In 1964, Joshua Fishman wrote in his seminal text on language shift (LS) and language maintenance (LM) that cultural and language contact will always be with us. Pauwels (2015) expanded on this stating that is not only omnipresent but also the norm rather than the exception in linguistic constellations around the globe. She cites mobility of people as being at the source of most language contact situations; migration – voluntary as well as forced – colonisation and invasion are the types of mobility that will result in modification in habitual behaviour as well as attempts to restrain such modification (Pauwel 2015) (Fishman 1964:64).
That languages sometimes replace each other, among some speakers, particularly in certain types or domains of language behaviour, under some conditions of inter-group contact, has long aroused curiosity and comment. This curiosity led to the development of LS and LM as a systematic field of enquiry primarily concerned with the relationship between change or stability in habitual language use and ongoing psychological, social or cultural processes when populations differing in language are in contact with each other (Pauwels 2015:32).
The most researched setting for LS is migration, where a heritage language (HL) is in competition with the majority language of the new environment. In this study, LS involves the replacement of Yorùbá, the HL, by English.
Immigrant families face numerous challenges associated with the maintenance of their HL, including the inability to create environments that support the easy development of th language for their children (Kigamwa 2014:168). Changes in language use take place in subtle and covert ways (Gafaranga 2010) with the shift away from a HL being a slow gradual process that can take generations before it is entirely abandoned in all spheres of use. An important distinction to make at this point is that LS can be both intra-generational and inter-generational language. The former referring to the shift in an individual’s language use and the latter denoting a state when the language repertoires of children and their parents do not match.
Fishman delineated three main areas of focus for LS (and LM)
the definition and examination of ‘habitual language use’,
the identification and examination of extra linguistic factors that impact on LS (and/or LM)
the role of language attitudes and language policy/planning in influencing language maintenance or shift.
These three areas, especially the second and third, continue to define and shape the field.
Although the trends, patterns and challenges of inter-generational HL transmission has been widely studied and documented, studies focusing on the experiences of the African diaspora are relatively few and very recent (cf Obeng 2009; Kigamwa 2016; Kansaga 2008; Gafaranga 2010). The only notable except within the British context is Curdt-Christiansen currently researching into Somali.
An in depth look into family language practices specifically within some African diaspora communities will elucidate the added dimension that decades of colonisation adds to the process of LS. For the Yorùbá who have been coming to Britain since the 1950s, the fact is that the majority were bilingual before migration.
Comments