Kamran Khan's concise volume is a timely, engaging and propitious contribution to an increasingly important area of research for sociolinguists troubled by institutionally engineered precarity and marginalization, namely language in citizenship. This is a field that has been primarily concerned with issues pertaining to language testing for migrant citizenship/naturalization (e.g. Shohamy, 2006), although increasingly taking as its focus the ‘unravelling of the interplay between actors, the arguments and ideologies at work in the process of shaping language policies related to citizenship’ (Milani, 2017: 2; Williams & Stroud, 2017). More specifically, the volume offers a rich ethnographic account of the linguistic trials and trajectories of a Yemeni migrant, named W, in his journey to becoming a British citizen. Although a refreshingly concise book, it is nonetheless rewardingly rich and complex. As I cannot do full justice to it here, I will pick out one central strand across the volume; the contrary workings of structures ostensibly set up to funnel migrants’ travels to citizens, and the resourceful ways in which the ‘victims’ of these structures defuse their workings, thereby escaping almost certain marginalization.

Kahn distinguishes three types of becoming, a term he chooses in order to emphasize the felt everyday experience of the individual migrant's encounter with the process and procedures of citizenization. The first of these is becoming through the means of a test score. This refers to the Life in UK (LUK) test, a monolingual English test that requires migrants to demonstrate a ‘sufficient knowledge of English’ and a ‘sufficient knowledge of life in the United Kingdom’. Kahn is able to demonstrate how W successfully negotiates this monolingual test in well‐rehearsed preparations in what he calls ‘unregulated spaces’, spaces outside the formal and institutional framework of teaching. In these unregulated moments, learners are able to use the wide spectrum of semiotic‐multilingual resources available to them that they are prohibited from using in the monolingual classroom. Such resources may comprise translating the content of the test into Arabic and studiously memorizing the test answers through rote learning. But it may also involve a battery of other multimodal strategies as demonstrated by TUK, W’s Chinese speaking class‐mate. Over and above translating key words and their combinatory possibilities into Chinese, TUK also works at breaking the ‘probability code’ of the multiple‐choice structure of the test, copies words longhand into notebooks and uses aural sensibilities, such as song, to rehearse questions and better recall their answers. W and TUK’s transformation of this monolingual test into a multilingual, multimodal and visceral experience is not only of help to W and TUK themselves, but also to their fellow compatriots whom they are able to instruct to also successfully circumvent the constraints of the LUK.

Khan interprets what is happening here by way of reference to Bakhtin and his distinction between ‘authoritative discourse’ and ‘internally persuasive discourse’ (Bakhtin, 1981) to capture how official expectations of how the test should be used and content should be learnt, as well as the monolingual values and ideologies inherent in the test, are undermined and dialogically modified in (real) social interaction. Fundamentally, what the test‐takers are doing is making the construct ‘sufficient knowledge of English’ invalid, in order to demonstrate (successfully) their engagement with the construct ‘sufficient knowledge of life in the UK (p. 85). At the very least, the analysis shows that whatever knowledge the migrant eventually acquires about Life in the UK has little to do with proficiency in English.

Another institutionalized mechanism of migrant marginalization is documented in Khan's second example of becoming, the ESOL space. As acquiring a university education was one of the main reasons for W wanting to become a citizen, being able to navigate the ESOL qualification framework was important to him. However, the wider policy and governmental funding framework severely restricts students’ learning opportunities, as the emphasis is test performance/success and throughput; as a result, teaching, not surprisingly, is geared to preparing extensively for tests. The restrictive and formal nature of ESOL courses also constrains what learner identities migrants can cultivate, with much identity work revolving around what levels and test results migrants are accorded. As Khan emphasizes, ESOL does not exist independently of immigration discourses, and is, in fact, saturated by such discourses. It would appear that the ‘promise of English’ as gateway to happiness and prosperity is illusory, and that, in fact, further marginalization and precarity of the migrant is a likely outcome of wedding migrant education to immigration economics.

The final stage of citizenship becoming is the Citizenship Ceremony itself, the legal endpoint of the process. Khan, referencing Foucault, characterizes this phase of becoming as one of administrative and physical visibility—the entanglement of the citizenship seeker in a ‘web of documentation’, a ‘network of writing’ and social sorting. At the ceremony, applicants are put through their paces: they are required to individually read the first line of the Oath, and they must be seen to be moving their lips when speaking the oath on stage. The event is one characterized by pervasive surveillance and compliant tongues, both during the preparation stage as well as the performance proper, in other words, ‘a perfect disciplinary apparatus’ (p. 125). As with the LUK test, there are ways around the worst of it, with the migrant able to deploy ‘strategies of imposture’, of ‘passing’, and of doing ‘enough to be considered legitimate citizens but within the limitations of their capabilities’ (p. 125). And as with all the stages and varieties of ‘becoming’, there is a real possibility up until the very end of failure, of not moving on, of being ‘stuck’, of being shown up as an imposter, of not measuring up to standard, always accompanied by the affective dimensions of marginalization, fear and anxiety.

Reading the book, it is difficult to not come away with the sense that the LUK test, the ESOL delivery and the Citizenship Ceremony all appear to impede against the voices, participatory engagements and agencies of the migrants—either by design (as with the constructs tested in the LUK test) or by the ‘consequential’ or collateral workings of systems and structures that—intentionally or through misguided monolingualism—make the wishes, aspirations, identities of migrants subsidiary and of lesser import than the efficient auditing taxpayers’ monies. It is purely by dint of tenacity, the creativity of individuals and the spontaneous subversions by small collectivities of other citizenship travellers that these traps of potential marginalization are ultimately circumvented. The tools for this are the other semiotic means (e.g. multilingualism, multimodal communication, the creation of translanguaging spaces) that monolingual English‐ism outlaws. These more adequately tailored resources are crucial in helping the migrant overcome the sociopolitical and material constraints to better meet their aspirations (at least partially). This is the essence of what some of us (e.g. Lim et al., 2018) are calling Linguistic Citizenship, the semiotic practices that are essential to ‘getting along and getting by’ in a difficult world.

So, what is the point of it all—why the strong emphasis on English as a requirement for citizenship? Despite the explicit rationale that English will facilitate social cohesion and repair the mistakes of divisive multiculturalism, it is likely that the strong focus on English is informed by what the Argentinian philosopher Veronelli (2016) has called the ‘coloniality of language’. This refers to ‘a process of dehumanization through racialization at the level of communication’ (2016: 408) and as ‘the discursive rationalization of colonial domination’, and that which ‘obscures oppression discursively’ (2016: 408). In the very first chapter of the volume, Kahn traces the historical and contemporary links that bind citizenship, race, imperialism, language/monolingualism together in British citizenship discourses. Although he does not pursue this particular interpretation explicitly, Kahn does remark on how British (nation‐state) citizenship appears at core to be about building a (future) community of belonging based on the nostalgic longing for a re‐invigorated imperial past and its simple and ‘fictive ethnicity’. Might it be, perhaps, that the English language requirement is predominantly about conserving the imaginary of an imperial (and stubbornly racialized) Britannia—a piece in the construction of a future society in the image of its (in)glorious past? If so, can English really be the remedy for a long term, harmonious co‐existence among diverse people?

In summary, this is a book that inspires reflection. It is thoughtful, accessibly written and scholarly, with rich theoretical insights emerging out of careful ethnography, encompassing 11 months of fieldwork and interviews, with an emergent research design sensitive to participant co‐construction of research direction. Despite being a study focused mainly on one person, (or perhaps because of it) it reveals the complexities—linguistic and otherwise—of what it means to become a citizen. Khan brings sophisticated theory (Foucault, Derrida, Bakhtin, Bourdieu) to bear on his data in a digestible way, and the book has much to offer a wide readership, from sociolinguistic ethnographers to those involved in policy and delivery. Importantly, it may well have some positive ramifications for those who suffer the pains of becoming citizens.

Kamran Khan的简明扼要的著作为社会语言学家的日益重要的研究领域提供了及时，引人入胜和有利的贡献，这些社会语言学家因受到制度上的偏见和边缘化（即公民身份中的语言）困扰而感到困惑。这个领域主要涉及与移民公民/入籍语言测试有关的问题（例如，Shohamy，2006年），尽管该领域越来越关注“揭示行为者之间的相互作用，争论和意识形态在工作中的作用”。制定与公民身份有关的语言政策的过程''（Milani，  2017：2; Williams＆Stroud，  2017）。更具体地说，该卷提供了关于也门移民W成为英国公民的语言尝试和轨迹的丰富的民族志说明。尽管这是一本令人耳目一新的简洁书，但它却是丰富而复杂的。由于在这里我无法完全做到这一点，因此我将在整个卷中挑选一条中心线。这些结构的相反运作表面上看来是建立在转移移民前往公民的通道上的，而这些结构的“受害者”化解其工作的足智多谋的方式，从而逃避了几乎一定的边缘化。

卡恩区分三种类型的成为，他选择这个词是为了强调个人移民在公民化过程和程序方面的日常感受。首先是通过考试成绩的方法。这指的是英国生活（LUK）测试，这是一种单语英语测试，要求移民证明“足够的英语知识”和“足够的英国生活知识”。卡恩（Kahn）能够证明W如何在他所谓的“不受管制的空间”，正规的和制度的教学框架之外的空间中，在经过充分训练的准备工作中成功地谈判了这种单语测试。在这些不受管制的时刻，学习者能够使用他们所能使用的广泛的符号多语种资源，这些资源被禁止在单语种教室中使用。这样的资源可以包括将测试的内容翻译成阿拉伯语并通过死记硬背记住测试答案。但这也可能涉及一系列其他多模式策略，W的汉语同班同学TUK证明了这一点。除了将关键字及其组合可能性翻译成中文外，TUK还致力于打破测试的多项选择结构的“概率代码”，将单词长期抄写到笔记本中，并使用听觉上的敏感性（例如歌曲）来排练问题并更好地回忆他们的答案。W和TUK将这种单语测试转换为多语言，多模式和内脏的体验，不仅对W和TUK本身有所帮助，

可汗通过参考巴赫金及其在“权威话语”和“内部说服性话语”之间的区别（巴赫金，1981）来解释这里发生的事情，以捕捉官方对如何使用该测试和应该学习该内容的期望。以及测试中固有的单语价值观和意识形态，在（真实的）社会互动中受到破坏和对话方式的改变。从根本上讲，应试者正在做的是使结构“对英语有足够的了解”无效，以证明（成功）他们对结构对英国的生活有充分的了解（第85页）。至少，分析表明，移民最终获得的关于英国生活的任何知识与英语水平无关。

在汗的第二个例子中，证明了移民边缘化的另一种制度化机制，即ESOL空间。由于获得大学学历是W想要成为公民的主要原因之一，因此能够驾驭ESOL资格框架对他很重要。但是，更广泛的政策和政府资助框架严重限制了学生的学习机会，因为重点是考试成绩/成功率和吞吐量；结果，教学就毫无疑问地准备为测试做大量准备。ESOL课程的限制性和形式性也限制了移民可以培养的学习者身份，许多身份工作围绕移民所获得的水平和测试结果而定。正如Khan所强调的那样，ESOL并非独立于移民话语而存在，并且实际上已经被这种话语所浸透。看来，“英语的承诺”是通往幸福和繁荣的门户是虚幻的，而且，实际上，移民的进一步边缘化和不稳定是将移民教育与移民经济学相结合的可能结果。

公民身份的最后阶段成为是公民仪式本身，该过程的法律终点。可汗（Khan）引用福柯（Foucault），将这一阶段描述为行政和实际可见性中的一个阶段–公民寻求者纠缠在“文档网络”，“写作网络”和社会分类中。在颁奖典礼上，求职者会保持自己的步调：他们必须单独阅读誓言的第一行，并且在舞台上宣誓时必须看到他们的嘴唇在动。该事件的特点是在准备阶段以及适当的表演过程中都进行了广泛的监视和灵活的语言，换句话说，就是“一种完美的纪律手段”（第125页）。与LUK测试一样，有很多方法可以避免最糟糕的情况，即移民能够部署“假冒策略”，“通过”，并做到“足以被视为合法公民，但在其能力范围内”（第125页）。就像“成为”的所有阶段和变体一样，在失败的最后阶段，仍然存在着真正的可能性，即不继续前进，被“卡住”，被冒充为冒名顶替者，无法达到预期目的。标准，总是伴随着边缘化，恐惧和焦虑的情感层面。

阅读这本书，很难不感到LUK测试，ESOL交付和公民仪式似乎都阻碍了移民的声音，参与性参与和代理机构，无论是通过设计（还是在构造上） （通过LUK测试进行测试）或通过系统或结构的“间接”或附带工作（有意或通过错误的单语制）使移民的意愿，愿望，身份成为附属机构，并且比有效的审计纳税人的收入少。纯粹是凭借坚韧，个人的创造力以及其他公民旅行者的小团体的自发性颠覆，才最终避免了这些潜在边缘化的陷阱。工具是其他符号学手段（例如，多种语言，多种语言的交流，创造了翻译语言的空间），单语的英语主义是非法的。这些更充分地量身定制的资源对于帮助移民克服社会政治和物质限制，以更好地（至少部分地）满足其愿望至关重要。这是我们中某些人的本质（例如Lim等，2018）被称为语言公民，这是在困难的世界中``相处和相处''必不可少的符号学实践。

那么，这一切有什么意义呢？为什么要特别强调英语作为公民身份的要求呢？尽管有明确的理由说英语将促进社会凝聚力并纠正分裂性多元文化主义的错误，但阿根廷哲学家维罗内利（Veronelli，2016）所称的``语言的共通性''很可能使人们对英语的高度关注。这指的是``在沟通层面通过种族化实现非人性化的过程''（2016：408），并且被称为``对殖民统治的话语合理化''，并且``在话语上掩盖了压迫性''（2016）。：408）。在本卷的第一章中，卡恩（Kahn）追溯了历史和当代的联系，这些联系在英国公民学说中将公民，种族，帝国主义，语言/单语论结合在一起。尽管卡恩并未明确追求这一特定解释，但卡恩确实谈到了英国（民族国家）公民身份的核心思想是如何基于对振兴帝国历史的怀旧渴望及其建立的（未来）归属社区。简单和“虚拟种族”。也许英语要求主要是为了保留不列颠帝国（并且顽固地种族化）的假想-以光荣的过去形象构建未来社会？如果是这样，英语真的可以长期作为一种补救方法吗？

总之，这是一本激发反思的书。该书思想性强，通俗易懂，具有学术性，从认真的人种志学中得出了丰富的理论见解，涵盖了11个月的实地考察和访谈，并出现了对参与者共同构建研究方向敏感的新兴研究设计。尽管这项研究主要针对一个人（或可能因为它而进行），但它揭示了成为公民意味着什么的复杂性（语言和其他方面）。汗以可消化的方式带来了复杂的理论（福柯，德里达，巴赫金，布迪厄）来支撑他的数据，这本书为社会语言人种学家和政策制定及交付者提供了广泛的读者群。重要的是，对于那些遭受成为公民之苦的人们来说，它可能会带来一些积极的影响。