As we can see, bilingualism has not only a linguistic but also a social nature and involves more than individual speech production but also cognitive skills, psychological features and a particular social (as well as ethnic, gender, age and cultural) identity. Most of current conceptions and studies of bilingualism are taking a variety of its social and psychological aspects into consideration. Grosjean (Grosjean, 1989) cautions against viewing bilinguals as a sum of two monolinguals. In modern literature there is an emphasis on the fact that while working on improving their linguistic skills, bilinguals develop a whole new linguistic behaviour, which is distinctly different from that of monolinguals. Сook (Cook, 1992) speculates on a wide range of bilingual competences including cultural ones that are to be paid attention to as part of studying bilingualism.
The complexity of bilingualism led to a variety of classifications of bilinguals according to different criteria: language competences, spheres of use, balance in the use of languages, development of linguistic skills, age of learners, context of language use, etc. E.g., Peal and Lambert (Peal and Lambert, 1962) classify bilinguals into balanced and unbalanced. However, Fishman (Fishman, 1972) thinks this is an idealized view. George Steiner (Steiner, 1992) argued that he was equally good at English, French and German, i.e. he would hardly say which of the languages he would use in a particular situation, which is quite exceptional.
There are also classifications of social groups of bilinguals. Fishman (Fishman, 1972) speaks of folk bilingualism (e.g., slaves were made to learn basic Greek to talk to their masters) and elite bilingualism (e.g., in the Tsars Russia members of high society were taught French while growing up). Additionally, Lambert (Lambert, 1974) suggests that interactions of previous language systems and new ones cause what he calls additive (in societies where one is encouraged to learn a second language for gaining better prospects) and subtractive (an individual has to lose touch with their first language as its use is not endorsed in a particular community).
It should be remembered that bilingualism is not a static but a very dynamic category and individual bilingual profiles might shift as personal or social circumstances change. E.g., an individual might lose oral skills in a previously learned language as they start using another one more frequently instead, etc.
Originally, I was looking at interviewing bilinguals with a high (self-reported) level in the four language skills (listening, reading, writing, speaking). All of the fellow Fulbrighters I have interviewed obviously fit this description as all Fulbright candidates are expected to take the TOEFL test and get a certain overall score (depending on the requirements specified by particular host universities in the U.S.). There have also been a few English teachers from different countries whose occupation alone equalled them to the level of a confident language user.
Throughout the course of this project I realized I had to adopt a more liberal approach to who qualifies as bilingual if I wanted to get more varied perspectives on individual language learning histories. I was able to interview a few first-generation Americans who spoke their heritage languages with a varying degree of fluency, immigrants to the U.S. as well as Americans who self-reported different levels of proficiency in other languages. I felt these peoples insights would be valuable for this project as well. Everyone who participated had had prior experience of learning a foreign language and showed a great interest in the topic of bilingualism. Every participants interview was included into this project and I am sure each one contributed to it in its own unique way.
Part 1.2. HOW WAS MY DATA COLLECTED?
Interview questions
Introduce yourself (your name, country of origin, what you are studying in the U.S.)
When did you start learning English?
What kind of difficulties did you have at different stages of learning? What did you find easy/difficult?
Did you have a chance to use English outside the classroom?
What was the main focus of your language instruction?
What is your general opinion of the language instruction in your country?
What are the attitudes to language instruction in your country?
Would you agree that one might feel like a different person while speaking other languages and switching between them?
How are you planning to use English in your future life?
What tips would you give to anyone trying to learn another language?
Interviews as a research method
As I said, one of the reasons why I chose to conduct this interview project was my love for journalism where being able to talk to your interviewees effectively and reporting facts in the manner fit for a specific target audience and publication is key. Being exposed to various types of journalism (particularly political) facilitated my learning in my senior years at university to such an extent that I was secretly dreaming of pursuing a career in this domain. This never happened, but every once in a while I would pick up books on journalism.
In the attempt to become a better interviewer for a couple of projects I had in mind, I started reading one by a journalist Dean Nelson called Talk to Me: How to Ask Better Questions, Get Better Answers, and Interview Anyone Like a Pro (Nelson, 2019). One phrase he used stuck in my mind, «Asking good questions keeps us from living in our own echo chambers». What the author means is that in investigating other peoples perspectives on some issues we revisit and reevaluate our own. Nelson goes on to say that one doesnt even have to be a professional journalist to interview others as asking questions is essentially what we do almost on a daily basis. If we are trained to formulate our questions correctly, that would be able to «draw out personalities and understandings».
Actually, interviews («qualitative interviewing», Rubin and Rubin, 2005) are a popular qualitative research tool in social sciences, including applied linguistics. This is especially the case for studies «that aim to investigate participants» identities, experiences, beliefs and orientations (Talmy, 2010). In the late 1960s and early 1970s narratives became an object and «a legitimate means» of doing research in history, education, anthropology, etc. (Briggs, 1986). Interviews were thought of as an effective way of eliciting different types of narratives to be investigated. This process is referred to as narrative inquiry. Of special interest have been so-called «personal speakers experiences» which draw on stories about «real, imagined, or possible events» (Pavlenko, 2007). Linguistic autobiographies as a subtype of such narratives have been one of the most common tools to study bilingualism. Different groups of bilinguals have been studied over the decades and there are a lot of papers presenting an overview of such research (e.g., Mann, 2010).
Among a huge number of studies, there were two books that I found truly inspirational for my own research into bilingualism. The first one was by a British linguist David Block called «Multilingual Identities in a Global City: London Stories» (Block, 2006). What I loved a lot about this book that despite being rigidly structured and presenting an extensive literature review on bilingualism and second language identities in particular, it had some storytelling elements as well following different individuals (immigrants, students, teachers, etc.) as they were living through their own unique linguistic experiences with London as a platform for their adventures (with obvious ups and downs). The author was able to provide the context for all the interviews and grouped them either according to the participants country of origin or occupation. To me, this research appeared to be an engaging attempt to humanize bilinguals while still examining their life stories through a research lens.
Another book that fascinated me was by Alastair Pennycook and Emi Otsuji titled «Metrolingualism. Language in the City» (Alastair, Otsuji, 2015). Metrolingualism «describes the ways in which people of different and mixed backgrounds use, play with and negotiate identities through language» with the focus being «not on language systems but on languages as emergent from contexts of interaction». Sydney, the city where the research is undertaken, acts as a backdrop for new language identities transformed by «global and local practices». The authors draws a lot of attention to their diverse participants everyday experiences making these individuals seem like actors on the vibrant multicultural Sydney stage where multilingual street signs also serve as an essential element of the action.
Besides being a linguist and a language teacher, I am a keen traveler as well. So, I instantly fell in love with the idea of analyzing bilingualism as it is incorporated into a citys texture as well as its soundscape and landscape. As I knew I would be living very close to NYC, I couldnt help thinking about using its multiculturalism as a platform for my own explorations of language practices there. For sure, I would not be the first person to have attempted that, so in order to make my work more original, I wanted to incorporate my future home state, New Jersey, and my host university town into the picture. As I was hoping to be able to travel to other places across in the U.S., that would make sense to include them into my narrative as well.
Even before starting this project I had an idea to make it into something not purely scientific. I agree that autobiographic narratives «are interesting and thus have aesthetic value and can engage the readers. They are accessible and thus can appeal to larger audiences» (Pavlenko, 2007). So, the purpose of my interview project was to collect linguistic autobiographies of individuals I would be meeting during my time in the U.S. in order to learn more about their language learning experiences. As I said in the previous section, originally I had adopted the stricter version of bilinguals and interviewed only fellow Fulbrighters who all had a high level of proficiency in English. Later on in the project, I realized that the more liberal definition of bilingualism (i.e., various degrees of language skills enabling communication in a certain community) would allow me to access more participants and make my narrative more varied and engaging.
After designing the interview questions, I thought would enable my interviewees to help me and my potential readers gain a better understanding of what being a bilingual is like, I started recruiting participants while in the U.S. The recruitment process was not as smooth as I had expected. It was my first experience of trying to collect data for an interview project. Looking back, I am not sure if choosing one focus group (e.g., Fulbrighters, English teachers, PhD students, heritage speakers, etc.) would have made this collection more much smaller but a lot more comprehensible and easier to write up. Eventually I decided I would attempt to make this unexpected element part of my own unique narrative made up of these individual language autobiographies.
For this project I conducted semi-structured interviews. In this type of qualitatitve interviews participants are offered a series of open-end questions on a specific topic. According to lots of social science scholars, the reason why this specific kind of interviews is routinely studied in narrative inquiry is that it allows both the interviewer and interviewee a high degree of flexibility as the former can «gently» guide the latter to elaborate on certain points depending on the answers provided. These interviews are also called «exploratory», as despite its general directions given before the interview a researcher can «go deep for a discovery» modifying their line of inquiry (Magaldi and Berler, 2020).
As for the participants, it was obvious that all of them would share some sort of interest in linguistics (the topic of bilingualism specifically). Some of them might have imagined what to expect in the process before getting the interview questions and the guide. What is more, at some point of their own learning/teaching careers, they must have contemplated similar or the same issues I asked them to dwell on in their talk. The individuals who were helping me recruit the participants and the interviewees themselves were professors of Linguistics or their students. The other part were fellow Fulbrighters coming from a range of backgrounds that I knew to a varying extent. The remaining part were individuals who were also interested in linguistics and responded to my social media posts about my project.
As for a few factors that have to be considered while conducting such studies, I am perfectly aware of how the effect of «prior relationship» (Mann, 2010) as well as power balance with the interviewees has to be taken into account in this type of a qualitative study. It certainly determined the participants motivation to be interviewed. Some (mostly Fulbrighters) were my friends and willing to help. Others (those with no background in Linguistics) found my research idea interesting and were curious to reflect on these issues. There were also a few students who agreed to be interviewed so that their professors would give them some extra credits. That for sure had some sort of effect on how the interview was going and the rapport between me and the participant. Being recorded might have made some individuals more self-conscious.
As I was watching back all of these interviews while working on this book, I realized how much «the voice of the interviewer» (Mann, 2010) (i.e., mine) was present in interviews. I faced a sort of a dilemma while thinking of ways to analyze and present my interviews. Instead of providing the transcripts as researchers often do in their research papers, in this book I decided to present the interviews as narratives told through my own lens as I was trying not to distort the original message and quote some of the parts that were formulated in the manner I found unusual. To show my own personal touch even more and to take advantage of that not being a PhD paper, before each story I decided to include the information on how I met each of the participants and how I myself was navigating through associated linguistic, cultural, political issues at the time. In scientific terms I was examining «a larger sociohistoric context of narrative production» (Mann, 2010). After each interview I also provided some reflections on what I heard and some further thoughts that this particular participant inspired in me.
There are different ways to analyze interviews that are commonly used by linguists (e.g., content analysis (Gheyle & Jacobs, 2017)). In the section following the interviews I will be classifying those issues into groups (i.e., language learning and teaching, identity, culture, politics). I am aware of «the temptation to carve out those more quotable parts that serve our purposes» (Pavlenko, 2007). However, as much as I will be trying to stay objective, I agree that as a writer at this stage I am bringing some of my own biases into the project.
I am perfectly aware of the possible limitations of such studies and possible criticisms of some methods of collecting qualitative interview data and analyzing it addressed in scientific literature. For example, as part of this project I have been focusing only on the oral narrative data obtained from the participants. Besides, as my stay in the U.S. was limited, I had no opportunity to conduct longitudinal studies. Another crucial factor is the language of the interviews. All of them were conducted in English. Even though all of the participants are confident English users, it is obvious that they might have faced some difficulties getting their message across and making it more nuanced, which native speakers did not. Finally, as I previously said, I did not attempt to target any specific groups of bilinguals and included individuals with various levels of language competence into the project. I hope that despite all of these obvious limitations, my readers will be able to benefit from the following 51 interviews that are to be read either individually or in the same order they are presented in the book.