapping the following broad areas: language learning experiences of adult migrants; diverging sociolinguistic contexts for language learning; migrant agency and need in the area of language learning; and the role of language learning in the social integration of migrants. The online surveys provide an experiential view from migrants on whether and how formal and informal language learning opportunities in transit and destination countries respond to their needs, while the follow-up interviews with a subsample of six migrants chosen from among survey participants in each of the three research sites probe participants for extended reflections on language learning and social integration.

Results: Centered specifically on the ways adult migrants draw on the breadth of their communicative resources, results reveal, firstly, conflicting patterns where migrants avoid contact with speakers of their first language while also reporting interactions with this group are very important. Implicated here is a re-evaluation of language use toward functionality, that is, as fluid deployment of communicative resources rather than as fixed enactment of individual or collective identity. Secondly, results reveal a contrast wherein participants in Sicily, who have less-ready access to classroom language instruction, largely report not feeling judged when speaking with locals outside the classroom, while participants in North America experience anxiety that their use of the host language will be judged. The implication here is that classrooms may disincentivize migrants from pulling on the breadth of their communicative resources. Thirdly, results indicate that migrants are more likely to translanguage after achieving higher proficiency in the host language and do not intend to stop using their first language. This implies a re-envisioned geolinguistic reality where learning a host country language does not necessarily signal inexorable first language loss, where host country language acquisition can be facilitative and expanding rather than assimilative and constricting. We discuss the direct impact of these three implications for educational researchers, practitioners, and policy makers.

Educational Importance: The educational importance of this study is centered on its privileging of migrants’ perspectives related to language learning. A report from the International Organization for Migration suggests “while some policymakers have access to a wider range of information and data than ever before, it is apparent that there still exists a level of presumption and a lack of knowledge about potential and actual migrant decision-making and experiences” (McAuliffe, Kitimbo, Goossens, & Ullah, 2017, p. 175). The overall goal of this proposed study responds to the call for a “migrant-centric approach” (McAuliffe, Kitimbo, Goossens, & Ullah, 2017, p. 175), what Triandafyllidou (2017, p. 2) terms an “anthropocentric perspective.” It prioritizes migrant experiences of language since, as Burns and Roberts (2010) further observe, “the need for sensitively designed and socially and culturally responsible educational and language programs for adult immigrants, migrants, and refugees who relocate, both voluntarily and involuntarily, across the world has never been greater” (Burns & Roberts, 2010, p. 409).

Authors

• John Ippolito, Faculty of Education, York University

• Katherine Rehner, University of Toronto Mississauga