Articles / Articulos / Aufsätze / Artikoloj
The relevance of motility in language shift research
Motility (sometimes referred to as ‘mobility capital’ or ‘mobility potential’) is
a still understudied and underutilised concept in both migration and
sociolinguistic literature. Perhaps even more than actual mobility, it can shed
an important light on the possible connection between language and migration. In
this theoretical article, it will be argued that motility can both be a
potential catalyst for language shift, but can in other instances also
contribute to language maintenance. Inspired by Fishman’s Graded
Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) and Simon and Lewis’ Expanded Graded
Intergenerational Scale (EGIDS), it is assumed that the most important factor in
processes of language shift is the attitude of parents, in particular their
willingness to transmit their heritage language to their children. This
willingness is connected with the perception of the value of the heritage
language, which might be, in addition to other factors, influenced by the
mobility capital the heritage language might give future generations. The
interplay between migrant networks in different countries and the country of
origin is key in understanding the parents’ decision-making process.
Furthermore, the three main features of motility (access, competence and
appropriation) fit quite logically in the already existing EGIDS scale. This
article thus argues that motility is a valuable and necessary concept for
sociolinguistic research and migration scholars alike.
Article outline
- Motility
- The (E)GIDS scale and motility
- Conclusion
- Note
-
References
References (23)
References
Arends‐Tóth, J., & Van De Vijver, F. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish – Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(2), 249–266. 

Bourdieu, P. (1977). L’économie des echanges linguistiques. Langue Française. 341, 17–34. 

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Castles, S., & Miller, M. (2009). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Çelik, Ç. (2015). ‘Having a German passport will not make me German’: Reactive ethnicity and oppositional identity among disadvantaged male Turkish second-generation youth in Germany. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(9), 1646–1662. 

De Swaan, A. (2001). Worlds of the world: The global language system. Malden: Polity Press.
De Vroome, T., Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2014). Host national identification of immigrants in the Netherlands. International Migration Review, 48(1), 76–102. 

Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gobbo, F. (2015). Transnational communication in a ‘glocalized’ world: In search of balanced multilingualism. In I. Koutny (Ed.), Language Communication Information (Special issue on Interlinguistic and Esperanto Studies), 196–208.
Holmes, J., Roberts, M., & Verivaki, M. (1993). Language maintenance and shift in three New Zealand speech communities. Applied linguistics, 14(1), 1–24. 

Houtkamp, C. (2014). Integrating language in theories on long-distance movement: Migration vs mobility and the concept of motility. A’dam Multiling, 1(1), 16–26.
Kaufmann, V., Bergman, M., & Joye, D. (2004). Motility: Mobility as capital. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4), 745–756. 

Lewis, P. & Simon, G. (2010). Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Romanian Review of Linguistics, 55(2), 103–120.
Massey, D., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouanouci, A., Pellegrimo, A., & Taylor, E. (2008). Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Milroy, L. (2002). Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change – Working with contemporary speech communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 61, 3–15. 

Putnam, R. (2007).
E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. 

Sonntag, S. & Cardinal, L. (Eds.) (2015). State traditions and language regimes. Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press.
Stahl, C. (1993). Explaining international migration. In C. Stahl, R. Ball, C. Inglis, & P. Gutman. (Eds.), Global Population Movements and their Implications for Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services.
Stoessel, S. (2002). Investigating the role of social networks in language maintenance and shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1531, 93–131.
Turkenburg, M. (2001). Onderwijs in allochtone levende talen: Een verkenning in zeven gemeenten. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (1989). Allochtonenbeleid. SDU; ’s-Gravenhage
Website Volkskrant (last visited: 1–12–2016) [URL]
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Joshi, Saakshi & Ajay Bailey
2023.
What happens next? Exploring women's transport motility through the story completion method.
Journal of Transport Geography 107
► pp. 103547 ff.

Gobbo, Federico & László Marácz
2021.
Two Linguas Francas? Social Inclusion through English and Esperanto.
Social Inclusion 9:1
► pp. 75 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.