32.2793, Review: Sociolinguistics: Garcia, Flores, Spotti (2020)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2793. Wed Sep 01 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 32.2793, Review: Sociolinguistics: Garcia, Flores, Spotti (2020)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn, Lauren Perkins
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Nils Hjortnaes, Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 20:25:48
From: Troy Spier [tspier at usfq.edu.ec]
Subject: The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36697337


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/32/32-230.html

EDITOR: Ofelia  Garcia
EDITOR: Nelson  Flores
EDITOR: Massimiliano  Spotti
TITLE: The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society
SERIES TITLE: Oxford Handbooks
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2020

REVIEWER: Troy E Spier, Universidad San Francisco de Quito

SUMMARY

M.A.K. Halliday once remarked that ''linguistics is everywhere because
language is everywhere.'' This is made all the more evident with the
publication of this monumental volume, which invites readers on a journey
through issues related broadly to agency, discrimination, ideology, and
literacy, and more generally to the role of language in navigating the complex
worlds of politics, sexuality, race, multilingualism, technology, employment,
and education. To this end, “The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society”
contains, in addition to an introduction and conclusion by the editors,
twenty-six chapters of approximately fifteen to twenty pages. Nonetheless, as
these chapters are not divided into thematically organized sections, each
chapter is treated very briefly below for readers' consideration.

The introduction begins by invoking the names of scholars from the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries who contributed to the later rise of
sociolinguistics as a field of study in the 1960s. Subsequent criticism of the
early developments is offered, as the field had been dominated by white men
who privileged the linguistic at the expense of the sociological. Next, the
immediate goals for this volume are outlined according to a “critical
poststructuralist” perspective, which understands and recognizes the
sociohistorical, political, and economic conditions surrounding language
usage. This means, for instance, that scholars must consider the genuine
relationship between language and space or between language and culture, in
order for otherwise symbolic actions not to overshadow lived experiences.
Thus, “languages” must be viewed as more than simple enumerations and,
instead, as unique tools in one's toolbox to be used for different purposes in
different contexts and to different degrees. As such, legislation concerning
the protections for indigenous languages could be overly symbolic or even
harmful by being reductionist, resulting in their being viewed simply as
endangered without understanding ''their complex diversity'' and the
situations governing their use, such as forced relocation, the drawing of
arbitrary borders, and constantly changing socioeconomic circumstances. Thus,
the introduction makes clear the authors' shared goal of action-based
linguistics applied to social contexts.

Chapter 1 offers a broad overview of the development of the field, mentioning
names like Darwin, Spencer, Grimm, Engels, Marx, Comte, Durkheim, and de
Saussure, before turning to Voloshinov's dictum that linguists should not
study language structures disconnected from their social reality. The
remainder of the chapter positions early sociolinguistics as a reaction or
response to structuralism and then engages the question of terminology,
ultimately concluding that “sociolinguistics” might be the more adequate term
(cf. “sociology of language”), as contemporary sociologists rarely engage with
language to the same extent that linguists do.

Chapter 2 opens with a quote from Tacitus concerning the relationship between
the dominant language and those in power before shifting to the historical
existence of monolingualism among the Persians, Ptolemies, and Carthaginians.
Next, an in-depth examination of France, as the “archetypical nation state,”
is undertaken as a direct comparison to the aforementioned, particularly by
referencing the work of Henri Gregoire on French dialects in 1790. Finally, a
discussion concerning the connection between legislation and the rights of
minority speakers is presented, differentiating promotion- and
tolerance-oriented language rights from one another.

Chapter 3 begins by defining language ''as a resource exchanged for other
symbolic or material resources'' (55). After this point, the authors consider
extant scholarship on the linguistic marketplace as illustrative of the way in
which language ''grant[s] access to material capital'' (58). Finally, the bulk
of this discussion focuses on six years of ethnographic fieldwork in
Switzerland to uncover precisely how this unfolds in, for example, the
educational world and the soccer industry, ultimately concluding that
language, despite being a possible tool for integration, can still be
exclusionary.

Chapter 4 starts with a discussion, couched within the work of Foucault, of
five manifestations of power, including a tacit reference to Althusser. Most
notably, the central argument presented is that power is not simply
concentrated within single institutions, but rather in a ''complex and
crystallized network of power relations'' (81). This discussion is enhanced
through Conversation Analysis of students in educational settings in Madrid,
beginning with Moroccan immigrants and concluding with a Romanian student. It
is ultimately concluded that many differences are not simply rooted in
linguistic and/or cultural differences, but rather unequal social relations
realized in daily interaction.

Chapter 5 focuses broadly on language ideologies and their attestations
through the relationship between, inter alia, form and function, linguistic
and societal structures, diachronic change, and language and power. An
important qualifier is issued during this discussion that no linguistic
treatment is free of ideological underpinnings. Additionally, ethnographic
perspectives on language usage allow practitioners to uncover the complexity
of these ideologies. Finally, otherwise “normative” understandings of these
ideologies call into question issues related to language shift, such as
decline, revitalization, and the unequal relationship between, for example,
the use of “Mock Spanish” and heavily accented English.

Chapter 6 extends the discussion from the previous chapter by expanding it to
include language policies and local practices, in addition to any tensions
that arise when they are incongruent with one another. The author opens with a
brief overview of the ways in which language policies have been
paradigmatically defined before reaching the (implied) primary goal, i.e., an
investigation of “translanguaging” and how it serves as evidence for a
“post-Fishmanian” era before shifting to a questioning of the overall value of
terminological innovations in the field.

Chapter 7 challenges long-held beliefs concerning the collective nature of
language, particularly as it applies to migration and diasporic communities.
The primary argument, which is outlined clearly, is that the ''linguistic
attributes of immigrants have been, and continue to be, couched in terms that
view both language and culture in monolithic and reifying terms'' (141). Next,
general background is provided on the use of the terms “diaspora” and
“multiculturalism” before turning to the fallacies often associated with
(mono/multi)lingualism and suggesting ways in which the interconnectedness of
language usage, immigrants, and diasporas can be envisioned.

Chapter 8 begins with a tongue-in-cheek remark about how contemporary
scholarship often highlights buzzwords at the expense of genuine commentary.
Next, a broad overview of historical perspectives on bilingualism and
“multilingual languaging” is provided. Finally, an in-depth discussion of the
concept of “superdiversity” and its possible implications for sociolinguistics
more generally is undertaken, calling specific attention to the origins of the
term and the ways in which societal changes, human mobility, and the “work in
progress” nature of language necessarily impacts and should inform
sociolinguistic studies.

Chapter 9 opens by defining the etymological origin of the term “diglossia”
before describing how it was reappropriated in sociolinguistics. Then a
substantial explication of the work of Ferguson (1959) and Fishman (1967) is
undertaken in order to characterize the abstract relationship between the
linguistic varieties found in diglossic contexts, notably by introducing five
erstwhile characteristics of that relationship. Despite calling these findings
into question, the chapter concludes by stating that, ''even if diglossia's
make-up may be flaking, it is not undeserving of its fame for accentuating the
basic fact that people systematically distinguish, and are attached to,
different semiotic styles, registers, or ways of speaking'' (193).

Chapter 10 initiates a conversation about language shift and sustainability by
prompting the reader to consider a list of questions: ''Why are some languages
lost and others sustained? What does it mean for a community to 'lose' its
language(s)? How, when, and why might a language be reclaimed, sustained, and
revitalized?'' (197) These questions frame the entire chapter, which
foregrounds issues related to language maintenance, loss and endangerment, and
revitalization. These three are then trifurcated according to the added
factors of indigeneity, immigration, and marginalization/minority status.
Finally, all of these perspectives are examined under a broad historical lens
that highlights modernist, critical, fear-driven (“language panic” in the
words of the authors), and poststructuralist approaches to the debate
surrounding the sustainability of linguistic varieties.

Chapter 11 offers an investigation of the ways in which discourses manifest
ideas and assumptions about language endangerment and begins by referencing
the seminal article by Hale et. al (1992) and a representative description of
the situation from the Endangered Languages Project, both of which serve(d) as
a “call to arms” for linguists and often present analogues to the natural
environment. Next, a general description of the format, objectives, and
history of SIL's Ethnologue is introduced, as this is perhaps the most widely
consulted reference on global linguistic diversity. This is followed by a
discussion of the role of information technology in preserving linguistic data
and criticism for the ways in which these data are organized, viz. on the
Electronic Metastructure for Endangered Languages Data. Finally, before
presenting additional unresolved questions, the author urges readers to view
language “death” as more than an acute incident but, rather, as the
longitudinal culmination of patterns of language shift.

Chapter 12 tackles the long-standing misunderstanding that sign languages are
impressionistically less rule-governed than their spoken counterparts by
sketching the history of early research in this field (viz. Stokoe 1978), by
criticizing Derrida's (1976) description of the ''primacy of voice over other
forms of communication” (244), and by noting that even Plato, among others
mentioned thereafter, issued a remark concerning the viability of sign
languages in 360 BCE in Cratylus. Ultimately, the conversation shifts to
salient topics concerning signing communities and cultures, including the
expansion of ASL courses, rights for and legislation on behalf of sign
language users, and future areas for research.

Chapter 13 contests earlier understandings of the connections among language,
literacy, and culture and argues that they can ''become attached to new
epistemologies and socio-historic contexts in new, perhaps hybrid,
configurations, and as a result, acquire new meanings'' (261). To this end,
the relationship of literacy to processes of knowing is investigated,
particularly through understandings of transculturality and conceptualizations
of cultural diversity in opposition to an ''imagined homogeneous cultural
totality.'' The latter is a theme that continues throughout the chapter, as
the authors note that an inherent conflict exists between epistemologies and
underlying, unequal power relations, specifically those that concern
educational issues.

Chapter 14 focuses on the use of so-called “urban languages” in Africa, noting
from the onset that, although these are often associated with those who refuse
to conform and/or engage in criminal activity, these linguistic varieties are
simply the result of language contact, which indubitably preceded colonialism.
Next, examples are provided of well-known cases of the result of language
contact, including Sheng (Kenya), GaPlashele (Ghana), Flaaitaal (South
Africa), and Camfranglais (Cameroon), inter alia. Finally, six images are
provided to illustrate the role of such linguistic varieties in
contemporaneous life.

Chapter 15 emphasizes implicitly that early language documentation by colonial
authorities and religious missionaries have often caused irreparable harm to
the perception of indigenous peoples, as they have become represented as
seemingly fixed, unchanging, exoticized objects of study. In order to combat
such beliefs, the authors offer a four-page explanation of the transnational
term “indigenous” for informed and uninformed readers alike. Next, they
endeavor to provide a more detailed explication of the history of missionary,
colonial, structuralist, and ethnographically-informed approaches to the
documentation of indigenous languages, before ultimately shifting to a
discussion of sociopolitical action, language rights, education, and
standardization.

Chapter 16 questions the way in which literal and metaphorical borders are
defined, especially those in which linguistic boundaries ''signal personhood,
identity, asymmetries of power, and socioeconomic class and position within
and across national contexts'' (322). This is followed by an engagement of the
definitions offered for ideologies and the means through which language usage
and linguistic competence can influence our perceptions of and/or willingness
to collaborate with others, can be manipulated in the process of
nation-building, can affect the granting of language visas, etc. Finally,
these topics are related to the symbolic borders established in educational
environments, particularly as it concerns “academic” English.

Chapter 17 presents an examination of class-, race-, and age-based linguistic
discrimination and begins with references to literary works, realizations of
such discrimination, and early dialectal research. In particular, the
sociolinguistic scholarship of Labov and the advancement of perceptual
dialectology by Preston are considered before turning to the (now) heavily
documented case of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in educational,
social, and judicial contexts.

Chapter 18 approaches the less commonly discussed topic of gerontolinguistics,
considering both the interaction of age and language usage/perception and also
the ways in which the individualized experience of aging is discussed in
African contexts. This is first introduced through some terms in Twi (“aging”
as ‘manyin’; “older, prestigious men” as ‘opanyin’; “older, accomplished
women” as ‘aberewa’) and then traditional western understandings of the
age-based demarcation of people is considered. For instance, the Ashanti
distinguish the elderly according to whether one is ''an adult, respectable
person'' or a ''frail old individual,'' thus indicating that the simple
bifurcation between young/old is insufficient in non-western sociocultural and
linguistic contexts. Ultimately, the importance of the grandmother is
identified before the conversation shifts to elderly care.

Chapter 19 engages the salience of racialization in any investigation of
language and society and opens with the powerful statement that ''[t]he
concept of race has been integral to how languages have been defined over time
and how the study of language has developed as a research area'' (381). This
conversation is approached through the formulation of definitions of
internalized racism, institutional racism, personally-mediated racism,
microaggressions, and race-based discrimination. Next, the history of research
in these areas is presented, after which contemporaneous issues of such
intersections are considered.

Chapter 20 negotiates the complexity of the relationship between language and
sexuality, paying close attention to the problematic conflation of sexuality
and sexual identity. The specific development of nomenclature is also
addressed, e.g. 'homo/hetero,' 'queer,' and even what constitutes 'sex.' The
last of these is directly related to the infamous words of former President
Clinton. Next, the contextually-bound analytical and theoretical focus areas
of research in this domain are analyzed through an extensive, twenty-year
literature review. Finally, after arguing that ''sexuality is not and cannot
be reducible to sexual identity only'' (410), the chapter considers the manner
in which such identities, both social and linguistic, are discursively created
and reproduced.

Chapter 21 introduces the increasingly expanding field of linguistic landscape
studies: first, by citing the seminal work of Landry and Bourhis (1997);
second, by contextualizing the significant, historical developments of the
field; and third, by presenting the major factors that contribute to studies
in this field, including multilingualism, translingual mixing, language
policy, minority languages, commodification, and the ''scaled mobility of
linguistic resources'' (427). Each of these is situated within illustrative
case studies, after which a critical look at methodological issues is
undertaken.

Chapter 22 opens with a definition of criteria for multimodality, emphasizing
the growing role and impact of digital technologies and calling attention to
our ability to recognize ''meaning through the combined use of color, writing,
sound, images, and layout'' (452). It explains that the fundamental genesis of
multimodal analyses is found through the work of Halliday (1978) and later
applications of the ideas therein. Next, the merit of social semiotic
perspectives to multimodality is extolled, arguing that factors as seemingly
innocuous as a font type or a color carry socially constructed meaning.

Chapter 23 begins by comparing the constantly changing nature of electronic
environments to communication in otherwise traditional face-to-face
environments, remarking that the internet itself has become an important
avenue for scholars from many fields who analyze various forms of mediated
discourse. Moreover, the relationship between the “online” and “offline”
worlds are considered, after which the ethical concerns of data collection and
analysis are addressed. Finally, some areas for future research are
introduced, notably including the way in which online interactions impact,
influence, or change language usage more generally.

Chapter 24 embarks on an analysis of the ways in which journalism and access
to news mediate our social lives. The most striking passage in this chapter,
which is found halfway through the introduction, could actually stand alone as
a separate chapter, as it foregrounds ''how digital technologies have changed
the production and consumption of news'' (490). Throughout the remainder of
this chapter, the nature of journalism and expectations for the truthfulness
of the resulting news are considered, with particular reference to less formal
sources of news ('the vernacular' in their words) and less serious sources of
news ('satire' in their words).

Chapter 25 is perhaps the most innovative of the entire volume, as it forces
readers to consider how language usage is shaped or influenced by work,
traditionally understood ''as an activity, but also as a site or location
where persons are employed to undertake an assigned task'' (506). The
literature review provides references to case studies primarily within
Conversation Analysis that investigate ''[w]orkplace talk,'' after which
interactional, educational, and descriptive approaches are considered.
Specific attention is paid to power-, agency-, and language-based ideologies,
especially those that concern employees in service-based positions of the
“informal economy.”

Chapter 26 confronts the pervasive underpinnings of bilingual education as
informed by many of the same ideas in Chapter 2, viz. the rise of the
nation-state, idealized monolingual models for interpersonal communication,
and the creation of the “native speaker” using Christopher Columbus as an
exemplar. Two educational initiatives are shared to illustrate how bilingual
education ''has been a tool that language-minoritized communities have used as
part of a larger process of empowerment'' (537). Additionally, a remark is
issued about the increase of scholarship in this field that acknowledges that
bilingual education is necessarily impacted by existing language ideologies.

The conclusion begins by reiterating the shared, longitudinal goal of “social
justice” in sociolinguistics. To this end, eleven general guidelines are
shared to describe the obligations of those investigating the interaction of
language and society, most notably that ''[a]ll understandings of language are
ideological'' (546). Finally, an injunction is offered to all scholars to
collaborate with one another, particularly on behalf of marginalized
communities, and to recognize how language usage can reflect, reify, or
indicate one's identity; and, conversely, how language usage must be
considered within a poststructuralist framework.

EVALUATION

The editors and the individual authors of “The Oxford Handbook of Language and
Society” should be celebrated for their contribution of such a truly
monumental, timely volume on a wide range of interdisciplinary approaches and
discussions of the complex reality of the keywords in the title: language and
society. This collection of chapters revolutionizes the field not only through
difficult conversations, but also by “leveling the playing field” by including
contributions from established scholars, post-doctoral scholars, and advanced
graduate students alike. Additionally, this work never allows the reader to
forget about the inherent interrelatedness of people and their language usage,
something often lost in otherwise more abstract linguistic texts. Finally, as
each chapter follows a roughly equal outline, one is consistently reminded of
the objective to move from the early findings of the 1960s to a more
contemporaneous context. As a result, there are genuinely only three ways (to
me) in which this otherwise phenomenal volume could be expanded in future
editions.

First, although there are many common themes among the chapters, there does
not seem to be an attempt to organize them according to shared smaller topics
of importance. Understandably, the field of sociolinguistics requires an
emphasis upon an expansive collection of interrelated linguistic, cultural,
and sociological factors, though a clear indication of the most salient topics
could result in a clearer delineation of the chapters. For instance,
straightforwardly demarcated sections on education, discrimination, language
ideologies, etc. would have been welcome. Additionally, although numerous
references are made throughout the chapters to a “post-Fishmanian” era of
sociolinguistics, it might be worthwhile to include a reprinted piece by
Fishman toward the beginning of the volume, so that a reader unfamiliar with
the specifics of this paradigmatic shift has additional context from the
primary source itself.

Second, although this volume is quite accessible to advanced graduate students
and established scholars alike, it is perhaps less approachable for those
without extensive training in a related field. To this end, the inclusion of
ancillary resources to frame the topics and history more broadly would
facilitate this, such as a one- or two-page timeline of seminal scholarship,
particularly for early scholars in the field whose work is cited but not
quoted; a glossary of key terms (cf. van Herk 2012); or a section on key
thinkers and/or theories (see e.g. Duranti 2003 for language and culture,
Baker and Ellece 2011 for discourse analysis, etc.).

Third, although the editors note that ''[t]he purpose is not to develop a
definitive list or 'how to' guide [...] nor is the list meant to be completely
new [...]'' (545), more emphasis upon the interaction of online and offline
worlds would have greatly expanded the goal of bringing sociolinguistics into
the twenty-first century. Much research has been conducted in this area during
the last two decades that could broaden understanding, particularly for
up-and-coming scholars who may not recall life before the internet, social
media, online commerce, etc. For instance, remote/virtual education, gender
performativity, indigenous language use, racialized identities, etc. are all
deeply impacted and shaped by the use of the internet and electronic media.

REFERENCES

Baker, Paul and Sibonile Ellece. 2011. Key Terms in Discourse Analysis.
London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Derrida, J. 1976. Of Grammatology, trans. G. Spivak. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Duranti, Alessandro. 2001. Key Terms in Language and Culture. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Ferguson, C. 1959. ''Diglossia.'' Word, 15: 325-340.

Fishman, J. 1967. ''Bilingualism with and without Diglossia; Diglossia with
and without Bilingualism.'' Journal of Social Issues, 23(2): 29-38.

Hale et. al. 1992. ''Endangered Languages.'' Language, 68(1): 1-42.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation
of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.

Landry, R. and R.Y. Bourhis. 1997. ''Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic
Vitality: An Empirical Study.'' Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
16(1): 23-49.

Stokoe, W.C. 1978. Sign Language Structure: The First Linguistic Analysis of
American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.

van Herk, Gerard. 2012. What Is Sociolinguistics? Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Troy E. Spier is a full-time professor of English and Linguistics at
Universidad San Francisco de Quito. He earned his Ph.D. and M.A. in
Linguistics at Tulane University, and he previously earned a B.S.Ed. in
English/Secondary Education at Kutztown University. His research interests
include language documentation and description, discourse analysis, corpus
linguistics, and linguistic landscapes.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2793	
----------------------------------------------------------