Third, I teach at a Malaysian English-medium university. In addition to General English courses, I also teach English for Academic Writing, a course taken by final year students. Looking at their writing, I would say that about 80% of them make errors we English teachers call horrible, even though they study entirely in English as the university itself is an international one. Still, they are often sought-after in the local job market partly because of their English. Of course, that advantage would disappear if they decide to study in or immigrate to a country like Australia, but they would still be better off, at least in the beginning, compared to those whose English proficiency is extremely limited.

Hence, people belonging to certain groups in outer circle countries might enjoy a relative advantage compared to others. I am not sure though whether those with a relatively high income in Australia belong to those groups. That remains to be investigated.

Thanks again.

Second, accent is of course a barrier to social mobility, but low proficiency is even a bigger barrier. So, someone with a foreign accent but good command of English may face less problems than someone whose English (pronunciation, grammar, sentence structure, word choice) leaves much to be desired.

Successful entrepreneurship might still require mastery of English, but of course it depends on the environment in which the business operates, just as you demonstrated in “The Sociolinguistics of Nail Care.” Hence, we need to investigate which types of businesses require less English and whether successful immigrant entrepreneurs are involved in them.

Thanks a lot for the reply.

First, in outer circle countries English is a second language for some (often among middle- and upper-class urbanites), while it is a foreign language for others (rural folks, for example). There are of course other factors that determine English language proficiency in those countries, but the point is that it could be the case that immigrants from those countries happen to belong to groups whose members have some mastery of English, which gives them a linguistic advantage over those come from expanding circle countries.

Of course, some countries, such as the Nordic countries, are classified as expanding circle, even though the percentage of people with good command of English there is higher compared to that in outer circle countries like Pakistan or Tanzania. Hence, we have to check the (socio)linguistic profile of immigrants prior to their arrival in Australia.

Interesting idea! However, I think there are a number of problems with it:

• If an ‘expanding circle’ origin were a significant factor than the Bangladesh- and Pakistan-born should find themselves in similar positions to the India- and Sri Lanka-born; they don’t.
• Except for the Malaysians, the other high-income NESB groups aren’t actually very successful on other indicators of class status, i.e. in transforming their qualifications and experience into work at appropriate levels. This suggests that their high income-levels are more likely to derive from successful entrepreneurship, setting up their own businesses etc. rather than having their accents found ‘less NESB’ in gate-keeping encounters such as job interviews.
• What we know about contexts where language is an explicit admission criterion (e.g., university admission), students from the ‘expanding circle’ are treated in the same way as other NESBs, i.e. they have to demonstrate appropriate English proficiency levels through IELTS or TOEFL scores (a perpetual irritation to my students from these countries who have been educated through the medium of English …)

Looking at the list of countries from which recent groups come, it seems that people from countries that belong to Kahcru’s outer circle enjoy a higher median income than people who come from the expanding circle. That is to say; people who come from countries where English enjoys a stronger presence have a higher income than those who come from countries where English is basically a foreign, rather than a second language.

Hence, it might be the case that some groups are better off because they are less ‘NESB’ than others.

Interesting question. The short answer is that an Aboriginal middle class doesn’t exist. According to ABS data, about 50% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders live in financial stress (e.g., could not raise AUD2,000 within a week in an emergency) and less than a third have completed school to Year 12.

Of course, there are people of Aboriginal descent who are members of the middle class. Just disproportionately few. Except for a few high profile cases, in my – admittedly very limited – experience, all the Aboriginal people who I’ve met and who could be considered middle class because of their engagement with higher education (admittedly a criterion with limitations) actually seemed white to me (i.e. I wouldn’t have known they were Aboriginal if that’s not how they’d been introduced or introduced themselves); which brings us back to the intersection of race and class. Indeed, Colic-Peisker suggests in her article (as others have done, too) that groups that can ‘pass as white’ or be accepted as ‘honorary whites’ may find it easier to advance in Anglo-dominated societies such as Australia.

Another reason she suggests for the recent advances of Asians in particular may be in the fact that language and identity have become commodified and that their linguistic and social ties to the home country constitute a valuable asset. Donna Butorac’s thesis, in fact, contains exactly such a case study of a Chinese migrant lawyer who experienced everyday racism in Australia (including racial insults in the street) but found a good job and advanced her career on the basis of her Chinese and her experience with Chinese law. Again, the lack of commodifiable linguistic and cultural skills would close this avenue to upward social mobility to Aboriginal people.