Exploring the intercultural identity of Slovak-Roma schoolchildren in the UK

Aspirations

Two of the participants, Ondrej and Sona, demonstrate extremely positive attitudes towards the learning of English and the potential benefits this could confer upon them, but are also candid about the difficulties they have experienced when learning a new language and express a desire to create a “better future” for their own children. It is not surprising therefore to find that both these participants are two NC sub-levels above the English target for their age-group, and at least six sub-levels above the other two participants. This reflects Blommaert's (2005) perspective that one's life chances are dictated by one's ability to manage movement across languages. Sona's reflections on her progression in English consistently equate proficiency with ascension, repeating the phrase `push up' in relation to continued mastery of the language, demonstrating an attitude that acquisition of the English language will increase her range of opportunities and raise her status; but this `push' also connotes effort and seems to represent her own intrinsic motivation to provide what she sees as valuable cultural capital for her future children. Whilst inheritance from parent to child is often taken for granted, there is an interesting change in perspective in that both participants also describe attempts to improve their parents' knowledge of the English language. Again the verb `push' is repeated, suggesting the potential for the English language to raise her mother's status. It also connotes the idea of struggle, and it may be that there is resistance to change, perhaps what we have previously identified as the strength of the in-group boundaries. It appears that these participants' attitudes converge with the results of Zhu's (2010) study in which it was found that the younger generation have the capacity to autonomously construct new cultural and social identities through interactions, and that through language socialisation they have the capacity to actively bring about changes within their own communities. The findings of this study question whether generational differences are beginning to override ethnic differences.

The potential significance that the language being acquired is English should be recognised. Crystal (1997) identifies it as the globally dominant language, and it is seen to connote status, modernity and to facilitate social advancement. For Sona, despite Romani being her L1, and only having learnt Slovakian at age four/five, she reports that English is her main language now. Previously we have questioned whether the acquisition of language is an accommodation which actually serves to protect the in-group boundaries, yet here participants seem to equate speaking English with being English, with the concomitant benefits of this (Giles & Billings 2004). The role of English as a language of prestige, modernity and global utility, may boost participants' motivation to acquire it when compared to other languages. However, if the language is acquired as a form of symbolic capital, it may not outweigh the value of the language spoken within the family if, as in this study, it is not English, as language continues to be seen as an important symbol of group identity and social solidarity (Dorian 2010).

Dewaele and Nakano (2012) remind us that the process of learning a new language can provide the motivation to achieve hitherto unimagined goals and this could be an explanation for some of the participants' rejection of in-group cultural expectations: “I just don't want the same life as they do.” Pnevmatikos et al. (2010) identified early betrothal and marriage of Roma children as a central ring of their ethnic identity. In Medway, the rate of pregnancy for 15--17 year old girls has been reported as one in twenty. One participant clearly rejects the option of early marriage and this could be seen as a re-positioning of her identity in that she is not just comparing herself within her ethnic group, but within her generation and her wider peer group too. Identity comparisons outside of ethnicity are also facilitated through inclusion in mainstream education. Previous studies have emphasised the educational segregation of Roma communities and attribute to this a lack of aspirations and educational success. In this study, the participants are all enrolled in mainstream education, and there is clear evidence of an agenda in the UK of ensuring inclusion, such as the Ofsted report (2014), Overcoming Barriers, which highlights that pupils acquire language more readily when placed with first-language English peers, rather than being taught in segregated units. As one participant notes, “school pushed me”. For two participants, exceeding their target English levels appears to be evidence of the success of this education policy and enables them to create aspirations. Of the remaining two participants, who are well below their targets, it must be noted that one has spent a great deal of time in the care of the local authority and this experience is likely to produce a confounding variable.

Self-Perceptions of Identity

The participants in this study occupy difficult territory. Despite strong self-identification as being of Roma ethnicity, all participants additionally identified strongly as `Slovakian'. This reflects findings that “many Roma in Slovakia consider themselves to be Slovaks or Hungarians and identification with the majority is more significant than their Roma identity” (Covrig 2004: 94). Sona only ever refers to her identity as being either Slovakian or English, and Ondrej emphasises his Slovakian identity over his ethnic identity adding that his family doesn't even look like Roma. This brings another complicating dimension to the negotiation of their identities, especially that Roma identity can reduce access to opportunities in Slovakia. National identity may be fundamental and inclusive (Smith, 1999) and yet, ironically, these participants report exclusion from their national identity based on their ethnicity. This may reflect the continuing binarization of the Roma as the `other', and the weight attributed to the strength of their in-group culture (McGarry 2010; Levinson 2014). This reminds us of Engebrigtsen's (2011: 124) advice that it is `urgent' to take into consideration that the Roma are part of the majority populations in which they live; certainly for these participants their national identity is a hugely important dimension of their identity and yet one, as we see in policy documents such as the Ofsted Report (2014), which is totally overlooked. The results of this study, although small scale, demonstrate that in the case of the Roma, national identity must be taken into consideration.

Conflict

The perceptions and expectations of others are at the core of much of the conflict felt by the participants. Participants report a lack of accommodation from English L1 speakers in understanding the difficulties when communicating in English, more specifically the feelings of inability to be natural, and having to create an artificial performance, something that Pavlenko describes as `anguish' (2006: 29). Perhaps here we can highlight the possibility of a revision of perceptions; rather than seeing the Roma as refusing to assimilate, a perspective reported by Miskovic 2009; Garaz 2014; Rostas and Kostka 2014; and Nistor et al. 2014, it may be useful to consider that their difficulties are similar to other multilinguals negotiating between languages and contexts.

However, it is not just feelings of discomfort when using English which are a source of conflict; Sona reports that her choice to speak English the majority of the time causes conflict within her ethnic community, “Sometimes she hits me, so I don't speak English.” Despite the view that convergence to the dominant language code can convey a great deal of symbolic capital upon the speaker (Giles & Billings 2004), in this case, convergence with the dominant language form is not necessarily conveying any sort of prestige but has consequent negative peer evaluation (see Edwards, 2010; Marlow & Giles 2010). This draws attention to the potential difficulties that could be experienced by an individual who finds themselves caught in a web of cultural expectations which may be conflicting; as Levinson suggests, the `darker outcomes' (2014: 2). Here the use of English moves beyond its denotative function and is connoting an alternative identity; Michal reports being told by a member of her community, “You're not English, so don't speak English”. This example of language criticism shows that for the participants in this study, the negotiation of their identity is a complex, shifting set of circumstances in which they must negotiate between criticism from the dominant culture for not speaking English but perhaps even stronger criticism from their own ethnic in-group for speaking it. Because of the small sample size and that unique geographical context it is impossible to make generalisations from this research. However, the analysis of the qualitative data allows us to question the prior conceptualisations of Roma ethnicity which have hitherto, as Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004:19) say, `reigned uncontested'.

Conclusion

Intercultural studies emphasise the continual negotiation of cultural membership, ascription by others and self-orientation. The results of this study suggest that there is still a strong element of ascription by others in terms of the nature of participants' ethnicity and its relationship to their identity. However, what is not considered in detail are their other cultural memberships. It is clear that the participants strongly identify with nation and therefore future research may wish to investigate this further, as opposed to continuing to align ethnic Roma with other travelling communities.

There is a paradox in that participants in this study cannot be viewed as a coherent bloc; they reported individual aspirations, identifications and attitudes. And yet, despite the differences described and the lack of a state, the Roma ethnicity has survived for a considerable time. It is necessary to consider how far the researcher may have been told what she wanted to hear, or how superficial the adaptations of the participants might be. The question remains as to the strength of endogamy and in-group identity, which as this study has shown may exist independent of language shifts, and the juxtaposition with the possibilities that the aspirations of the younger members of the community report. In a post-modern world there are greater opportunities for more complex constructions of identity. Furthermore, the participants in this study are all enrolled in mainstream education and of them, two are achieving above national targets which can also be seen as a site of alternative opportunities. There may be merit in additional cross-generational investigations of how far increased choice and opportunity might weigh against traditional ethnic constructions of identity.

Finally, more small-scale studies such as this will allow for greater opportunity for self-representation. As one participant said in her interview, on leaving the room, “I want people to know what I can do, not what I can't do, and no one knows what I can do”.

Appendix

The questions below were not asked in any particular order, but were used as prompts during discussion with the participants to encourage reflection on their responses.

Context Questions:

Family/extended family resident in the UK?

Number of Years in UK?

Just in Medway?

Previous countries?

Parents speak English?

Which language at home?

Experience/Behaviour and Opinions/Values Questions:

What do you think you need to do to be English?

What do you need to do to be Roma?

Who do you feel similar to?

Who do you feel different from?

Who do you not want to be like?

Does everyone see you in the same way?

Do you ever feel you have problems with who you are?

How far is speaking Romani an important part of your identity?

Why is speaking English important to you?

Who do you speak Romani to?

Who do you speak English to?

Do you speak any other languages?

Which is the most natural language for you?

Are you Slovakian?

Are you seen as Slovakian?

Would you ever tell someone you were something that you're not?

References

1. Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S. (eds.) (1998) Identities in Talk. London: Sage.

2. Bhatia, S. & Ram, A. (2009) Theorising identity in transnational and diaspora cultures: a critical approach to acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 140--149. Block, D. (2006) Identity in applied linguistics. In T. Omoniyi & G. White (eds.) The sociolinguistics of identity. London: Continuum, 34--49.

3. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. Blommaert, J. (2007) Sociolinguistics and discourse analysis: Orders of indexicality and polycentricity.

5. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2, 115--130.

6. Bugarski, R. (2012) Language, identity and borders in the former Serbo-Croatian area. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 219--235.

7. Counsell, C. (2009) Interpretivism: Meeting ourselves in research. In E. Wilson (Ed.), School-based Research: A Guide for Education Students. London: Sage, 251--276.

8. Covrig, A. (2004) Why Roma do not declare their identity -- careful decision or unpremeditated refusal. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 8, 90--101.

9. Cresswell, J.W. (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

10. Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. De Burgh Woodman, H. (2014) Homogenity, “glocalism” or somewhere in between? A literary interpretation of identity in the era of globalisation. European Journal of Marketing, 48, 288--313.

12. Dewaele, J.-M. (2010) The perception of French by native speakers and advanced L2, L3 and L4 learners. In V. Regan & N. Chasaide (eds.), Language Practices and Identity Construction in French. Bern: Peter Lang, 133--156.

13. Dewaele, J.-M. & Nakano, S. (2012) Multilinguals' perceptions of feeling different when switching languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34, 107--120.

14. Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. (2014) The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and Enjoyment in the Foreign Language Classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 237--274. Dorian, N. (2010) Linguistic and ethnographic fieldwork. In J. Fishman & O. Garcia (eds.), Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 24--41.

15. Edwards, A. (2010) Learning How to Know Who: professional learning for expansive practice between organisations. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund & R. Saljo (eds.), Learning across Sites. London: Routledge.

16. Edwards, J. (2009) Language and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17. Edwards, J. (2010) Language Diversity in the Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

18. Engebrigtsen, A. (2011) Within or outside? Perceptions of self and other among Rom groups in Romania and Norway. Romani Studies, 21, 123--144.

19. European Union (2014) Free Movement -- EUNationals. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/ main.jsp?catId=457 (Accessed: 30 December 2014).

20. Extra, G. (2010) Mapping linguistic diversity in multicultural contexts: demolinguistic perspectives. In J. Fishman & O. Garcia (eds.), Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity (pp. 107--122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21. Felja, D. & Smolinska-Poffley, G. (2014) East European Roma Culture Awareness Guide. The Roma Support Group. (Felja, D. & Smolinska-Poffley, G. (2014). travellerstimes.org.uk/UserFiles/.../ Roma-Culture-Awareness-Guide-for-Police%201.pdf.

22. Feldman, C., Stone, A., & Renderer, B. (1990) Stage, transfer and academic achievements in dialect speaking Hawaiian adolescents. Child Development, 6, 472--84.

23. Garaz, S. (2014) Helping the marginalised or supporting the elite? Affirmative action as a tool for increasing access to higher education for ethnic Roma. European Educational Research Journal, 13, 295 (pp. 274--316).

24. Giles, H., & Byrne, J. (1982) An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3:1, 17--41.

25. Giles, H., & Billings, A. (2004) Language attitudes. In A. Davies & E. Elder (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 187--209). Oxford: Blackwell.

26. Gumperz, J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27. Hancock, I. (2002) We are the Romani people. Hatfield: Centre des Recherches Tsiganes (Gypsy Research Centre) and University of Hertfordshire Press.

28. Hall, S. (1992) The Question of Cultural Identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, A. McGrew (eds.), Modernity and Its Futures. 274--316. Cambridge: Polity Press.

29. Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2004) Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge.

30. Holliday, A. (2007) Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

31. Huysmans, J. (2006) The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.

32. Koven, M. (2001) Comparing bilinguals' quoted performance of self and others in telling the same experiences in two languages. Language in Society, 30, 513--558.

33. Koven, M. (2007) Selves in Two Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

34. Leung, H., Hendley, M., Compton, R., & Haley, B. (eds.) (2009) Imagining Globalisation: Languages, Identities and Boundaries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

35. Levinson, M. & Hooley, H. (2013) Supporting the learning of nomadic communities across transnational contexts: exploring parallels in the education of UK Roma Gypsies and Indigenous Australians. Research Papers in Education, 29, 373--389.

36. Levinson, M. (2014) `What's the plan?' `What plan?' Changing aspirations among Gypsy youngsters, and implications for future cultural identities and group membership. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36, 1149--1169.

37. Marlow, M.L., & Giles, H. (2010) `We won't get ahead speaking like that!' Expressing and managing language criticism in Hawai'i. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31, 237--251.

38. Medway Census (2011).

39. McGarry, A. (2010). Who speaks for Roma? Political Representation of a Transnational Minority Community. London: Continuum.

40. McGarry, A. (2014) Roma as a political identity: exploring representations of Roma in Europe. Ethnicities, 14, 756--774.

41. McGarry, A. & Agarin, T. (2014) Unpacking the Roma participation puzzle: presence, voice and influence. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40, 1972--1990.

42. McGarry, A. & Drake, H. (2013) The politicization of Roma as an ethnic “other”: security discourse in France and the politics of belonging. In U. Korkut, G. Bucken-Knapp, A. McGarry, J. Hinn- fors, & H. Drake (eds.), The discourses and politics of migration in Europe. 73--91. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

43. McGuigan, J. (2010) Cultural Analysis. London: Sage.

44. Miskovic, M. (2009) Roma education in Europe: in support of the discourse of race. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 17, 201--220.

45. Murray, C. (2012) A minority within a minority? Social justice for traveler and Roma children in ECEC. European Journal of Education, 47, 569--583.

46. Newby, P. (2010) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

47. Nistor, N., Stanciu, D., Vanea, C., Sasu, V.M., & Dragota, M. (2014) Situated learning in young Romanian Roma successful learning biographies. European Educational Research Journal, 13, 311--324.

48. Ofsted Annual Report (2014)

49. Omoniyi, T. (2010) Borders. In J. Fishman & O. Garcia (eds.) Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 123--134.

50. O'Neill, F. (2013) Making sense of being between languages and cultures: a performance narrative enquiry approach. Language andIntercultural Communication, 13, 386--399.

51. Panicacci, A. & Dewaele, J.-M. (2017) “A voice from elsewhere”: Migration, personality and multiple selves in multiple languages. International Journal of Multilingualism.

52. Patton, M. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. CA: Sage.

53. Pavlenko, A. (2006) Bilingual selves. In A. Pavlenko (ed.), Bilingual Minds Emotional Experience, Expression, and Representation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1--33.

54. Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004) Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

55. Piller, I. (2011) Intercultural Communication: A Critical Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

56. Pnevmatikos, D., Geka, M., & Divane, M. (2010) The emergence, structure and development of ethnic identity during childhood: the case of Roma identity. International Journal of Psychology, 45, 435--442.

57. Rostas, I., & Kostka, J. (2014) Structural dimensions of Roma school desegregation policies in central and eastern Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 13, 268--281.

58. Samers, M. (1998) Immigration, `ethnic minorities' and `social exclusion' in the European Union: a critical perspective. Geoforum. 29, 123--144.

59. Schneeweis, A. (2012) If they really wanted to they would: The press discourse of integration of the European Roma, 1990--2006. International Communication Gazette, 74, 673--689. Sharma, M. (2011) Language and the negotiation of identity and sense of belonging: a study of literary representations of Indians in England. Language andIntercultural Communication, 11, 351--363. Smith, A. (1999) Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

60. Tracy, K. (2002) Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. New York and London: Guilford Press.

61. Valkanova, Y. (2009) Being a rara avis: the educational experiences of Bulgarian children in schools in Great Britain. In J. Eade & Y. Valkanova (eds.), Accession and Migration: Changing Policy, and communication. In H. Spencer Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking. 48--70. London: Continuum. Vesey-Fitzgerald, B. (1973) Gypsies of Britain: An Introduction to Their History. Newton Abbott: David & Charles.

62. Zhu, H. (2010) Society and Culture in an Enlarged Europe. 101--131. Farnham (UK): Ashgate.

63. Zegarac, V. (2008) Culture Language socialisation and interculturality: address terms in intergenerational talk in Chinese diasporic families. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10, 189--205.

64. Zhu, H. (2014) Exploring Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge.

Размещено на Allbest.ru