Kendall Vanderwouw, Rachel Liu, Julia Tran, Nessa Laxamana, Thalia Rothman
UCLA is an incredibly diverse institution, with over 5,000 international students and 100 nations being represented. It is no surprise, then, that they boast a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. From this wealth of information, we sought to explore fluency ideologies amongst bi- and multilingual undergraduates, aged 18 to 22. Through this course and personal experiences, it’s become evident that the definition of fluency is in constant flux. A largely self-defined term, fluency could encompass everything from native-level repertoire to conversational proficiency. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether linguistic background impacted self-perception of fluency.
We engaged in semi-structured interviews with 30 undergraduates to explore this phenomenon and its implications amongst different languages. As we dove deeper, however, we observed little variation in how different languages defined fluency. Rather, most participants revealed similar definitions, centering around, “the ability to express feelings and complex ideas.” Instead, participants expressed a positive relationship between self-perceived fluency and a sense of familial or cultural connection. This finding and others ultimately led us to a new research question that targeted whether an individual’s fluency in a language, upbringing, environment, and cultural background can influence linguistic identity.
Introduction and Background
Our research began with questions regarding linguistic identity and fluency. Why do definitions of fluency fluctuate? Are definitions of fluency influenced by our linguistic backgrounds? What is the role of fluency in our cultural lives? Our participant pool represented a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds with which to answer these questions. This unique context provided a near-direct perspective into the context of language acquisition since many students had recently left backgrounds of language learning or were still in proximity to them, such as high school and familial environments.
We examined these curiosities through a series of interviews, taking an ethnographic approach to gain a more holistic understanding of the perspectives of our participants. After consolidating interview data, our research focus pivoted in a slightly different direction, one that looked at how a variety of factors—including fluency—can influence one’s linguistic identity. Our central research question was finalized as such:
Does an individual’s fluency in a language, upbringing, environment, and cultural background influence their linguistic identity?
Overall, our project ultimately represented a variety of linguistic backgrounds and cultural identities, with 18 languages spoken by 30 different speakers. This is visually represented in Figure 1, created by one of our group members to illustrate the linguistic diversity of our participants.
To garner a more in-depth understanding of our topic and to examine the current state of research, we engaged with readings regarding fluency ideologies as well as bi- and multi-lingual experiences. Such research provided context that informed our later analyses and conclusions.
For example, we found in several articles (Zubrzycki 2019; King 2013) that self-perceived fluency had the potential to give rise to shame or embarrassment in being unable to match the proficiency of others who may be exhibiting native-level fluency. Such ideologies create the daunting expectation that fluency necessitates a native-level mastery of a language. In addition to these academic sources, we found similar ideologies being proliferated through less formal means, such as YouTube videos. One video from Ted-Ed discussed the benefits of bilingualism to our brains, and in doing so put forth the concept of a “balanced bilingual,” which they describe as an individual who has equal proficiency in their languages. The video puts this idea forth, however, in order to make the point that the majority of bi- and multi-lingual speakers use their languages in different proportions and in varying scenarios. We found that videos such as this help to contribute towards a less stringent narrative of fluency that could lessen the shame caused by self-comparison to native speakers.
This left our group wondering whether such ideologies would be found amongst our participants, and what factors would lead to the formation of the expectation to be natively fluent. Overall, these initial investigations revealed to us that there are certainly links between linguistic identity and fluency self-perception. Our goal through this project was to contribute to this existing pool of knowledge and to provide a voice for our participants to express their unique ideologies.
Methods
Using semi-structured interviews, comprising of 12 standardized questions, we decided to take an ethnographic approach to our data collection. Through this process, we searched for self-perceptions of fluency, past language acquisition environments, as well as any current language ideologies regarding themselves. This methodology was deliberately chosen in order to produce consistent, qualitative data while also providing room for our participants to elaborate upon concepts and topics of their choosing. When permission was granted, we recorded the interviews for the purpose of deeper analysis as well as direct quoting in our project. Our participant pool were undergraduate college students, aged 18 to 22 years old.
Some of the questions that we asked were as follows: “In what circumstances / how often do you use this (these) language(s)?”, “How do you define being “fluent” in a language?”, and “Was it important to your parents/community that you were fluent in this language? What about you?”
Results and Analysis
Our data provided us with different viewpoints and ideologies regarding bilingualism and multilingualism. However, 60% of our participants defined fluency as the ability to express feelings and complex ideas, beyond the introductory phase in the language they speak. Some participants were more descriptive, stating that the ability to speak about specific things, such as the country’s government system, or even cultural idioms or slang. Some were less specific, stating that if you can get by in daily scenarios, you are fluent.
We also were able to discover different values that our participants held knowing their other language(s). 77% of our participants stated that they used their language to communicate with their family members, which is why they were able to become fluent in their language. This shows that language serves as a communication between different generations of people, for example between grandkids and grandparents.
We interviewed those born in and outside the U.S., and one interviewee stated that being fluent in that language makes them feel more connected to their culture as seen in EX. 1. However, the variation in answers slightly differed between those born in different countries and those born in the U.S. For those born outside the U.S., they stated that their fluency in the language was a way to connect them back home. For those born in the U.S., they stated that fluency in the language was influential in how connected to their culture/mother tongue.
Discussion and Conclusion
At the center of our research was an investigation into the factors that make up and influence linguistic identity. We ultimately align our definition of linguistic identity with a reading from our initial research (Dressler 2014, p. 43), which argues that “linguistic identity can be expressed in terms of expertise (i.e. linguistic competence), affiliation (formal or informal connections), or inheritance (familial connections).” None of these factors were considered to be mutually exclusive in our research. As previously exemplified, the linguistic identities of our participants were commonly observed to be in line with more than one of the pathways mentioned above. Most importantly, our research brought about more understanding of how people’s various reasons for their language fluency are intertwined largely with their understanding of culture and belonging. Language and communication with others are important to keeping cultures and traditions alive, it serves as a sense of cultural connection for most. With our findings, we discovered an insight into how language fluency, ideology, and culture intertwine with one another.
References
Dressler, R. (2015). Exploring Linguistic Identity in Young Multilingual Learners. TESL Canada Journal, 32 (1), 42. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i1.1198
King, K. A. (2013). A Tale of Three Sisters: Language Ideologies, Identities, and Negotiations in a Bilingual, Transnational Family. International Multilingual Research Journal, 7(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2013.746800
Ted-Ed. (2015, June 23). The benefits of a bilingual brain – Mia Nacamulli [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmOLN5zBLY
Zubrzycki, K. (2019). Am I perfect enough to be a true bilingual? Monolingual bias in the lay perception and self-perception of bi- and multilinguals . International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 57(4), 447-495. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0095