Abstract
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.
References
Agha, Asif. 2003. The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23. 231–273.10.1017/CBO9780511618284.006Search in Google Scholar
Atkinson, D., E. Churchill, T. Nishino, & H. Okada. 2007. Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 91. 169–188.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00539.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. Trans. V.W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard & Charles Briggs. 2000. Language philosophy as language ideology: John Locke and Johann Gottfried Herder. In P. V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities, 139–204. Oxford: James Currey.Search in Google Scholar
Blackledge, Adrian & Angela Creese. 2008. Contesting ‘language’ as ‘heritage’: Negotiation of identities in late modernity. Applied Linguistics 29(4). 533–554.10.1093/applin/amn024Search in Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511845307Search in Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511812507Search in Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2008. Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(2). 1–34.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00361.xSearch in Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2012. Styling one’s own in the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora: Implications for language and ethnicity. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 11. 124–135.10.1080/15348458.2012.667309Search in Google Scholar
De Certeau, Michel. 1984. The practice of everyday life. Tr. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
De Fina, Anna. 2012. Family interaction and engagement with the heritage language: A case study. Multilingua 31. 349–379.10.1515/multi-2012-0017Search in Google Scholar
Fast, Hans 2012. Language-use as spatial experience: Migrants’ non-fluent participation in stabilisations of linguistic practice. Master’s Thesis. Utrecht: Department of Geography, Utrecht University.Search in Google Scholar
Fishman, Joshua A. 2004. Language maintenance, language shift, and reversing. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (eds.), The handbook of bilingualism, 406–436. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756997.ch16Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Roxy. 2006. New ethnicities and language use. Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230626461Search in Google Scholar
He, A. 2010. The heart of heritage: Sociocultural dimensions of heritage language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30. 66–82.10.1017/S0267190510000073Search in Google Scholar
He, Agnes. 2006. Toward an identity theory of the development of Chinese as a heritage language. Heritage Language Journal 4(1). 1–28.10.46538/hlj.4.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–157.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834Search in Google Scholar
Hua, Zhu & Li Wei. 2016. Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37. 655–666.10.1080/01434632.2015.1127928Search in Google Scholar
King, Kendall A., Lyn Fogle & Aubrey Logan-Terry. 2008. Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5). 907–922.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.xSearch in Google Scholar
Kroskrity, P. V. 2004. Language ideologies. In A. Duranti (ed.), A Companion to linguistic anthropology, 496–517. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996522.ch22Search in Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair & Emi Otsuji. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the city. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315724225Search in Google Scholar
Rampton, Ben. 1999. Styling the other: Introduction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3. 421–427.10.1111/1467-9481.00088Search in Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Keith Basso & Henry A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in anthropology. 11–56. Albuquerque: UNM Press.Search in Google Scholar
Vidal, Mónica. 2015. Talking with Abuelo: Performing authenticity in a multicultural, multisited family. Multilingua 34(2). 187–210.10.1515/multi-2014-1007Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
