28.2314, Review: Applied Ling; Socioling: Saarikivi, Toivanen (2016)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2314. Wed May 24 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.2314, Review: Applied Ling; Socioling: Saarikivi, Toivanen (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

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

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 12:34:19
From: Sarah Shulist [shulists at macewan.ca]
Subject: Linguistic Genocide or Superdiversity?

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36242957


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-3093.html

EDITOR: Reetta  Toivanen
EDITOR: Janne  Saarikivi
TITLE: Linguistic Genocide or Superdiversity?
SUBTITLE: New and Old Language Diversities
SERIES TITLE: Linguistic Diversity and Language Rights
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Sarah Shulist,  

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

The edited volume “Linguistic Genocide or Superdiversity? New and Old Language
Diversities”, by Reetta Toivanen and Janne Saarikivi, engages provocatively
with two important, and seemingly contradictory, lines of thought within
sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology regarding global linguistic
diversity. On the one hand, we hear widespread discussions of the threat faced
by minority languages and the likelihood that huge proportions of these
languages will disappear entirely, thereby greatly reducing the range of
linguistic diversity present in the world (c.f. Hale et al. 1992; Nettle and
Romaine 2000; Evans 2010). On the other hand, we are also confronted with the
impact of global flows of people and communication networks that create
conditions for new interactions of languages, as well as new levels of
variation and diversity, especially in urban spaces, that have been grouped
under the heading of “superdiversity” (Blommaert et al. 2015). The editors and
contributors to this book take these two phenomena and examine how both of
these processes can, paradoxically, be true at same time. The book not only
addresses what types of social, political and ideological forces can support
or hinder the expression of linguistic diversity, but also wrestles with the
question of what linguistic diversity is, and how its current manifestations
build upon or diverge from older and more familiar versions. In doing so, the
authors discuss practices of languaging, plurilingualism, heteroglossia, and
enregisterment, models for understanding code-switching and mixing, and how
linguistic variation is  mediated through ideologies and policies regarding
not only language, but also national and minority identities. All of the
chapters discuss languages in different European contexts, with the majority
focusing on Western Russia and Finland. 

In their introduction to the volume, Toivanen and Saarikivi emphasize that
contact among languages is, of course, far from a new phenomenon, but that
both the sources of variation and their implications for creative identity
formation are different than they have been in the past. Unifying themes that
shape the various linguistic and sociopolitical practices described throughout
the book include media (both traditional and ‘new’), the development and
expansion of standard and literary varieties, and the significance of
school-based education. These schooling systems, in particular, are situated
within shifting political frameworks of recognition and reinforcement not only
for languages, but also for the identities that accompany them; the
implications of incorporating a wider range of languages into these structures
of education, literacy, and human rights become matters of concern in nuanced
ways throughout the papers. 

The book is divided into three thematic sections, each of which contains four
articles: (1) Language Communities or Networks of Communication? Old and New
Linguistic Diversity, (2) Standardising Languages and Ethnicities: Mission
Impossible? and (3) Language Revitalisation: Protection Standards or Tolerance
for Variation. Because of the quantity and range of material covered in these
chapters, the following summary of each section is able to provide only a very
brief overview of specific authors’ contributions. 

Part 1 focuses on describing the type of diversity that is emerging within
endangered minority languages as they are currently being used, emphasizing
the patterns of borrowing, code-switching, and/or mixing that occur,
especially in relation to discourses about the value of linguistic ‘purism’.
In the first chapter, “Fragmentation of the Karelian Language and Its
Community”, Niko Partanen and Janne Saarikivi observe extensive variation
within the endangered Karelian language, as speakers draw on types of 
‘languaging’ and plurilingualism, in contrast to assumptions that endangerment
creates greater rigidity in a language. They situate this discussion of
variation in the context of the “fragmentation” of the community of speakers,
observing not only who knows the Karelian language, but also how and with whom
they believe themselves to be able to use the language. The new diversities
they describe are considered likely to disappear quickly, and the social
dynamics of this shift constitute an important theme for understanding
variation in the context of language endangerment. Chapter 2, “What’s Up
Helskini?” (Heini Lehtonen), focuses on the linguistic practices of
Somali-speaking youth in two junior high schools. Lehtonen observes that in
this diasporic context, the linguistic resources available to these youth
include an unusually broad range of regional varieties and scholarly standards
which the speakers use in the construction of social and linguistic
boundaries. Her examination raises the question of what is “new” in this new
diversity; she concludes that while the specific repertoires used and
identities expressed by these young speakers may be different, the practices
of languaging and enregisterment they use to do so are essentially the same as
they have always been. What is different in the analysis of superdiversity,
then, relates more to the frame of analysis than it does to the situation
itself. Boglárka Janurik’s Chapter 3, “Varieties of Erzya-Russian
code-switching in Radio Vaygel Broadcasts”, offers a technical linguistic
description of code-switching and the grammatical structure of variety.
Janurik identifies a continuum of variation, with monolingual Erzya and
Russian on either end, and a fully mixed variety in the middle, and analyzes
the range of variation within this continuum that is used by bilingual
speakers on a regional radio station. In contrast to written (completely
monolingual) media, the radio station is more versatile and demonstrates more
(but not all) of the actual range of linguistic diversity present in the
community of Erzya speakers. She argues, in contrast to models that assume a
3-generation shift from immigrant to dominant majority language, that “the
outcome of long-established contact situations is not straightforward” (105).
Like Partanen and Saarikivi, however, she concludes that while code-switching
styles may create more versatility within the language,  this new kind of
variation may be part of the process that threatens the old kind. In Chapter
4, “Udmurt on Social Network Sites: A Comparison with the Welsh Case”,
Christian Pischlöger presents a hopeful picture for how the Udmurt language
may, like Welsh, become a case study of successful language revitalization.
The use of colloquial forms of Udmurt, including extensive mixing, as well as
the creation of new genres, on SNS contrasts with the standard literary
variety that is described as “pure”, but that is, in fact, primarily
associated with use by “foreigners” rather than authentic speakers. Pischlöger
highlights how both the form and content of Udmurt on SNS are moving toward a
level of “normalization” and demonstrating, like Welsh, adaptability for use
in new media contexts, and therefore, an increased level of linguistic
vitality. 

Part 2, entitled “Standardizing Languages and Ethnicities: Mission
Impossible?”, deals primarily with connections between language ideologies,
formal policies for language and identity management, and patterns of
multilingual language use.  Hanna Lantto opens this section with “A Tale of a
City and Its Two Languages”, tracing the use of Basque and Spanish in the city
of Bilbao through shifting political regimes. While extensive examples of
mixing and “heteroglossic languaging” are available throughout the history of
the city, their forms and meanings have changed significantly. Of particular
interest is the contemporary difference between “New Basques” and “Old
Basques” in the city, as the two groups are believed to be “fundamentally
different types of speakers who have different mental schemas” (153). Members
of an older generation, recognized as native Basque speakers, are able to use
mixed codes in ways that younger speakers do not, lest they be interpreted as
‘lazy’ or improper speakers. Bilingual practices are therefore not available
to all speakers equally, as social pressures and ideological categorizations
create the conditions in which variation is deployed, and through which
“purism” is emphasized. Chapter 6, by Oksana Myschlovska, “Nationalising Fluid
and Ambiguous Identities” evaluates the definition and instrumentalization of
ethnicity and language in the policy structure of Russia and Ukraine. In
addition to the Soviet legacy, the contemporary Crimean conflict informs the
views within both states of who belongs to the categories of “Russian” and
“Ukrainian” people or speakers. Myschlovska uses survey and census data to
illustrate how these categories are shifting, thoroughly ambiguous, and
include multiple types of “mutual permeation” and mixing (182); she argues
that the recent conflict has made patterns of Ukrainian ethnolinguistic
identification much more territorial and political, such that they are now
more likely to include Russian speakers living in the Ukraine. The high
political stakes for categorizing language and ethnic identities in this
context inform the terms through which we must understand ideologies of
difference and diversity. Chapters 7 and 8 both deal with Sámi identities in
Finland. Erika Katjaana Sarivaara’s “Emergent Sámi Identities” considers the
ways in which both the Sámi parliament and individuals have complex
interpretations of what it means to be Sámi in light of a legacy of
assimilation. She situates her discussion in relation to processes of
revitalization, and in counterpoint to discourses about Indigenous
authenticity and essentialism. Political inclusion, she argues, can be vital
for strengthening both formal and ideological connections to revitalization,
and recognizing the dynamic and multidimensional nature of Sámi society and
identities is an important part of moving  out of an assimilationist history.
Reetta Toivanen’s “Localizing the Global in the Superdiverse Municipalities of
the Arctic”, similarly, examines the governance of language and cultural
pluralism in a Sámi context, raising questions about power and control over
the specific terms of cultural and linguistic preservation. She highlights how
language is often deployed as a clear-cut natural category that presumes the
pre-existence of boundaries between peoples, and how this naturalization
functions as a means of essentializing Sámi identities. The question of “who
is allowed to enter the public sphere as Sámi” (242) is shaped by global
politics and Indigenous rights discourses that do not tolerate ambiguity and
heterogeneity. Identification with Sámi identity, then, is not something that
is fully free of state paternalism, and these externalized category creations
inform the ways in which activists can work to revitalize their languages. 

Section 3 turns directly to focus on “Language Revitalization: Protection
Standards or Tolerance for Variation”. The chapters grouped here share a focus
on how policies and ideologies relating to standardization, variation, and
diversity can inform strategies and prospects for endangered minority
languages. In Chapter 9, Konstantin Zamyatin evaluates “Russia’s Minority
Education and the European Language Charter”, considering specifically how
well Russian educational institutions meet the standards of the charter – to
what level, in other words, does Russia support the use of different languages
in schools? Zamyatin highlights distinctions between symbolic and instrumental
policy, noting that despite limited implementation of charter standards,
symbolic recognition has allowed minority linguistic communities to use its
principles to press for the adoption of stronger operational rules. Chapter
10, by Johanna Laakso, moves to consider the idea of “Metadiversity, or the
Uniqueness of the Lambs”. Laakso evaluates how discourses and political
practices relation to endangerment and revitalization proscribe a specific
type of relationship to diversity and multilingualism – specifically, one that
protects multiple sets of monolingual spaces for authentic speakers of
individual languages. In discussing and advocating for linguistic diversity,
then, it is not at all clear that all participants are arguing for the same
thing. Laakso focuses particularly on the idea of “languageness”, or the
degree to which some speakers believe that their way of speaking constitutes
an actual, bounded language, and argues that in cases where this belief is
weak or absent, legal status and other institutional protections of ways of
speaking become more difficult to support. She concludes that in order to more
fully support linguistic diversity, ideological clarification about
“metadiversity” – the diversity of what constitutes diversity – is needed. In
Chapter 11, “Division of Responsibility in Karelian and Veps Language
Revitalisation Discourse”, Ulriikka Puura and Outi Tánczos analyze two
different Russian minority language communities’ beliefs about the relative
roles of the state and speakers in causing and reversing language shift. The
authors conclude that discourses naturalize the idea that the state is not
likely to provide this type of support, despite the fact that both inside and
outside action is required in order to implement revitalization initiatives.
The final chapter, by Svetlana Edyagarova, “Standard Language Ideology and
Minority Languages: The Case of the Permian Languages”, considers the type of
“standard language culture” that influences this set of languages.
Authoritarian Soviet definitions of language norms continue to inform the
language standards that have been developed and used for Permian languages
today, and linguistic purity remains prominent in the discourses of language
professionals. Edyagarova observes that these ideologies of the standard have
been adopted from the dominant language culture into a context where the
linguistic needs are quite different, and that these internalized beliefs may
ultimately contribute to the extinction of minority languages. She advocates
for a transformation and adoption of new linguistic ideologies, emphasizing
the value of varieties, mixed languages, and limiting the relevance of
standardization to the fixing of grammatical norms. 

EVALUATION   

This volume constitutes an important intervention into linguistic and
linguistic anthropological discussions about the nature of and prospects for
linguistic diversity in a context of globalization. The editors of the book
have worked to draw together the two primary – and seemingly opposite –
approaches to understanding the contemporary global sociolinguistic landscape,
and convincingly articulate the case for unifying the two ideas. While they do
not ultimately provide a clear answer for the rhetorical opposition they
propose in their title, it is perhaps noteworthy that the term “linguistic
genocide” appears only very rarely throughout the chapters included.
Endangerment and threat are considered extensively, but without, generally
speaking, a particularly strong focus on assigning blame for this process (the
exception, of course, is the chapter by Puura and Tánczos). “Superdiversity”,
on the other hand, is a concept that is thoroughly unpacked, reconsidered, and
evaluated for its usefulness in explaining the social and linguistic
circumstances being examined. In applying these questions specifically to
contexts of language endangerment and linguistic minorities, a nuanced picture
emerges of how speakers in these types of circumstances relate to and use
diverse linguistic resources in relation to local, national, and global forces
that shape their meanings. Each of the chapters contributes in particular ways
to longstanding discussions about linguistic purism in minority language
communities (c.f. Dorian 1994; Hinton and Ahlers 1999; Henze and Davis 1999),
as well as the relevance and challenges of creating and implementing written
standard forms for these cases (Rice and Saxon 2002; Seifart 2006; Romaine
2002). The authors do an excellent job of contextualizing the especially
powerful role of schools, and the profound social change that these
institutions create, for reshaping the value systems associated with different
types of language use. The relationships among education and standardization,
the linguistic skills demanded in modern workplaces, and the reduction in
acceptable ranges of linguistic diversity, underlie many of the more specific
points raised by each of the chapters. In examining the ways in which various
actors navigate the use of different semiotic resources in their everyday
lives in light of this underlying framework, the book looks at both macro and
micro level social processes that are undoubtedly working in concert to redraw
the global sociolinguistic picture.  

As an anthropologist focusing on the social dynamics and consequences of
language revitalization, I found the chapters by Sarivaara, Laakso, and
Edygarova to be especially useful contributions to discussions of how these
processes and practices can be improved with better understanding of language
ideologies and of the sociopolitical frames in which these language planning
activities are taking place. The themes and ideas that unify the chapters
included in this book are quite broad and of substantial overall interest
within the sociolinguistics of diversity. In some cases, however, I found the
implications of particular chapters for the larger goals of the text to be
difficult to identify. For example, Myshlovska’s discussion of Ukrainian and
Russian nationality policies, while fascinating and of significant interest to
the contemporary politics of identity, does not clearly fit as a case study of
language shift, or even, despite brief references to mixed linguistic
varieties, as a consideration of the linguistic dimensions of that conflict.
By contrast, while obviously relevant to discussions of language loss and its
possible solutions, Puura and Tánczos’ critical discourse analysis of
responsibility for Karelian and Veps language revitalization moves away from
the volume’s strong theoretical focus on the nature of social and linguistic
variation within these communities.  

A point of weakness in the book as a whole is encapsulated in a short comment
in Toivanen’s chapter. She says “[i]nterestingly, anthropologists have not
engaged much with questions aiming towards identifying the reasons that lead
to language shift and language loss among the people studied”. In fact, I
believe an abundance of literature addressing this topic has been emerging
from anthropologists over the last several years, and engagement with this
body of work would enrich the analysis presented. Examples in monograph form
include Perley (2011), Meek (2011), (Debenport 2015), as well as the edited
volume by Granadillo and Orcutt-Gachiri (2011), and several journal articles
or book chapters (Hill 2006; Franchetto 2006; Dobrin and Schwartz 2016), to
highlight only a few. As noted above, all of the authors consider the concept
and nature of diversity (super or otherwise) in complex and significant ways,
and I believe an equally significant and important conversation could emerge
about experiences and understandings of “endangerment” or “minorities” with
greater attention to this line of scholarship. Further questions I would like
to explore include the nature and practice of “ideological clarification” and
the implications of calls to implement changes to language ideologies – for
example, in Edyagarova’s concluding call to change the ideological framework
within which standard Permian languages function. As Kroskrity (2009)
observes, ideological clarification is a slippery term, and if it is to be a
useful one for the purposes of language revitalization, it requires a solid
theoretical grounding. 

The book is well-suited to an audience of both sociolinguistic and linguistic
anthropological scholars, and makes relevant connections across the fields
that should contribute new insights to studies of language policy and
planning, multilingualism, and language revitalization. On the whole, the
chapters are written in an accessible manner and the material in the book
would be useful in graduate level seminars in sociolinguistics or the
anthropology of language. 

REFERENCES

Blommaert, Jan, Karel Arnaut, Ben Rampton, and Massimiliano Spotti, eds. 2015.
Language and Superdiversity. Routledge.

Debenport, Erin. 2015. Fixing the Books: Secrecy, Literacy, and Perfectibility
in Indigenous New Mexico. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School for Advanced Research.

Dobrin, Lise M., and Saul Schwartz. 2016. “Collaboration or Participant
Observation? Rethinking Models of ‘Linguistic Social Work,’” June.
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/24694.

Dorian, Nancy C. 1994. “Purism vs. Compromise in Language Revitalization and
Language Revival.” Language in Society 23 (4): 479–94.

Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Dying Words: Endangered Languages and What They Have to
Tell Us. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Franchetto, Bruna. 2006. “Ethnography in Language Documentation.” In
Essentials of Language Documentation, edited by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P.
Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 183–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Granadillo, Tania, and Heidi A. Orcutt-Gachiri, eds. 2011. Ethnographic
Contributions to the Study of Endangered Languages. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.

Hale, Ken, Michael Krauss, Lucille J. Watahomigie, Akira Y. Yamamoto, Colette
Craig, LaVerne Masayesva Jeanne, and Nora C. England. 1992. “Endangered
Languages.” Language 68 (1): 1–42.

Henze, Rosemary, and Kathryn A. Davis. 1999. “Introduction: Authenticity and
Identity: Lessons from Indigenous Language Education.” Anthropology and
Education Quarterly 30 (1): 3–21.

Hill, Jane H. 2006. “The Ethnography of Language and Language Documentation.”
In Essentials of Language Documentation, edited by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P.
Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, 113–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hinton, Leanne, and Jocelyn Ahlers. 1999. “The Issue of ‘Authenticity’ in
California Language Restoration.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 30 (1):
56–67.

Kroskrity, Paul V. 2009. “Language Renewal as Sites of Language Ideological
Struggle: The Need for ‘Ideological Clarification.’” In Indigenous Language
Revitalization: Encouragement, Guidance, and Lessons Learned, edited by Jon
Reyhner and Louise Lockard. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University Press.

Meek, Barbra A. 2011. We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language
Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan Community. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.

Nettle, Daniel, and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of
the World’s Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

Perley, Bernard C. 2011. Defying Maliseet Language Death: Emergent Vitalities
of Language, Culture, and Identity in Eastern Canada. Lincoln, Nebraska:
Univeristy of Nebraska Press.

Rice, Keren, and Leslie Saxon. 2002. “Issues of Standardization and Community
in Aboriginal Language Lexicography.” In Making Dictionaries: Preserving
Indigenous Languages of the Americas, edited by William Frawley, Kenneth C.
Hill, and Pamela Munro, 125–54. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press.

Romaine, Suzanne. 2002. “The Impact of Language Policy on Endangered
Languages.” International Journal on Multicultural Societies 4 (2).

Seifart, Frank. 2006. “Orthography Development.” In Essentials of Language
Documentation, edited by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Ulrike
Mosel, 275–300. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Sarah Shulist is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at MacEwan University in
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Her research focuses on the sociopolitical dynamics
of language loss and revitalization, especially for Indigenous people in urban
context and multilingual settings. She has worked on these issues in both
Brazil and Canada. Additional areas of interest include language policy,
linguistic landscape, language ideology, and collaborative work in
linguistics/anthropology.





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

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2314	
----------------------------------------------------------