Transnational women of Indo-Mauritian origins and their experiences with colonial and heritage languages

ABSTRACT

Mauritius was colonised by both French and British leaving colonial languages (French and English), Kreol as the spoken language, and other heritage languages. As two transnational women of Indo-Mauritian origin, now living in Australia, we share our experiences and challenges with colonial and heritage languages (Hindi and Bhojpuri). We use Collaborative Autoethnography (CAE) to offer a ‘multi-subjective’ stance to our narratives. We draw upon our experience with the learning, use, and maintenance of languages – from our familial upbringing and education and the challenges we face with languages through our migration experiences. We discuss languages as a means of ‘empowerment,’ but also as an experience of ‘resistance’ to language ideologies and hegemony. We use the postcolonial theory of ‘resistance’ to support our discussion of an imposed hierarchy and legacy of colonial languages and the complicity we experience in using English as a dominant language within our transnational living.

KEYWORDS:

• Indo-Mauritian diaspora
• colonial and heritage languages
• migration and transnationality
• language hegemony
• postcolonial theory of resistance
• collaborative autoethnography (CAE)

Introduction

Post-colonial¹ influences reflect both continuity and persistence of colonial practices – from past to current practices in postcolonial² nations (Chowdhry and Nair 2002). French and British colonisation left two colonial languages (French and English) to dominate the ideology and dynamics of languages in Mauritius (Eriksen 1990; Sambajee 2016). The historicity of colonial and heritage³ languages of diverse ethnic, cultural, and diasporic communities defines the multicultural society in Mauritius (an Island state with diasporic communities from an Indian indentureship ancestry – including diverse ethnicities coming from different provinces) (Miles 2000). Language-ethnicity complexities are at the centre of a decline and erasure of heritage languages (Hindi, Bhojpuri, Urdu, Tamil, Telegu, Marathi) (Bissoonauth 2011). Research in general suggests the challenges in the maintenance and intergenerational transmission of heritage languages (Borland 2006; Campbell and Christian 2003; Valdes 2017). Additionally, with a large number of Mauritians migrating abroad (Bissoonauth 2011) heritage languages are on the brink of disappearance as it is harder to engage and use them in host countries. Different studies (Connell 2018; Narayan and Smyth 2006; Oonk 2007) explore migrants’ diasporic linguistic resources, and the politics and implications of languages to belonging to ethnic identity, and cultural integration. Other studies (Hirsch and Lee 2018; Krawatzek and Sasse 2020; Panicacci 2021; Panicacci and Dewaele 2017; Pavlenko 2002) focus on the complexities of language switching and its maintenance. Fewer studies, however, discuss the language-ethnicity-diasporic heritage links (Adserà and Pytliková 2016; Bourhis 2001) and its implications with intergenerational transmissions and risks of erasures. Migration studies broadly address transnational’s challenges with language switching (Auckle and Barnes 2011; Dailey-O'cain and Liebscher 2011; Duff 2015). There is less emphasis on the imposition of colonial languages and in particular English as a dominant language in transnational contexts and how migrants are challenged in the use, maintenance, and transmission of languages.

We are two transnational women with Indian diasporic heritage, who migrated to Australia more than a decade ago. We both have an ancestry of indentureship from India (Kothari 2013) and our ancestors came from North Eastern provinces. In this paper, we provide a bifocal lens of our narratives in querying the dynamics of languages from our upbringing, education, and migration. We use Collaborative Autoethnography (CAE) (Chang, Ngunjiri, and Hernandez 2013) as a methodology to bring multi-subjective stances in drawing upon the similarities and differences in our experiences. Our narratives discuss how we both learned and used colonial and heritage languages in different ways from our upbringing and education. Colonial languages (French and English) afforded us privilege in accessing and advancing our higher education and academic careers. Our skilled migration to Australia was voluntary, and in our narratives, we focus on the different challenges we face with languages – for communication and social interaction with family and others. We refer to the switching of languages (English/French/Kreol) within different contexts (work, socialites, and home); the use of French within selective social interactions; and the challenges with intergenerational transmission of languages (French and heritage languages). We reflect upon the imposition of colonial languages (French and English) within the home country and the use of English as the dominant language in Australia. Drawing upon the similarities and differences within our experiences, we both find languages affording us ‘empowerment,’ and also ‘resistance’ to language ideologies and hegemony. Living and working in Australia, we equally find complicity in using English as a dominant language. To support our discussion on the non-binary thoughts of ‘empowerment,’ ‘resistance’ and complicity with languages, we borrow upon Bhabha's (1994) work on ‘the postcolonial theory of resistance’ and others (Ahluwalia 2012; Jefferess 2008; Kuortti 2007; Pal and Dutta 2008; Shumar 2010; Young 2004).

We conclude on the use of autoethnographic narratives adding to a research field needing more work in identifying the value and struggle of the imposed hierarchy of colonial and dominant languages that affect migrants’ identification with cultural affiliation, belonging, and identities. We also hope this paper emphasises how our experiences might resonate with other transnationals facing language impositions and conditioning while it affects their social interactions and identities.

Literature review

Language dynamics in Mauritius

Postcolonial nations bearing the history of African slaves and Indian indentureship now reside as multi-ethnic with several languages (heritage, native and dominant languages) (Hassankhan, Roopnarine, and Mahase 2016; Zsiga, Boyer, and Kramer 2015). Mauritius has a history of both French and British colonies (1810 to 1968) with a postcolonial legacy of two dominant languages. English replaced French as the language of administration, jurisdiction, and education, but French is still used for daily interactions (Stein 1997). During French rule, slaves were brought from Africa and Asia, and the Mauritian Kreol emerged from a dominantly French-based language (Baker 1972). After the abolition of slavery in 1835, other ethnic languages were introduced in Mauritius with Indian indenture immigrants introduced in 1834 from diverse provinces in India (Hindi, Bhojpuri, Urdu, Marathi, Tamil, Telegu, and Chinese migrants as traders (with Cantonese and Hakka). Under the colonisation period, the Capitulation Act allowed ethnic groups to use their heritage languages (Miles 2000). A population census in 2011 indicated existing ethnic groups as – Hindus (52%) and Muslims (17%) and other sub-groups (29%) including Mullatos (people from mixed black and white ancestry), Franco, and Afro-Mauritians, and Sino-Mauritians (2%) (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development 2011). Each group had one language or more language use (Rajah-Carrim 2005), however, Kreol has broadly replaced heritage languages and is now claimed as the lingua franca (Stein 1997) and is the spoken language by all ethnic groups, although considered inferior by its populace use (Rajah-Carrim 2005). Ancestral and ethnic languages often index ethnic identity but also the divide and friction among the population (Ambarin Mooznah Auleear 2011; Bissoonauth 2011; Eriksen 1990).

Local and heritage languages co-exist with English and French, which remain the main languages of instruction. English is considered the official language although most Mauritians do not use it in their daily life. Ethnic/heritage languages also coined as ancestral languages are often spoken with a mixed vocabulary of Kreol. Census figures show a decline in Bhojpuri (from 12% to 5%) and increased use of Kreol (70% to 80%) (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development 2011). After long political lobbying, Kreol was recognised as the official orthography (Carpooran 2011) and is now taught in schools. Ancestral languages are in decline as young people mainly use Kreol at home and English within an education system that imposes ‘anglicizing pressures’ (Edwards 2012, 15) although favourable educational policies are being introduced to maintain them. On another note, heritage languages are considered ‘not useful’ and ‘cumbersome’ from an educational curriculum perspective (Bissoonauth 2011, 421; Dahl 2015). Language use at home varies depending on interlocutors and the communicative circumstances (Bissoonauth 2018) and Kreol used as the daily language lessens the switching of languages (Bissoonauth 2011). Switching languages involves moving back and forth between at least two languages or more (Dewaele and Nakano 2013). People switch between languages depending on the place, context, and situation. In the Mauritian context, it is not uncommon to speak a heritage language at home – grandparents communicate with children, and parents and siblings switch between Kreol and French. Similarly, the switching of languages happens in public spaces (French and Kreol) and religious and family celebrations (Kreol and Ethnic languages). Language switching has implications for the construction of both social and linguistic identities (Anchimbe 2011). Families with high social status and education levels use more French and English at home with their children and socialites and this asserts their identities (Rajah-Carrim 2005). Even with a changing pattern of language use and lack of fluency in ancestral languages, these remain as cultural icons and ethnic markers (Rajah-Carrim 2005) in affording symbolic meanings for group identity and self-esteem.

Migration and Mauritian diasporas abroad

Mauritius is constituted of diverse diasporic and cultural origins from its colonial history. There is equally a large diasporic community who have migrated and settled in other countries (approximately 14.8% of the Mauritian population live transnationally mainly in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, and Australia). There has been a major increase in migration trends to the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia between 2005 to 2019 (with the number of Mauritians who migrated to Australia growing from 20,300 in 2005 to 31,400 in 2019) (International Organization for Migration (IOM) 2021). There are over 100 Mauritian diaspora organisations and networks reported globally, who engage through informal networks on social media, however, there is limited detailed migration data on Mauritian migrants (International Organization for Migration (IOM) 2022). Mauritian diasporas have established sustained connections and shared stories of belonging, impact, and opportunity. There is equally a strong culture for home return visits and financial support provided to their families. Research also has a minimal reference to how Mauritian migrants use and maintain languages as transnationals (Bourhis 2001) and to implications for their agency and identification (Leclézio, Louw-Potgieter, and Souchon 1986; Lord 2007).

Migration, transnationality, and languages

Transnationalism is defined as a process ‘by which immigrants forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement’ (Basch, Schiller, and Blanc 2005, 6). Migration entails different and more challenging ways in which languages become an intrinsic part of reconstructing; positioning, belonging, and identity for migrants. Most migrants have to acculturate or learn a new language (Dailey-O'cain and Liebscher 2011) which often makes it challenging to negotiate the powerful political symbolism as indexed by a dominant language such as English. There are also emotional links surrounding concepts of migrants’ use and maintenance of heritage languages (Dailey-O'cain and Liebscher 2011) – often indexing their cultural belonging and ethnic identities (Panicacci 2019). With challenging experiences with loss or switching of languages, migrants struggle in building a sense of empowerment – often resulting in alienation and hybridity in negotiating, transforming, and making changes to their identity (Kuortti 2007; Panicacci and Dewaele 2017). There is a complex process of making choices and using and maintaining languages – as migrants are challenged between binaries of belonging and identity (place of origin/settlement). The intersections and interdependence of migrants’ identity, culture, and linguistic belonging (Duff 2015) are highlighted by border crossings of cultural, ideological, and also linguistic boundaries (Vertovec 2004; 2009).

Different studies discuss the use and maintenance of Heritage languages among migrant communities (Escudero et al. 2023; Krawatzek and Sasse 2020; Nesteruk 2010; Park and Sarkar 2007; Sevinc 2016; Zhang and Slaughter-Defoe 2009). Issues reported draw upon parental efforts and attitudes to transmit heritage languages. Other factors in an individual affect engagement with heritage languages and these include age, gender, place of birth, education, marriage patterns, prior knowledge of the language, the motives behind migration, and the length of residency in the host country. At a group level, social networking with ethnic groups and proximity affects social interaction (Nesteruk 2010). The language policy in host countries within wider politics impacts migrants in becoming English-dominant or monolingual in the long run (Kayaalp 2016). The ideology of global English affords privilege and benefits to migrants who manage the language, but there is also a ‘monolingual cringe’ (de Bres and Lovrits 2021) for other migrants who struggle with it. Language hegemony regulates migrants’ lives in host countries where often there is a need for a review of policies to address racial discrimination and inclusiveness to create culturally responsive and positive environments (Kayaalp 2016).

Theoretical lens

Postcolonial theory – conceptualisation of resistance and empowerment

Ex-colonies and the experiences of postcolonial subjects have been researched from broader fields to explore the influences of the Empire from historical and current processes (Patke 2006; Howe 2020). Prakash (1996, 201) explains post-colonialism as ‘a response to a strategic situation of contemporary globalisation and differentiation.’ Post-colonial critiques draw upon the term more as an ‘attempt to rethink, transform, relocate or reclaim’ uncertainties produced by the Empire – more with nations, capital, race, and globalisation (Prakash 1996, 201). Hall (1996) points out post-colonial discourses as helpful in identifying new relations and dispositions of power emerging from such conjectures. Kundu and Nayar (2010) assert that the linguistic legacy of colonialism continues in most independent postcolonial nations. ‘Postcolonial linguistic voices’ are outlet ‘voices’ which are carriers of expression, indicators for representations, and channels for choices for communication (Anchimbe 2011, 3). Ex-colonies use dominant languages, often at the expense of native and heritage languages, yet offer a multi-linguistic legacy to postcolonial subjects intergenerationally (Hassankhan, Roopnarine, and Mahase 2016).

Postcolonial theory has been employed within different research avenues, as a means to challenge the discourses and practices of colonialism and imperialism regardless of time, space, and context (Chibber and Seth 2015). In this paper, we use the postcolonial theory of resistance to analyse the asymmetrical knowledge and power dynamics with languages, which inform our resistance to language ideologies and hegemony. ‘Resistance’ is a term used in postcolonial criticism and theory and is informed by non-binary and non-Western thoughts (Ahluwalia 2012; Bhabha 1994; Jefferess 2008; Nandy 1988; Young 2004) and has subtle implications of power, and imposed hierarchy on postcolonial subjects’ and their experiences with hybrid identities. ‘The concept of ‘resistance’ is examined within post-colonial studies (Ahluwalia 2012; Jefferess 2008; Shahjahan 2014; Shumar 2010) and it also fits discourses around the influences of language use and cultural relationships and oppositions (Ashcroft 2001). We borrow on Bhabha's (1994) postcolonial theory of ‘resistance,’ to support our discussion in conceptualising the influences of colonial continuity and the imposition of knowledge and power and how it informs our idea of ‘resistance’ as transnationals. In particular, we discuss the idea of resistance from ‘language ideologies’ – as we experience subversion and power of the dominant language (English) (Blackledge 2000) and ‘language hegemony’ (Kayaalp 2016) from the power and knowledge relationships which affects our personal and professional lives and identities.

Methodology

Collaborative autoethnography (CAE)

Collaborative autoethnography (CAE) engages researchers to collectively examine their autobiographical narratives in understanding a sociocultural phenomenon (Chang, Ngunjiri, and Hernandez 2013). Our narratives are autoethnographic and take a bifocal lens of personal experiences (Chang 2016). A collaborative approach helped us to understand and map the conditioning phenomena of colonial languages and analyse the historical social and cultural contexts and other complexities with the use and maintenance of heritage languages and English as a dominant language. We situate our approach within a critical and reflexive paradigm as we examine the complex systems of beliefs and practices around languages (Hernandez-Carranza, Carranza, and Grigg 2021). We highlight the strengths of self-reflexivity and reciprocity from our collaborative work in providing a critical vantage point in drawing upon the personal and the commonalities we found within our experiences (Hernandez-Carranza, Carranza, and Grigg 2021). We attempt to discuss our perceptions from ‘cultural interpretation within ethnography and multi-subjectivity with collaboration’ (Chang, Ngunjiri, and Hernandez 2013, 17). Although our narratives have similar Indian indenture ancestry, we find differences in our use and interaction with languages as our familial upbringing, education, and socialites have different perspectives. Speaking from distinct ‘voices’ we find ourselves vulnerable, however, a multivocal dimension surrounds our resistance, empowerment, and challenges with hybrid identities (Choi 2017) and language hegemony. CAE enabled us to consider collectively and bring further understanding (Banerjea 2015) on salient and critical discourses around migration, transnationality, mobility and postcolonial theories while offering greater relevance in seeking to know ‘ourselves’ and many others we are part of our lives (Starfield 2019).

Author 1 narrative

Languages and education

Mauritian Kreol is a native language I grew up in a middle-class working family. My parents made significant sacrifices to educate three children. Being a fifth-generation Indo-Mauritian, I consider myself a twice-diasporic (Chamberlain 2009) now living and working in Melbourne Australia for more than a decade. I feel bonded to a rich cultural and linguistic heritage from ancestry having Hindi and Bhojpuri as ethnic and ‘heritage languages’ (Calabrese, Calabrese, and Chambers 2015, 41) from my great-grandparents as indentured labourers who were from Bihar, India, and who came to Mauritius in the late 1850s (Belford 2022). Although my grandparents and parents used ancestral languages (Hindi and Bhojpuri), I have learned Bhojpuri (an Indic language that has high lexical similarity with Hindi but with sharp grammatical differences) (Mohan 1990) more from a consistent pattern of simplification and loss (Polinsky 2015) – that is a partial acquisition of this oral language (Rajah-Carrim 2005) from informal learning. I would reply in Kreol when my grandmother would speak in Bhojpuri to me. I learned Hindi (which has a higher status in Mauritius than Bhojpuri) through my formal education, and I feel more comfortable using it. As part of my linguistic resource, heritage languages bring a sense of belonging and rootedness to ancestry. Within my primary years of schooling, teachers would often communicate in Kreol to ensure students understood learning instructions across most subjects. I am confident in English and French which have been dominant languages structuring my education in an English-medium elitist public school. I completed a Bachelor’s degree in Mauritius and part of my higher education (Masters and PhD degrees) in Australia. Being brought up and educated within an ex-colony following neo-colonialist beliefs and system, I found lesser avenues to education and career prospects in my home country which relies mainly on acceptance of developmental aids and support from imperial powers, therefore I decided to migrate to Australia.

I have reflected on my educational and migration experiences previously (Belford and Lahiri-Roy 2018; Lahiri-Roy and Belford 2021a). In these papers, I bridge further an understanding of being multilingual in switching between languages with English and Kreol, and I discuss the complexities of heritage and ancestral languages (French, Hindi, and Bhojpuri) with migration. I discuss the intricacies of switching languages and communicating using switching between these languages. I also query how the dominant language (English) is part of my daily ‘transversality’ (Wise 2009) – from the workplace and interaction with socialites. Currently working in teacher education and academia, I use English proficiently. I feel my education is a privilege and empowerment toward career progression and social mobility (Lahiri-Roy and Belford 2021b). With a prevailing monolingual ideology in the host country (Blackledge 2000), I fear the loss of my heritage languages. Since I hardly use these languages in speech and writing, I feel that I am slowly losing the ability to use and maintain them. Additionally, I can see how these languages could potentially disappear from a limited use intergenerationally (Mutsaers and Swanenberg 2012). Within my daily experiences, I switch between English and Kreol to mainly converse with my 6-year-old daughter, a 2nd generation Australian born with Anglo-German heritage. Being schooled in Australia, she mostly chooses to speak English, however, I try to use Kreol with her at home and English in familial gatherings and public spaces. In switching languages, the language alternation evolves from the foci of our conversations (Auckle and Barnes 2011) where our voice tone and facial expressions might differ confirming the ‘cultural frame switching’ phenomenon (Dewaele 2016, 94). My sons were born and completed their primary years of schooling in Mauritius and they both formally learned French and English as well as Hindi. I normally talk in Kreol with them and sometimes switch between Kreol, French, and English. I feel being a different person while using and switching between these languages (Koven 2007). As our family grows interracially and interculturally (my partner being an Anglo-Saxon Australian and my son’s partner being 2nd generation born Australian with Italian heritage) – the use of a monolingual language (English) is the norm for communication. My children’s friends circle is from an Australian background, and second-generation migrant children with diverse ethnicities (including Italian, Sri Lankan, Malaysian heritages, and more …) who mostly speak English. As interactionally framed practice (Blommaert, Collins, and Slembrouck 2005) switching languages is part of our lives and it sometimes incurs personality changes when we use a particular language (Dewaele and Nakano 2013) and refer to cultural affinities.

Panicacci and Dewaele (2018) discuss how people feel different especially when talking about emotional matters in different languages. For instance, when interacting with Hindi, I perceive more colourful, rich, poetic, and emotional experiences in using that language. It makes a strong connection to my Indian ancestral roots, heritage, learning, and cultural identity (Altugan 2015). It also links to my childhood memories of stories recounted by my grandmother, my family's religious rituals and festivals, and my liking for Hindi movies, songs, and ‘ghazals’. Part of my cultural identity is linked to how I nurture such experiences with heritage and ancestral languages, as associated with values and cultural knowledge in defining who I am. I try to catch up with French by watching news and movies mainly with those who know French (family and homeland friends), or in my own time to sustain my connection with the French language. Back home, I often used French to communicate with others in the workspace and public sphere, such as banks, and with my students and friends who were comfortable using this language. I also catch up with the annual French film festival in Melbourne and the occasional concerts by Indian artists along with those interested in such events including non-French and Hindi speakers (family and friends). I feel a sense of reassurance that my young daughter is learning French in a language school in Melbourne. Helping her to learn French provides me with opportunities to converse in French with her. Even though this school also offers Hindi, I opted for my daughter to learn French and this option states how I have strengthened my ties with the coloniser (Lahiri-Roy and Belford 2021b) as an attempt to reclaim my cultural identity from them (Gandhi 1998). I would use Hindi with my daughter when we recite prayers at home or a few words in Hindi to explain events and words when we watch a Hindi movie. The frequency of using heritage and ancestral languages is important for perceived usefulness, richness, and sense of self in my life. I however sometimes deviate from this pattern by being mostly monolingual within my workspace and socialites thus affecting the way I organise regimes of languages as a multilingual migrant (Blommaert, Collins, and Slembrouck 2005).

Migration and language challenges

I moved to Melbourne in 2008 and completed my PhD thesis and other conferences using English. Through my teaching in Visual Arts Education, I predominantly use English, although I am often picked up on my accent, and often I am queried about my ethnic identity – look Indian but have a French accent? – which challenges my identity, belonging, and racial identification (Albuja et al. 2019). With migration, I have no communication problems in using English, however, I felt like I was emptying a ‘space’ regarded as home. The dislodgement to some other ‘space’ now called home and experiences of settlement was emotionally daunting and draining (Lahiri-Roy and Belford 2021a), and that included shifts and changes to the use of languages as well. Migration transitions and acculturation have influenced my use and maintenance of languages both from a personal and vernacular understanding of ‘space’ and ‘place’ (Delaney 2005) and ‘scale’ (Blommaert, Collins, and Slembrouck 2005). There is a complex negotiation between different linguistic patterns used, which needs time, especially in building recognition, acceptance, and trust in a host community when differences in race, class, colour, culture, and use of languages are at play (Belford and Lahiri-Roy 2018; Lahiri-Roy and Belford 2021a). For my family, our self-esteem must not be affected when we deal with issues such as our accent and knowledge of the English language and cultural norms. I am comfortable with my children sharing similar interests as their peers (movies, music, history, and cultural values from diverse cultural backgrounds) towards their establishment of new social networks and friendships with locals (Beaven and Spencer-Oatey 2016; Benson et al. 2012).

From my new socialites from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds including Australians, Indians, Columbians, Italian, and South Korean, there is usually a common thread we share like values and interests which are significant for extending social and meaningful social relationships. I will converse mostly in English but draw upon the cultural aspects of their heritage (for example cuisines and music). My 7-year-old daughter born in Australia struggles to learn French and Hindi. Although my sons were in years 9 and 7 when we migrated to Australia, they learned French and Hindi in Mauritius and were keen to complete French at Victorian Certificate Level. This has influenced their language choices, social networking, and associations with a postcolonial linguistic heritage and identity (Vandeyar and Vandeyar 2012). Although empowered to learn French, they rarely use it as English is the dominant language at work and within their socialites. ‘Cultural learning’ affects both an academic and socio-cultural domain of our experiences as a family (new culture with barbecues, Cricket, and Footy) (Beaven and Spencer-Oatey 2016). I agree that deterritorialization with migration brings spatially organised disconnections within language practices and resources (Blommaert, Collins, and Slembrouck 2005). As part of an Indo-Mauritian diaspora, I find communicative resources to reshuffle from existing language hierarchies while it reorders language patterns (Harris, Leung, and Rampton 2001). I can hardly maintain my reading and writing skills in French and Hindi, as well as the speaking elements which are not also part of my daily linguistic repertoire – thus I feel ‘resistance’, and ‘disempowerment’ as well as ‘unlearning’ through such losses.

Author 2 narrative

Languages and education

I am the third child of a sisterhood of five and we grew up in an upper-middle-class family in Mauritius. I belong to the fifth generation of Indian indentured immigrants from both parents’ lineages. At home, my parents speak Kreol among themselves and with most relatives and friends, while my mother would occasionally speak Bhojpuri to her parents. As children, we had limited exposure to heritage languages (Hindi and Bhojpuri) which alienated us from the language and other affinities related to it (religious Hindu rituals and beliefs, Hindi movies, etc.) From the early stage of our upbringing, my father aspired for his children to pursue higher education in France owing to its highly reputed education standards and financial accessibility. With mobility in mind, my father chose to give us names that could be easily pronounced worldwide. We attended a French private school following the French national curriculum and leading to the Baccalaureate qualification. We learned every subject in French, except English classes introduced at primary school as a foreign language, followed by German at secondary school. My parents chose to speak exclusively French to us to ensure better integration into the French education system. But noticing that they used Kreol with almost everyone else, my two eldest sisters and I started switching naturally to Kreol during playtime at home away from my parents’ sight, such occurrence aligns with how conversational foci are situational (Auckle and Barnes 2011). As my dad caught our conversations, he emphasised the importance to use French even amongst us, especially after the teacher of my eldest sister noted that she lacked French vocabulary. We did not resist this advice as thereon we spoke exclusively in French among siblings.

The home language from our birth was French and even our nanny staying with us, and other relatives would speak French with us. We would speak in Kreol only to employees working for my parents (servants, drivers, gardeners) and some friends and relatives (mostly our grandparents) who were not confident in speaking French. Moving house and away from my paternal grandparents gave us even less exposure to Kreol. Looking at attitudes to languages and the behaviour of our parents, relatives, and social circle there has been a range of subjective views supporting the choices and orientation to French. More from an ideological belief, my father’s ‘anchor position’ on French was linked to his perceptions of that language (Bissoonauth 2011; Garrett, Coupland, and Williams 2003) mostly in giving better access to education and an alignment to the maintenance of social status and class, following Baggioni and De Robillard (1990). On such terms, the French language and my ‘cultural learning’ (Altugan 2015; Beaven and Spencer-Oatey 2016) have been a privilege and empowerment to my career progression. After my schooling in Mauritius, I completed a Master’s degree in France and later on my PhD in Australia.

While living in France for five years, I barely had any exposure to English and Kreol. I would speak English only when travelling around Europe, and Kreol during annual holidays back to Mauritius. However, I maintained a Kreol connection mainly via phone calls with my cousin who was studying in Belgium at that time. Kreol was the language he used with his Mauritian friends there and using Kreol would facilitate my integration into his social circle whenever I visited him. In France, I had only a few Mauritian friends with whom I communicated almost exclusively in French. We would use few words in Kreol as a covert way to communicate when we did not want to be understood by others (Beaven and Spencer-Oatey 2016). Joining the Mauritian Association for a brief period did not bridge strong connections with members as I found better acquaintances with university friends from international backgrounds such as Italy, Poland, Germany, and Cameroon.

Back in my home country, I have been appointed a teaching position at the French primary school I formerly attended. I first taught a cohort of students who completed their primary education in an English medium school and were shifting to the French education system as part of their parent's aspirations. My role was to assist them in the transition to the French system and I found this experience interesting as well as challenging, as it was my first exposure to exploring the underlying differences across two education mediums (English and French). For instance, I became aware of the differences in teaching and learning approaches to mathematics. I remember that one student used a different approach to solve an arithmetic problem, which I found logical and straightforward. However, I had to redirect him in using the French method although it was a lengthier way to better ensure his integration into a French education system.

Migration and language challenges

I migrated to Australia with my Mauritian husband in 2009, in search of a professional challenge. I anticipated my strength in the host country would be my ability to speak French fluently, hence, before my arrival, I completed an online course for teaching French as a foreign language. In Melbourne, I first struggled to understand the Australian accent, and using English daily was challenging, but I comforted myself from the possibility to speak French at home with my husband. Teaching French to adults in different institutions was a new path for me, however, I felt empowered to be professionally recognised for my native language. I drew more awareness about the complexities of the French language as I was confronted with my personal bias. For example, I had to teach grammatical rules I never learned myself, as for native speakers some grammatical structures just sound obvious (cf. choice of the auxiliary for past tense). Such situations also challenge notions of ‘nativeness’ and the need for a native/non-native speaker dichotomy (Thompson 2021). These teaching approaches motivated me to further investigate and research teaching and learning strategies for foreign languages. As I was becoming more confident in English, I felt more inclined to use English in my language classes, but I would remind myself to prioritise the target language while switching between French and English to keep my students engaged with cultural learning (Altugan 2015). I retained my enthusiasm to teach completely in English for my French culture classes at university. Since I have Indian heritage owing to my ethnic origins, my students are often puzzled when I first walk into a classroom. They then feel reassured to be in the right class from the moment they hear my accent, but they remain curious about my background and origins. I take such happenings as an opportunity to introduce myself, my native country, and its strong connections with the French language as part of a postcolonial heritage.

I would also emphasise the diversity of French-speaking nations across the globe as not limited to France only. Talking through my cultural identity with my students reiterated my cultural and linguistic connections with French. My experience resonates with Thompson's (2021) work about language teachers’ formation of ideal teacher selves and the complexities surrounding motivation and the intertwinement of sociocultural realities, individual contexts, and social interactions that influence the learning and teaching processes. In completing my PhD in Australia and concomitantly teaching at the same university, I had in-depth exposure to more substantial academic writing in English. At first, I thought it would be a challenging task, but it progressively made more sense, as the primary sources I engaged within my research field were English based. I never published in French and would only occasionally present in French at conferences intended for French teachers. As part of my socialites, I am surrounded by French-speaking colleagues, especially when I worked at the Alliance Française (a French language and culture institution). Within the other language centres and the university, I use English as my colleagues are not all French speakers. In the French department at the university, I tend to speak French to my French colleagues, but English to those of other nationalities. As an implicit convention in a professional context, we switch to English whenever a non-French speaker joins the conversation. Such an approach aligns with ‘cultural frame switching’ (Dewaele 2016, 94) where interlocutors slightly alter their behaviour in using one language compared to the other.

When I met my husband in Mauritius, we first communicated in Kreol given it was the language he used with his family, and he was more at ease with it. Soon after, he obtained a position in a French company and he needed more fluency in French, given that he attended an English medium school and completed his university degree in Australia, and did not feel confident in speaking French. Upon his request, we switched our communication to French, but I maintained Kreol with his family. Moving to Australia together, we continued to speak in French, but our written communication (email/SMS) was increasingly more in English. After five years in Australia, we moved apart, and I felt the need to watch more films and TV programmes in French to get my daily exposure to the French language. Later, I had a French partner which allowed me to reconnect more with the French language and culture. I have a growing circle of French-speaking friends and many of them are my work colleagues. I have only a few Mauritian friends in Melbourne to whom I speak French, except for one who prefers to communicate in Kreol. Speaking French to Mauritians who are more at ease in Kreol can be seen as a snobbish attitude, especially when living out of the home country. Being aware of the diglossic situation between French and Kreol (where French has higher status) (Bissoonauth 2011; Eriksen 1990), I adjust whenever it is needed. Following Grosjean, Grosjean, and Grosjean (2010) adjustments to situations and language patterns are a norm of life. Although I speak English with my European friends (from Spain, Germany, and Italy) in Melbourne, I feel more connected to them as we share similar cultural interests. I tend to bond more easily with people who are in the same situation as me (those coming from another country than the host or home country) and replicated similar patterns with my international friends. I do not feel much connected with the Mauritian diaspora community and the Australian community, I prefer joining French events and cultural activities (e.g. French cuisine, wine tasting, films, theatre, festivals, etc.) organised by the French diasporic community.

Discussion

Author 1 and Author 2 provide different perspectives of their learning and use of colonial languages (French and English) mainly from our upbringing and education. Their migration and mobility experiences also differ. Author 1 is a migrant who left her home country for the first time and Author 2 left her home country to study in France to later migrate to Australia. Author 1 draws upon the experience of privilege and empowerment with the English language and access to education, achievements in a professional academic career, and social mobility (Belford 2022). There are different challenges for her to maintain languages (French, Hindi, and Bhojpuri) and fears of loss on both personal and intergenerational levels. Living in a transnational ‘space’ she faces the dichotomy of imposed dominant English language that has been enforced through her professional work and social interactions. Her ‘resistance’ and ‘unlearning’ is discussed with a loss of cultural and diasporic heritage. In finding grips to connect and maintain these languages, there are efforts to converse and switch between languages (French, Kreol, and English) in particular with her children. From a daily ‘transversality’ (Wise 2009) the efforts to adjust to cultural and linguistic losses are significant within a transnational space. As such, Author 1 tries to adopt host cultures and acquaintances (interracial family ties and socialites). These new experiences entail acceptance and negotiation of flexible and hybrid identities and how languages are used and maintained. She finds lesser contestation in finding an agency with a neo-colonialist belief and a counter-hegemonic resistance (Rother 2018) in adopting the dominant language, and acculturation to host cultures and socialites (Blackledge 2000; Marotta 2019). In negotiating a hybrid identity (Kuortti 2007) she accepts ‘transformational resistance’ (Jefferess 2008) and switches to languages to affirm her fears of alienation and erasure of languages (French, Hindi, Bhojpuri) in a transnational space.

Author 2 was raised in an upper middle-class family, accessed a French system education, and feels privileged to have French accompanying her career progression and acculturation in Australia. Her empowerment resides in her fluency and ability to teach French as a foreign language. From a sense of achievement, she reconciles with the English language, and she is proud of it as she barely used English before migrating to Australia. In her teaching practice, she experienced the differences in using French and English (exclusively and combined) and this has significantly enriched her teaching approach and research interests. Her hybrid positioning lies more in her linguistic competence in using English through her teaching and research while alternating between both in her language classes. She has occasionally been challenged on her identity and belonging concerning her race and ethnicity, mostly owing to stereotypical attributes related to French teachers. Living in the host country with a dominant language (English) her act of ‘resistance’ (Ashcroft 2001) lies in her preference to connect to the French language and culture through her socialites to claim a new cultural identity as French. Her ‘resistance’ is also expressed in avoiding the use of Anglicism when speaking French as she is conscious of her position as a role model for her students and does not see herself fitting the Australian culture as she does not identify with it. In bonding with her European friends sharing similar cultural interests and values, she finds connections with them and Europe while living in Australia. Being not impelled to speak Kreol, she only uses it with interlocutors feeling more comfortable with it. Her loss of exposure to Indian ancestral languages is eminent even though she has maintained some Indian traditions inherited from her mother, but with fewer interests to practice them in Australia. Finding her identity within a liminal space (Bhabha 1994), her connection to Mauritius is mainly with her family; with France, it is more from a linguistic value-laden perspective and cultural affinities, whereas to Australia is merely career-related which highlights a ‘transformational resistance’ (Jefferess 2008). Although feeling privileged by three connections embedded in her identity, (Indo-Mauritian/French/Australian), she does not feel to completely belongs to any. She finds more worth in the complex synergy of her identities than in their juxtaposition. This equips her with a multicultural lens to embrace the world living in a transnational space.

Although we both refer to different experiences, we find similar avenues within our experience of ‘empowerment, ‘resistance’, ‘hybridity’ and complicity (Bhabha 1994; Kuortti 2007; Papastergiadis 2015) with languages and how it affects our transnational living. We both find ‘empowerment’ from colonial languages in affording us a better education and opportunities for migration and advancement in our careers. We often are qualified as being ‘exotic’ and knowledgeable with our fluency in French and use of Hindi (more for Author 1) within a transnational space. Colonial languages bring ‘empowerment’ but equally fear of erasure, loss, and alienation, with heritage languages. Migration provoked the ‘hybridity’ we experience with social and cultural encounters (Kuortti 2007; Panicacci and Dewaele 2017). Here ‘hybridity’ is defined as the transformation and change we experience and less from a ‘mixing of cultural materials, backgrounds or identities,’ (Kuortti 2007, 2). We often find ourselves at the ‘stairwell’ – of in-betweenness to negotiate identities, as we engage in social interactions and are open to cultural hybridity without an imposed use of hierarchies of languages within our family and social circles (Papastergiadis 2015). We both negotiate hybrid cultural identities, (Clement and Noels 1992) as we accept interracial cultural orientations and socialites. However, we also choose to use or switch languages (French, English, Kreol and Hindi) within our family and close social interactions. Our switching of languages within distinct circumstances and contexts demonstrates the power and political symbolism indexed by a dominant language (Dailey-O'cain and Liebscher 2011). For instance, Author 1 tends to switch between languages to minimise alienation and encourage her children to learn and use French, Kreol, and Hindi – as an enrichment to their cultural and diasporic identity (Panicacci and Dewaele 2017). Whereas Author 2 coming from her international living and sojourns in France, finds switching of French and English and a ‘resistance’ more in the workspace and socialites. Sevinc (2016) finds tensions with language maintenance and shifts, mostly for migrants having to make such choices.

Our idea of ‘resistance’ resonates with the imperial, ethnic, racial, and cultural dispositions we face in both the home and the host country. Borrowing on Bhabha's (1994) postcolonial theory of resistance – we both find dominant languages (English and French) enforcing our upbringing, education and the postcolonial ideology in the home country. As Sambajee (2016, 222) highlights ‘post-independence, Mauritius failed to decolonise minds about the status of French and English’ – although Kreol is a mother tongue affording self-reliance and emancipation from post-colonial domination. With migration, we eminently feel an imposition of the dominant language (English) and erasures of diasporic belongings with heritage languages (Hindi, and Bhojpuri), although Author 2 still has opportunities to use French from her work and socialites’ requirements. Colonial languages (French and English) afforded us empowerment with transnational mobility and prospects for advancing our professional careers (Ashcroft 2001). However, we also feel that we are crawling back into a ‘space’ where we mimic the ‘coloniser’ (Bhabha 1994; Godiwala 2007). The imposition of colonial languages in the home country and the dominant language (English) in the host country informs our ‘resistance’ to hegemonic power relations (social and cultural). Mimicry here is described as a disconcerting simulation of the coloniser’s culture, language, institution, and values by the colonised (Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 1998). Blackledge (2000) draws upon transcultural effects and the subjugation of social and cultural resistance for migrants. Migration is distancing us from our heritage languages mainly from a monolingual practice of English which dominates our daily life and imposes relationships of power and knowledge. However, we also see the disruption of the coloniser’s power from our instances of ‘resistance’ to acculturation and hybridisation as migrant subjects, which is more relevant to Author 2 (Shumar 2010).

On the other hand, the imposed hierarchy of languages (English as the dominant language) also speaks to us, as it affords us ways to find our ‘voices’ within professional grounds. Our complicity lies in the use of English as the dominant language, but this also informs our ‘hybridity,’ in destabilising and subverting the hierarchical relations of power and knowledge (Loomba 1998). Migration for us alters and modifies our use and maintenance of languages, yet it leaves us to query the implications of language ideologies with an imposed hierarchy of languages and language hegemony with distances and loss of our heritage languages. Nevertheless, we value our empowerment, as we experience ‘transformational resistance’ (Jefferess 2008; Kuortti 2007) as we complicitly formulate our attitudes, practices, and choices with languages and English as a dominant language.

Hence, we identify an ambivalence in how we characterise our ‘empowerment’, ‘hybridity’, ‘resistance’ and complicity to languages and their implications in our transnational lives. This ambivalence unsettles the underlying binary of coloniser/colonised and to some extent disrupts our experience of language ideologies and language hegemony (Bhabha 1994; Young 2003).

Conclusion

In this paper, we use CAE to bring into focus our reflexive experiences with languages along the discourses surrounding coloniality (Hernandez-Carranza, Carranza, and Grigg 2021) and migration and mobility. Autoethnography helped us to engage in different ways of knowing and being in focusing on how histories, memories, and meanings intersect (Chang 2016) in drawing ourselves into the critique to examine the broader complexities of historical and sociocultural aspects with languages that reveal the politics of coloniality, while affording us a ‘voice’ from the Global South. We discussed ‘hybridity’ and an idea of ‘resistance’ to language ideologies and hegemony, the influences and relationship of reified practices with the politics and logics of coloniality. Language practices and ideologies have been overlooked through ethnographic research which can reveal the influences and significance of global processes such as migration, mobility, and superdiversity (Budach and de Saint-Georges 2017). This paper does not unpack a broader field of sociolinguistic and applied linguistics and other multi-sited ethnographies with language and migration studies (Dick and Arnold 2017). This paper draws attention to multiple lenses from which migrants, diasporas and language practices are inhibited and engaged (Starfield 2019) and it contributes to the growing body of literature on postcolonial theory, colonial continuity with language ideologies, and hegemony.

Like many other migrants, we have a repertoire of languages, and this paper has opened a space for further understanding the complex realities of use and choices with languages and how beliefs and practices are negotiated in adding value and worth but also challenges in our transnational lives. Our social interactions include switching of languages, and the use of a dominant language imposing ‘the colonial grip.’ As transnationals, we function and value our set of languages as cultural and diasporic heritages from home and ancestry, yet as transnationals, we fear a loss of our heritage languages and equally a hybridisation of our identity practices (Blommaert, Collins, and Slembrouck 2005). The dynamics of languages bring us ‘empowerment’ but also ‘resistance’ (Pal and Dutta 2008; Shumar 2010) from an imposed hierarchy of language ideologies and language hegemony. As transnationals, we experience ‘hybridity’ in negotiating our social interactions and cultural identities, even though we recognise the agency of the colonised in the construction of our hybrid identities (Nandy 1983). Although we find complicity in using the dominant language, we experience fragmentation by feeling distanced from ‘belonging with languages.’

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nish Belford

Nish Belford, PhD, is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. Her teaching and research experience empowers her research interests in interdisciplinary fields of study. Her current research focuses on discourses around identity politics from migrant perspectives, in particular to women of colour in exploring issues around cultural transitions, acculturation experiences, home, ties with the homeland, settlement, and belonging being a twice-diasporic subject. In her recent works, she has examined the influence of post-colonial identity on culture, ethnicity, and education in affording both privilege and disempowerment with ambivalence to an identity negotiation living in a transnational space.

Jessica Chakowa

Jessica Chakowa, PhD, is a lecturer in the Faculty of Arts at Monash University. She teaches French language and culture in the School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures, and Linguistics. She has twenty years of teaching experience, including thirteen years teaching French as a foreign language in Australia. Her research interest lies in strategies to enhance foreign language learning and teaching and the intercultural impact on learners. Having lived and worked in Mauritius, France and Australia, and travelled in many other countries, she has developed an interest in critically analysing cultural differences across nations.

Notes

1 Post-colonial (with a hyphen) signifies a period that comes chronologically ‘after’ colonialism.

2 Postcolonial – signals the persisting impact of colonisation across time periods and geographical regions and effects of colonialism and operating currently in those nations.

3 Heritage languages – A heritage language is a minority language (either immigrant or indigenous) learned by its speakers at home as children, and difficult to be fully developed because of insufficient input from the social environment. The speakers grow up with a different dominant language in which they become more competent (in this paper, heritage languages are referenced as Hindi, Bhojpuri that were languages inherited from an Indian ancestry and diaspora).