A B S T R A C TThis study examines the retention of a non-native dialect feature by British Asians in London. We examine the use of one Punjabi feature (t-retroflexion) and one British feature (t-glottaling) across three groups: first-generation non-native immigrants and two age groups of second-generation British Asians. Cognitively oriented models predict that non-native features will either be innately blocked (Chambers, 2002) or reallocated by native generations. A socially oriented model allows for more gradual change. Contrary to the cognitive view, the older second generation neither blocks nor clearly reallocates use of t-retroflexion; they closely mirror the first generation's non-native use. However, they simultaneously control nativelike t-glottaling, reflecting a robust bidialectal ability. It is the younger second generation who exhibit focused reallocation in the form and function of tretroflexion. This 20-year lag corresponds to major changes in demographics and race relations in the community over 5 decades. The study shows that acquisition of the local dialect and retention of exogenous features should be seen as independently constrained rather than as mutually exclusive.

No abstract

This article takes an empirical approach to investigate how diasporic identification with the home-land and host-land interacts with language in a mutually influencing dynamic interplay, giving rise to new language ideologies and identities. Since scholars are increasingly of the opinion that the processes of dislocation and resettlement create multi-layered connections with the home-land and host-land (David 2012:377), it is crucial we recognise that the relationship between fixed geographical territories and communities, and the cultural-linguistic practices associated with them, need to be denaturalised (Rosa & Trivedi 2017:331). In doing so, it is possible to retheorise diasporic identity as a sociocultural process. Attention to language can help shift diasporic phenomena away from being defined as ‘bounded, territorialised, static and homogeneous’ (Canagarajah & Silberstein 2012:82). Examining Sri Lankan Tamil diasporic experiences of the home-land and host-land and their relationship with language will promote such an agenda. (Diaspora, space, home-land, host-land)*

No abstract