- Email: [email protected]
Introduction: “diversity talk” and its others
Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Language & Communication journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom
Editorial
Introduction: “diversity talk” and its others
Like many special issues – including a number that have appeared in this very journal – this volume grew out of a conference. The more typical “hatching grounds” for such endeavors include annual events like the American Anthropological Association meetings or other conferences positioned within recognizable “invisible colleges” (cf. Crane, 1972). However, the conference spawning this particular volume was of a different sort. It was entitled “Language and Super-diversity: Explorations and Interrogations,” and was held June 5–7, 2013, at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland.1 It was occasioned by the rising prominence among social scientists – including those studying the social dimensions of language use – of “superdiversity.”2 First coined in Britain (Vertovec, 2006), scholars working in Europe have been particularly apt to deploy “superdiversity” as an analytic framework. In Vertovec’s words, “superdiversity” is “a notion intended to underline a level and kind of complexity surpassing anything . [a given] country has previously experienced” (2007:1024). Or, in Jan Blommaert’s terms, the term “superdiversity” is better thought of as denoting a “tactic . defined primarily by a theoretical and methodological explorative perspective” (Blommaert, 2015:83). In contrast to its burgeoning currency in Europe, the term has at times been met on the Western side of the Atlantic with deeper skepticism; recent work by Angela Reyes (2014) and Aneta Pavlenko (2014), among others, reflects this outlook. Bearing this scholarly context in mind helps illuminate some of the differing approaches taken by the authors featured here when taking up discussions about linguistic variation – “diversity talk” and other discursive registers engaging with (linguistic) sameness and difference. Scholars studying language in social context have long sought to understand the meaning and nature of linguistic difference, social difference, and the alignment between the two (e.g., Gumperz, 1962; Hymes, 1972; Labov, 1972, 2011; Sapir, 1949; see also Duranti, 1997:51–83 for a discussion of the history of such scholarship). A key mission in previous endeavors exploring the relationship between social and linguistic diversity has been the attempt to differentiate continuities from disruptions. This has entailed identifying what given institutions and individuals consider to be new – or, conversely, enduring – forms of social and linguistic difference, and how those perceptions are made manifest through particular linguistic structures, practices, and ideologies. Conceptually, this quest has crystallized around diverse frameworks, often anchored by key terms. Such approaches include a focus on enregisterment and the construction of social personae (Agha, 2004); transnational heteroglossia (Bailey, 2007); flexible bilingualism and translanguaging (García, 2009; Creese and Blackledge, 2010); truncated repertoires in the context of multilingualism (Blommaert et al., 2005); practices of identification (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985; Bucholtz and Hall, 2004); diglossic code-switching (Bassiouney, 2009); transidiomic practices (Jacquemet, 2005); codemeshing and linguistic pluralism (Canagarajah 2006, 2011; Young 2004); “metrolingualism” and globalization (Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010); linguistic crossing (Rampton, 2009); and engagements with linguistic diversity as undergirded by specific ideologies (Urciuoli, 2001; Woolard, 1998).3 These assorted frameworks invoke intellectual lineages with distinct implications for how one attends to sameness and difference, and how one conceptualizes “diversity.” In considering these varied engagements with “diversity,” state and other institutional interests are of particular importance. Many scholars have noted that the growth of the modern nation corresponded with the development of 1 All of the contributors to this volume participated in that conference. So, too, did Asif Agha, whose formal commentary during the conference itself, and numerous conversations with us about this volume since then, have greatly influenced our thinking. Indeed, as Robert Moore notes, we owe our title for this special issue to Agha, who introduced the phrase “diversity talk” to identify “a type of managerial discourse that can be encountered today in a wide range of institutional domains in the US, Europe, and elsewhere” (Moore, 2015). 2 This is one of several conferences held since 2010 under the aegis of the International Consortium for Language and Superdiversity (InCoLaS). Several key publications applying this paradigm to specific ethnographic contexts have emerged from the workings of this consortium (e.g., Blommaert et al., 2011; Arnaut et al., 2012; Blommaert, 2013). 3 We are indebted here to Marco Jacquemet, whose oral presentation at the aforementioned conference in Jyväskylä featured a discussion of many of these frameworks.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.01.004 0271-5309/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
academic studies wherein diversity within national boundaries and mobility across them were viewed as challenges to state projects aiming to forge a collective national identity and a national consensus of practice (Blommaert and Verschueren, 1998; Eriksen 1990; Heller, 2011; Silverstein, 2005; Stolcke, 1995). For example, Susan Gal and Judith Irvine claim that the study of diversity in anthropology and linguistics in the twentieth century often reproduced state ideologies about boundaries and communities even as they sought to challenge the pervasive inequalities that structured relations among them (Irvine and Gal, 2000). A variety of other scholars have shown how different classes of institutionally-backed “experts” – missionaries, educators, economists, media professionals, and others – have at various times studied linguistic diversity in order to cater their messages to specific publics, including those with whom they had yet to interact on satisfying terms (Errington, 2001, 2008; Handman, 2007; Ginsburgh and Weber, 2011; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Urciuoli, 2003). As such, “diversity” – and “diversity talk” – have been key loci of intervention not only for state actors but also for those working within other powerful institutions, including economic, public policy, religious, and educational ones. In this vein, the “superdiversity” framework has a particular relationship to state and institutional policy, at least historically. In the words of its chief proponent, the concept was initially deployed in order to take stock of an ostensibly paradigmatic shift brought about by “the changing nature of global migration that, over the past 30 years or so, has brought with it a transformative ‘diversification of diversity’” (Vertovec, 2013; see also Vertovec, 2007:1025). Many of those using the concept have trained their focus on the consequences that highly mobile contexts have for state management of linguistic resources, with corresponding attention paid to such issues as multilingualism and the role language plays in performing border-making and border-transgressing “identity work” (Blommaert, 2013; Dong, 2012; Jørgensen et al., 2011; Leppänen and Häkkinen, 2012). Others have used superdiversity in the context of assessing changing claims on and access to institutional material aid (Blommaert, 2010:153–179; Spotti, 2011; Jacquement, 2015). Such engagement with the superdiversity framework is generally pegged to state apprehensions of diversity, though scholars vary in terms of how explicit they are in acknowledging that orientation. In contrast, other authors have aimed more directly to loosen the concept from state perceptions while turning it towards a transformation in scholarly practice. In this iteration, the superdiversity perspective can serve to subvert long-held, analytically confining ideas about linguistic and social boundedness, homogeneity, and stability that superdiverse contexts challenge in generative ways (Blommaert and Rampton, 2011:1–3). This situation in itself speaks to the different ways people understand “superdiversity”: scholars adhere to a diversity of views about not only the meaning and utility of the framework, but also generally about how we can best understand socially embedded perceptions of linguistic sameness and difference. As noted by some participants to this volume (e.g., Silverstein, 2015; Moore, 2015), the concept has gained special traction in Europe, where it was initially introduced, and has seen less uptake elsewhere. This is no doubt partially due to the provincial nature of academic scholarly networks. But it could also be read as the function of longer-standing language ideologies circulating in Europe since the emergence of modern nationalism (Gal, 2012), which condition the perspective not only of thinkers formulating state language policies but also academics who study them. As Silverstein puts it, drawing on Scott’s idea of “seeing like a state,” scholars of modern nation-states have tended to “see language like a state” (Moore, 2015:20; paraphrasing Silverstein, 2015). The state-centric ocular perspective of the term has become a key locus of critique. It undergirds the claim that the “superdiversity” perspective is anchored in the state’s own perception that the social landscape has ostensibly become diverse in new ways that can be either problematic or generative, depending upon one’s perspective. The authors in this special issue take different approaches to the superdiversity framework. While some draw upon it explicitly, others work from a range of other theoretical approaches aimed at understanding culturally and historically specific perceptions of sameness and difference. The conference’s focus on the superdiversity perspective, and the particular historical and scholarly context out of which it arose, elicited new engagement with the framework (for many of us). It also called forth renewed attention to other conceptual approaches, both competing and complementary, that attempt to make sense of “diversity.” As we brought that conversation to bear on our own research projects, several questions came to the fore. What are the key frameworks for conceptualizing and analyzing social and cultural difference and sameness as they evolve over time? Has “globalization” and its attendant developments in the nature of migration and technological mediation indeed been transformative, bringing us into a new era wherein older forms of diversity have given rise to new forms of complexity? Or are such shifts less radical than they might appear, changes more of substance than they are of kind or magnitude, such that claims to newness are largely anchored not in external developments but rather in the subjective perceptions of particular observers? Where can we locate referential stability when considering the potentially slippery notion of “diversity in motion” (Gluck and Tsing, 2009)? How generalizable is superdiversity as a framework: is it particular to specific contexts, or particular kinds of analytical work, or does it have broader purchase? What is the perceptual anchoring of the framework? Does it identify new forms of language use from the perspective and interests of speaking subjects? Or does it do so from that of “listening subjects” authorized to analyze and speak about others (Reyes, 2014; cf. Inoue, 2006); or does it perhaps stem from a different perceptual orientation entirely? The papers in this volume represent an attempt to grapple with these questions. At the same time, they constitute a challenge to some received approaches to answering them, and thus aim to shift the terms of debate for engaging these matters. In aggregate, these papers seek to recast or set aside questions about what “diversity” is and whether it has become newly complex. They attempt to focus instead on how “diversity” emerges – in specific ethnographic contexts – as a salient category for specific groups of people who aim to pursue particular ends. Blommaert’s commentary on all the other papers from this volume represents one such framing, an articulation from within the superdiversity framework by one of its leading figures (Blommaert, 2015). His commentary foregrounds an
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
3
emphasis on border-troubling difference not only as a key semiotic axis deployed in socially embedded practice but more centrally as a key analytic perspective that aims to subvert scholarly attachment to received categories and communities with firm boundaries. This focus is demonstrated by a quick survey of the emerging research highlighted in a working paper series with which Blommaert is associated: the Tilburg Papers in Cultural Studies, hosted at the Babylon Center for the Study of Superdiversity.4 That series evidences pervasive attention to cites of demonstrable linguistic diversity – multilingual immigrant classrooms, multilingual asylum hearings, multilingual neighborhood linguistic landscapes, multilingual online and broadcast media. A similar focus structures many of the essays in this volume as well. In them, attention to metalinguistic and metapragmatic practices that foreground difference also calls for corresponding attention to practices that foreground sameness. For example, Silverstein (2015) explores the consequences that ideologies of denotational equivalence have for state classifications and management of ethno-linguistic groups; Jacquemet (2015) examines similar issues in analyzing assessments of truth-telling and deceit in the context of asylum hearings. Others examine the implications of practices foregrounding difference and sameness in the context of ethno-linguistic framings. For example, Schulthies (2015) focuses on enactments of incommensurability and translatability across diverse registers of Arabic, while Faudree (2015) analyzes evocations of ethnolinguistic indigenous unity by interlocutors who simultaneously debate the diversity of signs that index cultural authenticity or, conversely, external contamination. Brink-Danan’s (2015) paper explores how British interfaith groups stress the ideological uniformity undergirding “tolerance talk” even as they encounter challenges to its universal salience when exporting their tactics for managing religious differences to the US, Egypt, and elsewhere. Finally, Moore’s (2015) paper examines two historically distinct attempts to formulate language policy in Europe: a policy paper generated in 1794 during the French revolution and an EU multilingualism proposal published in 2007. He shows that while the two may appear to promote distinct strategies for managing linguistic difference, they nevertheless rely upon a common language ideology of standardness that is rooted in particular kinds of ideal speakers and acceptable registers. These papers also owe much to enduring questions and concerns about newness and its limits that have long been of interest to scholars studying language in social context. Though these concerns have been articulated before, they have emerged as newly salient with the rising scholarly currency of the superdiversity framework. Some scholars working within this paradigm have argued that standing orders of diversity are now themselves introducing novel linguistic forms and interactional possibilities. These contentions challenge scholars to investigate those claims ethnographically, in specific cultural contexts. Such research requires exploring the mechanisms underlying the metapragmatic practices of “difference talk” – “diversity talk” and other speech registers more distantly tied to institutions in which people make sense of sameness and difference. In these forms of talk, new forms of diversity are claimed, assumed, or explicitly deployed as an explanatory frame. Alternatively, such diversity-inscribing practices may be denied as a form of misrecognition, a kind of “old wine in new bottles” wherein enduring forms of diversity are mistaken as novel because they are bundled with other indexes of newness (cf. Gal, 2012:22–23; Urban, 2001:5–6). There can even be a rethinking of “diverse,” “mobile,” or “mixed” linguistic forms not as “novel” semiosis, but rather as crucial elements of social organization more broadly (Heller, 2011; Rampton, 2009; Blommaert 2015). Some of the papers in this issue investigate pragmatic aspects of newness claims in diversity talk by institutionally employed experts (Silverstein, 2015; Moore, 2015; Brink-Danan, 2015), while others examine the implications of assorted erasures of innovation in interpersonal interactions (Faudree, 2015; Schulthies, 2015; Jacquemet, 2015). Many of the authors featured here have found it useful to draw on Bonnie Urciuoli’s research into discourses of diversity in the context of U.S. higher education (2003:396). In this work, Urciuoli introduces the notion of a “strategically deployable shifter,” a term that may appear referentially stable but whose denotational meaning and conceptual content shift across contexts and users. She claims that “diversity” – designed to replace the “seemingly exhausted” term “multiculturalism” (Moore, 2015) – is one such discursive and pragmatic shifter: it covers different conceptual terrain depending on the social fields in which participants strategically deploy and construe it (e.g., Urciuoli, 2010:56). The papers in this special issue ask what kinds of previous interactional tropes come to play in framings of diversity arising out of specific contexts – settings that range from asylum hearings (Jacquemet) and language policy discussions (Moore) in various European contexts, interfaith workshops in the UK and US (Brink-Danan), pan-Arab entertainment programs in the Middle East (Schulthies), You Tube commentary and offline debate among indigenous Mexicans (Faudree), and the broad historical sweep of linguistic interactions that have shaped the English language (Silverstein). These articles also ask how the ways that different actors perceive forms of diversity – whether new or pre-existing – shape distinct strategies for talk about sameness and difference. For whom are specific forms of “diversity” significant, in which contexts, and why? How do the tools and discourses for organizing and managing difference move through time and space? How do they become differentially salient or, alternatively, differentially silenced or “erased” (Irvine and Gal, 2000)? How are discourses of diversity mobilized across different kinds of contexts – ranging from settings of dense face-to-face intimacy to those with multiple forms of mediation, spread across multiple communicative platforms? How do these considerations of diversity and context engage with multiple geographic and social scales? Some contributors engage “diversity talk” directly, as an institutionally-backed managerial discourse employed in governmental as well as non-state institutions. Moore’s article, for example, concerns how “diversity
4
Tilburg Papers in Cultural Studies, https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/babylon/tpcs/, accessed August 2014.
4
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
talk” structures European Union language policy discussions and recommendations, while Brink-Danan’s essay concerns talk about religious diversity among interfaith organizations in the UK and US. Others examine the practices of evaluating and/or policing linguistic and other semiotic forms of variation in interactions wrapped up with online and broadcast technologies. Faudree, for example, analyzes online and offline debates about “traditional” Day of the Dead indigenous music performances in Mexico. Schulthies takes up similar themes in a different ethnographic context, tracing how pan-Arab talent shows have come to feature dynamic linguistic interactions among participants, audiences, and producers – in the process reshaping the assumptions that corporate media entities make about how Arabic should be spoken. All of the articles featured here explore how language ideologies mobilized in specific registers of talk about difference and sameness mediate between social, economic, and political forces on the one hand and linguistic practices on the other (cf. Gal, 2012:22). These articles also draw from a variety of other analytic frameworks in addition to Urciuoli’s. Within US-based linguistic anthropology there has long been an interest in the semiotic processes underlying historical constructions of difference and sameness. This work has given us an ever-widening analytic lexicon for talking about variation (and its lack) and the way both are conceptualized and acted upon in particular ethnographic contexts. Some of the most generative concepts emerging from this research include erasure, iconization (or rhematization), and fractal recursivity (Irvine and Gal, 2000); indexical practices of linguistic categorization (Hanks, 2010); covert indexicality (Hill, 2008; Ochs, 1990); entextualization (Silverstein and Urban, 1996); enregisterment (Agha, 2004); adequation and acts of identification (Bucholtz and Hall, 2004); language ideologies of temporality and historicity (Inoue, 2004); and chronotopes as structuring both ethnolinguistic communities and state formations (Silverstein, 2000, 2003). The contributors to this issue build in various ways upon aspects of these concepts in analyzing talk about difference. Trends cutting across the papers include the tendency to focus on metalinguistic conversations about diversity (Silverstein, Moore, Faudree, Brink-Danan) and on language regimes evoked when managing the diverse ways that people talk (Jacquemet, Schulthies, Silverstein). The papers in this volume use these and related concepts to consider questions of perspective and vantage point: for whom and at what level do particular forms of linguistic diversity become salient? Several of the authors included in this volume – see especially Silverstein, Jacquemet, Moore, and Blommaert – take up this issue as a central cite of criticism surrounding the superdiversity framework. One of the most potent critiques launched with respect to the superdiversity paradigm is the claim that theorists drawing upon it have presumed – though often without acknowledging it – a statist, metropole perspective. As Silverstein (2001) has argued previously, the challenges posed by linguistic diversity have long been a state concern, stemming in part from an ideological elision through which the distinction between language communities and speech communities becomes collapsed (cf. Silverstein, 2015). As several contributions in this volume suggest, while the state continues to be evoked in the specific register of discussion about difference that we term “diversity talk,” other speech registers engaging with sameness and difference are salient as well, and may operate through imaginaries of a different scale. In Jacquemet’s paper, for example, asylum agencies in Europe employing transnational language experts in the content of EU supra-national policies may nevertheless continue to be driven by nation-state interests and practices for managing linguistic diversity, including those with particular ideological constructions bearing upon the relationship between denotational consistency and truth. Supra-national institutions and corporations loom large in the papers by Moore and Schulthies as well, even as they examine different kinds of practices and discursive vehicles used for managing diversity – aspirational policy documents in the former case, mediatized negotiations surrounding transnational television programming in the latter. The role that specific media play in discussions about sameness and difference also figures prominently in Faudree’s article, which details how both online and offline interactions among indigenous Mexicans seize upon distinct indexes of sameness and difference to fuel debate about sub-national, ethno-linguistic belonging and its horizons. Finally, Brink-Danan’s paper discusses the unexpected resistance that diversity management experts faced when exporting their particular brand of interreligious “tolerance talk.” In sum, these ethnographic articles, coupled with Blommaert’s overarching commentary, offer conceptual insights from a variety of theoretical perspectives, born of research projects grounded in a range of ethnographic settings. The ethnographic dimension of these studies is essential: conversations about difference and sameness may look and sound different, say, in post-colonial settings than they do in the European metropoles of former colonial powers. In post-colonial contexts, even state-centric management of diversity – to say nothing of the engagement with difference and sameness that occurs outside institutional purview – is motivated by different imperatives than is the case in European settings, where state planning efforts often draw on models derived from outside the global North. Furthermore, the ethnographic grounding of these essays means that while some cleave close to state and institutional engagement with difference and sameness, others cast their gaze elsewhere – analyzing the emergence of individual strategies for shaping discourses of difference in mass mediated contexts, for example, or examining institutional responses to localized diversity. Most essays in this volume focus on publicly circulating language ideologies – investments in referential transparency, for example, or in linguistic purism. These underlie not only how states and institutions but also other social groupings value linguistic difference in and of itself, as well as constituting distinct ways of talking about linguistic difference. Finally, the ethnographic basis of these articles means they examine a range of semiotic modalities – commentaries on online musical performances, face-to-face interactions in interfaith training sessions, the situated use of print and digital media, and so on – that both speakers and institutionallybacked “hearers” rely upon in circulating and responding to “difference talk.” Yet despite such differences, these papers also have much in common. Above all, they share an attention to the chronotopic qualities of “diversity talk” and other conversations about sameness and difference. Our engagement with this and other Bakhtinian concepts involves examining how discussions about and practices surrounding linguistic variation emerge from
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
5
particular historical contexts. This strategy is particularly apparent in Silverstein’s far-ranging analysis of language change, which covers thousands of years of linguistic history but does so through an analysis anchored in specific spatio-temporal contexts: England following the Norman Conquest, the Pacific Northwest during the 18th century era of European expansion, 21st century European markets that increasingly cater to Asian tourists. The other articles in this collection similarly position their examinations of conversations about diversity inside particular socio-historic contexts. The ethnographic settings for these papers are varied – ranging from asylum hearings in multiple European countries (Italy, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Albania), to pan-Arab television programming for audiences spanning the vast dialectal variation within the Arab world, to online and face-to-face discussions about “traditional” indigenous musical performances in Mexico. Yet the analyses offered here insist that the particular forms of “difference talk” arising from these contexts must be understood as not only socially but also historically specific, emerging from specific geo-political circumstances and social developments: the growth of an institutionalized “interfaith” industry in Britain, for example, or the increasing availability in rural Mexico of Internet service, allowing people to expand their digitally mediated engagement with online diasporic networks. Finally, this attention to historical specificity likewise colors the commentary essay that Blommaert provides to bookend the issue, for he locates these essays themselves in temporal terms. He positions them as part of the ongoing effort to embrace “the explorative and open-ended, dialogical nature of intellectual work,” and to pursue a line of questioning that can break “itself loose of the historical ideological framework that produced it” (Blommaert, 2015). Yet in so doing, his commentary offers another benefit. Moving away – for a moment – from the conceptual impetus to examine discussions of difference and sameness through explorations in specific ethnographic contexts allows for a fuller discussion of the analytical stakes of pursuing this sort of work. Thus Blommaert’s essay sharpens the reflexive tendencies present, in different form, throughout these essays – the inclination to move towards deeper questioning not only of how best to conceptualize “diversity talk” and other situated understandings of diversity, but also to come to terms with how our own scholarly practice is wrapped up in such understandings. As Blommaert’s essay makes clear, that process is itself open-ended, and these essays constitute both participation in that process and an invitation to others to pursue further work that takes the reflexive imperative to heart.
References Agha, Asif, 2004. Registers of language. In: Duranti, Alessandro (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 23–45. Arnaut, Karel, Blommaert, Jan, Rampton, Ben, Spotti, Massimiliano (Eds.), 2012. Language and superdiversities II. Diversities 14 (2), 1–117. Bailey, Benjamin, 2007. Heteroglossia and boundaries. In: Heller, Monica (Ed.), Bilingualism: a Social Approach. Palgrave, New York, pp. 257–274. Bassiouney, Reem, 2009. Arabic Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Blommaert, Jan, 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge University Press, New York. Blommaert, Jan, 2013. Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity. Multilingual Matters, Tonawanda, NY. Blommaert, Jan, Verschueren, Jef, 1998. Debating Diversity. Routledge, New York. Blommaert, Jan, Collins, James, Slembrouck, Stef, 2005. Spaces of multilingualism. Lang. Commun. 25 (3), 197–216. Blommaert, Jan, Rampton, Ben, 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities 13 (2), 1–22. Blommaert, Jan, Rampton, Ben, Spotti, Massimiliano (Eds.), 2011. Language and superdiversities. Diversities 13 (2), 1–83. Blommaert, Jan 2015. Commentary: superdiversity old and new. Lang. Commun. 44, 82–88. Brink-Danan, Marcy, 2015. Value and meaning: paradoxes of religious diversity talk as globalized expertise. Lang. Commun. 44, 44–58. Bucholtz, Mary, Hall, Kira, 2004. Language and identity. In: Duranti, Alessandro (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 369–394. Canagarajah, A. Suresh, 2006. The place of world Englishes in composition: pluralization continued. Coll. Compos. Commun. 57 (4), 586–619. Canagarajah, Suresh, 2011. Translanguaging in the classroom: emerging issues for research and pedagogy. In: Wei, Li (Ed.), Applied Linguistics Review 2. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, pp. 1–28. Creese, Angela, Blackledge, Adrian, 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching. Mod. Lang. J. 94 (1), 103–115. Crane, Diane, 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Dong, Jie, 2012. Mobility, voice, and symbolic restratification: an ethnography of ‘Elite Migrants’ in Urban China. Diversities 14 (2), 35–48. Duranti, Alessandro, 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, New York. Errington, Joseph, 2001. Colonial linguistics. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 30, 19–39. Errington, Joseph, 2008. Linguistics in a Colonial World: a Story of Language, Meaning, and Power. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 1990. Linguistic diversity and the quest for national identity: the case of Mauritius. Ethn. Racial Stud. 13 (1), 1–24. Faudree, Paja, 2015. Singing for the dead, on and off line: diversity, migration, and scale in Mexican Muertos music. Lang. Commun. 44, 31–43. Gal, Susan, 2012. Sociolinguistic regimes and the management of “Diversity.” In: Duchêne, Alexandre, Heller, Monica (Eds.), Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit. Routledge, New York, pp. 22–43. García, Ofelia, 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Ginsburgh, Victor, Weber, Shiomo, 2011. How Many Languages Do We Need?: the Economics of Linguistic Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Gluck, Carol, Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt (Eds.), 2009. Words in Motion. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. Gumperz, John, 1962. Types of linguistic communities. Anthropol. Linguist. 4 (1), 28–40. Hanks, William, 2010. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. University of California Press, Berkeley. Handman, Courtney, 2007. Speaking to the soul: on native language and authenticity in Papua New Guinea bible translation. In: Makihara, Miki, Schieffelin, Bambi (Eds.), Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 166–188. Heller, Monica, 2011. Paths to Post-nationalism: a Critical Ethnography of Language and Identity. Oxford University Press, New York. Hill, Jane, 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA. Hymes, Dell, 1972. On communicative competence. In: Pride, J.B., Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Penguin, London, pp. 269–293. Inoue, Miyako, 2004. Introduction: temporality and historicity in and through linguistic ideology. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 14, 1–5. Inoue, Miyako, 2006. Vicarious Language: Gender and Linguistic Modernity in Japan. University of California Press, Berkeley. Irvine, Judith, Gal, Susan, 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: Kroskrity, Paul (Ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, Identities. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 35–84. Jacquemet, Marco, 2005. Transidiomatic practices: language and power in the age of globalization. Lang. Commun. 25, 257–277. Jacquemet, Marco, 2015. Asylum and superdiversity: the search for denotational accuracy during asylum hearings. Lang. Commun. 44, 72–81.
6
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
Jørgensen, Normann, Jens, Sif Karrebæk, Martha, Malai Madsen, Lian, Spindler Møller, Janus, 2011. Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities 13 (2), 23–38. Labov, William, 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Labov, William, 2011. Principles of Linguistic Change, Cognitive and Cultural Factors. John Wiley & Sons, Malden MA. Le Page, Robert Brock, Tabouret-Keller, Andrée, 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leppänen, S., Häkkinen, A., 2012. Buffalaxed superdiversity: representations of the other on YouTube. Diversities 14 (2), 17–33. Moore, Robert, 2015. From revolutionary monolingualism to reactionary multilingualism: top-down discourses of linguistic diversity in Europe, 1794present. Lang. Commun. 44, 19–30. Ochs, Elinor, 1990. Indexicality and socialization. In: Stigler, James W., Shweder, Richard A., Herdt, Gilbert (Eds.), Cultural Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 287–308. Otsuji, Emi, Pennycook, Alastair, 2010. Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in flux. Int. J. Multiling. 7 (3), 240–254. Pavlenko, Aneta, 2014. Superdiversity and why it isn’t. In: Paper Presented At “Sloganizations in Language Education Discourse” Conference, HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin, Germany, May 8–10. Rampton, Ben, 2009. Interaction ritual and not just artful performance in crossing and stylization. Lang. Soc. 38 (2), 149–176. Reyes, Angela, 2014. Linguistic anthropology in 2013: super-new-big. Am. Anthropol. 116 (2), 366–378. Sapir, Edward, 1949. In: Mandelbaum, David G. (Ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir. University of California Press, Berkeley. Schulthies, Becky, 2015. Do you speak Arabic? Managing axes of adequation and difference in pan-Arab talent programs. Lang. Commun. 44, 59–71. Silverstein, Michael, 2000. Whorfianism and the linguistic imagination of nationality. In: Kroskrity, Paul (Ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, Identities. School of American Research, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 85–138. Silverstein, Michael, 2001. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Lang. Commun. 23 (3), 193–229. Silverstein, Michael, 2003. The whens and wheres – as well as hows – of ethnolinguistic recognition. Public Cult. 15 (3), 531–557. Silverstein, Michael, 2005. The poetics of politics: “Theirs” and “Ours.” J. Anthropol. Res. 61 (1), 1–24. Silverstein, Michael, 2015. How language communities intersect: is “superdiversity” an incremental or transformative condition? Lang. Commun. 44, 7–18. Silverstein, Michael, Urban, Greg (Eds.), 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education – Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Routledge, New York. Spotti, Massimiliano, 2011. Ideologies of success for superdiverse citizens: the Dutch testing regime for integration and the online private sector. Diversities 13 (2), 39–52. Stolcke, Verena, 1995. Talking culture: new boundaries, new rhetorics of exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropol. 36 (1), 1–24. Urban, Greg, 2001. Metaculture: How Culture Moves Through the World. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Urciuoli, Bonnie, 2001. The complex diversity of language in the United States. In: Susser, Ida, Patterson, Thomas C. (Eds.), Cultural Diversity in the United States: a Critical Reader. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 190–205. Urciuoli, Bonnie, 2003. Excellence, leadership, skills, diversity: marketing liberal arts education. Lang. Commun. 23 (3–4), 385–408. Urciuoli, Bonnie, 2010. Entextualizing diversity: semiotic incoherence in institutional discourse. Lang. Commun. 30 (1), 48–57. Vertovec, Steven, 2006. The Emergence of Super-diversity in Britain. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper 25. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Vertovec, Steven, 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethn. Racial Stud. 30 (6), 1024–1054. Vertovec, Steven, 2013. Reading “Super-diversity.” Blog. www.mmg.mpg.de/en/online-media/blogs/2013/reading-super-diversity/ (accessed 11.01.15). Woolard, Kathryn, 1998. Introduction: language ideology as a field of inquiry. In: Schieffelin, Bambi B., Ann Woolard, Kathryn, Kroskrity, Paul V. (Eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3–47. Young, Vershawn Ashanti, 2004. Your average Nigga. Coll. Compos. Commun. 55 (4), 693–715.
Paja Faudree Brown University, USA E-mail address: [email protected] Becky Schulthies Rutgers University, USA E-mail address: [email protected]
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Language & Communication journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom
Editorial
Introduction: “diversity talk” and its others
Like many special issues – including a number that have appeared in this very journal – this volume grew out of a conference. The more typical “hatching grounds” for such endeavors include annual events like the American Anthropological Association meetings or other conferences positioned within recognizable “invisible colleges” (cf. Crane, 1972). However, the conference spawning this particular volume was of a different sort. It was entitled “Language and Super-diversity: Explorations and Interrogations,” and was held June 5–7, 2013, at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland.1 It was occasioned by the rising prominence among social scientists – including those studying the social dimensions of language use – of “superdiversity.”2 First coined in Britain (Vertovec, 2006), scholars working in Europe have been particularly apt to deploy “superdiversity” as an analytic framework. In Vertovec’s words, “superdiversity” is “a notion intended to underline a level and kind of complexity surpassing anything . [a given] country has previously experienced” (2007:1024). Or, in Jan Blommaert’s terms, the term “superdiversity” is better thought of as denoting a “tactic . defined primarily by a theoretical and methodological explorative perspective” (Blommaert, 2015:83). In contrast to its burgeoning currency in Europe, the term has at times been met on the Western side of the Atlantic with deeper skepticism; recent work by Angela Reyes (2014) and Aneta Pavlenko (2014), among others, reflects this outlook. Bearing this scholarly context in mind helps illuminate some of the differing approaches taken by the authors featured here when taking up discussions about linguistic variation – “diversity talk” and other discursive registers engaging with (linguistic) sameness and difference. Scholars studying language in social context have long sought to understand the meaning and nature of linguistic difference, social difference, and the alignment between the two (e.g., Gumperz, 1962; Hymes, 1972; Labov, 1972, 2011; Sapir, 1949; see also Duranti, 1997:51–83 for a discussion of the history of such scholarship). A key mission in previous endeavors exploring the relationship between social and linguistic diversity has been the attempt to differentiate continuities from disruptions. This has entailed identifying what given institutions and individuals consider to be new – or, conversely, enduring – forms of social and linguistic difference, and how those perceptions are made manifest through particular linguistic structures, practices, and ideologies. Conceptually, this quest has crystallized around diverse frameworks, often anchored by key terms. Such approaches include a focus on enregisterment and the construction of social personae (Agha, 2004); transnational heteroglossia (Bailey, 2007); flexible bilingualism and translanguaging (García, 2009; Creese and Blackledge, 2010); truncated repertoires in the context of multilingualism (Blommaert et al., 2005); practices of identification (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985; Bucholtz and Hall, 2004); diglossic code-switching (Bassiouney, 2009); transidiomic practices (Jacquemet, 2005); codemeshing and linguistic pluralism (Canagarajah 2006, 2011; Young 2004); “metrolingualism” and globalization (Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010); linguistic crossing (Rampton, 2009); and engagements with linguistic diversity as undergirded by specific ideologies (Urciuoli, 2001; Woolard, 1998).3 These assorted frameworks invoke intellectual lineages with distinct implications for how one attends to sameness and difference, and how one conceptualizes “diversity.” In considering these varied engagements with “diversity,” state and other institutional interests are of particular importance. Many scholars have noted that the growth of the modern nation corresponded with the development of 1 All of the contributors to this volume participated in that conference. So, too, did Asif Agha, whose formal commentary during the conference itself, and numerous conversations with us about this volume since then, have greatly influenced our thinking. Indeed, as Robert Moore notes, we owe our title for this special issue to Agha, who introduced the phrase “diversity talk” to identify “a type of managerial discourse that can be encountered today in a wide range of institutional domains in the US, Europe, and elsewhere” (Moore, 2015). 2 This is one of several conferences held since 2010 under the aegis of the International Consortium for Language and Superdiversity (InCoLaS). Several key publications applying this paradigm to specific ethnographic contexts have emerged from the workings of this consortium (e.g., Blommaert et al., 2011; Arnaut et al., 2012; Blommaert, 2013). 3 We are indebted here to Marco Jacquemet, whose oral presentation at the aforementioned conference in Jyväskylä featured a discussion of many of these frameworks.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.01.004 0271-5309/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
academic studies wherein diversity within national boundaries and mobility across them were viewed as challenges to state projects aiming to forge a collective national identity and a national consensus of practice (Blommaert and Verschueren, 1998; Eriksen 1990; Heller, 2011; Silverstein, 2005; Stolcke, 1995). For example, Susan Gal and Judith Irvine claim that the study of diversity in anthropology and linguistics in the twentieth century often reproduced state ideologies about boundaries and communities even as they sought to challenge the pervasive inequalities that structured relations among them (Irvine and Gal, 2000). A variety of other scholars have shown how different classes of institutionally-backed “experts” – missionaries, educators, economists, media professionals, and others – have at various times studied linguistic diversity in order to cater their messages to specific publics, including those with whom they had yet to interact on satisfying terms (Errington, 2001, 2008; Handman, 2007; Ginsburgh and Weber, 2011; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Urciuoli, 2003). As such, “diversity” – and “diversity talk” – have been key loci of intervention not only for state actors but also for those working within other powerful institutions, including economic, public policy, religious, and educational ones. In this vein, the “superdiversity” framework has a particular relationship to state and institutional policy, at least historically. In the words of its chief proponent, the concept was initially deployed in order to take stock of an ostensibly paradigmatic shift brought about by “the changing nature of global migration that, over the past 30 years or so, has brought with it a transformative ‘diversification of diversity’” (Vertovec, 2013; see also Vertovec, 2007:1025). Many of those using the concept have trained their focus on the consequences that highly mobile contexts have for state management of linguistic resources, with corresponding attention paid to such issues as multilingualism and the role language plays in performing border-making and border-transgressing “identity work” (Blommaert, 2013; Dong, 2012; Jørgensen et al., 2011; Leppänen and Häkkinen, 2012). Others have used superdiversity in the context of assessing changing claims on and access to institutional material aid (Blommaert, 2010:153–179; Spotti, 2011; Jacquement, 2015). Such engagement with the superdiversity framework is generally pegged to state apprehensions of diversity, though scholars vary in terms of how explicit they are in acknowledging that orientation. In contrast, other authors have aimed more directly to loosen the concept from state perceptions while turning it towards a transformation in scholarly practice. In this iteration, the superdiversity perspective can serve to subvert long-held, analytically confining ideas about linguistic and social boundedness, homogeneity, and stability that superdiverse contexts challenge in generative ways (Blommaert and Rampton, 2011:1–3). This situation in itself speaks to the different ways people understand “superdiversity”: scholars adhere to a diversity of views about not only the meaning and utility of the framework, but also generally about how we can best understand socially embedded perceptions of linguistic sameness and difference. As noted by some participants to this volume (e.g., Silverstein, 2015; Moore, 2015), the concept has gained special traction in Europe, where it was initially introduced, and has seen less uptake elsewhere. This is no doubt partially due to the provincial nature of academic scholarly networks. But it could also be read as the function of longer-standing language ideologies circulating in Europe since the emergence of modern nationalism (Gal, 2012), which condition the perspective not only of thinkers formulating state language policies but also academics who study them. As Silverstein puts it, drawing on Scott’s idea of “seeing like a state,” scholars of modern nation-states have tended to “see language like a state” (Moore, 2015:20; paraphrasing Silverstein, 2015). The state-centric ocular perspective of the term has become a key locus of critique. It undergirds the claim that the “superdiversity” perspective is anchored in the state’s own perception that the social landscape has ostensibly become diverse in new ways that can be either problematic or generative, depending upon one’s perspective. The authors in this special issue take different approaches to the superdiversity framework. While some draw upon it explicitly, others work from a range of other theoretical approaches aimed at understanding culturally and historically specific perceptions of sameness and difference. The conference’s focus on the superdiversity perspective, and the particular historical and scholarly context out of which it arose, elicited new engagement with the framework (for many of us). It also called forth renewed attention to other conceptual approaches, both competing and complementary, that attempt to make sense of “diversity.” As we brought that conversation to bear on our own research projects, several questions came to the fore. What are the key frameworks for conceptualizing and analyzing social and cultural difference and sameness as they evolve over time? Has “globalization” and its attendant developments in the nature of migration and technological mediation indeed been transformative, bringing us into a new era wherein older forms of diversity have given rise to new forms of complexity? Or are such shifts less radical than they might appear, changes more of substance than they are of kind or magnitude, such that claims to newness are largely anchored not in external developments but rather in the subjective perceptions of particular observers? Where can we locate referential stability when considering the potentially slippery notion of “diversity in motion” (Gluck and Tsing, 2009)? How generalizable is superdiversity as a framework: is it particular to specific contexts, or particular kinds of analytical work, or does it have broader purchase? What is the perceptual anchoring of the framework? Does it identify new forms of language use from the perspective and interests of speaking subjects? Or does it do so from that of “listening subjects” authorized to analyze and speak about others (Reyes, 2014; cf. Inoue, 2006); or does it perhaps stem from a different perceptual orientation entirely? The papers in this volume represent an attempt to grapple with these questions. At the same time, they constitute a challenge to some received approaches to answering them, and thus aim to shift the terms of debate for engaging these matters. In aggregate, these papers seek to recast or set aside questions about what “diversity” is and whether it has become newly complex. They attempt to focus instead on how “diversity” emerges – in specific ethnographic contexts – as a salient category for specific groups of people who aim to pursue particular ends. Blommaert’s commentary on all the other papers from this volume represents one such framing, an articulation from within the superdiversity framework by one of its leading figures (Blommaert, 2015). His commentary foregrounds an
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
3
emphasis on border-troubling difference not only as a key semiotic axis deployed in socially embedded practice but more centrally as a key analytic perspective that aims to subvert scholarly attachment to received categories and communities with firm boundaries. This focus is demonstrated by a quick survey of the emerging research highlighted in a working paper series with which Blommaert is associated: the Tilburg Papers in Cultural Studies, hosted at the Babylon Center for the Study of Superdiversity.4 That series evidences pervasive attention to cites of demonstrable linguistic diversity – multilingual immigrant classrooms, multilingual asylum hearings, multilingual neighborhood linguistic landscapes, multilingual online and broadcast media. A similar focus structures many of the essays in this volume as well. In them, attention to metalinguistic and metapragmatic practices that foreground difference also calls for corresponding attention to practices that foreground sameness. For example, Silverstein (2015) explores the consequences that ideologies of denotational equivalence have for state classifications and management of ethno-linguistic groups; Jacquemet (2015) examines similar issues in analyzing assessments of truth-telling and deceit in the context of asylum hearings. Others examine the implications of practices foregrounding difference and sameness in the context of ethno-linguistic framings. For example, Schulthies (2015) focuses on enactments of incommensurability and translatability across diverse registers of Arabic, while Faudree (2015) analyzes evocations of ethnolinguistic indigenous unity by interlocutors who simultaneously debate the diversity of signs that index cultural authenticity or, conversely, external contamination. Brink-Danan’s (2015) paper explores how British interfaith groups stress the ideological uniformity undergirding “tolerance talk” even as they encounter challenges to its universal salience when exporting their tactics for managing religious differences to the US, Egypt, and elsewhere. Finally, Moore’s (2015) paper examines two historically distinct attempts to formulate language policy in Europe: a policy paper generated in 1794 during the French revolution and an EU multilingualism proposal published in 2007. He shows that while the two may appear to promote distinct strategies for managing linguistic difference, they nevertheless rely upon a common language ideology of standardness that is rooted in particular kinds of ideal speakers and acceptable registers. These papers also owe much to enduring questions and concerns about newness and its limits that have long been of interest to scholars studying language in social context. Though these concerns have been articulated before, they have emerged as newly salient with the rising scholarly currency of the superdiversity framework. Some scholars working within this paradigm have argued that standing orders of diversity are now themselves introducing novel linguistic forms and interactional possibilities. These contentions challenge scholars to investigate those claims ethnographically, in specific cultural contexts. Such research requires exploring the mechanisms underlying the metapragmatic practices of “difference talk” – “diversity talk” and other speech registers more distantly tied to institutions in which people make sense of sameness and difference. In these forms of talk, new forms of diversity are claimed, assumed, or explicitly deployed as an explanatory frame. Alternatively, such diversity-inscribing practices may be denied as a form of misrecognition, a kind of “old wine in new bottles” wherein enduring forms of diversity are mistaken as novel because they are bundled with other indexes of newness (cf. Gal, 2012:22–23; Urban, 2001:5–6). There can even be a rethinking of “diverse,” “mobile,” or “mixed” linguistic forms not as “novel” semiosis, but rather as crucial elements of social organization more broadly (Heller, 2011; Rampton, 2009; Blommaert 2015). Some of the papers in this issue investigate pragmatic aspects of newness claims in diversity talk by institutionally employed experts (Silverstein, 2015; Moore, 2015; Brink-Danan, 2015), while others examine the implications of assorted erasures of innovation in interpersonal interactions (Faudree, 2015; Schulthies, 2015; Jacquemet, 2015). Many of the authors featured here have found it useful to draw on Bonnie Urciuoli’s research into discourses of diversity in the context of U.S. higher education (2003:396). In this work, Urciuoli introduces the notion of a “strategically deployable shifter,” a term that may appear referentially stable but whose denotational meaning and conceptual content shift across contexts and users. She claims that “diversity” – designed to replace the “seemingly exhausted” term “multiculturalism” (Moore, 2015) – is one such discursive and pragmatic shifter: it covers different conceptual terrain depending on the social fields in which participants strategically deploy and construe it (e.g., Urciuoli, 2010:56). The papers in this special issue ask what kinds of previous interactional tropes come to play in framings of diversity arising out of specific contexts – settings that range from asylum hearings (Jacquemet) and language policy discussions (Moore) in various European contexts, interfaith workshops in the UK and US (Brink-Danan), pan-Arab entertainment programs in the Middle East (Schulthies), You Tube commentary and offline debate among indigenous Mexicans (Faudree), and the broad historical sweep of linguistic interactions that have shaped the English language (Silverstein). These articles also ask how the ways that different actors perceive forms of diversity – whether new or pre-existing – shape distinct strategies for talk about sameness and difference. For whom are specific forms of “diversity” significant, in which contexts, and why? How do the tools and discourses for organizing and managing difference move through time and space? How do they become differentially salient or, alternatively, differentially silenced or “erased” (Irvine and Gal, 2000)? How are discourses of diversity mobilized across different kinds of contexts – ranging from settings of dense face-to-face intimacy to those with multiple forms of mediation, spread across multiple communicative platforms? How do these considerations of diversity and context engage with multiple geographic and social scales? Some contributors engage “diversity talk” directly, as an institutionally-backed managerial discourse employed in governmental as well as non-state institutions. Moore’s article, for example, concerns how “diversity
4
Tilburg Papers in Cultural Studies, https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/babylon/tpcs/, accessed August 2014.
4
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
talk” structures European Union language policy discussions and recommendations, while Brink-Danan’s essay concerns talk about religious diversity among interfaith organizations in the UK and US. Others examine the practices of evaluating and/or policing linguistic and other semiotic forms of variation in interactions wrapped up with online and broadcast technologies. Faudree, for example, analyzes online and offline debates about “traditional” Day of the Dead indigenous music performances in Mexico. Schulthies takes up similar themes in a different ethnographic context, tracing how pan-Arab talent shows have come to feature dynamic linguistic interactions among participants, audiences, and producers – in the process reshaping the assumptions that corporate media entities make about how Arabic should be spoken. All of the articles featured here explore how language ideologies mobilized in specific registers of talk about difference and sameness mediate between social, economic, and political forces on the one hand and linguistic practices on the other (cf. Gal, 2012:22). These articles also draw from a variety of other analytic frameworks in addition to Urciuoli’s. Within US-based linguistic anthropology there has long been an interest in the semiotic processes underlying historical constructions of difference and sameness. This work has given us an ever-widening analytic lexicon for talking about variation (and its lack) and the way both are conceptualized and acted upon in particular ethnographic contexts. Some of the most generative concepts emerging from this research include erasure, iconization (or rhematization), and fractal recursivity (Irvine and Gal, 2000); indexical practices of linguistic categorization (Hanks, 2010); covert indexicality (Hill, 2008; Ochs, 1990); entextualization (Silverstein and Urban, 1996); enregisterment (Agha, 2004); adequation and acts of identification (Bucholtz and Hall, 2004); language ideologies of temporality and historicity (Inoue, 2004); and chronotopes as structuring both ethnolinguistic communities and state formations (Silverstein, 2000, 2003). The contributors to this issue build in various ways upon aspects of these concepts in analyzing talk about difference. Trends cutting across the papers include the tendency to focus on metalinguistic conversations about diversity (Silverstein, Moore, Faudree, Brink-Danan) and on language regimes evoked when managing the diverse ways that people talk (Jacquemet, Schulthies, Silverstein). The papers in this volume use these and related concepts to consider questions of perspective and vantage point: for whom and at what level do particular forms of linguistic diversity become salient? Several of the authors included in this volume – see especially Silverstein, Jacquemet, Moore, and Blommaert – take up this issue as a central cite of criticism surrounding the superdiversity framework. One of the most potent critiques launched with respect to the superdiversity paradigm is the claim that theorists drawing upon it have presumed – though often without acknowledging it – a statist, metropole perspective. As Silverstein (2001) has argued previously, the challenges posed by linguistic diversity have long been a state concern, stemming in part from an ideological elision through which the distinction between language communities and speech communities becomes collapsed (cf. Silverstein, 2015). As several contributions in this volume suggest, while the state continues to be evoked in the specific register of discussion about difference that we term “diversity talk,” other speech registers engaging with sameness and difference are salient as well, and may operate through imaginaries of a different scale. In Jacquemet’s paper, for example, asylum agencies in Europe employing transnational language experts in the content of EU supra-national policies may nevertheless continue to be driven by nation-state interests and practices for managing linguistic diversity, including those with particular ideological constructions bearing upon the relationship between denotational consistency and truth. Supra-national institutions and corporations loom large in the papers by Moore and Schulthies as well, even as they examine different kinds of practices and discursive vehicles used for managing diversity – aspirational policy documents in the former case, mediatized negotiations surrounding transnational television programming in the latter. The role that specific media play in discussions about sameness and difference also figures prominently in Faudree’s article, which details how both online and offline interactions among indigenous Mexicans seize upon distinct indexes of sameness and difference to fuel debate about sub-national, ethno-linguistic belonging and its horizons. Finally, Brink-Danan’s paper discusses the unexpected resistance that diversity management experts faced when exporting their particular brand of interreligious “tolerance talk.” In sum, these ethnographic articles, coupled with Blommaert’s overarching commentary, offer conceptual insights from a variety of theoretical perspectives, born of research projects grounded in a range of ethnographic settings. The ethnographic dimension of these studies is essential: conversations about difference and sameness may look and sound different, say, in post-colonial settings than they do in the European metropoles of former colonial powers. In post-colonial contexts, even state-centric management of diversity – to say nothing of the engagement with difference and sameness that occurs outside institutional purview – is motivated by different imperatives than is the case in European settings, where state planning efforts often draw on models derived from outside the global North. Furthermore, the ethnographic grounding of these essays means that while some cleave close to state and institutional engagement with difference and sameness, others cast their gaze elsewhere – analyzing the emergence of individual strategies for shaping discourses of difference in mass mediated contexts, for example, or examining institutional responses to localized diversity. Most essays in this volume focus on publicly circulating language ideologies – investments in referential transparency, for example, or in linguistic purism. These underlie not only how states and institutions but also other social groupings value linguistic difference in and of itself, as well as constituting distinct ways of talking about linguistic difference. Finally, the ethnographic basis of these articles means they examine a range of semiotic modalities – commentaries on online musical performances, face-to-face interactions in interfaith training sessions, the situated use of print and digital media, and so on – that both speakers and institutionallybacked “hearers” rely upon in circulating and responding to “difference talk.” Yet despite such differences, these papers also have much in common. Above all, they share an attention to the chronotopic qualities of “diversity talk” and other conversations about sameness and difference. Our engagement with this and other Bakhtinian concepts involves examining how discussions about and practices surrounding linguistic variation emerge from
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
5
particular historical contexts. This strategy is particularly apparent in Silverstein’s far-ranging analysis of language change, which covers thousands of years of linguistic history but does so through an analysis anchored in specific spatio-temporal contexts: England following the Norman Conquest, the Pacific Northwest during the 18th century era of European expansion, 21st century European markets that increasingly cater to Asian tourists. The other articles in this collection similarly position their examinations of conversations about diversity inside particular socio-historic contexts. The ethnographic settings for these papers are varied – ranging from asylum hearings in multiple European countries (Italy, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Albania), to pan-Arab television programming for audiences spanning the vast dialectal variation within the Arab world, to online and face-to-face discussions about “traditional” indigenous musical performances in Mexico. Yet the analyses offered here insist that the particular forms of “difference talk” arising from these contexts must be understood as not only socially but also historically specific, emerging from specific geo-political circumstances and social developments: the growth of an institutionalized “interfaith” industry in Britain, for example, or the increasing availability in rural Mexico of Internet service, allowing people to expand their digitally mediated engagement with online diasporic networks. Finally, this attention to historical specificity likewise colors the commentary essay that Blommaert provides to bookend the issue, for he locates these essays themselves in temporal terms. He positions them as part of the ongoing effort to embrace “the explorative and open-ended, dialogical nature of intellectual work,” and to pursue a line of questioning that can break “itself loose of the historical ideological framework that produced it” (Blommaert, 2015). Yet in so doing, his commentary offers another benefit. Moving away – for a moment – from the conceptual impetus to examine discussions of difference and sameness through explorations in specific ethnographic contexts allows for a fuller discussion of the analytical stakes of pursuing this sort of work. Thus Blommaert’s essay sharpens the reflexive tendencies present, in different form, throughout these essays – the inclination to move towards deeper questioning not only of how best to conceptualize “diversity talk” and other situated understandings of diversity, but also to come to terms with how our own scholarly practice is wrapped up in such understandings. As Blommaert’s essay makes clear, that process is itself open-ended, and these essays constitute both participation in that process and an invitation to others to pursue further work that takes the reflexive imperative to heart.
References Agha, Asif, 2004. Registers of language. In: Duranti, Alessandro (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 23–45. Arnaut, Karel, Blommaert, Jan, Rampton, Ben, Spotti, Massimiliano (Eds.), 2012. Language and superdiversities II. Diversities 14 (2), 1–117. Bailey, Benjamin, 2007. Heteroglossia and boundaries. In: Heller, Monica (Ed.), Bilingualism: a Social Approach. Palgrave, New York, pp. 257–274. Bassiouney, Reem, 2009. Arabic Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Blommaert, Jan, 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge University Press, New York. Blommaert, Jan, 2013. Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity. Multilingual Matters, Tonawanda, NY. Blommaert, Jan, Verschueren, Jef, 1998. Debating Diversity. Routledge, New York. Blommaert, Jan, Collins, James, Slembrouck, Stef, 2005. Spaces of multilingualism. Lang. Commun. 25 (3), 197–216. Blommaert, Jan, Rampton, Ben, 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities 13 (2), 1–22. Blommaert, Jan, Rampton, Ben, Spotti, Massimiliano (Eds.), 2011. Language and superdiversities. Diversities 13 (2), 1–83. Blommaert, Jan 2015. Commentary: superdiversity old and new. Lang. Commun. 44, 82–88. Brink-Danan, Marcy, 2015. Value and meaning: paradoxes of religious diversity talk as globalized expertise. Lang. Commun. 44, 44–58. Bucholtz, Mary, Hall, Kira, 2004. Language and identity. In: Duranti, Alessandro (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 369–394. Canagarajah, A. Suresh, 2006. The place of world Englishes in composition: pluralization continued. Coll. Compos. Commun. 57 (4), 586–619. Canagarajah, Suresh, 2011. Translanguaging in the classroom: emerging issues for research and pedagogy. In: Wei, Li (Ed.), Applied Linguistics Review 2. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, pp. 1–28. Creese, Angela, Blackledge, Adrian, 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching. Mod. Lang. J. 94 (1), 103–115. Crane, Diane, 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Dong, Jie, 2012. Mobility, voice, and symbolic restratification: an ethnography of ‘Elite Migrants’ in Urban China. Diversities 14 (2), 35–48. Duranti, Alessandro, 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, New York. Errington, Joseph, 2001. Colonial linguistics. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 30, 19–39. Errington, Joseph, 2008. Linguistics in a Colonial World: a Story of Language, Meaning, and Power. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 1990. Linguistic diversity and the quest for national identity: the case of Mauritius. Ethn. Racial Stud. 13 (1), 1–24. Faudree, Paja, 2015. Singing for the dead, on and off line: diversity, migration, and scale in Mexican Muertos music. Lang. Commun. 44, 31–43. Gal, Susan, 2012. Sociolinguistic regimes and the management of “Diversity.” In: Duchêne, Alexandre, Heller, Monica (Eds.), Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit. Routledge, New York, pp. 22–43. García, Ofelia, 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Ginsburgh, Victor, Weber, Shiomo, 2011. How Many Languages Do We Need?: the Economics of Linguistic Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Gluck, Carol, Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt (Eds.), 2009. Words in Motion. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. Gumperz, John, 1962. Types of linguistic communities. Anthropol. Linguist. 4 (1), 28–40. Hanks, William, 2010. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. University of California Press, Berkeley. Handman, Courtney, 2007. Speaking to the soul: on native language and authenticity in Papua New Guinea bible translation. In: Makihara, Miki, Schieffelin, Bambi (Eds.), Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 166–188. Heller, Monica, 2011. Paths to Post-nationalism: a Critical Ethnography of Language and Identity. Oxford University Press, New York. Hill, Jane, 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA. Hymes, Dell, 1972. On communicative competence. In: Pride, J.B., Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Penguin, London, pp. 269–293. Inoue, Miyako, 2004. Introduction: temporality and historicity in and through linguistic ideology. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 14, 1–5. Inoue, Miyako, 2006. Vicarious Language: Gender and Linguistic Modernity in Japan. University of California Press, Berkeley. Irvine, Judith, Gal, Susan, 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: Kroskrity, Paul (Ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, Identities. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 35–84. Jacquemet, Marco, 2005. Transidiomatic practices: language and power in the age of globalization. Lang. Commun. 25, 257–277. Jacquemet, Marco, 2015. Asylum and superdiversity: the search for denotational accuracy during asylum hearings. Lang. Commun. 44, 72–81.
6
Editorial / Language & Communication 44 (2015) 1–6
Jørgensen, Normann, Jens, Sif Karrebæk, Martha, Malai Madsen, Lian, Spindler Møller, Janus, 2011. Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities 13 (2), 23–38. Labov, William, 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Labov, William, 2011. Principles of Linguistic Change, Cognitive and Cultural Factors. John Wiley & Sons, Malden MA. Le Page, Robert Brock, Tabouret-Keller, Andrée, 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leppänen, S., Häkkinen, A., 2012. Buffalaxed superdiversity: representations of the other on YouTube. Diversities 14 (2), 17–33. Moore, Robert, 2015. From revolutionary monolingualism to reactionary multilingualism: top-down discourses of linguistic diversity in Europe, 1794present. Lang. Commun. 44, 19–30. Ochs, Elinor, 1990. Indexicality and socialization. In: Stigler, James W., Shweder, Richard A., Herdt, Gilbert (Eds.), Cultural Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 287–308. Otsuji, Emi, Pennycook, Alastair, 2010. Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in flux. Int. J. Multiling. 7 (3), 240–254. Pavlenko, Aneta, 2014. Superdiversity and why it isn’t. In: Paper Presented At “Sloganizations in Language Education Discourse” Conference, HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin, Germany, May 8–10. Rampton, Ben, 2009. Interaction ritual and not just artful performance in crossing and stylization. Lang. Soc. 38 (2), 149–176. Reyes, Angela, 2014. Linguistic anthropology in 2013: super-new-big. Am. Anthropol. 116 (2), 366–378. Sapir, Edward, 1949. In: Mandelbaum, David G. (Ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir. University of California Press, Berkeley. Schulthies, Becky, 2015. Do you speak Arabic? Managing axes of adequation and difference in pan-Arab talent programs. Lang. Commun. 44, 59–71. Silverstein, Michael, 2000. Whorfianism and the linguistic imagination of nationality. In: Kroskrity, Paul (Ed.), Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, Identities. School of American Research, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 85–138. Silverstein, Michael, 2001. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Lang. Commun. 23 (3), 193–229. Silverstein, Michael, 2003. The whens and wheres – as well as hows – of ethnolinguistic recognition. Public Cult. 15 (3), 531–557. Silverstein, Michael, 2005. The poetics of politics: “Theirs” and “Ours.” J. Anthropol. Res. 61 (1), 1–24. Silverstein, Michael, 2015. How language communities intersect: is “superdiversity” an incremental or transformative condition? Lang. Commun. 44, 7–18. Silverstein, Michael, Urban, Greg (Eds.), 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education – Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Routledge, New York. Spotti, Massimiliano, 2011. Ideologies of success for superdiverse citizens: the Dutch testing regime for integration and the online private sector. Diversities 13 (2), 39–52. Stolcke, Verena, 1995. Talking culture: new boundaries, new rhetorics of exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropol. 36 (1), 1–24. Urban, Greg, 2001. Metaculture: How Culture Moves Through the World. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Urciuoli, Bonnie, 2001. The complex diversity of language in the United States. In: Susser, Ida, Patterson, Thomas C. (Eds.), Cultural Diversity in the United States: a Critical Reader. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 190–205. Urciuoli, Bonnie, 2003. Excellence, leadership, skills, diversity: marketing liberal arts education. Lang. Commun. 23 (3–4), 385–408. Urciuoli, Bonnie, 2010. Entextualizing diversity: semiotic incoherence in institutional discourse. Lang. Commun. 30 (1), 48–57. Vertovec, Steven, 2006. The Emergence of Super-diversity in Britain. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Working Paper 25. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Vertovec, Steven, 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethn. Racial Stud. 30 (6), 1024–1054. Vertovec, Steven, 2013. Reading “Super-diversity.” Blog. www.mmg.mpg.de/en/online-media/blogs/2013/reading-super-diversity/ (accessed 11.01.15). Woolard, Kathryn, 1998. Introduction: language ideology as a field of inquiry. In: Schieffelin, Bambi B., Ann Woolard, Kathryn, Kroskrity, Paul V. (Eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3–47. Young, Vershawn Ashanti, 2004. Your average Nigga. Coll. Compos. Commun. 55 (4), 693–715.
Paja Faudree Brown University, USA E-mail address: [email protected] Becky Schulthies Rutgers University, USA E-mail address: [email protected]