Language brokering in linguistic minority communities: The case of Chinese- and Vietnamese-American students

Bilingual Research Journal, Summer 1996 by Lucy Tse

Agents of Brokering. When students were asked whom they brokered for, approximately 92% reported brokering for parents, with over 62% reporting brokering for friends. Over 56% also reported brokering for relatives (other than parents and siblings), and 50% noted brokering for siblings. In addition, 37% indicated brokering for neighbors, over 34% brokered for teachers, and nearly 22% brokered for other school officials. One subject also reported brokering for "business people" and another noted that she brokered for "strangers" (see Table 3).

Sites of Brokering. When asked where they brokered, over threefourths of the subjects (80%) reported brokering at home, as noted in Table 4. Approximately 65% brokered at school and 64% brokered at the store. They brokered at post offices (25%), banks (23%), and government offices (17%), and added that they also brokered at hospitals, restaurants, work, and on the street.

Affective Findings. Table 5 summarizes the affective findings. The subjects were asked to check from a list of attitude statements those that accurately reflected their own feelings about brokering. Over half of the students believed that brokering helped them learn more of their LI and L2 (56% and 58%, respectively) and about a third believed that it helped them learn more about their first (Chinese or Vietnamese) and second (American) cultures (36% and 38%, respectively). Nearly half of the subjects felt proud to broker, while a fewer number of subjects reported feeling embarrassed (11%) or burdened (17%). Over half of the subjects liked brokering (52%), with only IS% reporting disliking it. Nearly half of the subjects (45%) indicated that brokering caused them to be more independent and mature.

The mean difference between subjects' age of arrival and the age at which they began brokering was 3.0 years (SD=3.63). An examination of the data, however, revealed that the distribution was positively skewed, indicating that the median rather then the mean would provide a better indication of central tendency (Woods, Fletcher & Hughes, 1986). The median was only 1 year and the frequency distribution shows 52% of the subjects began brokering within one year of their arrival and 62% began brokering within two years of arrival. It should also be noted that only 52 of the 64 subjects were included in this analysis. Two of the subjects are U.S. born and ten subjects did not indicate the age at which they began brokering. Several indicated that they were not sure of the precise age they began, a likely explanation for the remaining missing reports. The large number of subjects who reported having brokered reveals that language brokering is a common phenomenon among these LM students who represent various levels of L1 and L2 proficiency. The fact that only one subject out of 64 reported no brokering performed by themselves or their siblings strongly suggests that many, if not nearly all, LM students broker at some time, in some situations.

The data also provide support for a number of findings in the broker literature. First, students primarily broker for parents, but not exclusively, with a long list of beneficiaries ranging from close contacts to strangers. Second, brokers translated and interpreted in a wide array of venues that included home and school, and many other common daily settings. Third, brokers believed their experiences spurred their L1 and L2 language acquisition. Considering the little research that has been done on language learning situated outside of the classroom, data from this study and other broker research suggests that further examination is warranted.