Speaker
Description
This paper investigates multilingual repertoires and heritage language (HL) transmission among 60 Filipino speakers in Italy (32 first-generation and 28 second-generation). It draws on two complementary data sources: semi-structured sociolinguistic interviews and the Language Portrait task (Moro & Di Salvo 2026; Busch 2012). The Filipino community in Italy, one of the largest in the European Union, has existed since the 1970s. Despite their long-standing presence in Italian society, rates of intermarriage remain relatively low (ANPAL 2022). Children are typically exposed at home to Tagalog/Filipino, English, and one or more Philippine regional languages (e.g., Ilocano, Cebuano) before entering school (by age six at the latest). After school entry, exposure to and use of Italian increase sharply, often making Italian dominant in everyday interaction.
Four patterns emerge from the interview data: (1) regional Philippine languages are rarely transmitted to children and elicit mixed evaluations; when parents prioritize a HL, they tend to choose Tagalog rather than a regional language; (2) parent–child interaction is typically characterized by Tagalog–Italian mixing, indicating that Italian becomes salient while Tagalog is nonetheless maintained and generally positively valued; (3) English is not selected as the sole language of family communication, but appears mainly in combination with Italian and/or Tagalog; and (4) in the second generation, exclusive Italian use is most common with peers and younger interlocutors (e.g., siblings, children). Overall, these patterns point to limited intergenerational transmission, consistent with findings from other Filipino diaspora contexts (e.g., Canada, see Nagy 2021; the United States see Axel 2011; Australia see Lising 2022).
Triangulating interview results with Language Portraits reveals clear generational differences in embodied language representations. First-generation participants typically locate Tagalog in the upper body (head, chest), suggesting strong emotional attachment and identity affiliation; however, this embodied centrality does not necessarily align with active HL transmission in the family. For instance, participant FI1F16 (first generation; born in Batangas; resident in Italy for 33 years) places the Filipino flag on her chest and Italian flags on her hands (Figure on the side). She explains that Tagalog belongs “in the heart” because she deeply cares about it, while Italian is on the hands because living in Italy has “given her two hands”. Yet, despite this affective positioning of Tagalog, she reports using Italian with her children, illustrating the gap between emotional attachment and everyday transmission practices. Among second-generation speakers, the pattern is partially reversed. While many still place Tagalog in central positions, most locate Italian in the head or chest, identifying it as the most meaningful language in their repertoire. Interestingly, local Philippine languages are rarely included in the portraits. This may be partly due to uncertainty among speakers about how to represent them, but it may also point to an ongoing shift, as documented in sociolinguistic interviews.
Filipino families in Italy navigate competing pressures in language transmission: Italian as the majority language, English for socioeconomic mobility, and home languages for emotional attachment. Understanding these family language policies is crucial for helping migrants and second generations develop healthy multilingual identities.