https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2121-7658
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the perception of English ownership among multilingual students in Australian universities. Using qualitative interviews, it explores ownership through four aspects: expertise, inheritance, usage, and identification. The findings suggest that linguistic ownership is tied to language proficiency and self-identification as an expert. Despite students' confidence in English use, being labelled as 'non-native' speakers hinders their sense of ownership. The research highlights ongoing issues related to English ownership, the validity of its variations, and the pervasive influence of the 'native speaker' concept despite efforts to dismantle it. This is largely due to students' experiences with educators who are viewed as guardians of a more 'legitimate' English. The study recommends educators foster awareness of diverse English uses and avoid reinforcing native-speakerism ideologies.
Introduction
The concept of linguistic ownership, as elaborated by Wee (Citation2002, 283), refers to a ‘specific relationship between the speakers of a language and that language itself’. In essence, it is ‘a metaphor for reflecting the legitimate control that speakers may have over the development of a language’ (Wee Citation2002, 283), which in the context of this research, refers to English. The question of who ‘owns’ the English language has been a point of contention for decades, stemming, in part, from British colonialism and the rise of English as a dominant world language. The key tenets underlying this concept raise important questions around language and power, including: Who are legitimate speakers of English? What varieties of English are acceptable? How is linguistic ownership understood by speakers of additional languages? and How do gatekeeping devices affect speakers’ sense of ownership of a language?
The concept of ownership is complex and multifaceted. More restrictive views of linguistic ownership support a ‘birthright paradigm’ and hold that ownership of a language is intimately linked to inheritance, and that to claim ownership of a language other than a mother tongue is to disavow your identity (Parmegiani Citation2010). Other limiting notions of linguistic ownership draw on gatekeeping devices where ‘social factors, such as class, race, and access to education’ (Higgins Citation2003, 641) are used to delegitimise non-‘standard’ varieties of English (e.g. Malaysian English, Singapore English) or deviations from standard English, and that the right of speakers of new varieties of English to claim ownership of the English language is ‘half-baked quackery’ (Quirk Citation1990, 9).
Pluricentric views towards English, on the other hand, and plurilingual conceptualisations of language norms as dynamic and changing, support a notion of language ownership open to those who develop competency or a sense of competency in a language or language variety (Kachru Citation1986; Widdowson Citation1994). It has been over thirty years since these initial debates emerged in the field, with research on English as a lingua franca and global Englishes (e.g. Canagarajah Citation2007; Jenkins Citation2009; Seidlhofer Citation2011) challenging notions of linguistic imperialism, instead situating language variety and use within a ‘more socially embedded, ecologically sensitive, and interactionally open model’ (Canagarajah Citation2007, 923). The prestige and power of the ‘native speaker’ paradigm and the socio-political implications of this for speakers of English, intertwined with a growing sense of linguistic ownership among non-native speakers of English(es), has recognised the complex interfaces between language, identity, and power (e.g. Lising and Bautista Citation2022; Nic Fhlannchadha and Hickey Citation2018; Sallabank and Marquis Citation2018).
In addition, as migration and global movement have changed rapidly in recent decades, linguistic diversity, and the diversification of linguistic expression through different modes of communication have also deepened (D’warte and Slaughter Citation2021). In practice, the linguistic repertoire that multilingual speakers draw on in communicating and meaning-making is rich and dynamic, and languages ‘can be expressed separately or intertwined for different purposes, in different places and spaces, or with different people, with these myriad communicative practices resulting in the development of rich and complex repertoires’ (D’warte and Slaughter Citation2021, 6). The pressure for linguistic uniformity, however, still dominates in many contexts and domains. At the tertiary education level, for example, as is the focus of this research project, there are still overwhelming expectations around the production of standard academic English. Despite high levels of multilingualism at an individual level in Australia, and a high percentage of international students and multilingual students at the tertiary level, an English-monolingual habitus holds firm (e.g. Ollerhead and Baker Citation2020; Piller and Bodis Citation2022). This paper explores the complexities of linguistic ownership in the Australian tertiary education context, at this intersection of monolingual habitus and complex multilingualism in practice, and investigates how linguistic ownership is experienced by multilingual students, including both overseas-born and Australian-born individuals. To conceptualise linguistic ownership, this article proposes an analytical framework that synthesises existing frameworks of language ownership, drawing from Rampton’s (Citation1990) work, as well as Higgins (Citation2003), Seilhamer (Citation2015), and Foo and Tan (Citation2019).
What is linguistic ownership?
The term ‘ownership’ refers to the act of or the right to possess something, and by extension, the concept of ‘linguistic ownership’ refers to the degree to which speakers project themselves as legitimate speakers with authority over the language (Scollon Citation1998). This sense of ownership, however, is affected by numerous gate-keeping devices, with research into linguistic ownership seeking to account for the impact of ‘class, race, and access to education’ (Higgins Citation2003, 641), among other factors, on the cultural and linguistic identity of speakers of minority languages, and varieties and dialects of majority languages. For example, the notion of linguistic ownership of the English language has been an interesting topic for Singapore-based researchers, due, in part, to the contrasting view of the ownership of the English language between the government and its multilingual citizens. English, one of four official languages in Singapore, has been positioned by government as ‘merely a “working language” appropriate for only utilitarian purposes’ and serving ‘no identity or cultural functions’ (Seilhamer and Kwek Citation2021, 755). However, English has penetrated almost all aspects of everyday life, with many younger Singaporeans highly competent users of English, with a strong attachment to the language (e.g. Foo and Tan Citation2019; Wee, Goh, and Lim Citation2013). This usurps the ideology of the government’s language policy, providing valuable insights into the fluid and dynamic processes influencing linguistic ownership.
Given the complexity of understanding linguistic ownership, several studies have suggested frameworks for defining or qualifying conditions necessary to claim linguistic ownership of a language. Rampton’s (Citation1990) conceptual framework, in which the terms ‘expertise’, ‘inheritance’ and ‘affiliation’ aimed to replace the binary criteria of native and non-native speakers, has been highly influential in a number of studies. This includes the work of Higgins (Citation2003), Foo and Tan (Citation2019), Seilhamer (Citation2015), and Tan (Citation2014), all of whom have provided valuable frameworks for challenging the birth-right paradigm. For example, Higgins (Citation2003) and Bokhorst‐heng et al. (Citation2007, Citation2010) employed Scollon’s (Citation1998) receptive roles – ‘receptor’, ‘interpreter’, and ‘judge’ to understanding the linguistic ownership of speakers of English from inner and outer circle English speakers. The roles move along a continuum of agency and an increasing sense of linguistic ownership, where a receptor reads the sentence aloud but does not feel any right to evaluate the sentence, an interpreter offers their understanding of the sentence, while a judge evaluates and validates or invalidates the communication. Such research shows that high degrees of linguistic ownership can be experienced by speakers of English varieties from countries such as Malaysia, Kenya and Singapore, and even from expanding-circle nations such as Korea or Brazil (Bokhorst-Heng et al. Citation2010; Higgins Citation2003), although uncertainty about language choice, for speakers of outer-circles varieties of English, can result from ‘their experience with multiple and conflicting norms for English’ (Higgins Citation2003, 640).
The influence of Rampton’s framework can be seen across studies. His notion of ‘expertise’, for example, is similar to the idea of ‘competence’ proposed by Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (Citation1989), while Seilhamer’s (Citation2015) notion of ‘affective belonging’ aligns with Rampton’s notion of ‘affiliation’ (see ). The conceptual framework used in this study, as elaborated in the methodology section, is also primarily informed by Rampton’s framework, with additional emphasis on the dimension of ‘identification’, as proposed by Tan (Citation2014).
Table 1. Conceptual frameworks for linguistic ownership.
Methodological approach
Using a reconceptualised notion of language ownership from Rampton (Citation1990), we investigate linguistic ownership by considering the following four dimensions: expertise, inheritance, forms of use, and identification.
Expertise
The dimension of expertise refers to the learned ability to use a language. It is not predicated on being born into an English-speaking group, and positions expertise as partial – available in certain contexts but not others. In addition, expertise refers to the speaker’s self-projection, certainty, confidence, and reliance in their own linguistic intuition about correct usage. This is measured using the acceptability judgement task devised by Higgins (Citation2003).
Inheritance
Inheritance refers to the speaker’s home language, or the language which they have been exposed to from birth.
Forms of use
The forms of use refer to frequency and the domains in which the language is used by the individual, including both private and public domains.
Identification
Identification refers to the relationship between the language and the user’s sense of self, including their perceived level of control over the development of the language. This includes a speaker’s sense of proficiency and agency as expressed through the roles of receptor, interpreter, and/or judge (Scollon Citation1998). The broader communities’ perceptions of the language also influence identification with a language.
Participants
A total of eight participants were involved in our inquiry, all bi- or multilingual English-speakers studying at Australian universities. One participant is Australian-born and seven overseas-born. provides a summary of the participants’ languages and years of residence in Australia.
Table 2. Overview of participants.
Recruitment calls were conducted online via social media applications, where participants were also asked to share the survey link via a snowballing technique. Appropriate ethics approvals were secured before recruitment and following the completion of the survey, follow up interviews were conducted online.
We employed a qualitative approach to investigate the four dimensions of linguistic ownership. The semi-structured interviews were between 40–50 minutes long, with the interviews starting with participants sharing their views on the 24-item acceptability judgement task (Higgins Citation2003). To determine each participant’s degree of expertise and sense of legitimacy as a speaker we used Scollon’s (Citation1998) roles of receptor, interpreter and judge. The follow up interview questions focused on identifying all four dimensions of ownership, with interviewers eliciting responses as to the relationship amongst these components. For example, whether and how the learned expertise and appropriation of the English language has had an impact on the language affiliations of the speaker. Data gained from the interviews were transcribed and analysed.
Participants’ accounts of linguistic ownership
The participants’ accounts of linguistic ownership of English were systematically analysed drawing on the four dimensions of linguistic ownership: expertise, inheritance, forms of use, and identification (Higgins Citation2003; Rampton Citation1990). It is important to highlight that although we used the four dimensions separately for the purposes of the analysis, they all interact in shaping the sense of linguistic ownership felt by participants.
Theme 1: ‘English is not my language’: language identification
There was a significant similarity among most overseas-born participants in responding to the question about whether they consider English their language. Namely, most of them did not consider English as their language despite using it frequently and confidently in different contexts (e.g. academic, social, and professional situations). They attributed this to the dimension of identification in linguistic ownership: feelings of insecurity (e.g. nervousness), self-doubt, including a lack of confidence, and limited control over the English language compared to other languages they speak. For example, as shown in the following accounts, participants explicitly verbalised feelings of insecurity in using English appropriately.
I’m … I feel very nervous when speaking English, and I keep thinking of, is the grammar or the vocabulary that I use, is it right? And I just follow the rules very rigidly. I don’t have the freedom to really use it (Yin).
I just use language use, English in like very special context, in uni, in academic context. And I still feel I still feel like I’m really confident I really confident to when I speak Chinese or Korean, but English… English is not my language, even if I just to study language more than 10 years (Judy).
I think I feel highly confident in English. But there is always that sort of insecurity there somewhere as well. So, I find like, when I write in German, and when I write articles, papers, or whatever I have to write, I don’t really think twice, and with English, I find that harder because there is more self-doubt there (Kate).
Additionally, Melanie explains how English is not her language after realising how much more she has to learn as she develops her sense of self as an English user.
Um, I don’t think I have the right position to say if it is my language or not … I’m still learning that. […] the more knowledge we acquire, we are more aware of our ignorance … . So, I’m not saying like I got a lot of knowledge now, but I do acknowledge that there are tons of things that I still need to learn.
In contrast, Abbey, who was born and raised in Australia, considers English, the first language she learned as her language, based on her high proficiency of use (i.e. expertise). To justify her response, she juxtaposes it with how she sees herself as a learner of the French language (i.e. identification).
Interviewer: Do you think English is your language?Abbey: I would say so, […] as far as any language goes, it’s the one that I’m most comfortable in and can very kind of clearly express myself in … I think English is like the language of my thoughts, and I can speak English with very little thought going into it. […] I can speak it so I would call myself a French speaker, but, you know, the vocabulary doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere like it does with English … With French, it’s like more of a concerted effort, and there’ll be times where I just genuinely don’t know how to express myself with the same gravity as I would in English, or even at all. I am still learning.
In this sense, her sense of language ownership seems to relate strongly to the dimension of expertise: namely, her ability to use the language to project herself well, with certainty, confidence, and intuition. Indeed, Abbey highlights the influence of her linguistic intuition on her perception of linguistic ownership of the English language.
I guess I do have like instinctive intuitions about what is correct and incorrect within a language which would suggest that I experience some feelings of linguistic ownership over them. I do experience some of it, but I think it mainly occurs in certain situations like unfamiliar grammatical instructions as opposed to things like accent or vocabulary (Abbey).
Theme 2: ‘it sounds odd to me’: the use of intuition and expertise
This section focuses on the role of expertise (linguistic knowledge and intuition) in judging the Acceptability Judgement Task (AJT) of language. One of the most common responses from the participants in examining the AJT sentences was how some sounded odd/unfamiliar to them, reflective of their reliance on their linguistic intuition to determine what is considered a correct use of lexical or syntactic items, as well as their expert knowledge of grammar rules. For instance, in response to the lexical item botheration, the following quotes represent how they identified the sentence as incorrect even though they could understand what it meant.
It sounds wrong because botheration isn’t a word that I am familiar with … but[…], I totally understand what it means. I think it’s like, I would use the word ‘inconvenience’ here. […] I guess it is almost a grammar rule thing as well, because I can see that it’s gone from ‘bother’ to try and like nominalise it to ‘botheration’, and like, you know, alter it in that way … But yeah, it does just sound wrong (Abbey).
I know that you don’t say that, uh, well, it’s just, you know, ‘sorry for the bother of’, ‘sorry for bothering that’, you know, there will be other things that but botheration, as in making it a noun, it’s just not right. […] I would use a different word I would say, you know, sorry for the inconvenience I might have caused (Kate).
We also see, in these accounts, how participants act as interpreters by offering their understanding of the unfamiliar word as a basis for their evaluation, playing the role of judge. Interestingly, although most of the participants responded that they did not see themselves owning the English language, relying on their intuition to evaluate the correctness of the language suggests that they do experience some sense of linguistic ownership. As the following excerpt represents, the feeling of linguistic ownership varies depending on the situations/contexts in which English is used.
I rarely used English in Indonesia, because I only use it for writing my assignment. But if I’m here, I can say, yeah, English is my language, because I often use it in different types of contexts. I guess it depends on contexts and situations (Melinda).
Theme 3: ‘it really depends on what situation i’m going through’: forms of use
The forms of use relate to how often and within which domains a language is used. As demonstrated above, having some expertise in the language seems essential for participants to feel a sense of linguistic ownership over the English language. This means that there is potential for developing a partial sense of linguistic ownership depending on how competent speakers feel in using different forms of English. For example, the following excerpt from Hyelim indicates how her feelings of linguistic ownership of Korean and English is dependent on the domain of use.
So, um as a migrant growing up in a Korean family … I was to speak Korean with my family, because my parents didn’t have great strength in communicate in English with other people, so I was a mediator between my parents and any officials or any phone calls that she or he had to make. So I grew up speaking Korean only in the family, and outside home, where my school, uni, or work … that’s when I had to learn to speak English more often and get used to communicating in that language … it really depends on what situation I’m going through (Hyelim).
In a similar vein, Melinda, who speaks Mandarin Chinese, Bahasa Indonesian, and English, provides an example of how her sense of (partial) ownership of the English language is location-dependent, through the movement from non-English to English dominant contexts.
I think I’m not really confident in using English for daily conversation when I first came here, but after staying for a quite long time, I think my confidence is increasing … I think it [increasing confidence] is somehow related to the frequency of language usage, like if I use it more often, speak without thinking too much [… .] I don’t think I’m exposed to different kind of expressions, like I need to understand like the expressions that I learned in Indonesia is not certainly used in the real community. So, I need to learn from the community how to use different kinds of expressions (Melinda).
For most overseas-born participants, their (partial) sense of linguistic ownership of the English language has been influenced by how competent they feel in using English in academic or formal settings but not in social or informal situations, as exemplified in the following quote:
But probably like um, I can’t really understand some of the like the slangs and what the local would say like, I’m not like very familiar with that, so I’m not that confident for that, I wouldn’t say I own the language (Ruby).
Theme 4: ‘you do need to have some requisite … knowledge’: language inheritance and expertise
The dimension of inheritance in linguistic ownership relates to the speakers’ home language which they have been exposed to since birth. As exemplified in the following excerpts in response to a question asking who can be considered a native speaker of English, most participants believe that developing a strong sense of linguistic ownership of English (or any language) is closely tied to being born into an English-speaking family and raised within an English-speaking community.
So, if they speak that language in the family house and then the language being the first language they’ve learned and then … being like raised in that kind of environment … it’s a native speaker for the language (Ruby).
I would normally say it’s people who have grown up with that language as their dominant language, and you know, that doesn’t mean that it’s exclusive, so you can be a native speaker, you can be bilingual. And, but for me, being a native speaker would be someone who has learned it and learned it through, growing up in it and with it (Kate).
As discussed in theme one, Abbey, being born and raised in Australia, perceives herself as a native English speaker who displays a high level of ownership over the English language, unlike her sense of ownership of French, in which she compares herself to native speakers.
I wouldn’t declare that I have any degree of ownership over French because I probably I still don’t understand it to the degree that a native speaker does. […] But I guess my intuitive response is that you probably can, but you do need to have some requisite area of background, knowledge, or understanding of the language that I wouldn’t say that I have the other language that I speak. […] I wouldn’t say that I own that language (Abbey).
These responses suggest that participants seem to hold that being born and raised within an environment where the language is spoken can facilitate individuals to become confident and proficient in that language, which relates to a dimension of expertise in linguistic ownership. The following excerpts from Kate and Yin exemplify how they see themselves as native speakers of German and Chinese, respectively, based not only on their inheritance but also on their ability to use the language.
I’m thinking about German as well. I feel like, because that’s my first language I’ve learn to express myself. […] I think use it without having to think about it. I also feel entitled to play with it and create new things, or use it in a non-conventional way deliberately, which I probably wouldn’t dare as much in English because I wouldn’t I feel that I have enough knowledge of maybe saying something completely wrong (Kate).
I think maybe, I just have the freedom to express what I want to express. Like in Chinese, I can I don’t usually follow, actually], I don’t usually follow the grammar … But, I will make up some expressions myself sometimes, and I think it makes sense to a lot of people, because we understand each other (Yin).
Summing up
Linguistic ownership is a multidimensional concept, and in this essay, we have devised a framework drawing on earlier work in this area, to understand the sense of ownership tertiary-level students feel regarding their languages. The framework proved highly effective in identifying the complex factors that influence an individual’s relationship with language. While the analysis produced four themes across the data; the framework enabled an understanding of the different, yet interrelated factors that affect the participants’ sense of linguistic ownership.
The first theme, for example, focused on language identification and linguistic ownership. We noted that participants who were born overseas tended to have a weaker sense of ownership, largely due to their perceived lack of expertise in the language and their self-identification as learners, not experts. Feelings of insecurity, self-doubt and limited control over the language contributed to feeling that English was not their language. On the other hand, the participant who was born and raised in Australia, despite not identifying with the concept of linguistic ownership, considered English her language based on her high proficiency and ability to express herself comfortably and clearly in the language.
The second theme focused on intuition and expertise in language use. Although most participants identified as ‘learners’ of English, they were able to use their expertise to discern and determine the correct use of a lexical or syntactic item. However, this theme also illustrated the context-dependent element of linguistic ownership, a topic which is the focus of the third theme. This theme related to forms of use, in particular the frequency of use, as well as frequency of use across domains. A sense of linguistic ownership was shown to differ across geographies – non-English and English dominant contexts, as well as across academic and non-academic or social domains of language use. Levels of ownership are therefore dependent to some degree on context and the demands arising from the situation.
The fourth theme focused on language inheritance and the overwhelming sense of connection and expertise assigned to first or home languages. Dimensions of linguistic ownership are strongly tied to being born and raised within an environment where the language is spoken, regardless of how proficient a speaker is in a language. The sense of ease with which a person can communicate, innovate, and play with a language was also linked to notions of linguistic ownership and grounded in notions of first language expertise.
Next steps?
This essay offers valuable insights into the role of language expertise, inheritance, forms of use, and identification in shaping an individual’s relationship with a particular language. The participants’ interviews revealed that international students’ sense of ownership of the English language is undermined by a lack of agency in making it their own. Instead, they feel compelled to conform to prescriptive norms in order to be considered adequate speakers of English. Despite their advanced level of language expertise, they are hesitant to fully express their ownership of English, primarily due to their experience of English learned and corrected by educators deemed to speak a more ‘legitimate’ form of the language and their prolonged perception of English as the language of ‘native English speakers’. In this regard, inheritance plays a consequential role in shaping the forms of language use, identification, and expertise, which in turn, influences participants’ sense of language ownership.
These findings raise important questions about how educators can support students in developing their sense of linguistic ownership which has significant implications for academic progression and wellbeing. Furthermore, this highlights the need to evaluate the impact of teaching practice as a contributing factor. Further research is necessary to explore this issue, including the use of a framework to assist international students and Australian-born students with multilingual speaking backgrounds in understanding how notions of linguistic ownership can be co-created, developed, and leveraged during tertiary studies. Moreover, additional research is needed to investigate the role of educators in inhibiting or facilitating diverse students’ sense of linguistic ownership.
In conclusion, this essay highlights the importance of recognising the complex factors that shape an individual’s relationship with a language, particularly for multilingual students who may face unique challenges in owning a language. Further research in this area is crucial to promote more inclusive and effective teaching practices that recognise the status of English as a global linguistic property that can be owned by anyone who speaks it.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by research funding through the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Hyejeong Ahn
Hyejeong Ahn is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Language and Literacy at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Her research draws on the evidence-based approach, documenting and evaluating the fast-changing literacy skills required for literacy leaders and teachers to help their students to participate in international affairs actively and meaningfully in the global context.
Shu Ohki
Shu Ohki is a Lecturer working in the field of additional language teacher education and content and language integrated learning at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. His research draws on Cultural Historical Activity Theory to investigate language teachers’ professional knowledge and practices in various school contexts.
Yvette Slaughter
Yvette Slaughter is Associate Professor in Languages and Literacies Education in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Yvette’s academic work focuses on advancing theoretical and pedagogical innovations for languages education, encompassing the learning of second or additional languages, and in particular, the integration of heteroglossic perspectives into education.
References
- Bokhorst‐heng, W. D., L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, and R. Rubdy. 2007. “English Language Ownership Among Singaporean Malays: Going Beyond the NS/NNS Dichotomy.” World Englishes 26 (4): 424–445. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00521.x.
- Bokhorst-Heng, W. D., R. Rubdy, S. L. McKay, and L. Alsagoff. 2010. “Whose English? Language Ownership in Singapore’s English Language Debates.” In English in Singapore: Modernity and Management, edited by L. Lim, A. Pakir, and L. Wee, 133–157. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
- Canagarajah, A. S. 2007. “Lingua Franca English, Multilingual Communities and Language Acquisition.” The Modern Language Journal 91 (S1): 923–939. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00678.x.
- D’warte, J., and Y. Slaughter. 2021. ”Introduction: Reframing language in teaching and learning: Leveraging students’ meaning-making repertoires.” Language Teaching Research 25 (1): 5–11. doi:10.1177/1362168820971753.
- Foo, A. L., and Y. Y. Tan. 2019. “Linguistic Insecurity and the Linguistic Ownership of English Among Singaporean Chinese.” World Englishes 38 (4): 606–629. doi:10.1111/weng.12359.
- Higgins, C. 2003. “‘Ownership’ of English in the Outer Circle: An Alternative to the NS-NNS Dichotomy.” TESOL Quarterly 37 (4): 615–644. doi:10.2307/3588215.
- Jenkins, J. 2009. World Englishes. London: Routledge.
- Kachru, B. B. 1986. “The Power and Politics of English.” World Englishes 5 (2–3): 121–140. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1986.tb00720.x.
- Lising, L., and M. L. S. Bautista. 2022. “A Tale of Language Ownership and Identity in a Multilingual Society: Revisiting Functional Nativeness.” Journal of English and Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 1–14. https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/jeal/.
- Nic Fhlannchadha, S., and T. M. Hickey. 2018. “Minority Language Ownership and Authority: Perspectives of Native Speakers and New Speakers.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21 (1): 38–53. doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1127888.
- Ollerhead, S., and S. Baker. 2020. “Is There Any Appetite for ‘Linguistic hospitality’ in Monolingual Educational Spaces? The Case for Translanguaging in Australian Higher Education.” In Migration, Education and Translation, edited by V. Anderson and H. Johnson, 145–160. London: Routledge.
- Parmegiani, A. 2010. “Reconceptualizing Language Ownership. A Case Study of Language Practices and Attitudes Among Students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.” The Language Learning Journal 38 (3): 359–378. doi:10.1080/09571736.2010.511771.
- Piller, I., and A. Bodis. 2022. “Marking and Unmarking the (Non)native Speaker Through English Language Proficiency Requirements for University Admission.” Language in Society 1–23. Advanced Online Publication. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404522000689.
- Quirk, R. 1990. “Language Varieties and Standard Language.” English Today 6 (1): 3–10. doi:10.1017/S0266078400004454.
- Rampton, M. B. H. 1990. “Displacing the ‘Native Speaker’: Expertise, Affiliation, and Inheritance.” ELT Journal 44 (2): 97–101. doi:10.1093/eltj/44.2.97.
- Sallabank, J., and Y. Marquis. 2018. “‘We Don’t Say It Like That’: Language Ownership and (De)Legitimising the New Speaker.” In New Speakers of Minority Languages: Linguistic Ideologies and Practices, edited by C. Christmas-Smith, N. P. Ó. Murchadha, M. Hornsby, and M. Moriarty, 67–90. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Scollon, R. 1998. Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction: A Study of News Discourse. London; New York: Longman.
- Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Seilhamer, M. F. 2015. “The Ownership of English in Taiwan.” World Englishes 34 (3): 370–388. doi:10.1111/weng.12147.
- Seilhamer, M. F., and G. Kwek. 2021. “Repositioning Singlish in Singapore’s Language-In-Education Policies.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 41 (4): 754–770. doi:10.1080/02188791.2021.1997710.
- Skutnabb-Kangas, T., and R. Phillipson. 1989. “‘Mother tongue’: The Theoretical and Sociopolitical Construction of a Concept.” In Status and Function of Languages and Langauge Varieties, edited by U. Ammon, 450–477. Berlin: De Gruyter.
- Tan, Y. Y. 2014. “English as a ‘Mother Tongue’ in Singapore.” World Englishes 33 (3): 319–339. doi:10.1111/weng.12093.
- Wee, L. 2002. “When English is Not a Mother Tongue: Linguistic Ownership and the Eurasian Community in Singapore.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23 (4): 282–295. doi:10.1080/01434630208666470.
- Wee, L. I., R. B. H. Goh, and L. Lim, eds. 2013. The Politics of English: South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Widdowson, H. G. 1994. “The Ownership of English.” TESOL Quarterly 28 (2): 377–389. doi:10.2307/3587438.