See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/365729270

Migration linguistics: A synopsis

Preprint · July 2023

CITATIONS READS

0 62

1 author:

Ariane Macalinga Borlongan

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
30 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ariane Macalinga Borlongan on 25 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Borlongan, A. M. (in press for 2023). Migration linguistics: A synopsis. AILA Review, 36(2).

Migration Linguistics: A Synopsis

Ariane Macalinga Borlongan

Graduate School of Global Studies and Migration Linguistics Unit
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
[email protected]

Abstract

Migration, among the most important sociocultural phenomena of contemporary global societies, is
complex, dynamic, and multifaceted. At the heart of migration is language, the indispensable agent
of migration. Hence, in this article, a new sub-discipline of linguistics is presented, and that is
‘migration linguistics’. It is the interdisciplinary and multidimensional study of the various aspects
of language within the dynamic process of human mobility. And a linguistic theory of migration
postulates that: (1) Language is an essential element in the migration process; (2) an individual’s
acquisition, learning, and use of language significantly changes as a result of migration; and (3)
migrants must be understood in the languages they can use, taught the destination language, and
provided basic and essential services understandable to them. The interdisciplinary nature of this
new sub-discipline of linguistics is enriched by a variety of approaches and methodologies in
solving issues relative to language in the context of migration.

Keywords

Migration linguistics, language and migration, migration studies, sociolinguistics, applied

linguistics

1. Purpose and Outline of This Article

The primary purpose of this article is to present ‘migration linguistics’ as a new sub-discipline of
linguistics. It begins with motivations for the establishment of this new sub-discipline. It defines
what migration linguistics is, identifies the aims of this new sub-discipline, and lays out its
parameters. A linguistic theory of migration synthesizes the dynamics of language acquisition,
learning, and use in the migration process. The article then explains the model of the linguistic
dimensions of the migration process, which specifies the various determinants and variables in the
acquisition, learning, and use of language in the context of migration. It also discusses language
issues across different types of migration (i.e. labor, family, educational, forced, undocumented, and
group). Finally, with the available interdisciplinary resources and methodologies in studying
language in the context of migration, it envisages prospects for the theory and praxis in migration
linguistics. This article is also a state-of-the-art survey of the study on language and migration as it
articulates extensively and compendiously the dynamics of language in the context of migration.

1 of 23

 2. Rationale for a New Sub-Discipline in Linguistics

Migration, among the most important sociocultural phenomena of contemporary global societies, is
complex, dynamic, and multifaceted. The United Nations’ International Organization for Migration
(2019a) defines migration as: “The movement of persons away from their place of usual residence,
either across an international border or within a State” (p. 137). In the year 2020, there were a total
of 281 million international migrants, or roughly 3.6% of the total population of the world
(McAuliffe & Triandafyllidou, 2021). This number has increased numerically and proportionally in
the recent decades (from 85 million or 2.3% of the world’s population in 1970 to 281 million or
3.6% half a century later), and it has become more considerable, more rapidly than had been
foreseen. And while the proportion of international migrants remains small compared to the total
population of the world — only one in every 30 people are international migrants, the impact of
international migrants on the rest of the world cannot be overemphasized. While migrants constitute
only a small percentage of the world’s population, their social, political, and economic impact on
the rest of the population is pervasive and lasting (Ratha, Mohapatra, & Scheja, 2011).

At the heart of migration is language, though, in many cases, it is not given much attention
compared to other determinants of mobility. It is often only after legal, political, and economic
aspects of migration have been dealt with that language issues are considered. But language truly
plays a most important role throughout the migration process, and it cannot and should not be
understated. Language is the indispensable agent of migration as the whole process could be made
(im)possible because language is used to bridge, to connect, and to mediate through all the other
determinants and variables involved in the migration process. To start with, migrants have to use
language in search of possibilities for mobility. They need to use language to contend with the
bureaucracy of migration. And when migration happens, they must use language for settlement.
They ultimately should use language to survive in their new homes. Oftentimes, this language is a
language they do not speak from birth. It is therefore not surprising that the International
Organization for Migration (2019b) has said, “Language is considered one of the most central
aspects for migrants’ inclusion by both the receiving society and migrants themselves” [emphasis
added] (p. 192). Therefore, in the whole migration process, one sees how language is so essential
that one must also realize how much more attention should be given to language in the context of
migration than it normally gets.

Owing largely to the role of language in migration and the impact of migration in the world
today, there must be a very scientific and systematic way of studying language in the context of the
migration process. Exploration of language and migration is not an entirely new scholarly pursuit,
and there exists quite a substantial amount of work on the topic. In 2016, Piller already came up
with an anthology of works titled Language and Migration as part of the Routledge series Critical
Concepts in Linguistics. And then in 2017(b), Canagarajah edited The Routledge Handbook of
Migration and Language. More recently in 2020(a), Capstick published the book Language and
Migration. These three works have been remarkable in advancing understanding of language in the
context of migration. A few observations could be made of these many earlier studies on language
and migration: First, they primarily focus on the sociological dimensions of language in migration.
In other words, they dwell on what sociolinguists call as ‘the sociology of language’ or
‘macrosociolinguistics’ (cf. Fishman, 1972, also Coulmas, 1997). And then, related to this first
observation, often also, narratives on language and migration are told within the framework of
critical applied linguistics (cf. Pennycook, 2001). Understandably so, because migrants are

2 of 23

 habitually disadvantaged in the margins. And while structural effects of migration on language have
also been investigated (cf. Kerswill, 2006), these investigations are often detached from the
discourses on the sociology of migration, and likely restricted to frameworks within variationist
sociolinguistics or contact linguistics, and also historical linguistics and typological linguistics.

In his handbook on migration and language, Canagarajah (2017a) points out the need to
bring together these studies zeroing on language in the context of migration: “[A]pplied linguists in
diverse parts of the world studying this nexus [of migration and language] don’t necessarily enjoy a
shared scholarly identity or disciplinary space” [emphasis added] (p.1). In the current state of
affairs therefore, these studies are case studies of specific migrants. They are, of course, interesting
in their own right as no two migration narratives will ever be the same. But there is now, more than
ever before, a need to consolidate, integrate, and synthesize studies on language in the context of
human mobility to produce a coherent and uniform understanding of the linguistic phenomena in
the migration process. Canagarajah’s purpose for putting up a handbook of migration and language
is “to critically reflect on how applied linguists study the language/migration nexus in order to
sharpen their tools, methods, and theoretical frames” (p. 1). It is thus compelling that migration be
studied particularly looking at how language affects and, at the same time, is affected by the
migration process and, more importantly, at this moment, that there be a multidimensional and
interdisciplinary study which fundamentally focuses on language as a key element of the migration
process. In light of this progress in the study of language and migration, and as earlier alluded to
and expressed by Canagarajah himself, a new sub-discipline of linguistics should be developed on
the premise that migration is a complex and dynamic process, which needs to be understood in all
of its complexity and dynamism. Yet at the same time, an integration of the findings and hypotheses
is cogent to be able to arrive at more generalizable principles and a theory regarding the place of
language in the migration process, such as the one articulated in this article.

Accordingly, a systematic study of language and migration is here proposed, a new sub-
discipline of linguistics which is called ‘migration linguistics’. The most important and distinctive
feature of this new sub-discipline is that it ensues a coherent and integrated discourse on the
linguistic aspects of the migration process. Such is necessary to fully understand language in
migration particularly and migration broadly. And definitely, there is a need for an awareness of the
phenomenon from a holistic point of view to be able to attain a full grasp of how each variable,
factor, and determinant interact with one another in the migration process. Generalizable theories
and models must be put forward for research, policy, and practice to be more solid, precise,
straightforward, adaptable, and responsive to as many contexts as possible. This new sub-discipline
continues ongoing conversations on language and migration but takes them to a different level of
theorizing and modeling to clearly define this scholarly inquiry, as a new and legitimate sub-
discipline of linguistics. As with language and society vis-a-vis sociolinguistics, language and
psychology vis-a-vis psycholinguistics, and language and computers vis-a-vis computational
linguistics, the transition from language and X to X linguistics heralds not only the establishment of
a new sub-discipline but, more importantly, the maturity of thinking and theorizing in that particular
area of concern. Having said all this, it is fitting and felicitous to point towards the new sub-
discipline of migration linguistics.

3. Definition, Aim, and Scope of Migration Linguistics

3 of 23

 It has been established in the foregoing discussion that (a) language is an essential component of the
migration process and (b) language in the context of migration requires a holistic, integrated, in-
depth treatment. These are the bases for the establishment of migration linguistics. At this point, the
pertinent question to ask then is: What exactly is migration linguistics? This definition is therefore
offered:

Migration linguistics is the interdisciplinary and multidimensional study of the various

aspects of language within the dynamic process of human mobility. It is a systematic study
of migration, focusing on how language effects and likewise is affected by the whole
migration process. It is concerned with how language is used, why language is necessary,
what language represents, and which language is acquired and learned before, during, and
even after migration.

From the given definition, particularly the first sentence, the nature of migration linguistics as a new
sub-discipline is made apparent. It is interdisciplinary, multidimensional, varied, dynamic, and
human:

1. Interdisciplinarity: The focus of this sub-discipline is language in a specific context — that is in

a migratory context. Hence, the theoretical and methodological foundations will have to be
linguistics. However, it is a sub-discipline of linguistics greatly enriched with perspectives and
techniques from other disciplines relevant to analyses of and applications in migration.
Sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, psychology, education, among others,
informs migration linguistics as they share the same goals and concerns as this new sub-
discipline.

2. Multidimensionality: This new sub-discipline investigates on different facets and layers of the
migration process. It is impossible to fully understand migration, and language in the context of
migration, if the process is only viewed from one point of view. Hence, this new sub-discipline
is interested in language as the entire process of migration unfolds, analyzing it from multiple
dimensions, considerations, and factors.

3. Variety: While language is indeed the focus of this new sub-discipline, there is a need to take
into account the other variables affecting both migration and language. In looking at the broad
patterns of the interaction of language and migration, all variables must be factored in. This new
sub-discipline must be able to deal with all the possible issues and concerns relating to language
arising from migration.

4. Dynamism: Migration is a forceful and potent process, always, and very rapidly, changing and
moving. As the migration process unfolds and progresses, how language is used, acquired, and
learned also evolves and transforms. Theory and practice in this new sub-discipline require that
the fluid character of migration and also language in the context of migration be accounted for
and pondered on.

5. Human: Above all, migration is a human experience, and it is experienced by people desiring to
fulfill their own aspirations, and language becomes an integral part of this realization. Aside
from being a scholarly endeavor, this new sub-discipline is also concerned with finding ways to
help migrants in realizing their visions of a bright future. There is therefore a need to ensure that
innovative ways of thinking about how language could be used, acquired, and learned by

4 of 23

 migrants and also creative means of engaging migrants themselves in the process, are among the
features of this new sub-discipline.

On these accounts, the aims of migration linguistics are as follows: (1) To theorize on language as it
is used, acquired, and learned in the context of migration; (2) to describe the various factors and
patterns relating to language within the migration process; (3) to investigate on language in the
migration process using interdisciplinary perspectives and methodologies; (4) to provide practical
solutions to the issues and problems related to language confronting migrants; and (5) to engage
various stakeholders of language and migration, most especially migrants themselves, in
understanding and acting upon language in the migration process. With these, one sees that a most
important goal of migration linguistics is dialoging and engaging with stakeholders, particularly in
the discussion of (linguistic) rights of migrants, and it is highly attentive to the voice of migrants
themselves, as they are paradoxically often silenced not only in the process and but also in
discourses on migration.

Using linguistics as a lens to understand migration provides a distinctive yet extensive

perspective on the social phenomenon of human mobility. Language is one particular aspect of
migration which all migrants must be able to contend with in the entirety of the process, whatever
reason for migrating they have or whatever circumstance they are in. All migrants will, at some
points in the process, have to deal with language issues. The use of language and linguistics easily
reveals most especially the putative variabilities and alleged inequalities of migration in an intricate
and unambiguous form and approach, and this is because language is such a categorical entity it
could easily be studied, analyzed, and investigated in an empirical means and verifiable manner.
Migration also lays out so much about language, in particular, determinants, factors, and variables
which are often overlooked in language use, acquisition, and learning among the autochthonous
population. Migration has the ability to reinforce certain (intra)linguistic, social, and psychological
variables influencing language, and that definitely makes for a fascinating object of analysis and
persuasive matter of concern. Therefore, migration linguistics contributes to linguistic theory by
including migration in the equation and, in the same way, it adds to migration theory by taking into
account language in the process. And while migration linguistics is expectedly concentrated on the
language of migrants and language in migratory contexts, the vast expanse of the impact of
migration to the rest of population of the world makes this new sub-discipline a very important and
relevant study not only of languages but of humanity and society. “[W]e are all diasporists now” (p.
1638), Faist (2013) paraphrases Glazer (1997) on the latter’s notion of multiculturalism.

In a 2019 article, Borlongan began using the term migration linguistics, and it may possibly
the earliest description of the term in the English-using world. It has to be noted here that German
linguists have already been using the word Migrationslinguistik before that. In 2004, Krefeld also
argued for the establishment of Migrationslinguistik, as among the hyphenated sub-fields of
linguistics, pointing out that, also like this article, there are empirical, historical, and theoretical
grounds for doing so. And then, in 2011, Stehl wrote:

Hauptaufgabe der Migrationslinguistik ist die Erforschung und die Darstellung der
sprachlichen und sozio-linguistischen Aspekte von Migrationsprozessen und den daraus
resultierenden Situationen von Sprachkontakt und Kulturtransfer. Hierzu werden die
Sprachdynamiken bei den in Kontakt tretenden Sprechergemeinschaften sowie der damit
einhergehende Austausch von Sprachstrukturen, Diskurstraditionen und von Kulturen im
Migrationsprozess analysiert. (p. 33)

5 of 23

 ‘The main goal of migration linguistics is to investigate and present the linguistic and
sociolinguistic aspects of migration processes and the resulting situations of language
contact and cultural transfer. For this purpose, the language dynamics in the speech
communities that come into contact and the associated exchange of language structures,
discourse traditions, and cultures in the migration process are analyzed.’

The similarity between the German conception of Migrationslinguistik and the new sub-discipline
being proposed in this article is clear and striking. They are both concerned with language in the
context of migration, the sociolinguistics of contact in migration, and the structural effects of
migration. Migration linguistics as espoused in this article, however, is much broader in coverage
and scope. Migrationslinguistik, it seems, has set its focus on language-internal aspects, i.e.
linguistic restructuring and contact dynamics, or, to juxtapose it with earlier studies on language and
migration which was more inclined towards macrosociolinguistics or the sociology of language,
Migrationslinguistik is leaning towards microsociolinguistics and contact linguistics. The proposal
of a new sub-discipline here aims to achieve an adequate treatment of language in the context of
migration, taking into account both language-internal and language-external aspects of migration.
More specifically, migration linguistics as described in this article is driven by a common theory (to
be elaborated later on), the examination of all the variables involved in the migration process,
engaged in devising pragmatic uses for its theory and findings. That said, the desire to fully
understand the dynamics of language in the context of migration appears to be an aspiration of
linguists of various persuasions, and also of scholars speaking languages other than English.

Migration linguistics also has many similar undertakings with other sub-disciplines of
linguistics. In particular, it shares common interests with sociolinguistics, historical linguistics,
contact linguistics, psycholinguistics, and educational linguistics. This is to be expected because
they have a shared interest in language and they will inevitably overlap at some point. However, it
is still instructive to point out here where lies the difference. Migration is primarily a social issue
and it needs to be treated from a sociolinguistic perspective. Indeed, the study of language and
migration could be subsumed, too, under sociolinguistics, i.e. ‘the sociolinguistics of migration’ (cf.
Capstick, 2020a). The proposal to come up with a new sub-discipline, although very much related
to sociolinguistics, highlights the importance and prevalence of migration in the contemporary
world. It is necessary to look at language in migration using more specialized theory and
techniques, because the experiences of migrants vary greatly from those of the autochthonous
population, which is the primary and immediate concern of sociolinguistics. Meanwhile, in
historical linguistics, as with typological linguistics, migration is among the primary drivers of
language change (cf. Janda, Joseph, & Vance, 2020). And that is true, and that is also a way to
underscore the impact of migration not only to language but also to cultures and societies. However,
that kind of migration which is of interest to historical linguists often involves large-scale, long-
term migration and their linguistic ramifications are often observable only after decades or even
centuries. The same is the case with contact linguistics, which is interested in the contact of at least
two languages, often a result of migration, too (cf. Hickey, 2020). Migration linguistics is more
interested in immediate effects of recent migration on language use, acquisition, and learning such
as accommodation, code-switching, interlanguage, and bilingualism. Long-term effects lead to
extensive borrowing, substratal influence, dialect leveling, koineization, and creolization. These are
already within the realm of historical linguistics and contact linguistics even if these could be
migration-induced language changes. During the migration process, there is also a need to acquire
and learn new languages (or dialects). While psycholinguistics and educational linguistics also deal

6 of 23

 with acquisition and learning of languages (cf. Fernández & Cairnes, 2017; Spolsky & Hult, 2008),
the mechanisms and ways migrants acquire and learn languages are also so different from how the
autochthonous population would.

That notwithstanding, migration linguistics draws on these established sub-disciplines in

linguistics, recognizing that they all have that common interest in language and the impact
migration has on language yet, now, migration linguistics puts into fore linguistic and
multidisciplinary analyses of the dynamics of language and migration. And even more, migration
linguistics makes use of various concepts, theories, frameworks, methodologies, and techniques
from related disciplines in humanities and social sciences, such as migration studies (first and
foremost), and then sociology, anthropology, geography, political science, economics, psychology,
and education. Engagement with other sub-disciplines in linguistics and the related broader
disciplines in the humanities and social sciences enrich works in migration linguistics not only to
thoroughly unravel language use, acquisition, and learning in the context of migration but most
especially to felicitously respond to issues of migrants in relation to language and beyond.

4. A Linguistic Theory of Migration

Theories are forces driving scientific disciplines. They are meant to systematically explain a
phenomenon and, ultimately, abstract generalizations about the phenomenon particularly and how
the world works generally. A common theoretical assumption enables scholars and even non-
scholars to draw upon a prevailing notion to explain phenomena and to be guided by shared
understanding of how things work and/or how things are/should be done. Besides, theories allow
for argumentation in the discipline as they open up questions for a better understanding of the
phenomenon the discipline is interested in.

In a linguistic theory of migration, the attempt is to explain human mobility from a primarily
(but not necessarily exclusively) linguistic standpoint and therefore to endeavor to abstract
generalizations regarding the migration process with a particular focus on language. Theories are
composed of assumptions, hypotheses, principles, and models which are used to describe, frame,
and specify concepts and variables and how they relate to one another and, such theories must be
observationally, descriptively, and explanatorily adequate (following Chomsky’s [1964] notion of
empirical adequacy of linguistic analyses). A linguistic theory of migration is founded on three
basic principles and the first of these principles is a major premise in this theory:

Principle 1: Language is an essential element in the migration process.

This principle seems to be the most central and foundational of the three, and it has already been
repeatedly said in this article. The prominent position of language in the migration process cannot
be contested. The migration process could not have been initiated nor proceeded without language.
In its most fundamental sense, initiating movement from origin to destination whether legally or
illegally demands the use of language. All the other determinants, factors, and variables of
migration could only work because of language. This principle does not want to overlook those
particularly controversial and precarious cases when migrants are literally silenced and speaking
and even thinking are restricted. Communication is facilitated by intermediaries and migrants are
brought to the destination country with minimal verbal interaction. This is precisely the point this

7 of 23

 principle is making — that, in the absence of language, the migration process might likely put
migrants in an unfavorable situation in their destination country.

The second principle in a linguistic theory of migration encapsulates what takes place with
language in the migration process:

Principle 2: An individual’s acquisition, learning, and use of language significantly changes

as a result of migration.

From a linguistic point of view, when one migrates, one exits a speech community, leaving behind
the shared behaviors and norms one is so familiar with, and enters another speech community often
unaware of the expected behaviors and norms in this other speech community. The one particular
variable which has the greatest of impacts here is movement, and, concomitantly, the distance
traversed and time elapsed. And then, the migrant has to begin acquiring, learning, and using the
language (including the accompanying norms and behaviors) of that other speech community in a
manner and mechanism so different from how linguistic norms and behaviors were previously
acquired in the speech community of origin, and often in a less than ideal context. In these
circumstances, beliefs, ideologies, identities, acquisitional and learning processes and strategies,
domains and situations of use, and other entities relating to language are greatly challenged,
stretched, and tested. The effects of social determinants of language use, and acquisition and
learning as well, become amplified in the process of one’s movement from one place to another.
That said, not only is migration a determinant in itself but it is also one which intensifies and
reinforces other determinants and factors at play in language use, acquisition, and learning in the
context of migration. Migration thus has a multiplier effect on the social correlates of language use.

The third principle is concerned with the rights of migrants as regards the use, acquisition,
and learning of language(s):

Principle 3: Migrants must be understood in languages they can use, taught the destination
language, and provided basic and essential services understandable to them.

The right of migrants expressed in the third principle of a linguistic theory of migration is actually
the right to language enjoyed by everyone. But often, in many migratory contexts, migrants are not
accorded this right to language. In a new sub-discipline of linguistics and in a linguistic theory of
migration, it is important to bring to the fore this concern and to make this among the primary
pursuits of any enterprise on language in the context of migration. Put simply, every endeavor of
migration linguistics must be about this particular right migrants also have regarding language.

Finally, in linguistics, there is a basic and commonly used metaphorical term, that is ’mother
tongue’. Talking about a linguistic theory of migration, it is useful to allude to ‘migrant tongue’, and
it can be defined as the language(s) or dialect(s) migrants acquire or learn in their destination
country. Because of its prominent use in the society (and, therefore, language ecology) of the
destination country, it may not just be an additional language/dialect for some migrants. In a
number of cases, it could even become a dominant language/dialect, most especially when acquired/
learned early on, are acquired/learned with positive, integrative motivation, and are accorded
positive attitudes. It may be acquired in the in the wider community out of school, most especially
younger-generation migrants, or learned more formally and systematically in a classroom setting. It
is symbolic of their new identity (as migrants, whether voluntary/desired or forced/reluctant), and

8 of 23

 even of their aspirations for the future. Migration linguistics and, therefore, a linguistic theory of
migration must be interested in this migrant tongue.

A linguistic theory of migration as stated above, just like any theory, is an abstraction out of
many observable cases and a generalization intended to be over-arching but not necessarily all-
encompassing. It is not presented in such a way that it could possibly account for every unique
experience of every migrant. As has been said earlier, no two migration narratives are ever alike.
What it offers is a theory which could serve as a framework to guide an analysis of or even an
application in (language in) the migration process. It also brings to fore language, which is often
overlooked in quite a number of theories in migration (cf. Cohen, 1996), despite its importance as
the major determinant and variable in the study of migration.

5. Linguistic Aspects of the Migration Process

In a linguistic theory of migration, there are three key elements at play, i.e. society, migrant, and
language. These are but the key elements in this linguistic theorizing of migration, and there are
many specific determinants and variables which are linked and are related so as they also influence
one another in the process. While they are always taken collectively because that is just exactly how
they occur in the real world, it is important to be able to tease them out into categories. These
factors and issues can be organized in a conceptual model, and it is presented in Figure 1. This
conceptual model of the linguistic aspects of the migration process is explained referencing some
works and studies which are relevant to the determinants and variables mentioned. The attempt has
been to be as comprehensive as possible, but it is also possible that some determinants and variables
have been inadvertently left out, likewise works and studies which could have been mentioned but
unfortunately overlooked. And understandably, some determinants and variables may seem more
characteristic or more important than others as some may be likewise further added which are not
included at present. Like the theory presented earlier, the model is a broad generalization rather than
an absolute inventory.


9 of 23

 Pre-Migration During Migration Post-Migration

The Migrant
(Personal Dimensions)

Identities
Group and Cultural Attitudes
Motivation
Social Integration
Group and Cultural Attitudes
Government Policies
Government Policies Identities
Other Institutions
Abilities and Skills Reintegration
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Status
Abilities and Skills
Networks
Social Networks
Length of Stay

The Language
(Structural, Psycholinguistic, and Sociolinguistic Dimensions)

Language Ecology
Language Policies
Language Proficiencies and Competencies
Acquisition and Learning of New
Languages and/or Dialects
Language Ecology Influence of Previously Acquired/Learned
Languages/Dialects on the Newly Acquired/ Language Ecology
Language Policies Learned Languages/Dialects
Mother Tongue New Language Proficiencies and
Restructuring of the Languages/Dialects in Competencies
Language Procficiences and Competencies the Destination Country
Influence of Destination Country
Language Learning Aptitude Influence of Destination Country Languages/Dialects on Proficiencies in
Languages/Dialects on Proficiencies in Previously Acquired/Learned Languages/
Language Attitudes Previously Acquired/Learned Languages/ Dialects
Language Training Dialects
Language Attitudes
Motivations for Language Learning Linguistic Landscapes
Language Learning Aptitude
Language Attitudes
Motivations for Language Learning
Language Training
Length of Exposure/Stay

The Society
(Societal Dimensions)

Cultural Diversity
Socioeconomic Development
Cultural Diversity Security
Social Situation Social Welfare
Demographic Loss for the Origin Country Population Recovery
Socioeconomic Development
Demographic Gain for the Destination Accommodation
Security
Country
Social Welfare
Accommodation
Spaces and Places
Length of Stay

Figure 1. Linguistic Aspects of the Migration Process

10 of 23

 Prior to migration, several variables come into play at the level of the migrant. Migrants
have various motivations for migrating, e.g. economic, social educational, political (Castles, 2013).
Attitudes towards peoples and cultures in the origin country vis-a-vis the destination country, and
also the idea of migration broadly, may greatly affect the desire to migrate (Dustmann & Preston,
2007). Governments of both origin and destination countries dictate through policies how migration
could be done (Leal & Rodr guez, 2016). The set of abilities and skills, and, in many cases,
education, of migrants may determine their fate in their destination country (Chiswick & Miller,
2009). The amount of resources, particularly financial resources, which migrants have will make
movement easy or difficult for them (Carling & Schewel, 2018). Networks in both the origin and
destination countries provide necessary assistance in enabling migration (Rainer & Siedler, 2009).
In terms of language, languages and dialects of the origin country are in the default linguistic
repertoire of the migrant, a product of language ecologies and language policies prevalent in the
origin country. Their language proficiencies are often either assessed formally or considered
informally if these proficiencies are sufficient for and suitable in the destination country (Akresh,
Massey, & Frank, 2014). Migrants also have certain attitudes towards their own languages and
dialects used in their origin country as well as towards those used in their destination country even
prior to migration (Yijälä & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2010). Language training prior to migration, if
available, could certainly help migrants when they arrive in their destination country (Crezee,
2010). Motivations for as well as aptitude in learning the languages and dialects of the destination
country would affect how these languages and dialects are acquired and learned prior to migration.
At the level of the society, the circumstances, particularly socioeconomic, in the origin country
compel a part of the population to migrate (de Haas, 2009, 2010).

Various factors also affect the migrant during migration. Identities of migrants are often
questioned, challenged, and rewritten in the destination country (Horenczyk, 1996). When
experienced firsthand, positive attitudes towards peoples and cultures in the destination country
may be reinforced or challenged. Behaviors change with respect to the culture of the destination
country (Kuo, 2014). The government of the destination country stipulates what could possibly be
done legally. Other institutions (work and school primarily but other social institutions as well) also
define the actions migrants take in the destination country and they could also be of help to
integrate of migrants. Resources, particularly financial, still play a big role in allowing for an easy
or difficult settlement in the destination country. Abilities and skills of migrants are assessed and
improved depending on the need posed and support available (Warman, Sweetman, & Goldmann,
2015). Social networks give significant psychological, social, and logistical support for the migrants
(Williams, Hughes, Bhandari, Thornton, Young-DeMarco, Sun, & Swindle, 2020). Longer stays
result in greater acculturation and integration (Miglietta & Tartaglia, 2009).

Then, at the level of language, first and foremost, the language ecology of destination
countries change with the inflow of migrants (Lim, 2010a). Languages and/or dialects of the
destination country are acquired and learned by the migrants most especially if the languages and/or
dialects they could use are not particularly helpful in their destination country (Go, Saure, Kurusu,
& Borlongan, 2021b; Hou & Bieser, 2006; Kristen, 2016; van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009) and there
is even a possibility that migrants are able to acquire those languages in native-like proficiency
(Dollmann, Kogan, & Weißmann, 2020). In the process of using these new languages and dialects,
these languages and/or dialects are restructured, primarily influenced by the language and/or dialect
of the migrant in their origin country (Kerswill, 2006). As interactions between migrants and locals
in the languages and dialects of the destination country take place, these languages and/or dialects

11 of 23



í

 are restructured in the long-term and, in due course, undergo language and dialect change
(Hinnenkamp, 2003; Kerswill, 1994). Structural effects of migration, or migration-induced variation
and change, may take the form of accommodation, code-switching, interlanguage, and bilingualism,
and these changes eventually become more stable and more distinctive, as in Multicultural London
English (Kerswill, 2022), Peranakan English (Lim, 2010b), and Filipino Domestic Worker English
(Borlongan, 2022a). Migrants’ proficiency and use of their origin country’s languages and/or
dialects are also affected because of the acquisition, learning, and use of the destination country’s
languages and dialects (Doucerain, 2019; Karidakis & Arunachalam, 2016). Oftentimes, they
eventually use the languages and/or dialects in the origin country differently from how it is used in
their origin country. The presence of migrants and the language and culture they carry likewise have
ramifications in scapes and spaces (Higgins, 2017). Attitudes towards languages and dialects, and
also the identities and ideologies in relation to these languages, of both the origin and destination
countries change as those in the latter are acquired, learned, and used more frequently (Capstick,
2020; Curcó, 2005; Zhu, 2017). Migrants’ motivations for learning languages and dialects of the
destination country change upon arrival (Lou & Noels, 2019; Uebelmesser, Sommerfeld, &
Weingarten, 2022). If available, language training prior to migration can definitely help migrants in
acquiring and learning languages and dialects of the destination country more efficiently (Go &
Borlongan, 2021a; Hayfron, 2001).

At the societal level, the origin country experiences loss of a part of its population, which
could have positive and negative demographic, intellectual, economic impact on its society
(Docquier & Veljanoska, 2020). The destination country gains new people who carry with them
unique social background and contributions. People in the destination country would have to
accommodate migrants, whether warmly or reluctantly (Beverelli, 2021; Gregurović & Župarić-
Iljić, 2018). Migrants may even transform spaces and places to also make their country of
destination a place of their own (Mandel, 1996). In the long term, society in the destination country
changes along with the continuous arrival of migrants from other countries.

Finally, after migration, if and when migrants return to their origin country, several variables
are also at play. At the level of the migrant, there would have been changes in how migrants see
themselves after the experience brought about by migration. Reintegration may be a challenge as
the origin country might not be entirely new but it may also be unfamiliar to the returning migrant
(Cassarino, 2008). On language, returning migrants carry with them new language proficiencies and
competencies from their destination countries. As would have happened during migration, while
proficiency and competency in their origin country’s languages and/or dialects may not have been
lost, how migrants use these languages and/or dialects might have changed and might already be
different from how the autochthonous population of the origin country uses these languages and/or
dialects (Tacelosky, 2022). With new language proficiencies and competencies come changed
attitudes towards languages and dialects in both the origin and destination countries even after
migration. Of course, the society is affected, too. While the origin country recovers people it has
lost previously, they are never the same again in many ways. The origin country would also have to
adjust to the return of these migrants to their origin countries (Arowolo, 2000).

6. Issues across Migration Types

Having discussed the various determinants and variables affecting the migration process, it must be
emphasized that not all determinants or variables will affect every migrant. And so it is worthwhile

12 of 23

 to also discuss the issues migrants have regarding language with reference to their motivations and
reasons for migration. This article broadly categorizes motivations for migration into six specific
types: (1) Labor, (2) family, (3) educational, (4) forced, (5) undocumented, and (6) group
migrations.

The International Labour Organization in 2021 estimates that there are 169 million migrant
workers globally (and thus, the largest portion of the total number of migrants around the world),
and more than two-thirds of these are in high-income countries. Proficiency in the language(s) of
the destination country is an important factor in getting employment (Vigourox, 2017). Most
migrants do not have enough proficiency to be employed in jobs suitable to their qualifications and
skills simply because they are not proficient enough in the language. Most migrants do not have
resources, in particular, money and time, and do not receive appropriate or sufficient support to
learn the language of their destination countries (Del Percio, forthcoming). Languages and
proficiencies can be reasons for migrants to be discriminated against in employment and workplace
(Dovchin & Dryden, 2021; Guinto, 2019; Ladegaard, 2020). Sometimes, migrants are compelled to
meet language proficiency standards which are practically unattainable for them and that is why
they struggle during the entire migration process (Piller & Lising, 2014). And English remains to be
the language of transnational labor (Lising, 2017).

Some migrants also move as families or migrate to reunite with relatives in another country
(Yeoh, Lam, & Huang, 2022). Even though possibly more personal in terms of dynamics, the
(linguistic) integration of those who migrate for family reasons to the destination country is likewise
oftentimes less systematic and less structured (Wortham & Rhodes, 2013). The (linguistic)
integration of family members of migrants are affected by many variables linked to the family
(Portes & Hao, 2002). The family has big influence on what languages are used, acquired, and
learned and therefore maintained or lost (Zhu & Li, 2016). Often, language shift takes place with
younger generation migrants speaking language of origin less and language of destination more (Li,
1994).

Education has also been among the major motivations for transnational movement (Liu-
Farrer, 2022). Language plays a central role in the academic experience of international students
(Halic, Greenberg, & Paulus, 2009) yet students experience a number of difficulties related to
language while studying in another country (Zhang & Mi, 2010). Some international students may
even find themselves in a predicament as to how they will position themselves given their
proficiencies and competencies in relation to other international students and also local students (De
Costa, Tigchelaar, & Cui, 2016). Language is a key factor in school admission and is a major
component of programs and curricula for these students. Language standards and medium of
instruction tend to be Anglocentric. International education is primarily in English, and so
international education sometimes equated to education in English (Jenkins, 2017). Language
teaching strategies and standards for autochthonous population are often used for migrant students
without or with very little modification (Rodríguez-Izquierdo, Falcón, & Permisán, 2020).

There is also little regard for the linguistic needs of refugees as these needs are often
overshadowed by immediate and urgent physiological and security needs (Morrice, Tip, Collyer, &
Brown, 2021). Unfortunately, some policies relating to refugees have little understanding to their
needs, capacities, and the diversity they bring, in fact put them more at risk. Some of these refugees
arrive at their destination country illiterate and uneducated even in the language of their origin
country (Elmeroth, 2003). Refugees move from one place to another for various political, security,

13 of 23

 economic, and environmental reasons and this impacts how they use, acquire, and learn the
language of their destination country. Interestingly, refugees go through the same process of
language acquisition and learning as other migrants do (Kosyakova, Kristen, & Spörlein, 2022).

Then, there are the undocumented migrants who might be in similar precarious situation as
refugees. While there should be mechanisms to invoke universal human rights, the fact remains that
undocumented migrants could not enjoy the same rights which should be common to all (Noll,
2010). Their undocumented status poses several problems which hinders them from many
opportunities, including receiving education in the language of their destination country, and also
languages of their origin country (Green, 2003).

People may also migrate in groups and form diasporic communities and these communities
usually implement cohesive strategies which maintain their identity, culture, and language more
distinctively (Sheffer, 2019). ‘New cultures’ and, therefore, ‘new languages and dialects’ merge
from these communities (Canagarajah & Silberstein, 2012; Li & Zhu, 2013). Special attention (and
even legislation and/or government support) must be given to their unique culture. Emerging
languages and dialects — pidgins, creoles, and the variable range of contact effects — also need
special attention, both from scholars and practitioners. Another major issue is the maintenance of
their heritage languages (Canagarajah, 2013).

7. The Agenda for Migration Linguistics

Through its interdisciplinary and multidimensional nature, migration linguistics is able to draw on a
variety of approaches, methodologies, and techniques in investigating on language in the context of
migration, and considering other determinants and variables involved in this dynamics. Easily
accessible are those from linguistics (Dörnyei, 2007; Holmes & Hazen, 2013) and migration studies
(Vargas-Silva, 2013), and Canagarajah (2017a) particularly mentions multisited ethnography,
mobile methods, participatory research, and mixed methods as coming into prominence in
investigating language in migratory context. This article has surveyed the many determinants and
variables which take issue across migration types and which could be the focus of future works in
migration linguistics. The dynamic nature of both language and migration invites many possibilities
for scholarly inquiries in migration linguistics. While this exposition on migration linguistics has
focused its discussion on international migrants, unmistakably, this new sub-discipline of linguistics
also reaches out to internal migrants (those migrating within a country and not between countries)
as well as those constrained by immobilities (cf. Canagarajah, 2021). The study of migration has
also broadened its scope and has often necessitated the inclusion of movement of other entities
besides humans and, as such, it has gone from the mere study of migration to the study of mobility
— the ‘mobility turn’, as Faist (2013) calls it (but also Canagarajah, 2017a). As in Canagarajah’s
(2017a) handbook, in doing migration linguistics, the term migration is used to emphasize the focus
on human mobility without discrediting the significance of other (im)mobilities involved and
actually covered in discussing human migration and mobility itself.

This article has thus presented migration linguistics as a new sub-discipline of linguistics as
an adequate scholarly inquiry and practical exercise in resolving linguistic issues of migrants. A
linguistic theory of migration has been outlined to guide investigations and this theory and its
principles must be verified for its predictive validity and empirical reality. Having said that, further
approaches and issues might be put forward and argued for, and even alternative categories and

14 of 23

 taxonomies are certainly also conceivable. In the next few steps, many of the parameters which
have been laid out in this article, and their possible ways of being realized, need to be worked out
on the basis of specific cases and applications, and, on that basis, by adding case studies and sample
situations and deducing general parallels from them, the theory in particular and migration
linguistics in general can be refined and developed even further. Canagarajah (2017a) stresses, “As
we can see, migration and mobility have generated new orientations to language and social inquiry.
They have helped scholars question some of the territorialized, bounded, static, and representational
thinking in applied linguistics as in other fields in humanities and social sciences” (p. 18).
Migration linguistics thus emerges as the crystallization of these new orientations, contemporary
realities, and mutual endeavors in the humanities and social sciences.

A critical and essential call to make at this point is the need to affect and impact migrants,
which is actually among the aims and nature of this new sub-discipline. The new perspectives
offered by migration linguistics will be of little or no value at all if migrants do not benefit from the
intellectual progress this new sub-discipline is making. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
created and ratified in 1948 as well as the Global Compact for Migration drafted and signed in 2018
include several provisions for the welfare of migrants. The United Nations has also outlined the
rights supposed to be enjoyed by non-citizens in 2006. However, in practice, there remains much to
be desired in the many aspects of the migration process, in the actual experiences of migrants. In
relation to language, it has not been clearly articulated what linguistic rights migrants have and what
provisions are available to them as regards language acquisition, learning, and use. It is an
imperative to scrutinize the linguistic rights accorded and provisions afforded to migrants, whether
they are articulated explicitly or implicitly. More importantly, clear and precise declarations on what
migrants rightfully have as regards language must be advocated by migration linguistics, by
engaging with other stakeholders, governments and practitioners, and most especially migrants
themselves.

Current language policies relating to migrants as well as language programs offered for their
integration in their destination countries must be examined. Such an examination must cover
policies relating to employment, study, integration, (legal) residency, and even citizenship as well as
programs intended to help migrants conform to these policies. It should also include policies and
programs in both origin and destination countries and those policies implemented and programs
offered by public and private institutions for various intents and purposes. The guiding question is:
How are these policies and programs truly sensitive to migrants and their contexts of mobility? The
answer to that question should naturally lead to some recommendations for the formulation of
future policies and design of upcoming programs meant to aid migrants in their destination
countries. These clearly articulated policies and programs are necessary in ensuring migrants are not
left behind most especially during critical situations of crises and emergencies (Borlongan, 2022b).
Looking into the future, and the challenges to be surmounted and the possibilities to be excited
about as regards language in the context of migration, there are so many prospects for migration
linguistics to flourish.

Oftentimes full of action, adventure, and drama, migration is such a fascinating story to tell.
Language is the compelling point of view to tell this story. And migration linguistics is its humble
storyteller. But more than telling a story, migration linguistics listens to the voices of migrants often
marginalized and even silenced. Most importantly, migration linguistics gives migrants the voice to
allow them to be heard and be free, by cherishing, treasuring, and valuing them and the diversity
they bring, most especially through their languages.

15 of 23

 Author’s Notes

This article is an integration and synthesis of the various lectures and workshops (in my own classes
and also in conferences and even in invited lectures) I have given on migration linguistics since
2020. Discussions in those lectures and workshops have greatly enriched my conceptualization of
this article. I am thankful in particular to the Linguistic Society of the Philippines (LSP, through its
past and former presidents Alejandro Bernardo and Aldrin Lee respectively) and the International
Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA, through its president Azirah Hashim) for all the
opportunities they gave me not only to talk about migration linguistics but also further work on it.
AILA presently includes Migration Linguistics among its Research Networks (ReN). My university,
the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (TUFS), has given me all the support I need from the very
beginning. Aside from allowing me to regularly offer courses on migration linguistics at the
undergraduate and graduate levels, my university have also been very generous in providing funds
to enrich those courses and to also conduct research and other special projects on migration
linguistics. They have connected me to intergovernmental and government institutions as well as
universities to be able to expand my network and to begin collaborations not only with researchers
but also with other stakeholders in the migration process. Above all, they allowed me to establish
and head the Migration Linguistics Unit (MLU) in the university. Special mention must be made for
my vice presidents Toru Aoyama (Education), Jun Matsukuma (International Affairs), and Toshihide
Nakayama (Research) for their keen interest on migration linguistics.

I would like to thank colleagues who went through many drafts of this article: Aireen
Barrios, Jasper Kyle Catapang, Maya Khemlani David, Remart Dumlao, Gavin Furukawa, Mikhail
Alic Go, Kenichiro Kurusu, Daniel Lee, Gracia Liu-Farrer, James McLellan (who added
community/group migration among the four types I initially discussed, and now six in this article
with undocumented migrants also included), Ariel Robert Ponce, Ron Bridget Vilog, and Aiden
Yeh. In a very special way, I have to thank Dominik Heps not only for commenting on my work but
also helping me with references written in German. Though I did not specifically cite any of his
works in this article, Edgar Schneider has tremendously influenced my way of linguistic
abstraction, modelling, and theorizing and so my gratitude goes to him for the inspiration and for
his feedback, too, on a draft of this article. And I will be forever grateful to Lisa Lim, Loy Lising,
and Nicanor Guinto as well as Paul Kerswill for being with me in the TUFS Migration Linguistics
Unit, the AILA Migration Linguistics ReN, and most importantly the International Association for
Migration Linguistics (IAML), which we founded and would not have come into being without
their encouragement and support.

References

Akresh, I. R., Massey, D. S., & Frank, R. (2014). Beyond English proficiency: Rethinking
immigrant integration. Social Science Research, 45, 200-210.

Arowolo, O. O. (2000). Return migration and the problem of reintegration. International Migration,
38(5), 59-82.

16 of 23

 Borlongan, A. M. (2019). Studies on language and migration: Towards ‘migration linguistics’.

Diliman Review, 63(1) , 17-23.

Borlongan, A. M. (2022a). Filipino domestic worker English. ASEAN Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 1.

Borlongan, A. M. (2022b). Migrants in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: A migration

linguistic perspective. Migration Letters, 19(4), 367-375.

Beverelli, C. (2021). Pull factors for migration: The impact of migrant integration policies.
Economics & Politics, 34(1), 171-191.

Canagarajah, S. (2013). Reconstructing heritage language: Resolving dilemmas in language

maintenance for Sri Lankan Tamil migrants. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 222, 131-155.

Canagarajah, S. (2017a). The nexus of migration and language: The emergence of a disciplinary
space. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language. (pp.
1-28). London, the United Kingdom: Routledge.

Canagarajah, S. (Ed.). (2017b). The Routledge handbook of migration and language. London, the
United Kingdom: Routledge.

Canagarajah, S. (2021). Rethinking mobility and language: From the Global South. The Modern
Language Journal, 105(2), 571-583.

Canagarajah, S., & Silberstein, S. (2012). Diaspora identities and language. Journal of Language,
Identity & Education, 11(2), 81-84.

Capstick, T. (2020a). Language and migration. London, the United Kingdom: Routledge.

Capstick, T. (2020b). Transnational literacies as social remittances: The role of language ideologies
in shaping migrants’ online literacies. Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 301- 319

Carling, J., & Schewel, K. (2018). Revisiting aspiration and ability in international migration.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 945-963.

Castles, S. (2013). The forces driving global migration. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 34(2),
122-140.

Cassarino, J.-P. (2008). Conditions of modern return migrants: Editorial introduction. International
International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 10(2), 95-105.

Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2009). The international transferability of immigrants’ human
capital. Economics of Education Review, 28(2), 162-169.

Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. In J. J. Fodor & J. A. Katz (Eds.), The
structure of language (pp. 50-118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

17 of 23

 Cohen, R. (Ed.) (1996). Theories of migration. Cheltenham, the United Kingdom: Edward Elgar
Publishing.

Coulmas, F. (1997). Introduction. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (p. 1-11).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Crezee, I. (2010). Older Dutch migrants: Exploring benefits of formal instruction in L2 English pre-
migration and ultimate attainment in L2. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 16(1),
17-35.

Curcó, C. (2005). Code switching and identity in the discourse of Catalan immigrants in Mexico.
AILA Review, 18(1), 18-40.

De Costa, P. I., Tigchelaar, M., & Cui, Y. (2016). Reflexivity and transnational habitus: The case of
a ‘poor’affluent Chinese international student. AILA Review, 29(1), 173-198.

de Haas, H. (2009). Mobility and human development. New York, NY: United Nations Development
Programme.

de Haas, H. (2010). The internal dynamics of migration processes: A theoretical inquiry. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1587-1617.

Del Percio, A. (forthcoming). Speeding up, slowing down: Language, temporality and the
constitution of migrant workers as labour force. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism.

Docquier, F., & Veljanoska, S. (2020). Is emigration harmful to those left behind?. Annual Review
of Resource Economics, 12, 367-388.

Dollmann, J., Kogan, I., & Weißmann, M. (2020). Speaking accent-free in L2 beyond the critical
period: The compensatory role of individual abilities and opportunity structures. Applied
Linguistics, 41(5), 787-809.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, the United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.

Doucerain, M. M. (2019). L2 experience mediates the relation between mainstream acculturation

orientation and self-assessed L2 competence among migrants. Applied Linguistics, 40(2),
355-378.

Dovchin, S., & Dryden, S. (2021). Translingual discrimination: Skilled transnational migrants in the
labour market of Australia. Applied Linguistics, 43(2), 365-388.

Dustmann, C., & Preston, I. A. (2007). Racial and economic factors in attitudes towards
immigration. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 7(1), 1-39.

18 of 23

 Elmeroth, E. (2003). From refugee camp to solitary confinement: Illiterate adults learn Swedish as a
second language. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(4), 431-449.

Faist, T. (2013). The mobility turn: A new paradigm for the social sciences?. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 36(11), 1637-1646.

Fernández, E., & Cairns, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). The handbook of psycholinguistics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.

Fishman, J. A. (1972). The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to

language in society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Glazer, N. (1997). We are all multiculturalists now. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

Go, M. A. C., & Borlongan, A. M. (2021). A linguistic biography of an English-dependent Filipino

migrant in Japan. Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 9, 99-112.

Go, M. A., Saure, K. B., Kurusu, K., & Borlongan, A. M. (2021). Migrants in Japan and the English
language. Asian Englishes (Special issue titled English in Japan and Japanese English: A
century and a half after the Meiji restoration, ed. by A. M. Borlongan & T. Ishikawa), 23(1),
105-113.

Gregurović, S., & Župarić-Iljić, D. (2018). Comparing the incomparable? Migrant integration
policies and perplexities of comparison. International Migration, 56(3), 105-122.

Green, P. E. (2003). The undocumented: Educating the children of migrant workers in America.
Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 51-71

Guinto, N. (2019). The place/s of Tagalog in Hong Kong’s Central district: Negotiating center-
periphery dynamics. Linguistic Landscape, 5(2), 160-178.

Halic, O., Greenberg, K., & Paulus, T. (2009). Language and academic identity: A study of the
experiences of non-native English speaking international students. International Education,
38(2), 73-93.

Hayfron, J. E. (2001). Language training, language proficiency and earnings of immigrants in

Norway. Applied Economics, 33, 1971-1979.

Hickey, R. (Ed.). (2020). The handbook of language contact. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Higgins, C. (2017). Space, place, and language. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook
of migration and language. (pp. 101-116). London, the United Kingdom: Routledge.

Hinnenkamp, V. (2003). Mixed language varieties of migrant adolescents and the discourse of
hybridity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(1-2), 12-41.

Holmes, J., & Hazen, K. (2013). Research methods in sociolinguistics: A practical guide. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

19 of 23



Horenczyk, G. (1996). Migrant identities in conflict: Acculturation attitudes and perceived

acculturation ideologies. In G. M. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing European
identities: Social psychological analyses of social change (pp. 241–250). Oxford, the United
Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hou, F., & Beiser, M. (2006). Learning the language of a new country: A ten-year study of English
acquisition by South-East Asian refugees in Canada. International Migration, 44(1), 135-165.

International Labour Organization. (2021). ILO global estimates for international migrant workers:
Results and methodology (3rd ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: The Author.

International Organization for Migration. (2019a). Glossary on migration. Geneva, Switzerland:

The Author.

International Organization for Migration. (2019b). World migration report 2020. Geneva,
Switzerland: The Author.

Janda, R., Joseph, B. D., & Vance, B. S. (Eds.). (2020). The handbook of historical linguistics (vol.
II). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Jenkins, J. (2017). Mobility and English language policies and practices in higher education. In S.
Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language. (pp. 502-518).
London, the United Kingdom: Routledge.

Karidakis, M., & Arunachalam, D. (2016). Shift in the use of migrant community languages in
Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(1), 1-22.

Kerswill, P. (1994). Dialects converging: Rural speech in urban Norway. Oxford, the United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Kerswill, P. (2006). Migration and language. In K. Mattheier, U. Ammon, & P. Trudgill (Eds.)
Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik: An international handbook of the science of language and
society (2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 2271-2285). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Kerswill, P. (2022). United Kingdom: Multicultural London English. In P. Kerswill & H. Wiese
(Eds.), Urban contact dialects and language change: Insights from the Global North and
South (pp. 282-299). London, the United Kingdom: Routledge.

Krefeld, T. (2004). Einführung in die Migrationslinguistik [Introduction to migration linguistics].

Tübingen, Germany: Narr Studienbücher.

Kristen, C. (2016). Language acquisition of recently arrived immigrants in England, Germany,

Ireland, and the Netherlands. Ethnicities, 16(2), 180-212.

Kosyakova, Y., Kristen, C., & Spörlein, C. (2022). The dynamics of recent refugees’ language
acquisition: how do their pathways compare to those of other new immigrants?. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(5), 989-1012.

20 of 23

 Kuo, B. C. (2014). Coping, acculturation, and psychological adaptation among migrants: a

theoretical and empirical review and synthesis of the literature. Health Psychology and
Behavioral Medicine, 2(1), 16-33.

Ladegaard, H. (2020). Language competence, identity construction and discursive boundary-

making: Distancing and alignment in domestic migrant worker narratives. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 262, 97-122.

Leal, D. L., & Rodr guez, N. P. (Ed.). (2016). Migration in an era of restriction and recession:
Sending and receiving nations in a changing global environment. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.

Li, W. (1994). Three generations, two languages, one family: Language choice and language shift
in a Chinese community in Britain. Clevedon, the United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.

Li, W., & Zhu, H. (2013). Diaspora: Multilingual and intercultural communication across time and
space. AILA Review, 26(1), 42-56.

Lim, L. (2010a). Migrants and ‘mother tongues’: Extralinguistic forces in the ecology of English in
Singapore. In L. Lim, A. Pakir, & L. Wee (Eds.), English in Singapore: Modernity and
management (pp. 19-54). Hong Kong SAR: Hong Kong University Press.

Lim, L. (2010b). Peranakan English in Singapore. In. D. Schreier, P. Trudgill, E. W. Schneider, & J.
P. Williams (Eds.), The lesser-known varieties of English (pp. 327-347). Cambridge, the
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Lising, L. (2017). Language in skilled migration. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook
of migration and language. (pp. 296-311). London, the United Kingdom: Routledge.

Liu-Farrer, G. (2022). International students as transnational migrants. In B. S. A. Yeoh & F. L.

Collins (Eds.), Handbook on transnationalism (pp. 294-309). Cheltenham, the United
Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2019). Sensitivity to language-based rejection in intercultural

communication: The role of language mindsets and implications for migrants’ cross-cultural
adaptation. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 478-505.

Mandel, R. (1996). A place of their own: Contesting spaces and defining places in Berlin’s migrant
community. In B. D. Metcalf (Ed.), Making Muslim space in North America and Europe (pp.
147-166). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

McAuliffe, M., & Triandafyllidou, A. (Eds.). (2021). World migration report 2022. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Migration.

Miglietta, A., & Tartaglia, S. (2009). The influence of length of stay, linguistic competence, and
media exposure in immigrants' adaptation. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(1), 46-61.

21 of 23

í

 Morrice, L., Tip, L. K., Collyer, M., & Brown, R. (2021). ‘You can’t have a good integration when
you don’t have a good communication’: English-language learning among resettled refugees
in England. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 681-699.

Noll, G. (2010). Why human rights fail to protect undocumented migrants. European Journal of
Migration and Law, 12(2), 241-272.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. London, the United
Kingdom: Routledge.

Piller, I. (Ed.). (2016). Language and migration (vols. I-IV). London, the United Kingdom:
Routledge.

Piller, I., & Lising, L. (2014). Language, employment, and settlement: Temporary meat workers in
Australia. Multilingua, 33(1-2), 35-59.

Portes, A., & Hao, L. (2002). The price of uniformity: Language, family and personality adjustment
in immigrant second generation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(6), 889-912.

Rainer, H., & Siedler, T. (2009). The role of social networks in determining migration and labour
market outcomes: Evidence from German reunification. Economics of Transition, 17(4),
739-767.

Ratha, D., Mohapatra, S., & Scheja, E. (2011). Impact of migration on economic and social
development: A review of evidence and emerging issues. The World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper 5558.

Rodríguez-Izquierdo, R. M., Falcón, I. G., & Permisán, C. G. (2020). Teacher beliefs and
approaches to linguistic diversity: Spanish as a second language in the inclusion of immigrant
students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 90, 1-15.

Sheffer, G. (2019). The historical, cultural, social, and political backgrounds of ethno-national
diasporas. In S. J. Gold & S. J. Nawyn (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of migration
studies (pp. 487-498). London, the United Kingdom: Routledge.

Spolsky, B., & Hult, F. M. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of educational linguistics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.

Stehl, T. (2011). Mobilität, Sprachkontakte und Integration: Aspekte der Migrationslinguistik

[Mobility, language contact and integration: Aspects of migration linguistics]. In N. Franz &
R. Kunow (Eds.), Kulturelle Mobilitätsforschung: Themen — theorien — tendenzen [Cultural
mobility research: Themes — theories — tendencies] (pp. 33-52). Potsdam, Germany:
Universitätsverlag Potsdam.

Tacelosky, K. (2022). Language as boundary, language as bridge. In G. S. Kasun & I. Mora-Pablo

(Eds.), Applying Anzalduan frameworks to understand transnational youth identities:
Bridging culture, language, and schooling at the US-Mexican border (pp. 91-109). New York,
NY: Routledge.

22 of 23

 Uebelmesser, S., Sommerfeld, A.-M., & Weingarten, S. (2022). A macro-level analysis of language
learning and migration. German Economic Review, 23(2), 181-232.

United Nations. (2006). The rights of non-citizens. New York, NY: The Author.

van Tubergen, F., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). A dynamic approach to the determinants of immigrants’
language proficiency: The United States, 1980-2000. International Migration Review, 43(3),
519-543.

Vargas-Silva, C. (Ed.) (2013). Handbook of research methods in migration. Cheltenham, the United
Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Vigouroux, C. B. (2017). Rethinking (un)skilled migrants: Whose skills, what skills, for what, and
for whom?. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language.
(pp. 312-329). London, the United Kingdom: Routledge.

Warman, C., Sweetman, A., & Goldmann, G. (2015).The portability of new immigrants’ human
capital: Language, education, and occupational skills. Canadian Public Policy, 41(S1), S64-
S79.

Williams, N. E., Hughes, C., Bhandari, P., Thornton, A., Young-DeMarco, L., Sun, C., & Swindle, J.
(2020). When does social capital matter for migration? A study of networks, brokers, and
migrants in Nepal. International Migration Review, 54(4), 964-991.

Wortham, S., & Rhodes, C. (2013). Life as a chord: Heterogeneous resources in the social
identification of one migrant girl. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 536-553.

Yeoh, B. S. A., Lam, T., & Huang, S. (2022). Transnational families in the age of migration. In B. S.
A. Yeoh & F. L. Collins (Eds.), Handbook on transnationalism (pp. 182-197). Cheltenham,
the United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Yijälä, A., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2010). Pre-migration acculturation attitudes among potential
ethnic migrants from Russia to Finland. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34,
326–339.

Zhang, Y., & Mi, Y. (2010). Another look at the language difficulties of international students.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 371-388.

Zhu, H. (2017). New orientations to identities in mobility. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of migration and language. (pp. 117-132). London, the United Kingdom:
Routledge.

Zhu, H., & Li, W. (2016). Transnational experience, aspiration and family language policy. Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(7), 655-666.

23 of 23

View publication stats