Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Veronika Lajos
(Department of Cultural Anthropology, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
Csanád Bodó (Eötvös Loránd University)
Noémi Fazakas (Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 27 July, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
This panel addresses participatory approaches in the linguistic ethnographic study of language. It discusses how practices and interpretations of participation affect the engagement and involvement of stakeholders in research and contribute to academic knowledge-production.
Long Abstract:
Participation, defined here broadly as the involvement and engagement of all interested parties, has recently gained momentum in several societal domains, including not only political decision making, cultural and mass media spaces, whether online or offline, but also academic research. In sociolinguistics, there is a well-established tradition of involving the 'researched' into the research process itself. Key aspects of participatory research, as elaborated in the social sciences, however, have rarely been discussed in the study of language. The panel draws on recent developments in the involvement and engagement of non-academic language experts into linguistic research, such as citizen sociolinguistics (Rymes 2020, Svendsen 2018), collaborative sociocultural linguistics (Bucholtz et al. 2016), Linguistic Citizenship (Stroud 2001, 2015), community-based language research (Bischoff and Jany 2018, Olko 2018) and activist applied linguistics (Cowal and Leung 2021). We invite scholars of linguistic ethnography and anthropology as well as researchers from related fields and also non-academic participants in linguistic projects to discuss ways in which practices and interpretations of participation affect the engagement and involvement of different stakeholders in the ethnographic study of language. The panel also addresses the implicit critique of the participatory approaches lacking significant contribution to theory-building and academic knowledge-production as it is mostly practice-oriented not only in its methods but also in its intended impacts.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Wednesday 27 July, 2022, -Paper short abstract:
In this paper we argue that participatory sociolinguistics is possible, when participants seek to relate their own language ideologies to each other through common acts of translocal participatory practices, based on mutual involvement and engagement.
Paper long abstract:
The participatory approach is not only becoming more widespread in the social sciences, but is also starting to take hold in sociolinguistics. However, there has been hardly any research on how, if at all, critical sociolinguistics can be linked to research based on the involvement and engagement of as many stakeholders as possible. In this paper we argue that such a link is possible, when differences between local and non-local linguistic ideologies become the focus of research, and participants seek to relate their own ideologies to each other through common acts of translocal participatory practices. We illustrate this with two case studies from our own research project, which attempted to understand the contemporary language practices of potential stakeholders in a language revitalisation programme. We point out that the participants' common ideological work and situated knowledges (Haraway 1988) may lead to results which depend on the participants' own positionalities, be these practices of sociolinguistic belonging and nostalgia (Bucholtz 2003) or those of relational multilingualism.
Paper short abstract:
In this paper we document and assess ‘ethnographic monitoring’ (Hymes) in a research project on literacy acquisition of newcomers and assess its deployment and potentialities as a decolonial strategy of applied ethnographic research.
Paper long abstract:
In this paper we document and reflect on ‘ethnographic monitoring’ (Hymes) and assess its deployment as a decolonial strategy of ethnographic research within our project UNLOCK (Unlocking newcomers’ literacy development: learning for life in formal, non-formal and informal spheres).
In UNLOCK we study the literacy trajectories of newcomers to Belgium in L2 classrooms as well as in non-formal and informal learning environments. The monitoring consists in an ongoing collaborative feedback process of researching, co-creating and implementing learning practices together with professionals, volunteers and learners, situated within an empowering ‘academic collaborative centre’ (ACC).
One year into the ethnographic research, looking back on a wealth of encounters, this paper asks how ‘monitoring’ – and its implied surveillance and guidance – relates to, and articulates with, ‘ethnography’ – and its acclaimed agility and serendipity?
Furthermore, we ask how the ‘epistemic solidarity’ is experienced and perceived by researchers, teachers/instructors and learners alike, how ‘empowering’ and ‘democratic’ UNLOCK’s ACC is and how it is fulfilling its decolonial promise.
These questions are addressed using (a) Fabian’s perspective on fieldwork as a communicative, dialogical, hence intersubjective process, (b) as well as Ingold’s take on “ethnography as education” – both emblematic of the collaborative ethnographic enterprise UNLOCK aspires to be. This paper confronts these established methodologies with the challenges of the decolonial as formulated by Deumert (‘performance of (dis-)semblances’), Martin-Rojo (‘recasting diversity in language education’) and Mignolo (‘epistemic disobedience’).
Paper short abstract:
Translanguaging is a successful language pedagogical approach. In my presentation, I argue that through participatory research activities, translanguaging cannot only be applied as an educational concept, but it also offers a chance to create new forms of conviviality in local realities.
Paper long abstract:
Translanguaging is a sociolinguistic concept that focuses on bilingual speakers’ unitary linguistic repertoire, and a language pedagogical approach with a strong social dimension. Translanguaging, adapted to a variety of contexts worldwide, has today the characteristics of a travelling concept (Vertovec 2017). However, it has maintained a close link with education.
In 2016, our team started linguistic ethnographic research among Hungarian-Romani bilingual Roma speakers in a small town in Hungary. As one of the results, from 2017 onwards, first with teachers of a primary school, and later with local bilingual citizens, we introduced translanguaging into everyday school life, making the students' Romani-based linguistic practices part of the learning process. Our activities have transformed the relationship between speakers and languages in the school (Heltai 2021). However, we have noticed that changes in school do not necessarily indicate a transformation in spaces outside school.
Parallel, in our local activities, participatory research activities have become increasingly important. Participants produced bilingual films to support learning, as well as a Romani storybook. In my presentation, I argue that through participatory research, translanguaging can be understood not only as an educational concept, but also as a chance to create new forms of conviviality. I present some of the results of our translanguaging-based participatory activities so far and report on the dilemmas encountered.
Vertovec, Steven. 2017. Talking around super-diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(1). 125–139.
Heltai, János Imre. 2021. Translanguaging as a rhizomatic multiplicity. International Journal of Multilingualism. Ahead of print. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2021.1926465