The aim of this article is to provide a sociological perspective on immigrant and refugee languages and the process of linguistic capital revalidation that occurs in the context of transnational migration. Drawing on Bourdieu, it considers the lived realities of seven adult migrants with diverse migratory trajectories who came to London in order to set up a new life and explicates their symbolic struggles for value fought out at the linguistic level and the way they live through experiences of re-valuation of their linguistic capital. As this is often marked by devaluation, lack and deficiency, the affective dimension of these experiences is highlighted. To be better able to account for this, Skeggs’ gaze ( Skeggs 1997 2016 ) which extends Bourdieu’s thinking tools is employed, particularly the notion of ‘just talk’ as a means of turning negative affects that occur in the face of inequitable relations into action. The study argues that paying attention to this could be a form of metalinguistic talk in English language classrooms to counteract experiences of inequality and devaluation. To this end, it provides valuable insights to work on ‘unequal Englishes’ ( Tupas 2015 ) or ‘unequally globalized Englishes’ ( Parakrama 2015 ) and approaches which frame linguistic inequalities as both structural and subjective, political and personal, as well as deeply affective in nature (e.g., Park 2015 ). It also adds to the emerging literature within critical English language teaching on post-structural/discursive approaches to emotions as socially constructed (e.g., Benesch 2012 2013 ) following the social turn in the field of second language acquisition (see Block 2003 ). The article is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the core theoretical concepts underpinning the inquiry. Section 3 presents its research context before the participants and methods are introduced in Section 4 , and the findings are presented and discussed in Section 5 Section 6 concludes the article.

This article is concerned with the experiences of those who, according to Piller, ‘become invisible’, those who find themselves limited in translating ‘strategic value’ into their linguistic repertoires and skills. Critical sociolinguistic work that engages with migration firmly acknowledges the fact that languages and migrants’ linguistic and communicative resources are valued differently in different contexts ( Hurst 2017 ). This does not simply mark difference but is a question of inequality ( Blommaert 2010 ). Clearly, linguistic repertoires are not equal in terms of their value in transnational settings. Taking the inequality of linguistic realities as given, the question then becomes how this is experienced by those who are marginalized and how space for contestation can be secured by them. Park 2015 ), among others, has stressed the importance of paying attention to the emotional, affective dimension of such experiences to account for how social transformation may be brought about as aspects such as affect and emotion “are not simply matters of an individual’s inner psychology, but constitutive elements of subjects as agents” (p. 60).

Against the backdrop of an increasing multilingual society in the U.K., discussions of the ‘strategic value of languages’ ( Cambridge Public Policy SRI 2015 ) have gained momentum. These debates are often focused on the decline of language learning in the U.K. and the negative impact this has on the U.K. economy and society. Amidst the perceived language deficit, languages are promoted as a ‘value-added-skill’ ( British Academy 2016 ), linguistic skills as valuable capital, and multilingualism as an asset. Paradoxically, this language deficit is being reported on in contexts which are actually linguistically very diverse, as migration and mobility have brought about changes in the linguistic landscape of the U.K., making diverse linguistic repertoires a common reality for many. London, for example, has long been celebrated as the ‘multilingual capital of the world’ ( Buncombe 1999 King and Carson 2016 ). Piller 2014 ) succinctly identifies this conundrum as she remarks that,

the existence of an apparent language deficit in contexts of so-called linguistic super-diversity points, yet again, to the fact that some language skills are more equal than others. When it comes to bragging about linguistic diversity and the number of languages spoken in a place, we are happy to count ‘diverse populations;’ but when it comes to the economic opportunities of multilingualism, these same ‘diverse populations’ become invisible all of a sudden.

Bourdieu’s concepts are useful in particular to understand how the dominant symbolic operates and is put into perspective, how interests are protected and pursued, and how authorisation occurs ( Skeggs 2004 2016 ). However, they fail to account for the nuanced practices and experiences of those who do not operate from a dominant position, those who are excluded and cannot access the “right resources, convert, exchange or accrue value for themselves” ( Skeggs and Loveday 2012, p. 475 ). To counteract this shortfall, Skeggs, for example, examines affect (the circulation of feelings) through emotions such as pain, frustration and fear as experienced in daily life, for example, carefully contained or expressed as anger and resentment towards symbolic violence. These negative affects can be produced by those who have been forced to inhabit social relations differently or are subject to devaluation (economically and symbolically) and are living the relations of injustice and inequality. However, these ‘ugly feelings’ ( Ngai 2005 ) can be turned into action, for example in the form of ‘just talk’—talks of fairness and kindness against devaluation and delegitimisation, fostering solidarity ( Skeggs and Loveday 2012 ). Speech acts where issues of justice and injustice, equality and inequality are discussed can be a powerful means for adult migrant language learners to work through their experiences of devaluation. They can provide a platform for transformation and empowerment and increase adult migrants’ agency. Thus, ‘just talk’ can be an enrichment for English language classrooms and teaching practice where wider language ideologies may intersect with affordances to resist these through ‘just talk’ discourses.

For Bourdieu 1991 ), language is not simply a means of communication, but serves as an instrument of symbolic power. Produced in particular contexts or linguistic markets, the properties of the market determine the value of the linguistic product with some products valued more highly than others ( Bourdieu 1992 ). As such, the producer/user of a language is endowed with linguistic capital, a form of embodied cultural capital defined at the level of the individual ( Bourdieu 1977 ). Their utterances convey signs of wealth and authority, as according to Bourdieu 1977 ) a “person speaks not only to be understood but also to be believed, obeyed, respected, distinguished” and that “language is worth what those who speak it are worth” (p. 652). In this way, prestigious accents or dialects and ways of speaking can lend more credibility or legitimacy to the speaker, e.g., the ‘legitimate language’. In order for one language to impose itself as the only legitimate one, the linguistic market has to be unified and the different languages (and dialects) of the people measured practically against the legitimate language. On a national level, the acquisition of the ‘national language’ or ‘state language’ is thus absolutely key as it becomes ‘the theoretical norm against which all linguistic practices are objectively measured’ ( Bourdieu 1992, p. 45 ). De Swaan 2001 ) extends this rationale from the individual level within a language to the level of assessing the position of entire languages in the global economy by assessing their ‘Q-value’, their communicative value. For example, a global language such as English has high Q-value as it is spoken by so many people and carries economic benefit. Thus, it also carries high symbolic power internationally.

Bourdieu’s theory of practice and his notion of linguistic capital and the linguistic marketplace serve as a useful starting point to help understand the experiences of the study participants. He proposes that as people traverse social space they encounter opportunities to accrue value to themselves by accumulating different forms of capitals (economic, social, cultural, symbolic) in fields of exchange ( Bourdieu 1986 ). A person’s position in social space is determined both by the value and the weight of their capital portfolio. The accrual of capitals and thus value is a strategic imperative ( Bourdieu 1987 ). Capitals are context-specific. If the context changes, their value is reassessed. This might happen, for example, in the process of transnational migration.

Undeniably, migration denotes far more than a crossing of geographical borders. It also means the transition between societies or social fields with inherent subfields facilitating wide-ranging transmissions and transformations in social, economic, and cultural terms. Language is a basic element for participation and integration in new social spaces and plays a crucial role in terms of experiencing social mobility. Research has shown that both English proficiency and the ability to learn it quickly are of prime importance in the transfer of existing human capital and also in boosting success in the labour market. The ‘right’ linguistic competence is a key factor that accounts for migrants’ disparities in terms of educational attainment, earnings, and social outcomes in terms of social positioning, e.g., whether they experience inclusion or exclusion in various social fields in their new surroundings ( Adsera and Pytlikova 2015 ). Language as symbolic power is of prime importance for migrants’ symbolic struggles within the different social hierarchies they find themselves in—on the one hand, within the migrant population itself, and on the other hand, in the society in the country of settlement as a whole in relation to the native population ( Sayad 2004 ). It thus not only serves as an important instrument of exercising power and agency but also as a barometer of unequal realities and relations In order to counteract processes of ‘deskilling’ or ‘delanguaging’ that are a common occurrence in migrants’ lived realities ( Garrido and Codó 2017 ) and to boost their linguistic skills, many migrants find themselves as language learners in a variety of institutional settings in the hope of getting closer to the legitimate language.

London’s popularity as a destination for migrants is to a large part due to its rise to global-city status, propelled by global neo-liberal economic management which has continuously created both the desire and necessity for people to migrate ( Wills et al. 2010 ). It is important to note that global cities are responsible for creating different types of migrants. On the one hand, there are ‘privileged citizens’, mainly professionals and investors brought by transnational corporations or drawn by the career opportunities the service industries in these cities afford them. On the other hand, the presence of these privileged citizens also requires and attracts less skilled and other service-giving people, such as waitresses, chauffeurs, cleaners, etc., in order to make sure that all the demands of the global city are met (ibid.; Getahun 2012 ). The participants in this study are not part of the ‘privileged’ group but rather find themselves towards the other end of the spectrum within what Wills et al. 2010 ) identify as ‘London’s new migrant division of labour’ mediated by race, ethnicity, and gender and as such highly hierarchised and stratified.

The article focuses on the lived experience of adult migrant language learners in London. The term ‘migrant’ is used in a broad sense to refer to people who have moved to London from another country. It employs the definition of international migration as “the movement of people across borders, both by choice and under economic and political forces, which involves stays of over one year” ( Jordan and Düvell 2003, p. 5 ). Global migration has continually been on the rise—approximately 244 million international migrants were living in the world in 2015 ( United Nations 2016 )—and the U.K., in particular London, has been attracting a large number of migrants. Official figures show that in 2014, the total usual resident population of London stood at just over 8 million, including 3 million residents who had been born outside of the U.K. ( Rienzo and Vargas-Silva 2014 ). The increased number of international migrants and their diverse migratory patterns, countries of origin, ethnicity, language, and other characteristics have led to a new level and kind of complexity often referred to as ‘super-diversity’ ( Vertovec 2007 ). One in three Londoners were born outside the U.K. In terms of linguistic diversity, this means that over 300 languages are spoken in the city. According to the 2011 Census which for the first time included a question asking for the respondents’ main language, in Inner London, approximately a quarter of the resident population above the age of three do not speak English as their main language. From those London residents who selected a language other than English as their main language, 44% reported speaking English very well, 37% well, 16% not well, and 3% reported not speaking English. Over 50% of the country’s ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) provision takes place in the capital ( Greater London Authority 2019 Rienzo and Vargas-Silva 2014 ).

4. Participants and Methods

Using critical hermeneutic phenomenology, this study was interested in the lived experience of the research participants. The data for this article were collected between mid-April and mid-May 2016 in two consecutive steps by means of written lived experience descriptions (LEDs) and one-on-one phenomenological interviews which were transcribed verbatim with seven adult migrant language learners from diverse backgrounds and migratory trajectories.

In order to fulfil ethical responsibilities in relation to all individuals involved in the research, sound research practices were employed throughout the process. To this end, the research was conducted according to the ethical guidelines for educational research laid out by the British Educational Research Association ( BERA 2011 ). Formal ethical clearance was obtained by means of the research ethics review checklist from the researcher’s home institution prior to recruiting participants for data collection. From the start, I ensured that my participants understood the implications of taking part in the study, particularly regarding what would be expected from them in terms of the writing task and interview. I also raised awareness of the fact that the research involved communicating information of a very personal nature, which could be experienced positively but can also have negative effects. A participant information sheet was used to communicate clearly how their data would be stored, analysed, and used and I had individual briefing meetings with my participants. I obtained consent by asking participants to sign a consent form which was affirmed throughout the project to ensure that my participants remained comfortable with their decision to engage in the study. All participants had the right to withdraw at any time without stating a reason. Participants were made aware how their privacy and confidential details would be treated. This was of particular importance as the data is very personal, including details of participants’ lives. Participants’ identities were anonymized and protected by assigning pseudonyms, as well as by changing or omitting any potential identifying information in the transcript.

The participants were recruited from English language classes at a further education institution in west London to which the researcher had access because of prior professional involvement. In order to recruit suitable participants, a criterion sampling strategy was employed. Two criteria were set. Firstly, participants should have been living in London for a minimum of one year in order for them to be able to provide a rich account of their experience. Secondly, they needed to have sufficient language skills to express themselves relatively freely in English in oral and written form as the research was conducted in English. To this end, the level of the participants’ English language classes was equivalent to an independent user (B1/B2) as described by the Common European Framework (CEFR). Their previous experiences with English and the value it represented in their lives before coming to the U.K. differed. To better canvas diversity in the experience, care was taken as much as possible to ensure a spread of different backgrounds, ages, ethnicities, gender, occupation, length of stay in the U.K., etc., which was greatly facilitated by the diversity of the student body at the institution. In phenomenological studies, the sample size can vary greatly depending on the complexity of the phenomenon as well as the skill of the researcher to gain rich data. It is often between 5 and 15 ( Cresswell 2013 ). Dahlberg et al. 2008 ) argue that “the question of variation is more important than the question of number” (p. 175) in order to be able to obtain rich data. The following table provides an overview of relevant background information and migratory trajectories of the research participants ( Table 1 ). All names are pseudonyms to protect the identities of the participants.