Sometimes when I walk around Chinatown I forget that Iâm in America. (Sun, second-generation Chinese American, male)
The opening quote reflects experiences of members of a diaspora community navigating between mainstream society and their ethnic and cultural heritage community. In a diaspora setting, issues of ethnicity are potentially heightened as individuals try to negotiate their identiti(es), and allegiances, in relation to both communities. Such local acts of identity construction can further be complicated by ties to the country of origin. Together, the aforementioned factors add to the complex web of an individualâs ethnic identity. The reciprocal relationship between ethnic identity construction and linguistic practices, particularly linguistic variation, is also at play in the Chinese American diaspora community of San Francisco Chinatown1; a community in which first- and second-generation Chinese Americans draw on their linguistic repertoire to signal belonging to or distance from the mainstream Anglo-American or the Chinese American community.
San Francisco Chinatown, the oldest and one of the largest Chinese diaspora2 communities in North America, provides fertile grounds for the investigation of language and ethnic identity. Tracing its origins back to the mid-nineteenth century, todayâs Chinatown still represents an ethnic enclave, a space that allows Chinese Americans of all generations to remain in contact with Chinese culture. The neighbourhood itself is thus another factor influencing ethnic identity as well as linguistic practices.
1.1 Language Variation in Chinatown
Despite a growing body of literature on variation in speakers of Chinese ancestry, Chinese American linguistic practices are still relatively unchartered territory. Chinese Americans are perceived as culturally and linguistically highly assimilated,3 and Asian Americans, in general, have long been considered not to have their own variety of English (Wong 2010: 5). I will not try to argue here that an ethnically distinct variety of English or âethnolectâ does exist in Chinatown but want to show that specific morphosyntactic variables are a resource that is employed to index (ethnic) identity.
In traditional sociolinguistic studies on the correlation between macrosocial categories, such as ethnicity, and linguistic variation (e.g. Labov 1966; Trudgill 1972), social categories were perceived as fixed and stable. Such an essentialist approach, however, can lead to an oversimplification of âthe multivalent and multimodal nature of identities as well as the nuanced ways in which these identities are indexed and negotiated linguisticallyâ (Wong and Hall-Lew 2014: 27). To avoid this oversimplification, I took a constructivist perspective that conceptualises ethnicity and ethnic identity as being constantly (re-)negotiated in relation with all the different social groups to which an individual claims membership. In addition, I discuss how linguistic variables are used to index social meaning through stylistic practices.4
Identity is another concept that is closely intertwined with linguistic variation. Linguistic identity research aims to uncover how speakers use features to index their identity and how hearers use those features to infer information about the speakers (Joseph 2004: 24). Language functions as the mediator between individual and social identity, and linguistic features bind these two types of identities together (Tabouret-Keller 1998: 317). There is ample evidence of the strong correlation between social groups and linguistic features (e.g. Labov 1966, 1972; Lakoff 1975, 2000; Tannen 1990; Milroy 1987; Milroy and Milroy 1992), to which Joseph (2004: 38) adds that:
(1) group identities are sometimes manifested primarily through shared linguistic features, and (2) these features are not necessarily fixed in a given individual, whose knowledge of his language always includes a wide range of features (so that he can understand speakers from outside his group) which in some cases he can deploy actively, for example in the case of linguistic accommodation.
My discussion shows how Chinese Americans in San Francisco make use of such âshared linguistic featuresâ to (co-)construct their âgroup identitiesâ and membership in a diaspora setting. Drawing on original, interactive speech data5 collected in San Francisco Chinatown (see Sect. 2.â6), I illustrate how the construction of ethnic identiti(es) relates to morphosyntactic variation in English across different communicative settings and with different interlocutors. Quantitative linguistic and discursive instantiations of identity construction are then localised within the sociolinguistic constraints of different generations of Chinese Americans.
In my analysis of the interview data, I was guided by three overarching questions: (1) What role does language play for the indexing of ethnic identity in a diaspora community like San Francisco Chinatown? (2) How do Chinese Americans construct ethnic identity discursively? and (3) Do first- and second-generation speakers differ in their use of their linguistic repertoires in English (especially with regard to morphosyntactic variation)?
The variety of English spoken in the Chinatown community is likely influenced by the widely spoken heritage language, Cantonese, and by varieties of first-generation immigrantsâ learner or accented Englishes. Close contact to these varieties provides the different generations of Chinese Americans with a broad linguistic repertoire they can employ to index belonging to or distance from their ethnic background. In addition to the realisation of specific linguistic features, speakers attitudes towards the different languages used in the community interacted with their sense of belonging and identification with both the host and the heritage communities.
The second question helped uncover the potential for ethnic identity construction, both through linguistic variation vis-Ă -vis different interlocutors (in the quantitative analysis of morphosyntactic variables in in-group and out-group speech) and through open identity negotiations in discourse (in the qualitative analysis of interview and discussion data). While linguistic variation could be observed, ethnic identity seemed to play a lesser role in triggering the use of non-standard features. Rather, participants seemed to follow a traditional sociolinguistic pattern in that women used fewer and men more non-standard features. Ethnicity was a more important factor in the discursive construction of identity. For most participants, ethnic identity strongly correlated with the use of the heritage language. In the second generation, in particular, being able to speak the heritage language was an important prerequisite for identifying as Chinese American. Taking into account that many second-generation participants did not consider themselves fluent in Cantonese, this observation showed the symbolic value of the heritage language.
With an ethnographic approach to the community in mind, the third question afforded the investigation into different socio-historic and sociolinguistic realities of first- and second-generation speakers. Individual and collective experiences helped shape different linguistic repertoires and a stronger ethnic orientation that is reflected in a speakerâs use of morphosyntactic variables. Socio-historic developments were particularly relevant in the second generation, where older speakers had experienced a change in American society from anti-Chinese to more inclusive. While this aspect might not have been traceable in linguistic variation, it was an important factor in creating a sense of belonging to Chinatown; this was highlighted in many conversations I had with older participants.
Based on the above research questions, I formulated hypotheses (i)â(iii), which were tested using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies:
- (i)First-generation speakers show higher ethnic identity indices compared to the second generation. Within the second generation, older speakers have higher indices.
- (ii)First-generation speakers show higher frequencies of non-standard variants and variations are less affected by social variables.
- (iii)While both older and younger second-generation speakers show morphosyntactic variation, interlocutor effect and positive ethnic orientation will be stronger for older second-generation speakers.
1.2 Some Considerations on Language and Ethnic Identity
Linguistic variation in a diaspora setting like San Francisco Chinatown can be influenced by and interact with a number of different factors. To discuss linguistic practices in the Chinese American community, I drew specifically on the notions of ethnicity, identity, and transnationalism. As Chinatown is the result of migration, the presence or absence of ties to the country of origin can affect language choice and impact an individualâs ethnic orientation in various ways. The aforementioned concepts become salient in the construction and negotiation of (ethnic) identity and are likely reflected in an individualâs linguistic choices. In addition to these broader notions, peopleâs connection to their own, as well as the mainstream social group, can interact with ethnic identity and language variation. By drawing on specific linguistic strategies (see Sect. 4.â1), individuals can index belonging to or distance from the different social groups that constitute their social environment.
Considering that Chinat...