This paper constitutes an introduction to our special issue on "Transcending circulation... more This paper constitutes an introduction to our special issue on "Transcending circulations of southern and northern concepts: Towards mobile and dialogic perspectives on language" puts the spotlight on the hegemonies and marginalizations of mainstream academic productions and the circulations of concepts in the contemporary fields that are labelled Multilingualism, Applied Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, etc. Transcending the demarcations that have emerged in the Language Sciences broadly conceptualized across time, it particularly attempts to illuminate, through different scholars’ engagements, the circulations of concepts inside and across academic circles located in various places on the planet, identified as central or marginal places of production of academic norms, including what is understood as global epistemic circuits. The editors present reflections from their own positionalities and recent trajectories as illustrative points of departure.
In this article, I reflect on the future of macro-sociolinguistic research from a global-south pe... more In this article, I reflect on the future of macro-sociolinguistic research from a global-south perspective. I discuss the role that activism has played in scholarly work, and how such activism was hampered by persistent ideologies of ‘thingification’; that is, ideologies that created languages and nations as ‘objects’ (to be managed and controlled by states and local/national/global elites). I ground the history of such discourses in colonialism-capitalism. I further explore the global and local regimes of language that were created through the dehumanizing violence of colonialism-capitalism, as well as the alternative futures that have been imagined by all those who resisted – and continue to resist – this violence. I conclude with some thoughts on temporalities, on the different relationships with, and to, time and the urgency of the present.
This article engages with the theme of the proposed special issue in a perhaps unexpected way: fo... more This article engages with the theme of the proposed special issue in a perhaps unexpected way: for me, the ‘translinguistic movement’ is a pertinent reminder to move beyond the boundaries of language and other visible/audible modalities that are involved in semiosis. It also encourages us to move beyond the naïve empiricism that has shaped sociolinguistic work over the decades. The ‘sociolinguistics of the spectre’ that I develop in this article is rooted in philosophies of radical empiricism; it acknowledges the sensuous and affective nature of social life, and refuses to work with the ‘boundaries, binaries and demarcations’ that are located within the temporal ‘linearity of modernity’ (Garuba, 2013). In doing so, I will look at a particular time-space: the postcolony. It is a time-space where the ghosts of the past are ever-present and shape translinguistic practices; a time-space where time is always somehow ‘out-of-joint’.
Sociolinguistics is characterised by increasing heterogeneity, and students are faced with a prol... more Sociolinguistics is characterised by increasing heterogeneity, and students are faced with a proliferation of theories, concepts and terminology. This is sometimes a minefield, with similar terms used rather differently within different academic traditions. The dictionary provides a broad ...
This chapter explores some of the objections that have been raised to the ratification of the Con... more This chapter explores some of the objections that have been raised to the ratification of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICHC), especially the relevance of the definition of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) as outlined in the ICHC, and the role of language within that context. It focuses on objections to the process of inventorying – which is one of the key elements of the Convention. The chapter looks at some examples of how the works – as well as the ambition of the states to collaborate internationally with the issue. Absentees from the ICHC who engage with the process of inventorying may argue that they fulfill the spirit of the Convention – thereby drawing on 'assertion of fulfillment'. The chapter concludes with the argument that it is in the interest of the stakeholders, tradition-bearers and the ICH community that more states should ratify the Convention.
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity, 2018
The notion of ‘superdiversity’ has emerged as a keyword in the writings of, especially, European ... more The notion of ‘superdiversity’ has emerged as a keyword in the writings of, especially, European social scientists and sociolinguists to describe the ‘extraordinary complexity of contemporary social configurations due to post-cold war migration patterns and the digital revolution’ (Blommaert 2015). The term has also been used, albeit in a more contested way, by scholars working in the post-colonies of the global South where ‘extraordinary complexity’ has arguably been a feature for centuries (Deumert 2014, Silverstein 2014, Stroud 2015). The complexities of diversity – whether new or long-standing – have effects on how we, as scholars and lay-people, understand and conceptualize the very notion of heritage. In this chapter I will argue that heritage is not about the possession and presence of material objects or cultural artefacts (including so-called ‘heritage languages’), but should instead be seen as ‘a process of engagement, an act of communication and an act of meaning’ (Smith 2006: 1). In other words, similar to sociolinguists who have argued that it is useful to think of ‘language’ as a verb (languaging), heritage scholars have suggested that heritage too is a process of human action and agency (thus proposing the verb heritaging; Harvey 2001). An understanding of heritage as process, as communication, remembering/memory, performativity and performance (sometimes even spectacle), as lived and experienced, as shot through with dissonance and a multiplicity of voices, stands in opposition to wide-spread governmental, institutionalized and hegemonic views of heritage. This ‘authorized heritage discourse’ (Smith 2006) defines who the legitimate spokespersons for the past are, aims to construct broadly consensual views of heritage, and proceeds from the assumption that heritage can be mapped, managed, preserved and protected (a view which emerged in Europe in the nineteenth century, alongside discourses of nationalism and ideas of ‘trusteeship’ over the past). However, what happens to these traditional, governmental approaches in contexts of persistent or growing diversity: Whose heritage will be protected? Whose voices will be heard? And whose voices will be silenced? Who decides? And how should we deal with the fact that ‘all heritage is uncomfortable to someone’, and thus always and necessarily contested (Smith 2006: 81)? In this chapter I suggest that the idea of ‘moments’ or ‘encounters’, which has been core to sociological work on mobility (and in turn links to the idea of superdiversity), is helpful in conceptualizing heritage as a social practice. That is, our experience and engagement with the past is often fleeting, it ‘slips and slides’ in and out of focus, is ‘here today and gone tomorrow, only to reappear the day after tomorrow’ (Law and Urry 2004: 403), and, consequently, gives rise to forms of ‘minimal conviviality and temporary cohesiveness’ (Blommaert 2015: 23; also Li Wei 2011). This chapter explores heritage-as-doing-remembering-in-the-moment through two South African case studies: (a) the ‘revival’ of Tsotsitaal, a language practice associated with Sophiatown in the 1950s, in online discourses; and (b) the politics of racist nostalgia in online spaces, where heritage is used to silence difference and diversity.
Debates about the legacy of colonialism in the academy are not new. In linguistics, however, crit... more Debates about the legacy of colonialism in the academy are not new. In linguistics, however, critiquing and interrogating the history of the discipline and its status as being part of the practices and epistemes of colonialism, which continue into the here-and-now, have only been carried out reluctantly. This chapter introduces the reader to key themes in critical research on the historical foundations of linguistics. It is concerned with the contexts in which data has been and is produced, the ways in which analysis is carried out, and how expert knowledge is formed.
This paper constitutes an introduction to our special issue on "Transcending circulation... more This paper constitutes an introduction to our special issue on "Transcending circulations of southern and northern concepts: Towards mobile and dialogic perspectives on language" puts the spotlight on the hegemonies and marginalizations of mainstream academic productions and the circulations of concepts in the contemporary fields that are labelled Multilingualism, Applied Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, etc. Transcending the demarcations that have emerged in the Language Sciences broadly conceptualized across time, it particularly attempts to illuminate, through different scholars’ engagements, the circulations of concepts inside and across academic circles located in various places on the planet, identified as central or marginal places of production of academic norms, including what is understood as global epistemic circuits. The editors present reflections from their own positionalities and recent trajectories as illustrative points of departure.
In this article, I reflect on the future of macro-sociolinguistic research from a global-south pe... more In this article, I reflect on the future of macro-sociolinguistic research from a global-south perspective. I discuss the role that activism has played in scholarly work, and how such activism was hampered by persistent ideologies of ‘thingification’; that is, ideologies that created languages and nations as ‘objects’ (to be managed and controlled by states and local/national/global elites). I ground the history of such discourses in colonialism-capitalism. I further explore the global and local regimes of language that were created through the dehumanizing violence of colonialism-capitalism, as well as the alternative futures that have been imagined by all those who resisted – and continue to resist – this violence. I conclude with some thoughts on temporalities, on the different relationships with, and to, time and the urgency of the present.
This article engages with the theme of the proposed special issue in a perhaps unexpected way: fo... more This article engages with the theme of the proposed special issue in a perhaps unexpected way: for me, the ‘translinguistic movement’ is a pertinent reminder to move beyond the boundaries of language and other visible/audible modalities that are involved in semiosis. It also encourages us to move beyond the naïve empiricism that has shaped sociolinguistic work over the decades. The ‘sociolinguistics of the spectre’ that I develop in this article is rooted in philosophies of radical empiricism; it acknowledges the sensuous and affective nature of social life, and refuses to work with the ‘boundaries, binaries and demarcations’ that are located within the temporal ‘linearity of modernity’ (Garuba, 2013). In doing so, I will look at a particular time-space: the postcolony. It is a time-space where the ghosts of the past are ever-present and shape translinguistic practices; a time-space where time is always somehow ‘out-of-joint’.
Sociolinguistics is characterised by increasing heterogeneity, and students are faced with a prol... more Sociolinguistics is characterised by increasing heterogeneity, and students are faced with a proliferation of theories, concepts and terminology. This is sometimes a minefield, with similar terms used rather differently within different academic traditions. The dictionary provides a broad ...
This chapter explores some of the objections that have been raised to the ratification of the Con... more This chapter explores some of the objections that have been raised to the ratification of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICHC), especially the relevance of the definition of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) as outlined in the ICHC, and the role of language within that context. It focuses on objections to the process of inventorying – which is one of the key elements of the Convention. The chapter looks at some examples of how the works – as well as the ambition of the states to collaborate internationally with the issue. Absentees from the ICHC who engage with the process of inventorying may argue that they fulfill the spirit of the Convention – thereby drawing on 'assertion of fulfillment'. The chapter concludes with the argument that it is in the interest of the stakeholders, tradition-bearers and the ICH community that more states should ratify the Convention.
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity, 2018
The notion of ‘superdiversity’ has emerged as a keyword in the writings of, especially, European ... more The notion of ‘superdiversity’ has emerged as a keyword in the writings of, especially, European social scientists and sociolinguists to describe the ‘extraordinary complexity of contemporary social configurations due to post-cold war migration patterns and the digital revolution’ (Blommaert 2015). The term has also been used, albeit in a more contested way, by scholars working in the post-colonies of the global South where ‘extraordinary complexity’ has arguably been a feature for centuries (Deumert 2014, Silverstein 2014, Stroud 2015). The complexities of diversity – whether new or long-standing – have effects on how we, as scholars and lay-people, understand and conceptualize the very notion of heritage. In this chapter I will argue that heritage is not about the possession and presence of material objects or cultural artefacts (including so-called ‘heritage languages’), but should instead be seen as ‘a process of engagement, an act of communication and an act of meaning’ (Smith 2006: 1). In other words, similar to sociolinguists who have argued that it is useful to think of ‘language’ as a verb (languaging), heritage scholars have suggested that heritage too is a process of human action and agency (thus proposing the verb heritaging; Harvey 2001). An understanding of heritage as process, as communication, remembering/memory, performativity and performance (sometimes even spectacle), as lived and experienced, as shot through with dissonance and a multiplicity of voices, stands in opposition to wide-spread governmental, institutionalized and hegemonic views of heritage. This ‘authorized heritage discourse’ (Smith 2006) defines who the legitimate spokespersons for the past are, aims to construct broadly consensual views of heritage, and proceeds from the assumption that heritage can be mapped, managed, preserved and protected (a view which emerged in Europe in the nineteenth century, alongside discourses of nationalism and ideas of ‘trusteeship’ over the past). However, what happens to these traditional, governmental approaches in contexts of persistent or growing diversity: Whose heritage will be protected? Whose voices will be heard? And whose voices will be silenced? Who decides? And how should we deal with the fact that ‘all heritage is uncomfortable to someone’, and thus always and necessarily contested (Smith 2006: 81)? In this chapter I suggest that the idea of ‘moments’ or ‘encounters’, which has been core to sociological work on mobility (and in turn links to the idea of superdiversity), is helpful in conceptualizing heritage as a social practice. That is, our experience and engagement with the past is often fleeting, it ‘slips and slides’ in and out of focus, is ‘here today and gone tomorrow, only to reappear the day after tomorrow’ (Law and Urry 2004: 403), and, consequently, gives rise to forms of ‘minimal conviviality and temporary cohesiveness’ (Blommaert 2015: 23; also Li Wei 2011). This chapter explores heritage-as-doing-remembering-in-the-moment through two South African case studies: (a) the ‘revival’ of Tsotsitaal, a language practice associated with Sophiatown in the 1950s, in online discourses; and (b) the politics of racist nostalgia in online spaces, where heritage is used to silence difference and diversity.
Debates about the legacy of colonialism in the academy are not new. In linguistics, however, crit... more Debates about the legacy of colonialism in the academy are not new. In linguistics, however, critiquing and interrogating the history of the discipline and its status as being part of the practices and epistemes of colonialism, which continue into the here-and-now, have only been carried out reluctantly. This chapter introduces the reader to key themes in critical research on the historical foundations of linguistics. It is concerned with the contexts in which data has been and is produced, the ways in which analysis is carried out, and how expert knowledge is formed.
The notion of ‘superdiversity’ has emerged as a keyword in the writings of, especially, European ... more The notion of ‘superdiversity’ has emerged as a keyword in the writings of, especially, European social scientists and sociolinguists to describe the ‘extraordinary complexity of contemporary social configurations due to post-cold war migration patterns and the digital revolution’ (Blommaert 2015). The term has also been used, albeit in a more contested way, by scholars working in the post-colonies of the global South where ‘extraordinary complexity’ has arguably been a feature for centuries (Deumert 2014, Silverstein 2014, Stroud 2015). The complexities of diversity – whether new or long-standing – have effects on how we, as scholars and lay-people, understand and conceptualize the very notion of heritage. In this chapter I will argue that heritage is not about the possession and presence of material objects or cultural artefacts (including so-called ‘heritage languages’), but should instead be seen as ‘a process of engagement, an act of communication and an act of meaning’ (Smith 2006: 1). In other words, similar to sociolinguists who have argued that it is useful to think of ‘language’ as a verb (languaging), heritage scholars have suggested that heritage too is a process of human action and agency (thus proposing the verb heritaging; Harvey 2001). An understanding of heritage as process, as communication, remembering/memory, performativity and performance (sometimes even spectacle), as lived and experienced, as shot through with dissonance and a multiplicity of voices, stands in opposition to wide-spread governmental, institutionalized and hegemonic views of heritage. This ‘authorized heritage discourse’ (Smith 2006) defines who the legitimate spokespersons for the past are, aims to construct broadly consensual views of heritage, and proceeds from the assumption that heritage can be mapped, managed, preserved and protected (a view which emerged in Europe in the nineteenth century, alongside discourses of nationalism and ideas of ‘trusteeship’ over the past). However, what happens to these traditional, governmental approaches in contexts of persistent or growing diversity: Whose heritage will be protected? Whose voices will be heard? And whose voices will be silenced? Who decides? And how should we deal with the fact that ‘all heritage is uncomfortable to someone’, and thus always and necessarily contested (Smith 2006: 81)? In this chapter I suggest that the idea of ‘moments’ or ‘encounters’, which has been core to sociological work on mobility (and in turn links to the idea of superdiversity), is helpful in conceptualizing heritage as a social practice. That is, our experience and engagement with the past is often fleeting, it ‘slips and slides’ in and out of focus, is ‘here today and gone tomorrow, only to reappear the day after tomorrow’ (Law and Urry 2004: 403), and, consequently, gives rise to forms of ‘minimal conviviality and temporary cohesiveness’ (Blommaert 2015: 23; also Li Wei 2011). This chapter explores heritage-as-doing-remembering-in-the-moment through two South African case studies: (a) the ‘revival’ of Tsotsitaal, a language practice associated with Sophiatown in the 1950s, in online discourses; and (b) the politics of racist nostalgia in online spaces, where heritage is used to silence difference and diversity.
This article discusses present-day Khoisan activism in Cape Town, South Africa. The main actors i... more This article discusses present-day Khoisan activism in Cape Town, South Africa. The main actors in this movement are people who were historically classified as Coloured, and today speak Afrikaans and/or English as their first language. They are descendants of the European settlers, the diverse slave population and, importantly, the indigenous Khoisan who inhabited the area today known as Cape Town before colonial settlement. The discussion in this article is based on a range of sources: in-depth qualitative interviews with individuals who are actively involved in activities aimed at the restoration of Khoisan cultural and linguistic heritage; recordings of ceremonies and other performative events; blogs and tweets; published and archived sources (newspapers); linguistic landscape data; and artistic performances. We argue that Khoisan activism expresses a deep-seated desire for an identity – linguistic, political and cultural – that is both historically rooted and meaningfully created in the present. Khoisan activism is not only a political program but also an aesthetic-artistic as well as heteroglossic performance, and as such allows for new ways of conceptualizing language revitalization.
Language and the City – Sociolinguistic Symposium 19. Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. 21-24 August, 2012
Marginal Diversities and Digital Conformities – The Structure of Multilingual Performances
Author... more Marginal Diversities and Digital Conformities – The Structure of Multilingual Performances Authors: Deumert, Ana; Klein, Yolandi
The reflexive individualization of social practices and identities has been identified as a hallmark of late modernity in social theory: ‘We are not what we are, but what we make of ourselves’ (Giddens 1991: 75). As noted by Coupland (2007: 29): ‘modernity tended to keep people in their allotted places’; late modernity, on the other hand, offers ‘release from social strictures ... detraditionalizes and destabilizes life’. Thus, the standardization and homogenization imperative of modernity (and its associated institution, the nation state) has given way to fragmentation, heterogeneity and a general fluidity of boundaries (Bauman 2000). Digital technologies, in particular, have been described as being conducive to the expression of highly individualized communication practices (Wellmann 2001). They facilitate – together with other social processes such as new patterns of migration – the formation of a social world characterized as ‘super-diverse’ (Vertovec 2007). At the same time, the potential for diversity does not necessarily translate into reality, and social normativities have been shown to interact in complex ways with individual creativity.
In this paper we focus on Cape Town, a multilingual city whose diversity index – as reflected in official statistics – has been on the rise since the early 1990s. Digital data was collected from 2008 to 2012 (ongoing), and includes SMS corpora, screen data (Facebook, Twitter, MXit, Yoza, Kontax), a large-scale survey (N=450), as well as focus group and interview data with a broad range of users (in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and linguistic background).
Taking a bird’s eye view, the results show a normative expectation of, and strong preference for, ‘English’ (understood as a complex, ideological construct as well as set of linguistic features). However, such a birds-eye view obscures the intricate – although often marginal – multilingual (as well as polylingual) performances that occur regularly in the digital domain. In other words, ‘glocal’ English-linked normativities notwithstanding, a wide variety of ‘local’ languages are used for the expression of authenticity and distinction, as well as for the performance of ‘spectacular’ practices (Blommaert & Rampton 2011). Structurally, they frequently appear at the margins of utterances, within particular communities of practice, or in liminal genres (such a joking or flirting; generally communications of conviviality, but also moments of cultural or emotional gravity). That is, they are located outside of the linguistic space governed by dominant sociolinguistic normativities. In this paper, we will discuss digital performances of three of ‘Cape Town’s languages’ in a comparative and ethnographic perspective: Afrikaans, Arabic and isiXhosa.
References:
Baumann, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Blommaert, J. & Rampton, B. 2011. Language and Superdiversity. Diversities 13, 1-22.
Coupland, N. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: CUP.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity.
Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its Implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30, 1024-1054.
Wellmann, B. 2001. Physical Place and Cyber-Place: The Rise of Networked Individualism. International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25, 227-52.
Karl Marx (1818–1883), the 19th century philosopher, is remembered as many things: a revolutionar... more Karl Marx (1818–1883), the 19th century philosopher, is remembered as many things: a revolutionary, a political activist, a journalist, and the father figure of Marxism, which is a theoretical approach in the social sciences and the humanities alike. Marxism is also the political ideology defining what we now refer to as the Left in politics. Rather ignominiously, it also spawned some of the harshest dictatorships in human history under the label of Communism. So, Marx, who died rather young for a philosopher, managed in this relatively short lifespan to create a truly indelible mark on human culture, globally. In today’s episode, together with our guests, Ana Deumert (Cape Town University) and Christian Chun (University of Massachusetts Boston) we contextualize chapter 10 ‘The Working Day’, from Volume I of his Capital, published in 1867. Among the questions we explore are the following: What does Marx’ concept of 'surplus labour' still mean today? Have we grown out of practices such as child labour? How does ‘overwork’ feel for an academic? Join us on Critically Linked to find out what answers we have for you, and what the Capitalist ‘vampire’ means to Marx.
Uploads
Papers by Ana Deumert
The complexities of diversity – whether new or long-standing – have effects on how we, as scholars and lay-people, understand and conceptualize the very notion of heritage. In this chapter I will argue that heritage is not about the possession and presence of material objects or cultural artefacts (including so-called ‘heritage languages’), but should instead be seen as ‘a process of engagement, an act of communication and an act of meaning’ (Smith 2006: 1). In other words, similar to sociolinguists who have argued that it is useful to think of ‘language’ as a verb (languaging), heritage scholars have suggested that heritage too is a process of human action and agency (thus proposing the verb heritaging; Harvey 2001).
An understanding of heritage as process, as communication, remembering/memory, performativity and performance (sometimes even spectacle), as lived and experienced, as shot through with dissonance and a multiplicity of voices, stands in opposition to wide-spread governmental, institutionalized and hegemonic views of heritage. This ‘authorized heritage discourse’ (Smith 2006) defines who the legitimate spokespersons for the past are, aims to construct broadly consensual views of heritage, and proceeds from the assumption that heritage can be mapped, managed, preserved and protected (a view which emerged in Europe in the nineteenth century, alongside discourses of nationalism and ideas of ‘trusteeship’ over the past). However, what happens to these traditional, governmental approaches in contexts of persistent or growing diversity: Whose heritage will be protected? Whose voices will be heard? And whose voices will be silenced? Who decides? And how should we deal with the fact that ‘all heritage is uncomfortable to someone’, and thus always and necessarily contested (Smith 2006: 81)?
In this chapter I suggest that the idea of ‘moments’ or ‘encounters’, which has been core to sociological work on mobility (and in turn links to the idea of superdiversity), is helpful in conceptualizing heritage as a social practice. That is, our experience and engagement with the past is often fleeting, it ‘slips and slides’ in and out of focus, is ‘here today and gone tomorrow, only to reappear the day after tomorrow’ (Law and Urry 2004: 403), and, consequently, gives rise to forms of ‘minimal conviviality and temporary cohesiveness’ (Blommaert 2015: 23; also Li Wei 2011). This chapter explores heritage-as-doing-remembering-in-the-moment through two South African case studies: (a) the ‘revival’ of Tsotsitaal, a language practice associated with Sophiatown in the 1950s, in online discourses; and (b) the politics of racist nostalgia in online spaces, where heritage is used to silence difference and diversity.
Authors: Deumert, Ana; Klein, Yolandi
The reflexive individualization of social practices and identities has been identified as a hallmark of late modernity in social theory: ‘We are not what we are, but what we make of ourselves’ (Giddens 1991: 75). As noted by Coupland (2007: 29): ‘modernity tended to keep people in their allotted places’; late modernity, on the other hand, offers ‘release from social strictures ... detraditionalizes and destabilizes life’. Thus, the standardization and homogenization imperative of modernity (and its associated institution, the nation state) has given way to fragmentation, heterogeneity and a general fluidity of boundaries (Bauman 2000). Digital technologies, in particular, have been described as being conducive to the expression of highly individualized communication practices (Wellmann 2001). They facilitate – together with other social processes such as new patterns of migration – the formation of a social world characterized as ‘super-diverse’ (Vertovec 2007). At the same time, the potential for diversity does not necessarily translate into reality, and social normativities have been shown to interact in complex ways with individual creativity.
In this paper we focus on Cape Town, a multilingual city whose diversity index – as reflected in official statistics – has been on the rise since the early 1990s. Digital data was collected from 2008 to 2012 (ongoing), and includes SMS corpora, screen data (Facebook, Twitter, MXit, Yoza, Kontax), a large-scale survey (N=450), as well as focus group and interview data with a broad range of users (in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and linguistic background).
Taking a bird’s eye view, the results show a normative expectation of, and strong preference for, ‘English’ (understood as a complex, ideological construct as well as set of linguistic features). However, such a birds-eye view obscures the intricate – although often marginal – multilingual (as well as polylingual) performances that occur regularly in the digital domain. In other words, ‘glocal’ English-linked normativities notwithstanding, a wide variety of ‘local’ languages are used for the expression of authenticity and distinction, as well as for the performance of ‘spectacular’ practices (Blommaert & Rampton 2011). Structurally, they frequently appear at the margins of utterances, within particular communities of practice, or in liminal genres (such a joking or flirting; generally communications of conviviality, but also moments of cultural or emotional gravity). That is, they are located outside of the linguistic space governed by dominant sociolinguistic normativities. In this paper, we will discuss digital performances of three of ‘Cape Town’s languages’ in a comparative and ethnographic perspective: Afrikaans, Arabic and isiXhosa.
References:
Baumann, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Blommaert, J. & Rampton, B. 2011. Language and Superdiversity. Diversities 13, 1-22.
Coupland, N. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: CUP.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity.
Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its Implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30, 1024-1054.
Wellmann, B. 2001. Physical Place and Cyber-Place: The Rise of Networked Individualism. International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25, 227-52.