Читать книгу Researching Language in Superdiverse Urban Contexts - Группа авторов - Страница 8

Introduction

Clare Mar-Molinero

This volume seeks to contribute to the rapidly expanding literature on urban multilingualism in the context of contemporary superdiversity in environments that are being transformed by transnational migration. This involves considering theoretical frameworks in which to examine these practices, but in particular, it focuses on how we do or could do research into these language practices and their users. What methodologies are we using to understand urban linguistic contexts? What do we want to learn from reflecting on these methodologies? The chapters explore complex and challenging situations: capturing the evolution of new forms of language practice and changing attitudes to language in the city.

The chapters represent research in a diverse range of sites, of different sizes and in different contexts, from global cities (e.g. London, Paris), to large metropolitan centres (Manchester, Marseille), to smaller urban areas which also attract transnational migration (Leeds, Southampton, Valparaiso) and a particular border conurbation example (Tijuana). These are snapshots of examples of the challenges of investigating how languages operate in contemporary urban contexts; there is therefore no claim to be comprehensive in geographical or linguistic coverage. However, it is the case that the majority of the cities studied are from what is commonly referred to as the Global North (Collyer, 2018) – even in the case of the two exceptions, Valparaiso is a port city in Chile, part of the Global South but one of Latin America’s most economically developed countries, and Tijuana, in Mexico, which is usually defined as part of the Global South, is a North-South border city due to its relationship with the United States. It is to these Global North urban centres, where so many globalisation processes that dominate the world’s economy and geo-politics are based, that migrants from poorer and less-privileged regions are drawn, creating the superdiverse environment of those cities. The vastly populated cities found in parts of the Global South, which are not discussed here, have a different kind of social and linguistic density, with their own kind of multilingualism, equally worthy of research and exploration. Exploring their multilingualism will share aspects of research methodology employed by contributors here, but it could be expected that they will also deserve their own particular approaches.

The majority of the research here is qualitative in orientation, often ethnographic.¹ A wide range of methodologies are employed in the research projects: for example, using key participants and their role as a pole around which encounters cluster; exploring multimodality (and particularly Linguistic Landscapes), as an essential element in any holistic view of so-called translanguaging; developing digital research tools; employing ‘sensory ethnography’ (Pink, 2015); encouraging creativity paralleling innovative language practices; discovering non-verbal performances as a communicative tool; locating those spaces where translanguaging is possible and empowering. Our central focus is on the role of the researchers in their contact with the context and participants that they are investigating, which requires the researchers to find ways of sharing linguistic repertoires and discovering ways to communicate multilingually.

Unsurprisingly the different contributing authors bring different styles and approaches to their texts. However, I have resisted my initial reaction to seek conformity. Having asked the contributors specifically to reflect on the challenges their research presented to them in terms of the methodological approaches they employed, I believe it is essential to leave these diverse responses as they unfold. Each in their way represents a particular stance and engagement with the research process and objects; to try to make them more uniform would deprive the volume of some of its potential richness.

In the first chapter I offer an exploration of some current discussions of urban multilingualism, reviewing some of the relevant key concepts associated with this – such as definitions of the ‘city’, debated meanings of superdiversity, examples of complex linguistic practices, relevant language ideology and policy orientations – as a framework for the following chapters. I pose the underlying research question of the volume: how do we/should we research language in superdiverse urban contexts, with some evidence also extracted from my own experience of researching in the city of Southampton, United Kingdom.

The following chapter by Jessica Bradley and James Simpson draws upon a large study of urban multilingualism from the AHRC-funded Translation and Translanguaging (TLANG) project (2014–2018). Multilingual people in migration contexts typically ‘translanguage’ as a matter of course, drawing upon a linguistic repertoire as appropriate for a particular situation, as their TLANG data demonstrate. Bradley and Simpson begin by showing how the main or dominant language of the new host country is evidently part of individuals’ multilingual repertoires, but might not always be the most important in social or work life. They then go on to describe how their conception of translanguaging has developed over the project to encompass a focus on trans-discursive translanguaging and on multimodal or trans-semiotic translanguaging across place and space (Baynham et al., 2015). Throughout the chapter they refer to linguistic and visual ethnographic data from the main TLang project in Leeds, and from associated research in Ljubljana, Slovenia, with a focus on language use in the home and in social environments.

In the next chapter Leonie Gaiser and Yaron Matras introduce a holistic model to describe the position of an immigrant minority language in a superdiverse city, drawing on the example of Arabic in Manchester. The model links ethnography in families, community institutions and public services, with analyses of statistical data and imagery, and a structural interpretation of repertoire choices made by language users. They focus on Arabic as a global language that has recently been associated with discourses of world trade as well as securitisation and integration. It is at the same time the fastest growing community language in Manchester, receiving strong support from community institutions, with a complex network of users ranging from home language speakers of a variety of different dialects hailing from different countries, with a variety of statuses (professionals, students, refugees and so on). Its complexity in regard to both structure and sociolinguistic distribution makes an interesting test case to study the challenges of superdiversity in respect of individual languages. Gaiser and Matras reflect on these challenges as well as on the role of the civic university in developing tools and raising public awareness, and on problems of defining and demarcating language ‘communities’.

Darren Paffey’s chapter continues the focus on large global cities as he reflects on fieldwork carried out in London which seeks to capture both the visual linguistic environment and the language practices of Spanish speakers in this capital city. Questions are asked arising from the experience of studying the visual environment around the city using methodologies developed within the field of Linguistic Landscapes. The discussion reflects on how this approach helps us to understand issues of visibility and ‘making presence’ (Sassen, 2005), and how we can see language not just marking and indexing local contexts, but also ‘transform[ing] the social landscape’ (Vertovec, 2007: 1028). In what ways do those who speak and use Spanish on different levels make claims on these multilingual spaces, and to what extent can/do sociolinguistic methods and practices show us how this takes place in such a rapidly changing context? The chapter will bring together considerations of (supra-national, national and local) policy studies and language attitudes, asking how these interact in the linguistic environment, and how language ideologies inform and interact with the language motivations of a wide range of Spanish speakers particularly in a superdiverse context such as London.

Petros Karatsareas, in Chapter 5, critiques the fact that while all languages have different varieties defined in terms of geographical or social factors is uncontested, community languages are still talked about using broad-brush labels such as Arabic, Greek, Spanish, Turkish. In his chapter he argues that this sweeping approach obscures the multiplicity of sociolinguistic issues that arise from the use of different varieties of these languages – both standard and non-standard – in a wide array of contexts of private and public diasporic life. Drawing on evidence from recent work on Cypriot Greek (Karatsareas, 2018, 2020), Cypriot Turkish (Çavuşoğlu, 2010) and Maraş Kurdish (Yılmaz, 2016), he shows that community languages in diasporic settings reflect the diversity found in the countries of origin of their speakers. Different ethnolinguistic minorities do not only or necessarily speak the standard or majority language of their homelands (see also Gaiser & Matras, this volume; Wells, this volume). In many cases, they speak non-standard varieties as well as languages that have minority status. In their countries of origin, the use of these linguistic varieties is mediated by language ideologies that index relations of power inequality between (groups of) speakers that use ‘good’ linguistic forms and structures and (groups of) speakers that use ‘bad’ ones. Karatsareas argues that such diaspora-internal transformations of language ideologies as well as the implications they have for the intergenerational transmission and maintenance of community languages and therefore the future shape of the linguistic profile of modern cities can only be studied if sociolinguists of urban multilingualism incorporate linguistic diversity as a key element of their theoretical and methodological approaches.

While superdiverse urban environments are often presented as uniquely contemporary phenomena and analysed from a synchronic perspective, Naomi Wells argues that the concepts and approaches associated with superdiversity have the potential to shed new light on the enduring linguistic and cultural effects of earlier migration histories. In her chapter, she bridges methodological and theoretical reflections on fieldwork conducted with members of the contemporary Italian community in the city of Valparaíso (Chile), now made up of predominantly third and fourth generation Italo-Chileans. Adopting an ethnographic perspective, she combines interview data with analysis of other forms of emplaced engagement with spatial, material and sensory environments of collective and individual importance. While paying specific attention to language, particularly in relation to the author’s own positioning, the chapter addresses the limitations of an isolated focus on language in relation to community identity and cultural memory. In particular, Wells shows how applying a superdiverse lens to historic migrations can allow us to go beyond linear narratives of language loss to uncover instead more complex and elusive forms of material and immaterial heritage.

In the following chapter by Daniel McAuley and Janice Carruthers, the research centres on perceptions of and attitudes towards non-standard contemporary urban vernacular speech (CUV) among sectors of the French public. It assesses the attitudes of the general public towards these markedly urban and multicultural varieties of French, through using focus groups in Paris and Marseille, attempting to represent listeners of various socio-demographic categories. Listeners from a rural background are also included in order to see if they perceive CUV as an ‘urban’ variety/style. Responses from focus groups, a matched guise test and questionnaire are examined. Participants particularly targeted are those whose attitudes towards this variety could potentially have an impact on how speakers who use it are treated, such as gatekeepers to employment or police officers. They conclude by offering a critical perspective on key features of the research design, proposing ideas for future research design in this field.

In the final chapter Alfredo Escandón examines the particular challenges of exploring language in urban border zones, building on previous such research in border studies, such as, Relaño-Pastor (2007) and Zentella (2009). To do this, the chapter draws on Linguistic Landscapes methodology in a similar way to the methodology outlined in Paffey’s chapter. The research stems from a five-year study of the linguistic landscape and linguistic practices in Tijuana, a large Mexican city bordering on California. This city, along with San Diego, is part of one of the world’s largest transborder agglomerations that civic and business leaders often refer to as the ‘CaliBaja Binational Mega-Region’. Such a populous conurbation is subject to migratory and labour market flows made up by transborder commuters who cross the border to work either in the United States or in Mexican Baja California, as well as border crossers who divide their time between the United States and Mexico for an array of reasons that range from family ties, shopping, and tourism to education. In addition to its permanent population, Tijuana has significant migration from other parts of Mexico, with a sizable floating population estimated as more than 50,000 deportees (IMPLAN, 2013), and migrants who see Tijuana as a transit point. The city also has a large US-born population and other foreign nationals. The diverse demographic characteristics of an urban border area are further amplified by binational and bicultural traits, a fact that offers an opportunity to analyse language contact, language practices, language attitudes and linguistic identity among other topics that lend themselves also to exploring challenges to the research methodology.

All the contributions have certain common theoretical and/or contextual frames underpinning their research which will be discussed in Chapter 1. There is also a strong focus on collaborative research and a recognition of the need for constant reflexivity by the researcher. The volume therefore ends with a brief Conclusion offering a series of reflections by the authors on their positionality as researchers of urban multilingualism. Lessons and conclusions from their research reinforce the thoughts of Gogolin et al. (2013: 7) who write:

For research on linguistic super-diversity, the inclusion of multi-method approaches is crucial. Temporal and developmental aspects have to be considered, as well as potentially relevant contextual variables that may influence a certain language development or practice. … Thus, disciplinary approaches from linguistics and social science should be combined and developed further to provide new techniques which will in turn enable a thorough investigation of the actual linguistic complexity.

This volume sets out to make a contribution to seeking these new techniques and employing wider disciplinary approaches. In particular, it seeks to expand the methodologies available for research into urban linguistic superdiversity from the focus throughout on author reflexivity and the sensitivity to the researcher-researched relationship that this promotes.

Note

(1) For a detailed discussion of researching urban multilingualism from a more quantitative perspective, and with examples of a particular method applied to three European cities, see King and Carson (2017).

References

Baynham, M., Bradley, J., Callaghan, J., Hanusova, J. and Simpson, J. (2015) Language, Business and Superdiversity in Leeds. Working Papers in Translanguaging and Translation (WP. 4). See https://tlang.org.uk/working-papers/.

Çavuşoğlu, Ç. (2010) ‘The trouble with Turkishness’?: (Invisible) Turkish Cypriots in a Turkish school in London. PhD thesis, King’s College London.

Collyer, F.M. (2018) Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, Global South. Current Sociology 66 (1), 56–73.

Gogolin, I., Siemund, P., Schulz, M. and Davydova, J. (2013) Multilingualism, language contact, and urban areas. Multilingualism and Language Diversity in Urban Areas: Acquisition, Identities, Space, Education 1 (1), 1–16.

Karatsareas, P. (2018) Attitudes towards Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek in London’s Greek Cypriot community. International Journal of Bilingualism 22 (4), 412–428.

Karatsareas, P. (2020) From village talk to slang: The re-enregisterment of a non-standardised variety in an urban diaspora. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1767115.

King, L. and Carson, L. (2017) (eds) Multilingual Identities: A Study of Attitudes towards Multilingualism in Three European Cities. London: The Language Company.

IMPLAN (2013) Instituto Metropolitano de Planeación de Tijuana (2013) Boletín VII: Migración. See http://www.implan.tijuana.gob.mx/pdf/boletines/Boletin%20VII.pdf (accessed November 2018).

Pink, S. (2015) Doing Sensory Ethnography (2nd edn). London: Sage Publications.

Relaño-Pastor, A.M. (2007) On border identities: Transfronterizo students in San Diego. Diskurs Kindheits und Jugendforschung [Journal of Childhood and Adolescence] 3, 263–277.

Sassen, S. (2005) The global city: Introducing a concept. Brown Journal of World Affairs 11, 27–43.

Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30, 1024–1054.

Yilmaz, B. (2016) Learning ‘my’ language: Moments of languages and identities among Kurds in the UK. PhD thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Zentella, A.C. (2009) Transfronterizo Talk: Conflicting Constructions of Bilingualism. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvrO1jHkcUg (accessed November 2018).