See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333706172

Acculturation as intergenerational trajectory and accountability concerns in

immigrant youth discourse

Article  in  Discourse and Society · June 2019

DOI: 10.1177/0957926519855785

CITATIONS READS

2 122

4 authors, including:

Lia Figgou Antonis Sapountzis

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Democritus University of Thrace
53 PUBLICATIONS   540 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   238 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mobility and citizenship in turbulent space and times: categories, affordances and prospects View project

EXCEPT- Social Exclusion of Youth in Europe: Cumulative Disadvantage, Coping Strategies, Effective Policies and Transfer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lia Figgou on 12 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Paper submitted to: DISCOURSE & SOCIETY

Title: Acculturation as intergenerational trajectory and accountability concerns in

immigrant youth discourse

Lia Figgou (corresponding author), School of Psychology, Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki, Auth Campus, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece. Email:

figgou@psy.auth.gr, Phone No: +302310997942.

Antonis Sapountzis, Democritus University of Thrace

Anjeza Gorrea, Demoritus University of Thrace

Panos Tzouvelekis, University College London

Running Head: Acculturation as intergenerational trajectory and accountability

Word count: 7930

Acculturation as intergenerational trajectory and accountability concerns in

immigrant youth discourse

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore the ways in which young ‘second generation’

immigrants from Albania in Greece account for their acculturation in semi-structured

interviews and orient to different acculturation strategies. Interviews took place in

Thessaloniki and 6 women and 13 men, aged between 21 and 30 years, participated.

Analysis, which used the tools and concepts of discursive and rhetorical social

psychology, indicated that participants’ accounts of acculturation involve multifaceted

temporal, intergenerational and intergroup comparisons and juxtapositions which

raise important dilemmas of accountability and involve interesting tensions and

contradictions. Within these comparative accounts participants are concurrently

oriented to both construct themselves as active agents of a successful integration

procedure, on the one hand, and to show affinity to important ‘others’, on the other.

Therefore, the prioritization of different acculturation strategies constitutes the by-

product of managing ideological dilemmas in context.

Key words: Acculturation, integration, second generation immigrants, discursive

social psychology, ideological dilemmas

Introduction

This study aims at exploring the ways in which young immigrants account for their

cultural adaptation in Greece in interviews on their immigration history. Drawing on

critical advances of acculturation literature and going along with rhetorical and

discursive developments in social psychology, the paper explores the ways in which

participants account for their acculturation vis-à-vis other social actors and documents

the accountability concerns to which they seem to be oriented.

Acculturation in Berry’s model: Advances and implications.

The ‘cultural adaptation’ of social actors and social groups as a result of contact has

become an important topic in the social sciences. An influential theoretical model

within psychology was developed by Berry (1997, 2008). According to Berry (1997),

the outcome of acculturation process depends on the strategies that social actors

develop towards two main issues: cultural maintenance and contact with other groups.

A first possible strategy is assimilation. According to this, immigrants adopt the

culture of the host country altogether, while they also participate to the social milieu

of the host country. Integration, on the other hand, means that immigrants wish to

maintain their own culture, while they also wish contact with the culture of the host

country. Separation means that immigrants maintain their culture, but they do not

wish to have contact to the host society. Finally, marginalization entails that

immigrants do not maintain their culture but they do not wish to have contact with the

host society either. Later models accepted Berry’s bidimensional model and the

proposed strategies, but placed emphasis on the intergroup level and the interaction

between the acculturation strategies of immigrants and host society (Bourhis,

Montaruli, El-Geledi, Harvey and Barrette, 2010; Piontkowski, Rohmann and

Florack, 2002), as well as, on the potential mobilization of diverse acculturation

strategies in different domains of social life (Navas, Rojas, García, and Pumares,

2007).

Acculturation models have been influential and have spawned a large body of

research on the implications of different strategies. According to recurrent research

findings integration constitutes the most efficient and rewarding acculturation

orientation (Berry and Sabatier, 2010). Specifically, immigrant youth who involve

themselves in both their heritage culture and that of the receiving society tend to have

positive self-esteem and psychological well-being, better performance in school and

more supportive social networks. Research has also documented intergenerational

conflict as a result of different acculturation orientations. Parental roles and power

relations within family are seen to be affected by different acculturation procedures

and pace, as second generation immigrants tend to acculturate more rapidly than their

parents. Existing studies either depict immigrant children as cultural brokers,

mediating the new culture for their family and becoming family representatives to the

outside world or focus on the intergenerational tensions that arise as a result of

‘culture clash’, when children are closer to the cultural values of the receiving country

(Marie Skandrani, Taïeb, and Rose Moro, 2012; Portes and Rumbaut 2001).

Acculturation: Critiques and discourse analytic perspectives

Despite the prominence of acculturation models and the important social implications

of the aforementioned research, several critical points have been yielded during the

past years. These criticisms relate both to the methodological paradigm that these

models have adopted and the assumptions on which this is founded. Firstly, is the

criticism of the linearity of the trajectory implied in acculturation models. Research

using in-depth interviews with middle-class immigrants from South Asia in the U.S.

revealed that while they took their position within U.S. society for granted and they

considered themselves to be integrated, after the events of 9/11, due to their physical

resemblance to Muslim/Arab they were considered as foreign and non-white, and

their integrated status was disrupted (Bhatia and Ram, 2009). Chirkov (2009)

advances a similar critique, arguing that, following the deductive-nomological and

quantitative approach, research often overlooks the specificities of the context within

which acculturation takes place and which play a crucial role in shaping people’s

experiences in a new multicultural environment. Chirkov (2009) also maintained that

culture in most acculturation research is depicted as a system of beliefs which is

settled and beyond controversies. This is in contrast, however, to the representation of

culture as involving dilemmatic aspects, constituted in other theoretical and research

traditions.

Discourse analytic work on acculturation has paid attention to the dilemmas that may

arise in talk on acculturation. In relation to the faith schooling of Muslims in the UK,

the print media often represented integration as imbued with liberal undertones.

Nonetheless, at the same time it hid assimilative implications since the British culture

was seen as the norm upon which the immigrants had to adapt (Bowskill, Lyons and

Coyle, 2007). Andreouli (2013) also attested to the dilemmatic discourses of

immigrants in the UK regarding their acculturation. On the one hand UK meant

safety, democracy and open-mindness, while at the same time it also denoted lack of

moral values in immigrants’ talk. In Greece, researchers have explored the dilemmas

immigrant students may face concerning their acculturation (Archakis and Tsakona,

2016). Using written essays with students of immigrant descent, Archakis and

Tsakona (2016) showed how students’ discourse is oriented to demonstrate their

efforts to integrate while at the same time it aims at resisting the assimilationist,

monocultural pressures of Greek society. Similar tensions have been identified in

majority discourse relating to immigrant’s cultural adaptation. Specifically, in a study

by Sapountzis (2013) ethnic Greek participants argued that immigrant students should

have access to public schools, a fact that would facilitate their adaptation. They also

maintained, however, that their presence in the classroom has negative outcomes in

the educational process since schoolteachers have to devote more time to immigrants’

children, neglecting the educational needs of their Greek classmates. A tension was

also identified by Figgou and Baka (2018) in an analysis of educators’ discourse

regarding immigrant students’ integration. Specifically, in the context of accounting

for intergroup relations, educators depicted school as a racism-free context and

constructed harmonious intergroup relations as a result of immigrant students’

similarity with their non-immigrant peers (see also, Rojas-Sosa, 2016). In the context

of discussing acculturation, however, they devalued assimilation and prioritized

cultural maintenance on the part of the immigrants. The authors related their findings

to continuing dilemmas of liberal societies which juxtapose social cohesion to cultural

distinctiveness (see also Figgou, 2018). Nevertheless, they also maintained that the

argumentative lines identified have been certainly affected by the way in which their

participants (educators) have been positioned by the frame of the interview as par

excellence responsible for the management of diversity in the classroom, which brings

about certain accountability concerns. Nevertheless, they did not elaborate further on

this issue.

To sum up, the aforementioned research has analyzed discourse on acculturation in

different contexts and has mainly revealed the broader dilemmas that are reflected on

speakers’ ways of accounting. It has paid less attention, however, to participants’

orientation to issues of acculturation, in order to manage their accountability in local

interactional contexts. An exception to this tendency constitutes a study by Anjum,

McVittie and McKinlay (2018). The authors have focused on the ways in which

accountability is managed within the context of interviews on the cultural adaptation

of first-generation Muslim immigrants in the UK. Their analysis indicated that

different rhetorical contexts within the same interviews occasioned different ways of

accounting oriented to different accountability concerns. In particular, when particular

acculturation orientations were introduced by interviewers, participants treated the

questions as problematic. Nevertheless, when they introduced acculturation in their

own terms, then they provided narratives of acculturation success. The authors

concluded that participants’ accounts reflected not only their stances towards

acculturation, but rather the framing of the interview and the way in which the issue

had been presented.

This study wants to contribute to the discourse analytic literature on acculturation by

paying attention to local accountability concerns, as well as, to historically produced

(and more often than not) dilemmatic norms and values on which participants’

accounts are predicated. In particular, our focus is on accountability concerns that

arise in the context of discussing acculturation as an aspect of being (dis)associated to

other (groups of) people. More specifically, we put forward that when people

negotiate their acculturation strategies, they also negotiate their relation to significant

others, groups and individuals (parents, peers, relatives), something that raises

important moral accountability concerns that need to be handled.

Methods

Participants and interviews

 Greece began to have a rise in immigration numbers in the beginning of 1990,

mainly due to the collapse of the communist regimes in east Europe. In early 2000 it

was estimated that about 1,150,000 immigrants have entered Greece, while more

recent estimates amount the number of immigrants in Greece around to 750.000

(Triandafyllidou and Mantanika, 2016). The majority of immigrants (about 60% of

the total immigrant population) come from the neighboring Albania, while people

from the ex-Soviet republics are the second biggest group amounting to about

200.000 people.

The study was conducted between January and June 2017 in Thessaloniki (Northern

Greece). Participants were six (6) women and thirteen (13) men, aged 21-30, who

either were born in Greece by Albanian immigrant parents or reached Greece at a very

young age. Thirteen interviews were conducted by Anjeza (the third author, a woman

in her early 20s and a ‘second generation immigrant’ from Albania) and 6 were

conducted by Panos (the fourth author, a young man, also in his early 20s, ethnically

Greek). Needless to say that the ethnic identity of the interviewer has the potential to

affect the ways of accounting elicited in the interviews. Being interviewed by an

interviewer of the same origin, for example, may stimulate particular response forms,

while rendering others awkward and potentially problematic.

At first interviewees were recruited through researchers’ social network, but at

a later stage a snowball procedure was followed, as participants suggested other

potential interviewees. Interviews lasted from 30 to70 minutes and they were audio-

recorded and transcribed mainly for content (transcription conventions are based on

Jefferson lite transcription system). Although interviews were not strictly

autobiographical, the interview schedule was structured and designed to elicit a life

story. It contained questions related to arrival (of parents) and first period in Greece,
integration to school and peer groups during school years, education and employment

trajectories after finishing compulsory education, social networks and friendships

during adulthood.

Analytic approach

Analysis used the tools and concepts of Rhetorical (Billig, 1991) and Discursive

Social Psychology (Edwards and Potter, 1992). Discursive social psychology focuses

on the role of the interactional context in affording particular sort of accounts, while

Rhetorical Psychology considers these accounts as fragments of broader 'ideological

dilemmas' situated in a broader historical-argumentative context (Billig et al, 1988),

having implications beyond the local context. Our initial analytic aim was to identify

potential regularities both in terms of ways of accounting, as well as in terms of

participants’ orientation to accountability concerns occasioned by interviewers’

questions. Working analytically towards this objective we noticed that, in different

parts of the interview, participants were concerned to manage stakes (Edwards and

Potter, 1992) concerned with their acculturation/integration trajectories vis-a-vis

important others (parents, relatives and peers). Hence, we extracted these exchanges

from the interviews corpus. Analysis proceeded to explore the rhetorical organization

of these accounts and to situate participants’ constructions into the broader

argumentative context and to consider their potential local and more distant functions.

The extracts included in the following section have been translated from Greek to

English by the first and second author. Translation was cross-checked by the two

authors and (at some excerpts) back translation was used. The process still involves,

however, the risk of losing subtleties of meaning. Participants are presented by

pseudonyms and reference to their age.

Analysis

Assimilation in an inter-generation perspective: ‘Parents’ in the immigration

narrative

In his narrative that preceded the following exchange, the participant quoted in extract

1, referred to the early years of Albanian immigration in Greece in general, and to his

family immigration, in particular. He characterized this first period as extremely hard

for his parents and maintained that they faced racism on the part of the receiving

(Greek) population. Racist reactions were depicted to gradually eliminate as Albanian

immigrants started to ‘assimilate’. The reference to assimilation incited the

interviewer’s opening question in extract 1.

Extract 1

Anjeza: And when you say assimilation what do you mean?

Illy: that most of them (.) for example my parents (.) when they came, what they cared

about, was to work, to make some money and leave

Anjeza: Hm hm

Illy: but when I came (.) when I (.) what they cared about was me to assimilate to the

Greek society (.) I mean, to grow up, to study here, to learn the Greek language, to

get a better job.

Anjeza: Hm hm, so=

Illy: =They did this with me, so I doesn’t look that much that I am from Albania,

when I talk, when I write, basically I have assimilated to the society, I grew up here, I
have learned these traditions, I have learned the Greek national commemorations, I

mean it shows more that I am a Greek in Albania than an Albanian in Greece.

Anjeza: So, you believe that you have assimilated but your parents haven’t?

Illy: Not that much (.) so (.) because my parents did not study here, they speak Greek

with an accent, and it is apparent that they are from abroad, but because I took the

first step, I believe my children will be even more [assimilated].

(Illy , 27)

In her first turn in extract 1, by the use of active voicing, the interviewer, Anjeza

openly questions the use of the term ‘assimilation’ on the part of the respondent. Illy

proceeds to provide an extensive warrant that involves an intergenerational

comparison. His way of accounting makes apparent that he is oriented to the potential

implications of depicting himself as assimilated. As other commentators have argued

cultural maintenance is something valued and it would be problematic to argue in

favour of assimilation, in particular in front of an interviewer coming from one’s own

ethnic group. Illy presents assimilation as a stage in an intergeneration integration

trajectory. In his narrative –which is back-channeled by the interviewer-assimilation

is depicted as a comparative/relational construct. It is constituted as absent from the

immigration plan of Illy’s parents, while it is treated as part and parcel of their

expectations for his life in Greece. This intergenerational change is treated as a

common phenomenon. This is rhetorically accomplished by presenting his parental

immigration plan as interchangeable with those of other early immigrants. Towards

the same rhetorical objective seems to be oriented the use of lists (to work, to make

some money and leave… to grow up, to study here, to learn the Greek language, to
get a better job). According to Jefferson (1990) lists are typically treated as sufficient

to convey generality and routine procedures.

Despite, however, the fact that assimilation is treated as a stage in a common

integration trajectory and, although it has been depicted as a parental concern, Illy’s

account is oriented to claim agency for ‘looking more Greek than Albanian’. The

continuous use of first-person constructions by the participant attends to the agency of

his actions (I have assimilated to the society, I grew up here). The interviewer replies

by a gist formulation - supposed to summarize the participant’s version of the events-

and asks for ratification (So, you believe that you have assimilated but your parents

haven’t?). Illy recasts the formulation by emphasizing that between his way of

acculturation and that of his parents there is no absolute difference but a difference in

degree (not so much). His way of extensively justifying his construction of his parents

as not assimilated or rather as not so much assimilated reveals again that he is ‘aware’

that his utterances may have certain identity implications, some of which he can

presume that he shares with the interviewer. The comparison between himself and his

(prospective) children also seems to be oriented to the management of these moral

implications. Through this comparison assimilation is constructed as a step by step

gradual and inevitable process and –by implication- his assimilation is depicted as an

expected stage in this course.

An intergeneration comparison is also drawn in the next extract. The exchange quoted

in extract 2 is from the opening part of the interview with a young man who migrated

from Albania to Greece with his family in the 1990s. The interviewer after

introducing the aim of the research (as a study on the immigration experience of

young people in Greece) invites the participant to unfold his immigration story by
starting with the first years in Greece, using a vague formulation (the ‘circumstances’

for you and your family).

Extract 2

Panos: And how was (.) What were the circumstances for you and your parents

during the first years in Greece?

Leonid: All the Albanians during the first years (…) were living in basements, always

in the cheapest flats

Panos: Yes, Yes

Leonid: Saving the little money they earned, in order to build a house or get a car,

back home

Panos: So the aim was to go back (.) either in the near or in the distant future?

Leonid: Yes (.) I mean (.) If you are 23 years old (.) I think (.) you say I'm gonna get

back because my house is back, so (…) I do not think they had in mind that ‘we're

going to stay’ because you see they did not know the language, they could not go

back to school and they were completely impoverished, they got nothing at all. We

were backwards

Panos: I see

Leonid: 100 years back, they came here thirsty, hungry (.) so they wanted to get some

money and go back, but not (.) they did not wanted to deceive anybody. Besides this

plan was (.) it probably in the mind of my parents (.) for me, for my generation things

were totally different.

Int: In what way?

Leonid: We grew up here, we learned the language, we grew up in the same way with

our peers from here.

(Leonid, 25)

Ιn his first turn, Leonid does not adopt the footing provided by Panos’s question

(…for you and your parents). Instead of referring to his family experiences, he

proceeds by the use of an extreme case formulation (all the Albanians) (Pomerantz,

1986) to depict the poverty of first-generation Albanian immigrants as a widespread

phenomenon. The conditions of impoverishment of the Albanian immigrants are

given the status of common knowledge by the immediate agreement of the

interviewer. Nevertheless, the initial agreement turns to a question on the Albanians’

immigration plan, when Leonid points out that within these conditions most

Albanians aimed at saving money to take back home. The interviewer’s question

seems to raise important accountability concerns on the part of the participant. This is

made apparent by various rhetorical features of the Leonid’s answer. Firstly, pauses

and false starts indicate that the topic under discussion may be a delicate one.

Secondly, by a footing change (Goffman, 1981), the immigration plan which has been

previously presented as a fact, is granted the status of a personal opinion (I think, I

mean). Finally, the immigration plan of the first generation is warranted through

recourse to the backwardness and the extreme poverty in Albania (100 years back,

they came here thirsty, hungry). By this way of accounting and in particular by

constructing immigration as the product of necessity rather than choice Leonid seems

to be oriented to legitimate Albanian immigration to Greece and to construct first

generation immigrants (including his parents) as not having the intention to deceive

the Greek state, in front of an interviewer of Greek origin. Other commentators have

pointed out that the ‘not having a choice’ trope, used to differentiate between
deserving and undeserving immigrants, is important for the management of moral

accountability in discourse regarding immigration (van Dijk, 1993). This trope is used

in our data to differentiate the first with the subsequent generations of immigrants

which are depicted to have choices but also important challenges and acculturation

expectations to meet. Leonid’s last contribution to the above exchange, using a ‘we’

formulation, elaborates on the different conditions of his generation in relation to the

one of his parents: we grew up here, we learned the language, we grew up in the same

way with our peers. In the same vein with the extract 1, the participant positions

himself, but also his generation in relation to his parents -but also in relation to his

Greek peers- and constructs acculturation as a relational, comparative construct.

Accounting for peer relations and school integration

Stella, the participant quoted in extract 3 has also referred –previously to the

following quotation- to the difficult first years of immigration and the adverse

conditions that her parents had to face. She talked specifically about the problems that

her mother encountered due to her lack of competence in Greek language and the

isolation and discrimination of the first generation of Albanian immigrants in general.

Therefore, the interviewer’s invitation to talk about the first years and friendships at

school follows from this account and involves a latent (intergenerational) comparison.

Extract 3

Panos: What about the years at school? How about schoolmates, friendships

Stella: There were many children from Albania at school (.) quite famous (.) who

were you know ‘we are the Albanian clan at school’ [loughs]

Panos: and you=

Stella: =I have never entered this clique, but neither (.) neither was I giving them the

cold shoulder you know you are the Albanians

Panos: Mmm

Stella: I always had a good relationship with the most roughneck Albanians, those

who showed off, they were like (.) they wanted to be to be seen as my patrons.

Panos: yeah

Stella: We always had a mutual appreciation, a respect, I could understand their

situation. It was more difficult than my own. I had to always try to prove to them that

I do not disrespect them as Albanians, by being (…) by (.) oh she is a Greek woman

Panos: So, yeah (.) Was there such an impression?

Stella: It saved us that we decided to study (…) Perhaps my experience is not the

most representative, because I know from classmates let me say that I am not really a

typical case

(Stella, 26)

Stella in her first turn adopts a distant footing and explicitly differentiates herself from

the voice of those who, according to her account self-identify as the ‘Albanian clan at

school’. The interviewer’s next turn, however, probes the participant to position

herself vis-a-vis her Albanians school mates and provokes a rather symmetrical

account on her part (I never entered this clique …neither I was giving the cold

shoulder). In this account the speaker seems to be oriented to the management of a

double challenge: to avoid being identified with the Albanian clique and at the same

time to avoid showing disrespect to her Albanian school mates, by ‘being a Greek
woman’. In the language of acculturation models the speaker position herself as

‘doing integration’ by maintaining an eclectic (albeit privileged) relationship with

Albanian peers and by continuously distancing her situation from them.

It is noteworthy that Stella recurrently positions herself in juxtaposition to (them as)

Albanians. It is also important to note that the speaker seems to be ‘aware’ of the

potentially negative identity inferences that presenting herself as Greek would have.

The rhetorical features of her account (active voicing and pauses) make apparent that

mentioning that she ‘appeared to be a Greek woman’ may raise accountability

concerns. To the same concerns seem to be oriented Stella’s dispreferred response -or

rather non response- to the interviewer’s invitation to consent if there really was such

an impression. According to Pomerantz (1984) dispreferred second turns almost

always include some type of justification for what has been circumvented. Stella does

not proceed to (dis)confirm the actuality of the impression of her being Greek. She

turns, however, to justify her non-typicality as an Albanian immigrant woman. Her

educational path is, according to her account, what makes her (and some unspecified

others) as not representative of Albanian youth. The way in which the speaker

constructs her acculturation trajectory as exceptional serves to construct (by

implication) separation as the typical adaptation pattern for immigrant Albanian

youth. It has also consequences, however, for the construction of agency for

acculturation. The educational integration of Stella (and other unspecified Albanian

youth) is depicted as involving personal motivation and choice (It saved us that we

decided to study).

Before the exchange quoted in extract 4, Anjeza asked the participant (a young man in

his early 20s) if there have been occasions in which he has hidden his ethnic

background and immigrant identity. The participant replied that he ‘felt like doing it’
in the beginning and the interviewer proceeded to ask him whether he felt bad about

it.

Extract 4

Anjeza: Did you feel bad about it?

Enzo: Yes (.) and I am telling you in the beginning (.) because in the beginning it was

like (.) we were the target of all kind of insults (.) ‘you are like this’(.) ‘you are like

that’ (.) or someone stole something (.) you are to blame (.) you are the first (suspect).

Later on at high-school this was not an issue. Everybody was hanging out with kids

from Albania, Bulgaria and the like. After they got to know me everything was fine.

Anjeza: Have you had friendships both with Greeks and Albanians?

Enzo: In the high-school both with Greeks and Albanians. In the beginning just with

Greeks.

Anjeza: Why was this? Was it by choice or it just happened?

Enzo: No (.) it just happened. Look I got to know a compatriot when I was in

gymnasium but I did not like his character (.) so I didn’t want to hang out with him (.)

it wasn’t like he is my compatriot so I won’t hang out with him.

Anjeza: Were there many compatriots in your school?

Enzo: Compatriots?

Anjeza: Yes

Enzo: There is a chance that in primary school I was the only one (.) in the

gymnasium there must have been a couple of them (.) in high school (.) there were
some who had been born here (.) so they considered them Greeks (.) I do not know

now what exactly they are supposed to be (.) Albanians or Greeks.

(Enzo, 23)

The interviewer’s question seems to hold the interviewee accountable for denouncing

his origin. Enzo, in order to tackle this, introduces a narrative where he presents

himself as the victim of racism (at least in the first grades in Greek school). Racism

in this account is constructed as a by-product of ignorance, since –in accordance with

‘contact hypothesis’ (Allport, 1954) - it is depicted to vanish in latter grades, when

everyone had an acquaintance with people from immigrant origin. This lay contact

hypothesis serves to mitigate the racism of the Greek students which is presented as

the result of not interacting with people of immigrant descent. It can also be

considered to protect the identity of the speaker from the moral censure of accusing

others of racism (Augoustinos and Every, 2010). The interviewer then asks about his

group of friends and whether they consisted of Greeks or Albanians. When the

participant replies that in the beginning, he hanged out just with Greek people, Anjeza

asks for justification, making apparent that this utterance may have important moral

implications for the participant. She at the same time, however, offers Enzo a

potential escape move by asking whether this was by choice or not. Having only

Greek friends may be received as an attempt to hide or reject one’s origin, unless it is

not the result of choice; unless it has ‘just happened’.

The participant adopts the ‘not having a choice’ trope but also unfolds a number of

rhetorical devices oriented to manage the potential aforementioned implications.

Firstly, he uses the discourse of particularization (Billig, 1985). Instead of talking

about Albanians in general, something that could raise the censure of prejudiced

thinking, he considers an individual case of an Albanian peer that he got to know and

dislike his character. Hence, he presents himself as someone who is open minded and

does not befriend people based on origin but based on character. The use of the word

compatriot does also important rhetorical work in the direction of dodging potential

negative identity inferences. It is important to note here that the use of the term

compatriot and its potential implications in the specific interactional context are

occasioned by the common (Albanian) origin of Anjeza. The word ‘compatriot’

indicates that the participant acknowledges his connection with people who share the

same descent as his and he does not reject tout-court his descent and his fellow

countrymen.

Finally, towards the same end, namely towards maintaining a balanced position

between not looking down on someone’s co-ethnics, on the one hand, and making

friendships on non-ethnic criteria, on the other, seems to work the last contribution by

Enzo. The participant replying to the question whether there were many co-patriots in

different grades in school, he questions the category boundaries, by a knowledge

disclaimer. He argues, in other words, that since some students of immigrant descent

were born in Greece, he does not know whether they are considered Greek or

Albanian.

Homeland and relatives in Albania

Extract 5 is from the closing part of an interview between Panos and a young man

who migrated from Albania to Greece when he was five years old. Given the

importance granted to language as a means of acculturation, it is noteworthy that

reference to potential competence of Albanian language had not occurred previously

and spontaneously, but it is introduced by the interviewer towards the closing of the

interview.

Extract 5

Panos: Do you speak Albanian?

Erian: I can understand other people speaking (.) But when I go there and try to speak

I usually need to translate from Greek to Albanian (.) in the beginning and then little

by little I recall them

Panos: Do you often go?

Erian: No (.) no and when I go I stay only for a week (.) so as soon as I manage to

recall some things, I forget them again (.) and (.) and I don’t have [Albanian] accent

Panos: and do you have relatives there?

Erian: I have my cousins there (.) they are happy to see us ‘Oh our cousins came from

Greece who do not look much like Albanian’ ... It’s good to see familiar faces but..

but when I leave Albania to come to Greece I feel like ‘Ok guys I'm going home’ to

see the Greek road signs, to listen to people speaking Greek (.) I feel ok in Albania

and nice and familiar but I feel Greece just a bit just a bit [closer]

Panos: would you like to add anything? Anything you think important

Erian: I think (.) Somehow I feel like being (…) you are neither Albanian nor Greek

(.) it is an interesting situation (…) but I think my children, the third generation they

will no longer be like this. They will be either the one or the other.

(Erian, 25)
Erian grounds his lack of Albanian language competence on his need to translate from

Greek (to Albanian) when he talks and to his lack of Albanian accent. The Greek

language is constructed as his ‘first language’ based on which he understands and

gives meaning to things. In contrast, his contact with the language of the country of

origin is described as a process (albeit a slow one, little by little) which remains

incomplete, because as soon as he manages to recall and practice the language he

needs to leave Albania again. It is noteworthy that the interviewee’s effort to justify

his lack of fluency in Albanian (as well as the interviewer’s questions towards this

direction) reveals that this is not considered to be a natural implication of living in

Greece. It is rather something that he has to account for. Accountability concerns are

also raised by the positioning of the participant as just a bit closer to Greece in his

next turn. Footing shifts and reference of voice, as well as active voicing (Oh our

cousins came) work rhetorically to manage these concerns. The relatives in Albania

are depicted to warmly welcome their cousins from Greece who do not look like

Albanian. The familiarity in their faces cannot compensate, though, for the feeling

that Greece is home upon his return from Albania. Despite the construction of Greece

as home, the speaker emphatically and recurrently argues that his affinity with Greece,

in comparison to Albania, is only a little bit greater. Nevertheless, even this slight

superiority of Greece (in terms of familiarity) seems to disappear in Erian’s last

contribution in the above exchange which follows the interviewer's invitation to add

anything he considers important before ending the interview. In this turn the greater

affinity with Greece gives way to a positioning of the participant as ‘between’

cultures and, specifically, as ‘neither Albanian nor Greek’. And although this is

constructed as an interesting situation, it is also seen as a transitory one, since it is

predicted that the next (third generation) will have a less hybrid and more solid

identity.

To sum up, the speaker seems to be orientating to manage certain accountability

concerns as he thrives to construct a successful integration trajectory in Greece on the

one hand and to show respect for his kinship with people and practices in Albania. By

a narrative that involves recurrent shifts in affinity/proximity with both countries he

seems oriented to constructs his journey as one that ends up in a harmonious

combination of elements from both countries. Interestingly, however, he does not

depict this mixed identity as the end point of the trajectory. On the contrary, he

constructs a solid either/or identity as the natural implication of the ongoing (through

successive generations) integration process.

Conclusions

Τhis study explored the ways in which young immigrants from Albania in Greece,

belonging in the so-called ‘second’ generation, account for their integration and orient

to different integration strategies in semi-structured interviews. Analysis indicated

that participants’ accounts of acculturation contain multifaceted temporal and

intergroup comparisons and juxtapositions which involve interesting tensions and

raise important accountability concerns. In other words, when people orient to

particular acculturation strategies they also orient to social norms and values which

involve contradictions and dilemmas that need to be handled in the local interaction.

Specifically, our young participants seem to be concurrently oriented to construct

themselves as successfully crossing the integration path in the receiving country, the

end point of which is being or rather appearing assimilated. Interviewees are also

concerned, however, to avoid the potential identity inferences that remoteness from
one’s cultural roots and co-ethnics (including an interviewer of the same origin) may

generate. Hence, when, they are invited by the interviewer to account/elaborate on

being assimilated or on appearing Greeks they construct assimilation as a relational

instead of absolute, unqualified state. As a relational construct assimilation can

characterize someone more or less and can be attributed to a different extent to

different immigrant groups.

Moreover, participants’ accounts indicate concerns related to the understanding of

acculturation as a temporal, intergenerational construct. First, participants are oriented

to protect the generation of their parents from potential negative identity implications

arising from failing to integrate in receiving country. This is accomplished mainly by

the mobilization of a no choice trope. Parents are depicted to be concerned with the

assimilation of their children (to learn the language, study and succeed in Greece)

while they do not have assimilation in their own immigration /integration plans.

Moreover, participants often manage the moral implications arising from their level of

acculturation/integration through comparisons between themselves and their

(prospective) children. Therefore, acculturation is being constructed as an ongoing

present and future-oriented trajectory. This is noteworthy given that existing research

on acculturation has a long standing concern on the different acculturation strategies

that different generations of immigrants follow or on the changes on the same

generation over time (e.g. Berry and Sabatier, 2010; Fuligni, 2001). Following a

discursive approach in this study we maintain that these cross-generational

acculturation concerns do not just represent different acculturation strategies, but

rather different rhetorical concerns that arise in everyday verbal interactions (see also

Ní Maolalaidh and Stevenson, 2014).

While managing important ideological dilemmas in context, participants are also

concerned to construct themselves (and immigrant groups in general) as the main

agents of the integration procedure. They are constituted as responsible to get

integrated and to maintain cultural practices and ingroup relations and affinities. Even

in those cases in which the dominant group’s stance towards integration is constructed

as negative (racist or xenophobic), it is treated as a trivial obstacle which naturally

and automatically subsides as time goes by and integration takes place. Therefore, the

immigrant group is constituted as responsible not only for its own successful

integration in the new country, but also for the positive change in the acculturation

stances of the dominant group.

These results may have some vital implications for the study of immigrants’

integration. Firstly, they show that the so called orthogonal dimensions that

acculturation models suggested (contact with the dominant group and cultural

maintenance) provide dilemmas of ideological proportions which, being managed in

actual interactional contexts and intersecting with social values, generate multiple

puzzlements and concerns. By demonstrating the range of accountability concerns

speakers attend to in various relational settings the paper highlights the reductionist

and limited typologies contained in existing bi-dimensional models. Secondly, our

analysis reveals that the potential implications of discursive constructions of

acculturation may lie not only in the prioritization of one strategy versus the other, but

on the articulation of different orientations with specific constructions of agency.

Last but not least, our findings can contribute to the debate on the potential of

interview data to provide information on (cultural/normative) resources and practices

that ‘carry beyond the immediate local context’ (Wetherell, 2003; Potter and

Hepburn, 2012). In particular, current analysis revealed some recurrent differences

between the accountability concerns (and in their consequent local management) of

those participants interviewed by a Greek interviewer and those interviewed by an

Albanian interviewer. The above does not mean to suggest that there is a consistent,

one to one relationship between the ethnic identity of the interviewer and the type of

accounts provided. Other social identities (including gender and age) and other

contextual factors may also exert influence. It tends to reinforce, though, the idea that

in actual interactional contexts the ways in which acculturation matters are discussed

by participants are highly influenced by concerns related to a number of

contextual/interactional factors, including the way in which the interviewer or other

social actors are positioned. This finding suggests that interview data, approached as a

specific type of interaction, although may not afford general inferences concerning

precisely when and how specific types of accounting are used, they provide valuable

information on social routines (see also Anjum, et al. 2018). Furthermore, it has

important implications not only in the field of research, but also in the domain of

institutional policy, since interviews that explore issues concerned with acculturation

are part and parcel of institutionalized practices that constitute a prerequisite of

citizenship acquisition or immigrants’ reception in many national contexts (Gray and

Griffin, 2014; Johnston, 2008).

Transcription conventions

(.) One full stop in brackets indicates a short but discernible pause

(...) Each additional full stop indicates a pause of approximately half a second

( ) round brackets indicate inaudible information

= The equal sign represents latched speech, a continuation of talk

[ Square brackets denote a point where overlapping speech occurs.

[laughs] Information enclosed in square brackets constitutes analyst’s clarificatory

comments

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public,

commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Allport G W (1954) The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.

Anjum S McVittie C and McKinlay A (2018) It is not quite cricket: Muslim

immigrants' accounts of integration into UK society. European Journal of

Social Psychology 48(1): 1-14.

Andreouli E (2013) Identity and acculturation: The case of naturalised citizens in

Britain. Culture & Psychology 19(2):165-183.

Archakis A and Tsakona V (2016) Legitimizing and resistance identities in

immigrant students’ school essays: Towards a culturally sustaining pedagogy.

Brno Studies in English 42(1): 5-22.

Augoustinos M and Every D (2010) Accusations and denials of racism: Managing

moral accountability in public discourse. Discourse and Society 21(3): 251-

256.

Berry J W (1997) Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology:

An International Review 46(1): 5-34.

Berry J W (2008) Globalization and acculturation. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations 32(4): 328-336.

Berry J W and Sabatier C (2010) Acculturation discrimination and adaptation

among second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris.

International journal of intercultural relations 34(3): 191-207.

Bhatia S and Ram A (2009) Theorizing identity in transanational and diaspora

cultures: A critical approach to acculturation. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations 33(2):140-149.

Billig, M. (1985). Prejudice, categorization and particularization: From a perceptual to

 a rhetorical approach. European Journal of Social Psychology 15(1): 79–103.

Billig M (1991) Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. London:

SAGE.

Billig M, Condor S, Edwards D, Gane M, Middleton M and Radley AR (1988)

Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London:

SAGE.

Bourhis R Y, Montaruli E, El-Geledi S, Harvey S P and Barrette G (2010)

Acculturation in multiple host community settings. Journal of Social Issues

66(4): 780 – 802.

Bowskill M, Lyons E and Coyle A (2007) The rhetoric of acculturation: When

integration means assimilation. British Journal of Social Psychology 46(4):

793–813.

Chirkov V (2009) Critical psychology of acculturation: What do we study and how

do we study it when we investigate acculturation? International Journal of

Intercultural Relations 33(2): 94-105.

Edwards D and Potter J (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: SAGE.

Figgou L (2018) Multiculturalism immigrants’ integration and citizenship: Their

ambiguous relations in educators’ discourse in Greece. Qualitative

Psychology 5(1): 117-134.

Figgou L and Baka A (2018) Acculturation and intergroup relations in the school

context: Τheir constructions in educators’ discourse. Peace and Conflict:

Journal of Peace Psychology 24(4): 433-438.

Fuligni A (2001) A comparative longitudinal approach to acculturation among

children from immigrant families. Harvard Educational Review 71(3): 566–

578.
Goffman E (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Gray D and Griffin C (2014) A journey to citizenship: Constructions of citizenship

and identity in the British Citizenship Test. British Journal of Social

Psychology 53(2): 299-314.

Jefferson G (1990) List construction as a task and resource. In: Psathas G (ed)

Interactional competence. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp.63-

92.

Johnston A. M. (2008) Co-membership in immigration gatekeeping interviews:

construction, ratification and refutation. Discourse & Society 19(1): 21-41.

Marie Skandrani S, Taïeb O and Rose Moro M (2012) Transnational practices,

intergenerational relations and identity construction in a migratory context:

The case of young women of Maghrebine origin in France. Culture and

Psychology 18(1): 76-98.

Navas M, Rojas A J, García M C and Pumares P (2007) Acculturation strategies

and attitudes according to the Relative Acculturation Extended Model

(RAEM): The perspectives of natives versus immigrants. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations 31(1): 67-86.

Ní Maolalaidh M and Stevenson C (2014) National identity in a foreign context:

Irish women accounting for their children’s national identity in

England. Discourse and society 25(2): 245-262.

Piontkowski U, Rohmann A and Florack A (2002) Concordance of acculturation

attitudes and perceived threat. Group Processes and intergroup Relation 5(3):

221-232.

Pomerantz A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of

 preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson M and Heritage J (eds)

Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-101.

Pomerantz A (1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.

Human studies 9(2-3): 219-229.

Portes A and Rumbaut R (2001) Legacies: The story of the immigrant second

Generation. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.

Potter J and Hepburn A (2012) Eight challenges for interview researchers. In:

Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, Marvasti A and K. McKinney (eds) The SAGE

handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE, pp. 555-570.

Rojas-Sosa D (2016) The denial of racism in Latina/o students’ narratives about

discrimination in the classroom. Discourse and Society 27(1): 69-94.

Sapountzis A (2013) Iδεoλoγικά διλήμματα για τoν επιπoλιτισμό των παιδιών των

μεταναστών στα πλαίσια τoυ ελληνικoύ σχoλείoυ [Ideological dilemmas of the

acculturation of immigrant children in the context of the Greek school]

Scientific Annals of the Psychology Department of the Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki 10: 446-473.

Triandafyllidou A and Mantanika R (2016) Migration in Greece: Recent

developments in 2016. Report for the OECD Network of International

Migration Experts Athens: Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign

Policy (ELIAMEP).

Van Dijk T A (1993) Elite discourse and racism (Vol. 6). London: SAGE.

Wetherell, M. (2003) Racism and the analysis of cultural resources in interviews. In:

van den Berg H, Wetherell M and Houtkoop-Steenstra H (eds) Analyzing

 Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 11-30.

View publication stats