Sociolinguistics Symposium 19
Freie Universität Berlin | August 21-24, 2012
Programme: accepted abstracts
Abstract ID: 561
Part of Session 119: Prefixing lingualism (Other abstracts in this session)
“Как мы codeswitchаем”: The Range of Russianness in Melbourne
Authors: Vakser, Sabina Joy
Submitted by: Vakser, Sabina Joy (University of Melbourne, Australia)
In recent years, the theorization of multilingual practices has evolved from code-switching analyses to more socially-oriented studies, with the ‘discreteness’ and ‘homogeneity’ associated with ‘languages’ and ‘social groups’ backgrounded to emphasize speakers’ own experiences and perceptions (Heller, 2007). Semiotic resources, or repertoires, have replaced traditional understandings of juxtaposed ‘systems’ to highlight the ways in which meaning is locally co-constructed and tailored to particular audiences for particular effect (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008; Blackledge & Creese, 2010).
We now see a distinction between “a language and language” (Jørgensen, 2008: 161). In multilingual settings, this has sparked a discussion of how to name the complexity observed in interaction. Concepts such as ‘heteroglossia’ (Bakhtin, 1981), ‘polylingualism’ (Jørgensen, 2008; Møller, 2008), ‘translanguaging’ (García, 2009), and ‘metrolingualism’ (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010) have been coined to capture the dynamic and diachronic nature of human movement across social boundaries.
This paper explores the meanings and uses of ‘Russian’ among Melbourne residents who claim identification with this category. In particular, I consider new ways of defining the different multilingual styles encountered in on-going data collection. Participant-recorded spontaneous speech and follow-up interviews are analysed using interactional sociolinguistic discourse analysis (Gumperz, 1982), the Bakhtinian notion of double-voiced discourse (Bakhtin, 1984), and a reflexive, social-practice approach to the interview process (Talmy, 2011).
I have found that while academic discourse moves towards new models of multilingualism, many participants adhere to classic notions of ‘language’ and ‘competence’ that continue to denounce partial affiliations and proficiencies. Fluid practices are acknowledged but often suppressed in light of more powerful institutional discourses of belonging.
What emerges from the data is the need to “know the difference,” highlighting the inevitability of both phenomena. In spite of this recognition, however, reified constructs and idealizations continue to take centre stage in the lives of many multilingual speakers.
References
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). Discourse in the Novel. In M. Holquist, (Ed.), The Dialogic Imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London: Continuum.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heller, M. (2007). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 1-22). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jørgensen, J. N. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(3), 161-176.
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 645-671.
Møller, J. S. (2008). Polylingual performance among Turkish-Danes in late-modern Copenhagen. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(3), 217-236.
Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 240-254.
Talmy, S. (2011). The Interview as Collaborative Achievement: Interaction, Identity, and Ideology in a Speech Event. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25-42.