Media Speaking Arabic(s):
A New (G)local Digital Heritage
Rosa Pennisi
Season 1 – Which Arabic(s) in Digital Media?
Episode 3 title: From Morocco to Europe: How Arabic Travels
English script
What happens to language when it moves between Morocco, Italy, France, and Spain?
In this episode, we look at how the Arabic of digital media does not remain anchored in one place. It travels with people, content, platforms, and audiences — and, in the process, it changes.
…
Welcome to Media Speaking Arabic(s): A New (G)local Digital Heritage, the podcast of the SABIRANET project.
SABIRANET is funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU through Italy’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan, Young Researcher 2024 – SoE line, administered by the Italian Ministry of University and Research.
In this podcast, we explore the relationship between Arabic language, digital media, mobility, and society across Morocco and Europe.
I am Rosa Pennisi, researcher in Arabic language and literature, and you are listening to the third episode of the first season.
…
In the first two episodes, we established two important points.
The first is that the Arabic of digital media almost never appears as a compact and uniform block.
The second is that, in digital media, even the boundary between writing and voice becomes less rigid than we might expect.
Today I would like to take one step further.
I want to shift the focus not only to the form of texts, but also to their trajectories.
Because one of the things that becomes striking, when one works on materials produced between Morocco and Europe, is that it is not always immediately clear where the language we are reading or listening to is actually located.
An article may be published in Morocco and tell a story that unfolds in Italy.
A diasporic post may be written in Europe, yet address an audience that still feels deeply connected to Morocco.
A debate that starts in Morocco may reappear in Spain, France, or Italy, and there change tone, lexicon, audience, and priorities.
In other words, language does not remain where it was written or spoken.
It travels.
And in travelling it carries more than words.
It carries references, memories, ways of naming places, forms of belonging, and also different ways of imagining who is reading and who is listening.
This is the starting point of this third episode.
The question guiding us today is this: what happens to the Arabic of digital media when it moves between Morocco and Europe?
What remains the same?
What changes?
What gets adapted?
And above all: does it still make sense to think of this language as belonging to a single national space, or should we instead learn to read it as a language living inside transnational relations?
In this episode, then, we will try to understand exactly this: how diaspora can become not only a demographic or social fact, but also a linguistic and media space — and how the language of digital media helps construct that space.
…
When we use the word “diaspora”, we often think first of people living outside their country of origin.
That definition is not wrong.
But it is not enough.
For some time now, scholarship on transnationalism — from Nina Glick Schiller, who helped redefine the very vocabulary of the field, to Steven Vertovec, who systematized many of its theoretical uses — has urged us not to think of diaspora simply as an “outside”.[1]
Diaspora is also a network of relations, exchanges, everyday practices, memories, references, and connections linking different places at the same time.
If we look at the issue from the point of view of language, this has an important consequence: language does not move from one place to another as a closed object, already fully formed.
It is reorganized in movement.
This is also a point emphasized by the sociolinguistics of mobility, for example in the work of Jan Blommaert: linguistic resources travel with people, but they change in value, function, and visibility depending on the contexts in which they circulate.[2]
So, in a diasporic setting, it is not only words or expressions that travel.
What travels are also:
– ways of telling stories;
– cultural references;
– institutions;
– bureaucratic practices;
– family memories;
– media events;
– and, above all, publics.
That is why, in the case of SABIRANET, speaking about language between Morocco and Europe does not simply mean saying that “the same language is used in different places”.
It means observing how Arabic, Dārija, and mixed forms move within communicative spaces that no longer coincide fully either with Morocco or with the European countries of settlement.
This leads us to an important notion, which I use here in a simple way: glocal.
Popularized by Roland Robertson, the term helps us describe practices that are at once deeply local and strongly connected to wider circuits.[3]
In our case, the Arabic of digital media can be local because it remains rooted in Moroccan histories, repertoires, and references;
but it is also transnational, because it is continuously reformulated within circuits of circulation that connect Morocco, Mediterranean Europe, and, more broadly, other migratory settings.
So the point is not only that language “moves”.
The point is that, in moving, it is redefined.
…
A first important idea is this: diasporic media are not simply an external copy of media produced in Morocco.
They are often imagined that way — as an extension, perhaps a simplified one, of what already exists in the country of origin.
But if we look more closely, we see that they do something more complex.
On the one hand, they preserve strong continuities with Morocco:
in cultural references, in themes, in linguistic repertoires, in the centrality of certain political, religious, or media events, and in the way certain audiences continue to recognize themselves as Moroccan while living elsewhere.
On the other hand, these same media also incorporate the concrete experience of Europe: work, school, documents, institutions, neighbourhoods, football, everyday life, bureaucracy, and the rhythms of mobility.
In other words, diaspora does not simply produce “Morocco abroad”.
It produces an intermediate space in which what comes from Morocco remains important, but is reorganized within other social and media environments.[4]
This is a crucial point.
Because it prevents us from reading diaspora only in terms of loss or simple preservation.
It is not only about maintaining a language far from home.
It is about rearticulating that language in relation to new places, new audiences, and new needs.
We can see this clearly, for example, on a Facebook page such as مغاربة إيطاليا (Magharba Italia henceforward), a page of the Moroccan diaspora in Italy.
In a video devoted to a Moroccan man who has opened a successful artisanal fashion business in Italy, the post on Magharba Italia is introduced with a highly revealing title:
“مصمم أزياء مغربي بقلب إيطالي!”
that is: “A Moroccan fashion designer with an Italian heart!” [5]
That title already tells us quite a lot.
We are not simply looking at the story of a “Moroccan” transplanted elsewhere, but at a figure constructed through a double belonging: Moroccan, but also deeply inscribed in an Italian experience.
And the comments under the post make this point even clearer.
One user writes in Italian:
“Bravissimo sei un onore per il Marocco…. la tua storia la devono insegnare nelle scuole…. da te possono imparare cosa vuol dire la pazienza!”
‘Excellent — you are an honour for Morocco…. your story should be taught in schools…. from you people can learn what patience really means!’
Here the Italian linguistic context does not erase the reference to Morocco; on the contrary, it reinforces it.
Another comment, in Moroccan Arabic, says:
“هاد هو المغربي الحقيقي عنوان للصبر و المتابرة… هادو هوما اللي كا يشرفو البلاد”
That is, roughly:
‘This is the true Moroccan, a symbol of patience and perseverance… these are the people who bring honour to the country’.
And then there is a third comment, perhaps the most interesting from a sociolinguistic point of view, in which a user says:
“ولكن اخي حافظ على لهجتك المغربية في لقاءاتك الصحفية… افتخر بلهجتك احسن”
That is:
‘Brother, keep your Moroccan way of speaking in your press interviews… it is better to take pride in your own variety.”’[6]
This is where we can see very clearly that diaspora is not merely a place where a bond with Morocco is preserved.
It is a space in which that bond is constantly being redefined.
Success in Italy is celebrated as Moroccan success; but at the same time language itself becomes an object of attention, regulation, almost of identity surveillance.
What matters in cases like this is not only linguistic mixing in the narrow sense.
What matters is also the mixing of the social worlds being invoked.
Language here does not simply stand “between two countries”.
It operates within an ongoing relation between different spaces.
…
When we say that Arabic “travels”, we risk formulating the idea too simply.
Because it is not only language, in the narrow sense, that travels.
Its indexical values travel as well.
Let me explain.
To use a classic sociolinguistic concept, first formulated by Michael Silverstein and later developed by many others, a linguistic form does not communicate only content: it can also index — that is, point to — a social belonging, an orientation, a social position.[7]
For instance, a certain word, a certain construction, or a certain way of addressing an audience may index:
– proximity;
– Moroccanness;
– informality;
– credibility;
– local rootedness;
– competence;
– familiarity with a given social world.
When language moves between Morocco and Europe, these values do not disappear.
But neither do they remain identical.
The same linguistic resource may continue to signal a tie to Morocco, while at the same time taking on a new function in a diasporic setting.
It may become a form of continuity.
It may signal mutual recognition.
It may mark distance from the institutions of the host country or, conversely, accompany entry into those institutions.
This is where mobility becomes sociolinguistically interesting.
Because it shows that linguistic resources do not simply move through space: they are recalibrated.
We can see this clearly, for example, in a Facebook post published by a Moroccan user living in Spain in the context of the debate over ʿĪd al-Aḍḥā in 2025.
I already provided some initial context for this case in the first episode; here I want to return to it in a more focused way, from the point of view of the transnational circulation of language.
The point becomes clearer if we look not only at the topic of the post, but at the way it is phrased.
Because here certain linguistic choices do not merely transmit content: they directly index an audience, a diasporic position, and a specifically Moroccan mode of interaction.
The title of the post asks:
“هل الجالية المغربية المقيمة بأروبا واش من حقهم يعيدو أم لا؟”
that is: ‘Does the Moroccan community residing in Europe have the right to celebrate Eid al-Adha, or not?’[8]
Here the issue is not only the content of the question, but the way it is formulated.
The expression “الجالية المغربية المقيمة بأروبا” explicitly constructs as subject the Moroccan community residing in Europe.
And the use of “واش”, an interrogative typical of Moroccan Arabic, shifts the question toward a more direct, more dialogic mode, one closer to the everyday Moroccan repertoire.
In this sense, the post does not merely transport a theme born in Morocco: it indexes belonging, proximity, and diasporic positioning.
Put more simply: here language does not only say “what” is being discussed; it also says who “we” are as we discuss it.
A question that arises in a Moroccan context — and in relation to Moroccan institutions — is reformulated within a European diasporic space, where it can no longer be framed in exactly the same terms.
And that is precisely the point.
Language is not merely “speaking about Morocco” or “speaking about Europe.”
It is building a bridge between different scales of experience:
between Moroccan authority, everyday life in Europe, the ordinary linguistic repertoire, and the need to give collective form to a shared uncertainty.
That bridge is one of the strongest features of diasporic communication.
…
At this point, it may be helpful to distinguish more clearly between two different planes:
- media produced in Morocco that speak about Europe,
- and media produced in Europe by or for the Moroccan diaspora.
They are not the same thing.
When a Moroccan outlet speaks about Italy, France, or Spain, it often does so from a perspective still strongly anchored in Morocco.
Europe may enter the discourse as a place of migration, success, difficulty, opportunity, discrimination, bureaucracy, work, or mobility.
But the orientation of the discourse often remains organized around a Moroccan audience.
When we turn to diasporic media, however, the picture changes.
There, the audience is not simply “in Morocco” or “outside Morocco”.
It is often an audience inhabiting several spaces at once:
– living in Europe;
– following what happens in Morocco;
– interpreting European realities through Moroccan repertoires;
– and interpreting Morocco from a diasporic position.
This produces important differences.
In diasporic media, for example, central topics may include:
– everyday issues of social insertion;
– administrative problems;
– narratives of success or difficulty in European settings;
– local forms of solidarity;
– and new ways of speaking about belonging.
In other words, the difference between media produced in Morocco and media produced in the diaspora is not only a matter of place.
It is also a difference of perspective, imagined audience, and social function.
This becomes especially clear if we compare two very different treatments of the case of Nouhaila Benzina, the Moroccan footballer who in 2023 became the first player to take part in a Women’s World Cup match while wearing the hijab.[9]
On the one hand, on a diasporic page such as Magharba Italia, we find a post written partly in Italian and partly in Arabic that reads:
“Benzina” del Marocco
المهم “البركة” حاضرة وقليل اللي غيفهم
That is:
‘ “Benzina” from Morocco…What matters is that the baraka is present, and few people will understand it’.[10]
Already here, the centre of the discourse is not so much Benzina’s sporting performance as the symbolic and religious value attributed to her figure.
And the comments largely move in that direction:
some express religious disapproval,
some call for moral correction,
others defend the player
and criticize the excess of judgment.
In any case, the central issue is no longer the game itself, but the moral and religious meaning attached to her visibility.
On the other hand, if we look at an article published by Goud in Morocco after Morocco’s qualification against Colombia, the picture changes considerably.
In the interview published by Goud, Benzina says, among other things:
كنا عيالات فالتيران وبيننا باللي المرأة المغربية تقدر تنجح فجميع المجالات
That is:
‘We were women on the pitch, and we showed that Moroccan women can succeed in every field’.[11]
Here the same figure is not framed, first and foremost, as an object of moral judgment.
She is presented as an athlete, as part of a collective achievement, and as proof of Moroccan women’s capacity to succeed.
Even when the issue of the hijab enters the interview — for example when Benzina recalls the support she received — it does not replace the sporting narrative.
It becomes intertwined with it, but without displacing it.
This is why the comparison matters.
It helps us see that language and discourse do not change only because the code or the lexicon changes.
They also change because the centre of the discourse changes.
In the diasporic case, Benzina’s figure is read more quickly as a religious sign and as an object of communal judgment.
In the Moroccan newspaper, by contrast, the same figure is more clearly inscribed in a narrative of performance, national pride, and women’s success.
This comparison matters because it helps us see that language does not change only because the code or the lexicon changes.
It also changes because the perspective changes — and because the audience imagined by the discourse changes as well.
…
There is another fundamental aspect here: in these spaces, language does not serve only to inform.
It also serves to construct forms of belonging.
But we need to be precise.
This is not a simple, compact, single belonging.
In diasporic settings, belonging is very often layered.
One may be deeply attached to Morocco and, at the same time, strongly rooted in Italy, Spain, or France.
One may speak about a local European issue using linguistic resources that signal continuity with Morocco.
One may speak about Morocco from a fully diasporic position.
This means that language does not simply reflect identities that already exist.
It contributes to constructing forms of belonging that are both mobile and situated.
From this perspective, digital media play a crucial role.
They make visible publics that do not coincide with a single territory.
They allow content, comments, audio, posts, and reactions to circulate rapidly across different spaces.
And in doing so, they participate in the construction of a community that is not simply national, but transnational.
This is where the term “digital diaspora” becomes meaningful.
Not because there is a diaspora that exists “only online”, but because the online has become one of the main infrastructures through which diaspora recognizes itself, narrates itself, debates itself, and organizes itself.[12]
…
At this point, it is worth returning to the word “glocal”, which also appears in the subtitle of this podcast.
The term can easily sound abstract.
But here it has a very concrete meaning.
To say that a linguistic or media practice is glocal means that:
– it does not lose its local grounding;
– but it also cannot be understood solely within a single local space.
For example, a piece of content may remain deeply anchored in Morocco through its linguistic repertoires, its cultural references, and its ways of naming the world.
At the same time, however, it may circulate in Europe, address diasporic audiences, be reformulated in relation to migratory experience, and acquire new meanings precisely through that circulation.
In that sense, the glocal is not simply a sum of the local and the global.
It is, rather, a form of interdependence.[13]
And this is exactly what we see in the digital media observed in SABIRANET:
linguistic forms that are profoundly local, yet become fully legible only when we place them within broader trajectories of mobility, mediation, and belonging.
…
So let us return to the opening question of this episode: what happens to the Arabic of digital media when it moves between Morocco and Europe?
First of all, language does not remain identical to itself.
Not because it necessarily loses something, but because it is reorganized in movement.
Secondly, diaspora stops appearing as a simple “outside”.
It becomes a linguistic and media space in its own right, one in which the relationship with Morocco remains strong, but is continuously redefined within other social, institutional, and communicative contexts.
What travels, then, is not only words or grammatical forms.
What travels are also references, memories, audiences, social values, ways of telling stories, and ways of naming experience.
And finally, the relation between the local and the transnational becomes much tighter than it may first appear.
This is why the notion of “glocal linguistic practices” can be useful: it helps us read linguistic forms that are rooted, recognizable, and situated, yet inserted into wider networks of circulation.
In this third episode, we have widened the frame still further.
If in the first episode we asked what happens when media speak mixed Arabic,
and in the second we looked at how the digital reshapes the relation between writing and voice,
today we have seen that media language never stays in one place:
it travels, transforms itself, and builds connections.
With this episode, the first season of the podcast comes to an end — a season devoted to the language, or rather the languages, of Moroccan and (g)local digital media.
In the following seasons, we will move more directly into another crucial terrain:
judgment, language ideologies, and the ways in which people attribute value, prestige, correctness, or authenticity to different forms of language.
And we will do so by observing linguistic and media practices across Morocco and the Mediterranean.
…
You have been listening to Media Speaking Arabic(s), the podcast of the SABIRANET project.
In the description you will find the link to the project website, where you can listen to and read all episodes, transcribed and enriched with explanatory notes and bibliographical references.
I am Rosa Pennisi, and thank you for listening.
See you next season.
Notes
[1] Nina Glick Schiller, Steven Vertovec, and transnationalism.
The point made here is that diaspora should not be understood simply as people living “outside” the homeland. In foundational work on transnationalism, Linda Basch, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc argued that migrants often live within social fields that cut across national borders rather than leaving one social world behind and entering another one entirely. Steven Vertovec later helped systematize the field by describing transnationalism as the dense set of cross-border ties, networks, exchanges, and practices through which such social worlds are sustained. In this sense, diaspora is not only dispersion: it is also ongoing connection. See Basch, Schiller, and Blanc (1994) and Vertovec (2009).
[2] Linguistic resources, repertoires, and Blommaert.
In sociolinguistics, linguistic resources are the forms, varieties, registers, styles, scripts, and interactional routines that speakers can draw on in specific situations. A repertoire is therefore not simply “a language” in the singular, but the historically accumulated set of resources that speakers can activate — unevenly and strategically — across contexts. This understanding draws on Gumperz’s classic notion of verbal repertoire (Gumperz 1964), Busch’s later rethinking of the linguistic repertoire (Busch 2012), and Blommaert’s emphasis on mobile linguistic resources (Blommaert 2010). Jan Blommaert’s work is important because it insists that such resources move through highly unequal scales of mobility: they travel, but they do not travel unchanged, and they do not carry the same value everywhere. In this episode, that perspective matters because Arabic, Moroccan Dārija, and mixed forms are not treated as fixed codes transplanted intact into Europe, but as resources whose visibility and social meaning are recalibrated in movement.
[3] The “glocal” in Robertson.
Roland Robertson’s work is the classic reference for the term “glocal”. What matters in his formulation is that the local and the global are not opposites. The local is often produced, reshaped, or made newly visible within wider global processes (Robertson 1992). In the context of this episode, that matters because Moroccan linguistic forms do not stop being local when they circulate transnationally; rather, their localness becomes part of how they move and are reinterpreted across broader media circuits.
[4] Diaspora and digital diaspora.
The distinction between “diasporic communities” and “digital diasporas” should not be understood as a distinction between two separate groups of people. Rather, the second term highlights the growing importance of digital media in the life of diaspora. “Digital diaspora” refers to the ways in which online platforms become environments through which diasporic identities are articulated, maintained, negotiated, and circulated. In other words, digital diaspora does not replace diaspora; it names one of the infrastructures through which diaspora is lived today. See Brinkerhoff (2009) and Georgiou (2006).
[5] Magharba Italia: post and comments.
The video-post discussed here can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/magrebini/videos/1541089155914218
The comments cited in this part of the episode are drawn from the same post.
[6] A metalinguistic comment in the diaspora.
The third comment is sociolinguistically interesting not because it is strongly marked as Dārija, but because it is explicitly metalinguistic: it comments on language itself. More precisely, it urges the speaker to preserve his Moroccan way of speaking even in public interviews. In that sense, the comment does not merely express pride; it also frames Moroccan speech as something that should be maintained, monitored, and publicly displayed. The point is not only identity, but also language ideology in action.
[7] Silverstein, indexicality, and Moroccan Arabic.
The notion of indexicality is associated above all with Michael Silverstein’s work in linguistic anthropology. The key point is that linguistic forms do more than refer to objects or convey propositional content: they also point to social meanings and help connect micro-level interaction to broader ideological and social frameworks (Silverstein 1976; 2003). A linguistic form may index, for example, intimacy, authority, distance, formality, localness, or membership in a particular group. In Moroccan Arabic scholarship, this perspective is especially useful in Atiqa Hachimi’s work, which shows that linguistic variables can acquire complex and shifting indexical meanings linked to identities, lifestyles, and moralities (Hachimi 2012), and that new media are crucial sites for reworking Arabic language ideologies and politics of identity across transnational publics (Hachimi 2013). In this episode, the concept helps explain why expressions such as الجالية المغربية المقيمة بأروبا or the use of واش do more than formulate a question: they also index a public, a stance, and a diasporic positioning.
[8] Spain / ʿĪd al-Aḍḥā post.
The Facebook post discussed here can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1386587382349045
[9] Nouhaila Benzina and the World Cup.
Nouhaila Benzina became the first player to appear in a Women’s World Cup match while wearing the hijab. FIFA highlighted this moment during the 2023 tournament. The significance of the case in this episode, however, is not only historical but discursive: Benzina became a figure through whom sport, religion, gender, national pride, and media visibility were all debated at once. See FIFA’s feature on Benzina: https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/womens/womensworldcup/australia-new-zealand2023/articles/benzina-i-want-hijabis-to-follow-their-dreams
[10] Magharba Italia post.
The post discussed here can be found at:
The word “baraka” is difficult to translate with a single English equivalent. In Arabic and in many North African contexts, it can evoke blessing, grace, beneficial presence, or spiritually charged goodness. In this post, it does not simply mean that Benzina is “blessed” in a devotional sense. Rather, it suggests that her visibility carries a morally and symbolically charged value that, according to the author of the post, not everyone will grasp. The final phrase —”وقليل اللي غيفهم”, “few will understand” — reinforces this: the author implies that the significance of the gesture exceeds its literal visibility and requires a shared interpretive frame.
[11] Goud’s interview with Nouhaila Benzina.
The article discussed here can be found at:
https://www.goud.ma/نهيلة-بنزينة-كنا-عيالات-فالتيران-وبين-821123
It was published on 3 August 2023 in the sports section of Goud, after Morocco’s 1–0 win against Colombia and qualification for the Round of 16 at the Women’s World Cup. The interview is framed around Benzina’s experience of the match, the team’s achievement, and the broader significance of Moroccan women’s success. It also explicitly addresses the issue of the hijab: one of the interviewer’s questions asks about the visibility she received as the first player to wear it at the tournament, and Benzina answers by referring to the support she received. This is why, in the podcast, the hijab appears in the article as part of the story — but not as the sole centre of it.
[12] Brinkerhoff, Georgiou, and digital diaspora.
Jennifer Brinkerhoff and Myria Georgiou are especially useful here because both show that digital media are not just technical tools added onto pre-existing communities. They are environments in which diaspora is mediated, narrated, and reorganized. Brinkerhoff (2009) emphasizes the role of online spaces in sustaining transnational engagement, identity, and social connection. Georgiou (2006), in turn, shows how media are central to diasporic belonging and to the production of mediated spatialities — that is, spaces of identity and community not reducible to one territory alone. This is why “digital diaspora” in this episode refers not to a separate community, but to a mediated dimension of diasporic life.
[13] Beyond a simple local/global split.
In this section, the term “glocal” is not repeated merely as a slogan. The point is analytical: a form may remain deeply rooted in local repertoires, histories, and meanings while becoming fully intelligible only through broader circuits of circulation. In this sense, the glocal is not a compromise between two scales, but a way of seeing how they mutually constitute one another. Robertson (1992) remains the classic reference for this move, while Georgiou (2006) is useful for understanding how diasporic media make such interdependence visible in practice.
References
Basch, L., Schiller, N. G., & Blanc, C. S. (2020). Nations unbound: Transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments and deterritorialized nation-states. Routledge.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press.
Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2009). Digital diasporas: Identity and transnational engagement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied linguistics, 33(5), 503-523.
Georgiou, M. (2006). Diaspora, identity and the media: Diasporic transnationalism and mediated spatialities. Hampton Publishing.
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American anthropologist, 66(6), 137-153.
Hachimi, A. (2012). The urban and the urbane: Identities, language ideologies, and Arabic dialects in Morocco. Language in Society, 41(3), 321-341.
Hachimi, A. (2013). The Maghreb‐Mashreq language ideology and the politics of identity in a globalized Arab world1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(3), 269-296.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In K. H. Basso, & H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 11-55). University of New Mexico Press.
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & communication, 23(3-4), 193-229.
Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. London and New York: Routledge.
