Background to the research

2.1 Bangladeshis and Chinese in the UK

According to the UK Census (2001), the number of people in Great Britain who came from a minority (non-white) ethnic group grew by 53% in the last decade of the twentieth century, reaching 4.6 million in 2001. The number of people of non-European origin at the beginning of the twenty-first century comprised about 9% of the working-age population of England (Dustmann et al. 2003), over 38% of the population of inner-city London, and a much higher proportion in some neighborhoods (Office of National Statistics 2002). Over half of the non-European migrants in the UK population have come from South and East Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Hong Kong). Census figures show Bangladeshis and Hong Kong origin Chinese making up 6.1% and 5.3%

respectively, of the non-white population of Britain (UK Census 2001).

Bangladeshis originally came to Britain as Bengali-lascars for the East India Company and later, in the 1960s, to work in the mills of West Yorkshire and Lancashire, and in engineering in the Midlands (Eade 1997). The majority of Bangladeshis in the UK today are of Muslim origin from the region of Sylhet, a rural part of northeastern Bangladesh (Eade 1990; Peach 2005). The language variety from Sylhet, referred to as Sylheti, is a vernacular variety that stands in a diglossic relationship with Bengali, the high-status, literate language of Bangladesh (Blackledge/Creese 2008; McPake/Sachdev 2008). Their common Bangladeshi background and their Muslim religious and social practices are important factors unifying Bangladeshis, as is the fact that they tend to concentrate in the same region of England, the southeast, especially London, and in London in the same neighborhoods of Camden and Tower Hamlets (UK Census 2001). According to Baker/Eversley (2000), Bengali and Sylheti constitute the second largest home languages (after English) of pupils in London’s schools, accounting for 4.5% of the population. In five London school districts, Bengali and Sylheti rank first in terms of languages (other than English) being spoken in the home, reaching a high of over 50% of pupils in the Tower Hamlets district (McPake/Sachdev 2008).

The Chinese originally settled in the late nineteenth century in several port cities of the UK, opening businesses such as laundries, restaurants, and boarding houses aimed primarily at other Chinese customers. In the 1950s and early 1960s, ex-servicemen returning to Britain after their tours-of-duty in Pakistan, India, Singapore, Malaya, Hong Kong and Korea created a clientele for Asian cuisine and helped spread its popularity. Unlike the early immigrants, most of the Chinese migrants in the period since World War II were Cantonese-speaking with Hong Kong citizenship who came to Britain voluntarily to be employed in Chinese catering. Because of the direct flights and the number of Chinese restaurants there, London proved to be the most popular destination in Britain

2 Background to the research

2.1 Bangladeshis and Chinese in the UK

According to the UK Census (2001), the number of people in Great Britain who came from a minority (non-white) ethnic group grew by 53% in the last decade of the twentieth century, reaching 4.6 million in 2001. The number of people of non-European origin at the beginning of the twenty-first century comprised about 9% of the working-age population of England (Dustmann et al. 2003), over 38% of the population of inner-city London, and a much higher proportion in some neighborhoods (Office of National Statistics 2002). Over half of the non-European migrants in the UK population have come from South and East Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Hong Kong). Census figures show Bangladeshis and Hong Kong origin Chinese making up 6.1% and 5.3%

respectively, of the non-white population of Britain (UK Census 2001).

Bangladeshis originally came to Britain as Bengali-lascars for the East India Company and later, in the 1960s, to work in the mills of West Yorkshire and Lancashire, and in engineering in the Midlands (Eade 1997). The majority of Bangladeshis in the UK today are of Muslim origin from the region of Sylhet, a rural part of northeastern Bangladesh (Eade 1990; Peach 2005). The language variety from Sylhet, referred to as Sylheti, is a vernacular variety that stands in a diglossic relationship with Bengali, the high-status, literate language of Bangladesh (Blackledge/Creese 2008; McPake/Sachdev 2008). Their common Bangladeshi background and their Muslim religious and social practices are important factors unifying Bangladeshis, as is the fact that they tend to concentrate in the same region of England, the southeast, especially London, and in London in the same neighborhoods of Camden and Tower Hamlets (UK Census 2001). According to Baker/Eversley (2000), Bengali and Sylheti constitute the second largest home languages (after English) of pupils in London’s schools, accounting for 4.5% of the population. In five London school districts, Bengali and Sylheti rank first in terms of languages (other than English) being spoken in the home, reaching a high of over 50% of pupils in the Tower Hamlets district (McPake/Sachdev 2008).

The Chinese originally settled in the late nineteenth century in several port cities of the UK, opening businesses such as laundries, restaurants, and boarding houses aimed primarily at other Chinese customers. In the 1950s and early 1960s, ex-servicemen returning to Britain after their tours-of-duty in Pakistan, India, Singapore, Malaya, Hong Kong and Korea created a clientele for Asian cuisine and helped spread its popularity. Unlike the early immigrants, most of the Chinese migrants in the period since World War II were Cantonese-speaking with Hong Kong citizenship who came to Britain voluntarily to be employed in Chinese catering. Because of the direct flights and the number of Chinese restaurants there, London proved to be the most popular destination in Britain

for Hong Kong migrants, although they did not concentrate in one area as their predecessors had (e. g., in East London). According to Owen (1994: 5), the distribution of ethnic Chinese in ten London boroughs ranged from 1.1 to 1.6%

percent of the local population, with the highest percentage being found in Westminster which encompasses Soho and Chinatown. (For more detail on the history of the Hong Kong Chinese in London, see Lau 2003: Ch. 4).

Within the UK, Bangladeshis and Chinese represent contrasting groups on a number of features. An analysis of figures from the British Labour Force Survey for the years 1979-2000 shows that Bangladeshis, along with Pakistanis, had the highest level of unemployment and the lowest English language proficien-cy level of immigrant groups in the UK, whereas Chinese and Indians did well on both of these indicators (Dustmann et al. 2003; Modood 2005). A number of sources (e. g. Dustmann et al. 2003; Eade 1997; Modood 2005; Peach 2006; UK Census 2001) confirm that the UK Bangladeshis are a group suffering from a range of problems including: reduced employment opportunities and high unem-ployment, poor quality and overcrowded housing, poor health, low literacy and English language proficiency and low educational attainment. According to an annual Local Area Labour Force Survey (Office of National Statistics 2001/2002), both Bangladeshi and Chinese men (ages 16-64) had high male economic inactivity rates – 31% for each group – though the reasons for economic inactivity in these two groups were very different. Three-quarters of economically inactive Chinese men were students compared with just under half of inactive Bangladeshi men, 40% of whom were long-term sick or disabled.

Bangladeshi women had the highest female economic inactivity rate at 78%.

The majority of these women were looking after their family or home. In terms of educational attainment, the 2001/2002 Labour Force Survey showed Bangladeshis as the least likely group to have degrees with approximately 44%

having no qualifications, whereas fewer than 20% of Chinese were without qualifications. In addition, Chinese pupils were the most likely in England in 2002 to have high GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) performance, achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C (Bhattacharyya et al.

2003). Comparing the two groups, 77% of Chinese girls and 71% of Chinese boys had high GCSE performance whereas 50% of Bangladeshi girls and 40%

of Bangladeshi boys had high GCSE performance.

Although relatively little sociolinguistic research exists on the two communities, there appear to be more studies on the London Chinese community (Lau 2001, 2003; Sachdev et al. 1991; Taylor 1987) than on the London Bangladeshi community (Lawson/Sachdev 2004). Recent research on Hong Kong born Chinese (Cantonese) adolescents in London (Lau 2001, 2003) suggests that members of this group who arrived in Britain at an early age and who socialize with friends from the majority group have a greater orientation to English and to the majority culture than those who do not. An orientation to the

majority culture, as seen in their literacy practices and aspirations for the future, coexisted in this group of Cantonese adolescents with an orientation to the home community, as seen in practices involving Cantonese food, music, films, and social networks (Lau 2003). Like the Chinese adolescents observed by Hall/Sham (2007) in the Northwest of England, these London Chinese adolescents play an important bilingual role in functioning as ‘language brokers’

for their families even as they go beyond this mediator role to position themselves sociolinguistically in relation to the London speech community. As evidence of this positioning, Lau (2003) reports that the majority of the Chinese adolescents, and especially the females, adopt only middle class linguistic features (e. g., they have no double negatives).

Our research (Pennington et al. 2011) added similar comparative data for second-generation adolescent members of the London Cantonese and Bangladeshi communities. We found that while both groups are adopting features of the London vernacular, they did not show the same pattern of adoption of the forms and functions of London English. Both groups had a similar pattern of adoption of the ‘urban-cool’ discourse marker ‘innit’ and of non-adoption of the white-stereotyped glottal variant of /t/, contrasted with distinctive usage of three other variables. The Bangladeshis had high occurrence of the non-standard feature of negative concord (double negative) coupled with low usage of high rising intonation in declaratives (HRT) and of be like used in quotative function, whereas the Chinese have low occurrence of negative concord, high occurrence of HRT, and moderate occurrence of be like in quotative function. This differing pattern of adoption of features of London English suggests that the Chinese are locating themselves through their linguistic performance more squarely in the middle class than are the Bangladeshis, who would appear to be positioning themselves by their linguistic usage more in alignment with the working class.

2.2 Language and Identity

Sociolinguistic and social psychological evidence shows that language choice is not merely concerned with communication efficiency or maintenance of the status quo. It is a central aspect of social and ethnic identity (Sachdev/Bourhis 2001, 2005; Giles et al. 1977; Sachdev/Giles 2004; Le Page/Tabouret-Keller 1985; Taylor/Moghaddam 1994), and it often aims to challenge the status quo (Blackledge/Creese 2008). In communities where the home language is different from that of the school and the larger society, the two languages will often be associated with different practical uses and symbolic values (Fishman 1980).

Language serves as

a referent for loyalties and animosities, an indicator of social status and personal relationships, a marker of situations and topics as well as of the societal goals and the

majority culture, as seen in their literacy practices and aspirations for the future, coexisted in this group of Cantonese adolescents with an orientation to the home community, as seen in practices involving Cantonese food, music, films, and social networks (Lau 2003). Like the Chinese adolescents observed by Hall/Sham (2007) in the Northwest of England, these London Chinese adolescents play an important bilingual role in functioning as ‘language brokers’

for their families even as they go beyond this mediator role to position themselves sociolinguistically in relation to the London speech community. As evidence of this positioning, Lau (2003) reports that the majority of the Chinese adolescents, and especially the females, adopt only middle class linguistic features (e. g., they have no double negatives).

Our research (Pennington et al. 2011) added similar comparative data for second-generation adolescent members of the London Cantonese and Bangladeshi communities. We found that while both groups are adopting features of the London vernacular, they did not show the same pattern of adoption of the forms and functions of London English. Both groups had a similar pattern of adoption of the ‘urban-cool’ discourse marker ‘innit’ and of non-adoption of the white-stereotyped glottal variant of /t/, contrasted with distinctive usage of three other variables. The Bangladeshis had high occurrence of the non-standard feature of negative concord (double negative) coupled with low usage of high rising intonation in declaratives (HRT) and of be like used in quotative function, whereas the Chinese have low occurrence of negative concord, high occurrence of HRT, and moderate occurrence of be like in quotative function. This differing pattern of adoption of features of London English suggests that the Chinese are locating themselves through their linguistic performance more squarely in the middle class than are the Bangladeshis, who would appear to be positioning themselves by their linguistic usage more in alignment with the working class.

2.2 Language and Identity

Sociolinguistic and social psychological evidence shows that language choice is not merely concerned with communication efficiency or maintenance of the status quo. It is a central aspect of social and ethnic identity (Sachdev/Bourhis 2001, 2005; Giles et al. 1977; Sachdev/Giles 2004; Le Page/Tabouret-Keller 1985; Taylor/Moghaddam 1994), and it often aims to challenge the status quo (Blackledge/Creese 2008). In communities where the home language is different from that of the school and the larger society, the two languages will often be associated with different practical uses and symbolic values (Fishman 1980).

Language serves as

a referent for loyalties and animosities, an indicator of social status and personal relationships, a marker of situations and topics as well as of the societal goals and the

large-scale value-laden arenas of the interaction that typify every speech community (Fishman 1972: 4).

The mother tongue is generally associated in attitudes research with the values of tradition, community, solidarity, home, and family, whereas the language of the larger society is generally associated with the values of innovation or modernity, ‘conspicuous consumption’ and economic success, and academic achievement (Pennington 1994, 1995). By the second generation, an ethnic or minority group may “show a commitment to the enduring symbolic function of [the mother tongue] but not necessarily to its communicative function”

(McNamara 1987: 226) [italics in original]. Thus,

they may show their affiliation to the mother tongue in terms of attitudes and affect but not in terms of actual usage. Thus, it may be that each succeeding generation of immigrants identifies with their ethnic language on an increasingly abstract level and less and less in terms of any concrete behaviors. There is always the chance in ethnic minority groups, however, of a social revival of mother tongue use, though without any definite societal function, the majority language will generally predominate.

(Patri/Pennington 1998: 344)

Previous studies of Chinese and Indians in Hong Kong (Axler et. al. 1998;

Patri/Pennington 1998; Pennington/Yue 1994; Pierson et al. 1980) have revealed a pattern of attitudes to English and their heritage languages that appears to re-present “both an affirmation of their ethnic identity and a form of societal accommodation or communal identity” (Patri/Pennington 1998). In a study of Indians in Britain, Punetha et al. (1987: 230) found that these Asians “attempt to maintain their cultural values and traditions and to transmit them to succeeding generations.” A recent study of Bangladeshis attending ‘complementary’

Bangladeshi schools in Birmingham, UK, found that these young people creatively used and evolved their own relationships to Bengali and Sylheti in ways that positioned them in opposition to traditional ‘heritage’ views of those languages:

The young people’s attitudes to their languages, and their multilingual practices, constituted a sophisticated response to their place in the world, as they negotiated subject positions which took them on a path through language ideological worlds constructed by others. The young people were flexible and adaptable in response to their environment, as they negotiated identities which were more complex and sophisticated than the ‘heritage’ positions ascribed to them institutionally.

(Blackledge/Creese 2008: 552)

3 Methodology