AILA Review - Volume 37, Issue 1, 2024

In contemplating multilingualism and mobility in the 21st century, several dimensions warrant attention in the emerging field of migration linguistics. First is the move beyond migration to thinking about mobilities, in particular, the new mobilities paradigm in the social sciences which views human mobility as entailing a complex assemblage of movement, social imaginaries, and experience. Second, a study of the different waves of migration in a particular society, as well as concomitant and official language policies – using Singapore as a case in point – distinguishes the layers of, on the one hand, the older, and thus established migrants, versus newer migrants, in particular, transient populations of foreign workers, and, crucially, the differential statuses that these communities and their languages hold in society – including a potential invisibility of authentic multilingualisms. Such an examination allows the development of a typology of migrants in a statal narrative. Where lines are drawn is dependent on circumstance, with the periphery positioned differentially in times of celebration versus crisis, for example, in risk communication in this pandemic era. This holds significant implications for access and appropriation, and consequent (im)mobilities, and, in the bigger picture, for the crucial intersections – including how society is responding to the role of indigenous languages for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. This is particularly timely for this International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022–2032), noted to not be addressing the interactions between language and migration, as well as the challenge of migrant intergration, recognised as a central and important driver of sustainable development.

In this paper, I examine the changing currency of languages in the context of migration and mobility based on case studies of Filipino migrants in Australia. Drawing on two sociolinguistic studies conducted with and for Filipino migrants, I highlight how the “monolingual mindset” (Clyne, 2008) reinforced by the “White-English complex” (Piller, Torsh, & Smith-Khan, 2023) negatively impact on the value and currency of Philippine languages. As an alternative, I offer the concept multilingual mindset as an inclusive framework for valuing multilingual migrants in the diaspora.

I first introduce the linguistic ecology and national language policies of both the Philippines and Australia to set the scene for my argument. I then map out the migration trends in both countries and the simultaneous socio-political events that have driven the growth of Filipino migration in Australia and introduce the two sociolinguistic studies with and for (Blackledge, 2006; Tetteh, 2015) Filipino migrants. This is followed by the presentation and critical discussion of three key conceptual arguments of this paper derived from these studies. Employing the “monolingual mindset” (Clyne, 2008) and “White-English complex” (Piller et al., 2023) as lenses, I then critically discuss how these concepts are detrimental to heritage language maintenance and inclusive multilingualism and argue that the maintenance of migrant languages in the diaspora would best be facilitated by an adoption of a multilingual mindset. The paper concludes with a discussion on the significance of the multilingual mindset to sociolinguistic studies and migration linguistics (Borlongan, 2023), in general, and to language attitudes, language practices, and language policies across different sectors, in particular.

Forms of immobility both limit unqualified human agency and enable diverse channels of mobility. In this sense, mobility and immobility work together. Certain philosophical movements such as Southern theories and disability studies treat constraints, sedentariness, and boundaries as needing to be respected and accommodated in any inquiry. This article draws from these schools to theorize disruptions and constraints as resources in the circulation of languages, texts, and meanings. To index this generative role of constraints in communication, I adopt the term “crip” from theorizations in disability studies. “Crip” invokes the paradoxical reality that while being crippled poses disruptions in mobility, this rupture also generates new knowledge and possibilities into the flow of life (McRuer, 2006). This article explains how crip translingualism would treat ruptures, constraints, and boundaries as resourceful for meaning making. This is a corrective to certain previous theorizations that have treated translingualism as based on unrestricted flows and fluidities, influenced by dominant orientations to mobility. I illustrate from a classroom literacy interaction where the ruptures posed by the heritage languages of multilingual students motivated everyone to adopt creative strategies to expand the meaning of “meaning,” redefine literacy as negotiated, and develop ethical dispositions to collaborate in communicating across language boundaries. I argue that the incomprehensions and vulnerabilities created by language diversity actually motivate everyone to develop strategies to creatively read and write. In this manner, constraints don’t stifle the text or students, but mobilize new flows of meanings and interactions.

While language is clearly an important aspect of (labor) migration, there have not been many contemplations and interrogations, although truly compelling and necessary, on language varieties and their place and position in labor migration and transnational work in the contemporary world, and hence why we intend to do so in this article. In our paradigmatic analysis of language varieties in the context of labor mobilities, we shall take the case of the varieties of English arising from the global spread of the language worldwide as our focal point. The world Englishes paradigm thus greatly informs and substantiates our discussion so we shall first give the principles of this paradigm shift in linguistics begun by Braj Kachru. We subsequently connect world Englishes theorizing to labor migration practices. We shall argue that language is not only integral to the work being done by migrants, but is actually the work in itself. A consequence of this is that there are language varieties and Englishes which fit the work to be done more than others, and, therefore, these varieties and Englishes are becoming commodified as well in labor migration. We shall also take a look at the structural ramifications of labor migration on Englishes, how these new varieties are restructured further as they move from one place to another along with labor migrants. As it will become apparent, our discussion covers the situation of labor migrants in precarity more than the hyper-mobile elites often privileged in migratory contexts. Ultimately, we shall synthesize issues relating to language varieties in the context of transnational work and propose strategies in dealing not only with multilingual but also language-varietal diversity in (labor) migrations and mobilities.

This study looks at how migrants’ accents are portrayed, labelled, and constructed in media discourse, investigating media coverage of migrants’ accents in the Australian press from 2007 to 2017, a period highlighted by changes in Australian citizenship policies and public discourse. While language has been extensively discussed in policy discourse, there has been a notable dearth of research on the coexistence of dialects and accents within official languages as portrayed in media platforms. Using a corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis of 2,657,016 words from Australian newspaper articles, the study applies raciolinguistic ideologies to show how the press justifies and legitimizes migrant accent-related issues. The results suggest that speakers of Inner Circle English variants are positioned differently from non-white/Outer and Expanding Circle speakers. Speakers of the Inner Circle were far more likely than other speakers to have their accents described as ‘broad’ or ‘thick’, and they were more likely to have the national variation they spoke specifically named. Others, in contrast, regularly described racialized speakers as simply having a ‘foreign’ accent, and many of them frequently claimed trying to ‘change’ their accent or ‘fake’ an Australian accent in an effort to gain access to employment and broader social acceptance. These results emphasize the subtle and not-so-subtle ways that non-white migrant speakers are positioned as incompetent speakers and demonstrate how raciolinguistic ideologies, linguistic racism, and accent laboring concerns are widespread in Australian society. These findings highlight the significance of corpus approaches for studying language related issues and provide insight into accent biases produced by the media in Australian society.

In this article, we discuss the significance of English in the internationalization of higher education and international student mobility, using Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles Model of World English. As education is one of the major forms of migration (Liu-Farrer, 2022; Borlongan, 2023) in the so-called ‘age of migration’ (cf. de Haas, Castles, & Miller, 2020), more and more students are motivated to study abroad to complete their tertiary education. First, we discuss motivating factors both for the internationalization of higher education and international student mobility. Second, we point out how English has been playing a very central role in the internationalization of higher education institutions and international student mobility (Philipson, 2010; Jenkins, 2017) among these factors. Then, we present the dynamics of international student mobility by looking at their global flow, English-medium programs, and English language proficiency requirements. While Inner Circle countries are still the most attractive destinations for most international students, Expanding Circle countries, where English is not an institutionalized medium of instruction in higher education, also value English by expanding English-medium degree programs and requiring English proficiency test scores to admission. Finally, we end the article by reiterating the dominance and utility of English in the internationalization of higher education and international student mobility and its stable position as the language of educational migration.

In an era where migration across borders is increasingly the norm, how are our understandings of language and the ways we talk about language being reimagined along the way? This article examines this question by attending to the shifting metadiscourses of “Chinglish,” a colloquialism referring to Chinese-English hybridizations. Chinglish, originally used to describe an incompetent interlanguage, has come to be invoked as a means of establishing “China English” as a legitimate world English variety, or more recently even as an innovative form of translingual practice. This article presents Chinglish as a form of “border languaging,” which enables us to take stock of the shifting meanings of Chinglish in relation to the linguistic “border” between English and Chinese upon which such metadiscursive framings hinge, and how the shifting orientations to such linguistic borders invite new ways of conceptualizing Chinglish and historically marginalized language practices more generally.

Recent studies on language and migration have attempted to address the social injustices stemming from global disparities in wealth and opportunities. However, there’s a risk of researchers unintentionally reinforcing traditional power dynamics, positioning themselves in power while reducing participants to mere data sources. Focusing on migrants in precarious living conditions, whose migration is often a consequence of political and economic upheaval in the origin, this paper interrogates the role of researchers and the researched with respect to social justice perspectives. We argue that conducting research on, for, and with such vulnerable migrant populations requires a reflexive understanding of our own positions and decisions throughout our engagement with participants. We propose that this approach is most effectively executed if we treat participants as equal partners in knowledge generation and social action, guided by principles of care, empathy, and unconventional methodologies. Through this, we hope to advocate for migration linguistics that is truly fair, just, and empowering among migrants.