Language Ideology as Identity in the Uyghur Diaspora
As the Uyghur homeland was inundated with Han settlers in the 1990s and 2000s, Uyghurs saw the limited autonomy of their education system upended by a so-called bilingual education (双语) policy that reduced Uyghur language to a supplementary element (Dwyer 2005; Schluessel 2007). Then, in the mid-2010s, Uyghur was eliminated altogether as a language of pedagogy (Byler 2019). In the face of this epistemic upheaval, in the early 2010s, Uyghurs began building their own ‘mother tongue’ (Uy: Ana Til) movement that strove to teach Uyghur youth to read, write, and speak their own language (Ayup 2024). Rather than becoming a people without a living history and knowledge system of their own, they built schools and social media movements that involved hundreds of thousands of people. And, one by one, the leaders of this movement were detained and imprisoned on charges such as ‘disturbing the public order’ or ‘separatism’ (Shepherd 2019). In recent years, following the mass internment of what is likely more than one million Uyghurs, the Uyghur-language internet has been largely erased and replaced with Uyghurs speaking in Chinese. In China, only those who speak Mandarin—referred to as ‘the national language’ (国语)—can protect themselves and their loved ones. But the fight for Uyghur language goes on, even though its centre is now in the diaspora in Türkiye, Europe, and North America.
This essay focuses on the role of language attitudes and ideologies in Uyghur heritage language maintenance through the stories of four individuals based in one of those sites of struggle, the United States. While much scholarship on language maintenance explores language attitudes, the concept of language ideology is often underutilised in these analyses. As a linguistic anthropologist, I aim to bridge the gap between these concepts. The essay argues that the language ideologies of the Uyghur diaspora significantly influence their language maintenance practices—for instance, by leading them to form social connections with like-minded individuals and enforce rules in the home for heritage language maintenance. Additionally, the ongoing settler-colonial process of eliminating Uyghur identity in the Uyghur homeland is fostering a transnational language ideology that views the Uyghur language as integral to Uyghur identity and speaking Uyghur as a form of resistance. This ideology is also impacting the Uyghur diaspora’s heritage language maintenance efforts. As I will demonstrate in this essay, the policies of forced assimilation that Uyghurs are facing in China directly shape a transnational Uyghur language ideology that is experienced as a ‘cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests’ (Irvine 1989: 255).
Muhtar Bökü: Language Ideology Moulded by Existential Threat
There were two different occasions when I explained to Muhtar the potential risks of speaking to me about Uyghur language ideology. One was at the beginning, before I conducted the qualitative data collection, and the second was when I was in the process of writing my dissertation. On both occasions, Muhtar insisted on using his real name as a challenge to the global power of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He says that the CCP fears the brave and only oppresses the timid. Moreover, he has made statements and been involved in matters with even greater ‘sensitivity’ than this study. So, for him, there is no reason to be scared of using his real name in contexts such as this.
At the time of our first meeting, Muhtar had joined the US Army and was stationed in North Carolina. Having attended Chinese-language schools when growing up in the Uyghur region, he felt that his own Uyghur proficiency was lacking. This perception fuelled his strong desire to raise his child in a ‘pure’ Uyghur-language environment, thereby contributing to the preservation of the language.
Muhtar’s language maintenance efforts were dictated heavily by his language ideology and his views on Uyghur identity. When I asked him about the importance of the Uyghur language for the Uyghur identity, he passionately said:
[The Uyghur language] is very important to us. In order to be an ethnic group, the first thing you need to have is a language. If you have your own language, you can be a standalone/unique ethnic group. Therefore, there is no need to reiterate the importance of it. If there is no language, there is no ethnic group, in my opinion. If the language is gone, the ethnic group is also finished. That is also why they [the CCP] started with our language. They [the CCP] started destroying our language at schools by introducing the Chinese language slowly. Everything is clear here. If you don’t have your language, even if you claim that you are Uyghur, you’d be the same as the Uyghurs in Hunan. None of us conceptualises them as ‘Uyghur’. Even if you call yourself ‘Uyghur’, you’re talking someone else’s tongue, you’re accepting another people’s culture. Now, here in America, we can see a lot of examples of people becoming more American. With the language of Americans, their thinking will also be adopted. After that, you adopt their behaviour and everything else gradually. And then, their affection towards here will be greater. And they would gradually say, ‘Well, my parents are Uyghur. It’s whatever. I just want to live my way.’ That’s it, done! The Uyghur will be gone with that. That’s what I think. No matter [whether] back home or the Uyghurs in [the] diaspora. If they think they are Uyghur, they have the responsibility to study the language well and protect it. It’s also a duty, in my opinion.
In this moment in the early 2020s, Uyghurs both in China and around the world keenly felt the existential threat posed by the mass internment and boarding school systems in the Uyghur homeland. This is a primary factor in Muhtar’s language ideology. As he put it:
That’s why I think language is very important, especially to people who don’t have their own nation like us. If we lose our language, we are going to be finished. We don’t have an army that can protect us; we don’t have any legal representatives that can speak for us in the world. That is my answer to those who would raise the topic of ethnicity without language.
Muhtar’s language ideology and maintenance efforts are deeply entangled with a reactive nationalism and attachment to ethnic identity. Indeed, Muhtar is currently trying his best to develop his Uyghur literacy and create an environment at home that is exclusively Uyghur. He consulted me a few times about whether this was the ‘correct way’ to raise his kids in the United States. I did not have an answer for him, but I told him that the research shows that children often dictate the language spoken at home (usually speaking the dominant language, in this case, English) and that this could be a source of great struggle for him and his family (Tuominen 1999). He responded: ‘My wife and I agreed that we would pretend that we didn’t understand them if our children speak English to us.’
Muhtar and his wife put a great deal of effort into creating a home in which only the Uyghur language is spoken. In 2019, when we went to San Francisco for the Uyghur American Cup—a soccer competition between different Uyghur diaspora communities—I noticed that he and his wife had modified their Google navigation system so that the directions were given in the Uyghur language. Of course, Google does not offer that function, but it seems to have one that allows you to replace the pre-set voice assistant with your own recordings. So, Muhtar and his wife recorded their own voices and replaced the default English-speaking voice. I also learned in our interviews that Muhtar is purchasing books and other educational material from an Uyghur publishing house based in Türkiye for himself and his children. While he is reading Uyghur novels, his children are learning the Uyghur alphabet from cards. They also read Uyghur children’s books.
Through their continuous efforts, Muhtar claims that their eldest son is speaking Uyghur as his first language despite being born in the United States. Muhtar wishes his eldest son to help balance the language spoken at home and manage his younger siblings in their language use. We can conclude that Muhtar’s language maintenance efforts are strong. While it is too early to assess the result, what Muhtar and his wife are doing could bring a successful language maintenance outcome.
Bilig: Multilingualism from a Cosmopolitan Background
Bilig was born in the northern part of what he referred to as ‘East Turkestan’* in the late 1980s. He moved to Ürümqi when he was quite young and spent a few years there before his family relocated to Japan in the mid-1990s. Bilig’s father had the opportunity to go to Japan and get his PhD in the mid-1980s, which allowed him to subsequently find employment in the country. Bilig finished his elementary school education in Japan. He said that, during this time, he would visit East Turkestan during every summer break. In 2001, Bilig’s family moved to San Francisco and spent a year in the Bay Area. His father accepted a job opportunity soon after and the family moved again, to Maryland. They were aware of the Uyghur community in the area, which influenced Bilig’s father’s decision to take employment there. Bilig says that even though both his parents are highly educated, they had to work blue-collar jobs until they became proficient in English, which is when his father found employment in his field. Bilig finished his middle school, high school, college, and master’s degree education in the Washington, DC, area.
Bilig’s language ideology is like Muhtar’s. Bilig views the Uyghur language as a huge part of the Uyghur identity and culture. ‘Our mother tongue is important. If it disappears, a major part of Uyghur culture and our identity will be lost,’ he explained. ‘Even though I’d like to say Islam is important to being an Uyghur myself, I don’t think that is the case, because there are people with different faiths in our community. Therefore, you need to know the language and culture to be an Uyghur.’ Bilig also ranked language as the most important aspect of the Uyghur identity. ‘I think knowing the language is more important than knowing the culture. If you can speak a little and understand most of the Uyghur language, that’s fine. But it is difficult for me to consider someone [an Uyghur] if they don’t know the Uyghur language.’ I pressed Bilig by asking about a person who is not ethnically Uyghur but speaks Uyghur like a native. He answered, ‘I would consider that person Uyghur.’
This language ideology also seems to direct his language maintenance efforts at home. Bilig and his wife decided Uyghur would be the dominant language in their household. At the time of the interview, Bilig’s wife worked from home and was taking care of their daughter, only speaking to her in Uyghur. They are planning to teach their daughter English when she is a little older. Bilig and his wife’s plan is that when they teach the Uyghur alphabet to their daughter, they will also teach her the English alphabet. Essentially, they would like to raise their children in a bilingual environment. At the time of the interview, Bilig and his wife’s child was still young and they had not made the change to a bilingual household.
When I spoke with him, Bilig was working at a hospital. Bilig’s mother tongue is Uyghur, his English is native-like, and he also has high proficiency in Japanese and Spanish. Bilig’s background not only helped him acquire many languages but also has given him an opportunity to meet different communities. Bilig’s encounter with the Turkish American community left him impressed because those he met maintained strong proficiency in Turkish, which made him realise that even someone born in the United States can retain their heritage language well.
However, compared with his multilingual life experience, his observations of the Uyghur diaspora community reveal Uyghurs giving up their language and raising their children in an English-speaking environment, because they fear their children will be left behind when they enter school. The Uyghur parents he has encountered worry that their children might not be able to integrate into US society. Bilig mentioned that these Uyghur parents are happy if their children are ‘culturally Uyghur’ and can ‘do something for the Uyghur people politically’. He stressed that language maintenance in the United States for the Uyghurs is an individual choice and, from his perspective, it is up to them how they raise their children. Bilig remarked: ‘Let me raise my children with Uyghur and English, maybe we can become an example. The others can see us and see that we are setting an example.’
Luckily, Bilig has found a few like-minded individuals and formed a close social circle. They often come together and discuss how they would like to teach their children the Uyghur language. One of Bilig’s close friends married an Uyghur woman from the European Uyghur diaspora, and they first lived in Europe for a few years before moving to the Washington, DC, area. Bilig was amazed when he visited them in Europe because he saw that every child in that diaspora community spoke fluent Uyghur. ‘It was like I was back in the weten,’ he remarked, using the term for ‘homeland’. Bilig explained that the Uyghur children in Europe went to kindergarten and learnt the local dominant language and English. Then, they spoke Uyghur when they came home, which surprised him. ‘They can do it in Europe, why can’t we in the US? What is the difference?’
Out of curiosity, Bilig asked many parents how they were raising their kids to speak Uyghur so well. ‘They told me that they’re speaking Uyghur to their kids since they were born, and they did not care whether they understood or not.’ He was also impressed that the weekend schools in Europe are much more serious than the ones in the United States and the parents also have a part to play in the homework that is assigned to their children. ‘That is the example they have set,’ he said.
Bilig seems to have more involvement in the community than Muhtar, partly due to Muhtar’s military career and the fact that Bilig arrived in the United States a lot earlier. Bilig wishes to create an environment that fosters language maintenance, but he is aware that there are Uyghurs with different language preferences. ‘You can often see people being divided with language if you go to an Uyghur social gathering. There are people who prefer to speak Uyghur when they’re together, there are people who prefer to speak English, and there are also some Chinese speakers.’
It would have been ideal to explore the different subgroups through the linguistic anthropological lens of ‘speech communities’ (Gumperz 1968); however, it would be difficult to learn the social context and norms of each subgroup, in addition to their language and political ideologies without in-depth, in-person qualitative research. Bilig seems to gravitate towards the speech community that predominantly uses Uyghur. This is also why his close social circle comprises people who wish to engage in Uyghur language maintenance effectively. On the surface, this can be attributed to their language ideologies aligning with each other to a certain degree and enabling them to knit together a tighter social group. Nonetheless, there could be many underlying factors that connect Bilig’s close social group beyond their language ideology. Therefore, along with the linguistic anthropological analysis above, in-person fieldwork and a chance to learn about Bilig’s social group in-depth might allow for analysis in terms of the concept of ‘communities of action’ (Wenger 1999).
Nisa: Cultural Practice as the Expression of Identity
Nisa was the only woman I interviewed as part of this case study, and she was also the youngest, just starting her university education when the interview was conducted. She also comes from a family of intellectuals who moved to Japan and then to the United States. Nisa was born in Japan and her family moved to the United States soon after she was born. Unlike Bilig, Nisa’s exposure to the Uyghur diaspora community was limited as her family was living in Georgia. Even after moving to a city with more Uyghur people for her university education, Nisa’s connection to the community seemed limited. However, it is worth noting that Nisa’s exposure to the Uyghur diaspora community could have changed after the interviews, given that she was new to the city and the pandemic had prevented her from meeting people and exploring the city.
When I asked Nisa about languages spoken at home, she explained how her father initially spoke English at home during her early childhood, then became more Uyghur dominant. Nisa says that her parents were also learning English, which is why her father chose to speak it at home, while her mother always spoke Uyghur to her. This continued until Nisa was about 10 years old. Nisa’s father, by this point, realised that everyone’s English was good and they didn’t need to practise at home anymore. However, by the time Nisa’s father started to speak more Uyghur at home, English had already become Nisa’s dominant language. Nisa’s mother was adamant about her speaking Uyghur: ‘My mother would yell at me if I responded to her in English,’ she recalled. Because of this, Nisa and her mother use Uyghur when they communicate. However, English is still the dominant language when the whole family is communicating. Nisa also explained that her father still has a desire to perfect his English; therefore, he speaks English with her. And between Nisa and her brother, they speak English due to the ease and comfort they have with the language. It would seem unnatural and uncomfortable for them to speak Uyghur, or any other language for that matter.
When discussing her Uyghur identity, Nisa demonstrated significant difference from Muhtar and Bilig. Nisa’s attitude is more aligned with the traditional immigrant experience of linking her identity with culture, food, and other symbolic aspects of the Uyghur identity with which her parents raised her. If we describe Muhtar’s and Bilig’s sense of identity as language-centric, Nisa’s would be centred on culture. Nisa mentioned that it is definitely interesting and rare to be an Uyghur because people generally do not know the Uyghurs, but she also faces the confusion of explaining her identity to people. Many people confuse Turkic peoples with Türkiye as a country.
Nisa’s language ideology seems to gravitate towards seeing Uyghur language as a means to connect the group. To Nisa, being Uyghur is rare, unique, and innately special such that she would have an instant connection with another Uyghur speaker. While this is a simple and straightforward notion, it is worth considering further, as the field of linguistic anthropology traditionally has been interested in language as a group-defining notion, which focuses more on exclusivity and borders than on a code and set of knowledge that form connection.
Nisa sees the Uyghur language as part of Uyghur culture, and she would not say language has greater importance to her than other aspects of Uyghur culture. She explains that this could be because she did not grow up within a diaspora community with tight social connections among whom Uyghur is spoken. Therefore, she sees the cultural practices as being just as important as the language as a way of being part of the Uyghur community and maintaining her identity. Nisa’s two trips back to what she also referred to as ‘East Turkestan’ were also significant because she was a participant in the broader cultural environment, as well as the cultural practices and rituals.
Nisa’s views on religion and Uyghur identity are similar to those of Muhtar and Bilig. She doesn’t see being Muslim as an essential part of the Uyghur identity. However, the fact that Nisa places less importance on language in her identity than Muhtar and Bilig might have influenced her language maintenance practices. Although she says that, since 2017, she has been realising that her identity is under substantial threat and she has been trying to learn more Uyghur, her language ideology is not a significant factor in her Uyghur identity. Nisa also sees language maintenance as a practice of community because she thinks the Uyghur language should survive and thrive where there is a substantial Uyghur diaspora community, such as the Washington, DC, area, Central Asia, and Türkiye. This is in stark contrast to Bilig, who sees language maintenance as an individual choice. Hudyma (2011) provides an analysis of Ukrainian Canadians who shifted their ethnic marker from language to cultural rituals among the younger generations. We can see that Nisa’s ethnic marker is consistent with this type of shift. But as ethnic markers and language ideology are dynamic, it is not possible to say whether Nisa’s could change down the road.
Makan: Identity, Pride, and Change of Language Ideology
Makan was born in Illinois and grew up in Massachusetts. At the time of the interviews, he was a second-year university student. Makan’s parents are well-educated Uyghur intellectuals just like the other Uyghurs who immigrated to the United States two or three decades ago. Makan has been to what he also referred to as ‘East Turkestan’ four times. Even though he does not feel like it is his homeland, he describes each trip as being full of fond memories. Just like Nisa, Makan’s exposure to the Uyghur diaspora community is rather limited.
Makan characterised his household as bilingual; however, he stated that his parents were deliberate in their attempt to make sure that Makan and his sister understood the Uyghur language. Makan explains that there were no rules and his parents did not care whether Makan and his sister replied in English. But Makan says that his parents made sure they at least had a good understanding of the Uyghur language. Makan recalls that they had a few Uyghur families with whom to socialise when he was a child, but eventually they drifted apart and he did not categorise himself as an active member of the Uyghur diaspora community at the time of the interview. However, he expressed a desire to engage more and become an active member in the future. I told him about the Uyghur American Cup and recruited him to join the team of which I was part in the hope that he would establish connection through our annual tournament.
Makan is proud to be an Uyghur, and he states Uyghurs are prideful, and some are even arrogant, which he says is ‘not a bad thing’. Makan’s parents are very well educated, just like most of the early Uyghur immigrants to the United States. Makan describes his father as very proud of his Uyghur identity and that he has a grasp of Uyghur history. Makan mentions that his father regularly engages with other Uyghur intellectuals in the United States online, participating in their discussions on many topics. Makan’s impression is that his father deeply cares for his people. Makan says his father wanted to help the Uyghur people always and in any way possible, big or small.
Makan’s father taught him from an early age that the Uyghur people are an ethnic group with a long history and rich culture. This education has shaped Makan’s Uyghur identity and the pride he feels in it. Even though his father never taught him the history of the Uyghur people in detail, Makan was curious and took history classes of his own accord. This helped him imagine and conceptualise his heritage, which seemed to make him more confident in Uyghurness. Indeed, his Uyghur identity seems to shape his self-worth. ‘Who would I be if I am not Uyghur? Just some Joe Shmo on the street? No, I am not that,’ he explained with a smile.
Makan says he and his father started to talk more about the fate of the Uyghur people as he grew up and understood more. ‘My father says that the Uyghur people have had the most tragic fate in the last century. I am not sure that I can agree with it, but our fate is still pretty sad,’ he explained. I asked which language mediates discussion of this sort between Makan and his father. Makan says that it is mainly in English, but not strictly so, because his father would say some things in Uyghur.
Makan’s pride in his Uyghur identity is certainly impressive for someone who was born and grew up in the United States. As explained, his father played a big role in this. Nevertheless, it is worth considering that his pride was instilled without being an active member of the diaspora community or going through an Uyghur education system. He has a sense of pride in his Uyghur identity without having an excellent command of the Uyghur language. One could argue that to some extent this is a facet of is his personality because he is also proud to be a US citizen. However, one can easily be proud of being a US citizen and not proud of being Uyghur.
Makan also places the Uyghur language at the centre of the Uyghur identity. However, compared with Muhtar and Bilig, Makan sees cultural practices as equally important as the language when it comes to ethnic markers. Makan emphasises that Uyghur people are a group who care a lot about community and solidarity, in addition to the history, art, food, music, and other aspects of the culture of which he is proud.
Makan has been back to the Uyghur homeland more often than Nisa, and each time he has spent at least a month in the region. He explained that his parents prepared Makan and his sister each time in the cultural rituals and correct manners as they didn’t want them to break cultural norms. That is probably why Makan considers the cultural aspects of Uyghur identity to be as important as the language. This emphasis on the culture indicates that Makan’s perception of the Uyghur identity is like Nisa’s.
When I asked about the Uyghur language preparation for Makan’s family’s trip to the Uyghur homeland, Makan said his parents did not focus on the language at all, despite Makan’s interest in learning more. But Makan learned more Uyghur each time he visited. The problem was that the time between each trip was so significant that he would forget most of what he had learned. Makan claims that his Uyghur was at its peak during a trip when he was 12 years old.
While Makan explained the importance of the cultural aspect of the Uyghur identity, he has an increasing desire to learn more Uyghur. Makan expressed immense guilt for not being able to speak the language well and he was setting learning goals for himself, which he had not considered before. ‘I envision myself speaking fluent Uyghurche by the time I graduate college,’ he explained. This is also partly due to the helplessness he has felt since the start of the genocide in 2017. ‘It is pretty clear that there is not much we can do to stop the Chinese Government,’ he said. The way for him to resist is to continue being Uyghur. And one of the ways to do that is to learn more Uyghur language. We can see that the genocidal policies of the Chinese Government are shaping Makan’s language ideology and making him centralise the language in the expression of his Uyghur identity.
The Contours of a Transnational Uyghur Language Ideology
By placing these four differently positioned Uyghur diaspora members in conversation with each other, this essay has begun to sketch the contours of a transnational Uyghur language ideology. In each case it is clear that language ideology, particularly in relation to moral and political interests, plays a significant role in language maintenance. Muhtar and Bilig have rather strong language ideologies that place the Uyghur language at the centre of their Uyghur identity. On the other hand, Nisa’s and Makan’s language ideologies, which do not place the Uyghur language at the centre of their identity, contribute to a different outcome when it comes to language maintenance efforts, although Makan is changing in this regard and it seems he will increase his Uyghur language competence as a result of a shift in his language ideology.
Looking at the younger generation in the Uyghur diaspora, Nisa and Makan are both proud to be Uyghur and are fond of the ‘uniqueness’ of their identities. As discussed above, the genocide in their homeland has certainly strengthened their Uyghur identity; however, both were able to develop a strong sense of Uyghur identity without growing up in the Uyghur diaspora community. If their experiences are representative of the generation who were born and grew up in the diaspora, this would mean that the sole factor for language maintenance would be language ideology—placing the Uyghur language at the centre of Uyghur identity and making it the ethnic marker. This creates a rather straightforward, though difficult, task for the Uyghur diaspora when it comes to language maintenance. If they want to maintain their language as a vibrant aspect of the diaspora life, in addition to educating the next generation about Uyghur culture, history, art, and politics, the Uyghur language must also be considered an ethnic marker. This would entail a significant effort in teaching the next generation the language and require building educational institutions. Without institutional support and a critical mass of community supporters, belief in the moral and political value of a Uyghur language ideology remains one of the only means to make the language maintenance equation work.
All the Uyghurs I interviewed for this article used ‘East Turkestan’ to refer to what the Chinese State has named the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). For a discussion of the rise of the use of the term ‘East Turkestan’ among diaspora Uyghurs, see Saskia Witteborn’s recent book Unruly Speech (2023).
Featured Image: A mosque is destroyed while a ‘Duck Neck Store’ nearby remains untouched in Korla, YEAR?. The sign is in Chinese, with tiny Uyghur and Mongolian scripts above. Source: Mirshad Ghalip.
References
Ayup, Abduweli. 2024. ‘I Risked Prison to Keep the Uyghur Culture Alive.’ Coda Story, 14 June. www.codastory.com/stayonthestory/uyghur-language-xinjiang-prison.
Byler, Darren. 2019. ‘Xinjiang Education Reform and the Eradication of Uyghur-Language Books.’ The China Project, 2 October. thechinaproject.com/2019/10/02/xinjiang-education-reform-and-the-eradication-of-uyghur-language-books.
Dwyer, Arienne M. 2005. ‘The Xinjiang Conflict: Uyghur Identity, Language Policy, and Political Discourse.’ Policy Studies 15, 1 January. Honolulu: East–West Center. www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/xinjiang-conflict-uyghur-identity-language-policy-and-political-discourse.
Gumperz, John J. 1968. ‘The Speech Community.’ In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by David L. Sills and Robert K. Merton, 381–86. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan.
Hudyma, Khrystyna. 2011. ‘Ukrainian Language in Canada: From Prosperity to Extinction?’ Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 21: 181–89.
Irvine, Judith T. 1989. ‘When Talk Isn’t Cheap: Language and Political Economy.’ American Ethnologist 16(2): 248–67.
Schluessel, Eric T. 2007. ‘“Bilingual” Education and Discontent in Xinjiang.’ Central Asian Survey 26(2): 251–77.
Shepherd, Christian. 2019. ‘Fear and Oppression in Xinjiang: China’s War on Uighur Culture.’ Financial Times, [London], 12 September. www.ft.com/content/48508182-d426-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77.
Tuominen, Anne. 1999. ‘Who Decides the Home Language? A Look at Multilingual Families.’ International Journal of Sociology of Language 140: 59–76.
Wenger, Etienne. 1999. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Witteborn, Saskia 2023. Unruly Speech: Displacement and the Politics of Translation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
