The linguicized subject: everyday linguicism and the ‘English-only’ discourse against migrants in Australia

Abstract

Introduction

‘English please!’ That’s the only phrase that they say the whole school day. And I understand that. You know this is such a diverse community. Yeah. So that, you know, they get used to and know we try to speak English as much as possible. Um, but then, you know, that’s what we grow up with. And English is not our first language. English is the second language. So we have to learn, you know, we can’t, you know, you can’t be tough and just be chill. So, yeah!

In the extract above, a participant in our study, who we refer to as Vithu, shared his experience of having the ‘English here’ rule imposed on him when he was a student in an Australian high school. In conducting interviews, we were surprised by how many participants in our study on migrants’ experience of language in Australia reported having been asked explicitly by someone that they should speak only English. ‘English please!’—is that what migrants should expect to hear in their everyday life in Australia?

An ‘English-only’ ethos is not uncommon in a country which often portrays itself as a ‘proudly’ multicultural nation (van Buuren 2023) that notionally at least celebrates diversity. As reported in the media, English-priority policies or statements such as ‘this is Australia, speak English!’ are still quite prevalent in Australian society, as can be seen in the following examples: (1) an aged-care provider issuing an explicit rule that their staff ‘must speak English’ while on the job (Pulse Tasmania 2022), (2) a French bus passenger being asked by another passenger to ‘speak English or die’ (Rourk 2012), or (3) an indigenous First Nations woman being told by a random person that ‘It’s Australia Day! We speak English in Australia!’ (Thackray 2016). Thus, to reside in a country which claims to welcome multiculturalism and diversity, one needs to be aware that its implied multiculturalism does not necessarily include multilingualism, even though a multicultural nation is, by definition, a multilingual one (Grimmer 2018). As we consider more broadly the historical and social layers of the language situation in Australia, we are, however, able to come to understand why Australia’s ‘monolingual multiculturalism’ exists and how it operates.

Although Australia does not formally declare English to be its official language, English is recognized to be its de facto national language. This is, for example, noted in the Australian Government’s (2017: 13) Multicultural Statement that ‘English is and will remain our national language and is a critical tool for migrant integration’. English, thus, continues to be seen as a key marker of national identity and ‘Australianness’, that serves as a norm which informs people’s language ideologies. Australia is reported to be strongly imbued by a ‘monolingual mindset’ (Clyne 2005; Hajek and Slaughter 2014) that endorses the country as a ‘determinedly’, ‘solidly’ and ‘aggressively’ monolingual nation, with a ‘historical allergy to anything but English’ (Mason and Hajek 2018: 228) despite its multilingual reality which both precedes and follows British settlement in 1788—through its historically indigenous population and then through significant and ongoing non-English-speaking migration respectively. Languages other than English have been historically (and contemporarily) sidelined and delegitimized (Clyne 2005) and are placed at a lower status in Australia’s language hierarchy. In Australia which is a major migrant-receiving country, English is often assumed to be the only language for social acceptance and a condition for migrants’ integration and success. The language hierarchy then serves as a source of otherness for ‘non-English-speaking’ people who are different from those of an Anglo-Australian background (Cho 2024). As many locals who grow up and socialize in such an environment can be ‘allergic to anything but English’, those who attempt to show anything which is indicative of linguistic diversity can be subject to discrimination and othering (Dobinson et al. 2024). How the English-only discourse is utilized as an instrument for discriminating against people of a non-English background in English-dominant contexts is, therefore, an important question that requires investigation.

In this article, we examine the lived experience of individual migrants who are exposed to the English-only discourse in their daily life in different social contexts in Australia. When migrants are explicitly asked by someone that they need to speak English (although English is sometimes not necessary for the situation), this can be potentially seen as discrimination against their language practices. We refer to such discrimination as everyday linguicism, and highlight how the English-only discourse underlying everyday linguicism experienced by migrants offers a social vision that brings about the construction of their linguicized subjectivity (see detailed discussion on the two concepts below). In proposing the notion of linguicized subjectivity, we engage in, and suggest a new theoretical position for, the growing scholarly dialogue on subjectification in the context of language and social justice. We first discuss and locate our study in the related literature, then explicate the theoretical basis which frames our perspective and understanding of the issue, before presenting the methodological approach which informs the present study.

Literature review: English-only discourse in traditionally English-dominant contexts

English-only discourse as manifested in policies and practices in traditionally English-speaking countries has attracted significant attention amongst researchers. Much of their research focuses on the English-only policy and movement in the US education system, where English is used as the sole permitted medium of instruction in most education programs. This policy has been, however, criticized for discriminating against linguistically minoritized students. Macedo and Bartolomé (2014), in an article on multicultural education for minoritized students in the US, for example, note that although such education celebrates the need to include multicultural voice and differences, that multicultural inclusion is ‘permitted in English only’, and this can be seen as a discriminatory education practice. Belliveau (2021), in discussing social work education in the US, similarly, indicates how the embodiment of English-only in monolingual education within a multicultural society can contribute to maintaining the systemic language oppression of linguistically disadvantaged people. In the educational setting of Australia which is also an English-dominant country, the idea of English only is quite common and is expressed through various implicit and explicit forms. In a recent study on the monolingual English discourse at an Australian university, for instance, Dobinson et al. (2024) observe that the English-only ‘mantra’ could have a negative impact on international students’ language motivation, confidence, and academic outcomes.

Outside the educational setting, English-only discourse is sometimes discussed in studies on migration laws and policies of migrant-receiving countries. Berg’s (2011) study on English language requirements in skilled migration, for example, highlights the statement ‘mate, speak English, you’re in Australia now’ and indicates that the increase in English requirements to obtain a permanent or temporary visa was (rhetorically) justified on the basis that English competence would allow migrants to integrate into different parts of Australia. At an institutional level, the English-only rule also exists in legal contexts, as featured in a study by van Buuren (2023) on the problem of ‘justice in English-only’ whereby enforcement of this rule can result in the exclusion and symbolic punishment of minoritized witnesses and accused individuals. The English-only discourse is, in addition, common in the media, as illustrated in Wright and Brookes’s (2019) and Sinkeviciute’s (2020) studies. Wright and Brookes (2019) examine the right-leaning press’ language ideologies in relation to low English proficiency people in the UK and show that the expectation of ‘this is England, speak English’ can serve to legitimize exclusionary and discriminatory practices against minoritized people. Sinkeviciute (2020), likewise, investigates the discourse of monolingualism among Facebook users in Australia, as exemplified in one reader’s remark: ‘hey BCC this is Australia and we speak and read English’, and suggests that the English-only idea can be utilized as a tool for othering people with a language other than English background.

Overall, it remains the case that most studies on English-only discourse investigate the issue at a policy or institutional level rather than at an individual practice level. The present study contributes to addressing this gap, which explores the lived experience of individual migrants who are explicitly exposed to this discourse in various social settings such as public sites, educational spaces and/or workplace environments, as they reside in Australia, a traditionally English-dominant context.

Theoretical framework: Everyday linguicism and linguicized subjectivity

Everyday linguicism

We make use of the concept linguicism to characterize migrants’ experiences of linguistic discrimination in relation to the discourse of English-only. Skutnabb‐Kangas (1988) develops the concept in comparison with other forms of discrimination such as racism, sexism and classism. She defines linguicism as ‘ideologies, structures and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate, regulate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources’ between people and groups of people on the basis of language' (p.13), suggesting that there are hierarchies among languages and language speakers. Linguicism is, thus, where (c)overt linguicist attitudes and behaviors are exercised and delivered. Elsewhere we argue that although there is variation in the use of concepts and terms, such as linguistic racism, raciolinguistics, or linguistic profiling, which can be applied to describe linguistic discrimination, linguicism is a more inclusive and stronger construct to characterize the phenomenon. As linguistic discrimination often intersects with, and thus, may be unnoticed and obscured by other forms of discrimination (e.g., racism), we support the use of the concept of linguicism where discrimination associated with the language factor is highlighted and brought to the fore (Nguyen and Hajek 2022). This stance foregrounds our ideas of ‘linguicized subjectivity’ and ‘linguicized subject,’ which are discussed in the subsequent section.

Linguicism has been widely used in applied linguistics scholarship to capture linguistic discrimination at different social layers, ranging from structural and institutional to interpersonal language-based discrimination (e.g. Cushing 2019; Nguyen 2022). In this article, we examine casual linguistic discrimination experienced by migrants in multiple societal domains, referred to here as everyday linguicism. Similar to everyday racism (Essed 1991), everyday linguicism involves practices of linguistic discrimination which infiltrate people’s daily lives and may be seen as ‘normal’ by speakers of the dominant language. This kind of linguicism is based on particular shared discourses (such as ‘English-only’), which is occasional and ephemeral in nature, and circulated in everyday interactions, endlessly repeated or iterated, and often too minor to address (Essed 1991; McNamara 2019). Everyday linguicism may, thus, manifest in different forms such as slurs, mockery, commands, complains, or requests which aim to ‘remind’ people to maintain only English and ridicule their use of other languages.

Linguicized subjectivity

As everyday linguicism is often based on shared discourses, and is used to reproduce unequal divisions of power, as previously discussed, in this study, we examine migrants’ experiences of linguicism through the lens of subjectivity in relation to discourse and power, referring to the work of Michel Foucault, Tim McNamara, and other scholars. In poststructuralist theories, subjectivity is defined as one’s consciousness of being seen by, or of one’s own visibility to others (Foucault 1977). Subjectivity is linked with the process of discursive formation of the subject (Harissi, Otsuji and Pennycook 2012), as mediated and maintained through symbolic forms (such as language) occurring in everyday interactions and exchanges (Kramsch 2013). Our subjectivity is constructed not only through our sense of who we are, but also our awareness of who the Other is and who we are not (Althusser 2000). We are, thus, a subject who is subject to various social constraints, power, and forces, such as discourses about language, race, or gender (Qin 2020). Our subjectivity is discursively constructed and governed by the power embedded within discourse (McNamara 2019). From a poststructuralist view, discourse as a ‘grid of intelligibility’ (Foucault 1978) can offer possibilities for subjectivity and terms of recognition of Self and Other. We may be exposed to discourses determining our beliefs about racial, gendered, or language groups other than our own, which put members of these groups in recognizable social categories associated with assumed attitudes and behaviors (McNamara 2019). In addition, as discourses often represent political interests, they are ‘constantly vying for status and power’ and ‘[t]he site of this battle for power is the subjectivity of the individual’ (Weedon 1987: 41). Subjectivity is, hence, constructed not only through one’s sense of Self and Other, but also through one’s feeling of being subject to a form of social power (McNamara 2019). In the context of unequal divisions of power, discourse can be used to (de)legitimize subject positions (Foucault 1978). For McNamara (2019), discriminatory discourses are where subjectivities of Self and Other are salient. These discourses may offer social vision in terms of exclusion for people to propose the stigmatized subject as ‘Other,’ ‘illegitimate’ or ‘abnormal’, and at the same time implicitly recognize the ‘normal’ ‘legitimate’ or ‘natural’ subject by way of contrast.

Poststructuralist theories, in addition, attach importance to the role of language in relation to subjectivity, discourse, and power. As language is an instrument of power (Bourdieu 1991) and discourse often operates and is reproduced in language, language choice allows for the construction of one’s subjectivity in ways which are socially specific (Weedon 1987; McNamara 2019). Features of speech (such as language choice) can constitute ideas within discourse (McNamara 2019) about people as speaking/listening subjects. In the context of unequal divisions of power, language is instrumental in the creation of (il)legitimate and (ab)normal subject positions. In the moment of being exposed to racist, classist, or sexist texts, for instance, one’s self-recognition as the Other subject may be ‘called into being’ (McNamara 2019), and that is where one’s racialized, classed, or gendered subjectivity is constructed. Research which takes racism as a key focus in particular often brings racialized subjects into the analysis, implying that racialized subjects are called into being by differential biases of speech varieties (Bhatia 2018). Many studies on linguistic discrimination, in a similar vein, refer to the phenomenon as linguistic racism or raciolinguistic ideologies/practices, and describe victims of discrimination as the racialized subject, suggesting that linguistic discrimination is associated with the process of racializing language-speaking and language-listening subjects (e.g., Flores and Rosa 2015; Dovchin 2020). As previously discussed, however, we prefer to label linguistic discrimination as linguicism in an attempt to foreground the language factor. In relating subjectivity to linguicism, we put forward the concept of linguicized subjectivity (in line with racialized, classed, or gendered subjectivity long discussed in the literature), arguing that this concept is more relevant to capturing migrants’ construction of subjectivity within discriminatory discourses about language. The term linguicize was coined by Skutnabb‐Kangas (1990), who points out that minority people do not often have the right to define their own ‘linguicity,’ as they are often linguicized by outsiders who attribute them with predefined language characteristics. Linguicized subjectivity is, hence, where the speaking/listening subject is referred to as the linguistic Other. Linguicist discourses can thus be a process of linguicizing less-powerful-language speakers and shaping them as the linguicized subject. In English-dominant contexts such as Australia, the English-only discourse may linguicize migrants speaking a language other than English as ‘abnormal’ or ‘illegitimate’, and link their English use with social integration and acceptance into the national community.

Furthermore, although the subject is formed by the power of categories and often not sovereign (Busch 2012), they¹ can possess agency—where they not only submit to, but also resist power (Foucault 1980). The subject is, first, constructed as an effect of subordination to power, then can shift to a position where they ‘wield’ power, as power not only has an impact on the subject from the outside, but also configure the subject internally (Butler 1997; Harissi, Otsuji and Pennycook 2012). Discriminatory discourses of (ab)normality, hence, do not necessarily lead to conformity and appreciation. The linguicized subject, for example, may show their agency in understanding their position somewhat differently from how they are shaped by the linguicist discourse. They may differentiate their imposed subjectivity—which is constructed in discourse and imposed on them without consent—from their negotiated subjectivity—which is constructed by themselves in an effort to resist and contest the imposed subject position. Imposed and negotiated subjectivity here are depicted in line with Pavlenko and Blackledge’s (2004) characterization of imposed and negotiated identities, featuring individuals’ multiple identities in multilingual contexts.

The study

Methodology and participants

Data for the present study are taken from a large-scale project investigating the language life of migrants in Australia, with a focus on their experiences of linguistic discrimination. The original project drew on an interpretative approach which privileges the qualitative understanding of the research matter (the quantitative perspective, if any, should play an auxiliary role) and allows for a focus on individuals’ meaning-making of their social world (Hesse-Biber 2010).

We recruited interview participants primarily through an online survey, which was designed to (1) collect general information to enable us to take a broader look at some aspects of the research issue and to (2) invite respondents, if they so wished, to participate in an interview. For qualitative purposes, we interviewed 100 people speaking a language other than English as their mother tongue and who believed that they had experienced linguistic discrimination in the Australian context. We contacted survey respondents who expressed their interest in participating in an interview. Some of them did not reply and we had to approach others to ensure that we have enough interview participants as planned. Our interview participants are quite heterogeneous. They have very different ethnic backgrounds (e.g. Cambodian, Chinese, Colombian, Mongolian, Filipino/a, Indian, Taiwanese, Thai, Vietnamese, etc.) speaking a variety of languages, and are resident in different parts of Australia.

We rely on part of this interview data as the empirical basis of the present article exploring migrants’ experiences of everyday linguicism in relation to the English-only discourse. As aforementioned, a number of participants reported to us that they had been asked at some point in time by someone that they should or had to speak English. Among these, we selected five individuals whose stories are used as examples and illustrations of the matter we discuss in the findings section, because these participants provided more comprehensive descriptions about the incidents in question as well as more details about their views and thoughts in relation to the issue at hand. This selection was based on the value of information richness of the cases in question for an interpretative study such as ours (Marlow and Boone 2005). As we focus on the richness of data rather than the balance of gender, there are 4 female participants and only 1 male participant among the 5 selected cases, and this may be a limitation in terms of participant variation (see Table 1 for some demographic characteristics of the five participants). A pseudonym is used for each of them to protect their privacy.

Data collection and analysis

Semi-structured interviews, which are ‘related appropriately to methodological issues of subjectivity’ (Mills 2001: 286), are used to gain access to the participants’ experiences of everyday linguicism and of English-only discourse as well as their perspectives on these matters. As interviewees resided in different parts of Australia, we conducted online interviews using Zoom. This approach was also preferred by participants as this could help to better ensure their privacy. Research suggests that there are no significant differences in using face-to-face and online interviews (e.g., Jenner and Myers 2019).

We contacted participants using the email addresses they provided in the survey, introduced ourselves and our project, and asked whether they were still interested in taking part in an interview. During the email conversations, we shared with them an Information Sheet (Plain Language Statement) in which we describe details about the study and related ethical considerations, and which also requested they sign a consent form if they agreed to take part. We asked the participants about their availability and sent a Zoom link to their email address. The interviews typically took about one hour, although conversations could be shorter or longer, depending on what and how much participants wanted to tell us. We created a relaxing and informal atmosphere in which they could talk freely and comfortably. Interview questions were related to linguistic discrimination incidents which they experienced, what they thought about the situations and how they felt about being discriminated, as well as their perspectives on language use and manner of communication, language and community belonging, and the role, usefulness and benefits of different languages in Australia. Most of interviews were in English (a few were in Vietnamese) and were recorded with the participants’ consent.

Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim using an automatic transcribing application in tandem with data collection, and were then checked and verified by members of the research team. All transcripts went through a preliminary ‘raw’ coding process, whereby we mapped and assigned data to some broad topics. Data selected for the present study were interview parts related to situations when the participants were asked or expected to speak only English, not another language. As we focus on subjectivity in relation to English-only discourse, we used Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (Willig 2008: 115-117) to interpret the data. Our analysis went through six stages, as follows:

Stage 1—Discursive Constructions—is concerned with discursive object(s) in the text. We read through the interview conversations to understand all instances of implicit and explicit references to the emerging discursive object(s), and identified that the main discursive object of the discussions is language (including English and languages other than English).

Stage 2—Discourses—focuses on different constructions of the object. We spotted various discursive constructions of language, then located them within the wider discourse. We found that the discursive constructions were associated with two different discourse orientations: (a) English-only discourse, such as complaining that the other was not speaking English, or asking the other to switch to English to assimilate/to maintain a good service, etc.; and (b) anti-English-only discourse such as reflecting on one own’s identity, discussing diversity, or confronting, etc.

Stage 3—Action Orientation—involves a closer examination of what the actions of the discursive constructions are. We analyzed and interpreted the discursive constructions to conclude that there are two types of actions linked with the orientations (above): (a) expecting the other to use only English, and (b) expecting the other to respect one’s language choice.

Stage 4—Positionings—recognizes subject positions located within the discourse which different constructions of the object offer. An in-depth evaluation of what the participants said allowed us to label several subject positions of the participants and other people in the situations, such as: illegitimate/abnormal language speaker, language negotiator, language use monitor, etc.

Stage 5—Practice—examines the ways in which discursive constructions and subject positions suggest potential opportunities for actions. We found that the discursive constructions and subject positions might open up opportunities for either (a) promoting English-only discourse and maintaining the linguistic order, or (b) challenging English-only discourse and changing the linguistic order.

Stage 6—Subjectivity—explores the relationship between discourse and subjectivity. We traced consequences of taking up subject positions (above) to bring about the ideas of (a) ‘imposed’ linguicized subjectivity and (b) ‘negotiated’ linguicized subjectivity.

Findings: ‘English please!’ and everyday linguicism in Australia

‘Imposed’ linguicized subjectivity

In the first part of the findings section, we present linguicism incidents experienced by the participants as they were subjected, and sometimes submitted, to power (Foucault 1980) of English-only discourse in different social settings. We explore how linguicized subjectivity was ‘imposed’ on the participants, and how they were discursively shaped as a linguicized subject in these linguicism moments and contexts.

Linguicism in public places, where migrants were told to ‘speak English’ by a random stranger, was not uncommon, being reported by many of our interviewees. Rabia who speaks Tamil as her first language, for example, said that she had faced a lot of discrimination when she talked in Tamil in public places from the time she was a child. She related an incident which happened recently when she was shopping in a supermarket, where she was harassed by another customer about the language she was speaking.

On public transport, you know, you’ll have people abusing you if you’re speaking your own language. They’ll just snap at you: ‘this is Australia, you should speak English’. That still happens today, sadly […]. I had one incident at [supermarket name] actually recently. I told you about yeah. Where the guy purposely took, he’s seen us a few times. And he purposely brought these [inaudible] coins out of his [inaudible] and purposely stood in front of us and was handing these coins 5¢ per 5¢ for his bill. Right. And he purposely went in front of us. And when I confronted him, I said ‘mate, you’ve been here, like, 20 minutes doing this’. He goes, ‘oh, you find it annoying, don’t you?’ Said ‘yes’. He goes ‘now you know how I feel when you and your mother keep gibbering away in your language. You should speak English’. So there are people like that out there now […]. Really shocking, really shocking.

Likewise, Vithu, a Khmer speaker originally from Cambodia, shared a situation where he was talking with friends in a restaurant and was ‘requested’ to speak only English by an older woman whom he did not know:

She came to us and then she came to our table and she asked ‘oh so what language is that?’ And then we say ‘oh, Khmer, that’s Cambodian’. ‘Oh Cambodian, where is Cambodia?’ ‘Oh, you know, close, Vietnam, close to Thailand’ and so on. That’s how we respond to her. ‘Oh, that’s interesting. You know, I’m wondering if you guys can speak in English as well so we all can understand, you know, what we’re talking about here.’ And then, you know, we looked at each other like, whoa, what is this lady talking about? And then made it fun. ‘Okay, sure. Yeah. Thank you’. And then you know, because the way that we answer her question is in English and then she sort of compliment us. ‘Oh, so you guys speak English? Well, why aren’t you speaking English?’

The linguicist situations as reported by the participants indicate that variations of the statement ‘this is Australia, you should speak English’ are still in use in this country. This statement is often utilized to delegitimize and linguicize those who are in the Australian territory but do not speak English in public spaces. The English-only discourse, as implied or made explicit by what we term for the moment the two ‘language use monitors’ mentioned in the extracts above, constructed the stigma in defining what was wrong about language other than English speakers and facilitated the latter’s ‘Other’ subjectivity (McNamara 2019). Being asked to speak English, Rabia and Vithu were subjected to the regime of meaning of such a discourse (Foucault 1980; Kramsch 2013) where they were linguicized as the linguistic Other who does not fit into Australia’s language normativity. The monitoring and norm-setting individuals seemed to be irritated (‘now you know how I feel’) with the Other’s deviation from this normativity or to feel a threat to them as they could not comprehend what the Other was saying (‘speak in English as well so we all can understand’). In such pre-given English-only discourse, Rabia and Vithu had their non-English subjectivity (‘keep gibbering away in your language’, ‘what language is that?’) discursively imposed on them. This linguicized subjectivity might be, thus, predicated on their sense of who these random monitors were (‘normal’ English speakers) and who they were in turn (‘abnormal’ non-English speakers). Rabia and Vithu, however, seemed to be discontented with the linguicized subject position which they were forced to take up. Rabia described the situation where she was interrogated about her private talk as ‘really shocking.’ Vithu was surprised (‘whoa, what is this lady talking about?’) about being seen as the linguistic Other who intended to exclude ‘normal’ English speakers—although he did not deliberately do so. He then submitted to the power (Foucault 1980) of the English-only discourse (this manifests in how he responded to the woman: ‘Okay, sure. Yeah. Thank you’), although temporarily, to be seen as a ‘comprehensible’ language speaker.

Our participants also had experiences of being told that ‘this is Australia, speak English’ in educational contexts. Education is an environment where students speaking another language as their mother tongue are often structurally linguicized. In sharing their language life in school/university in Australia, Rabia and Kayee said that their teachers and peers sometimes insisted that they had to/should speak only English. Rabia narrated her ‘hard’ time of schooling in the past, when she felt a ‘huge pressure’ to learn and speak English and assimilate into this climate:

My school teacher would always tell me to speak English. She would say, you know, ‘this is Australia, speak English’. It was a huge emphasis in those days, and I was, like, born in the early nineties. So back then, they really had no tolerance for anything […].² The minute I went to school, they said to me: ‘speak English, speak English. You have to integrate, assimilate. Speak English.’ And they would even call my mother about it and say, you know, ‘she’s still speaking... you gotta put pressure on…’. So they put extra pressure on me, which was really hard for me.

Kayee—a Chinese university tutor who speaks Cantonese as her mother tongue—also related her experience of the English-only attitude from her peers in the university context, that happened to her not so long ago:

And they would just say ‘why don’t you just speak English instead of your home language?’ Because they found strange, like, I guess because they don’t understand what we’re trying to say as well. So like, um, it seems that they think we don’t blend in because, um, because it, because they know that we can speak English, but we still choose to speak our home, the mother tongue language. And that’s when they feel we are not respecting them. Because Australia is a country where English is the first language.

It is suggested from Rabia and Kayee’s stories that in many Australian schools and universities, the monolingual norm associated with English is often reinforced, where the English-only requirement can be applied in evaluation of students’ educational outcomes and classroom activities. People, however, might draw on the English-only discourse—that provides favorable conditions for creating stigmas—in defining what is wrong about those who do not use English in this environment. Monolingually oriented schools and universities where there are migrant and international students can become linguicist settings where the language of the local is seen as preferable and normal, and the leaving of other languages at the gate is seen as necessary for their integration into the common environment. These students are often linguicized as the Other subject, as in the cases of Rabia and Kayee who related how they were conscious about their linguistic visibility (Foucault 1977) to other people in such a monolingual environment. Rabia and Kayee might learn that they were an ‘illegitimate’ speaking subject through the mirror of their teachers/peers who were in a ‘legitimate’ English-speaking subject position which, at least in such moments, they could not take up. It is also illustrated by the teachers and peers in Rabia and Kayee’s stories, who expected that the latter should/had to ‘assimilate’ or ‘blend in’, that the latter were not only seen as the linguistic Other, but also eventually transformed into the societal Other—the subject who did/had not share the (language) attribute which was necessary to construct their membership of the school/university community (Sinkeviciute 2020). The English-only discourse as implied in the teachers’ and peers’ expectation for Rabia and Kayee to speak English, thus, might have the function of offering social vision in terms of social exclusion (McNamara 2019), as not speaking English could mean not making efforts to ‘assimilate’, ‘blend in’ and ‘respect’ others in this educational environment where ‘English is the first language’.

Some participants also had experience of being expected or required to maintain English only at their workplace. Kiya, who speaks Hindi and Punjabi as her mother tongues, for instance, reported that she experienced discrimination from her co-workers who ‘complained’ that she was not talking in English in common areas during lunch time, and from the manager who warned her about her ‘improper’ language behavior:

So this was again, you know, this has happened twice. Yeah, that I was being told, and even once my team leader said that 'Kiya, we have got some complaints that you are talking in English um you’re not talking in English, you’re talking in Hindi and Punjabi' […]. So it was twice that my complaint was being made that. One time it was a formal complaint once from my team leader that she told me that ‘I have received a complaint that', you know, 'you are talking in Hin- English, you’re not talking in English, and you’re talking in Hindi in the lunch time and in the common area, you’re talking in Hindi’.

Duyen, a Chinese-origin Vietnamese person who worked in a nail salon, on the other hand, narrated a story about one customer who rejected her service because she was speaking Vietnamese with her sister, and who stated that it was ‘ridiculous’ to speak a language other than English in front of customers:

And at that moment, she said ‘no, I won’t buy it anymore’. Then, we were frozen. After that we said ‘oh what’s wrong?’ She said ‘what language were you speaking? I don’t understand’. We said sorry, we were discussing this and that because I wrote it all wrong for you. She said, ‘no, you don’t speak English, I don’t buy the voucher anymore’ […]. Then she said, in general she just said ‘no, it’s very ridiculous, you have to talk to me in English. And I don’t care where you come from, I don’t care what language it is’.

It is suggested from the extracts above that in English-dominant contexts, employers may seek to suppress other languages in the workplace, and local customers may hope to maintain a service environment which is, linguistically, most favorable for them. In circulating the English-only discourse, they might be of the belief that the exclusive use of English at places of service or business will reinforce workplace cohesion or ensure the provision of a good service experience which customers want to have. Employees and service workers’ deviation from this English normativity, such as in the cases of Kiya and Duyen, can therefore be seen as being divisive that is potentially harmful to the harmony among co-workers or failing to meet customers’ needs. The English-only discourse as implied by the team leader and customer in the extracts, thus, paved the way for imposing the linguicized subjectivity on Kiya and Duyen, where their use of Hindi or Vietnamese was seen as ‘illegitimate’ or ‘abnormal’, and where they were linguicized as the Other subject, being subjected to the power of English and of those who speak it. Being admonished for using their mother tongue at work, Kiya and Duyen were accused of ‘ridiculous’ or ‘unprofessional’ linguistic behavior which was not to be accepted or encouraged in a work/service environment. In the eyes of the team leader and the customer, perhaps, due to this behavior, Kiya and Duyen deserved to receive the ‘complaints’ or the rejection of service (‘I don’t buy the voucher anymore’). Similar to the participants in the linguicism incidents previously described, Kiya and Duyen’s linguicized subjectivity might be predicated on the sense of who they were (a ‘non-English’ speaker) by reflecting on who they were not (a ‘real’ English speaker) as their use of a language other than English was intolerant by others. That could be the reason why they criticized instances of power (Foucault 1982) of the English-only discourse, as they expressed their discontent with the people who utilized such power to delegitimate their language practices and associate them with an unwanted subjectivity.

‘Negotiated’ linguicized subjectivity

Discriminatory discourses of language normativity, however, do not necessarily lead to conformity and appreciation. Some participants did not want to accept the English-only insistence placed on them without questioning it. In describing linguicist incidents, they also discussed their own view and attitudes, as well as reflected on the meanings and implications of such discrimination. In doing so, they located themselves vis-à-vis others with regard to the English-only discourse thereby expressed their ‘negotiated’ subjectivity, and positioned themselves as a subject ‘being capable of action’ (Foucault 1982) in making an attempt to resist the linguicized subject status which was imposed on them.

Rabia, for instance, commented on the pressure to learn and speak English in school (previously discussed) and to speak English more generally in Australia. She believed that although under pressure she had gradually developed over the years good competence in English with no Tamil accent, this was not necessarily a good thing, and that she felt sad because she had to ‘give up’ part of herself in the process of assimilation:

There’s a huge pressure on us to learn English. But we’re not rewarded for it. It seems like it’s something we have to do. And it really made me angry later in life when other people were incentivized and sort of in school and stuff, encouraged in high school and stuff to learn Chinese, learn Tamil, and that people acted like they were doing such a big thing. It was such a good thing. But, yeah, with me, I had a very, very thick Tamil accent growing up, and I had to slowly, like, watch TV shows, speak to different people, go to classes, talk in classes, and kind of phase it out. Now it’s completely fizzled all over the years. But that’s sad because I feel like I had to give up a part of myself and lose a part of myself to integrate into this culture.

It can be seen from Rabia’s comment on the language-related pressure on her in relation to her sense of self that she negotiated her linguicized subjectivity, which had shifted over time as she exerted her ‘strategy of struggle’ (Foucault 1982) to conform to the English normativity in Australian schools in improving her English and ‘phase it (her Tamil accent) out.’ This partly suggests that her subjectivity as influenced by the English-only discourse was a subjectivity-in-process (Kristeva 1986), which was constantly being negotiated and reconstituted through different life stages. However, Rabia seemed to be unhappy with this language conforming process, and wanted to resist the English normalization that took away part of her identity in the process of integrating into Australian society. Stating that she had to ‘give up a part of myself and lose a part of myself’, Rabia showed how she reflected on herself as a linguicized subject and how she internally made sense of her incomplete subjectivity due to the linguistic assimilation. We can see that vulnerability (‘it really made me angry’, ‘that’s sad’) was integral to her linguicized subjectivity, where she depicted effects of the discriminatory English-only discourse which first, placed her in stigmatized non-English category (McNamara 2019), and later, contributed to her sense of ‘forfeit’ subjectivity.

In a similar vein, Vithu mentioned and reflected on his experience of being told by his teachers to speak English only in school:

Um from teacher I mean, the only phrase they say, I’m sure you heard this a lot. ‘English please!’. That’s the only phrase that they say the whole school day. And I understand that. You know this is such a diverse community. Yeah. So that, you know, they get used to and know we try to speak English as much as possible. Um, but then, you know, that’s what we grow up with. And English is not our first language. English is the second language. So we have to learn, you know, we, we can’t, you know, you can’t be tough and just be chill. So, yeah.

As shown in the extract above, Vithu observed that the ‘English please!’ phrase which the teachers often used to call migrant/international students to order was quite common during his Australian schooling, and he somewhat conformed to the order by ‘try[ing] to speak English as much as possible’. His linguicized subjectivity, constituted in the constant ‘English please!’ admonition from the teachers, was not accepted by him as taken for granted, but was reconstructed and negotiated as he shared his view of this subjectivity. He believed that as English was just his second language and his mother tongue was what he grew up with, it was not right that he was linguicized as an ‘abnormal’ or ‘illegitimate’ subject just because he was using part of his linguistic resources. He also indicated that as Australia had a diverse community, people ‘can’t be tough’ about others speaking languages other than English and should not discriminate against the latter because of that. In suggesting that people should ‘just be chill’ with other languages, he might have wanted to show his ‘in potentia’ strategy of struggle (Foucault 1982) against the English-only discourse in negotiating an alternative subjectivity where he and other migrants are not placed in a linguicized subject position and are treated fairly no matter what language they speak.

Likewise, in narrating the previously discussed incident with the ‘difficult’ customer in her hair salon, Duyen kept reporting how she and her sister responded to the customer’s linguicist attitude towards their language use. They both queried and explained to the woman in an attempt to resist the latter’s English-only position. She related:

And then, we just said ‘sorry we’re still speaking English to you. Why do you say we don’t speak English to you and you still understand what we say?’ Then she said ‘I don’t like hearing you speak any other language’. We said ‘we’re from Vietnam so we speak Vietnamese’. She said ‘I don’t care where you’re from or what language you speak but it’s not English. You have to speak English’. She even used the word ‘have to’. Then we’re shocked. My sister is the manager and she said ‘sorry you’re in a Vietnamese shop, and this is a Vietnamese nail salon. And we’re still providing service to you in English, but we had internal discussions, we had to speak Vietnamese’.

It is suggested from the way Duyen and her sister argued with the customer about her need to speak Vietnamese that Duyen explicitly negotiated against the linguicized subjectivity which was imposed on her. Here we can see Duyen tried to shift her subject position where she exercised her own power to resist the power (Foucault 1980) of the English-only discourse. In explaining to the woman that ‘we’re from Vietnam so we speak Vietnamese’, she might want to show part of who she was, which was not associated with the linguicized subject which the former implied. In telling what her sister said that ‘you’re in a Vietnamese shop’ and ‘we have to speak Vietnamese’, Duyen demonstrated that it was not acceptable to linguicize her as the linguistic Other. Her assertion of the ‘Vietnamese space’, in addition, indicates the habitual language practices of many migrants, including Vietnamese, who often maintain their ethnic language in in-group interactions and find it unusual to speak a language other than their own among themselves, something that English-speaking locals might not be willing to recognize. Duyen’s arguments with the client suggest that although the subject constructed by discourse is often not sovereign, the subject can have a certain agency where they play the role of an actor (Butler 1997) who negotiates for a different subjectivity in their resistance to stronger or abusive power, such as that of English and of ‘legitimate’ English speakers which is used to devalue one’s mother tongue and linguicize one’s subjectivity. In resisting the English-only aggression by the customer, Duyen used her resistance as a ‘chemical catalyst’ to ‘bring to light power relations’ (Foucault 1982: 211) between English speakers and ‘non-English’ speakers of whom the customer and herself were a representative.

Along the same line, Kiya, in discussing her experience of linguicism in the workplace, as earlier mentioned, also shared her thoughts about the situation, suggesting that it was unreasonable to not allow her to speak her own language:

It was like, this is the lunch time going on. I’m talking with my friend. How does that matter? You know, I can talk in whatever language I want. If I’m talking over, to my mom in English, you know, it’s my choice. It’s lunch time, I can do. You’re not paying me for my lunch time. I can talk in whatever language I want. And even if I’m talking in English, how does that, in Hindi, I’m not saying bitching about anyone. I’m talking in general conversations. And like, ‘no, it doesn’t look nice because we might think, what you, I don’t know what you are talking about’. Why do you need to listen my conversation at the first place, man?

It is suggested from Kiya’s criticism about the manager and co-workers’ demand for her to maintain English and not use any other languages that she wanted to challenge their linguistic intolerance and their irrational insistence on the English-only rule. She might have detected what she saw as prejudiced undertones of this language management at work that marginalized her and placed her in the Other subject position. By indicating that ‘I’m not saying bitching about anyone’ and ‘why do you need to listen my conversation’, Kiya disputed the comments made by the team leader and co-workers about her ‘illegitimate’ language behavior, demonstrating that she did not intend to be the linguistic Other who wanted to exclude people by her mother tongue. She also stated ‘you’re not paying me for my lunch’, thereby criticizing how unfair it was that these people overstepped their authority in complaining about her language during unpaid rest time, implying that it was unjustifiable for her to be perceived as a linguicized subject. Emphasizing that ‘I can talk in whatever language I want’ and ‘it’s my choice’, she showed her resistance to the power (Foucault 1980) of the English-only normalization and negotiated her linguicized subject position, and thereby seeking to re-legitimize her language choice and re-construct her subjectivity, and questioning the discourse and power to which she did not necessarily want to conform.

Discussion and conclusion: Linguicized subjectivity and linguicized social structure

Our findings suggest that the English-only discourse, as reported by the participants, is still a common lived experience for ‘non-English-speaking’ migrants in Australia, that alerts us to Australian society’s persistent ‘monolingual habitus’ or ‘monolingual mindset’ where ‘English only’ is seen as the ‘unmarked’ status and multilingualism is perceived as a deviation (Ellis 2007; Hajek 2018). Such a discourse provides a grid of intelligibility (Foucault 1978) to highlight the monolingual expectation for what might be considered the ideal subject resident in Australia, the legitimization of English as a normative benchmark against which the linguistic Other is evaluated, as well as the legal justification of monolingual English speakers and institutions’ preferential treatment over the linguistic Other (Ng 2007). One’s failure to meet the English-only expectation can be, thus, a basis for questioning one’s credibility. The idea of English as the only legitimate language suggests that only given ways of language use can be recognized by the linguistically powerful ‘audience’, either audience at public places or in educational/workplace environments, as illustrated in the present paper. The language monitoring and policing as well as ‘censorship’ experienced by our participants, thus, might draw on such an idea of English as the only legitimate language, that entered them into the context of presumed normativity of English as well as the ‘abnormativity’ of their language behaviors, and tacitly formed them as the linguicized subject (Butler 1997). The language monitors who tried to intervene in our participants’ language practices, thus, seem to be a vehicle of power (Foucault 1980) of English-only discourse, whereby they promote such a discourse and maintain the linguistic order in which English is seen to be superior. On the other hand, we can also see from the findings that the linguicized subjects showed their uninterest in or discontent with the English-only discourse and voiced resistance to the discourse in negotiating their subjectivity associated with their language practices. They questioned the English normalization which was seemingly ‘rational on the ground’, when they were ‘reminded’ that maintaining English would allow them to effectively communicate, show respect to people, perform well in school and in their job, and successfully integrate into the Australian society (Ng 2007). In making an effort to shift their linguicized subjectivity, they might hope to challenge the English-only discourse around them and change the linguistic order in which English was privileged. In doing so, they sought the right for themselves and their language practices to be recognized as legitimate and, more importantly, the right to not be subject to the criterion of language legitimacy, and not be judged according to the English-only norm and expectation (Lee 2017).

We need, furthermore, to put forward the question about where the monolingual habitus connected with the English-only discourse, as illustrated in the present study, comes from. As language prejudices are typically socially constructed (Cargile 2017), everyday linguicism should be seen not only as the linguicist behaviors of random individuals, but also a social phenomenon which is produced through structural language ideologies and practices (Nguyen 2022). The mechanisms of imposing linguistically subordinated subject positions on individuals cannot be disassociated from their relation to the mechanisms of linguistic domination (Foucault 1982) in society at large. The monolingual habitus connected with English is, thus, perhaps linked to the long-standing enlightenment ideologies which inform the modernist national principle of ‘one nation, one state, one language’ (Bauman and Briggs 2003). This principle is bound to the recognition of one ‘common’ or ‘neutral’ language which all need to know (in the view of many, also ideally in exclusivity) to be seen as members of the state community, creating conditions for the establishment of linguistic superiority and subordination (van Buuren 2023). In English-dominant societies such as ‘multicultural’ Australia, such a principle nurtures and reinforces the imagination of Australia as an English-speaking country among those living in an ‘Anglobubble’ (Hajek 2018) and the persistent idea that the use of English can define ‘welcome’ and ‘unwelcome’ migrants who seek to reside in the territory (van Buuren 2023). Monolingualism in English is, thus, ‘the default within discourses of Australian subjectivity’ (McNamara 2019: 104). Perhaps the insistence on English can, hence, be seen as an attempt to linguistically Australianize people’s subjectivity and maintain a linguicized social structure which favors only English? The legitimation of English as a ‘neutral’ language is, moreover, often imbued with the rationalization of a uniform and equal language expectation for all people regardless of their national or cultural background (Park and Wee 2012), as this is assumed to facilitate non-discrimination and symbolic equality (van Buuren 2023). Ironically, this expectation of a neutral language for symbolic equality can be sometimes utilized to exercise prejudice against linguistic minorities by those who want to distribute the English monolingualism rhetoric. The idea of English as a neutral language, thus, can serve as a ‘legally safe haven’ and ‘legal cover for illegal discrimination’ (Ng 2007: 108) against people perceived as linguistic aliens, especially for those who are in position to evaluate the former’s service, study achievement, or work performance, etc. as reported and discussed above. Fishman (1988), in criticizing the English-only ideology, questions whether the insistence on the use of English is a ‘symptom’ of a deeper social anxiety of the monolingual English-speaking class who often holds a fear of ‘foreign contaminants’ and feels insecure about its power prerogatives in society? We can see such an anxious social class exemplified by different political leaders of English-dominant countries, such as Donald Trump who recently stated publicly that the languages which migrants bring to the US are ‘a very horrible thing’ (Hernández and Traylor 2024). We can also see such an anxious social class mirrored in the people who attempted to intervene in the language choices of our participants, and in so doing, accentuated the latter’s linguicized subjectivity. As structures and subjectivities are intricately interwoven (Butler 1997), these people who tried, in the examples presented, to police others’ language practices might just be representatives of a linguicized social structure which has already linguicized migrant and indigenous people and their subjectivity in different ways and at different levels of their social participation.

We would like, hence, to provide recommendations for addressing the issue of English-only linguicism in relation to both linguicized subjectivity of minoritized people and linguicized social structure, referring to Park’s (2022) decolonial theory of ‘saying enough’, which is used to capture the decolonization of subjectivities in English language learning. ‘Saying enough’ is defined as part of a ‘movement of refusal-and-other-creation’ (Holloway 2010) where people say ‘no more’ to the machinery of colonialization, oppression, and inequality (and to individuals who are representatives of such a machinery), and show their hope of moving forward to an alternative and more just future (Silva and Lee 2021; Park 2022). We suggest that it is possible to say ‘enough’ to linguicism and English-only rules at various levels of individual agency, collective action, and social dialogue. Individuals, for example, may enact their agency in saying ‘no more’ to irrational ‘English here’ expectations. As we can see in the present article, some of our participants expressed their ‘negotiated’ subjectivity in creating moments beyond the hegemony of the English-only discourse (Park 2022) where they challenged the linguistic order in which English was privileged. Collective actions, on the other hand, are related to group-based efforts which aim to create broader effects. Lamb, Hatoss and O’Neill (2020), for instance, discuss a form of ‘activist languages education’ for achieving more socially-just educational outcomes, where the ideas of interlinguality, challenging the monolingual mindset, and nurturing a multilingual habitus, are fostered. This is somewhat in line with Dobinson et al.’s (2024) call for intentional co-designed translanguaging practices in study units and legitimation of the use of translanguaging in universities’ classroom and other campus sites, or Auerbach’s (1993) suggestion about the establishment of community—classroom relations in which teachers and multilingual community members can work together to develop students’ linguistic knowledge and capacity. Individual agency and collective actions can, thus, together contribute to the unlearning of the English-only idea and reshaping the local scales (Warren 2018) of the linguicized structure. Nevertheless, wider-scale social dialogues about linguistic diversity and ‘no more’ linguicism where a multiplicity of voices is heard and valued are also important in terms of impact. Lo Bianco (2001), in discussing language rights, policymaking, and the role of communities, for example, believes that reconstruction of language policies would require encounters between policy makers, academics, and scholars in a kind of dialogue which allows for exchanging power and knowledge. It is, furthermore, necessary to recognize different levels of already-existing actions of ‘saying enough’ to linguicism to connect and allow them to grow into a movement of social transformation (Park 2022) where new possibilities of Australian subjectivity (McNamara 2019) are enabled. Remedies for everyday linguicism would, thus, have to do not only with building antilinguicism policies, but also with promoting effective public education and persuasive communication (Ng 2007) about the normality and positive aspects of multilingualism, as well as the right of individuals to speak their languages, alongside English, in today’s Australia.

Finally, as a concluding remark of the present study about English-only linguicism against migrants, this note could be useful for all of us who are a potential ‘perpetrator’ of others’ linguicized subjectivity: We need to realize that if we are not comfortable about being unable to understand what others are saying in languages other than English, it is ‘not a problem of [their] language practice per se but a problem that derives from [our] refusal to relinquish or uninhabit a normative epistemology of interpreting language practices’ (Lee 2017: 58).

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [Grant Number DE230101209] and the University of Melbourne (including the university’s Faculty of Arts and School of Languages and Linguistics). We are grateful to the editor, Sinfree Makoni, and the three reviewers for their time and constructive feedback. Special thanks to Ambrin Hasnain for her assistance in conducting interviews of which many extracts are used in the present article.

References

Notes on Contributors

Trang Thi Thuy Nguyen is a DECRA Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Her research focuses on multilingualism and linguistic diversity in relation to ethnic minorities, migrants, and international students, mainly from a qualitative perspective. She is the author of “Individual Language Policy: Bilingual Youth in Vietnam” (Multilingual Matters, 2022).

John Hajek is Professor of Italian Studies and director of the Research Unit for Multilingualism and Cross-cultural Communication (RUMACCC) at the University of Melbourne. Educated at universities in Australia, Italy and the UK, he has published widely and has broad research interests in linguistics, including multilingualism, language education, pragmatics, and language and identity.

Footnotes