Taikomoji kalbotyra, 20: 28–52 eISSN 2029-8935
https://www.journals.vu.lt/taikomojikalbotyra DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Taikalbot.2023.20.4
Justīne Bondare
Latvian Language Institute, University of Latvia
justine.bondare@valoda.lv
Abstract. This paper examines the effects of virtual communication on language use among Latvian students aged 13-25, aiming to investigate whether language proficiency, language attitudes and identity construction are mediated by language dominance and global trends foregrounded by the dominant use of English on social media. The research material consists of 1) Bilingual Language Profile (Birdsong et al. 2012), a questionnaire that targets a variety of sociolinguistic factors and assesses language dominance; 2) a questionnaire on language use across various domains as well as language ideologies. The questionnaire results indicate Latvian language dominance in terms of language history and active use, but English is regarded as a beneficial language and used as a receptive language in entertainment and with peers. The findings of the study suggest English is associated with a multilingual identity, however, this does not seem to impact the expression of adolescents’ national identity.
Key words: language attitudes, social identity, language dominance, multilingualism
Santrauka. Šiame straipsnyje tiriamas 13–25 m. amžiaus Latvijos moksleivių bei studentų virtualus bendravimas skirtingomis kalbomis ir siekiama išsiaiškinti, ar jų kalbines nuostatas bei tapatybės kūrimąsi veikia socialiniuose tinkluose dominuojanti anglų kalba. Tyrime naudoti dviejų apklausų, kuriose dalyvavo 409 respondentai, rezultatai. Pirmoji apklausa buvo skirta respondentų kalbiniams profiliams sudaryti ir jų mokamų bei vartojamų kalbų dominavimui įvertinti. Antroje apklausoje dėmesys skirtas kalbų vartojimui skirtinguose domenuose ir kalbinėms ideologijoms. Rezultatų dalyje pateikiama bendra vyraujančių kalbinių nuostatų dėl anglų ir latvių kalbų apžvalga, taip pat išskiriamos sritys, kuriose latvių kalba išlaikė arba prarado dominavimą, ir nurodomos galimos įvykusių pokyčių priežastys. Kalbos dominavimo apklausos rezultatai rodo, kad latvių kalba išlieka dominuojanti daugumai respondentų, tačiau dėl kalbos mokėjimo ir kalbinių nuostatų pasakytina, kad rezultatai tarp anglų ir latvių kalbų smarkiai nesiskiria. Paaiškėjo, kad anglų kalba matoma kaip paranki neoficialioje aplinkoje – kaip priemonė pramogauti internete ir bendrauti su bendraamžiais. Anglų kalba jaunimo nelaikoma latvių kalbos pakaitalu, yra siejama su dvikalbe kalbine tapatybe, bet tai neveikia tautinės jų tapatybės.
Raktažodžiai: kalbinės nuostatos, socialinė tapatybė, kalbos dominavimas, daugiakalbystė
________
This work is supported by state research programme “Letonika – Fostering a Latvian and European Society” project “Use and Development of Contemporary Latvian” (№ VPP-LETONIKA-2022/1-0001).
Copyright © 2023 Justīne Bondare. Published by Vilnius University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The emergence of social identity has piqued the interest of social psychologists, anthropologists and sociolinguists alike, turning their attention towards group processes and factors that facilitate effective intergroup communication. The development of communicative competence, a concept coined by Dell Hymes, includes not only acquiring knowledge of proper grammatical constructions, but also what purpose these constructions serve in specific contexts and how they vary across communicative situations in accordance with societal norms (Baltiņš, Druviete 2017). Intergroup behaviour can be analysed from the perspective of social identity theory as proposed by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1986), and this theory suggests that “individuals experience collective identity based on their membership in a group” (Ramasubramanian 2014: 389), the differences in experiences and values creating a social dichotomy between “us” and “them”. This study defines social identity as a matter of mastering group domains, which are considered “group talk discerned in the vocabulary, topics, and attitudes specific to group members” (Eastman 1985), and theoretical literature often highlights the language of adolescents as different and unusual, especially regarding violating language norms and creating new expressions (Ernstsone, Tidriķe 2006). This is explained by sociolinguists as a desire for a sense of belonging and group acceptance – to gain membership and achieve status among the group, it is necessary to gain the recognition of other group members, therefore, language becomes a tool for gaining and maintaining membership (ibid.). Furthermore, identification with a certain social group is related to self-identification, which often reflects the attitudes of the peer group. This study aims to investigate this phenomenon on a broader scale, examining language choice as a tool for expressing oneself across various sociolinguistic domains and analysing the social and psychological aspects that influence the choice of language.
The concept of identity is multidimensional, and studies generally distinguish between various terms depending on the scope of the sense of belonging in question. According to Hall (2002), personal identity refers to both one’s sense of individuality as well as their sense of distinctiveness, and this suggests that all “layers” of identity are linked to interpersonal relations, interactions, and communicative experiences. This study focuses on an emerging second language identity amongst adolescents aged 13 to 25 – second language (L2) is defined here as a language learned and used in addition to one’s first language (L1), and the main L2 that is the focus of this study is English. The concept of a L2 identity is crucial to this study because since the academic year 2011–2012, a second language is taught in all Latvian public schools from grade 1 (ages 6 to 7) (Legal Acts of the Republic of Latvia 2018). This language must be one of the official languages of the EU, and English is the most studied language in Europe, with 96% of students learning it in 2020 (Eurostat 2022). According to statistics, 96,9% of pupils in primary education in Latvia learn English as a foreign language, which is the highest percentage among the Baltic countries and the European Union (Eurostat 2023). Furthermore, English is not only studied in an academic environment – is it also a widely popular language online with a high prestige among Latvian adolescents, and the “Guidelines of the State Language Policy in 2021–2027” state that “both in terms of the number of speakers, the increase in the level of language proficiency, and the prestige of the language, English has become the second most important language used in Latvia among the younger generation” (Guidelines of the State Language Policy 2021–2027). In comparison to adult second language learners, adolescents have not yet formed a “robust sense of identity or self-image in their original cultures” (Nematzadeh, Haddad Narafshan 2020), and the rise of new digital spaces have made new linguistic and sociocultural environments available at a moment’s notice. Language contacts have become even closer and more diverse due to the development of social media – the second decade of the 21st century has witnessed the rise of several social media platforms (Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, etc.) that are used all around the world today. The author of the current study has previously studied individual aspects of Latvian adolescent communication, for example, the influence of English on word formation (Bondare 2023a), slang (Bondare 2023b), social media language (Bondare 2023c), and language attitudes and extralinguistic factors that influence Latvian-English code-switching (Bondare 2023d). The main findings are related to how the language used online and by peers impacts not only one’s linguistic repertoire, but also native and foreign language attitudes, therefore, this study seeks to further investigate the dominant language of adolescents as well as the language dominance dimensions that are most affected as adolescents build social identities when communicating with their peers, friends, family and strangers.
Language attitudes towards one’s first language are especially important to the concept of a national identity since a positive attitude can foster one’s first language use and strengthen their national identity. The relation between the Latvian language and national identity is highlighted in the language policy guidelines, and national identity is a frequently used term, however, it has not yet acquired a comprehensive definition in Latvia. Druviete and Požarnova (2021: 38) state that the struggle between Latvian, English and Russian in Latvia is a case of linguistic rivalry, therefore, the strengthening of the status of the Latvian language in several articles of the Constitution as well as strategies for its maintenance is not a coincidence. The use of English in social media is highlighted by the fact that attitudes in Latvia fluctuate between preserving traditional values and developing a European-oriented pluralism (ibid.), and a growing tendency in online discourse is to exclude one or the other. From this perspective, the study of adolescents’ attitudes towards Latvian and English is necessary to understand the current linguistic environment and promote an understanding of youth language.
The main aims of the current study are to investigate whether English is gaining dominance over Latvian among adolescents and identify the dimensions of language dominance that are shifting as a result of the increased use of English both offline and online. The study also aims to identify sociolinguistic domains that show increased use of English and examine social and psychological aspects that influence language attitudes and language choice. Based on the aims of this study, the following research questions were formulated:
1. Which aspects of social identity are linked to the use of English and Latvian among Latvian adolescents?
2. Which dimensions of language dominance are most affected by the increased use of English?
Research on in-group identity has generated several studies on the functions of youth language as well as the connection between identity and language in multilingual and multicultural contexts (Pavlenko, Blackledge 2004; Nematzadeh, Haddad Narafshan 2020). Pavlenko and Blackledge state the significance of the “mother tongue” in the process of evaluating the authenticity of the speaker, that is, “if you are a speaker of language (or language variety) X, you must be an X sort of person” (2004: 246). However, this view becomes even more problematic in a multilingual society whose members’ dominant language shifts according to context and sociolinguistic domains, and this is especially evident with Latvian adolescents (Bondare 2023d). The use of several languages among young people in Latvia has increased, as evidenced by data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) questionnaire conducted in 2018 – 99% of Latvian students aged 15 learn two or more languages and more than 90% of the surveyed students communicate in two or more languages daily (PISA 2020: 129). This also creates an environment for code-mixing, which is perceived by Latvian students as an indicator of adolescence and group solidarity, however, some associate it with laziness and poor Latvian language proficiency (Bondare 2023d). It was also found that students tend to switch between English and Latvian both consciously (to make friends with peers, to tell a joke, etc.) and subconsciously (force of habit) (ibid.). These findings align with other studies that have found English to be an identifier of adolescent identity in everyday communication (Andersen 2004; Lønsmann 2008). Furthermore, findings show that the adolescents’ choice of language is strategic and context-specific as they attempt to position themselves outside the norms of the standard language spoken in their family or the dominant culture of their country, so young people are especially in-tune with sociolinguistic norms (Druviete 1988; Ernstsone, Tidriķe 2006). Research also shows that the functions of a youth language have less to do with exclusion and more with “reinforcing the bonds within the peer group itself” (Doran 2004), emphasizing the importance of context as well as the relationship with the communicative partner.
The sociocultural and linguistic dominance of the English-speaking world has led to significant linguistic changes, and studies have been conducted to investigate real-time linguistic change among adolescents (Roels et al. 2021), non-standard varieties invented by the urban youth (Erastus, Kebeya 2018), and functions of the English language in countries where English is traditionally considered a foreign language (Leppänen 2007; Busse 2017). Importantly, Leppänen claims that the omnipresence of English in digital environments has created “an association between belonging to the youth culture and using English” (2007). English is also used for work and academic purposes, however, the choice to use English at work or university is more deliberate – some courses are only taught in English, some research papers are only available in English, and for some professions it is a requirement to use English to converse with international customers. On social media, however, there is freedom to choose the language of communication, but English is widely perceived as lingua franca of the Internet. Lingua franca is defined as a language used as a common language between speakers who do not share a native language. Discussions and shared jokes of popular culture are mediated by English, therefore, English tends to be used alongside or mixed with the native language. However, it is important not to examine adolescents as a single monolith as this is not always the case. For example, factors like English proficiency and a keen interest in English-speaking countries also play a role in building a flexible second language identity (El-Dash, Busnardo 2001; Chevasco 2019), whereas adolescents with low English proficiency or little interest in anglophone culture tend to conform to the cultural norms of their default national identity.
Previous studies have shown that non-standard linguistic practices acquire higher status among youth communities, as is the case with Verlan, a sociolect chosen by marginalized adolescents in France (Doran 2004), or Hinglish, which is the hybrid use of English and various languages of the Indian subcontinent (Lambert 2018). In this study, English in informal communication is the non-standard language choice, as the official language of Latvia is Latvian. Again, it is important to examine all the available social variables such as age, class, location, and gender, because even a couple year difference in age between two adolescent speakers may impact the choice of linguistic style and repertoire. It has been found that younger speakers tend to use stigmatised features and vernacular variants more, whereas there is a decrease of non-standardized variants in late adolescence and early adulthood (Scholten 1988; Armstrong 1998). Adolescent language is at the centre of language attitudes and stereotypes that are the result of adults (parents, teachers, journalists) expressing judgement and negative attitude towards youth language, especially slang words and code-mixing (Ernstsone, Tidriķe 2006). However, moral panic about the quality of the Latvian language is nothing new – this paper follows the study by Ernstsone and Tidriķe (2006) in which youth language in Latvia was investigated by examining both the external (linguists, society) and internal (language users themselves – adolescents) perspectives and providing an objective overview of the language attitudes, and this study aims to examine whether English language dominance is only perceived to be true or if it is actually evident in students’ evaluations.
This study follows a line of research on multilingualism that has shown language dominance is less about the proficiency in two or more languages and more about combining different variables of language use, analysing frequency, division across domains, and linguistic attitudes (Treffers-Daller 2019; Gertken et al. 2014). Therefore, “one can be dominant in a language without being highly proficient in that language” (Gertken et al. 2014). Furthermore, previous research has also shown that balanced bilingualism is a theoretical ideal since bilinguals are rarely equally competent in all four language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) across all available domains (Baker 2006). However, no consensus has been reached on how to measure language dominance. In this study, language dominance is defined as “a construct that derives from the nature of bilingualism […] It involves the relationship between competencies in two languages and is thus inherently relativistic” (Gertken et al. 2014). Creating a tool for measuring language dominance is a difficult task since it is a multidimensional construct that requires consideration of several variables and methods of measurement (see Treffers-Daller 2019). This study employs the Bilingual Language Profile (BLP) (Birdsong et al. 2012), a questionnaire for measuring language dominance through self-reports. It has been created to quickly gather information about the language abilities of bilingual participants across four dimensions: language history (understood more widely as language acquisition and learning history), language use, language proficiency, and language attitudes. The second questionnaire targets language use in various sociolinguistic domains (family, education, employment, entertainment, etc.) and allows students to evaluate statements related to group pressure, national pride, multilingual pride, future opportunities, and attitudes towards non-native varieties of English, and the included statements are both evaluative (“When Latvians speak English, it sounds wrong”) and related to the value of language (“If I had the opportunity to speak only English at my workplace, I would take it”). In summary, the current research aims to provide a general overview of the dominance of Latvian and English among adolescents so that steps can be taken in order to promote awareness of the benefits of multilingualism and foster positive attitudes towards language diversity in modern Latvian society.
The present study involves 409 participants in total – 139 participants were enrolled in primary education (grades 8 to 9), 204 were enrolled in secondary education (grades 10 to 12), and 66 participants were ages 20 to 25 and had received at least secondary education as of May 2022. 235 or 57% participants were female, and 174 or 43% participants were male. BLP was filled out by all 409 participants both face-to-face and online, and Figure 1 shows a detailed statistic of the participants’ age and sex:
The second questionnaire (Language Use) was filled out by 338 participants, and this is due to the first questionnaire having to be administered separately, so it was difficult to monitor whether all students had filled out both questionnaires. 189 or 56% participants were female, and 149 or 44% participants were male. Figure 2 shows a detailed statistic of the participants’ age and sex for the second questionnaire:
323 students participated in face-to-face sessions, all participants gave their informed consent to participate. The consent form can be found in Appendix 3.
Two questionnaires were used to collect data. The first questionnaire titled “Bilingual Language Profile” (Birdsong et al. 2012) is an open assessment tool for researchers and educators, and its main aim is to assess language dominance. This questionnaire had to be administered separately because of its self-scoring functionality. This questionnaire contains an introductory section for collecting biographical information (age, sex, place of residence, highest level of formal education), and four modules designed to assess language dominance: language history, use, proficiency, and attitudes. A complete list of questions can be found in Appendix 1. The questions were translated from English to Latvian.
The second questionnaire contains an introductory section with general questions about social media and language use online, and three sections that focus on language use across different domains (books, online articles, movies, music, private messaging, video games, social media), language attitudes that deal with group pressure, national pride, a sense of belonging, and linguistic purism, and questions on future opportunities related to work, education, and meeting new people. A complete list of questions can be found in Appendix 2. The questions were related to a second language identity, national identity and attitudes towards Latvian compared to English, and some of the included statements were gathered from similar surveys (Chevasco 2019; Nematzadeh, Haddad Narafshan 2020) and adapted to the Latvian context, such as the following statement: “It doesn’t bother me that I speak English with a Latvian accent, because I am Latvian”.
The questionnaires were first shared in face-to-face sessions in two Latvian public schools that offer primary and secondary education in May 2022. Both public schools are situated in the Vidzeme region that covers the northeast part of Latvia. School No. 1 is in Ogre, a city with over 22 thousand inhabitants (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia 2023), and School No. 2 is in Aizkraukle, a city with almost 7 thousand inhabitants (ibid.). Both schools provide monolingual education in Latvian. The participants were asked to provide consent before they could begin the questionnaires. Instructions for completing the questionnaires were provided, and the researcher was present in the classroom for the entirety of the session. After this stage, the questionnaires were posted online on Facebook and Twitter, accepting responses for two weeks.
As part of the quantitative analysis, the responses provided to the BLP were calculated using the self-scoring functionality to gather scores for each of the four dimensions, a global score for each language and a dominance index. According to the creators of the questionnaire, “each question in the BLP is scalar and associated with a certain point value” (Birdsong et al. 2012), and scores for all dimensions were automatically calculated in the Google Docs linked to the online questionnaire. The possible dominance scores range from -218 to +218. A score near zero indicates balanced bilingualism, while a negative score reflects English language dominance and a positive score – Latvian language dominance. Both questionnaires were analysed using Excel spreadsheets, filtering the data by age and gender. For the purpose of the study, responses from participants over 25 years of age were omitted, responses with identical identification numbers (that were given as examples in the face-to-face sessions) were also removed. The questions regarding different domains of language use in the second questionnaire were divided into two groups – passive and active language use. Finally, the 17 statements that focus on different aspect of one’s identity in the second questionnaire were grouped into five categories (group pressure, national pride, multilingual pride, future opportunities, and attitudes towards non-native varieties of English).
The language dominance scores of all 409 participants are provided in Figure 3:
Most participants (98%) scored above 0, which indicates Latvian language dominance. The average score is 78, and only 7 participants indicated English language dominance. The average Latvian dominance score increases with the age of the participants, and this can be seen in Figure 4:
It must be noted that there were significantly less older respondents (20 to 25 years of age) compared to younger participants (14 to 17 years of age), so a more balanced and evenly proportioned dataset would be required for future research.
The sex of the participants may also be a social variable playing a role in language dominance. The language dominance scores for both female and male participants can be seen in Figure 5:
Though the average score for female participants is slightly higher (81 versus 73), the differences are insignificant. Again, it is important to note that there were more female participants (235) than male participants (174). However, it is interesting to see that male participants generally score lower – three male respondents scored below negative ten (-17; -38; -68), while four female respondents score only a little below zero (-1; -4; -6; -9). Similarly, female respondents score higher – the highest female participant score is +160, while the highest score for male participants is +136. This indicates slight Latvian language dominance and balanced bilingualism for the female participants and a slight English language dominance for male participants.
Finally, each module is calculated before the global language dominance score, making sure that each module receives equal weighting in the global language score. This allows us to examine each module in more detail. Figure 6 shows the average dominance scores across all four modules:
Latvian language dominance can be observed in all four modules. It is most obvious in the language history and use modules, which is unsurprising since 343 of the 409 participants were enrolled in Latvian public schools at the time of the study, and these schools are located in cities in which Latvian is the major ethnic group. However, the scores between Latvian and English language dominance are much closer in the language proficiency and attitude modules, which may indicate the emergence of a multilingual identity. In the language proficiency module, students were asked to self-assess proficiency in Latvian and English, and the average scores are very similar (see Figure 6). Though his could indicate either balanced bilingualism or an overestimation of one’s language proficiency, even one’s perceived proficiency could point towards a desire to belong to a multilingual society and fit in with multilingual peers. The second module where the language scores were similar was the language attitudes module, and the statements included in this module point towards a multilingual identity (for example, the statements “I feel like myself when I speak English” and “I identify with an English-speaking culture”). This correlation between language dominance and multilingual identity must be investigated further, as the two languages are set against each other in the BLP questionnaire, however, a multilingual identity might encompass a complex relationship between two or more languages used alongside or mixed with each other.
The first three questions in the second questionnaire titled “Language Use” were focused on language use on social media, more specifically – whether participants use Latvian and English online. Table 1 shows the percentage of respondents that use each language on social media as well as whether they use Latvian or English more often:
|
Yes |
No |
Total |
|
|
Latvian |
80% |
20% |
100% |
|
English |
94% |
6% |
100% |
The majority of respondents use both languages on social media, however, 20% of respondents do not use Latvian on social media, whereas only 6% of respondents do not use English on social media. If we break this statistic down by age, the biggest difference in language use is among 13 to 15-year-olds – 77% of participants responded that they use English more often, whereas with 20 to 25-year olds it is only 43% of participants that use English more often. This indicates a downward trend in which the two languages level out.
The questions in the second part were divided into two types of language use: passive or receptive skills (these involve listening and reading), and active or productive skills that involve speaking and writing. Four questions were about receptive skills, and three questions were about productive skills. For example, we see clear English language dominance in terms of watching movies and TV shows and listening to movies, as is shown in Table 2:
|
Movies and TV shows |
Music |
|||
|
English |
Latvian |
English |
Latvian |
|
|
Always |
57% |
7% |
70% |
7% |
|
Often |
32% |
23% |
27% |
26% |
|
Sometimes |
8% |
51% |
2% |
48% |
|
Never |
3% |
19% |
1% |
19% |
Interestingly, such English language dominance is consistent across all age groups, which means that English is becoming the language of entertainment. Similar results can be seen with the language spoken by influencers and other content creators – 50% of participants answered that everyone they follow speaks English, and 43% answered that nobody they follow speaks Latvian. Results related to reading books, journals and Internet articles are more similar – 39% of respondents answered “Often” regarding reading in English, and this percentage is identical for Latvian. However, if we compare passive to active use, we see that Latvian dominates active language use, as can be seen in Table 3 with the responses to the question “Which languages do you use in private communication (Messenger, Discord, etc.)?”:
|
Language of private communication (Messenger, Discord, etc.) |
||
|
English |
Latvian |
|
|
Always |
17% |
43% |
|
Often |
36% |
46% |
|
Sometimes |
39% |
9% |
|
Never |
8% |
2% |
Results related to posting comments on other people’s posts are more similar – the majority of respondents answered “Often” regarding writing comments in both Latvian and English. There is, however, a decrease in the use of English with age – 29% of 13 to 15-year olds indicated that they always use English when writing comments, but 0% of 20 to 25-year olds indicated that they write comments in English. This may point towards an important aspect of youth language, which is the use of non-standard variants and creative language use (Ernstsone, Tidriķe 2006). Comments are generally short, they are written to express admiration, surprise, or make a joke, and many adolescents may choose to code-switch to English when writing such comments. TikTok comments that include different types of code-mixing have been compiled and analysed by the author, for example:
1. tev ir tas fun cousin vibe, es nemaku izskaidrot (“you have that fun cousin vibe, I cannot explain it”) (09.05.2022.)
2. Ļoti žēl dzirdēt. Violence is not cool (“Very sorry to hear that. Violence is not cool”) (24.04.2022.) (Bondare 2023b)
The statements included in the questionnaire focused on the following aspects: group pressure, national pride, multilingual pride, future opportunities, and attitudes towards non-native varieties of English. Starting with group pressure, it is apparent that English being the lingua franca of online communication impacts the desire or perceived pressure to use English. For example, 31% of participants feel more comfortable writing in English because it is spoken around the world, and this is similar for all age groups. Similarly, 42% agree that they use English because they see it online more often. The connection here with group pressure might not be explicit, but it is evident that the perceived popularity of English online affects adolescents’ language use. Interestingly, there are no explicit feelings of discomfort – 39% participants disagree that they feel uncomfortable using Latvian online, and this response increases with age, 20 to 25-year olds being the most comfortable using Latvian.
Regarding national identity and pride, there seem to be no strong feelings about one’s nationality playing a role on which language to use. National pride is higher among 20 to 25-year olds, with 33% of them agreeing with the statement “I communicate in Latvian on social media because I am Latvian”, while other age groups are neutral (“Neither agree nor disagree”). This is a shortcoming of the study because there is no question about the respondent’s native or first language since the focus is on the respondent’s relationship with Latvian and English. Therefore, it is possible not all of the participants identify as ethnically Latvian and some participants may have grown up in families that speak both Russian and Latvian, so this data should be regarded with caution. The majority of respondents do relate to the statements expressing multilingual identity sentiments. 40% participants feel proud that they can speak English to express their thoughts, and 49% participants completely agree that it is important for them to speak English freely, and this is similar across all age groups.
There are three statements comparing aspects of Latvian and English, expressing feelings of inferiority or incorrectness when using Latvian. Results show that the majority of participants do not compare themselves to native speakers of English, but there is a feeling of inequality between the two languages. For example, 31% participants completely agree that many Internet jokes and memes sound weird in Latvian, and this is similar across all age groups. However, participants show neutral opinions about the Latvian accent, and most respondents either disagree or completely disagree with English sounding wrong when spoken by Latvians, as shown in Figure 7:
Finally, regarding prospects, there is a difference between work-related statements and travel opportunities. The majority of respondents have neutral opinions about using exclusively English in the workplace – 40% neither agree nor disagree with the statement “I would be happy if I could only use English in my future workplace”, and 30% neither agree nor disagree with the statement “If I had the opportunity to speak only English at my workplace, I would take it”. However, participants have positive feelings on travelling, studying or meeting new people. 59% agree with the statement “I want to travel to or study in an English-speaking country”, and 82% agree with the statement “I want to meet people and make friends from different countries”.
The primary focus of the current research was to analyse the responses to the questionnaires regarding language dominance and language use across various sociolinguistic domains. The first research question of the study addresses aspects of identity that are linked to the use of English and Latvian among Latvian adolescents. Based on the results of the second questionnaire, it can be inferred that there is a difference in the way that adolescents perceive their own identities when thinking about English and Latvian language and culture. The analysis indicates that English is associated with a multilingual identity – it allows adolescents to meet new people, make new friends both offline and online, and participants express pride about having sufficient knowledge in being able to speak English freely. Furthermore, this does not seem to impact the expression of one’s national identity online, for example, when asked about one’s heritage, and this study finds no patterns regarding feelings of inferiority when using Latvian. The results of the study also revealed that the ability to understand English is a major benefit when consuming different types of content, and the analysis shows that English is becoming the language of entertainment. As of January 2020, English was the most popular language online, representing 25% of worldwide internet users (Statista 2020). English is the default language on many Internet sites and mobile devices, most of the content streamed on Netflix is produced in the US (Flixwatch 2020), and many of the songs dominating Spotify charts are in English. The omnipresence of English extends to other popular culture and political events that are widely discussed online. Similarly, the language of memes that are shared across social media are most commonly in English. The unavailability of Latvian is only broadening this gap – there is very little content available on Netflix either with Latvian subtitles or dubbed in Latvian. Furthermore, the trend cycles becoming shorter applies not only to fashion, but also books that become viral on TikTok. The fast consumption of trends makes it impossible for books to be translated into Latvian in time for the book to stay relevant, so adolescents may choose to read it in English. The availability of Latvian content that is engaging and relevant to adolescents, then, is a priority that should be considered by public service sector workers when cultivating a national identity and promoting the use of Latvian outside schools.
The second research question of the study addresses language dominance and dimensions of language dominance that are most affected by the increased use of English. The results reveal that the majority of participants scored in favour of Latvian language dominance, and this is due to two modules of the questionnaire: language history and language use. This is unsurprising as the participants have grown up in Latvia, and only 17% of participants had lived in a country where predominantly English is spoken, 7 of 409 participants lived abroad at the time of the study, and 8% of participants have lived in a family where English is spoken. Future research should include a larger number of participants from various places in the country, including small towns and cities with a large proportion of ethnic groups other than Latvians. Modules with similar language dominance results were language proficiency and attitudes. Interestingly, the average scores for both languages in terms of proficiency was very similar – this may be due to respondents overestimating their English proficiency, but it is necessary to examine adolescents’ perception of their own language skills for the purpose of this study. Finally, language attitudes is an important factor that should be investigated further, and the present study reveals that qualitative analysis is necessary to examine individual aspects of adolescents’ social identity to monitor changes in linguistic environments.
The present study investigated the use of English and Latvian among Latvian adolescents, examining the effects of language use and language attitudes on language dominance. As demonstrated by the findings of the present research, the dominant use of English on social media and digital environments in general has implications on how adolescents view both languages in terms of benefits and opportunities. However, this study finds no negative underlying beliefs about Latvian compared to English across all aspects and domains. The findings of this study suggest that English is the dominant language in informal contexts among adolescents, facilitating the expression of trending ideas, but the use of English is perceived as an advantage rather than a replacement for Latvian.
The main methodological issue that must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results is that the BLP questionnaire is advised by its authors to be administered to bilinguals who are at least of high school age. Therefore, the modules involving calculation of the years of individual language acquisition and use should be regarded with caution when examining the results of younger participants. Another shortcoming of the present study is that it is unknown how many of the participants have Russian as their L1 or two first languages, namely, Russian and Latvian. Therefore, statements regarding nationality (for example, the statement “I am Latvian, but I prefer communicating in English on social media”) were difficult to evaluate. These issues show that further research into this topic is necessary to investigate whether these patterns re-emerge on a wider scale, and whether variables such as age and gender has real implications on the use of Latvian and English both online and offline, taking into consideration other languages as well in order to provide a more accurate overview of the linguistic landscape in Latvia.
Currently, the patterns of language use revealed in this study may be regarded as aspects of an adolescent identity, as the emergence of new social medias and modes of communication may yield different results. It is hoped that this study will further our understanding of adolescents’ relationship with language and social identity, providing useful background for strategies for promoting multilingualism while also cultivating native language use. The moral panic surrounding youth language in media has proven that discussions about the role that non-standard language use plays in adolescents’ social lives are necessary to promote diversity and work towards a future in which adolescents feel confident to talk about different aspects of their identity.
Andersen, M. H. 2004. Engelsk i dansk. Sprogholdninger i Danmark. Helt vildt sjovt eller wannabeagtigt og ejendomsmæglerkækt? Dansk Sprognævn, 34.
Armstrong, N. 1998. La Variation sociolinguistique dans le lexique français. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 114(3), 462–495.
Baker, C. 2006. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baltiņš, M., Druviete, I. (2017). Ceļavējš cilvēku ciltij: Valoda sabiedrībā. Riga: Latvian Language Agency.
Birdsong, D., Gertken, L.M., & Amengual, M. 2012. Bilingual Language Profile: An Easy-to-Use Instrument to Assess Bilingualism. COERLL, University of Texas at Austin. Available at: https://sites.la.utexas.edu/bilingual
Bondare, J. 2023a. Jauniešu valodai raksturīgie vārddarināšanas paņēmieni 20. / 21. gadsimta mijā un šodien. 58th International Academic Conference in Honour of Prof. Arturs Ozols “Grammar and Word Formation”. Riga, Latvia.
Bondare, J. 2023b. Doubtot vai šaubīties? Koda jaukšana un anglismi “TikTok” lietotnē. alodas prakse: vērojumi un ieteikumi. No. 16. Rīga: Latvian Language Agency. Manuscript in press.
Bondare, J. 2023c. Jauniešu digitālrunas vārdnīca. Valodas prakse: vērojumi un ieteikumi. No. 16. Rīga: Latvian Language Agency. Manuscript in press.
Bondare, J. 2023d. Code-mixing among Latvian adolescents: language attitudes and extralinguistic factors. Master’s thesis, University of Latvia.
Busse, V. 2017. Plurilingualism in Europe: Exploring Attitudes Toward English and Other European Languages Among Adolescents in Bulgaria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. The Modern Language Journal 101(3), 566–582.
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. 2023. Population at the beginning of year and population change and key vital statistics in regions, cities, towns and municipalities 1967 – 2022. Available at: https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/en/OSP_PUB/START__POP__IR__IRS/IRS030/?loadedQueryId=1596&timeType=top&timeValue=3
Chevasco, D. 2019. Language and Identity: How Do Different Aspects of an L2 Identity Correlate with Spoken English Ability in Japanese High School Students? Journal of English as an International Language 14(1), 1–19.
Doran, M. 2004. Negotiating Between “Bourge” and “Racaille”: Verlan as Youth Identity Practice in Suburban Paris. Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 93–125.
Druviete, I. 1988. Par jaunatnes sarunvalodu. Valodas aktualitātes, 1987. Riga: Zinātne, 197–202.
Druviete, I., Požarnova, V. 2021. Language and identity. Latvian Language Attitudes: Values, Beliefs, Practice. Collective Monograph. Riga: The University of Latvia Press, 29–40.
Eastman, C. M. 1985. Establishing Social Identity Through Language Use. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8500400101
Eckert, P. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
El-Dash, L. G., Busnardo, J. 2001. Brazilian attitudes toward English: dimensions of status and solidarity. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00004
Erastus, F. K., Kebeya, H. U. 2018. Functions of Urban and Youth Language in the New Media: The Case of Sheng in Kenya. In Hurst-Harosh, E., Kanana Erastus, F. (eds.), African Youth Languages, 15–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64562-9_2
Ernstsone, V., Tidriķe, L. 2006. Jauniešu valoda. Riga: The University of Latvia Press.
Eurostat. 2022. What languages are studied the most in the EU? Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220923-1
Eurostat. 2023. Pupils by education level and modern foreign language studied - absolute numbers and % of pupils by language studied. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/EDUC_UOE_LANG01__custom_3427678/default/table?lang=en
Flixwatch. 2020. Worldwide Netflix Database. Available at: flixwatch.co
Gertken, L., Amengual, M., Birdsong, D. 2014. Assessing Language Dominance with the Bilingual Language Profile. In P. Leclercq, A. Edmonds, H. Hilton (eds.), Measuring L2 Proficiency: Perspectives from SLA. Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, 208–225. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092291-014
Guidelines of the State Language Policy. 2021–2027. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/325679-par-valsts-valodas-politikas-pamatnostadnem-2021-2027-gadam
Hall, J. K. 2002. Teaching and Researching: Language and Culture. New York: Pearson Education Limited.
Hymes, D. H. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B., Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin, 269–293.
Lambert, J. 2018. A multitude of ‘lishes’: The nomenclature of hybridity. English World-wide 39(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.00001.lam
Legal Acts of the Republic of Latvia. 2018. Regulations Regarding the State Basic Education Standard and Model Basic Education Programmes. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/303768-regulations-regarding-the-state-basic-education-standard-and-model-basic-education-programmes
Leppänen, S. 2007. Youth language in media contexts: insights into the functions of English in Finland. World Englishes 26, 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00499.x
Lønsmann, D. 2008. From subculture to mainstream: The spread of English in Denmark. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1139–1151.
Nematzadeh, A., Haddad Narafshan, M. 2020. Construction and re-construction of identities: A study of learners’ personal and L2 identity. Cogent Psychology 7.
Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A. (eds.). 2004. Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
PISA. 2018. PISA 2018 Results, Vol. VI: Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World? Available at: https://www.oecd.org/publications/pisa-2018-results-volume-vi-d5f68679-en.htm
Pooley, T. 2000. The use of Regional French by Blancs and Beurs: questions of identity and integration in Lille. Interface 5, 51–69.
Ramasubramanian, S., Murphy, C. J. 2014. Experimental studies of media stereotyping effects. In Webster, M. Jr., Sell., J. (eds.), Laboratory experiments in the social sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press, 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-404681-8.00017-0
Roels, L., De Latte, F., Enghels, R. 2021. Monitoring 21st-Century Real-Time Language Change in Spanish Youth Speech. Languages 6(4), 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6040162
Scholten, B. 1988. Standard und städtischer Substandard bei Heranwachsenden im Ruhrgebiet. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
Statista. 2020. Most common languages used on the internet 2020. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/262946/share-of-the-most-common-languages-on-the-internet/
Stenström, A., Andersen, G., Hasund, I. 2002. Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus compilation, analysis and findings. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 7–24.
Treffers-Daller, J. 2019. What Defines Language Dominance in Bilinguals? Annual Review of Linguistics 5(1), 375-393.
Aicinām Jūs piedalīties pētījumā “Angļu valodas lietojums jauniešu vidū: pētījums par daudzvalodu identitāti un valodas dominanci”, ko veic LU Latviešu valodas institūta zinātniskā asistente un LU Humanitāro zinātņu fakultātes Baltu filoloģijas maģistra studiju programmas studente Justīne Bondare. Pētījums tiek veikts pētījumu projektā „Lingvistiskie pētījumi 21. gadsimtā: Latvija Eiropas kontekstā”. Vēlamies Jūs iepazīstināt ar pētījuma mērķi, norisi un saturu. Pirms šī dokumenta parakstīšanas rūpīgi izlasiet visu informāciju! Pirms dokumenta parakstīšanas Jums ir tiesības uzdot jautājumus par pētījumu un saņemt uz tiem atbildes.
Pētījuma mērķis ir izprast jauniešu latviešu un angļu valodas lietojuma izvēli komunikācijai gan digitālajā vidē, gan ar draugiem skolā un ārpus mājas. Dati tiks izmantoti, lai noteiktu tendences un apstākļus, kas ietekmē jauniešu izvēli komunicēt vienā no šīm valodām, rosinot diskusiju par latviešu un angļu valodas statusu mūsdienu sabiedrībā un valodas ietekmi sociālās identitātes veidošanas procesā.
Pētījums no divām daļām: elektroniskās aptaujas un diskusijas starp pētnieku un klases skolēniem. Abas daļas notiks skolēna audzinātāja klasē, dalība pētījumā ilgs 45 minūtes. Aptauja sastāv no slēgtiem jautājumiem, kur respondentiem tiks lūgts izvēlēties atbildes no piedāvātā atbilžu saraksta. Daļa jautājumi satur divus atbilžu variantus: “jā/nē”, daļa jautājumu veidoti skalas veidā. Otrās daļas laikā pētnieks uzdos dalībniekiem atvērtos jautājumus, un skolēnu atbildes balstīsies uz personīgo pieredzi. Diskusiju laikā pētnieks var uzdot precizējošus jautājumus vai jautājumus, kas izriet no dalībnieku teiktā.
Datu apstrāde notiks atbilstoši Fizisko personu datu apstrādes likuma prasībām. Diskusijas tiks ierakstītas audio formātā, tāpēc identifikators ir dalībnieka balss. Interviju ieraksti tiks anonimizēti ar audio rediģēšanas programmatūras Audacity palīdzību, kurā dalībnieku balsis tiks mainītas. Ierakstu transkripcija tiks pseidonimizēta, sensitīvu informāciju (vārdus, adreses) maskējot ar izdomātu informāciju (izdomāti vārdi, adreses). Dati tiks uzglabāti līdz pētījuma beigām (30.09.2022) gan OneDrive mākonī, gan duplicēti bezsaistes mapēs. Datiem būs piekļuve tikai pētījuma vadītājai. Ja persona pārtraukt dalību pētījumā, dati tiks nekavējoties dzēsti no tiešsaistes un bezsaistes mapēm.
Personas datu pārzinis: Justīne Bondare
Kontaktinformācija: justine.bondare@lu.lv
Tālr. +371 26101469
Piedalīšanās šajā pētījumā ir brīvprātīga. Jums ir tiesības atteikties piedalīties pētījumā vai pārtraukt dalību pētījumā jebkurā laikā. Mēs informēsim Jūs par izmaiņām pētījuma norisē, kas var ietekmēt Jūsu vēlmi turpināt dalību šajā pētījumā.
Ja Jums ir jebkādi jautājumi par šo pētījumu, lūdzu, sazinieties ar Justīni Bondari (e-pasts: justine.bondare@lu.lv, tālr. +371 26101469)
Šis pētījums ir apstiprināts LU HSZ pētījumu ētikas komitejā.
Šis dokuments ir sastādīts divos eksemplāros, no kuriem viens atrodas pie pētījuma veicēja, bet otrs – pie pētījuma dalībnieka.
Es ar savu parakstu apstiprinu, ka:
1) esmu iepazinies/-usies ar šajā dokumentā iekļauto informāciju par pētījumu un saprotu pētījuma būtību, mērķi, norisi, riskus un ieguvumus;
2) man bija iespēja uzdot jautājumus par pētījumu, un uz maniem jautājumiem ir sniegtas atbildes;
3) es saprotu, ka mana dalība šajā pētījumā ir brīvprātīga un atteikšanās piedalīties pētījumā vai dalības pārtraukšana neizraisīs nekādas nelabvēlīgas sekas;
4) es esmu informēts/a par personas datu apstrādes mērķi un paredzamo personas datu apstrādes apjomu;
5) es piekrītu, ka šī pētījuma laikā atbilstoši normatīvo aktu prasībām tiek iegūti, uzglabāti un apstrādāti mani personas dati, kuri ir minēti informācijā par pētījumu;
6) es piekrītu piedalīties šajā pētījumā.
|
Pētījuma dalībnieka vārds, uzvārds |
|
|
Paraksts |
|
|
Datums |
|
Pētnieka vārds, uzvārds |
|
|
Paraksts |
|
|
Datums |