The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography by Karin Tusting

The Routledge Handbook
of Linguistic Ethnography
The Routlcl{~e Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography provides an accessible, authoritative and com-
prehensive overview of this growing body of research, combining ethnographic approaches
with close attention to language use. This handbook illustrates the richness and potential of
linguistic ethnography to provide detailed understandings of situated patterns of language
use while connecting these patterns clearly to broader sooal structures.
Including a general introduction to linguistic ethnography and 25 state-of-the-art chapters
from expert international scholars. the handbook is divided into three sections. Chapters
cover historical, empirical, methodological and theoretical contributions to the field, and
new approaches and developments.
This handbook is key reading for those studying linguistic ethnography, qualitative
research methods, sociolinguistics and educational linguistics within English Language,
Applied Linguistics, Education and Anthropology.
Karin Tusting is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Linguistics and English Language.
Lancaster University. Her research has in recent years focussed on the literacies of the work-
place, with a particular interest in issues of audit and accountability.
Routledge Handbooks in Applied linguistics
Rou//cd5<e Hm1dbooks in Applier/ Linguistics provide comprehensive overviews of the key topics
in applied lingmstics. All entries for the handbooks arc specially commissioned and written
by leading scholars in the field. Clear. accessible and carefi.1lly edited Routle1{,:e Handbooks in
Applied Linguistics are the ideal resource for both advanced undergraduates and postgraduate
students.
The Routledge Handbook of language Revitalization

Edited by Leanne Hinton, Leena Huss and Gerald Roche
The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Theory and Second language

Development
Edited by James P. Lantaff and Matthew E. Poehner with Merrill Swain
The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice

Edited by Cristina Sanz and Alfonso Morales-Front
The Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to Young learners

Edited by Sue Gorton and Fiona Copland
The Routledge Handbook of Second language Research in Classroom

learning
Edited by Ronald P. Leow
The Routledge Handbook of language in Conflict

Edited by Matthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries and Jim O'Drisco/1
The Routledge Handbook of English language Teacher Education

Edited by Steve Walsh and Steve Mann
The Routledge Handbook of linguistic Ethnography

Edited by Karin Tusting
For a full fot of titles in this series, please visit WW\N.routledge.corn/series/RHAL

The Routledge Handbook
of Linguistic Ethnography
Edited by Karin Tusting
I~ ~~o~!!!n~~~up
LONDON AND NEW YORK
Fmt published 2020
bv Routledg"
Park Square, Milton PMk. Abingdon, Chou OXl4 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vauderbilt Avenue. New York. NY 10017
R\1 ut!cdyc is dll in1print l:/ tl1e 'f;-,rl()/' (~ Frauds Crcn1p an ir~J-(mnd i)usiness
1
:&:: 2020 selection ;Jnd editorial ruatter, K,1rin Tu~ting; individual chapters,
the coinributors
The right of Karin Tusting to be identified as the rntlior of the editorial
material, and of tbr authors for their individual chapters, bas been
,isserted in ~1ccordancc \Vjlh sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and P,Hent, Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part ofthls book J.:r1ay bt' reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any i:Onn or by any electronic: n1ec:b,1nical, or other
1nc:u1s, OO\.v kno\v11 or hereafter it1\"ented., including photocopying and
recording, or in any infr)ruPtiou stor::i.ge or rctriev;d s-:::sten1 1 wit bout
pennission in \vrjting frorn the publishers.
-nc1dernark f!\Jti(·e: Product or corpoJ>lle nam.es niay be tr::iden1ark;
or registered trackni.ark:-.;, c1nd ~ire used only for identitl{ ;ttion ,n1d
expbn::111011 without .i11tei1t to iufrinf[t:'.
Britis/1 Li/nary Clltc1lc ,r_ui11s-i11--J>Hbli<alio11 D,.1ta
1
A catalogue record for this book is ,lVaibble from the British Library
Lihrary t:,F ( ,\111}:.rcss Cat(:llo2i11y-i11-lJuhii(diiofl I)r1ra
Names: Tusting, Karin, 197.'\-- editor.
Title: The Routledge handbook ol1ingnistic erhnogc1pby / edited by Karin Tn~ting.
Description: Milton Park, Abingdmi, Oxon; New York. NY: Routkdge. 2020. I
Series: Roml<'dge hancllmoks in applied linguislics I
lnclndcs biHiographical rc.kreuces and index. I
Sununary: "The l~outledg~ 1-L:indbook of L1nguistic Ethnograplry provides an
accessible, authoritative ;ind com.prchen:-,ive overvie\:v oftbis gro\ving body of
rese;1rch, corubining ethnographjc with dose al Len ti on to l::i.ugu:1ge
use. This h,rndbook illustrate, the and potential oflinguistic ethno,,raphy
to provick det:Jiled understanding:;; of situated patterns ofhngu,1ge use while
con nee ling these patterns clecirly to broader social suucture,:-i. lncludi.ng a gencr:--d
introduction to linguistic ethnography aud 25 Sldte-of-the ai-t chapters fro1n e:xpert
internar1onal schobrs_ the handbook is divided into three sections. Chapters cover
historic:, l, ernpiricJl, methodological and theorericd conttibtttions to the field
and new approaches and developments. This handbook is kev tho,e
studying linguistic c::-thnog;rapby, qu::ilitctti-v~ researcl1 rnethods, and
educational linguistics \vithin J:'.'.ngli~h L;:u1guage, Applied Lin.guistics, Education
md Anthropology"-Prnvided by publisher.
Identifiers T.CCN 2019016588 I ISBN cmlll38'J ..,8168 (hbk)
ISBN ')7R13l5675824 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: i\nthropological linguistics
Cbssific1tion: LCC P'.l5 JV,9 2020 i Dl)C 306 +4-ck:73
LC record av;iilable at https:/ilcrn.Jocfov/21))9016:588
ISBN 97S-1--Ll8-938J(, -8 (hbk)

ISBN '.!78-hllS--C,7582-4 (ebk)
Typeset in 13crnbo
by codeManLr;i
Printed and bound in Great Britain by

TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall
Contents
List o_ffi,gures XIV
List o_f talJ/cs xv

Acknowledy_ements XV!
List <f contributors XV!l
1 General introduction 1
Karin Tustiny_
History of linguistic ethnography 1
Theoretical influences and antecedents 2
The handbook 4
References 8
PART I
Antecedents, related areas and key concepts 11
2 Intcractional sociolinguistics 13
Ren R(lmpton
Introduction 13
Historical background 14
Approach to analysis 15
Challenges 17
Practical interventions beyond the academy 20
Current contributions and research areas 21
Future directions 22
I;urther reading 24
Related topics · 24
References 25
V
Contents
3 Discourse analysis 28
Stef Slembrouck
Historical perspectives and key definitions: defining
discourse and the discursive 28
Current contributions: the contemporary range of discourse analytical
engagements 32
Critical issues and debates: discourse analysis and linguistic ethnography 33
Research methods and future directions: recording, transcription and
the relationship with fieldwork 35
Further reading 36
Related topics 36
References 36
4 Literacy studies 40
Julia Gillen and !,Vinnie Siu-yee Ho
Introduction and definitions 40
Historical perspectives 41
Critical issues and debates 43
Main research methods including approaches to analysis 46
Implications for practice 47
Further reading 50
Related topics 50
References 50
5 Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation 54

Alexandra Grey and Ingrid Piller
Further reading 66
Related topics 67
References 67
6 Scale 70
St~f Slembrouck and ivlieke Vandenhrouckc
Introduction - the history and scope of the concept
of sea le as part of a spatial turn 70
Scale as space/time 73
vi
Contents
The body as a taken-for-granted scale 75

Scales in linguistic ethnography: informants, practices and research 76
Scale in a linguistic ethnographic account of border-crossing 76
Further reading 81
Related topics 81
References 82
7 Social class 84
Julia Snell
Introduction 84
Historical perspectives: the emergence of class in variationist
sociolinguistics 84
Main research methods 87
Critical debates and implications for practice 91
Summary 93
Further reading 94
Related topics 94
References 94
8 Heteroglossia 97
Adrian Blackledge and An1-;cla Creese
Introduction 97
Current and recent research 100
rmplications 105
Further reading 106
Related topics 107
References 107
9 Style and stylisation 109

J1irgen Jaspers and Sarah T/4111 Hoof
Introduction 109
Main research methods, including approaches to analysis 119
vii
Contents
Further reading 122

Related topics 122
References 123
10 Multimodality 125
JefJ Bezemer and Sahm Abdullahi
Introduction 125
Main research methods: looking beyond writing 128
Nlain research 1nethods: looking beyond speech no
further directions 135
Further reading 136
Related topics 136
References 137
PART II
Methods 139
11 Participant observation and field notes 14]

Uta Papen
lntroduction and definitions 141

Historic:il perspectives 142
Methods 143
Further reading 151
Related topics 151
l<..eferences 151
12 The ethnographic interview 154

Anna De Fina
Introduction 154
Types of interviews 155
Critical issues and debates 157.
Current contributions ,md research areas 163
Conclusions and future directions 164
Further reading 164
Related topics 164
References 164
viii
Contents
13 Micro-analysis of spoken interaction 168

Rachel Heinrichsmeier
Key debates 170
Main research methods and analysis 172
Current contributions 179
future directions 180
further reading 180
Related topics [81
IZeferenccs 181
14 Ethics 184
Fiona Copland
Introduction 184
l Iistorical perspectives 185
Conclusion 196
Further reading 196
Related topics 196
References 196
15 Collaborative ethnography 198

Gabrielr Budach
Ivlain research methods 208
further reading 210
Related topics 210
References 210
16 Reflexivity 213
Adriana PatiFfo-Santos
Introduction and dcfinitiom 213
ix
Contents
Critical issues ,md debates 215

Implications for practice: the backstage of our research 219
Further reading 226
Related topics 226
References 226
17 Digital approache, in linguistic etlmography 229

Piia Vi1ris and A1ir1;,,zyi Hou
Introduction 229
Critical isst1es and debates 231
Current contributions and research areJs 232
JVfain research methods 234
Further reading 237
Related topics 237
Reference~ 237
18 Mixmg method:,? Linguistic ethnography and language variation 241

Susan Dm y and Rob Dmmmowl
Introduction 241
Critical debates: hovv compatible are ethnographic and
variationist traditions? 242
Current contributions and key concepts: recent studies using
'mixed-methods' 244
1\1ain research methods and analysis: mutually useful data
collection, transcription and analytic categories? 245
Implications for practice: mixed methods? Lessons learned 253
Acknowledgements 253
Related topics 253
References 253
PARTIII
Sites and situations 257
·19 Youth hmguage 259

Rickard]o11sson, Henning Arman and Tornmaso Ai. !Vlilani
Introduction: definitions and key terms 259
X
Contents

Current research ;ircas 264
Further reading 268
Related topics 269
References 269
20 Language diversity in classroom settings 273

Rid111rd Barwell
Discussion, conclu~ions and fi.1rther directions 284
Further reading 284
Related topics 285
References 285
21 Elite multilingualism 286

Charlotte Selleck and Elisabeth Barakos
Introduction 286
Further reading 295
Related topics 295
References 295
22 Lingua fr;rnca scenarios 299

Janus 1\!Iortensen
Introduction and key concepts 299
Current research areas 304
Main research methods and approache~ to analysis 305
Ack nowkdgements 307
Further reading 307
Rl'hted topics 307
References 307
xi
Contents
23 Faith communities 312

Vally Lytm
Introduction 312
]\,fain research methods 320
Future: directions 322
Further reading 323
Related topics 323
References 323
24- Policy 326

Sara Shaw and Laura Eyre
Introduction 326
Historical perspectives, critical issues and debates 327
Current contributions :md research areas 327
Puture directions 337
further reading 337
Related topics 338
References 338
25 Sign languages 340

Lynn Hou and An11clics Kustcrs
Introduction: linguistic ethnography and sign languages 340
Terms and cla,sifications: sociolinguistic contexts of signing 341
Research areas 343
CriticJl issues and debates: language ideologies 349
Conclusion: contributions and implications 351
Acknowledgements .351
Further readings 35::Z
Related topics 352
References 352
26 Academic \11,-riting 356

Kathrin Ka4hold ,md Karin TiHting
Introduction 356
Historical perspectives and core influence, 356
xii
Contents

Further reading 366
Related topics 366
References 367
Index 371
xiii
Figures
5.1 Duwntown Nanning. C:nangxi Zhuangzu i\utonomous Reg10n,

China: 2014 (from Grey, 2017) 64
10.1 Chopstick wrapper (reverse) 129
10.2 Chopstick wrapper (front) 129
10.3 Transcript of spoken interaction 132
10.4 " ... which is pushing him back (Ul) so=•· 133
10.5 "Back'' 133
10.6 "==Mix1i dhathey hooyo 1 " 134
10.7 " ... progresskayga good waaya" 134
13.1 The approval sequence 175
14.1 Example of two-page consent form 186
16.1 Summary of research 219
16.2 Group mterview extract 221
16.3 The class 222
16.4 Classroom interaction extract 22:1
16.5 Jason talking to the camera to the astonishment of his classmates
and the teacher 224
16.6 Transcription conventions 224
18.1 Distribution of the 819 [0, f, tj (TH) tokens, ordered from the right by
frequency of [t]. 25 speakers 249
18.2 Categones used to identify presence of musicality in utterances 252
xiv
Tables
18.1 Distribution of variants of'th' across all pupils 248

24.1 Overview of the two research studies 330
xv
Acknowledgements
J'vly primary thanks go to each of the contributing authors. This handbook auns to bring
,i
together range of voices from the Linguistic Ethnography com1nunity and this would not
have been possible without the authors' generous participation and comrnitrnent to the work.
I would also like to thank the members of the editorial bu:rnl, James Si1npsou. Julia Snell,
Sara Shaw, Fiona Copland, and Ben Rampton, for timely advice and support. Thank you
to Louisa Seml vcn at Itoutlcdge for com missioning the Handbook and to laura Sandford,
Hannah Rowe, and Eleni Steck for then helpfulness and patience as cditori,d assistants.
Finally, I would like co recognize those colleagues who might not be represented here but
have been pare of the process m some way; there are always more people vvho contribute to
a project like this than are visible in the final product, and their involvement and enthusiasm
is appreciated.
xvi
Contributors
Sahra Abdullahi is a research assistant at University College London (UCL) for an Economic
Jnd Sooal Rese,1rch Council (ESRC)-fonded n-,earch projecr on Family Language Policy,
wherein she focusses on the Somali community. She graduated from UCL in 2018 with an
MA in Appiied Linguistics.
Henning Arman is, at the time of writing, doing a PhD in Child- and Yotith Studies
at ',tockholm University. Sweden. The research project revolves around youth and their
regimentation of language and space. It is a study of high school students' everyday talk
about language. their negotiations of good and bad langtuge use, and their local practices of
language policing.
Elisabeth Barakos is Lecturer m Applied Linguistics ,it Aston University, Birmingham,

UI(. Her research expertise is in nrnltilingualism, language polrcy cmd minority languages.
She is currently working on the connection oflanguage and work in the global knowledge
economy from a critical discursive and sociolinguistic perspective.
Richard Barwell is Full ProfoJSor and Dean of the Faculty ofEducat10n at the University
of Ottawa, Can:1da. His research mostly focusses on languages and discourses in mathematics
classrooms, and on the discourse of mathematics education.
Jeff Bezemer is Reader in Communication and Co-Director of the Centre for Multimochl
Research at UCL Institute of Education. Flis current research i, frJCusscd on communication
ancl tearn,vork in clinicc1l settings.
Adrian Blackledge is Professor of Soc10linguistics in the Faculty of Social Sciences al the

Univemty of Stirling. H1s publications include The Routler{r,e Handbook of Language and Super-
diversity (with Angela Creese, 2018), Hctcr,lglossia a, Practice and Pedagogy (with Angela Creese,
21114), The Ro11t!C1(t;ze Hrwdbook of Multi/ingualism (with Marilyn Martin-Jones and Angela
Creese, 2012) and 1\!Iultilinxualism, A Critical Perspective (with Angela Creese, 2010). Adrian
conducts research on co1nmtm1c1tion in education and in wider society.
Gabriele Budach is an Associate Professor for Teacher Education, Learning and Diversity
at the University of Luxembourg. She 15 an Ethnographer of multilingual educational ,et-
tings. Her research interests include multilingual tr,tjectories, digital storytelling and objects
and language in transcontcxtual commuuicatillll.
xvii
Contributors
Fiona Copland is Professor of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Language, (TESOL)

at the University of Stirling, Scotland, where she is aho the Associate Dean Research in the
Faculty of Social Sciences. Fiona has taught English to young learners in Nigeria, Hong
Kong and Japan. She is author of Linguistic Etlm°''?raphy: Co/lecti11g, Analysing and Presenting
D11ta (Sage) v1-ith Angtcla Creese and co-edited Lin:zuistic Ethnography: Interdisciplinary Ex:plora-
tions withJulic1 Snell and Sara Shaw·.
Angela Creese is Profo"or ofLinguistic Ethnography in the Facultv of Social Sciences at the
University of Stirling. She was Principal Investigator on the major research project 'Translation
and Translanguaging: Investigating Linguistic and Cultural Transformations in Superdiverse
Wards in four UK Cities' (TLANG). In additi,m to the publications with Blackledge listed
above, she regularly publishes research on translangnaging and ling,uistic ethnography.
Anna De Fina is Professor of ltalian Language and Lingmstics, and Chair of the Italim
Department at Georgetov,n University, and Affiliated Faculty ,vith the Linguistics Depart-
ment Her interests focus on narrative, discourse and identity, immigrant and transnational
commuuities, and ethnographic approaches to multilingualism.
Susan Dray has been Research Associate on projects investigating wntten and/or spoken
language in British educ;1ti(illal and youth contexts. and in everyday and musical practices in
Jamaica. She is interested in how hnguage, meaning and knowledge change as they move, or
fail to move:-, .1cross different practices .md space,.
Rob Drummond is Reader in Lingui,tics at Manchester Metropolitan University and Head

of Youth Language at the ivlanchester Centre for Youth Studies. He is primarily interested
in the relationship between spoken language and identity, ;md the methods with which this
relationship can be explored.
laura Eyre has a PhD in social policy and a background in applied linguistics, social policy
and interpretive policy analysis. She is particularly interested in language and social inter-
actions, and the proce,scs and practices of policy development and implementation at local
levels. She has experience of working in several contexts, including local government and
National Health Service (NHS) organi,ations.
Julia Gillen is Reader in Digital Literacies in the:- Department of Linguistics and English
Language at Lancaster University. She directs the Edwardian Postcard Project and is a for-
mer Director of the Lancaster Literacy Research Centre. Her boob include D((?ital Literacies
(Routledge, 2014).
Alexandra Grey is a Postdoctoral fellow at the University of Sydney La,v School in con-
junction with that university's China Studies Centre. Her research investigates l.mguage
policy in practice under conditions of social change, with projects on linguistic1lly di,er,e
societies in both China and Australia.
Rachel Heimichsmeier is a Vi.siting Research Fellow at King's College London. Her re-
search focusses on identity construdion in interaction. particularly older-age, gender and
institution:il identities, a1Jd cmnbincs a conversation :rnalytic perspective within a narrative
anc1lysis framework and a linguiscic ethnographic approach.
xviii
Contributors
Lynn Hou is an Assistant Professor in the Linguistics Department at the University of

California, Santa Barbara. She received her PhD in Linguistics from The University ofTexas
at Austin and was a University of California President's Postdoctoral Fellow at the University
of California, San Diego.
Mingyi Hou is a Lecturer in Online Culture at Tilburg University's Department of Culture

Studies. Her research interests include media studies, celebrity and fandom cultures, and
political communications.
Jurgen Jaspers is Associate Professor in Dutch Linguistics at the Universite Libre de

Bruxelles (ULB). He publishes widely on classroom interaction, urban multilingualism and
language policy.
Rickard Jonsson is a Professor in Child and Youth Studies, Stockholm University. His lin-
guistic ethnographic research concerns masculinity, sexuality, ethnicity and language use in
young people's everyday lives. He has been published in journals such as Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, Gender & Language and Journal of Anthropology and Education. He is the author of
the two monographs Blatte betyder kompis and Viirst i klassen (Ordfront).
Kathrin Kaufhold is Assistant Professor in the Department ofEnglish, Stockholm University.

Her research interests include academic writing development, professional/institutional com-
munication, multilingualism, practice theory and qualitative research methods, and she has
published in journals such as Journal of English for Academic Purposes and Linguistics & Education.
Annelies Kusters is Assistant Professor in Sign Language and Intercultural Research at

Heriot-Watt University since April 2017. She is interested in sign language ideologies, multi-
lingual sign language practices, gesture-based communication and multimodality.
Vally Lytra is Reader in Languages in Education in the Department of Educational Studies

at Goldsmiths, University of London. Her research, practice and community engagement
focusses on bilingualism and biliteracy in homes, schools and communities that have expe-
rienced diverse migration flows. Her most recent book, Navigating Languages, Literacies and
Identities: Religion in Young Lives (with Dinah Volk and Eve Gregory), was published in 2016
by Routledge.
Tommaso M. Milani is Professor of Multilingualism at the University of Gothenburg. He

has written extensively about language ideology; language politics; and language, gender and
sexuality in a variety of contexts. His research has appeared in leading international journals,
such as Language in Society, Journal of Sociolinguistics and Discourse & Society. Among his most
recent publications are the edited collections Language and Masculinities (Routledge, 2015)
and Queering Language, Gender and Sexuality (Equinox 2018). He is currently co-editor (with
Carmen Caldas-Coulthard) of the journal Gender & Language.
Janus Mortensen is Associate Professor of Language Policy at the Centre for Interna-
tionalisation and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen. His current research
focusses on the formation of social and linguistic norms in transient social configura-
tions, and the interface between language ideology and policy in the context of university
internationalisation.
xix
Contributors
Uta Papen is Professor of Literacy Studies in the Department of Linguistics and English
Language at Lancaster University, and an active member of the Literacy Research Centre.
Her rese,uch, using cthnographv and discourse analysis, t,xnsses on the practices ,ind policies
of teaching literacy in schoob and other educational settings.
Adriana Patino-Santos, Assoo:tte Professor at the Department ofModon Languages and

Linguistics, University of Southampton, researches nmltilin§':ual practices as a lens through
which to observe complex sociolinguistic situation:,. She has rccn1tly co-edited the special
issu,, Storytelling in G/o/Jali.zcd Contexts: A Linguistic Etlznograp/zic Perspective (International Jour-
nal of Sociology of Language).
Ingrid Piller is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney. Her re-
search expertise is in mtercultnral comnrnnicaticm, L1ngu.1gc learning and nmltilingualism
in the contexts of migration and globalisation. She is the author of the rm1lti-award-winning
Linguistic Diuersity a11d Social ]11Sticc (Ox ford University Press, 2016) and the bestselling lnter-
rultural Communication (Edinburgh Urnversity Press, 2nd ed., 2017). She curate, the socio-
linguistics port,11 Language on the Move at http://www.languageomhemove.org/, through
which many of her publicatiorn and tho:;e of her tec\!Tt, including their research blog, can be
:iccesscd.
Ben Rampton is Professor of Applied & Sociolinguistics md Director of the Centre for
Language Discourse and Communication at King's College London (www.kcl.ac.uk/
ldc). He does intcractional sociolinguistics, :111d hi, interests cover urban multilingualism,
ethnicity, class, youth and education. He is the author of Crossi111z: Language & Eth11.icity among
Adolcsu:nis (Lnngman 1995/St Jerome 2005) and Langu,;ge in Late Modernity: interaction in an
Urban School (CUP 2006), and a cci-;mthor of Research in;: Language.· T,sues t;( Power and l\.-let/wd
(Routledge 1992). He co-edited The Lai;euagc, Ethnicity & Rc1cc Reada (Routledge 2003)
and Lan,~uage G Supcnlivcrsity (Routledge 2015), and edits Hlorking Papers in Ur/Jan Lmguagc
and Literacy (academia.edu). He was Founding Convener of the UK Linguistic Ethnography
Forum and was the Director of the King's ESRC lllterdisciplinary Social Science Doctoral
Training Centre from 2011 to 2014 (vvww.kcl.ac.uk/kissdtc).
Charlotte Selleck is a Senior Lecturer in Linguistics at the University of the West of

England (UWE). Brn,ol, UK. Her research expertise is in the tield of minority language
policy, principally in relation to education. Her current ethnographic research critically ex-
amine:, the plJcc uf'other' cir 'for,c,ign' languages iu the Welsh secondary education system.
Sara Shaw is Associate' Professor of Health and Social Policy, and Co-Director of the unit
for Interdisciplinary Re:,carch in the Health Sciences at the Umversity of Oxford. She has
a background in medical ,ociology and policy studies, md her research interests lie in the
,frvdoprnent of health and social policies; how these are unclcrstood md interpreted by pa-
tient,, pnctitioners, professionals and policymakers; crnd how policies shape organisational
processes, routines and decision-rnaking.
Winnie Siu-yee Ho obtaiucd her PhD in Applied Linguistics at Lancister University, UK.
She teaches Sooolmguistics and Academic English at the University of Hong Kong. Involved
in two digital literacy projects ;1s a co-investigator, she co-authored a book titled Acadel/lic
f.Vririn,rz.fiir Arts and Humanities Stwlr-r,ts (McGrc1w-Hi11, '.'016) with A1111a Tso and Joan Chung.
xx
Contributors
Stef Slembrouck is a Senior Professor in English Linguistics at Ghent University. He

has published widely on the role of interaction and communicative practices in a range
of institutional and professional contexts (incl. administrative practices, chiJd protection
and social welfare, education and health). Among his key interests are the implications of
dobafoation-rclated ;1nd migration-affocted multilingualisrn for the functioning of insti-
;~tions and the construction of social categories and realities. His list of book publications
includes Globdlisation and La~,z11,1ye in Contact. Sc<1le, 1'1i,zration and Communicative Practices (with
Jun Collms & Mike 6;1ynham, Continuum, 2D09).
Julia Snell is Associate Professor in English Language at the University of Leeds. She has
researched and published on language variation, language in education, social class, linguistic
ethnography, classroom discourse, di:1logic pedagogy and teacher professional development.
She is co,editor (with Sara Shaw and Fiona Copland) oCLinguistic Ethnography: lnterdisriplinary
Explorations (Palgrave).
Karin Tusting is Sen10r Lecturer at the Department of Linguistics and English Language,
Lancaster University. Her research has in recent years focussed on the literacies of the work-
place, with a particular interest in issues of audit and accountability. She h,1s recently pub-
lished Academics T,Tfriting: The Dynamics of Knowle1{,ze Production (Routledge, with Sharon
McCulloch, Ibrar Bhatt. Mary Hamilton and David Barton).
Sarah Van Hoof is Assistant Professor ofDutch and Multilingual Communication at Ghent
University. Her research focusses on language policies, ideologies, and practices in tbe media
and in public institutions in Flanders, Belgium.
Mieke Vandenbroucke is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Chent University. After defend-

ing her PhD in 2016, she was a fulbright Scholar at University of California, Berkeley.
Her research interest, lie at the intersection oC sociolinguistics and urban geography, ,vith a
particular focus on the impact of globalisation and migration on multilingual urban settings
in Europe. She is currently working on a linguistic ethnographic project on discourse and
multilingualism in marriage fraud investigations in Belgium. She has conducted fieldwork in
The Netherlands, Belgium and Kosovo, and has published in]oumal of Sociolinguistics (2016),
Language in Society (2017), Multi lingua (2018) and The 0:eford Handbook of Lan_,:uage and Society
(201.6), arnongst others.
Piia Varis is Associate Profes,or at the Department of Culture Studio, Tilburg University.
She researches widely in the areas of digital culture and society, and has published on super-
diversity, authenticitv and identity on the Internet.
xxi
1
General introduction
Karin rusting
Linguistic ethnography is a term that has come into increasing prominence within applied
and soc10linguistics in the past 20 yean. lt refrrs_to an approach which combines theoretical
and methodological approaches from linguistics and from ethnography, to research social
qul'.stions vvhich in some way involve language. Linguistics affords sensitive attention to
language. and a large and historically well-developed toolbox of specific analytic appro:iches
which can provide precise accounts of meaning-nuking processes as they happen. Ethnogra-
phy adds reflexivity about the wk of the resea re her; attention to people's emic perspectives;
sensitivity to in-depth underst:rndings of particular settings; and openness to complexity,
contradiction and re-interpretation over time (Rampton cc al., 2004).
The term does not represent a fixed and bounded disciplinary area. Rather, it indexes
a growing body of vvork from researchers who share this commitment to combining eth-
nographic approaches to research with close attention to langu,ige use. Therefore, there is
some dch1te as co what linguistic ethnography should he called- a field, a sub-discipline, an
'umbrella' or a methodological approach. lt can be thought of prirnarily as a community of
scholars ·who sh,ne particular tlKoretical and meLhodological orientations towards research-
ing language in social lifo. This handbook serves as one representation of the research and
thinking of this dynamic and growing community.
History of linguistic ethnography

The community can be traced back to an initial seminar in Leicester in 2001 which brought
together 30 researchers who shared an interest in bringing together linguistics and ethnog-
raphy. Several of those present ,1t th~n seminar (including R,tmpton, Creese, Slembrnuck,
Papen and myself) are represented in this volume. The meeting was funded by the British
A,soci,ttion for Applied Linguistics (BAAL) rnd Cambridge University Pre'5, and 1nany
scholars present were members oCBAAL. The seminar aimed to provide a space for people
approaching research from an ethnographic perspective to come together to share their work
and discuss the extern of their orienL1t10n tow;1rds shared theoretical and methodological
concerns, and to try to identify the particular features which characterised linguistic ethnog-
r:1phy in the UK.
Karin Tusting
The principal goal of that meeting was to start ,1 cleb.1te around key issues (see Barton
et al., 2001 for a report), and many of the issues first raised at that seminar have continued
to be discussed within the community. Topics ,vhich were first raised there which are rep-
resent,,d in this handbook include literacy studies, rnultilingual classrooms, working with
field notes and with transcripts of interaction, reflexivity, power relations in research and
collaborativc ethnography. The meeting ended, though, without a clear consensus as to what
the field concretely consisted of or even what it should be called. At that point, it was still
unclear whether this would turn out to be ;i viable grouping of researchers. We decided to
keep com111unic:1ting with one auothn. starting off with som.e quite modest goals: to create
an email list to enable continued communication between people carrying out research from
tins perspective; to explore whether some more fr,rmal group could be set up. perhaps as part
of BAAL; and to try to arrange at least one more meeting to continue the conversation.
Seventeen years later, at the time of writing there ;ire over 1,100 subscnber, to the elec-
tronic mailing list of the Linguistic Ethnography Forum (LEF). LEF was set up as BAAL's
first Special Interest Group (SIG; there are currently 13 SI Cs, in a wide range oC areas, froin
Corpus Linguistics to Language in Africa). In addition to reguLtr colloquia and strands at
the BAAL Annual Meeting, the SIG supports regular smaller meetings and vvorkshops in the
UK and Europe. The group's biennial conference, starred by Fiona Copland, Julia Snell and
Sara Shaw, Explorations in Ethnography, Language and Communication, has been held seven times
so far and attracts participants from around the world. Training programmes for doctoral
researchers are held regularly at King's College London (Key Concepts and Methods in Ethnog-
raphy, Language and Communication), and the MOSAIC Centre for Research on Bilingualism
at the University of Birmingham ran cl three-year proJect Researching l\l[u/ti/ingualism in Re-
search Practice which included training in researching multilingual settings from a linguistic
ethnographic perspective.
Work which identifies as linguistic dhnography is published in many applied linguistics
and discourse journals, and two influential series of Working Papers (I,Vorking Papers in Urban
Language and Literacies, King's College London; Tilburg Papers i11 Culture Studies, Ribylon
Centre for the Study of Superdiversity, Tilburg University) provide important spaces for
researchers to connect with each other, publish works-in-progress and develop shared ideas.
Books and special issues have consolidated the field and its methodology (Rampton et al.,
2007; Copland & Creese, 2015; Snell et al., 2015). Our initial hunch in 20CJ1 that this might
be a conversation worth purming proves to have been well justified.
Theoretical influences and antecedents

Linguistic ethnography draws from a range of c,tabhshed theoretical :ireas, some of which
have been explored in more deL1il in chapters in this handbook. Rampton et al. (2004), in a
position paper which attempted to define the then state of the art in lingmstic ethnography,
identified five tr:iditions which inforrned the development oflinguistic ethnography in the
UK: interactional sociolinguistics, literacy studies, critical discourse analysis, neo-Vygotskian
research on langu,ige and learning, and mterpretive applied linguistics for Lmguagc teaching.
From the 1960s onwards, interactional sociolinguistics has argued for the importance of
researching language in use and has developed analytic approaches providing insight into
the dynami,:s ot interaction (Rcimpton, this volume). The work of contemporary interac-
tional sociolinguists has demonstrated tbe value of ethnography for understanding language
change, for discerning the connections between bngu;ige change and social change, and for
understanding how close analysis of interactional data can provide insight into how people
2
use language to index social identities (see, for instance, Eckert, 2000, 2012 for a discussion
of the historical development of sociolinguistics as a field, from more quantitative variationist
erspectives to more ethnographically influenced interactional approaches).
p Literacy studies have developed a strong tradition of etb nographic research and a practice
conceptualisation oflitcracy and language, which have both played a role in the development
oflingll\stic ethnography (see Tmting, Gillen & Ho, this Critical discourse
analysis also approaches language a, soual practice and draws on socia 1 theory to provide
a critical orientation to the role of cfocoune in perpetuating patterns of social inequality
(Slembrouck, this volume). Sociocultural neo-Vygotskian appro,1ches to language and learn-
ing highlighted the importance of ,cxial interaction for learning and the value of detailed
an~lysis of those interactions at the micro-level, and the tradition of mterpretive applied
linguistics for language teaching brought Hymes's notion of 'communicative competence'
to the centre of the pedagogical process. (See Rampton et al., 2004 for further exploration.)
Much of the early work identifying as linguistic ethnography can be traced back to roots in
one of these traditions.
Other ;1reas of research have had a more distant, but still important influence. For in-
stance, there have to date been surprisingly fo,v direct research connections between lin-
guistic anthropology, as practised ll1 the US, and the lmgui,tic ethnography
community as Jt has developed witlHn applied linguistics and sociolinguistics in Britain and
Europe. Rampton et al. (2004, p. 13) identified linguistic anthropology not a, a theoretical
antecedent but as a "very important reference point", and this is still an appropriate way to
describe the relationship between the areas.
Historically, linguistic anthropology in the US developed from the work of scholars like
Boas and Sapir studying indigenous Native American groups, recording their languages and
studying their cultures. This 'first paradigm' of linguistic anthropology (Duranti, 2003),
while of great historical and cultural relevance, has not, for the most part, been a direct
influence on the development of linguistic ethnography. In contrast, Hyrnes's 'ethnography
of speaking' approach, developed in the 1%Os (Hymes, 1962), and his work with Gumperz
bmlding on this (Gumperz & Hymes, 1972) have indeed been key (J~arnpton et al., 2007;
Rarnpton, tlm volume). Duranti (2003) identifies Hymes's and Cmnperz' work as founda-
tion:il to a \econd paradigm' of linguistic anthropology, reacting against then-dominant
structural and cognitive perspectives in linguistics, which highlighted the need to study
language-in-use situated in social and cultural contexts, rather than studying language as
an abstract system. Building on this work, but also influenced by post-structuralist and
post-modern perspectives from the 1980s onwards, Duranti describes a 'third paradigrn' of
linguistic anthropology, interested particularly in the role of language in the construction
of identities, narratives and ideologies, connecting the micro-level of interaction with the
macro-level of culture and society, a focus which is indeed conson:int with much linguistic
ethnogr;1phic work, as the chapters in this handbook demonstrate. (See .Maybin & Tusting,
201 l frir further discussion of the reL1tionship between these two ticlds.)
Despite the bck of explicit research connections, the conceptual influence of linguistic
anthropology is clear in providing many of the concepts which have come to be frequently
drawn on in linguistic ethnography. Some of the key ideas which run through the chapters
in this handbook, such as indexicality (Silverstein & Urban, 1996), performance (Bauman &
Briggs, 1990), language socialisation (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) and enregisterment (Agha,
2005), have emerged fi:om linguistic anthropology. The work of sociocultural linguists in
the US, such as Bucholtz and Hall (2005) on adopting a sociocultural approach to identity
and interaction, is located within the linguistic anthropological tradition and has, in turn,
3
Karin Tusting
rnformed linguislic ethnography. And research which can be located within the linguistic
anthropology of education (Wortham & Rymes, 2003) has been an important inAuence, in-
cluding Erickson's nucro-interactional work (Erickson, 21104), \Vortham's focus on identity
development through language use in educational settings (Wortham, 2006) and Rymes's
work on communicative repertoires in diverse classroom settings (Rymes, 2014).
One att"a of research in lrnguistic ethnography wb ich docs trace its origin more explicitly
back to linguistic anthropology is ethnographic research on multilingualism. Represented
recently in the UK particularly by the MOSAIC Centre for Research on Multilingualism at
the University ofBirmingham, work adopting this perspective emerged from the late 1980s
onwards. Martin-Jones and Martm's (2017) account of the history of this area shows dearly
bow work in tlm field emerged from the same theoretical roots as linguistic ethnography i
more generally, particularly the work of Gumperz and Hymes mentioned above. They also
show how 1mportanL worb by Gal (1989), Heller ('1999) and Woolard (1():--;9), all lmguist1c
anthropologists. developed a critical approach to ethnographic sociolinguistics which opened
up space for an array of etlmographJC work in multilingual context,, including classroom.
education (Heller & Martin-Jones, 200l), co111plementary schools (Blackledge & Creese,
2010) and multilingual literacy practices (Martin-Jones & Jones, 2000). MartinJones and
Gardner (2012, I' 1) describe the current en1ergence of a '·new sociulinguistics of multilin-
gualism", informed by an epistemological shift to a critical and ethnographic approach, and
by increased concern with globalisation, transnational rnohilit1cs and changing patterns of
communication. Such ethnogr;1phic studies of multilingualism have played a central role in
the development of linguistic ethnography and have contnbuted significantly to contempo-
rary theoretical concnns of linguistics more generally: for example, the development of the
theory of translanguaging in contexts of superdiversity (Creese et al., 2017; Li Wei, 2018).
The handbook
The purpose of this h;mdbook is to provide an overview of the current state of linguistic
ethnography, particularly for those relatively new to this area, written by key scholars who
locate their work within this community, provicling enough infi,rmation and references to
support researchers early in their career to develop their own work from a linguistic eth-
nographic per,;pective, with rn;my illustrative examples berng drawn from the writers' own
research in the ;Jrea.
This purpose is rdl.ectcd m the structure of the book. It is divided into three sections. The
first, Antecedents. Related Areas and l<.ey Concepts, outli11cs important trJdit1ons of research
and ideas which have been closely connected with the development of linguistic ethnogra-
phy. Rampton describes the influence of interactionaJ sociolinguistics, particularly the work
of Gumperz and Hymes in developing the ethnography of communication, reflecting espe-
cially on how Gurnperzian interactional sociolmgmstics has shaped linguistic ethnography
and huw this can be built on in trainiDg current researcher, ;md in developing future research
projects. Slemhrouck outline:, the range of different understandings of 'discourse analysis'
,vhich haw developed and how 1hese connect to and inform linguistic ethnography. Gillen
,ind Ho explore the continuing connections betwecn literacy studies and linguistic ethnogra-
phy. An interest in issues of global mobility and superdiversity has been a key theme in much
recent work in linguistic ethnography, and Grey and Piller explore this in their chapter on
sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation.
Skrnbruuck ;, nd Vandenbroucke address the related not10n of scak, arguing that an in-
creased focus on scale across the social sciences can be interpreted as part of a broader 'spatial
4
turn'. Drawing on data from marriage fraud investigations in the context of immigration,
they show how an ethnographic focus on documents, interaction and the site of the body can
be interpreted within multiple scales, with the national and international being instantiated
in these local interactions. Snell focusses on the concept of social class, first showing how
static notions of class were important as explanatory factors in Labovian variationist socio-
linguistics before demonstrating, partly with reference to her own research with elementary
school children, how ethnographic observation combined with intensive language analysis
can provide insights into the subtleties of how class is oriented to and performed through
everyday language use.
Blackledge and Creese present the Bakhtinian notion of heteroglossia, a concept which
captures the multivoiced nature oflanguage situations, illustrating this with examples from
their own recent research on translanguaging in contemporary urban settings. Jaspers and
Van Hoof deal with the related concepts of style and stylisation, surveying the importance
of the concept of style in sociolinguistics before showing how ethnographic studies of
real-life language use have used stylisation to describe speakers playing with different styles
to construct social meanings and engage in different kinds of identity performances. Finally,
Bezemer and Abdullahi explore connections between linguistic ethnography and the emerg-
ing field of multimodality research.
While the above chapters draw out methodological implications of the theoretical con-
cepts, the second section of the handbook focusses more directly on methods. It opens with
Papen's chapter on participant-observation and field notes, the method of data collection
which could be said to most centrally define ethnography as an approach. She first explores
the historical development of participant-observation, before providing more explanation
of how participant-observation can play out and how field notes can be drawn on in lin-
guistic ethnographic projects, illustrating these points with reference to her own research in
classrooms. De Fina then considers the place of interviews in ethnographic research, com-
paring the ethnographic interview to otp.er kinds of interviews used in social sciences and
addressing critical issues including the role of the interviewer and the relationship between
interviewer and research participants.
One characteristic of much linguistic ethnography is close analysis of recorded interac-
tional data, and Heinrichsmeier's chapter explores this aspect, focussing in on the potential
of drawing on conversational analysis in the context of a linguistic ethnographic project.
She draws on her research on interactions in a hairdresser's to show how very small details
of interaction, set within the broader context of ethnographic observation, can illuminate
questions around broad social issues of age and gender and how they are instantiated in mun-
dane interactions.
Ethical issues are a matter of concern in any ethnographic project and are addressed by
Copland, locating the ethical questions raised by linguistic ethnography within broader is-
sues around the current state of ethical review in social science research, illustrated with
reference to ethical dilemmas from a range of research projects. Budach addresses the intrin-
sically collaborative nature of ethnographic work, first exploring the roots of collaborative
ethnography in applied anthropology and critical ethnography and then demonstrating the
importance of collaboration within linguistic ethnography in particular. She locates collab-
oration within linguistic ethnography's intrinsic interdisciplinarity, and draws out some of
its challenging implications in relation to the role of the researcher and their relationships
with research participants and with stakeholders, illustrating her arguments with reference
. to a range of work in contemporary linguistic ethnography. Patino-Santos engages with
reflexivity within linguistic ethnography, exploring the methodological and epistemological
5
Karin Tusting
implications of the researcher adopting a reflexive stance, illustrated with an account of her
o,vn positioning and its imphcatiom within her research in multilu1gual classrooms.
Varis and Mingyi Hou address digital approaches in linguistic ethnography, outlining the
contribuLion of ethnographic work to our understandings of comnmnication in digital envi-
ronments, highlighting the importance of a perspective which does not artificially sep,irate
cbg1tal :md non digital fonm of communication. Finally, Dray and Drummond sh,1re their
experiences of the possibilities and challenges of combining linguistic ethnography with a
variationist sociolinguistic perspective in research on young people's language practices and
identities in a Learning Centre.
The final section, Sites and SiLuations. explores :;ome oC the cmpincil are,1s where lin-
guistic ethnography has made a contribution to our understanding oflanguage in the social
world, using the methods ,,nd concepts outlined earlier in the handbook. Jonsrnn, Arman
and Milani wnte about youth language, focussing particularly on research in urban youth
style in Sweden. The chapter reflects on ethnographic studies of youth l:mguage style in a
diverse urban environment, shovnng the value of such work for developing understanding,
of how such vciriet1es cnregister languagi: ideulogies, and for challenging bounded notions
oflanguage in the context of global mobilities - both broader issues of concern in ,;ontem
porary sociolinguistic,.
Barwell takes up the context of language diversity m cbssroorn settings. l·-:le provides an
overview of linguistic ethnographic work in classrooms and in language diverse settings
before drawing on his own work with (~ree speakers 111 mathematics cbssrooms to develop
and illmtrate themes of reflexivity, indexicality and intertextuality. Se1leck and Barakos ad-
dress a very different kind of language diversity, that of elite multilingualism, showing how
an ethnographic per,pecti ve can help us to understand how hierarchies of multilingualism
are constructed and reproduced, while Mortensen reflects on wh;lt a linguistic ethnographic
perspective contributes to research into lingua franca scenarios.
Lytra explores an under-researched but emerging ,uea of interest for linguistic ethnog-
rJphy, language and literacy in faith communities. She shows the historical importance of
work on religious literacies in the development ofliteracy studies, before providmg a review
of more recent contribuLions in this area, highlighting the importance of continuing to re-
search this domain in contemporary supcrdiverse contexts. Sh aw and Eyre argue for the value
oflinguistic ethnography in the study of policy, drawing on their own work in health and
soCJal policy to show how the perspectives of policy ethnography and policy as discourse can
usefully be drawn together within a linguistic ethnographic perspective to provide insight
into the connections between micro-level policy pr;tclices and the broader context, and to
understand the processes by means of which policies are produced.
Lynn Hou and Knsters provide an authoritative overview of research on sign languages
which can be interpreted as linguistic ethnography, showing how such work provides in-
si?,hts into language socialisation, emerging sign languages, language contact and multilin
gualism, language shift and ideologies around sign language. Finally, Kaufhold and Tusting
de,cribe the importance ot ethnn"'raphic work in the study of Jcademic writing, both of
students and of academic staff
Oveull, the handbook showcases the wide range of research Ill lingmstic ethnography.
While the chapters vary rn focus, a sense of theoretical coherence is evident, with key con-
cepts and reference points recurring across the chapters. For example, Lhere is a consistent
approach to the conceptualisation of language. L:inguage is described repeatedly across the
charters as a social and cultural prcicticc as one would expect given the comm.on reference
poim of Hymes and Gumperz' ethnography of communication. Language is also frequently
6
described in terms of repertoires oflinguistic and semiotic resources on which people draw,
in ways which are shaped by their purposes and by the contexts in which they find them-
selves. The term 'voice' is also used, often to highlight linguistic and social diversity, multi-
voicedness, heteroglossia, polyphony and intertextuality, influenced particularly by Bakhtin.
This is explored particularly by the chapter by Creese and Blackledge, but is also evident else-
where (e.g., Jaspers and Van Hoof on double-voicing; Barwell on multivoiced authorship).
Drawing on notions of multimodality, multi-semioticity, and multilingual and multiscriptal
communication (Bezemer and Abdullahi; Lytra; Jaspers and Van Hoof) further extends our
understanding of what constitutes language and meaning-making processes.
The empirical focus of the work shared here is consistently on the study of linguistic
processes situated at the local level, but not for their own sake. Rather, sustained interest is
displayed in the relationships between situated interaction and practices, and macro-level
structures and ideologies; see, for instance, Snell's chapter using micro-analysis to understand
the experience of class as a symbolic and cultural construct, or Heinrichsmeier's analysis
of how micro-positioning moves enable older women to navigate, manage and sometimes
challenge social norms around age and gender. But as Rampton makes clear, the onus is
always on making general claims about macro-level structures and processes accountable to
and tested by the specific characteristics of the micro-level data in focus. This focus on local
interactional processes requires certain methodological commitments, and several chapters
make explicit the need for slow, intensive, fine-grained or micro-level analyses - Bezemer
and Abdullahi reference Silverstein's appreciation of "smallness and slowness", for instance,
while Snell talks of the need for long, slow immersion in data.
The relationship between language and social context is seen as being a dynamic, rather
than a fixed one, with the social context being constructed as an ongoing process throughout
the dynamic unfolding of interaction (contextualisation). This is one way in which dose
examination of the micro-level processes of talk-in-interaction can enable a better under-
standing of broader structures and processes, as these contextualisation processes both orient
to and continue these structures and processes. Indexicality is frequently drawn on as an im-
portant concept in this regard, providing a way of talking about the social meanings indexed
in language use which play a part in positioning people within social structures (e.g. chapters
by Snell, Barwell, Selleck and Barakos). This is one way of explaining the social value of
linguistic phenomena like stylisation and style-shifting Oonsson, Arman and Milani; Jaspers
and Van Hoof). Agha's (2005) concept of enregisterment is drawn on in several chapters as
a means of grasping the processes by means of which such indices of meaning become more
fixed over time into recognisable registers which provide a basis for social evaluation Qaspers
and Van Hoof; Varis and Mingyi Hou).
This interest in the connection between the local and the global, or the micro and the
macro, is usually associated with a concern with issues of power and hierarchy, and the role
oflanguage and interaction in perpetuating and/or potentially challenging social inequali-
ties. Much of the work shared here is explicitly positioned as adopting a critical perspective
or is focussing on the discursive instantiation of hegemonic power relationships. Concep-
tualisations of power and its workings from social theory are drawn on, with Foucault and
Bourdieu often serving as common reference points, but also others including Giddens,
Harvey and Bhabha. The linguistic construction and maintenance ofideologies - including,
but not limited to, language ideologies - which reinforce social relations of power are of
particular concern, as are inequalities of access to linguistic and semiotic resources which
. connect to social hierarchisation and marginalisation (Selleck and Barakos, Lynn Hou and
Kusters).
7
Karin Tusting
One aspect of the broader social context which is of particular concern in several of the
chapters is the increasing interconnectedness of the world and the associated movements of
people and languages, described variously in different chapters using terms such as globali-
sation, superdiversity, mobility, global flows and scale. The focus on this topic continues the
general interest in issues of power and inequality, realised, for instance, in a concern with un-
derstanding hierarchical relationships between global and peripheral scales (Slembrouck and
Vandenbroucke), and the unequal positioning of people with differing linguistic resources
within these (Selleck and Barakos). Many chapters share a common interest in multilin-
gualism and language diversity (Barwell; Selleck and Barakos; Jaspers, Arman and Milani;
Mortensen), while at the same time notions like everyday languaging and translanguaging
are drawn on to challenge ideas oflanguages as fixed and separate (Creese and Blackledge,
Lynn Hou and Kusters).
Several of the chapters explicitly position linguistic ethnography within a post-positivist
or interpretive paradigm (e.g. Gillen and Ho, and Varis and Mingyi Hou, on posthumanism;
Creese and Blackledge on orienting to post-structuralism; Shaw and Eyre on interpretive
analysis; Lynn Hou and Kusters on challenging essentialism). This is reinforced by a consis-
tent recognition of the researcher's interpretive role within the process of knowledge pro-
duction, and frequent underlining of the importance of researcher reflexivity (see chapter by
Patino-Santos, but also references by Slembrouck, Barwell and others; Budach on researcher
positionality; De Fina on the embedding of knowledge generation in power relationships).
The relationship between language and identity is a common topic of concern, and this
post-positivist positioning is also reflected in the shared understanding of identity as fluid
and multiple, interactional, shaped by context, and performed in acts ofidentity, rather than
being a fixed position in a social structure.
Shared future directions can be identified across much of the work compiled here. Many
of these relate to technological change, including the importance of increasing the focus of
research on linguistic and multimodal communication in rapidly developing online environ-
ments, and highlighting the new possibilities technologies afford for data collection and pro-
cessing. The value of continuing to pursue the already strong thread of interdisciplinarity in
linguistic ethnography is also mentioned as an important future direction in several chapters.
Overall, the handbook demonstrates the value and potential oflinguistic ethnography in
providing insights into local interaction and the local instantiation of macro-level structures
and processes, particularly in relation to social issues of great contemporary significance such
as globalisation, migration and diversity. I hope it will prove useful and stimulating, both to
established linguistic ethnographers, and to those who are joining this vibrant and dynamic
community.
Karin Tusting, January 2019
References
Agha, A. (2005). Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 38-59.
doi:10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1. 38.
Barton, D., Creese, A., Maybin, J., Rampton, B., & Tusting, K. (2001). UK Linguistic Ethnogra-
phy Forum: First Research Seminar. Available from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/
lingethn/leicester2001report.htm (Accessed 18th May 2018).
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and
social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59-88.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London: Continuum.
8
Bucholtz, M., & l·bll, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse
swdies, 7(4-5), 585-614. noi:10.1177/14614456 1)5054407
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic etlmagraphy: Collecting, analysing and presenting dat,z. Thousand
Oaks, CA and London: SAGE Publications.
Creese, A., Bbckledge, A., & Hu, R. (2017). Tr,mslanguaging and translation: The construction of
social difference across city spaces. Internation,il]oumal of Bilillgual Ed11cati,1n and Bilinlualism, 21(7),
841-852. doi:10.1080/136 70050. 2017.1323445
Duranti, A. (2003). Language as culture in US anthropology - Three paradigms. Current Anthropology,
44(3), 323347
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic 1Ji11iation as soci,il practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gal, S. (1989). Language and political economy. AnntMl Review of Anthropology, 18, 345-367.
Gurnpcrz, J. J., & Hymes, I). (1972). Direaions in sociolinguistics: The eth,wr;mphy of co11111umiwtio11. New
York: Holt. Rinehart, & Winston.
Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity. London: Longman.
Heller, M., & Martin-Jones, M. (Eds.) (2001). Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference.
Westport, CT i\blex.
Hyn,cs, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropolopy
and /111111.an behauior (pp. 13-53). Washington, DC: Anthropology Society of Washington.
Li Wei, 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory oflanguage. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9-30.
Martin-Jones, M., & Gardner, S. (Eds.) (2012). i\Iultilingualism, discou.1sc ,ind ethnogrnp/zy. London:
Routledge.
Martin-Jones, M., & Heller, M. (1996). Eduu1tion m multilingual settings: Discourse, identities, and power.
Special issues of Linguistics in Edurntion, 8 (l and 2).
Martin-Jones, .M., & Jones, K. (2000). Multilinyual literacies: Readin:, ,md writing different worlds.
_A,msterdam: John Benj:imins.
Maybm, J., & Tusting, K. (2011). Linguistic ethnography. In J. Simpson (Eel.), Routledge Hcmdbook of
,4pplied Linguistics (pp. 229-241). London and New York: Routledge.
Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Tusting, K. (2007). Linguistic ethnography: Links, problems ,md possibilities.
Special issue of the ]ow11,il o{ Sociolinguistics, 11(5).
Rampton, B .. Tusting, K., Maybin, J., Harwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2004). UK Linguistic
ethnography: A discussion paper. Available from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/lin
gethn/documents/disrnssion_paper_jan_05.pdf (Accessed 18th May 2018).
Rymes, B. (2014). Communi(,uing beyond l,mguagc Dvcryday enw11nters with diuersity. London and New
York: Routledge.
Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annu,11 Review of Anthropology 15, 163-191.
Silverstein, M., & Urban, G. (1996). N<1tural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
SncJI, J., Shaw, S., & Copbnd, F. (Eds.) (2015). Unguistic ethnography: Interdiscipli11<11y explor,zrions.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tusting, K. (2013). Literacy studies as linguistic ethnography. ivorki11,1, papers in urban langu11ge and liter-
acies (No. 105). London. King's College.
Woolard, K. A. (1989). Dou/,le talk: Bilinyualism ,md !lie politics of ethnicity in Cataloni,1. Stanford, CA.:
Stanford University Press.
Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity: The joint erne,;gence of social identification and academic learning.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wortham, S., & Rymes, B. (20(J3). Li11g11istic anthro1>olo~y of educc1tion. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
9
Part I
Antecedents, related areas
and key concepts
2
lnteractional sociolinguistics
Ben Rampton
Introduction
Intenctioml sociolinguistics (IS) 1 as the expression ofJohn Gmnpcrz's approach
to research, and it usually focmses on face-to-face interactions in which there are signifi-
cant differences in the participants' sociolinguistic resources and/or institutional pO\vcr. IS
has a broad methodological base, with deep roots in ethnography, dialectology, pragrn.atics,
Goffmanian and conversation analysis, a:1d it generally seeks as rich a data set on n;iturally
occurring interaction as it can get. Data-collection involves the audio and/or video recording
of situ;1tnl interaction from particular events, people and groups, supplemented by as much
part1cip;l!lt observation and retrospective corn1nentary from local part1C1pants as possible, and
analysis moves across a wide range oflewh of organisation, from the phonetic to the institu-
tional. Overall, IS constitutes a comprehensive framework for e11g;.1ging with the empirical
specifics for any social science with practice theory (Ortner, 2006), and
more particularly, it is a central pillar within linguistic ethnography, encouraging researchers
to "roll up [their] linguistic sleeves and drill down to the detail of social problems" (Auer &
Roberts, 2011, p. 381), making optimum use of the sensitising frameworks available in the
(sub-)disciplines focussing on language.
With Dell Hymes, Gumperz ,vas also a foundational figure in contemporary sociolinguis-
tics .rnd linguistic anthropology (LA) more generally, but while "Hymes outlined the broad
goals of sooolrnguistics research, concentrated on concrete evidence of sociolin-
guistic methodology in action" (S,nang1, 2ill I, p. 377). Where Hymes produced new maps
for the 1-eLtt1onsf11p between linguistics and anthropology in progr.tnnnatic rnanifestos that
stressed ;md political relcv,mcc to contemporary social Ide, Gmuperz developed
and tested the analytic resources c1nergrng across this newly reconstituted field, providing
a "dynamic view of social environments where history, economic forces and interactive
processes ... cornbine to create or to eliminate social distinctions" (Gumperz, 1982, p. 29).
And while Hymes's vision of ethnography as a 'democratic science' has provided linguist1c
ethnography in the UK and Europe with an especially powerful warrant for engagernenl
f :11.11 'icry gr:-1tdu! lo Celia Roberts (vv-ho inl.Toducul 1ne to interactional ,wd 10 Jan Blommaert
k,1 ,ou1c vcrv helpful feedback on the c,rgll.r1.1.rn1, lwrc-. A longer discussion can found a1: l(a111pton (2017).
13
Ben Rampton
beyond the academy (Blomnnert, 2009a; Rampton et al., 2015, pp. 37-44; Snell et al.,
2015), Gumperz theorised and deployed a synthesis of (potentially divergent) perspectives
that ,tands as a touchstone for "anti-structuralist rigour" (Auer & Roberts, 2011, p. 382; see
below).
This chapter first sketches the origins of IS in Gumperz and Hymcs's early efforts to
develop a general theory of bnguage and society. Characterising the key features of
Gumperzian IS, it emphasises the notions of 'inference' and 'contextualisation' as well as the
(counter-hegemonic) centrality of intensive analyses of n"corded interaction. It then turm
to IS's close relationship with LA and conver,ation analysis (see also Heinrichsmeier, this
volume), considering the challenges presented by IS's imistcnt interdisciplinarity and it, rela-
tive lack of formalisation, following this with a brief disCl1ssion of how IS seeks tu intervene
in non-academic activity. Concurring with Auer and Roberts's (2011) view that Gumpeu
was the first to develop a sociolinguistics capable of handling globaliseJ supcrdiversiL y (sec
Blackledge and Creese, this volume: Grey and Piller, this volume), the paper then describes
the ways in which his work on code-switching and intercultural communication has been
updated in, respectively, studies of ,tylisation and asylum procedures. Finally, it suggests that
in future work. IS should examine the intt:rfiice between face-to-face and digital interac-
tion together with the implications of new forms ofsurveillance. capitalising on the anti-
structurali,t rigour that IS can bring to the ,tudy ofr:oucrnldian 'govcrnmentality'.
Historical background
Building on links formed in the 1960s, Gurnperz and Hymes\ seminal 1972 collect10n, Direc-
tions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communicatirm, articulated several concerns central
to IS (as well as containing an exemplary early IS study m Blom & Gumperz, 1972). First,
there was the search for a theory capable of treating language as integral to social and cultural
proces,es as well as the need to develop methods and technical concepts suited to describing
this. Hymes refrmcd to "a basic snence that does not yet exist'' (1972, p. 38), and Gumperz
and Hymes suggested that "[r]ecent publications ... have. so far, not been integrated into
any general theory oflanguage and society" (1972, pp. vi-vii). Second, this was infused by
a comnutment to m,1king language analysis count in a period of m~jor political upheaval
decolonisaciun. civil rights and the quest for fairness in ednotion (Hymes, 1972. pp. 10, 13,
38, 53). Third, Lo build adcgu:1te models of the interaction oflanguagc and social life, "there
must be ... an approach [to description) tbat partly links, but partly cuts across, partly builds
between ... the disciplines" (Hymes, 1972, p. 41). Indeed, the collection brought contrib-
utors together from very different backgrounds in linguistics, anthropology, sociology and
psychulogy. and Hymes subsequently reflected, "[a]n important attraction in the early years
of sociolinguistics was that a number of individuals, interested in [languag\'] use, were m,1r-
ginal to their official affiliations" (1997, p. 125).
But this changed as the study oflanguagc and society expanded in che period that fol-
lowed, ,md several of the perspectives represented in the l972 volume consolidated themselves
as separate sub-di,ciplines for example. conversation analysis (Sacks and Schegloff), varia-
tionist sociolinguistics (Labov) and the sociology oflanguage (Fishman) (cf Bucholtz & Hall,
2008; Dmanti, 2009). As editor of La11guc1gc in Socif'.t)' from its inception in 1972 until 1994,
Hymes certainly stayed in touch with this diversific:ition, promoting cross-fertilisation, and
in 1982, Gumpcrz established a book series, ,<;tudies i11 Inreractional Sociolinguistics (subsequently
co-edited with Paul Drew, Marjorie G-oudwin and Deborah Schitfon) for re,e,1rch on the
social dynamics of talk m everyday and imtitution:11 settings (clinics, schools, workplaces,
14
courtrooms, news interviews, focus groups). But if one looks across the range of scholars
and approaches represented in Gumperz' series - for example Tannen, De Fina, Culpeper,
Myers, Couper-Kuhlen, Selting, Heritage, Stivers, Sidnell, Jacquemet; discourse analysis,
pragmatics, interactional linguistics, conversation analysis and LA - IS seems like a relatively
loose grouping of mutually intelligible perspectives, rather than a tight alignment. Gumperz
himself, however, persisted in the quest for "a general theory of verbal communication which
integrates what we know about grammar, culture and interactive conventions into a single
overall framework of concepts and analytic procedures" (1982, p. 7).
Approach to analysis
The "general theory of verbal communication" associated with IS builds on Gumperz and
Hymes's crucial early insight, which was "to take the speech event as the unit of analy-
sis rather than community-wide linguistic and cultural norms, to see that culture did not
stand outside talk but was constituted in and through situated speaking practices" (Auer &
Roberts, 2011, p. 385; see also Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2008, p. 536), The theory
brings together several major sets of resources: linguistics and discourse analysis, which provide
an initial idea of the potential meaning of the linguistic resources that participants draw on
in situated communication; Goffmanian and conversation analysis, which illuminate the ways
in which intersubjective understanding develops as interlocutors follow each other building
up their conversation (Heritage, 1997), the moral sensitivities permeating the use of semiotic
forms and strategies, and the ways in which people distribute their attention when they are
physically present together; and ethnography, which proyides a sense of the stability, status and
resonance that linguistic forms, rhetorical strategies and .semiotic materials have in different
social networks beyond the encounter-on-hand; an idea of how and where an encounter fits
into longer and broader biographies, institutions and histories; and a sense of the cultural
and personal perspectives/experiences that participants bring to interactions, and take from
them. Finally, with these elements in place - very loosely, "grammar, culture and interactive
conventions" - Gumperz adds the vital notions of conversational 'inferencing' and 'contextual-
isation' (see e.g. 1996, pp. 378-381).
'Inferencing' refers to the interpretive work that people perform in trying to reconcile the
material that they encounter in any given situation with their prior understanding. It refers
to the normally effortless sense-making that occurs when people work out the significance
of a word, an utterance, an action or an object by matching it against their past experience,
against their expectations of what's coming up, their perceptions of the material setting and
so forth. The term 'contextualisation cue' is complementary, though it shifts the focus from
receptive sense-making to speech production. When someone formulates an utterance, it
is more than just the semantic proposition that they construct. They also produce a whole
host of small vocal signs that evoke, for example, a certain oflevel of formality (shifting to
a more prestigious accent, selecting the word 'request' rather than 'ask'), or that point to the
presence of bystanders (talking quietly), and this non-stop process of contextualisation may
either reassure their listener that they are operating with a broadly shared understanding of
the situation, or it can nudge the recipient's inferences in another direction. A lot of this
processing is relatively tacit, with participants constantly engaged in low-key monitoring of
how all the details of verbal communication fit with their grasp of the propositions being ex-
pressed, with their sense of the speaker's intent, with their understanding of the activity they
are in and how it should proceed, etc. But it only takes a slight deviation from the habitual,
a small move beyond expected patterns of variation in the way that somebody speaks or acts,
15
Ben Rampton
to send recipients rnto inferential over-drive, wondering what's going on when a sound, a
wonL a gnmmacical pattern, a discourse move or bodily gesture doesn't quite rnatch: should
I ignore or respond to this;, Is it a joke or serious? What ties these apparently unconnected
ideas together? Is the speaker still wearing their institutional bat or are they suddenly claim-
ing solidarity with a particular group;,
Th1s theorisation has major implications fr1r our underst;mding of 'context'. As noted
above, word denotation, the formal structures of grammar and the propositional rneaning of
sentences still count, but they lose their traditiorul supremacy in linguistic study, and instead
become just one among a large array of sen:riotic resources available for the local production
and interpretation of meaning. Language is reg,nded as pervasively indexical, continuously
pointing to persons, practices, settings, obJects and ideas that never get explicitly expressed,
and in what Erickson calls a ''Copernican shift in per,pectiw within sociolinguistics" (2011,
p. 399), context stops being the relatively static, external and determining reference point
traditionally added to language analysis ,1s something of an afterthougbt wh,1t Drew and
Heritage call the 'bucket' theory of context (l 992, p. 19) - and is instead seen a, dynamic,
interactively accompli,hcd and intrinsic to communication.
So context is an understanding of the social world activated in the 1111.dst of thmgs, an
under,tanding of the social ,Nodd that is inteL1ctiomlly ratified or undermined from. one
moment to the next as the participants in an encounter respond to one another. At the same
tim,:, however, when people engage with one ,uiuthec there is comiderable scope for social
difference m the norms and expectations that individuals orient to, as well as in the kinds of
thing they notice as discrepant, and there can also be a great range in the inferences that they
bring to bear ('good' or 'bad', 'right' or 'wrong', 'a1:t' or 'error', 'call it out' or 'let it pas,', 'typ-
ical of this or that'). The normative expectations and explanatory accounts activated like this
in the interactional present seldom cume from nowhere. Instead, they instantiate discourses
that the participants have picked up through prior involvement in socio--comnmnicative
networks that can range in scale from intimate relationships and friendship groups to n:1 ·
tional education systems and global media - "what we perceive and retain in our mind is a
function of our culturally determined prcdispo:,ition tu perceive and assimilate" (Gurnperz,
1982, p. 12). In this way, the notions of inferencing and contextualisation offer us a way of
seeing how- long-term expenence anrl more widely circulating ideologie, infuse the quick of
activity in the here-and-now, introducing the force of socul expectation/'structure' without
overlooking the participants' skilled agency (cf. Dlommaert & Rampton, 2011, p. 11).
from very early 011, Gumperz contested the view that language merely reflected more
basic social forces. He msistecl that, "the relationship of ... social factors to speech form is
quite different from vvhat the sociologist means by correlation among variables" (Gumperz &
Hern:indez-Chavez, 1972, p. 98), and he proposed '\n1 important break with previous ap-
proaches to social structure and to language and society. Behavioural regularities arc no
longer regarded as reflections of independently measurable social nonT1,; on the contrary,
these norms are themselves seen as communicative behaviour" (Blom & Gumperz, 1972,
p. 432). In this way, his theory of comnwnicat1on aligns ,vll:h coustructionist theories of
social practice, connecting, for ex;imple, with Giddens's conception of practice as the "pro-
duction and reproduction of society ... as a skilled [hut by no n1eans v:holly conscious]
performance on the part of its members" (Giddens, 1976, p. 160). Practice theories have
become influential right across sooal science (Ortner, 200(,), and Gumperz's theonsation
positions sociolinguistics as an exceptional interdisciplinary resource for engaging "with the
facts of modern life" and "yicld[ing distinctive] insights into the workings of social process"
(Gumperz, 1982, pp. 4, 7).
16
Once positioned like this in a larger interdisciplinary field of social science, however, IS
faces a question raised by John Twitchin in a 1979 interview with Gumperz that is likely to
resonate with researchers who take a macro-scopic approach to social processes and/or lack
the time to learn linguistics. Twitchin commented:
Now all these points you've made about the details of the way language is used are very
interesting, but ... isn't this matter oflanguage really unimportant, compared with the
fundamental problems of racial discrimination and the social and economic disadvan-
tages ofblack and other ethnic minorities in Britain?
(197911990, p. 51)
Gumperz responded: "There's no denying that politics and economic conditions are ex-
tremely important in race relations, and that ultimately redressing the balance of discrimi-
nation is a matter of power. But communication is power." And to persuade non-linguists
of this, "there is no need for real technical analysis ... we need to use a tape recorder [for] a
sort of action replay" (ibid: p. 52). The BBC's intercultural communication training video
Crosstalk illustrates this, and it was designed to help public service and other workers "to learn
and practise awareness immediately" (Gumperz et al., 1979). But much more generally, the
slow and intensive analysis of selected strips of audio or video recordings of situated inter-
action, following its moment-by-moment unfolding, is central to IS, both as a resource for
communication with non-academics and researchers from other disciplines (see below), and
as a fundamental discovery procedure (Erickson, 2011, p. 397).
In Gumperzian IS, issues of relatively wide-spread concern to social scientists, politi-
cians and/or the public - for example, race disc:i:imination, class stratification and gender
relations - are a vital point of departure (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2008, pp. 537-538),
but they are addressed by micro-analysing recorded interactions in ways that avoid the over-
generalisation and essentialism to which other research methods (interviews, surveys) are
often vulnerable. Dwelling on recordings and transcripts of people interacting in particu-
lar activities - being interviewed for a job, sitting in class, having a meal, hanging around
with friends and so forth - you soon realise that local, institutional, activity- and discourse-
specific identities may be a lot more compelling for the participants than, for example, their
Anglo, Pakistani or African Caribbean family backgrounds. And when ethnicity does be-
come an issue, this happens in all sorts of different ways - deconstructive, respectful, racist,
some quite spectacular and others hardly noticed. This procedure also offers a validity check
on notions like 'contradiction' or 'ambivalence', which in more macro-studies sometimes
seem more like analyst attributions than participant experiences. Within any single episode,
there is usually a lot of information on the specifics of the situation, and so if you are inter-
ested in political analysis, you can look at a particular act as a micro-political intervention in
particular social relations there-and-then. And working with dozens of examples, it becomes
obvious that there are a great many different things going on with, say, a set of acts that one
might broadly call 'resistance' (Rampton, 1995/2018, Part II).
Challenges
But if Gumperz's approach resonates so well with current perspectives in social science, why
isn't the term 'interactional sociolinguistics' much more widely used in ongoing work on
language, culture and society? Is it now just merely an 'antecedent', with very little con-
temporary 'bite'? In fact, in the US, one half of the phrase - the term 'sociolinguistics' - is
17
Ben Rampton
now generally associated with the qmntitative variationist tradition, which still holds to the
rnrrelauunal perspective that Gumperz explicitly repudiated (Bucholtz & Hall, 2008, p. 402;
Duranti, 2009, p. 2). To win space for the continuing vitality of a broad perspective of the
kind that Gum.perz sought, Bucholtz and Hall speak of 'socioculturctl linguistic,' (e.g. 2008),
and in a similar vein, British and European scholars are now more likely to refer to 'linguistic
ethnography'.
A clue to the answer lies in the broad range of approaches covered in the Studies in Inter-
auional Sodolin.~11istics series noted above, \vhich effectively position IS a, an 'umbrelLi', now
almost more an 'ontology', more a foundational account of the qualities and processes under-
lving communicltion, than a 'subsLantive theory' with claims that are designed as open to
empirical refutation. Gumperz certamly was an empirical researcher, also seriously commit-
ted to improving methods for analping interaction. But he combined empiricJl work with
a deep and sympathetic engagement with the schools and literatures that went their separate
ways after 1972, develciping substantive theories about different aspects of communication.
Out of tins, he developed a deeper theoretical synthesis capable of accommodatmg many of
the advances made in difl:erenl (sub ) disciplinary traditions. while also suggesting how they
could be brought back together.
Although it is now seldom cited as a distinctive approach there, Gmnperzian IS fits most
easily into contemporary LA, itself quite a broad church (C-umperz, 1')%; Duranti, 2009).
rhc: effort ·to develop ,1 "closer understanding uf how linguistic signs interact with social
knowledge in discourse" (Gumperz, 1982, p. predates S1 Ivers tern's influential (ontolog-
ical) fonnnlation of thcc 'total linguistic fact', arguing that "the datum for a science of lan-
guage, is ureducibly dialectic in naturc .... an unstable mutual interaction of meaningfol
sign fornis, contextualised to situations of interested human use and mediated by the fact
of cultural ideology" (1985, p. 220). Comparably, the l'arly distinction between 'met,iphor-
ical' and 'situational' code-switching (Blom & Gumperz, 1972) speaks to what Silverstein
suhsequently diflcrentiated as 'pre,upposing' and 'creative' indexical signs (Silverstein, 1976;
Rampton, 1998, pp. 302ff; Collins, 2011, p. 412). At the same time, however, even though
he undoubtedly apprec1,1ted it, Gumperz did not himself participate 111, for example, the dab
orate theorisation of semiotic systems that has flourished in LA (Agha, 2007). Where others
luve explored in det,1i1 the subtle differences betwetc·n indexes, icons, interpretants and so
forth, Gurnperz's theorisation of 'contextualisation· and 'inferencing' is less difl:erentiating.
The account is well tuned to the dynamic par;nnetcrs witl11n which scnse-niaking occurs,
but it holds back from the simplifying abstraction that the modelling of systems necessarily
ent,1ils, and instead, it leaves semiotic processes closely embedded in the contingencies of
situated here and-now interaction between socially located individuals, where both the ef-
fcctivity and the ambiv,tlence of signs emerge.
This lack of formalisation also distinguishes Gumperzian IS from conversation analysis
Hemrichsmeier, this volume). CA and IS share a commitment to the slow and intensive
analysis of recordings of natural interaction, but whereas IS examines the dialectic between
linguistic signs md social knowledge in discourse, "the go:il in CA is to identify structures
that underlie social interaction" (Stivers & Sidnell, 2013, p. 2). CA researchers are certainly
very well aware of the uniqueness of each episode thev ancilyse, but they respond to this by
zoomrng in on the designs, actions and sequences that give it predictable structure. Of course,
there is much more to the interpretive process in conversation than CA can reach through
this prioritisation of structure (Blommaert, 2001; Auer & Roberts, 2011, p. 385), and it differs
from IS in other ways as well: Ci\ has oCi:en taken cooperalive conversational involvement
for granted, focussing on socioJinguistically ho1nogenous settings (Gumperz, 1982, p. 4), and
18
lntei-,Kl.ional sociolinguistics
it attaches little significance to the metalinguistic comrnentary on interaction provided by

participants. Nevertheless, CA research is very well represented in Studies in lnteractional So-
ciolinguistics, and it has generated a set of rigorous procedures and descriptions that no one
investigating interaction can really dispense with (cf. Duranti, 1997, ch.8) (even though
they might want to say that they were 'using' rather than 'doing' CA). Ethnography plays
a subst;intial part in workplace CA 2013, p. 37), and at the interface of CA and
LA. Ckmcute (2013, pp. 696-6911) identifies studies which actually look very similar to
Gumperz's "dvnamic view of social environn1t·nts where history, ccono1nic forces and in-
teractive processes ... combine to create or Lo eliminate social distinctions" (1982, p. 29) -
M ..H. Goodwin's The Hidden Life of Girls: Gan1cs of Stance, Status and 1-•.Ym,,,on and Moerman's
'contexted conversation analysis', "directed toward discovering which of the many cultur-
ally available distinctions are active and relevant to the situation, how these distinctions are
brought to bear, and what they consist of" (Moerman, 1988, p. 70). The chief difference, it
appears, lies in these studies' adherence to transcript analysis "using CA's analytic apparatus
in stricto sensu, even while", adds Clemente, this is combined "with other methodologies and
theoretical concepts" (20 l, p. 696).
P,u-t of the viability of Gumperz's theory of communicauon· no doubt derives
from his as founding figure, the seeds and/or supporting the growth of sub-
sequent developments. But it is sonietimn harder for less senior scholars to promote integra-
tive like IS, and Bucholtz ci.nd Fbll. for example, report ''confronted [with)
a wide range, of responses to our efforts to briug together perspectives from multiple areas of
inquiry, from 'That's not linguistics (or anthropology or ... )' to 'Linguistics (or anthropology
or. .. ) has already done that!'" (2008, p. 405). This raises two questions.
First, with reactions like these, why persever~? The answer is unsurprising: to engage
with pressing real-world issues, recognising that "problems lead where they will and that
relevance commonly leads across disciplinary boundaries" (Hymes, 1969, p. 44; Gumperz &
Cook-Gumpcrz. 2008, pp. 533, 537-538). So Bucholtz and Hall say that their approach "co-
heres less aruu nd a set of theories, methods, or topics than a concern with a general question:
how docs the empirical study of ilhHninate social and cultural processes?" They
alsu note a tlurd response to their work - "This is exactly what linguistics (or anthropology
or... ) needs 1" (2008, p. 405; Duranti, 2003, pp. 332-333). Inlingmstic ethnography, concepts
and methods developed in fields like LA are viewed as valuable "both for other disciplines
such as sociology, psychology or management studies, and for engagement with professionals
such as teachers, doctors and social workers" (Rampton ct al., 2015, p. 32). Indeed, Coupland
and Jaworski's 'new sociolinguistics' is comparably interdisciplinary in orientation (2011).
Across all these endeavours, the frameworks and substantive theories developed in fields like
CA and LA play m absolutely vital but as iu ethnography more generallv, they provide
an array of sem1tising rather than dcfinttJVe cunstructs, "suggest[ingJ duect1ons along which
to look" rather than "prescriptions ofwh,1t to see" (Blumer, 1969, p.
how do you actually teach the kind of synthesis that JS involves? Traditions
like CA cJncl vari;iLionist sociolingui,tics h;1vi: clearly defined theorie:; and procedures which
can come together in quite coherent learning programmes, but in IS, it can take quite a lot
of experience to appreciate the span of sub-disciplinary perspectives potentially available/
relevant, and to figure out how micro-analysis can speak to issues of wider concern in the
social settings in focus. So to embark on the IS mission - to try to ensure that academic and
political generalisations about social life are accountable to the kinds of small-scale everyday
activity which we can observe, record ;111d transcribe - apprentices either only begin once
they liavc, received a fairly thorough ;ill-round tc1ining in linguistics (phonetics, pragmatics,
19
Ben Rampton
functional grammar, CA, etc.). Or they srart ,vitb ,ubstantial experience of il particular
domain - working as professionals in health, education, etc., or researchrng tbern in another
discipline ,md thev gL1Llually pick up the l S iugredirnt, piecemeal, drawn by their relevance
to particuLn aspect, of the larger problem they are addressing. But either \vay, data se,sions
once again play a ceutr;il role, immersing students in a recording and its accompanying tran-
script: running with their interests and interpretations while at the same time pointing to the
insights afforded by the new perspectives; pushing them to make their claims accountable
to evidence, ,vith an eye on the perils of under- and over-interpretation. The format partly
resembles the traditional CA data session - there are the insistent questions like 'why this
now?', 'what next?' etc. (ten Have, 1999). But instead of prioritising a drilling down into the
sequential 111c1cbincry of interaction, these sessions also work outwards to larger-sule insti-
tutional and societal processes, reflecting, for e>:arnple, on the data's implication, for the r:i.ext
steps in ethnographic fieldwork (see also Scollon & Scollon, 2007, pp. (, 15, hi 9; R;1rnpton
et al., 20b, P,irt 3).
As well as plav1ng a key role in IS training, data sessions with research infr,rmants -
eliciting retrospective commentary on excerpts of recorded data in which the informants
participated - can be a vital part of data-collection in actual research projects (Erickson &
Shultz, 1982, pp. 56-63; Rampton, 1995/2018, pp. 333--334), They allow the researcher to
find out more about, for example, the background and typicality of particular episodes, to
tap into local language ideologies, and to address informants' concerns and gain trust. Post-
projcct, they can be a valuable resource for feedback, providing opportunities to examine
and debate policiL:s and practices with research informants and their colleagues. And for IS
research, they ,1re ;,lso central to more extensive practicil interventions outside the academy.
Practical interventions beyond the academy

So far, I have characterised Curnperzian IS as a critical programme founded in a deep regard
for the consequential subtletie, of interaction. In line with this, its practical intervention strat-
egy seeks relatively low-key, partial and specific transformations, compatible in fact with the
approach outlined by Foucault: "analyzing and reflecting on limits" in order to open "the pos-
sibility of no longer being, doing, or thinking what we are, do, or think", "practical critique
that takes the form of a possible crossing-over", "grasp[ing] the points where change 1s possible
and desirahle" (Foucault, 1984/2003, p. 23: 2003, pp. 53-54). So when Gumperz and colleagues
tackled race discrimination in institutional encounters ming the "tape recorder'' and ''action
replay[s]" in their 197') Crosstalk programme, they sought to facilitate a rethinking that engaged
with the complex lived relationship between situated actions and their longer term infiucnces
and effects. Watching fairly familiar institutional interactions encourages professionals to bring
their own first-hand experience into the frame, along with their sensitivity, interest or affection
for clients as individuals, while at the same time, micro-analysis shows that actions are jointly
produced among participants and that what people say and do is minutely synchrnnised with the
feedback they are receiving from interlocutors differentially tuned to the institutional require-
ments. Once the co-comtructedness of activity 1s made visible, it is much harder JUSt to blame
individuals, cutd discussion can turn to the constr:1inls and affordances of the systems m play.
As Robert, underlines, there can be challenge, and tensions around \vlut counts as anal-
ysable and whether and bow that matters, and these sessions are also places where relationships
can be renegotiated, ',vith institutional and profrss1oual knowledge trumping the rcsean:her's
interpretations (Rampton et al., 2015, pp. 40-44). What may seem to be a healthy and re-
alistic interpretive plurality in IS may look like 'dormouse valour' to professionals (ibid), so
20
that in the end, if there is a consensus and not a stand-off on new ways oflooking at institu-
tional and professional problems, this can require compromise from both professionals and
researchers. Still, Rose notes that
[t]he notion of resistance, at least as it has conventionally functioned with the analyses of
self-proclaimed radicals, is too simple Jnd flattening ... [Instead,J one fs]hould examine
the [much snialler] ways in which creativity arises out of the sitmtion of human beings
engaged in particular relations of force :1 nd meaning, and what is made out of the pos-
sibilities of that location.
(1999, p. 279)
This is certainly consistent with the IS approach to intervention (see also Harris & Lefstein,
2011; Lefaein & Snell, 2014, ch.12).
Current contributions and research areas

Much ofmy account so far has looked bJck to Gumperz'sworkin the l980sand 1990s.
But what about more recent IS resench 1 This question is rather hard to answer in view of the
general Lick of boundary policing around IS, its interdisciplinary oper1ncss and its relation-
ships with adpccnt fields - foundatioml but low profile in LA, engaged but not identified
with CA. A surnrnary of the work published in Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics could lead
in different directions, and indeed, although IS is usually qualitative, it can also be combined
with variationist sociolinguistics and other forms of quantification (Erickson & Shultz, 1982;
Cntler, 1999; Rampton, 2006, ch.7; 2013; Bucholtz, 2011). But for the sake of convenience,
we can take two topics that were central in Gumperz's own work - code-switching and in-
tercultural communication in institutional settings - and briefly consider the ways in which
these topics have been treated more recently, expanding into a sociolinguistics of globalisa-
tion (_)acquemet, 2005; Blommaert,
Gumperz\ research on code-switching focussed on people alternating bct\veen languages
that were wdl--established in their own repertoires (Blom & Gunrperz, 1972; Gumperz &
Hernfrndcz-Chavez, 1972; Gumperz. But since the 1990s, there has been a good deal
of work on language crossing and stylisation - the former refers to the (potentially) transgres-
sive use of other ethnic varieties in settings where ethnic boundaries are quite sharply drawn,
while the latter also involves the use of styles beyond one's normal repertoire but raises fewer
questions oflegitimacy for the participants (Hewitt, 1986; Rampton, 1995; Bucholtz, 1999;
Cutler, 1999;Jaspcrs, 2005; Rarnpton & Charalambous, 2010; and see Jaspers and Van Hoof
this volmnc). 'This research shows different speech styles to denaturalise social
category rnernbership, variously challenging, shifting or reaffirming ascribed and established
social ident.ities, and the focus has extended heyond ethnicity to gender, social class, genera-
tion and their intersections (Hall, 1CJYS; Jcispns, 2005; Rampton, 2006: Madsen, 2015). As an
"observer of recent history", Gumperz sugge,ted in 1982 that "individu,1ls arc freer to alter
their social personae with the circumstances", and he explicitly questioned "the assumption
that speech communities, defined as functionally integrated social systems with shared norms
of evaluation, can [still] actually be isolated" (p. 26). He also replaced speech community
with social network as a framework for understanding the distribution oflinguistic practices
(Ch.3). So IS has been conceptually very well-positioned to engage with the shift from a
multiculturalism of communities frarncd within the nation-state to the globalised superdi-
ver:sity experienced in many countries (Arnaut et al., 2016). Not that this shift now occupies
21
Ben Rampton
the whole of the IS agenda: there is also recent work invcstig,1ting the complex and difficult
1noves involved 1n extending one's repertoire to the langu,1gc 0L1 former enemy in situations
where there is :t legacy of violent conflict. rn spite of educational programrncs encouraging
this (Charalambous, 2012). Indeed, legacies of conflict also feature in more recent work on
cross-ethnic bureaucratic encounters.
Gumperz's O\Nll work on intncultural con1m1mication t<Kmscd on interaction between bu-
reaucratic 'gatch-cpers' - managers, personnd oflicers, social workers, etc. - and people wbu
had migrated {rJr reasons of employment. Dut responding tu rn,1ssively increased population
displacement since the 1990s in what Jacquemet calh 'Crosstalk 2.0', there is now a substantial
body of work examining the encounter between state officials and asylum seekers and refugees
(Blommaert. 2009b; Maryns, 2006). In this work, there io a more extensive focus on the
discursive technologies through which gatekceping operates (.lacquemet, 20 l l, p. 478). Gumperz
and colleagues ex,1mined the dtfiirdances al1ll constraints oftbe mterview as an institutional genre
(Gumperz ct al., 1979; Roberts, 2016), but research on asylum procedures has brought writing
and the trajectory of documents much m.ore fully into the account, examining the shaping in-
fluence of bureaucratic protocoh ;md the way:, in which talk gets entextualised and reports get
tunsmitted and recontextu:1lised through the application asse"ment system (Dlornmaert, 2001.
2009b; Maryns. 2006). The mullllingualism and the language ideologies in these encounters are
also more elaborate. Where Gumperz examined unmediated interaction between minonty and
majority speakers in the dominant language (English), asylum interviews often involve inter-
preters and/or a lingua franca (Maryns, 2006; Jacquemct, 2011). And where Gumperz targeted
common-sen sc belief in the communicative effectiveness of lcx1co-gramrn aLJcal propositions,
oflicials using language analysis for the detennmation of origm (LADO) refer to out-dated and/
or irrelevant sociolmguistic survey data to determine the veracity of the narrat1Ves with which
asylum applicants present their case (Maryns, 2006; Blommaert, 2009b; Spotti, 2016).
There are, of course, many other arenas where IS illuminates the sociolinguistics of con-
temporary globalisation, with micro-analysis and/or ethnography now often enriched by
documentary text analysis ,is in Perez-Milans's 2013 account of English language education
in China. But the ,1ccount here is sufficient to give credibility to Auer and Roberts's claim
that
Gumperz was the first to develop a kind of'social lingu1'llcs' which 1s able to deal with
the challenges oflanguage in late modernity. in an age of 'globalisation' \vhose 'superdi-
versity' ... has been on the agenda fr)r him for nuny decades.
(2011, p. 390)
IS claims to interdisciplinary relevance have also been strengthened over the last 10-21J
years by a mort· explicit interest in connecting the intensive analysis of spec1 fie 111teractional
episodes to the work of major theorists in the humanities and social sciences like Bakhtin,
Bourdieu, Foucault and Williams (Rampton, 1995. pp. 403-407, 2016; Coupland
et al., 2001; Blommaert, 2005;Jacquemet, 2005, 2011; Perez-Milam, 2013; Borba, 2015), In
fact, as the next section suggcots, the work of scholars like these and those they have influ -
cnced is likdy to remain a vit,1! interdisciplin:uy reference point for future ,vork.
Future directions
/\s social issues have played a cemral role in the development oC IS, a discmsion of future di-
rections needs to reckon with contemporary S<.,c1cd change. and it is clear rhat ucw challenges
22
are opening up, even if we stay relatively close to the topics of code-switching and institu-
tional communication.
In the 'attention economy', "the interest of consumers needs to be caught as eyeballs
migrate from television to tablet to mobile phone to laptop" (van Dijck, 2013, p. 122). New
forms of on-line digital sociality are developing, where "[a]lgorithms, protocols, and de-
faults profoundly shape the cultural experience of people active on social media platforms ...
Online sociality has increasingly become a coproduction of humans and machines .... [and]
a platform [like Facebook, YouTube or Wikipedia] ... shapes the performance of social acts
instead of merely facilitating them" (van Dijck, 2013, and see Varis and Hou, this volume).
With these developments, there are also new forms of social control. According to Deleuze,
boundaries and enclosures of all kinds - hospitals, factories, schools and families - are giving
way to the flows of people, objects and information associated with neo-liberal marketisation,
and "ultrarapid forms of free-floating control [are replacing] the old disciplines operating in
the time frame of a closed system" (1992, p. 4). These new forms involve digital surveillance,
which now plays a major role in the processes which constitute the population as consumers
and seduce them into the market economy, "constructing and monitoring consumption"
(Haggerty & Ericson, 2000, p. 615; Bauman & Lyon, 2013, p. 16, pp. 121ff). At the same
time, some see a 'dual society' developing, where "a hypercompetitive, fully networked zone
coexists with a marginal sector of excluded low-achievers" (Fraser, 2003, p. 169). For asylum
seekers, immigrants and ethnic minorities, there is a proliferating transnational 'archipelago'
of security experts - police, intelligence, military, immigration control, private companies,
specialist lawyers and academics - whose job is to watch out for exceptional risks and poten-
tial enemies among these groups, attending to them in ways that are often licenced to exceed
the usual democratic accountabilities (Bigo, 2002).
These are not all-or-nothing developments and require a lot more sociological discussion.
But there is a strong communicative and interactional dimension to these shifts, and to cap-
ture this, many scholars refer to Foucault's notion of governmentality, which involves
small-scale techniques of coordination [widely diffused throughout society] [which] or-

ganise relations on the 'capillary' level . . . organising individuals, arraying bodies in
space and time, coordinating their forces, transmitting power among them ... ground-
level social relations [ordered] according to expertly designed logics of control.
(Fraser, 2003, p. 162; Foucault, 1978/2003, pp. 229-245)
Gumperzian analysis can make a powerful empirical contribution to this, and it is worth
briefly sketching the kinds of area that IS could engage with, even though IS will undoubt-
edly need further development to do so (c£ Rampton, 2016).
Gumperz's work on code-switching managed to put real-time attentional tracking, cog-
nitive inferencing, shifts in interactional footing and cultural repositioning all together in a
single analysis, and this provides a good base for addressing the socio-communicative prac-
tices (and sensibilities) developing in the everyday use of digital technologies. Of course, the
code-switching framework needs to be expanded beyond just registers and languages to dif-
ferent media, but Ron Scollan, for example, offers tools for analysing multi-tasking, where
"keep[ing] open several competing sites of [media] engagement" simultaneously is "the nor-
mal attention pattern" (1998, p. 256). At the same time, although the analysis of real-time
processing in the here-and-now is vital in Gumperzian analysis, it is never enough. Beyond
the understandings articulated by co-present individuals, there are historically shaped and
potentially discrepant communicative sensibilities operating unnoticed in the background.
23
Ben Rampton
Cumperz looked at this in the interaction between majority and minority ethnic groups,
hut as van Dijck indicated with a call to "ni;1kc: the hiddrn layer visible" (ibid: 29), there arc
often very influential 'communicative styles' in on-line \Veb 2.0 environment\, which, far
from disadvantaging their carriers, are logics of control expertly designed to generate profit.
Gumperz's concern about the superficiality with which institutions construe and assess in-
dividuals also gains extra when Haggen y Jnd Ericson refer to the profiles constructed
through surveilbnce:
Rather than being accurate or inaccurate portrayals of real individuals, [' data doubles']
are a form of pragmatics: differentiated accorclmg to how useful they are in allowing
institutiom to make discriminations an10ng populatiom ... fS]urveillance i, often a mile
wide but only an inch , .. Instead, knowledge of the population is now manifest in
discrete bits of informatiou which break the individual clc)\vn into flows for purposes of
management, profit and entertamment.
(2000, pp. 614, 618, 619)
At the opposile end, IS strnhes of interacllonal conduct tllned to the ·eavesdropper' in

Coffman's partiopation frameworks (1981) co\dcl investig;1te the· experience of surveillance,
which, according to Ball, "has not yet been addressed in any detail" (2009, p. 640; but see
Rampton & Eley, 2019). Likewise, data sessions focussed on the ways in which people actu-
ally experience use, enjoy and depend on - digital technologies in their everyday practice
could probe Ball's suggestion that although ''individuals sumetimes appe:ir to do little to
counter surveillance[, that] does not mean that surveillance rne,1ns nothing to them" (ibid.).
IflS researchers are to engage fully \Vith new socio-communicative practices and fi:Jrms of
control like these, they will need to collaborate with computational specialists to tackle, inter
alia, the codes, algorithms and protocols that translate human bodies, movement and com-
munication mto digital infrmnation, and \vill also face the practical problem of getting
access to the "scattered centres of calculation" where all the cbta gets processed (Haggerty &
Ericson, 2000, p, 613). Rut short of this, there is still a great deal to learn about the manner
and extent to which new technologies are (or aren't) changing the institutional regimes
and participant practices in offices, clinics and schools (on the latter, see Rampton, 2016).
Foucault's govern mentality is a major reference point for SOClal snentists trying Lo make sense
of these developments, and otl:t>ti n g IS such a clear point of connection, this is important new
territory for IS to continue its interdisciplinary endeavour in.
Further reading
Gumperz,J (1999). On interJctional sociolinguisuc method. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Tillk,
work and i11stit11tional order (pp. 4.53-471). Berlin: Mouton. (A clear exposition of IS by Gumpcrz
himself)
Rampton, B. (2007). Linguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics and the study of identities.
Wor/'1112 Papers in Urban Language E, Literacies 43. At acadernia.edu, (An exposition with a worked
example.)
Related topics
Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation; Heteroglossia; Style and stylisation; Language diversity
in classroom settings; Youth language.
24
References
Agha, A. (2007). Lancf?uage and social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnaut, K., Blommaert, J., Rampton, B., & Spotti, M. (Eds.) (2016). Language and mperdi11ersity.
London: Routledge.
Auer, P., & Roberts, C. (Eds.) (2011). In honour efJohn Gumperz. Special issue of Text & Talk, 31(4),
375-502.
Auer, P., & Roberts, C. (2011). Introduction to special issue in honour ofJohn Gumperz. Text & Talk,
31(4), 381-393.
Ball, K. (2009). Exposure: Exploring the subject of surveillance. Information, Communication and Society,
12(5), 639-657.
Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease.
Alternatives, 27, 63-92.
Blom, J.P., & Gumperz, J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structure: Codeswitching in Norway.
In]. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 407-434). Oxford: Blackwell.
Blommaert,J. (2001). Context is/as critique. Critique of Anthropology, 21(1), 13-32.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert,J. (2009a). Ethnography and democracy: Hymes' political theory oflanguage. Text & Talk,
29(3), 257-276.
Blommaert,J. (2009b). Language, asylum and the national order. Current Anthropology, 50(4), 415-425.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics ofglobalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert,J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language & superdiversity. Di11ersitles, 13(2), 1-21.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Borba, R. (2015). How an individual becomes a subject: Discourse, interaction & subjectification at a
Brazilian gender identity clinic. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 163. At academia.edu.
Bucholtz, M. (1999). You da man: Narrating the racial other in the production of white masculinity.
Journal ef Sociolinguistics, 3(4), 443-460.
Bucholtz, M. (2011). White kids: Language, race., and styles ef youth identity. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2008). All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics. Journal
ef Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 401-431.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (Eds.) (2011). Sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology: Strengthening the
connections. Special issue ofJournal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 401-545.
Charalambous, C. (2012). 'Republica de Kubros': Transgression and collusion in Greek-Cypriot ado-
lescents' classroom 'silly-talk'. Linguistics and Education, 23, 334-349.
Clemente, I. (2013). Conversation analysis and anthropology. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The
handbook ef conversation analysis (pp. 688-700). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Collins, J. (2011). Indexicalities of language contact in an era of globalisation: Engaging with John
Gumperz's legacy. Text & Talk, 31(4), 407-428.
Coupland, N., & Jaworski, A. (Eds.) (2009). The new sociolinguistics reader. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Coupland, N., Sarangi, S., & Candlin, C. (Eds.) (2001). Sociolinguistics and social theory. London:
Longman.
Cutler, C. (1999). Yorkville crossing: White teens, hip hop, and African American English. Journal ef
Sociolinguistics, 3(4), 428-442.
Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3-7.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage
(Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (2003). Language as culture in US anthropology. Current Anthropology, 44, 323-347.
Duranti, A. (2009). Introduction. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (2nd ed.,
pp. 1-59). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Erickson, F. (2011). From speech as 'situated' to speech as 'situating': Insights from John Gumperz on
the practical conduct of talk as social action. Text & Talk, 31(4), 395-406.
25
Ben Rampton
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1982). '['/1c wunselot ,is New York: Academic Press.
FoL1cault. J\;l. (1977). Ilis,iplinc ,1ndpw1ish. Hannondsworth: Penguin.
Foucault, JVL (1')78/2003). Govcrnment:tlity. In P. R.abinow & N. Rose The essential Fouc,wlt:
Selection., fi-0111 essential uiorks of Fouc,wlt 1954---1984 (pp. 229--24:5). New York: The New Press.
Foucault_ [V\. (l984/20Ci3). Polcm.ics, politics :md problematisations: An interview with Michel
Foucault. In P. Rabinow &. N. Rose (Eds.), The essential Fo1twu/t: Seleciio11s Ji-0111 essential works of
Foucc11ilt 1954-1984 (pp. lis-24). New York: The New Pre,s.
Foucault, M. (2003). \V.lut is enlightenment? In P. R.abinow & N. Rose (Ed,.), The csscmic1/ F,11ffault:
csscntfo/ worb 1954-1984 (pp. 43-57). New York: The· New Press.
Fraser, N. (2003). from discipline to tkxibilisation, Rereacl.tng Poucault in the ;;]iaclow of glob,1Jisa--
tion. ColJ.(/cllatio11s, 10(2), l6!J··171.
Giddens, i\. (l97to). New rules of sodological 111etliod. London: Hutchi uson.
Cotfinau . .E. (1981.). h>1111s o( t,ilk. Philadelphia: Pcnnwlvania University Press.
Goodwin, M. (2006). The hidden C,m1cs of st,.111cc. .,talus c111d cxc/11sio11. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gurnpcrz, J. (1972). Introduction. In J. Gurnpcrz & D. Hymes (Eck), Dimtio11s in The
ct/111<,g1c1p/1y o/,w111111111i.:.1tion (pp. 1--2.'i). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gumpcrz,J. (1979/1990). lntcrvicw with John Gumperz InJ. Twitchin (Ed.), Cr,,'Sfalh: /J.11 introduaion
to cros,-ailt11r,i/ c,,1m111111iwtio11 (pp. 46--55). London: BBC. Also in R .. Harris & B. Rampton (Eds.)
(2003). The L1ng1111ge, ethnicity 1111d rc1ff reader (pp. 2(,7--275). London: Routledge.
Curnperz, J. (1 C/82). Disc,n11,,- srr,1t,;i;ics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univcrsitv Press.
Gurnpcrz, J. (1996). The dnd cultural relativity of n,fercnu:. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson
(Eels.). Rct/1/11!.·inx (pp. 407--430). Carn bridge: University Press.
Gumperz, ]., & Cook--Gumperz. J. (2008). language. cultuJ"L and society: Suciulinguistics or
linguistic anthropology' Jo111n,il 12(4), 532-545.
Gumperz, J., & Hern,1ndez--Chavez, E. (1972). Bilingualism, hidialectahsrn. and classroom interac-
tion. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Fw1cri1>ns in rlic c/,1ssroo111 (pp. 84-llO).
Colun.1bia: 'Teachers College Press.
Gurnpcrz, J. . & Hymes, J). (Eds.) (1972). Dim lions in sorioli11,~11is1irs: Tlie cth1wgr<1pily of' (<'nmn1ni.-,1tion.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Gumperz, J., Jupp, T., &. Roberts, C. (1979). CnJ1st,ilk. Southall, 1\1Hldx, UK: BDC/Nation:il Centre
fi:Jr Industrial L.1ngu1ge T'raining.
Haggerty, K .. & Ericson, R. (2000). The surveillant Brirish _fo11mc1/ of 51(4),
605-622.
Hall, K. (1995). lip service on the fantasy lines. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender attiwlatcd
(pp. 183--216). London: Routledge.
Harris, R., & Lcfstcin, i\. (201 IJ. Urh.111 cl<1ssroo1/l odt11rc: R.colitin, dilen111u1s, rc,potN!!. London: Centre
for Language Discourse and Communication, King's Colkgc London. Av,1ilable from ww,,, . kcl.
ac.uk/ldc.
Heritage,J. (1997). Convers;rtio11 ,rnalysis and institutional talk: An,tlysrng clatJ.. Tn D. Silverman (Ed.),
Q11alit,zti1,c resrnrch: Theory. 111ethod, prMticc (pp. 161---182). London: Sage.
Hewitt, R. (1986) T+'/1itc t,ilk Bfocl, /<1/k: Intcr-r,1cia/ ,md co1111111111ic,11ion ,1ma11gst <1dolcscc11/s.
Cambridge: '·'""""'·"' University Pre5S.
Hyines, D. ([969). The use of anthropology: CriticJL political, In D. Hymes (Ed.), RcinFrnt-
in/; ,mthropolol)' (pp. ?,-82). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hyim·s, D. (1972). Models of the inler,1etion and social life. In J. Cumperz & D. Hymes
(Eds.), Directions in sociolinguisfi,:s: The ethnography ofo,111.1m111ir,Jtio11 (pp . .:\5--71). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hymes . D. (1997). History and development of sociolinguistics. In C. Bratt·Paulston & R. Tucker
,,r
(Eds.), Tl1e e<1rly ,fays sodolingulst/c.-: (pp. 121--UO). D,1 ll:1s: Sum1ner Institute of Linguistics.
Jacquernet, J\11. (2005). Tnnsidiomatic practices: Langu:igc and power in the age of globalisation. L,rn-
,gu112c t,, c:on-tmunication, 25(3), 257-277.
Jacquemet, M. (2011) . Crosstalk 2.0: A.sylum and communiutive breakdown. Text 1:7 Talk, 31(4),
475-498 .
Jaspers, J. (2005). Doing ridicuJom: Linguistic in an institmional cuntext of m0110lingualism
and st:1ndardis;1tion. Ldl1J.;llc~~c rf C'omuwuir11tion,, 25(3), 279-2(-)8_ (See ~dso Pi1pers iu tfrban.
Ltmguagc 1zru! Litcri.1rics. 28.)
Labov, ,xr (1972). Soci,,/ingui.-tic p<1tter11,. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ldstcin, A., & Snell, J. (20'14). 13t'tta t/1cm lw,t 1n,1cri,e. London: Routledge.
26
tnleractional sociolinguistics
Madsen, L.M. (2015). Fighters, girls and other identities. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Maryns, K. (2006). The ,,sylum speaker: Language in the Rel:,;i,zn asylum procedure. Manchester: St Jerome.
Moerman, M. (1988). T.1lki11g culture: Ethno,r;rap'1y and co1wersation <111<Ilysis. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Mondada, L. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In J. Sidnell & T Stivers
(Eds.), The handbook ,?f corwersation analysis (pp. 32~56). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ortner, S. (2006). Anthropology and soci,zl Culture, power ,md the <1ctinp s11/1fect. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Per.:z-Milans. M.. (2013). Urban schools awl E11p/isl, fonguage education in lr,te nwdcrn China. London:
Routledge.
Rampton, B. (1995/2018). Crossing: Lwg11<1gc b crlllifrity among adolescents. London: Routledge.
Rampton, B. (1998). Language crossing and th, redefinition of reality. In P. Auer (Ed.), Codeswitching
in catwersation (pp. 290~320). London: Routledge.
Rampton, B. (2001). Language crossing, cross-talk and cross-disciplinarity in sociolinguistics. In N.
Coupland, S. Sarangi, & C. Candlin (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and soci,zl theory (pp. 261-297). London:
Longman.
Rampton, B. (2006). Langu11c~e in late 1nodernity: Interai/ion in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. .
Rampton, B. (2016). Foucault, Gumperz and governmentality: Interaction, power and subjectivity
in the twenty-first century. In N. Coupland (Ed.J, Sociolinguistics: Theoretical dcb,1.te., (pp. 303-328).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rampton, B. (2017). Interactional sociolinguistics. 1-Vorking Papers in Urb,m Lim,1;u<1gc l.i Literacies 205.
At academi;u,du.
Rampton, B., & Charalambous, C. (2012). Cros,ing. In M. Martin-Jones,/\. Blackledge, & A. Creese
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook ofmultiling11<ilisn1 (pp. 482-498). London: Routledge.
Rampton, B., & Eley, L. (2019). Goffman and the everyday interactional grounding of surveillance.
Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies. 246. http:/hvww acadernia.edu.
Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (2015). Theory and method in linguistic ethnography. In J.
Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic etlmogmp/zy: Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. 14- 50).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Ivlacmillan. (See also vVorking Pc1pers in Urlwn Language & Literacies 125. At
academia.edu).
Roberts, C. (2016). Translating global experience into institutional models of corn.petency: Linguistic
int"qualities u1 the job interview. In K. Aniaut, _I. Blommaert, B. Rampton, & NL Spotti (Eds.),
Lm,g11,1gc and superdiversity (pp. 237-260). London: Routledge.
Rose, N. (1999). The power offreedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sarangi, S. (2011). Editorial: ContextualisingJolm Gumperz. Text & Ttilk. 31(4), 375--380.
Scollon, R. (1998). Mediated discourse as soci,il interaction: A study of news d;scoursc. London: Longman.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2007). Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action.Journal of Socio-
linguistics, 11(5), 608-625.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters. linguistics categories, and cultural description. In K. Basso & H. Selby
(Eds.), ii1eaning in anthropolc\gy (pp. 11--55). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Silverstein, M. (1985). Language and the culture of gender. In E. Mertz & R. Parmentier (Eds.), Semi-
otic rnedit1.tion (pp. 219-259). New York: Academic Press.
Snell, J, Shaw, S., & Copland, F. (Eds.) (2013). Linguistic ethnography: explorations.
Spott:i, NL (2016). Sociolinguistic shibboleths at the institutional gate: Lmg1nge, origin and the con-
struction of asylum seekers' identities. In K. Arnaut, J. Blommaert, B. Rampton, & M. Spotti
(Eels.), Lmxu,1x1' ,md superdiversity (pp. 261-278). London: Routledge.
Stivers, T .. ,S: Sidnell,J. (2013). Introduction. lnJ Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.). The l,andbook of conversa-
tion analysis (pp. 1-8). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing c-vrwersation analysis. London: Sage.
van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27
3
Discourse analysis
Stef 5/embrouck
Historical perspectives and key definitions:

defining discourse and the discursive
Many dictionary definitions ,vill identify ;1 pre-scientific tlJC;1nmg of the term discourse
as "a long and serious treatn1ent or discussion of a subject i 11 speech or writing" (Oxfi)rd
Advanced Learner's Dictionary ,if English, 2005, p. 434), a defimtion sometunes echoed vvith
.more emphasis on public oral performance, as in the French Larousse, as a "developperncnt
oratoire sur un s1tjet determine, prononcc en public" (LPU, 2003, p. 328). 1 The two dictio-
nary entries I reier to here include a second meaning connected to the 'discipline'
of discourse analvsis, one which highlights the dimension of language-in-use, while iden-
tifying the naturally occurring utterance and meaningful Lrnguage use as typical units and
foci of analysis: "the use oflanguage in speech and writing in order to produce meaning"
(OALDCE, 2005, p. 434). The equivalent definition from Larousse is: "IUalisation concrete,
ecrite ou oralc. de la langue consideree cmnrne Ltn systeme ahstrait'' (LPLI, 2003, p. 328). 2
By positing a contrast with language as an abstr,1ct system, de 2>aussure's concept of parole is
t:voked as an alternative but now displaced term. as history has caught up with it. Whereas
the early 20th-century Saussurean legacy identified parole in order next to suppress its study
as 'uninteresting' to the scholar oflanguage because language use was deemed 'idiosyncratic'
and really the terrain of 'user psychology', the term discow'.·:c nnergecl in the ,econd half of
the century ,vith the pro1nise that meaningful language use in a real situation is an area
worthy of detd1led linguistic enquiry and that the concept of discourse opem a window on a
range of relevant phenomena and considerations which linguists until then had not explored
systernatically in great detail.
One ,vay to throw light on the term and concept is to examine how its use emerged, how
the concept and tradition have been shaped historically, while recognising that the appeal
of the discursive realm has 1nostly resided in the development of a particular agenda for
language inquiry, at times complementary to developments in linguistics, and at other times
English tr:lllshtiun: "'Spoken publH . oratory which develops a particu.Lir topic."

2 English tr;1nc;btion: «A spok,s~n or written concrete .1Ctl1:1.lisation oftlv.' aL :~lr;1ct systern !)fL1JJgtLlge.H
1
28
Discourse analysis
in opposition with received practice at the time. Three defining, interrelated areas can
broadly be identified in this regard.
Viewed from within a linguistic project, 'discourse' emerged in the 1960s and 1970s to
refer to specific language phenomena which are characteristic of running text and ongo-
ing interaction, in short, with a stress on authentic language data and on pushing formal
and functional enquiry both beyond the bounds of the isolated grammatical sentence
and the self-constructed language datum.
11 From within a sociolinguistic and anthropological project, 'discourse' has been instru-
mental in developing a qualitative research agenda on the role oflanguage use in social
life. In the background is an interactional and a performative view on language use in its
complex manifestations. Language use is viewed as social action, and studying this.is key
to an understanding of its role in a larger project of understanding societies and cultures.
111 Finally, as the term 'discourse' also surfaced in social theoretical work, it has become a
metaphor for capturing processes and practices of socio-cultural representation. In this
view, representations are seen as imbued by world view, permeated by ideology, central
to the construction of identities, and they often count as rationalisations of power rela-
tionships. This tradition descends from post-structuralist thought and deconstructivist
traditions in critical enquiry.
Attending to the first area of definition, the development of a scientific object referred to as
'discourse' resulted in a major breakthrough in linguistics' efforts to unravel the nature of
naturally occurring language use and to do so with specific reference to formal-functional
properties characteristic of running text and ongoing interaction, as well as locating areas
of meaning relative to situation, purpose and user. It is worth reminding readers here that
some instances of early discourse research prioritised the conversational domain of spoken
exchanges, while other early developments focussed more on the properties of written texts.
Anglo-American work, in particular, interacted directly with speech act theory and conver-
sation analysis and was quick to integrate key concepts from these fields - e.g. turn, sequence,
speech act, speaker intention, etc. At the same time, examples in this tradition such as Sin-
clair et al. (1972) on classroom interaction, Labov and Fanschel (1977) on psychotherapeutic
encounters and Brown and Yule's (1983) discourse analysis textbook were still very much
bracketed by fairly traditional linguistic concerns such as the detection of a hierarchical struc-
ture in speech events in ways akin to what had been described earlier for the constituents
of the sentence. Corresponding continental European work, which often identified itself as
'text linguistics', focussed on descriptions of the functional components of structure beyond
the sentence level and the ways in which textual make-up is tied to situation of use (e.g.
anaphoric, cataphoric and situational reference; constituents of argumentative and rhetorical
structure; devices to accomplish textual cohesiof/- and establishing textual coherence, etc.), as
well as on the cognitive processing of textual units. In each of these cases, the impetus was
to push the linguistic agenda beyond the confines of the isolated sentence, locating the text
in its contexts-of-use. Well-known examples include Harweg (1968) on reference, Werlich's
(1976) text grammar of English, De Beaugrande and Dressler's (1981) identification of seven
standards of textuality and Van Dijk and Kintsch's (1983) work on the processing of textual
information.
The second area in delineating the discursive has been tied up with the emergence of
an integrated sociolinguistic project in the 1960s and 1970s, especially the more qualita-
tive, interactional sociolinguistic traditions, which developed out of the work of, among
29
Stef Slernbrouck
others, John Gumpcr7. and Dell Hymes. Not surpri,i11gly, their insighb on the mture of
social interaction .mcl sitnated language mt: dr,w sub,t ,rntially on theoretical c.:onversations
with speech ,ict conversation anahsis. ctlrnomdhodology and Guffnun's ,rn,dysis of
the interacLinn order also the integrative which is suggested by the list of con-
tributing authors in Gumperz and Hymes\ edited volume, titled: Direction., in S,lciolin.~uistics.
The Et/11wgraphy of Communication (1972), and see Rampton, this volume). While for some
authors (Fairclough, 1989, p. 9) speech act theory's perforrnative view on the language utter-
ance, as outlined in Austin (1962), counted as a primary point of departure for a generalised
social-actional view 011 language use, other authors invoked the groundbreaking contribu-
tions in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis as pmnary loci for connecting the use
of language \I ith interaction and detailing the in course 'linguistic' producti('ll of a situ-
ational and sociJJ context (Duranti & Guod\111i, 1992, p. 22). It is to these devdoprnents
that we owc the ,1:,, 10111 tlut language use ,rnd tnteraelion count as mutually cu11stitutivc (see
esp. Fairclough (1989) rnd Duranti and Goodv,i11 (1')92) for parallel claims in this respect
on separate m1es of the Atlantic). Various tenet, of mteractional socwl1J1guistics can be
noted: interaction is seen as unfolding, it does so sequentially and in real time; interactional
behaviour is a major site for uncovering participants' meaning perspectives on a situation; in-
teraction amounts to talking social categories and situations into being; interaction is a major
site for studying where/how the social is being created and sustained; interaction comes with
real-life consequences and outcomes. Whether language use in a performative perspective is
seen as an instrumental matter of'getting things done' or of 'relating to others in a particular
way', the u11derlym1:; ne1Y is one of the socidl d, unginati11g and reflected rn inter.ictanr,· en-
gagements \Vith the nc,1! world. Hymes's forrnuhtio11 uf the SPEAKING-pn)Jeel (J 97 L 1974)
is nowaday, xcepted as the formulation of ,1 discourse perspective vvithi n sonolin-
guistics which is rooted in ethnographic cnqmry and takes the 'speech event' and ·ways of
speaking' a, prim;iry units of analysis (cf Johnstone & J'vbrcellino, 2011). As uoted by Dmanti
(2001), this view played a central role in reformulating linguistic anthropology's share in a
larger project of cultural anthropology: it marked the transition from 'anthropological lin-
guistics' (description oflanguages) to lingL1istic anthropology' (understanding speech events).
Third and finally, as it also surfaced in a social theoretical context, 'discourse' has since
the late 1960s and early 1970s hecorne a metaphor for understanding socio-cultural repre-
sentation. This area of definition signals h,rn rhe con,:ept of discourse has been nnplicated
in some or the Lhcoret1c.ll and epistemological challenges posed to the human and social
sciences by post structuralist theory. In Michel hJucault's version of this (FouGtult, 1972),
discourse covers \Yh,it 1s socio-historically ciboul a particular social domain, as well
as the rules \vhich prc,cribe the ways of talking ,1bout these topics (including who gets to
speak about this in the first place). Discourse is seen as centrally connected to the production
of truth and it is located in a field of power relationships which enable the production of
social life in its historically shifting and evolving forms and mamfesutions, It is particularly
m this area that a discourse analytic perspective has spilled over into various other disciplines
(la1,v, social work, history, where it has given rise to 'a lingmstic turn' which stresses
how the production of truth is constituted by disnmin' articulations, while highlighting the
social, institutional and organisational condit1c,m that enable its expression ,1lso Cheek,
2008). Examples include Fook (2016) for soci,11 \\ork, Holdgaard (2008) and Gnldcr (2013)
for law, Sh;rn, (2(J12) fr,r teaching, etc. The lisL of possible references is a very long 01w. Other
examples winch d() 11<.'L necessarily entail a foucauld1,111 perspective include Durnolvn 108)
for medieval institutional history, Doty (1996) for North/South relations and Campbell and
Dillon (1993) fcir international relations, Note that these studies are often culminations of
30
Discourse analysis
lines of theoretical and empirical engagement with situated language use in ways specific to
these disciplines. For discourse theorists such as Laclau and Mouffe (1985), Torfing (1999)
and Howarth (2000), discourse study has become an epistemology for reading the societal
state of hegemonic relationships vis-a-vis particular ideological formations. Discourse theory
is a form of political discourse analysis, which, however, rarely comes with specific text or
language-oriented empirical imperatives, as projects are more oriented to the macro-levels
of power/knowledge relationships and the articulation of collective identities (Keller, 2005).
for instance, for Cheek (2008, p. 356), Foucauldian discourse analysis specifies more a way
of doing discourse analysis than an empirical methodology. The same can be said about
discourse theory.
As indicated earlier, a social constructivist perspective in which language use, often in
combination with other practices, is seen as constitutive of social reality is intrinsic to many
traditions of discourse analysis. Critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992; Wodak, 1996;
Jager, 1999; Locke, 2004) must be accredited for programmatically articulating a compre-
hensive multi-level model for discourse analysis, which combines close textual analysis, the
study of discourse processing and macro socio-cultural analysis and, in doing so, linking
micro-analysis of text and talk with the explanatory ambitions of social theory and eman-
cipatory goals of social critique. CDA has been agenda-setting for a scale-sensitive discus-
sion of the connections between situated language use, power and ideology and has acted
as a broker for much social theoretical work within discourse studies. The publication of
Fairclough (1989) certainly counted as a watershed publication in British applied linguistic
and sociolinguistic circles, more generally. In fairness, one must note that this development
occurred alongside, and throughout the 1990s has in fact been in growing interaction with,
comparable programmatic aspirations which originated in other traditions (Briggs, 1996, in
linguistic anthropology).
Since the mid-1980s and into the present, one can identify in the history of discourse
analysis an accumulative dialogic engagement with social theoretical work on questions
of language, representation, ideology, power, equity and identity. The oeuvres of Michel
Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu have undoubtedly been central, although the list has grown
considerably since. The conversations with social theoretical work, alongside broader analyses
of contemporary socio-cultural and economic developments, have enabled discourse analysis
to keep close to work that is on the pulse of the contemporary social era and its specific
currents. One can refer here to the impact of Giddens' (1991) thematisation of the reflexive
individual as an aspect of the late modern condition; Harvey's writings on globalisation and
nee-liberalism (Harvey (1996); Wernick (1991) on promotional culture; Anderson (1991) on
nationalism and narrating the nation; Bhabha on cultural hybridity within a postcolonial
perspective (Bhabha, 2004)). These conversations, in their turn, have played an important
role in shaping the research agendas of discourse analysts.
When the term 'discourse' is used in its countable form with the particular qualification
of its reality-creating and sustaining capacities (e.g. capitalist discourses, sexist discourses,
medical discourses and discourses of education), this sometimes counts as a reference to
typical patterns of interaction and language use, and sometimes as a reference to 'bigger'
ways of reading, coding and interpreting the world which are associated with a particular
locus or domain of social activity. Here it is imperative that we refer to Gee's (1999) distinc-
tion between discourses (language-in-use; noted regularities of occurrence) and Discourses
(which Gee defines as: language plus "other stuff'', i.e. practices which render language-
. in-use socially significant and consequential). A somewhat comparable attempt to integrate
the two perspectives in a single model can be found in Wetherell's (1998) suggested dual
31
Stef Slembrouck
focus on '"rnterJctional sequence" and "interpretative repertoire". Both imtances can he seen
as examples of how in the combination of complementary perspectives. micro--analysis of
text and interaction al sequence may be cumbmed with the kind of macro perspective that is
invited by much rliscourse research today.
Current contributions: the contemporary range

of discourse analytical engagements
While one can historically detect a gradual progression from an early, more narrow linguistic
interest in the formal and functional mapping of various aspects of the situated utterance to
a later, more process-oriented research perspective wbich lends priority to ,ocial questions
such as the connections between language aud identity. it is probably more ,Kntrate to state
that discourse ,rnalvsis has crystallised within Lrnguage studies in two ducctiom. One can
note, on the one h,md. a continuation of more lingu15tic uses of the term. rn which discourse
is viewed as the layer of meaning which is tied nwre directly to situations ofLn1guagc use.
The focus bere is often on large collections of verbal material of a particular situation or
activity type and the use of quantitative methods and techniques of corpus linguistics (Biber
et al., 2007). Specific discourse-related themes are selected for closer attention (e.g. Warren,
2006 on aspects of naturalness in informal conversational language use). On the other hand,
recent decades have witnessed the formulation of a broad project of discourse studies which
more holistically views language use, often in combination with other forms of semiotic
behaviour, fi_·om the angle of 'social practice·. Much (focourse research thu:, smrnltancously
attends to aspccls of text and talk, processes of I uterpretation and cognition, and social-
actional dimeusions of communicative behaviour as well as its functioning at the level of
ideological reproduction and socio-cultural transtcxrnat1on.
Especially in tht'. latter tradition, discourse analysis has often (if not mostly) stood man
applied relationship to the social world, with discourse research oriented to the identification
of recommendations for practice (here echoing Brumfit's definition of applied linguistics as
engaged with real-world problems and issues in which language plays a central role (Brum fit,
2001)). A quite arbitrary list whicb attempts an impression of the range of possible themes
could include: contextual complexity in the processing of cartoons by patients with unilat-
eral lesions (Dagge & Hartje, 1985), the effects of story sequencing on affective reactions to
news broadcasts (Mundorf & Zillman, 1991). sclfcommodification in dating advertisements
(Coupland. 2006). pedagogical focus in fi)reign language classrooms and the use of repair
strategies (Kasper. 1986), media coverage of the genetically modified fr:,od debate (Cook
et al., 200(l), the communication of rights in contexts of police arrests and detention (Rock,
2007), and so on and so forth. Themes under the heading of registering discourse change in
response to shifts in socio-cultural values are also many and varied. One such theme has been
the interest in 'technologies of discmme' (Fairclough, 1992; Cameron, 2000).
Specific fields of application for discourse research have given rise to specialist off-shoots,
such as professional discourse studies (Gunnarsson et al., J 997; Sarangi & Roberts, 1999;
Candlin & Cr.Lchton. 2011) with further suh-divi:;ions for medicine (Gotri ,\ SalagcT-Meyer,
2006; Iednm. bw and forensic scicncc (Philips. 1998; Coulthard & Johnson, 2007;
Rock, 2007), social worl (Hall et al., 2006, 2014), ecc. Discourse perspectives luve been artic-
ulated for spffific language-related interests. For instance, Hatim and Mason (1990) have done
this for tramL1tion studies; Wadensjo (1998) ,md Rny (2(100) for interpreting studies; Caner and
Simpson (1989) for stylistics. While Barton (2007), Street (2003) and Collins and Blot (2003)
have formulated a (critical) discourse analytical programme for literacy studies (see Gillen and
32
Discourse analysis
Ho, this volume), Larsen-heernan (1980) brokered comparable territory for second language
acquisition research. Education has, of course, also been a major focus (Roberts, 2004; Wortham,
2006; Mosckovich, 2007), and media discourse (Scannell, 1991; Bell & Garrett, 1998; Jacobs,
1999; Tolson, 2001; Montgomery, 2007). Discourse analysis can thus be summed up as en-
tailing a multi-perspectival take on language use and social lite. The themes of identities-in-
discourse and icleutities-as-outcomes-of-discoursc are undeniably an10ng the most commonly
addressed iu research across social dornJim and fields of application. Inst:mces of discourse
analysis will in nuny cases also draw serninaJly on various traditions in the ,tudy oflanguage
use or seniiotics. For instance, discmsivc: psychology (Billig, 1987; Potter & Wetherell, 1987;
Anc,ki, 1988: Edwards, 1997) has developed themes from cognitive psychology such as the
nature of everyday explanations, the functionmg of mern.ory and attitude by bringing together
a conversation analytic perspective with social psychological constructivism.
Multimodal discourse analysis (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Scollon & Wong-Scollon,
2003; O'Halloran, 2004; Norris, 2004; Jewitt, 2005) has drawn substantially on a systemic-
functional perspective on meaning making for the development ofa discourse analysis which is
not restricted by an interest in verbal modes of communication, developing instead an interest
in how the use oflanguage interacts with other rnodes and modalities. E-Iaving said that, dis-
course today often continues to lack on the side of a fuller engagement with the terrain
of the body-actional behaviour and interactants' engagement with objects within visual range,
despite pioneering work by authors such ,is Charles Goodwin, Christian Heath and Adam
Kendon (e.g. Goodwin (1997) on colour categories, Goodwin (2000) on moves in a game
of hopscotch and Goodwin (2014) on gesture in a frarnework of co-operative action; Heath
(1986) on body movement in medical interaction, Heath and Luff (1992) on multimedia crisis
management in London Underground line control rooms and Heath (2002) on the gestural
embodiment of symptoms; Kendon (2004) is a landmark publication for the study of gesture).
Critical issues and debates: discourse analysis and

linguistic ethnography
Discourse analysis has always been a scrnin,11 and hybrid exercise. As a result, it may well
have been insufficiently theoretically cumulative and methodologic1lly systematic across
different studies for it to constitute a bounded discipline in its own right. Lack of stan-
dardised terminology and a unifying conceptual framework may put it in a disadvantaged
position in a cross-disciplinary perspective. This raises the question of its suitability to fill in
the 'linguistic' component within a programme oflinguisl!c ethnography. Rampton (2007,
p. 3) expresses the view that linguistic ethnography amounts to an umbrella term for different
research traditions. His list includes '•interactional sociolinguistics and ne,v literacy studies,
as well as ccrt;1in types of critical discourse analysis, neo-Vygotskyan research cm language
and development, and interpretive applied linguistics for language teaching". The
point about lrnguistic ethnography then is not the range of sub-traditions and the differences
between these, but instead a common subscription to a complemenr,iritv between, on the
one hand, an ethnographic take on the empirical and detailed investigation of contexts of
communication, and on the other hand, detailed analysis of the internal organisation of
verbal, linguistic and other kinds of semiotic data.
In the words ofTusting and Maybin (2007, p. 578),
UK linguistic ethnography includes a duster of research which studies relationships

between the micro-level oflanguagc practices and the broader context and social order,
33
Stef Slembrouck
drawing on linguiotics, social theory. and an ethnugraphic methodology which places

the res,·archcr at the heart of the rese.irch. Tlus :1pproach highlights particnhr i,sues for
resean h in to language practices.
In this respect, it i., interesting to note that, v,bilc c\i<,course analysis most present, itself
as one of the ways of doing the linguistic in linguistic ethnography, the relationship is by
means exclusive of other traditions that may fill in what can be meant by 'detailed language
analysis', although Wetherell (2007, p. 661), in a comment on linguistic ethnographic pub-
lications, observed how it produced '\ome hugely important pieces of research and some. of
the most inspiring and exciting discourse work to be found anywhere".
The question can also be phrased in different terms. Is linguistic ethnography likely to in-
volve anotfwr linguistJC component than 01Je w!JJch 1, oriented to understanding the creation
of meaning 1n contexts of real and naturally occurring language use? The .1nswer nuy well
be 'no', but d1vene traditions of analytical engagement with naturally occurrmg language
use of coun,e do exist and turn out to be relevant. '.)o, while discourse a11,1lys1s (following
Rampton) is not necessanly a preferred partner in a linguistic ethnograph1e research set-up, a
discourse analytical perspective often does come in, and it may come in sideways. This is, for
instance, the case where linguistic ethnography involves the adoption o( say, a new literacy
stmlies perspective, which is discourse analytical in its orientations but clearly involves more
than just the analysis of discourse.
In addition, one must note that the relationship between linguistic ethnography and tradi-
tions of discourse ;1 nalysis has at times been ;1 rnllcal one, For instance, Tusting and Jv1aybin
(2007), wary of the n:.k of foregone interpretative closure and more tentative in rbc expres-
sion of critical engagements, insist on a cautious relationship with critical dis, ourse analysis,
More strongly, such caution may well have provided one of the reasons ft)r the emt'rgence
oflinguistic ethnography as a project oflanguagc study. Slembrouck (201)5) develops ,l sim-
ilar argumentation by locating the critical efforts of discourse analysts in the processual and
dialogic terms of ongoing ethnographic contact, So, is this a matter of expected convergence
of perspectives? Arguably, discourse analysis requires an ethnographic turn in its own right,
irrespective of its teaming up with work that self-identifies as 'linguistic ethnographic'. Eth-
nography is then a matter of how discourse analysis is informed theoretically, how it docs
not take context for granted, insists on sep;irate ,ni;tly:,e:, of context and an engagement in
the terms wbich spt'ak from it (terms which will often be language-use-related but rnay be
quite different). The complementary of discourse analym and ethnography within linguistic
ethnography rnay well actually be about the nece,,,1ry intertwining of accounts of.interaction
and their contexts. on the one hand, and analysis and rntcrpretation ofinteract.ional or textual
detail, on the other hand.
It is worth continuing to quote Tusting and Maybin (2007, pp. 578 -579) here:
Broadly speaking, these [im1esl relate to the nature of the tn1th claims which can be
made on the basis of such work, in regard to the position of the researcher, tensions
between particip,rnts and analysts, the impact of researchers' political commitments, the
relatiomlnp hetween different levels ofso,i,d structure, and debates between realist and
constructionist views.
What is perh2,1" centrally at stake, then, 1s an opcnm:ss which is required ,rnd rnore than
that, a necessary epistemological reflexivity which extends not only in the direction of the
specific dialogic engagements with society and its actors-participants Patino-Santos, this
34
Discourse analysis
volume), but just as much in the direction of how one's own field of scientific enquiry and
activity is being shaped. Tusting and Maybin (2007, p. 580) develop the case of linguistic
ethnography's ancestry in a liberal, humanist commitment:
[this] may be a strength of linguistic ethnography, in that it leaves the range of ques-
tions that can be addressed relatively wide, and reduces a risk of intrinsic bias for which
approaches like critical discourse analysis have been criticised (e.g. Widdowson, 1998).
However, the lack of explicit articulation of a political position for linguistic ethnogra-
phy may also be a weakness. Where most work in a particular field shares broadly similar
underlying political perspectives, the answers to some important questions about the
social structures within which action takes place may be assumed rather than examined.
These hidden assumptions can shape the development of the field quite considerably, by
framing what questions can be asked and the sorts of answers which are acceptable.
For discourse analysis specifically, the main conclusion then is that it serves to benefit
considerably from adopting an ethnographic perspective, while embracing the role which
it can play within specifically linguistic ethnographic research designs and epistemologies.
Research methods and future directions: recording,

transcription and the relationship with fieldwork
It is hard to think of discourse analysis and not to include one or two paragraphs on the many
advantages which audio, audio-visual and later digital recording have introduced, when it
comes to producing reliable and replicable data and the potential of this for analysing the
social-in-the-interactional. Recording technology has over the past century been improved
and refined and its current scope has been expanded tremendously by the advent of digital
recording and storage (think, for instance, of the use of radio-microphones, which register
the sound within a person's aural range). The current methodological dictate is still that
recordings are to be transcribed before analysis. A transcription then counts as a written
re-entextualisation of a stretch of recorded speech, often using a combination of conventions
specific to writing together with other graphic devices which highlight the relevance of par-
ticular aspects of speech, other relevant behaviour ;md dimensions of activity and situation.
The purpose of a transcription is to 'freeze' the interaction so that it becomes amenable to
repeated detailed scrutiny for purposes of analysis. Transcriptions come with varying degrees
of sophistication and detail, and transcription practice has been detailed as posing particu-
lar challenges of authenticity/credibility, accuracy, accessibility/readability, translation and
interpretative relevance (Bucholtz, 2008), while being 'coloured' by specific histories and
traditions in the representation of orality in print Qaffe, 2000). While transcription practice
in discourse analysis originally tended to restrict itself to the representation of features of talk
(including some paralinguistic features; cf the Jefferson model, Jefferson, 2004), nowadays,
with the use of computer software, some of the burdens put traditionally on the written
transcription have been lifted. On screen, transcriptions and video recordings are• now
graphically aligned enabling simultaneous access to a transcribed section and its correspond-
ing video fragment. This is made possible by software such as NVivo transcription.
At the same time, recording practices and the practice of recording have also been
debated, highlighting, among other things, the importance of preparatory conditions of
sustained observation before recording takes place, the issue of researcher presence during and
note-taking during/after the recorded events, the effects of recording itself on the interaction
35
Stef Slembrouck
which is captured, c1s well ,1,

attention to how arc selectively invested with
viewpoint 2005. p. Very recent d1scusswns h,iv<' S\Vung the pendulun1
lnck in the direction ofsw,tained direct obserntion and researcher lidd notes Papen, this
volu take on 'dat::i events'. Viewed iion1 this the
data observation ,md as part of doing ethnography,
and those of interacuon in preparation ofdeuilcd data prcsellt
themselves as ,1 complcment,1r1ty which comes ·with diffc-rent kinds of rcplicability.
Jvly final point is thal recent contributed lo this
,1s chc condition also afford., ne\\ in the area of integra-
tive cbuhases in which 1t 1s not only '"·'"-'u,c to re.id the Lr;rnscriptrnn while the i:,
vinved or listened to, bnt other forms of daL1 ec1.n be accessed vvith potentials
and cross-rnccli:il Not been relieved
of some of the pressures of exhaustiveness. detailedness and aut.hL'llticitv; at tbe same tune,
the terms of what can be mcludcd 111 a data corpm ha\c shifted, ,bta holdings
of quite diYersc anccstrv and nature.
Further reading
Textbooks which [ would recomrnend:
,,r u_,c (2nd ed.). London:
is basc'd on ,1 vinv of discourse. lmportantlv, it advocates the
a fu 11-brcadtb statement on rdcvam levels of discourse an,dysis: texts, inter,1.ction,
processes, o( rlistributions" the socio-historil;;1J conditions \vhicb gt)\~crn
practice, tl1c connections hct:wccn social ,md discursive dimensions of power, and
incqu,1lity.)
Gee, J. (1999). Au i11twductio11 to disu•ursc Tl,c,,r)' ,111.d 111t:tlwd. lc\Jldon: Routledge. (A very ac-
cc:,sibk textbook ,vhid, asrnmes 110 prior lrnguistic The focus is 011 the cnactrnent of
social ,md cultuul perspectives. The h:mdhook oHers an h:mcls-on which leads
to a theory uf use while introducing the reader to a method
"\Vortharn, S. and Reyes._/\.. (2015). Discowsc t/1c crenl. London: Routledge. (The
n1cri.t of this handbook lies in i.ts aspirations to look beyond l!Acd events and consider
of dioeounes c;vcr 11nw. It draws lllainly on tlit:ories and methods developed in
Related topics
Interactional sociolinguistics: literacy studies; Multimodality; Sule: Reflexivity.
References
Anderson. 13. (1991). J111c1yi11ed co11111111nitics: E-!cf/cctio11, 011 the ,,r\~i11 ,111d
Verso.
Antaki. C. (1988). c,Fchook London: Sage.
Auslin, J. (1962). How to do Oxford University Prc,ss.
Barton, D. (:2007). Litcr,uy /In introd11ctic1n to t/1e o( written (2nd ,,d.i. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Bell, A., & Canctt, P. (19'!8). to 11,cdia dix,111rse. Ch [,)ld: BL,ckwcll.
Blublu. H. (:2Ci114). !'lie lo1atio11 of wlturc. London:
Bibcr. l) .. Connor, c-.~ & LJpton, T. (2UU7). L)is[l)lffSC l 1 U r/1c 1/f()f'C: C sin_\' {01p11s w describe discourse
structure. Am,tcrdJn1 _ Ue.nprnins.
l\'l. (:19~7). A1:<;_l11ing ilnd tlri11!:i11y· .'-] Fhcto1·i(ai to so1_-fill C:arnbridge
Uni vcrsity Press.
36
Discourse analysis
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Questions de sociologie. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.

Briggs, C. (1996). Disorderly discourse. Narrative, conflict & inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Disco11rse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brumfit, C. (2001). Individual freedom in language teaching: Helping learners to develop a dialect of their own.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bucholtz, M. (2008). Variation in transcription. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 784-808.
Cameron, D. (2000). Good to talk? Living and working in a commimication culture. London: Sage.
Campbell, D., & Dillon, M. (1993). The political su~iects of violence. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Candlin, C., & Crichton, C. (2011). Discourses of d~ficit. Houndmills: Palgrave Macm.illan.
Carter, R., & Simpson, P. (1989). Language, discourse and literat11re: An introductory reader in discourse stylis-
tics. London: Unwin Hyman.
Cheek, J. (2008). Foucauldian discourse analysis. In L. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopaedia of qualitative
research methods (pp. 355-357). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Collins, J., & Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts, power, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cook, G., Robbins, P., & Pieri, E. (2006). "Words of mass destruction": British newspaper coverage
of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of
Science, 15(1), 5-29.
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics. London: Routledge.
Coupland, J. (2006). Dating advertisements: Discourses of the commodifi.ed self. In D. Tannen &
D. Kulick (Eds.), Language and sexuality reader (pp. 101-117). London: Routledge.
Dagge, M., & Hartje, W. (1985). Influence of contextual complexity on the processing of cartoons by
patients with unilateral lesions. Cortex, 21(4), 607-616.
De Beaugrande, R.-A., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London and New York:
Longman.
Doty, R. (1996). Imperial encounters: The politics of representation in North-Soutli relations. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Dumolyn, J. (2008). Privileges and novelties: The political discourse of the Flemish cities and
rural districts in their negotiations with the Dukes of Burgundy (1384-1506). Urban History,
.35(1), 5-23.
Duranti, A. (2001). Linguistic anthropology: History, ideas, and issues. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic
anthropology. A reader (pp. 1-60). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context. Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fook,J. (2016). Social work: A critical approach to practice (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Foucault, M. (1971). I.!ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis. Theory and method. London: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Seif and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Golder, B. (2013). Re-reading Foucault: On law, power and _rights. London: Routledge.
Goodwin, C. (1997). The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. In L.B. Resnick,
R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition
(pp. 111-140). New York: Springer.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics,
32 (10), 1489-1522.
Goodwin, C. (2014). The intelligibility of gesture within a framework of co-operative action. In
M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance: Essays
in honor ofAdam Kendon (pp. 199-216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cotti, M., & Salager-Meyer, F. (2006). Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts.
Bern: Peter Lang.
Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnography of communication. New
· York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
37
Stet Slembrouck
Gunnar:;son, B.-L., Linell, P.. & Nordberg. B. (1997). The constrnction of professional discourse. London:
Long1nan.
Hall, C., Juhila, K., Matarese, M., & van Nijnatten, C. (2014). Analysing social work commimication.
Discourse in practice. London: Routledge.
Hall, C., Slembrouck, S., & Sarangi, S. (2006). Language practices in socid work: Categorization and accou11t-
ability in child welfare. London: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1996)._/11,the, nature, & the geography Oxford: Blackwell.
Harweg, R. (191io). l'ro11<>111ina und Textkon.stittttion. Jvl[inchen: Fink.
Hatim, B., & lVl.bon. I. (I 990). Discourse and the r1,lllslc1tor. London: Longman.
Heath, C. (1CJ8f>). Body 111ovement and speech in l!1cdic<1/ imcr,xtion. Cambridge: Cuubridge Unive,rsity
Press.
Heath, C. (2002). Demonstrative suffering: Tlw gestural (rc)cmbodiment ofsyrnptoms._{ol!rn.1/ of Com-
munirnlion, 52(3), 597-617.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technol-
ogy in London Underground line control rooms. Journ<1l of Computer Supported Cooper,1ti11e H/ork,
1(1), 24-48.
Holdgaard, R. (2008). Exierrlill relations /,1w and the European Community: Legal reasoning ,ind leg,tl
discourses. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters.
Howarth, D. (2000). Distourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hymes, D. (l972). Models of the interaction uf Jnd social life. In]. Gmnpcrz & D Hymes
(Eds.), Dircctiow in .,,,riolinguistics: The et/111,:~mphy o( LOJ111nunication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt,
Rinehart ,":c \Vinston.
Hymes, D. (1'!74). Fo11111fotions of sociolinguisrits. 111 cth1J,,~r,1phic approach. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsyhania Pre,s.
Iedema, R. (2007). Tlte Ji.,course of hospital co1111111111ir,1/io11. 1111ci11g complexities in t0r11c111p0r,ny l1c,ilth 01;ra-
ni2,1tions. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jacobs, G. (1999). Prefomni.l,1ting the news. An analysis of the niet,1pr.1gmatics of press releases. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Jaffe, A. (2000). Introduction: Nonstandard orthography and nonstandard speech. Journal of Sociolin-
guislics, 17, 497-513.
Jager, S. (1999). Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einfiilzrung (2nd ed.). Duisburg: .Diss.
Jefferson, G. (200-t). Glo'5,try of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (Ed.), Conver-
sation the first generation (pp. J _'.\ 31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jewitt, C. (2005). literacy, learning. London: Routledge.
Johnstone. B., & Marcellino, W. (2011). Hymes :me! the ethnography of communication. In R. V/odak,
B. Johnstone. & 1'. Kerswill (Eds.), The Sige luwdh,iok of sociolinguistics (pp. 57--66). London: Sage.
Kasper, G. (J'li-:6). Repair in foreign lang1uge teaching. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Lmg,wgc. mrchinJ?, and
co1111n1-mication in the fonpuage classroom (pp. 23-42). Aarhus: A~rlrns University Press.
Keller, R. (2005). Analysing discourse. An approach from the sociology ofknowledge. FORUlvI: Qual-
it,ltive Social Research/Socialforscl11111g, 6(3), art. 32.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible ,1ction ,1s utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). i\!Jultimodal discourse. The modes and media of contemporary
conunimication. London: Hodder.
Labov, W., & hrnschel, D. (1977). Therapeutit ,lis,u11rse. Aydwtherapy as convers,1tio11. New York: Aca-
demic l'ress.
Laclau, E .. &- Mouffe. C. (1985). Hegemony ,md soci,ilist strategy. Towards a Mii(I,/ drn1,,11atir politics.
London: Verso.
Larsen-Frccm:m, D. (1'!1-ili). Discourse analysis iu research. Rowley, iVlr\: Newbury House.
Locke, T. (2004). Criti,:,tl discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
LPL! (Le petit Larousse illus/re). (2003). Paris: Larousse.
Montgomery, M. (2007). The disrour.ff of bro,11lcast news: A linguistic apptMclz. London: Routledge.
Moschkovich, J. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For tlze Leaming of lvJ.athe1natics,
27(1), 24-30.
MundorC N., & Zillmann, D. (1991). Effects of story sequencing on affective reactions to broadcast
news. Journal of 13nMdc,isting & Electronic iVIcdia, 35(2), 197-211.
Norris, S. 12004). liH,,ly::ing rnultimodal interactfou: .l 111etl1odoiogicalfrarnework. London: lZ.outkdge.
O'Hallora11, K. (2()1H). Multimodal discourse Syst,,11d,jimctional perspectives. London: Continuum.
38
Discourse analysis
oxford advanced learner's dictionary of current English. (2005). (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Philips, S. (1998). Ideology in t/ze language ofjudges: How ju,~<,;es practice law, politics and courtroom control.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psycholoxy. London: Sage.
Rock, F. (2007). Comtnunicating r(~hts. The language of arrest <1nd detention. Houndmills: Macmillan.
Roy, C. (2000). Interpretin:z as a diswurse process. Oxford: Oxfcml University Press.
Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (1999). Talk, 11,,1,k ,me/ institutional order. Disc,mr.<e in flledi,,1/, mediation and
1rwnagemcm settings, Berlin: Mouton.
Scanwll, P. (l'J'i\). Broadcast talk. London: S:ige.
Scollon. R ., & \Xiong-Scollon, S. (2003). Dim 111rscs in place. Language in t/11 m,ttnic1/ world. London:
R.outledgc.
Shaw, J. (2012). The good teacher in contcmpordry times. A discourse analytic appm,1c/1. PhD dissertation, The
University of Melbourne.
Sinclair, J., Ashby, M., Coulthard, JVl., & Forsyth, I. (1972). The English used by teachers and pupils,.firwl
report to the Social Science Research Council far the period September 1970 to August 1972. Birmingham:
University ofBirmingham.
Slembrouck, S. (2005). Discourse, critique and ethnography: Class-oriented coding in accounts of
child protection. Lanluage Scienffs, 27(6), 619-650.
Stedn1,111Jones. G. (1983). Languages ofdass: Studies in English working class history 1832-1982. Cambridge:
Cambridfsc University Press.
Street, B. (200:l). \Jlhat's "new" in New Litn,icy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and
practice. Currcm Issues in Comparatiue Educ,.1tion, 77-91.
Tolson, A. (2001). 'Television talk shows. Dis,oursc, perfi,rmance, spectacle. London: Routledge.
Torfing, J. (1 'J')')). New theories of discourse. Lui<m, Moujle, Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Dijk, T.A., $:. Kintsch, W. (1983). Stwcgics ,!{discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Wadensjo, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
Warren, M. (2006). Features of naturalness in convers,1tion. Amsterdam: John Beirjamins.
Werlich, E. (1976). A text :zr,immar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional culture. London: Sage.
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretive repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-
structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 387-412.
Wetherell, M. (2007). A step too far: Disrnnrsc psychology, linguistic ethnography and questions of
ident1ty.Jo11m,,I ,JSociolinguistics, 11(5), 661-681.
Widdowson. II. (l 998). The theory and practice nf critical discourse analysis. ,4pplicd Linguistics, 19,
136-151.
Wodak, R.. (1')9(,). Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.
Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity. c1nc1grnce ofsocial identification and ac,1,/emir learning. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wortham, S., & Reyes, A. (2015). Discourse analysis beyond the speah went. London: Routledge.
39
4
Literacy studies
Julia Gillen and Winnie Siu-yee Ho
Introduction and definitions

Fur many linguistic ethnography tht: fidd of study known as literacy :,tudics, or
sometimes Nev.c Literacy Srndies, 1s a uscfi._11 area to vvork l!1 or draw inspiration fronl. ]"his is
a diflc-rcn<e n.1dccd between at lea:,t the fr)Undauon:, and linguistic
anthropology. essentially
1ckntified as concerned ·with spuken language, of"tl,e study ofLmguage
clS a cultural resource and ;is a cultural practice''_ Thus, the most usefr1l potential
contribution of wntten l:mguage becorucs to _inform li ngu1sts al,out spoken language. On the
contnrv, researchers of literacy studies recognise that in conten1porary mcictics and indeed
in most oft he knowab.lc past, many of m spend much of our ti rue cngagi ng ,,·ith written lan-
gu;1gc. The ways we do this and the fiinns out corn1nuniut1ons LJke vary with technological
and social change (Barton, 2007).
There is a considcrab.lc conceptual overbp between studie:; ;md linguistic
ethnography Cilisting, "Ihis lies in the features:
An ethnographic stance, especially in the con1111itrncnt to uncovering the ernic,

deploying a number of research methods, as appropriate, and con,;idering the role of- the
researcher (Green el aL 2U03; l'~ichuh, 21115).
A of the rclationslup bcnvcen text and context, in w-hich
each is regarded as interplaying with the other 1
A preference £cir the longitud111:il over snapshot studies as being more likely to engage
with authentic pr;.ictices (Cornpton-L11ly,
A historical and conceptual in sociocultural theorws and approaches
(Scribner ix Cole, 1981).
In this chapter \Ve \vill seek to offer ,rn overview oC studin tl1c1t is designed to be
useful to linguistic ethnographers. We must first offer :1 nute: literacy studies has
been an extremely ferule donum of rt'se:i.rch for over 10 years. At the end of this chapter
,vc recommend two recent extensive survey vohunn and c'vcu these hefty torncs could not
40
Literacy studies
find the space to mention all notable research in this territory. This short chapter aims to be
coherent rather than comprehensive and readers already familiar with the area will imme-
diately identify absences from this account of major studies, let alone many remarkable and
worthwhile smaller works important in the field. We hope to imbue readers with a thirst to
explore literacy studies further.
The essential impetus for literacy studies is to arrive at ethnographic understandings of
what literacy means to people in the course of activities which involve reading and writing.
As we explain below, the impetus for the creation of literacy studies, also known as New
Literacy Studies (Gee, 1991), was and is to reject a narrow skills-based view ofliteracy as ac-
tually or potentially decontextualisable from conditions of use. Discourses around the place
ofliteracies in societies, especially when considering definitions ofliteracy in education and
in relation to measurements of people's skills, are profoundly culturally and materially situ-
ated. "The control ofliteracy, its use, and the conditions under which people become literate
is an enduring political and religious preoccupation" (Collins & Blot, 2003, p. 3).
Literacy studies, in common with linguistic ethnography, tends to work from the
bottom-up, rather than the top-down, in seeing its key empirical contribution as investigat-
ing literacy practices as they occur, situated in specific materially constituted situations. A
key notion is therefore that of vernacular literacies: 'essentially ones which are not regulated
by the formal rules and procedures of dominant social institutions and which have their or-
igins in everyday life' (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, p. 247). This focus has proved fertile for
empirical studies of often overlooked areas of historical writing, e.g. Barton and Hall (2000);
Lyons (2013).
To a greater extent, literacy studies is contributing to investigations of ways in which
everyday literacies are themselves evolving in the present day. Work on "new literacies"
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2011) investigates literacy practices as they have emerged especially in
the 21st century with its swift pace of technological and social change. Those working in this
field describe the rapidly multiplying intertextualities that thread across modes and genres, as
people take up semiotic resources in one place and reshape them to fit their purposes in other
domains (Kress, 2003; Georgalou, 2017). A key characteristic that sets literacy studies apart
from other approaches to online written communications is a resistance to decontextualising·
text-based approaches. Literacy studies, including when working in virtual spaces, recognises
the need to appreciate peoples' situated understandings, purposes and values as well as the
various kinds of pressures on their capacity to pursue their own interests. This can only be
achieved partially and subjectively, and requires a determination to remain adaptive, flexible
and reflexive in research methods; as Latour (2005, p. 143) advises: "Tools are never mere
tools ready to be applied: they always modify the goals you had in mind."
Historical perspectives
In this section, we sketch the contours of the historical perspectives of literacy studies in
the 1980s and beyond for linguistic ethnography practitioners, drawing on work from the
sociocultural school of thought, as well as inspirations from a wealth of ethnograph1es of
literacy.
Literacy studies have been shaped and influenced by some major ground-breaking work
with a continuing shift from "texts-as-products to texts-in-culture-as-a-process" (Creese,
2008, p. 234). Such a transformation originated in a sociocultural approach to literacy, ap-
preciating that people learn literacies in their social contexts, gradually internalising cultural
41
kno\vlcdge (Wntsch, 1985: Vvgotsky, 1988). This shift, bringing the social to the cognitive
durnain, is commnn v,;ith regard to oral too. In these sociocultural e1ccounts the e111-
i, therefi:Jre on cultural repertoire, of corrnnumcation ,ind how these ,ire
learned through parlicq);ltion (Lee o: Research 011 reading and
thus. is as nHJ\lllg a fr,cus on individual processts to take account
uf n1e,rning-making interactions and sooal and cultural practices 1nore broadlv. As Leont'ev
(1978, p. 13) \vrote, does not exist outside the lifr· process that in its very nature
process.''
on such sociocultural Scribner and Cole (1 set oul to link-
ages bet\veen and rnaternl processes rn literacy Researching tire Vai
of Liberia aud Sierra Leone, thev were able lo drsc'ntangle the eflc:cts of literacy
learned in schools, rmtitutiom and informallv, since these did not necessarily map
in diflcrent life Tlwv fiiund that cognrtive
the perforrnance of tasks, could be corrt'latcd with the skills and fr,ci of
r.1Lber th,rn Ill any dccuJJtextuc1ltscd 'vYay. Further, their
appropnalcc tasks m order to underst,md ,111d ,1ssess literacy ;1ctivitil,s had

valid, that is, to nuke sem, Lo their p:1rticipants'
and expcrienccs. precepts wJtb
the attention to locd and assessmg litencin that had been pio-
nccrcd by sociocultural and Luria, in their work origin,tUy
conducted in the 19.l0s.
The class1cal ernpnical studies of chalkngcd the trad1tio1ul vie,vs of
the so-c1lled literacy that associates \Vith other gains, ,vhether
cognitive or markers of external validation. She further offered ,i distinctive ontology and
to both the sociocu hu r.11 ((l to
Lhe study o!'Liugu,,ge practices. In her work on examining the equal but cliffrrent values of
literacy and socialisation processes in three sociocultural groups or com-
:1\ frnrndauonal to of and literacy
The first community was the 1nainstream families whose "initiation-reply-evaluation se-
quenccs" stvle events echoed the tuching and lc,lrning activities at schools. The
bedti rne and other farmly literacy events in such :1 \Vhite middle class community
with teacher mothers follmved the school expected patterns. The second comn1unity was
;t \Vh1te .i "teach t:hein how to talk,. approach instead.
rn activities but did not associate texts

or pictures in vvith social contexts, perceiving as unnecessary rxp.licit cxpla-
events. The third corn which was BLtck and working-class,
a Heath ler1nccl the "learn tO c,llk" . No spokcn or written mc1terials were
tailor-nude fr,r babies. tended to receive
of the second and the third conununitics did as much to support their children as the nL1in-
stream community but the differe1Ke between them w,1s tlut then common liter,lcy
practices did not well vv1th those the children went on to find themselves confronted
with at school. The observed difil'rences between rnciuculLur;1l groups in their ori,ntations
LCJ\vanls literacy led rnanv rcsean:hers to pursue further studies dis/conncc:t10ns
bet ween school and cnmmunity in
Another leading influential work in
by Scribner and Colc (]98!)
is Strc·ct's
42
Literacy studies
Drawing on his fieldwork in rural Iran in the 1970s, Street claimed that all literacy is ideolog-
ical in nature, confronting the still largely hegemonic attitude regarding literacy as a matter
of individualised cognition, a perspective which he described as the "autonomous model".
Street regards literacy as situated practices shaped by social factors including local ideologies,
social contexts and political influences. He emphasises the importance of social and cultural
contexts in which reading and writing make sense, while rejecting the argument that liter-
acy can ever be only a set of discrete skills. Street (1984) further reinforces the importance
of the nature ofliteracy as embedded in social practice. Research participants, like all of us,
understand and engage in their particular literacy practices associated with their social com-
munities while pursuing authentic goals in their reading and writing activities.
It is worth highlighting two notions mentioned above that have been widely adopted
by literacy researchers and some subsequent linguistic ethnographers: "literacy events" and
"literacy practices". Literacy events, as describeded by Heath (1982, p. 50), are "occasions
in which written language is integral to the nature of participants' interactions and their
interpretive processes and strategies". Larger sociocultural factors have to be taken into con-
sideration when interpreting literacy events. Developed from Heath's concept of "literacy
events" and Street's "literacy practices", Barton (1991) argues that literacy practices are com-
mon patterns found in reading and writing texts for social activities, cultural values and
ideological purposes. Barton's (1994) fundamental synthesis of ideas about literacy as a social
practice influenced the increasing number of researchers adopting this approach. Barton and
Hamilton's (1998) book, an ethnographic study of everyday life in a small town in North
West England, also pioneered a "local literacies" research genre.
With regard to the above-mentioned studies located in a broadly sociocultural approach
to literacy, it can be noted that schools and households, in addition to workplace, religion and
entertainment, as suggested by Wagner et al. (1986), are five social domains where literacy
practices have typically been studied. However, literacy studies and linguistic ethnography
researchers made new connections between domains. For example, Street's Iranian fieldwork,
mentioned above, showed that people have different literacy practices in different domains of
life but can then make novel connections across. Social functions and practices, learned in the
context of participating in religious life, played a vital role in influencing newly developing
commercial literacies in the community, rather than schooled literacies as might perhaps have
been expected. The latter tended to orient away from village-based practices (Street, 1984).
All the literacy studies research discussed above align with the broad and rich working
definition ofliteracy proposed by UNESCO (2004, p. 13):
the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, and compute, us-
ing printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a
continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their
knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society.
However, it should be noted that UNESCO, like other pan-national and influential organ-
isations, has not necessarily continued to pursue such definitions that go beyond functional,
individualised understandings of literacy skills.
Critical issues and debates

_The foundational works ofliteracy studies raised questions that are still key to critical issues
and debates today. The most important single impetus for much work in literacy studies lies in
43
the desire to umlersL1nd and value authentic literacv practlCb as they exist, 111 all their diver--
and richness. This runs counter to a very strong driver of top-down educational policies
that often seek to identify one-size-fits-all solutions to issues such as perceived deficiencies in
levels. At the same time, f,)r liter:JCy studies practitioners themselves_ as indeed other
ethnographers, a challenge lies in studying situated practices: can findings be generalised?
For literacy studies in gcnnaL engagmg with re,d world issues, uone is more crucial
than the interrogation of the autunrnll()US view ofliteracy and the consequent impoverished
outlook for shapmg formal rnstitutions mvolvcd with literacy if this is pcrn11ttcd to drive
literacy policy. T1ris takes the sh;rpc of resistance to a narnY1A·, skills-based definition of lit-
eracy ,rnd a recognition of the consequences dioeourses on the life
courses of individuals espcnally those who l1c1ve been born or placed in positions of unequal
opportunities. There have been rna ny critiques of the e±frcts of such narrmv
nridersumdings of literacy_ A vivid cx,nnpk is provided by Purcell-Cates p. She
adumbrates the litency education landscape without stud.ic,_ as " ... literacy research_
policy_ and fi.mding focused myopically on litcra,,y instruction alone. This resulted in a sys--
tern of thought and ,1 system of instructional policy that 1s closed, with no feedback beyond
itself." She evoke, parallels from other re;1lms oflifr such as i111agi11ing 1ffootball instructors
had never seen;, game and only ever focussed 011 a few discrete ele1nents such as dribbling and
The result she terms a "sohpsistic cycle instruction ... with liteqcy itself
novv defined as measured by instruction in literacy'' 2005, p. Prob<1bly
the most diflicult task for liter,1cy studies is to connnunicate this message, so very distant,
as Purcell-Gates makes plain, from understandiugs that currently drive policy on
literacy in cch1c1tion in many colrntrie,.
In the course of endeavouring tu a.ny traction un educational one issue that
arises is the value ofliteracy studies itself Brandt :md Clinton published an article en
titled "Limits of the local: wr,rnT11 on literacy as a social practice". This paper
tackled an issue that many had seen ;E probleni:llic for studies, that are also questions
raised for linguistic ethnography in general: if the of inyestigative research is tu
provide a nchly detailed situated case study, what possibilities arc there for extendrng find-·-
ings and implications beyond the local? ls e.ssenti;1lly descriptive work, however carefully
achieved, bounded by its own limitations; Ho1'v can grounded empirical \Vork contribute
trw;ards the building of theory?
Brandt and Clinton argued that dichotmmsing local practices against powerful
fr,rces such as government policies_ reductionist global discourses and nuJor economic trans-
national compJnies active in literacy education is a self-limiting and thus ultimately harmfol
strategy. They drev,c on the work of Li tour 111 two key wc1ys. First, they discuss
the relationships of literacy technologies to contexts beyond the immediatelv local. Using
the exarnplc ofa discussion in a US bank around a inortgage application, they demonstrate
how understcrndings of the context, the present in the environment,
permeate the particip,rnts' actions. But also those very technologies cn1se the rnedi,it.ed tr;1ns-
action to free! frinvard rnto larger arenas of impact, such as the Federal Reserve. The selection
of the example new<' appears prescient, for it WJS a crisis in rnortgagc lending
that led to a fin:mcial crisis and nuior recernon in the US in 2007~2009 2013). It
would llllt be chfficult to trace the results of this crisi.s into many areas of the lives of people
who su ffc-1Td as a result, rncluding their literacy activities -- and indeed Duca (2013) selected
,1 sign cldvcrtising refinancing sernces ovcrgrovvn by grass, as a v1Vid 1llustr.1tion for his es-
say. Second, Brandt and Clinton interrogate: the divide" bctv,ecn people and
things, arguing that more :mcilytical fran1es ne needed than those tint distinguish
44
Literacy studies
between the agentive power of people and that of objects seen as mere tools in their hands.
This presaged a growing amount of interest in literacy studies in approaches that are some-
times clustered under the term "post-humanist".
So, for many literacy studies researchers, as other linguistic ethnographers, the challenge
between the local and the generalisable becomes recast as a process of rethinking of the re-
lationship between people and technology in the world. Nothing can be held constant and
rethinking the locus of power becomes a moral imperative.

The major contribution ofliteracy studies is to contribute situated studies ofliteracy that en-
rich actual and potential understandings of the diversity ofliteracy in the human experience.
We have already quoted Purcell-Gates's (2005) powerful preface stimulated by a notable
collection of case studies from diverse global locations, working across areas of often distinct
empirical fields of literacy studies: family, community and education. Since its beginnings
literacy studies has generated many such valuable studies, in many of which sectors of society
sometimes viewed as marginalised or less powerful are revealed as engaged in sophisticated
literacy practices (Besnier, 1995; Gebre et al., 2009). Often, children are revealed as ac-
tive agents in their encounters with various literacies, and studies show the complex inter-
relationships among their own understandings, those of institutions and the resources made
available to them (Dyson, 2016).
We strongly recommend two collections of contemporary literacy studies volumes as the
best way to gain a view of the rich landscape ofliteracy studies in the first decade of the 20th
century (Hall et al., 2013; Rowsell & Pahl, 2015). Many of the chapters are by authors lead-
ing current projects and all the topics represented have salience as we write this overview. In
her foreword to the first volume, Gutierrez (2013, p. xxix) is explicit about the social justice
agenda driving research in literacy studies, its background and consequences:
I would like to argue for an expanded view of learning as the organization of possible
futures - one that requires a more interventionist stance to remedy the current conditions
in which nondominant youths learn and appropriate multiple literacies in particular.
Rowsell and Pahl (2015), with a similarly global reach and commitment to diversity, organ-
ise their book into sections by approach and theme: namely The foundations ef literacy studies;
space1ocused approaches; time-focused approaches; multimodal approaches; digital approaches; herme-
neutic approaches; making meaning.from the everyday and co-constructing literacies with communities.
This demonstrates key current concerns in literacy studies over developing theoretical un-
derpinnings from more traditional sociocultural theories into multimodality and new ways
of approaching considerations of time and space, drawing on contemporary philosophers of
materiality (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Barad, 2007; Bennett, 2009). The final two section
titles demonstrate the persistence in literacy studies of attention to vernacular literacies and
the importance of finding out about people's authentic social and cultural connections, rather
than resting on assumptions made, very often, from "above" (Barton & Hamilton, 1998).
As digital technologies and especially the internet became more pervasive in many soci-
eties, literacy studies researchers have also demonstrated the value of studying people's prac-
tices across digital and physical domains, and complexifying issues of"access". In a powerful
polemic Gee (2003) argued that video games embodied better design principles for learning
than formal education.
45
Main research methods including approaches to analysis

This section \Nill 1elucidate the n1;1in research rnethods of studJcs, which can inspire
linguistic ethnographers. Readers of this kmclbook will notice an cssentJ:Jl in rnetb-
oclolugies with much other research in this area, as so much literacy studies \vork has adopted
''the conjuncture of ethnography and linguistics" that R.ampton ct al. p. 2) described
in their UK Linguistic Ethw.1gr,1phv Fonmi paper. They argued that "language aud
the: social vvurld are mmua1ly sh:1ping, and [thatj close of situated hngu:ige use can
provide both fund:rniental and dist1nctivc insight, into the mcchanisn1s and dynamics of
social and cultural production in ;1c:tivity". Both the stmly of talk and the study of
context are cornhined in fieldwnrk.
It r, beyond tlw scope of rhis sc:ctiun to illustrate all rhe possible methodological ap-
proaches of literacy studies to linguistic ethnographers. This section :1irns at consolidating
the foHowing emerging rne;1rch endeavours which focus 011 the intcrpby of litcr;1cy :;tud-
1es :111cl lingmstic etlmography instead: micro-level Ji ;111sdysis, r.ich observ:1tion,
docmnentmg artefacts, ethnogr,1pl11c description:, with 1mider pers1wct1vcs on writing and
speaking activ1t1cs in the research contexts. We offer three main charactcri,tics that shape the
tr;1jectory ofhnguistic etlrnogr:1phy and literacv studies.
firsL a n1re component Ul traditional liter:1cy studies is Ji such as text
,rnalys1s or Gee\ '\fo,course ,rnalvsis" 2014). Cet' here e,qlc1tHls the meaning of dis-
course analysis from the orthographic or spoken forms tu nrnltimodal fc,rms in
duding art, pictures, nrnsic, architecture and historical documents. T<iking the perspective
(Barton ct al., litc:racy sLUdies fiJCLIS on bow
sonal and cultuuJ and identities texts (as in Thrton 6 .. Hamilton, 1998;
lvanic. 1998). Therefi>re, methodology combines ofboth researcher-generated
(etic) ,rnd participant--gener,1ted texts and ;1rteCicl s, by other mstru-
ments such as m-depth intervinvs and participant observations. R.esearchers are likely to
adopt ,,hco,-'""''"''rn rese:ircb methods mcluding document and par
in literacy events and Papen,
this volume).
Second, given the complex nature of conducting linguistic research through
the Jen:; of literacy studies, it should be recogmsed th;1t enterprise tiaught
with difficulty in the inc:vitably unpredictable events Patifio-Santos, this
volmne). l<..escarch should align \Vith research objectives, research questions
and re,ean:11 design, as we ITlentJoned with reference to Latour (200.5). Linguistic ethnogra
phers themselves, ideally acting in collaboration, can exero,e thei.r own .imigemenl on the
appropriateness of their research 1nethodology, taking into account of social justice
and ethical with participc1nt, CopLmd, tbis \Vhatcvcr the
of ethnographic srcu1ce, lo rnethodology tend lo be dyn:1n1ic ,rncl adapt:lble. Snd1
f.!cxibiJity can allow us to adopt appropriate tools whenever or wherever necessary.
'Third, as have crnergcd and n'olvecl through the "nc\v communications
hndscape" (Kres,, 1998), the rnain rc:se,1rch rnethods orliteracy studies Juve tran,fr)l:mcd
through giving rncreased attention to mulllple modes. The sarnc, of course. appl1c5 to lin-
gmstic ctlrnography Vans &. M.ingyi Hou, this Two rnajcn phase's of digital
rese,irch in the field are of mention, \X/hcn to the shift to
the digital, early in tlueutul research methods ticrnt to studies offered path-
breaking nicthodologies, such as the nrnlt11nod,1l tramcriprion 111cthod developed by Hull and
Nelson to work with tcxh through stors The 1nulti-n1edia
46
Literacy studies
compositions created by the urban teenagers in a community technology centre in California

constituted an early generation of digital stories revealing youth engagement with digital lit-
eracies beyond the academic domain. Through examination of the adolescents' multimodal
storytelling process, the interactions of spoken words and written texts with other multiple
types of modes including images, music and videos are captured and analysed, as new path-
ways of non-print-based storytelling. Such research involving multimodality acts as a new
research 'apparatus' (Nelson et al., 2008) for both literacy studies researchers and linguistic
ethnographers (see Bezemer, this volume). The breakthrough of simultaneously adopting
home and community as research contexts to examine multimodal composition also changed
the classroom-oriented research trend in the field (Vasudevan et al., 2010).
Another phase of digital-related research contributing to literacy studies, in terms of re-
search methodology, would be those studies investigating the increased pervasiveness of so-
cial media in everyday life. The extent oflanguage-related research on social media platforms
has been increasing rapidly in recent decades and an atmosphere of research tends to focus on
social interactions between online participants. Three examples should suffice to illustrate.
The first example is doing facework on Facebook as a new literacy practice as investigated
by Davies (2012). We can draw inspiration from the way that the researcher investigates how
various physical spaces such as bars, bedrooms and workplaces become the intersecting paths
of online social networking sites. A community of practice is no longer confined to physical
participation but can be extended to the digital settings. The research project on Flickr and
Facebook conducted by Barton and Lee (2013) is also influential in the field. Users' postings
on Facebook's profiles and walls are like an 'auto-biography': "a narrative of who we are
and what kind of person we want others to see us" (Barton & Lee, 2013, p. 84) as a presen-
tation of the self is shifted from the physical world to the digital platform in fluid forms, in
varying degrees of orienting to public audiences. A third instance of social media research
contributing to these methodological perspectives is the reflexive research of two academic
Twitter users (Gillen & Merchant, 2013) using a dual autoethnographic approach. This study
depicts the digital communication as a meaning-making process and sociolinguistic practice
in a rich semiotic environment. One point is worth emphasising here: the common ground
of the above-mentioned studies is that they are text-centred yet deeply contextualised. In
looking forward to the development offurther studies, Mills (2015) offers useful suggestions
in working with a number of"lenses" - social, critical, multimodal, spatial and material - in
theoretically driven research "for the digital age".
Implications for practice

The arena of contemporary literacy studies tends to present itself as both ambitious and
wide-ranging, "an area of scholarship that explains how meaning is made in everyday lives"
(Rowsell & Pahl, 2015, p. 13). A key demand ofliteracy studies today is a refocussing of the
place ofliteracy in the lives of people, especially from more vulnerable sections of the world's
population. As Hamilton (2012, p. 136) writes:
When narratives are generated in a skilfully organised, part1c1pative environment

then greater diversity and a different perspective on the experience ofliteracy learning
can emerge to interrupt and complicate the dominant policy and popular media nar-
ratives ..... {These constitute] an artificial grid placed over experience which benefits
some and disadvantages others, depending on where you are positioned within the
social order.
47
lt is ditficult to :we tliat rnuch, iCany, contemporary linguistic ethnography could rake place
without paving attention to the rdationship bct\veen practicn .ind social
Material and d1gJtal) lex ts are centLll to the co-ordination of ,oci,tl processes in
contemporary sooeties. The social rnstitutiorn ,vhich shape our lives ;ire co-ordinated
in very large part by means of the tl.ovvs and tnJecrorics of rnatcrial texts .... A fixns on
the role ortexts in reguL1ting .ind activities is a
crucial meJns by which ethnograph1cs c.rn be extended beyond the scope of the local
rractices under observation.
2013, pp.
Further, ,rnd media arc lmked witl1 literacies, in anv specific

instantiation of space and time. As the editors of another recent collection of research in
studies state, ". the and
rnodifying the sociocultural conditions of its time, making certain sub1ect av,iilahle
and others contested" (Merchant et al., 2017, p. Thus, it is that fi-uitfol explorations
of identity and litcr;icy pr;1ctices will continm' to include a historical perspective. to illurni-
n,lk the roles oC economic and cultural rcL1tioll\hips, and insLitutiom tl1,1t sponsor literc1cy
f'LlCL ices (Brc1ndt,
hnaginativc explorations of that extend backwJn-\s m tin1e can also heir to
elucidate our potential routes luci,Hy by Crc1ff (201 U. p.
History mandates and the lenses of time, and alternative

spaces. h and prompts us to comprehend \vli:1t has wb,1t might have been,
and what there rnight be: choice. agencv, and in their Cullnes, and their limits.
Future directions
As already argued in this chapter in multiple ways. a 111c~or direction in which many literacy
studies roe archers will contmue t<.1 work 1s to rnc1ke progress in rd<Jrrning dom.inant under-
ofliteracy, putting forw;trd den1ands for tk1t connect better to people's
authentic purposes and strive for increased Sec., fr,r ex,nnple, the edited volume
New Literacies ,Around the Globe: I'o!icy and (Burnett ct al.. Their concluding
"charter for education" calls for a rejection of narrow framn\ orks in f:wour of a collaborative
approach tu ernpowerment. While the poteutial of digital technologies and all
the other means to hand that 1nay improve literacy their approach is not reliant
prograrnm.es but rather echoes the insightful conclusions of a
to literacy education in ,issociakd with Bri,1n Street (Cebre et al.,
benefits of 1n the field:
Fur that is what does 1L turns thc- world upside down. It tc,iches the
teacher to learn from Lhe learner. And in that way we sh:1l1 create bcLter
and progran11nes for
(Gchre et 2009, p. 151)
~While cmph,1sising continuities, \Ve can also ways in \vhich nc\v theoretical insights
are servin,2: to ,1ch,ince 1 stud1n. \Ve· tc1ke as a frrtilc· arena of practice,
although not Lbe most obvious given constraint,, that ol in Lhe
48
Literacy studies
early years. Post-humanist approaches, which acknowledge the essential connectedness be-
tween people and the world around them, decentring the focus on the human, are informing
much exciting work. We see this movement as in part a resistance to an unremitting focus
on achievements of individual children, attaining narrowly defined standards. The kind of
emphasis on literacy skills measured in tests that Purcell-Gates criticised receives a healthy
reaction in, for example, the focus on literacy processes in the moment that Kuby and Gut-
shall Rucker (2016) call "literacy desirings". This collaboration between a researcher and an
elementary school teacher is particularly worth mentioning as it is imbued with theoretical
discussions, yet entirely practical, in a strong tradition of inspirational books that respect the
capacities of children and regard literacy learning as social and as involving the imagination
and play (Marsh & Millard, 2000; Wohlwend, 2013). Like those predecessors, Kuby and
Gutshall Rucker detail their approaches to pedagogy, while thinking through the relational
materialist theory that assists them to think more broadly than conventional approaches
to instruction. Considering a unit focussed on non-fiction writing, for example, Gutshall
Rucker, the teacher of a second grade class (aged around seven years old), explains:
[Kuby] and I brainstormed different types of nonfiction texts, such as books, how-to
videos, and recipe books. Understanding a genre (e.g., nonfiction, personal narratives,
opinion writings, and so forth) was just one goal for students. I also wanted students to
consider the format, mode, and materials they use (are entangled with) to publish for
ot11ers to use (intra-act with) their creations. As a class, we also spend time exploring what
it means to publish as a writer. Students explore different modes, such as board games,
maps, models, plays with scripts, picture books, how-to videos, and cooking shows.
(Kuby & Gutshall Rucker, 2016, p. 59; emphases as in original)
The terms in bold are drawn from the work of the quantum physicist and philosopher Karen
Barad (2007). "Entangled" refers to her notion that there is no separation between mean-
ing and matter; we are always entangled in the world we perceive. Similarly to the ideas
sometimes termed or relating to ANT (actor-network theory), a strong concept here is that
viewing humans as the only actors in the world is overly simplistic and ultimately misleading.
Objects and technologies constantly "speak back" to us; every action that we take exists in a
web of artefacts, environment, embodiment and so on, all inseparable in the moment. That
moment is inflected with past and future, as we are constantly influenced by past actions
that shape the environment as well as understandings and experiences gained from the past,
plus immanent futures. An important implication for contemporary literacy studies is that
this takes researchers further than the traditional sociocultural concept of people as having
agency and things as being tools.
Seen in this way, literacy studies is fertilised by a realm of social technical studies that
do not necessarily have to name literacy as their object of enquiry. For example, Hutchins's
(1995) work on technologies, humans and environments, focussing on the concept of situated
cognition, does not mention "literacy" yet can be read through a literacy studies lens (Gillen
et al. 2012).
Finally, we would like to suggest that the main reason for the likelihood of the contin-
uation of work that does explicitly situate itself as literacy studies into the future lies in the
alignment of some of its continuing concerns and methods with contemporary foci even if
these are inflected with newer theoretical concepts. We recently turned back to Besnier's
. (1995) classic work, Literacy, Emotion, and Authority: Reading and Writing on a Polynesian Atoll,
and were utterly impressed by the way he expresses three persistent values ofliteracy studies.
49
First, Besnier takes account of literacy as mtrinsically connected with other means of
communication, drawing on the timeless wisdon1 of Keith Basso's imight:
\Vrit111g, wherever it exists, is only one of several communication channels available to

the members of a society. Consequently, the conditions under which it is selected' and
the purposes to which it is put rnust be, described in refotion to those of other channels.
(Basso, 1974, cited in Besnier, 1995, p. 12)
Second, the site for this detailed ethnography study might be imagined to be a relatively
self-contained society with some feature, oflinguistic and social stability, since it is a "re-
mote" Pacific atoll. But Besnier demonstrates that such assumptions, now fruitfully disturbed
by notions of supndiversity (see Blackledge and Creese, this volume), were always a "fig-
ment of the anthropological, or at least of the Western, imagination'' (.Besnier, 1995, p. 49).
Mobilities have long played a part in the history and development of litcracv practices in
Nuku]aelat~. Besnicr uncovered the traumatic episode of the removal of all able-bodied men
and some women through the lure of apparent cngagernent with their religious practices by
a group of visiting Peruvian traders in 186\ who then enslaved them. Through painstaking
investigations of his own he reveals diversity in languages beyond the dominant written
Tuvaluan significant to clements of tlie population.
Third, although Besnier writes long before the post-humanist "turn", his detailed de-
scriptions always include attention to the active, shaping characteristics of the dynarnic
environment and its technologies incorporating all the material factors that impact upon
people's literacy practices whether 'Writing letters or we;iving names onto mats. Equally, the
gaze of the researcher rs always implicated in the discussion of findings.
Further reading
Hall, K., Cremin, T., Comber, B., & Moll, L. (2013). International handbook of research on children's literacy,
lcaming ,md culture. Chichester, UK: W iley-Blackwcll. (This is the most comprehensive collection of
works looking at learning and education from a literacy studies perspective that has been published
in recent years. The scope of its ambition is not only to overvinv the field, through inviting key
contributors to sociocultural stlldies ofliteracy and learning, although this is achieved successfully,
but also to move the field on through a commitment to social justice.)
Rowsell, J., c",: Pahl, K. (Eds.) 2U15, The Routled;s;c handbook of literacy s!udies. London and New
York: Routledge. (This is very much a complementary volume to the one cited above, in that it
endeavours to fi)cus on the breidth and depth ofliteracy studies scholarship, although for the most
part concentrating on areas not centrally concerned with education. The two volumes together
represent a wonderful synthesis ofliteracy studies at what might turn out to be a pivotal moment in
time. Necessarily, there are still many absences especially since neither can encomp'1ss much work
published in languages other than English.)
Related topics
Multimodality; Digital approaches in linguistic ethnography; Faith communities; Ethnographies of
academic writing.
References
Barad, K. (2007). ivlccting 1/i.c unfrnse halfway: Q1umtum physics ,md t/1c entanglement ,i/mattu ,md 111c,ming.
Durham, NC: Duke University Pre,s.
50
Literacy studies
Barton, D. (1991). The social nature of,niting. \Vriting in the community. In D. Barton & R. Ivanic
(Eds.), Wrilin,g i11 the community (pp. 1--1.3). Lcindon: Sage.
Barton, D. (1994). Uteracy: An introduction lo tlic of written language . ..__,,u,1uu.u Blackwell.
Barton. D. (2007). Literacy: an introduaion to the of written language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Barton, D .. & Hall, N. (Eds.) (2000). as a social practice (Vol. 9) ..Anlsterdam: John Benjamins
Pub Iishing.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London:
Routledge.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (2000). Situ<1ted liter,1cies: Re<1ding and writing in context. London:
Routledge.
Barton, D., & Lee, C. (201.3). Language oniine: Investigating digital texts and practices. London: Routledge.
Bennett, J. (2009). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of thinRs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Besnier, N. (1995). Literacy, emotion and aurh,11ify: Rc,uling and writing on <1 Polynesi<Jn atoll. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brandt, D. (200 I). Literacy in American liw.,. New Yc,rk: Cambridge University Press.
Brandt, D., &- Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social
of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337-336.
Burnett. C, Davies, J., Merchant, G., & Rowsell, _I. (2014). New literacies around rhc _r;!ol,e: policy and
pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Collins, J., & Blot, R.K. (2003). Literacy and literacies. Text, power and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Compton-Lilly, C. (2014). The development of writing habitus: A ten-year case study of a young
writer. Written Con-11mtnir,1tion, 31(4), 371-403.
Creese, A. (2008). Linguistic ethnography. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language ,md education
(pp. 3424-343<.i). New York: Springer.
Davies, J. (2012). Facework on Facebook as a new literacy practice. c::omp1-1ters ccc Ed1-1rntian, 59(1),
19-29. doi:I U.1016/j.compedu.2011.1 l 007
Deleuze, G., & Gnattari, F. (1987). 1:1 thousand p!dtmus: capitalism and Minneapolis:
Un ivcrsity of Minnesota Press.
Duca, J V (201.3). Subprime mortgage crisis 2007-2010. [online]. Available from http://www.federal
reservebistory.org/Events/Detai!View/55 (i\ccessed 15th January 2017).
Duranti, A. (1997). Linl11istic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyson, A.H. (Ed.) (2016). Child cultures, schooling, and literacy: Globd perspectives on composing unique Hws.
New York: Routledge.
Gebre, A.H., Rogers, A., Street, B., & Openjuru, G. (2009). literacies in Africa: Etl1no2mpliic
studies of literacy and numeraq practices in Ethiopia. Kampala: Foundation Publishers.
Gee, J. (1991). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy (literacies). Annuctl Review of Applied Lin211istics,
12. 31-48.
Gee, JP. (2003). l-Vliat video games hauc to tc<1ch us about learning and lltcfriC)'. New York: Palgrave
Macmi!J;rn.
Gec,J .P. (2014) . .An introduction to discourse Theory and method. London and New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. (2Cil5). Sod,il linguistics and literacies: Idc,,h:i!Y in discourses. London and New York: Routledge.
Georgalou, M. (2017), Discourse and identity ,,u h1c2i>ool,. London: Bloomsbury.
Gillen. J., Ferguson R., Peachey, A., & Twining, P. (2012). Distributed cognition in a virtual world.
Language and Educ,ition, 26(2), 151--167.
Gillen, J., & Merchant, G. (2013). Contact calls: Twitter as a dialogic social and linguistic practice.
Lan2uage Sciences, 35, 47-58.
Graff, H.J. (2010). Literacy 1nyths, le2acies, and lessons: New studies on literacy. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Green, JL. Dixon, C.N., & Zaharlick, ./\. (2003). Ethnography as a logic of imiuiry. [n Handbook of
1Csearclt on tcac/1ing the English langua<:c ,ms ed., pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. Inc.
Gutierrez, K.D. (2013). Foreword. In K Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L Moll (Eds.), Interna-
tiN1<1l hrmdb,,,d: o(research on children\ llter,1zy. /c,1rnl11g, and culture (pp. xxix xxxv). Chichester, UK:
Hall, K., Cremin, T., Comber, B., & Moll, L. (2013). Intemation,il h,mdbook of research on children's
learning and culture. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
51
Hamilton, M. (2012). LiterMy ,md tlie politics of represenfotion. London and New York: Routledge.
Heath_ S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative ,kills at home and school. Language i11
Society. 11(1), 49~76.
Heath, S.B. (1983). l¥i1ys with wc•rds: Ltniuc1ge, life and work in co1nm11nitics a11d classrooms. Cambridge:
Hull, G.A., & Nelson, M.E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power ofmukimodality. vVritten Com11u.mi-
cation, 22(2), 22 l-2(, I
Hutchins, L (JllllS). Cw:11i1ion in the wild. Carnlnid_s:e. Ml\ 1VIIT Press.
Ivanic, R. (lq98). TVnti11,,: ,llld identity. Amsterclarn:Jolrn [knj:unins Publishing Company.
Kress, G. (lll'l8). Vi,ual and verbal modes of reprc·sentation in electronically medi.1ted commu11 ication:
The potcnti,1I, of new forms of texts. In I. Snyder I',we to screen: Taking li!mny into the electronic
era (pp. 53 7'l). London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2()113). Lite1c1cy in the new media age. New York: Psychology Press.
Kuby, C R., & Gutshall Rucker, T. (2016). Go be a writer' Expc111din,g t/Je curriwfor boundaries of lite1wy
lccm1i11g with r/1ildren. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). :Yew literacies: E1ieryday pr,1ctices and sori,il lc,1ming: Everyday pr,irtires
,111d soci<1/ le,zrning. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Latour, B. (1993). vl/e h,we nwer been modem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An intr,,durtion to actor-network-th.corr Oxford: Oxford
Univer:,ity Prc,s.
Lee, C.D., & Smagurinsky, P. (2000). Vygotskia11 pcrspeaiw.' on literacy research: Co11srrncti11R n1caning
through n•l/,t/,,,rc1!1r·c i11,111iry. Cambridge: Carnbri,lgc Un ivcrsity Press.
Leont'ev, A.N. (l'!7ts). flcul'ity, consciousness, a11rl pcrs,,11,zlity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prrntice Hall.
Lyons, M. (2013). The ll'riting culture ef ordinary pe,>Jilc in Eurupc, c. 1860-1920. Ca111bndge: Cambridge
University Pr,'ss.
Marsh,]., & Millard, E. (2000). Literacy ,md popular culture: Using children's culture in the clcissroom. London:
Paul Chapman.
Merchant, G., Burnett, C., & Parry, B. (2017). Literacy, media, technology. In l3. Parry, C. Burnc'tt, &
G. Merchant (Eds.), Literacy, medi,1, technology: Past, present <1nd Ji1t111e. London: Bloomsbury
Academic.
MiJls, K.A. (2015). Litemcy theories for the digital ,~Qe: Social, critical, 111ultimod,tl, spatial, material lenses.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nelson, M.E.. }lull, G.A , & Roche-Smith, J (2001'). Challenges of multim,,,fo1 self-presentation.
Taking, and mist:.tking, rhe show on the ro,td. H,ittrn Co1111mmication, 25(4), 415-440.
Nichols, S. (2015). Ecological approaches to litcr,tcy resc;uch. In J. Rowsell & K. Pahl, (Eds.) The
Routled/c /1a11d/Jo,,i: of litnacy studies (pp. 104--123). London ,ind New York: Routledge.
Purcell-Gates, V. (200.5). Foreword. In]. Anderoon, M. Kendrick, & T. Rogers l'<>rtr<1its ofliter-
<1cy <1crossfamilies, communities and schools: intersections and tensio11s (pp. ix-x1). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rampton, B., Tusting, K.. , Maybin, J, Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2004). UK Linguistic
Ethnography: A discussion paper. UK Linguistic Ethnography Foru 111.
Rowsell, J., & Pahl, K. (Eds.) (2015). The Routledge handbook of liter,,.cy studies. London and New York:
Routledge.
Scribner, S., & Cole, IVl ( 1981). The psychology of litnilry. C:,mbridge, MA: Harvard Univermv Press.
Street, B.V. (198-1). Litcr,iq in theory ,md practicr Cunbridgc: Cambridge University Pt,,ss.
Street, B.V (1993). lHtroduction: The new htcr.tcy studies. In BV. Street (Ed.) Cn,"-cultural
approaches to Cambridge: Cambndgc University Press.
Tusting, K (2lJl 3). Lilt-rcicy studies as linguistic Working Papers in L'rh,111 L111g1ti!pe and
Literacies. King's Col1ege London. Av.1ilable fr,m1 bttps://www.kcl.ac.uki"PPidcpartments/
education /research/Ide/pub! icati ons/wo rkmgpapers/the-papers/ WP 10 5-Tusting-2013-Literacy-
st udies-as-linguistic-ethnography. pd f (Accessed 15th January 2017).
UNESCO. (2004). The plurality ofliteracy and its implicatiom for policies and programs: UNESCO
Education Sector Position Paper, [pdfJ UNESCO. Available from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
irnages/0013/001362/136246e.pdf (Accessed 25th January 2016).
Vasudevan, 1., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring
literate identities through multimodal storytelling. l!'rittm Communication, 27(4), 442-4<,8.
52
Literacy studies
Vygotsky, L.S. (1988). The collected works ofL.S. Vygotsky Volume 1: Problems of general psychol-
ogy including the volume Thinking and Speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.) New York:
Plenum Press.
Wagner, D. A., Messick, B. M., & Spratt,]. (1986). Studying literacy in Morocco. In B.B. Schieffelin &
P. Gilmore (Eds.), The acquisition of literacy: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 233-260). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Wertsch, J.V. (Ed.) (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge:
Wohlwend, K.E. (2013). Literacy playshop: New literacies, popular media, and play in the early years. New
York: Teachers College Press.
53
5
Sociolinguistic ethnographies
of globalisation

A definition of glob;1]is,1tim1 clcscnbcs it ;1'.; "th,:
through 1nvestrnent. Libour
This economic understanding of 1s
tion obviomly abo l1c1s cultural and politicc1l dirnensions. Our airn in this chapter
is to dr;1w out tlJe lingu1stK nature of gkibalis;1tio11 and th<"n to identify the value of an
ethnographic in research about and This chapter will shmv
that there arc irnport;.1nt linguistic clements in social, cultural, political and even cconornic
glolxllJsation, particularly in the gloh11isatiun of work'. fhe li1Jguistic ;ispects of
globalisation are numerous because is funcbmental to any social phenomenon,
and the fnncLuncntal interrelation is often emphasised by hyphenating 'Ianguage-and-
Js one, indivisibk researd1 in this chapter). "This view of globalisation
is intersectional: the different dimenswns rnflucnce and are influenced hy each other: changes
do not happen in isoL1tion. Therefore, globalisation can be theorised as a series of intersecting
flows. /\pp,1durai's (1':!90, p. influential ofglobali,ation as inter,ecting
flows of peopk, media, technologies, finance and ideas.
The fundamental question for rese,irch is ,-dial it means to
cornmunicatc beyond the local level. Ho1v 1s
does it Lake. in which contexts is 1t embedded and what are ito consequences for social
Jifo; w-hat it means to communicate the local level re1nams funcLunenul because
i, ;1 basic fact of lift:. The fricm on the pres,:nt that charac--
tenses 1nost rese.nch resulLs in ;in I ncluct;1b]e on En-
glish, and so the spread of English sornet11nes seems to he the ba,1c rcse,irch problem in the
isation. 1--Iowcver, ho\v to con111mnic:itc with people who do not share a
mutu,tlly mtelligibk is ,1 tuneless concern. ;\nd is the cc11tral theuie shared by many
bnguagc-and-globalisation studies.
The spread of a beyond a loci] group is oftrn driven
econrJ1n1c Where such expansJon succeeds. it ri \c' to
of wider c01nrnuuic1tmn tlnt learn the of their irnrnediate
54
Globalisation
cornmunity. A language of wider communication, or lingua franca, is one that has more
additional language speakers than mother tongue speakers. In today's world, English is the
paragon of such a language after centuries of expansion. Language spread is closely tied to
irnperial expansion, and globalisation extends the reach of certain political and economic
actors, such as imperial states, supranational organisations and multinational corporations.
As such, the socio-political dimensions oflinguistic phenomena are integral to the study of
language-and-globalisation.
This idea is developed further in the following section, entitled Historical perspectives,
which sketches the relationship between imperial expansion and the emergence of lingua
francas, and the erasure of linguistic diversity. Next, Critical issues and debates is about the
social construction of linguistic hierarchies and of 'globalisation' itself, through discourse.
Third, under Current contributions, this chapter canvasses research on global interconnected-
ness as it relates to language work, language commodification and digitally encoded linguis-
tic practices. The chapter closes with three Future directions for language-and-globalisation
research - taking emic approaches, questioning the universalism of research and working
across disciplines - and some recommended further reading.
The overall design of this chapter is to exemplify each point about ethnographic
language-and-globalisation research with a specific case study. This shows ethnographic re-
search 'in action' relative to each issue. To unify our examples, and to contribute to the
literature by shifting the spotlight away from the global north, we have focussed on Chinese
and other Asian case studies. A leading sinologist and geographer, Carolyn Cartier (2015),
describes China today as "urban, mobile and global"; within the rise of Asian regionalism,
China is emerging now as a pole in the global geopolitical, economic and cultural order, and
the interplay between the established global language - English - and an emerging global
language - Mandarin Chinese - provides for illuminating research on the heterogeneity of
globalisation experiences.
This section sketches the relationship between imperial expansion and the emergence of
lingua francas, a relationship which is important in studying current globalisation but which
is not unique to today. The globalised flows of people, money or technology may be clearly
apparent to us in our contemporary world, but globalisation itself "isn't an altogether new
phenomenon" (Coupland, 2010, p. 1). Rather, globalising processes have operated through-
out history as empires have sought to expand their influence, territory and trading networks,
as people have migrated en masse, and as people have striven to communicate beyond their
local, shared language communities. Linguistic diversity, too, is age-old, and communicat-
ing beyond the local shared language group has often been for the purpose of political and
economic expansion; linguistic globalisation is a terrain of power struggle. Just as crossing
language barriers of non-intelligibility is not a new feature of globalisation, controversy over
the emergence oflanguages of wider communicat.ion is not, either.
In the modern era, a global linguistic order has formed which hierarchically values cer-
tain languages as global languages. Colonial discourses of knowledge have been important
in constructing this linguistic order, particularly in subordinating languages of colonised
peoples to colonisers' languages. Discourses oflanguage standardisation have also been very
influential in shaping which varieties of which languages are valued. Finally, the growing
prominence of policy discourses about minority rights in the modern era has constructed
· certain languages as worthy of official enumeration (particularly if they are standardised and
55
have, or have been provided, scripts), and has placed a value on Ji nguistic diversity (albeit
hierarchically arranged).
While discourses to identify, name and number languages fuel a multiplication of diver-
sity, another globalisation development has been the erasure of diversity, particularly in the
rise of nationalism. There has also been a tendency, especially in the modern nation-state,
to seek communicative efficiencies for governing and Lrade, and to develop n;itio1ul security
by developing people'~ affiliation to one national identity, by promoting monolingualism
in a natimul standard language and in meu-hnguistic discourses about the (favourable) in-
dexicality of the standard language varietv. Indeed. Lhe 'one-nation one hn§':uage· ideology
is a feature of the modern nation-state; it 1s central le) what one leading political theorist of
modern nationalism, James C. Scott (1998), calls "seeing like a state". The rise of nation-state
nationalism in the early modern period is, therefore, especially important in the history of
globalisation because processes of nation-forming often erased the preceding history of lin-
guistic diversity.
It is against the backdrop of normative monolingualism in many parts of the world that
multilingualism Lodc1y can seem like a ne1v. anomalom and complex feature of globalisation.
As Piller has prc-viously argued, however. "[aj research agenda that takes linguistic
diversity as t be basis of sociolinguistic inquiry must also include the hidden histories of
linguistic diversity c1nd modernity's attempts Lo erase diversity". Acade1J1ic (and popular)
discourses ,vlnch construct social and liuguistlC diversity in the contemporary global north
as abnormal run the ri,k of continuing discourses of J 'Jth- and 20th-century Orientalism by
fetishising and othering multilingualism.
The People's Republic of Chim (PRC) provides a good illustration. Mullaney (2011) of-
fers a detailed case study of the integral role oflinguistics and language speaker classifications
in the nationalist project of reorganising the imperial Chinese society into a nation-state,
to establish the PRC in the mid-20th century. The state's recognition of linguistic diver-
sity through the frinnal inclusion of minority groups, usually defined as groups by shared
language, vvas essential to achieving legiun1;1cv amongst peoples who ,vcre formerly mar-
ginalised or othercd in the imperial system_ The PRC\ early (and continuing) constitutional
language and cultural freedoms for minorities frHm part of global right, discourses that
emerged in the 2flth century: not neccss;nily the human rights discourse -which became
fundamental in the establishment of the UN around the same time, but more particularly
the tramnational communi,t discourses of minority rights (Grey, 2017). Mullaney (2011)
explains that training biiingual cadres was also an essential part of actually being able to
communicate with, and thm govern, the very large and disparate peoples of the 'new' China
in the mid-20th century. However, right from the start, this new nation, the PRC, also
prioritised Lhe develop111ent of a standard of J\ilandarin to serve as the national lan-
guage, namdy Putonghua, Today, this has come to dominate not only everyday
linguistic fllnctions ;1cross China but h,1s also become virtually synonyu1ous v,,itl1 Chinese
national identity while minority languages ,He once again marginalised and even associated
with civic clisloy1lty and secession: the one-nation one-language ideology is ascendant.

Global linguistic hierarchies
In any phase of globalisation, global lingui,Lic h1er,1rchies will emerge, and the dominance
of some over others will cause controversy. This section ext,L1ins debate over
56
Globalisation
the dialectic forces which produce global languages, and offers two models for conceptu-
;ilising global linguistic hierarchies and the inequalities with which linguistic globalisation
intersects. Nowadays, English is the global language par excellence, both as a language spoken
bv people around the globe and as a language associated with global identity. The spread
of English around the globe is the subject of impassioned debate because it is a common
adaption to globalisation for English to become highly valued relative to other languages
already in a society, which in the process come to lose value.
There is ongoing debate over whether English's globalisation is the result of linguistic
impt>riahsm - i .c. the active imposition by UK and US institutions -- or whether it
derives from a grass-roots change where around the world ,vant English because they
recognise it as a way towards a brighter future. Phillipson (2009) and Crystal (2004) are well-
known proponents of each side, respectively. Although seeming opposites, it is ultimately the
top-down and bottom-up positions in tandem that give us the best explanation for the global
spread of English. Language learning desires and decisions do not arise in a vacuum but in
response to existing structures of opportunity. In other words, the structural imposition of
language policies by state institutions 011 the one hand and individual language choices on
the other are dialectically related, and importantly they also interact \NJth commercial actors
and their language policies, practices dlJd ideologies. This interrcLition can mean that even
where English is desired, existing inequalities can be enforced rather than eroded by its
global spread.
Contributing to studies on the global spread of English and other international languages
are de Swaan's (2001) and Kachru's (1985) models of linguistic hierarchy. The position of
English in the two models illustrates how the linguistic and social orders are affected dif-
ferently by globalisation at different scales. In de Swaan's model, English is the world's
"hyper-central" (de Swaan, 2001) language, i.e. most valuable on the global scale, which the
model conceptualises by placing English at the top of a language pyramid, while the vast
majority oflangu;1ges cluster at the bottom. De Swaan (2001) refers to these languages, which
account fr,r an estimated 98% of all the 5,000 to 6,000 languages in the world, as "periph-
eral languages", the languages oflocal communication. Each has relatively few speakers and
usually lacks a written form. Above the huge layer of peripheral languages sits a thin layer
of around 100 "central languages" vvhicb are typically the official languages of nation-states.
They are used in schools, media and national politics and bureaucracies. The next layer
is occupied by about a dozen "super-central languages", which serve in international and
long-distance communication, and English sits atop the pyramid. Conceptualising the global
language system as a pyramid is intended to demonstrate that greater communicative reach
means greater value. While speakers of a peripheral language need to become multilingual in
order to extend their opportunities their narrow local group, a native speaker of En-
glish has the advantage that this one Lrnguage is likely to fulfil all their communicative needs
on a local. national, international and global scale. These super- centPl and hyper-central
langu;iges can be considered "default of ... global capitalism" (Chen, 2016, p. 531).
1:--Iovvevcr, at other scale levels it is highly socially relevant to distinguish between varieties
of English, and to construct a hierarchic order between them. Kachru (1985) posits that this
order usually ascribes prestige to linguistic features associated with native speakers of English
from the UK and its settlement countries, modelling "inner circle" English inside concen-
tric orbits of less and less central Englishes. "Outer circle" English is used in countries such
as Ghana, India or the Philippines, many of which are former colonies of the UK or USA,
where Engli,b is learned as an additional language and plays an otlicial role in the educa-
tion and system, the political arena :rnd the media. The outennost "expanding circle"
57
basiully comprises the rest of the vvorld, where English is 'widely learned as an additional
language but docs noL play an official role.
Each rnodel 011~-rs useful ways ofthmking about lauguage and glub:1lis,1tion and empba
sises tlu.t global linguistIC diversity is hierarchically ordered (for an in-depth exploration sec
Piller, 201(J). Ho,vcvcr, al1 rnodels gloss over a large of array of chvcrsity, heterogeneity, local
specificity and even locil hier;irchies wh1cb invert the gloh1l ccntre-pt_-riphery hierarchy,
wluch is why s!lLL1Led studies of globalisation from a wide vanety of places and people are
important. For such studies, many scholars e1nploy ethnogr;1phic n1ethods.
Although gk,balis1tion dunges soci;iJ, geopolitical and hnguist1c order, by integrating
the local into the global, the order - the hiecirchy acLipts rather than disappearing alto-
gether_ That is_ the hierarchy intersects w1tb margmality and (_-foaclvantage. Intcrsectionality
is inherent in globalisation, meaning that linguistic phenomena rnay be proxies fc_,r other
inequalities and social tem1um_ ThJS raises the i1nporta11cc of sc.1le when under,tanding
globalisatwn Slembrouck and Vandenbroucke_ Ll11, volume). At d1J1crent scales, the
rncrcased access to people, products and markets around the globe d1J1i:;rentially changes the
value ofpcoplc and products on the local scale. Thus, the experience of linguistic gloh;11isa-
tion is diffi._,rcnt on the rn,ngim. Tc, illu,trate, let m look at Hu and Alsagoff\ (2010, 20'12)
study of the i111pacts of the widesprt"ad teaching of English Jll China\ schools over recent
decades, which was pushed by the government lll ,\11 attempt to integrate China into the global
conummity. As a result tbe private education rnarket in Chin,1 has furthered such a fi-erwy
for English LrngL1;1ge learning t!J;1t it has come to be known as 'Engli,b fever'. Examining
the 11atio1ul ,cop,: of pubhc English bnguag,, education, Hu ,.mcl Alsagotf (2010) conclude
tl1c1t English education in China has benefited only a rdatrvdy smaU number of students in
well-resourced urban schoob, at the expense of most studenb. Conr1rnlsory English has Lbus
benefited Chine,e '"lites ,vhile drsadvant,igrng everyone else: "the English medium instruc-
tion initiative has not only perpetuated the uuegual distribution of po,,-er and access but is
also creating new fin:ms ofineqmlity" (Hu & AlsagufC 2010, p. :\75). That study highlights a
linguistic/educational inequality intersectmg not only w1th ethnic minorities/Han group in-
equality but also with socio-economic class inequality. i.c between the dite and the ma_iority
of the Ch1nese populauon, \,·ho may be fron1 the I-Lin or minority ethnicities. After all, the
Han cornprise some 92'X, olthe popubt1on; they are not coextensive with the elite.
The intersectionality of linguistic hierarchies and other frmns of rnarginality is hirther
exemplified by looking specifically at one Chinese ethnic 1ninority group. the Zhuang
minority, who are the largest official minority. Zhuang is experiencing changes tu its soci;1l,
cultural, educational and economic value as China glolJJlises (Grey, 2017). For Zhuang-
speaking families m Chim, that language is not made valu,ibk m their children's eclucatrnn
or ernployrnent; rather, Manclarm ,ind English are, because they ;ire associated with upward
socio-economic mobility :,nd increased geographic rnobilit y. Zhou and 1-Z.oss (2004, p. 16)
argue that "coupled with globalisation and the forces of n1arkct economy, China's mod-
erni,ation drive appears to favour only nvo dominant languages, Ch1nes1::: as the national
commm1ly- used la11guage and English a, the world Lrnguage". While Zhtu ng could still
serve ,1s a language of local con1munication, it is increasingly not c,'eJl taught at borne to
younger generations because of a "zcro-surn'' belief that lc.irning Zhuang reduces the time
and effort an1L,hlc for learning Mandarin and English (Grey 201 By contrast, learning
English 1s seen as enabling these children to n10ve and particip,1te on a global scale, and
learning M;mdann is v1t:rl fin mob1l1ty and p.1rticipat1on on the 11aticmal sc:ile, and, as China
interconnects with the world, glob,1lly, too. Moreover, while the global centrality of"Engli,b
is seen by some Chrncse scholars as causing English to clash with the centr:ility oflV!andarin,
58
Globalisation
and thus to upset national and identity politics, for speakers of the Zhuang minority language,
Grey (2017) reveals that it is the complementarity of English and Mandarin that means they,
together, dominate Zhuang language and relegate it to a language which indexes immobil-
ity. This is heightened by the use of Zhuang in public texts to symbolise the unchanging,
emplaced past and thus create an emplaced sense of an historic Zhuang homeland.
Because of the hierarchical nature of global linguistic orders, and the intersection be-
tween global and local hierarchies, language use can become a key site of contestation both
in popular debate and in academia, a highly globalised space where English predominates.
That is, opposed discourses make different meaning of certain language practices and the
identities, places or lifestyles they index. This discursive constructive of globalisation is the
focus of the following section.
Globalisation as a discursive construction

'Globalisation' is a discursive construction. This means that language is not only affected
by globalisation, but also effects globalisation. Language effects globalisation especially by
articulating and circulating collective imagining of what it means to be a person in a glo-
balised world; it makes globalisation 'real' by providing dominant discursive constructions
and disseminating ideas of what it means to be a global person. Such collective imaginings
cannot exist without mediation through language; language is necessary to bring imagina-
tion into being. Another way of describing this discursive construction is that language puts
globalisation into effect by raising global consciousness. Raised awareness of being part of a
global group, or network, or society, is a key part of globalisation: one early and influential
definition of globalisation was "the compression of the world and the intensification of the
consciousness of the world as a whole" (Robertson, 1992, p. 8). Thus, Appadurai (1990,
p. 300) notes particular roles for language in the media and idea flows of globalisation, and
scholars since have examined, in particular, language in commercial media and particu-
larly advertising as part of the processes constructing globalisation (Piller, 2003; Thurlow &
Jaworski, 2003).
Studying discourses of globalisation are important because "[g]lobal imaginations recon-
figure what is possible, turning globalisation from an inexorable force into a resource that
opens up new vistas" (Burawoy, 2000, p. 32). This line of analysis is indebted to Benedict
Anderson's (1991) influential theory of "the imagined community," i.e. in order to create
our identities, we imagine a shared identity with which we align (or, in opposition to which
our identity is formed). To Anderson, an integral part of creating nations in the modern era
has been to create imagined national communities within which people understand them-
selves as belonging; similarly, imagined global communities are instrumental in creating a
globalised world. This creation is achieved, disseminated and mediated through language,
not only in the denotation/primary discourse of the words chosen but in the ideological and/
or secondary discourse elements of texts. Language in media (including news media, social
media and advertising) is a prominent choice for those studying the construction of global
identities and global communities.
Moreover, the spread of English and other languages' globalisation impact on global
discourses about language practices and what it means to be global. This impacts people's
construction of their (and others') identities. Language use becomes a key site of contesta-
tion where the use of global languages, particularly English, has come to be associated with
. submission to globalisation, and so the use of small languages is oftentimes framed as an act
of resistance to globalisation and a celebration of the local. Language practices are lightning
59
rods in dilemmas of political/cultural identity; thus, the· 'Hanification', or "Amcricanis,rtion',

or globalisation, of Linguagc is likcls to be particularly noticed ;md debated, frir instance
outcry over the nitroduction word,s. Glubal-local tensions over lanf>;uage puctices
and the 1dent1t1es they supposedly signal are very apparent in the domain of education ancl
researchers are exploring the way discourses ofglobal1sation are reshaping language teaching
and 1nediurm of instruction 111 educ'.,Jtional contexts,
Furthermore, cert:un language genres are oriented to global norms. Features oflanguage
associated \YJth these genres or norms can thus serve as identity resources to enc1.ct belonging
on a gloh1] rather than local scale, Jvbny discourses and linguistic phenomena thal orient
to global norms and repr,Hluce g;lobalis,1tion have been drawn to scbohdy attention, frff
exJ mple by Thurlow :rnd Jaworski 200(1) in then an alvses oC the construction of di te
mobility through the t<'.'xt and imagery of in Hight and in those authors' :inaly-
ses oC global tourism ;1dvcrtising (J:nvorsk1, 2UI 1): J1worski E,: T'ln1rlow. 201 Ob; Thurlow &
Ja1vor,ki, 2010) and con1mercial texls in semiotic Lrndscapes (J1\vorski &- Thurlov,,
Extendmf2, d11s literature, Song 18) analys<cs consumer design and marketing semiotics of
a Chine,;e photo studio brand, N:1ive Blue the study highlights that it is not ncces-
sarilv the use ot-one local language, or one global language'. the1t is used syrnboliully to create
afftliation between potential customer, :ind ,w advertiser. Rather, translingual ,trJ.tegies now
have a global rndex1cahty v,-hich 1s valuable m creat111g brand atllliation and sales: her<'.', the
affiliation is with China\ rich mb,m young adults. These customers'
expected bi /mulu-lmgual competence goes beyond rccognFmg basIC language types

or the crnblcm,ttic social prestige ofEnglish and French [1.e, languages previously shu,vn
to oft,cn index glohaliLy in adVccrtising] . Tlw Lnget consumers need to be ahle to un-
derstand the translingucil of the multihyered, tram spati:d semiotic duin across
the [company's] online and offiine [lingmstic landscape].
2018,p
In another domain, the discourses authored bv international orga1usations also orient

towards a global norm (that of linguistic eg:1litananisrn), despite the trenchant re:dity of
glob;1] linguistic h1enrchies. Thus, multilingualism (at least at the org:1nisational level)
can he a valuable symbolic resource frH creating a global identity for institutions: think
of the c;1refuL formal, visible JTtultilingu;11im1 of the UN or the EU, Conspicuous mul-
tilingualisrn 1s one rne,rns of securing Lhese organisations' glob:rl interest,\ by increasing
legitimacy across diverse groups of people affiliating and/or identifying ,vith one of the
included Lmguages, The language choices ofthes<'.' discourses, more than the content of the
discourses, reproduce an irnagination of the global community as linguistically diverse,
mclusive and eqtul.
IVlany stud1<'.'s of global identity focus on how global discourses challenge the identities
;u1d co1n1nunities tb:11. uation-1uces and other powerful socul actor, construct. This is part
of a broader inquiry rnto ,vh1ch spaces for action and participation global discourses open or
close. A broad am,vn to these quest10ns 1s provided by E1irclough (2U()(,), vvho has pioneered
the approach called Critical Discourse for studying the ,focursive construction of
key idea\ like globalis;1tion. He highlights the role or ideology and inequality in discursive
construction, Imagined global co1n1nunities based on global identities are not neutral but
hierarchically ordered, Thus, vvh1le global identities b,tsed on ideas such as c,1smopol1tanism,
hvbridity and liquidity feel liber,1ting to some, they seem lik<c yeL another reincarnation of
Western opprcss10u to others.
60
Globalisation
This is illustrated in Chen's (2016) study on the representation of China, and Chinese
language, within China Daily (CD) newspaper travelogues. Chen (2016, p. 530) presents trav-
elogue discourse as a '"contact zone,' [in which] we see CD's negotiation between promoting
China's national/ethnic culture and packaging it for sale in English-language tourism mar-
kets". She finds that the result of this negotiation is almost always that the travelogues "con-
stitute part of the repertoire of the dominant tourism discourses rather than a challenge or
resistance against them" (p. 530). For example, the travelogues construct a "simple and exotic
linguascape" (p. 529) in which minority language diversity is reduced and only emblematic
use is made of certain features of certain minority languages to add "authenticity" (p. 531) to
the experience tourist writers present and which tourists will imagine and consume.

Language work
Where language becomes the terrain of economic act1v1ty, it inevitably becomes com-
modified to be traded between workers, employers, customers and clients. In fact, even the
speakers of language can become commodified, too. Thus, globalisation's effect on oppor-
tunity and remuneration for language work is emerging as a strong contributing stream in
language-and-globalisation studies. The value of the language skills of workers may change
as global markets integrate without the workers themselves moving, but the movement of
people, and language, can also often result from the globalisation of the economy. This sec-
tion will deal with both mobile languages and mobile workers, in turn (noting, of course,
that this is not a categorical either/or). Overall, language work research is indebted to Heller's
(2002, 2003, 2010) theorising oflanguage as resources in uneven distribution and which are
able, as resources, to be commodified into market value. This section will discuss language
resources for such market-valued activities as performing localism for tourists, serving cus-
tomers over the phone and meeting promotional criteria.
The expansion of service and knowledge industries (known as the tertiary sector) is a
key focus of language work research because language work is much more visible in the
tertiary industries than it is in economies dominated by the primary sector (agriculture and
extraction) or the secondary sector (manufacturing and production). A large part of the
work performed by any service or knowledge worker is, in effect, language work: think of
tourism, teaching and caregiving work. By contrast, many jobs in the primary and secondary
sectors can be performed without much communication and so these workplaces have not
been many language researchers' focus.
Nevertheless, there can be fruitful studies on language-and-globalisation in primary and
secondary industries: for instance, it is precisely the fact that the Tagalog language skills of
immigrant, Filipino abattoir workers are treated by management as irrelevant to their ability
to perform their work in Australia, but may be relevant in other ways, that gives rise to the
research problem investigated in Piller and Lising (2014). In the tertiary sector, by contrast,
linguistic performance takes centre stage.
The tertiary sector has come to dominate many national economies of the global north,
but its supply chains are globalised and have become a particular focus in recent sociolinguis-
tic work. Specific agents of economic globalisation, such as multinational corporations sup-
plying tertiary sector labour forces or products, adapt their language policies and language
management efforts to their global business needs in order to maximise profit. The prototyp-
. ical service worker in a globalised industry is a call centre employee. Their economic value
rests precisely in their language skills, and so Kumaravadivelu (2008) argues that call centre
61
viork is crnblenutic of the intersection between globalisation and languagc. Mirchandani

and O'Neill filf shed light on this particular service industry in
India and Guatemala. ·rourism is another tertiary 111 languagc-and-
globahsatwn research, not onlv as ,rn industrv dcnunding linguistic skills, both to per-
form 'the local' and to interact with traveJlers from outside the local language group, but
also as a site of cultural globalis,1tion as tourism orient towards global
nouns. Duchene\ (20CJcl) ,tudy of tourism call centres provides an exemplar hybrid of
tertiary sector language work. and argues that it is not kncnving one global lan-
guage, but having a multilingual th,1t 1nakes workers cspcnally employable in
this industry.
These service and knowledge jobs are often performed in a global language in order to
serve international markets. flowever, there is also a rna rket frir local work. par-
ticularly as ;1 resource employed t,, distinguish a pla,:c or ,1s unique. Yang (201
for example, shov,s that dispbying, perfrirrning the \vriting ofancl the Naxi rmnority
language is a valuable part of making China's World Heritage area a profitable tour-·
1srn But even having a strong local touri,m rnarket will not benefit
local languages. Cao examines this in her study of a popular tourism site in South
CbaLL Yrngslmo. Her argues that Joccll such as ZhuJ.ng, Yao and Dong
arc erased fron1 Yangshuo·s Ltnguistic landscape, promotional matniJ)s and actual tourism
\vork. 'These all nnplusisc English instead: as the Y,mgshuo -rourism Bureau says, "Even
old in their 7(1s or tE-'en3ge kids can chat [Chinese t_rrUJ[ la gua] with
'laoYvJi' [foreigners] n1 English. Many western traveller, say they JUSt feel no foreignness
here." English in tourism is consJStent with tourism's orientation townds glob,il language
norms and scripts, and is a resource both frir commu with visitors and for construct-
ing Yangshuo as an international tourism destination: as Gao Jrgues, it is the place which is
com modified, not 1ts
So this section has focussed on language ,vork where ·outside' come to be
useful in local employment, for example in global south call centres, \Vhere that emplov-
ment is an 'oJ:f-shored' part ofa global supply chain, or in an intcrnatJ.onally popular tourist
town. Llowever, people .1lso use lang1nges fur their rnobihty capital, to move away from
their local area for 'outside' work - often in urban areas - as markets expand and intercon-
nect, and to rn.ove upv;ards across socio-economic barriers, Of course, ,Norking in a call
centre or the tourism industry may also involve the \,·orkers having moved; this section's
shift in focus is to emphasise the social construction of language resources as mobility re--
sources vested in people.
Achieving mobility through is often seen as valuable now, as rnernbers
of the labour force are themselves called upon to he mobile in order to get jobs.
'This means th,1t people ,vill make education decisions in order to increase competency in
languages whJCh arc used in global 'centres' in order to then be J.ble to rnove geographically
and socio economically to better _ic,bs. Often, this is English. In the discussion of
zero-sum language both English and !VLmdann were seen by families as
mobile and there fine pnoritised in education over Zhuang, which rnav be usefu I
locally bur is seen as '1mrnob1k'. In a c.1se study oCSnuth Kore:1, Cho emplusises that
having English competencies is a mobility tooJ because English testing is a common employ-
ment and promOLion gate\v:1y. At the same time, the pronnse of English at \VOrk does
not ahvays materuhse ,vithin the cornpet1t1ve system. That is, English qualific1tions and
exJm·oricnted are the particular ..-c,n,<,,o,,.,, ,vhich have mobility rather than
English/intercnltural com mu nic,11.ion ctlso serves ;1 mobility resource
62
Globalisation
for the international education corporations (usually based in the global north), and their
teaching staff, who have found an extremely lucrative market in South Korea (Cho, 2013;
Piller & Cho, 2013).
Language commodification and consumption

Certain languages have especially high value on global markets. This value derives from
the commodification of languages into consumables (including consumable cultural expe-
riences), wearables (including language printed on clothing) and branding (including ad-
vertisements and trademarks). This is because certain language features serve as symbols,
or markers, of global identities and high-prestige global practices, with this semiotic being
supported by the discourses of globalisation explored above. This section focusses further on
the commodification, or marketisation, of discourses of globalisation.
Commodified language is globally mobile on everyday texts such as packaging and
clothing, and many studies in this area look at these everyday texts as enacting globali-
sation. As such, these 'mundane' texts can be considered discourses of 'banal cosmopoli-
tanism'. The concept of banal cosmopolitanism is based on the better-known concept of
'banal nationalism', which was first introduced by Billig (1995) and refers to the mundane
discourses - flags, maps, national references, etc. - that enact national belonging in ev-
eryday life. For a detailed discussion of banal nationalism in intercultural communication,
see Piller (2017). Similarly, banal cosmopolitanism refers to mundane discourses that enact
globalisation or transnational belonging in everyday life. Banal cosmopolitanism is appar-
ent in the "mediatisation and consumption of spatially distant places, signifiers of cultural
diversity, and opening up of lifestyles to new experiential spaces and horizons" (Jaworski,
2015, p. 220). To illustrate, one linguistic form that banal cosmopolitanism may take is
the abundant use in publicly displayed texts of new letterforms, punctuation marks and
diacritics, which Jaworski (2015) examines as an emerging, highly uniform, semiotic code
that he calls "Globalese".
To look more closely at how texts other than advertising texts orient to these global,
marketised language norms and enact globalisation every day, this chapter will turn to a
study currently under way which examines how distant places and cultures are transformed
into graphics, printed onto textiles, then bought and worn in China (Grey, 2018). This
study frames language worn on clothing as a visible type of banal cosmopolitanism which
is increasing due both to globalisation of textile production and globalisation of culture,
as wearing language is a personal embodiment of cosmopolitanism. Grey (2018) finds that
English predominates on garments in brand names (both foreign and Chinese) and trade-
marked slogans; stand-alone messages that are not readily connected to any one brand; and
decorative use of writing without forming words. English is a valuable commodity in the
Chinese market. The local symbolic power of foreign languages affects the conventions
about which clothes are appropriate for bearing text, such that English becomes desirable
enough as a mark of distinction to break into new micro-spaces, like sentence-bearing
shoes. Wearing English is an archetypal example of the "consumption of spatially distant
places, [and] signifiers of cultural diversity", recallingJaworski's (2015, p. 220) description
ofbanal cosmopolitanism.
English underpins Globalese and these wearable texts: in particular, English's Latin script
has become a visual-linguistic, global norm. Piller (2017) emphasises that this English-centric
. norm is part of economic globalisation, namely advertising, which is a major form of global
economic activity. Global brand names constitute a corporate-controlled and "reasonably
63
consistent register that is frnmulaic, recognisable, and accessible tu JS rnany onlookers--

consumers as possible" (J1worski, 2015, P- and other brand n;imes there-
fore orient to the norms nr Gloh1lne.
1-lo,Ncver, because global advertising discourses are dominant ind rather homognious in
their comn1od1fication of , global corporations arc al so keen to use lan-
gua.ge resources to distingmsh their products. Piller (20] P- explaim that one prominent
way ofdomg ,o is to 1nove away from the exclusive use ulEnglish, rise to the cornmod-
ificat1on of other McDonald's, for instance, ran an carnpaign in Australia
that fr·aturcd a conunercial set in It,tly, with the character:; Ltsmg a few Italian words and having
,1 heavy Italian accent in their English also Piller Siimlarly, McDonald's m PRC
Hong Kong has registered tr,1demarks that comprise the clamcal characters still used in Hong
Kong, including fiir the company's ncime Mai Dang L10 _McDonald's, 2U18a), while
on the PizC rnainland, their tradernarked ncime is 111 the orficul simplified characten
/'vld)onald\ 2U18b), vv1th the English '1 'n1 lovin' it!' aho a mark used m ad--
vcrtising in both _1unsd1ct1ons_ The Taiwanese Mc Dona lei's houiepagc (at the time of writing)
fr-aturcs the phr;isc ':J:12,•f,i~'' ('I love Ta1vvan') ming the Clobalese heart e1noj1 and Chinese
classical cb;iracters (McDonald's, Mc;mwhik, Coca-Cola 111vcstecl in designmg a Man-
darin ri;nuc: for th<:': CJiinese rnarkd with a br:md aligned meaning, roughly, 'T,istv Joy', rather
than simply transliterating the brand's English narnc: 'Coc1 Cola' ,md the Mandarin brand
n<1rnc 'i 1JI I Pf!,J/ are shown together in Chinese linguistic as shown in Figure SJ.
A. s11nilar rnarketrng drive underpinmng choice; leads to usmg language': to create
mteruational-but-local experiences for tounsts to comumc. PietiLirnen ct aL (20 I€,) look
further at the performatinty inherent 1n cornrnodified linguistic experiences, as opposed to
conunodificd linguistic objects_ fhcy theorise ll1c1t tourists ;111d gu1des/venclors use features
associated witb both loci] and mternational in tourism interactiom, that
the tr,1nsactional co construction of market-recognised authcnticitv is part of the comrnodi-
fication ofLmguagc, culture and place for tourists. What counts as c1uthentic rs (in con-
,tructt:d before trcwel by discourses which rcpre,ent the including travelogues
such as those examined in Ch<:':n (2016) which this chapter discussed Jbove_
Ofcom:,c, one of the key force:, behind the global reach of the English alphabet in brand-
ing c1.nd other global, marketised disnnnses is the interneL The mternet was origrnally en-
tirdy dominated by alphabetic text entry and display and is still very much
associated with them_ 'This chapter will now examine the mternet ;ind other globalisccl,
digital corn munication networks.
Figure S. l Downtown Nanning, Guangxi Zhuangzu Autonomous Region, China: 2014

(from Grey, 2017)
64
Globalisation
Digital communication
Writing as a technology of wider communication has today been complemented with digital
communication technologies which now play a vital role in global communication. Com-
municative globalisation through digital media must therefore be considered a globalisation
phenomenon in its own right which has enabled novel linguistic practices and challenged
existing language ideologies. New media foster both specific forms oflanguage use and spe-
cific discourses about language. By specific forms oflanguage use we mean that online com-
munication networks create communities who use dialogue and interaction in the medium
of a particular language variety to build community affiliation and to police community
boundaries.
There is abundant research on digitally enabled global communication networks and the
language practices people online and/or in new media use to extend beyond their geographic
place or their local social group. The language chosen on global communication networks
is oftentimes English. However, the medium of globalisation does not necessarily imply a
message of globalisation: English, the language of globalisation par excellence, may well em-
power communities of resistance against globalisation (Adejunmobi, 2004).
The tensions between language choice and identity construction in the media can be
further explored, for example in Leibold's (2015) study of online identities in the Sinosphere
through the lens of Castell's (2004) identities within networked society. This study argues
that "in the eyes of the Party-state, there are no ethnic hyphens or hybrid identities in
China" (Leibold, 2015, p. 274). Yet, online, all sorts of hybrid identities are constructed and
performed, and in flux, "taking 'minzu' [i.e. official ethnic minority group] form one min-
ute only to morph into a myriad of other ethnocultural identities before returning to state
categories" (Leibold, 2015, p. 275). Moreover, "each of these identities is deeply embedded
in Chinese culture and language" (Leibold, 2015, p. 288). The online activity included in
this study was all written in "[Mandarin] Chinese" (Leibold does not evaluate whether it
is Putonghua) and usually in the PRC's official simplified character script (Leibold, 2015,
p. 276), even where the topic of discussion was, for example, lamenting the Manchu's inter-
related loss oflanguage and identity (Leibold, 2015, p. 279). Indeed, Mandarin's wide reach
can be an explicit part of constructing an inclusive identity, as in the case of an online com-
munity who aim "to gather together the strength of China's Muslim youth in order to carry
forward Islam's spirit of universal love; promote harmony, exchange and cooperation among
different minzu groups; and create the largest Chinese language social platform in the world"
(Chinese Muslim Youth Net, quoted in Leibold, 2015, p. 280). However, these online dis-
courses are in dialectic with oflline discourses: Leibold (2015, p. 288) concludes that "these
assemblages simultaneously reinforce, mediate and at times re-interpret minzu-related ...
discourses" and that the freedom of online subjectivity is "largely inconsequential" because
of the entrenched, internalised, state-backed discourses circumscribing the 56 recognised
ethnic groups and 'Chinese-ness'.
Future directions
Despite the breadth oflanguage and globalisation research there are a number of gaps which
provide opportunities for future research for which ethnography is particularly suitable.
These include 'ernic' approaches to globalisation in linguistic research, questioning univer-
salism and reflexivity with regard to English as the medium through which most language
and globalisation research is conducted, and the continued need for interdisciplinarity.
65
Emic approacbc,.1 consider language c1rtd globali,:1tion from within social gro11p1, the
strength of which 1, tu bring into the literature more of rhe varied forms and view, about,
globalisation\ effects on language practices ancl on sociolinguistic conc\1ciuus. /\ f()cus on
emic research \vill incrc:tse the coherence of tbe v:i,t body oflanguage-and-globali;,,tion re-
search. The vastnes, 1tsd( will be a perenn i,il condition of the field, which presents challenges
but also allows for a rich diversity ofresearch. One way forward might be a unifying research
problem that eschews a priori definitions of globalisation and asks how the local and the global
are made relevant by whom in which context for which purposes. Ethnographic approaches
have particular strength in rnvestigating what is made socially relevant and in whose inter-
ests. and in bringing forth a diversity of experiences of globalisation.
Second, although globalisation means uLrny things to many people. those globalisation
phenomena tlnt ,tre m"st clearly apparent to the researchers shaping the' tield SC:'cnt to pre-
dominate dS rcseard1 topics. Typically, the most influential scholars are hased in 1nstirntions
of the global north and, consequently, tli:1t 1, \\ here most globalisation phenomena appear-
ing in the literature .ire located. There is a need to systematically address ex1stmg bia,es in
language-and-globahsaLion research. For 1mLmce, .1 fr,,·us on south-south globalisation con-
stitutes a striking absence in much existing research. There is also much to be studied re
garding large scale changes in recent decades in the world's geopolitical poles, or 'centres'
(namely the dissolution of the USSR, the rise of the PRC and the re-assertion of Russia),
and their implications for the globalisation of language. Furthermore, it is important to cre-
ate space within academic publication frlr the voices of 'outer circle' or 'emerging nation' or
,c
otherwise marpnalised participants and hohr:,. Etlrnographic approaches lend themselves
to not only hearing such voices, but to workrng \Yith '111siders' who become author, and so-
cial actor, with agency in research project,. On this point, it is also worth ernph,1>ising the
importance of cm Standard-English-cenlric wavs of seeing in our field. These ways of
seeing langu:1ge ,wd f!:lobalisation entail a peculiar perspective, which sometimes "disguises its
peculiarity as general and univep;,1Jistic" (Piller, 2016, p. 28). Ethnography is not only about col-
lecting socially situated data about others but also about acknowledging the socially situated po-
sitiouality of the researcher. The reflexivity that is integral to ethnography also includes critic1l
reflection on the extent to which re:,e:irch is Standard--English-centric and global north-centric.
Fimlly, further interdisciplinary research will nounsh the field. Dell Hymes pointed out
more than lnli- .1 century ago that "linguistics need, the sociologist" (Hymes, 1967) and his
call remallls relevJnt for language-and-globalisation studies. In fact, linguistics needs not
only sociology but also history, political science. philosophy, law, econornJCs. rnfrmnation
technology and (>thcrs: "relevance commonlv leads across disciplinary boundanes'' (Hymes,
1972, p. 14). \Vhile il cm be difficult to trans±cirm interdisciplinary r,,search froni ;1 wish
0
to a reality, the fact that ethnographic methods are already shared across many academic
disciplines provides a useful platform for collaboration.
Further reading
Piller, I. (20 I.Ci). l.i11g11i1tit diversity and social j11stirc· ,rn i11tiod110.ion to applied O:d,:► rd and
New York: Oxford University Press. (This book cx,1rnines how language i'., irnpliutcd in the
production and reproduction of social inequalit v ,:,11 .1 vaJ iety oflocal-to-glob.11 sc,,les.)
Piller, I., & Grey, A., (Eds.) (2019). Langu,1ge c111t!y/,,/;<1li:atio11. London: Routledge. !,This is .1 compre-
hensive collection readings in the field.)
Adejunmobi, i\il. (2004). Vernacular pala11er: ,,(rite i,Yal and non-native i11 rVi:5t .1frica.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. (This book offers a non-Western perspective on how ·global' and
'local' languages are made relevant in specific social case studies.)
66
Globalisation
Cho, J. (2017). Interpreting English language ideologies in Korea: Dreams vs. realities. Amsterdam: Springer.
(This book offers a South Korean case study relevant to the global spread of English and language
work, and its focus on Translation and Interpreting work extends our discussion oflanguage work
in this chapter.)
Mowbray, J. (2012). Linguistic justice: International law and language policy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. (This is a thorough account of contemporary international institutions and
treaties' efforts to globally govern language use and linguistic diversity.)
Related topics
Scale; Language diversity in classroom settings; Faith communities; Policy; Youth language; Reflexivity.
References
Adejunmobi, M. (2004). Vernacular palcJver: Imaginations ef the local and non-native languages in West Africa.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Riiflections on the origin and spread ef nationalism. London and
New York: Verso.
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, Culture and
Sodety, 7(2-3), 295-310.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.
Burawoy, M. (2000). Reaching for the global. In M. Burawoy, J.A. Blum, S. George, z. Gille,
T. Gowan, L. Haney, M. Klawiter, S.H. Lopez, S. 6 Riain, & M. Thayer (Eds.), Global etlmog-
raphy: Forces, connections, and imaginations in a postmodern world (pp. 1-40). Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Cartier, C. (2015). Urban, mobile and global. In G.R. Barme, L. Jarvin, & J. Goldkorn (Eds.), China
year book 2014: Shared destiny (pp. 206-225). Canberra: ANU Press.
Castells, M. (2004). Informationalism, networks, and the network society: A theoretical blueprint. In
M. Castells (Ed.), The network society: A cross-cultural perspective. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd.
Chen, X. (2016). Linguascaping the other: Travelogues' representations of Chinese languages. Multi-
lingua, 35(5), 513-534.
Cho, J. (2013). English Gangnam style. Available from http://www.languageonthemove.com/
english-gangnam-style/
Cho, J. (2017). English language ideologies in Korea: Interpreting the past and present. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Coupland, N. (2010). Introduction: Sociolinguistics in the global era. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Handbook
eflangwige and globalization (pp. 1-27). Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.
Crystal, D. (2004). The language revolution. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity.
de Swaan, A. (2001). Words of tl1e world: The global language system. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Duchene, A. (2009). Marketing, management and performance: Multilingualism as commodity in a
tourism call centre. Language Policy, 8(1), 27-50.
Fairclough, N. (2006). Discourses of globalization. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Language and globalizatfon
(pp. 39-63). London: Routledge.
Gao, S. (2012). Commodification of place, consumption of identity: The sociolinguistic construction
of a 'global village' in rural China. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(3), 336-357.
Globalization. (2018). (Online ed.). Merriam-Webster Incorporated.
Grey, A. (2017). How do language rights affect minority languages in China? An ethnographic inves-
tigation of the Zhuang minority language under conditions of rapid social change. (PhD), Mac-
quarie University, Sydney. Available from http://www.languageonthemove.com/wp-content/
uploads/2018/05/Grey_Zhuang_language_rights.pdf
Grey, A. (2018). Do you ever wear language? Available from http://www.languageonthemove.com/
do-you-ever-wear-language/
Heller, M. (2002). Globalization and commodification of bilingualism in Canada. In D. Block &
· D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and langttage teaching (pp. 47-64). London: Routledge.
67
Heller. !VI. (2003). Clobalization, the new economy, and the comnwdification uf hnguage and iden-
7(4). ff',-492
Hcilcr M. as a resource in the globc1lized n<"w economy. In N. Coupland
(pp. 349-365) Malden, rvLA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
bilmgual education in the PRC: for language education
for autochthonous ethnic minorities. In G.H. Beckett & C.A.. (Eds.), Chin11's ,1ssi1nila-
(pp. 175--lci9). London and New York: Routledge.
l. (2010). A public perspective on English rncdiunr instruction in China.
Jo1m1,1l ,f/Vhtltiling11c1/ ilnd Mulrirnltur,zl u,,nuu,w.,,, 31(4), 3G5-582. A,·ailabk from https://doi-org.
ezprnxyl 10.489950
Hyn1cs, D. (IW,7). So,-ic1l Rcsc,zrc/1, J-1(4), G52-647.
I-Iyrnes, D_ (1972). The use ofanrhropologv: Critical, political, In D. Hymes (Ed.), Rei111,ent-
in~ (pp. 3-79). New York: P:rntheon.
Jaworski, A. /::010). Linguistic landscape on postcards: Tourist mediation and the sociolinguistic com--
munities of contact. Studies. 4(3), 56')-59,+.
Jaworski, f\. (2015). Clobalese: f\ tJe\Y visml-linguistic register. Soci,,l Srn1io1ic,, 25(2), 217-235. doi:10
.108(1/1 ()350330.2015 .l 010317.
Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (2010a). semiotic In!\. Jaworski & C. Thurlow
(Eds.), Snniotit L111x11ilgc, i1n:1ge, SJH1cc (pp. 1-1-0;. London: Continuum.
Jaworski, l\., & Thurlow, C. (2010b). Silence ts The 'anti-cornnrnmcational' of
super-elite mohil ity. In A. & C. Tim rlow (Eds.), Srnzioti, Lang1,age, izn,wc. -'JhlCC
H,7--2 lc,). London: Conti nunm.
K:ichru, B.B. (l9S.'i). Stancbrds, codificatwn and realism: The English bnguage in the
outer circle_ In R. Quirk & HG. \viddowson (Eds.). in the !l'orld· ,111d tlze
c1nd litnat11rn (pp. 11-J())_ C,nnbridgc: Cambridge' University Press.
Kumarcivadivelu, B. (2008). ,md ed1.,,-,1tio11. New Haven. CT: Yale Univer-
sity Press.
Leibold, J (2015). Perforn1ing ethnocultural identity on the Internet: Testing the limits of
minzu. Asi,w 161)), 274-293. cloi:10.1080/1463156'12015.1015252.
M.cDonald's. (201.'!a). Hong Kong homepage. /\vaibble from http://,,ww.mcdon,1lds.c0m.hk/ch.html
[VlcDonald's. (2018b). fVl;iinland homepage. i,vailabk from
McDonald's. (2018c). Taiwan l10111q1agc. Available from
index.html
Mirchandani, K. (2004). Practices of global capital: Caps, cr:icks and ironies in transnational call cen-
tres in India_ Global Netw,,rks, 4(4), 355--373.
Mullaney, TS. (2011). lo tenns witfz 1/ze 11,1/ion: Ethnic in modrn1 Chin,t. Oakland:
University of California Press.
O'Neill, K.L. (2012). The soul . Christianity, corporafr,rn, and control in postwar Guatemala.
Socid 'frxt, 10(2), 21-42. doi:10.1215/01642,[72-1541745.
Phillipson. rz.. (:WU'J). Linr;uisti( ro11ti1nzcd. London and New York: Routledge.
Pictibincn, S., Jaffe, A., Kclly-f-folmcs, fl., & Coupland, N. (2016). Convcntioml and transactional
authenticities in smJ.11-culturc tourism. In '•'''"'"""' the periphery: Snz,,/1 /,mgu,1ges in neu·
cirru111.,t,111,-cs (pp. 70·-107). Cambridge: Cambridge Unin:rsity Press.
Pi.Iler, I. (2003). Advertising ;is a site of language contact. A11111t<1i Rcl'ic11• ~f Ling,zi.,tiu, 23,
17CH83.
Piller. l. (20:13). Erasing lu Lct!!J!U,1).!C ,m the ;Wove.
Piller, 1. (2016). Li11R111sric i111d New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PilJer, I. (2017). lntcrozlt11rol c,,1111111111frc1ti,,11: ,·J rritiut! in/r,J,-hzction (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-
vcrsity Press.
Piller. J.. & Cho, J. (2015). Neoliberr:1lism :1s L,,111,,__({ut1xe i11. Society, 42(1), 23~44.
Piller, I.. & Lisrng, L. (2014). Langu,1gc. and scttlcmcllt: femporary 1nc,1t workers in
Austrafr1. 33(1/2), 35 59.
Robertson, Jz_. (1992). Clob,ili:::,1tio11: Suci:1/ wlt111c_ London: Sage.
Scott, JC. (1998). Scc1·ll<-~ lihe 1! sti1te: 1--Iow o.Ttt'lin sdu-'rnes to in1prL1uc tlu l11mun t-Lmdition New
Haven, CT: Yak University Press.
Song, Y. (21l18). Translingual strategies ,is consu.rner i\ case study of mtillilingtul ' " ' - " ' " " ' ~
of urban China. ;\Ju/rilinl1w. doi:10.1515/multi •:>017···0057.
68
Globalisation
Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2003). Communicating a global reach: Inflight magazines as a globaliz-
ing genre in tourism. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 579-606.
Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2006). The alchemy of the upwardly mobile: Symbolic capital and the
stylization of elites in frequent-flyer programmes. Discourse and Society, 17(1), 99-135.
Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2010). Tourism discourse: Language and global mobility. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Yang, H. (2012). Naxi, Chinese and English: Multilingualism in Lijiang. PhD, Macquarie University,
Sydney. Available from http://www.languageonthemove.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/
PhD_Thesis_Hongyan_Yang.pdf
Zhou, M., & Ross, H.A. (2004). Introduction: The context of the theory and practice of China's lan-
guage policy. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (Eds.), Language policy in the People's Republic of China: Theory
and practice since 1949 (pp. 1-18). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
69
6
Scale
Stef Slembrouck and Mieke Vandenbroucke
Introduction - the history and scope of the

concept of scale as part of a spatial turn
Scale, as a cunu·pt. 1; inherently and fundamcnt;i Ily ,p;1t1.il in nature as it implies the arrange-
ment of places aud acttvities unfolding witlun these in relation to one ;mother. Scale in
its most straightforward interpretation tends to be seen as a matter ofhierarchirn/ with
the larger gt·ographical reach of a particub r pheuumcnon considered to be more unportant
and powerfoL for insunce. national matters being tre:tted as more importcmt and influential
than matters which are regionally or loctlly situated. Scale entered into our current scientific
vocabulary as part of a geographical or spatial turn across the social, economic, political and
cultural sciences and the cross-di,ciplinary emergence and popularity of the concept b;1s
in this respect been closely tied to the development of a programme of understanding and
interpreting processes of globalisation (see also Grey and Piller, this volume). As captured in
Fairclough (2006, p. 64), globalisation is
not just .1 matter of the construction of a global scale. it is also a matter of new rdations
between the global scale and other sol<-'s, and ,v1der changes in the sels of scales and
relatiom bet ween them caused by the construction of a global scale.
Robertson's coinage of the term 'glocalisation' bears testimony to the latter (Robertson,
1995).
Applications of the concept of scale have ranged from a focm on the erosion and the
continued relevance of the scale of the nation-state in the era of globalisation (Evans,
1997; Trouilht. 2()01), the politics of scak as part of social struggle for power and control
(Swyngedouw, l'J<J6), :ind relationships of centre ,111d periphery (as encouraged by. ,rn1ong
other sources, 'vZlorld Systems Analysis [Wallerstem. I97Il), as well as the scaled dimensions
of specific sp.1ccs being analysable in terms of a ''structured coherence \Yithin a totality of
productive t,Jrccs ,tnd social relations" (Haney, 201 )l, p. 329). At the heart have been anal-
yses of both material and discursive processes, with variable emphasis on the circulation of,
say, money, goods, commodities, labour and people, on how these entities are "talked into
70
Scale
being", on attendant processes of reflexive engagement as well as, of course, on the scaled
dimensions of communicative resources, languages, texts, media images and so on - thematic
interconnections which are of particular interest to linguistic ethnographic enquiry. The
field of applying the term 'scale' has been vast. In this respect, it is also worth reminding
readers of Herod's (2011) distinction between, on the one hand, capital-centric interpreta-
tions of globalisation in which 'scale' is seen as produced (top-down effects of the distribution
of capital) and, on the other hand, non-capital-centric uses of the concept which pay more
attention to bottom-up processes of construction and local agency (which are not necessarily
exclusively understood in economic terms).
In these readings, scale is typically understood vertically. What is brought out accordingly
is inequality in access to and/or in the spread of, the relative importance of, recognition,
visibility and strength of particular resources, phenomena and/or processes. However, while
a focus on the dynamics and implications of spatially uneven developments undoubtedly
accompanied the fast-growing interest in globalisation-affected processes and phenomena
since the 1990s, the idea of scale was at the time of the so-called 'spatial turn' not at all new
nor alien to (socio)linguistic enquiry. This is true even for the point in time where applied
language studies were theoretically and conceptually still contained by the boundaries of a
language community within the geographical territory of the nation-state, seen as the main
unit of distribution and membership. For instance, Leith (1983, p. 153; our underlinings)
opens Chapter 6 of his monograph A Social History of English on the spread and imposition of
English on the English Isles observing that,
[t]he opprobrium cast on the regional dialects has been visited, on a grander scale, and
with far-reaching consequences, on the speech of regions diverse in language and cul-
ture, and situated far away from the metropolitan south-east. In this chapter we shall
trace the long and complicated history of English as a dominant language throughout
the British Isles.
Brought into view here are scalar questions of size, power and effect, and implicated within a
discussion of these, we detect scaled relationships between a (national) centre and a (regional)
margin. And while Leith does write in so many words about developments "on a grander
scale", his social history of the English language does not include a chapter or section which
theoretically or methodologically addresses the concept of scale or its specific applications
in linguistic historical enquiry. Nor does scale feature in the book's index. The interesting
question is indeed why in the current era we have experienced a clear need to pay more
attention to the concept.
Adding to our reconstructed history of the concept, we can note how scale is a very old
concept in geography. According to Herod (2011, p. xi), "of all the concepts that geographers
(and others) use to understand the world around them, scale is a - or perhaps even the - central
one". As one of geography's "foundational concepts" (Howitt, 1998, p. 50), it is to the wider
world mostly known in either its technical meaning (understood metrically, e.g. a map-reading
scale of 1:10.000, with different scales indicating granular continua of increasing/decreasing
detail) or as an everyday way of talking about geographical reach and level (e.g. the local, the
regional, the national, etc.). For a long time scale was a matter oflevels of empirical obser-
vation and analysis, one which was rather intimately and unproblematically connected with
a world view which consisted of empirically bounded and logically nested units of social
. organisation: local, regional, urban, rural, national, international, etc. It formed part of an
exercise characterised by "methodological nationalism" and a view on "humankind [as] split
71
Stef Slembrouck and Mieke Vandenbrouckc
up in .i l:irge but finite number of e;H:h of which supposcdlv devdups its own culture,
sec me behind the dike ofit, state-container" ,':..· Wi1lms. p. /1.s Herod l,
pp. XI notes in die · rJJges of Ins book trutment of 'scale':
rtJhcre is no clear agreement on whether scales exist' -- that i, to say, (... ) as lo

whether ,ciles are real nu11 i tested, or ,vhethcr they arc simply mental
devices by wluch we and make secnse of the world.
Perhaps it is this rcali,:ition dut on a particular scale 1s a matter of

interprtcLativc of extent and importance, the stress on how the world
in an era of globalisation is rn
the need to move scale from the phne of a rnethodologic1l background
assumption lo the theoretical-conceptLL1l 01· key social ,c1emtfic concepts, thus
such as Andre,v Herod lo dedicate a cumplete monograph to it.
the use of term. burgeoned abo 111 the of
literature. as a way of the stra1ific1tion ,md uneven circulation oC signs and their
1n1phc1tions for use (Blomnuert, 211U7: Collins et al.. 21.109; P,rn, 2010; Hlon1nucrt ct al.,
2015: Piet1bmen et .11., 2016: Summerson & Lernpcrt. 2016).
Three shifts must be notc:d in the light of recent wide,pread attentwn to the concept,
in each cise with ,111thropology, and
the ln.1nnn and social sciences, more ,vith the era of global--
is,1tion and its (e.g. the relevance of transnation:d and flows for and
,Yithin loG1Jities, the .,."."'·-•,,· by a t.he dissolution of boundaries
,rn,l processn of of puticuLtr engagements
with distributions, the fluidity and contr:,dictions in how we respond to the overwhelming
mobility of people, images, nHmcy, communic1tive resource,, The shifts
,ire: (i) the of observed phenomena Jnd rhen allocation to a particular scale
has 111 rnanv respects openly become a matter debate and even contesration,
while often nclden by apparent contradictions and _ ,,,,,,,_._, in more than one
respect can be understood in terms of processes ,vhich have tern led lo unsettle historically
received scalar orderings those \vhich frJr a time allovved 'methodological
nationalism' to be taken for Sv-:yngcdouw's (1997 pp. endorsement of the
used terrn bean out the mutual
constitunon of local ,ictions and global flo\vs, while recognising that "other spatial scales arc
also deeply implicated in these events as \vell ".
The tirst ,md second both in the sense that we are increaslllgly with
the desuiptiun and rnLerpreulion of not only scaled but also scale volatile, scale disruptive
and ,rnd this 1s a third shift - scalar
and
audiences. In the conte1.nporary

done is also and talked about. The prominent role of social media serves
c1s just one factor underlining this, a, illustrated 1t1 the sociolmguistic ex,nnple
from Vrndenbroucke 17, 2019). \Xfhat started off in 201.3 as a minor incident ofa locally
elected Flcrnish nationalist aldnrnan opposrng a French ,hop name m ;1 tO\YYl in
f'Ln1ckrs quickly escalated and reached n;uion,il llL1jor meclic1 outlers throughuut Bclgtum
as a consequence oC \Yidespread social media uproar. commentarv and ridicule. This local
;1bout a shop nan1c was rescaled and historically in
72
Scale
national media coverage: geographically, by connecting the incident to an alleged threat of

frenchification emanating from historically Frenchified Brussels, and historically, by appealing
to a volatile re-emergence of Flemish sensitivity to the use of French in the present. One net
result of such re scalings is that it is difficult for interpretative science itself to be in a position
which is clearly distinct and separate from the scaled recontextualisations and subsequent
representations which nowadays accompany even the most mundane forms of social activity.
Herod (2011, p. xv) states the obvious point to take away from these examples: the world
of scale-making is an ever-dynamic one, one characterised by processes of making and re-
making, one resulting in temporary scalar fixes. Following Lefebvre (1976, p. 69), geograph-
ical scales experience three interconnected moments of existence: formation, stabilisation
and bursting apart. In a basic way, the scale of things thus remains a problem of sustained
observation, description and interpretation. For linguistic ethnographers, there is a general
point to be inferred from this: the fact that scalar reasoning has been with us for a very long
time matches a more fundamental claim that grappling with scale and its implications forms
part of understanding the problem of context more dynamically, a problem which in the next
section we will develop in terms of a nexus of space, time and size. The view which we seek
to develop in this chapter is that the globalised era puts scale irrevocably in the foreground,
promoting dimensions which warrant analytic attention in their own right: 'scales of in situ
activity', 'scales of representation' and 'scales of social scientific analysis'.
In a somewhat unsettling way, the scalar ordering of things leaves social scientific enquiry
in a state of flux, subject, as it turns out to be, to processes of scaling. The latter has to do
both with the shaping of thematic choices (i.e. the route via which research themes come to
us) and scaling in the subsequent uptake of research findings (i.e. the fate of scientific insight
which is fed back into fields of social activity beyond the university). Moore's (2008, p. 203)
criticism of the failure to draw a clear distinction between 'scale as a category of analysis'
and 'scale as a category of practice' may in fact point to a more complex matter: the dynamic
unfolding and sequential interdependency of scalar narratives of practice and research - and
how the two constantly feed into each other. In the current era where scientists en masse pro-
mote their publications and dispatch summarising claims via Twitter and Facebook, scaled
economies of media attention have become part and parcel of building and sustaining scien-
tific reputations. One can notice its effects on other forms of media exposure (e.g. television
interviews or documentaries), effects of thematic scaffolding, policy impact and, ultimately,
fundability of research. The upside of this stated complexity and increasing interdependence
is, of course, as Moore (2008, p. 214) equally notes, that scaled narratives - scientific or
otherwise - also come with opportunities and affordances, when scaled interpretations turn
out to be enabling and empowering because they contribute to public agenda setting and
impact on policy debate.
Scale as space/time
While scale is typically seen as a spatial concept and its popularity as a concept is undoubt-
edly due to a spatial or geographical turn across the social sciences, it is imperative to stress
the connection with time. The Wallersteinean perspective encourages us to think and talk
about spatio-temporal complexes ef scaling. This raises empirical and interpretative questions of
how processes and domains of activity are governed not only by spatial distributions ("spatial
envelopes" is the term used by Lefebvre [1991, p. 176]) but also by time cycles. For instance,
. while the dynamics of national politics in many countries depend on time cycles of four
to six-yearly elections and are bounded by the geographical borders of the electorate, the
73
Stef Slernbrouck and Mieke Vandenbroucke
processes th rough ,vhich, say, institutionalised religions such as Islam or Christianity evolve
depend on much tin1e and a tr;msu;1tional scale. Research has
stressed how this is relevant for our understandmg oC among other things, sociolinguistic
dym1111cs. For instance, for the context of Brussels. the of Belgium, one can note both
how its more recent, rapidly expanding and rnultilingualism (which is characterised
hv a tramn;1tio11al distribution :teross EuropeJn urban intersects with an antagonis-
tic longuc d1trfr of b istoncal bilingualism \vhich is to be understood both locally (the capital
and nationally (Belgium's two major language and how the two are
irnplic1ted in an altogether ,lifferent temporal dynamics (Collins&. Slernbrouck, 21109, p.
Vandenbroncke. The l \VO histories rntersect and collide when newspapers in Belgium
report politicians' fears thc1t extensions of franchise in local elections to international I~U/
NATO staff ;md irn1nigrants - who arc believed to orient more to French, as Brussels' main
lingua franca will unsettle the prcrceived imbal::tnce between the two couunum-
ties even further. with electoral results more favourable to French-speaking political parties.
In undcrsunding the fritrn(btiom of these fi:ars, rdl.exivc ;1ttention to both temporal and
sp:1tial is vital.
The of relevant time is also particuL1rly raised by the work ofJay Lemke
and Stanton Wortham ('v:/ortham. 20(15), from a .more IL1khtinian chrono-
topic Wortham concentrates on the interconnected of speech
events that took phce in one North Anrencan high school classroon1 ;1eross an acaden1ic
year: is it possible to pinpoint the outcome: of particular processes - e.g. a pupil becoming
"'a disruptive outcast'' in a single sp;itc of recorded interaction' Schools come ,vith in-
terconnected tune uf school yean, tenns, courses. periods, etc. The question here
is one of length of ethnogrc1phic enquiry: hcnv much sustained observation is needed to
capture or the accoinplishment or outcome of certain processes of socialisation)
(See Papen, this volume, fix more reflection on this question.) Worth;i1n (2005) advocates a
more ace urn ulative approach in contexts where an individual's public identity is established
over a cycle of encounters in which individuals gradually feature as an incumbent ofa par-
ticular categorical identity. 1-Iowevcr. other possibilities present themselves. Verhallen ct al.
(2016), in a discourse analytical study of a child case'. in the Netherlands, detail
how the height of disagreement between a parent and a social worker \Vas particularly
evident from one recorded interaction. ho,v it resulted in a stalemate period of competing
claims towards a p,irt1cubr outcome preferred by the parent, but the decision-nuking
which followed bter and resulted in the preferred option being taken turned out to be un--
rehted to the initial disagreement between professional and dicnt or the stalemate period
\vhich frlllowed it.
The question of space and time must also be raised in another light. one which funda-
of globalisation processes. As Sheppard p. 309)
notes glohilis,uion, when it is understood as resulting in Ml increasingly shrinking
world, in actual fact marks the progressive domination bv t1me in Harvey's \Vords,
''the annihihtion ofspace time" (Harvey, [lJ89). compression (Harvey, 1')89)
refers to J speeding up oCtime and a collapse of space in absolute tenns as a result of among
other dcvcJopn1ents, an accelerating increase in conchtJons of near-simultaneity Kross spa-
tial distance_ From an ethnographic point of view. the question of site-specificity rnust be
raised alongside with the ofrdev:int Lnne i.e. how niany difl:crent sites ofa
similar kind 1nmt one observe' Sheppard P- 312) proposes Lhe Lenn '"pusitionality"
to describe how diffcrem entities c.lIC position1:d with respect to one another lll space/time.
In this view,
74
Scale
[p]lace, as Massey (1994) argued, cannot be adequately understood without considering

the complex positionalities that link people and places with one another and that create
heterogeneity in a place because different residents are positioned differently. The con-
struction of scale inevitably involves shifts in positionality.
(Sheppard, 2002, p. 319; our underlining)
As it comes with an emphasis on networked spaces, Sheppard's preferred metaphor

of scale is that of a "wormhole", a trope borrowed from physics which captures the
non-Euclidian networked dimensions of spatiality in which the futures of places depend
on their interdependencies with other places (2002, p. 309). Our attention is drawn not
only to the time- and space-implicatedness of the different types of agency that bear on
a particular site of activity: the different actors that respond and act upon a place and do
so from within particular time cycles and with a particular claims of spatial reach. With
positionality, a set of temporal questions is being raised, especially questions of frequency
and salience of occurrence. Is 'positionality' a matter of a constant presence? Does it occur
in the background? Or, more saliently at the forefront of things? Does the engagement
amount to a regularly occurring feature, or is its occurrence more occasional or even a
one-off manifestation?
The body as a taken-for-granted scale

Not altogether unexpectedly, Herod (2011, pp. 54ff.) devotes a separate chapter to the scale
of the body: the body is the scale upon which other scales depend; yet it is a scale which is
too easily taken for granted. This is a point which linguistic ethnographers are unlikely
to miss. While linguistic practices count as embodied practices, ethnographic enquiry de-
pends on observations and hence also on a perceptual viewpoint. In both cases, linguistic
practices and ethnographic observations, acting bodies enter into the picture, bodies which
are anchored in a deictic here and now of activity (what Baynham (2009, p. 144) refers to
as the zero degree of scale) and whose interpretative activity depends crucially on senso-
rial stimuli and perceptions. A similar point applies quite straightforwardly when we link
scale to context: while context is undoubtedly about situating actions and activity in time
and space, our understanding of both dimensions being scaled, context is equally about
participation. In an obvious way, linguistic ethnographic research will recognise the scale
of the interacting body. Unlike the other scales (the local, regional, urban, the annual, the
regular, etc.) being both material and social, the body is biological and social. Finally, like
other scales, bodies have boundaries and their movement in space and time is also subject
to boundaries.
In addition to this, the thematic connections with the globalisation literature deserve to
be explored to the full. Alongside fears that globalisation increasingly poses a threat to the
body, it must also be observed how time-space compression has depended on disembodying
practices and technologies of communication. Globalisation is often about bodies which
move across space: immigrants, refugees, professionals, tourists, etc. This is a point which
Appadurai (1990) captures under "ethnoscapes" - one of the increasingly non-isomorphic
landscapes to be observed in the globalised world, alongside "financescapes", "technoscapes",
"mediascapes" and "ideoscapes". Also in the case of the body, scale has vertical dimensions:
not all bodies are equal. Herod (2011) points here at historically inherited inequalities at
. the scale of the body - e.g. racialised bodies in the context of South Africa under apartheid,
while raising more generally the question of movement-restricting features - age, ability
75
,md hcald1 being obvious ones. Examining current e1ffairs, it is not diff1cult to come up
with ,penfic instances \Vhere the tnnsnational scale appc;ns to bt, about managing
and controlling the rnove1nent and distribution of hunian e.g. T'urkey\ current role
in literally at the scale and al the boundaries of the
EU. A nut her example is how in the face of recent waves of organised terror
attacb, spatially concentrated assemblies of bodies in public a particularly
vulnerable scale of social w,is the c1se in Paris . Zaventem, Beirut, Sanaa,
Sousse, Nice, New York. Toronto, to 11,1rne a
Scales in linguistic ethnography: informants, practices and research

It goes without say mg that scale is a dynamic and relevant concept in Ii ethnography.
Tht:' question of which tin1c-sp,icc scale to invoke 1n delineating ,1 ctl1nographic
enquiry 1s both fi1scin;iting and pressrng. It i, also 1nulti-l~1cetcd. Scalar dynainics arc
1mplic1t rn observed practices, scale is tbematised (e;,;perientially) by 111formants/rese;irch
sub_Jccts and sc1k is 1rnplic1tly/act1vely constructed rn the course of (fi.rnded) research
projects. In shon, scale is relevant in mtcrconncctcd ways fr1r each of the three key di
rnen,1ons research: infrinnant, --- pr;1cuces -- researchers. For in:,tancc. Collins
and Slcmhrouck (20()7) in their study ot multilingual urlMn lll shop wmdows
note how differently scaled informants who have been rnvited to mterprct and con1n1.ent
on the same textual instances scak the assumed text spalio-ternporally. The
c<_)]np;trative readings by 'foreign', 'in1tnigrant' and 'native' ,tdult inlt)rmants illustrate
lio,v the text usen behind the arc located in time and space, and how as part of such
an interpretative 'gap-filling' exercise, the" texts' 'authors' arc endowed vvith histories
of language ,rnd corr1rmmity The pmnt deserves to be extended:
scale is a relevant dimension in the interpretative of the publics which "listen
into" and "overhear'' a pmnt which not only c1pplies in the case of rnfornunts
who cornrnn1t on the Lmguage use of other users, but ;ilso to wl1on·er ehe functions as
an active recipient of scientific findings (funders, policynukers, For instance, it crn
make a big difference when re,earch into a local school is being 'sc;1led' as a problem of
that particular 1nncr city context. ofa particular tier ofeduc1tion or of the way education
1s organised nation-wide.
Scale in a linguistic ethnographic account of border-crossing

One context in wluch the ,;caled 11,1.Lure of participation, prctct1ces ,rnd research initiatives is
abundantly clear and relevant frJY linguistic ethnographic enquiry concerns migration policies
and practices by national institutwns. In tins scct1on we develop ;in extended
exarnplce from rhi, context to demonstrate the rnultiplc vv,1ys in which a11<ilytic ,1ttention to
scale is instrumental m a ltnguislic ethnognphic proyct.
Within the European Union, migr::ition prescribe strict applicatwn processes for
imrnigrauon traJectont'S for non-[uropean nationals to n1ove to ,1 European 1nernber state
as p:irt of labour migration, pol1t1c1l asylum and fan1ily reunification schemes. In recent
vears, nurri,q;c n1igration as a form of family reunihcat1on has. in particular, bccorne a
growing foctl concern fix nugratlon governance and i, seen as the Ltst loophole in
EU 1nignt1on policy, in the face 0L1n iucrcitse lll the incidet1cc of fraudulent sham
marnages contractcd to obtam a permit fr!f the non European spouse (\Vrc1y,
2Ull6; 2(11 In ratifyrng European-level guideline, to dclxct ,md prevent ,uch
76
Scale
marriages of convenience, a number of European nations have implemented intricate bu-

reaucratic interview-based investigations that examine marriage applications of a European
citizen or resident with a non-European citizen to determine whether the intent to marry
is genuine, or fake.
A recent linguistic ethnographic research project into marriage fraud investigations in
Belgium has examined language use and discourse (Vandenbroucke, 2018). In these inves-
tigations the participants (civil servants and applicant couples) interact extensively through
interviews typically conducted to determine whether the relationship is real and additional
information is gathered about the applicants' identities and criminal backgrounds to judge
their eligibility for migration. Similar interviewing practices were also found in other
European contexts (Digruber & Messinger, 2006; Wray, 2006; Friedman, 2010; Myrhdal,
2010; Lavanchy, 2013). In these investigations, civil servants are tasked with determin-
ing which applicants are actually in an 'authentic' loving relationship and can therefore
be allowed to marry and migrate to their partner's domicile. As such, civil servants act as
"embodiments of the state" (Maskens, 2015) and, as individuals, they enforce migration
policy regulations. As "street-level bureaucrats" (Lipsky, 1980), they police, regulate and
control the migration-related cross-border movements, intimate relationships and bodies of
individual marriage applicants.
Extract 1. Taken from official documentation, with personal

information redacted and handwritten script marked in italics:
this man "is unmarried prior to leaving Moroccan territory"
Attestation Administrative de CELIBAT

Nous soussigne LE PRESIDENT DU CONSEIL DE L'ARRONDISSEMENT [...]
Sur la fois des pieces qui ont ete presentees et apres enquete du [...]
Annexe Administrative Bureau: [...]
Atteste que [...] Ne(e) a [...] fils(fille) de [...] et de [...]
Demeurant a [...] Profession [...]
Est Celibataire AVANT DE QUITTER LE TERRITOIRE MAROCAIN
Such institutional marriage fraud investigations are in essence about legitimising bodily
connections - marriage or a marital union being one par excellence - and a body's mi-
gration from one to another national context. In determining whether an applicant is an
eligible candidate for marriage migration, a number of categories are usually attributed
to the individual based on bureaucratic evidence which is relevant on a particular scale.
Extract 1 shows an excerpt of documentary evidence, proof of unmarried civil status,
provided by a Moroccan man who applied to get married to a Belgian citizen and sub-
sequently move to Belgium. The document is constructed on the national scale. While
it confirms the man's bachelorhood based on official records in Morocco, the executing
migration official in Morocco amended the statement that the man "is unmarried" by
adding the handwritten phrase "before he left Moroccan territory", thereby denounc-
ing any responsibility or control over the man's civil state after he left Morocco. In the
eyes of migration bureaucracy, the civil state of the body is thus only applicable on a
national, Moroccan scale. It loses its officially confirmed validity as soon as the body
77
Std Slembrouck and Mieke Vandenbroucke
crosses the border aud moves into a transnational space of migration. \Vhik the bu-
reaucratic category of ·not being 1xiarricd' is attributed to the bocly as an essenti,1] and
prerequisite fe;iturc of the 1narriage application pnor to burder crossing, the very act
of border-cros,ing into a transnalional space thus p,uadoxic1liy undermines the valid-
ity of the civil st,1tu:, and the eligibility of the body to cross borders. Fron1 a lingLJistic
ethnographic perspective, the rule of the matenal document. is sLnking and peculiar, as
it is central in both the clai1)1 of v:1lidity and the undermining or its validity at the same
time. The 111ateri,1l and discursive documentation of the applicant's ovil status (the of-
ficial f(_)rm and hanc!vvrittcn a 1.rngtation officer) takes precedenc:e over
the actual civil statLVi of the rnan II\ reality. As such, the idea of tire body ,1s an entity
with d1scrcLe nall1ral properties of its own 1s not ratified 111 cross-border institutional
gatekceping where documentation and material discourse' are likely to become the sole
autlwritative source for i nforrnation.
Hcl\vever, evidence at the sci le ui'Lhe bndv can :dsn work in i:ivuur of marriage applicants'
cases. In a marriage applic1tion case between ,1 Bclgi;i11-Gha11aian citizen and Ghanaian
-vvoman, for cxainple, n1nnerous elements of suspicion were uncovered by the civil servant
in charg<' of th<' investigation. TlJJs 'incrirninating' evidence, however, was overruled by
DNA paternity evidence of their three children which ,lttested to their claim of a long-term
cornrnirmcnl and rebt1onslnp. Genetic pro0f lll tins case. as ;1 set of properties at the scale
ofbiolog1cal boclie;.,, dircctly affected m,1rital k:gitiinacy and, with it, rernlted in residential
legiti1n;1cy. As such. the scale of the body (demonstrated genetic afTiliaLi,rn) e<)1111ects to legit-
i1nacy in scak-cnJ.)Sing prJctices of migration and the scale of the n,1tio11 slate (cit1zcnsh1p).
The t,xus on genetic testing and biological l111kages :1s instances of ''biological citizenship"
has been observed to pby c1.n increasingly centr:il role in t;nnilv reunitic:llion imrmgrc1tion
policies within European stales (Hcinem,rnn et al.. 2014).
In the case of Belgium, bureaucratic nurriage fraud i1n·cstigations arc loca.lly irnplc
mented procedures 1.n ·which the municip,1] alckrn1:m in charge of m,innge celebration
has full discretionary power over how to investig:1te ,1 m:nriage applicauon :md over de-
ciding which appliut1ons are 'genuine' or 'ir-audulent' (Nlaskens, 2015; Vandcnbroucke,
2018). In most implementations, muriagc applications in -vvh1ch a non-Europc;rn partner
would obtain a residency permit through the marriage are scruumsed to varying degrees
and fiequently tins rnvolves (at leasl) one inter, iew encounter \vhere the foture spouses
are interviewed separately to establish similarities between their stories and the genuine
nature and credibility of their rebtionship. Because ot' the ven topic under scrutiny -
one's rehtionslup and marriage - the interview encounter frequently also touches upon
ethnic culture, traditional practices, marriage celebrations. gender roles, etc. As such, they
constitute wntact .:::ones. i.e. "social spaces ,vhere cultures rneet, clash and grapple with e;tch
other, often m contexts of highlv ;1s, rn tnetrical reLit1ons of power" (Pratt, J991, p. 34).
In conducting the interview_ the civil servant is thus clldrgcd with the difficult task of not
only eliciting detailed relationship histories from both applicants. but also with finding
out to wlut extent the couple's plans J,x marriage celebrations and life as a married couple
are 111 line with the respeclJve trad1uons of their ethnic or cultural background (lack of
authentlcitv and inconsistencies are treated ,1, ind1cat1011s of deceit and fraud). /\n example
of a ci vii servant carryu,g out such 'interpretive Libuur' (Graeber, 2012) is represented in
the follovvmg Exuact 2. tJken from an interview with a Ghanaun spouse who applied to
have her recent marri:ige in Ghana with her Belgian Cluru1an partner recognised so as to
,lttain legal entry to the Hdgian tnntc.,rv:
78
Scale
Extract 2: Interview between Civil servant (C) and Woman

applicant (W)
1 C (types) did you buy wedding clothes

2 w wedding clothes no we didn't do any we didn't buy any wedding
clothes just the traditional dressing clothes
3 C so no wh- white gown or
4 w no
5 C why not
6 w because it's. in Ghana when you do wedding then you buy the
white clothes
7 C yeah but you get married
8 w yeah I get married but. we have two kinds of marriage. the one
you go to church (laughs)
9 C ja
10 w that one they use a white gown
11 C and when will you do that or will you not do that
12 w (laughs)
13 C did you do that
14 w oh no no
15 C are you gonna do that
16 w we will do it (laughs) we will do it (types) • maybe we do now we
are here we do it here (laughs)
17 C (types) you gonna do it in Belgium
18 w yeah we will do it xxx we will do it
In trying to elicit as many details as possible in the woman's account of their marriage
celebrations in Ghana (to be compared for consistency to the account given by her alleged
spouse), the civil servant uses a socio-temporal scale of reference which is Western-oriented,
conservative and arguably anachronistic in nature. The misunderstanding in turns 1-9 re-
volves around the notion of 'wedding' (as the celebratory event) which for the Belgian civil
servant is synonymous with 'marriage' (as the institution). In clarifying the difference, the
Ghanaian woman explains that in Ghana you can have a church wedding, for which you
buy a white gown, and a traditional Ashanti wedding, for which you buy traditional African
dress. While the Ghanaian woman tries to explain that it does not make sense to her to have
a Catholic Church wedding in Ghana after already having had the traditional ceremony of
her ethnic culture, the civil servant insists on the church wedding (in spite of the fact that a
Catholic Church wedding is in the present time no longer considered default practice). The
woman finally concedes to planning to do the church wedding ceremony in Belgium.
In analysing the interaction, we see that the initial question by the civil servant in line
11 whether she would do a church wedding is met with laughter (turn 13), which becomes
outright denial in turn 14. Under continued questioning, however, it becomes an uncertain
promise ("maybe we do now") in turn 16 and evolves into a firmly-repeated confirmation
after the civil servant's summary declaration in line 17. As such, the thrust of interpretive
labour is carried out by the woman applicant who successfully moves from a Ghanaian frame
of reference to the civil servant's Belgian scale of reference in order to accommodate the
.civil servant's expectations. While this scale-jump (Smith, 1992; Pan, 2010) might seem
79
inconsequential within the confines of this interview encounter, it could jeopardise the cou-
ple\ application if significant inconsistencies between their individual accounts arise when
the man in his interview truthfully clenie'.S concrete plans for a church wedding with d. ,;vhite
gown in Belgium in the near future. The field of tension that emerges here stems fron1,
on the one hand. pressures to conform to a particular interpretation of cultural tradition
marriage celebrations in the country nf origin and, on the other hand, providing
truthfol narratives of choices which adopt a more modern stance and deviate in
some respects from cultural tradition and In processing transnational n1igration
applicants, civil se-rvJnts thm deal with tramnationaJly scakd individuals and n,n-rativcs of
authentic which ,ue inevitably ev ..tluated 1n a nexus of scaled frames of interpreta--
tion (including values of locality, culture. community and nationhood).
While discursive is mtrinsically and intricately scaled -- this applies down to the
level ofintcractional turns -- it 1s ,ilso ,1ctivcly constructecl in the course of research projects.
Tz_esearch into Belgian marriage fr,rnd can mdeed be situated :is an inquiry
into a national problem (or even a European one), but also alternatively as a study of the
situated investigative of local authorities (a, the marriage is taken on by a locally
residing partner ,ind the municipal aldnrnan deals with coming from the mu-
nicrpal residential Arguably, such a research project incorporates both scales,
and the pnrnt to be stressed here is that the research rmt1atin~ cntaikd a response to a national
debate which echoes Europec1n concerns on a perceived problem of increased
fraud. while the ethnographic paths through winch 1l is conducted went via individual local
authorities which uch deal m their own right with transnational relationships and identi-
ties (Glick-Schiller et al., At the s;1me time, the claims and entities under scrutiny
(a marnage migrant's identity and rehtionship) are inherenlly tramlocal, yet evaluated by lo-
cal civil servants on the basis ofa locally developed procedure informed by national criteria.
This multiplicity ofscalings underlying practice must be taken as the various levels
a re relevant for understanding the organisation and practice of nurriage fraud investigations
in Belgium in a contextualised analysis.
Note finally how the local dynamics show considerable while the national and
regional visibilities of urban centres, as well as the number 0C1pplications which they
process, result in 1nore standardised and more deuiled municipal amhorities in
villages were able to maintain a more personalised, ad hoc stance in the matter for a longer
period oftin1c. In this way, it becornes apparent hovv the sciled posit10ns of the inunicipalities
themselves mforrn how a locally administered connects to national requirements_
As noted by Glick-Schiller et cil. p. 61(,), local entities ·'that differ in scalar dimensions
also niay dif-lt:r in their u1odes and patlnvays of [migr;rntl and, as practices
change over time, the cross-scalar fixations are as much temporal as they are spatial.
Future directions
Combining careful ethnographic observJtion and detailed linguistic
nography seeks to encornpass a wide nnge of textual ;md contextual vantage
micro-rnteract10nal over various applicable mcso-perspect1ves to the macro soc10-cultural
(R,a1npton, Copland & Creese, 201 \X/hilc the range of perspectives is obvious in
theory. in the various levels of need tu he attendc:d to s1multaneow;Jy, and
slatemems about the space and time of vvbat 1s happen mg require careful qualification and
precision. This is where 'scale· cmnes in most handily as a concept which can fruit•-·
fully direct c1n;t!ysis and interpretation.
80
Scale
In this chapter, we have raised the question of epistemological relevance and engage-
ment with specific publics. Who is the ethnographic account meant for? How does it come
into existence? And what do we seek to accomplish with it? So, more important perhaps
than attempting to settle the matter of scale allocation, linguistic ethnographers can reflex-
ively engage with scaled inputs into research processes as well as the scaling of outcomes. Herod
(2011, p. 256), while underlining how any scalar classification is always historically and geo-
graphically situated rather than universal, invites us to actively consider the relationship
between geographical scale and the production of knowledge, the spatial (and we would add:
temporal) diffusion of what is known by whom.
Second, if with globalisation the world has indeed become 'a smaller place', more than ever
before open to scrutiny all around and with information circulating faster than ever, then one
must equally note increasing complexity and fluidity. Paradoxically, despite homogenising
tendencies, diversity increases and we may be tempted to seek heightened diversity and com-
plexity exclusively in the globalised multi-ethnic urban centres, where it peaks, and assume
traditional homogeneity and constancy in the peripheries. The risk that comes with this
view is that a significant part of the globe's dynamics may remain unnoticed (cf Pietikainen
et al., 2016, pp. 194ff. on the "rhizomatic" dimensions of centralisation and peripherali-
sation). Future directions in linguistic ethnography should therefore strive to actively in-
clude peripheries - and critically examine the discourses about them - be they geographical,
experiential, linguistic or conceptual in nature.
Our third point builds further on this. Does scaling always result in a unidirectional (one-
sided?) picture of importance, geographic extent and temporal durability being exclusive
properties of higher scale phenomena? Herod (2011, pp. 254-255) advocates against such a
"litany of dualism". The alternative view, quoting Massey (2004, p. 7), is that of interde-
pendency, interconnectedness and the relational constitution of places and processes in the
world. The obvious conclusion is that the significance of a scale varies across time and space.
Fourth and finally, we wish to repeat our commitment to the scale of the body, in its
manifestations of individuals, groups, populations and communities. While interpretative
orientations to the complexities of time and space have been necessitated by the globalised
era, it is the speaking and acting body, anchored in time and space, which must particularly
invite the attention of anyone interested in processes oflanguage use and communication.
Further reading
Blommaert,J., Collins,]., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communi-
cation, 25(3), 197-216. (An attempt to rethink multilingualism as spatial and scaled; brings together
the notion of scale with the intellectual legacy ofE. Goffman and P. Bourdieu.)
Canagarajah, S., Lan, S., & Gong Powers, D. (2016). Scalar politics, language ideologies, and the s.o-
ciolinguistics of globalization among transnational Korean professionals in Hong Kong. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 312-334. (A case study in which the notion of scale is applied to understand
competing language ideologies towards the use of English by Korean professionals in Hong Kong.)
Herod, A. (2011). Scale. London: Routledge. (A standard textbook on scale within Geography; cites
applications across the social sciences.)
Summerson, C. E., & Lempert, M. (2016). Scale. discourse and dimensions of social life. Oakland: Univer-
sity of California Press. (Outlines the relevance of scale to linguistic anthropology; case studies of
scalar projects, interscalarity and predatory scales; examples from various parts of the world.)
Related topics
Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation; Literacy studies; Social class; Policy.
81
Stet Slembrouck and Mieke Vandenbroucke
References
Appadurai, A. (1'1'JIJ). Disjuncture and differ,:nu· in the glolnl cultural economy. "J'hc,ny, Culture and
Society, ~- 2':l5-Yl Cl.
Baynham, .tvl. (200CJ). 'Just one day like today': ScJle :rnd the analysis of space/time orientation in
narratives of displac,·ment. In J. Collins, .':,_ Slemhronck. ,v M. Baynham (Eds.). Clob,ilizatiun and
langullge 111 conracr (pp. 1'.\0-147). London and New Ym-k: Continuum.
Beck, U., & Wilims, J (2004). Con.uers,lfious with Ulrich Beck. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Blommaert, J. (2007). Sociolinguistic scales. Intercult11ral Pra2m,11irs, 4(1), 1-1').
Blornmaert,J, Westincn, E., & Leppanen, S. (2015). Further notes on sociolinguistic scales. Interc1rltim1l
Pr,~!;IIMtics, 12(1), 119-127.
Collins, J, & Slembrouck, S. (2007). Reading shop windows in glob;ilized neighborhoods: Multilin-
gual litcr;icy practices and index1cality. Journal of Literacy R.esearrh, 39(3), 335 356.
Collins, J. <'-- SlcmbroLtck, S. (2009). Got1nun ,rnd glubalization: Frame, and scile in
migration-connected multilingualism. InJ. Collins, ',_ :-:.l,111brouck, & M. Bavnh;nn (Eds.), Global-
ization ,wd in contact (pp. 19-41). Londoo and Nnv York: Continuum
Collins,]., Skmbrouck. S., & Baynham, M. (21J<J'J) fnt roduclton: Scale, migration and coum,unicative
practice. In J Cullim. S. Slembrouck, & M. Havnb;1m (Eds.), Globalization c111rl /,111g11£1ge in (ontact
(pp. 1-18). Londun and New York: Continuum.
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic eth1w,(!r,1phy. London: Sage.
Digruber, D., & Messinger, I. (2006). Marriage of residence in Austria. European Jo11rnc1l of 11,,figration
,wd L11v, 8(3-4), 281-302.
Eggcb0, H. (2013). A real marriage' Applying for marriage migration to Norway. ]oum,1l of Ethnic and
1Hir;r<1tion Studies, 39(5), 773-789.
Evans, P. (1997). The eclipse of the State? Reflections on statencss in an era of globalization. lforld
Politics, 50. 62--X7.
Fairclough. N. (:'OOh). Lcwguage and globaliz,itio11. I. u11don: R uutledge.
Friedman, S (2010). Determining 'truth' at the b,,nler: Immigration interviews, Chinese marital
migrant\, and "Lti\\,lJl\ sovereignty dilemmas. Studies, 14(2), 167--18.,.
Glick-Schiller, N !\., & Guldbrandsen, TD. (2000). locality, globality .111d born-ar;ain incor-
poratiou. ,--llllnium Ethnologist, 33(4), 612-6 n.
Graeber, D. (2012). Dead zones of imagination. On violence, bureaucracy and interpretive labor.
H.4 U: journal of Etlmogmphic Theory, 2(2), '105-128.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition qfpostmodemity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2001). Spaces cf c<1pit<1l. Tou.wds ,z critical geography. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Heinemann, T., Helen, I., Lemke, T, Naue, U., & Weiss, M. (2014). Suspectfiunilies: DN/i analysis.
J1mily reunification and imm(gr,,tion policies. London: Routledge.
Herod, A. (201 l). Sc,tle. London: Routledge.
Howitt, R. (1998). S,:ale a, relation: Musical metaphor, olgcugraphical scale. A1c,1, :lO(l), ,[9--58.
Lash, S., & Urrv, J. (1994). Lconomies of signs and .1p,1w lundun: Sage.
Lavanchy, J\. (2013). Dissonant alignments: Tlie ethics and politics of researching state imtitutions.
Current Soci,,fog)', 61(5-6), 677-692.
Lefebvre, H. (l'.J76). De /'J--irc1t (Tome 2). Theorie de /'Etc1t de Hc,~.-1 aMao. Paris: Union Ccncnlc <!'Editions
"10/18'' Collect10n.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production Oxford: Blackwell.
Leith, D (1983). A social !tist,>ry of Ltt;<Jlish. London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and m.eaning in ecosocial systems.
i\ifcdi<1, Culture, and Actii,ity, 7(4), 273-290.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-/ei,c/ bure,111m1cy: The dilemmas of the indi1Jid11<1/ in public sewlce. New York:
Russell S:tgc Foundation.
Maskens, M. (2015). Bordering intimacy. The fight agdimt marriages of convenience in Brussel,. The
Cambrh((c.fo11m,1/ o_(,-l.1!il1ropology, 33(2), 42--5S.
Massey, D. (lY'>4). Sµ,mal divisions of labour: So, i,i/ _,r,-wturr·, and the geography of prorluttiM1. London:
Macmillan.
Massey, D. (21.<U-1). Gcogrc1phies ofresponsibil ity. ,--lnnaler B, 86(1), 5 18
Moore, A. (2f<Uo). R.cthinking scale as a geogr;iphH ,il c:ttegury: From analysis to prac\HT. Progress in
Hum,m Geogr,1phy, .32(2), 203-225
82
Scale
Pan, L. (2010). Dissecting multilingual Beijing: The space and scale of vernacular globalization. Visual
Communication, 9(1), 67-90.
Pietikainen, S., Kelly-Holmes, H., Jaffe, A., & Coupland, N. (2016). Sociolinguistics from the periphery.
Small languages in new circumstances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pratt, M.L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 33-40.
Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity. Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M. Feather-
stone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 24-44). London: Sage.
Sheppard, E. (2002). The space and times of globalization: Place, scale, networks and positionality.
Economic Geography, 78(3), 307-330.
Smith, N. (1992). Geography, difference and the politics of scale. In J. Doherty, E. Graham, & M.
Malek (Eds.), Postmodernism and the social sciences. London: Macmillan.
Summerson, C.E., & Lempert, M. (2016). Scale. discourse and dimensions ofsocial life. Oakland: University
of California Press.
Swyngedouw, E. (1996). Reconstructing citizenship, the re-scaling of the state and the new authori-
tarianism: Closing the Belgian mines. Urban Studies, 33, 1499-1521.
Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global nor local: 'Glocalization' and the politics of scale. In R. Lee &
J. Wills (Eds.), Spaces ef globalization: Reasserting the power of the local (pp. 137-166). New York:
Guildford Press.
Trouillot, M.R. (2001). The anthropology of the state: Close encounters of a deceptive kind. Forum
on theory in Anthropology. Current Anthropology, 42(1), 125-138.
Vandenbroucke, M. (2015). Language visibility, functionality and meaning across various TimeSpace
scales in Brussels' multilingual landscapes.Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(2),
163-181.
Vandenbroucke, M. (2017). Whose French is it anyway? Language ideologies and re-emerging index-
icalities of French in Flanders. Language in Society, 46, 407-432.
Vandenbroucke, M. (2018). Legal-discursive constructions of genuine cross-border love in Belgian
marriage fraud investigations. Manuscript submitted to special issue on "Discourses of Marriage"
in Critical Discourse Studies, edited by Georgina Turner and Laura Paterson.
Vandenbroucke, M. (2019). Top-down policy in Flemish linguistic landscapes: The case of "Frituur
Grand Place". In M. Castillo Lluch, R. Kailuweit, & C. Push (Eds.), The French connection: Linguistic
· landscape stt-tdies in the Francophone world. Freiburg im Breisgau: Rombach.
Verhallen, T., Hall, C., Slembrouck, S., & Kirkwood, S. (2016). Managing arguments in social work
encounters. International]ournal ef Child and Family Welfare, 17(112), 85-104.
Wallerstein, I., (1974). The modern world-System, 1101. I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins ef the European
world-economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.
Wray, H. (2006). An ideal husband - Marriages of convenience, moral gatekeeping and immigration
to the UK. European journal <if Migration and Law, 8, 303-320.
Wortham, S. (2005). Socialization beyond the speech event. Jot-trrtal ef Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1),
95-122.
83
7
Social class
Julia Snell
Introduction
This chapter ai IJl.S to how socu.l class has figured as a concept in linguistic eth-
nography. Speofically, it vv11l f;xus on the ways scholars have used
to ''c,1pture the ,vuuu," soci,1! cxpnicnc"c or . through
(CoupLrnd, 20(17, p. 18). 'Class' is J multi-dirnemiunal construct. \Vhile it has its
0
in ecouornic relations and rnaterial-bascd inequalities (Marx. this chap-

ter frircgrouuds the notion that it aho operates and culturally (Bourdieu, 1Y84;
200°1: et al.. 201 in ;incl through Lrnguage.
The cluptcr be)2:ins YVith the vari.1tionist work ofWilliarn Labov (1966), which brought
class to the fore in •.c~•,,, .• s•'""'· Work in the L,1bovian trctdition speakers to objective
ch,s c;1teg<.1ries indices such as income ,rnd and exarn ined large-scale correla-
tions between resulting class position and their use phonological and gram-
rn.atical features. While infiucntiaL these studies ignored the cultur:d dirnen,ions of chss
that m;iny Bourdieu) now regard as central to chis analysis. The chapter
moves on to consider how the rntroduction of ethnography mto variationist research addressed
this omission by up our understanding of how class culture is constituted through the
day-to-day linguistic that individuals eng,1ge in (Eckert, 2UUO).
The nuin body of the chapter describes hc,\v lrngmstic have built un this
observ:1t1ons with slmY and intensive of language
,rnd cotnnu1nication in order lo uncover oC class consciousness in
1nteu, t1011 on the prac-
tical implications ofllllguist1c
that lie ahead for future resc;uch.
Historical perspectives: the emergence of class

in variationist sociolinguistics
Ltbuv\ (1 semrnal New focus of imc:rest in \Vork
Oil variation. Hts survey of the pronunciation patterns of residents
84
Social class
of the Lower East Side of New York City established that language use correlates with
social factors such as class and gender. The sociolinguistic surveys conducted and inspired by
Labov assigned participants to objective positions in a class hierarchy (e.g. 'working-class',
'middle-class') using indices of socioeconomic status. Some prioritised occupation (Macaulay,
1977), while others used a combined index taking into account factors such as income, hous-
ing and educational level, as well as occupation (Labov, 1966, 2001; Trudgill, 1974). The
speech of the resulting social class groups was typically sampled through extended one-to-
one interviews designed to elicit speech styles situated at various points along a continuum
of formality, from the speakers' most informal and 'casual' style, to their most formal self-
conscious speech (the latter elicited through reading set passages and word lists, activities that
require maximum attention to speech).
The patterns of social and stylistic stratification that emerged from early survey studies
were remarkably consistent. These studies demonstrated that for stable sociolinguistic vari-
ables (that is, variables not undergoing language change, such as the pronunciation oflNG in
words like running) middle-class speakers used more so-called 'standard' variants than their
working-class counterparts (Labov, 1966; Wolfram, 1969; Trudgill, 1974; Macaulay, 1977;
Reid, 1978; for a general overview see Dodsworth, 2010). In addition, all speakers followed
the same general pattern with regard to stylistic variation: speakers systematically increased
their use of 'standard' variants (and decreased their use of 'non-standard' or 'vernacular'
variants) as their perception of the formality of the situation increased. This intra-speaker
stylistic variation was theorised as being linked to inter-group variation, such that speakers
modelled their most formal style on the speech behaviour of the group who ranked slightly
higher in the social scale (Bell, 1984, p. 151). Class stratification in society was thus replicated
within speakers' own stylistic behaviour, lending testimony to Bourdieu's (1977, 1991) point
that speakers' mundane actions bear the traces of wider social structure.
The variationist studies inspired by Labov have highlighted important general patterns
regarding the sociolinguistic stratification of speech communities. These studies were also cru-
cial in advancing theories of language change (indeed the primary motivation for Labov's
New York City study was to obtain insights into the mechanisms of linguistic change, as
documented in Weinreich et al., 1968). Nevertheless, the Labovian approach to language
and social class has been widely criticised as lacking in explanatory power (Romaine, 1984;
Rickford, 1986; Cameron, 1990; Coupland, 2007; Eckert, 2012; for a review see Block,
2014). Survey studies have highlighted widespread correlations of linguistic usage with
class stratification, but they have not been able to explain the meaning of these correlations.
Consequently, there has been a gradual movement in the field towards using ethnography
to "get closer to the meaningful activity in which participants deploy linguistic resources"
(Eckert, 2009, p. 137). Rather than beginning with pre-defined social categories, as in survey
research, ethnographic research involves going into a community to find out which social
categories are relevant, in what way, why and for whom. The benefits of this approach to
the study of language variation and social class have been demonstrated most extensively in
Eckert's (1989, 2000) ethnography in a Detroit High School, which I outline below. It is im-
portant to note, however, that Eckert's work builds on earlier research that used ethnography to
uncover locally meaningful categorisations, in particular, Lesley and James Milroy's pioneering
work on social networks (Milroy, 1980; Milroy & Milroy, 1992; see also Cheshire, 1982).
Eckert spent two years as a participant observer at 'Belten High' (see Eckert, 1989
for a full account of the ethnography). She identified two oppositional 'communities of
_practice' (CoPs) (Lave & Wenger, 1991) - the 'jocks' and 'burnouts' - which constituted
middle-class and working-class cultures within the adolescent context. Thejocks and burnouts
85
Julia Snell
\Vere predominantly (though not exclusively) from middle-class and working-class homes,
respectively, but Eckcrt's makes clear that where they were was :1s
irnportant to then classed sensibilities as where thev came from. Jocks eng:1ged with the
corporate lifr., of the school taking part in extrd-cunicular activities varsity sports,
school governnwnt and the school newspaper). These frmns ofparticipation prepared them
for and for their place in adult middle-class cLdture. The burnouts, on the other
hand, were alienated from the school culture. They maint:1incd strong neighbourhood ties
and oriented their practices to the urban area. As a result, their soci:11 tr.~ectory was geared
tO\vards gaining employment pc,st~high school in the local urlxm area and pdrtinpating in
adult \Vorking-class culture.
The oppositional ,tatus of the jocks and burnouts was constructed via a range of sym-
bolic including tcrntory, clothing and substance me. The two CoPs wt:re also
opposed Jt the level of with orit:ntiug to the 'standard' linguistic market
and the burnouts to the local, urban, vernacular market. Eckert\ linguistic analysis fcJCussed
on one v,iri;1blc, ncg:1tivc concord, and six phonological vari;ibles. As with e:nlier
variationisr studies, she considered huw the adolescents' use of these variables correlated
with macro-.level sonal such as class and gender. but she then opened out lier
analysi, to invc,tigatc the irnplicHions of the adolescents' 1nembership in the Jock/burnout
CoPs. Only m:gativlc concord shovvcd significant correlation ,vith social cla>S (rne:1sured
bere in terms of th1: socioeconomic characrenstics of parents) Adolescents froni
working~class backgrounds used the 'non-standard' variant more frequently than their
middle--dass peers we 1Dight expec:t that 'non-standard' negation is highly stig-
matised). Even here, however, the stronger statistic:1] correlation was with CoP alT!liation -
burnouts used 'non-standard' more frequently tlun and this was the
case even where there wc1s cross--over between social clas, and CoP rnernbcrsbip (i.e. for
working-class jocks and middle-class burnouts). T'here was no correlation between the ad-
olescents' use of the vocalic variables and their parents' socioeconomic class. These variables
were invohed in the Northern Cities Ch;tin Shift (a series of affecting the vowels
of the English in the urban centres uf the northern US The sound changes
were ongoing in Detroit but ,vere more advanced in the urban ::irea than in the suburbs and
thus contributed an 'urban' sound to speech . .Eckert argues that the burnouts led the jocks
in the use of the advanced variants of these cb:mges because they s,1w themselves ;1s 1nrt of
the developing urban hndscape and were m 1t.
In .Eckcrt's work (and other CoP studies, e.g. J\1oorc, 2010) \Ve sec the importance
of u,ing ethnognphv to uncover the social that make sense frir particip,1nts,
rather than seekmg out participant, lO ftt pre-detcrmmed cb,s These studies
;iim to n10\T beyond the structural model of class evident in early variationist work by
applying a more fluid notwn of das, as constituted through the pr;1ctice, that
individuals engage in. l\s 111 early variationist work. however, the linguistic :111alysis is
prim,1 ril y on statistical correhtions betvvcen linguistic variables
and -;ocial and thus not well-tuned to upturing "the linguistic dispby of class
consc10usncss 111 interaction'' (R.ampton, 2()1(\, p. :i4). Nik Coupland and Ben
Rampton have therefore argued that this kind of can usefully be complemented
by more detailed interactional ;rn oC the ,vay chs,ed is med m everyday
communication (Rampton, 2003, 21110a: Coupland, In ,vlut folluws I show how
this appruach l1cts been tah:n up in recent linguistic ethnographic work and consider what
etbnographically infurn1,'.d •micro-a of inter;1ction can add to our undcrst,mding
of socr,11 class.
86
Social class
Main research methods

An ethnographic approach gives a local perspective, opening up access to participants'
understandings of the processes, activities or behaviours being studied. Linguistic ethnog-
raphers combine these 'emic' perspectives with slow and intensive analysis of language and
communication in order to shed light on other, more tacit, aspects of social practice, extend-
ing the ethnography into smaller ,rnd more fixussed spaces and drawing analytic attention
to fine detail (Snell et al., 2015). This typically rnvolves long, slo,v immersion in transcripts
and aucho- and/or video-recorded data, an;ilysing interaction turn-by-turn, asking at each
moment, e_g_, 'What is the speaker doing'' 'Why that, now?' 'What else might have been done
here hut wasn't'' 'What next?' (see Rampton, 2006, pp. 395-398 l<)r an extended description
of this 'micro-analytic' approach). At the same time, linguistic ethnographers also draw upon
their ethnographic knowledge of events outside of the immediate speaking context, taking
into account that speakers may be drawing upon past actions and experiences as well as
reacting to preceding talk (Gumperz, 1999, p. 461).

In studies ofLmguage and social class, analytic attention has regularly turned to stylisations and
other lcirrns of spontaneous speaker creJtivity, alongside the more routine linguistic practice
that has been privileged in variationist sociolinguistic work. (See Jaspers and Van Hoof, this
volume.) In Coupland's (2001, p. 345) terms, stylisation involves "the knowing deployment
of culturally familiar styles and identities that are marked as deviating from. those predictably
associated with the current speaking context". These fleeting performances mark a "m.omcn-
tary disengagement from the routine flow of unexceptional business" and invite interlocutors
to "use their broader understandings of society to figure out exactly what 'image of another's
language' this is actually supposed to be" (Rampton, 2006, p. 225). Stylisations have become a
focus of analytic attention in work on class bc:cause they often occur m moments of transition
across social and interactional boundaries, and as a consequence, foreground (albeit fleetingly)
speakers' cntiCll reflexive awareness of the conditions shaping their lives (Rampton, 2006,
2011a). Ben Rampton makes this point convincingly in his ethnography of'Central High', a
multi-ethnic secondary school in London. The concept of social class takes centre stage in this
work. Rampton (2006) draws upon a range of scholars (most notably E.P. Thompson, Michel
Foucault and Raymond Williams) to make a broad distinction between two levels at which
class works (and can be researched): the "material conditions [... and] practical activity that
;ire experienced differently by different people in different times, places and networks" on the
one hand, and "secondary or 'meta-level' representations ... about social groups ... and about
their ditfrrcnt experiences of material conclitJOns and practical activity" on the other (2006,
pp. The adolescents who p;trtic1p.1ted in his study did not talk about class explic-
itly at the level of secondary - indeed in d1scussion it appeared to be
much less ofan issue for them than other kinds of social differentiation such as ethnicity and
gender - but Rampton's detailed analyses of their day-to-day interactions demomtrate that
an ingrained sense of class hierarchy structured their lives. He focusses in particular on the
adolescents' stylisations of 'posh' and 'cockney', which he argues can be seen as "small pieces
of secondary representation inserted into the flow of practical activity" (p. 218) and which
thus generate a dialogue across the two levels at which class is a phenomenon (pp. 224-225).
('Posh' rdcrs to a marked RP style associated with British upper cLm and 'Cockney' to the
London vernacular traditionally associated with the working classes.)
87
Julia Snell
Rampton (2(11)6) recorded pupils at Central High hoth inside and outside of the classroom
using a rad10-1111crophone. A small-scale sociolinguistic analy.s,i:, of the recorded
speech revealed conventional patterns of ,ociolmgui,t1c stratification. Speaker, became more
'standard' in their accent in more formal ,ituatmus (that is, they moved towards I-l.eceived
Pronunci.iti\ln c1nd away from their London vcrnacuhr e.g. pronouncing \vord-initi,11 <h>
and avoiding the use of glottal stop for word-medial intervocalic <t>). This rout1111sed style
shifting indicated that these speakers (who were from both white and ethnic-minority back-
grounds) had been socialised into wider patterns of British social stratification in speech.
Rampton argues that this points to enduring processes of class reproduction. But when the
adolescents spontaneously performed exaggerated 'posh' and 'Cockney' voices, there were
glimpses <'f spc:rkcr .1gency too. These 'styli,at ions' occurred on average around once every
45 minutes m the data set. Rampton argues that they point to an active class consciousness
among the young people, where 'class' is "a ,ensed social difference thcit people and groups
produce in intcr;rction, and there is struggle and negotution around exactly who's up, who's
down, who's 111. who's out, and where the lrnes are drawn" (Rampton, 2(J()f>, p. 274). He
summarises the main meanings of stylised posh and Cockney as follows:
A pattern emerges, then. in which vigour, passion and bodily laxity appeat to be associ-
ated with Cockney, while physical weakness, distance, constraints and sexual inhibition
are linked to posh. In fact, at an abstract level, this can easily be accommodated with a
more general set of contrasts between mind and body, reason and emotion, high and low.
(Ra1nplo11, 2006, p. 342)
This high-low 'cultural semantic' (Stallybras, & White, 1996, in Rampton, 200!-i, p. 343)
circulated a·, potential for the ;idolescents to make use of in response Lo their
everyday cnncerm. When they felt a sense of ll1Jmtice iu their treatment at school, pupils used
c,tyfoecl posh to caricature their teachers as upper-class snobs. When negotiating the transition
between school work and peer sociability, pupils used stylised posh or cockney to construct
a non-serious stance, and thus downplay their commitment to classroom tasks. Outside uf
teacher-pupil relations, the contrast between the class-inflected styles became useful when play.
ing with risque sexual topics or managing changing and uncert:1in heterosexual relationships.
Ramplon ad,mts Lhal there was little evidence tbal the adolescents were trying to liberate
themselves from the social structuring of their cvcrychy lives, but in their stylis,1tiom they
did make this structure ·'more conspicuous, e.0.,1ggerat1ng and elaborating evclluatwe differ-
entiations th;,t were otherwise normally treated :rs non-problematic in practical .ictivity", and
in doing so, they "'dcnaturalisecl" class stratification (Rampton, 2006, pp, 3(,3 354; 2011a,
pp. 1239, 1245-1.246). On occasions they went further, demonstrating critical agency by ac-
tively disrupting the cultural semantic that links posh with high/mind/reason and Cockney
with low/body/emotion. For exarnple, when Hanif used ,tylised Cockney to "vernacularise"
school knowledge for his friends in order to encourage their participation in a curriculum
task, he rnomentarily reworked the conventional equation of posh with high and Cockney
with low linking C:nckney to a school orientation (Rampton, 2006, Pl'· 298 3()1, 306-
308). Hanifal:,o used ''quasi-Caribbean" for the sam,.· type of speech act, that "rather
than allowing ethnicity to replace class as an a,j, ufsuc1al differentiation rn activity,
in their stvJisJtions thoe youngsters could [... J d1sphy their [functional] equivJlcnce'' (2006,
p. 319; sec ,iJ,o Rc11nplou, 2010b, 2011a, 2Ullb).
Rampton has used bis analyses of stylised posh and Cockney to challenge claims about
"the decline of class awareness" (Bradley, 1996, p. 77, in Rampton. 200!-i, p. 216) in laLe
88
Social class
modernity. He has further intensified this challenge by drawing upon his previous research
on 'language crossing' in the speech of adolescents in a multi-ethnic neighbourhood in the
south Midlands of England. Here, as at Central High, he finds evidence of sensitivity to the
traditional dynamics of British social class (Rampton, 2010b). Adolescents in both settings,
he argues, used stylisation and crossing to position themselves in a multi-ethnic class society.
Lian Madsen (2016a, 2016b) reports a similar convergence in the indexical values of tra-
ditional class and migrant ethnic styles in a linguistic ethnographic study of language use
among youth in Denmark. Madsen's analyses draw upon a diverse data set collected during
a team ethnography in a Copenhagen school (including ethnographic field notes, inter-
views, participants' self-recordings, school essays and media representations). Initial inter-
views drew the researchers' attention to a way of speaking that participating adolescents
termed 'integrated'. This term has traditionally been used in Danish public discourse to
describe minorities adapting to mainstream cultural practices. While the adolescents were
aware of this meaning, they also used 'integrated' to describe a particular way of speaking
that was associated not just with ethnic 'Danishness' but also with respect, politeness and a
positive orientation to education, values that previous sociolinguistic research had linked to
'conservative' (i.e. 'standard') Copenhagen speech. Taking the participants' lead, 'integrated'
speech became a focus for analysis. Micro-analyses of participants' self-recordings revealed
fleeting stylised performances in which integrated speech was associated with stereotypical
upper-class cultural practices, ritualised politeness and exaggerated enthusiasm for schooling.
These stylisations typically occurred "in contexts in which institutional inequalities were
spotlighted" (2016a, p. 165), and were often marked by a high-pitched voice and laughter,
which served to distance the speaker from the stylised voice. Madsen claims that the adoles-
cents' stylised performances, together with their metalinguistic reflections (as evidenced in
interviews and language essays), indicate the emergence of a 'register' (Agha, 2007) labelled
'integrated' which links conservative Copenhagen speech, academic vocabulary and ritual
politeness with higher-class culture, wealth and education. This register was opposed to the
'slang' or 'street language' (what linguists would refer to as contemporary urban vernacular,
in the sense of Rampton, 201 lc) that the adolescents identified as their 'own' way of speaking.
While there is nothing new about the link between 'standard' linguistic practice and
higher social class, Madsen argues that the use of the term 'integrated' for the high-cultural
register, and its opposition to the youth vernacular, reflects an awareness among the young
people "of the social inequalities embedded in dominant understandings of cultural differ-
ences and of minority cultural (speech) practices as worthless in relation to schooling and
societal power" (2016b, p. 135). Following Rampton, Madsen uses her analyses to challenge
assertions that social class relations have relatively little contemporary significance (espe-
cially in multi-ethnic contexts) by demonstrating that linguistic styles once associated with
minorities have been actively mapped into more traditional understandings of social stratifi-
cation and status (2016a, p. 166). Madsen's findings align with linguistic ethnographic studies
oflanguage, class and ethnicity elsewhere in Europe. For example, Jaspers (2011) describes
how multi-ethnic teenagers in Antwerp, Belgium stylised traditional Antwerp dialect as a
means of positioning themselves in relation to ideologies of class stratification as well as -local
hierarchies of nativeness vs. non-nativeness (see also Kirkham [2015] for an analysis of the
way social class and ethnicity intersect in structuring local social practices amongst adoles-
cents in Sheffield, UK).
My own work on language variation and social class contrasts with the work of Rampton
and Madsen in that the nine- to ten-year-old children who participated in the research
lived in one of the least ethnically diverse areas of the UK. In 2005-2006, I conducted
89
julia Snell
ethnographic fidcl,vork in tvvo social chss-diffi.·rcntiatc·d primary schools in the urban conur-
bation of'Iecssidc, north-cast England . .At the tnnc of the fidchvork, 'fvlurr<1yfield Primary'
served a prednmin,mtly lower-middle-class area. with the sdwol community described
a, •'made up of children from a predornmantly while Europeau (Ofsted,
p. 'Ironstone Prirnary' served a white chiss area, with 181 of the 184 pupils en-
rolled as 'White British· 20U3b, p The between these
twu groups o( children, who were differentiated class
lines.' raisnl interesting quntions about local di,1Icct) might
be li11ked with classed
/\s p,lrt of my l examined the clnldren's use of pos,essive me "M.e frni]
prnol's up me !nnj _1umper'') (Snell, 2010). This i, a \alient fe.1ture o( the loCJ! dialect,
prom.inent \vithin local consciomness and common in fc.,lk-linguistic representations of
Tec'sside orthographic1lly as ·me'), but of-
ten stigmatised .ts 'incorrect' usage, i the tt'achers
(pcrliaps because the i11n] prununc1a110n blurs the d1strnctwn wd
pronoun case; sc:e 1996. p. Qnantitativc of 50 hours of radio-
hours Cron1 ,'clc:h school) 1-e\e,1kcl that the frni1 vari,111l was rela-
and ,vas used rn ost
often by children at Ironstone Prinury out of 3,, occurrences). This social chss differ-
ence 1 n of nse of possessive 111c with previous findings from quant1tat1vc
variation ancl social and is thus unsurprising (especially as pos-
stigmatised). More is the \\ay this form was used in
of all 3.3 occurrences ot' p05'\'ss1ve me revealed that tl1is form
the children to construct a sLtnce of stvlised affr:ct or
or a hck of connnitrnenl to the utterance. So
while qu;mtitativc ;1n,ilysis pomted to a correlation between //ff ,rnd class posi-
tion, et.hnographicallv infor1r1ed demonstrated that. fort.he children at Iron

stone Primary al least. it was associated \.vith affective and a sense of tr,1nsgressing
boundaries, and it was used to fulfil interactional goals over ,111d above its referential content
(nn king it very different to the other available variants of the possessiYe singular, such as
'my' !mail or the reduced fonn 'ma' frnal).
This analysis raises two consicluat1ons fr:ir the study of'.,rnguage ;md sooal class. First, the
possibility emerges that the' difference in frcqlwncy of use of inc between the two
groups o[ children might be explained, not simply in rehuon to cbss preferences
for either 'standard' or ·vernacuLu' speech. but by comideration of the different social goals,
acts and stances in which are . In relation to dass I have therefore ,c,cu,n,co
uiscd the following
I'IH''.)t:' cL-i::.s desi.gn:c'nions we-re b:1sed pri1.narily on Cuventn1c11t census c.Lit:i ,uid indic'-:s ot (2001\
\vhi.ch highlighted dc::u: di.Jfe·t.·•~:uces bdws:en tl11·.' s;ch(h).1\ c;1tcln.11c•11.t :1re,1::: '._Kross ;1 nrnnber criteric1 such
nlu.-,llino, en1p_l_oynifo1 ::uJ.d (sec SndL 2CHYJ f~.1r details). Tlicc;e diill'rcnccs \vere re-f1fncd i.n tlie:
:-,cl1uuls· CJhtcd inspcnion tl:'pouc; 1_(1.r St:1JJd;1nh in Edt11_::-itio11- Children\: Sr:.rvi.ces and Skills, 2003). f"or
the f_(Jr 1\,Juna~cficl.d Prinury highlighted tlw sr:iblc n,tttltf the loc.1!, corllrnttt1ity c}11d SLlll-":d
lcve·I ~ttuintnent oCpupiL: when tht'y t'-!lli:'r tlie sdLCJC!l. 'we,-:>tcs cxr,ecutiow,'. The report tOr Ironslone
.Pri111~tty, on the- odwr b.iw.L drew attention to the ·socjJl and ccono1nic d1;11lenge::;' .__·nclcm·ic it1 Lhe:
:1rca ,1nd Cu11n,·l pnpil :1ti;ui1tt1ent u1i entry to he \-v1:;,]l bc·kn,v e:\pE:'d . 1tiuns'. It also reported th:11: the percentage
cl.1.ildn::.n en Lit kd lO tlYe school. n1c:tls at Ironstone Prirn.iry \\ ,LS tlnt:c tilll('S die tutinn~d
indic::i.tive 0Cll1c 'ccono1nic dn1k'.llf:t:'~, (;iced hy lu1:.-.11 resident·:, (\vhik :it" ;\!lurr:iyfiel_d Prinnry w::'-'
bc·.low the 1uuon;d :-l\·e-r;-1gc).
90
Social class
Does habitual use of a particular kind of interactional stance ... cumulatively construct
a particular kind of working-class identity (e.g. characterised by humour, playfulness,
the policing of social boundaries), or at least an aspect of that identity, which can be
contrasted with [a] middle-class identity?
(Snell, 2010, p. 649)
David Block picks up on this point, drawing the conclusion that
working-class speech and culture may be seen, not just as an alternative to middle-class
speech, but as embodying fundamentally different ways of being and communicating ...
embedded in very real cultural differences arising from very different material condi-
tions, which working-class people share among themselves but not with middle- or
upper-class people.
(Block, 2015, p. 9; see also Moore & Snell, 2011; Moore, 2012)
Second, the analyses of working-class children's language presented in this article (see also
Snell, 2013) show the young children to be sociolinguistically savvy in the way they strate-
gically select linguistic resources according to interactional goals, and thus very far from the
image of the impoverished working-class language user often presented in the media and in
some educational policy documents (e.g. Gross, 2010; Harris, 2012). This point highlights
the potential for linguistic ethnographic work on social class to have practical implications,
which I take up in the next section.
Critical debates and implications for practice

I have made modest attempts to use findings from the Teesside research to challenge deficit
accounts of working-class children's speech. 2 This line of advocacy is part of a long tradi-
tion in sociolinguistics that dates back to Labov's (1969) defence ofBlack English Vernacu-
lar. Drawing upon a linguistic ethnographic perspective, I have attempted to move beyond
the 'different but equal' argument that is usually advanced in this work, focussing instead
on linguistic repertoire and the interactional and social value of dialect forms (Snell, 2013,
2015). There remains a gap, however, between the kind of robust and convincing analyses
that can be reported in academic publications and significant impact in the areas being
researched. It is by no means easy to do justice to the subtlety of linguistic ethnographic
analyses in reports to those outside of academia. For example, in 2013 the Head Teacher of
a Teesside Primary school made the bold move not only to ban the use of certain dialect
words, phrases and pronunciations at school but also to write a letter to pupils' parents en-
couraging them to do the same at home. Several other schools followed this example and
their actions were widely reported in the national media. The letter sent home to parents
in Teesside was premised on a number of erroneous assumptions about language. I wrote
a response in a national newspaper (Snell, 20136) in which I attempted to challenge these
assumptions and highlight the unintended negative consequences the school's action might
have on the children involved. However, I was limited by the constraints of the genre, in
particular the need to condense my argument into less than 600 words of news copy, which
2 Outside of work on language and social class, linguistic ethnographers have made much more serious attempts
at practical intervention (see Atkins et al., 2016; Bezerner, 2015; Bezerner et al., 2016; Lefstein and Snell, 2011,
2014; Roberts et al., 2000; Swinglehurst et al., 2011).
91
Julia Snell
inevitably involved ovcrsirnplification. This led to some criticisms, as in the following

comment that was posted online:
This article is, to use the author's words, unhelpful and damaging, and is typical ofan aca-
clemic's view. So you are a mtive ofTeessicle and still use the 'problem' words and phrases?
Well that's all well and good, but not everyone can be a lecturer at King's College. Teesside
is amun gst the most deprived areas in the UK and as such most of the kids in school here
today will find their lives defined by trying to get and hold onto jobs. You may find the
words 'Gizit' and 'Yous' to be perfectly acceptable but few employers will agree with you.
I can assure you that the historic use of'you' as a plural of'thou' will be utterly lost on the
small business owner who just wants to find decent staff for the shop floor. I can only pray
that the Carol Walkers [the head teacher of the focal school] of the world are given heed and
that the Russell Group academics poke their heads mto the real world from time to time.
(Tom Carney, comment posted to The Independent website on 10th February 2013)
Moreover, even where we have the space to share linguistic ethnographic analyses in full, we
must recognise that the prirnary concerns of practitionen and members of the public (such as
Tom Carney, quoted above) may be quite different to our own. In the Teesside case, tbe bead
teacher had been motivated by her desire to empower her working-class pupils, helping them to
meet the demands of the National Curriculum (which stresses the importance of acquiring 'Spo-
ken Standard English') in order to facilitate their educational and (later) employment success.
This perceived link between language and fi.1ture employment is echoed m Tom Carney's corn-
ment. Fron1 these perspectives, the linguistic ethnographic view oflanguagc as a social practice
that is intimately connected with the negotiation of social position, relationships and identities
may seem unhelpful at best (and counterproductive at worst). One challenge going frlrward,
then, is to "adapt, complement and mediate linguistic ethnography in ways that are constructive,
have integrity, and are recognised as helpfi_1l practitioners" (Lefstein & Israeli, 2015, p. 205).
A second challenge is to confront the lirnits of this kind of work, Tom Carney's comment
raises the issue of whether and to what extent this kind of research can hope to tackle the
material deprivation that defines the lives of many working-class children. This resonates
with David Block's (2014, 2015) recent critiques of sociolinguistic advocacy. For Block, this
kind of research can have only minimal impact because
advocacy on behalf of working-class forms of speech [... ] shifts the reader away from a
redistribution agenda, which goes to the economic base and the heart of the socioeco-
nomic inequalities generated by capitalism, to a recognition agenda dealing with super-
structural linguistic prejudice.
(2014, p. 104)
He continues with a question and a challenge for those working in this tradition:
[AJ question arises as to what would happen if we could convince the dominant class to
respect working class dialects and not vilify or denigrate them. The question is: \Vhat
would this achieve as regards the n1ateri,i]-based clcprivation and poverty which snves
as the base-line shaper, not only of ways of speaking and communicating in general,
but also of every other index of social class 111 socioeconomically stratified societies? [...)
Sometimes respect is not enough.
(Bfock, 2014, p. 104)
92
Social class
I agree with Block that "respect is not enough" and that \Nork must be done to enable
working-class children to access the n1aterial and cultural resources that are crucial to educa-
tional success (Reay, 2017). Nevertheless, I do think there is scope for linguistic ethnographic
research to have an impact in educational contexts. If we can make our research relevant to
educational practitioners, use it to encourage them to see working-class pupils' speech in new
way, and discourage attempts to ban so-ca.llcd 'non-standard' ways of speaking, then the re-
sult could be a more positive and productive educational experience for sorne working-class
children, who frel empowered (through v:1lidation of their ways ofspeaking) to contribute to
classroom discussion and thus to participate in the dialogue crucial to learning. To the extent
that incrc1sed participation improves educational outcomes for ,vork1ng-dass children (see
e.g. Alexander, 2017), it will also play a role in disrupting the reproduction of class inequal-
ities. And iflinguistic prejudice could be tackled in other gate-keeping encounters too, such
as job interviews, opportunities might open up for these working-class children to exchange
educational success for prestigious occupations, and thus for economic capital.
future directions
It is worth cn1phasising Block's (2015, p. 1(1) wider point (follo\ving Nancy Fraser [Fraser,
1995; Fraser ix Honeth, 2003]) that '\ocial ch,s is a phenomenon and lived experience in-
herent to me quality in capitalism and is therefore related to 111:1 ]distribution rather than
misrecognition or simply a lack of respect for cultural difference". Future linguistic ethno-
graphic research might further consider the extent to which social class in.equalities (based,
fundamentally, on unequal access to economic resources) should be treated differently to in-
equalities based on misrecognition and misrepresentation (which involve identity categories,
like ethnicity, gender and sexuality) (Block & Corona, 2014). It should also consider the ways
in which these different types of inequality may overlap. As Rampton and Madsen's research
makes clear, an 'intersectional approach' (Crenshaw, 1991) is crucial to understanding how
young people are positioned in multi-ethnic communities.
Summary
This chapter has tracked a transition in sociolinguistic work on language and social class:
from research that has focussed on language as an index of class position to research that has
investigated how meanings related to class manifest themselves in and through language.
Central to this transition has been the introduction of ethnography. This has enabled re-
searchers to pick up on the multiple ways that class reveals itself in the day-to-day lives of
ordinary people (Rampton, 2010b). Linguisti,; ethnographers have used micro-analyses of
interaction to extend the ethnography into muller and more focussed spaces, drawing ana-
lytic attention to small (but consequential) aspects of social practice. In paniculn, th.is kind
ob nalysis has sh<cd light on speakers' which, like other clements of performance,
put the act of speaking on display, opcni ng it up for public scrutiny (Bauman & Briggs, 2009;
Coupland, 2009). The children's stylisations in Teesside put on display important clements
oflocal working-class culture (and potentially of working-class culture more generally). The
adolescents' stylisations in Rampton and Madsen's studies spotlighted evaluative differences
that would normally go unnoticed in everyday activity, and in doing so, drew attention to
social inequalities embedded in the intersection between class and ethnicity. This chapter
has suggested that linguistic ethnographic work on class may have practical relevance, espe-
cially in cacklmg social disadvantage and discrimination, but challenges lie ahead if we are
93
Julia Snell
to convince practitioners, members of the public and even other researchers that the findings
and analyses oflinguistic ethnography have currency in the real world (see Rampton ct al.,
2015, pp ..'17~44 for more on the contestation that often ariso in interactions betvvcen lin-
guistic ethnography and non-academic professions),
Further reading
Block. D. (2014). Social cfoss in Applied Lin2uistics. Abingdon: Routledge. (This book begins with an
in-depth theoretical discusswn of how class as a construct has evolved from the classic work ofKarl
Marx and Max Weber to more recent accounls by sociologists sucb :is Mike S,ivage. It goes on to
explore the extent to which clas, has been a central constrnct in applied- and sociolinguistics, mul-
tilingualism and second-language learning research.)
Rampton, B. (200fi). La11gu,1ge in late ,nodernity: lntcrnction in an urban scl1ool. Cambridge: Cambridge
Universtty Press. (lt is impossible to do justice: to Rampton's theoretical position on social class or
to his nieticulous intcractional ;m,ilyses in this short clupter. Readers ,1re directed to the monograph
where both are treated in much more detail (see also Rampton, 1995).)
Snell, J. (2015). Linguistic ethnographic perspectives on working-class children's speech: Challenging
discourse, of deficit. InJ. Snell, F. Copland, & S. Shaw (Eds.), Li11,~11i.1tic et/in,,~raphy: Interdisciplinary
cxplorat/(,11, (pp. 224 245). London: Palgran'. (This chapter gives a more dctailcd account of what
a linguistic ethnographic approach might be able to add to the long tradition of soc.iolingnistic
advocacy in educational contexts.)
Related topics
Interactional sociolinguistics; Style and stylisation; Youth language; Mixing methods? Linguistic eth-
nography :md language variation.
References
Agha, A. ('.'007). Langu,\~C and soci,1/ relations. Can1bridge: Ca1nbridg,· University Press.
l\lexander, R. (2017). Developing dialogic teaching: Process, trial, outcomes. Paper presented at the
1.7th Biennial EARLI Conference, Tampere, Finland, 31 August 2017.
Atkins, S C. Roberts, L. Hawthorne, & Greenhalgh, T. (2016). Simulated consultations: A sociolin-
guistic perspective. B;WC Medirnl Education, '16(16), 1- 9.
Bauman, R ., &. Briggs, C. (2009). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and
sooal life. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), 'J he new socioli11g11istics reader (pp. 607-614). Hound-
mills: Palgravc Macmillan.
BdL A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Lang11,1gc dnd Society, 13, 145-204.
Bezemer, J. (2015). Partnerships in research: Doing linguistic ethnography with and for practi-
tioners. In J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic et/,nography: Interdisciplinary explorations
(pp. 207--224). Basingstoke: Palgravc Macmillan.
Ben:mer, J., Cope, A., Korkiakangas, T., J<:ress, G., Murtagh, G., V/eldon, S.-M., & Knccbone,
n... (2016). Microanalysis of ndco from the operating room: i\n underused approach to patient
safety research. BM] Qu,ility & S,ifety. doi:l0.l136/bmjqs-2016-00581fi
Block, D. (2014). Social class in Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Block, D. (2015). Social cbss in Applied Linguistics. Am111<1l Review o{, Jpplied Li11guistics, 35, 1-19.
0
Block, D., & Corona, V. (2014). Exploring cbss--hased intersectionality. Langu,,ge, Culture dnd Curric-
u/11111, 27, 27--42.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory ofpr,1ctice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pre,s.
Bourdieu, P. (1'.!84). J.>istinction. London: Routled,je.
Bourdieu, P. (l'>91). L,u1__,;11age and sy111bolic p01ver. Cambridge: Polity Prc,s.
Cameron, D. (1990). Demythologizing sociolinguistics: \X/hy language docs not reflect society. In
J.E. Josepb & T J Taylor (Eds.), Ideologies of lauguage (pp. 79-93). London: Routledge.
Cheshire, J (I 982). V,11i,11ion in a11 E11xlish dialed. Cambridge: Cambridge Uniwrsil y Press.
Coupland, N. C~00l). Dialect stylisation in radio talk. L,111gu,1ge in S,,cict)'. 30, 345 375.
94
Social class
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, N. (2009). Dialect style, social class and metacultural performance: The pantomime dame.
In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 311-325). Houndmills:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: lntersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
women of color. St,inford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
Dodsworth, R. (2010). Social class. In P. Kerswill, B. Johnstone, & R. Wodak (Eds.), The Sage handbook
<if sociolinguistics (pp. 192-207). London: Sage.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the High School. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction <if identity at Belten High.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Eckert, P. (2009). Ethnography and the study of variation. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), The
new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 136-151). New York: Palgrove Macmillan.
Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolin-
guistic variation. Annual Review ofAnthropology, 41, 87-100.
Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas ofjustice in a 'post socialist' age. New
Left Review, 212, 68-93.
Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political-pllilosophical exchange. London:
Verso.
Gross, M. (2010). So why can't they read? London: Centre for Policy Studies.
Gumperz,J. (1999). On interactional sociolinguistics. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and
institutional order (pp. 453-471). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Harris, S. (2012). The only way is elocution: Pupils in Essex being taught to talk proper! The Daily
Mail, January 28th 2012. Available from www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092732/Essex-
primary-school-gives-pupils-elocution-lessons-stop-sounding-like-TOWIE.html (Accessed 20th
September 2017).
Jaspers, J. (2011). Strange bedfellows: Appropriations ofa tainted urban dialect. Journal <if Sociolinguistics,
15(4), 493-524.
Kirkham, S. (2015). Intersectionality and the social meanings of variation: Class, ethnicity, and social
practice. Language in Society, 44, 629-652.
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W. (1969). The logic of non-standard English. Georgetown Monograph on Languages and Linguis-
tics, 22, 1-44.
Labov, W. (2001). (reissued with new preface 2010). Principles of language change Volume 2: Social factors.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Lave,]., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Professional vision and the politics of teacher learning. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 27, 505-514.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue.
London: Routledge.
Macaulay, R. (1977). Language, social class, and education: A Glasgow study. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Madsen, L. M. (2016a). Social status relations and enregistennent: Integrated speech in Copenhagen.
In K. Arnaut, M. Karreb~k, M. Spotti, & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Engaging superdiversity: Recombining
spaces, times and language practices (pp. 147-169). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Madsen, L. M. (2016b). Investigating a register label: Integrated speech in Copenhagen. In A. Agha &
M. Frog (Eds.), Registers <if communication (pp. 124-137). Helsinki: Studia Fennica Linguistica ..
Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique <ifpolitical economy, Vol 1. New York: Vintage Books. (Original work
published 1867).
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Milroy, L., & Milroy, J. (1992). Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic
model. Language in Society, 21(1), 1-26.
Moore, E. (2010). The Interaction between social category and social practice: Explaining was/were
variation. Language Variation and Change, 22, 347-371.
95
Julia Snell
Moore, E. (1012). Tilt· suci,tl life of style. La11guc.1gc ,1111/ Lircr,lfltre, 21, 66-83.
Moore, E., &. SndL J. (2011). 'Oh, they're top. thern': Right dislocated tags and i11teracti01ul stance.
Studies in Lm~11,,Qc r:u i,rtion, Proceedings Jron, JCL1 T·r, 5 lpp. 97-110). Amster,bm: John Benjamins.
Rampton, B. (19'!5) Language and et/111irity ,1111,>ng "dolescents. New York: L ungm.w.
Rampton, 13. (20U'.\) Hegemony, social class and stvlis:1tiou. Pmgmatics, 13(1), 4')·-83.
Rampton, 11. (2(1(1/i). L1nguage in late moderni1y: Jnrc1,1c1io11 i11 an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rampton, B. (2010a). Social class and sociolinguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 1, 1-22.
Rampton, B. (2010b). Crossing into class: Language, ethnicities and class sensibility in England. In
C. Llamas & D. Watt (Eds.), Langzrnge and identities (pp. 134-143). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Rampton, B. (2011a). Style contrasts, migration and social class. Jo1mwl of Pragmatics. 43, 1236-1250.
Rampton, B. (2011b). Luiguage, social categoric, :u,d intcLKtion. vVorking Papw i11 Urlun Lan{!11c1ge and
Literacies 75, Ki n,/s College London.
Rampton, B. (2/Jllc). From 'Multi-ethnic adolc,crnt hctcrnglossia' to 'Contemror:iry mban vernacu-
lars'. Lan~11r1~c b C,,1nn111nication, 31(4), 276 _:>9.\.
Rampton, B., J\!L1ybin, J. & Roberts, C. (2nJ 5). Methodolcgical foundations in lingu1stic ethnog-
raphy. In ,I. Snell, S Sl1aw, & F. Copland (f,ds ). U11g11istic ethnography: Interdisoj,lii!ary c.,plorations
(pp. 14 50). London: Palgrave.
Reay, D. (2017). Miseducatiou: 111cquality, education and the cl,1sses. Bristol: Policy Press.
Reid, E. (l 978). Social and stylistic variation in the speech of children: Some evidence from Edinburgh.
In P. Trudgill (Ed.), Sociolit1g11istic pc1tterns in, British IJnglish (pp. 158-171). London: Edward ArnoM.
Rickford,J. R. (1986). The need for new ,1pproaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics.Jo111nal
of Communication, 6, 215-221.
Roberts, C. Sarangi, S., Southgate, l., Wakeford. R. .. & Vass, \V (2000). Oral examinations - egual
opportunities, l'lhnicity and fairness in thsc MJZCC.P /Jrirish Medical journal, 320, 37,J,-J7-+
Romaine, S. (l9f\!I). The status of sociological models .md utegories in explaining lingnistic variation.
Linguist/s,/1c Buic/1rc. 90, 25-38.
Savage, M., Devine, t' .. Cunningham, N., M .. Li, Y., Hjellbrekke, J, Le Roux, B.,
Friedmcin, S., & JVliles, A. (2013). A new model of social class: Findings from the BBC\ great
British cl,1ss surwy n:periment. Sociolog)-, '.'19 2.'iCI.
Skcggs, R. (2004). Class, self culture. London: Routledge.
Snell, J. (2009). Pronouns, dic1/ect c1nd discourse: A socio-pragrnatir arwu11t of children's language in tecssidc.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Leeds.
Snell, J. (2010). From sociolinguistic variation to socially strategic stylisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics,
14, 618-644.
Snell, J. (2013a). Saying no to 'gizit' is plain prejudice: A war on dialect will quash curiosity and ideas,
The Indq'fndc111, 10th February 2013. Available from w11w.independent.co uk/voices/com1nent/
saying-no,.to-gizit-is-plain-prejudice-8488Y58.htm1 (Accessed 7th October 2017).
Snell, J. (2UUb). Dicilect, interaction and class positioning ar school: From deficir w different to reper-
toire. Lm,\·11,r;i:c ,md Education, 27(2), 110-128.
Snell, J. (21115). L ingu is tic ethnographic perspcct:i ,cs on working-class children's spc·ech: Challenging
discourses ofclcricir. In J. Snell, F. Copland, & S Sh:rn· (Eds.), Linguistic ethn,'.<;r,1pl1y.· In1crdisciplinary
(pp. 225-245). London: Palgrave.
Snell, J., Shaw, $., & Cop.land, f. (Eds.) (2015). Lingui.stic eth11ogr,1phy: lmerdisciplinary exploratio11s.
London: Palgrave.
Swinglehurst, D., Roberts, C., & Greenhalgh, T (2011), Opening up the 'bl:ick box' of the electronic
patient record: A linguistic ethnographic study in general practice. Co111mu11ication and lvf.e1.lici11e,
8(1), 3 16.
Trudgill, P. (1'!74). The social differentiation of En;;lU1 i11 '-,,,n,·ich. Cambridge: University
Press.
Wolfram, W. (I<)(,')). , J s,,riolinguistic description o( Detroit :'-iei;ro speech. Washington. DC:" Center for
Applied Linguistics.
96
8
Heteroglossia
Adrian Blackledge and Angela Creese
Introduction
In this chapter we propose an approach to the investigation of social life which acknowl-
edges and engages with the changing nature of superdiverse societies. We will argue that
linguistic ethnography is particularly well equipped to contribute to the generation of
knowledge about social diversity when it is deployed in conjunction with the notion of
'heteroglossia'. Heteroglossia, a term developed from the work of Russian literary scholar
and language philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin, refers to the simultaneous use of different
kinds of forms or signs, and the tensions and conflicts among those signs (Bailey, 2012).
As we will see, Bakhtin's notion of heteroglossia also gives us analytical purchase on the
notions of'indexicality'. Following this briefintroduction we will review historical move-
ment in thinking about linguistic diversity, summarising recent scholarship on 'translan-
guaging' and 'heteroglossia'. We will situate these terms in relation to emergent thought
which refers to language and 'superdiversity'. We will illustrate key points in the discussion
with reference to an example from a multi-site linguistic ethnography conducted across
four cities in the UK. We will suggest some implications of a focus on heteroglossia in our
investigations of complex societies, and we will propose future directions in this research
programme.
During the last three decades or so there has been a burgeoning interest in multilingualism
and multilingual literacies, and also in the ways in which multilingualism is represented in
the media and in public discourse (Martin-Jones et al., 2012). Even more recently there has
been increasing interest in multilingual practices in social media and other online and digital
communication. This sociolinguistic approach to multilingualism has been characterised by
studies of communication across languages in, inter alia, educational settings, work places,
civic institutions, religious gatherings, domestic environments and neighbourhoods. Many
of these studies adopted a linguistic ethnography approach to data collection, analysis and
· knowledge generation, developing an interpretive approach to study the local and immediate
97
actions 0L1ctor;, fron1 their point of view, and considenng ho\v these interactions are embed-
ded in wider social contexts and structures (Copland & Creese,
f-ldler to multilingu ahsm that n1oves away
fi:om an ideologised view of linguistic systems to a more critical approach that
situates poctices in social and political contexts, and "privileges language as social
practice, speakers as social actors, and boundari<:s ;1s products of soci;il action". Heller and
Duchfne p. 11) argue that rather than accepting ideological positions in which there
is competition over languages, "perhaps we should be asking instead who benefits and who
loses from understanding Lrnguagcs the way \VC do, and what is at stake for whom, and how
:md why language serves as a terrain J:or cornpctition''.
Sociolinguistic sLudy of multilingualism has moved aw;iy from a vinv of languages as
separate, bounded entities, to a view of communicat10n in v,·luch language users employ
whatever linguistic features arc at their disposal to achieve their con1nnmicative aims as
best they crn ct al., 2011). Ivlakoni and Pcnnycook argue for a11 understanding of
the rebtiomhips hctween what people believe about their language (or other people\ Jan-
the situated forms of talk they deploy and the material effects social, economic,
environmental ofsuch views and use p. 22). Me,ming-rrldking is not confined to the
use of'langu;igcs' as discrete, e1mmerc1blc, bounded sets resources. Rather, signs
are available in communicative repertoires (Rymes, which extend across 'languc1ges'
and vaneties vvhich have hitherto been associated -with particular national, territorial and
social groups. ·rhus, bnguage is ,1 soci,11 resource withont cle;ir boundaries, ,vhich places the
speaker at the heart of the rnteraction.
Blomrnacrt and Varis argue for a recognition that the contemporary semiotics
of culture ,rnd identity need to be captured in terms of cornplexity rather than in terms of
multiplicity or plurality. That is, whereas a perspective retains the borders between
socially constructed such as languages and cultures, and examines them in contact,
a complexity perspective vicvvs the 1u1finished and tcnt;1tive, non-linear aspects
of social and cultural life not as peripheral and exceptional, but as norrnal features of life
(Blommaert, 2013). Hailey (2012) engages with the lirn itations of an approach lo analysis of
linguistic diversity which emphasises code switching, arguing that a focus on linguistic fea-
tures tl-ut are officially n1thorised codes or Lrnguages, e.g. 'English' or 'Spanish', can contrib-
ute to neglect of the c!i versil y of socially indexical resources within languages. Bailey points
out that if the starting- point is social meanings, rather than the code or language in use, it
is not centr;il whether a speaker rs switching languages, alternating between a dialect and a
national standard, register shifi.ing or speaking monolingually in a variety that liighlights
language contact. Language, \vhether monolingual or multilingual, carries social meanings
through phonological-, lexical-, grarnmatical- ;ind discourse-level fonns: "these fi_1nns index
various aspects of individuals' and comrnumtics' social histories, circumstances, and identi-
ties" (I:lJilcy, 2012, p. Cauagar;~ah and Liyanage (2012) l1Jve noted that even so--called
·monolinguals' shuttle between codes, and discourses, and therefore monolingual
seems hardly to be ;m ,1dequate description. Just .1s the traditional distinction between lan-
guages is no sustainable, so the distinction between 'monolmgual', 'bilingual' and
"multilingual' speakers may no longer be so.

The \vays people use language lo comrnunicatc arc This has prornpted a rcthin k-
ing of the traditional concepts and rnethodologKs of Frna cc 2017).
98
Heteroglossia
Recently sociolinguists have turned to Bakhtin's term 'heteroglossia' to better understand

the diversity of linguistic practice in late modern societies (Blackledge & Creese, 2014).
Madsen (2014) notes that as a cover term for linguistic diversity, heteroglossia "describes how
language use involves various socio-ideological languages, codes, and voices", Bakhtin was
concerned to explain how language varieties and nonstandard dialects are shaped by social,
historical and political influences, and he developed the notion of'heteroglmsia' to describe
and theorise tl1e existence of and relationship between different language varieties.
1-leteroglossia as a theoretical term re/kcts the mobility and flux which is oftc•n said to be
characteristic of the late modern age. Bakhtin argued that language in use and in action rep-
resents "specific points of view on the vmdd, fr,rms for conceptualizing the world in words,
specific world views, each characterized by its own objects, meanings and values" (1981,
p. 291). That is, language points to, or 'indexes' a certain point of view, ideology, social class,
profession or other social position. Bakhtin saw that
language is stratified not only into linguistic dialects in the strictest sense of the word,
but also and for us this is the essential point - into languages that arc socio-ideological:
languages of social groups, 'profess10nal' and 'generic' languages, languages of genera-
tions and so tt)rth,
(1981, p. 271)
For R1khtin (1986), stratification and diversity within a language derive from its social na-
ture, reflecting the social and ideological differentiation in society, Bakhtin is less interested
in how different language-forms (languages and dialects) vary according to their linguistic
features than in the stratification of a common language (Lihteenmaki, 2010). Heteroglos-
sia is not only - in fact not principally - about the simultaneous use of 'languages', but
rather refers to the co-existence of different competing ideological points of view, whether
constituted in a single national 'language' (as Dakhtin proposed), or within the complex
communicative repertoires in play in superdiverse, late modern societies.
The use of certain words in a certciin \vay indexes some social position(s) because these
words arc characteristically used by members of:1 certain group: «A vo.1ce .is a social position
from the stratified world, as presupposed by stratified language" (Wortham, 2001, p, 50). In
this way, speakers inevitably position themselves with respect to others, making indexical as-
sociations and meta-level enluations, Bakhtin noticed that whole utterances and individual
words may repeat the words of others in a way that re-accents and changes them, "ironic;11ly,
indignantly, reverently, and so forth", and, in particular, "intonation is especially sensitive
and always points beyond the context" (1986, p. 91). By re-accenting others' voices, narrators
and ordinary speakers establish positions for themselves (Wortham, 200]). Analytic attention
to each type of dialogic speech has a role in understanding language in me and in action in
late 1.nodcrn societies,
For J3akhtin. language is "a process tccrning with future and fr,nner languages" (1981,
pp, Not the least of aspects of the historical context oflanguages and varieties are
their hierarchisation and indexical/ideological associations. Bakhtin pointed to the dialogic
nature of the word, which "lies on the borderline between oneself and the other. The word
in language is half someone else's" (1981, p. 293). Hall et al. (2005, p, 2) argue that for
Bakhtin the utterance is always a two-sided act: "In the moment of its use, at one and the
same time, it responds to what precedes it and anticipates what is to come." Bakhtin referred
. to dialogic discourse as the meaning-making process by which the historical, the present and
the future come together in an utter.1.nce.
99
In sunm1,iry, tlie application of Bakhtin's literary theory to linguistic ethnographic re-

search reminds us to take as our focus not . but speakers as sou,11 actors in the
social world. Bakhtin's theory also
encourages m to interpret the meanings of talk in terms of the social worlds, past and
present, of which words are part-and-parcel, rather than in terms of formal systems, such
as 'languages', that can veil actual speakers, uses, and contexts.
(Bailey, 2012, p. 502)
We propose an analytic perspective which takes lmgmstic diversity to be constitutive of, and
constituted by, suci,il diversity.
Current and recent research

In recent times socul and linguistic diversity 1n Europe (and elsewhere) !us incre:1sed. Clobal
change has meant that there has been a considerable increase in the catcgoriecs of migrants
arriving in European cities in particular, not only in terms of nationality, ethnicity and
language, but also in relation to patterns of migration, social mobility, educational quali-
fications, employment histories and so on (Blonunaert & Rampton, 2016). In addition, \'Ve
have seen the rapid developmenL of new media and technolog1e:, of information circulation.
Technological advancement and global connectedness have contributed to diversity as they
intensify conLtct ,ind e;,;_change between peoples who a i-e often spatially distant ancl culturally
distinct from 01ie another, such that contact Jnd interaction (physical and virtual) between
diverse peoples, Lrnguages, cultural model,, media and practices are the nu11n (De Fina
et al., 2017).
Our cities have hecume more complex as people (and their resources) have become more
mobile, and less predictable. We propose that a 'superdiversity' focus enables researchers to
engage with, and better understand, the complexity and mobility of social life. A superdiver-
sity lens explicitly acknowledges the heterogeneity of the biographies and trajectories in play
as people come into contact in everyday encounters. This post'\tructuralist approach also pays
close attention to structures and categories which may be the site of discriminatory discourses
and practice,. C}u nge, in the scale, pace and scope of mobility have inevitably changed the
way we communicate, ,md the way we understand communication (Karrdxl'k et al., 2016).
Rather than thinking about speakers cornmurncating in 'languages' winch are indelibly
linked to 'natiom', we observe that they "transLrnguagt:' (Garcia & Wei, 2014), making the
best of the available semiotic resources in their communicative repertoire,. Tramlanguaging
1s thus d creative process, and has the potential to be a transformative process, as the nature
of an interaction may change through the deployment of genres, registers and communi-
cative resources which enable civility towards diversity (Lofland, 1998) and conviviality
(Gilroy, 2006).
Dlommaert and Rampton (2016, p. 24) point out that there has been a relatively recent
shift in the way ,d10Ln, Lhink about langu:,ges, langu,{ge groups and commtm1cation. n. ather
than assuming lwmogcneity, stability and boundedness of languages, mobility, mixing,
political dy11anncs and historical embeddmg :ti-e central concerns. Blommant and Rampton
(2016) propose tw\, Lncks for the study of and superdiversity, one that adds lin-
guistic ethnography a, a supplementary to other kinds of study, and ,mother
that takes language and communication as central topics. They point to the importance of
keeping in view the 'total linguistic fact', which Silverstein (1985, p. 220) summarises as
100
Heteroglossia
"an unstable mutual interaction of meaningful sign forms, contextualised to situations of

interested human use and mediated by the fact of cultural ideology". (See also Rampton, this
volume.) Blommaert and Rampton (2016, p. 37) add that attention to the total linguistic fact
is grounded in "a basic commitment to ethnographic description of the who, what, where,
when, how, and why of semiotic practice". Despite the need to situate complex elements of
communicative practice in wider scales and hierarchies of social diversity, understanding
communication in superdiverse spaces "still requires close ethnographic observation to un-
derstand how the elements are related and sustained" (Blommaert & Rampton, 2016, p. 39).
Our approach to linguistic ethnography investigates the construction and robustness of
social categories, as far as possible moving away from reifications and essentialisations about
languages, dialects, ethnicities and cultures in investigating communication in social life
(Copland & Creese, 2015). Linguistic ethnographers pay attention to the linguistic sign in
order to link historical, social, political and cultural structures. Such an approach returns us
to Bakhtin's thinking about heteroglossia, and the indexical, dialogic nature of language.
Bakhtin, like the linguistic ethnographer, was concerned with the interpretation of the sign
(in Bakhtin's terms, the 'word') in its social (or literary) context, to understand its relevance
in ongoing communicative activity and situated social action. In the next section we look
at a short empirical example of communicative activity, and consider how Bakhtin's analysis
may amplify our understanding of its relevance to the social world.
An example from research

In this section we present an example of a 'zone of encounter' which is one of hundreds
examined in a large, multi-site research project, Translation and Translanguaging. Investigating
Linguistic and Cultural Transformations in Superdiverse Wards in Four UK Cities (AHRC AH/
L007096/1). The linguistic ethnography investigated how people communicate when they
bring into interaction different histories, biographies and repertoires. The research ran
simultaneously across four cities in the UK: Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and London. In
this chapter we present a single example from the research conducted in Birmingham.
The research project was a multi-site linguistic ethnography. Over the four-year project
the research team identified 16 research sites, four in each city, for detailed investigation.
Through linguistic ethnography the research sought to make explicit what people often take
for granted, making accessible new ways of understanding. The research developed a linguis-
tic ethnography approach which relied on learning from key participants, with whom the
researchers were closely involved. The research team set out not to inform, but rather to forge
a "partnership of equals" (Blommaert, 2010, p. 5). This was earned through the researchers'
investment and involvement in the field. Hymes (1980, p. 105) proposed that ethnography is
the "most open, the most compatible with a democratic way oflife, the least likely to produce
a world in which experts control knowledge at the expense of those who are studied". Blom-
maert (2010, p. 5) argues that ethnographers attempt to counter and transform existing social
orders through flattening the relationship between researcher and researched. He suggests
that there is a reward to be gained from being a good agent, "an agent of improvement, not
of continued or exacerbated oppression and exclusion" (Blommaert, 2010, p. 5). This was the
approach developed by the research team.
In the Translation and Translanguaging project a team of researchers in each of the four
cities identified research sites for linguistic ethnographic study. They were interested in
meeting-places where communicative practice was observable. The research sites were sit-
uated in 'superdiverse' wards, and were selected as public points where people came into
101
contact Viith each other. Across the four cities n'scarcl1 sites were united thematically. That
is, in order to ensure ;J coherence to the over:111 design of the and Jlso to ensure a
diverse spread of rese,1rch the research Learn \vorked simuluncously
across SJtes which were thematically related. In the first fonr-1nontli block of ethnographic
'business· were 1n the second hlocl sites; in the
third, cumrnun1ty sport and in the final period of four rnonths, advice ,ind wel-
fare advocacy sites. Overall the 1(> research included market stalls and corner shops,
libnries and comrm1nJty centres, brnte and football clubs. ancl and welfare
benefits ad vice Cell rres.
The research team was interested in all fcmns 0Ccornmu111caLiun ll1 these sites. However,
linguistic ethnography in supcrdiverse 1s on the research team having at
its the linguistic resources Lo MHI U-,rnsbte the comnnmiotive repertoires
oJ The 2011 Census (ONS 2012) .isked Ul( residents to nan1e their most
language other than English. The results uf the Census thus revealed
the spokcn rnost \Yidely in city wards. Tlli'., information led to dec1--
sions about the sclcct.io11 of" participants. In London of varieties of Polish \Vcte
in eJch plL1se of the re,e,irch: in C,ndrff spc1kers oC vaneties of
oC vaneties of Czech, Slovak, Ron1cmi ,rnd Portuguese; and in
Birn11ngharn of varieues of Chinese including NLtndarin, Cantonese,
l--lokkien and l·-lakka. !11 e,1ch nty researchers whose linguistic resources enabled
then1 to participate, interprd and translate in these were rt'crnitecl as field
workers and
ln each of the research sites researchers conducted ck,,e ;1nd observations of
corn rnun icative over c1 of four lll(mlhs. In each case al least two researchers
were involved. ,note field notes of then aucho recorded and video
recorded partiopanrs. collected social media and other onlrne and digital comnmnica-
tion, interviewed took relevant clocurnentary material
and asked key p,nticipams lo audio-record themselves in domestic ,md/or leisure settings.
The exan1pk \Ve present here is one interaction among many observed in the Birmingham
research. The first phase of the Binninghan1-h1,ed research was done in the Hull Ring
Indoor Market, focussing on a butcher's stall. Tbe participants were stall-holders Kang
Chen and his partner in lite as well as business, Chnv.
In this imcciction Chen (KC) and the proprietor of a fish stall (F1\1)
engage in conversation about the fact Lhat thev are both short of staff. The fishmon-
ger told us that his parents had from Pakistan to the UK over 40 years ago. He spoke
with a pronounced Birminghan1 ;1cccnt. One of the as,istant butchers at the butcher's stall
('Mike', a white British frmn Birrmngharn) had left his position as Kang
Chen's employee. Also present are the long-standing assistant bll[cher at the butcher's stall,
Bradley (BJ) and Meiycn Chevv them K,rng Chen and the fishrnonger are
rn market-phce banter.. l.o each other from then on their stalls.
KC s,1y say sav now vou no staff nute

2 Fl'vl where'd all your staff
3 KC: they \vant
4 FM you sacked ,1m ain't he sacked en1 he said I'.m don't ,vorry I take them on I
'i qck them as well
6 KC no he s<Jck me no rm sc1ck lrnn
7 FM [to BJ! wl1c1t k1ppened to him;
102
Heteroglossia
8 BJ what, Mike? He got another job

9 FM have they?
10 KC yea he just want do properly English meat butcher, you know, he don't want do
11 like intestine YAA YAA
12 FM what d'you mean fuckin (xxx) butcher? I do butcher mate you do everything you
13 do fuckin intestines whatever come you have to do it
14 KC yea
15 FM see [pointing to BJ:] he's a he is a different white man
16 MC he's an Asian man
17 KC hehehe
18 FM he's a bit of Chinese bit of Asian everything he don't mind
19 KC he don't mind hehehe
20 BJ (xxx) as long as I put a smile on your face
Each participant enters the social interaction carrying an already established biography of
prior dealings with the other participants (Goffman 1963, 1983). The participants already
know each other, and they also know the linguistic repertoire of the workspace of the market
hall (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015). Teasing and banter are de rigeur, the vernacular is frequently
deployed, and also in play are norms, regularities and expectations which will be commented
upon if they are transgressed. Kang Chen points out to his neighbour the fishmonger that he
has no staff at the moment. He addresses his colleague as 'mate', creating a convivial access
ritual which introduces the interaction. The fishmonger responds reciprocally, repeating the
sense ofKang Chen's comment but turning it into a question. In so doing he ratifies the 'state
of talk' (Goffman, 1967, p. 34) - that is, both men declare themselves open to one another
for purposes of spoken communication, and guarantee to maintain a flow of words. Both
participants speak in raised tones, indexing ironic teasing. They are aufait with the discourse
of stall-holders in the market-place. Both men expect the interaction to proceed through
mockery and banter. Such perfunctory, brief 'contact rituals' (Goffman, 1983, p. 10) occur
frequently in the market.
Kang Chen attempts to respond to the fishmonger (1. 3) but is interrupted by the trader's
louder voice. The fishmonger gets into his stride now, teasing Kang Chen for being the kind
of employer who mercilessly sacks his work force. In doing so the fishmonger adopts three
discursive strategies in quick succession: a direct question ("you sacked em ain't you?"), a
statement to no one in particular, but in the hearing of Meiyen Chew and Bradley ("he
sacked em"), and a small story which deploys reported speech ("he said I'm don't worry I
take them on I sack them as well"). In an "artistic representation" (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 347) of
Kang Chen's supposed discourse, the fishmonger ventriloquates the voice of the butcher in
a fictionalised account of the events that led to Kang Chen losing his assistant. He attributes
direct speech to the butcher, all the time maintaining his smiling, teasing voice.
The fishmonger deploys double-voiced discourse. Bakhtin (1984) stated that double-voiced
discourse was the chief subject of his investigation oflanguage, its chief hero. Double-voiced
discourse is directed both to the referential object of speech and towards another's discourse,
towards someone else's speech. It includes all types of discourse that speak with more than
one voice: irony, satire, parody, mockery, stylisation and so on. Here the fishmonger gently
mocks the butcher, apparently critical ofKang Chen's skills in personnel management, while
at the same time creating a context for humour. Volosinov (1973, p. 119) demonstrated that
_the context in which speech is reported is key to an understanding of reported speech, and
proposed that "between the reported speech and the reporting context, dynamic relations of
103
high complexity and tension are in force". That is, the context in which the story is narrated
is as important as the narrated story in shaping the narrative. In the case here, the speech
reported by the fishmonger and attributed to Kang Chen ("don't worry I take them on I sack
them as well") is shaped by the normative orders of discourse of the market hall. Teasing,
banter and mock-hostility belong to the spatial repertoire of the market. Volosinov (1973,
p. 119) suggests that a failure to take into c1ccount the relations between the reported speech
and the reporting coJ1text makes it impo»ibk to understand any form of reported speech.
At line 6 ICrng Chen responds with banter of his own, saying "no he sack me uo I'm
sack him .., defending lus position while also entering into the convivial ,port. f-le argues
that he did not sack the staff member, who left of his own accord. The fishmonger turns
to the butcher's other assistant, Bradley, for confirmation (I. 7). Bradley is a local man from
Birmingham, and he confirms Kang Chen's story. Kang Chen picks up the story once
Bradley has ratified his account, saying "he just want do properly English meat butcher, you
know, he don't want do like intestine YAA YAA''. Kang Chen represents the voice of the
departed assistant butcher indirectly, reporting what he wanted from the job, and what he
did not want. Herc 'intestine' is an indexical: on a nnmber of occasions in our observations,
and in the butchers' n:1rratives, it was clear that the pig's intestine was particularly as,ociated
with Chine,e and other South Asian customers, and their presupposed t,1stcs. Indeed it had
become :1 niche product for these stall-holders when they initially set up their business, and
had become contested ,vhen they were told by ht':ilth officials that they \Vere no longer al-
lowed to sell one type uf pig's intestine, except ,1s dog food. Kang Chen adds to his narrative
the directly reported voice of his former assistant: "YAA YAA''. This direct speech is voiced
m a louder, more stylised tone than the indirectly represented voice. It is generalised, and
almost certainly an inaccurate representation of the assistant butcher (whom we observed at
the stall on a number of occasions, and, although he frequently sang, we did not hear him
give voice in the way represented by Kang Chen). Kang Chen's re--accented ventriloquation
of the bL1tcber's voice, "YAA YAA'', is a symbolic representation of negative complaining,
and of closed-mindedness. It is the voice of the 'English meat butcher'.
The fishmonger immediately picks up Kang Chen's argument and elaborat<cs upon it,
offering negative evaluation of the resigned assistant ,1s he does so (11. 12-P,). No longer teas-
ing, he shifts register to an emphatic statement of his expectations of a butcher in the market,
deploying the vernacular to emphasise his point. For this fishmonger there is no place on
the market-stall for workers who refuse to "do fuckin intestines", picking up Kang Chen's
reference to the emblematic offal. In supporting Kang Chen's point the fishmonger overlaps
with hi1n, and inhabits the same ground (Rymes, 2014). Stepping outside of his initial foray
into the comedic genre, the fishmonger is no less convivial for that. In a serious moment he
supports the argu.ment of his colleague, even though he frequently disagrees with him in
moments of non-serious discourse.
At line 15 the fishmonger repositions his role a, comic, but pursues th<c argument that
butchers shou Id not be fussy about which parts of die animal they arc required to handle,
pointing to the long-stcmding assistant butcher. Bradley, and citing him as ,1 model ,:xample:
"he is a different white man." For the fishmonger Bradley is the opposite of the assistant
who could not handle the intestines. He is different from the departed Mike, but also differ-
ent from other white men. Mciyen Chew, listening all this time, expands the fishmonger's
point: "he's an Asian man." As Kang Chen laughs loudly the fishmonger reciprocates, :rnd
amplifies, saying, "he's a bit of Chinese, bit of Asian, everything, he don't mind". The three
interactants attribute to Bradley an eth1rn:ity (-11Hl, perhaps, race and nat10nality) which are
based on his behaviour at work, Undoubtedly 'a whire man' in appearance, Br:idley becomes
104
Heteroglossia
an honorary Chinese and Asian in this moment. Although a joke, this also appears to be
a compliment, coming from a Chinese Malaysian woman and a British Asian man (in the
UK the term 'Asian' typically refers to people with family heritage in India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh, rather than China, Malaysia, etc.). How do we read the group's invocation of the
social categories 'white', 'Asian' and 'Chinese' here? They are stereotypes, certainly, deployed
as resources (Reyes, 2004, 2006) for both social commentary and convivial communication.
But they are stereotypes filled with tension, indexical of cultural practices, at one with as-
sumptions about social categorisation and at the same time critical of such assumptions. Just
as the iteration of social categories shores up their borders, so the second voice-within-the-
voice blows the borders apart. Now it appears to be possible to be 'white' in different ways;
possible to be 'Chinese' through practice rather than through race, ethnicity or national
belonging; and possible to be 'white', 'Asian' and 'Chinese' at the same time. In this everyday
interaction in a city centre market hall the big categories with which social structures are
often organised begin to dissolve.
Kang Chen, still laughing at the entertainment provided by his neighbour and his wife,
repeats the fishmonger's phrase, "he don't mind". Kang Chen frequently repeated the words
of those who joked with him, perhaps as a way of allowing him to join in with the banter
without the need to contribute anything original, and perhaps as a communicative overlap
with his interlocutor. In the narrated event the phrase "he don't mind" compliments Bradley
on his willingness to handle the pig's intestine. But it does more than this. In the narrating
event (Wortham & Reyes, 2015) both participants' deployment of "he don't mind" carries
more weight, indexing an openness to difference (in taste, cuisine and history) which is held
up as a symbol, and "problems often assumed to be inevitable features of a clash of civili-
sations, cultures and outlooks melt away in the face of a sense of human sameness" (Gilroy,
2006). Bradley, both the butt of the joke and the hero of the story, is slightly abashed, and
makes a stock response which closes the interaction: "as long as I put a smile on your face".
Blommaert and Backus (2011) refer to 'superdiverse subjectivities' - the subjectivities of
people whose membership of social categories is dynamic, changeable and negotiable, and
whose membership is at any time always a membership-by-degree and ratified by the judge-
ments of others. In the example here it is unlikely that Bradley comes to view himself as
'Chinese', or 'Asian'. However, the joke points to the changeable and negotiable nature of
social categories and to the ways in which such categories may be deployed convivially.
In exchanges between stall-holders and other workers in the market hall a system of prac-
tices, conventions and procedural rules comes into play which functions as a means of guid-
ing and organising the flow of messages (Goffman, 1967, 1971). Ritual interaction between
stall-holders on the whole enabled people to work together in close proximity. However, it
would be wrong to say that what we saw in Birmingham market was always rosy. In fact both
Meiyen Chew and Kang Chen spoke of the discrimination to which they had been subject in
the process of trying to set up their business. Meiyen Chew complained that they had been
bullied by other traders when they set up their stall, and this had resulted in a violent incident
between Kang Chen and one of the other stall-holders. Interaction in the market hall was at
times, quite literally, on a knife-edge.
Implications
What are the implications of taking a heteroglossic lens to understanding language and so-
. cial diversity? First, it becomes clear that the important questions in relation to heteroglossic
language practice are not about which language is mainly in use, but rather about what signs
105
arc in use and ;1ction, what ideological positioJJs these signs point tu, and what tensions arc in
play in a communicative A hctcrogloss1c analysis enable:, us to better undersLmd
the tensiom and conflicts within, arnong, and between those It also allows us to make
visible the affordanccs tlirougb the deployment of at particular times m
certain places. Furthcnnore, such an analysis asks how rnultiple voices arc represented. The
lingrnstic diversity of these and of these voices, indexes social diversity. There may be
much to learn from ,idopting a lens through which to exarnmc ];111guage prac-
l1ces, to ensure that \NC bring mto play voices wb ich index localities, ,;ocial h ·
cirCLHnsLances and identities. /\ heteroglossic oncnlalle>n to comrnunicative practice extends
our knowledge oflmguistic and as a consequence expands our understanding of
social
future directions
()nc of th,· future dircctwns of travel in resc;irc:h ni.to con1 n1unic;1tivc in socially
diverse settings rs to,v:irds onlmc and d1grtal conm1.un1c:ation. This has already begun, but
sLUdics which adopt an explicitly on digital comrnunicat1on are
still relatively scarce (although see Andrcmtsopoulos, 2(111; Tagg, The 1ntc:rnd can be
seen ,is a llLtJOr n1cchaui,rn rn proce,sn and in the creation of superdiversity
(Varis &. Wang, 1011 ). Jt opem up new channels ol corn rnumcat.1cn1, generating nnv linguis--
t1c and cultural fc,rms, new v,:ays of form mg and 1nai11tamrng contacts, networks and groups,
and new opportunities fi:,r Blornmaert and lCunpton p. point
out that as people comn1unicate more and more in v,1ry1ng con1buutions of oral, \Nrittcn,
pictori,il and modes (Facebook, Twitter, \YJeChat, WhatsApp, online games, SIVI.S,
Snapchat, Instagram and so "nmltimodal is an inevitable c1npincal adjustment
to conternporary conditions, and we are forced to 1novc frorn 'language' in the strict sense
towards scmiosis as c,ur G:icus of inquiry". An which focusses on the simultaneous use
of d1flcrc11t kinds of fr.>nns or signs, and the tensions and conf-licb atnong those signs, will be
productive 111 n1aking sense of the prolifr:rauon ofsigrn in virtual v,,orlcls.
A second direction of travel in the deployment of a heteroglossic lens to investigation ol-
languagc in social life should attend to mult1modal dimensions of comrn.unication.
We have seen shifts in conceptual 1n1derst,indings of use, which have resulted 111
rhe development 0Lu1Jlytical n1e,rns tu examine the complexity :rnd mobility of communi-
cative practices in everyday life (Blackledge & Creese, But recent research which !us
attended to nrnltilingual comnrnnication has paid little <1ttention to multirnodahty, Yvhik
scholar:, lookrng al mtiltirnocbl commun1c1t1011 have not Jttended significrntly to multilin-
g1ul communication (Kusters ct al., An approach to research which includes the full
repertoire ofrescrnrces in play u1 a co1.11.1m1nicative encounter ,vill extend our understanding
of the rclatwnship between mocLd1tie;, and amplify the processes ofn1eaning construction in
co1nnrn nication beyond the boundaries of separate 'modal i tie,' and
further reading
Arnaut, K., Blornniacrt, _]., J(ampton, ,111d New York:
[Zoutkclgc. (This book some of dw work 1n a network of sociolinguistic
rcsc;irch groups under the bro;id lwadi ng and
Blackkdgc, A., & Cree·,e, A. (Fds.) (:2/l14). Hctrro,1;iossi.1 c11 pr,1cricc ,111d
,mthor:, oi"the in this volnrnc are lc:1.ding c:xpcrts in the study
their crnpiric.d studic'S oHcr sI;ttc-of-the-art insight into heten,glo'5i:1 ;1s a r<"search lens.)
106
Heteroglossia
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic ethnography. Collecting, analysing, and presenting data. London:
Sage. (This book introduces the processes of doing linguistic ethnography through four in-
depth case study narratives written by experienced linguistic ethnographers working within the
disciplines of health, law and education.)
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.) (2018). The Routledge handbook of language and superdiversity.
Interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Routledge. (This volume illustrates the interdisciplinary potential
of research in language and superdiversity through empirical accounts from a range of global settings.)
Related topics
Interactional sociolinguistics; Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation; Micro-analysis of spoken
interaction.
References
Androutsopoulos, J. (2011). From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computer-mediated dis-
course. In C. Thurlow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digit,11 discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bailey, B. (2012). Heteroglossia. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of multilingualism (pp. 499-507). London: Routledge.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Four essays. Ed. M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1984). Problems of Dostowsky's poetics. Ed. C. Emerson. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Eds. M. Holquist & C. Emerson. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2014). Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy. In A. Blackledge &
A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 1-20). London: Springer.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics ofglobalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2013). Complexity, accent, and conviviality: Concluding comments. Applied Linguistics,
34(5), 613-622.
Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2011). Repertoires revisited: Knowing language in superdiversity.
Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, 67.
Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2016). Language and superdiversity. In K. Arnaut, J. Blommaert,
B. Rampton, & M. Spotti (Eds.), Language and superdiversity (pp. 21-48). New York: Routledge.
Blommaert, J., & Varis, P. (2012). Culture as accent. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies paper 18.
Canagarajah, S., & I. Liyanage. (2012). Lessons from pre-colonial multilingualism. In M. Martin-Jones,
A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism. Abingdon and New
York: Routledge.
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic ethnography: Collecting, analysing and presenting data. London:
Sage.
De Fina, A., Ikizoglu, D., & Wegner, J. (2017). Diversity and super-diversity: Sociocultural linguistic perspec-
tives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Garcia, 0., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.. London: Palgrave:
Gilroy, P. (2006). Colonial crimes and convivial cultures. A transcript of a video letter made by Paul
Gilroy in London and screened at the Public Hearing "Debating Independence: Autonomy or
Voluntary Colonialism?" in Nuuk, Greenland on April 22, 2006.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York:
Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential
address. American Sociological Ret1iew, 48(1), 1-17.
Hall, J.K., Vitanova, G., & Marchenkova, L. (2005). Introduction: Dialogue with Bakhtin on second
and foreign language learning. InJ.K. Hall, G. Vitanova, & L. Marchenkova (Eds.), Dialogue with
Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning: New Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
107
Heller, M. (20U7). Bilingualism as ideology a)l(l prani,:c. In M. Heller (Ed.). Bili11,g11ci/is111: /l social
appro,uli (pp. 1...::,2). London: Palgrave.
Heller. M. & Ducl1c:11e, A. (2007). Discourse, ,,C ,;ncLmgerment: Sociolinguistics, glol,,tlization and
social order. In rv1. Heller & A. Duchene (Eds.). nis,om.,cs of endangerment: Ideology i111d i111crcst in the
defence London: Bloomsbury.
Hymes, D.H. (l98fl). L111guage in education.: U/111,,/11·1,,:ul.mc e<says. Language and Etlrnography Series.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Jorgensen, J., Karrab;:ek, M.S.. Madsen, l.M., & Moller, J.S. (2011). Polylangnaging in superdivcrsity.
Diuersitics, 13(2), 23-38, UNESCO. ISSN 2079-6595.
Karrab,i::k, M.S., Madsen, l.M., & Moller, JS. (2016). Introduction. Everyday languaging. Collab-
orative research on the langLtage use of children and youth. In L.M. Madsen, M.S. Karreb;ek, &
JS. Moller (Eds.), Eueryday ''"'''"'·""''"' Collaborati11e research 011 the lan,,;uaxe use of children and yout/1
(pp. 1--18). Berlin and Boston, MA: Walter de Gruvtcr.
Kusters, .:\., Spotti. M .. Swanwick, R., & T1pio. E. (2017). Beyond languages. heyuml modalities:
Transl.ormin,; the ,tudv of semiotic repertoire,. fll1cnu11,,11.il]oumal ofMultilin'<11,t!is111, 1/(3), 219-232.
Lahteenmciki. M (:'()Jr'I). Heteroglossia and voice: Conceptualizing linguistic diversity from a
Bakht.inian perspective In M. Lahteenm,ilu & ,\;l. V:mlula-Aniszewski (Eds.), Lcw~u,il'.c ideologies in.
tYt1nsiti,,11. ,H11/rili11.~11,,//qn in. Russia and Fi11/,111d (pp. 17--34). Frankfurt: Peter Lmg.
Lofland, L. H. (1 '!%). The public realm: Expl,•ri11s r/;c ciry's quintessential social tenitc>rr, lfawrhorne, NY:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Madsen, L.M. (2014). HeteroglossiJ, voicing and social categorisation. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese
(Eds.), Ileteroglossia as pratlice London: Routledge.
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. ln S. Makoni &
A Pennycook (Eels.), DisinnntinJ; ,md rcconstitutiniJ fongu,iges (pp. 1-42). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Martin-Jones, M., 13L,ckkdge, A., & Creese, /\. (2fl 12). Introduction. A so,·iolinguistic1 of multi-
linguafom for ,}ur times. In M. Martin-Jones. A. Bbckleclge, & A. Creese (Eds.). The R,,utledge
handbook (pp. 1-26). Abingdo11 :md New York: Routledge.
Pennycook, i\., & OtsuJi. E. (2015). Metroling11.1/Js111 L111J1,11c1,:c in the city. London: Routledge.
Reyes, A. (21104). l\sian i',.merican stereotype, :is cirrnbting resource. Speci.1! Issu,o Rc-lationality:
Discursive comtructions of Asian Pacific /\rneric:m identities, edited by A. Lo and A. Reyes.
14 (2/3).
R.eyes. A. (2006). Lang1u1gc. 1111d stereotypes among Southe<1st Asi,111 American youth. London:
l~outledge.
Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In
N. Hornberger & S. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and /ang11age cd11cation. London, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Rymes, B. (2014). Co11111w1licatin.g beyond lang11c1gc e11,ounters with diversity. London: Routledge.
Silverstein, M. (1985). i.,rnguage and the culture of gemkr: At the intersection of structure, usage
and ideology. In E. Mertz & R. Parmentier (EJs.). Semiotic mediation.: Socioutltural ,rnd ps)'Chological
perspecti1·i:s 1,pp. 219· 25q)_ New York: Ac.1dcrnic Press.
Tagg, C. (2016). Hctcroglossia in text-messaging: identity and nego1i:Hing rebti,)nships in
a digit",! ,if Sociolinguistics, 20,[i. 59-85.
Varis, l'., & Wang, X. (2011). Supcrdivcrsity on the Internet: A case from China. Diversities, 13(2),
70-83. UNESCO. ISSN 2079-6595.
Volosinov, V. (1973). Marxism ,wd the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action. A strategy for research and analysis. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Wortham, S., & Reyes, A. (2015). Discrur.,e analysis beyond the specch cuent. London: Routledge.
108
9
Style and stylisation
Jurgen Jaspers and Sarah Van Hoof
Introduction
Throughout their lives, language users acquire, cultivate, identify and act upon different
ways of speaking and writing that scholars customarily call 'styles' or, less regularly, 'reg-
isters'. Conventional labels that people use for such styles are 'slang', 'posh', 'polite speech',
'announcing', 'informal talk', 'lecturing', 'dialect', 'hip hop language' and many others. Such
labels draw attention to verbal behaviour, but styles are probably best described as cultural
models of interaction (cf Agha, 2007, p. 4): apart from deploying specific linguistic features,
'lecturing', to give one example, often involves a higher voice volume and a slower rhythm of
speech, gestures to underline explanations, and until not so long ago, wearing a costume or
gown. Those who follow the lecture adopt a range of matching signs: they are mostly silent,
nod their heads (or feign they are listening), take notes and raise their hand to ask a question.
'Lecturing' equally hints at particular types of interlocutors and the social relations between
them (students and their lecturer rather than, say, lovers), at a specific location (a lecture hall),
and at different speaking rights (lecturers talk much more than their students).
'Lecturing', in other words, is a short-cut name, or more precisely, a 'metasign' (Agha
2007: 22), for the complex choreography of semiotic resources that interactants set up to
make clear to each other what it is that they are doing. In this sense, a style offers a template
for social activity, or a recipe that tells us which semiotic ingredients to combine and how,
and which ones to leave out to avoid giving the wrong impression. Of course, like all rec-
ipes, styles are amenable to change, half-hearted enactment, partial learning, rejection or
extinction - many lecturers today dress relatively informally and prefer a conversational over
a declamatory style. In most societies too, some styles are held up as exemplary (for example,
as 'the standard'), while others are discouraged. Exemplary styles and those related to specific
professions and pastimes are often only acquired by a subset of the population, though they
may be observable by millions (for example, on television). As a result we all learn to use a
number of styles that circulate in a particular society, and we learn to recognise many more
than we can produce ourselves (Agha, 2004; Auer, 2007).
Sociolinguists have in the last 50 years attended to when and why groups of speakers shift
· between styles, and adopt (features of) styles, in order to study how such adoptions impact on
109
the dynamics ofa language as a whole. Rather than on lecturing or slang, this work initially
concentrated on the varying uses speakers nuke of ·vernacular' and 'prestigious' linguistic
features, on how their relative usage corresponds with speaker characteristics, their self-
presentation and situational changes (from informal to frmnaL for example). Many scholars
have traced style shifts through frequencv counts in Luge corpor:t that subdivide speakers
according to a limited set or broad social categories like class, age and gender. Others have
later applied ethnographic methods to ho,v linguistic fi·atures, types of demeanour
or dress, and contexts of use :ire associated with loc:11 social categories. Tochy, scholars tend
to see styles as 1nultirnocLil complexes of! inguisttc and other semiotic practices produced in
situated interaction, and they demonstrate regular use of these cornbined resources
through quantitative or qualiL1tive methods. In all of these cases, spe1kers are seen to commit
to the style selection. and the selection is seen as relatively inconspicuous: it is not micx.-
pected, or not :rnrpnsing given the situation.
Linguistic ethnographers have observed, however, tlut spc.ikcrs cm also "stylise', i.e. sud-
cknly, momentarily. and in an exagger:1tecl manner pc1rt1cuhr styles that lie beyond
their regular linguistic repertoires, or beyond wh:it is conventional in the situation at hand-
think of a student who briefly shifts rnto a lecturing stvle to address ;1 fi.-icnd in the pub,
Speakers in so doing i11tern1pt the routine and turn otheis mto spectators or a brief per-
formance. Such eye-catching style choices, so-called , have been investigated
to reveal how styltsers interpret the on-going sitL1c1t1011, :md hrnv they position tbcrnsdves
in that situation and in the social world beyond it. R:1ther lhan fixussing attention un the
chaugn the language as a ,vhole nuy incur, it is directed here towards the micro,lcvd or
individual spe,iker moves and thor often critiul st,111ce to\vards established social and lin-
guistic trends. Analyses of stylisations are thus mostly q1ialitative, casc-study-basecl, and in
principle open to an infinite set oClocal :md non-local speaker cluracteristics.
This suggests that the study of and stylisation moves 111 orthogonal directions
(demonstrating regular language behaviour vs. explaining irregular, if not •fake', activity).
We argue in this chapter. however, that routine and markedly sdf..comc:ious speech arc two
rnanitestations of the same process in which spealers demonstrate their interpretation of the
social \Vorld and the uses of langu:ige \Vithin it. Scholars of style and stylisation may thus
have n10re to s,1y to each other than is obv1ow, Jt first their combined insights offering
a co1nplex perspective on tbe meaning of language variation.
The sociolinguistic interest rn style was a reaction against don1inant trends in 20th-century
linguistics (associated with Chomsky:tn generative th,1t ignored Lmguage varia-
tion, considering it a chaotic surface feature of the underlying linguistic system. William
Labov'o pwneering work in New York in the 1960s demonstrated that instead ofhcing ;1
1natter of 'free van;1tion', linguistic: regular. Labov intro-
duced the not10n of the lrnguistic variable to refer to any aspect of language that appears
in different variants· e.g. in his New York study the presence ([r]) or absence (0)
of firul and pre-cnnsonantal /r/ in wonb such as cdr or card constituted variants or
the
phonological vari,1ble (r). He revealed that speakers' ditfrrcntial use of [r] or 0 vJricd sys-
ten1atical1y with their socio,econornic background and, thus, that linguistic variation was
socially stratified. In addition. Lahov found that use of these variants depended
on the formality of the situation, so that rntr:i--spcaker stylistic variation could be seen to
mirror variation across soc:io--cconornic groups. ln sornc ciscs this synchronic variat1011 led
110
to diachronic change, when style features associated with one social group were gradually
taken over by others.
In the 'variationist' strand of research that Labov so inspired, style was seen as depending
on the attention speakers paid to their speech: the more formal the situation, the more speak-
ers would be inclined to use 'prestige' variants, associated with high-placed social groups,
instead of 'vernacular' variants. SchoL1rs therefore made sure that the sociolinguistic inter-
view, the classic method by which they revealed the structured nature oflinguistic variation,
consisted of activities that would make informants style shift as they increased attention to
their speech: an interview elicited ·cu-eful speech'; having informants read a text produced
a 'reading with more prestige varirnts; the 'maximum attention' paid to speech while
reading minimal pairs (e.g. guard and god) produced the highest frequency of prestige vari-
ants. A particular challenge though was to
somehow become witnesses to the everyday speech which informants will use as soon as
the door is closed behind us: the style in which they argue with their nearest and dearest,
scold their children, or pass the time of day with their friends.
(Lahou. 2006, p. 64)
Such everyday. vernacular, speech was seen as people's linguistic baseline, their most 'natu-
ral' type of speech since they presumably "no attention [...] to language" (Labov, 2006,
p. 64), and it w;1s assumed that demonstrating language change depended on proving innova-
tion in this baseline. But being observed by a linguist made informants self-conscious rather
than spontaneous, and variationists tried to circumvent this so-called observer's paradox
(Labov, 1972) by, for example, asking informants to talk about lite-threatening situations that
would briefly make them forget where they were.
Later strands in variationist sociolinguistics were less rejecting of people's self-
comcionsness, or 'reflexivity'. Thus, rather than seeing vernacular usage as a natural base-
line, the so-called 'second wave' ofvariationist studies (Eckert, 2012) deployed ethnographic
methods to demonstrate that such usage wa, motivated by speakers' participation in tight-
knit local networks of working-class adolescents (Cheshire, 1982) and adults (Milroy, 1980),
or by their belonging to class-based school categories like 'jocks' and 'burnouts' (Eckert,
1989). Others argued that style had to be approached as a strategic response to audience char-
acteristics. Bell (1984) described how radio announcers adapted their speech style to cater to
different audiences. Giles and Powesland (1975) similarly proposed in their 'communication
accommodation theory' that speakers actively modified their speech style, converging vvith
that of their addressees in order to look more attractive or to facilitate communication, or di-
verging fron1 it to reduce intimacy and cnb rgc social difference (Coupland, 2007, pp. 54-81).
What first was a heuristic problem - speakers' reflexivity - here emerges as a commonplace
but irnportant aspect of the 'communicative competence' (Hymes, with ·which speak-
ers pcirtake in sociallife. In creole studies, Le PJge (1978; also see Le Page & Tabouret-Keller,
1985) proposed that stylistic choices are not so rnuch related to people's relatively automatic
response to broad social categories (such as social class) or to the attention they pay to their
speech, but need to be seen as 'acts of identity', engendered by speakers' active identification
with particular social groups, that is, by their wish to model their language on the groups that
they so hope to be identified with. Sociolinguistic variables are thus "reanalysed [... ] from
symptoms into symbols" (Auer, 2007, p. 4).
1"11ese and other studies gradually moved the study of style into what Eckert calls a 'third'
wave of variatronist studies. Scholars in this strand approach language ,is "perfrinnance rather
111
]Lirgen Jaspers and Sarah Van Hoof
than beh:iviour" (Coupland, p. that is, as a scKial practice in \vbich ac-

tively and creatively draw on available linguistic :rnd other semiotic resources to produce soc.ial
n1eann1g (Bucholtz, 200.\; Bucholtz & Hall, Schilling-Estes, 200(,; Androubopoulos,
2007: Scholars in tlns w:ive moved from a variable approach to a rnort~
holistic notion of as a conglomerate of verbal and non--verbal resources (cf Auer,
pp. 11~1 includmg, besides linguistic features. intonation, body positioning,
use of space, clothing, hairdo, make-up and so on cc··c.,;cc,. The basic idea
is that re and combtne several sennotJc resources, and that the
repeLJtilln of tlns briculage activity culrn111atcs mto a particular style, a convcntional rnodel
fr,r 1nteract1ng wJth others, which can itself be only adopled or reconfigured
in interaction. The meaning, of spcu fl c v,u-ia bles arc ,;een lll tins context as \1 nderspeCI fied'
(Eckert. 21112, p. 87), that 1s, as becoming more specifi,: when they are interpreted in relation
to the other resources that arc used.
Taken together, the focus in research on style gndually c1me to lie on active
\tyling', rather than on how they slnft styles in response to the frmnality of the situation; and
on a 1nuch broader range of social rneanings than on a limited set of standard. demographic
This fr_;cus has to be situated in a wider, 'post-structuralist', turn in the
humanities that e55cntially sought to rnove away fron1 bck1viour as natural and. front
th,, to see its mcrnrng as related to it:. place in a ',ocial systcrn, to a fixus on how
social actors autonomously create mean by deploying the semiotic resources they have ac-
cess to. Inspired by this turn. more and n10re :;cholars questioned the 1m,do1ninant approach
variat10n as a group phenomenon -- the idcc1 tb:1t group mewbers share a variety
that each of Ll1ern has heen soculi,ecl in ;it home to speak competently with ocher members,
and of which they are the authentic, 'native', ln contrdot to this 'hnguist:JCS of
com1nunity', scholars called for a "linguistic, uf contact' (cf. Pratt, J They insisLed, first,
that the studv of Lrnguage variation needed tu mclude across-group interaction, imperfect,
unusual ,md quasi use, next to language use stamped by speakers' dealings \V1th contexts
outside of the home (the medi:1, popular culture and so they argued that cum-
nn1nicatJon is not :m event where ,peakers merely ;in out pre-given identities nor freely
assemhle ne,N ones. but that it must be seen as a site of "imposition, collusion and struggle
in ,vhich people invoke, avoid or reconfigure'' their relationships, social identities and the
serniotic resources these entail, with 11 pote1Jti:1lly seriow, ini.pan 011 "people's minds, lives
and material conditions" (Rampton, 20(16, p. 24). In this context, it also becomes natural to
investigate occasions when that is, experin1ent \Nlth language.
Although they are probably ";rs old as speech itsdf' & Charalarnbous, 2010.
p. stylisations only came rnto focus in the 111 id-1990s. The i1Jterest in tbern was triggered
by the ,vork oflhkhtin, a literary cntic who posited that our is ahvays 'heteroglossic',
that is. const;mdy resonates with others' words and voice,, so tl1.1t wh;1L is '(in)authentic'
in ,omcone's speech can often be hard to clcocle Blackledge and Creese. this volume).
lLikhtin coined the term to rcfrT to the specific in which speakers
produce "an artistic image of:rnothcr's (lll8]. p. a type of'doubk-voicrng',
either to mock or con1rnent on the n··r,nc·" 0
"' voice (\ari--directional double-voicing'), or
to align oneself \V1th the qualities that are associated with the owners of the voice
('uni-ditt'Ctional double-voicing').
A pioneering ,tudy in tbio context wa, R.arnpwu·s (1 work on 'crossi among
multi-ethnic adolescents in the UK Midlands. He a1ulysed h0vv youngsters fron1 Anglo,
Asian and C:triblxan descent experin1ented with vJrictie,. that \Nen: not usually seen as
their own: those with Anglo and /\sian de,cent tried out English-b:1sed Creole. Anglos and
112
Caribbeans occasionally switched to Panjabi, and all three ventured into a 'Stylised Asian
English'. While this often occurred during jokes and games, Rampton showed that beyond
this playfulness, many of these verbal experiments were recurrent events in youngsters' man-
agement of cross-ethnic friendship and local peer-group affairs, and that stylisations could
also be addressed to authority figures. Youngsters, for example, switched to Creole - a vari-
ety they associated with verbal agility and a lack of deference - to take up an assertive stance
that they credited their Creole-speaking friends with. Or they briefly adopted Stylised Asian
English to project a deferential and uncomprehending persona, as a way of publicly criticising
other adolescents in a style that imputed diminished competence to them, or, in interaction
with adults, to evoke problematic race relations that these adults were then invited to some-
how pacify - leading to more, or less, enjoyable relations, depending on adults' response.
The availability of different styles was not a safe-conduct for their stylisation, however: at the
wrong moment or in the wrong company, youngsters could seriously question the other's
right to use what was not seen as 'theirs'.
In a different context, that of light entertainment on radio, Coupland (2001) found that
radio presenters playfully selected Welsh dialect forms of English to stage 'Welsh' cultural
styles ('gossiping over the garden fence') and stances (anti-heroism, pragmatism). Rather than
mocking Welsh dialect and its speakers, however, Coupland argued that these presenters
through their stylised performance both ironically evoked and self-identified with Welsh
ways of being, inviting the audience to "find it confirmatory, credentializing, and solidary -
as well as humorous" (2001, p. 371). The performance could thus be seen to bolster regional
identification with Wales by culturally reassessing, and valorising, the dialect.
What stylisations mean, then, is a much more complex issue than simply 'faking it' or
'having linguistic fun'. Indeed, stylisations can be meant as "mocking, admiring, an end-in-
itself or the first step in a longer journey, and [they] may strengthen boundaries, undermine
them, or assert their irrelevance" (Rampton & Charalambous, 2010, p. 5). Whichever of
these meanings applies needs to be argued on the basis of ethnographic insights. A crucial
element in their interpretation, as we shall now explain, is the notion of indexicality, which
plays an increasing role in current research on style.

A central notion in current work on style and stylisation, drawn from linguistic anthropol-
ogy, is (social) indexicality. The term refers to the fact that speakers see linguistic sign forms
as indicative of a social context within which their use makes sense. It is related to the linguis-
tic notion of' deixis', according to which speakers need to identify the specific, contextual,
meaning of each 'I', 'this' or 'soon' that these words point to when they are used. Linguistic
anthropologists argue that all linguistic features, however, not just the deictic words, are
indexical, that is, are taken by language users as signs that point to a specific context that
determines their meaning: what 'nice' or 'chair' means (their 'referential indexicality') must
be decided on the basis of a specific context of use (Silverstein, 1976).
Social (also: 'nonreferential') indexicality refers to the fact that linguistic features, ranging
from one sound over sets oflexemes to a whole style, can evoke stereotypic social character-
istics, relationships and contexts of use. This means that we can deliberately deploy them to
"formulate a sketch of the social occasion constituted by the act of speaking" (Agha, 2007,
p. 14), but also to give an indication of our orientation to a social occasion. Using a for-
mal voice, for instance, can suggest that the speaker regards the occasion as formal or takes
an ironic stance; using a vernacular voice in a formal context may flag a non-deferential,
113
Jurgen jaspers and Sarah Van Hoof
,1sscrtive st;rnce v1.s-a-v1s a particular authority, or, alternatively, indicate that the spc1ker
strikes up a conv1v1al tone
\X/hcther the audience is sensitive to tbe social sketch or stance ,1 nokcs int bis \vay
depends 011 their ability Lo recognise the comwtation of the lmguist1c features de-
Tlrn depends on sociahsanon processes home, ,1t school, m the workpbce)
and other arc ;1ssociatccl with particuL1r values. Because socialisatwn
dili:i:-r, feature, have rnultiple, even social \k1lect
one group bm as by another, v\lnle standard lan-
guage can be fc,und as vvcll ,1s arrogant. These may moreover evolve, as was
tbe case with lhe rn;mv stand:1rd th:it used to be associated \Vith :i specific
before thev 'were re typdred as neucral and modern. The scici;il indexicalil y of a linguistic
variable or ,1st vle can thus be nrnltid1me11s1cmaL and n)t1Lrad1clury, i.e. they have
,vhat Eckert calls \rn indcxiccd field': "a field of potential [... ], any one of wh1cb
can be activated in the situated use of the variable'' Ocl1s, 199fi: Eckert, 2008, p. 453).
As a result, intcractants and have to determine which pottonti,tl merning is actually
targett:d when a v,1riable is used, and need to be attentive to ho\v resources may be
can be incidental, :rnd of no consequence frJr particular variables' wider

but in some cases the effects crn be 1nuch more enduring. Labov (19(,3) already
showed that a local in .l'vLirth:i's Vineyard was (rom a variable
that indicated the was a Vineyarder to one that indicated that the speaker was a 'real'
Vineyarder Ltther than a tourist or nu inland pensioner. More recently, Johmtonc
3) described how variables that rndexed the
to index and loecd llittsburgh identity. Several Danish hc1ve argued that
linguistic resources that used to be mainly assonated with 'learner Damsh' the Danish of
unmigrants ~ arc being as frir a 'street' and thus, ,1 cool urlnn speech
among others, Qt1ist, 2UOS; JVIJdscn, although th1s new reputation still
competes with th,: older, less fame of these resources. report-, on a
similar, long-term process for the style we now call 'Received Pronunctation' 1rl Britain.
1Vhile in the 16th century this ,v;is a relatively unknown associated \vith a small
elile in so11theastern England, it was gr:Hlu,illv reworked in the 18th :nH1 i'lth centuries into
a 'neutral', ideal style for the whole ofBritish and later trcmsf<.Jrmed into
a symbol of clitene55.
All of these proces,es depend on \.\·hat i\gha ,ren1 >< 1'1t The term refers
0
to all the evaluative actw1ties through which sets resources are associated \-Vith
social value , 'from Pittsburgh', 'urban', 'deficient') and come to n cultural
or styles. Such activities can co.mprise
utterances -which explicitly describe a Corms :md associated values:

or, utterci nces which · cv:ilu,it,· the rndexical effects of fonns
\\haL tbey evaluate; such
(Ag/ta, 2004, p. 26)
ing 1L as a sign of (lack

with son1ebody's accent 11lmtrates
the third , the second type comprisc'S One cruoal point is that evaluative
all usage 01·
114
about their adequacy in the context at hand. This is why using the vernacular can never be
a 'natural' type of behaviour. A second point is that this evaluative behaviour is ideological,
i.e. it is inspired by views of 'good', 'civilised' or 'attractive' behaviour that serve to distin-
guish social groups and legitimise their unequal ranking. A third point is that this evaluative
behaviour needs to be regular for it to have any enduring effect, that is, to enable us to recog-
nise a particular constellation oflinguistic and non-linguistic features as a 'register' or 'style'.
Much current research into styling therefore not just looks at the forms that are being used,
but includes an analysis of how these forms are simultaneously evaluated.
Research into stylisation has in recent years sought to demonstrate that stylisers' behaviour
is related to their conventional language use, and that they are not merely concerned with the
here-and-now but are engaging with bigger issues, like social class. Rampton (2006) revealed
that the everyday speech of London-based youngsters was characterised by the same strati-
fication patterns that Labov found in the 1960s; that these youngsters frequently stylised the
standard ('posh') and vernacular ('Cockney') styles that their everyday speech shifted between;
and that these stylisations foregrounded institutional and class-based hierarchies, sometimes
contesting these hierarchies while on other occasions reinforcing them (also see Snell, 201 0;
Madsen, 2013). Charalambous (2012) describes how young Greek Cypriots during Turkish
class, faced with a teacher intent on banning all of the political overtones that an engagement
in Turkish could evoke in this context, found in stylised language a way to critically address
Cypriot politics and to reshape the meaning of learning Turkish from betrayal into a revo-
lutionary move. In this view, stylising becomes a way of symbolically engaging with larger
social issues that speakers do not know anymore how to talk about explicitly (as in Rampton's
case), or find too dangerous to discuss above board (in Charalambous's study).
In a perspective that views all language use as reflexively produced, there is no exclusive
preference anymore for 'real', spontaneous, face-to-face language use. Also scripted, set-
piece performances now fall squarely within the remit of sociolinguistics. There has been
ample research of style and stylisation on radio and television, in music, in film, in advertising
and in new media. All of these spaces are treated as "site[s] of social action in [their] own
right" (Androutsopoulos, 2012, p. 142) where 'real life' linguistic styles can be creatively
reworked and made "particularly metalinguistically and metaculturally salient" (Mortensen
et al., 2016, p. 8) by putting them on display and increasing their occurrence on the public
scene. Mediated social action can in this way reproduce traditional sociolinguistic hierar-
chies, but also (re)contextualise individual features or entire speech styles and imbue them
with new meanings (ibid.).
Thus, Van HoofandJaspers (2016) show that Flemish 1970s TV fiction typifies dialect as
a folkloric, inarticulate working-class style, and Standard Dutch as an educated prestige style,
which chimes in perfectly with the widespread pro-Standard Dutch propaganda that Flem-
ings were at that time confronted with. At the same time, some of these TV shows ambig-
uated and contested this propaganda. Comedy shows portrayed Standard Dutch speakers as
unworldly and patronising language zealots, while other characters' stylisations of Standard
Dutch evaluated this type of speech as pretentious and effeminate. The styling and stylisation
of vernacular and standard speech in this case thus testified to both the reproduction and the
"fracturing of traditional indexical relations" (Coupland, 2014, p. 90).
Bucholtz and Lopez (2011) likewise show how white actors' metaparodic stylised perfor-
mances of black language in Hollywood films have complex outcomes. They observe that
white middle-class characters draw on deliberately disfluent uses of a restricted set of stereo-
. typical features of African American English (AAE) to lay claim to positively valued stereo-
types of young working-class black men - coolness, toughness, sexual self-confidence - that
115
JurgPn Jaspers and Sarah Van Hoof
they themsdve, lack. Bucholtz and Lorez argue that although these mock AAE perfor-
rnances ''valorizercq African American language and culture as supenor in some vvays to
hegemonic linguistic and cultural JcJnns" (2011, p. 683) and rortrayed the use ofbbck lan-
guage by whites as inauthentic, they neverthe]es, reinforced essentialised divisions between
black and white culture and language, and ultimately re- rather than destabilised hierarchies
or race, class and gender.
Online environments have also come into focus of research on style and stylisation.
Androutsopoulos for example, found that German youngsters on hip-hop-related
websites fused 'global' hip-hop style markers items like diss or dope, and hip-hop slang
spelling variants like <z> as plunl marker in with 'local' Cerm,rn vernacular features
such as colloquial and used these as "resources frJr non-ma111strearn
and 'down to e,1r1h' attitudes" p. and for displaymg membership of the hip-
hop conunumty. Contrary to assumptions of the web ,is a free space where concerns about
proper language are extraneous, scholars luve sho\vn that onlinc t'.nvironments often respond
to traditional sociolrnguistic l11erarchies ~ with non -standard \vritmg especially found on
d1scussion boards while profr'ssiona1ly authored texts on hip-hop websites usually deploy a
more standard style (Androutsopolorn, 21)07). Web users then1,elves may moreover police
each other's language ,1ccording to standard norms . 2ill Focussing on style in mu-
sic, St:ehr and Madsen de,crihe hO\v in their rap videos on YouTubc young Danish
rappers from minority descent gndually embrace standard, monolingual practices as they
vvish to move frorn to 'serious' rappers an evolution inspired by their conn,rn
with wider con1prehens1h11ity and aspiratiom for comrnercial success. These studies shm,v
that "[g]lobal cultures, codes and flows", such as hip hop styles, ''arc not S\vallowed without
chewing" (Varis & Wang, 201 L p. 75, oted in St:ehr c"x 2015, p. 79) and that local
contexts must be ethnographiully explored to undersLmd what linguistic resources mean to
the part1cipants involved.

One issue for debate is whether it is best to characterise stylisations as a matter of artful
perfrlnn;1nce (Rmrnan, 1975), stimu hted by an era that revels n1 irony, identity and mass-
mediated entertainment, as Coupland (2007) suggests, or whether their occurrence may, at
least in part, be more tirn.elcss, everyday, and may also construe other, less spectacular, social
effects than 'look at me!' (R.arnpton, 2009). Styfoations clearly have a perfrirnutive quality,
given their often intense delivery. When they target a particular audience by eflcct-sccking
producers presenters, in the niass media, or when they occur during
rmmdane ,1ctivities such as joke or storytelling and g,m1es, it rnakes sense to understand
them as designed for the "enhancement of [the] of their audience (Bauman,
l ')75, p. 178). R.arnpton (2(109) argues though that a perfixmance lens downplays the fact
that mc1t1y stylisation:, constitute a type of 111teract10n rn:111agen1ent ~ what Goffman (1981)
calls 'interaction ritual'. As Gofiinan suggests, spe:1kers use a range of formulaic utterances
to approJch or leave others, avoid or remedy say thanks, offer sympathy and so on.
These uttennces
often serve a bracketing function, cdebrativdy markmg a perceived change in the physi-
ctl and social accessibility oft,vu individuals to each olher [... ]as well ,is beginnings and
endrngs ~ of a day's a social occ1s10n, a speech, an encounter, an interchange.
(GotJ-111,111, 198/, pp.
116
Many of the stylisations Rampton found appear to do exactly this: they are used in greetings,
remedies, apologies, expressions of annoyance, their occurrence responding to a ternporary
interactional hiccup or to looming institutional authority and the social stratification that
this authority presupposes. Stylisations in such cases are "auxiliary rather than focal, valued
more for their contribution to [... ] maintaining or restoring normal social relations than for
qu:1 Ii ties of their own" (Rampton, 2()09, p. 169). and since interaction ritual presumably is
fundamental to communication, then occurrence goes beyond a representation of them as a
typicJJ sign of post-modern pastiche.
A second issue is whether stylisations can be uken as critical of local or larger-scale rou-
tines, representations and social hierarchies. Tl11s is certainly the way m which a great many
of them have been interpreted (Talmy, 2009; Jaspers, 2011a; Charalambous, 2012; Madsen,
2013). Yet, as already mentioned above, Coupland (2001) indicated that stylisations can not
just denaturalise but also re-authenticate linguistic practices and so contribute to their cultural
reproduction. Bakhtin's discussion of uni-directional double-voicing moreover suggests that in
a number of cases, stylisers do not wish to criticise nor mock but intend to adopt (features of)
a voice - English~based creole, AAE, the local di:ilect - that they find attractive or useful. In
this \Vay, stylisers reproduce the associatiom bct\veen a voice and certain speaker characteristics,
and, for example, simply accept the syrnbolicilly ·low' position of a (dialect) voice because it
is that position that makes it attractive. lt is irnportant to see, in addition, that vari-directional
double-voicing equally reproduces certain aspects of the contexts that it shakes up: in produc-
ing a 'Stylised Asian English' to call clown other adolescents or challenge local authorities,
the youngsters in Rampton's work were at the same time building on, and thus reproducing,
the stereotype of Asian English as an index of deference and ineptitude. And when speakers
ridicule ways of speaking they perceive as disfluent, e.g. through producing 'Mock Ebonics' or
'Mock Spanish', these stylisations feed into the negative representations of particular speakers
(Chicanos, Latinos, Blacks) that audiences need to be familiar with to make sense of such mock
practices (Hill, 1998; Ronkin & Karn, 1999; Bennett, 2012). Jaspers argues that the in-
teractional locations where a teacher inserted his playful renditions of pupib' home languages,
in between the more important curnculum-oricnted moments, implicitly suggested to pupils
what the relative value was of the resources he stylised, compared to the school language, and
so reproduced the wider-scale symbolic positions of the languages involved.
That said, the et1ects of stylisations may not be always so easy to pin down. In discussing
an Asian American stand-up comedian's revoicing of 'Mock Asian (English)', Chun (2009)
admits that such renderings reproduce racial stereotypes about Asians and their competence
in English. She argues, however, that the comedian's own Asian background and her suc-
cessful framing of Mock Asian as jocular, as well as her known criticism of Asian mar-
ginalisation in the United States, all \vorked to unhinge a simple reproduction of racial
stereotypes and helped reframe the use of Mock Asian as a critique of these. Also Coupland
(2007. pp. 17.5--176) contends that an interpr,:L1tion of mock varieties as racialisi ng per se may
overlook the possibility of metaparody ng the parodist) and that contextualising and
framing are paramount. Indeed, wlule stylisation
may exploit stereotypical symbolic evaluations [... ] the discursive effects arc likely to be
more subtle than this, depending on how sympathetic the relevant personas have been
constructed to be, whether audiences are positioned to 'laugh with' rather than 'laugh
at' specific performers, how characters and relationships have been developed in partic-
ubr narrc1t1ves, and a host of other local-contextual considerations.
(Coupland et al., 2016, p. cf 2007, p. 6)
117
]Lirgen jaspers and Sarah Van Hoof
Chun c>) further show:, that these disctnsnw effects c;m be mediated by the ways in
vvhich stereotypnl lrnguistic travel across transnational spaces such as YonTube.
\Vhi k the ironic adoption uf'black' signs a Chinese .Arn en can YouTubc star
left intact the stereotype that associates blackness w1th hyperrnasculinity and As1anncss
with ddicicnt masculinity. a umtary rcadlllg of tl11s YouTube star's ,tylising was chal--
lenged by the range uCother meanings that emerged in comments front his transnational
viewerslnp.
So although linguistic fr,nns JJL\y quite naturally evoke stereotypes, they never have
:m intrim1e1lly raciahs111g, or critical, meaning, because tills mcamng ah,vays depends on
their (trans)local contextualisation. Clearly though, local transf:onnat10n, of stereotyped
1rngu15tic fonns always run up against their ineanmg. by which they rnay
be overr\lled, that is, reframed as exemplary of that pracuce (an ex-
quisitcl y cnLJcal Joke w icb stereoL yped may be taken as a si tnpk example of the
,tereotype).
A third. and not least, issue is whether stylisations have anv relation to style, that is,
whcthc-r stylisations can pLly a JHrt m the explan,ition of
deed, self-conscwus speech was long seen Lo obCuscatc
daniental rebtious which deternunc the course of lrnguistic evolution can be seen n1ost
clearlv'· (Labov, 1972, p. As a result, variat1onist socioli have tended to Jcxus
on styles, ,vhile inleractional ones have concerned themselves with (umystem-
alic) stylisations, with little interaction het ween them. Recent rese:1rcb suggests however
tbat these groups of scholars may be focussing on two sides of the same coin, and that an
an;ilysis of style is necessary fi.1r understanding stylisation, ;ind v1ce versa. This is argued on
thc basis oC Agha's chim that "overt (publicly perceiv,1ble) activity [i.e. eval
native behaviour to,vards linguistic ,1gn for.m,J ... is a nctcssary co11di1io11 on the soriilf existence
of (2004, p. 27; emphasis in If so. th1s rne;ins that ''rcrkxivity is built into
the very definition of a (R;nnpton, 211 I l, p. and that explaining
thesc registers/styles/varieties co1nprchensivdy requires a focus on recurrent sets oflinguistic
forms and the evaluative that arc for our to recognise and deploy
them in social lite. Stylisations are equally 'real' and necnsary. 111 that sense, as style is for the
explanation of variation in hnguage (see Rampton, 2006 and SnelL 2010 for examples of a
combined analysis).
A second way in which sty]iquons matter lo students of more enduring styles is that some
styhsallons can gradually become part of regular language use. Such a process is based on
styliscrs' uni directional doublc-voiong Blackledge ;md Creese, this volurne), that is,
when they adopt linguistic 1t:at.ures with which they seek to dernonstrate their alignment
with the lub1tual users of these features or with the that are Jttributed to them..
When such adoptions convent10riahsc rn a styliser's use, the two voices (the
styliser's one and the stylised can fuse, te1nporarily :rnd possibly permanently.
Thus, Cutkr (1999) describes a rniddle~class white youth's use of features of AAE as a way
of JXUt in an urban. black and male youth culture, and how in the process, sonie of
these uses appeared to leave long--tenn· traces ,m the repertoire. Rarnpton (1995)
likewise demonstrates how using Creole resources by adolescents and Asian descent
''was [... J close to the point where uni-directional double voicing shifted over mto direct
u1uncdiated discourse'' (1995, p. and seerncd to become part of their own mtendcd
,oci,11 ide11t1l1c1llon. Jaspers (201 lb) ,irnibrly shows how teatures of a local, wl11tc, urban
dialect appear to be appropnated by ethnic minority youth :Js part of their regular, assertive
stance.
118
Main research methods, including approaches to analysis

In practical terms, the variationist approach to style involves identifying linguistic variables
and quantifying how frequently speakers use each variant in particular situations (see Dray
and Drummond, this volume). These situations are carefully selected or designed on the
basis of differences in formality - e.g. casual conversations are less formal than interviews,
which are, in turn, less formal than reading tests. The speakers are grouped according to their
demographic characteristics: socio-economic class, gender, age, regional provenance, etc.
Subsequently these studies compare how often these groups use a particular feature in com-
parison to others, and whether the differences between them are statistically significant - for
example, whether the relative proportion of vernacular variants that working-class women
produce differs significantly from the relative frequency of those same variants produced by
working-class men, middle-class women and middle-class men. In doing so, such studies
reveal correlations between linguistic and macro-social variables.
The importance of replicability and wide coverage in this type of analysis implies that
the social world can only have a skeleton presence in the analysis: it incorporates standard
sociological variables such as class, gender or age but abstracts away from locally relevant
(and thus less comparable) categories, not to mention from pragmatic meanings which
cannot be easily quantified. What Eckert (2012) called the 'second' and 'third' waves
in variationist studies, as well as the study of stylisation, can be seen as an attempt to go
beyond this, and this has required a linguistic ethnographic approach in which scholars
submerge themselves extensively in local networks, audio-record the targeted group, in-
terview its members and explore what speakers themselves find to be meaningful linguistic
differences and how they deploy these differences in interaction. Online ethnographers
can do this by collecting Facebook interactions of a particular group, the YouTube videos
they post, their contributions to particular fora and by combining online with offiine data
(cf. St~hr, 2015). Such an approach does not mean that analyses can only be qualitative
in nature: Eckert consistently quantifies the use of particular variables that the ethnogra-
phy has revealed to be locally distinctive with other locally relevant categories. Similarly,
Snell's (2010) linguistic ethnographic study of primary school children's linguistic practices
combines a quantitative analysis of one linguistic variable, the first person possessive sin-
gular, with an interactional analysis of the way one particular variant, me, features in the
children's stylisations (see Snell, this volume).
Contextualisation is key, however: without it, all claims about the meaning of styles and
stylisations risk being speculative. Indeed, as we indicated above, linguistic features can have
a variety of indexical meanings. A careful analysis therefore distinguishes the meanings that
a feature "potentially indexes from [...] [those that a feature] actually indexes in a particular in-
stance of use" (Ochs, 1996, p. 418, cited in Rampton, 2006, p. 303). This requires a thorough
knowledge of which indexical meanings a particular feature can evoke in the context at issue,
next to a keen awareness of participants' conventional and less conventional ways of speak-
ing. A possible approach is to retrace the interpretation made by other interlocutors - who
may identify what the speaker does, or produce other behaviour that provides a clue. Asking
participants to comment on language in feedback interviews may be a way of obtaining such
clues if these are not in the original recording. Mostly though, analysts will have to run the
full gamut of options that ethnographic and interaction analysis has in store, that is, reread-
ing the fragment for its pragmatic meaning, conversation analytic characteristics, participant
framework and politeness issues, among others, and comparing each of the relevant cases
with others in order to find a pattern across the data.
119
It is important as \Vcll to avoid interpreting Lhc u,e c,f particular features a I straightforward
identity :1ud to investigate the: i.ntcractional relevance of a fc:1t11rc in terms of
how speakers cvalu:\lc die interaction and thc-ir relatiou with co-particip:rnls. Tins is the line
taken by schoLm interested in stance (Ochs. 1')96; Jatfr. 2009), who investigate how speakers,
in selecting a cert;nn style, position themselves with respect to the form or content of their
utterance, and how in so doing they align themselves with other interlocutors and the events
at hand. Using a vernacular style to address an authority rn.ay, for example, intimate the
speaker's non-deferential, assertive stance rather than being intended to suggest Tm local· -
certainly if the authority already knows this. In this perspective. linguistic (together ,vith
non-linguistic) features contribute to a range of fleeting interactional effects and derneanours
(sophistication, hesitancy, decisiveness, If ,tances are taken up repe.1tedly or become
routinised. the feature, that signal them rn,iy become indexes of more durable (individual or
group) identities. Och, (1992) points out. however, tbctt such a process is always constrained
by more established, 1dcologised categories of gc·nder and the like. Analysts would be
wise therefore not to ,el' cumulative stann:-t.1king bv means of certain le:iLures tou quickly
as proof of a distinct style, but to explore ho\, these reatures are linked to the social types
believed to conventionally take such stances: depending on the time and occasion, men's
use of standard language to create a sophisticated stance may be taken as feminine, classy or
arrogant, leading to different identifications of the stance producer that. in their turn, impact
on the opportunities for conventionalising the stance. Ideologies of masculinity thus limit
male speakers' style spectrum.
No amlysis of styk cind stylisation, moreuvc·r, cao allow itself to ignore th.it styling and
stylising only make sense in relation to other stvle.,. Styles, as Irvine points out. are "part of
a system ,,f tfotinction. in which a style comrasts w1th other possible styks, ,md the social
meaning signified by the style contrasts \vith other social meanings" (Irvine, 2001, p. 22).
Studying style and stvlisation. then, depe1Hls ou exploring the universe of that speakers
are a,vare of and their knowledge of how local styles differ from each other and how local
styles interact with non-local ones that are institutionalised through schooling or mainstream
media. Understanding a system of distinction equally requires a focus on practices of dif:_
frrentiation, or the way in ,vhich styles are actively distinguished from each other, labdlc:d,
talked about, promoted, stylised or otherwise evaluated. Such social evaluations are inevi-
tably ideological became they interact with ideologised representations of ·good'. 'civilised',
'polite', 'beautrtul', 'cool' language, ancl these representations are not univers:.l: the same
style (features) may be found, for example, 'mainstream', 'slang' or 'fake slang', depending
on speakers' background, age, education or interest (cf Agha, 2004). Local uses of style and
stylisation rnw,L thus be :malysed for how understand their social \Vtlrld, the perspec-
tives about language that exist within it and in terms of the linguistic (and other) features
they have access to (cf Irvine, 2001. p. 22).
A particular challenge for scholars interested in stylisations is knowing when some-
thing can be taken as a stylisation, and when it may be more appropriate to categorise
a particular utterance as sound play. In general, stylisations involve a marked deviation
from speakers' convemional behaviour, and con,ist of'an emphatic, exaggerated or (over)
acted renderwg or lrnguistic features that fall outside speakers' habinul speech range.
These fec1tures arc often markers of an out-,~roup variety (e.g. AAE stylisd by white
speakers), but they 111.1y just as well belong Lu cne's ·uwn' variety - as with rhc Welsh di-
alect features styli,cd by the radio presenters 111 Coupland's (2001) d,ira. ur the northern
English possessive me in Snell's (2010) data, which had fallen out of habitual use in the
age group she studied. Typically stylisations are marked by a conglomerate of semiotic
120
resources. They can be recognised by "an increased density of marked linguistic features"
(Rampton, 2006, p. 262), e.g. stereotypical lexis, or a phonetic rendering characterised by
overshoot (Bell & Gibson, 2011, p. 568). In addition they are often set off from their sur-
roundings by paraverbal means such as sudden shifts in pitch level, voice quality, volume
or pace (Rampton, 2006, p. 262), as well as by facial expressions and gestures. Another
clue to their identification are the metalinguistic responses produced by the audience or
participants to the interaction, who may react to stylisations by "laughing, repeating the
utterance, by commenting on [them], or by switching into a different kind of non-normal
dialect or voice" (Rampton, 2006, p. 262).
In staged performances, such as the mass-mediated, scripted performances delivered by
Coupland's (2001) radio presenters, stylisations often comprise long stretches of talk and
project widely known cultural styles, stereotypical personae or even named persons, as a
result of which they may be quite straightforwardly interpretable to anyone knowledge-
able of that culture (Gibson, 2011; Van Hoof, 2016). In spontaneous, non-scripted interac-
tions, stylisations are often fleeting, their indexicalities more local, more ambiguous or even
opaque. Opacity is a fundamental aspect of communication, though, and the challenge is
then to distinguish clearer from less clear stylisations, and to see how these can be interpreted
in a single framework (Rampton, 2006, p. 305). It is often useful to distinguish jocular from
less- or non-jocular stylisations, and vari- from uni-directional ones, and to determine in
response to what specific kind ofbusiness they occur (including local and less local affairs), in
order to interpret how and why speakers deploy them.
Future directions
'Change' is a theme we have so far only marginally touched upon. It is a central endeavour
in variationist sociolinguistics, however, to demonstrate language change, conceptual-
ised as the change of vernacular norms in a given speech community. Recently, so-called
'post-variationist' students of style have been casting the net wider in arguing for a study
of 'sociolinguistic change', that is, of changing relations between language and society
(Androutsopoulos, 2014, Coupland, 2014; Mortensen et al., 2016), focussing on how lan-
guage users "may reallocate values and meanings to existing styles and valorise new ones"
(Coupland, 2010, p. 145). This is argued, in particular, in relation to varieties conventionally
referred to as 'standards' and 'dialects': we often overlook that these terms are actually evalu-
ative because the ideological perspective that makes this type of juxtaposition has become so
entrenched that an alternative, competing, representation is difficult to imagine. Yet there
is no reason why these styles cannot be re-evaluated up to the extent that it may become
pointless to label them 'standard' or 'dialect'. Agha (2015), in fact, claims that a number
of former 'slang' varieties - Bahasa Gaul in Indonesia, Nouchi in Cote d'Ivoire, among
others - are losing that reputation and are instead acquiring middle-class respectability or are
becoming a sign of national identity, and that mainstream and new media play an important
role in this process. Coupland and his collaborators similarly suggest that these media may
be particularly apt for tracing how styles we call 'standard' and 'dialect' are "coming to hold
different, generally less determinate and more complex, values in a late-modern social or-
der" (Coupland, 2010, p. 145). The practical advantage of media data is that they allow for
a real-time diachronic analysis, given that 'old' as well as 'newer' media are relatively easily
accessible in broadcasters' archives, on YouTube, etc.
Moving outside the realm of variation 'within what we call a 'language', Rampton
(2011) has, in line with a reflexive understanding of styles (see above), proposed the notion
121
Jurgen jaspers and Sarah Van Hoof
of 'contemporary urban vernacular' as a style that consists of linguistic frnrns that occur
in mixed urban neighbourhoods (a core of English, elements of n1igrant
languages and 'stand;ircl' English) as well as a range of reflexive practices (including styli-
that silllulLaneously set this style off from others. One can in this view thus
unite elements from different 'langu;1ges', and come to be J11xtaposed with styles that are
seen to be less 'urb,in'. R.ampton fr1rthennure argues tbclt such an approach is apposite too
for understanding Yvhat .1 'standard' varietv is, or can becon1c, 111 our current societies.
This is an invitation, in other words. to broaden our horizon the borders of a
singular Ltnguagc, and to sec how students of and stylisation could contribute to
detailing the emergence and consolidation of (hybrid, multilingual or pure) styles that we
consider to be urban, cosmopolitan or contemporary, :md to explore how these arc set off
from others.
Further reading
Agh3. A. (2007). Lmgu,\1;f and SO(i<1l rclatio11_,. Cambridge Umvcrsity Press. (How people
come to distinguish different social styles of speaking or 'registers' -- is the central topic of this
book. t\gha argues that social relations crucwlly depend on reflexive capacity to recognise
that communicative signs have social effects. He builds on this imight to argw, how reflexivity leads
to speakers' recognition ufstereotypil~ \\'dys :1nd sho\.vs~ an1ong other things, hovv one
speech style 'Received Pronunciation' - was transformed from a local speech style spoken by J
privileged le,,- into a ,,idely known, csublished standard f:n Brillsh society.)
Coupbnd, N_ (2007). Lcu1g1wge uariatio11 ,ind Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(This book oflers a highly readable ufstyle, and stylisation. Drawing on classic soci-
olinguistic social-psychological as well as anthropological Coupland argues insistently,
using ample examples, that Yariation in is more usefully as a form of social
practice rather than as behaviour that is responsivE' to extnna l conditions.)
F.ckert, P. (2012). 'Three waves of variation study. T be emergence of meaning in the study of variation.
,.4_mnlill Review of a411thro1.1ology. 41, 87-100. (Eckert dis,:us1cs in this article how the study of social
meaning has evolved in sociolinguistics, that it h.1s been chaucteriscd by three waves:
the first wave w:is mainly interested in finding correlations between variables and broad so-
ci;t! categories; the second etbnograpbic methods to show how local categories drive the
production ufparticular variables; schoLns in the third wave determine the m.eaning of variables in
relation to tbe other resources used, use of semiotic resources going far beyond marking
local or less local categories.)
Rampton, B. (2006). Lwp1i!gc i11 l,ltc Interaction 111 ,,r1 111bm1 Sc!iool. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. (In this book [(ampton situates adolescent linguistic pr:ict1Cc in a London school
in rebtion to popular culture and comrnu11ic1tive trends, before demonstrating, on the
basis of fine-grained ;malvsis of ,rndio-recordings, that these youngsters' stylisation of a school
foreign language (Ccrrnan) inverted the authorit'1tive way in which Cernun was taught, ind that
their playfol ,rnd less pbyfol stvlisations of Cockney and 'posh' English revealed their on-going
negotiation and construction of social class.)
Snell, J. (2010). From sociolinguistic variation to sociallv strateg1( stvlisat.ton._/011n1,1/
14(5), (,30--655. (This article shows huvv quantitative and interactional an,rlyses can be usefr1lly
combined to explore the index1cality of the indiv.i.dual lt'atures that m,,kc up 'vcr-
narnbr' speech styl,:s. Focussing on stylised instances of tbc first person possessive singular rne
in ethnogrJphically collected interactions amongst primary school pupils, the analysis lays bare a
indexical field that goes consider:ibly beyond the conventional association of vernaculars
with ink1rnulity and
Related topics
lntcr~1ctfrqJal socioliugu-ist-ics: fvlixing n1cthods? Lingulstic :ind variation;
So,:i:il class.
122
References
Agha, A. (2004). Registers of language. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology
(pp. 23-45). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Agha, A. (2015). Tropes of slang. Signs and Society, 3, 306-330.
Androutsopoulos, J (2007). Style onlinc: Doing hip hop on the German-speaking Web. In P. Auer
(Ed.), Style ,1111/ social identities (pp. 27'J·-·317). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Cruvtcr.
Androutsopoulos, J (2012). Introduction: Language ,md society in cinematic discourse. Jifultilingua,
.Ji, 13'.H.54.
Androut,opoulm, J (2014). Mediatiz.1tion and sociolinguistic change. In J. Androutsopoulos (Ed.),
:tlcdiati::<1tio11 <1ud sociolinguistic change (pp. l-48). Ilerlin and Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter.
Auer, P. (2007). Introduction. In P. Auer (Ed.), ,md social identities. Berlin and Ne\v York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The di<Ilogic im,1gination (Ed. by M. Holquist and Trans. by C. Emerson & M.
Holqnist). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bauman, R. (1975). Verbal art as performance. American Anthropologist, 77, 290--311.
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Lmt;ua2e in Society, 13, 145-204.
Bell, A., & Gibson, A. (2011). Staging language: An introduction to the sociolinguistics of perfor-
mance. Joum,,/ of Sociolinguistics, 15(5 ), 555-572.
Bennett, J (2012). And what comes out may be a kmd of screeching: The sty.lization of chat,speak in
conternporarv Britain, Journal of Socio/111luistics. 16(1), 5-27.
Bucholtz, M. (2003). Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal qf Sociolinguis-
tics, 398--416.
Bucholtz, 1VL, & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7, 585-614.
Bucholtz, M., & Lopez, Q. (2011). Performing blackness, fi.mning whiteness: Linguistic minstrelsy in
Hollywood film.Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15, 680-706.
Charalambous, C. (2012). 'Republica de Kubros': Transgression and collusion in Greek-Cypriot
adolescents' classroom silly--talk. Ling11istics and Education, 23, 334-49.
Cheshire, P. (1982). Varitzti<>n in an English dialect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chun, E. (2009). Ideologies oflegitimate mockery. In A. Reyes & A. Lo (Eds.), Beyond yellow English
(pp. 261-287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chun, E. (201.l). Ironic blackness as masculme cool. Asian American language and authenticity on
Ym1J\1be. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 592-612.
Coupland, N. (2001). Dialect stylisation in radio talk. Language in Society, 30, 345-375.
Coupland, N. (2007). Style. Language JJ,1ric1t1on an.d identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, N. (2010). Language, ideologv, media and social change. In K. Junod & D. Maillat (Eds.),
Performing the self (pp. 127-151). Ttibingen: Gunter Narr.
Coupland, N. (2014). Sociolinguistic change, vernacularization and broadcast British media. In J
Androutsopoulos (Ed.), lVIediarization and sociolinguistic change (pp. Berlin and Boston, MA:
Walter de Gruyter.
Coupland, N., Th0gersen,J., & Mortensen,J (2016). Introduction. In]. Th0gersen, N. Coupland, &
J. Mortensen (Eds.), Style, media and language ideologies (pp. 11-49). Oslo: Novus,
Cutler. C. (1999). Yorkville crossing. \Xlhite teens, hip hop and African American English.Journal of
3, 428-442.
Eckert, P. (JCJ8')). Jorks and burnouts. Soda/ ,,11c1ories ,.11,d identity in the high sc!wol. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Eckert. P (2008). Variation and the indexical field Journal of Sociolinguistics, 121,4), 453-476.
Eckert, P. (2(112). Three waves of variation studv. /1nnual Review of Anthropo/o.~)', 41. 87-100.
Gibson, A. (2011). Flight of the Conchords: Recontextualizing the voices of popular culture.]oum,zl of
Sociolinguistics, 15(5), 603-626. ·
Giles, H., & Powesland, P. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of tc1lk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hill, J. (1998). Language, race, and white public space. American Anthropologist, 100, 680·-689.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics:
Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Irvine, J (2001). 'Style' as distinctivenc·ss. In I'. Eckert & JR. Rickford Style and sociolinguistic
1.o,1ri,1tion (pp. 21-43). Cambridge: Cambridge' Unin,rsity Press.
123
ji.irgen Jaspers and Sarah Van Hoof
Jaffe, A. (20U'!). Sr,uw:: Soriolinguistic perspec/il'C.\. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jaspers, J. (2011 a). Talking like a zero-linguaLf,>11m,,/ o/ P1<('.(lllatics, 43(5), 1264 12"/1'.
Jaspers, J. (2(il 1h). Str;inge bedfellows. Apprupri,1tious oLi t<1inted urban dialect. jown,1/ o(So,iolinguis-
tics, 15(4), 49.'\ 524.
Jaspers, J. (2015). Modelling linguistic divers it v. The Ci,.clurlmg impact of inclusive multilmgualism.
Language J,/(2). 109-129.
Johnstone, B. (2013). Spe,zking l'ittslmz1;hrn:. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lahov, W. (1963). The social motivation ofa sound change. Word, 1.9, 273-309.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lahov, W. (2006 [1966]). The social stratification of English in New 'Yori, city (2nd ed.). Cambri<lge:
Le Page, R. (1978). Ptojection, focussing, diffusion, or, steps towards a sociolinguistic theory of
language, illustratE"d from the Sociolinguisti,· Survey of Multilingual Communitie,, Stages I: Cayo
District. Iklizc (formerly British Honduras) Jnd II: St Lucia. York Papers in Lingwstics, 9(9), ')-31.
Le Page, R .. & Tabourct-Keller, A. (1985). Act, ofid1'11ti1y Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Madsen, L. M. (:!IJ I 3). 'High' and 'low' in urb:u, D,rni:d1 speech styles. Language in S,xicty, -U, 115-138.
Milroy, L. ( l'l81J). Lmgll,(\;C and social networks. Oxford: BLlck.well.
Mortensen. J., Coup!Jnd, N., & Th0gersen, J. (2fl16). Introduction. In]. Mortensen. N. Conpbnd, &
J. Th0ger,en (Eels.), S1yle, mediation, and c/1,mge (pp. 1-21). Oxford: Oxford University Pre:,s.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 335-358).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.),
Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407-437). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pratt, M.L. (1987). Linguistic utopias. In N. Fabb, D. Attridge, A. Durant, & C. MacCabe (Eds.), The
lin1:;uistics of writin,g (pp. 48-66). Mancl1ester: Manchester University Press.
Quist, P. (2005). Nn, speech varieties among immigrant youth in Copenhagen. In V Hiunen kamp &
Kathann,1 Meng (Ed,.), Sprachgrenzen iiberspri11gen (pp. 145-161). Ti.ibingen: Cunter N,ur.
Rampton, D. (l')'}S). Crossing. Language and etl111friry i/111011_1; ,ululescen.ts. London: Longman.
Rampton, B. (200(,). L1flguage in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pre,,.
Rampton, B. (2011'>). l ntcraction ritual and not JU\t artful performance in crossing :md stylization.
Language /11 Su,icly, 38, 149-176.
Rampton, B. (2011). From 'nmlt1 ethnic adolescent heteroglossia' to 'contemporary urban vernacu-
lars'. Language & Cornrnu11ic,1tio11, 31, 276-294.
fZ.ampton, B., & Charalamhous, C. (2010). Crossing: A review of research. vVorking Papers in Urban
Lmgu,1ge and Literacies, 58.
Ronkin, M., & Karn, H.E. (l999). Mock Ebonics: Linguistic racisn:1 in parodies of Ebonics on the
Internet. journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(3), 360-380.
Schilling-ENes, N. (WO(,). Investigating stylistic v,1riation. In JK. Chamber,, P Truclgill, & N.
Schilling-Fstc'S (Eds.). The handbook of 1wiatio11 ,md change (pp. 373-401). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Silverstein, M. (1'J7(,). Shifters, linguistic catcgorie,, and cultural description. In K.. Bassu & E. Selby
(Eds.), :1fol11in•: in ,wthropology (pp. 11-56). Alhuyuerquc University of New Mexico Press.
Snell, J. (2UJO). From sociolinguistic variation to socially strategic stylisation. Joum,1/ of So,i,,/ingu£stics,
14(5), 630-655.
St:-chr, A. (2015). Reflexivity in Facebook interactions. Enregistennent across written and spoken
language practices. Discourse, Context & IVledia, 8, 30·-45.
St:ehr, A., & Madsen, L.M_ (2015). Stancbrd language in urban rap. Langu,;1;e & Communication, 40,
67-81
Talmy, S, (2009). Forever FOB" Resisting and reproducing the other m High Scbool ESL. In A. Reyes &
A. Lo (Eds.), llcyond yellow English (pp. 347 3(,5). Oxford: Oxford University Pres,.
Van Hoof, S. ('.'rJ16). Knowing the ins and outs oflinguisric standardization. In G. Rutten & K. Horner
(Eds.), •Wc1,1liJ1y11islic Jkrpectives on Gennanir (pp. 131-155). Oxford: Peter Lang.
Van Hoof, S., & J;"per;, J (2016). Negotiating linguistic sLrndardization in FlenllSh TV Fiction around
1980. Iu j. Thuge1sen. N. Coupland, & J iVlo1lt:nse1t (Eds.), Style, media ,md /,mg11,1gc ideologies
(pp. 161--l88). Oslo Novus.
Varis, P., & Wang, X. (2011 ). Supcrdiversity on the internet: A case from China. Diwrsities, 13(2),
71-83.
124
10
Multimodality
Jeff Bezemer and Sahra Abdullahi
Introduction
In the past two decades, social scientists from different scholarly traditions, including so-
ciolinguistics, conversation analysis and literacy studies, have started to describe an ever-
growing range of different social-semiotic phenomena as instances of 'multimodality'. This
is indicative of the emergence of a new, theoretically and methodologically diverse 'field',
which is now often referred to as 'Multimodality' (MM). For general reviews of this field,
the reader is referred to recently published secondary literature (see further reading). This
chapter explores synergies and differences between MM and linguistic ethnography (LE).
Our aim is to suggest ways in which theoretical and analytical tools from MM have been
and might be brought to bear on and enrich (linguistic-)ethnographic accounts of social life.
We demonstrate how two types of materials frequently obtained during ethnographic field
work - video recordings and printed paper - can be analysed multimodally to advance un-
derstanding of meaning-making and communication in the contemporary social world.
The term 'multimodality' was first introduced in the late 1990s, and is now widely used
across the social sciences, including LE. MM has, over the years, become a diverse field.
There is now a plethora of journals, both relatively new (e.g. Visual Communication, Multi-
modal Communication, Entanglements: Experiments in Multimodal Ethnography) and well estab-
lished (e.g. Social Semiotics, Journal of Pragmatics, Research on Language and Social Interaction),
that publish work that is described by its authors as 'Multimodality'. General conferences
(e.g. International Conference on Multimodality), handbooks Qewitt, 2012) and textbooks Qewitt
et al., 2016; Bateman et al., 2017) on MM have also appeared, sometimes in a deliberate
effort to establish a unified research community. Yet on the whole, MM is dispersed; it is
'practised', first and foremost, within a myriad of different research communities. Unlike LE,
which can be traced back to a foundational 'manifesto' (Rampton et al., 2004), MM emerged
in several different academic environments around the same time and independent of each
other. For instance, in the US, Charles Goodwin used the term in a paper published in 2000,
125
and in tlw UK. KrE,s dnd van Leeuwen u,cd it in the title of a book publishe,l i11 200t
Hence, 1v1M points to significantly differn1t epistemological, theoretical and methodological
positions and programmes of work.
What many different scholars who have the term have in common 1s that
they insist th,1t to understand even smJll of social interaction ,lllcl 1mL111ces of
meaning-making, researchers need to look beyond speech and writing. So for example,
when analysing a doctor's report, both the written notes and the drawn out sketches are
attended to and accounted for, When analysing a video recording of a medical consultation,
the participants' movements of their bodies should be explored as much as their spoken ut-
terances. The multirnodalist might argue that ignoring the drawing or bodies poses a threat
to the valid it v of the ,1ccounts produced. One. if not 1he quest10n that folbws from this is
exactly how far bevond speech and writing a Linguistic ethnographic researcher should look,
and then w!Lit theoretical and analytical tool, can be used to handle the rotentially over-
whelming tc1sk or nuking sense of'all th;cl nther stuff" that cannot be described ,is speech or
writing. We will le,\ve the former question to rndi\'ldu:il readers to consider, and fo, m on the
latter, demcmslratrng snme of the ways in which M.M produces accounts and theoretically
reframcs, phenomena with which LE is centrally concerned.

LE names a way of doing research. Linguistic ethnographers form a community who. not-
withstanding some specific and significant d1ffi.-rcncc,. share a particular cpistnnologicll and
methodological commitment. MM frames an of study - it does not how to
research it. Thu,, MJ'vl is studied across all 11u1ur research paradigms. using all the major
types of research in the social an,! sciences (Bateman er Much
MM work is ethnographic; yet there's aho a body of current restc,trch in MM that
is based on corpus analysis, and on experimental research. It is also perfectly conceivable to
conduct a survey on a topic in MM, e.g. to gain insight into social and cultural differences in
the interpretation of a specific multimodal text.
fornssing on ethnogra11hii work in MM (cf. Dicks et al., 2011) we can identify considerable
cross-referencing and scholarly contact, movement and interaction \Vith academics from LE.
For instance, ,vork by Charles and Marjorie Goodvvin. Frederick Erickson, Ron and Suzie
Scollon is frequently cited in LE and Ml\·1, and Lhc,e 1cholars have aligned themselves with
linguistic anthropology (LE's 'big brother' from the US), ethnography and M IV\. LE and MM
share, first, a commitment to 'critical' understanding of the social world. This is visible in
concerns about, e.g., ideology, power, str1iclurt' ,md ,1gency, voice, idemilv. suci,t! change,
mobility, diversity, etc. Second, they share a commitment to relatively detailed documen-
tation and analysis of social anion, interaction and human :n-telacLs. This translates into a
stance that is about the appreciation of 'sm.allness and slowness' (Silverman, 1999, who ,1ttri -
butes this phrase to Harvey and a preference for the use of m.aterials that afford such
fine-grained analysis, e.g. digital (video) recordings.
Yet import,rnt d1 ffcrences between LE ,md l\lM n·1.nain. One, if not the ditfcrel\0'" is that
in LE, on Lhc ,\hole_ language (speech atHl remains the primary !en, through which
the social world is studied. This is often combmed with significant interest m other forms
of meaning-making. Indeed, phrases like and other semiotic :,1gm". or 'linguistic
and other sern10tic re.,ources', or 'verbal ;rn,1 non-vnb<1l means of communicaticm' uc com-
mon in LE. They recognise MM yet at the same t11ne prioritise bnguage. The focus of MM i,
ou meaning-making, full sLOp. It aims to document and analyse serniotic work, regardless of
126
Multi modality
what 'modes' are involved in this work. To extend the use of William Blake's phrase, 'Seeing
a world in a grain of sand', MM assumes that 'a (social) world' can be opened up through
scrutiny of each and every 'grain', whether a dot on a page, a barely noticeable head nod or
a pitch movement. Thus, if one's interest is in describing and explaining social and semiotic
phenomena, all these details can be considered for analysis, and their selection should happen
not on the basis of their material form, but on the basis of their meaning potential.
MM insists on recognising all semiotic work, and on acting on that recognition, by giv-
ing, say, gesture as much analytical attention as speech; image and object design as much
attention as writing; and by appropriately (re)naming semiotic phenomena as semiotic.
Whenever an object of study has previously been described as linguistic, the question for
MM is, is this object also phenomenologically a linguistic, or a semiotic object? When peo-
ple send a WhatsApp message with a photo and a written caption, or when they engage in
a face-to-face meeting, do they do linguistic or semiotic work? Do they use linguistic or
semiotic resources? Do these resources make up their linguistic or their semiotic repertoire?
If the WhatsApp message provides a recount of the meeting, do its makers 'entextualize' or
'resemioticize'?
Multimodal approaches are, of course, partial too. First, as we shall show in the main
part of this chapter, documenting and analysing expressive details across a range of different
simultaneously operating modes usually mean that only small fragments can be analysed, or
else the analysis cannot reach the same level of detail in all modes. Second, the analytical ap-
paratus and semiotic resources (including an extensive lexicon) that academics have available
to them to produce accounts that render MM visible are, as yet, relatively limited. It will
take significantly more time and concerted efforts for multimodal theoretical and analytical
frameworks to 'reach maturity'. We will come back to this in the concluding section.

One aim of MM is to formally identify the principles of and resources for making meaning
(van Leeuwen, 2005; Kress, 2010). For instance, social semiotics has focussed on illustrating
and testing across different domains, genres and material environments the basic premise
that people use different 'modes' to express meaning. This has resulted in efforts to iden-
tify, name and conceptualise 'modes' and ways in which they are combined; and to explore
how meaning-making varies across social and cultural settings and changes over time, in
relation to social and technological changes. Other work, for example, that is described
as conversation analysis, has used the term to recognise the role of the body in communi-
cation, sometimes without committing to identifying, exploring and theorising different
'modes' (Streeck et al., 2011), and without looking beyond the dynamic unfolding of situ-
ated interaction. Indeed, some scholars in this tradition prefer not to use the terms 'mode'
or even 'multimodality', while they are deeply committed to advancing understanding of
meaning-making.
For ethnographers, insights gained from these studies can, as Bezemer and Kress (2016,
p. 5) put it, "have real effects on what and whose semiotic work is to be recognized, particularly
work which at the moment is often disregarded, 'invisible' maybe - work that goes unno-
ticed, or is simply taken for granted." This potential chimes well with the ethnographer's
openness and inclusiveness in field work: ethnographers have always included a range of
materials in their analysis, not just that which is analysable linguistically. MM can provide
_the tools to subject these materials to the same level of scrutiny as in a linguistic analysis,
thus potentially vastly expanding the scope of what can be micro-analysed, and offering new
127
possibilities to im.provc understanding in soci,1l activity that involves little or no speech or

writing (uf v,fod1 there are very many!).
For instance . .in classroom research, the ethnogr.1pher may return from field work with
video recordings. When reviewing these the linguist's attention (and the teach-
er's) may be drawn to those who speak, and not, or only when taking a closer look, to silent
students, who nonetheless through their bodily conduct acknowledge shifts in the teacher's
onentation, displaying communicative competence that is easily overlooked (Bezerncr,
2008). These silent students (i.e. the entire class minus one who has the floor) may be entirely
absent 111 transcripts and other representations (e.g. vignettes) of classroom events. Of all the
artefact:, that circulate in the classroom, the linguist will likely select or focus on written
texts. Multirnndalists, on the other hand. have analysed, at the same level of detail. students'
drawings (Mavers, 2011), films and machinimas (Burn, 2016), puppeb (Stein, 2008). con-
struction block .rnd running games (Cowan. 2(118), teacher's PowerPoint prt',entJtiom (Zhao
et al., 2UJ4) ;rnd arrangements (Kre:,s et al., 2()05), and many more types of 'texts'.
These cboice:, of wh;it to include and what to exdudc can have significant implications. For
instance, a linguistic analysis alone might lead some to conclude that 'children can hardly
write anymore'; a multimodal analysis might show that children's semiotic repertoire has
expanded significantly.
MM invites us to revisit each and every concept termed lin?uistic, asking, is the phe-
non1enon in focus exclusively linguistic or is it actually a semiotic phenomenon that must
be theoreticallv and empirically accounted for as a whole, while recognising its constituent
parts? Do 'Ne ai rn to ,tudy the linguistic LimLcape, or is it the semiotic landscape we're trying
to account for, Can ,ve analyse linguistic signs on a \vindow display in isoLition from sur-
rounding pictorial dernents? Can we produce :m accurate account of an 'oral' presentation
by focussing on the presenter's spoken utterances' 1.Vhat does 'translanguaging' - combining
linguistic resources - name that 'multimodal meaning making' - combining semiotic
resources - doesn't? Is it helpful to distinguish linguistic from semiotic repertoires, linguistic
from communicative competence? And how to describe processes of re-presentation beyond
the use of the term transmption' And ifwe settle on these terms, then how can we ensure that
they are taken seriously?
In the remainder of this chapter we will show how one key focus in LE - communication
in an en uf superdiversity (see Blackledge and Creese, this volume, and Grey and Piller,
this volume) - can be approached from a nrnltirnodal perspective. Our guiding question is
'What sermotic work i, done by whom, ,vith what resources, and for whotll'' We look, first,
at a semmLic artefact, a 'finished product': a chopstick wrapper from a restaurant found in a
restaurant in London's Chinatown; and at semiotic 'processes': a meeting ofo teacher,
parent and student at a tuition centre in London.
Main research methods: looking beyond writing

Our first empirical example (t:-iken from Bezemer & Kress, 2016) is a chopstick wrapper
comm.only med in restaurants in London sen-ing E,_istern Asian food. Before we consider
the wrapper, we uule that the chopsticks theimelves are, of course, a sign of Eastern Asian
culture: they arc used across China, Korea. Vietnam, Japan and Taiwan. dnd have been for
thousand, of year,_ Their designers use a range uf resources to make meaning: combinations
of choices uf matcnal (e.g. different types of wood)_ shape and size, inscription and colour-
ing, jointly project a social occasion or context of use (compare, for instance, light, short.
unadorned, 'dispo,able' chopsticks with finely engraved, long, heavy ones).
128
Multi modality
So are the resources used in the design of the object in which they are held: the wrapper
we are considering here is made of paper, and therefore 'disposable'. Other wrappers are
made of fabric; yet other chopsticks are kept or presented in boxes, of various materials, sizes,
inscriptions, etc. By placing chopsticks on a table in a restaurant before guests arrive, they are
presented as the preferred eating utensils. Should guests wish to use other tools, such as knife
and fork, then they will need to request that. To the restaurant owner, E.ist Asian food with
chopsticb is a coherent ensemble; East Asian food with knife and fork is not.
The 'audience· of restaurants in London is diverse, and includes 'local' residents, as well
as visitor, to the city, including regular and occJsional tourists, from around the world, and
so their cultural-semiotic repertoires, and the meanings they attach to the chopsticks and
the multimodal design of the wrapper will vary significantly. The design of the wrapper
anticipates some of that diversity and the unpredictability of the resources which guests will
'bring to the table'. One side of the wrapper, shown here as figure 10.1, addresses guests as
learners: it provides instructions on how to use chopsticks. It shows that the designers (and
the restaurant owners) anticipate having guests who do not know how to hold chopsticks
and sec it ,is their responsibility to design a learning environment for them to learn just that.
The two sides c)fthe wrapper present difl:crcnt texts. The side that is usually pbced (by the
waiter) face up (Figure 10.2) shows three w1:1ges. This is the 'front'. The side facing down,
the reverse contains writing and image; this is the side providing instructions on 'how
to me chopsticks'; it becomes visible \vhen guests pick it up and turn it around. Both image
and writing on this side are in red.
The texts on the front and reverse sides can be described as follows. On the reverse
side, working within the space dictated by the shape of chopsticks, the strip is divided
into four parts/modules of equal size, suggesting a left-right reading path. The first part
is filled by the title. In the following three parts, the process of 'using chopsticks' is bro-
ken down into distinct 'steps'. Each step is represented using image and writing. Image
details where to place fingers and highlights which of the two sticb should be moved,
while writing is used to describe where to pLice fingers and which finger to use to move
the top of the mck.
The front of the wrapper addresses all guests_ yet what they 'see' -- ,;vhat they attend to -
will be rather different. Some guests will interpret the colour and the images (including
the character in the middle) as signs of 'Chineseness', or '(East) Asianness'. These signs are
likely to be coherent with other signs in the 'site' in which the wrapper appears, such as the
'decorative' objects on walls (lanterns, paintings), room dividers, menus in both Chinese and
English, and so forth.
Figure 10.1 Chopstick wrapper (reverse)
Figure J0.2 Chopstick wrapper (front)
129
Other guests, not least those who take p:1rt in or are fom1Ji;u with Chinese culture and its
sen1iotic resources, w1.ll recognise, upon closer inspection, cli,tinct visual clements: a dragon
on the lefi, and a fengbuang (similar to Lbe Greek on the right, and attach cultur-
ally shaped mearnngs to each: the former
(follo·wing a left-to-right reacling path, their placement suggests that the male figure comes
fir;;t), They ,vi 11 abu the Chinese char,1cter in the middle of the wrapper and mside
the circle,Joimng the two figures up, indeed, 'marrying' them:
J'his char;ictc:r (a ligature made up or two ident1cal t:l1;1racters, is often translated

as 'double , and is traditionally presented as a paper-cut at ,veddings and other
cekhr,1tory occasions, such as the (]uncH) New Year. Some might s:1y that the doubled-·up
character signifi,·s a doubly happy umon families) through r11arr1age. The character is
,·ohcrcnt with other on the fronl, such as the full circle in which the character is placed,
the I.overs' 'cn1hrace and eternal bond' uf the couple; and the colour
reel, s1gnifyrng, among other things, good luck and happiness,
The design of the wrapper is one sign of the mobility of makers ;rnd the spread of
cultural Mtd snniotic resnurces. NLrny sign m:ikers un now bring to bear quite diHerent sets
of semiotic resuurccs, shaped by different cultural histories. providing distint:t possib1lilies
fi,r meaning-nuking. That kads to a of uncert;iinty on the p:1rt of designers. Where
previously ;mdicnces c1nd the prefrrred relation with thur were relatively known and
stahk, serving :Vi reli:1ble guides for in the contemporary world there is a need to deal
\Vith unprcdictabtl1ty of the chanctcristics of the audiences, their cultural-sem1otlc resources
and their prefi:rrcd relation to the designer.
CThc example illustrates how a previously routme, b:mal task cutlery in a
restaurant - has become complex, demanding ,em iotic work now best described
as dcs(;J,n, A.nd it is now i.'.ntucly conunon fiJr makers to semiotic resources drawn
frorn different social and cultural environrnents together in one frarne: p1ctonal and alphabetic
scripts, for instance, or English and Chinese lexis, syntax, tone and body posture. Our next ex-
ample provides more evidence oCthis feature of the contemporary landscape of communication.
Main research methods: looking beyond speech

Our second exarnple 1s ukcn frorn ;n1 ethnogtaphic study ofan after-sclmol tuition centre in
South Erst London, focussing on child language brokering in p:irent-tcachcr meetings. The
centre was set up by a group of Sornali mothers in 2009. A.lthough mmt of its attendees arc
Somali, it provide:; educational services to children of all ethnic minorities, bet ween 8
:rnd 16, during ;1fter-school and weekend hours. The centre aini,; to bridge the gap between
school and home for children with parents ,vbo speak littk to no English, by puttrng these
students into snuLI classes ofup to five students per tutor, This allows the children the chance
to go over asi>ects of school work :md homework that find with the help
of an experienced tutor, /\s well a.s finding help with home and school work, the children
abo receive additional lessons in English, Maths and Science which fc1llow the national cur-
11clJhH11 fr.1r KS:2. KS.~ and GCSE leveL Each student, upon enrollrng rn the tuillon centre,
receives a workbook frJr the lessons Lbat they have been to, e.g. a niathematics ,vork·
book if tliey are L1 king maths classes, The students arc expected to cornplcte the assigned
exercise, in these rlooks during class, and will often he asked to do extr:1 exercise, as boine-
work l!'om this book as \selL These buoks are tben used during p:nent teacher meetings for
the tutors to rcfrr lxick to when are prcscntmg feedbc1ck to the children's parents,
130
Multi modality
The tuition centre holds parent-teacher meetings twice a year, once in September and
again in June. On these occasions, the parents, who will often come to the tuition centre to
pick up their children once classes are over, are invited to stay behind for a few minutes in
order to meet with the tutors. The tutors then take them to a separate room wherein they
can sit and speak about the child's progress. We video-recorded sessions where children ac-
companied their mother to translate. This is a common practice at the centre: eight out of19
mothers asked for their child to be present for translation. All participants have given consent
to be video-recorded and observed. A camera was placed in one corner of the room, allowing
a continuous shot of a frame containing all the participants. The example we present below
features a mother and child of Somali descent, and a female tutor of Pakistani heritage who
does not speak Somali. The mother is in her late 40s, her son is 13 years old and the tutor is
in her mid-20s. The mother stated that she spoke limited English, and frequently asks her
children to translate for her, in school parent-teacher meetings, GP consultations and other
settings.
Figure 10.3 provides a transcript of the spoken interaction in the first 20 seconds following
their greetings, using the following transcription conventions: numbers in parentheses indi-
cate pauses in seconds; dots in parentheses indicate pauses ofless than a second. Equals signs
at the end of one utterance and the beginning of the next indicate that the two utterances are
latched. Semi-colons indicate prolongation of the preceding sound. Transcriptions in brack-
ets provide word-for-word translations of Somali or Somali/English.
Based on this transcript, we can make a number of observations.
First, we can see that the teacher and mother use English and Somali, respectively, while
the child produces speech using English and Somali lexis and Somali morpho-grammar,
following principles of combination commonly found in multilingual environments. For
instance, 'progresskayga' is composed of the English noun 'progress' and Somali '-kayga', a
first-person possessive pronoun in the form of a suffix. This is followed by an English ad-
jective ('good'), and a Somali verb-form ('waaya') in finite position, using a word order that
Somali affords.
Second, in this fragment, the teacher, mother and child each take a turn at talking, with-
out overlap. The teacher opens with an evaluation of the child by the teacher, naming several
positive characteristics and one (the last one she mentions) negative one. She refers to the
child in third person, suggesting that she's addressing the mother, not the child. The mother
then requests her son, whom she addresses affectionately with 'hooyo' ('darling'), to translate
what the teacher said. Then, after a half-second pause and a 'filler' ('uhm'), the child starts
his translation. Thus, the spoken contributions of each of the three participants correspond
with their institutional responsibilities. The teacher is committed to providing information,
the mother to accessing that information and the child to facilitating his mother's access to
the information provided by the teacher.
One question arising from this fragment is why the mother requests a translation when
both the child and the teacher are aware that she would like this to happen anyway. An-
other, related question is how they take turns. There is no gap between the teacher's 'so' in
Line 6 and the mother's request for translation in Line 7, so that the mother might be.seen
as taking a turn at a point where the teacher had not yet finished what she had wanted to
say before letting the child translate. The one-second silence in Line 6 is significant here,
as it is a transition-relevant point, which the child doesn't take up to start translating. Yet
it is not possible, on the basis of speech alone, to say much more about the turn taking and
initiation of translation in this fragment. The multimodal transcript in Figure 10 .4 was de-
signed to provide a stronger basis for addressing this issue. As well as transcriptions of speech,
131
Jeff BeLemer and Sahra Abdullahi
10 ( .
11 UhEt: :
12
L'
Figure 10.3 Transcript of spoken interaction
it describes, fiir each of the three (T JV[ and C stand for Teacher, 1\llotbn and
Child, the positioning of their upper bodin, the direction c,ftbcir gaze and the
gestures they n1:1ke with hands or head. All :rnd :innot:itiom :ire anchored on a
tin1dine, so that their teruvor.11 can he The timclinc rnJrb each tenth of
0.5 second. The annotations were m:1de in ELAN (Wittenburg ct al..
Upper hody l'osition is dc,cribed in terms ofho\\ are seated. :it the tablc-. :rn.d in relation
to each other. This is the rnost st,1ble dirnens1on: there 1s rebtively Iittle room for ch:1nging
these the fixed of the table and chairs. Gaze is described
in tcnns of the apparent fi.xus of attention a, di,pbycd the of the
head and, where are visible, facial Tt:ll!\Jtion:il st:1ge,, ,vhich the
p:irt.icipant changes the of their an: :1lso described 'shifts co Gcsrnrc
is described in terms of the part of the body it is produced \vitb., how that p:irt is positioned
;md the fixrn of the stroke Kcndon,
,'\]l :111notatio11, should be read in con1u11ct1on with the video stills provided (which we
turned into line dr,1wings using VLC's video effects to preserve anonymity of the research
:ind with the co1.1imentary we present after the transcript. It is there that: we can
ebborace on individual .nu1otations and draw attention tc, connections between the differ-
ent features represented 1J1 the transcript. As ,vith the transcription of speech, our account
1.-c:-nuins partial, and in ,on1e This is related to the limited expressive
of then limited potential co represent move-
1ncnt. There n1ciy be some unccrt,1inty of particular :11111otations, in relation to the
gnc of the teacher and the child.
fhe p:11:cnt :,nd cluld ctre seated at :1 table inside .1 sm.al1 rootn. The seating arr:1nge-
was orchestrated by the teacher) corresponds \Yith the official purpose of the type
they arc having. It is mother and tc:icher ,\·ho :n-c secitcd each other,
them as main participants 1n a com'ers:1tion. 'The child, who is invited in to tr:mslate for
his mother, is seated next to his mother. In the first two second,, as the teacher says, "which is
hirn back O rn", all three touch the t:1bJe. rite mother sits upright, with
her lJJnds folckd 011 the tabk; the child k:1m on the uble with his arms folded. 'The teacher
touches the of the rablc with her right hand, ,vhilc using her lcfr hand to produce gestures
above dH· table. They do not the of their upper body in this time scgrncnt.
In the Wilt: segruent J0.4. the teacher 1n:1h·s three gntures. The first
gesture J 1s ,,nrh tlw spoken "h::ck". She prepares for these
132
Multimodality
A B C
, d
!1pper~1ri
I . . . 00:00:18,000 00:00:18.500
left elbow resting ot1 table, right hand on tip of table
00:00:19,000 00,00,19.soo . 9.0;00:20.000 _
rlat=M~-----------------tl•=n=lftto~o~---ilr•t~c____
Tr;~:!~
Tgesturnlf"~""P~-+',·"""""'""'--------1'1"=--="°="'"'-"h""~~'-----ilF•"":.:::""='c::.c__-+i='"°="":::c'P'---
T "".h lwhic:hlspushlnghimback
$1')$m
I 1•0
Cupper-bo1t ,a~folded~~.~~.'e.
aiT' · "
~~~ .:· .. _-
Cgs::.ium
C_sp_e~h
,, .
"upµ0reu
, . :~\
I
. ;id, hsnds 1olded on table
alT
Figure 70.4 "...which is pushing him back (1.0) so="
A B C
Figure 70.5 "Back"
by letting go of the page in the child's workbook which she was holding with her left hand
(see Figure 10.SA), stretching her hand (Figure 10.SB) and raising her left arm, levelling it
with her chest, while placing her hand in a 135° angle with her arm (Figure 10.SC). The
stroke gravitates towards the tip of her stretched hand, which follows the path of a semi-
circle, with the end point being closer to her body. In the process, her entire arm moves
towards her. Once she has reached the end point she maintains a post-stroke hold, before
producing the next two gestures. Thus, the gesture resembles a backward movement (relative
to the teacher's 'front'), which is semantically related to the spoken "back", highlighting the
negative effect of"being distracted".
The following two gestures by the teacher are pointing gestures, made with her left
hand stretched out. The first of these (Figure 10.4B) is directed at the child, and produced
just before she says, "so"; the second (Figure 10.4C) is directed at the mother, and produced
.as she says "so". As she produces these gestures and the spoken part, her gaze is directed at
the child, having shifted away from the mother just after she uttered "back". The pointing
133
/\ B C
Figure 10.6 "=Mixii dhathey hooyo?"
Figure 10.7 " ... progresskayga good waaya"
gestures, along vvith "so", are acknowledged by the child, ,vho responds with a head nod
(which starts 70 111sec after the teacher has started producing figure 10.6 shows what
happens next.
In the next two seconds, the bodily configurations and speaker roles change. As the child
and teacher arc looking at each other, vvith the child producing a head nod in response to
the teacher's pointing gestures plus '\o'', die rnother turns her head to her son and makes
J transhtion request ("JVlixii dhathey hooyo)"). At the same time. she unfolds her hands
,md re-positions herself ;1way frorn the table and the child. This is m.irrored by the child:
he turns his head to,Nards his mother, establishing mutu,il gaze, while at the same time re-
positioning himself: leaning away from her. They then both themselves :igain:
the nwther moves her waist closer to the table and places her hands at the corner of the table;
and the child returns to a rnore upright seating and drops his right hand from the
table. The mother continues tu look at the child, but the child looks ,1vvay as he re-positions
himself down tovvards the table and his workbook \vl11ch is in front of the teacher.
He then takes the floor ("uhrn.. and starts his translation good
while gcstnring with his left Jund. \Vith his elbow rested on the tcible, he holds his palm up
and makes three sm:dl strokes in one continuous hand moveruent (he makes similar gestures
,drnost even, time he translates in this As he starts his tLmslation he also sh1frs bis
gaze to his mother_ re-establislnng 1nutual gaze 1vith her Fi 0-,ure 1
0
134
Multimodality
Meanwhile, the teacher, who appears to have been looking at the child throughout their
bodily re-arrangements, has shifted her gaze to the workbook in front of her, and is flicking
through it. She also removes her right hand from the table.
By separating upper body, gesture and gaze the transcript acknowledges that participants
can display orientation to multiple different people at the same time. The mother's waist is
oriented to the teacher, but her gaze is directed at the child. Similarly, the teacher's waist is
oriented to the mother, but her gaze is directed at the booklet. As the child takes the floor he
drops his right hand, 'opening up' to the mother; yet the mother keeps her left hand at the
table, aligned with the teacher. Their bodily configuration allows for a re-arrangement of
the participation framework. So far there had been three participants, with the teacher acting
as addressor, the mother as addressee and the child as interpreter. Now it is the child who is
addressor, the mother who is addressee and the teacher who is a bystander. At the same time,
the bodily arrangement signifies that their re-orientation is only temporary: the mother's
waist remains firmly aligned with the teacher in front of her.
To summarise, what our multimodal transcripts show is that it was not the mother who
prompted the child's translation, as might be inferred from the transcript of the spoken inter-
action alone. Using hand gestures and gaze, the teacher has already signalled to the child that
she is ready to give the floor away for translation, and the child has already acknowledged that
notification with a head nod when the mother turns towards the child and asks for a transla-
tion. Adopting this multimodal approach, we have looked at all turn transitions during this
and other parent-teacher-child meetings, and found similar cases to the fragment presented
here, with the teacher starting a course of action that leads to translation. In other instances,
it was the mother, or the child who did so, and in all cases, multimodal transcription was the
only way in which the orchestration of translation could be correctly identified. As well as
the initiating and sustaining of participation frameworks, turns and translations, the multi-
modal transcripts brought out unspoken, visual features of communication that were central
to understanding the teacher's evaluations and their translation proper, which we have only
briefly touched upon in this chapter. For instance, we noted the role of gesture in the teach-
er's use of directional metaphors (cf the 'back' gesture).
Based on these and other examples, we might say that MM has the potential to recognise
and account for a wider range of signs made, whether as artefacts or embodied actions, pro-
viding alternative ways of describing and explaining communication in a superdiverse global
city and the social-semiotic world more generally.
Further directions
Three areas for further development will define MM in the decade ahead.
First, there is the issue of multimodal transcription: the challenge of systematically identify-
ing and re-presenting features of communication beyond speech. There is now a considerable
body ofliterature on (multimodal) transcription (Cowan, 2018), while the approaches that
individuals take to multimodal transcription vary greatly. One challenge is the systematic,
consistent and accurate registration and representation of movement of body parts and their
relation to co-occurring speech on the basis of video. Visibility of movement on a video
will always be limited, and usually offers a third-person perspective on the movement being
transcribed, rather than the perspective of any particular participant. For instance, the 'back'
gesture we described is based on the angle of the camera, which was placed on a (relatively
. high) tripod behind the teacher. To establish exactly how it was observed by the mother and
child would require eye tracking data, which can only be obtained by intervening in the
135
'naturalness' of the event being recorded. Body rnotiun sensors might be u.,ed tu support
the production of rnore detailed and accurc1te reprcscut.,tion of hand gestures yet might also
impact on the ,pontaneity of the event.
Another area where much more work is needed is the conceptualisation or J\llM. J\1ul-
timodalists often produce lists directing the ;111alyst ·:, ;1ttention - e.g. \pee, h. gaze. body
posture, facial expression', or 'writing, image, colour' - that n;n11e quite disparate catego-
ries. For example, 'facial expre:,sion' or 'body posture' covers large areas of the body and a
potentially very large range of different movements, while gaze describes a relatively spe--
cific feature of human expression, involving the movement of two small body parts only:
the eyes. At the same time, the scope of MM is being stretched further, as the role of touch
and other srns,·s ha, come into vrew (Bezemcr & Kress, 2014; Jewitt, 2017). lu other words,
one big task for the future is to move from the gcnenl observation that ·commHniL:auun is
multimodal' t,, a more ,ophisticated, cohereut conceptualisation that rccogrnses and aptly
names different types of semiotic resource:, and pnnc1ples of composition. Given the di-
versity in Ml'vl and its growing uptake it 1s probable that quite different conceptuahs:1tions
and operationa l1satiuns ,vill emerge in response to the ,pecific needs of different research
communities.
Lastly. MM 1s likely to continue to expand its empirical scope by moving beyond speech
and writing, exploring activity types that involve little or no speech at all, and text types
that involve little or no writing. This expansion will focus on and advance understanding of
'old' phenomena. and enable discovery and understanding of new ones. For instance, much
current multi modal research looks at meamng~makrng mall kinds of colLibonti-ve prci,'tical
professional activity. an cirea pioneered by Goodwin (2/118) and Heath (Heath et al.. 2010).
This gives rise to new understandings of the rule of the body in communiution and team
work and its relation to the material enviruumcnt. Further multimodal research will also
continue to explore the semiotic potential and imp;1ct of new (digital) technolog1e:;. \vhether
and how linguistic ethnographers will respond to this move to account for meaning-making
beyond language remains to be seen.
Further reading
Bateman, Wildfencr, & Hippala (2017). 1\1.ultinwd,iliry. Fo1111dations, research and ,l pwl>lem-
oriented i111rod11ctio11. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (Outlines and illustrates different methods for
analysinµ; multimodal materials, including films, webpages, social media ,rnd com-
puter game,.)
Goodwin (2018). c,,,,,pn,1ti1•e action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Major contribution to
multimocLtl i11ter,,ction analysis, from the perspective oflinguistic anthropology.)
Heath, Luft; & Hindmarsh (2010). Viclt:o in q11alit,1tive research. London: Sage. (Introduction to a video-
based approach to 'multimodal' interaction analysis, grounded in conversation analysis and
ethnomethodology, drawing on a range of different studies by the authors.)
Jewitt, Bezemer, & O'Halloran (2016). Introducing multimod,1/ity. London: Routledge. (Outlines, illus-
trates and compares a range of different approaches to multunodality, including social semiotics,
systemic functional linguistics and conversation analysis; and discusses how to design a study in
multimodality.)
Ledin & M;,chiJJ (21118). Doing 11isu,1l analysis. From thc,,,y to practice. London: Sage. (Introduction to
visual analvsis ufphutugraphs, document de,igu. ,Jc"""'"""'"· built environments and filui.)
Related topics
lntcractional sociolinguistics; Hctcroglossia; Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation;
Micro-analysis of spoken interaction.
136
Multi modality
References
Bateman,]., \Vildfeuer,J., & Hippala, T. (2017). Multilt101iulity. Found11tio11s, research and analysis: .!l problem-
oriented introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Bezemer, ]. (2008). Displaying orientation in the classroom: Students' rnultimodal responses to tc:ichcr
instructions. Linguistics and EduCcJtion, 19(2), 166-178.
Bezerner, ]., & Kress, G. (2014). Touch: A rcsnurce f;,1r making meaning . .!lust111lic1n Journdl of Language
,md L1fcrdcy. ./7(2), 77-85.
Bezemer, J., & Krcs,, G. (2016). J'vfultirnorLdity, ,rnd communication: /1 soci,zl semiotic (r'1me. London:
Routledge.
Burn. /\. (2016). Cames, films and media literacy: Fiameworks for multimodal analysis. In M. Knobel &
C. Lankshcar (Eds.), Researching neu• /ircr,1cies: Design, theory, and d<1iil in s,,ciowltuml investigation
(pp. 16() -I 94). New York: Peter Lang.
Cowan, K. (2018). Visuali.zing young children's play: Explorinp multimod<1l transcription. of Fideo-recorded inter-
action. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University College London.
Dicks, B., Flewitt, R., Lancaster, L., & Pahl, K. (2011). Multimodality and etlmography: Working at
the intersection. Qualitatit1e Research, 11(3), 227-237.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. journal cf Prasn1<1tics,
32, 1489-1522.
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
Heath. C.. Luf[ P.. & Hindmarsh,]. (2Cil0). Video i11 ,palitative research. London: Sage.
Jew1tt. C. ('.!.017). Towards a multimochl social sermotic agenda for touch. In S. Zh,Jo, E. Djonov,
A. ,"'- M. Boeriis (Eds.), Ad1,,wci11g m11/rimodal and critical discour.,c studies Interdisciplinary
by Theo van Leeuwen·., ,wi,il .,c111iotics (pp. 79-93). London: Routledge.
Jewitt, C, Be1c·n1c-r.]., & O'Halloran. K. Introducing multimodality. London: R.outledge.
Kendon, A. (2004). GESture. Visible r1ction as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G. (2010). lvlultimodality. .!l social semiotic approach to cor1teniporary co1mnu.n.icatio11. London:
Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Bourne, J., Franks, A., Hardcastle, J., Jones, K., & Reid, E. (2005). English in. urban
classrooms: l'vlultimodal perspectives on teaching and learning. London: Routledgefalmer.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). i\1ultimod,il discourse. The modes ,md media of contempoMry communi-
ci1iio11. London: Routledge.
Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2018). Doing l)fsual From theory to practice. London: Sage.
Mavcrs. D. (2011). Children's drawing and u·ritin,?,' The remarkable in the unrenw-k-.1/ile. London: Routledge.
Rampton, B., Tu sting, K., Maybin,]., Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2004). Linguistic Ethnogra-
phy: .A discussion paper. Unpublished manuscn.pt. Available from http://www.hncaster.ac.uk/fss/
organisations/lingethn/documents/discussion_paper_jan_05.pdf
Silverman, D. (1999). \Varriors or collaborators: Reworking methodological controversies in the study
of institutional interaction. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Tizlk, work and institutionizl order:
Discourse in mediwl, 111edic1/ion and nwnagement settings (pp. 401-426). Berlin: Mouton de Cruyter.
Stein, P. (2008). i\fulti111odal r;u,ux,cxuc, in diverse classrooms. Representation, rights and resources. New York:
Routledge.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.) (2011). Embodied interaction. Langu,we and body in the
111iltcria/ world. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer,ity Press.
van Leeuwen, T (2005). Introducing soci,d scmi,,tics. London: Routledge.
Wittenburg. P.. Brugman, H., Russel, A., Kbssnunn, A., & Sloetjes, H. EU\N: l\. professional
framework fot 1nultimodality research. In of LREC 2006, [11temat1on<1l Conference on
L1ngu,(,zc Reso11r,cs and Evaluation http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2006/
Zhao. S .. DJonov, E., & van Leeuwen. T. (2014). Semiotic technology and practice: A multimodal
sooal semiotic approach to PowerPoint. Text and T..ilk, 34(3), 349-375.
137
Part II
Methods
11
Participant observation
and field notes
Uta Papen

Ethnograpl)(:'.rs are known as the researchers ·who 'hang out' with others. The scholarly term
for this hanging out, shadowing, talking to and taking part in the lives of others is participant
observation. Being an ethnographer means to engage in participant observation. Linguistic
ethnographers too me participant observation as one way (amongst others) to understand the
role of language in shaping social practices and institutional processes. Linguistic ethnog-
raphers who engage in participant observation also write field notes: accounts of what they
observed and took part in.
Participant observation is, as Creese et al. (2U08, p. 198) suggest, a "core element of eth-
nography". It is often regarded as the approach that distinguishes ethnography from other
forrns of qualitative research such as intcrvic,v-based studies (Davies, Atkinson, 2015;
Hammersley, 2017). The reasons for this particuLir status and near-emblematic meaning of
participant observation are to be found in the history of ethnography and social anthropology
(see further below).
Field notes are inseparable from participant observation and, in much the same way, they
have come to represent a distinctive trait of ethnography and of social anthropology. Field
notes are a form of 'representation' (Emerson et al., 201.1) of participant observation: an
account of observed events, persons and written down by the ethnographer during
or after panicipant observation. Observations and the researcher's accounts of these are cn1-
cial for ethnographers and linguistic ethnographers, because they arc "prirnary data in eth-
nogr;iphic and they are central in producing constructions of research pnticipants"
(Creese et al., 201!8, p. 198). However, what exactly is to be observed, fzow the ethnographer
represents what they observed and whether representation is indeed the best term to use here
is much debated and will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. A related question,
centrally important to linguistic ethnographers, concerns hovv data from participant obser-
vation is brought together with other data sources, for example recordings of conversations.
Much has been written about participant observation and ethnography. Publications in-
clude chapters in qualitative research methods textbooks (see, for example, Tracy, 2013),
· textbooks on ethnography (Madden, 2010; Cnnpbell & Lassiter, 2015; Cobo & Molle, 2017),
141
Uta Papen
col kc Lions of experiences by ethnographers (I:lumc & Mu lcock. 2(104; Jones B, \)(/;.1tL
and papers in methodology Journals discuy,ing aspects oC participant observation
(McCurdy & Uldam, Useful cfocussions ofpartinpanl observation and field notes in
linguistic can be found in Creese
Fidd notes arc a]so discussed in methodology tcxtbooL, but these ,ectiom arc often short
and focussed on technical and pragmatic issues does shorthand help;,). There is only une
morwgraph length book ;1hout fidd notes (Emerson et aL 2011). '\.Vithin linguistic
raphy, several book chapters Copland & Crcoe, 201 Sb; Sncl1 et a1., 2015) present extracts
of field notes and d15cuss how the authors these dau to generate insights ;1bout the
situations :md events they Ind set out to understancL Creese el aL's (2008, 2015) d1scussion of
the role offidd notes in team cthnographics is also very rnsightfnL
The origins ofparticip:mt observation can be found in the Lite 19th-century/early 20th-century
practices of social anthropologists and Brnmslaw fvblinov,;ski is often cited as the
frirefother of participant observation and fieldwork 201 n). But others, includmg Franz
Boa, i11 North America, should ,1lso be credited fr>r moving anthropology away Crom its earlier
statm as a discipline cond11etcd frorn the cmnfort of the annchair to a ,mby:ct
that den1;rndcd that the researcher leave their borne to enlL"r the 'field' :1.ncl plunge mto tbe way
oflife of'others'. to a of hardship vvhile hoping to come upon 'sci-
ent1 fie' discovery. At about the same tune as Malinowski became an influential figure at the LSE
m London, the Chicago School of Sociology became known fin its bcmd of urban ethnography
111 cities close to hun1e. In 1927, R .. E. Park, one of its founding rnemhers, invited his students
to get out there 'to g<ct the seat of their pants dirty' l9Cl9, p. 4). Whyte's Street Corner
Society (Whyte, ,m ethnography of first- and 1.1u~c:,.t1.<::1 .Italian imm1grants in
Chicago, is probably the rno,t well-known of the Chic1go School's outputs. Hidden in the
appendix, \X/hyte oflers a candid and deLuled account of what participant observation is like.
Jvly use of quotation 1narks around the words 'scie.ntific', 'others' and 'field' requires some
explaining. In its origin, ;me! chssic1l phase ethnography \\ as as a science. lt 1vas
believed that when executed in foll faith with the principle, set out by Malinovvski, eth-
nographers cOlild develop an accurate picture of the culture rhcy had set out to understand.
Needlc'.ss to s;1y, for many decades now anthropologists ;wd other social scientist, using pdr-
ticipant observation have forsaken the idea of an ;iccessible true picture of a different
culture and way of life There are no explicit and comm.only shared ontologic;aJ positions
arnongst social scicr1tists (;md linguistic ethnographers) obscrv;ition. Many
agree though th;Jt the social world 1.vhich tbey study is 'real' msofar as it exists outside our
perceptions. But they also assert that this social world is not a stable and
fr;11nnvork. but a cornplcx entitv, the product of social intcractiom and
(Atkinson, 201 F11rtl1ennore, ethnugr:1phers accept tlut wh,1t they
understand is never independent of who they :t1-c, how they are
how tbev ,peak. Partiopant observation is c11,r1cd out with the intention of both under-
sL1nding and renderinl!, intelligible the cornpln1ty of soci,tl life, ,vhik care Cully examining
the processes by which the rcsec1rcher develops sucb understandrng. The Litter, known as
rdkxivity, Vi a core tenet of participant observation and (Jhv1es, 200~; see also
Patit'w-SantPs, this vulurnc). Reflexivity is, however, ;1
rapber's methodolog1cal comoomness. lvtrlinowsk1 .rnd his rt is fair to say, believed
in the possibility of ;1 gaze untainkd by the researcher's and background.
142
Participant observation and field notes
The idea of the 'other' as object of study has also been widely challenged, and for quite
some time now ethnography has established itself as an approach to use for study 'at home' and
amongst the researcher's own people. Nowadays, participant observation is often used as an
approach to study specific settings, e.g. workplaces or schools, and overall the research aims
are much more specific and focussed than in Malinowski's time. Linguistic ethnographers use
participant observation as a tool in the context of examining clearly defined topics which re-
quire them to work in one or more physical settings. However, unlike in Malinowski's times
where the 'field' was primarily a physical place, i.e. the island Malinowski lived on, nowadays
ethnographers conceive of their 'field' as a metaphor for the topic or area of investigation, its
borders established by the research questions.
Methods
Participant observation
Participant observation can be defined as
a method in which a researcher takes part in the daily activities, rituals, interactions and
events of a group of people as one of the means of learning the explicit and tacit aspects
of their life routines and culture.
(DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011, p. 1)
The above implies that participant observation is a process oflearning from and with oth-
ers. All social environments work on the basis of a lot of tacit knowledge, unspoken val-
ues, routines and shared experiences - these, the ethnographer has to uncover and learn
about. People who customarily act in these environments take a lot for granted, acting
without constant awareness of the rules and customs they follow. The ethnographer has
to ask about some of these often unconscious assumptions (Blommaert &Jie, 2010). In the
process, they are likely to learn not only about others but also about themselves. Partici-
pant observation requires researchers to rethink their assumptions and any views that may
derive from their own cultural background (Campbell & Lassiter, 2015). This learning
process, which can be described as a reflexive activity (see further below), is likely not
to be an easy one and not one that can be accomplished in a brief course of participant
observation. Although forms of more time-bound ethnography are being considered by
some scholars (Jeffrey & Troman, 2004), there is a widely shared understanding that
participant observation requires time and that regular and repeated observations are best
(Hammersley, 2017).
In linguistic ethnography, participant observation is usually one amongst several data
collection strategies. Projects typically also include recording conversations and filming ac-
tions as well as collecting written documents such as policy texts. There are variations in the
scope, duration and significance of participant observation as part of a linguistic ethnography
project. In some studies, participant observation is bound to a specific stage in the research,
to gain an insight into the setting with its routines and norms before recordings are made and
interactions analysed (Swinglehurst, 2015). In other studies, participant observation extends
over several months and is conducted in parallel to recordings being taken and documents
collected (see, for example, Snell, 2015).
But how does one do participant observation? As an example, I draw on my own recent
ethnography of literacy teaching in a primary (elementary) school. From October 2013 to
143
Uta Papen
June 201 1+. once a \Vcck, I was a participant observer in d year 1 class and
olds). M.y h:1d been to m1derstaml how and writing arc being taught, looking
in particular ;1L the role of and to cornpare guidelines and expecLttions \-v1th
on the (Papen, 2016, 201 re.lied on my of
long-term partICipation in the lessons. Field notes were rny core cL1ta and the
of \vhicb u1y insights were
P;ut1c1pant observation access. In my case_ access was nego-
tiated through contacts with schools 111 the ,11-ca. Once access has been obtained and
participant observation starts. 1s crucial. This is about the process of
the resc;1rcher fating rn, noL only tolerated but gradually rnnvmg towards a more or
less esublished position in Lli<' setting. Tins does not 1nean that the researcher should become
a full member or msider. J:t_athcr, the ain1 is Lo occupy a role that bec«Jmes a cmtoni,ny part
oC th:1t In rny case this was the role of the parent helper. ,\II esublished position both
teacher, and cluldren were f.nnilur \vith.
Access and acceptability achieved, what do ethnogrc1phers ,10 1 first of all, they ob-
serve. Additionally. talk ;tnd listen 21)1 During rnv visits to
St. I-Iilcb\ run1e I gave the school), I observed many lcsso11s
cLiss watching the teacher and cl11ldren engage m a \vhole clas,
rnanv activ1t1es ,v1th a small group of children on ,l
often listened to the children pL1Cl1s1ng the,r or telling me ,1bout \\hat they liked
and did not !,kc about their lesson:; or sharing a story ,vith me. I regularly talked
to the teacher Jnd tcacl11ng Jss1stants abom their teaching oC
about the constraints of the curriculum. \Vhat l learned about
school heavily relies on the cornbinatiun of what i saw and listened Lo. I also collected and
marry documents test papers, phonics
and recorded short phonics Jessons. AU these fed into rny understanding of how literacy
teaching is acco1nplished.
l'vtucb textb,,ok advice on participant observation l,xusses on what to observe and how
comprehensive observations should be (Hennink ct 2011: Levon, 2013). The consensus
appears to be that vvhilc observat,ons are. of course, frarned by the research qnesuom, con-
comitant ,v,th tbe inductJve approach of ethnography ancl the to idcntif\, the insider's
perspective, in the initial stages of participam observation, the researcher's best bet is to be
open and to record and that citches their eye (W;1tt & Jones, 201
In later stages. observations ,ire likely to become more focussed, lll parallel with emerging
interpretations.
In terms of skills required for participant observ:1tion, \,fo1t the literature has to s:ry on this is
sparse. Thi11nay be because paninpanl observdtion is "intensely practical", "unpredict-
able" and ''a mattu of'craft' (Atkinson, 2015, p. That skills arc needed
is obvious and of particular rdevance to even if these ofren work in
contexts and close to horne. Bezernc:r (2013) lud lO hi msel Cwith the language
of instruments and Snell lud grown up m the s;ime dialect environ
11\ent as the children in the school sbc worked in, so was able to blend in and benefit frorn her
fluency lll the local frmn oC f\s far as wider skilb are c,mcernecl, the only other fre-
quently mentioned 1s that part1npant observers need wcll--dcvcloped mterpcrsonal skills (Vlatt &
Jones. 2010, p. 1 They need to be listeners and have the clbility lo tune in to others,
to them tbat they are i!lld oL·ie\\.
f\s the suggests, in obscrvauon. your is to both take part in
,1nd observe events and activities. This ma, sound like an · task tu you. Thinking
144
about everyday events such as attending a dinner party, the task becomes less impossible:
surely, in such a context, you are both observer and participant. When doing fieldwork, you
can and will bring together both aspects of participant observation. You are likely to fre-
quently move between different positions, more or less involved, making a more distanced
observer's gaze more or less easy to adopt.
In my classroom ethnography, the question of how closely to take part was both a
matter of methodology and of ethics. It had seemed ethically questionable to me to spend
my time leisurely placed at the back of the class, watching from a distance while the
teacher and teaching assistants worked hard to make lessons productive for everybody.
How could I have justified my presence without any offer to help? I also anticipated that
greater involvement would get me closer to understanding the teachers and their actions.
This was indeed the case. Assisting in the many recurrent jobs, from making photocop-
ies to supporting the teacher with the individual assessments that had to take place once
a term, allowed me to understand how complex a teacher's job is. These insights in-
vited much critical reflection on the way teachers were positioned in policy documents,
where emphasis was placed on the teaching method (i.e. phonics) while downplaying
the central role of the teacher as interpreter and implementer of any teaching approach
(Papen, 2016).
In other research contexts, participant observation is more clearly defined by the activities
and settings the researcher has access to. In Bezemer's work on communication and learning
during surgical operations (Bezemer, 2015, Bezemer et al., 2016), participant observation
was clearly bound by the positions he could take on in that setting. Unlike me, who was
able - to a degree - to learn parts of the role of a teacher or teaching assistant, Bezemer could
not have become involved in actual surgical operations or even have taken on the role of a
theatre nurse and handed an instrument to the surgeon (though see discussion in Budach, this
volume, of the importance of collaboration with participants in addressing this limitation). In
other studies too, the parameters of participant observation are set by the focus on a specific
role or occupation and participant observation may take the form of shadowing a person
(Copland & Creese, 2015a; Watt & Jones, 2010).
Importantly, all periods and forms of participant observation, including the more
and the less involved moments, lead to experiences that, once the activity is over and
the setting left behind, the researcher needs to reflect on and turn into accounts of what
they observed and took part in. In other words, the ethnographer's observations always
have to entail "reflexive observation" (Davies, 2008, p. 83) or what I would describe
as 'observing the observer': the researcher needs to become aware of their experiences
and of how the conditions of their participation, including their relationships with their
research participants, shape their own developing understanding of what they take part
in. In researcher reflexivity, the focus has to be on "how one's own experiences shape
one's interpretation of others" (Campbell & Lassiter, 2015, p. 64). Seen in this light,
reflexivity means that the ethnographer is not so much a participant observer but an "ob-
servant participant" (Campbell & Lassiter, 2015, p. 64), noticing both others' and their
own actions and ideas. This entails in particular that the researcher has to think about
those moments where their own views and ideas differ from those they work with in the
field. The goal of this intellectual process is to develop insights based on the awareness
of different subjectivities and, on that basis, to create "understanding between and among
people" (Campbell & Lassiter, 2015, p. 64, their emphasis), or what can also be called
. "co-understanding" (Campbell & Lassiter, 2015, p. 65). A second aim of reflexivity then
is to describe and account for these processes of knowledge creation.
145
Uta Papen
Field notes
Participant observers \Vritc field notes. These· field notes an: core data fr,r the ethnogra-
pher. They arc "the basis on which ethnographies are constructed" (\Valfi,rd, p. 117).
Field note, cover u•/wt you ob,erve (events, people, actions, etc.) and how you observe: your
reflect10ns on the process of recording these events. Thus, producing field note's is an epis-
temic process, tl1at is, a process tlut involves knowledge creation (IJeath & Street, 2008;
Blommaert & Jie, 2010, p. It helps to think about tlm as a two-step process. In the field,
more often than not, opportunities for extended writing arc limited. The ethnographer is
likely ro produce brief jottings or even _1mt write down key words (Ernerson et al., 201 l;
Creese, 201 ln St Hilda's, I often did thio in between lessons or in the brief penods be-
tween activities thaL were part of a lesson, when the children t1d1ed up their exercise shtYts
or moved from the carpet to their group tables.
EVL:n ifit is possible to take 1nore extended notes, once hack home you will want to work
on these, type them up and add detail or reconstruct events and accivities based on your jot-
tings ,rnd key words. Emerson ct al. (201 L p. 85) distrnguish benvecn these two ;1:,pccts of
field notes, as being the "writing mode" and the "reading mode". In writing mode, the goal
is to recill and describe as best as you can what you have experienced. In reading 1node, you
look at these notes, flesh them out, reorganise and annotate them. Crucially, readmg mode
is the space ,vhcrc much of the reflexivity that I discmsed in the previous section typically
c111erges.
As with participant observation, there are practical and ethic:d issues relating to ftelcl
notes. Whether you can and w1ll take field notes while observing docs not only depend ou
the degree ofy<.rnr p;irticip,ition but also on the appropriateness of writing in the situation or
event you take part in. While I reguL1rly took brief notes during the lessons in St liilcL1's, I
kept my notebook closed during worship or Nlass. Since field notes arc usually taken in the
presence of the research participants, they rn;1y provoke reactions. From time to tnne in St.
Hilcb's, a child would peck over my shoulder to look '1t \vhat I was writing. \Vhen C:reese
(2015) found that the teachers in the complementary schools she observed were uncomfort--
ablc with her note taking, she made sure to explain to them that her notes were unlike those
of a school inspector's. To ;1ppease any concerns, she ohowecl her notes to the teachers.
Field notes arc often regarded as somnvhat private texts. This is the case in particular for
the notes and jottings taken during fieldwork. Most ethnographers, at this stage, handwrite
and they 1nay use various frmns ofshorthand (sec ex;1rnpks in Wolford, 2009; Creese, 2015).
Ethnographers may also include in their notes their O\Vn reactions to vvhat they experi-
ence. This n1ay mvolve the rese;m her\ "rnisapprchcnsiom" and "fodings of vulner;ibility"
(Levon, 2013, p. 20G). Tim is partly what gives the notes a priv:1tc character making the
author reluctant to share these with others. Other researchers me a research diary for then
nwre priv:1te reactions and reflections. In te;im cthnogr;iphics, field notes can bccorne shared
documents and, as Creese er al. (2l'iCJ8, explain, reading each other's field notes can
trigger important discussions about analysis. In a collaborative study oflanguage and identity
in cornplernentary ,chooh in Leicester, the tc,1rn rncmbns' fidd notes becarnc focal points
around which the tcJn1 negotiated aml developed interprctarions uf Yvhat they h:1d ohserved.
The discussions of their notes prepared the ground for what developed into key findmgs of
the project.
As the above suggests, working on your field notes is dll important tool to support reflcx---
ivlly, whether as a lone re,carchcr or ma team. I h;1ve often found that reading my notes,
expanding limn jottinp and key ,;vords to more extended accounts, and typing these up,
146
far from being a mechanical process, involves a lot of thinking and reflecting, while reliv
ing and remembering the experience that is described. In the process, you are likely to add
commentary on what it was like and how to interpret specific actions or reactions. You may
remember other studies you read about or ponder over the suitability of a theoretical concept
that you wish to apply. The process brings to the fore the "ethnographer's internal dialogue"
(Madden, 2010. p. 120).
Given the core role field notes play rn ethnography it is surpnsing that very little has
been written about what happens in betv,een rnitial field notes and the publisbed paper or
book. There are no common rules ur practices on how to move from the imtial notes to the
often stylistically appealing narrative accounts and field note extracts that we find in pub-
lished ethnographies. Coles and Thomson (2016) suggest that various forms of"in between
writing" take place. These can include annotations of field notes (see examples in Heath &
Street, 2008), the production of conceptual memos and various other forms of smnman5mg
and commenting on what has been observed. Coles and Thomson (2016) describe how they
worked through field notes, looking for the salient points in the repeated events they took
part in. This is very similar to how I worked with my field notes. For example, as I looked
through my notes on the regular phonics lessons, I searched for commonahties and salient
features of these lessons. Working with field notes to produce and consolidate interpretations
involved much reading and re-reading of rny notes. This happened concomit:rntly with my
reading uf relev:rnt other studies and rny search for analytical concepts to shed light on what
I observed. The process is one of 'thinking-reading-writing'. In longer-tern1 projects such
as mine, field notes inform further periods of observations, thus allowing initial interpreta-
tions to shape the gaze of the observer returning to the field. Throughout this process and
continuing after the end of the fieldwork, ongoing work on the field notes will also include
some being written up in a comparative perspective, drawing on the ethnographer's repeated
presence at similar events (e.g. a specific lesson). thus allowing a field note to be turned into a
more polished illmtration of a specific practice (rn my case that could be the practice of teach-
ing sounds in phonics lessons) (see also Coles & Thomson, 2016). In this form, fidd notes are
inserted into publications where they illustrate findings and theoretical propositions.

]\vo recent books aptly illustrate the breadth of topics examined by linguistic ethnographers
(Copland & Creese, 2015b; Snell et al., 2015). Themes range frorn the practices of business
journalism and working-class children's speech to college tutors' experience of paperwork
and communication and learning during surgical operations. Studies of workplaces and edu-
cational contexts (the latter understood broadly, beyond formal education) as \vell as health-
care contexts are prominent in linguistic ethnography and all of these include participant
observation as a core data collection tool.
The studies published in these two collections show that parliciparn observation is par-
ticuLirly relevant in terms of its comribution to "topic-oriented ethnographies" (Shaw et al.,
2015, p. allowing linguistic ethnographers to make substantive inroads into our under-
standing oflanguage and communication in specific social settings and professional practices.
To enable such understandings, linguistic ethnographers often spend substantial amounts of
time in the setting. They use their ongoing observations and many informal conversations
,vith the research participants to gain a deep understanding of the social context they study.
These insights arc particularly important in order to allow researchers to interpret specific
· language bcluviours or conversations as 'situated' practices taking account not only of the
147
Uta Papen
1mrnedute context of interaction, hut exa.mining the wider sl:rnctures and ideologies shaping
local contexts (lkzen1er ct 011., 2016). Swingkhurst's work on the e.lectronic patient record
(EPR) further illnstr,itcs this. Her obscrv,1tions during consultations (supported by audio and
.1llowecl hn to uuderstand the role in the immediate context
of interaction between patient and nurse or doctor Because she bad
researched the institutional policies surrounding the El'l{., including its link with quality
auditing of patient care, she was :ible to demonstrate that the EPl( and the electronic ten1.
plates connected with 1t served to "regrn1t·nt" +, p. 1 the content of the comukllions
in ways that did not always reflect the GPs' and their patients' concerns. This is an example ot·
the forn1 of "tnnscontextu:11 (Rezemer, 2()15, p. that is clistinctive oflinguis-
tic ethnography :incl m which participant obsen·ation has ,1 L1cant role. Collins\ (2015)
linguistic ethnography of head and neck cancer clinics revea.ls the central role space - m this
,:ase the different rooms and corndors of the clinic plays in and shaping different
kinds of conversations between p:,tienls aud he:ild1care Cnllins·s role as an ob-
server in this space allowed her to and underst,md the space of the clirnc
and its sign 1fica11ce for p:1t1ent care.
Recent studies in linguistic ethnography have also shown that participant observation
1s eS>ential to linguists' ability to engage with aud to contribute to tackling
're;d ,vorld' or
et al., 201 'i) issm"s commtrnication and use, as illustrated, for
example, in Bezemer·s ,vork: the real~world issue here 1s patient m particular
in the contexts of ,urgeons' trdining. Bezemer shows very that w1thout having spent
extended time as an observer during surgery he would not h:ivc been able to understand
the complex, ofrcn subtle and highly context lcirnb of commumcation essenfr1l tu
operat:iom. \X/ithout such n1·dcpth of the surgeon's work, he ,vould
nol liave been credible as a researcher to reform surgJCal trciining.
Snell's research is another case in point. Her study ofworki children's s.peech, in
particubr thnr nse offr·:1tures such a, the first person singubr 'us' 201 demonstrates
bow essentul her long-tern1 involvement with tbe whose speech she studied \V;1s. As a
regular visitor and participant in their school lessons and piay time. she \'/as able to gain an in-
sight into the shifting friendships and allegiances ofa group of eight md nine-year old girls
whose speech she recorded and then c111:1lysed. Ag;1inst the bc1ckground of the girls' changing
relationships ,vith each other, SneII could, k,r exarnple, show how 'us' ,m,! 'me' served ;1
distinguishable fimction 111 al!udmg to and fiiendship on the side ofa girl who had
been temporarily excluded from her group. Non-standard pronoun use could thus be shown
to be much more than simply ,1 working-diss speech pattern. abo Snell, this volurne.)
ln rny o,vn study, it was only as a result ofmy longterm participation in the children\
lcssuns that I w;1s able to undersL.md how lit.er;icy was taught in this year 1 class. When I
began the observat10ns, rny focus hacl been on phonics. Extending my g,tzt· beyond phonics
lessous ,1nd experiencing entire school day, ,vere essential for my ability to understand how
phonics operate,, :is a cornponcnt ofa nrnch wider curriculum. Thi, became the bed~
rock for my criticism of the misplaced cLiim made in pulJCy and media texts about the power
oCphonics ,ts the key to successful literacy teaching. J was able to show that phonics worked
because ofhov.: it was cornbrned with other
The ,1bovc examples suggest th:1t long-lenn obst-rvation is fundamental to
much linguistic ethnography. At the same time thc,e and other studies reveal that the strength
of 1inguistic eth m,g1· rests firmly on tlw combination of p.irticipant observation ,\1th
other somccs of data. In my study the fron1 prolonged participation had to be
coupkd with rn.y dctaiJed analysis oCtbc polincs 11np1ngmg on m pnrnary schools.
148
For Bezemer, the audio- and video-recordings of surgeries were essential, because 'one can-
not record the details ofinteraction as it unfolds in on-the-spot note-taking' (Bezemer, 2015,
p. 211). His transcripts render visible elements of the communication between a consultant
surgeon and a registrar in training, for example how they used pointing as an important
'semiotic resource' (Bezemer, 2015, p. 216), which would have been impossible to capture
in field notes.

Ethnographic observation, as the previous sections have shown, is a fairly unstructured and
flexible method and when describing how they did it, researchers often struggle to come
up with much detail. It is also a highly idiosyncratic approach and this, together with the
undeniable fact that the researcher herself is the central data collection tool in participant ob-
servation, can make it open to accusations oflacking in rigour and 'objectivity'. Researchers
not familiar with participant observation, including linguists and applied linguists, may be
uncomfortable with and critical of the approach. These tensions are visible in some linguistic
ethnographies. Creese, working in a team, reports on how those trained as linguists may find
the observations "fuzzy" and "not scientific enough" (Creese, 2015, p. 67).
Some linguistic ethnographers appear to be doubtful of the central role the researcher plays
in participant observation. While they acknowledge the need for reflexivity, they appear to
fear a descent into "self-indulgent idiosyncrasy" (Rampton et al., 2015, p. 16). In the same
paragraph, however, these authors also assert that "the researcher's own cultural and inter-
pretive capacities are crucial in making sense of the complex intricacies of situated everyday
activity among the people being studied" (Rampton et al., 2015, p. 16). Rampton and col-
leagues' position suggests that there are some unresolved debates within linguistic ethnogra-
phy. Looking back at what I said earlier about reflexivity, it should have become clear that at
the heart of this intellectual endeavour is not the researcher but the experiences they have gone
through, thus focussing reflexivity on understanding events and situations, not the research-
er's self (although this is undoubtedly part of the process). Furthermore, what Rampton et al.
describe as the researcher's "cultural and interpretive capacities" can be interpreted to desig-
nate the experiences, skills, aptitude and interests a researcher brings to their project. These,
I suggest, are assets without which no research would be possible. Reflexivity therefore is
about accounting for these capacities - as well as their limitations - and bringing to the fore
the processes of knowledge creation in the research. This is not self-indulgent idiosyncrasy.
Copland (2012, p. 3) draws our attention to another issue for linguistic ethnography: it can
be a "challenge" to decide "what data should be foregrounded and how should the analysis
be made explicit". In the article this quote is taken from, discussing feedback conferences in
teacher training, the linguistic data was the "primary unit of analysis with field notes and
interviews playing a supporting role". At the heart of Copland's analysis, as presented in this
paper, are the recorded and transcribed extracts of the feedback conferences. Interview data
was drawn on from time to time to support Copland's interpretations of the recordings. Field
notes were not alluded to in the analysis at all. Thus, we don't know what role Copland's obser-
vations of these conferences actually played in her analysis. All we can assume is that participant
observation was not essential to underpinning the claims she made in this particular paper.
I detected a similar pattern in other publications by linguistic ethnographers
(Swinglehurst, 2014). Participant observation and field notes were only briefly referred
to. Even Collins (2015), whose insights into the workings of a cancer clinic rest on her
understanding of the clinic's specific geographical lay-out, mostly presents interview data
149
Uta Papen
and transcripts of conversations tu cvidenct: her claun,. Whv do these authors not draw
on their field notes in :1 rnore substantial Could this be a concern frn the discipline
ar,: part of, i.e. linguistics, and the shaky reputcition parti.cipant obscrYation
may have in this field and amongst any · editors and reviewer, \vhose approval they
depend on to get publishccP Bezerner\ of ,eekrng to publish his work
in medical JOL1rnc1b suggests that in sorne contexts, linguistic ethnographers may have to
nd their more 'scientific' 1ncthoch to be abk to oflt'r some ·Juul' chta to readers
omcl JOlln1aJ editors of the rnents of v. Another re:ison for
researchers· reluctance to publi,h field notes ,rnd offer them as d,1ta cxtrc1cts ntJy br' the
earlier mentioned slcltus of field notes as private or semi- fn the team eth11ogra-
ph1es that Creese and talk about, the researchers whu work together
appear to haYe overcome :1nv diffidence abom their 1wtt'S, the excl1;1nge ,1ndjoint
discuss1011 of each other's f-idd notes a central tool for d:1Lt aualvsi,, bcnefitung from the
different researchers' personal and acackrn1c perspectives. Their work reveals the epistemic
power of field notes as data and thus allci-ws linguistic to show the potency
of their approach./\ more selective use of t observ,1tion :ts ,1 source of insight, :rs
I found in other p:.ipers_ on the other han,L d1scred1t obserY,1tion or, at
the H:ry least, does not help support its as ;in essential component oflinguist1c
eth SclcctJYe use of data from ohscnation in published papers rnay
,Llso suggest tlut amongst linguistic there is no ,1grecment on the value and
role ofp,nticipant observation vvithin their work.
Future directions
future research in linguistic needs to addrL'5' son1e of the challenges 1nen-
tioncd in the previou, section. the of how central (or not) participant
obscnatiou is as an approach requires li ethnographers Lo engage in open and hon
est about the tools they use and the these allo\v them to Currently,
fixus on the of find1ngs, arguing
for theu relev:mce in 1ns1ghts rnto the role of and communication in
different workplaces and institutional settings. No doubt these stud1es are extre1ndy usefol
and 1nake the case for linguistic ethnography a', an important branch of ,ociolin-
guistics and ,1pplied But it is 1rnportant fi:ir ethnography to also discuss
lls We need a more in depth discussion of hO\v, in ethnography,
\VC create and what role, in particular, observation and field notes
play in this process. Creese et a L's :1) recent of some oCtheir field notes illus-
trates this. The presellt handbook is another crucial step to achieYing this.
Future research \vould also do \vell to engage with some of the wider chailenges par-
ticip:1nt observation and face in the current cl,n1,1te of research policy. In
;\ recent position paper on the current state ,1i1c-! future oC ethnography, Hammersley
widely knO\vn for his work rn eclucauonaJ lists :1 number of 'threats'
to pJrucipant observation and eth :is used across sucjc1J scienc"e subjects. Amongst
these Han1mcrslcy names the pressure lo produce impact hevond academia. Linguistic
appears to de,11 \Veil \Vith thi, Bezcmcr. frir shows that
his long-term engagen1ent ,nth tlie surgical process, through his c'xtens1vc' participatiom,
was essential for his ability to with that made
him a credible p,ntner rn the reform of ln their introductory chapter
150
to a recent collection of linguistic ethnography papers, Shaw et al. (2015) nevertheless

admit that more needs to be done to fulfil the linguistic ethnographers' aim to develop
significant societal impact.
Hammersley also sees the fashion for 'big data' and evidence-based policies amongst pol-
iticians and governments as a substantial challenge to ethnography. For linguistic ethnogra-
phers who work in education or healthcare, the belief in randomised controlled trials as the
gold standard of research is indeed a challenge. In relation to literacy policy, my own analysis
of policies shows clearly how strongly the government's views on children's literacy draw
on the results of randomised controlled trials, while ignoring qualitative and ethnographic
research. There are no easy ways for linguistic ethnography to address these challenges. It
appears to be the case though that when working closely with practitioners, seeking impact
at the level of professional practice rather than wider policy, 'small' and close data, based on
observations and recordings, is useful and well received. Following the example ofBezemer's
(2015) recent chapter, such examples ought to be written up to make the case for linguistic
ethnography to be established as an approach open to partnership with practitioners and
seeking impact beyond academia, focussed less on high-level national policies but striving for
influence at practitioner, management and local policy level.
Further reading
Campbell, E., & Lassiter, L.E. (2015). Doing ethnogmphy today: Tlieories, methods, exercises. Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell. (This book emphasises the importance of collaboration and interpretation in eth-
nographic research. Chapter 4 deals with participant observation and field notes.)
Copland, F. Creese, A. Rock, F., & Shaw, S. (Eds.) (2015). Linguistic ethnography: Collecting, analysing
and presenting data. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. (Chapter 1 introduces readers to the use of participant
observation as a data collection tool in linguistic ethnography and the role of field notes as data
and evidence. Chapters 3-6 present examples of participant observation and field notes used in
different studies.)
Walford, G. (2009). The practice of writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Ethnography and Education, 4,
117-130. (Based on interviews with well-known scholars, Walford discussed different practices of
writing and analysis field notes.)
Related topics
Reflexivity, Ethics, Ethnographic interviews, Literacy studies.
References
Atkinson, P. (2015). For ethnography. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Becker, H.S. (1999). The Chicago school, so-called. Qualitative Sociology, 22, 3-12.
Bezemer, J. (2015). Partnerships in research: Doing linguistic ethnography with and for practi-
tioners. In]. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations
(pp. 207-224). Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bezemer, J., Korkiakangas, T., Weldon, S.-M., Kress, G., & Kneebone, R. (2016). Unsettled team-
work: Communication and learning in the operating theatres of an urban hospital. Journal of. Ad-
vanced Nursing, 72, 361-372.
Blommaert, J., & Jie, D. (2010). Ethnographic.fieldwork: A beginner's guide. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Campbell, E., & Lassiter, L.E. (2015). Doing ethnography today: Theories, methods, exercises. Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell.
Coles, R., & Thomson, P. (2016). Beyond records and representations: In between writing in educa-
tional ethnography. Ethnography and Ed,ication, 11, 253-266.
151
Uta Papen
Collim, S. (2015). The of cornmumc:1tion and the expression of patients' concerns. In

J. Snell, S. Sha,v, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic (pp. 166-186).
HoundsrnilL Basingstoke: Palgrave 1\ilacrnillan.
Copland, F. (2012). Legitin-ute talk in feedback conferences. Lin~111st10. 33. 1-20.
Copland, F., & Creese, i\. (2015,t). Data in ethnography. ln F. Copland & A. Creese
Lin~uistit Co/lecrinp, <1nd 1•1ese11t111g ddtii 2lJ-59). Los Angeles, Ci\:
Copland. F., & Creese. A. (2015b). Li,1;(11/sric Collecting, and pwsenting d<1td. Los
Cl\: Sage.
Creese, A. (2015). Case study one: Rctkxivity. voice and representation in linguistic ethnography.
In F. Copland & I\. Creese (Eds.), Lin~uistic Collecting. .111d presrntinl rl,lta
(pp 61 88). lo.s CA S.1ge
Creese, A., Bhatt, A., Bhojani, N .. & Martin, P (2008). Fielclnotes in tern, ethnography: ReseJrching
complementary schools. Quulit,1/in Rrscarrh, 8, 197-215.
Creese, A., Takhi, J.K .. & Bb,kledgc. A. (2015). Metaconunrnt:iry in linguistic ethnography. In
J. Snell, S. Slrnv, & F. Copbnd (Eds.). Li1Lguis1ic N1111,,,,,,11,,, (pp.
Hounclsmil], Basingstoke: Palgrcn·e Macmillan.
Ihncs. C.J\.. (.2008). ct/111ogwp/1y: Ag11ide to sdues awl orilcrs. 1 ondon and New York:
Routlc>dge.
De\Valt. K.JVl.. & DeWalt. B.R. (2011). Participc1nt obsrn,,11iou: A New York:
AltaMira Press.
Emerson, R.M ., frctz, I(. I., & Shaw, L.L. (201 l). !Vrr1i11.(, ctlinogr,1p/11c University of
Press.
Forsey, JVl.G. (2010). Ethnography as participant Ft/1110(:rap/Jy, 11. 558--572.
Cobo, C., & MoUe, A. (2017). Doing etl111or:1,111hy. Los Angeles, Cl\: Sa 1,.e.
Hammersley. lV!. (2017). 1v'hat is C:rn it survivc 0 \houkl it? Etlm,0gr<1phy ,wd Edut,Jtio11,
1 17.
Heath, S.B., & Street, B.V. (2008). 011 to resec1rch. New York:
Teachers Press.
Hennink, M., Ilutter, I., & Bailey. J\. (2011). Q1wliratiue rcsc,11d1 n1ct/10ds. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Hume, L., & Mukock, J. /Eds.) (2004). iu 1-/ie C\1_-:cs in. /){trtiojH111t o!Jscrulltion. Ne\v
York: Columbia University Press.
Jeffrey, B., & Troman, G. (2004). Time f<.H' 30. 535-548.
Joncs,_1.S. (201.0). Origins and ancestors. lnJ.S.
titc 13 28). London: Routledge.
Jones.JS., & \1/att, S. (Eds.) (20]()). in ,wiai srience pr<lrticc. London: Routledge.
Levon, R. (2013). Ethnognphy and recording interaction. In RJ Podesva & D. Sharma (Eds.), Re-
search methods in (pp. l95-2ff,). Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres,
Madden. R. (2010). Being A to the of London: Sage.
Mccurdy, P .. & Uldan1, J. (2013). Connecting participant observation positions. Field l\llethuds. 26,
40-55.
Papen, U. (2016). L.itu,zrv ,md cduwrion: Policy, practice opinion. London: Routledge.
Papen, U. (2019) Liter;t1:y research ;11 pract,ce: Knowlcrlge, reHexivitv and the researcher. In D.
Bloome, fvl.L. Castanbcira, C. Leung, & J [(ovvsell (f.ds.), pracilccs (pp. 143-154).
R,unpton, B .. lVlJybin, J., & Roberts, C (2015). Theory and rncthod in lingnistic ethnography. In
J. Snell, S. Shaw. & F. Copbml (Eds.), Li11g11istic J111E1rli.1cipli11c1ry explor<ltions (pp. 14· :'>O)
IIoundsmilL ua,,u1"''cu"c. P:dgrave 1\ibcmilhn.
~'-•"·"''-• F., &. Snell, J. (2CJ15). An introduction to linguistic ethnography: lntcrdisciplin;iry
In J. Snell, S. Sha,N. &. F. Copland (Eds.). Li11,'(11istic
tions (pp. 1-L'•). Ho11ndsmiU, Basingstoke: Palgrave M.acnuJlau.
Snell, J. (2Ul5). Lin['.uistic ethnographic perspectives on children's speech: Challenging
discourses of deficit. lnJ Snell. S. Shaw.&· F. Copland (Eels.), L.m,guislic
(pp. 225 ·245). Houndsmill, Palgr,wc fvlacmilbn.
Snell, J. Shaw. S., & Copland, F. (Eds.) ('.?015). LinRui,tit
Houmlsmill.
the clinic1l consultation: A lingmstic ethnographic study of the electronic patient record. So6cd
Sricncc /~ :Hcdicinc, 118. 17-26.
152
Swinglehurst, D. (2015). How linguistic ethnography may enhance our understanding of electronic
patient records in health care settings. InJ. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland, (Eds.), Unguistic ethn~i;M-
phy. Interdisciplinary cxploMtions (pp. 90--109). Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tracy, S.J. (2013). Qulllit<1ti11e re.,e11rch methods. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Walford, G. (2009). The practice of writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Ethnography and Education, 4,
117-130.
Watt, S., & Jones, JS. (2010). Let's look inside: Participant observation. In J.S. Jones & S. Watt (Eds.),
Et/111ogr,1p/iy in soda/ science practice (pp. 107-125). London: Routledge.
Whyte, \V.F. (1'!93). Street corner society Chicago: Chicago University Press.
153
12
The ethnographic interview
Anna De Fina
Introduction
Interviews are among the most widely used research tools in the social sciences in general
and a very widespread method for collecting cL1tc1 in ethnographic re,earch in particular,
especially in comhmation with other instrmrwnt,. lndn,d, according to Denzi11 and Lincoln,
"the intervicv,- 1, tht' favourite methodolrJgical tool of the qualitative rcseJrchcr" (2004,
p. 353). Interview,, have been an importcrnc altc·rnativc to anonymous surveys and qucstion-
na1res since rcpre,ent moments of direct contact between researcher" ;md in fr,rmants,
and provide occasions to investigate people's perceptions of and reactions to issues in greater
depth than when using quantitative tools. And yet the combination of the interview with
ethnographic methods ha, historically raised a host of issues that stem from different concep-
tions of what ethnography is and which research methods can be regarded as ethnographic.
According to Heyl (2001, p. 369), ethnographic interviews are:
those projects in ,vhich researchers have established respectful, ongorng relationships

with thnr interviewees, including enough r.1pporl for there to be genuine exchange of
views ,rnd enough time and openness in the interviews for the interviewees to explore
purposefully ,vith the researcher the meanings thcv place on events in their worlds.
However, this characterisation merely describes one form of interview and does not resolve
the problem of its relation with ethnography. In his review of the way in which ethnogra--
phy has been defined, Martyn Hammersley (2018, p. 4) points to the fact that there is little
agreement amongst researchers. Even though most ethnographers would subscribe to the
idea that this theoretical methodological frame concerns the study of people and their cul-
tures, put, the accent on people's behaviour ancl perspectives rather than on the researcher's
own views, en,pluys Ill--depth, longitudins1l ohservat1rn1 of naturally occurring sittis1tions, is
holistic in iutme ,rnd f,1vours the collection ot- a y,u1ety of data, each of tl1esc aSoe5'ments is
itself not t1nprobkmat ic and is open to int,:rprctation. He goes on to contrast :1 thick version
of ethnography, \vhich requires a clear ddiu1t1nn of ,1cceptable and unacceptable techniques
and assumptions, with a thin one, which regards ethnography just as one method that may
154
be employed with a variety of others in order to carry out a particular type of research. Of
course, in the case of a thin conception of ethnography, the use of interviews as data collect-
ing tool and source of data ,vould not raise particular concerns. However, within a thick con-
ception, particularly one in which stress is put on participant observation, non-intrusiveness
of the researcher and collection of data basically generated by the participants in 'natural'
situations Papen, this volume), the i ntervie,v does constitute a potential departure from
the· canonical approach.
As 1,vc 1vill sec, debates over the acceptability of interviews as a method altogether and
over different aspects of them have punctwted the history of ethno;,i;raphically inspired lin-
guistics and anthropology, precisely because they involve episternic quC';tions such as the
meaning of the terms culture and community, what constitutes knowledge and, more generally,
the role of the researcher in the construction of that knowledge. In this chapter, I first pro-
vide a description of types of interview, then briefly go through the history of qualitative
and ethnographic interviews, then introduce some of the major debates and dilemmas that
have been discussed in relation to interviews in linguistics, anthropology and related fields. I
then point to recent developments and current methodologies and end the chapter with some
concluding remarks.
Types of interviews
Different schoLi.rs have proposed more or less specific classifications ofintervie,vs and we will
start from describing some of these types in order to make the discussion of issues related to
the methodology of interviewing clearer. There is a general consensus on a broad division of
interviews into three main categories: structured, se1ni-structured an.cl unstructured, of which only
the latter two are usually considered part of the toolkit of qinlitative research methods (see
Edwards & Holland, 2013, p. 29). Structured interviews are based on sets of predetermined
questions that are asked to intervie\vees with minimal adjustments on the part of the re-
searcher, both i11 terms of accommodating to the interviewee's reactions and/or needs, and in
terms of altering the sequence or fi:.wrn of tbe questions. Structured mterviews usually focus
on objectivity and maximal neutrality on the part of the interviewer and are airned at obtain-
ing cornp;ir,ible cbta from the gre,1test number of subjects. That is why these instruments are
typically associated with surveys and quantitative research in general.
Semi-structured and unstructured interviews arc instead associated with qualitative re-
search, as they allow .for flexibility and for the development of rapport between interviewer
and interviewee. In semi-structured interviews, researchers have not only a speci fie topic
in mind but also a set of questions that they want to ask on that topic. However, questions
may be rnodified according to the response and interest of interlocutors; researchers allow
for and topic changes and for some flexibility in terrns of whether or not all the
prepared questions are asked and how long responses on each topic may take. Examples of
semr-structured interviews are interviews focussed on eliciting positions about social is-
sues sud1 ,is ethmcity, gender, linguistic ideologies, etc., or interviews aimed at establishing
the n;iture of cultural and linguistic taxonomies and practices. Also within the domain of
semi-structured interviews are life story, biographical and oral history interviews, in ,vhich
interviewees' opinions and experiences in particular domains of life are elicited through
questions that may either be partly prepared or consist of a single elicitation devised to get
the inter,viewee to talk about a particular topic. Fontana and Frey (1994) add focus-group
interviews (first introduced by Merton et al. 1956) to the semi-structured category. Those
arc occasions in which the researcher 1neets with a group of people to elicit a cfocussion, poses
155
Anna De Fina
some question, (th,1t c,n be n1ort· or less ;_md acts clS a mediator in order to
.,orne d.ircct:ion to rhe conversation.
Unstructured interviews are closer to COJJ\Trsations than to fi1rmal encounters bet,veen
,1 researcher :md an infi,nnant in that they do not fc)11ow sets of even though
they niay be focussed on p;irticular events or prc1etices. Unstructured interviews arc used by
to make sense and practJces and as a tool for irnmers--
ing themselves in the culture ;md the \.vay of of a group of sllldicd.
Fontana and Frey (1 refine these distinction:; adding other different types or
unstructured
ioterviews such as ones. In the first case,, interviews are
designed to maximise for and rapport, while m the second case, they
are thought of a, n1ornenb ()f critical aw,1reness. We will go into detail, about tht' diflerent
ways oC doing interviews that luve been proposed when \Ve eume to discms dilemmas and
deb,ttes on ethnography and ech11ugr.q1hie methods.
lnterv1cw1ng as a method or data c·ollcction lus a to Fontana ,tnd
Frey (JC1(!4, p. the first intt'rvit·\\S were mecl studying urban populations
such as Londoners (:Cmvnse, I or in habllants of Arncricrn cities such as Afriun
Americans in PhiLhlelphia (Du Bois, 1899: Lynd & Lynd, J I-fo,vcwr, 111 these
attempts, interviews were described as embedded into vis1to to the homes of 1uernbers of the
not as qualitative in,trurnents. And indeed, in most of' the socio-
logical tradil1011 umil the 1960s became ,issociated with survey research, vd1ich
w,is quantitative J'vkrton &. Lazarsfrld, As \\T 'sevill :,cc, a great deal of
reflection on qualitative interviews between the 198Us and 1990s was devoted to
the critique of rn rvey res ca rch.
Even though the trend in reflected this shift towc1rds quantitative meth
we tind early uses of the qualitative interview in the wurks of me1nbers of the
so-called Chicago School, whose proponenh carried out a number of swdies of diverse
communities through a combination of instruments that involved observation and informal
inten-invs Anderson. 1926: Thrasher, QualitatiH'., eth nogrs1phic interviewing
h;1s also been one of the inost import;1 nt tools for and indeed the interview
has been used by lxick from the \Nork of founding figures such as
M.ead (1928), Bronislaw l'vlalinowski and CliHc,rd Geertz The
interview was seen to ribservation, ethno-
artefacts and other data. It was seen as one
of the means for reaching the objective of , wluch. to l\·1alinowski.
vvas "to gc1sp the native's of view, his relatiun Lu life, to realize his vision or his
world'' (1922, p, The inLerv1ew, that used wem rrom infi:,nnal
conversations with ''natives" torn.ore structured sets of on ,1spects of the
cultunl ,ind linguistic observed. But the basic 1de:i ,Nas thJL the intervic,v would
:dlow researchers to grasp the cnnc of partietpanls, 1.c. then own way or un--
thcir social world :md the within iL Difi~'rent kinds of qualitative
intervit·ws were widely in the 1970s and I '!80s both by anthropologists
and I vvho used them to undersund p,nticuhr l111guistic ,rnd di5cursive genres in
different non-\X/estern cultures. Cla,sical arc Duranti
(El81) fen Samoans, Hill and Hill fi1r Mcxicanr1' (I
,rnd Scollon ;rnd Scolk,n fr,r /\thabc1skam. mostly used
156
interviews as techniques to elicit samples of naturally occurring speech in order to study

social stratification and differentiation in language use. This was the case with the classic
sociolinguistic studies of urban vernacular by William Labov (1972) in the US or Milroy and
Milroy (1977) in the UK.
Qualitative interviews experienced a boom during the so-called "interpretive turn"
(Rabinov & Sullivan, 1987) of the late 1980s and 1990s in the social sciences when re-
searchers started to question the positivistic trends that dominated many disciplines, such as
psychology, sociology, linguistics and anthropology. Scholars in this period aligned them-
selves with both recent and older theories that rejected the idea of neutrality and objectivity
of the researcher. They dismissed the mantra of the superiority of investigation techniques
that emphasised hypothesis testing and required the collection of sizable, comparable and
strictly controlled data sets. There was a general movement from a view of reality as some-
thing external and given, that existed out there to be grasped by the researcher, towards a
conceptualisation of the process of knowledge creation as shaped by subjectivity (including
the subjectivity of the researcher) and of reality as open to different interpretations. Within
the interpretive process, special significance was given to language as a site for the construc-
tion of interpretations of cultural practices (see Giddens, 1976) and to interaction as the
domain where such interpretations are shared and negotiated. Thus, the semi-structured or
unstructured interview became a central tool for research in all the social sciences, including
linguistics and anthropology.

Debates around the interview as one of the tools of ethnography have centred around the role
of the interviewer in the process of data collection and interpretation, the relationship of the
interviewer with informants and the community to which informants belong (including re-
lated ethical issues), and the legitimacy of interviewing in general in approaching the study of
human behaviour. These topics are often so related to each other that it is hard to treat them
separately. Indeed, underlying these main questions are different views of what ethnography
is, but also differences on fundamental epistemological questions having to do with the na-
ture of knowledge and role of the researcher in the generation and circulation of that knowl-
edge. Thus, positions within those debates have been deeply influenced by the historical
moment in which they developed and the kinds of challenges that different disciplines in the
social sciences have been facing at particular moments.
Theorists of qualitative research have pointed to such connections between research par-
adigms and directions of research. For example, Denzin and Lincoln (2004) delineated eight
important historical moments in the development of qualitative research: from the positivis-
tic outlook that dominated the beginning of the century until the 1920s, to the "crisis ofrep-
resentation" of the 1980s, to the postmodern trend of the 1990s, to the "post-experimental"
and "contestation" approaches from the mid-1990s to the beginning of the new century.
Positivist paradigms are characterised by a stress on objectivity, separation of researcher from
the object of study and insistence on rigour in formal procedures. The crisis of representation
is connected to the emergence of different interpretative perspectives including feminist and
structuralist ones and to the acceptance of a variety of research methods. In the postmodern
era, researchers take critical stances that reject any kind of universalistic and generalised
vision of social categories and underscore how not only social reality but even the categories
_used by researchers to understand it are socially constructed and therefore push investigators
towards critical awareness. The sixth and seventh periods they identify (post-experimental
157
Anna De Fina
and contestation) see a stress on autobiography and personal narrative as a form ofknowledge,
a more widespread eclecticism and interdisciplinarity, but also greater emphasis on activism
and social responsibility.
Although the authors claim that these developments cannot be read as a simple chronol-
ogy, what can be seen is nonetheless a gradual departure from positivist frameworks that
stressed objectivity and reliability towards a greater focus on researcher involvement and
reflexivity; a critical appraisal of the process of knowledge generation but also of its embed-
ding into power struggles and relations. Interview research and the way it has been used in
ethnography have been deeply influenced by these trends. This is a reason why authors who
have proposed taxonomies ofinterviews (see, for example, Edwards & Holland, 2013; Heyl,
2001) characterised the debates going on amongst ethnographers and qualitative researchers
as at least in part deriving from the researchers' alignment with trends such as feminism,
postmodernism, etc. Here, I will concentrate on the issues related to the three topics in-
troduced earlier - the role of the interviewer, their relationship with informants and the
legitimacy of interviewing - which I hope will allow for capturing some key positions in
past and current debates.
The role of the interviewer

Let us take as a starting point the metaphor proposed by Kvale (2007, p. 48) opposing the
interviewer as a miner to the interviewer as a traveller. According to this author, "these two
contrasting metaphors of the interviewer(...) illustrate the different epistemological concep-
tions of interviewing as a process of knowledge collection or as a process of knowledge construction,
respectively." In the first case, the researcher is looking for an object that can be brought
home and polished until it comes to light, while in the second case, the researcher gathers
experiences that have been constructed together with others.
It can be said that in classical early ethnographies within anthropology and linguistics,
interviewers were seen as miners rather than as travellers. Foundational figures like Ma-
linowksi and Mead used interviews and conversations as ways of eliciting the perspective
of 'natives' on specific cultural constructs, on the social organisation of groups and on their
customs and life philosophy. Thus, the anthropologist was immersed in the life of a par-
ticular group and wrote diaries and conducted observations that were complemented with
interviews and unstructured conversations. As we have seen, linguists and anthropological
linguists asked members of particular cultures to explain linguistic systems or taxonomies
in their own words (Gossen, 1974) or conversed with them to elicit particular speech genres
such as narratives and poems (Hymes, 1976). In this early work, the stress was on the object
of knowledge and on how to justify the ethnographer's interpretations about that object,
but there was little open discussion on the way the researcher had obtained such knowledge.
Indeed, the possibility of observing human behaviour was directly related to 'being there'
and therefore the multiple ways in which the researcher made her presence felt were not a
focus of attention.
In the decades following these early works, the lack of attention to the interaction of the
researcher with the object of research came more and more under fire, as scholars pointed
to the many ways in which the identity of the interviewer and the context of the event can
shape the data collected and highlighted the need to put subjectivity and reflexivity on
the map. Some early reflections on the role of interviewers in different kinds of interviews
came from Aaron Cicourel and Charles Briggs, respectively, a sociologist and a linguistic
158
The C!thnographic interview
mthropologist. within the frame of their critique of· quantitative approaches to interviews
and of their call for researcher reflexivity.
Both Cicourel (1964) and Briggs (1986) started from a rejection of Lhe positivist frame-
work. They saw the idea of researcher neutrality as an illusion and pointed to the inevitable
problems that derive from standardisation of interviews (see De Fina & Perrino, 2011 on
this point). They noted that as each interview is unique, so are the roles and relationships
between each interviewer and each informant, and therefore trying to impose a uniform
procedure is a violation of'naturalness'. Cicourel (1964, p. 87) openh· criticised the concept
of comparability between data, which he deemed unattainable under the conditions of the
interview as a real communicative encounter. In his own work, Briggs highlighted how
fi·uitless debates on the interview as a method ,ire, unless there is a recognition of the fact
that the interview is an interaction al event in and of itself, and proposed the importance of
examining the implicit communicative mechanisms that operate in such events. In his study
about Mexicano speakers in Northern Mexico, he focussed on the meta-communicative
repertoires (i.e. the set of implicit shared norms that govern communication) underlying
both the interview aud the cornmunicative pc1ctices of the target group. Briggs argued that
meta-communicative norms between native 'informants' and interviewers often diverge,
leading to communicative blunders, or worse, to the unilateral exercise of power by the
rntervinver. He drew ;1ttention to the importance of reflexivity, which he defined as the
ability of "speech, whether contained in interviews, myths, or 'natural' conversations", to
provide "'an ongoing interpretation of its own significance" (Briggs, 1986, p. H)6). So while
making explicit the ideological stances that underlie the myth of objective, qualitative re-
search, Cicourel and Briggs also contributed to a reflection on the role of the researcher
vis-a-vis the informant which is still one of the moot central elements of debate an1ongst
ethnographers who use interviews.
A second issue concerns whether the role of the researcher should be to act as a kind of
'voice of informants' or as someone who steps out of the fieldwork to provide their own
interpretation. As we discussed, one of the fundamentals of ethnography is the idea that
at its centre is a concern "with the meaning of actions and events to the people we seek to
understand" (Spradley 1979, p. 5). In terms of the interview for example, does this centrality
of local understanding mean that the cthnographer's role is basically to make sense of those
emic perspectives and organise them intu a coherent picture? How arc the materials that eth-
nographers collect in interviews to be used in the final analysis? While the quote by Spradley
would indicate that interpreting the results of ethnographic observation mems simply ex-
plaining local cultural parameters, others have argued that eliciting the point of view of in-
formants is only a step in the process of interpretation. Thus, there has been much discussion
on the limits of cultural relativism, i.e. the idea that all knowledge is socially constructed and
therefore the interpretation of cultural phenomena needs to coincide with the interpretation
of the participant in the culture. According to Hess (2001, p. 2.17) for example,
ethnographers in the anthropological/feminist/cultural studies tradition are c;ireful to

distinguish the moment of cultur:d interpretation in the research from the complete
analysis. Analysis may begin with local interpretations and meanings, but it does not
end there. !11 the process. the second wave of ethnographers tends to distinguish cultural
heuristics from epistemological or moral relativism. failure to engage in the 'stepping
in' and 'stepping out' process constitutes 'going native' which is usually rejected as a
departure from complete analysi,.
159
Anna De Fina
Relationship of the interviewer with informants in the communities

Many debat,,s have surrounded the rok of the inte1v1ewer in the co1nrnunity observed.
0
Scholars quesLt(me,l for example, whether it is possible for ethnographer;, to really immerse
themselves mlo the lives of people who belong to ;1 different culture; whether th.e many as-
pects of their idcnt1tin such as their nation.11ity. gender. skin colour, clas, and other v,1riables
may constitute insurmountable barriers to achieving full comprehension and trust with their
interviewees. Indeed, since the times of Malinowski, ethnographers have maintained that
one of the fundamental elements of ethnography is the ability to become part of the culture
observed through a constant process of familiarisation. But vv·hat does this 'being part' of a
group entail? For example, is it necessary to learn the language of the people whose group 1s
being studied ur i, it ,1cc:eptable to work through i ntcrprcters? Amongst many others. Keesing
and Stratbern (J 'l')7. p. 7) argued, for ex,nnpk, that fieldwork "most esscut1ally, ... entails a
deep immersion into the life of a people ... One le.1r11, their language and tries to lc:1rn their
mode oflif,·''. thercfi:ire excluding the use <Jfinterpretcts, But others h:,n: oprnly discussed
the complt::-::itin tliat really knowing a langu,igc' c11t.1ib and have argued that issues of lin-
guistic competence have been brushed aside by many ethnographers. In a critical review of
this issue, Borchgrevink (2003) quotes many cases in which anthropologists accmed others of
compiling authoritative monographs about foreign cultures without demonstrating that they
had real knowledge of the languages spoken by those populations, and other cases in which
language knowledge had been assumed by authors of cultural studies but not demonstrated.
He quotes (p.100) a discussion between Margaret Mead. who argued that ''native languages"
should be L1se,l a:, '"fieldwork tools" and that such usc did not require ;rn in-depth compe-
tence, and Lowie (1940) who counter-argued that ethnographers use interpt·t:ters because it
takes a long tnne to learn a language and so then, 1s no other choice for them. And although
Duranti (1 ')'J7, p. 112) states that ethnographer, should move as quickly as possible towards
using the language of the community they are studying, he admits that "thmgs get more
complicated when a community has more than one native language or ,vhen children are not
learning the same language their parents learned as children."
Besides language competence, nuny other aspects oft he ethnographer's identity that may
have a fundamental influence on the level of credibility and trust achieved in interviews have
received attention. Debates around these topics are often subsumed under the question of the
'insider/outsider' chlnnma (see Naples, 19%; Smith, 19'>9; Coloma, 2008; Al-Natour, 2011).
Indeed, as noted by Prm (2007, p. 19), "the practices of unstructured, in-depth interviewing
and participant observation are contingenl on Lhe 1-esearcher's ability to gain access tu those
involved ·rn Lhe l1fr"'_ But what aspect,, of the rcsean:her's identity or methodology may
h,nnper that ability; Class, r,ice and gender, amongst other identity characteristics, have been
at the centre of attention. For example, Young (2004, p. 190) noted bow there has been a
growing assumption in these debates that interviewers whose gender and/or race differ from
that of their informants are automatically classified as 'outsiders' and therefore have little
hope of gaining access to the worlds oftbeir rnterviewees. In his view, such assumption leads
to undesirable dicbntomisations.
Although most recent discussions point to tit,: need to overcome simple oppositions and
understand the outmlcrhnsider question m more complex and nuanced way,, the dilemma
still persists. Jn,leed. m:,ny researchers using eLhnographic methods have commented on how
their identities cl5 insiders/outsiders affected tbcir ability to relate to member, of the com-
munity they were ,tudy111g, For example, I le Fim (20(1.i) talks about how she L-e:ifoed in the
course of her project that she needed to reveal her nationality to her informants, who were
160
Mexican undocumented migrants, in order to gain their trust. Al-Natour (2011) recounts
how difficult it was for him as a non-local, male researcher of Arab descent to interview
people in a neighbourhood where incidents around the construction of a Muslim school had
occurred. Ganga and Scott (2006) talk about how their class position influenced their ability
to gain access to informants in ethnographic studies of migrants in Europe. More generally,
issues related to the identities of interviewers Jnd their reciprocal rebtions vvith interviewees
have been conceptualised as questions of position ality (Creswell, This concept encom-
passes the vvider issue of the researcher's not only in relation to informants, but also
in rcLi.uon to the research topic, the context .rnd the process of the research. In that regard,
ethnographers have offered further reflections on the many ways in wl11ch being positioned
or positioning oneself in each of these domains may also affect the possibilities of interaction
with informants and ultimately also the kinds of data collected.
Another important aspect of the relationship between interviewers and informants con-
cerns the ethics of interviewing (see Copland, this volume). Mishler pointed to the fact that
"in the mainstream tradition the interviewer-intervievvee relationship is marked by a strik-
ing asymmetry of power" (1986, p. 117). Indeed. in most cases, the researcher has control not
only of the 111terview and observ,ition methods used in general, but also of the processes of
data sekctic,n and interpretation and of the circulation of results. Mishler suggested that in-
terviewers often treat interviewees as mere sources of information rather than as informants,
that is, traditional interviewing methods imply a de-humanisation of intervie,vees through
questions that are standardised and divorced from local contexts and experiences. In order to
redress this imbalance, he proposed several ways in which interviewees can be empowered,
for example granting them control over topics and timing of interviews, including them as
research collaborators, asking feedback on research instruments and transcripts obtained, and
becoming advocates for their plight.
Dilemmas related to power asymmetries surface not only in the interview itselfbut through-
out the etlmographic research process. Even though research procedures are regulated by ethical
cornrnittecs in n1ost countries, researchers still face questions about privacy and confidentiality,
their role in obtc1ining sensitive information, in supporting/hindering the interest of informants,
in fairly representing their needs, and so frirth (see Caplan, 2003 for a revie,v of issues in an-
thropology). Interviewers often find the1melves in a position in which they have to ask difficult
questions and receive very personal, intimate responses. That. in turn, puts them in a dilemma
over what they can reveal without damaging their inforrnants, especially when dealing with
at risk populations Howell, 2004). They also face dilemmas in terms of how they position
themselves in relation to political issues and ideologies both in tenns of how their world view may
influence their questions and the interpretations of their data and in terms ofhow they should give
back to the individuals and communities that they have interviewed.
Further ethiccll issues for interviewers derive from their need to comply with IRB
(Institutional Review Board) or ctlucal cornmittees' procedures, such ~1s the imperative of
obtaining vvrittcn informed consent. Indeed, 1t has been argued that in some cases, obtaining
formal consent rnay hinder the researchers' access to informants (see Silverman, 2003 on this
point) by creating an artificial formalisation of relationships that may have been informal
or even intimate up to the moment of consent request. Advice on how to cope \Vith these
dilemmas is often incorporated into guides on interviewing. For example, in his volume on
this topic, Spradley (2016, pp. 34--39) lays out a list of ethical principles for interviewers to
follow. He invites researchers to consider the informant first, to safeguard informants' rights,
interests and sensitivities, to communicate research objectives, to protect the privacy of in-
fonnants, not to exploit them and to make reports available to thnn.
161
Anna De Fina
The legitimacy of interviewing in general

Although, as we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, qualitative interviews are a
very widely used method amongst ethnographers frorn different disciplines including an-
thropology and linguistics, they have also been the object of heated critiques from mauy
sides. Such critiques must be put in the context of the extreme variability and diversity of
research paradigms and traditions that appeal directly or indirectly tu ethnography and
to the ditlircnt dcgrc'c of reliance on interview, in these different Tlrns, for
example. qu . ditative wterviews are quite centr.11 tu narrative research De ri1u, 2009;
De Fina & Perrino. 2011 on this point). inkrad1onal sociolinguistics (Cumpnz. 1982)
and different br.rnch,·" of discourse analysis (sec H.11nmersley, 2005). Rnearchen iu these
disciplines often work within the frame of ethnography or clainl that they embrace an eth-
nographic perspective and more often than not they b;1se their work on a generalised use of
interviews. Thus, a great deal of criticism has come from scholars who argue that the bulk
of data collection and analym in ethnographic research needs to come from direct observa-
tion of participant behaviour rather than from the elicitation of participants' perspectives or
participant,' . An important d.i,r111etion bc>tYveen conceptions of the rntcrvicw has
been prop,,scd by l~,tpley, who opposes that regard intervinv data as 'reoource'
and approaches that regard it as 'topic'. In the interview-data-as-resource approach, "the
interview daLl colledcd are seen as (more or less) reflecting the interviewee; rrality nutside
the intervinv" while in interview-dat,1-<Vi-wp1c. "the interview data collected arc seen as
(more or less) reflecting a realiL y jointly constructed by the interviewee and interviewer"
(2001, p. 304).
Scholars in the tradition of conversation analysis and ethnomethodology point to the
unacceptability of procedures that involve generating data for the specific purpose of ana-
lysing them (see Heinriclismeier, this volume). Amongst the most vocal critics of such a po--
sition has been the d11ntrsive psychologistJ011.1tkm Potter who asserts th,it resectrcb should
be able to p,m J (conceptual) "dead scientist Lest", tlut is, the data used should be based on
an interaction that ",vould have taken place in tl1e form that it did had the researcher not
been born or ilthc rest":1rcher had got run nver on the way to the university llut morning"
(Potter, 1')%, p. I Similar positions lnve been e:--;pressed by many other CA-oriented
scholars (Heritage & Atkinson, 1984; Potter & WhetherelL 1995; ten Have, 1999) in gen
eral and in connection with narratives in particular (see Goodwm, 1997; Schegloff, 1997).
With regard to narratives, Atkinson and Delamont (2006) have been very vocal critics
of the tendency of narrative scholars to equate narrative talk with self-expression and to
equate narrative content with facts and events. Such teudeucy has led some to forego any
consideration of the performative and co-constructed characteristics of storytelling in in-
terview
From a u1rire perspective, the basic ;ngument against intervicws as a method
of data collection is that they produce \m JLll L1r;1l' data since the interviewer influences
their production (thruugh questions, interruptinns, silences, etc.), and offers ad hoc inter-
pretations through the use of etic (i.e. non participant generated) and not emic categories
of analysis. Other schoLns, however, have re.1ected both the idea that research interv1ews
cannot be used to gain understandings about social phenomena beyond the local event,
and the notion that 'natural' and 'unuatural' data can be opposed in such black-and-\vhite
terms. In particular, they have argued against the notion th:H the researcher's presence
in tbc data can be avoided just by the investifator 'not being there' (see Speer. 2002; De
Fina & Perri no, 2CI 11).
162
current contributions and research areas

from the 199Ds until today, ethnognphic rcsean:hers in sociocultural have contin-
ued to use serni-structured or unstructurt:d interviews in conjunction with p,uticipant obser-
vation ,tnd otl1Cr ethnographic methods, but, in part due to the influence of the interpretive
turn, they have rnoved away from the idea of studying homogenem1:, culmrcs and more to-
wards the objective of researching language practices within communities and groups that cau
be defined more by common practices (Lave & Wenger, 1998) than by nationality or place of
birth. Thus, more recent ethnographic studies using interviews focus on language practices
and/or language ideologies in a wide variety of communities of practice defined by place
of interaction, for example schools (Creese et al., 2006; Mendoz,1-Denton, 2008; Rampton,
2009; Bucholtz, 2011), hospitals (Davidson, urban spaces such ;1s n1,1rkets (Blackledge
et al., virtml spaces (Androubopuulm. 2008), group membership such as migrants and
mobile subjects (De Fina, 2008; Dong ,':-_ Blornn1:1ert, 2009; Wortham et al., 2011), families
(Hua & Wei, 2016) or youth 00rgensn1 et . il., 2011) to quote just a fr,v. These types of studies
used semi-structured interviews as a support for the interpretation:; and hypotheses put forth
on the basis ofparticip:mt observation about how languages are used, communicative practices
are performed and understood, and identities are constructed and negotiated.
Interviews are essential for triangulation, that is, a technique used in ethnography which
compares results and insights from different methods of data gathering and interpretation.
Interviewees are asked either to comment and give their interpretations on specific epi-
sodes or fragments of talk or other u nib of communication that have been selected by the
researcher, or to explain observed behaviour themselves or other part1upant,. However,
interviews dre also used to gather background information on various aspects of the life, be-
liefs and customs of group members that m,ry illuminate linguistic and cornrnunicative prac-
tices. Scholars rnt1;1lly select a smaller number or participants for intervic,vs from the total
of participants in a group. It could be said that interviews nowadays are still widely used but
they are overwhelmingly employed to investigate language practices, ideologies, and identity
constructions versus linguistic structures and genres as it happened in the past.
Some changes have occurred in the addition of new methods. For example, scholars have
used interviews through digital communication means such as Skype, interviews centred
on the of stimuli such as rnaps and images like the ones used in linguistic
portraits (see Busch, 2012), mobile interviews such as the so-called 'w;ilk in which
the interviewer literally walks with the interviewee, which have been used lo construct spa-
tial maps of the life of interviewees Dalrnau, 2016), or to ehcll people's reactions to
linguistic bndscapcs (Aiestaran et al., 2010).
A very important aspect in interviewing today is the centrality accorded to reflexivity
Patino-Santos, this volume) and therefcJrc to conscious reflection on ways in which the inter-
viewer contributed to the construction of data, on the relationship between interviewers and
participants, on the ethical implications of using interviews and on the rights of interviewees.
Thus, researchers tend to ahvays sec research interviews as co-constructed rather than as simply
conveying the of view of the intcrvie1\ce and many stress the fact tlut research interview
is an interactiornl event in its own De Fma, 2009 and papers iu De Fina & Perrino,
2011 fr>r a discussion of this point). Stress on rctkxivity has also implied greater c,msideration of
the rok of emotions and empathy in intnvie1ving, a point very much emphasised by feminist
researchers for example, Oakley, 199K). However, debates about the role of the interview in
ethnogr;iphic research have not ceased, partKnLirly since a great deal cif1 especially
· in identity and narrative research, are still heavily based on interviews.
'163
Anna De Fina
Condusions and future directions

In this chapter I have traced the of intervinving and its emcrgenct' as a central too]
in ethnographic research in the fields of sociocultural linguistics and anthropological
linguistics. [ h:,ve described the main kinds of mterviews, cliscmsecl the 1nost important de-
bates in the different disciplines in which interviews are used and traced a brief view of cur.
rent work based on interviews. I thmk that future directions will see an increased awneness
of etbicil issues m interviewrng and a continuation of the current trend towards researcher
reflexivity. The future will also witness greater development oC new types of interviews,
such as those conducted through the rnediation of or those tlut include mobile
components.
Further reading
EJ!iott, J. (2005). U.,ing n,m,lliw i11 sori,il research: Qualitatilif <1nd q11,mtit,ni1'e appro,1cl1fs. London:
(This book presents a disc:msion of nurative interviewing in the social sciences.)
Gnbrium,J., & Holst<:in,J. (Eds.). (2002). J'fond/Jook· ,,fintcruicw rese,11Ch: Coutcxt Ei1nethod. London:
Sage. (This book pr-esents a s·ariety of reflections on qualitative interviews in the social
Ric"nun, C.IZ. (2015). Entering the hall of mirrors: Reflexivity and narrative n:scarch. In J\, De Fina &
/\, Georg:llrnpoulou (Eds.), Hmdbook of 11,1rrutiuc (pp. 219-238). Malden, MA: (This
clnpter presents a discu"ion in interviewing.)
Related topics
Participant obscrv:ition and field notes; Ethics; Reflexivity.
References
i\iestar:m,J. Cenoz,J., & Corter, D. (2010). JV!ultilingual cityscapes: Perceptions and preferences of the
inhabitants ofDonosti;i-SanSebastian. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-R:.ifael, & M. Barni (Eds.), Li11J!11istic
in 1/ic city (pp. 219-234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
i\.l~Natour. R. (2011). The impact of the researcher on the researched. MCJ01mwl, 14(6), Available
from http://jou n1al. media-culture.org.c1u/ index. php/mcjournal /article/view/428 (Accessed 10th
October 2U17).
Anderson, N. (192(,). The ho/)() Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
i\ndroutsopoulos, J (2008). Potentials and limitations of cliscoursc,.centred onlinc Ethnography.
vol. 5. Available from ()
(Accessed 5th October 2017).
Atki11so11, P., &. Delamont, S. (2006). Rescuing narntive from qualitative research. ,'\Tarrat/1,e Inquiry,
16(1), 173-181.
Blackledge, A,, Creese, J\.., &. Hu, R.. (2017). Everyday encounters in the marketplace: Translanguag-
ing in the snperdiverse city. In A. De hna, D, lkizoglu, &-J \X/egner (Eds.), Diversity and
siry: Socio(uitun.i/ lin~ui.,rfr perspcctil'Cs (pp. ')7--116). DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bmcbgrcvink, /\. (200J). Silencing Of and interpreters. 4(1),
9S-121
Brigg~. C.L. (1986). LcL1n1int h1nt1 to ,uk: ,4 sociolinguistic o_fthr role qftlze int1?n.J1fw in ,-;,,riiz/ st"iencc
rc°"·earcf1. C~a1nbridge: C:an1hridge l.Jn-ivcrsity Press.
Bucholtz, JV\. (2011). f,V/,itc kids: L111g1J1~(C, 1<1cc and styles o/y,)1/fh Cambridge: Carnbridge Uni-
versity Press.
Busch, B. (2012). T'h<e linguistic rcpertuire revisited. Li1{~111stils, 33(5), so:,-52."\.
Caplan, P. (Fd.) (2UIJ3). The e!l1ics of Lundon and New Yc)rk:
Cicourcl, A.V. (1964). Met/i,,d ,wd 111c<1.if.m:111c11t i1l New York: Free Press ofGlenc:oe.
164
Coloma, R.S. (2008). Border crossing subjectivities and research: Through the prism of f.:minists of
color. Race, Ethnicity and Ed1.1c,1tion, 11(1), 11-27.
Converse, J. (1987). S11n.•ey research in the United States: Roots and e1ne~~ence, 1890-1960. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Creese, A., Bhatt, A., Bhojani, N., & Martin, P. (2006). Mnlticultnral, heritage and learner identities
in complementary schools. Language and Educ,Jtion, 20, 23-43.
Creswell, J-W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry ,.md ff,c,11,I, design: Choosing amonyjil'e ,1pproi1c/1e, (3rd ed.). Los
CA: Sage.
Davidson, B. (2001). Questions in cross-linguistic 1ncdical encounters: The role of the hospital inter-
pret<"r. Anth1opological Quarterly, 74(4), 170-178.
De .fina, A. (2003). identity in narrative. ,1 o( i11w1i~rant discourse. Amster,fam: John Benjamins.
De Fiua, A. (2008), Who tells the story and why 0 Micro and macro contexts in narrative. Text and
1;1/k, 28(3), 421-442.
De Fina, A. (2009). Narratives in interview - The case of accounts: For an interactional approach to
narrative genres. Narmtiue Inquiry, 19(2), 233-258.
De Fina, A., & Perrino, S. (Eds.) (2011). Interviews vs. 'natural' contexts: A false dilemma. Special
Issue. Language in Society, 40(1), l-11.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of qualitatiFc rcseanh. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dong. J-, & Blommaert, J. (2009). Space, scale and accent: Constructing migrant identity in Beijing.
M11ltili11g11.1, 28(1). 1-24.
Du Bois, \VE.B (1899). The Philadelpl11c1 11~gro: ,'1 social study. Philadelphia. FA: Ginn.
Duranti, A. (1981). T/1e Samoanfano: A s,1c10L!11guistic study. Canberra: The i'lllstralian National Univer-
sity, Pacific Linguistics Monograph B8n.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. C1mbridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, R., &. Holland,]. (2013). What is interviewing? London and New York: Bloomsbury.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative resecml! (pp. 361-376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ganga, D., & Scott, S. (2006). Cultural "insiders" and the issue of positionality in qualitative migration
research: Moving "across" and moving "along": Researcher-participant divides. Fon1111: Qualita-
tiue Social Researcli, 7(3). Available from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/
view/134/289#g2 (Accessed 30th September 2017).
Geertz, C. (1972). Deep play: Notes on the B,1lincse cockfight. In The interpreldtion ofwl111res (pp. 412-54).
New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). 'From the native's point of view': On the nature of anthropological understanding.
In Local "''·""'"""··· Further ess,1ys in ime1prctiuc amhropology (pp. 55-72). New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociologirnl 111et/10d: A positiue critique of intcrpretatiFc sociololies. Berkeley,
CA.: Hutchinson.
Goodwin, M.H. (1997). 'l'owards families of stories in context. Journal of Narrative and Life History,
7(1--4), 107-112.
Gossen, G. (1974). A green tree and a dry tree. New York: Macmillan.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strntegies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hammersley, M. (2005). Ethnography and discourse analysis: Incompatible or complementary? Poli-
fonia, 10, 1-20.
Hammersley, M. (2018). What is ethnography" Can it survive? Should it? htlu1,;~raphy !ind Education,
13(1), 1-17.
Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J.M. (1984). Introduction. In MJ. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures
of.,,,(i,i/ <1oio11.· S111dies in conversation (pp. l-16). Cambridge: CaJnbndgc University Press.
He55, D. (2r)0l) Ethnography and the e1u,p111u.11, ofscience and technology studies ..In P. Atkinson
ct al. (Eds.). Handbook of ethnograph)' (pp. 234-245). London: Sage.
Heyl, B. (2001). Ethnographic interview. In P. Atkinson, A., Coffey, S., Delamont, J., Lofland, & L.,
Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 369-383). London: Sage.
Hill, J, & Hill, K. (1986). Speaking l'Vlexicano: Dynmnics of syncrctic language in Cc11tml M'.e:xico. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Howell, J. (2004). Turning out good ethnography, or talking out of turn' Gender, violence, and confi-
dentiality in Southeastern Mexico.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 323-352.
Hua, Z., & Wei. L. (2016). Transnational e:-;perience. aspiration and family language policy.Journal of
Mul1ili11g11,,l ,.1ud Multicultural Development, 37(7). f,55-666.
165
Anna De Fina
Hymes, D.H. (1976). Discovering oral perforrnancc and mnsured verse in American f ndian narrative.
New Lrtcr,oy Hi,to,y. 8, 431-457.
J0rgensen, J N., Karrcb:v:k. M.S., Madsen, L.IVL an,! Moller, JS. (2011). PolyLrngn:J\\ing in superdi-
versity. f)i1·crsitics. l 2(2), 23-37.
Keesing, R. & Strathnn, A. (1997). Cultural ,111t/,ropolo,:y: ,i contemporary perspectil'<' ('.\rd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Kvale_ S. (2007). Doing interJJifws. London: Sage.
Labov, W. (I972). Language in the inna city Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Cornmrrnities of pr,1ctice: Le,1ming, mec1nin2, ,uu/ identity. Cambridge:
Lowic, R.H. (1940). Native languages as ethnographic tool. A11ieric,1n Anthropologist, 42(1), 81-89.
Lynd, R.S., & Lynd, H.M. (1929). 1Widdletown: A study in contnnporary /1.lflerican rnlture. New York:
Harcourt, Bocc:.
Malinowski, B. (l'l22). A,;~onauts of the Western H1rifi,- ,,111 ,1,c,,unt ef native enterp1ise t11ul dd1·c111,1rc in the
Archipel,(,:,>n ,:f;\iel,1111·,i,zn New Guinea. Loudon: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mead, M. (J'.J2ii). Ct•111ing of age in Samoa. Nev, York: William Morrow and Co.
Mendoza-Denton, N. (2008). Homegirls. Languc1gc ,wd rnltrrnil practice among Lati11,1 rout/1. M,1lden, MA:
Blackwell Mass.
Merton, R., Fiske, Jvt, & Kendall, P. (1956). The }t>twcd interview a manual ef pwblrnts t11id procedures.
Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Merton. R.K., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (Eds-) (1950). Continuities in sorial rese,,rch: Studies in the scope and method
uf "The American Soldier''. New York: The Free Press.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1977). Speech community and language variety in Belfast. Report to the SSRC.
.M.ishler, E.G. (1986). Research ilitcrPicwin,iZ: Context and narmti11e. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Naples, N. (1996). A fetninist revisiting of the rnsidcr/0111 sider debate: The 'outsider phenomenon' in
rural. Iowa. Quc1/1t,1/i1•c Sociology, 19(1), 83-]ll(,.
Oakley A. (l'.!98). Gc'wkr. methodology and people's ways nfknowing: Some problem, Vsitb feminism
and the paudigrn debate in social science. s,,,iolc'.i:)', 3.?. 707-731.
Potter, J. (l')')(,). l )iscomse analysis and constrnctirrnist ,1pproaches: Theoretic:1! b;JLkground. In
J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitdti1•e rc•c<1ffh me1hods for psychology ,md tl,c soci,J/ sciences
(pp. 125-40). Leicester: BPS Boob.
Potter, J.. & Wetherell, M. (1995). Natural order: Why social psychologists should study (a constructed
version of) natural language, and ,vby they have not done so. Journal of Language and Social Psychol-
ogy, 14(1-2), 216-222.
Prns, R .. (2007). Respecting the human condition: Pursuing intersubJectivity in the marketplace. In
S. Grills (Ed.), Doing ethn,:~r,,phir rcsearrlr. Fieldwork settings (pp. 21--47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rabinov, P.. & Sulliv,m, W. (Eds.) (1987). fote1p1eti1•e soci,1/ .,cience: A second look (2nd ed.). Bcrkeley:
University of California Press.
Rampton, B. (2009). Language in late modernity. Irrtrnwio11 ill an urban school. C:unbridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rapley, T.j. (2001). The ,nt(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analyzing
intervic,vs. Qu,r/it,,tiw Research, 1(3), 303 323.
Sainte Dalmau, M. (2016). M.igraut narratives of dis/emplacement: The alternative spatialization and
E'thnicization of the local urban floor. 'frxt & Talk, 36(3), 209-293.
Schcgloff, E.A. (1997). 'Narrative analysis' thirty years later. _Journal of N,11-r,1tiue and Life History, 7(1-4),
97 106.
Scollon. R., & S. Scollon. (1981). N11rratillc, literacy, midfi1ce in interrthnic cornnwnication. Norton. OH:
Able".
Silverman M (2/l(U). Everyday ethics: A personal journey in rural Ireland, 1980 21)111. In P. Caplan
(Ed.), Etlric, in ,wtlirop,,fr>gy (pp. 115-132). I ondon ,rnd New York: Sage.
Smith, L.T (199')). nen,fonizing methodologie., Rc.xdrcli ,wd indigenous peoples. Dunedin: University of
Otago Pr""·
Speer, S.A. (2002). 'Natural' and 'contrived' ,hta: A su,t,1inable distinction? Uiscowsc Studies, 4(4),
511-525.
Spradley,J-P. (1979). The cthnogr,1p/iic inten•iew. New York: Holt Reinhart and Wmston.
Spradky,J.P. (2016). Particip,mt obsa11ation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
166
Ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A pr,1ctirnl Ruide. London: Sage.
Thrasher, F. (1927). The gans: A study of 1,313 gan/1,s in Chit,t~o. ChicJgo, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Wortham, S., Mortimer, K., Lee, K., Allard, E., and Daniel White, K. (2011). Interviews as interac-
tional data. Language in Society, 40, 39-50.
Young, A. (2004). Experiences in ethnographic interviewing about race. In M. Bulmer & J. S0!01110s
(Eds.). Rese,11d,i11s YcJce and r,icism (pp. 187-20.2). London: Routledge.
167
13
Micro-analysis of
spoken interaction

Spoken interaction rnay occur in a nnge of including different imtitution;iL
horne aud frienc.bhip contexrs, dnd, of coLnse, in research interviews. There arc many \vays
of such interaction, but in chis \Ve focus un
of participants' successive tL1n1,-at-talk, using the intcrrcLited ;1pp,1ntus of Conversation
(CA) a.ncl IVlernbership (IVlCA). This kind of micro-
interactional ;11L1 has been drawn on in areas that fall under the linguistic eth~
nognphic (LE) 'umbrella' as a ,vay of ethnography down'' (lZ.ampton et ;1!.,
p. However, this is not to say that those researchers with an LE ,1pproach always
fully crnbrace all the tenets of CA/MCA, for with respect to using contextual
information, as we'll see Liter. For now, and to get a sense of what CA and JvlCA involve,
let's look at two ,nippets of spoken interaction (cd] extracts ;ire fron1 Heinrichsrneier, 201.6):
Extract 1 Jackie
1 Rachel do you ever have d.iscussions about what

2 you're going Lo do
3 Jackie um (0.5)
4 yes somet.imcs um (.)
5 but because (.) she knows me so well
6 and she knows [that (.) I'm not (.)
7 Rachel [mm
8 Jackie >I'm not a< vaiJ:t 2erson
So how do we go about these extracts' And can th:it lcJd to any in-
teresting On the C1ce of 1t. these extracts nuy not seern to have the sanw analytic
i11tercsL Extr.ict l comes from J rese.1rrh interview and dues seem to have potential vvith that
rntnguing moition by Jackie thcit another woman 'b10\ys' she's 'not a v;tin person' But
,vhat about Extr,in 2) This come, f'rom talk tow:irds the end ofa lnir-appoiuturenL :md doe,
168
I Extract 2 Jessica
>yep lovely fine<

Micro-analysis of spoken interaction
1 Jessica
2 Bethan Q:.kay doke [show you the l2c1Jl1Jck he he he
3 [((Bethan takes out the mirror))
4 (2)
5 ,Jessica yup
6 Bethan jye:h he do(h)ne [he he [he
7 [ ( (replaces the mirror))
not at first glance look very promising, so we might be tempted to ignore this short strelch
oflalk. As we'll see in this chapter, though, micro-analysis of interactions like Extract 2 - as
well as of interview talk like that in Extract 1 - can in fact reveal aspects of social life that are
really quite consequential for participants.
Another thing to notice about these extracls is that the transcripts are rather different to
many transcnpts of spoken interaction: thev show not only the participants' words but also a
nurnher of other ftcatures of talk. These include pitch-shifts (i, Extract 2, U,); utterances that
are srmken more quickly, relative tu the surrounding talk(> <, Extract 2. 1.1); and gaps and
pauses 111 ulk, like the two-second gap in 1.4 oCExtract 2, shown by or the micro-pauses
in Extract l. sho\vn by (.). There's ,11'0 overlapping talk, indicated by square brackets (e.g.
11.6---7 of Extract 1); and laughter particles and laughs (indicated by (h) in a word and 'be be').
It's noticeable, too, that the transcripts include verbal details that tend to be omitted from
many transcripts of talk, like Jackie's 'um' in 11. 3 and 4 of Extract 1 and Rachel's 'mm' in
1.7. But it is through analysing these and similar small details of interaction that researchers
arc able to uncover "the often tacit reasoning procedures and socio-linguistic competencies
underlying the production and interpretation of talk in organized sequences of interaction",
which is CA's objective (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008, p. 12).
CA and l'vlCA nse audio/video recordings of 'naturally occurring' L1lk (Sacks, 1984;
Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) to ex,11ninc how participants in interaction make sense of
what's going on and display their understanding of this through their utter,mces. So, a
key question for analysts is ,1lways: why this now;, (Schegloff, 2007a, p. 2). (And relatedly,
of course, why not that?) .MCA draws on the way in which categories of people come
to be stereotypically associated with 'typical' kinds of activity or attributes (Schegloff,
2(!076), such that people's behaviour may be explained by (one of) the category/ies into
which they seem to fall. To support their analysis. researchers using CA/MCA make very
detailed transcriptions of the audio/video recordings, like that in the afiJrcmentioned
extracts, mrng a specialised notatwn system b,ised on that developed by G,til Jefferson
(see Jefferson, 2004).
Sinet, CA ,rnd MCA emerged in the USA in the 1960s in the \Nork of Harvey Sacks
and coJleagucs (Sacks et al., 1974: Sacb. I researchers adopting thest, approaches
have generated an extensive body of research on the regularities of talk-in-interaction.
As Rampton (this volume) observes, this is an essential foundation for rigorous studies of
spoken interaction. So here, we'll exJrnine how the fine-grained analysis offered by CA
and MCA can be applied to the aforementioned extracts and combined with the under-
standing:, of the settings - the "social relations, interactional histories and institutional
regimes'' -· that we have "grasped et:hnographically" (Rampton, 2007, p. 3) to produce
some interesting insights.
169
Rachel Heinrichsrneier
The approach to analysing talk-in-inter,1ction nnbodicd in MCA and CA was quite new
(Scheglof[ 1')(J5, p. ft was underpinned by the ,issurnpnon that people's talk is "a
highly organised. socially ordered phenomenon" (Hutchby & Wooffitt. p. 11), an idea
that ran counter to dominant views hdd linguists like Noarn Chorn,ky. and con-
trary to orient:Jtions of lhe time, talk vvas seen as ;1 topic fen enquiry in its own
p. xvii; MaynarcL 2013. p. 1
The in fluencc, on Sacks' work \Vere m.any and diverse lSl95), and encom-
p;issed inter alia Goffiaianian soc1ology, :wthropology and the n,1tural sciences (Schegloff,
1995, pp. xxxi---xxxii; Maynard, Perhaps the n10st significant influence, though, ,vas
the 'etlmomethodological' new developed by Harold Garfinkel. This focussed on partici-
pants or 'members' ~ o\vn orient,1tions to and understandings of their everycLty activities
(Scheglufi~ 1995, p. xxx; ten I-I.we, pp. This privileging of participants' under-
standings over those of remains ,1 core principle of CA and MCA researchers.
In common with some sociological ethnograpl11c work. Sacks's research focmscd on ,vhat
he called the "this--and-tliat'' of which the world is comprised 1995, Vol. l, p.
its observable quotidian lkuil. But unlike such v.-ork, Sacks airned to give the reader sutfi--
oeut inforntation to reproduce the (Sacb, 1'1')5), and one means of doing this WJs
through the use of audio--reconkd data. In fact, CA \Vas one of the first research paradigms
1:h,1t grounded its an:1lyses in of ordinary talk (Mondada, p. Through
transcription, a detailed of these recorded data ,Nas faci!iL1ted, as wis sharing the daL.t
with an audience. The relatively snnple transcriptions of the days of Cl\ were gradually
built upon, through the work of G;1il Jefl:erson (2004), to capture evermore det:1ils of
talk (ten Have, 2007, p.
Early CA and MCA research examined conversational structures ,vithout spcufic regard
to any 'institutionality' of the settings studied (t:en Have, This focm \Vas occ;1sioncd by
the view "that ordinary conversation is the predominant medium of interaction in the social
world" (Drew & Heritage, 1992a, p. 19; sec too Sacks ct al., 1974. p. 47). This understanding
has not gone unch:11lcnged (BilJig, 199(), p. but with ordinary conversation established
as "a kind of benchmark" (Drew & Heritage, p. 19) against which to compare other
kinds of interaction, the scene \Vas set from the 1970s and 1980s onwards for an explicit corn--
parative interest in work-pbce settings such as dassroo1ns. courtrooms and doctor-patient
rnteractiuns e.g .. ch,1pters in Drew & Heritage, \992b; Sidndl & Stiven, 201 Tn "pure
CA" (ten Have. 2007, p. 180), CA/MCA researchers focus explicitly on aspects of struwne
in talk-rn-interaction, but the tools, findings and procedures of CA and/or MCA are used
bv researchers across many disciplint'S and in a wide range of to elucidate aspects
of mstitutional and other pnctices and to pursue more "critical agendas" (ten Have, 2007,
p. 44) or social issues. Drawing on CA/J\1CA within ;m overarching LE methodology can
help ground the ethnography in the immediate issues participants (Rampton,
2007). In essence, ethnogr,iphy and the micro-analysis of interactions are mutually support-
ing (IZarnpton, 2007) and together offer a means to link the micro of individual interactions
to wider social proce,se, ancl norm, (Copland ,'I,;_ Creese, p.
Key debates
A challenge sometimes levelled at c:A and .MCA is that the notwn of context is
too narro,vly dra1n1. le,1ving no room fin the nsc of wider ethnographic cL1ta. So from
170
a CA-interactional perspective, explain Drew and Heritage, context is not some static
pre-existing framework; rather, it is seen as dynamic and "locally produced" (1992a,
p. 19). Participants themselves orient to and produce different features of context in their
successive turns-at-talk; and these contextual features encompass what they understand
to be the action underway and projected in the prior turn, as well as wider aspects of
the setting like the nature of the interaction and the roles and identities of the people
involved.
Let's examine what this means with some data.
Extract 3 Betty
1 Betty my husband would like an i-pad

2 'cos you've got an i-pad haven't [you
3 Penny I've [ 0
4 got an i-pad [yeah0

5 Betty [he'd love one of those but
6 (.)
7 jwe're not .l!Q to
8 technology [that's the trouble)
9 Penny [(they're) easy to use though]
What can we say about this extract? Well, in 1. 2, the grammatical structure and intonation
of Betty's utterance mark it as a question, looking for information. With this, she projects
the kind of next action expected from Penny, namely an answer (and in fact, one that agrees,
that is, includes the answer 'yes'). Betty's utterance is thus context shaping (Heritage, 1997,
p. 105). In providing her answer (11. 3-4), Penny shows how she's understood Betty's utter-
ance. In 11. 7-8, Betty produces another utterance, a self-deprecation. CA research shows that
self-deprecations tend not to meet with agreement (see Pomerantz, 1984a, pp. 83ff). And in
Penny's carefully designed response that neither agrees nor disagrees with Betty's assertion
(1. 9), we can see that Penny herself has understood Betty's utterance as a self-deprecation.
(She effectively categorises I-pads as a different sort of technology, an easy- rather than dif-
ficult-to-use sort.)
So far, we've not brought into the picture any of the many things we already know about
Penny, Betty and the setting. So for example, knowing that Betty is an 'older woman' (nearly
70), it might be tempting to see age playing a role in Betty's claims not to be "up to technol-
ogy". After all, lack of technological savvy is a common stereotype of older people. However,
Schegloff (1992a, 1997) argues that there is a potential infinity of identities and descriptions
of this and other settings and participants, any or all of which are 'correct': we can't simply
assume that any particular aspect of our prior knowledge is more or less relevant than other
aspects in shaping the interaction at this point. Instead, we need to scrutinise the data to see
what Penny and Betty themselves orient to, and make both relevant, "relative to the alterna-
tive terms that are demonstrably available" (Schegloff, 1992b, p. 108), and consequential for
the on-going talk (Schegloff, 1992b, pp. 110ff).
Against this perspective, we might argue that using ethnographic methods such as eth-
. nographically oriented interviewing or observation can in fact enrich our understanding of
171
recorded imeraction;il data. For example. r:uticirants' worlds often include a much longer
acquaint:uicnhip than the brief set of interactions to which the researcher i, normally
privy - vvhat Briggs refers to in institutional settings as "long chains ofinteract10n" (1998,
p. 540). They learn to know each other's mode of talk; ,ind they also build ,m. obliquely refer
to, re-interpret. etc., prior talk and their prwr perceptions of each other. So, a ,vider under-
standing of the participants' interactional history - an understanding that those participants
then1:,elves will have - can enrich our interpretation. Indeed, as Clemente (2013) com-
ments, some CA practitioners have long combined ethnographically collected information
with analysis of spoken data (s<"e, e.g., Good,vin & Goodwin, 1987; Goodwin, 1990).
In addition, ethnographic method:, enable principled connt'ctions to be made from the
here-and-now of social interactions to wider 'macro' c:oncems (Ericbon, 2014 [2001]). As
De Fina pointo out: "ideological presuppositions. shared knowledge, ,rnd attitudes are not
always oriented tu or made relevant to the current rntcraction by particip,mts·• ~\ p. 57),
yet neverthek,s underpin participants' inreractionJl positioning.
Perhap1 the best approach is to makt' the fim:-grained analysis of the recorded inter-
actions our slarti1~,:-poi11t. This can give warr;mt to our claims and help us ground our
interpretations in participants' own orientations. It can also help us avoid making our data
fit theories that are shaped by our prior r<"ading, preconceptions and all the other infor-
mation we've gathered ethnographically (Widdicornbe, 1998, pp. 202-204). From that
micro-analysis of the recorded interactions, we can then turn to our wider data to test,
support and enrich our interpretations. So we might find that Betty regularly plays down
her (and her husband's) technological competence, and perhaps often associates that lack
of comp<'tence witl1 ;1gc. That might start to Mlcl some weight to an intcrpretat10n that her
claim here, not to be "up to technology•·. lldd some age-resonance. (But \ve' cl still want to
be cautious, and in pcnticular, we'd want to analyse and work through the extract to
see how her cL1irn here emerged.)
Anothn debate relevant to us as researchers working within an LE approach relates to
the CA/MCA focus on 'mturally-occurring data', the kind of interaction that would occur
even if the researcher was not there (Potter, 2002). This would seem to exclude intervievvs,
a widely used data collection method within social science,, and a central tool within many
lingmstic ethnographies (see De Fina, this volume).
The issue is that interviews offer post l10c reconstructions and rationall\atim1s of events
in a constrairwd settrng (Mondada, 201 j_ p. Analysts often tend to trut participants'
claims as providing transparent access to tbcir beliefs, rather than seeing such sLttements
as produced \vithin the emerging context of a particular kind of soci;il mteracllon (De
Fina & Pernnn. 2011). Indeed, all too ofL<'n, tbe ft'searcher's presence in the interview is
rendered invisible: we see small snippets of participants' talk, with little if any idea of bow
it arost'. But if we treat the interview as a social interaction, there is no reason why ·we
should not apply the CA and MCA apparatus to interviews as much as to other kinds of
intenction. Treating interviews this way, particularly in co111unction with other recorded
and ethnographic data, and ;rnalysing them as social interactions, can give us insights into
both particip,1nts' claims about their pr;1ctices and ,11s0 their beliefs about ,oci,il norms
relating to tbosc pr.tctices.
Main research methods and analysis

CA and 1\!ICA each offer an interrelated apparatus that is, "a set of resources and practices"
(Scheglolf, 2007b, p. 4 67) that provides for the detailed description and analysis of strf'tchcs
172
of mteraction and of categories of people. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to cover
these approaches in detail, but there are plenty of excellent texts available (see Further reading,
below). Here, we will give a very brief overview of some of the key concepts before putting
them into action in a stretch of talk.
Key concepts
CA is centrally concerned with understancli ng turn-taking in talk-in-interaction, how this
is accomplished, the actions that arc taken fonvard, and the design of sequences and indi-
vidu:tl turns within those sequences. CA research has identified that many sequences have a
similar organisat10nal basis, namely the adjacency pair. This comprises ordered pairs of turns
by different speakers (Schegloff, 2007a, p. 13), where the 'second pair part' (SPP) responds
to the action of a prior turn or 'first pair part' (FPP). Acljacency pairs are also composed of
pair-types, such that given a particular FPP, particular kinds of SPP are expected. Examples
include greetings (properly met by reciprocal greetings) or offers (properly met by acceptance
or refusal). Herc's an example:
Extract 4 Adjacency pairs
1 Penny imor:[ning FPP (greeting)

2 Adele [morning ... and SPP
3 (.)
4 Clare you all [right FPP ('how are you' query)

5 Adele [not too bad dear ... and SPP
6 thank you
An important interactional feature identified by CA researchers and related to the notion of

adjacency pairs i~ that of preference 01gani"ation. So, for example, an ,1ssessment (FPP) expects
as an SPP either agreement or disagreement; however, there is a 'preference' for agreement.
Pomerantz (1984a) showed how dispreferred responses to FPPs are typically marked by the
use of discursive resources such as delays in responding, hedges, minimisers, accounts, etc.
(see too Pomerantz, 1984b; Schegloff, 2007a). Here's another couple of examples to illustrate
these concepts:
Extract 5 Preference organisation - preferred response
1
2
3
,Joanna
Penny
and then it'll be time
probably for an2_ttler dog
ye(h)h he he he he he .h
wa1/ FPP: Assessment: of dogs
/p=fo,s og,e=ent)
4 £that's the tro(h)uble with

SPP Agreement produced
5 these dogs£
without gap and
6 Joanna YE[H emphatically
7 Penny [£dog walking£
Source: Reproduced from Heinrichsmeier (2019). With kind permission of De Gruyter.
173
Extract 6 Preference organisation - dispreferred response
1 Penny 0you're getting it all ~ Question, designed to expect

2 sorted now 0 agreement ('yes')
3 (1.5) Dispreferred response prefigured by
4 Adele well we're still not . . , . _ . - delaying features (gap, 'well')
5 hearing a bloody word and account (but no explicit
6 from ( (continues account)) disagreement)
\Vhere CA focmscs on ,cqucnti;il MC A cxJn1incs the \Va\ and their as-

sociatcd activities or attributes arc used in talk. Any one individual [ills into a multitude of
(W1dd1com be, I')')8, p. 195: all of whJCh are like ,tore-housn
of knowledge :1bont the kmd of conduct we can expect from their incumbents (Scbeglof[
They acquire this statm through catq,;ory hound attributes/activities (CHi\s). ·'the
kinds ofactivll1cs or actions or frirms of conduct taken the common-sense of'vernacular
culture to be characteristic of ;t member,'' (Scheglolf p. 470).
So in 1.8 of Extract I Jcickic mtroduces a expt-cssion "a varn
sec \vhen \.Ve return to d11s cxtr,1ct below, this cttcgory rnenoon is produced in response to
Rachel's quntions: ;md fron1J1ckic\ use of1t ,1t this pniut, we CHJ see the CB,'\s she asso-
ciates with it.
With these concepts iu mind, let's now look at a stretch of talk, cxarnine how the tools of
CA and NlCA can be used to point to \,·hat's on, ;m,1 consider how we can bring our
wid,T acquired ,-lat;1 to bear on the
Analysis: older identities in interaction

The data
The data we'll look at in this section ,,.ycre collected as part of n1y investigation inLo older
women\ construct.ion identities in their Ltlk and appear,rnce in a bair--salon
(Heinrichsrneier, 211 The site vvas a small independent salon, run by the owner, Penny,
with two men1bers of staff llethan and Clare, and had a predominantly older clicntcle.
The involved around two years of encornpassing participant observation,
c.20 ho Lt rs 0Lmd10 recurdi ngs of hair- appointments of nine older female clients, and inter-
vinvs with these clients c1nd the salon owner.
Building a collection
One ;1tnlytic fr,ci \Vas the role played in the accomplishment of older identities by appear--
ance \York and talk about appearance, so I started the scrutiny of the data by building
a collection of :111 instances in which appearance - whether own. another's or in
general terms - w,is made salient in some way in the talk. One sequence occurred regularly
near the end of the \vhen the stylist had finished the work the styling,
,md final to show the client the back of her head. I
called t.l11s die sequence'. I bad 1J,)l set out Lo examme this sequence, but
rny observations and Liter that it might be it seemed to
be a stage rn the work the had been doing on the
174
I
client's hair was brought to the foreground and a shared focus on the client's appearance briefly
surfaced. So I built a sub-collection of26 of these approval sequences and set about transcribing
them, using the CA transcription conventions outlined above.
Analysis and comparison of the 26 approval sequences allowed me to derive the nor-
mal structure for the approval sequence jar this setting, as shown in Figure 13.1 below. The
slow nose to-cL1t~1 analysis of this collcctiun of sequences also revealed one interesting
deviation.
1a. First pair part:

Normally done as a
non-verbal, embodied
FPP of an adjacency
pair (Arminen et al.,
2014), typically initiated
by stylist, who takes
out a hand-mirror ...
1b .... and
shows the
client one
side of her
'\, head ...
."
", 2. Second pair
" ~ lli!d;: typically
, occurs at this
stage, as the
mirror is being
/
shown.
1c.... and
then the
other.
3. Closing sequence
third (Schegloff,
2007a: 187): the
stylist replaces the
mirror, normally
without saying
anything.
figure 13.1 The approval sequence
175
A deviation from the pattern

Here's the sequence that didn't fit. Jessica, the client, has h,1d her grey roots coloured and
Bcthan has been drying but not styling her luir. As the extract slarts, Bethan and Jessica have
agreed that Jessica's hair is dry enough and Bethan is hanging up the hairdryer.
Extract 7 Jessica's approval sequence
(3) ((Bethan is hanging up the hairdryer))

2 Jessica >yep lovely fine<
3 Bethan o:kay doke (show you the ba(h)ck he he he
4 [ ((Bethan takes out the mirror))
5 (2)
6 Jessica Yup
7 Bethan jye:h he do(h)ne [he he he
8 ( ((Bethan replaces mirror))
Analysis of the 20 approval sequences had shown that the client's SPP normally comprised
an assessment ('lovely" being the most frequently used term) and often also either or both of
agreement ('yes', 'okay') and appreciation ('thanks'). And here, following three seconds of
silence (1.1), Jessica in 1. 2 produces the components of a typical approval sequence, with the
agreement and two assessment terms. Yet she does this before Betl1,1n has taken out tbe mirror,
that is, has produced the normal I 'PP of the adjacency pair (sec Figure 13.1). One interpre-
tation might be that Jessica is continuing to affirm that her hair is dry enough. Alternatively,
though, she might in fact be delivering a pre-emptive 'approval'. We need to sec how Bcthan
takes it.
With 'okay doke' in 1.3, Bethan signals acceptance of Jessica's confirmation/assessments,
but she does not unequivocally treat them as final approval. Instead. she takes out the mir-
ror to show Jessica the back of her head, at the ,amc time specifying ,vhat she is doing
(ll. 3 and 4). She is thereby inviting forther comment on ('approval' of) her work. Also,
her stress on 'back' (1. 3) points to a contrast with 'front'. So, she does indeed seem to treat
Jessica's utter:mce of I. 2 as an approval sequence, but: marks it as incomplete through only
commenting on thefi-ont, whereas the proper approval sequence (in this setting) encompasses
the bac/.: as well. After a further two seconds (L 5), Jessica produces c1 second rather cursory
approval token and Bethan replaces the mirror.
Across the collection of26 approval sequences, this 15 the only occasion in which the client
pre-empts the mirror and initiates the sequence. This has the effect of her approving a job she
hasn't fully seen. More than that, in doing her approval in 1. 2 without waiting for Bethan to
show her the back of her head, Jessica has displayed some impatience, which is matched by
the rapidity of her utterance. With 'done' iu 1.7, Bethan orients to Jessica's display of impa-
tience, and her laughter in 11. 3 and 7 displays her orientation to something unusual in Jessica's
behaviour: she has disrupted the usual sequence with her pre-mirror approval, and Bethan's
laugh co11unents on it. [n addition, the display of impatience achieved through this disrup-
tion also presents Jessica as not caring enough about her hair to spend time looking at it,
discussing it or waiting to sec everything the stylist has done. The rapidity of her approval not
only suggests impatience; it also serves to inetaphoriecdly play down the importance of what
is being said (Schitfriu. 2002, p. 328). And m fact, comparing this sequence with the other
176
recorded cipproval sequence I have for Jessica. I noted that she again dispL1ys lack of interest,
this tin1c achieving it by not doing an approval at all rather than by prc-crnpting the stylist.
\Ve start to see a possible pattern a, Jessic1 displays a lack of interest in the foll work that
the stylist has done to her hair. I had these two approval sequences for Jessica, but
they contrasted quite strongly with the other recorded approval sequences in my collection.
In fact, I only observed something similar on one other occasion, when I noted a client
shaking her head to the mirror saying "I don't need that", upon which Penny replaced it.
At this point, I had some intuitions about what was going on, but it now seemed crucial to
situate .Jessica's displays of uninterest in her appearance in the wider ethnographic data I had
for her and other participants and salon clients.
Ethnographic familiarity with Jcssic1 pointed to a certain continuity: as well as in her ap-
prov;1] sequences. she also displayed ,1 lack of interest in her appearance through her practices
of attemfance and appointment-makmg (long gaps of up to six months ,1nd last-1ninute book-
ings) and ,mire (sometimes, in her m-vn words, looking "a scruff"). These displays contrasted
with the practices of my other participants (regular and relatively frequent patterns of atten-
dance and appointment-making and smart or at least respectable attire and grooming). So
in both her practices and in her talk, Jessica presented herself as a person who was relatively
uninterested in how she looked. But of course, she did attend the salon, however erratically,
to have her grey roots coloured, so she showed some interest in her appearance.
My ethnographic focus now widened further to identify the kind of discourses about
appcar:mce that circulated in this site and ,nuongst these women; and one of those dis-
courses ,vas the possibility ofbeing thought vain, as in Jackie's interview. Using the tools of
micro-analysis with these interview data enabled me to identify how orientations to those
discourses emerged.
Extract 8 Not a vain person
1 Rachel um (1)
2 th- has (.) Penny ever done something and you think
3 oh I don't agree with that
4 (0.5)
5 do you ever have discussions about what
6 you're going to do
7 :Jackie um (0.5)
8 yes sometimes um (.)
9 but because (.) she knows me so well
10 and she knows [that (.) I'm not (.)
11 Rachel [mm
12 Jackie >I'm not a< vain ~son
13 [whereas I don't sort of think
14 Rachel [right
15 Jackie oh I'm gonna have my hair done like this
16 today or (.)
17 .h I'll have a change um
18 it's always cut the same sort of way it's (.)
19 the usual (.) you jknow
20 Rachel Mm
177
Rachel designs her FPP (her t,vo question, in II. 2-6) to expect the answer (Raymond,
2003, pp. 'J4,lff). And this is what Jackie in I. 8. Hmvcver, we can :ilso sec some of the
features Pomerantz (1984a) ;:issociates with dispreferred responses a hesit;:,L1on and pause.
Rachel's questions presuppose that Jackie does indeed discuss her hair with Penny. But why
is this apparently innocent presupposition troublesome? Well, we see the answer in Jackie's
response. This shows us that Jc1ckie understands the activities listed by Rachel - criticising
tbe stylist's work, discussing lier hair-style - as making available a possible categorisation of
her as "vain person". So although she produces the expected ,1greemenL she immedi,1tely
qualifies it ("sometimes", I. 8) and then goes on to make a self-categorisation (I. 12) as "not
a vain person"
By attributing to Penny the knowledge that she is "not a vain person", Jackie acids
authority to her assertion, but citing Penny's knowledge aho points to Jackie's habitual
actions in the salon, a primary means whereby Penny would gain such 'knowledge'.
Jackie goes on specify those actions, contrasting an imaginary self who's always changing
her style (11. 15-17) with her actual self who does not (11. 18-19). And this account adds
more flesh to the kinds ofCBAs that might be associated with the category, 'vain person',
including changing hair-style on a whim (this being suggested by the change-of-state
·'oh" in the reported thought, I. 15 (Heritage, 1998) and the temporal marker "today",
1. 16). Analysis of other explicit mentions in interviews of possible vanity/being vain
shows that tbey also occurred in sequential environments where interest in appearance
was made salient in the interviewer's question. So more generally, for these women, it
seemed that showing even 1ninor interest in appearance could be taken as a CBA of the
category 'vain person',
Making connections
There is a grmving literature reLiting to older v.'omen and the dilemmas face in manag-
rng their appeaonce. They have to negotiate a delicate balance between doing too little ('let--
ting themselves go') and doing too rnuch (being 'mutton dressed as lamb') (Furman, 1997;
Coupland, 2003; Coupland, 2009, pp. 134, 141; Ward & Holland, 2011). And at the same
time, and despite these societal pressures to attend to appearance, showing undue interest
may indeed, in Western culture, be deemed frivolous, trivi.il or 'vain' (Furman, 1997, p.
and this is panienlarly the case for older women. So, the explicit mentions in interview by
some participants resonated with the wider literature,
So now, let's return to that deviation in the approval sequence that prompted this
analysis (Extract Despite her apparent investment in her appearance as she sits bc1ving
her grey roots coloured, Je"ICa makes smaU moves that qui le overtly display her as unin
terested, in line with her wider biographical positioning ..And she makes these moves at
precisely the point where a display of interest 111 her appearance might be expected, ,vhen
she has to express appreciation and approval of what the stylist has done to her bair. Her
deviation from the interactional norms of the setting enables ber to negotiate one of the
dilemmas of appearance: the displayed lack of interest undermines a possible categori-
scition of hersell- as vain, wlubt her presence in the salon si rn Ltltaneously helps her avoid
'letting hcr,df go'.
So through micro-analysis of a particular set of sequences, identification of a deviation to
the pattern and drawing on wider ethnographic data, we've started to make some tentative
connections w1th wider social processes about older w,-,mrn's identity work m managing
178
their appearance. Put another way, vve'vc started to see the micro-positioning moves that
enable women like Jessica to manage wider social norms, like the tensions of appearance
discussed above.

LE work tends to seek "ways of tying research into institutional policies and everyday prac-
tices" (Rampton et aL 2004, p. 18), and the fine-grained analysis of spoken interaction can
add considerable value to enhance professional practice when fed back to the institutions
studied. Such use of actual talk to enhance professional practice is not new (see, e.g., Harris
et al., 21111; Stokoe, 2011); it is an ;irc:1, though. where there is plenty of scope for further
devdoprncnt, particularly including video data.
Indeed, detailed analysis of intcran10n increasingly uses video recordings, which allow
the fine detail ofmultimodal aspects of interaction to be explored, These details include the
intcgc1tion of non-verbal and verbal features and the coordination and use of non-bodily
technologies and artefacts within the interact10n, as seen in, for example, Swinglehurst's
(2014) linguistic ethnography of the use of the electronic patient records in healthcare set-
tings (and see, too, Bezemer, this volume). Such analyses have implications for transcription,
given the lack of "'a stable and universal system" for transcribing such data (Heath & Luff,
2013, p, 305).
For analysis of audio and more particubrly video recordings, ethnographic under-
standings can be crucial. This is especially the case in work-place settings, ,vhether as the
precursor to recording interactions to establish trust, to identify challenges J.nd concerns
relating to recording, and to understand the normal patterns and practices, and the com-
plexities of the work-activities being observed (Heath et al., 2010, pp. 106ft; Antaki, 2011,
p, 12; Heath & Luff, 2013, pp. 305f; Mondada, 2013, p. 37), This recognition is gradually
blurring the boundaries in some respects between linguistic ethnography endeavours and
CA studies.
Current contributions
The tools of CA. and MCA outlined in this chapter underpin a wide range ofrnicro-analytic
endeavours within the broadly defined LE 'urnbrella'. As the previous sections have sug-
gested, the con1 bi nation of detailed li ng\llstic analysis of talk, the building of collections and
ethnographic lllSights can support the making oflinks between singular inst,1nces of interac-
tion and wider social processes and identities (Copland & Creese, 2015, p, 26), as exemplified
in the work of researchers in fields as diverse as education (Rampton, 2006), gender iden-
tity clinics (Borba, 2015) and asylum interviews (Maryns, 2014 (2005]). So, Maryns (2014
f2005]), for example, draws poignantly on both ethnographic understandings of settings
and processes and detailed analysis of stories told in asylum interviews to show how a range
of inequalities, including linguistic and cultural, shape asylum-seekers' ability to construct
institut10nally appropriate narratives.
The tools of CA and MCA can aho be used in conjunction with other frameworks. For
example, some narrative analysts combine ,uch sequential and categorial analysis with a nar-
rative positioning analysis (Bamberg & Georgcikopoulou, 2008). 'This examine, the ways in
which particip,mts are positioned botli as characters in the story.and as teller/recipient in the
storytelling event. Combining this detailed linguistic analysis of stories told in conversation
179
Rachel Heinrichsrneier
with wtder ethnographic u produces nuaucecl accounts

identity \Vork. In particular, there is an fr,cus on frJllO\ving
tori es of telling aucl of t:dk across time and space to sho,v links bct\vcen the in the-rnon1ent
narrative and other constructed 1dent1ties and wider and more
enduring biograph1cal selves (De Fma, 2013: Deppennann, 2013; Georgakopoulou,
Future directions
Technological lo a central role in
the di rcction Li ken We'll consider JUSt tlvo
First, LE CA-infrumed) studies increasingly use video and technolo-

gies like s1mukrncous screen capture as part of the data collection tool-box 111 a range of
e.g .. Swinglchurst, 21114; Van Hout, 2015). Such daL\ can be collected by
the rcse,ncher, hut also, given the ,ivailability or
and e,1sy to use v1deo-recording
they can be (Rampton, 200(,; 2007),
:rnd encompass multiple and complex interactions ,is particip,mts record their movements
and encounters through environrnents. These cbL, throw up a number ofchal-
Cor for , work.1J1g out which ,1spects uf the environment arc
oriented to by participants. This makes tech like participant
commentary an i irnporl,tnt part of the d,1ta collect1on to support analysis
( ~,irn ptun,
there is a growmg interest in online-111ediatecl commrlllications: for exarnple
the on-gorng 'now' in on sites like YouTube. The extent to which the con--
strainLs and affordances of the:,e rnnlia us tu develop c1 nnv or extended
vocabulary for at least some of our 1s a matter D:ir research (Georgakopoulou,
as arc other aspects of these soual media: for example, hmv to take into J.ccoum
in our micro-analysis the \vav that pLttfonn architectures afic.,rd or constrain particular
kinds of partinpation frameworks and shape mteractional (Lene Pcrs-1-lojbolt,
These might, of course, add further complexity to an already com-
endeavout. But it's by to the ·'aesthetic of \lowness' and 'smallness"' in
micro-analys,s of spoken inter:1ct10n 20C17, p. 9) then the often in-
teractional details emerge that "shed light on small (but consequential) :1spects ot social
(Snell et al., 2Ul 5, loc 428).
Further reading
Fitzg:nal<l, R., &. Hou:,ley, \V. (Eels.) (2015). A,lu,mces /11 cc1rego1i2c1tio11 ,rnc1/ysis. London,
Ihomand Oab, Cf\, and New Delhi: S,ig:e Publications Ltd. (Ofiers a uscfol oven'icw of the
of NlCf\ and its LLSe in both face--to-face an<l mediated environments,
including those using written commuuication.)
Hutchby, 1., & \Vooffitt, R. (20(1tl). C,1111cr,,1tiou eel.). Cambridge. UK and Ivhldcn, MA:
Polity Press. (A very accessible introcl11ction to the methods of Com er,ation a
clear account of its principle", :mrl practicc<1
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures 011 ,,,nrers,,rion. JVLilden,. Ml\, Oxfr,rd, UK, Carlton, and Victoru: Bbck-
well Publishing. (\Vitb :m introduction by Emmanuel and edited bv Cail Jellerson, this
cuHe,ted volume uf l Lt rvey Sacb\ kct ures into the of
JvlC/\ and CA.)
Sidwell, J., &. Stivers, 'J'. (Eds.) (2013!. Tlic /1,1nd/1ook <:Jrm11'crs.itio11 1\;Jalden_ i'V!A, Oxford, and
Chichester: Bbckwell Ltd. contributions frorn leading com'crs:ition ,rn:ilysts,
180
this handbook covers the fundamentals of the CA perspective and structures of talk, key topics and
contexts of study, and a look at CA use in diflerent disciplines, making it an invaluable text for CA
practitioners at all levels.)
Related topics
Interactiona l Discourse analysis; Multunodality; Ethnographic intenw,,vs: Ethics.
References
Antaki, C. (2011). conversation. ,malysis. Iiitcr1,c,11/011 ,I111/ change in institution,;/ t,11/, B:1siny,stoke and
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Arrninen, I., Koskela, I., & Palukka, H. (2014). Multimodal production of second pair parts in air traffic
control training. journal of Pr<t;zmatics, 65, 46-62.
Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and iden
tity analysis. Text & Talk, 28, 377-396.
Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in Conversation Analysis.
Discourse ,S Society. 10, .~43-558.
Borba, R. p.)15). How an individual becomes a subject: f)iscourse, interaction and subjectification at
a Braz1li:111 ickmity clinic. Working 1'<1pcrs in 1.'r/,.u1 Language & Literacies.
Briggs, C. (1998). Notes on a 'confession': On the comtruction of gender, sexuality, and violence in an
infanticide case'. Pr,1gnutics, 7, 519-546.
Clemente, I. (:?OUJ. Conversation Analysis and anthropology. In J. Sidnell & ·r. Stin:rs (}:els.), The
h,rndbook of conversation ,uwlysis (pp. 688-700). Malden, MA, Oxford and Chichester: Blachvell
Pubfohing Ltd.
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Un2uistic ethnography: Collecting, ,1nd presenting data. London,
Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd.
Coupland, J. (2003). Ageist ideology and discourses of control in skincare product marketing In J.
Coupland & R. Gwyn (Eds.), Discourse, the body, and identity (pp. 127-1 .50). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Coupland, J. (20fl\1). Time, the body and the rev<:Tsibility ofageing: Commodifying: the decade. Apeing &
Society, 29, 95'.\--97<,.
De Fina, A. (201:3). Positioning level 3. Connecting local identity displays to macro social processes.
Narrati/Je 23. 40-61.
De Fina, A.. & Perrino, S. (2011). Introduction: Interviews vs. 'natural' contexts: A false dilemma.
Le1ng11age in Society, 40, l-11.
Deppcrmann, A. (2013). How co get a grip on identities-in-interaction. (What) Does 'Positioning'
ofter more than 'Membership Categorization'? Evidence from a mock story. N,imrtive Inquiry, 23,
62-88.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992a). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. ln P. Drew & J Heritage
(Eds.), Talk at worh: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (I'l92b). Talk at work.· Intcr,uri, 1 11 in institutional settings. C:nnbridge
University Press.
Erickson, F. (2014 [2()01]). Co-membership and wiggle room: Some implications oft.he study of talk
for the ""'·"'I,,inni ofsocial theory. In N. Coupl:m,l, S. Sarangi, & C. Candlin (Eds.), Soo,,/inguis-
tics and wci,,l thwry rLmguage in social life) (pp. l:i2 .. J8:?). London: Taylor & Fr,rncis.
Furman, F.K. (1997). hmng the mirror: Older womrn ,111.d lmwty shop culture. New York: Routledge.
Gcorgakopoulou, A. (2007). Snu1ll stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdan1 and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2013). Building iterativity into positioning analysis. A practice-based approach
to srnall stories and self Nam1tiue Inquiry, 23, 89-110.
Georgakopoulon, A. (2017). Life-•writing of the moment: The sharing and updating self on social me-
dia. Ego-/1.1.edia. London: King's College London.
Goodwin. M.H. r,1')90). He-Said-She-Said: Tc1/k c1s soc/di 01.~anization among Blacl, child1n1. !Jloommgton
and Indianapolis: lndi,ma University Pres,.
181
◄
Goodwin. M.}'L, & Goodwin, C. (1'!87). Children's arguing. In S. Philips, S. Steele, & C. Tauz (Eds.),
Language, gender, and sex in romparative perspective (pp. 200-248). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Harris, R., Lefat<?i.n. A., Leung, C., & Rampton, B. (2011). Urban classroom wlture. Realities, di:lcmmas,
resz,onses. London: Centre for Language, Discourse & Communication, King's College London.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh,.)., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitath•<' rcmmh. London, Thousand Oaks, New
Delhi, and Singapore: Sage Publications Ltd
Heath, C., & Luft~ P. (2013). Embodic·d action and org:miz,1tional activity. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers
(Eds.), The handbook of 1011ver.rntion ,malysis (pp. 285--307). Malden, MA, Oxford, and Chichester:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Heinrichsmeier, R.. (2016). The interactional construction of ageing identities: A linguistic ethnogra-
phy of older women's narratives, talk and other practices in a hair-salon. School of Education, Com-
munir,ztion and Society. London: King's College London.
Heinrichsmeier, R. (2019). Ageism and interactional (mis)alignment: Using micro-discourse analysis
in the interprt'tation of everyday talk in a hau-salon. Linguistics f/ang11ard, 5 (s2).
Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitatiue
resecirch: Tlzeory, method & practiCt (pp. 161-18'.'). London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Heritagc, J (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Lang11ac:e in Society. 27, 291-334.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffat, R. (2008). Conversation /lnalysi.i. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA: Polity
Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glo;;sary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In C.H. Lerner (Ed.), Con-
uemitio11 analysis: Studies from tlze Jirst geneMlion (pp. 13-.34). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lene Pers-H0jholt, M. (2017). Narrating (m)othen' lives: A narrative interactional analysis of storytell-
ing practices related to YouTube vlogging. Ego-Media. London: King's College London.
Maryns, K. (20H [2005]). The ilsylu111 .,pcaker: Language in the Belgian 11sylwn prored,irc (Enro11nters).
Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Maynard, D.W. (2013). Everyone and no one to turn to: Intellectu;1] roots and contexts for conversation
analysis. ln J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The lw1d&ook of convrrs,1tion analysis (pp. H-31). Malden,
.MA, Oxford, and Chichester: Blackwell Pubfohing Ltd.
Mondada, L. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. ln J. Sidnell &. T. Stivers
(Eds.), Tl,e handbook of co1111cr.rntion analysis (pp. 32-56). Malden, MA, Oxford, and Chichester:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Pomerantz, A. (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features ofpreferred/dispre-
ferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversa-
tion ,111<1/ysis (pp. 57--101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PomerantzA. (1984b). Pursuing a response In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social
action: Studies in ronwrsation ,mc1lysis (pp. 152-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Potter, J. (2002), Two kinds of natural. Discourse Studies, 4, 539-542.
Rampton, B. (2006). Language in l,ite modernity. Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rampton, B. (2007). Linguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics and the study of identities.
vVorking Pi1pers in Urban Lmguage &- Literacies.
Rampton, B., Tusting, K., Maybin, J., Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lvtra, V (2004). UK Linguistic
Ethnography: /\ Discussion Paper. Available from https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/
lingethn/documents/discussion_paper_jan_ 05.pdf (Accessed 23rd February 2010).
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structnre of
responding. /lmeriwn Sociologic,,l Review, 68, 939---967.
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. InJ.M. Atkinson &.J. Heritage (Eds.), Stmctwes cf social ,iction.
Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conucrsation. Malden, MA, Oxfo1d, UK, and Carlton, Victoria: Blackwell
Publishing.
Sacks, H., Schegloff; E, A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of
turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Schegloff, E.A. (1992a). In another context. In A. Dur.inti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context
(pp. 191-227). Cambridge, New York, :md Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
182
-
Schegloff, E.A. (1992b). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk
at work: Interaction in institutional. settings (pp. 101-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E.A. (1995). Introduction. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Harvey sacks, lectures on conversation (Fall
1964-Spring 1968) (Vol. 1), (pp. ix-1xii). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E.A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8, 165-187.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007a). Sequence organisation in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge:
Schegloff, E.A. (2007b). A tutorial on membership categorization.Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 462-482.
Schiffrin, D. (2002). Mother and friends in a Holocaust life story. Language in Society, 31, 309-353.
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of com,ersation analysis. Malden MA, Oxford, and
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Snell, J., Shaw, S., & Copland, F. (2015). Linguistic ethnography. Interdisciplinary explorations. Kindle ed.
Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The 'conversation-analytic
role-play method'. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis. Intervention and change in institu-
tional talk (pp. 119-139). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Swinglehurst, D. (2014). Displays of authority in the clinical consultation: A linguistic ethnographic
study of the electronic patient record. Social Science & Medicine, 118, 17-26.
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, and Singapore:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Van Hout, T. (2015). Between text and social practice: Balancing linguistics and ethnography in
journalism studies. In J. Snell, S. Shaw & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic ethnography. Interdisciplinary
explorations (pp. 71-89). Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ward, R., & Holland, C. (2011). 'lfl look old, I will be treated old': Hair and later-life image dilemmas.
Ageing & Society, 31, 288-307.
Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an analysts' and a participants' resource. In C. Antaki &
S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 191-206). London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi,
and Singapore: Sage Publications Ltd.
14
Ethics
Fiona Copland
Introduction
As the Introduction to thi, collection and other ch;1ptcr:; explain, a preci,c definition of
linguistic ethnography (LE) is difficult; rather than describing a finite set of procedures, it i,
an umbrella term that seeks to provide a space for scholars using ethnographic and linguistic
rools of data collection and analysis across a range of disciplines. What is more, LE is "an in-
terpretive approach which studies the local and immediate actions of actors from their point
of view and considers how these interactions are embedded in wider social contexts and
structures" (Coplcind ,'x Creese, 2015, p. 13). LE. therefr,re, supports researchers m answer
two questions tlut Heller posed over 30 year, ago:
What is 1l ahout the w,1y we use language th:,t has ,m impact on social
What is 1t .ibout soCJal processes that inlluences lmguistic ones?
(Heller, 1984, p. 54)
Because of the focus on the sociaL in which human interactions are a central unit of analysis,
ethics is hugely important in linguistic ethnographic work. In all stages of planning, data
collection and analysis, the researcher makes decisions concerning tbe well-being of the par-
ticipants. Acrms the same timescale, the researcher ;ilso mc1 kes decisions about the ,vell-being
of the research project. It i, when the well-being of parllc1pants clashes with the well-being
of the research that ethiul decision-making comes into its own.
In this chaptn, I w,11 first outline key ctlm:al concepts pertaining to LE research,
from a historical perspective. I will then discuss crit,cd issues and debates which trouble
researchers in the social science:; in general and, in some cases, linguistic ethnographers
111 particular, before turning to current concerns in the field. Finally. I will suggest some
implications for practice of which researchers involved in LE should be mrndful. At points

in the chapter, I have inserted six different ethical dilemmas that colleagues, students
and I have faced in our linguistic ethnographic work. I use these dilemmas to illustrate
the ethical principles under scrutiny and to demomtr.tt,' the contextual nature of ethical
decision-makmg.
184
Ethics
It is fair to say that in the social sciences, ethical principles for the most part derive from
medical sciences. The reasons are both historical and pragmatic. Medical scientists have for
many years been expected to consider ethical issues in their work. Indeed, the American
Medical Association first introduced a code of ethics in 1847 and ethics is taught on medical
and biomedical programmes globally; Keele University in the UK even offers an MSc in
Medical Ethics. In contrast, in the social sciences, ethical considerations have only recently
come to the fore. This is not to say that social scientists did not behave ethically in the past
(although it is clear, reading some research papers, that ethical decision-making was not a
central concern) but rather that there was no explicit code to guide their practice. Over the
last 20 years or so, social scientists have been expected to explain their ethical stance both to
ethical review boards (which will be discussed in the 'Critical issues and debates' section) and
also in their writing. With no defined body of work in social science ethics to guide them,
social scientists have turned to medical ethics.
It is important to be aware that in the medical sciences, ethical principles have been de-
veloped over time. Many have been refined after medical research has either gone wrong or
been challenged, making ethical decision-making visible. Some of these ethical dilemmas
are well-known, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis trial (1932-1972) in which black adult males
with syphilis were not treated with penicillin, in order for scientists to observe the natural
progression of the disease. While it is almost impossible to imagine such an 'experiment'
being allowed today, medical science ethics continue to be debated, for example, in relation
to stem cell experiments. The challenge in this area is to balance the requirement to respect
the value of human life with the duty to prevent or alleviate suffering (Eurostemcell, 2018).
This concern is generally called 'benefi.cence' (that is, 'do good') and contrasted with its nega-
tive (avoid 'malefi.cence', that is, do no harm). In the case of Tuskegee, the researchers believed
that the experiment would provide evidence to treat syphilis more effectively in the future
(beneficence). However, to create this evidence, men were denied medical support, and
hence suffered (maleficence).
While it is rare in social sciences to have to consider moral dilemmas of the import of
Tuskegee, it is common to have to weigh the merits of beneficence and maleficence and to
decide in favour of one or the other. The British Association for Applied Linguistics (BAAL),
of which the Linguistic Ethnography Forum (LEF) is a Special Interest Group, in 2016
updated its 'Guidelines on good practice in applied linguistics' (BAAL, 2016) and provides
useful help in this area with a particular focus on informants.
Informants are the people involved in the research (often called participants or even ac-
tors). They must be fully briefed about the research and they must give their consent to take
part in it: this is called 'informed consent'. In the Tuskegee experiment described above, infor-
mants were not aware that they were taking part in research and so they would not be treated:
their consent, therefore, was not informed.
Usually, consent is evidenced through a signed document. In order for 'informed con-
sent' to be obtained, full details of the research are usually presented on an information
sheet, which contains details of the project, contact details in case the informant wants to
discuss an issue involving the research and a list of research activities the informant agrees
to take part in, such as recording or interviewing. The informant will be encouraged to
keep this page for reference. On a separate page, the informant will be asked to sign and
date to demonstrate consent. The researcher will keep this page. An example can be seen
in Figure 14.1.
185
Dear Student Consent form
Thank you very much for agreeing to take part in the focus group. Data from the focus group will be Master's programmes in ELT: A survey of UI< provision and student experiences
used to develop findings for the British Council project, Master's programmes in ELT: A survey of UI< Thank you for agreeing to take part in the focus group. We very much appreciate your time.
provision and student experiences, currently being undertaken by researchers at the University of
Stirling. The project aims to answer the foHowing research questior:s:
Please read, tick if you agree, and then sigr.

L What Master's courses in ELT are currently offered in the UK?
2. What are the modes/formats (including online and blended), components (including a. I have read the information sheet about the aims of the focus group. ( )
dissertations) and target students of the different programmes?
b. I agree to take part. ( )
3. What are the key factors influencing a student's decision to enrol on one of these
c. I agree that the focus group can be audio-recorded. ( )
prograrnrnes?
4. What are stlidents' expectations of their chosen programmes? d. I agree that the focus group can be photographed for identification purposes ( I
5. In what ways do the programmes fulfil (or fail to fulfil) their expectations? e I agree that the photographs can be used in publication. ( )
f. I agree that the focus group can be video recorded for transcription purposes. ( )
g. I agree that the video can be used for publication purposes (e.g. articles, conference
The focus groups will be recorded and the data transcribed. You will not be identified by name and
presentations). ( )
no personal details about you will be disclosed. The words you speak in the focus group may be
h. I agree that the data from the focus group can be used in academic publications. ( )
used verbatim in research reports and othei- academic papers.
I agree that tl-.e focus group facilitator can photograph the artefacts we use. ( i
You are free to withdr·aw at any point fronc the focus group without explanation. j. I understand that I can withdraw from the study at any time. ()
If you would like at any point to ask questions about the proJect, please contact Professor Fiona
Copland at the University of Stirling (fiona.copland@stir.ac.uk).
Once again, thank you very much for taking part. If you would like your name to be entered into a Name:
draw to win Amazon vouchers, please give your email address to tl"C focus group leader.
University:
All best wishes
Signature:
The ELTRA Team
I would like to be entered into the draw for Amazon vouchers. My email address is:
Figure 14.1 Example of two-page consent form

Ethics
Although most institutions prefer informants to sign consent forms, there are times when
signing may not be appropriate. Consider this first ethical dilemma:
Ethical dilemma 1
A colleague w;1s ec1rrying out research in a school in .East Africa. The colle;1guc wanted to
observe a ce;1chcr's cla." and then interview her ;1bout her teaching and the challenges she
faced. The explained the research in detail to the teacher, who was happy LO take
part. Howt·vc-r, when the colleague produced the consent form to sign, the teacher became
anxious. She spent some time discussing with hc:r colleagues whether she should or not.
Eventually, she acquiesced. But she remained uncomfortable with the decision.
For this East African teacher, signing one's name is a significant act, and usually reserved
for extremely important documents of a legal nature. There was a mismatch, therefore, be--
tween the value she ascribed to signing and the value ascribed to allowing a researcher to ob-
serve her class. For this reason, she spent some time coming to a decision, signing reluctantly
when she realised how important it was to the rese,u-cher. In this case, oral agreement should
have been acceptable (for a full discussion, sec . 2008) but was not dVicussed. Instead,
both resurchn and participant felt uncomfortable gorng into the observatinn: the researcher
as she had brought into play a set of procedures that were alien to the teacher with \vhom she
was working and the participant because she had her name and was \vorricd about the
consequences.
This ethical dilemma clearly illustrates another central tenet of rnedical ethics: autonomy.
In research, participants have the right to take part or not take part: the consent form in this
case, as in many others, provided the evidence that the participant was behaving autono-
mously. However, the purport given to the consent form (often by institutional ethics boards)
can mean, as in this case, that the evidence becomes more important than the consent. We
will return to this point below in the discussion of institutional ethics boards.
The Tuskegee medical experiment revealed another issue that has influenced bow in-
formants are treated in research: anonymity. It is not hard to find online photograph, of the
men who unwittingly took part in the experiment. while Tuskegee is easy to find on a map.
Not only were these men, therefore, sub1ected to an experiment which neither respected the
value of their lives nor prevented or alleviated suffering (in fact doing the opposite), their
identitres were not kept secret. Today, anonymity is taken very seriously. Every effort is made
to protect the identity of informants, for example, through generalisation (e.g. 'a school in
East Africa' rather than 'Government School Kidiri in Kenya'), pseudonyms (which infor-
mants might be invited to choose for themselves) and pixellation (when video or photos are
part of the research). Although some infrJrn1Ants ,t:Jte that they would like their real names
to be used in the research, it is generally ach1qb]c not to agree to this !1.)r a number of rea-
sons, not least became they may change their rninds ;1t a later date (for a full discussion, see
Copland,':.: Creese. 21115).
Infonnants also have the right to confulrntidiity. In endeavouring to ensure confidentiality,
researchers keep informants' personal details in a secure environment where others cannot
access them. These days, the secure environment 1s often a data storage facility in a cloud
administered by the researcher's institution. However, if researching in remote areas, access
to a virtual storage space rnay not be possible and so data must be protected in other ways,
for example, through locking it away or by using passwords known only to the researcher.
Despite that researchers may put in place, it is difficult to guarantee,' confidenti-
ality and ,o 1nforn1;1nts should only be told that every effort will be nude to protect them.
187
Fiona Copland
lnfrlrmation about anonymity and confidentiality is generally included in the information

sheet that accompanies the consent form (see Figure 14.1).
lnformants have the right to withdraw from a research pro1ect even when they have
agreed to take part, a core principle of autonomy. In the case of Tuskegee, informants were
not afforded this entitlement. In reality, withdrawing can be a difficult issue as this next eth-
ical dilemma shows.
Ethical dilemma 2
During a study of international workers, a field researcher began to believe that one of the
informants, Peter (a pseudonym), was suffering tiom deprcs,iun. After Peter became very
upset one day when other researchers were present, his case was discussed in the research
team. The proJect leader felt that Peter's health should be protected by removing him from
the project. The field researcher, however, believed that Peter's self-esteem would suffer ifhe
were asked to withdraw. So, she decided not to broach the subject with him.
In this case. both researchers were concerned for the health of' the informant but each had dif-
ferent beliefs about how his he.ilth could be protected. The pro_1cct leader advocated withdrawing
him, not least because the interests of the project might be compromised by continuing with a
participant with mental health issues. On the other hand, the field researcher, who had devel-
oped a relationship with the participant and realised how important taking part was to Peter's
confidence and esteem, folt that the project's ,Yell-being was being put before the informant's.
A!though we will never knovv if the decision to retain the informant was the right one, the re-
searchers acted with ethical integrity. with both cJdvocating for the well-being of the participant.
As discussed above, the Tuskegee men did not give informed consent. They believed that
they were taking part in an experiment designed to develop drugs fr)t blood disease: instead,
the researchers were examining how syphilis developed over a period of time if not treated.
As such, the research could be classified as w1nt. Covert research, where researchers pretend
to do one thing but do another, or ,vhere researchers go under cover and pretc:nd to be a bona
fide member of a group they are researching, is no longer condoned by learned groups rnch
as BAAL (if indeed it ever was):
Covert research and deliberate deception are unacceptable tu the extent that they violate
the principle of informed consent and the right to privacy.
(BAAL, 2016, p. 5)
However, there is an ethical issue that muddies the water to an extent. As I suggested in the
mtroduction to this chapter, linguistic ethnographers often take human interaction as a unit
of ,walysis, studying people in their natural environments. may be concerned, there-
fore, that 'natural" behaviour may change if participants are told of the focus of research. In
these cases, BAAL suggests:
One defensible option would be to withhold the specific ob1cctives of the research without
deliberately misleading or false infim11ation (for example, by informing doctors and
patients th,it the research concerns the structure or progress of doctor-pat1ents interviews
without specifying that the aim is to study pause phenomena as an index of power) .... After
the event, informants should then give their permission before the data can be used.
(B1I.11L, 2016, p. 5)
188
Ethics
Of course, this approach would not have been acceptable in the Tuskegee case as treatment
(or non-treatment) could not be revised. However, it seems a sensible way forward for lin-
guistic ethnographic work, as long as researchers are stringent about their responsibilities to
informants and destroy data collected in this way if permission is later withheld.
Before we leave this section, we turn to the final medical ethics principle, that of justice.
Justice ensures that everyone is treated fairly and equally (Murphy & Dingwall, 2001). In the
Tuskegee case, men were not treated fairly although it could be argued that they were treated
equally. In linguistic ethnographic work, issues of fairness and equality tend to focus on voice
· and voices: who gets heard? Consider the next ethical dilemma from this perspective.
Ethical dilemma 3
A linguistic ethnographic researcher wanted to publish a paper which focussed on two
participants disagreeing about decisions made in the research site. One participant was the
group leader and the other a case worker. The linguistic ethnographer showed the paper to
both participants in the interests of disclosure and membershipping (see Richards, 2003).
The group leader vehemently objected to the paper as she felt that the case worker, and
by implication the linguistic ethnographer, had misrepresented the discussions at the site.
The group leader had the power to stop the research from continuing. Reluctantly, the
researcher redacted some sections and changed others, which gained the approval of the
group leader.
The researcher in this scenario had to deal with competing claims on the text for pub-
lication. From her perspective, she was describing the research site and the debates within
it. As an ethnographer, she was aware that this perspective was one of many, but it had a
contribution to make to understanding the site. The group leader disagreed with this per-
spective, which she believed misrepresented the site and demanded that it be deleted, thereby
denying both the case worker and the linguistic ethnographer their voice in describing what
happened. It could be argued that the case worker was treated much less fairly than either the
researcher or the leader as not only was her disagreement made known through the writing,
but it was then silenced through the editing. However, despite the fact that she invoked her
powerful position to silence others, the group leader's actions could also be defended. She
believed that she was acting in the best interests of the research site and the workers in it. She
had a duty of care, in her own view, to protect both. The researcher, for her part, had to pit
her desire to continue at the research site against a recognition that her work was compro-
mised because of the group leader's agenda. She chose the former but remained uncomfort-
able with the decision.
The dilemma demonstrates that issues of fairness and equality are rarely easily resolved. It
also shows how promises ma_de to gain access to research sites can later come back to haunt
us, making us wonder if we were naive in our negotiations. In terms of ethnographic work,
the dilemma highlights the issue of the contingent nature of working in the field where it
may be necessary to reach compromises we may not have imagined when we first begin our
research plans.
This section has examined historical perspectives on ethics, drawing on a medical ethics
framework and BAAL's Good Practice guidelines, and illustrating how the medical princi-
ples of beneficence, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, overtness, autonomy and
the right to withdraw, and justice affect decision-making for those working in LE. I now
turn to examining critical issues and debates in the field.
189
Fiona Copland

As ckscribed above, demonstrating that they Jre researching ethically has increasingly be-
come a concern of soc1,1] scientists. As a result, critical debates have emerged. The fir,;t
concerns vvhat has been called 'ethics creep', that is, "a dual process whereby the regulatory
structure of the ethics bureaucr:1cy is expanding outw;1rd, colonizing new groups, practices,
and institutions, while at tlw same tirne intens1 fving the regulation of practices deemed to
fall within its official ambit" (Haggerty, 2004, p. 394). The workmgs of ethics creep are il-
lustrated in the following ethical dilemma.
Ethical dilemma 4
Recently, a university in the UK decided to centralise its ethical approval processes by ccc-
ating one board t}J;Jt would provide approval for .ill staff ancl doctor.ti research projects across
the University, with members of the board being nominated by each School. (Previously,
each School had convened its own board and had been able to enter into dialogue with
researchers about their rcscc1rch in a t1rnely rna nner.) A doctoral student carrying out a lin-
guistic ethnogLtphic pruJeCt applied to the new Board for ethiol approval to carry om a
pilot project which involved recording and taking field notes in her research site. 'fhe Board
objected to the recordings, which drastically reduced the scope of the study. ln addition, it
requested that the researchers shared her field notes with the participants. It took nearly three
months to reconcile the resench design with the Board's demands, by which time the activ-
ity the researcher was interested in observing was nearly over.
In this exa1nple, both aspects of ethics creep are present. In centulising ethical approval
processes, the institution has in effect colonised localised ethical approval processes, which
previously responded to ethical approval requests with agility. Centralisation also led to a
de-personalis:1tiun of ethical approval, creating ,1 situation \vbere the re;,earcher and the board
do not commuu1cate except through formal documents. The intensification of the regula-
tion of practices can be seen in the Board\ specific demands with regard to recording and
field notes. These practices common in LE work are essential in rnany cases for supporting
researchers in answering Heller's t\VO questiom, cited above:
What is it about the way we use language that has an impact on soci;il processes:' What
is it about social processes that mfluences linguistic ones?
(Heller, 1984, p. 54)
The Board not only questwns these research tools but through suggesting th:it the researcher
shares her field notes with participants, it attempts to regulate a practice which has serw:d
ethnographers for many years. It is highly unusual to share field notes with participants for
all kinds of reasons, chiefa1nongst which is ensuring integrity (see Copland, but either
the Board does not undnst;1nd ethnography or 1t does not approve of ethnogLiphic work;
both are concerning for linguistic ethnographers.
This institution is not alone m its attempts to standardise ethical procedures. Ilowever,
as can lw seen, the procns bas created "tensio11s between centralized professional standards
and lucal practices" (Jaspers ct al., 2() 13, p ..'.!11). It threatens to impinge on the academrc
freedom of the researcher and in doing so damage the ethnographic tradition within which
she is working. What is more, the protocols of the Bocml - which in this ca,c, required the
researcher to cc,mplete a form, submit it, respoud to queric,, rewrite the forrn, re-submit 1t
190
Ethics
and then respond to further queries, all over a three-month period - seemed to be more im-
portant than the professional judgement of the researcher and her supervisors.
One more point before we leave this critical issue. The researcher at no point was asked to
discuss her project with the Board or to speak with a Board advisor face-to-face (or even on
the phone) to fully understand the Board's position or to argue her case. The Board seems to
have become what Guta et al. (2013, p. 307) call a "faceless bureaucracy", an apparatus that
appears to control and obstruct research. As I will suggest below, given the importance of
context to much linguistic ethnographic work, researchers would be best served by having
the opportunity to discuss their research with members of ethical approval boards. In the case
above, such a discussion would have helped the researcher to understand the Board's concerns
about recording at the same time as the researcher having the opportunity to discuss the role
of field notes in ethnographic research.
A second critical issue involves sensitivity to ethics in the field. There is no doubt that
writing an ethical approval form can be very helpful for researchers as it requires them to
concentrate on what they want participants to do and how they will store their research data,
amongst other things. However, the increasing dominance of ethical approval boards in the
research landscape tends to focus attention on research planning. Because of the nature of
linguistic ethnographic research, it is likely that many ethical decisions cannot be anticipated
and therefore an ethical response will not have been developed in advance. Researchers,
therefore, should be alert throughout a study to situations that require an ethical response.
This brings us to our fifth ethical dilemma.
Ethical dilemma 5
A colleague was researching novice teachers in their first year of full-time teaching in coun-
try in East Asia. The linguistic ethnographic research project involved observing and re-
cording classes and interviewing teachers after class. One of the teachers in the study, Izumi,
found it difficult to cope. She was considered a weak teacher by the educational authorities
and was subjected to an observation regime which eventually resulted in her resigning from
her post. In one of the interviews with the researcher, Izumi said that she found the observa-
tions stressful and she mentioned that the researcher's presence was also stressful. When the
researcher was making his interview transcripts, he came across this admission. He admon-
ished himselfbecause he had not tuned into the participant when she had made this comment
and so therefore had not acted in her best interests by withdrawing her from the study.
The interview in this research project produced what Guillemin and Gillam (2004), cited
in Kubanyiova (2008), call an "ethically important moment[s]". These are moments in the
research when the researcher is called upon to alter his/her gaze from the research project
itself to the actors in it. To do this, researchers must remain attentive to potential clashes
between the well-being of the research and the well-being of participants (beneficence). The
researcher in this dilemma failed to do so. As he explained to me at a later point, he was so
focussed on deconstructing the lesson in the post-observation interview that he failed to
respond to a covert plea from Izumi to stop the observations. Typing up the transcripts, the
ethically important moment reared up and challenged his actions, accusing him ofinsensitiv-
ity and myopia. It is impossible to turn back the clock to rectify the action, but the researcher
learned a lesson from this experience about the importance of centring attention on people
rather than on the processes of data collection .
. Ethically important moments might not necessitate an immediate response. Often, the
realisation that something is not quite right takes a little time to reveal itself. Kubanyiova
191
Fiona Copland
(2008) describes one such exarnplc. ln her research project, she ,isked teachers to write diaries
and to attend interviews to collt:c1 cbta about their experiences and beliefs. On,: tc,1cher was
especially excited by the project ,rnd keen to take part. However, Kubanyiova to notice
that the participant seemed tired and was struggling to complete the tasks. This went on for
some tirne. Through talking to her and monitoring her contribution, Kubanyiova came to
realise that taking p,nt in the projecL was adversely affecting the teacher's he,tlth and gradu--
ally counselled her off the project.
Ethical dilemmas 4 and 5 uke us to another critical issue: hahncing the needs of partici-
pants with the needs of the research project. Researchers have a duty to protect participants,
but they also have a duty as academics to create knowledge. Kubanyiova (2008, p. 515) ar-
gues, if the welfare of the resench participants is always prioritised ;ibove the contribution to
knowledge that the research might make, "there is a risk that this type of situated research ...
could never contribute fully to the advancement uCtheoretical knowledge in any discipline".
This is an important concept to bear in mind when research requires participants to engage
with tasks in addition to their normal work/study, such as ,vriting diaries, giving interviews
or, in the case of ethical dilenuna 5. allowing the researcher to observe classes. While en-
gagernent with such tasks may be an imposition, it can also evenLUally result in the greater
good. In this case, the researcher used the findings to make suggestions to authorities about
how to support novice teachers, particuhrly those who are struggling. The cfata evidencing
the teacher's distress were particularly pmverful in this regard. On a practical level, because
linguistic ethnograplnc studies are often quite small-scale involving only a few participants,
1t 1s wise when planning to include more participants that a requires in G1se of with-
drawals, thereby maintaining the rntegrity of the project in all c1spects.
Concern with responding to ethically important moments has resulted in changes to how
research projects are instigated in fields such as feminist research (Pillow, 2003). Instead of
researchers designing projects and researching 'on' participants. research focusses on areas of
interest to partiopants, who help design the projects and draw up the. research questions. Re-
searchers then research 'with' participants, who, lt 1s ,1rgued, an: more interested ,ind involved
because of the relevance of the research. Ethical decision-making in these projects is also shared
between participants and researchers thereby reducing the responsibility of each. This is not
to say that ethical abuses will no longer take place but it is likely there will be fewer of them.
1<..esearching with participants has another tangible benefit: it is much easier to map and
evidence research impact when researcher and partiopant roles merge as the focus is generally
on how life can be improved. The impact agenda has made a huge irnpact on how research
is funded and regarded in the UK at least. Impact can be defined as "an effect on, change or
benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or
qLul1ty oflife, bcvond academia'· ,1s a result uf the research (http://www.heke.,1c.uk/rsrch/
REFimpact/). Funded research projects must generally have a p,1thway to impact pbn which
outlmes the steps researchers will take to both disseminate research and collect evidence of
change. Change can be manifested in a number of ways, for example, ;is change in the way
the subject is discussed (discourse change) or in the way people acl (behavioural change).
Resenching with participants cm support both ethical working ,\ nd ensuring nnpact and it
is likely that in the future, such ,rn approach ,vill gain in popularity.

Perhaps undersundably, as ethical approval boards have become rnore powerful as overseers
of research throughout the academy (Foucault, articles ,111,.l chapters about ethics have
192
Ethics
proliferated. A recent collection of chapters focussing on ethics in applied linguistics research

(De Costa, 2016) is an example of recent interest. In this section, I will discuss current con-
tributions and suggest areas which would benefit from further research.
Copland and Creese (2016) examine macro- and micro-ethics in linguistic ethnographic
research. They argue that researchers in LE should pay attention to both macro regimes
represented by ethical approval boards and 'the micro ethics of care' (Kubanyiova, 2008)
which requires researchers to be open to ethically important moments. They suggest that the
reflexive imperative of LE provides "the tools for responding to and bridging the micro and
the macro ethical domains" (Copland & Creese, 2016, p. 161). They also open out the tradi-
tional concerns of ethics - usually stated in relation to participants - to researchers as well,
specifically those who work in teams where power comes in to play. Through a case study,
they show that in teams, researchers face issues of vulnerability and social justice to which all
team members need to pay heed.
Linguistic ethnographic researchers working in digital domains are also considering eth-
ical issues. Blogs, tweets, fora, chat rooms and so on all provide seemingly limitless lin-
guistic data, while participant observation and participation in these arenas can be easy to
arrange, requiring the researcher neither to gain access permissions nor to go through other
bureaucratic processes. However, this does not mean that linguistic ethnographic research
in these fields is without ethical dilemmas. In a Special Edition of Applied Linguistics Review
dedicated to ethics, Mackenzie (2017) reports on online interactions in a talk forum on the
popular UK Mumsnet site. She explains that in online cases, scholars advocate for a "case-
based, context-sensitive approach to the issue of privacy, ethics and internet research" given
the wide variety of work that can be undertaken. While sympathetic with this position,
Mackenzie suggests that this advice provides little explicit guidance, "leaving researchers
unsure how to proceed ethically in increasingly complex and shifting research contexts"
(see too Gao & Tao, 2016). One of the issues is that text in the public domain is often con-
sidered to be unregulated, unlike texts produced by participants in a study. Researchers
therefore do not apply the same ethical scrutiny to them and their producers as they would
to the texts of recruited participants. Mackenzie argues that ethics matter even with digital
material, particularly when the researcher is lurking in the digital space. Like Copland and
Creese (2016), her response is to adopt what she calls a reflexive-linguistic approach, where
linguistic analysis supports the development of reflexivity. Reflexivity generally refers to "the
researcher/writer's ability to reflect on their own positioning and subjectivity in the research
and provide an explicit, situated account of their own role in the study and its influence
over the findings" (Paltridge et al., 2016, p. 12) and is a key tenet in linguistic ethnographic
practice (see Copland & Creese, 2015, for a full discussion). In her blog, MacKenzie explains:
My understanding of the norms of information sharing, privacy and anonymity in

Mumsnet Talk was greatly strengthened by my close linguistic analysis of participants'
interactions. For example, I found that some Mumsnet users achieve a degree of privacy
when they construct and address specific in-groups of users.
Uaimack, 2016)
There is an increasing number of researchers working in the medical field who identify with
LE (Bezemer, 2015; Swinglehurst, 2015). Recently, Pelletier and Kneebone (2016, p. 270)
describe their work in researching error in simulation-based medical education from an ethi-
cal perspective, suggesting that simulation teaching is not only identifying error "but also ...
what constitutes right and wrong in a professional culture".
193
Fiona Copland
As researchers increasingly work either in superdiverse settings (sec Copland (b), 2018) or
in communities or countries different to their own (Scheper-Hughcs, 2000), cross-cultural
ethics come into play. The ethical principles discussed so far in this chapter come from re-
search and practice in (mainly) European/Western countries and have been developed by
intellectuals and academics taking a philosophical approach to difficult issues. These princi-
ples. however, rnight not alwavs be relevant to communities ,v ith a different approach to life,
which might have developed a different set of ethical principles by which to live. This takes
us to ethical dilemma 6.
Ethical dilemma 6
A researcher from. a European country wanted to research how English language policy was
put mto practice in primary schools in Japan. The ethical review board of the researcher's
European i ustitution required coment from the parents of the children who were in the
classes he would observe. When the researcher broached this subject with the Principal of
the first school he approached, he wc1s shocked by the response. The Principal was indignant,
and suggested that parental consent was not only impossible, it was also insulting, As the
Principal, she was held responsible frir the wdfare of the children and therefore she \v;1s the
person to decide what was in their best interests. Suggesting that parents should be consulted
undermined her authority. She refused to engage any farther with the researcher, vvho had
to look for another school in which to conduct the research. After long negotiations with the
ethical review board at the western institution. the researcher was given permission to seek
loco parentis approval from subsequent principals.
This dilemma illustrates the damage that can occur when western ethical values are im-
posed on cultures which follow diHerent moral codes. In the context described here, the
school principal is not only responsible for running the school :md ensuring the safety of chil-
dren, he/she has a strong parenting role, particularly in the early years. He/she takes decisions
on behalf of the parents and only consults them if there is a danger of physical harm to chil-
dren, such as in the case ofinoculat1011s. There is ;1 clash, therefore, between the expectations
of the western institution and the eastern one. Caught in the middle, the researcher must not
only endure the wrath of the principal, he must also spend time and effort explaining the
differences in approach to the board and persuading it of a different way to deliver consent.
Duff and Abdi (2016) report on :1 similar scemrio facing Abdi as she carried out research
in a Chinese school. In her case, the principal objected to teachers being asked to distribute
and then collect consent forms. which students and guardians would have to sign, believing
it to be "time-consuming, unnecessary, and institutionally problematic" (Duff& Abdi, 2016,
p. 131). They go on to suggest that:
The issue of negotiating fixmal research ethics protocols in transnational/transcultural

research, and particularly in distant sites in other countries, has not been explored, the-
orised or reported un sufficiently in :1pplied linguistics.
(Dufj & Abdi, 2016, p. 131)
Lack of engagement with cross-cultural ethics is not a recent phenomenon. In 1995, Habermas
suggested that researchers, participants and other stakeholders in the research should talk
about ethical issues and make decisions based on these talks. He called this 'discourse ethics'.
Like I--Jabermas, Evanoff (2004) believes that talk is central to resolving ethical dashes, and
argues for constructivist ethics in which each ethical issue is resolved locally by critiquing
194
Ethics
existing standards and arrivmg at jointly ;1greed nnv ethical norms. ]\,fore recently, Scherer
and Palazzo (2009) have argued that discourse ethics should be supplemented by a culturalist
perspective, whereby the mutual relativity of ethics is recognised and the macro-ethical prin-
ciples of the researcher's institution are not allo,ved to dominate ethical decision--making.
These perspectives deserve to be seriously considered by western institutions; they are oth-
erwise at risk of being accused of ethical imperialism (see Robinson-Pant & Singal, 2016, for
further discussion of researching ethically across cultures).
Future directions
It is right that ethical issues have begun Lo demand the seriom attention of all researchers,
whatever their field. However, it is rare frir social issues to ;1ttract attentrnn, whereas medical
issues are often debated in the public arena (for example, stem cell research, abort10n laws
and so on). The ste,dy focus on medical issues, in a range of print and virtual media, has
the benefit of emunng that there is currently a bank of ethiul issues for natural science re-
searchers to consult when they face a new ethical challenge. They can see hovv previous issues
were discussed and resolved and this supports them in scrutinising their own practice and
prepares them to prepare their own ethical cases. In the social sciences, such a bank does not
exist; ethical issues have only recently taken a central place 111 research literature (de Laine.
2000; De Costa, 2016; Pelletier and Kneebone, 2016). Nonetheless, a bank would be useful,
particularly as research in this area is corning under increasing scrutiny. It would also be
helpful for when researchers 11t,1ke applications to 1mtitutiona l boards as cases could be cited
by researchers making a case for their (linguistic ethnographic) approach. It would perhaps
be beneficial for professional associations such as BAAL or LEF to consider hosting this bank
to ensure access for social scientists using a range of approache-,.
A further area that requires thought is how we train researchers in linguistic ethnographic
ethics. Currently, there is little available training either in ethics in general or in LE in par-
ticular. Most research methods' modules on doctorate training progranimes, and even on
Master's programmes, include input on ethics, but these sessions have to cover the general
global areas of autonomy, justice and beneficence, as described above, and there is rarely time
or opporwnity to focus on the particular ethical issues faced by linguistic ethnographers as
they attempt to gather data by some of the most ethically fraught methods (participant obser-
vation, audio and video recording, and interviews of various sorts from 'go-alongs' (Rock,
2007) to membershipping (Richards, 2003)) and to make sense of the way language impacts
social processes and vice vers;1.
There are a munber of programmes that support researchers to take a linguistic ethno·
graphic approach to their work, such as the well-established and highly regarded annual
Ethnography, language and comm1mication course at King's College London. Ethics should be
on their syllabuses, of course. In addit10n, as online learning becomes increasingly popular,
there is no reason why organisations such as BAAL and LEF could not develop materials to
support learning in this important area. Guidelines are important, but they do not allov,r for
dialogue. Neither do they offer a range of real-life ismes for consideration. Online inaterials
could perhaps do so.
Coupled with the issue of inadequate ethical training in LE is the composition of ethical
approval boards. As described in ethical dilemma 4, there is often a lack of understanding
c,f the bJsic tenets of ethnography on imtitutioncil ethics boards. In addition, boards often
lack experience of cross-cultural ethics, as ethical dilemma 6 suggests. Given the relative
infancy of LE as a research field, it is reasonable to surmise that the ethics of LE will be even
195
Fiona Copland
less understood. There is an opportunity here for the LEF to educate both researchers and
panellists in the kinds of ethical dilen11T1as faced when carrying out our work. Dialogue with
researchers in other research fields will both enrich lingcust.ic ethnographic projects and at
the sc1me time educate colleagues about our (emerging) approaches.
Conclusion
As LE continues to grow, and our understanding of contextualised ethics develops, it is likely
that the focus on ethics in research work will come under even greater scrutiny. The ethical
dilemmas presented here provide e;,;;Hnples of the range of issues that researchers may have
to resolve in linguistic ethnographic research projects. The dilemmas also recognise that
ethical decision-making is a contingent and inexact process, and that it is rare to come to a
decisiun with whJCh all would be in agreement. Nevertheless, working ethically requires us
to recognise ethical issues as they occur, comidcr a response based on the needs of both the
participants and the project, and implement the decision sensitively. I hope that this chapter
will support researchers in doing so.
Further reading
Coplaud, F., & Creese, A. (2016). Ethical issues in linguistic ethnography: Balancing the micro anc! the
macro. In P.I. De Costa (Ed.), Ethils in applied li11_,,11istics rese,irch (pp. 161-178). London: Routledge.
(This chapter provides an introduction to general ethical considerations in research before examin-
ing how researchers can meet macro- and micro-ethical expectations.)
Guillc111it1, M., & Cillam, L. (2U04). Etlucs, reflexivity. and "ethically important moments" in research.
Qu"/it,1ti11e I11quiry, 10, 261 280. (Guillemin and Gillam highlight the importance of reflexivity
in ethical decision-making, particularly when in the field. Introducing the concept of 'ethically
import:mt moments', they show how ethical work is a process witb which all researchers should
constantly engage.)
Mackenzie, J. (2017) Identifying informational nonrn in Mummet Talk: A reflexive-linguistic ap-
proach to internet research ethics. Applied Linguistics Reuiew, 8(2--3), 293-314. doi:10.1515/applirev-
2016-1042. (In this paper, Jai Mackenzie examines the ethical issues researchers who work online
need to confront.)
Related topics
Participant observation; Collaborative etlrnography; The ethnographic interview; Reflexivity.
References
Agar, M. (2008). T/Je professional stranger (2nd ed.). Bingley: Erncc1ld Group Publishing.
BAAL (British Association for Applied Linguistics) (2016). Recommendations on good practice in
applied linguistics. Available from https://baalweb.files.wordpress.eom/2016/10/goodpractice_
full_2016.pdf (Accessed 20th January 2018).
Bezcmcr, J. (2015). Partnerslups in rest':cuch: Doing linguistic ethnography with and for practi-
tioners. In J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic etfmography: Interdisciplinary explorations
(pp. 207-224). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coplrnd, F. (2018). Reflecting on ethics in snperdivcrsc contexh. In A. Bbcklcdge & A.. Creese (Eds.),
Tltc Routledge luzndbook o/,11pcrdiversity (pp. 133-14(,). Londun: Routledge.
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic etlmography: Collcctin2,, arwlysing andprcscntin,<; data. London:
Sage.
Copland. F., &· Crc"se, A. (2016). Ethical jssues in linguistic ethnography: Balancing the micro and the
manu. In P.I. De Costa (Ed.), Ethics i11 dpplied li"i"'-'tics rescilrc/1 (pp. 161-178). London: Routledge.
196
Ethics
De Costa, P.I. (Ed.) (2016). Ethics in applied linguistics research. London: Routledge.
de Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research. London:
Sage.
Duff, P., & Abdi, K. (2016). Negotiating ethical research engagements in multilingual ethnographic
studies in education: A narrative from the field. In P.I. De Costa (Ed.), Ethics in applied linguistics
research (pp. 121-141). London: Routledge.
Eurostem (2018). Embryonic stem cell research: An ethical dilemma. Available from http://www.
eurostemcell.org/embryonic-stem-cell-research-ethical-dilemma (Accessed 20th January, 2018).
Evanoff, RJ. (2004). Universalist, relativist, and constructivist approaches to intercultural ethics. Inter-
national Journal ef Intercultural Relations, 28(5), 439-458.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Gao, X., & Tao, J. (2016). Ethical challenges in conducting text-based online applied linguistics re-
search. In P.I. De Costa (Ed.), Ethics in applied linguistics research (pp. 181-194). London: Routledge.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and "ethically important moments" in re-
search. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 261-280.
Guta, A., Nixon, S., & Wilson, M.G. (2013). Resisting the seduction of"ethics creep": Using Foucault
to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review. Social Science & Medicine, 98,
301-310.
Habermas, J. (1995) Justification and application. Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haggerty, K.D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualita-
tive Sociology, 27, 391-414.
Heller, M. (1984) Sociolinguistic theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 47-58.
Jaimack (2016). Ethics, privacy and internet research. Available from https://jaimack.wordpress.com/
(Accessed 30th June, 2016).
Jaspers, P., Houtepen, R., & Horstman, K. (2013). Ethical review: Standardizing procedures and local
shaping of ethical review practices. Social Science & Medicine, 98, 311-318.
Kubanyiova, M. (2008). Rethinking research ethics in contemporary applied linguistics: The tension
between macroethical and microethical perspectives in situated research. The Modern Language Jour-
nal, 92(4), 503-518.
Mackenzie, J. (2017). Identifying informational norms in Mumsnet Talk: A reflexive-linguistic ap-
proach to internet research ethics. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(2-3), 293-314). doi:10.1515/applirev-
2016-1042
Murphy, E., & Dingwall, R. (2001). The ethics of ethnography. In, P. Atkinson, A. Coffey,
S. Delamont, J. Lofland, L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage.
Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., & Tardy, C.M. (2016). Introduction. In B. Paltridge, S. Starfield, & C.M.
Tardy (Eds.), Ethnographic perspectives on academic writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pelletier, C., & Kneebone, R. (2016). Learning safely from error? Reconsidering the ethics of
simulation-based medical education through ethnography. Ethnography and Education, 11(3),
267-282. doi:10.1080/17457823.2015.1087865
Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological
power in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175-196.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson-Pant, A., & Singal, N. (2016). Researching ethically across cultures: Issues ef knowledge, power and
voice. London: Routledge.
Rock, F. (2007). Communicating rig/its: The lang11age of arrest and detention. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2000). Ire in Ireland. Etlinograpliy, 1(1), 117-140.
Scherer, A.G., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Swinglehurst, D. (2015) How linguistic ethnography may enhance our understanding of electronic pa-
tient records in health care settings. In]. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic ethnography;
Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. 90-109). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
197
15
Collaborative ethnography
Gabriele Budach

There is no ethnography without a collaborative dimension. Collaboration is indeed a sub-
stantial feature of any ethnographic research. Whatever the field under study and the concep-
tual ideas underpinning an ethnographic project, it always solicits the participation of people.
They are consultants with whom we interact in the field, colleagues who join the project as
co-researchers or friendly listeners with whom we share exchanges about our field experi-
ence or test ideas for how to make sense of our findings. However, collaboration can take
on different forms and levels of intensity. It can be informal and nourished by conversation
with neighbours on the departmental corridor or formalised by written agreement that par-
ticipants give to signal their informed consent or by membership in a research team that rests
on the rules and institutional regimes of national or international research funding bodies.
Hence, collaboration can be more explicit and institutionalised, or more implicit and
informal. For a long time, implicit collaboration especially has been receiving little attention
from the broader research community, and tended to be silenced or made invisible by aca-
demic power structures or conventions of academic writing. Wasser and Bresler (1996) note:
The popular image of research, in natural and social sciences, has long been dominated
by the figure of the lone researcher, a figure toiling independently to create knowledge
for the field. [...] This image of the independent scholar, however, glosses over the
very social nature of the research process, making invisible the researcher's connections
to the participants of the study and those numerous others with whom the researcher
worked during the course of a study and who made important contributions to his/her
interpretation.
(1996, p. 5)
There is, in fact, a long-standing tradition of collaborative work in a broad range of fields
in the social sciences, such as in sociology (Nyden & Wiewel, 1992), psychology Qason
et al., 2003), folklore (Evers & Toelken, 2001), oral history (Thomson, 2003), public health
(Wallerstein, 2006) and education (Staikidis, 2006) (see, for more details, Lassiter, 2008,
I
198
p. 78). In these traditions, collaborative research has featured under a variety of names in-
cluding dialogic editing (Feld, 1987), reciprocal ethnography (Lawless, 1992), collaborative
biography (Rios & Sands, 2000), collaborative oral history (Rouverol, 2003) or life history
(Goodson & Sikes, 2001).
While labels for collaborative research may denote a wide range of applications that im-
plement collaboration to varying degrees, the underlying spirit of collaborative ethnography
is "that of working, learning, and moving toward positive social change together" (Wali,
2006, p. 6). Amongst scholars in the social sciences, applied anthropologists have been at
the forefront of thinking and writing about collaborative partnerships, particularly between
researchers and local communities (Stull & Schensul, 1987; LeCompte et al., 1999; Austin,
2004). A particular form of this collaboration, promoted by critical ethnography, is action,
participatory or cooperative inquiry (Heron, 1996; Heron & Reason, 1997), variably termed
"community-based research", "action research", "participatory action research" or "partici-
patory community research" (Wali, 2006, p. 6). Collaboration in these research contexts en-
gages the active contribution of the studied communities and their members to the research
process, to the interpretation of research results and, as in some cases, to the re-writing of
their own community history (Lassiter et al., 2004).
In a similar spirit, Lassiter (2005, p. 16) defines collaborative ethnography as:
an approach to ethnography that deliberately and explicitly emphasizes collaboration at

every point in the ethnographic process, without veiling it - from project conceptu-
alization, to fieldwork, and, especially, through the writing process. Collaborative eth-
nography invites commentary from our consultants and seeks to make that commentary
overtly part of the ethnographic text as it develops. In turn, this negotiation is reinte-
grated back into the fieldwork process itself Importantly, the process yields texts that are
co-conceived or cowritten with local communities of collaborators and consider multi-
ple audiences outside the confines of academic discourse, including local constituencies.
He establishes four principles to guide the work of an ethnographer. These are (1) ethical
and moral responsibility to ethnographic consultants; (2) honesty about the fieldwork pro-
cess, whereby the ethnographic fieldwork experience is honestly discussed, explored and
evaluated within the context of collaborative research partnerships; (3) accessible and dia-
logic writing, whereby the ethnographic account not only represents diverse experiences and
voices, but is clearly written, free from the highly specialised discourse of the academy, so
that ethnographic consultants can actually read, engage and respond to ethnographic texts;
and subsequently (4) collaborative reading, writing and co-interpretation of ethnographic
texts with consultants, whereby ethnographer(s) and research participant(s) work together
[and] co-interpret ethnographic representations as they develop and evolve (Lassiter, 2005).
While this model emphasises an activist stance of ethnographic collaboration, Lassiter also
concedes that it might not be appropriate for all researchers or types of ethnographic projects
(Lassiter, 2005, p. xi). Indeed, there are implications and points of contention with which
some LE scholars engage critically and which will be discussed in more detail later.
On the other hand, it has been noted that there is a dearth of research that investigates
collaboration between researchers from different fields and research traditions who work
together on a common endeavour (Wasser & Bresler, 1996). This is a dimension where LE is
making an important contribution to collaborative ethnography.
Collaboration in LE has unfolded strongly within an approach that has been termed 'team
ethnography' (Erickson & Stull, 1998; Blackledge & Creese, 2010). Since its inception, it has
199
Gabriele Budach
produced powerful, sophisticated, critical analytical accounts of the team research process,
looking into aspects of data collection, data discussion, analysis and the writing up of research
work. It has helped to demystify the research process (Blackledge & Creese, 2010) by recon-
structing, recontextualising and representing "the voices of others'' (Creese & Blackledge,
2012, p. 317), other members of the research team in this case. The public can benefit from
such research, as it makes accessible "to those who teach, study, and research in multilingual
educational contexts" how academic knowledge is constructed (ibid.).
Besides, aspects of collaboration have become part of a broader reflection that individ-
ual researchers undertake to situate and understand their own position within the research
process and those of other participants, consultants and co-researchers in the shaping of this
process (see Patino-Santos, this volurne). This is motivated by the shared assumption that:
the researcher as participant observer is part of what is going on[...] and part of the nexus
that nukes action possible (Scollon & Scallon, 20(!7). Sensitivity to the implications of
this is at the heart of the ethnographic endeavour. The involvement of the ethnographer
in social action, coupled with the impossibility of divorcing the self from che process
of interpretive praxis, mean that the researcher is inevitably part of, and shapes, the re-
search that is being produced. This reflexivity is an issue in all social scientific research,
but one which is not necessarily thcmatised in other areas in the way that ethnography
problematises it.
(Tusting & 2\!laybin, 20071 p. 578)
Furthermore, LE research encourages collaboration, first, by tbe way it conceives of itself as

interdisciplinary. "bringing together linguistics and ethnography" (Rampton et al., 2015).
Combining fine-grained language aualysis with ethnographic methods, LE aims to produce
research that is both theoretically sound and context-sensitive. Case studies review·ed for
this text apply this principle by opening up to ethnography, involving (more or less) intense
fieldwork and significant engagement in interaction with research participants. Hence, more
intense collaboration emerged from the aim to gather context-sensitive data and to develop
sensitivity and understanding for participants and their (inter-)action in the field.
Collaboration is stimulated, second, by the way LF reaches out to :md attracts scholars
from a variety of disciplines and research fields. LE invites "intellectual dialogue between
research programs" (Rampton, 2007, p. 590) and considers this dialogic collaboration be-
tv,,een academics important to nurture the growth and further articulation of LE as a field
of study. In combining linguistic analytical tools, sensitising concepts from social theory and
ethnography, LE potentially opens up new ways of seeing and understanding the problems
under study. Involving people from different c!tsciplinary backgrounds rnto ethnographic
fieldwork can stimulate dialogue that benefits all sites, including co-researchers from differ-
ent fields :md research JMrticipants/collaborators whose contexts of life and work are under
examination.
New forms of collaboration are further enhanced, third. by changes in university struc-
tures and national and international funding policies that promote (and demand) collabora-
tion with academic and non-academic partners, including stakeholders from civil societal
institutions. In addition, these policies suggest that collaborating partners and potential ben-
eficiaries also partake, at least to some extent, in the dc·sign of the research and dissemination
of the research results. This creates a broad and challenging frame to think about research,
what it is, under what conditions it should (or can) be conducted and who should be part of
1t with what role and decisional power.
200
In contrast with other approaches of collaborative ethnography mentioned in the previous
section, aspects of 'collaboration' in LE seem to converge, to a significant degree, towards
interdisciplinarity as a driving and defining force. LE, thereby, builds on a specific, yet open
set of sources.
Linguistic ethnography is in itself neither a paradigm, a cohesive 'school', nor some kind
of definitive synthesis. Instead, it is more accurately described as a site of encounter
where a number of established lines of research interact, pushed together by circum-
stance, open to the recognition of new affinities, and sufficiently familiar with one an-
other to treat differences with equanimity.
(Rampton, 2007, p. 585)
Notwithstanding this diversity, three lines of development have come to underline the na-
ture and dimensions of collaboration in LE to this date.
1 Intellectually, LE relies on the work by Dell Hymes, John Gumperz and scholarship in
linguistic anthropology (Duranti et al., 2003, and see Rampton this volume). Calling
for an interdisciplinary orientation, Hymes and Gumperz (1972) state: "[i]n order to
develop models, or theories, of the interaction of language and social life, there must
be adequate descriptions of that interaction, and such descriptions call for an approach
that partly links, but partly cuts across, partly builds between the ordinary practices of
the disciplines" (1972, p. 41). Hymes further describes ethnography of communication
as "characterised by a commitment to dialogue and to adaptive sensitivity to feedback
from different audiences" (Hymes, 1996, p. 7, cited in Rampton et al., 2014, p. 5). This
suggests that ethnographers of communication (and scholars in linguistic ethnography
alike) have an openness to interdisciplinary research and a willingness to receive com-
ments and contributions from others positively.
2 In the UK, LE has based itself on an interdisciplinary body of previous research including
work in interactional sociolinguistics, New Literacy Studies, Critical Discourse Analysis,
neo-Vygotskyan research on language and cognitive development, and interpretative applied
linguistics for language teaching. In the past, these sources, in general, didn't tend to fore-
ground collaboration as a dimension that was reflected upon particularly in the write-up of
the research, with exceptions (see e.g. work by Jones et al., 2000; Martin-Jones, 2000).
3 Interdisciplinary collaboration has been unfolding most strongly in the formation of LE
as an academic platform (e.g. the Linguistic Ethnography Forum (LEF)) and through
teaching and training. An important nucleus for the establishment and growth of LE
over the last 15 years has been seminars and training courses on 'Key concepts and
methods' offered at King's College in London and on 'multilingualism' offered by the
MOSAIC Centre in Birmingham. These events have not only been important platforms
for exchange and learning. They also laid the ground for long-standing fruitful collab-
orations between LE researchers. In some cases, researchers did join in collaborative
projects; in other cases, they pursued individual interests further. However, interdisci-
plinary dialogue also unfolded across individual projects, and reflection on the research
process became an established mode of thinking, taking into account the biographical
experience of the researchers, their individual trajectories of learning and the ways in
which LE led to changes in their views and research practice.
201
Gabriele Budach
In all, the LF: approach seems to enjoy a broad appt:al an10ng,t researchers from different
backgrounds. This is because these researchers share a concern for real-world problems
that require the involvement oC expertise across disciplrnes. They also seem to welcome
epistemological challenge and change, as research problems becorne more complex and
require multi-layered, multi-perspectival lenses to tackle them. This makes ethnography
attractive a, a more open (and tu some extent unpredictable) approach to research, offering
greater flexibility than more traditional frameworks that operate in more static terms. In
this larger schente of things. ethnographic fieldwork seems ,m excellent ground LO learn and
understand about issues of agency, fragmentation and contingency (Rampton et al., 2014,
p. 4). It also mvites us to weigh and reflect on the role of the researcher, the partiality of
our perspective .rnd the benefit of multiplying 'gaze:,'. that we gain by soliciting the views
and voices of others.

'Researcher positionality' is at the heart o[ critical rdlectiun in linguistic ethnography, but
defining one's position as a researcher within LE is also particularly complex. It means to
navigate at least three kinds of rclati(>nships tp;tt are, on the one hand, conslltutive of LE
and, on the other, potentially conflictual. The first concerns the position the researcher takes
within academia and intenhociplinary research. This itnplies asking what rt'search traditions
and theoretical and methodological frameworks one decides to adopt. What academic dis-
course community are we seeking to address) Where do we want to make a scientific con-
tribution? Where does one see (and plan) the future as a researcher or academic schobr? The
second concerns the position a researcher takes in the ethnographic field and towards partic-
ipants/consultants involved in the research process. This implies asking how we understand
the relationship with participants in the field. Whose voice do vie represent in our writing?
Whose interests and agenda do we choose to promote' The third concerns the position the
H'Searcher takes in the so-called outreach or imp,JCt activities th,1t have become a substantial
part of any contemporary third-party-funded research and involve interaction with non-
academic professionals. What message do we want to pass on to audiences different ii-01n our
own professional, academic community? What communicative abilities do we need to do
this successfully?
In relation to the dimension, while interdisciplinary work b;,s its benefits and pro-
duces new imights into complex phenomena, it also carries a number of pitfalls. Cerwonka
and Malkii (2007, p. 'J) note that "the promiscuousness of interdisciplinary scholars !_might]
be perceived as unwise and, for some, dangerous to the academy because their work chal-
lenges the established diviswns of authority and expertise that disciplinary borders conven~
tionally reflect." To a certain extent, this issue arises even from ,1/ithin linguistic ethnography
that brings together established research traditions with specific histories and epistemologies.
/\:, Tusting and Maybin (2007) note:
It has bl'en argued that cornbinrng linguistics with ethnography brings a. fornl81, ab-
stract discipline and tried-and-tested, finely-tuned methods for analyzing text together
with the more open, reflexive social orientation of ethnographic methods, wluch offer
analytic purchase on tbe related social practices and structures (Rampton et al.. 2004).
However, while this dual focus could ideally produce rigorously grounded linguistic
work, which :1t the sarnc tirne acldresse.1 the cornplexities of social pncticc, it can also
202
lead to methodological tensions between a more 'closed' focus on linguistic text and a
more 'open' sensitivity to context and to the role of the researcher. These tensions raise
interesting questions about the selection and recording of what counts as data, the rep-
resentative functions of language, both for the researcher and the researched, and the
researcher's own positionality in the research. The salience of these kinds of questions
[arel not for linguistic ethnography, hut a.lso for across the rnual sciences.
(Tusting 6· .:'vtaybin, 2007, p. 576)
In addition to these potential tensions inherent to LE. a growing number of scholars attracted
by linguistic ethnography have roots Ill several disciplinary fields and need to decide where
to position their LE-inspired work within academic scholarship. They thereby need to decide
which academic audience to talk to, and how to address its concerns, rules and standards of
professionalism appropriately. While methodological or epistemological tension may arise
for scholars regardless of a specific disciplinary background, Rampton (2007) notes that a
particular challenge arises for LE researchers closely involved in education.
If you are actually based in a university department of education, institutional pressures

m.1y tel)lpt you: (a) to read macroscopic and historical processes in only the rnost obvi-
ous clements of education policy and and (b) to prioritise rapport and relevance
above theory development and cumulative, con1parative generali7ation.
(if. Hymes, 1996, p. 19, cited in: Rampton, 2007, p. 594)
On the other hand, it is also apparent that any interdisciplinary endeavour involves different
professional visions, and that it is necessary to develop a sensitivity towards and understand-
ing of the world view of others, if interdisciplinary engagement shall bear fruit as a mutually
benefitting project.
The second dimension concerns the relatiombip the researcher establishes with research
participants LE scholars recognise that building relationships of trust with participants is
crucial. Thi, :1lso requires us to reflect on what stance we take towards the participants in our
research, whose voice we represent and whose side we stand on (Scallon & Scollon, 2007).
Tusting and Maybin (2007) explain that:
Linguistic ethnographers need to take on the epistemic authority to make truth claims
which may differ from those of their research participants. However, this may sit un-
easily with an ethnographic commitment to representing participants' perspectives, and
may raise particular ethical issues where these claims challenge, or even directly contra-
dict, understandings.
(Tusting & Maybin, 2007, pp. 579-580)
This is ;1 dilenuna in relation to which ethnograplnc researchers need to take a position. On

the one hand, any serious endeavour of mutual dialogue requires us to listen and
to surrender authority and control, shifting the role of the researcher(s) from one of
'expert' to one of 'facilitator'. This can be hard for some, especially as collaborative
research may necessitate that we put aside our own egos in order to bring about more
multidimensional, dialogic understandings.
(Lassiter, 2()08, p. 79)
203
Gabriele Budach
On the other hand, JS Rampton et al. (201,1) st.1te, LE seeks to build theoretically compel-
ling academic knowledge b,1sed on a rigorous use of method and anahsis. They agree with
Hymes (1996, p. 13) who says that:
Ethnogr,1phy recognises the ineradicable role thar the researcher\ personal subjectiv-
ity plays throughout the research process. It looks co systematic field strategies and to
accountable analytic procedures to constrain self-indulget1t idiosyncrasy. and expects
researchers to face up to the partiality of their interpretations.
One strategy. recommended by LE scholars, to achieve this i~ by cardully cross-reading vari-

cms sources of data, and by linking "linguistic observations with ethnographic ones, througb
constant comparison and dialogue between different sets of data" (Creese. 2008, cited in
Collins, 2015, p. 185). This procedure honours the 'plural gaze' (Erickson & Stull, 1998) and
en1beds the individual voice into a hrger, systematically built argumem. Ilowcver, the role
of participants therein, and the place and legitirnacy uftheir vie\vS and interpretations within
an LE agenda remain an open question and available for further discussion.
Tlie third dimension addresses the relationship with stakeholders, professionals and prac-
titioners who are the intended beneficiaries of LE research outside of academia. The central
question here is bow we explain our research to people who du not share our professional
training, language and theoretically focalised views. This also raises the question of how
we can actually contribute to social change, and what a useful contribution could look like.
One answer is to produce "research outputs [thatj are designed for varied audiences, not just
acadcmio, who differ in their types/levels of background knowledge, interest, position,
etc." (Rampton, 2007, pp. 294-295). However, addressing other puhlics successlt11ly implies
designing a vision and using a language that the target audience is able to understand. As
Lefatein and Israeli (2015) report, this may prove challenging. While analysing video re-
cordings of classroom interaction with Lcachers, they found that "practitioners· professional
sensibilities ,ue generally diflercnt frorn ethnographers' arulytic dispositions" (Lefstcin &
Israeli, 2015, p. 187). They note that "bv basing the discussions on video-recordings and de--
tailed transcripts we required the teachers to work with materials to which they are relatively
unfarniliar, and which are less well-suited to their pedagogical perspective" (p. 201). While
teachers tended to look for underlying models of (ideal) teaching and signs of long-term
learning and change, LE researchers focussed rnore ou social interaction and explanations
based on visible social dynamics happening u1 the 'here and now'. As Ldstein and Israeli
(2015) say, there is a need to clarify these profession-specific assumptions and ways of seeing
"to bring the two perspectives together" (p. 202) and to understand ·'why we often talk past
each other" (p. 188).

Ir has been noted that LE is an exp,1nding field of rese,irch that has attracted the interest of
scholars frorn diverse disciplinary backgrounds. Engaging in LE research, they bring their
particular life histories, academic training and experience into resonance with LE concepts
and ntethods. This produces mteresting 'sites of encounter' where learned academic norms
and di,ciplinary, situated \\ays of seeing and doing arc contr;isted with concepts and methods
explored in LE. A most original contribution emerges where scholars reflect on this process
of a dialogic encounter and write about it, making it visible to others. What \Ve learn from
that is how interdisciplinary thinking evolves in the making, what questions and challenges
204
this process poses, how old and new ways of seeing combine with and confront each other
and how scholars feel urged to change their perspective or, on the other hand, find new ar-
guments sustaining a position held previously.
This section presents work conducted by researchers from different disciplinary and ex-
periential backgrounds that self-identify with the LE approach. All case studies have been
published in the recent edited collection by Snell et al. (2015). Their chapters focus on a wide
range of different aspects of linguistic ethnography. In the discussion below, I draw out the
importance of collaboration across the studies, showing how adopting ethnographic meth-
ods and collaborating with participants changed the dynamics of the research process. Even
though the role of participants is often not directly focussed in the analysis, the opening to
ethnographic methods - and notably forms of intense, sustained observation - brought the
role of participants to the fore more strongly.
The selected cases shed light on the importance of ethnographic methods - namely field-
work (see Papen, this volume) - to establish and understand context, and on the role of
engaging with participants (or co-researchers) in enabling new understandings of the com-
plexity of the field under study and the social processes unfolding within it. The overview
below traces, although in a sketchy manner, how both dimensions helped the researcher to
shift (epistemological) perspective and to reframe the object of inquiry, and to articulate their
own trajectory and the role of collaboration as an important part of the research process.
1 The study by Tom Van Hout (2015) combines work in journalism with an LE approach.
He looks at the process of news story production in a Belgian daily newspaper with a par-
ticular focus on business news. Initially interested mainly in texts and the organisation of
textual flows, his decision to engage in sustained ethnographic fieldwork and to make the
business desk in the premises of the newspaper his main site of fieldwork had important
consequences. Observing the daily routines of one journalist closely, and shadowing him
throughout his working day, enabled him to develop a deep understanding of the processes
involved in news making, on-screen and off-screen interactions, and the textual trajectory
of a news story, from a telephone call and first draft to the finished text. Immersing himself
deeply in the ethnographic site allowed the author to discover the importance of context
and the dimension of power that became apparent in the interactions he was observing. "By
trying to make sense of what I was observing, my epistemological focus shifted from using
ethnography as a methodological add-on (ethnographic linguistics) to embedding discourse
analysis in an ethnographic framework (linguistic ethnography)" (Van Hout, 2015, p. 76).
2 Work by Frances Rock (2015a, 2015b) looks at custody in a police station. Because of
her work, she is often referred to as a forensic linguist, although she finds the identity
of a linguistic ethnographer appealing and gratifying to explore. About her long-time
connection to the legal realm, she says:
I became interested in researching legal sites after having been involved in the legal
system as a witness to a crime. This process gave me a particular view of the col-
lection and status of legal evidence in a police investigation, courtroom trial and
criminal appeal.
(Rock, 2015a, pp. 149-150)
At another crucial moment in her trajectory, Rock remembers a solicitor saying that what
. was written in legal documents did not correspond to what was meaningful in police
interactions, and that legal terms often needed to be interpreted and re-contextualised
205
Gabriele Budach
by legal and police workers in conversation \vith detainees or suspects. Hence, to under-
stand the situation of police officers and detainees, it was necessary to turn away frorn
books and towards the study of concrete interaction. However, as the author experi-
enced, research designs and carefully planned methodologies can fail because access to
the field is more complicated and conditions for data collection prove unpredictable.
I began the research by seeking naturally occurring talk - examples of police of-
ficers delivering and explaining the caution in investigatiw police interviews. I
gradually moved towards the emic by conducting research interviews with officers
and suspects about their experiences of cautionmg and detent1011. Ultimately I un-
dertook various forms of observation and shadowing in custody, producing field
notes and photographic records.
(Rock, 2015a, p. 152)
\Vhat may have seemed the second-best option and Ml involuntary adjustment at first did
indeed turn om co be an opening to a new per,pective:
Finally I noted the importance of the cmic perspective in LE. I used interview dat;1,
v\·hich, whilst it presents an 'insider' perspective of sorts, can seem rather blunt in
relying on self-report ;1nd accountrng. [... ] In some analyses, researchers enter into
speculation ;1hout speakers' morives cmd intentions. Inste,d, by sensitively incorporat-
ing voices, data can layer to support observations about socially situated Lmguage use.
(Rock, 2015a, p. 163)
3 Work by Fiona Copland (2015a, 2015b) focusses on feedback sessions in teacher training.
Trained in Applied Linguistics with considerable expericncc in TESOL, she first consid-
ered that "linguistic analysis was sufficient to answer the questions I was interested in"
(2015a, p. 112). Encouraged by her PhD supervisor, she gradually discovered ethnogra-
phy and the importance of classroom observation. fmrnersmg herself into this context,
rather than entrusting participants with audio devices to record their interaction, pro-
duced a change in perspective which she describes as "J shift in my gaze from an explicit
and exclusive focus on the lmguistic to a commitment to ensuring [that] linguistic data
and analyses arc contextually situated" (2015a, p. 110). Another shift in perspective oc-
curred ,vhen she decided to engage in dialogue with the research participants and asked
the teacher trainers and trainees for feedback on her d;1ta.
Ttook extracts that I found either puzzling or which seemed to trouble the bound-
aries of accepted behaviour in the feedback conferences. This experience not only
provided am.ore emic perspective on the interactions but c1lso provided a space for
me to reflect on my own interpretations and assumptiom. [...] Tt allowed me to
share the research with the trainers and trainees and to give them a stake, however
limited, in the research process. What is more, a number of the participants seemed
to find the data pcrsonallv useful, Ltsmg it to reflect on their performance in the
feedback and to better understand the other participants.
(Co1;/a11d, 2015b, p. 115)
·I Sarah Collins's work (2015) is in the field of medical studies. Based 111 a hospital, her re-
,earch focusses on how patients make' sense of their diagnosis and how talk with medical
206
personal and other patients influences the ways in which they evaluate their condition,
treatment and progress of their condition. She found a linguistic ethnographic approach
particularly useful as it:
affords a wider context - the view that greets the patient in the waiting room, the
various contexts in which consultations happen, a longitudinal perspective - for
understanding the nature and expression of patients' concerns. This transforms the
research: from a study of doctor-patient interaction to one more comprehensive and
representative of patients' and professionals' experience. From a researcher's per-
spective, a more holistic view of patients' concerns can be provided by considering
examples from different consultations, research interviews and clinic observations.
(Collins, 2015, p. 184)
As the study included the broader hospital space as a field of observation, rather than
the doctor's consultation room only, it was possible to reveal the complexity of com-
munication "beyond the patient's appointment with the surgeon, and [it] shows how
patients' concerns are concealed and disclosed in a variety oflocations within the clinic,
with different professionals" (p. 184). Finally, the research also led to potential social
change. Talking to medical staff and patients: "we discussed ways existing clinic space
could be employed more strategically and with greater awareness of its communication
potential [...] [to] facilitate more free-flowing consultations" (p. 185).
5 The last example discussed here is work conducted by JeffBezemer (2015) who explored
videography and interaction, communication and learning in the operating theatre. He
worked together with Alexandra Cope, a specialist surgical registrar (an experienced
trainee), PhD student in surgical education and a clinical research fellow on the same
funded research projects. Bezemer (2015, p. 208) defines this "partnership as collabo-
ration with members of the community under study (in my case surgeons), based on a
shared interest (e.g. surgical education) and a [...] commitment to a joint research project
(formalised in funding applications)". He notes about his fieldwork experience:
When Alex joined the project a couple of months after I had started observing in
theatres the fieldwork changed. Through her I got to interact with many more
surgeons, and often found myself participating - peripherally - in informal con-
versations in between cases. While Alex was there with her 'researcher' hat on she
was also at the same time a surgeon, a member of the department, and a trainee,
and addressed in all of those roles during fieldwork. She participated in some of the
normal routines in theatres, except that she would not operate. For instance, she
joined surgeons as they went into the scrub room to scrub up (a place where I felt
somewhat out of place). Here she often picked up essential 'contextual' information,
for instance, about what had happened on the ward and how that had affected the
mood of the consultant.
Collaboration between the two researchers involved joint conversation in the field, dis-
cussing of observations, and making, exchanging and watching many video clips (of
operations) together. Bezemer notes:
the conversations have contributed to my research in at least two ways. First, Alex
taught me about surgery and operations, which I used to make sense of the video clips
207
Gabriele Budcich
that had drawn my attention. (...] Second. by articulating her perspective she [...] pro-
vided directions Jlong which to look. [... ] Looking back, I note that the partnership
lias allowed me to extend traditional ficldworl. f...] Alex acted as a mentor, and mediator
between myself and surgeons and other health care professionals. [... ].
(2015, p. 211)
l n return, I helped her where I could. For rnstance, we had lengthy discussions
:1bout the categories she defined as part of her coding sch.em<"s, a!lrl f was one ofa
number of'raters' who coded a mbsample of the d,1ta to test the 'inter-r:1ter reliabil-
ity' of her coding scheme.
(2015, p 213)

It has been suted about LE th.at it "i, not a discipline which ri§':orously enforces procedures
or methods" (see Rampton et al., 2015, 32~36). The examples discussed in th<" previous
,ection h.1ve shown how researchers applied a range of methods exploring the possibilit1es
and limitatiom of their respcctiw ethnographic field(,). TlH:se cases also illmtrate how meth-
odological choices were adjmtcd to (a) the social dynamics, which. in some cases, made the
originally planned research design unpossible to implement and (b) the experience of the
t1eld ,md the opportunities, which opened up during the research proce,s and could n<Jt have
been foreseen before entering the field. The aforementioned work points to the idea that LE
research is open towards assembling an eclectic mix of methods that is guided by the focus of
the research, and the possibilitit:, and lim 1tations of each field and project. These included the
collection and analysis of data from ethnographic observ;1tiorL fidd notes, ;mdio/video re-
cordings, written documents and particular software tools (e.g. as in the study by Van Hout,
201.'i). What all projects have in common, though, is their commitment to collecting and
comparing different data sets in an attempt to bring out mu !ti-layered, multi· vocal meanings.

Similar to other approaches to collaborative ethnography, LE shares a commitment to work-
ing towards social change. In this endeavour, collaboration with non-academic stakeholders
i, considered ,1 key dimension. As noted above, however, one nftbe big chJllenges involved
in communicating with partners from outside :icademia is to make one's point understood.
Fruitful exchanf!:c with people from outside our own discursive communities requires that
we find, agree on and possibly learn J curnmon language.
Since outreach activities and disseminatwn outputs for non-a<:ademic stakeholders have be-
come a key element of any funded research today, we need to tlnnk about different formats in
which to embed our mnsage, to speak po\verfully and convincingly to these different audiences.
High-quality research needs to be complemented by outputs that .1ddrt:ss the issues of non-
academic audiences. As Lefstein and Israeli (2015. p. 205) note, there is a gap to be closed and a
need to "adapt, complement and mediate linguistic ethnogr:rphy m vvays that are constrnctive,
have integrity, and are recognised as belpful by practitioners". As the work by Bezemer (2U15)
shows, there is begmning to be change in the field of medical training where knowledge gained
from resec1rch has been successfully tr:,nsbted into pragmatic action. More of rnch translation
work is needed, even more so as it can renew interest in social science re,earcl1 and provide an
example for how different professional visions can usefully complement each other.
208
Future directions
In 1996, Wasser and Besler asked what difference collaboration makes, in research, writing or
both. Should collaboration be purely or personal, or some combin:1tion ofboth?
When we think about 'making a difference', what sort of difference do we have in mind- or
what sort should research be aiming for - a difference meaningful to whom? Researchers,
participants, the wider public;, There are no simple or generalisable answers, partly because
research questions and contextual conditions, needs and requirements change with almost
every new project we undertake. Yet, each time, we need to clarify for ourselves what we
mean and understand by collaborative ethnography. This includes being sensitive to the
views and visiom of our collaborators -- acJdcmic and non-academic ones -- and remaining
open to the opportunities emerging from the rcse,uch process and the dialogue with research
partners that can enable us to realise the potential we anticipated, but aiso make us see di-
mensions ,ve previously ignored.
LE research is beginning to produce some visible collaborative impact. For instance, Rock
(201 Sa), after bemg asked by a police officer with whom she collaborated in the field, partook
in drafting a policy dornrnent, and Bezemer (2015), while co-working and writing with a
medical researcher, learned how to address the expectations of medical professionals, readers
of medical journals, attendees of soentific conferences and medical training workshops. Yet,
with every new project, we need to think about what role we envisage for team colleagues,
particip,mts and collaborators in the rnc,m:h process. How do we negotiate with partners
who bave chflerent experiences, views, e,cnr,-unrm and goals? What roles are realistic, and
ethically and morally responsible to t,1ke on, fiir whom? How do we dialogue and the
building of a cornrnon language that enables botb the articulation of di£frrentiated/different
viewponlls and the respect for voices thar might diverge from the profrssional standards of
our own discourse communities? How can we reconcile the aim of producing cutting-edge,
theoretically strong, high-quality research with the ambition to involve collaborators (from
different backgrounds) into the research process, from the design to the write-up? What can
co-produced ethnographic texts look like? Creese and Blackledge (2012, p. 318) say that "it is
not a straightforward matter to trace the links between these discussions [within the research
team] and subsequent reports and publications." How can we imagine genres that reflect the
inspiration from co-production, that finds itself often curtailed, if an authoritative
academic voice is given dominance) vignettes - short narratives produced by team
members to m:1ke vrsible the research process and the researcher experiences, backgrounds and
values is an excellent way to represent the voices of collaborators and participants and to grant
them of authorship in the co-production ofknowledge (Blackledge & Creese, 2010).
It is genres like this that begin to challenge social sciences as "a rather elitist, 'high cul-
ture' form of social commentary" (Foley & Valenzuela, 2005, p. 224). Taking this practice
further, can we think of dialogic forms of writing or presenting that make the process of
collaborative interpretation visible, side-by-side, including different voices and agendas? Is
it conceivable for us as individuals, and compatible with the standards of our profession, to
expose d1ffrrence, and to frarne 1t as an equally legitimate alternative view? Are there
ethical lirnils to such a practice? Ifwe assume. as many LE researcher, that knowledge is
socially constructed and situationally produced. context-dependent, teniporarily fixed and
emerging from conditions that appear uncertain and unpredictable how do
we position the multi-vocality of collaborative research in such an epistemological frame?
Whose knowledge will be positioned in a way that it is heard and accepted by others 1 With
what consequences for whom 1
209
Gabriele Budach
If 1ve seek dialogue with other professional audiences, how do we learn best to transform
our insights into questiom that are relevant for these groups, ·what do we need to know and
understand about their concerns, imerests and epistemological stances to do this successfully?
Surely, working in partnerships is a frllitful way forward. Yet it may imply a long-term en-
gagement and patient learning to navigate the thorny bits of the path. Offering advice for
working with teachers, Lefstei n and Israeli (201:i, p. 204) suggest, ''we believe that a promis-
ing way forward is to focus on dilemmas" and to discuss what we see, what we understand is
happening and how we can act on 1t. Such an approach rmght be useful advice, more gener-
;1lly, ,1s it helps to generate discussion on questions th;it have no answer, yet but can draw 111
different voices and views to build knowledge, jointly. and find amwers, colleccively.
Further reading
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (Eds.) (2015). L111p11istic ethnography: CollectinJ:, analysing mu! presenting d,1/,1.
London: Sage.
Snell,]., Shaw, S., & Copland, F. (Eds.) (2015). Linguistic etlmogr,1phy: Interdisciplinary exp/,1rations.
London: Palgrave Macmillan. (I highly recornmend these t 1\0 edited 1·olumes for furthc1 reading
as they provide examples of collaborative ,vork in a wide range of fields and point out the ben-
efits that reflecting; on the collabor:itivc process can generate. The texts are very accessible and
articulate the researchers' personal and profe1sionaljourneys. This reflective voice m,,kes ,tpparent
the complexity of any collaborative endeavour combining both inteilectual Jmbition and human
relat1onships.)
Related topics
Reflexivity; Ethics; P8rticipant observation and field notes.
References
1\ustin, D.E. (2004). Partnerships, not projects'. Improving the environment through coJlaborativc
research and action. Jlum,zn 01gani:11tio11, 63(-+), 41CJ-430.
Bezemer, ]. (2015). Partnerships in research: Doing linguistic ethnography with and for practi-
tioners. In.f. Snell, '-i. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic cthno\·rap!ty Intadisriplinu1y explor,l/ions
(pp. 207-224). London: Palgrave Macrnilhn.
HlackJedgc, A., & Creese, i\. (2010). i1vhiltilingualis1n: A cri1ical pcrspecti11e. London: Bloomsbury
Pub] ishing.
Cerwonka, A., & 1\-lalkki, L.H. (2007). I1nprouising theory: Process ,md te111porality in cthnogr<lphicficldwork.
Chicago, Tl: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, S. (2015). The geography of communication and the expression of patients' concerns. In J.
Snell, S. Shaw, &: F. Copland (Fels.), Lin,c:uistic cthnoy_raphy: ll1tcrdhiplin,11y e.\plorari,ins (pp. 166-186).
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Copland, F. (2015:i). E:-..amining ulk in post-observation feedback conferences: Learning to do lin-
guistic ethnography. In]. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Ed,.), Lingui.ctit ethuogrc1phy: Interdi,cipliuary
c:\plor,1/ions (pp. J 10-J 28). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Copland, F. (2015h). Researching fredbc1ck rnntcrences in pre-service teacher education. In
F. Copland & A. Creese (Eds.), Li11guistir etlinog1c1phy: Collectirt~, a1wlysinl and presrnting d,!1<1
(pp. ~<J-1Jr, London: Sage.
Creese, A. (2008). Linguistic ethnography. In K.A. King & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
L,wgu,igc and educiltio11 (pp. 229-241). New York: Springer Sci,,ncc·.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2012). Voice and meaning making in team ethnography. ,'lnthrorolov,y &
1.oducatinn Q11arroly, 13(3), 306---324.
Duranti, A., Ahearn. L., Cook-Gumpeu,J., Gumpeu.J., Darrwll, R. & Hynws, D. (20U3). Language
as culture in lJS anthropology: Three paradigms. Currcm /lntftropology, 44(3), 323-347.
210
Erickson, K., & Stull, D. (1998). Doing team ethnogrc1phy: Warnings and advice. London: Sage.
Evers, L., & Toelken, B. (Eds.) (2001). Native American oral traditions: Collaboration and interpretation.
Logan: Utah State University Press.
Feld, S. (1987). Dialogic editing: Interpreting how Kaluli read sound and sentiment. Cultural Anthro-
pology, 2(2), 190-210.
Foley, D., & Valenzuela, A. (2005). Critical ethnography: The politics of collaboration. In N.K. Denzin &
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 217-234). London: Sage.
Goodson, I.F., & Sikes, PJ. (2001). Life history research in educational settings: Learningfrom lives. Bucking-
ham: Open University Press.
Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274-294.
Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice. London:
Taylor and Francis.
Hymes, D.H., & Gumperz,J.J. (Eds.) (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jason, L.A., Keys, C.B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Taylor, R.R., & Davis, M.I. (Eds.) (2003). Participa-
tory community research: Theories and methods in action. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Jones, K., Martin-Jones, M., & Bhatt, A. (2000). Constructing a critical, dialogic approach to research
on multilingual literacy: Participant diaries and diary interviews. In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones
(Eds.), Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different worlds (319-351). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lassiter, L.E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Lassiter, L.E. (2008). Moving past public anthropology and doing collaborative research. Annals ef
Anthropological Practice, 29(1), 70-86.
Lassiter, L.E., Goodall, H., Campbell, E., &Johnson, M.N. (2004). The other side of Middletown: Explor-
ing Muncie's African American community. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Lawless, E. (1992). "I was afraid someone like you ... an outsider ... would misunderstand": Nego-
tiating interpretative differences between ethnographers and subjects. Journal of American Folklore,
105, 302-314.
LeCompte, M.D., Schensul,JJ., Weeks, M., & Singer, M. (1999). Researcherroles and research partnerships.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Lefstein, A., & Israeli M. (2015). Applying linguistic ethnography to educational practice: Notes on
the interaction of academic research and professional sensibilities. In]. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland
(Eds.), Lingttistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. 187-206). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin-Jones, M. (2000). Enterprising women: Multilingual literacies in the construction of new
identities. In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (Eds.), Multilingttal literacies: Reading and writing different
worlds (pp. 149-170). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nyden, P., & Wiewel, W. (1992). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher
and practitioner. American Sociologist, 23(4), 43-55.
Rampton, B. (2007). Neo-Hymesian linguistic ethnography in the United Kingdom. Journal ef Socio-
linguistics, 11(5), 584-607.
Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (2014). Methodological foundations in linguistic ethnogra-
phy. Ti/burg Papers in Cultural Studies, Paper 102. Available from https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/
upload/74a2c0ed-63fe-4a97-a2c5-2c3f22f12c6b_TPCS_102_Rampton_etal.pdf
Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (2015). Theory and method in linguistic ethnography. In
J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. 14-50).
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rampton, B., Tusting, K., Maybin, J., Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V. (2004). U.K. Linguistic
Ethnography: A discussion paper. Available from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/
lingethn/documents/discussion_paper_jan_05.pdf
Rios, T., & Mullen Sands, K. (2000). Telling a go()d one: The process ef a Native American collaborative biog-
raphy. Lincoln, OR: University of Nebraska Press.
Rock, F. (2015a). Bursting the bonds: Policing linguistic ethnography. In]. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland
(Eds.), Linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. 147-165). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rock, F. (2015b). Ethnography and the workplace. In F. Copland & A. Creese (Eds.), Linguistic ethnog-
raphy: Collecting, analysing and presenting data (pp. 117-142). London: Sage.
211
Gabriele Budach
Rouverol, A.]. (2003). Collaborative oral history in a correctional setting: Promise and pitfalls. The
Oral History Re1•iew, 30(1), 61-S5.
Scollon. R., & Wong Scollon, S. (2007). Nexus analvsis: Refocusing ethnography on action. Journ,,Z o(
Socioli11guis1ics, I 1(5), 60::-S-625. ·
Snell, J., Sha\\/, S .. & CopLmd, F. (Eds.) (2015). Linguistic etlm,w,1ph)'.· Irtterdisrip/in,iry e:xplor,,tions.
Staikidis, K. (2006). Personal and cultural 11 ..1rr,llive as insp1ratinn: A painting ,md pcdagogiul collab-
oration with Mayan artists. Studies in /lrt Education, 47(2), 118-138.
Stull, D. D., &· Schensul. J.J. (Eds.) (1 ll87). Collc1/Jl1rati1·c rese,irch ,md .wcial rhange: Applied anthropology in
action. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Thomson, A. /_2003). Sharing authority: Oral history and the collaborative process. Oral History Re-
Fiew, 30(1). 23--26.
Tusting, K., & Maybin, J. (2007). Linguistic ethnography and interdisciplinarity: Opening the discus-
sion.Joum,,/ of Sociolillguicrics, 11(5). 575 ,:i8J.
Van Hout, T. (2015). Between text and social practice: Balancing lingni,tics and ethnography in jour-
n:ilism studies. lnJ. Sne!L S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Li11Ruistir ethnography: Interdisciplinary explo-
ratio1ts (pp. 71-89). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wali, A. (Ed.) (2006). Collab,,ratit,e research: A p1uctict1l introduction to Przrticipatory Action Research (P/lR)
jM co1111nunities ,wd sdwlars. Chicago. IL: Field Museum.
\Vallerstein, N.B, (2006). Using commnnity-based participatory research to address health disparities.
Health Promoti,111 Pr,fftice, 7(3), :012,-323.
\Vasser, JD., & Bresler, L. (1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in
qualitativ<: resc·arch. Ldur"<1tional R,·searcl1cr, 25(5), 5-15.
212
16
Reflexivity
Adriana Patino-Santos

This chapter addresses reflexivity as a central aspect of research in the situated study oflan-
guage, a stance taken by linguistic ethnography (LE) and shared with other perspectives on
communication, such as linguistic anthropology (Duranti, 1997) and critical sociolinguistics
(Heller, 1996[2006], Martin Rojo, 2010). Broadly speaking, "ethnography aims to describe
the sometimes chaotic, contradictory, polymorph character of human behaviour in concrete
settings" (Blommaert, 2007, p. 682). Since researchers are likely to follow threads, tie them
together, categorise and identify patterns, and bring their own particular perspective against
a background of previous research in the area to the table, such indeterminacy finds some or-
der when researchers acknowledge joint responsibility for the knowledge production process
in which they participate when doing ethnography. Since the term 'reflexivity' can refer to
epistemological positioning in research as well as decisions taken regarding research practices
(in fact Foley (2002, p. 473) defines it as "a slippery term"), when I speak of'methodological
reflexivity' in the research context I take it to encompass reflexive practices stemming from
a variety of perspectives, whether they be epistemological considerations or the researcher's
questioning of his or her own socio-political, cultural, ideological or other forms of personal
subjectivity. The need to recognise the essential role that the researcher's subjectivity plays
throughout the process of language research, and the ways in which it imbues the research
produced, is part of the poststructuralist stance in the social sciences that was initiated in the
1960s.
As Rampton et al. (2015, p. 16) state:
Ethnography recognises the ineradicable role that the researcher's personal subjectiv-
ity plays throughout the research process. It looks to systematic field strategies and to
accountable analytic procedures to constrain self-indulgent idiosyncrasy, and expects
researchers to face up to the partiality of their interpretations (Hymes, [1978] 1996, p.13).
But the researcher's own cultural and interpretive capacities are crucial in making sense
of the complex intricacies of situated everyday activity among the people being studied,
and tuning into these takes time and close involvement.
213
The acknowledgement of the prnence of the researcher's subjectivity takes varions forms, as
we shall ,ee in this chapter, ,ind researcher and methodological rcflcxivities need to be exer-
cised throughout the research process in order to clarify the epistemological, methodologicd
and analytical decisions taken. In addition, a constant monitoring of and (when needed)
ad3ustment to the research process 1s necessary. For this reason, ju.st as we cannot take for
granted the contexts that we investigate (R.ampton, 2010), neither can tht> context of the
research itself nor the complexities ot· the construction of the fidd be taken for granted, or
indeed removed from the results that we present (see Papen, this volume). From that point of
view, research is not a neutral act, but the product of the social relations and practical con-
ditiom under which we conduct our fieldwork. Those practical conditions include personal
relevancies (rnotivations, cultural frames of meaning), practical contingencies, sometimes
difficult to anticipate, and ways of dealing with thcrn (challenges met with in the field, es
tablishing relationships with participants, etc.), as well as the form in which we decide to
represent the results or create the final product (Heller, 2009),
Methodological refle:-;ivity is vitJJ to the research process, since there are no prescribed
recipes for using particular 1nethods and tools for data collection and analysis. As noted by
Copland and Creese (2015, p. 29).
Lmguistic ethnography does not prescribe a set of data collection and analysis tools.
Researchers working from a linguisuc ethnographic perspective have a range of research
interests and investigate these interests in different and varium ways. Nonetheless, data
are collected and analysed and particular ways of doing data collection and analysis are
particularly salient, given the joint focus on linguistics and ethnography.
This obliges us to make explicit the principles that we will follow and to offer a rationale for
the methodological choices we make (when presenting the analytical tools and procedure,,
methods for gathering and analysing data, etc.) and the ways in which we choose to represent
the results (for example, using a narrative or a 'realistic' style).
Methodological reflexivity has been addressed by linguistic ethnographers and practi-
tioners of related disciplrnes in vanous fr>rms, as I will discms in the following secticll1s. Sec-
tions 4 and 5 will be the central part of this chapter, since they pre,ent some of the current
research areas and contributions to reflexivity in LE, as well as illustrate some practical issues.
As Hymes (1996, p. 4) reminded us, since the earliest works that could be considered
ethnographic such as those of Malinowski, Boas ;md Sapir - ethnographers "had an inter-
est in documenting and interpreting a wide range ofa way oflife" in a comprehensive way.
Tliose interests arc not detached Cron1 the ethnographer\ own idiosyncrasies, as highlighted
in the quote from Rampton et al. (2015) quoted earlier. Reflexivity, in this sense, implies
giving a systematic account of the kmd of questions we ask and the approaches to collecting
the d,tta, the analysis of \vhich will allow us to answer our initial questions, questions that
might be modified by the contingencies of the fiddvvork and analytical process.
Important reflections on methodological reflexivity in sociolinguistics, commg from so--
ciology and anthropology, were explored by Sarangi and Candlin in a chapter published in
2001, reflect10ns which I certainly believe apply to LE. The authors discussed reflexivity by
drawing our :Jttention to Goff111an's m<>tithitional re/euancies and Bourd1eu's points ofuiew regard-
ing 1nicrn,ocial investigation. Motivational relevancies is a term Goffman borrows from Schutz
214
Reflexivity
(1962) in order "to make the point that social scientists study social phenomena in line with
their own preferred motivatiom" (2001, p. _;68). and point of view is used by Bourdieu (19')2)
to emplusise tlut "the point or source of :my 'view' is inseparable from vvhat is viewed"
(2001, p. 365). Sarangi and Candlin point out the importance of acknowledging our mo-
tivational relevancies at various levels. For example, when defining 'context' (Uuranti &
Goodwin, 1'J92), we n<ced tc1 consider where to look, 11'11ar to look at and how. Import.mtly,
Cicourel 's (1982. p. 15) question on ·ecological ,:aliclity' becomes central to the how: "Do our
instruments capture the daily life conditions. opinions, values, attitudes, and knovvledge base
of those we study as expressed in their natural habitat?" Thus, when conducting interviews
or surveys, such questions encourage us to consider those :ispects of comprehension thc1t ,ve
assume to be shared with our co-participants and to scrntiuise the way we vvord questions in
ordu to Jvoid embedding our own views or assumptions imo them, and to revise the types of
qnestions we ask so as not to constrain the participants' answers, amongst many other pitfalls.
(See De Fina, this volume, on interviews from an ethnographic perspective.)
From the begmning, LE has been in continual dialogue· with the social sciences in gen-
eral regarding theory and method, in various Jcadcmic publications (cg. special issues such
as tbnse edited hy Tusting and Maybin (2007) and Flynn et al. (2010), and handbook and
encyclopaedia chapters like Creese (2008), Rampton (2010), and Maybin and Tusting (2011),
amongst many others), but also through doctoral and postdoccoral pedagogical arenas. One
of these is the two- to five-clay training programme for doctoral and postdoctoral research-
ers, run since 2007, ·'Ethnography, Language,'\ Communication (ELC)", a summer course
in which participants h.we h.id the opportunity to examine and evaluate the efficiency of the
analytical tools developed initially by linguistic anthropology, as well as synergies between
LE and their own fields, through data sessions and workshops (see Rarnpton ct al., 2015). l\
second inst:mce bas been through two sets of working papers: flll<1rkiny Papers in Urban Lan-
guage and Literarics (hosted by King's College) and the Ti/burg Papen- in Culture Studies, which
have become important platforms from which linguistic ethnographers have reflected upon
theory and methodological contingencies. The open-access nature of these working papns
has given early researchers and people intere,ted in linguistics and ethnography the opportu-
nity Lo engage in ongoing debates in the fidd, including methodological research. Tbus, for
ex:ample, in Number 138 of the Tilburg Papers Dialogues with Ethnography, Blommaert (21J15)
brings together a selection of papers in which he presents his interpretation of Hymes's,
Bourdieu's and Bakhtin·s theories, amongst others. Each paper introduces important :1spects
of reflexivity, including Bakhtin's i11terrextuc1lity, wl11ch :illows us tL, recognise the dialogical
and polyphonic natures of c:thnngraphv (see Blackledge & Creese, this volume).

80th methodological and personal rcflexivities have been ,1ddressed in LE by various authc,rs
in looking :it researchers' identities and the rolt'S they play in the field. Meanwhile, the con-
cepts of 'voice', 'heteroglossia' and 'rnetacommentary' have been discussed when giving an
account of the various methodological procedures that lead us to bring together information
from diverse d;ita sources (institutional docunwnt,, field notes, di;lties, artefacts, etc.) and
construct a coherent narrative or argument. This will be discussed further below.
The relationship between the researcher and those who are researched, and the way in
which knowledge is produced - including the forms in which dat:1 are represented- need to be
addressed overtly in the final product of our research. Some people use metaphors such :is the
rcsearch}<iurricy (Hellc:r, 2(10i,[20l2l; Martin-R.oJu, 2(1111; Pcrez-Milans, 201 l; Rda110-P.1stor,
215
2011; Copland & Creese, 2015, amongst many others), the pu2zle (Patirio-Santos, 2011) and
so on. to describe the experience of conducting and writing up au ethnography. The dia-
logical and polyphonic character of ethnography obliges us to search for the 'fairest' way to
represent the v,irious voices tb;1t we have captured, including our own. as \Veil as the situa-
tions that we have documented. As Heller (2009, p. 251) notes, such a heteroglossic practice
reqrnres that the story/argument presented in our results be:
an account based on systematic enqt1iry, conducted accordmg to selection principles

which I have to describe ,md justir\ [... ] in this respect, ethnogrc1phies are not ah out
what is sometimes referred to as 'g1v111g voice' to participants. It is about providing an
illurninatmg account for which the researcher is solely responsible.
So, far from ·'giving voice", \Ve reconstruet ,md reprnent the voices of the participants,
including our own. Acting as c1 participant implies making a set of decisions and facing di-
lemmas that need to be negotiated and solved (or not') as we gain access to various spaces in
the field and begin to establish relat1onships with different participants That role puts us in
a position where power relations need to be negotiated in order to establish egalitarian or
eolhborat1ve relationships with the social actors of our sites. (See Copland, this volume, and
Dudach, this volume.) In that sense, the conditions under which we construct our relation
ship'> in the field need to be addressed. Who says what to whom? How, and for what reasons?
from this point of view, methodological rel1exi,ity is not,, matter of providing a section
withm a thesis or article in which we describe 'the role of the researcher'. It is something
that neecls to be exercised throughout the process of designing (in negotiation with the
participants/people/sites) and carrying out our fieldwork, gathering and analysing our data.
This implies questioning the idealised research process (Copland & Creese, 2015), in which
fieldwork is conducted without significant ch;11lengcs. Recognising challenges does not nec-
essarily cause the ethnography to become messy, or leave us attempting to organise chaos.
Instead, a thorough 1nethodological ,md research reflexivity informs our decisions and guides
the process of finding meaning in what we observe, perceive or experience in the field with
our co-particip,mts.
A constant methodological aw;ireness might, howeYcr, leave us with the challenge of
striking a balance between the representation of the others' voices and that of our own. As
noted by Perez-Milans (2017, p. 2):
In an attempt tu cre;1te the foreground for a mediator role for themselves as applied
linguists, these researchers contribute to bridging the distance. f, .. ] Hovvever, this
researcher-centered angle lo reflexivity also raises concerns that we researchers may
end up foregrounding ourselves, at the expense of attention to other relev,mt social pro-
cesses that matter most to our participants/audiences, beyond the research process itself
(Heller, 2011).
The researcher',; voice must 1wt dominate the floor. She/he must establish a conversation
w·herein all the soci:11 c1ctors' expectations, anxieties and points of view/voices are represented.

The principle of 'relationality' (Tsits1pis, 2007) has led us to recognise tlut the ways in which
we construct specific relations with participant, shape the me ..ming co-produced in the field.
216
Reflexivity
Identity comtrnction and negotiation, positioning, voice, rnctacom1nentary and inlcrtecxtu-

ality, as vccll ;1s roles plaved by the rc,earchns in the field, have been the ccmcept11;1l lenses
thJt linguistic ethnographer, hav,, used lo give ,lll account of the way5 in which we luve
co constructed meaning ,vith the participants in our research. The same tenet extends to
the research design -- to what Lamoureux (2011), in drawing attention to all the continually
evaluated and acljusted tl'Se,u-ch stages, defines as the "Pre-. In ancl Post-fiekhvork". This
includes our choices of the methods used to gather and .rnalyse data. as \vell :,s the stance· we
take tow,u-ds the data we collect. Various authors (Hornberger, 2006; Creese, 2015) draw
attention to the fact that the degree of agency and the nature of decision-making throughout
the research process are sometimes erased fron1 the final results, Lmguistic ethnographers
have c;,,ercised reflexivity in all these areas eiLher as individual rese.uchers or when workin~
in a te;1111.
Examples of reflexive accounts are found in various published works, includmgJournals
and recent books on the topic. One of the first collections in which (socio)lingmstic eth-
nographers participated and thaL looked at rescardicrs' selfawareness in the field was the
volume Voicesfrom the Field: Identity, Lanyuage, and Power in i'\Jultilin_1:ttal Research Settings, ed-
ited by Giampap,1 and L.1moureux (2011). There, the four participating authors, including
rnvself, reflect upon the politics of identity and positioning in the field. We looked at the
negotiation and transformation of our identities throughuut the vanous research steps ,ls we
gained access to new arc.1s/dimcnsiuns nf our fieldwork. Thus for example, Perez Milans
(21111, 2013), immersed in the research oflrnguage e\lucation in Lhree schools in China,
discusses the ways in which he negotiated his representation as 'Westerner' in the various
moments of the research, and the advantages and dilemmas that such representation en-
tailed for his participation in the everyday schools' activ1Lies to \vhich he g;1111ed access.
Rdafo:i-Pastor, in turn, focusses on the multiple posiLionings that she, a, a n,searcher of
Spanish background, negotiated with a group of Mexican immigrant women participating
in the after-school programme 'La Clase Magica' in Southern California, Her interactions
with these women led her Lo understand interview, and more precisely narrative, as a site
for transformation when li,tening to ~nd interpreting their liordcr-crossing stories. She
challenged language ideologies concerning 'correct Spanish'. More recently, two volumes
published in 201.5, one edited by Copland and Creese, and a second one by Snell, Shaw and
Copland have illustrated how linguistic ethnographers work. While the former volume
presents four case ,tudies, :;uggesting fonm of acldressing practicalities (i.e, regardmg tran-
scription, translat10n, ethics, etc.) ,vhen doing LE, the latter, containing 12 aniclcs, looks
at the synergies and possible combimtions between LE and other fields (journalism, etc.),
Two important tenets from these two books are central for methodological reflexivity. The
first is that ethnography should not be seen as something '·messy and chaotic". Rather, the
ethnographic research process demands ,:ontinual and thorough methodological reflexivity
in order to make mrc that the data collected iuform the questions thaL we aim to answer.
The second cnnc,:rm the intndi,;ciplimry "genda of LE. LE, defined by Rampton (2007)
as an umbrella term, finds resonances with, and can be combined with other approaches. It
can also borrow analytical concepts and methods from other area,. As mentione,i earlier,
with regard to mnhodological rnd ,rnalvtic.11 tools, LE aligns itsel I- chiefly with linguistic
anthropolc,gy.
Team cthnognplw received special attention from Creese. Blackledge and colleagues
participatillg in two research projects on complementary ,chools (Creese et al., 21108).
Various Journal articles and book chapters give accc,uuts of the complex1tin ot re-
s,,arch1ng in a te.,m. As thev note: ''When we eugagc in such an endeavor in teams of
217
Adriana patina-Santos
researchers, the process of meaning-making is both complex and rich with potential." In
2012, Creese and Blackledge (2012, p. 306) summarised their contributions to this area
as follows:
We have previously written accounts of the roles and relationships of teams of ethnog-
raphers as they work in collaboration to investigate linguistic practices and identities
in multilingual community education settings. Creese and colleagues (2008) analyzed
the use of field notes in team ethnography in complementary schools, while Creese and
colleagues (2009) focused their attention on multilingual researcher identities. Creese
(2008, 2010, 2011) and Blackledge (2011) have written accounts oflinguistic ethnog-
raphy in action. Blackledge and Creese (2010) gave a developed account of working
in a multilingual team of researchers, demystifying the research process and making it
accessible and understandable to those who teach, study, and research in multilingual
educational contexts.
We can complete the list by adding more recent works on methodological reflexivity. Thus,
Creese and Blackledge (2012) offered an analytical approach to observing the multiple and
competing voices in team research when discussing members' field notes. Creese and col-
leagues (2015) expanded the reflection upon notes into the area of participant observation by
drawing on the concept of metacommentary as outlined by Rymes (2014) as well as in the
use of vignettes (2015). Finally, they addressed ethical issues (2016). A complete case study on
team research and the reflexivity practice demanded throughout the process of reconstruct-
ing and representing participants' voices is found in Creese (2015).
All this attention to researchers' self-monitoring has made it clear that "reflexivity is a
crucial dimension of team ethnography, and the collective work of critical reflexivity should
enable scientific reason to control itself ever more closely, in and through conflictual coop-
eration (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 122)" (Creese & Blackledge, 2012, p. 308). From my point of
view, one of the most powerful contributions made by Creese and her colleagues has been
to draw our attention to the challenges we face as researchers, working either individually
or in teams, when reconstructing and representing the polyphony, and the many tensions
between the different points of view of the multiple and sometimes competing voices. This
work becomes even more difficult
when a team of researchers makes meaning from the voices of others the histories, bi-
ographies, and ideologies of the individual researchers come into contact and come into
view as they clash, disagree, argue, negotiate, barter, compromise, and even come to
agreement.
(Creese & Blackledge, 2012, p. 317)
Creese and the other team members have brought in Bakhtin's, Volosinov's, Agha's, and
Bauman and Scherzer's ideas on the intrinsicalities of the multiple perspectives gathered in
fieldwork and on the representation of voices in ethnographic work, as well as how we, as
reporters of others' voices, are exercising power relations, not just by including and excluding
them, but also in the stance we take towards those voices. They convincingly draw on central
concepts, such as intertextuality, heteroglossia, ventriloquation, point of view and voice, to
reflect both upon the relationships between researchers and those researched, and on those
between team members.
218
Reflexivity
Implications for practice: the backstage of our research

Producing an ethnographic account entails a set of processes stemming from the researcher's
personal choices, decisions and reflection, as I have presented throughout this chapter. In
this section, as an example of reflexivity in ethnographic research, I will present the meth-
odological questions that allowed me to make sense of a complex process of resistance to
the institutional use of the Catalan language in a six-month collaborative investigation into
multilingual practices in a secondary school, Els Quatre Cats (EQG), from January to July
2008 (Unamuno & Patino, 2017). I want to show the challenges involved in synthesising the
many complexities apparent in the fieldwork into "research findings" (Creese & Blackledge,
2012). As we will see, these complexities ranged from structural ones (e.g. teachers' unstable
work situations, the fact that students dropped out once they were 16), to issues surrounding
our positioning in the field and the methodological decisions that we had to adjust over the
course of the research (e.g. the language used to address the students, the position of the
camera when video-recording classroom interaction, how to represent the oral data gathered,
amongst many others) (Figure 16.1).
Summary of research
Research project: Multilingual competences of secondary school students: continuities and
discontinuities between educational and non-educational practices. (SEJ2007-62147-EDUC-
Spanish Ministry of Education and Science.)
Background: A multilingual school located in a working class area, on the outskirts of Barcelona.
Catalan is the official language of the school, but Spanish is the dominant language for social
relations. Other repertoires spoken at the school are Spanish from Latin America (Ecuadorian
and, to a lesser extent, Colombian and Peruvian), Arabic (Moroccan variety), Berber and Punjabi.
The school has the reputation of catering to non-academically orientated students.Teachers
faced various dilemmas over whether to impose Catalan or allowing the students to use Spanish
in all the areas of the school, as well as dilemmas regarding their own positions at the school.
Most of them were non permanent.
Team aim: Collaborative research aimed at observing the continuities and discontinuities
between language practices at school and those in the family home (Unamuno and Patino-Santos
2017). Eight documentaries on the multilingual practices of the studentsinside and outside the
school were produced by them and the research team.
Data collection: six-month data collection. Participant observation, group interview with the
language teaching department of the school, classroom interaction and videos co-designed and
co-produced by the students and the research team. Following the ethical principles of
qualitative research, the participants (teachers, managerial staff, students and parents) gave
their consent to participate in the research, and the names of the school and the participants
have been anonymised.
My personal interest: Parallel to the research team's aims, children of Latin American behaviour
became my focus of attention. Latin Americans, far from being integrated, refuse to speak the
language of social access in Catalonia. Refusing to speak Catalan is seen as a sign of being a non-
academically orientated student within the Catalan education system and entails consequences
going beyond the classroom.
Figure 16.1 Summary of research
219
Adriana Patiho-Santos
The school culture at EQG: the opposing voices of dogmatism and boredom
First method: participant observation

During the six-month data collection, I could observe how the dynamtcs of the cla,s regard-
ing language behaviour remained unchanged: the te:ichcr and I spoke in Catabn, but most uf
the students, mainly those of Latin Arnerican backgrounds replied in Spanish. These students
questioned wl1y I, a researcher of Latin American background myself, did not speak Spanish
with them. In one of the first sessions, one of the students complained to me: ''l\11ss, speak
normal. You are like us." J\tly concern over the fact that their lack of Catalan would deny so-
cial opportunities to these students led me to attempt to provide some sort of model for thern.
Some points for the reflexive researcher to consider:
What previous personal experience of the widc:r social situJtiun forming a backdrop to
this particular ethnography do I have?
In what ways rnight such previous personal experience colour my undl'rstanding ufthe
other participant/ pos1tionmgs at this particular site, of the interactions I observe be-
tween them, and my own 1.nteractions with them?
What arc the po,sible consequences of the consnom decision I made as a Latin Arncricin
researcher to interact with Latin American students in C:1talan, rather than our ovvn
shared first language?
Doc's this apparent alignment with the teaching staff and the language policy of the
school create a harrier to the establishment of rela1ion:, of sufl1cien.t trust with the stu-
dent:,, and thereby impact the chances of their ,peaking openly with me?
As a dosing activity of the collaborative work, Belen, the teacher and three 1.nembers of our
research team explained to the other language teachers what we had done. However, in the
course of the interaction, there was space for the teachers to discuss and reflect upon their
views of their students' behaviour and langu:1ge uses in the school. As a methodological deci-
sion, we transcribed the oral data (interviews and cla;sroom interaction) using transcript10n
conventions adapted from Schegloff (2007), presented below, The inclusion of the voices of
the participants when rcporLing our ethnography is a vvay to acknowledge the polyphonic
nature of LE.
Second method: group interview

Participants: Teachers: Belen. Roser, Pep, Montse (n:1mcs are pseudonymised for ethical
reasons) and three researchers: Virginia. ()scar and Adrian:1 (Figure 16.2).
ln this extract, Belen defines the collaborative activity as "a discovery" and a learning
experience, as a response to my question 111 the previous turn. She makes sense ofher "discov-
ery" by offering a rationale constructed through a s1nall story (Ceorgakopoulou, 2007) where
she defines her usual practice c1s "sometimes you're dogmatic:" in contrast to being more
flexible. Dogmatic is defined as carrying out the usual activities: following the instructions in
ti 1e textbook and focussing on grammar content. Bel en's definition of dogmatism was central
for rnv reconstruction of the practices that I observed in EQGs, as discussed fmther below.
The teachers' dilemmas regarding their own practices in this school, and the mJ.terial
conditions under ,vhich they carried them out - all of which I witnessed during the
220
Reflexivity
ADR si pero si vols explicar una mica el treball de ADR yes but ifyou 'd like tu explain a bit the work
classe... quejo he portal una mica lesfitxes: in the classroo111mm .. J"ve been in charge o(the
handouts:
BEL ah val(.) a veure sohretot el que a mi em va BEL: oh OK(.) well the rhing I enjoyed the
enccmtar:: ( ... ) si una dcscoberta. un tast(.) no most.·:(.. .)
. de diferc11ts:: a mi tambc m'ha servit per aprendrc yes a discovery [the didactic intervention](.) a
molt [la intervenci6n didactica:: perq11c jo 110 m'havia taste(.) right .o{variuus:: to me it has been velJ'
plantejat mai u11a classe tan diversa(.) 110. i treien usefi,/ ()(.) J've learned a lot:: because I've never
tant de partit a tot cl quc sabcn els nanos (.)no.(.)(.) thought a/Jour such o mixed class() you know i they
normalmcnt e's com mes-:: tires mes a ser dogmatic start out with such wide-ranging knowledge(.) you
(.)no. i: per quc a vegades de dogmatic i :: deixcs know. (.)(.) normal{v it's like mare more-::!.) you
anar pel llibre::(.)L) toquen ds verbs(.) toca aixo (.) tend lo be dogmatic (.) right. and: because
loca allo (.) toca: i a vegades no ::(.) no sometimes you 're dogmatic::(.) you follow what the
ets mes flexible::(.) no cts tan obert texthook says::(.) timejiJr verbs() we have to do
this () to do that() we have to: and sometimes
you ·re not::() you 're nut more flexible ::(.J.i-ou ·re
llOI n:ry open
---------------·---------~------------------~
Figure 16.2 Group interview extract
field\vork - also emerged in 1}1e discussion. Three of the five Catalan teachers ;it the
school wen: in a situation of ternporc1ry employment, and tvvo of them had not been
trained in language education. Neither Roser, the head of the Catalan department who
had a degree in Maths, nor Belen or IVlontse had permanent contracts in the school. In
fact, 1\1ontse w<1s a ,ubstitute teacher at the time of our meeting (she Vi,as covcrit1g for
somt>hody on nuternitv le;1ve) and Belen \Yas assigned to another school in the area the
follO\viug ye.tr.
What kind of information will J be abk to collect by organising group interviews'

Would individual interviews allow me tO gather the same information'
What kind of questions would allow me to make the interview a space for the partici-
pants' own reflexivity about their own practices rather than a place where they feel they
are being assessed?
Constructing dogmatism and boredom in the practices of the classroom
Third method: classroom interaction and field notes

.After finishing the fieldwork and t.1king a look at the interaction,11 data collected, I started
to rc . ilise ho\v 'dogmatism', as defined by Belen above, was enacted in the interactional data
of the classroom. From more than 30 hours recorded in various classes, the data coming
from the Catalan class in Year "',C turnnl out to be the most suitable to show bow 'dogma-
tism' and the w,ivs in which the students rc:spondul to it were performed in the classroom
interactions. This class is an extreme example of students challenging teachers' authority.
Figure 16.3 presents the distribution of the participants in this class: the Catalan teacher,
12 students (eight of Latin American backgrounds and r<:)Ut C;ttabns, two of 'gitrno' back-
grounds). Our fr>cus will be on four mJles: Jason frmn the Dominican Republic, Dani and
Javi front Ecuador, and Ramon. Cat.tlan.
221
,j
?•f·
tf:J
I
'I
Figure 76. 3 The class
t
The topic has been established following a textbook. It is the conjugation of irregular
verbs in a tens,'. chosen by the teacher. The first activity involves the teacher selecting a
student and giving him/her a verb to be conjugated in a particular tense (see Figure 16.4).
She writes the result, on the board. The students challenge the, teacher's authority by
I
questioning the activity. Each group of participants draws on certain artefacts: the teacher
employs a traditional book of verbs and their conjugations, well-known in Caulonia
(Xunguera, 2006), the textbook and the board; the students use the camera to contest the
order of the class.
The interaction illustrates the dynamics of the activity and some of the main analytical
tools that allowed me to give an account of the tension creatt'd by the dogmatisn1-rcsistance
dynamics of the classroom:
1 1urn allocation: The usually dominant Imtiation, Response, .Evaluation sequence char-
acteristic of cfassroom discourse (IRE sequence) (Cazdcn, 1.988) is broken by frlllr mak
participants. Thus, for ex,imple, in T2, the teacher selects a student (Sandra) and assigns
her a verb and a tense to conjugate "romandre" (an old form. of "sLiy") in the relevant
tense. The teacher evaluates the ansvvcr in TS by writing it on the board. The sequence is
disturbed by Dani's self-selection in TS and Jason\ games with the camera, as illustrated
2
in Figure 16.5.
Participation framework: Over the course of the activity, four male students start to
perform a set of disruptiw actions for the c1mera: Jason, Dan.i, Ra rnon and Javi. Jason
(as observed in Figure 16.5) takes on the role of the clown, Dani, Ramon and.Javi enact
I
rhe role of"critics", quernoning the ,ictivity and the teacher's authority, as we c,rn see in
i
T 33. There, Dani points out the unchallenging nature of the activity: "the thing is(.)
,myonc seeing this recording \'I ill think we're stupid(.) doing verbs(.) to sing(.) I SING
(.) you SING," while his classmates laugh.
I ~
222
Reflexivity
- - ------ ---------·- -------~----- -------~, - - - - - - - - - - - ,

l. JAS: aqui estoy mcjor (se nrnevc y mira I. .JAS: I'm better here (he moves and looks at
a la camara y a Dani) (risa,) the camera and at Dani) (laughs)
2. PRO: romandre () va () vinga (.) a: (.) -> 2 PRO: §1!1:i. (the Catalan for stay sounds like
/'imperfect de romandre (J Sandra I (.) l<omania in Spanish) ()OK() come on(.! a:
[ru'mandr::i] () past imperfect ofto stay(.) Sandra I ()
3. SAN: ( )0 3. SAN:()°
4. PRO: /'infi11itiu 4. PRO: the infi11itive
·➔ 5. DA'.'/: DQ_llil_~ (.J ton tot, ~, 5. DAN: Ld,m 'Ueno]£(.) ton ton
(risas y voces paralelas) (laughs and paralell conversations)
6. PRO: (( )) I impe1feci de [!)1J1Qndu:_ 6. PRO: (()) the past perfect ofto stai:
7 SAN: () 0 7. SAN: ( )°
8. PRO: romania [ru'mania] (sc gira y 8. PRO: was staying (she tnrns and starts
comienza a escribir en la pizarra) writing on the bo,,rd)
(Jason se cambia de silla. Gira la cabeza, (.lason moves to the chair on his left. He turns his
mira a la camara, risas aisladas) head, looks at the camera, isolated laughs)
( .. ) ( ... )
15. JAY: [Rumania y cso que es.]°(.) que es 15 . .JAV: [was staying(.) what's that.] 0 (.) what's
eso (.) que viene de Rt1mm1ia o qui:. that(.) that comes from Romania(.) or what
Hi. PRO: (( )) vosaltres. 16 PRO:(()) you.
17. SAN: romanieu 17. SAN: you were staying
18. PRO: ( .)[/ 'a/ra?J acent en la vocal:. la i 18. PRO: (.)[the other7] stress on the vowel xxx i
(Jason mira a sus colegas y hace silencio (Jason looks at his friends and indicates
con el dedo, mira a la camara. Ramon sc silence with his finger, he looks at the
Je,anta,. se dirigc a la puerta y comienza camera) Ram6n stands up, goes to the door
a peinarse. Conversacion paralela entre and starts combing his hair. Parallel
Dani, Ramon y Jason. conversation between Dani, Ramon and
19. DAI'\: Ram,\n (.) tiencs el culo manchado Jason.
(seiiala la partc posterior del pan talon) 19. DAN: Ramon(.) you've got a mark on your
20. NIC: (a la izquiera prcgw1.ta) (romandre bottom (he points to the back of his trousers)
es un verbo.) 0 20. NIC: (on the left, asks) (to stay is a vcrb.) 0
21. PRO: (a Nicole) romadre es un verbo::
(Ramon se dirige a su silla y se levanta 21. PRO: (to Nicole) to stay es un vcrbo::
Jason) (Ramon goes back to his chair and Jason
( .. ) stands up)
24, PRO: l'lllil!! ( ... )
25. JAS: [se levanta y habla a la camara] 24. PRO: Jason
esta clase e,; un caos 1 (risas) 25. JAS: (stands up and talks to the camera) this
26. PRO: Jason(.) vole ,eu (()) (risas) class is chaotic' (laughs)
(convcrsacion inaudible entre la 26. PRO: Jason I_.) OK sit do,rn (())(laughs)
profesora y .lason en dondc de,,iden quc (inaudible conversation between the teachet
Jason co1,jugara el verbo canviar and Jason in which they decide that Jason will
( . .) conjugate the verb to change.
33. DAN: que pasa(.) que el que vea esta ( ... )
grabacion va a pensar que somos tontos 33. DAN: the thing is(.) anyone seeing this
(.) ponicodo verbos (.) cantar (.) YO recording will think we're stupid(.) doing
CA~TQ(.) ti\ CA.t,;TAS (risas) verbs(.) to sing(.) l SING(.) you SING
(la profesora mira a Dani, risas. La (laughs)
profesora mira a Jason indicandole que (the teacher looks at Dani, laughs, The
debe empezar a conjugar "canviar") teacher looks at Jason indicating that he
should start to conjugate '\anvjar" (to
change)
Figure 16.4 Classroom interaction extract
3 Artefacts used by the participants: The teacher draws on the reference book of verbs arnl
her knowledge to defend her didactic auLhority. The students use the camera and the
presence of tlie tese,uchcr to perfiirm varwm id,,ntities and signal boredom.
1
0 Representation of the d;ita: I decided tr, present the original data gathered in Cat::r1an with
a translation into Eng-lisb. I transcribed the interaction ming some oJJefferson's transcrip-
tion signs (Figutt' 1h.6), combining sorne comments from my fielchvork diary because I
believed that this would allow me to transmit the atmosphere of the classrooms at EQG,
223
Figure 16.5 Jason talking to the camera to the astonishment of his classmates and the teacher
Transcription conventions (adapted from Schegloff, 2007)
[ ] overlapping speech latching utterances

(.) micropause Underlining contrastive stress or
lengthening of the sound of preceding emphasis
letter CAPS indicates volume of speech
word cut-off ( )0 markedly softer speech
falling or final intonation SPA: extract in Spanish
? rising or question intonation CAT: extract in Catalan
Figure 76.6 Transcription conventions
In this interaction, various aspects are relevant for the study or· resistance to the te:1chers'
demand,, rneh as turn allocation.
A general overview allows us to observe the vvays :tctors participate in this cbss, including
their language uses: the teacher only speaks in Catalan and the students' preferred language
is Spanish. even though they sometimes use Catalan in a parodic way in order to carry out
different :ictions (mockery in the case ofJavi in T15, clowning when Jason talks to the camera,
etc.). None of the activities encourages the students to speak in Catabn. In the first activity, the
only CaLtLm elicited is the conjug:irion of isolated verbs, taken from a list, in a particular tense.
To what extent might the presence of the researcher and/or the camera or recording
equipment constrain or exaggerate the behaviour of thl'. participants (both the teacher
and the students)?
How can my ch01ces ,vhen positioning the recording equipment in the space - in tenns
ofhow apparent it is, its proximity to certain participants (rather than others), the camera
angle, etc. act as a filter on the data recorded by providing a particular perspective in
the final recording?
• Regarding representation: H,1w will my later transcription of the interactive data affect
the way it is subsequently interpreted)
224
Reflexivity
Epilogue
Attention to ;il] these pieces of data allowed me to understand the ways in wluch these
participants constructed the category 'dogmatic teaching' and the responses from the stu-
dents, mostly of Latin American backgrounds. L1ter Jturc on resistance shows how students
of migrant b,1ckgrounds eng:1ge in social activities rather thdn academic ones when they do
not believe that what they are learning is beneficial to them (Erickson, 1987). Two months
later, the teacher was sent to another school and Jason lefr school when be turned 16. It
was only by continually reflecting ou my own positioning in the ,ite and the rnethods and
tools that we were using to collect the data that we could manage to identify and analyse
the structural and interactional complc;-;itics that shaped the relationships in this school.
Thus, for example, realising that language choice (between Spanish and Catalan), and the
roles that I decided to play in various moments (as an assistant teacher, JS a researcher) had
consequences for the reLttionships tlut l established with th<' various groups of ,ocial actors
involved (students and t<'achers), an<l hence for the data that 1/,ve collected. Methodolog-
ic:11 reflexivity was also impurt:1 nt in deciding on the methods that we used to gather the
data. Thus, we realised that asking questions within a formal interview might be receive<l
by the teachers as an assessment of their work. for that reason, integrating into their own
daily activities, such as routine teachers' meetings ,md inviting them tu reflect upon their
own practices created a friendly space for critical self-reflection within a group discussion.
Reflexivity also helped us recognise unexpected behaviour at the sites we visited, and how
to cope with this. The fact that the students ofYear 3C, for example, used the camera and
our presence in the backstage of the class to resist the order of the CJtaLm lesson ck1llenged
our expectations of the students· behaviour in relation to our presence. Although the other
stndents in the school often felt embarr:issed by being observed and recorded, mainly at
the beginning of activities, this could not be assumed to be a general pattern ofbeh:1viour.
We had to look at ways of dealing with the so-called 'difficult students', m:1inlv by col-
laborating with the teachers in the implementation of creative activities. This allowed us
to observe the class as members of the didc1ctic team and avoid the d;mger of the teachers
feeling judged, as they might have done in the case of a more 'passive' observation. finally,
it should also be noted that this reflexivity was exercised both individually and as a team,
which proved to be beneficial in gaining ajoint Lmderstanding of,vhat was going on in the
data (Cod,, and Patii'w-Santos, 2n14).
Future directions
There is a general consensus that research in applied linguistics, and particularly in LE, is
about ''real world" problerns (Rampton et ,11., 2015). This chimes in \Vith the shift in so-
ci,11 sciences research in the UK, concerned with interdisciplinary knowledge production.
This shift, known as Mode 2 research (No,votny et al., 2001), has to do with the fact that
"the research and higher education funding councils have increased the emphasis on inter-
disciplinary work that takes real-world problems as a starting point, that involves coll ab,
oration with stakeholders, and that reckons explicitly ,vith impacts beyond the academy"
(Rampton et ;il., 2015). /\.n example of this is the ongoing project Translation and Translan-
guagi11g, a linguistic ethnographic research project on multilingual practices in public and
private settings in four sites: Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and London. The research is
being conducted in collaboration vvith universities 10 e,tch ward, in the domains or busine.;s
and entrepreneurship, ,port, libr,irirs and 1t111seu111s, and legal advr'.ce. (http://www.birmingbam.
225
Adriana Patir10-Santo~
ac.uk/generic/tlang/index.aspx). l consider that interdisciplinarity in this sense calls for

methodological reflexivity when collaborating with stakeholders and communities outside
academia as well as when considering ways of presenting results, both to academics and to
gn1eral audiences.
Further reading
Blommaert, J (2018). Dial,;,ues with ethnography. ;,h,tcs 011 c/,1_,sio, and how I read the111. Bristol: Multi-
lingual Mattns. (Dlommaert engages in an cpist,·molugicd reflective exercise hy presenting Jnd
discussing the .mtl,ors that have influenced his vie,.vs on ethnography. Ideas from Bourdieu. Fabian,
Cicourel and f-hmc:s. amongst many others, arc tr:Ked to show the path of this influence explicitly.
[lakhtin's ideas are brought to the field to open avenues on the implication on dialogism and het-
croglossia in ethnography.)
Copland, F., Cree,e, A., Rock, F., & Shaw, S.E. (2015). Linguistic etlmograpliy: Collectin,?, analysing ,md
presenting data. London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage. (This practical book focusses
on four case studies in which the authors present their research practices by looking at their choices
throughout the research process they followed. The book shows how dealing with complexities and
decision-making .u-c '"Peets of doing linguistJC ethnography.)
Snell, J., Shaw, S., i'-c CopLrnd, F. (Eds.) (2015). Li11_(11i,ric rt/11uxr.1phy: Interdiscip/inll1y Bas-
ingstoke: l'algrave. (Tliis volume offers, for both c,,;t;ib]ished linguistic ethnugraphos and early
career researchers, c:i,e studies that illustrate mctboclolo'.!,Jcal reflexivity when conducting interdis-
ciplinary rcscc1rd1, either rndividually, in teams or rnlbhor.1tively.)
Related topics
Hetcroglossia; Ethics; Participant observation and field notes; Language diversity in classroom settings.
References
Blackledge, A. (2011). Lin,c;uistic ethnography. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Bourdieu. Langudge llnd
(pp, 121-14<,). London: Continuum.
Blackledge, A .. & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualis111: A ,ntic<1/ pc1spective. London: ConLium,rrL
Blommaert, J. (20()7). Commentaries, On scope and depth rn Iinguistic ethnography. Joum,11 uf Socio-
linguistics, 11(5), f'i82~688.
Blommaert, J. (2015). Dialogues with ethnography paper). Ti/burr: Pape1s in C11/t11rc 5tuclies,
Peiper 138. Tilburg University. Available from https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/f8fc43f0-
8(Jcd-455b-aedf-b3e1d6720285_TPCS_l38-Blommaert.pdf (Accessed 15th June 2017),
Bourdieu, P. (1992). The practice of reflexive sociology (The Paris Workshop). In P. Bourdieu & L.J.D.
Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation to reflexive sociolosy (pp, 217-255). Cambridge and Oxford: The Uni-
versity of Chicago and Polity Press and Blackwell Publishers Ltd,
Bourdieu, P. (2000). A1scalia11 mcdit<1tions. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cazden, C, (.1980). Cl,mroom discourse: The langu,1gc of1c<1d1i11i ,wd learning. London: Heinrn,rnn.
Cicourel, A. (J 98.::'). Interviews, surveys and the problelll <)f ecological validity. The Amcriu111 Soriolugist,
17, 11-20.
Cod6, E., & P atiho-Sant,,s, A, (2014). Beyond Lrng11a'.;c: CLiss, social categoris.1tion am! :icadernic
achievement in .1 Catalan high school. Linguistir., <111d Ed11,dti,1n, 25, 51-63.
Copland, F., Creese, A, Rock, F., & Shaw, S. (:'(Jl'i). bthno~r,zp/zy and language in tl1c sc•clc1/ sdc11cn: Col-
leafrzR, andysing and presenting dut,1. London: SAGE.
Creese, A. (2008). Linguistic ethnography, fn N. Hornberger (Ed,), Encyclopedia of language and education
(pp. 3424-3436). New York, US: Springer.
Creese, A. (2010). Methodology and pedagogy in educational lrnguistics: Researching and teaching
in linguistically diverse schools. In F. Hult (Ed.), Directions m1.d prospects for eduwtioni1l lin2uislics
(pp. 33-48). New York: Springer,
Creese, A. (2011). !VL1k1JJg local practices globally relcvc1nt in researching multilinguCJI cduc:.1tion. In
H. Hult & K.A. King (Eels.), Educational lingui,tics 111 pracn,c (pp. 41-55). Bristol: Multtlinguc1l Matters.
226
Reflexivity
Creese, A. (2015). Case study one: Reflexivity, voice and representation in linguistic ethnography.
In F. Copland, A. Creese, F. R.ock, ,'x S. Shaw (Eds.) L.ing11i,tic ctlinog1<1plzy: collecting, analysing ,ind
presenting data (pp. 61-88). London: SAGE.
Creese, A., Bhatt, A., Bhojam, N., & Martin, P (2008). fiddnotes in team ethnography: Researching
complementary schools. Qualitatiue Research, 8(2), 223-242.
Creese, A .. Bhatt, A., & Mart.i.n, P. (2(109). Multilingual researcher identities: Interpreting
linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms. In J. Miller, M. Gearon, & A. Kostogriz (Eds.)
Lii,/;uistit,illy ,uid wl111rally diverse classroo,ll,: New dilcliltnas Jor tec1chers (pp. 215-233). Clevedon:
Creese. A., & Blackledge, A. !2012). Voice and meaning-making in team ethnography. /Jnt/m>pology &
education quarterly, 43(3), 306-324.
Creese, A .. Takhi, J.K., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Metacommentary in lingui,tic ethnography. In
J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Lin_?uistic ethnography: lnterdisClplinary explorations (pp. 266-283).
Basingstoke: blgrave Macmillan.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context. Lmguage as an intrn1cti11e phenon1enon. Cambridge:
Carn.bridge Umversity Press.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropolo,f:y. Cambridge: Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.
Erickson, f. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational
achievement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18,(4), 335-356.
Flynn, P., Van Praet, E., & Jacobs, G. (2010). Introduction: Emerging linguistic ethnographic
perspectives on institutional discourses. Text & Talk, 30(2), 97-103.
Foley, D.E. (2002). Critical ethnography: The reflexive turn. h1ternc1tional}ournal of QualiMtiue St11dies
in Education, 15(4), 469-490.
(;eorgakopoulou, A. (2007). S111,1/l stories, iuteraction ,md identities. Amsterdcun: John Benjamins
Publishmg.
Giampapa, F, & Lamoureux. S.A. (2011). Voices from the field: Identitv, language, and po,ver in
multilingual research settings. Journal of L,mguage, Identity D Educ,11ion, 10(3), 127-1.31.
I !eller, M. (\'196 [2006]). Li11g11istic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnc,graphy (2nd ed.). London
and New York: Continuum.
Heller, M. (2009). Doing ethnography. In L. Wei & M. Moyer (Eds.), Blackwell guide to research methods
in bilin_guaUsm and multilingualism (pp. 249--21,2). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Heller, M. (2011). "E-seminar" (May 4-23, 2011), in collaboration with UK Linguistic Ethnography
Forum (UKLEF), involving Professor Monica I-Jeller (Univ. of Toronto) and Professor Melissa
Moyer (Autonomous Univ. of Barcelona). Available from www.uklef.net
Hornberger, N. H. (200f,). Negotiating methodological t·ich points in applied linguistics research. I\n
ethnographer', view. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C.A. Chapelle, & P.A. Duff (Eds.), Inference and
_generali.zability in applied liu_guistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 222-240). Amsterdam and Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins.
Hymes, D. (1996). Etluw_graphy, lin_guistics, nan,,tive i11equali1y. London: Taylor and Francis.
Lamoureux, S. (2011). Commentary. Navigating pre-, in-, and post-fieldwork: Elements for consider-
ation. Journ,11 o/Langua_ge, Identity and Educ<1rion, 10(3), 206-211.
Martin Rojo, L. (2010). Constructi11;.1; inequality in multilingual classrooms. Berlin and New York: Walter
de Cruyter.
Maybin, J., & Tusting, K. (2011). Linguistic etlm~graphy. In J. Simpson (Ed.) Routledge handbook of applied
liu ~11istics (pp. Sl 5-52S). Abingdon: Routledge.
0
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, .M. (2001). Rethinhing science: Power ,md the public in an age 4 uncer-
tai11ty. Crn1bridge and Malden. MA: Polity Press and Blackwell.
Patifio-Santos, A. (2011). Negotiating power relation, and ethnicity in a sociolinguistic ethnography
in fVladrid. ]011r11.al ,f Lang1wge, Identity, and tduc<1rion, I0(3), 145-1(,3.
Perez-Milans, M. (2011). Caught in a "West/China Dichotomy": Doing critical sociolinguistic
or
ethnography in ZheJiang schools. Joumal Lan ~u,,_ge, Identity and Educarion, 10(3), 164-18.5.
0
Perez-Milans, M. (2013). Urban sclwols and English language educ,iiion in late modem China: A critic,il
sociolinguistic etl11w_graphy. New York: J<outkdge.
Perez-Milans, M. (2017). Reflexivity and social change in applied linguistics. AILA Review, 29(1),
1-14.
Rampton, B. (2007). Neo-Hymesian linguistic ethnography in the United Kingdom. Journal of
Sociolingui,tics, 11(5), 584--607.
227
Rampton, B. (2010). Linguistic ethnography, interactionJ.l sociolinguistics and the study of identities.
In C. Coffin, T. Lillis, & K. O'Halloran (Eds.), Applied linguistics 1nethod.,: A re<1der (pp. 232--248).
London and New York: The Open University and Routledge.
Rampton, B., Maybin J., & Roberts C: (2015). Theory and method in linguistic ethnography. In J.
Snell, S. Shaw, & f. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic etlinogr,1phy: Interdisciplin,zry explorations (pp. 14-50).
Basingstoke: Palgnve Macmillan.
RcLnio Pastor, A.M. (2011). Crossing language and identity'" a critical border etln1ugr:1pher in South-
ern Ca!ifornia.Joumc1/ o{Languagc, Identity & Education, 1/J(J), 186-205.
Rym.es, B. (2014). Marking communicative repertoire through metacommentary. In A. Creese & A.
Blackledge (Eds.) Heter(>glossia as practice @d pedagogy. New York & London, UK: Springer.
Sarangi, S., &: Cmdlin. C.N. (2001) Motivation;tl relevancies: Some methodological reflections on
sociolinguist1c practice. Jn N. Coupland, S. Sar:mgi, ix C. Candlin (Eds.) Sorioli11,guistics ,md .,ocial
theory (pp. 350-388). Edinburgh: Pearson.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence 01;,;:,mization in interaction: A primer in coni1crsation Volume "/.
C,mbridge: Cambridgt University Press.
Schutz, A. (1 ')h2). Collcacd papers I: The problem o( social rc,1/iry. Ed. by M. Natamon. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff
Snell, J., Shaw, S., & Copland, F. (Eds.) (2015). Lin2uistic ethnography: interdisciplinary explorations.
Tsibipis, L. (2007). Relatinnality in souolinguistJCs: A dialogue with Ii nguistic ethnography. .Jo11r11al ef
Sociolir,guistics, /1(5), 626-640.
Tnsting, K., & Maybin, J. (2007). Linguistic ethnography and interdisciplin;irity: Opening the discus-
sion.Jounul ,if Sociolinyui.,tics, 11(:i): 575-583.
Una,.nuno, V., '"'- Patino.!\. (2017). Producing knowledge c1bout plurilingualism wilh young students:
A challenge for collaborative ethnography. In E. J\foore & M. Dooly (Eds.), Qualitative approaches
to research on pl11rili1121-1al educlltion (pp. 129-149). Dublin, Ireland and Voillans, France: Research-
puhlishing net.
Xunguera,J.B. (2006) Eis Virbs [The ,:(,·cr/,s]. Terns~ :mdBarccloua: Cbret Text.
228
17
Digital approaches in
linguistic ethnography
Piia Voris and Mingyi Hou
Introduction
It has by now become a truism to say that the emergence of digital technologies as a mass mc-
diurn for cornmunicat1on in the last two decade, or so has introduced all kinds ofckmges in
how we communicate and live our live, (Androutsopoulos, 2006a; Baron, 2008; boyd, 2008;
Herring, 2011; Miller, 2011; Jones et al., 2015; Blommaert, 2018). Consequently, new types
of research have appeared to address these changes, and existing, established approaches -
(linguistic) ethnography included - have adjusted thcn1selves to be able to address these new
environments and their influence on communication, social relationships and societies at
large.
While quite a large number of ethnographic studies analysing digital communications
have emerged, at the same time there is no one coherent body of work. These studies also
appear under different labels, such as virtual ethnography (l line, 2000), internet ethnugraphy
(boyd, 2008) ;md digital ethnography (Vari,, 2016; Maly, 2017, 2018a; Hou, 2018a; see also
Pink et al., 2016 for ;1 less linguistically oriented account). While these studies all shJre an
ethnographic approach, they also have their theoretical and methodological differences. for
instance, some draw more heavily on media studies, and others on sociology; some combine
both on line and offlinc data. while others focus on online environments only; they also differ
in terms of the kind of ethnographic tradition they rely on as well as the degree to which
they pay close attention to !Jnguage. At lhe same time, a new sub-discipline of anthropology,
namely digital anthropology (Miller & Slater, 2000; Horst & Miller, 2012), has also come
into being in the last two decades. While the insights generated by this new sub-discipline
cm be of interest to linguistic ethnographers, similarly to m.rny c,ther ethnographic studies
on digital conununication, the kin cl of c1ttentio11 to details of com1nunication found in lin-
guistic ethnography is often missing (cf Rampton et al., 2015, p. 32).
In this respect, within ethnographic rescirch on digital communication, it 1s the digital
ethnographic work mentioned above that i, closest to the interests uf linguistic ethnog-
raphers. Labelling the approach digital ethnography also has the added advantage of not
prioritising the 'online' dnnension (as in e.g. uirtual ethnography, implying that the 'offiine'
is excluded), or m.1king the online-offi1ne distinction relevant per se from the outset. \Vith
229
Piia Varis and Mingyi Hou
'digital', we rcfr:r to coinmunication shaped digital technologies. As thi, has both ·online'
and 'offiine' dimemwns (fr,r instance, a tweet may appear online on Twitter, hut it is always
produced in a specific oflline context with maternl objects such as smartphones or laptops),
prioritising one or the other a priori does not seem Justified. We do not therefore propose that
a digital approach tu linguistic ethnography should bv default only include 'onlme' d:1ta, or
on the other hand always include 'offiine' data, too. Rather, digital ethnography is interested
in the ways in which people use language, interact with each other, employ discourses and
construct communities, collectives, knowledge and identities, through and influenced by
digital technologies. What kmd of data and field site, each researcher will encounter and use
to this end depends on the shape of each individual study.
The theoreticd and methodological tenets of linguistic ethnography arise from a strategic
combination oflingmstics with ethnography. \Vhile ethnography helps re,earchers to arrive
at a deeper understanding of the phenomena studied through an in-depth investigation of
the contexts in which they occur, linguistics 'ties ethnography down' through a systematic
analysis of language (Rampton et al., 2015), This complementarity is also part and parcel of
the language-focussed studies on digital media assuming an ethnographic approach.
However, early digital ethnographic works did not necessarily treat language as a primary
object of enquiry. Early research on 'cyberspace· in the 1990s, on e.g. MU Ds (multiphyer
virtual worlds; the acronym referring to 'Nlulti-User Dungeon', or 'Multi-User Domain/
Dimension') or U,enet newsgroups, considered the internet as a transcendental space (Hine,
2015, p. 33). C)nline identity and virtual community wefl' the 'twin pillars' c,f acackmic dis-
cussions (Silver, 2000), where interaction and identity performance were presented as being
qualitatively different from those in offiine contexts (Robinson & Schulz, 2009). The charac-
teristic features of the internet of that time - e.g. that it was mainly textual and anonymous
were taken as liberating in the sense that they were believed to transcend the enduring power
structures of offiine environments (Turkle, 1995; Stone, 19%). Online, in other words, it \;vas
possible to be whoever one wanted to be, and (consequently) subvert offline social arrange-
ments and hierarchies.
While early ethnogr,1phic studies in thi., area may not have labelled themselves :is linguis-
tic ethnogL1phy, they were nonetheless somerimes strengthened by a close analym of inter-
action at the micro level. Exploring the emergence of community in newsgroups dedicated
to discussions of soap opera, Baym (1995) o:e1mine,l participants' language practices such as
genre, strategies :rnd topics of disagreement, and humour. Similarly, Campbell (2006) ex-
plored how digitalised (white) skin head identity was negotiated onlinc through participants'
textual performance and meta-linguistic activities such as mimickrng accented speeches.
On the other hand, a large number of studies have since explored bnguage on the internet
and computer-mediated communication, but a great majority of them have done so without
adopting an ethnographic approach. From the label 'computer-mediated communication',
we may already infer that early studies tonk as their starting point a councction between
the nature ofLmguage Jnd its situation of'bcing rncdiatcd'. There was thus ,.1t le;ist a degree
of technologic.d determinism in these studies. i.e. the Hlca that the technology or medium
in question .rnd its fr.1tures determined the n:iture oflinguistic and cultmal nuterial found
there. As Andromsopoulos (2006a) points ouL the fir,t wave of these stUtlies contextualised
online linguistic features and strategies solely against the features of the medium in ques-
tion. Due to the focus on the rnedium, data were thus conceptualised in isolation from its
230
Digital approaches
discursive and social contexts. The appearance of the notion of 'netspeak' (Crystal, 2001) to
characterise online communications is indicative of the understanding of the language used
in online communication as being "distinct, homogeneous and indecipherable to outsiders"
(Androutsopoulos, 2006b, p. 420).
The second wave of computer-mediated communication studies, on the other hand, was
informed by pragmatics, sociolinguistics and discourse studies, emphasising situated lan-
guage use and linguistic varieties. In the second wave, researchers investigated whether a
specific offiine sociolinguistic phenomenon, such as multilingualism, linguistic ideologies
or sociolinguistic innovation, appeared in comparable ways in the new online environ-
ments (see the edited volume by Danet and Herring (2007), and the 2006 special issue of
Journal of Sociolinguistics edited by Androutsopoulos). However, as in the first wave of re-
search, the analysis oflog data - collections of "characters, words, utterances, messages, ex-
changes, threads, archives, etc." (Herring, 2004, p. 339) - still remained the main approach.
Although some studies in this strand adopted an ethnographic framing of the data (Su, 2007;
Barton & Lee, 2013), they focussed on what in traditional sociolinguistic terms, borrowing
Pennycook & Otsuji, (2014) words, consisted either of examining language-to-language
relations (bilingualism and code-switching) or language-to-person relations (identity con-
struction, as in the case of the above-mentioned studies). They thus did not necessarily share
the specific epistemology of linguistic ethnography which aims at gaining insights into the
"mechanism and dynamics of social and cultural production in everyday activity" through
"close analysis of situated language use" (Rampton et al., 2004, p. 2).

Going beyond the first and second waves identified earlier, some central questions at this mo-
ment for those researching language and digital environments, in the words ofJones (2016,
p. 235), include
(...) how discourse circulates in networks, how selves (as discursive constructions) be-
come instantiated in webs, how the nodes and ties of networks are created and strength-
ened through the moment by moment conduct of social interaction, and how people
'talk' with algorithms.
An increasing amount of work addressing these issues already exists (see e.g. Rymes, 2012;
Leppanen et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2015; Varis & Blommaert, 2015; Georgakopoulou, 2016;
Blommaert, 2018; Prochazka, 2018). It forces us to consider questions of interaction, agency
and context. Context in linguistic ethnography is "(...) conceived as dynamic, interactively
accomplished, and intrinsic to communication" (Rampton et al., 2015, p. 26). However,
questions of context in digital communication have been mainly limited to the immediate
'micro' context of interaction, or the 'macro' context of broader societal discourses and
developments. This means that one specific context - the digital media and technologies
themselves- has largely been ignored (see however Hou, 2018c; Varis, 2017). This regardless of
the fact that, as van Dijck (2013, p. 29, emphasis original) has pointed out, a digital platform
is "(...) a mediator rather than an intermediary: it shapes the performance of social acts instead
of merely facilitating them." Digital environments, thus, are very much part of the "mecha-
nism and dynamics of social and cultural production in everyday activity" mentioned above
(Rampton et al., 2004, p. 2). In practice, this refers to things like 'like' buttons, functions to
share and repost, favouriting, editing and so on. And, in terms of the ways in which people
231
'talk' with algorithms as mentioned above, this IHs to do with people's digital literacies and
strategies to determine hov,: algorithms work in different environments such as dating ap-
plications, social n1.edia sites and websites usmg recommendation systems, and making prag-
matic inferences regarding their workings Qones, 2015, 2018). In terms of communication
and social practices, digital aflordances can also, for instance, be employed for 'algorithmic
activism' (Maly, 20186) where individuals and groups can rnflu<'nce the visibility of cert,1in
social media posts by interacting with them 111 c<'rtain ways the issue of discourse and
visibility onhne, sec also Hanell and Salci, 2017).
As Rampton et al. (2015, pp. 30-31) put it,
The contL·xts in which people commumcatc are partly local and emergent, continuously
readjusted tu the contingencies of action unfulding from one moment to the next, but
they are aho mfused with information, resources, expectations and experiences that
originate in, circulate through, ,md/or are destined for networks, media and processes
that can be very different in their reach and duration.
A central critical 1.ssue for digital approaches in lmguistic ethnography therefore has to do
w1th how to study and explain practices while accounting for the mediating digital context
without falling into the kind of technological determinism mentioned above in the context
of the first wave of research on computer--mediated communication. Under 'Future direc-
tions' below, \Ne .indicate certain interdisciplinary possibilities for addressing these issues.

Androutsopoulos (2008, p. 2) was one of the first scholars to outline an ethnographic ap-
proach to "sociaHy-oriented linguistic studies" on digital mcdi1. Responding to the prevalent
use oflog data in sociolinguistic studies of digital commurncation, he argued that "research
based exclusively on log data 1s not ideally positioned to examine participants' discourse
practices and perspectives or to relate these practice, and perspectives to observable patterns
oflanguagc use" (Androutsopoulos, 2008, p. 2). What he labelled as 'discomse-centred on-
line ethnography' was designed lo "combine the systematic observation of selected sites of
online discourse with direct contact with its social actors" (f\ndroutsopoulos, 2008, p. 2).
In doing so, this approach a11mvs for "reconstn1ctmg fields oC cornputer-mediated discourse,
reconstructing participanLs' literacy practices, and analysing their sociolinguistic awareness"
(Androutsopoulos, 2008, p. l). Androutsopoulos has investigated, for instance, the formation
of sociolinguistic style and hip hop on the German-speaking weh (Androutsoponlos, 2007)
:,s \vell as multilingual practices on diaspora \Nebsites in Germany (Androutsopoulos, 2006b).
More recent digital appro,1ches try to meet the challenge of "understandfmg] and ex-
plain[ing] people's life-worlds and cornmunicative practices comprehensively" (Varis, 201.6,
p. 60). The "embedded, embodied and everyday" nature of the contemporary internet
(Hine, 2015) also implies that digital communications play an important integral part in
people's lives. Tliis is one of the mues that St~ebr and his colleagues (St;:ehr, 2014; N0rreby &
Moller, 2015: St:ehr, 2015; Stxhr & Madsen, have engaged with in the Amager project
(Madsen et al., 2013) which investigates multilingual and multicultural practices of adoles-
cents and children in Copenhagen.
Making an import;rnL contribution to understanding digitally mediated lifeworlds and
communicatin· practices, Stcdir and colleague~ cu11ceptualisc the online dimension in relation
to the specific rescirch aims and participants of the project. As Stc.ehr and Madsen (2015, p. 68)
232
Digital approaches
point out, "any study of the social and linguistic life of contemporary youth can hardly over-
look that a significant part of young people's everydciy communication involves or takes place
in social media." This point of departure necessitates the inclusion of social media communi-
cation into their accounts of contemporary sociolinguistic processes. Fur instance, one of their
case studies (SL:ehr, 2015) illustrates how social media and the written discourse they entail
feature in current processes of enregisterment (see Agha, 2007). This study oflanguage use on
social media complements existing research on lingmstic change vd1ich has predominantly fo-
cussed on spoken language. St;1::hr and Madsen (2015) have also found that adolescents increas-
ingly use more monolingual and standard linguistic practices in their hip-hop productions on
YouTube, a radically different scene compared to that of previous conceptualisations of hip-
hop as a subversive cultural practice. They suggest that digital connnunication in this case also
needs to be contextualised in rehtion to adolescents' everyday sociolinguistic practices, for
instance offline hip-hop mentoring classes and club activ1t1es. Also within the Amager project
studying Copenhagen youth, N0rreby and Moller (201':i) ex,tmined how students apply eth-
nic categories in cre,1ting and maintaining friencbhip ties, and to tease and flirt, on Facebook.
illustrating how social media is "a brilliant tool for constructing and acknowledging identity
with the possibilities for making nmltimodal posts ... " (2015, p. SU).
Digital com.munication has also received the attention oflinguistic ethnographers in pro-
fessional settings. Van Hout (2015, p. 72), with the business news desk of a Belgian newspa-
per as his ethnographic site, has investigated "how a ne,,vs story about government research
funding makes its ,,vay into the newsroonL onto the reporter's computer screen, and into
the newspaper". The study combines different kinds of data, collected through physically
co-present ethnographic observation and software screen recording of journalists' writing
practices and intervie\vs unmediated and mediated fieldwork - to track newsroom text tra-
jectories across time and space (Van Hout, 2015, p. 76). While the studies within the Amager
project mentioned above conceptualise students' online linguistic practices and offline social
processes a, mutually contextualising, Van Hout's research connects the mediated on-screen
and face-to -fau, practices in foliowing the news flow.
Swinglehurst's (2015) linguistic ethnography of Electronic Patient .Records (EPR) in
healthcare settings examines how this digital technology regiments clinic consult;itions and
interactions. Swinglehurst analysed in detail a disruptive moment when che computer system
in the clinic is down. She (Swinglehurst, 2015, p. 98) found that the medical practitioner's
"embodied pracnces have become so finely tuned to incorporate the technology that to con-
duct the clinic without it has become almost i1npossible". She concludes from the scene that
"consultation could not progress without nurse, patient and (working) tern.plate lprovicled
by the d1gital system] all co-present" (Swinglehurst, 20J S, p. 98). Moreover, she argues that
the use ofEPR in consultation interactions cm plug the "here and now' conversation into
the 'there and then' institutional context. For example, while the medical practitioner may
not personally initiate an enquiry into a patient's smoking history, the computer, in practice
the comult:ition template issued by the institution, prompts him or her to do so. For une,
Swinglehurst's study demonstrates the embeddedness of digital technology into daily life and
professional scttmgs. Indeed, as Hine (2015) suggests, once che internet chsappears mto the
background JS infrastructure, researchers may need to rc--topicahse the digital infrastructure
to exarninc its role in people's life·,vorlds. In Swinglehurst's study, the EPR system is re-
topicalised at the moment of its absence. From another perspective, Swinglehurst's research
also demonstrates ho,v digital technology 1s not only a tool used by people, but it is also ,1
mediator regimenting situated interaction, in this case injecting institutional framings onto
the event - an issue we h1ghlighted above, and wlll return to below under ·Future directions'.
233
As digital media afford multimodal communication, linguistic ethnographers may also

need to attend to a whole :1rray of dif!:e:rent semiotic repertoires and include elements such
as (moving) images, emoticons ::md music in their analysis (see e.g. Rymes, 2012; Leppiinen
et al., 2014 on repertoires and resemiotisation online). For instance, Hou (2018a, 2018b)
has investigated the global virality of the music video Gangnam Style and shows how this
Korean popular music video is a heterogeneous comLruct composed of divene semiotic re-
sources. Mo,L of the .ue in Korean, sat1nsing the bbtant consumerism in lhe Gangnam
district of Seoul. This 11nplies that the musi,- video is :1 popular culture corn rnochtv produced
and aimed Lo be clistnbuted in the local South Korean market. However, its visual repre-
sentation of metropolitan environments, be.1ch holidays and fancy sports ens J ho speak:, to
global audiences living Western lifestyles, thus fimctioning as a viral multimodal semiotic
resource in en-globalising cbe music video (Blonunaert, 2012). The multimodal transcul-
tural flows afforded by digit,1! media also received attention in the above-mentioned Amager
project in Copenhagen. Apart from attending to adolescents' sociolinguistic practices online
and offiinc, Staehr (2014) also finds, for instance, that the transcultural and transnational
(online) Illumm.1ti unagery is appropriated bv adolescent schoolboys to construct group
solidarity in theu lives.

Copland and Creese (2015, p. identify four approaches to data collection and analysis
characteristic oflinguistic ethnography, namely "interviews, fieldwork, interactions and
text". When adapting these to digital environments, linguistic ethnographers will en-
counter both similarities with, as well as challenges uncharacteristic of, offiine research.
For instance, it is suggested that observation in fieldwork may involve shadowing the
participants, following them from one setting to drJother. Such movement also neates
opportunities fiir an informal 'on the hoof interview "( ... ) while the researcher and
participant cHl' moving from one space to another" (Copland & Creese, 21) 15, p. In
digital enviwnmeut, on the other hand, moving from one space to another
or going 'offline' is likely to mean a breakdown lll rnteraction with the rescarcbC'r. Eth-
nographic practices such as shadowing and on the hoof interviews do therefore face lim-
itations in digital environments. Nevertheless, a geographically bounded field site makes
little sense in today's ethnographic efforts, whether online or offline. Blonunaert and
De Fina (2015) indicate that contemporary cultural practices are polycentric, orienting
towards multiple evaluative centres, and being enabled and sanctioned by ever-changing
TimeSpace configurations. Beneito-Montagut (2011) sL1ggests that, instC'ad of focus,ing
on predeterrninc'd sites, the ethnography of online interpersonal conu11unic1tion should
be 'user-centred', thus being sensitive to users' multi-situated use of communicative
tools. SimiLnJy, the mohile (Bushery &. and multi-sited (Marcus. 1'>95,
2012) conccptu a Iisation of a field site is propagated hy Hine (2015) to study the ernbed-
ded, embodied ,tnd e,,crvday internet. Instead ofbC'ing predefined, a field c111erges in the
process of the ethnographer's reflexive engagement with what he or she is researching,
and in digital environments, the scale and scope of movements (both that of users as
wdl as of :,emiotic materials) can be overwhelming due to their networked, connective
aJfordances (see Hine et al., 2009 for a discussion on qualitative internet researchers
defining the boundaries of their projects). Once linguistic ethnographers subscribe to
conceptiom Ii kc 1tet \\ urks of text, artefacts. ,md technologies (Gou rLty cl al.,
2013) as their it is less important tu make distinctions between ''being on line and
234
Digital approaches
of:lline, between real ,md virtual, ,md between paper text ,md screen text" (Pennycook,
2018, p. 48). This is also whv we proposed in the b<:'ginning of this chapter to defmc:
digital communication as shaped by digital technologies with both online and offiine
dimensions, without prioritising one or the other c1 priori.
As we saw in the discussion above on current comributions, ethnogrnphers studying 'dig-
ital communication' also conduct their fieldwork and collect data differently depending on
how they conceptualise communicition, and the issue at hand. Researchers in the Amager
project have v:itnessed their adolescent particip,mts watching YouTube videos on their nw-
bile phones and discussmg online phenomena during class breaks at school. Drawing a com-
prehensive picture of the communicative worlds of the adolescents should thus include both
the ·online' and 'offiine' dimensions. The approach to digit;il media in the studies by Van
Hout (2015) and Swinglehurst (2015) mentioned above is different clue to the specific pro-
fess10nal settmgs of their ethnographies. Digital media in these cases are 'cultural ,1rtefacts'
(Hine, 2U00), technictl tools used with ,ituated goals_ The ethnographers demonstr:1te how
the technologies :ire incorporated in the practices of professional work, and also exert agency
in regimenting the working experience as suggested by Swinglehurst (201 These studies
also employed 'traditional' offiine field work, while, for imtance, rn the case of Hou\ (2018a,
2018b) research on Gangnam Style as ~ transient transnational and transcultural flow, the
aim was to delineate the multimodal text trajectories of the music video on the internet,
especially how it is transformed into loci! versions (paroches oCthe original). To this end, Lhe
ethnographic work w:1s conducted solely 011 line.
However, following the movements and mobility of participants and cultural practices in
digital environments does not presume that the ethnographer\ activities are t:lking place in
the same ti1ne frame as those of the participants - they can rather be ;1ccessed as an archive
of activity. This means that "enl!re histories of activity can be made into data with a cou-
ple of clicks without ever havmg witnessed the interactions while they actually unfolded"
(Varis, 2016, p. fi2). In other words, "( ...) ethnography cm be time-shifted so that the eth-
nographer's engagement can occur after the events with which they engage happened for
participants. Ethnographer and participants no longer need to share the same Lime fran1e"
(Hine, 2000, p. 2.3). \Vhile the argument on be made that t11ne shifted ethnography does
not grant the researcher similar access to people's experience as 'real-time' engagement
(Hme, 2000), whether time-shifted research is considered adequate or not depends again on
the speci fie research goals in the ethnographer\ agenda, ancl the rok of the cbta collected
in the analysis (sec' e.g. MJly, 2018a for :i digital ethnographic study involving triangulation
through different types of online and offiine data). Nevertheless, Hme (2000) emphasises
the importance ot' observation and particip,1tion in real time when the intcractlons unfold.
'Thi, is bccau,e she treats the experience of receiving and ordering messages and the tem-
porality of updates as irnportant research objects in her study on newsgroup interactions.
However, given that interactions potentially unfold around the clock due to the disem-
bodied tramlocal narnre nf digit,tl environments, continuous real-time observation may
be impossible simply for practical reasons. Many digital media also provide timestamps and
so1netirnes atford access also to original, unedited entries when messages !Lwe been edited,
thm affording certail] cues to the researcher as to how interactions have unfolded over
tim.e (Varis, 2016). Van Hout's (2015) study mentioned above is another example of how
technology may assist researchers in accessing their fidd sites. In this case, the ethnographer
employed screen videoing software to capture the journalists' writing practices frJr later
analysis. Thm, both real-time and time-shifted methods can have their place in etlmo-
graphic research of participants' digital experiences.
235
Future directions
ethnography is by its nature interdisciplinary ct al., 2015), and this is no le,s
tn1e for the digital approaches ..Herc, we want to highlight future directions vvhich involve
questions of interdisciplirLirity in relatrnn to and the ways in which its role and
nature is conceived of in lingmstic ethnographic researd1.
A very new development in applied linguistics 1s the introduction ofposthurnanisn1 into the
field 2016. . .) urg[ing:] us to recom1ckr wh:1t it nteans to be human" and
investigatint2: .. ) the p:irtin1lar \Nays we understand 1ll rebtion to people, objects,
and place'' (Pennycook. 2016, p. l). Similar issues have, of course, already been addressed in
nexm analysi, and mediated discourse analysis, where ernbodinl human engagement with ob-
dnd technologies has been an ob1ect for quite a while e.g. Scollon,
2()01: Norris & Jones, 2005; Jones, 201.\ also Bucholtz & Hall, 201
the shape of digital interactions, and as indicated above under 'Critical issues and debates'. the
questions asked within thought the between hurn:ms.
and spKe seem highly relevJ nt for the study of digital interactions. People 'talk' with
algorithms while chatting, shoppmg and social media feeds. and interact through
and ,vith all kinds of 'smart' watches and fridges. This raise. questions
not only about 'context', but ,.1lso the kinds of resources that go into digital couunumcation,
as well as human agency, for instance in algorithmic environments (see also Rampton,
Gourlay p. 488) for instance. applying posthu1nan thinking to literacy practices, rnggests
that while reading and via devices. . .) it could be argued that authorship is
distributed bet,veen the human, machine ,rnd the distributed agency of internet-based texts."
In other fields, actor-network theory (see e.g. Latour, has fratured prominently in
addrcs,ing such issues of hmn:rn-obiect relations. Most DJonov and van Leeuwen
p. have introduced ,,hat they call .. ) a social semiotic model for analysing so-
cial media as semiotic sofr,vare technologies, that is, as technolog1cs designed to enable and
constrain people\ ability to make meaning and participate in various social practices." Thc,y
(...) propose an approach that has the capacitv to account fr,r the \vays the design of social
rncdia -- through the serniotic resources 1t make:; av:1ihble and how these are presented --
enables ,md constrains their users' abilitv to perform social practices.
(Djo11011 and van Leeuwen, p. 642)
Their analysis of the academic social media webslle Research Gate sho\VS how it .. ) offers
a very limited range of semiotic resources, and prevents members fi.-om visua!Jy constructing
different individual or institutional .identities'' (p. 600). It seerns therefore that new questions
are bemg asked about our digital environments and our interactions through and with them,
and ,omc v,ays forvvard arc For Linguistic ethnographers. this is still largely un-
charted terrain, so in the future it seems that in order to arrive at in-depth explanations of
people's lived reahues, there is a need for with some of the approaches rnentioned
here, or others which will enable accounting for hunun-technology relations.
Thi.s i, ,1ho not 'Just' a theoretical and rncthodological issue for our attention; d.s
Rampton (2017, p. 10) !us pointed out, new and forms of digital c01nmunica-
tion have also en;1bled new fiirms of social control, 1ncludmg digital surveillance. This has
potential impli,:atiorn fi:ir all of LIS, and most not ]e;ist fc.,r inure vulnerable groups,
such as asvlum seekers, 11nmigrcmts and ethnic minorities, vvlw c.rn be targets of even more
stringent digital surveillance and profiling. These developme1m, l<...ampton (2017, p. HJ)
236
Digital approaches
points out, have "a strong communicative and interactional dimension" (see also Khan, 2014;
Charalambous et al., 2016; Rampton & Eley, 2018), which is where linguistic ethnographers
come in. At the same time, as Rampton (2017, p. 11) suggests, studying the new communica-
tive practices and forms of control seems to require "(...) collaborat[ing] with computational
specialists to tackle, inter alia, the codes, algorithms and protocols that translate human bod-
ies, movement and communication into digital information".
Here is thus another future interdisciplinary direction worth investigating: as it is hardly
desirable or possible to (re)train linguistic ethnographers as computational scientists, there
is plenty of room for collaborative work and interdisciplinary teams. In any case, it is clear
that linguistic ethnographers have the kind of expertise that will enable them to research and
consequently participate in debates on new digital developments, such as surveillance and
profiling. And this is also one 'real world' problem that digital approaches can contribute to
addressing, in line with linguistic ethnography's commitment to "aspire to improve social
life" (Shaw et al., 2015, p. 11).
Further reading
Georgakopoulou, A., & Spilioti, T. (Eds.) (2016). The Routledge handbook ef language and digital com-
munication. London: Routledge. (This handbook not only features a chapter specifically on digital
ethnography, but gives a very good overview of research on language in digital environments.)
Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. London: Bloomsbury.
(While Hine's research is not specifically focussed on language, she is one of the most authoritative
voices on ethnography and the internet. This volume introduces ethnographic strategies for study-
ing specifically the everyday, being thus of interest also for linguistic ethnographers.)
Jones, R.H., Chik, A., & Hafner, C.A. (Eds.) (2015) Discourse and digital practices. Doing discourse analysis
in the digital age. London: Routledge. (This edited volume is useful for linguistic ethnographers in-
terested in analysing digital discourse in that it features a wide range of different case studies, from
discourse analysis of games to apps and digital literacy.)
Page, R., Barton, D., Unger, J.W., & Zappavigna, M. (2014). Researching language and social media. A
student guide. Abingdon: Routledge. (This book focusses on researching language and social media,
and is specifically interesting for those with less experience in studying language online. It also
includes a chapter on ethnographic approaches to language and social media.)
Related topics
Multimodality; Participant observation and field notes; The ethnographic interview.
References
Androutsopoulos, J. (2006a). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication.
Journal ef Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 419-438.
Androutsopoulos, J. (2006b). Multilingualism, diaspora, and the Internet: Codes and identities on
German-based diaspora websites. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 520-547.
Androutsopoulos, J. (2007). Style online. Doing hip hop on the German-speaking web. In P. Auer
(Ed.), Style and social identities. Alternative approaches to linguistic heterogeneity (pp. 279-317). Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Androutsopoulos, J. (2008). Potentials and limitations of discourse-centred online ethnography. Lan-
guage@ internet, 5(8), 1-20.
Baron, N.S. (2008). Always on. Language in an online and mobae world. New York: Oxford University
Press.
· Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. Routledge: New
York.
237
Baym, N. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In S.G. Jones

(Ed.), Cybcrwciety (pp. 138-163). Sage: Thousand Oaks.
[kncito-Mont.1gut, R. (2011). Ethnography goes online: Towards a user-centred methodology to re-
se,trch interpersonal communication on the internet. Qua!itatillf Roeardi, 11(6), 716-735.
Blommaert,J. (2012). Supervernaculars and their dialects. Dutch Journal of Applied LinJtuistics, 1(1), 1--14.
Blommaert,J (2018). Durkheim ,md the intnnet. On sociolinguistics ,md the sociologiwl im,;1;ination. London:
llloomsbury.
Blornmaert,J., & De Fina, A. (2015). Chronotopic identities. In A. De hna, D. Ikiwglu, &J. \Vegner
(Eds.), Dii,ersity ,md superditJersity (pp. 29-40). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
boyd. d. (2008). ·1:1ken out of context: American teen soricility in networked publics. Doctoral dissertation,
Berkeley: Universitv of California.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2016). Embodied snciolinguistics. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Socfolinguistics:
Theoretical debates (pp. 173-197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buscher, M .. & Urry, J. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory,
12(1), 99-116.
C.uupbell, i\. (2006). The search for authenticity: An exploration of :n, on.line skinhead newsgroup.
New Jvfedia & Society, 8(2), 269-294.
Charalambous, C., Charalambous, P., Khan, K., & Rampton, B. (2016). Security & language policy.
TVi,rking P.ipcrs in Urb,111 Language D Literacies. Paper 194.
Copbnd, F., ,'.:. Creese, A. (2015). Linyuistic ethn<\t!r"J!hy. C"lluting, analysiny and presenting data. London:
Sage.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and tl1e Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danct, B., & Haring, S.C. (Eds.) (2007). The ruultilingual Imcmet: L111g11,.1ge, cult111c, ,md cotnn11mic,1tion
011/ine. Oxford: Oxfiml University Press.
Djonov, E., & van Leeuwen, T. (2018). Social media as semiotic technology and social practice: The case
ofResearchGate's design and its potential to transform social practice. Social Semiotics, 28(5), 641-654.
Ccorgakopoulou, A. (20H,). From narrating the self to posung self(ic,): A small sLories approach to
sdfies. Open Linguistics. 2, 300-317.
Gourlay, L. (2015). Posthuman texts: Nonhuman actors, mediators and the digital university. Social
Semiotics, 25(4), 484-500.
Guurlay, L., Hatttilton, M., & Lea, M.R. (2013). Textual practices in the new media digital hmlscape:
JVlessing witb digital literacies. Rcse<1rch in Lc,1111ing Tec/111olo?y, 21(4). 1 ·13.
Hanel!, L., & Sal6, L. (2017). Nine months of entextualizations: Discourse and knowledge in an on·-
line discussion fi.orum thread for expectant parents. In C. Kerfoot & K. Hylstam (Eds.), Entangled
di.,(ourses. s,,11th-Nor1h orders of vi,ibility (pp. 1.54 170). New York: Routledge.
Herring, S.C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to res,,arching online be-
havior. In S. H;irab, R. Kling, & J.H. Gray (Eds.), Desigmng Ji,r virtual communities in the service of
learning (pp. 338·-376). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Herring, S.C. (2011). Computer-mediated conver,ation: Introduction and overview. Langu,1ge@In-
temet 8. Av,1ilable from http://www.languageatinternct.org/articlcs/2010/280l (Acccssccl 4th
November 2018).
Hine, C. (2000). Vil'fual ethnogn1phy. London: Sage.
Hine, C. (201:0). EtlznogY<zphy for the internet: Embedded, embodied an.d London: Bloomsbury.
Hine, C., Kencl;ill, L., & buyd, d. (2(109). Question one: Tlow can quc1litative int,met researchers
define the boundaries of their projects? In A. Markham & N.K. Baym, (Eds.), Internet inquiry. Con-
versations about method (pp. l-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Horst, H.A., & Miller, D (Eds.) (2012). Digit,il anthropology London: Berg
Hou, M. (2018a). Social 1r1edi,1 celebriry. A.n invesrii,won into rlie /;1test met,111w1phosis Doctoral dis-
sertation, Tilburg University.
Hou, M. (2018b). Participatory consumption of celebrity products: Gangnam Style and its parodies, In
J Raphael, C. Lam, & M. Weber (Eds.), Dis<155embling the ce[e/;rityjirzure.· Credibility ,md the incredible
57-82). Leiden: Brill.
Hou, M. (2018c). Econo,nic news co1mnents on a mobile news app: An emerging genre of bashing,
Lanp1,;ge@Internct.. 16. Available from https://www.languagcatinternet.org/articles/2018si/ho11
(Accessed 20th July 2019).
Jones. R. (2013). Technology and sites of display. In C.Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge h,111dbook ofm,dtimodal
,11111/ysis (2nd ed., pp. 13'>···151). London: Routledge.
238
Digital approaches
Jones, R. (2015). Surveillance. In A. C~eorgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The 1-1..outledge lwndiJMk of
l,mg11,ige ,,nd digital co1nm1-111ication (pp. 408-411). London: Routledge.
Jones, R.. (2016). The age of print literacy and 'deep critical attention' is filled with war, genocide and
environmental devastation. In R. SimanO\\Ski (Ed.), D((JiU/ hwn,mitics ,md digital media. Conversa-
tions on politics, culture, aesthetics, ,md literacy (pp. 228-246). London: Open Humanities Press.
Jones, R. (2018). Algorithmic publics and the future of discourse analysis. Wild Publics: Language in Public
Space under tlie Conditions of Late JVlodernity. March 24, 2018. Available from http://wwv,·.geistesw·is
senschaften.fu-berlin.de/en/v/wild-pubhcs/Videos/index.btml (Accessed 4th November 2018).
Jou cs, R.H .. Chik, A., & Hafner, C.A. (Eds.) (2015). Discourse and d(1it,il practices. Doing discourse ,malysis
in the digital age. London: Routledge.
Kh;m, K. (2014). Citizenship, securitization and suspicion in UK ESOL policy. H',,rking Papers in Urlwn.
L,znsuage ,md Literacies, Paper 130.
Latour, 13. (2005). Reasscmulillg tl,c socic1/. ,111 introducrion to <1ctor-11etwork-tlicory. New York: Oxford Uni
versity Press.
Leppanen, S., Jousmaki, H., Kytola, S., Peuronen, S., &. Wcstincn, E. (2014). En.textualization and
resemiotization as resources for identification in social media. In P. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.),
The languase of social media: Co1n1111miwtion and community on the internet (pp. 112-138). Basingstoke:
Palgr,we.
Madsen, L.M., Karreba:k, M.S., & Moller, JS. (2013). The Amager project: A study oflanguage and
social life of minority children and yoLtth, Tilbmy Papers in Cul!111e Studies, no. 52.
Maly, I. (2017). Saabism and saabists. A digital ethnographic analy:;is of Saab culture. Tilburg Pcipers
in Culture Studies, no. l88. lwaibble from https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/b36089a1-
d9e9-4aa8-9e24-5f350e2647ee_TPCS_188 .. Maly.pdf (Acces5ed 17 September 2018).
M.aly, I. (2018a). New media, new resistance and mass media: A digita_J ethnographic analysis of the
Hart Boven Hard move1nent in Belgium. In T. Papaioannou & S. Gupta (Eds.), Media represen-
tations of anti-austerfry protests in the EU. Grievances, identities i1nd ,~gcncy (pp. 165-187). New York:
P.outledgc.
Maly, I. (2018b). Waarom Schild en Vrienden geen marginal fcnomeen is [Why Schild en Vrienden
is not a margiml phenomenon]. D1ggit ;'\;[ag,1::-ine, September 5. Available from https://www.digg1t
magazine.com/artides/schild-vrienden (Accessed 17th Scpternber 2018).
Marcus, G.E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography,
/Jnnu11l Rc/!iew of Anthropology, 24, 95-117.
Marcus, G.E. (2012). Multi-sited ethnography: Five or six things I know about it now. In S. Coleman
& P. von Hellcnnann (Eds.). :Wulti-sited ethnography: Problems arnl possibilities in the tr,mslowtion uf re-
search methods (pp. 16-33). London: Routledge.
Miller, V. (2011). Understandir\g d,:,,ital culture. London: Sage.
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The internet: An ethno~nzphic appro<1c/1. Oxford: Berg.
N0rreby, TR., & Moller, J.S. (2015). Ethnicity and social categorization in on-and offline interaction
among Copenhagen adolescents. Discoime, Context & 1Vledia, 8, 46---54.
Norris, S., & Jones, R.H. (Eds.) (2005). Discourse it; action. Introducing mediated discourse ,tn,,lysis.
J\bingdon: Rot1tledge.
Pennycook, A. (2016). Posthmnanist applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 445-461.
Pennycook, A. (2018). J>ostlmmanist applied linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Pennycook, A., & Otsuii, E. (2014). Metrolingual multitasking and spatial repertoires: 'Pizza mo two
minutes coming'. Journal of Sociolinguist1cs, 18(2), 161-184.
Pink, S .. Horst, H., Postill,J., HJorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi.J. (2016). D(?il,11 etfmogmphy. Principles
and pmctice. London: Sage.
Prochazka, 0. (2018). A chronotopic approach to identity performance in a Facebook mcme page.
Discourse, Context & ivicdia, 25, 78-87.
Rampton, B. (2017). Interaction;,! sociolinguistics. Ti/bur_~ P,111crs ill Culture Studies, paper 175. Avai) ..
able from https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/4e31.ee44-c429-49d-a51a-c2c6c2l9bf50_
TPCS_175 ....R.ampton.pclf (Accessed 17th September 2018).
Rampton, B .. & Eley, L. (2018). Goffman and the everyday interactional grounding of surveillance.
vVorking P,1pers in Urban Language D Literacies, Paper 246.
Ramptun, B, Maybin, J., & Roberts. C. (2015). Theory and metbod in lmguistic ethnography. In J.
Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic ethnography. Intc:rdiscipli11llry e.xplorations (pp. 14-50).
Houndmills: Palgrave.
239
fZampton, H., J., l:hrwdl, R., Creese, A., &. lvtra, V. (2004). UK Linguistic
Robinson, L.. Schulz, J. (2009). Nn, avenues frn forrns of cthno-

practice. s,,m>h',l'Ji, 43(4), 685 6'18.
Rymes, B. (21112). J(econtextLrahzing YouTube: from m:1cro-m1cro to 111a,s-mediated cornmunic:,tivc
[; Edu, c1tio11 43(2), 214 227.
Scollon, I<... (2001). :\Iediiltol di.icoursc. Tiu· ncxw London: R,,utle,lge.
Shaw, S., Copbnd, F., &. Snell, J. (201\1. An introduction to liue;uistic
In J Suell, S. Shaw. & F. Coplrnd (Eds.). Li11x11isti,
tious (pp. 1-13). Houndnulls: I'algrave.
Silver, D. (2000). backwards. forw:1rds: studies 199(1--2000. In I).
Gau ntktt (Ed.), I Vi·/, studi1:s- Rcwiri11g 111cclic1 studio tlzc (pp. 19-JO). Lon don: Huddc1
Education Publishers.
SLchr, /\. (201!). The of tr::mscultur:d flows among Copenhagt'n youth -- the case of
Illuminati. Discourse, Co!ltr:xi b ,1lcdia, 4, 101-115.
Stoehr, J\. (2015_), Rdlexivily in Facebook interactiun ·- enregistt'n11ent across written and lan-
guage pLK'.tices. Discor11~~-e_. c;c}flfc:Y-t E) j_\Jcdi,t, 8. 30-,.,!S.
Stcehr, f\., & M:1dsen, L.M. (2(115). ScancLm:l m urb,m r,1p - socral rnedu, lingui':tic p1·;1cticc
;.ind context. Lilrl)(ll1(,,ZC (\lnuwu1fi-.1tio11, 40. (17"·--81.
Stone, l\.R. (1996). T/1c 11.-,1r r,fduirc ,111d ,1t t!,e close ,,{t/,c 111Cr:l1,111fr,tl ,1,~c. MIT Press.
Su, H. (2UU7). The multilingual and Tai,\,rn-lnscd [nternct, fn B. Danct &: S.C.
l--1.errin.g (Eds.). The n!lllti/inlur1l l11tcn11?t: f-ilng1ti.lge 1 culture. ron1munfrt1rit111 onlinr 64--86).
Oxford Oxford Universitv Press.
D. (2015). How may cnluncc our undcrst:111ding of electronic
patient records in hc,rlth care settings. In J. Snell, S. Shaw, &. F. Lin_vuistir
cxpfor,1/ions (pp. 90---l(}'l). Palgravc l'vbcnnllan: London.
on the scrcrn: in the ,H:c Intu11ct. New Yurk: Sinrun & Schuster.
van Dijck, J. (2013). The rnltllic of co111Jcrtiuity: ,'l uitiul o/.,oo'ti/ 11/cdi,1. New Yurk: Oxford Uni-
versitv Press.
Vau Hout, T. (2015). Between text and soc1:1J practice: Balancing
nafom studies. lnJ Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.).
r,1tio11s (pp. 71--89). London: Palgrcive IVlacnullan.
Varis, P. (2016). Digital Jn J\. & T. Spilioti (Eds.), T/1c Ro11.r/cc(~c li,md-
/J,,,,h and d(~ir,,/ i',,11111111nic,1tio11 (pp. 55 68). London:
Vans, P. (2017). Superdin'rse times and places: Media, mobility, conJunct1nes and stn.1ctmcs of feeling.
In K. J\rnaut, M.S. Karrcbe::-k, l\il. Spotti, &J Blornrnacrt (Eds.), Eng,,giug Rccon1bi11i1·1g
spates_, ti'rne.s and l~ul,gutlge pn11:fhrs (pp. 2.5---4(i). Bristol: lv1u1tilingua1 /\/Iattcrs.
Varis, P., &: Blommaert, J. (2015). Conviviality dnd collectih'S on social media: V1nlity, memes, and
ne,v ,ocial structures. JL!rgins, 2(1), JJ.-45.
240
18
Mixing methods? Linguistic
ethnography and
language variation
Susan Dray and Rob Drummond
Introduction
Variationist and ethnographic sociolingmstic research traditions both explore the rebt1on-
ship between language and the social (see Rampton, this volume). Their methods are in-
creasingly combined bv researchers, despite being underpinned by different understandings
and concerns about the world, which raises questions about how the mixing of these rneth-
ods works in practice. In this chapter we describe our experiences of collaborating in a
v:1riationist-drivcn project (UrBEn-ID, 'Urban British English and Identity') that \Vas de-
signed to incorporate ethnographic data and analytic methods. We use a pilot study to illus-
trate the extent of the contributi,,n made by the ethnographic data and ,1n:ilysis, and conclude
that since variationist and ethnographic approaches address incommensurable and sometimes
antagonistic concerns, ethnographic analytic methods have to change in order to be useful
within the variat1onist framing.
The UrBEn-ID project explored an under-researched linguistic context a Bntish
Secondcuy Pupil Referr,11 Unit (PRU), 1.ateriug to high school pupils excluded from main-
stream education on behavio11r:1l grounds - and the relationship bcnveen language and
identities in this space. The motivation behind the project came from the traditional varia-
tionist concern 1vith providing evidence to counter language prejudice, specifically the view
sometimes promoted in the Bnt1sh media that some young people may be disadvantaged or
discriminated against in educational and employment contexts because of how they speak
(J-1:irding, 2013; Johns, 2U14). /\cc:ording]y, following Lhe vanationist tradition, the project
aimed to observe and describe the language of young people (aged 14-16 years) undertaking
core-curriculum mbjects and sdwol-leaving cxcims in two PRU Learning Centres in the
north ofEngland over the course of one school year. These centres were not like mainstream
schools materially or socially: they were small, each catering to up to 16 pupils, and housed
in former vouth clubs staffed by ,:entre cuurdinators and youth workers, with sul~ect lessons
provided by peripatetic specialist teachers.
The ethnogr:1phic ele1nent of the proj,~ct aimed to explore how linguistic features con-
tnhuted to the generation of identities in daily life in the Learning Centres in order to
· describe which practices (and/or social differences) were enacted as important in this space,
241
This would supply context-specific data frlr Lhe variationist concern \Vith undcrslanding ii
what identity \York the lrnguistic features described as 'disadvantageous' in the British media qi
Oohns, 20U) were doing in the PRU. To this end, and in line with ethw,graphic tr;iditions, ·•;·-•;',..
•.:· ~•:.~· -.:·•·• .·, ~
~.'.•;I·.'.,:,~!·
we took pr:icticcs as our analytical categorie,. Thi, was a departure from the traditional ;J;,;
variationist method of assigning stable identities :rncl language categories to speakers. While
both 'social practices' and 'language practices' are analytical terms commonly used in socio-
linguistic research, they are often used alongside pre-assigned speaker-identity categories and
language varieties, rather than instead of them. Our approach, which located language vari-
ation in practices, not in individuals, would allow us to explore the fluidity and multiplicity
oflinguistic forms and the identities generated as people went about their daily routines.
Refusing predetermined identity and l:rnguage categories and applying the analytical cat-
egory of p1wtices to ,1 v:iriationist-led project exploring the relation between identity, linguis-
tic features and bngu,1ge discrimination would break new ground. This chapter describes
our experiences of the collaboration that attcrnptl'.cl this approach and wh,1t we learned along
the way. We start with a brief outline of the ,kills, knowledges and methods that ar<" asso-
ciated with the two traditions, and which each of us brought to the collaboration. We then
discuss how the methods from the two traditions have been combined in recent studies,
before describing our experiences of the collaboration process, how the research questions
changed and how we practised our 'mixing' of methods with an experimental pilot study.
We end with some reflections on our collaborative experience.
Critical debates: how compatible are ethnographic

and variationist traditions?
Although Crom the same broad field of sociolrnguistics, ethnographic and variationist re-
search traditions differ in a fimdamental way: whilst linguistic ethnography is predominantly
qualitative and generates descriptions and interpretations of language-in-context, variationist
linguistics has a core quantitative component and generates statistical descriptions of ten-
dencies for patternings in language fe;itures of groups a11d indiuiduals. Embedded in these
different skills and methods are assumptions and theories about the character of the relation-
ship betwt,en language c1nd society, and ;i]ternatiYe ways of seeing the world v,rhich do not
tend to overlap comfr,rtably (Creese, 2008, p. 236). Whilst individual rese,irchers from both
traditions may employ both quantitative ,rnd qualitative methods, they necessarilv pr:ictise
them differently in order to address considerably different concerns. On the one hand, eth-
nographic ,1pproaches tend to ask questions about how language contributes to meaning-
making processes for and by participants in specific contexts. Fluidity, mobility and change
in linguistic forms and meanings arc expected, and the challenge is to describe the ambigu-
ities and messiness. They do not seek to tell a tidy story or predict ·why something is the way
it is (see e.g. Blommaert, 2007). The principle focus of inquiry is on exploring language a, a
semiotic mode in a particular location. On the other hand, vciriationist approaches focus on the
material qualities of the sounds oflanguage and how they pattern phonetically, lexically and
structurally. The aim is to describe general trends in their variability and expla111 these in
terms of who people ,ne (identities) and wlut rhey arc, doing (social contexts).
The collaboration described here between c1n dhnographer and discourse ,nLtlyst (Susan)
and a socio-phonetician (Rob) bought together vny different skill sets from lhe two dis-
tinct tradili,,11,. Su1A11 WdS trained in the 'arttqn' (Ceertz. 1993, p. 167) cnfting of knowl-
edge about how things are (and how they arc known) in a specific space, typically using a
case study approach. This method looks for p~tterns in the situatedness of the everyday.
242
Mixing methods: LE and language variation
The interpretative character of ethnography is explicitly recognised, along with the inherent
partiality and subjectivity involved in making sense of someone else's world. The core tool
of ethnography is observation (and this may include participation and/or interviews) over an
extended period of time. Interpersonal skills, observational skills and the writing of detailed,
reflexive yet necessarily selective field notes are important. Professional training is largely
"a matter of the transmission of a craft and learning by doing - by personal experience"
(Hymes, 2004, p. 4).
Rob was trained in the 'scientific' knowledge tradition, in which objectivity, balanced
samples, comparison between those samples and the reduction of any researcher effects are
central tenets. An understanding of the physiological processes involved in human speech
and the phonological properties oflinguistic systems is important for identifying, measuring,
quantifying and validating spoken language. Sociolinguistic interviews are the established
method for accessing the unselfconscious 'vernacular', an important language variety rec-
ognised in this tradition for being "the most regular in its structure" (Labov, 1972, p. 112).
Ethnographic observation, when used, is primarily employed to gain longer-term access to
participants. Thus, it is more likely to be a tool for accessing rather than producing data, and
this turned out to be an important difference that we had initially overlooked, having been
disguised by our use of the same term. We had not interrogated our terminology, expecting
'ethnographic observation' to be one useful point of overlap in our data collection methods,
but this turned out to be wrong: 'ethnographic observation' was done differently by each
of us to achieve different ends. Whilst we both participated in, and observed, life in the
Learning Centres, and wrote field notes in the form of a diary made available electronically
to the other, these diaries produced very different kinds of data. Susan's included detailed
and reflexive accounts of the linguistic and the non-linguistic materialities of the spaces and
practices she observed and participated in, such as the seating arrangements in class, images
of clothing and blow by blow accounts of how lessons played out, along with analytical cat-
egories and notes recording the emergence of recurring themes and patterns in the Learning
Centres. For Susan, the diary was a core source of data. Rob's diary was less detailed and
served primarily to contextualise the audio recordings of speech and to record observations
which might help in the targeting of specific individuals or situations for future recordings.
The diary might also provide information for interpreting the meaning of an utterance, but
it did not constitute core data or evidence. Rob's primary source of data was a collection of
good quality audio recordings of speech, necessary for identifying and quantifying the distri-
bution and variation oflinguistic variables. The nature of the research setting itself impacted
differently on the two traditions. It resulted in significant frustration for variationist tech-
niques: ageing, echo-enhancing council buildings full of teenagers with 'behavioural prob-
lems' provided a huge challenge for the sound quality of the data that Rob needed, yet it was
a rich and exhilarating source of interactional data for the ethnographic part of the project.
The challenge was to see if these two different data sets were compatible at the anal-
ysis stage, or would the traditions in which they were embedded result in irreconcilable
differences? The potential incommensurability of these two traditions and their concerns
is highlighted by Woolard (2008, p. 434) when she notes that ethnography, a 'phenome-
nological' enterprise, complicates and questions the assumptions about identities and social
contexts that variationist methods take as given, and as such, the 'explanatory' character of
variationist research seeks causes and reasons for language change that are not relevant for
ethnography. (For comprehensive treatments of ethnography, see e.g. Clifford & Marcus,
1986; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007. For variationist sociolinguistics, see e.g. Tagliamonte,
2011; Chambers & Schilling, 2013.)
243
One of our challenges, therefore was to find alternative in order to converge

these two approachc, and their incornrncnsunblc categories: the variationist tre:Jl:Lnenc of
language as a concrete and countable Lo be described and explarned in terms of cm,a]
rdations, which i11dexe, predetermined rnacro-1dcntities ethnicity, con-
structed in interaction, ,md linguistic which treats as situated
and and seeks to ho,N Lm?uage generates or perfr,rms identities locally
(Baurn,111 & Bnggs, 1990).
Developing comparable was tricky to do in since_ ifethnograpby drives
the categorisation process to dcterrnine what the in1portant ,rnalyucil are, the
identity categories central Lo variationist techniques may not en1erge as relevant. However,
if identities are a,sirz:ned a priori to the spokcrs by a researcher drawing on the variatiomst
tradition e.g. social class (:Snell, 2015), sex and ethnicity (Bucholtz, 2UJ ,exuality :rnd social
class (Podesv,1, part of the proien becomes r-edund.rnt.
Current contributions and key concepts: recent

studies using 'mixed-methods'
[n recent years, there has been a noL1blc rncrease in the number of sociolinguistic studies
combinmg vanationist and cthnogr:1phic toob by scholars tr;1in('d in orw oftlwse two tradi-•
tions. These studies seek to the statist1c1l descriptions of quanti-
Utivc methods, with the local :rnd specific: narrative descriptions of" qualitative methods, thus
"bridging bet\vee11 survey orient,1tions a!ld practice oricntJtions Ill the sociol111guist1cs of
variation'' (Coupland, p. For example, a collaboration at the au;ilys1s st;tge between
Shanna. and Ran1pton (2015) ;iddressed the bet.ween qualitative and quantitative
approaches in order to generate '"import:1!lt feedback between micro-and macro-level vari-
ation" (p. 4).
Schobr, trained m the vari;1ti,.1ni:,t tradition have drawn on ethnographic methods to en-
able thern to: (aJ acce'5 additional speech contexts in which to capture hnguage data beyond
tbe sociolinguistic interview (Podesva, 2007; Sharma, 2011.: Snell, and (b) observe
participants' rncial netvvorks or practices to to replace the tradi-
tiorul variation1st m:tcro-social categories of sex, age and region. Alternative
categories include pro- and anti school identi tics 2000; fVloore, 2010; Kirkham,
and stances tcx,vards national norrn.s of gender and sexuality The un-
derpi11ning rnot1vations rn such studit·s rernain hrgdy v,inatwnist: they aim to describe lan--
guage variation, usually in relation to the use of 'non standard' linguistic fraturcs, and then
investigate its inter,iction vv1th sooal explaining it as a function of idenllty. The
fJJJdings are often generalised beyond the research site, or are at le,tSt available for comparison
vvith other studies.
As :1 result, field notes :md thick descriptions, the essential data of the ethnographic trade
Papen, this volurne), tend to be brgely absent from tlw :rnalyses ,Jnd interpretative work,
tendmg not to contribute subsL:\JltDlly to the 'evidence' in research reports. In-
stead, the ethnography 1nay be mentioned to support of utterances
(Sudl, 201 to expbin the thinking behind sonal groups (Lawson,
2011) or to illustrate why linguistic vanatiun is patterned 111 :J way (Sharma, 2011).
This is entirely 1mckrstcmdable since field notes are of limited use if the core dat;1 needs to
and necch Lo meet the tradition\
requirements for uh_1ectivily, v,ilidity and Observational field notes do not meet
these cnteria: being subjective, selective, contrc1dictory, and non-acoustic, they are
244
largely redundant as data but are useful for support purposes at the analysis stage and for
practic1l purposes in the field to c1chieve a greater range of audio data across additional con-
texts, owing to the extended amount of time spent in the field and how this builds trust with
partiopants (Schilling, 2013). Ethnographic data collection methods and the role of ethno-
graphic data at the analysi1 stage look very different in a variationist context.
A similar methodological shift occurs when ethnographers make use of the quantitative
methods of the variationist tradition to explore the patterning of linguistic forms (Rampton,
2006; Mendoza-Denton, 2008) as part of a case study. Using interactional data of everyday
conversations rather than the researcher-controlled context of sociolinguistic interviews, sta-
tistical counts arc interested in the ab,encc and presence oflinguistic fe~tures (e.g. sounds,
code-switching) to describe specific ethnographic observations and/or analyses of interac-
tions withm a broader soo;il context (Rdll1pton, 2006). This crafting of relations between
the sound., of speech and their social context is untenable in the variationist tradition without
a n10re detailed examination of the linguistic context and larger data sets. The quantitative
1nethod used by vari:1tionists is not the same one used by ethnographers, and the ethno-
graphic method of ethnographers is different to the ethnography practised by variationists,
but the terminology we use to talk about these methods disguises these differences.
Such differences may not matter when working squarely within one of the traditions.
Indeed, Rampton et al. (2015) note that "paradigms don't h,1ve to be swallowed whole"
and that "mixing" methods can work as long as findings and methods are "separated from
the explanations and interpretations with which they are conventionally packaged'' (p. 36).
For us, however, working collaboratively with interests in keeping the integrity of both
traditiom, it was not a matter of taking something partial from one paradigm and reappro-
priating it in another, as this would entail one of us having to abandon ot1r disciplinary field.
Instead, we navigated a path in which we learned about the nuances and chasms in meaning
in our \hared' terminology, agreed and disagreed about how to make sense of the world,
and ultimately made compromises in order to craft something that we hoped would work
for both of us.
Main research methods and analysis: mutually useful data

collection, transcription and analytic categories?
At the start of the project, we both agreed that, since we were exploring identities, we should
let the identities emerge in the data Jnd refrain from assigning predetermined identity cat-
egories to speakers. A common critique of the variationist method is that it assigns identity
categories to speakers and then uses these to explain language variation (Can1eron, 1990;
Eckert, 2000; Bucholtz & Hall. 2005) irrespective of their relevance, or existence, for the
speakers. Similarly, ethnography has been critiqued for contradictorily using identity ctt-
egories to describe particip:mts whilst simultaneously arguing that such identities :ire fluid
and locally performed (Woolgar & Pawluch, 1985). So we did not assign any predetermined
identity categories to the participants other than their institutional roles in the Learning
Centres, as this was the context for the research. \Ve described our participants as either staff
(teachers, classroom support workers, centre coordinators/youth workers, etc.) or pupils, but
kept sight of the fact that these institutional identities, whilst central to the existence of the
research site, were not a.I ways the ones being performed at a given moment.
At the beginning, vie were also in agreement that practices (rather than identitie,) might
provide helpful categories for exploring patterns in language use, and we intended to let
relevant practices emerge from our observ,1tiom m the Learning Centres, rather than impose
245
these a priori. \Ve rntcndcd to then identify identities ;1, they were pertc)rrned in the practices
tlut ruattcrcd in the Centres. 1 lmvcver. as the dat,1 collection ,rnd m1r pr11nary
our twu principles (c1boul 1dcntit1es and
stJrtcd to :rnugomse each other, bcc,mse we had not
were the s,nne
\Ve understood the clldraeler of the notion oC differently ,rnd so what each of us
would identd\· 1n the data as ,rn 'identity' was also diffi.~rent. Some of the ·identities' identified
by Susan \VetT 'stances' Cur I:Z.ob. and what Susan luve treated as a ·successful' or 're,d'
Rub might have tre,\ted as 'pul on' and not 'authentic'. These \vere not srnall nu--
ro expose \vhat turned out to be 1rrcconcibhle diflcrcnces
111 how we \Vere interaction.ti rnom.ents.
did not support the traditional varia-
tionist undersL111d1ng ofethni,:itv as a stable, evc1 •present It th;1t ethnicity
w:1s enacted mfrequcntly 111 the Learning Centres and, when it was, 1t mattered. The
ethnography had produced and collated non-coherent and sturi,·s about the par-
multiple ,ind fluid idenw,es_ ten . how one pupil described her
mother as "white" and '"British-', whilst ;1 rncmbcr of staff said that the same pc~rson was "nol
vvhite'' ,llld "West Indian". /\s the pro1ect and stable ethmotJCs failed to emerge in
the obserYational data, Rob beun1c' concerned \\ Hh idenu 1-yi ng the cthnicit y of each pupil,
because he needed to CJVillre that the proiect was relevant Cor a van:1tionist \Nho
would be likely to treat tlw onllss1011 of,table identity ,ls a fundarncntal problem,
not least became it made 1t to to
lt turned out that our dcc1S1on not to
speakers could not be upheld if the pro1ect was to to the v,uic1tion1st tradition. Our
solution was frlr Rob to carry out a p,iralld traditional Yanationist on the san1c data
fi_,r cornparison purposes. the pupih how tbev would describe their ethnicity accord-
to the on a standard Equa 1 Opportunities frmn. When we juxta-
posed these with the multiple ,rnd Huid ethnicity from the ethnographic data, these
reported 'self~idcntificc1tions' looked highlv unreliable as 'fi1cts' and it raised
an irnportant question fr,r us: was ethnography tlnngs worse, rc1ther than better;,
Another challenge concerned our undcrstandmgs of the term 'practice'. During the em-
pirical work practices, it becarne apparent that we had different understandings
or the concept of . and were focmsing on verv differecnt Rob was farnil-
iar with a particular theory of , 'communities of (Lave & Wenger, 1991),
commonly applied in third-\Navc variationist studies where i.t tc:nds to fi_,cus on the 'mutual
engagcrnent' and aspect of often quite vaguely to "any
old group" (Eckert, crted m m order Lo define ;\nd
ascribe stabJc identity c;Hcgones to on the- basis of a shared
on Lhe other hand. \V'.LS Cnniliar with a material semiotic
how practices move and

interrelate and how such as identities, arc circulated and as practices move.
Unlike the cthninty issue, there' w,\s no oh11ous parallel ,rctlun lo be t,1ken here, as the two
in fi1ct rd:rted to two fondarncntally ditfc'.rcnt ,vays of seeing che ,vorld, and we
undertook two sep,1rate \vith Susan rude identities and the lan-
of''b:rntcr. hov1n and chatt111g shll" :it the use
as ,1 le.inn ofideutitY mediated through an a,,ocution with grime
201K)
246
Regarding our data collection 1nethods, we envisaged that \Ve would buth be able tu
productively use each other's audio-recorded interactional data since this data type en,1hlcd
the creation of aggregates as well as case studies and, being generated from the same data,
prorni,ed an ideal situation for analyticd comparisons. However, there turned out to be chal-
lenges at both the data collection and preparation stages. \Ve had different rcqrnremenb for
the type of recordings in terms of content, quantity and sound quality. Whiht Sus,m reqmred
recordings of everyday interactions over time, Rob needed a 'balanced' data set which would
provide approximately equal amounts of audio data from the everyday interactions of ea, h
parocip;int across similar contexts. 'I'his would enable hnn to make more robust comparisons
between speakers and across contexts. An unavoidable frustration for Rob was that a lot of
the richest data occurred in classrooms, meetings or breaks, with background noise or mmic,
and were of poor qualitv acoustically. Much of them turned out to be more useful to Su,an
for discourse analysis than they were for phonetic analysis. Our solution was to supplement
these recordings with good quality recordings of groups and individuals taking part in ,1
range of activ1t1es such as semi-traditional sociolinguistic interviews which included a con-
versational element and the reading of a list of words for pronunciation, ethnographic inter-
views (see De Fina, this volume) including a mapping exercise of shared interests betvveen the
young people, discussions about the 1neanings and uses of non-stancLnd lexical items med in
the Learning Centres, and rnock college interviews with follow-up feedback sessions.
Whilst this solved a problem at the data collection stage, it resulted in 54 hours of inter-
actional audio recordings with multiple speakers that needed transcribing for both of us. We
had not appreciated at the beginning what the implications of this amount of conversat10nal
audio data would be, given that our transcription practices were very different. Transcribing
all of the audio data was necessary for Rob due to the variationist principle of accountability
in which it is necessary to count instances where a variant was absent (but could have oc-
curred), as well as where it was present. For Susan, the extensive tnne needed to transcribe
at this level, using annotation software developed for phonetic analysis, compromised other
research activities and required additional final steps to create an alternative vers10n of the
same transcript that was frJrrnatted for interactional analysis. One benefit of this transcription
procedure, however, was that we both became exceedingly familiar with the audio data, and
this shared familiarity with the same data turned out to play an important part in anchoring
our diverging analyses in the experimental pilot study described below.
An experimental pilot study: th-stopping and musical practices

During our time in the LeJrning Centres, we h:1d been looking for a shared 'hook' to h;mg
our analyses on. We had both identified things that interested or surprised us but they did not
fit together very well, smce what surprised Susan tended not to be relevant for Rob and vice
versa. Variationist projects treat reoccurring surprises in linguistic ft,atures as 'innovations'
(Eckert, 2000) or possible sign:, uf language change if they are statistically sigmficant. Eth-
nography is interested in surprises that are often triggered by the researcher's disconcertment
about something that m,ikes little sense to them. So, it was by chance that we found this
'hook', and it ecirnc to light when we both happened to be present in ,1 discussion that Susan
was having with some of the pupils about their fighting practices and the language they used
to talk about fighting, The rt'corded discussion included a conversation about the meaning of
'tump' (loosely translated as 'thump'). When Suscin. said "tmnp", the pupils laughed, although
she had pronounced it the same way as them. Seconds later, she said "thump" instead and
was corrected with "tump". Rob witnessed this and it sparked his interest because, first, it
247
suggested that voiceless 'th' -stopping (the rc,1lisation of voiceless /0/ as [tl) w,ts ;1 potentially
interesting feature, and, second, it was not nccessanly a variant of'th': in this Instance, 'tump'
had not meant 'tburnp' or else Susan would not have been corrected.
This jomt experience with 'tump' during a conversation about fighting practices lee! ns to
look more at th-stopping and the Janguage practices of speakers \.Vl10 tended to use
this feature. There were a number of recurring examples (e.g. tree (three), tief (thief/to steal))
but it was 'ting' that stood out for Rob, being used more frequently than the others.
'Ting' was used by all the speakers who used 'tump' and by others as well. Although it
was not used by everyone, everyone knew it and it was an unremarkable feature of every-
day language in the Learning Centres. For Rob, th-stopping was interesting for the inter-
and intra-speaker variation in the use of [tj \vhich is traditionally associ:lled with particular
language v:met1es in the UK (e.g. West lndi;111 Englishes and Creoles (\Veils, 1982). Irish
English (Hickey, and Liverpool Englisb (Watson, 2007)), which, in turn, arc tradition-
ally associated wilh certain ethnic or class identities rn variationist analysis.
As with 'Lump' and 'thump', 'ting' [til]gj Jlld 'thi [0ItJ9] could have different mean-
ings. 'Ting' could be an alternative vvay of saying 'thing', but the ethnography told us that it
could mean a specific thing to the intended hearer, whilst being intentionally unfathomable
to an eavesdropper. This was of interest to Rob for a variationist analysis as the difference
then ceases to be one of phonological variation and becomes one of lexical variation. Not
all users of ting used both meanings, and this nuanced and unevenly distributed usage inter-
ested Susan frir what it suggested about the practices of the speakers who med this term in
particular \Nays.
We were in agreement that th-stopping appeared to be patterned in the Lcanung Centres,
but we weren't sure how. It was apparent to both of us that 'ting' didn't always mean 'thing'
and it didn't appear to be performing ethnic, or class identities w irh vdJJch the fea-
ture was trad1t1onally associated, so what was it doing? This helped us to refine a research
question that we could both address:
How is a linguistic feature used in practice, and what identity work does it achieve 111 a
particular inner city 'school' fr1r excluded secondary school pupih 1
Rob identified all imtances of voiceless 'tb' in the audio data with suitable sound quality and
quantified the distribution of the possible variants for each speaker, taking into account the
lexical and phonetic context of each example. This resulted in 886 tokens uf voiceles:; 'th'
being analysed m the speech of 25 pupils ,icross a v,1riety of contexts. Table 18.1 shows the
overall distribution for each variant across all speakers.
Table 18.1 Distribution of variants of 'th' across all pupils
Variant and example Frequency (%)

VOICELESS 'th'
[f] - fink, youf 80.2

[0] - think, youth 8.2
[t] - tink, yout 4.0
Unclear/other 7.2
[h] - I hink <1
248
Mixing methods: LE and lanquage variation
100%
90%
80%
.}.
:,, 70%
:c
]::. 60%
20%
1.0%
0%
""' >-C ~ -.;;·c -;;:;-~ ro
"' C C .<:
"' "' C: C
"' C >-
"' C (J)
"' E :, .0
.,,"'"'
'"ro
<( .
:S"' um Cl ·e:
'nil
0
(lJ
"'()
~
0
"'C
~
"'
"'()
-~
ro
"'
..J
.Y
:,
..J
tJ/)
"' z"'
2'
ro :,
tT
-£i ·2
0
C
c:::
m
<))
u
(~
..c
"'
ID ''
2 <( <. -'~
..>< ·;:;
C
'u"
.:,;
~
ro
u
0
{l
S)
<{
u
~
0 C
<( ~
E
0'" "'
<1J
co (!)
.c ..c
VI
'"' ~"'
Speaker
1111 [0] [fl II [t]
Figure 18. 7 Distribution of the s·19 [0, f, t] (TH) tokens, ordered from the right by frequency
of [t]. 25 speakers
These findings show that in the Learning Centres, [f] was by far the most common reali-
sation of voiceless 'th', with [0] and [t] showing a much lo,ver distribution. Figure 18.1 shows
the distribution of the vniants amongst the 25 speakers ([h] and unclear/other tokens have
been removed).
These quantitative findings provided the beginnings of a general variationist description
of the language in the Centres, but they could not reveal any clear pattern to explain the
demarcation between ting users and the other pupils. The traditional variationist method
of treating 'ting' as a 'black' or 'non-Anglo' (cf. Cheshire et al., 2008) language feature and
therefore assigning ethnicity categories to speakers would not h;ive been productive since
there \Y;is little apparent correlation. (Of the nine users of [t] in Figure 18.1, three described
themselves as 'white British', one as 'White and Asian (Pakistani)', one described himself as
both 'Dlack British' and 'Black African', one as 'Black Ciribbean' and the other three reg-
ularly referred to themselves as British with j:uJuican heritage.) This non-relation benveen
ethnicity and 'ting' provided a space for the detailed ethnographic observations that would
not normally be put to use in variationist-led studies. We looked at the specific mmnents in
which 'ting' was used and what was going on between the speakers who used it.
Susan had previously heard 'ting' used in a range of contexts: in Jamaica, in a youth club
in the same area of the city a decade earlier, and also in particular musical practices, typically
those with rap-he;1vy language practices and verbal duelling formats, such as hip hop, grime
and Llancehall reggae ('bashment'). These music.11 practices encourage interaction between
'rappers', with lyrics often referencing or responding to previous lyrics in 'conversations' and
'battles' spanning space and time (Stolzoff, 2000: Alim, 2006; Dedman, 2011). There were
249
some similarities with the practices she had observed in the Learning Centres where having
your own 'bars' (lyrio) was important for credibility as a 'spitter' (rapper). The ethnography
and interactional analy,is also showed that the language formats uf these heavily interactiona]
musical practices flowed 111 and out of some pupils' everyday conversations. They could take
the form of phrases, prosody and rhyme, and melodic delivery which either contributed to, or
was in competition with the conversation. Tn Extract L transcribed from an audio recording
of a "Preparation for Working life" lesson, Jamal achieves both with his spontaneou:, 'spit-
ting' (lines 3, 7, 11) that relates to the teacher-led discussion about 'appropriate' interview
clothing but also competes with, and momentarily disrupts, it.
Extract 1: "Preparation for Working Life" lesson, 13/1/2015

Transcription conventions:
[] overlapping speech
interruption
((raps)) contc\ tual and paralingt11stic infonnalion
(unclear) unmtelligible speech
(.) pause of up to one second
pame timed in ,econds
speech stops abruptly
underline emphasis
All names arc pseudony1ns.
01 Jake: so you're saying to me like(.) say if you was going for a sporting fing (.)
something to do with sport and you was wearing jean- I mean (.) trackies
then it wouldn't be appropriate?
02 Jacob: I went my college interview [with tracksuit bottoms and they said notn J
03 Jamal: [((raps)) (wearin') some clothes called daggy it's]
[ appropriate
04 Teacher: [right that's why] a college interview's different (.) I would still say that you
should go(.)=
05 Jacob: =not going college [interview wid a suit on]
06 Teacher: [smart(.) if you're ) going for a [job]
07 Jamal: ((raps)[now] ma
Gs and my associates (2s) clothes called daggy it's appropriate (2s) kla-kla-
kla (.) (see yaa) baby
08 ((Discussion moves on to aftershave, clean teeth and shoes for 6 minutes))
09 Teacher: right I need you to write this in your exercise books please
10 ((silence 2.5s))
11 Jamal; ((raps loudly)) now ma Gs and my associates(.) (wearing some) clothes
called daggy it's appropriate
12 Support staff: shut up man!
13 Jamal: what does zat mean?
14 Support staff: I don't care what it [means]
15 Jamal: [_r:nJ,Jp][pet guy]
16 Support staff: [shut up]
17 Jamal: from ((name of neighbouring county))
18 Support staff: ((laughs)) don't you worry where I come from, you hear
19 Teacher: I've given them pens haven't!?
250
In the Learnmg Centres, confident 'spitters' nright also 'spit' when they were 'boyin' (sham-
ing) someone. Boyin was a co1nn1on language practice in the Lc,irning Centres, 1Nhich
showed up the opponent and could at times be described as a conversational form of ver-
bal duelling (Dray, 2017). Extract 2, taken froin Susan's diary, describes how spitting bars
(rapping) and bovin converge and the relation made between these :md classroom language
practices:
Extract 2: From Susan's diary
A+- fh,1,.., v,cd., of fN_.. l£½0= Jl),,C.O{;i.- WOvY ,+;.,U. v ~ vN/uV'-"vVl+ev.,/{,y

( J,,,,e, !,,.(LO{, ~ cto-i..A,'-9 fh-.{/y i..,..-v i;;u,L of fh,e,., Le.½o-v-0-- fot;i<uJ) (Ult.C(., //lhW'
w-iA-vv h.,v.y vo..p-- /,Le, \;\l"l:LY b,o-y ;_,, ,.,_, A ~ He, ~u,1_,. +o- ~ c.,vw..feol.,
fl.,t,e,)1', 'b,o.,vy d.-t.,y--V\-9 fhc ~ - o·-v veu0.+½J o.,f- U';;tM, ~ 5,e,r;1,•1,1,e,d..,
q,t,cv/-e, p,vov.cl, of ~..'v, Hc., ve,p-to..,/e.oL- fl.,t,e,w., 5--€.vuo.,.l -/1.A-'V\.Cy O.,f'c<i ~
1,v·eY1.,/- 5 , , 0 1 = ~ li,k.e, fj,,i,{;y.
[.5-fJ,/_',U_,eo(,, A-6-D-0-LJ'y LYv+ke,,o.,r-ViA'-J

A vvct~, w.,/-y /::,,,;1,wvv S.Ovnci...fY
Ovok.vy p-o-vk., wJ,,.,v,v i,,,,e, wo..Lk,y ;_,,...,_., w c.o.{'""ve,.v~
6 [,,(,Vv ( b-v,vv0 u1::v 1,-,.,i_,,,, cJ-u!...yf--
LU0t cJ,,,,i).,L{; c.OVv W..VVc-t>
-rl,,!M,-, fh,e/
Ce;,vfre., C-o-o-v~-lo-v, fo{,ol, Jo.,c,o-/,;v 1,,,,e, W(l,y ~
n,.,c,h.h-i,*' Jo..-c.o-h,, ~ k-e.· vv"00-vJf- (U-'l.£ll, ve.p-e,.o.,fufv fN,.. Lo.,y/- 1-wo-" Li,.Vc,t.,,-,
l½J4•v, l½-' i_,,f /-J.·L{u/--Wl,(lC{.£.. ~ c..Lto..;,-u Tt,,W'v, b-uv/- i,,,,e, (M,Ol.,v,)f-ojfe¥
CUMJ qufrw e,»rMAll.o.,/ioVic -r~ /.-v, y/rl..vfe.d.. (~t)/JJL,,fA.,, fro-w ~ 0
b-e.g~ ~ TL,,!M,- fo{,ol, k,L,,!M,-{v-- J,foyJ.: Jo..-c..o-b, ~ - / - ~ ' - ~ J,c,.e.,

9o+ fv--fl,-i,e., v,cd., ~ -fhe.vv s-aM?L fo-1i_,,~ "WM.-v"v fN_.. b-o,,vs; ve. ~ o L -
fl,-i,(Lf',.., ~ v I :,.,fo-p)'. l-f'l~/2- ,+;,--1.ctk/ w,,,e.,, /;-e.,~Ovt,ly€,, /-J.,cyov9I,,.o-,..cf- fh.e..
wkoLe. of f/,,.e, ol..o-.y J ,1,eo-b• /,,.(LO{, ve-cJ..d, tliff v.A.d..,fy ;_,,...,_., ge . ~ fv-- fi,,.,t
v,cc/., of W ~/,,..f-, Cl• ¼,lN/t'ft<':...£,, /JJV\..tl e.\/i'..,1-'V /JJ w-o--vd.. l,,0./ l e , ~ wv,,e,vv
cto-i..A,'{) ~ . wo-vk, Bv<f- y,.f- kw,,.v off ViJ..f'~ ~ /,,,,e, w.~ k.u.p.,
9Oiftc<J , l,,,o-1,d., f/,-1..t', fow+ o..,v,,ol., Y,-0.'j Ot'\., fo.-5).<.f
The ethnography had also revealed that the pupils and staff in the Centres were networked
in v,1 rying ways to all or some of the places and practices 111entioned earlier in which Susan
had previously observed 'ting'. There were many empirical examples of these connections,
but the data in its ethnographic format, usually narratives or interactions, did not organise
the inf<..>rmation in a way that made ,1ny patterns visible between a speaker's language features
and the practices they engaged in. -~le needed to be able to compare Susan's narrative dc1ta
with Rob's numbers so that we could map a speaker's language practices (e.g. 'boyin'), their
musicality-in-interactions (e.g. rapping, spitting or singing a conversational response) and
their music preferences unto Rob's analysis of the distnlrntron of'th' variants by speaker.
Susan used ethnographic observations, audio recordings and interview data to map how
each pupil enacted their music preferences, for example by noting the names of artists and/
or songs that they talked about, the lyrics they sung aloud and the ways in which musicality
contributed to their everyday interactions. She recorded the presence of instances of musi-
cality in interactions for each speaker according to the ways in which they did this, as listed
in Figure 18.2.
251
utt,,rance. IS •N~:H co11ttibuling to coo,versatio11
~ings collaborative
alone singing
long long
vowel vowel
sings raps spits rhyme rhythm staccato repetition parallelism s11ng 1111sung par~linguistic
features
Figure 18.2 Categories used to identify presence of musicality in utterances
Identifying these presences generated information about the distribution of musicality in

interactions that we could now compare \v1th 'th' variation and \vith nrns.ical preferences.
Crucially for Rob, these were data that would not have emerged without a detailed eth-
nognphy, JS it gues beyond what eou ld have been ascertained froni interview cl:tta, :J nd it
is perhaps unlikely to have immediately emerged as relevant in variationist-oriented eth-
nographic observation. Indeed, the recorded data on which the quantitJ.tive analysis in
Figure l!l.2 is based only include one instance of'staged' rap, performed as art rather than as
part of everyday interaction.
There was a clear pattern.. The pupils who participated in rap music practices, \vhether
highly actively in producing 'bars' or more passively as 'listeners', were the ones who would
sing, rap, spit and use rhythm, rhyme and a staccato pronunciation in their conversatio1ul
utterances to different degrees. Preliminary analvsis shows that the pupils who nscd a ,vider
range of these techniques were Abdou, Jamal and Aiden followed by Jacob and Callum, ,vho
\vere amongst the most prolific 'ting' users (Figure 18.2). Thus, a tentative answer to the
variationist concern with explaining language vanation is that in the Learning Centres, the
use of 'ting' (along with a range of other semiotic modes) could index a person skilled and
knowledgeable in rap based practices, both linguistic and otherwise, but the ethnography
told us that it didn't neces\arily make them ,1 'rapper' or a 'spitter'. There \vere times when
the use of [ti was nrore likely to be enacting a 'gangster' or a 'street' identity, amongst many
other possibilities. So we were cautious about making ,1 singnLir relation between the prac-
tlce in which a linguistic feature was present. and a particular identity. This was unusual for
a traditional variationist project, and it was likely that the findings would not be acceptable
to a variationist audience unless it wci.s possible to demonstrate the redundancy of ethnicity
as an explanatory category for language use, so we had to tmdertc1ke a pc1rallel activity to
assign a single ethnicity 1tlentity tO each pupil, in order to dismiss it ..As such, the pilot study
indicated the potential of ethnographv as a co1laboracive (as \velJ as supporting) tool in the
v:1riationist tradition. But this had only been possible through the use of a 'quantitative'
252
analysis of 'qualitative' thick descriptions and interactional audio recordings, which was l111-
usnal not least because it othen:d so many specifics that had painstakingly been recorded in
field notes and are central to the ethnographic method. This raised issues abont the methods
we had used: was it a 'variationist' project with 'ethnography', or was this a different method?
Implications for practice: mixed methods? lessons learned

The pilot had resulted in ;i collaboration between people but not necessarily between nwth-
ods. As we discussed above, we found that our methods (and the v\·orlds they generate) wen,
largely incommcnrnrahle. and in order to work together we had had to change our med1ods
to find a way to talk about the worlds we were observmg and experiencing in the Learning
Centres Rather than mixing methods, the methods had needed to change. Additionally, our
experience highlighted thl~ importance of recognising the diffrrences in data collection and
preparation methods that share the same terminology but are practised differently in the two
traditions and the need for an aw;1reness of what lies behind theoretical concepts sharing the
same term (e.g. 'identities·, 'practices') at the analysis stage.
The pilot had provided one possible answer to our concern about bringing the two tra-
ditions together: was et/u1ography making things worse? For ns, the answer was both yes and no.
Ethnography was making things worse, perhaps almost impossible, until we changed the
rnalytic method. Yet it also brought with it \N;1ys of dealing with mobile objects, such as
identities and practices, and contributed data that provided an alternative to the traditional
variationist method of explaining language use as a function of identity in a case study where
ethnicity categories could not provide the reqmred evidence.
Acknowledgements
We are immensely grateful to the pupils and staff in the two PRU Learning Centres and
to the PRU mar1Jgement who,c pati\'nce and generosity made this research possible. The
UrDEn_ID project (Urban British English and Identity) was funded by The Leverhulme
Trust, 2014-2016 (RPG-2O14-0:59).
Related topics
Interactional sociolinguistics; Ethics; Style and stylisation; Youth language.
References
Alim, H.S. (2006). Roe the tnic right: T/1e of /11)) hop culture. London and Nevv York: Routledge.
B,mman, IC, & Bnggs, C.l.. (1990). Poeti,·s aud performance as critiul perspectives on bnguage and
social life. Ann1.1,il Review of Anthropology, 19, 59--88.
Blonunaert, J. (2007). On scope and depth in linguistic ethnography. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5):
682-681'.
Bucholtz, M. (2011). fVhite kids: Language, race ,ind styles of youth identity. Cambridge and New York:
Bucholtz.. lvl., & Hall, K. (20Ct5). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic appro,1ch. Ui.,course
Studies, 7(4-5), 585-614.
Cam.eron, D. (1990). Demythologizing sociolinguistics: \Vhy language does not reflect society. ln
J.E. Joseph & T.J. Taylor (Eds.). JJeologies o!languc1lc (pp. 79 96). London: Routledge .
. Chambers, J.K., & Schilling, N. (Eds.) (20U). The handbook of uariation and Oxford:
John Wiley & Sons.
253
Cheshire, J, Fox, S., Ker,will, P., &· Torgersen, E. (2008). Ethnicity, friendship network and social
practices as the motor of diakct change: Linguistic innovation in London. In U. Ammon & KJ.
l\·1attheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistit,r Intern,1tion,1l ycm·bo,)k ".fT11ropt'c111 (Vol. 22, pp. 1-2.'1).
Berlin ,rnd Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
ClitfordJ., & Marcus, G.E. (Eds.) (198f.). H'riri11,? wlwre: The poetics of c1!tn,~r_r<1phy. Berkeley,
Los Angeles am! London: University of California Press.
Coupland. N. (2007). Style: L,111_gu<1ic t'llrillti,>n ,md identity. Cambrtdge and New York: ·ambridg, 0
University Press.
Creese. A. (2008). Linguistic ethnogrnphy. In K.A. King & N.II. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia
if lanlllll_(!C ,rud cducdti,m. Volume 10: Research Methods in I.anguag,· and Education (2nd ed.,
pp. 229-241). Dordrecht: Spri ngcr.
Dedman, T'. (201 lJ. Agency in UK hip-hop and grime youth subcultures -- peripherals and purisb.
Jo11m,II ,,( 'r,,wl, Studies. 14(5), 507-522. doilO 1080/13ti76261.2010.549820
Dray, S. (2017). Identity rnattcrs: L1ngu,1ge, puctices ,md the (uon)pcrfonnance of rudeness in a Pupil
Rct~crral Unit. Ling,1istic, [C; Edw·,,rion, 38, 44· 54.
Drummond, R. (2018). Maybe it's a grime [t]ing: TH-stoppmg among urban British youth. LAil121ll1gc
in S,,ciety, 47(2). 171 ·1%. doi:l0Hll7/S00~7,HJ4517000999
Eckert, P. (2000). Lin2uistfr 1h,ri,1ii,>11 <ls soci,11 puicticc: The linptistir c, 111.m11ct10n of idcnriry i11 Be/ten J-liJ;h.
Oxford: BL,ckwell.
Gcertz, C. (1993). Loccd lmo11'fc1(~c. London: Fontcma.
Ifarnmersley, J\11., & Atkinson, P. (2U07). Eth11o(!r11p/Jy: Prtudples iii pr,ffticc (3rd ed.). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Haraway, DJ (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology and socialist frminism in the late
twentieth century. In D.J. H,ira,v2:1', (Ed.), Sin,i,ms, ,md 1Yon·1cn: Tl,e reinucntiou of natur,·
(pp. 14')-181). New York and Abingdon: Routledge.
Huding, N. (2013). \Vhy are so many rniddlc-d,N children speaking in Jdmaican p:itois 0 A father of
an ll--ye:1r--old girl laments a baffling trend. D,1i/y 1Wail. 11 October. Available from http://www.
d a ilymai I. co. u k / fem ail h rticle-2 4 5 .'\ii1V W"h y- rni ddle-cl ass-child re n-speaki ng-Jamaican- patois-
A-fathcr-11-year-old-girl-bments-ba filing-trend .html
Hickey, R. (2007). Irish Enslish Ir, history ,ind l)ffSCt1t-d,1y J:mn,. Ctmhridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hyrnes, D. (2004 f199f.]). Et/1110~rc1p/1y, lir1.,z11istics, JJ.irr,Uit•c i11cq1wlity: 1,w·drd a,1 1111dcrst,mdi11g of uoicc.
Lundon: ·raylor & Francis.
Johns, I.. (2013). Lmguage is power. Four Thought. BHC P..adio 4, 2nd October. Available from http://
www.bbc.co. u k/programmcs/b03brt2x
Johns, I. (2014). D'ya get me) Does proper Engfoh 1nattcr) Rtttlc ofl,le,1s 10. 18th October. Available
from http: //w w,v. luttlcofidea•;_ org. u k/2 0 J4 /session_ det;iil/9001
Kirklum, S. (2015). Intersectionality and the social meanings of\·ariation: Class. ethnicity, and social
practice. Lang11,wc in So,icty, 44(5), 629-652.
Labov. ·v;r (1972). Some pri12ciples ofJinguistic 1nethodology. Lmg11,1gc in Society, 1, 97-120.
Lave,J., & \Venger, E. (1991). Sit11,11cd lc,mling: Lc;;;iti111,1tc peripher.il p,1rticipation. Cambridge: C,1n1bridge
Urnversity Press.
Law, J. (20U8). i\ctor--nctwork tbcory and material semiotics. In B.S. Turner (Ed.). The new Blackwell
comp,mion to sori,il theory (,rd ed., pp. 141-158). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lawson, R. (2011). Patterns of linguistic variation among (;Ja,wegian 2dolesccnt males. Jonrn<ll of So-
ciolin~r;uistics,, 1. f, 215 <254.
Levon, E. (2012). The voice of others: Identity, allerit y and gender normativity among gay men in
Israel. Lm1_~1taf!C in Socil'fy, 41(2). 187-211.
Mendoza-Denton, N. (.2008). Hol!lrpir/s. Oxti..,rd: Bldcbvell.
JVloore, E. (2010). The interaction between social c1tegor)' and social practice: E~.plaining w<1s/wnc
variation. L111i11dgc f<1ri<1tion ,md Chuli/;l', 22, 347-47.l
Podewa, R. (2007). Phonation type as a ,tylistic variable: The use of fahetto in constructing a per--
sonal.]011111<1/ ofSocioling11istics, 1/(4), 478 504.
Rampton. B. (20()(-,). Li111g1111le in l<1te wodemity: lnrer<1ctiN1 i11 ,m 111b,111 sd100/. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rampton. B .. Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (201'i). Theory ,ind method m linguistic ethnography. In
J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Lin211is1ic ct!mogrdp!,y: l11tcrdisriplimny e.,plor<1titms (pp. 14-50).
London: Pa.lgrave.
254
Mixing melhods: LE and language variation
Schilling, N. (2013). Sociolinguistic fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres•;.

Sharma, D. (201 l). Style repertoire and social change ju British Asian English. Juimwl o/Sociolin,quistics,
15(4). 464-492.
Sharma, D .. & Rampton, B. (2015). Lc:cul in interaction: A new methodology for the study
vari;rtion.Journa/ of English Linguistics, 43(1), 3-35.
Snell, J. (2015). Linguistic ethnographic nrrrnect.1vc·s on working class children's speech: Challenging
discourses of deficit. In J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary
explorations (pp. 225-245). London: Palgrave.
Stolzoff, N.C. (2000). fVizke the town ,md tell the people: Drzncehall culture in.Jamaica. Durham and London:
Duke University Press.
Tagliamonte, S.A. (2011). Vilfiationist sociolinguistics: Change, obsem1tion, interpretation. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
TagliarnontE'. S.A. (2016). Making 1.11<11'cs: I!tc story of variationist socioli11guistics. Chichester:
\JVilcv-Bbckwell.
Watson, K. (2007). Liverpool English. Jow11<1/ of 1/11' Int. Phonetic Assoc, 37(3), 351-.°\f,0
Wells, J. (1982). Acrrnts of English 3: Beyo11d rhc British Isles. Cambridge: Carn bridge University Press.
Woolard, K.A. (2008). Why dat now?Joum,zl o{So,ioli11guistics, 12(4), 432--452.
Woolgar, S., & Pawluch, D. (1985). Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of· social problems
explanations. Social Problems, 32(3), 214-227.
255
Part Ill
Sites and situations
19
Youth language
Rickard Jonsson, Henning Arman and Tommaso M. Milani
Introduction: definitions and key terms

Penelope Eckert famously stated that "adolescents are the linguistic movers and shakers"
(Eckert, 1997, p. 1); their linguistic creativity has triggered the curiosity of researchers who
aim to tease out the relationships between language and social processes. Young people are
also early adopters of new communicative technologies that shape language use under con-
temporary late modern conditions. Their linguistic practices are therefore rich empirical
ground for those who want to understand language variation and change. Yet recognising
creativity and innovation should not obfuscate the fact that linguistic agency is always condi-
tioned by societal forces which are well beyond speakers' control. This means that the social
location of young speakers cannot be bracketed out of the study of youth language. One
should also be careful not to romanticise youth's language use or suggest that young people
are always creative and/or in opposition to social structures. Representations of young people
and their linguistic practices are also imbricated with the production of specific normative
orders that structure youth's living conditions.
These considerations have given rise to a considerable body of academic work on youth
language. It lies beyond the scope of a handbook chapter to give a comprehensive overview
of all the different aspects of this scholarship. Therefore, we have decided to concentrate
on the intersections of multilingualism and urbanity in contexts of migration in European
cities, which saw the emergence and development of a variety of linguistic practices that
have come to be known as kebabnorsk in Norway (Aasheim, 1997), Kiezdeutsch in Germany
(Androutsopoulos, 2001; Wiese, 2006), rinkebysvenska in Sweden (Kotsinas, 1988a), Strattaal
in the Netherlands (Appel, 1999; Nortier, 2001) and Verlan in France (Doran, 2004). These
linguistic practices employed by young people in multilingual settings have been the target
of much sociolinguistic research since the early 1980s (for early works, see Hewitt, 1982;
1986; Kotsinas, 1988b; see also Quist & Svendsen, 2010; Kern & Selting, 2011; Nortier &
Svendsen, 2015). And what may appear at first glance a relatively narrow object of study
is actually a window into understanding a wide range of social issues, power relations and
societal norms: age, space/place and urbanity, language usage and linguistic (anti-)norms.
259
Rickard Jonsson et al.
As Doran (20(14) put it in her analysis of T/erlc111 in the French context, nmt-standard
linguistic practices spoken by youth in multilingu:il settings acquire their meaning through a
monolingual bnguage ideology. While tbi, ideology of the standard may constrnct a fantasy
of a common natio11,1l identity and a concomitant homogenous language, it simultane-
ously seeks to suppress the possibility of ,1 heterogeneous society, devaluing non-normative
linguistic practices and making them unintelligible. That being said, Foucault (1990, p. 95)
famously wrote that "where there is power there is resistance", or to put it differently, where
there is a norm, there are the conditions through which to challenge it.
Overall, the study of urban youth styles offers a vantage point onto the mundane ways
in which contestation of the social order goes hand in hand with processes of reproduction
of the status quo. More specifically, in tbi, chapter, \Ve take linguistic practice, .1s surting
points from \vhich to address some key issues in rese.1rch on language and youth, ,is ,.vell as
offer a self-reflexive discussion on the didlog1c n:lal!onship between language pncticn and
sociolingu1:;tic rnqlllry. The latter follows from the observation that research itselflu; played
a role - ofrrn a prohkrnatic one - in the "niregisterrnent" (Agha, 2007) of youth's linguis-
tic prc1ctices. By "enregisterment", we mean "processes and practices whereby performable
signs become recognized (and regrouped) as belonging to distinct, differentially valorized
semiotic registers by a population" (Agha, 2007, p. 81). In this definition, "registers" need
to be understood as "cultural models of action that link diverse behavioral signs to enactable
eflects, including images of persona, interpersonal relatiomhip, and type of conduct" (Agha,
2007, p. 145)
Against this backdrop, we elaborate on the different labels, their different vantage points
and merits, and L!ic atulytical dilemmas that emerge whenever youth's usage is
given a name. Av.;arc of this conundrum, \Ve concnr \vith Rampton (201 .'i) that ro11tcmporary
urban vern,1rnlar (CUV) is perhaps the least prohlem;1tic and most appropnate label through
which to encapsulate the diversity of linguistic styles without simultaneously encoding
ethnicity and youth in the very sociolinguistic label one employs, as in the case of, say,
ct/1110/ert. multiethnolect or youth langua.szc, etc. (see also 'Critical issues and debates', below, for a
more detailed discussion). Rampton describes CUV as a "hybrid style"
that has emerged. is sustained and i, felt to be distinctive in ethnicilly mixed ur-
ban neighbourhoods shaped by immigration and class stratification, that is seen as
connected-hut-distinct from the locality's migrant languages, it, traditional non-
standard dialect. its national standard and its adult second language spec1kcr styles, as
well as from the prestigious counter-,t:rndard stvle:; (such as American Venucnlar .Black
English) circulating in global popular culture, that is often widely noted :md enregis-
tered beyond its localities of origin, represented in media and popular culture as well as
in the informal speech of people outside.
(Rampton, 2015, p. 39)
All in all, the expression CUV seeks to capture the diversity of linguistic forms and practice,
(including crossmg and stylisation), as well as the idrnlogical processes surrounding them; it
also broaden, the age spectrum considering !101,v what originally began as a yunth phenome-
non has over t1tne become solidified and is used hy adult speakers (see also Elia:;o Magnusson &
Stroud, 2012). That bcrng said, CUV is a rcla.rj.vcJy new terminology that still has nut gained
widespread m:1ge. Therefore, in order not to supcnrnpo1e this new notion onto thearcb that
has not explicitly employed this expression, we also employ the broader and more established
denomination "youth styles". lndeed, the modifier "youth" foregrounds the age dimension,
260
Youth langua9e
but the plural fr,rrn "styles" seeks to highlight t.he multiplicity and heterogeneity of these
linguistic expressions. Moreover, the word style, a synonym of design, brings with it a sense
of branding, and hence of identity (cf Coupland, 2007), thus highlighting the connections
between linguistic forms and the discursive construction of Self and Other.
Taking a bird's-eye view on the study of youth styles over the last 30 years or so, it is possible
to see that existing scholarship is extremely diverse and has been pursued from a broad set of
epistemological vantage points and theoretical perspectives. In the remainder of this section,
we take the historical trajectory in Swedish research as a case in point because wT feel that it
is to a certain degree representative of the epistemological debates in other contexts as well,
although we are aware that focussing on a specific academic location is bound to erase the
specificities of others.
Language practices an10ngst youth in the outskirts of major Swedish cities such as
Gothenburg, Malmo and Stockholm began to catch the interest of Swedish (socio)linguists in
the late 1980s. Kotsinas (1988b) was perhaps the first scholar who systematically investigated
linguistic phenomena amongst multilingual youth in the suburbs of Stockholm. In her
prolific work, Kotsinas discussed whether such phenomena could be understood with the
help of concepts from language contact research such as pidgin, creole and creoloid, or could
be studied with the help of methods and terminology borrowed from dialcctoJogy. More-
over, Kotsinas employed the label rinkebysvenslc:a (Rinkeby Swedish),' which w:1s arguably the
emic label used by the participants in her study.
At the risk of falling into undue oversimplifications, early research on rinkebysucnska can
be characteri<,ed as what Svendsen ;md Quist (2010) call "a structural, variety approach".
Grounded in structuralist sociolinguistics, such a research perspective had two main ainis:
(l) to map the linguistic features and structure of rinkebysvenska, and (2) to find correlations
between specific linguistic features ;md macro-sociological structures and categories. Similar
to Labov's (1972) vvork on, and public social engagement with, Africm American Vernacubr
English (AAVE), the structural variety approach emphasised that youth language, like other
registers, lects or varieties should not be treated as 'deficient', but should rather be understood
in its own right-- not a lack or a problem to be solved, but a register th;n should be recognised
and valued in itself There is no doubt that Kotsinas broke important ground in the study of
rinkebysvenska, and several scholars who followed her attempted to test whether some of her
arguments would be confirmed or refuted by larger empiric1l investigations e.g. Gam1z:1,
2008; Boden, 2011). An important msight provided by thi, strand of research is that language
practices amongst urban multilingual youth are in no way the result of poor language skills in
the rnajority language; rather, speakers are able to switch between linguistic styles depending
on the speech situation (Boden, 200,1; however, see Jaspers, 2016 for a critical discussion).
Linguistic description, however, is but one perspective on the study of multilingual
youth styles. Quist and Svendsen (2010) point out that the late 1990s sa\v the emergence
of "a practice-oriented approach", which is bc1,cd on a post-structuralist and pcrfornutive
understanding oflanguage and language use. 'The practice-oriented approach was inspin:d by
Rampton's (1995) groundbreaking book Crossing as well as Butler's (1990) seminal work on
performativity. While Butler's theoretical reflections are on gender and not linguistic ,tylcs,
1 Rinkeby is oue ofStockhnlm's suburbs, where the style is said to luve originated
261
her thinking produced what could be called a 'performative turn' in the study oflanguage
in society (see also Cameron, 2005). In brief, Butler brings together three very different
theoretical insights: (1) Austin's (1975) notions of the pcrfonnative and language as social
action, (2) Derrida's (1982) view on the 'iterability' (i.e. repletion and citation) of linguis-
tic signs and (3) Althusser's (1971) concept of interpellation, that is, how subjects are called
into rncial existence acts of ideological 'h:1iling'. This eclectic theoretical blend enabled
Butler to conceptualise how identities are linguistic enactments based on the simultaneous
(re)iteration of and departure from an existing matrix of dom.inant norms. A perfonnativity
perspective entailed a shift away from the commonly taken-for-granted attitude that people
spoke the ,-vay they did because of who they already were towards an understanding of how
people deploy linguistic resources in order to style themselves in particular ways through
social interaction (see also Cameron, 1997, and Jaspers and Van Hoof, this volume). This does
noL mean, however, that identities can be chosen freely; rather, some identities may be more
or Jt'SS perforrnable and negotiable than others m interactions.
The practice-oriented approach seems to have become the dominant paradigm in the
study oflinguistic practices amongst multilingual youth, and rnosl studies employ linguistic
ethnography as their ;rnalytical and methodological lynchpin. This is because linguistic
ethnography enables an in-depth understan_ding of the local situatedness oflanguage usage
as well as tracing the emergence of identities as interactions unfold (Jaspers, 2008; J0rgensen,
2000; Rampton, 20U6, 2011; Milani & Jonsson, 2012; Madsen, 2015). While there is a
general agreement on the usefulness of a practice-oriented approach, there remain some
important terminological, analytical and methodological discussions within this paradigm.
In the next section, we engage in more deu1l with mch debates. We begin with the issues
of linguistic labelling, and we then move on to problematic links bet,vt:en youth styles,
ethnioty and gender.
The problem of labels

Several scholars have pornted out that the Libeh given by a variety of social actors (expert and
lay) to urban youth styles entail a wide range of problems (Stroud, 2004; Milani, 2010; Milani &
Jonsson, 20 l], 2012; Cornips et a1., 2015). By giving a style a label ,uid by pointing out which
groups it 'belongs' to, both identities and language use are congealed - they become fixed
and limited. This means that any label inherently risks oversimplifying and reducing the
variation and diversity oflmguistic practices, turning them into a problematically uniform
and conventionalised whole or unit (Rampton, 201 L Madsen, 2013). Related to the pro-
cess of naming are also the connotations that (socio)linguistic labels, and the phenomena
they signify, acquire over time through indexical links that tie youth styles to broader social
phenomena. for example, rinkebysvcnska has become an icon (Irvine & GaL 2000) of ethnic
Otherness, social and educational fiulure, and of an aggressive sexist and homophobic mascu-
linity (Stroud, 2004; Milani, 2010; Milani &.Jonsson, 2012). Such a negative image, in turn,
is more or less overtly constructed against the benchmark ofa 'national' standard language as
a 'good', 'equal' and 'ernancipatory' linguistic code (Milani, 2010).
Cognisant of their own role in such processes of"ideological becorning'' (Rampton, 2015),
scholars have been debating which analytical terms are rnost ethically suited to describing
linguistic styles amongst multilingual youth. It has been suggested that modernist notions of
language as a bounded entity (see Heller, 20il7 for a cntlcal discussion) cannot be employed
262
Youth language
when to describe and analyse actual use of different linguistic resources in social pro-
cesses of meaning-making (Makoni & Pennycook, 2006;J0rgensen, 2008; Pennycook, 2010).
Moreover, tbere 1s strong resistance against characterisations of youth styles that tie them to
predefined social categories - age and ethnicity in particular (Moller & J0rgensen, 2011;
MiLmi & Jonsson, 2012; Madsen, 20 In th1s respect, it has been :irgued (sec Jaspers, 2008,
Rampton, 2015) that labels such as rinkebysvenska or kebabnorsk and sociolinguistic notions
such as ethnolect, rnultiethnolect, urban youth speech styles or youth language should be avoided as
analytical concepts as they encode an ethnification and/or juvenilisation of linguistic prac-
tice. As an alternative, it has been suggested to attend to what Agha (2007) calls "enregister-
ment", that is, those processes through which linguistic phenomena come into being as social
constructs and enter a symbolic economy of social meaning. In line with this perspective,
more notions such as langu,1c,:i11,~ (Moller et al., 2014), everyday /angu,\11ing (Madsen
et al., 2015) or CUVs (Rampton, 201 l, ,i.re seen as more appropriate (sec Pennycook,
2016 for a u1tical overview).
Ethnification and gendering

Madsen and Svendsen (2015) have contended that sociolinguistic researchers themselves have
actually played a crucial part in the enregisterment (Agha, 2007) of urban speech ,tyles as
an indexical sign of ethnic Otherness associated with various social problems in specific
urban areas, Madsen (2015, p. 109) argues that the highlighting of ethnicity -- as, for exam-
ple, through the very notions of ctlu10/cc1 or multiethnolect - has socio-political and language
ideological consequences that researchers should consider. Such a process of ethnification is
particularly challenging if one concurs with Svendsen and Quist (2010, p. that there is
no empirical evidence to suggest that youth styles employed in rnultilingual urban settings
necessarily indn, ethnicity alone. V:1rious other categories such as class, gender, place and
generation could equally be important aspects of what is being played out through these
linguistic practices (sec Mendoza-Denton, 2008; Jaspers, 2011; Rampton, 2011).
A cogent example of the intersectional nature of youth styles is offered by Madsen (2013)
who shows how, in the context of Copenhagen, a sociolinguistic transformation is under-
way. Linguistic features that have traditionally been associated with migration, or indexed as
belonging to 'non-Danish youth', are now also related to broader conceptions of 'high' and
'low', Whereas ,oeiolinguists searched for and emphasised ethnicity in the study of 'street'
register, Madsen (2013) illustrates how ethnicity and social class are intertwined in the lan-
guage ideologies surrounding one and rhe .,a1111' style. Departing from youths' metalinguistic
reflection;; on two contrasting registers, labelled 'integrated' and 'street language', Madsen
convincingly demonstrates that to speak 'integrated' is not just a matter of being perceived as
'well integrated' but is also associated with social mobility and high socio-economic status.
Correspondingly, 'street language' is also related to societal conceptions of status on a 'high'
and 'low' dimension, however at the other end of the same linguistic axis. These findings
lead Madsen to link integrated speech to what Danish sociolinguists previously described as a
comcrvat1w standard code (see Maegaard, while street language is cnrcgistered partly
as the of the same style. Social class, therefore, "can be seen as dn awareness of a
'high' and 'low' societal stratification and ethnicity as an awarenes, of terntonal belongings
involving 'inside/outside' relation.,;'' (Nladsen. 2013, p. 118).
however, is not the only problem, A no less challenging proce" ofgendering-
masculinisation - has also been part of the "linguistic ideologization" (Androutsopoulos,
2010) of youth styles. Research in Denmark and Sweden illustrates how resources associaLed
263
with multilingual youth styles are used in peer interactions to construct tough masculine
youth identities (Milani &Jonsson, 2011; Madsen, 2015). This is not to say that girls do not
en1ploy multilingual youth styles as welL a, some cornmentators have ,u-gued. However,
because of its ideological enreg1sterrnent as a gendered (i.e. masculine) v,iriety, multilingual
youth styles play a particular role in the negotiations of a "local masculine order" (.Evaldsson,
in all male peer encounters at school and play important functions in the production
:wd contestation of in-group solidarity and friendship (see, amung others Jonssun, 2007;
Madsen, 2013; St~ehr, 2015).
With hindsight, however, researchers ~ two of us included (Jonsson and Milani) - may
have been too preoccupied with deconstrunmg the link between multilingual youth styles
and masculinity, so that paradoxically this very deconstruction might have contributed to
further enregistering these practices along intcrscctional !mes of gender (masculinity) and
cthnJCity/race. Accordrngly, no matter how \Yell-meaning our intentions might have been,
vve could be criticised tc)r contributing to consolidate a speci ftc image of who the speaker
of this style is (see also Milani & Jonsson, 2018 for a detailed discussion about reflexivity
and enregistennent). This is not necessarily to say tlut we should discard altogether our and
others' work. However. these self-reflections might be useful to remind ourselves that the
performance of toughness and masculinity must al ways be investigated as a contextual ques-
tion. and that many other identities and social manoeuvres may be performed through the
same lingu1st1c resources.
Current research areas

It is impossible to do Justice to the empirical breadth and theoretical richness of current
research areas within the 'practice-oriented approach' to the study of CUVs. Because of
our own intellectual trajectories, we have decided to foreground three interrelated areas of
inquiry: (l) the study oflanguage ideologv and the enregisterment of CUVs; (2) research
that seeks to move beyond the notion of language as a bounded entity so as to grasp the
messine5s of multilingual encounters; and (3) youth style and research about them in relation
to global flows.
Language ideologies
Tu the introduction to this chapter, \Ve said that 'enregi,terment' (i\gha, 2007) can be useful to
capture the ideological process through which specific linguistic features, varieties and styles
become associated with broader sociocultural images. Earlier research within the practice-
oriented approach to youth styles vvas broadly divided into tvvo main strands: one that fo-
cussed primarily on media texts and pracuces (see e.g. Stroud, 2004; Androutsopoulous
2010; Milani 2010) and anolher that privileged naturally occurring interactions in schools
c1.nd other environment, (JaspeVi, 2005; Jonsson, 2007; Quist. 2008). More recently, how-
ever, there h:,s been rncreased agreement that the social life (11° language can only be fully
understood through a multi-focal approach that simultaneously targets media discourse and
linguistic interactions across a variety of discursive sites. Such a multi- pronged analytical !em
enables us tu tap into societal discourses about the cultural v;t!ue of a particular linguis-
tic phenomenon; at the same time, it allows us to delve into more localised instances of the
ways in which speakers strategically mobilise available "ideological resources in complex and
creative ways"' (Cameron & Kulick, 2003, p. 136).
264
Youth language
To take once again Sweden as a case in point, we saw earlier that rinkebysvenska has been
enregistered by media discourses as an icon ofsocial problems and of a tough masculinity con-
nected to the 'immigrant Other'. These cultural images are, in turn, pitted against normative
ideas of standard Swedish, and its speakers, as the 'golden mean'. These language ideological
boundaries are highly relevant in school interactions as well. As Milani and Jonsson (2011)
point out in an ethnographic study of two schools outside Stockholm, standard Swedish is
viewed by teachers and students alike as an index of being a good student, whereas rinke-
bysvenska and slang more generally are synonymous with unruly behaviour. Ethnographic
observations testify to the fact that this opposition on a linguistic plane recurs on ethnic
and gender levels as well. For example, it was not uncommon in Milani and Jonsson's (2011)
study, to hear jokes about 'ethnic Swedes' - whether boys or girls - being 'good' and 'orderly'
in opposition to 'bad' and 'disruptive' 'immigrant young men'.
In the light of this ideological background, it is perhaps not unexpected that, as long as the
conversation amongst the adolescents in Milani and Jonsson's study centred on neighbour-
hood rivalry and conflict, it was peppered with linguistic ingredients typically associated
with rinkebysvenska, but, as soon as the topic shifted to 'good relations' and orderliness, it
was linguistically rendered through the means of standard Swedish. Furthermore, dominant
ideas of who the urban vernacular speaker is can partly overlap with a moral panic about
boys' educational failure (Jonsson, 2015). While the figure of the 'rowdy boy' has a very long
history and is a well-known figure in educational settings in Sweden and elsewhere, what it
is called and who is presumed to embody that position vary. Jonsson (2015) shows how the
'immigrant young man' who employs CUV in the classroom may evoke ideas of anti-school
culture masculinities.
That being said, school ethnographic research illustrated complex patterns of reproduction
and contestation of the status quo. Multilingual adolescents, for example, employ a plethora
of accents (both standard and non-standard) to perform a variety of personae. Moreover, by
skilfully employing humorous keying of parody and metaparody, they challenge the social
order in daily interactions. Of course, one might wonder to what extent "local practice
[can] challenge the hegemony of national and global policy" (Blackledge & Creese, 2010,
p. 6). But what is nonetheless clear is that multilingual youths are not straightforwardly
(re)producing dominant discourses.
Everyday languaging
We saw earlier that one of the most powerful language ideological constructs is the idea
that languages, and linguistic styles, are distinct entities ready to be isolated and counted
(Woolard, 1998). The study oflanguage usage in urban multilingual environments instead
has demonstrated that young people can use a wide range oflinguistic resources in a way that
challenges ideas of fixed languages, as well as the well-established notion of code-switching
between such separate linguistic entities. As an alternative, a number of analytical concepts
have been proposed to capture such linguistic practices: metrolingualism (Pennycook, 2010),
translanguaging (Garcia, 2009) or poly-languaging (J0rgensen, 2008) to name just a few (see also
Pennycook, 2016 for a critical overview). In this context, we want to highlight the notion of
everyday languaging, which has been fruitfully used in analyses of CUVs by a group of Danish
sociolinguists who have followed Jens NormanJ0rgensen's groundbreaking work on multi-
lingual youth in Copenhagen. Speaking about languaging is an attempt to avoid a naturalised
. division oflinguistic resources into distinct languages. Instead, the analytical gaze is directed
265
towards the> h ugc variety oflinguistic resources that young people may employ in their every-
day linguistic pr:1ctices. Language is thus treated as an eYeryday phenomenon. which is con-
stantly bemg constructed and ascribed meJning. when nsed by participants in mundane talk
in various local contexts. The concept oC languaging, as Madsen ct al. p. 7)
state, allO\vs an investigation of "the social godls tlut actors pursue with and through lan-
guage, and (... ) to identify the connections between isolated moments in time, and between
diffnent individuals' trajectories of socialisJtion".
The concept oflanguaging is furthermore a reply to the risk of ethnification as discussed
above. Hovvever, in the effort of trying to "de-ethnify" the hbels, researchers also run the
risks of broadening the terrns to the point where they become all--encompassing and some-
thing of a ''tlo:1ti ng signifier". When talking oC everyday languaging, are scholars studying any
everyday t1nguag<" us<", Everyday languagmg as a concept is today usnl m the au,ilysis of
language use .imoHg youth in urban settings. It is to our knowledge not ust'd t<J analyse other
linguistic practice,, sJy, for example, the corrumm 1c;1tion amongst adult, in boardrooms.
If researcbns ,ire studying a predefined and finite facet oflanguage, a very capacious label
like everyday languagin,,z might conceal our own methodological choices. On what basis do
we choose the participants in our studies and decide where to conduct our fieldwork? Tbe
analytical terms might be de-ethnified. but what about our research practices? Are we not
still preoccupied with ethnicity as Wt' decide to collect data in certain areas of the city, or
amongst a specific group of youth?
Global flows
Today, fe\Y would deny the profound in1pact of soci,il media and digiul comumnication
on langmgr pr,icticcs, not least amongst yollth. St:ehr (2015) argues that these nevv means
of communication clnnge the status of \vhat counts as written vs. spoken discourse.
Historically, linguistic ethnographers studying multilingual youth styles have often been
prioritismg spoken discourse as data. However, as online and offline meaning-making
becomes entangled and even inseparable, researchers are increasingly trying to incorporate
online interaction in their analysis and explore new ways of theorising youth's digital lan-
guage practices (Androutsopoulos, 2015; N0rreby & Moller, 2015; Nortier. 2016; Dovchin,
2017). As a consequence, research practices arc being pushed towards new directions and
online ethnography entails new challenges as well as ethical considerations ot its uwn.
Moreovn, rect'nt studies from the Clobal South on young people's online/offline
linguistic illustrate how youth "in the periphery" (Sultana ct al., 2013) arc not
passive recipients of global cultural circulation but agcntively appropriate and resignify global
discourses, engaging "in a playful stylization and reconfiguration of what the local means"
(Sultana et al., 2013, p. 687). Such a focus on circulation, in turn, raises the issue of other
exclunges, namely the epistemological dialogues between Europe-based research and work
on contexts from the Global South.
Firm.ly grounded in the tradition of sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, the
study of CUVs has had a strong focus on the linguistic practices amongst young people in
Western/Nurthern urban milieus. Adrnittt'dly. these' adolescents and/or th<"ir families often
originate from Southern Europe and/or th<" Global South. However, their lived experiences
and multilingtul encounters are strongly framed by the ideological and structur,il conditions
of the Northern/\Veslern countries in which th<"y currently live. Therd,,re, one could go
as far as suggest that the study of CUVs suffers from an inherent Eurocentric bias not least
because it has engaged very little with research on youth language in the Global South (see
266
Youth language
however some of the contributions to Nortier & Svendsen, 2015 for notable exceptions),
which has a very long tradition in Africa and Asia (see e.g. Mesthrie, 2008; Djenar & Ewing,
2012; Hurst, 2014; Nassenstein & Hollington, 2015; Mensah, 2016; Dovchin et al., 2017).
This is furthermore a body of scholarship that has provided convincing empirical evidence of
the transglossic, fluid and messy nature of multilingual encounters, testifying to the difficulty
in drawing clear-cut lines between languages in interaction (see e.g. Makalela, 2015).
We strongly believe that there should be more cross-fertilisation of ideas between
research on CUVs in Europe and other Northern/Western contexts, on the one hand, and
scholarship on youth linguistic practices in the Global South, on the other. This is because
the global margins are "ex-centric" windows, as the Comaroffs call it, "on the world at
large" (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2012). Put differently, perspectives from the Global South are
helpful to "provincialize" Europe, to use Chakrabarty's (2000) turn of phrase. This is not "a
project of rejecting or discarding European thought" but of "exploring how this thought -
which is now everybody's heritage and which affect us all - may be renewed from and for
the margins" (Chakrabarty, 2000). In light of this, perspectives on youth styles from the
Global South could help us not to fall into the trap of "universalizing" research results that
are instead particular to European contexts.
Future directions
In this final section, we want to outline some possible future directions within research
on multilingual youth styles. First, based on our ethnographic insight into the Swedish
context (see also Androutsopoulous, 2016 for Germany), we believe that humour is a key
"epistemological site" (Sunderland, 2004) which requires further investigation. Such interest
in humour stems from the kind of play-acting communication that Jaspers (2005; see also
Jaspers, 2011) has described in his ethnographic work, when some Moroccan boys in a
Belgian school call their own linguistic practices "to do ridiculous". The art of doing ridic-
ulous included the use of various playful linguistic resources so as to disrupt the classroom
order or to shift attention during the lessons to non-school topics. This "linguistic sabotage",
Jaspers argues, is employed by the students to negotiate their classroom participation and
as a way to resist stereotyping identity categories. In a similar vein, Charalambous (2012)
has shown how some Greek-Cypriot adolescents use what she calls "silly talk", that is,
short playful utterances, as a way to engage in politically loaded issues in classroom prac-
tices. Pomerantz and Bell (2011) have argued that humour in classroom interactions may
function as a resource for students to construct, negotiate and play with institutional iden-
tities. Finally, Chun's (2013) analysis of how students make fun of other students' learner
language shows how humour "is an ideal space for engaging in ideological work, given that
humorous performers have licence to break with everyday norms of interaction" (p. 278).
However, much of the work on humoristic talk in classrooms - as well as the research on
urban youth styles - has emphasised the possibility of constructing, negotiating and resisting
ethnic identities through humorous speech acts (Svendsen & Quist, 2010; Rampton, 2011;
Nortier & Svendsen, 2015). Accordingly, we call for an analysis of CUVs, where humour
is not solely treated as a linguistic tool for constructing identities, but also an analysis with
a focus on affects and the joint creation of laughs (see Jonsson, 2018). Moreover, drawing
upon Michael Billig's (2005) reflections on humour, we might ask ourselves: what happens
when the stereotypes, surrounding the rinkebysvenska speaker, become the target ofjokes and
. ridicule? And finally, what are the subversive possibilities in the laughs connected to specific
contexts where CUVs are spoken?
267
Second, researchers arc currently exploring ways to sensitise the rescird1 on CUV, in
relation to social ;ind n1obility of youth l'he Swedish context can
,crve :is a c1,e in pornt. In St()ckhulm, high school pupils arc fi·ee to apply to any hig] 1
scl]()ul regardless of whether or not the school is located iu the the pup1h
live in. This has resulted in a flow of young people cornmutmg through the in order
to ,1ncnd attrJct1vc schools. As Blornmaert (20()5) points out, rnovmg through a city also
rneans moving thn.,ugli a ,tratificd sonol1ngui,tic sp:ice. Youth's spatial movement thus also
constitutes a movement through shitting use.
In a study of the regin1t·ntat10n of CUV in :i lngh school in Stockholm, Arman
draws upon a linguistichemiotJc lanchcape perspecttve (J1vvcirski & Thurlow, 2011) on
, sp.ice and the material environment. Such a theoretical fran1ework aJlows him to
describe the 1dcologJCal producllon of social space and the resemiot1sat1ons (f edem,t,
of di,courses med to comme1H on use in the high schooL In the social space that
was conjured up by the ,tudents and teacliers, stylisauons of CUV become an ideologic1l
battleground about who Ins the right Lo use these l resources. and who instead is
dismissed ci., illegitimate or ctcc11sed of a problcm,1tic proJect of cultural appropria.
tion (!\rnun, 2U1
ln similar vein, Norreby (21117) ,llulyses styl1,at1on ofCUV in two different
school in the Damsh context: one public school, described as an aver;1ge Copenhagen
public school, and one private rn one ofDenrn;irk ·, most expemi ve nc1ghbourl10ocls. N0rreby
:irgues that the finding,
support the irnage th;1t the contemporary urban vern;1cuLu in Copenhagen has become
a widespread phenomenon by illrntrating how prevalent Jeaturcs c1ssociated with the
register are not just part of the repertoire of children frmn the urban, public
schools but also of chlldrcn attending socioeconomically privileged priv;itc elite
,choob.
2017, p. 28)
Furthcrrnore, the study shows tlLtt speakers in both have a fine-tuned understanding
of macro-level discourses on language l11erarchies in Denmark, and they dra1,.- on indexical
values of CUV in their parodic stylisations.
A focus on rnobility invites us to gears and turn our gaze to the parts of the city
which have typically not been associated with urban vernaculars. Such a perspective also
challenges us to cirefully (re)think space in linguistic ethnographic studies. Perhaps it is to-
,vards a rcne,ved interest rn space that fi1ture studies of CU Vs should turn.
Further reading
Madsen, LM., Karrcb:ck, iVLS., &. M,1llcr, J.S. (Eds.) (201.5). Eucryd")' Colfobomtiuc rcs1'.<11c/1
011 the ]<1nx11,;~c 11,c of thild,cn ,md y,mrl,: Herl in: Mouton de Cruytcr. (This volume: introduce, the
tcnn "cvervday languaging" and provides an important critique of the and pitfalls of
giving non-nonnative linguistic style~ a reductionistic and L1beL Tb rough 1nany ex-
taken from a wide r:mgc of contexts in urlnn Denmark, the book investigates how children
construct, negotiate and 1uvigate betwc·en ditleretJl and sooocultural norms
and resources.)
Nortier, J.. & Svendsen, B /\. (Ecb) (2015). L111x1wge, youth mu! 111 the 21st Century·- lin.~uistlc
prc1crii:cs dd'(1SS 11rbt1t1 ::,pi!ccs. c:arnbr,idge: C:;.;unbridge {Jnivr·rsity Prcs-s. (Norticr ~ind '.)\.'to:ndsen\ edited
volume collects several contc1nporary tests that have been referred to in this chapter. The chap·
ters investigate ho,v youth's lang1ugc us,0 intersects witlJ cir;e, cd1rncitv, gender and chss in specific
268
Youth language
cultural contexts. One of the book's major strengths lies in the fact that it covers the topic of youths'
linguistic practices from a global perspective.)
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. (This is
a seminal study of language crossing amongst adolescents of African-Caribbean, Punjabi and
Anglo descent. Rampton's groundbreaking research raises questions about what the processes of
language exchange amongst youth actually do, both in terms of challenging race stratifications and
constructing a sense of new mixed youth, class and neighbourhood community.)
Related topics
Interactional sociolinguistics; Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation; Heteroglossia; Social
class; Style and stylisation; Mixing methods?; Reflexivity; Language diversity in classroom settings.
References
Aasheim, S. (1997). Kebab-norsk - fremmedspraklig pavirkning pa ungdomsspraket i Oslo. In U.B.
Kotsinas, A.B. Stenstrom, & A.M. Karlsson (Eds.), Ungdomssprak i Norden:foredrag.fran ettforskarsym-
posium (pp. 235-242), Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet.
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Androutsopoulos, J.K. (2001). From the streets to the screens and back again: On the mediated diffusion of
ethnolectal patterns in contemporary German. Duisburg: Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg.
Androutsopoulos, J. (2010). Ideologizing ethnolectal German. In S. Johnson & T.M. Milani (Eds.),
Language ideologies and media discourse: Texts, practices, politics. London and New York: Continuum.
Androutsopoulos,J. (2015). Negotiating authenticities in mediatized times. Discourse, Context & Media,
8, 74-77.
Androutsopoulos, J. (2016). Performing the exemplary speaker: Multimodal enregisterment in
German ethnic comedy. Keynote address at CADAAD 6, 5-7 September 2016, University of
Catania, Italy.
Appel, R. (1999). Straattaal: de mengtaal van jongeren in Amsterdam. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in
Artikelen, 62, 39-55.
Arman, H. (2018). Speaking 'the Other'?: Youths' regimentation and policing of contemporary urban
vernacular. Language & Communication, 58, 47-61.
Austin, J.L. (1975). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.
Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. London: Sage.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London: Continuum.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction, key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Boden, P. (2004). A new variety of Swedish. In Proceedings ef the Tenth Australian International Conference
on Speech Science and Technology (pp. 475-480). Sydney: Macquarie University.
Boden, P. (2011). Adolescents' pronunciation in multilingual Malmo, Gothenburg and Stockholm.
In R. Kallstrom & I. Lindberg (Eds.), Young urban Swedish: Variation and change in multilingual settings.
Gothenburg: Department of Swedish Language and University of Gothenburg.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1997). Performing gender identity: Young men's construction of heterosexual
masculinity. In S. Johnson & U.H. Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp. 47-64). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Cameron, D. (2005). Language, gender and sexuality: Current issues and new directions. Applied
Linguistics, 26(4), 482-502.
Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Charalambous, C. (2012). 'Republica de Kubros': Transgression and collusion in Greek-Cypriot
adolescents' classroom silly-talk. Linguistics and Education, 23, 334-349.
Chun, E.W. (2013). Ironic blackness as masculine cool: Asian American language and authenticity on
YouTube. Applied Linguistics, 34, 592-612.
269
Comarofl:; J., & Cornarotf, J. (2012). Theory jimn the South: Or, how E1.1ro-Americ,1 i, e11oluing tow,,rd Afi,ica.
Cornips, L.. Jaspers, J., & Rooij, V. de (2013). The politics of labdliug youth vernaculars in the
Netherlands and Belgium. In J Nortier & B.A. Svendsen (Eds.), Langu,~<;e, youth and identity in the
2 !st century: Unyuistic prc1dices dcross ur/J,m sp11cn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derrida, JJ (1982). Signature event context. In J.J. Derrida (Ed.), Aforgin, of philosophy 307-330).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Djcnar, D., & Ewing, M.C. (201.2). language varieties and youthfol involvement in Indonesian fiction.
L,111guage <1nd L1te1,1ture, 24(2), 108-128.
Doran, M. (2004). Negotiating between bourge and racaille: Verlan as youth identity practice in
suburban P,iris. In A. Pavlenko 1,. A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negetiatio11 of idrntities i11 multilin,(ual contexts.
Ckvedon: Mu]tjlingual Matt('ts.
Dovchin, S. (2017). The ordinariness of youth linguascapes in Mongolia. Intemation,11 Journal of
Multilingu,ilism, 14, 144-159.
Dovchin, S., Sultana, S., & Pcnnycook, A. (2017). Popular culture, 1;oice and linguistic diuersity: young adults
on- ,md o(/iine. Basingstoke: P,1lgrave [Vlacmilbn.
Eckert, P. (1997). \\ hy ethnography' ln U.B. Kotsinas (Ed.), UngdomssprJk i Norden: joredrag
ett forsk,my111posium (pp. 57-62). Stockholm: Institutionen for nordiska sprak and Stockholm
University.
Eliaso Magnusson, J., & Stroud, C. (2012). High proficiency in markets of performance: A socio-
culrnral approach to n;ttivelikcness. Siudfr., in Smmd L,111~uage .Acquisition, 34(2), 321-345.
Evaldsson, lLC. (2005). Staging insults and mobilizing categorizations in a multi-ethnic peer group.
Disco1mc & Society, 16(6), 763-786.
Foucllllt, M. (1990). The history ,f Vol. 1, Tl1c will to lmo-wle,(ge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Ganuza, N. (2008). Syntactic vari,1tion in the Swedish of adolescents i11 multilingual urban settings. Stockholm:
Centre for Resc,1rch on Bilingualism ,md Stockholm Uniwrsity.
Garcia, 0. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: .A Global Perspectiue. Oxford: \ll/iley-Blackv:clL
Heller. M. (2007). Bilingualism as ideology ,md practice. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingu,1/ism: A social
an,roach. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hewitt, R. (1982). Wh.ite adolc,cent Creole users and the politics of friendship. Journal of Nfultilingual
and Multicultural Development, 3, 217 :2 :-12.
Hewitt, R. (1986). liV/iite talk, Black talk: Inter-racial friendship and communication ,zmongst ,1dolescents.
New York: Cambridge Univcr-sity Press.
Hurst, E. (Ed.) (2014). Tsotsitaal studies: Urban youth langu,1ge practices in South l\.frica. Special issue
o( Southern /ljrican Linguistics and Applied L,mgu!lgc Studies, 32(2).
!edema, R. (2003). Multunodality, rescn1iotizacion: Extending the analysis of cliscourse as rnulti-
scmiotic practice. Visual Comrnunic,1tion, 2, 29~57.
[rvine. JT., & Gal, S. (2000). language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P.V. Kroskrity (Ed.),
Rq:imes uf language Ideologies, polities and identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research
Press.
J1spers, J (2005). linguistic saboLage in :, context of monolingualism and standardization. Lang1u1ge f.:0
Com111tmication, 25(3), 279-297.
Jaspers, J. (2!_108). Problenutizing cthnolects: Naming linguistic practices in an i\ntwcrp secondary
scl100!. IntcmationalJ011111<1l o( l3i!ing1u1/ism, 12, 85-103.
Jaspers, J. (2011). Strange bedfellows: Appropriations of a tainted urban dialect. ]ounwl ef s,,cfo/inguistics,
15. 493-S24.
Jaspers, J. (2016). (Dis)fluency. £fonu<1l Re11icw of .Anrhropoh;gy, 45, 147-162.
Jawo,.ski, A., & Thurlow, C. (Eds.) (2011). Semi,,tic landsc.1pes: Langu,1,~e, imc1ge, S/hlce. London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Jonsson, R. (2007). Blattc betydcr kompis. om rnaslmlinitet och sprc1k i en hiigstadicskola. Stockholm: Ord front.
Junsson, R. (2015). T'drst i f,l<1ssen : /<erdticlscr om st6kig<1 poikar i i11nerst,11f och/in,,rt. Stockholrn: Ord front,
Jonsson, R.. (2018). Swedes can't swear: making fun at a multilingual upper secondary school. Jourru1l ,f
L,mguage, [,-/entity {j Edu,c1tion, 17(5). '.l20-3.o5
Jorgensen, J.N. (2008). Poly-lingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. Interna-
tional Journal of'A111ltiling11,1lism, 5(3), 161-176.
270
Youth language
I(ern, F., & M. (Eds.) (2011). Fir/111/r 0(1pc<iking in European nn·110110111 dYCdS. Amsterdam:
John BcnJamins Publishing,
I(otsrnas, U.13. (1988a). Rinkebysvenska - en diakkt? In P. Lindell (Ed.), Sucnsf:ans beskrillning 16
(pp 264- 278). Linkoping: Linkopiuµ; uri.ivcrsitct
I(otsinas, U.B. (J988b). Immigrant childreri's Swedd1 --A new variety? Joun,,,l o(A1ultili11,~ual and Mul-
tiwlfllr,il Dci•clop1nent, 9, 129-140.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Oxford: Blackwell.
IVladsen, L.M. (2013). "High" and "low" in urban Danish speech styles. Lan,guage in Society, 42(2),
115-138.
J'v1a<lsen, L.M. (2015). Fighters, and other identities: in a martial arts club. Bristol: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Madsen, L.M., Karrelxek, M.S., & M0ller, J.S. (Eds.) (2015). langu,iring: Collaboratiue re.,e,mh
on rlic use ()f children and yout/1. Berlin: iVlouton de Gruyter.
Madsen, L.rvl, & Svendsen, B.A. (2015). voi.ces of ethnicity and snciJ! division. InJ. Nortier &
B.,'\. Svendsen (Eds.), Langu,ige, yo11t/1 ,//Id identity ill the 21st century: J.i11guisric pmcf1',-cs across urban
SJ!'1Ces (pp 207-230). Cambridge: C:,mbndgc: Uni\'ersity Press.
MaegaarcL iVL CUOS). Language attitucks. nnrrn and gender: A presentation oftlie 1ncthod and results
frorn a ctttitude study. Act,1 Li111;11i.,1ic!i l-l!i/i1iensia, 37, 55-80.
Mablela, L. (2015). Translanguaging practices in complex multilingual spaces: A discontinuous
continuity in post-independent South Africa. Intern,1tional Journal of the Sociology of Lan,([iwge, 234,
115-132.
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2006). Disinventing and reconstituting lan,~Ua/{eS. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Mendoza-Denton, M. (2008). Homegirls: Linguage and cultural pmcticc 111nong Latina youth gangs. i'vlalden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Mensah, E. (21)16). The dynamics of youth language in Africa: An introducuon. Sooolinguistic Studies,
10 (1 l--14.
Mesthric, R. (2008). 'I've been speaking Tsotsitaal alJ my life without knowing it': Toward a unified
account of Tsotsitaals in South Africa. In M. Nkverhoff & N. Nagy (Eds.), Soci,il liucs in language -
S,,rioli11.~11i,tics ,md multilingual speech com11wnities. Cdcbratin/{ the work of Gil/id11 S,ml!,:fr (pp. 95-109).
Arnstcrdarn: John Benjamins.
Milani, T.M. (2010). What's in a name? Language ideology and social differentiation in a Swedish
print-mediated debate. _Tourn,d of Sociolinguistics, 14(1), 116-142.
Milani, T.M., &Jonsson, R. (2011). Incomprehensible language' Language, ethnicity and hcternsexual
masculinity in a Swedish school. Gender and Language, 5(2), 239-276.
Milani, T.M., & Jonsson, R. (2012). '\N'ho's afraid of Rinke by Swedish' Public debates and ,chool
practices. _Journal o( Linsuistic .Anthropology, 22(1), 44-63.
Milani, TM., &- Jomson, R. (2018). Linguistic citizenship in Sweden: (de)comtructing languages in a
context oClinguistic human rights. In L. Lim, C. Stroud, & L. Wee (Eds.), The 1111iltilini{ual dtizen.
T,,w,mis ,1 ,:f lan/{t1agefor agency ,we/ . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Moller. JS, C, Jorgensen, J.N. (2011). Linguistic norms and adult roles in play and ,frious frames.
Linguistic.- ,md Education, 22(l), 68-78.
Moller, J.S , Jorgemen, J.N., & Holmen, A (21114). Polylingual developrncnt arnong Turkish speakers
in a Danish primary school - f\ critical view on the fourth grade slump. Intem,1/iorwi _Jo1.1mal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17, 32-54.
Nassenstein, N., & Hollington, A. (2015). Youth lang,wgc in Africa and beyond. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Nortier,J. (2001). Murks en Straattaa/. Vriendsclwp en ondcrjongcren. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
Nortier, J. (2016). Characterizing urban youth speech styles in Utrecht and on the internet. of
L,111y11,(~e c:0111,ra, 9, 163-185.
Norticr, J. ,'\ Swndsen, B.A. (Eds.) (211l5). Lm~11s1ye, youth and identity in tl1e 2Lt Century - Linguistic
p1,1rticcs arro.,s urh,in spaces. Cambridge: C,1mliridgc University Press.
N0rrcby. T.lz. (20 l 7). Stylizations, str:1ti fic,tion .md social prestige. Tillnu:~ P,,pcrs in Culture Studies,
paper 195
N0rrcby, TR . &. Moller, J.S. (2015). Ethnicity and sooal categorization in on- and offlw<: interaction
among Copenhagen adolescents. Discourse, Context Cc Nledia, 8, 46-54.
271
Pennycook. A. (201Uj. Lw~uage as a local pracricc. New York: Routledge.

Pennycook. .A. (2016). IV\obile times, mobile terms: The trans-super-poly-metro movement. In N.
Coupland (EdJ Socioli11guistics: Theoretical dc!J<1tcs (pp. 21)1-2016). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pomerantz. A .. & J3ell, N.D. (2011). Humor di sate house Ln the foreign language classroom. The
Modern Lmg!l<1gcJ011rn,d, 95, 48-161.
Quist, P. (2008). Sociolinguistic approaches to multiethnolect: Language variety and stylistic practice.
IntcnrntionalJournal of Bilingu,ilism, 12(1-2), 43-61.
Quist, P., & Svendsen, A.B. (2010). lVfoltilingual urban Scandinavid. New li11guistic practices. Bristol:
R.ampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman.
Rampton, B. (2006). Langu,z5;e in lute modernity: Interaction in an urb,w schMl. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Pres,.
Rampton, 13. (2011 ). From 'Multi-ethnic adolc,cent heteroglossia' to 'Contemporary urban
vernaculars'_ /.,1n_r;11.1xe and Communication, 31(4), 276-294.
Rampton, B. (2015). Contemporary urban vernacuLn,. JnJ Nortier & B.A. Svendsen (Eels.), Lmguage,
youth a11d idc11tity i11 the 21st century: LinguL,tic pr.1cti,cs <1cross urban spaces (pp. 24-44). Cambridge:
St;ehr, A. (2015). Reflexivity in Face book interaction - Enregisterment across written and spoken
language practices. Discourse, Comext [7 J\fedia, 8, 30-45.
Stroud, C. (2004). Rinkeby Swedish and semilingualism in language ideological debates:
A Bourdieuean perspective.Joum,z1 o_(Sociolinguistics, 8(2), 196-214.
Sultana, S., Dovchin, S., & Pcnnyc:ook, A. (2013), Styling the periphery: Lingnistic and cultural takeup
in Bangladesh and Mongolia. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(5), 687-710.
Sunderland. J. (2004). Gendered discourses. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Svendsen, B.A. (2U15). Language, youth and irlentity in the 21st century: Content ,m<l continu ..itions.
InJ. Nortier f(;, J3.A. Svendsen (Eds.), Langu,ige, youth ,111d identity in the 21st crnrury: Lingin,tic practices
across urb,lll sp.1res (pp. 0,--23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Svendsen, B.A .. & Quist, P. (2010). Introduction. In P. Qui,t & B.A. Svendsen (Eds.), A1.1il1i!in~1wl urban
Scandinc1vi,1. :Vc11· li11_.~11isric practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Wiese, H. (2006). "Ich mach dich Messer"· Grammati,che produktivitat in Kiez-Sprachc ("Kanak
Sprak"), Linguistische Berichte, 207, 245--273.
WoolJrd, K.A. (1998). Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard, &
P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Lzn,1;11,1ge ideologies: Practice and theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
272
20
Language diversity in
classroom settings
Richard Barwell
Much linguistic ethnography research examines language in classrooms (Maybin & Tusting,
2011), particularly in contexts of language diversity, such as second-language classrooms,
multilingual classrooms, bilingual classrooms, Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) classrooms, urban classrooms and complementary schools. Conducting such research
is methodologically challenging, requiring researchers to tackle multiple and diverse lan-
guage repertoires; negotiate institutional norms, constraints and expectations; and draw
on additional theoretical concepts relating to learning, teaching, educational policy and
so on. In this chapter, I review linguistic ethnographic research in language-diverse class-
rooms, focussing on three methodological challenges that are characteristic of this research:
reflexivity, indexicality and intertextuality (see Budach, this volume; Blackledge and Creese,
this volume; Jaspers and Van Hoof, this volume). These three challenges are particularly
salient in the context of language diversity in classrooms, where social and institutional
macro-structures encounter and are produced by the local language practices of students and
teachers, and their constructions of selves, identities, languages and communities. I argue that
linguistic ethnographic research involves a methodological 'doubling': double-reflexivity,
double-indexicality and double-intertextuality. I illustrate these ideas with reference to key
linguistic ethnography studies as well as examples from my own research on language diver-
sity in mathematics classrooms in Canada.
Linguistic ethnographic research in language-diverse classrooms can be understood as arising
from the intersection of two important strands in linguistic ethnographic research and its
antecedents: research focussed on language practices in the context of language-diverse
settings and research focussed on language practices in educational settings.
Interest in language practices in language-diverse settings dates back at least to Gumperz's
(1982) work on the pragmatics of code-switching, which introduced an important focus on
the organisation and meaning of code-switching, as it occurred in interaction. In linguistic
_ethnography, this interest in language diversity, frequently focussed on multilingualism,
has arisen in part in response to globalisation (see Grey and Piller, this volume), and in
273
Richard Barwell
part through the' rntenction between linguistic ethnographers and researchers interested in
the sociolinguistics of multilingualism, such ,1s in contexts of migration. superdivcrsity and
metrolingu,tlism (Blonunaert, 2010).
Classrooms ,tnd. other educational setlings Juve bec11 a second imporLrnt and recurring
focus in linguistic dhnography. Maybin me! Tusting (2U13) highlight three ~1rt:,1s ol mquiry
within this work. first, classrooms are valuable sites because they reflect patterns oflanguage
and rnteraction in wider society. Hence, linguistic ethnographers h,1ve examined classroom
interaction to understand these patterns and the beliefs about language that they may reveal.
Second, linguistic ethnography has contributed to understanding the relationship between
language and learning. through its detailed analysis of classroom interaction. Third, prompted
by critical penpedivcs on youth culture and education. lingmstic ethnogrdphy has examined
student voice 1n d,1ssworns, thus engaging with questions of gender, race ,md identity.
These two strands of research - on langu:1gc diversity and in classroom ,ettiup have
frequently intersected, vvith studies oflangu:1ge diversity often venturing rnto classrooms. In
some cases. rcsc,1rcher, interested in langu.ige d1vcrsiLy have found classroorns a convenient
and accessible site rn which to develop their work, focussing on race, identity and student
voice (Rampton, 1995). In other cases, studies of multilingual classrooms or schools have
drawn on linguistic ethnography to provide detailed accounts of how language is implic1ted
in learning and teaching (HeJler & Martin-Jones, 2001; Creese, 2005; Blackledge & Creese,
2010, 2014; Budach, 2013).
A significant trend in tlm work is the development of increasingly critical understandings
of previously taken-for-granted ideas, such as bili11g1ulism, multilingualism, code- switching
and the notion of Lhe tutive speaker (see Blommaert & Rampton, 2011. for :m overview).
While such have emerged from a vanety of perspectives (Ortega. 2014), linguistic
ethnographers have been able to offer rich :1ccount, of language practices in schools and
classrooms that provide important ballast to these cntiques. The conceptualisation of lan-
guage diversity, in particular. has moved from a narrow idea of multilingualism, understood
as speakers using multiple discrete languages, to heteroglossia, which involves a much more
fluid, dynamic and complex view of language diversity (Blackledge et al., 2014; Blackledge
and Creese, this volume). Emch (2014) points out that the term 'heteroglossia', adopted by
Bakhtin's translators, refers to three different related Russian terms, which she translates a,
multidiscursivity, mt1ltivoicedness and language chver,ity. The first refers to the languages of
different a< tivitie,. such as professions, pastimes and social groups. The second refers to the
way language carries the voices, meanings c1nd 1ckas of others, such as in reported speech,
parody or the simple recognition of a particular Lurn of phrase. The third relcccrs to diversity
ofbroader Lrngu:t~;es and dialects.
In a similar broadening, and related to the notion of heteroglossia, the concept of
code-switching has also been rethought through work in linguistic ethnography. It is
noticeable, in fact, that code--switching was a major focus of much early research in language-
diverse classrooms (see Martin-Jones, 1995, for a review). Research in Jmguistic ethnography
has shown how code-switching is really too narrow a concept (see Bailey, 2007) and has
contributed to the clevdopment of a v:u1ety of alternative concepts, rncluding crussing
(Rampton, 1995) and translanguaging (Blad,ledge I'( Creese, 2010).

A series of linguistic ethnography studies has examined the nature and role of heteroglossia
in language-diverse classroom settings (Rampton, 2006; Blackledge & Creese, 2010; studies
274
Language diversity in classroom settings
in Blackledge & Creese, 2014). This work has demonstrated the variety and richness ofhet-
eroglossia in language-diverse classrooms, highlighting patterns and practices that in many
cases run counter to orthodox assumptions. Rampton's (1995) study, for example, showed
how youth in a multi-ethnic community in the UK made use oflanguage styles of groups to
which they did not ostensibly belong. Rampton then analysed how this 'crossing' is used to
position students in relation to institutional expectations, such as in interaction with teachers.
Several studies have examined the role of language in various aspects of learning and
teaching. For example, some recent work has proposed various versions of a pedagogy
of heteroglossia, in which teachers seek to draw on the multiplicity of student voices and
experiences, including through translanguaging, to promote dialogue and learning beyond
the narrow ideological confines of many curricula (see Blackledge & Creese, 2014). In my
own work, I have examined the tensions that arise when students from marginalised language
backgrounds must expropriate the dominant language of mathematics in English (the alien
word) and the various associated ideologies of both mathematics and the English language
(Barwell, 2014, 2017). Creese (2005) investigated the role oflanguage teachers in mainstream
classrooms in the UK and showed how language was subordinated to curriculum content.
Budach (2013), on the basis of research conducted in German CLIL classrooms, argues that
this phenomenon is particular to secondary schools, as a result of an ideological shift - in
primary schools, students' language repertoires are likely to be seen positively, as collective,
shareable resources; in secondary schools, the focus is on individual subject learning, with
subjects being seen, as Creese (2005) also found, as, in some sense, beyond language.
Some key contributions, then, oflinguistic ethnography in language-diverse schools and
classrooms are:
to have shown that language diversity is itself diverse;

to have shown that there is more going on, in terms oflanguage practices, in schools and
classrooms than might be supposed;
and to have shown some of the detailed local work that goes into the joint production
of children's and teachers' local identifications, which are, in turn, linked to broader
institutional and ideological patterns.

The issues of how to deal with reflexivity, indexicality and intertextuality recur in linguistic
ethnography. In this section, I review how they have arisen in some of the work already
discussed. I also illustrate how they arise in a more concrete way by drawing on my own
research in second-language mathematics classrooms in Canada. My discussion of these
methodological issues highlights the recursive nature of linguistic ethnography research, in
which researchers make use of their own language repertoires to observe classroom settings,
make sense of participants' repertoires and create research texts.
The ethnographic study to which I refer in the following sections was conducted in four
second-language mathematics classrooms in Canada. The aim of the study was to understand
the different ways in which language diversity influences the participation of bilingual
learners in mathematics. Canada has two official languages, English and French, but many
other languages are used, including Indigenous languages and languages of historical or
recent immigrant communities. In public schools, English and French are the languages of
instruction. I collected data in four elementary school sites, including a sheltered ESL class of
Indigenous Cree students (in English), in which, for most of the year, all the students were
275
Richard Barwell
Cree and were considered rn be speakers of Cree as their first language. Data consisted or
field notes from classroom. ohserv;1twn, including participant observation, ;mdio-Il'.cordings,
copies of students' work, photographs of cLtssroom artefacts ,md 111terv1ews with students
and teacher,.
Reflexivity
There arc (at le:1s1:) two related aspects of reflexivity that can be seen in linguistic ethno-
graphic research. both ohvhich c.1n be expL1i ned and understood \vicli reference· to JL1khtin's
(1981) ideas. One form of reflexivity 1s that the clam1s ofan ethnographer cannot be sep,1ratcd
frun1 the ethnographer themselves. Ethnugr:1pbcrs need a particular d\Varenes:; of Lhis epis
ternoiogical rcflo:ivHy and incrcasrngly (nrnst) perfr,rm 1t in their work. Such performance
takes rhc form of accounts of self c1nd interest, the resean.her's background and reflectiom
on the research prucess. Reflexivity is rnore t!J.111 tins, though: a second aspect ufreflexivity,
then, ;irises frotn the Bakhtinian 1de,1 that language precedes us. For linguistic ethnogci-
phcrs, for ,vh01n Lrngcugc is a principal focns. ·we arc c,rnght up Ill the inherent rccursiv1ty
of language and of using language to t,1lk ,1bout bngu;1gc. fron1 a Bakhtini:.in perspective,
,111 bngu:1ge u,e is relational and di:dogic. Every utterance is a respume 1v1thin a sequence ur
chain of utterowce,. Every utterance is addressed by someone to someone and anticipales a
response. And every utterance has an author. These precepts apply as much to ethnographer-;
as they do to the participants in etbnogr,1ph1c rest'arch:
Dakhtin is aware that the author of a novel is folly it, authoL and there is no reason
,vhy we should not accept that the author of an etl1nogr,1phy is just as fully its author.
\Vhat we must g,irner from Bakhti11\ work 1s not _Jmt Lhat culture is heteroglo,sic, but
that it is dialogic and texnnl. Ethnogr:1pby must be: understood as discourse
situated in time and place and as authored by humans participating in a discourse of
Lheir own.
(Q11.a11t-:: [; O'Co1111or, 1988, p. 108)
Jn langu;ige-diverse cla>Srooms, one irnporLrnt issue :irising lion1 this reflexivity is that
ethnographers' interpret;,tions are in strong relation to their fa111ilianty with the various
languages or varieties that arc present. Equally, they are in relation to their place in the
institutional order whether they are seen as teachers, or outsiders, researchers or helpers.
One respunse to Lbis aspect of reflexivity is for rese:1rchc:rs to seek to present something
of tl1e1nsdves in their ,vriting, so that readers of their V,'ork have some sense of where their
interpretations corne frorn. In Bhck ledge ,Hlll Crecse's (.2U1 U) report of ,1 n1ulti-s.ite team
ethnogr:1phy oC complemenlary schooh w tht". UK, fo1· example, several pages are devoted
to rcficct1ons of the variom team members. Some of the team members had connections
with comrnunitics rnnning the schools and so were famili,tr with the Lrnguages, language
punice:, and assumed cultural knowledge oCthe cl.1ssrnoms. Other learn members positioned
themselves n1ore as outsiders. Their accounts highlight very the diflerence the team
n1embers' b,1ckground, 111:ide to then interpretations.
Address1,ity is relevant to li11g:u1mc ethnography ma p.nt1cular way: much of the 'prod-
uct· of linguistic ethnography is addressed to researchers or their students. /\s Quantz ,rncl
O'Connor (1988, p. 108) note, rese;1rchen are "particip;iting in a discuurse of their o,\ll" as
1nuch ,i:; they ,ue participating in the disc,Jurses of their partiup:111t1. such as cbssrooms. As
a resulr, academu 1s, 111 etfect, a 'site', as much as these cbssrooms. The interprctat10ns of
276
ethnographers arise from interactions in 'the field', in academia, and in the interactions be-
tween the two. In the work reported by Blackledge and Creese (2010), the discussions among
team members were as important in developing the interpretations (the findings) of the study
as the fieldwork. This point can be extended to include the researchers' participation in
wider academic communities, such as at conferences, seminars and so on. Rather than see the
research process as one of collecting data in the field, and then interpreting the data in the
university, reflexivity means that in some sense, both data collection and interpretation take
place in both contexts.
In my own research, my background as a British immigrant to Canada who began his career
as a mathematics teacher is clearly relevant in understanding the kinds of interpretations I
was able to make in my study of second-language mathematics classrooms in Canada. In one
publication arising from my analysis of interaction in the class of Cree students, I included
some acknowledgement of this aspect of reflexivity:
As in any ethnographic study, a number of tricky methodological issues arose. The most
significant of these is that I am not Cree and do not speak Cree. While I have learnt a lot
about Cree people and their history and current situation, I am in no way an expert [...]
my portrayal of the classroom must be read as an outsider account of the Cree students'
participation, to the extent that I do not share their background or language. It is, of
course, also an outsider account of the school, since I am not a member of staff there.
On the other hand, I have a background as a mathematics teacher and have worked in
schools in several countries. As such, my interpretation of classroom life is certainly
more informed than my minimal (but increasing) understanding of Cree society.
(Barwell, 2014, p. 916)
Such concerns are particularly important in the context of centuries of oppression of Indige-
nous peoples in North America and, in particular, the role of education in perpetuating this
oppression. How, though, did these differences make a difference?
To explore this question, I will discuss one episode (from Barwell, 2014) in which
I worked with two students on a word problem about a tulip festival that takes place in
Ottawa, Canada, each year. A word problem is a common genre in mathematics classrooms,
in which a mathematical problem is embedded within a scenario presented in a text form,
sometimes with accompanying diagrams. In this case, the problem began with an extended
90-word introduction to the tulip festival, followed by a problem involving both geometry
and arithmetic about the number of tulips needed to complete a design in a tulip bed. In the
article, I include an extract from my visit report for the day (a summary of my observations
prepared after each visit):
1 the problem text was very challenging as a text;

2 the problem context was very unfamiliar as a context;
3 for two of the three students, the calculations were fairly straightforward;
4 writing out the solutions was also very challenging.
For Curtis, in particular, once he understood the problem, he was able to solve it fairly
easily and explain his thinking to me, but producing a written account of that was
difficult - and also tedious - he lost interest. In terms of a formal assessment task, he
would most likely have only written his numerical solutions and been marked down.
(Visit report, 8 February, 2010, reported in Barwell, 2014: 919)
277
Richard Barwell
These notes illnstratc the multiple layers of interpret:1tion derived from my own prior expe-
riences as well ,1s through interaction with the t,vo students. For example, my interpretation
that the two students found the text challenging and the context unfamiliar aru,e in part
from the interaction during their work on rhe problem. which was filled ,vith pause~, hesita-
tions, repair sequences, clarifications and so on, including an extended sequence in which we
discussed what tulips were, from which I concluded that they had only a general sense that
it was a type of flower. My interpretation also relied on my previous experience as a teacher
and the many similar exchanges with students I have experienced. The same points apply
to my view that they found the calculations straightforward and the ,vriting of the solutions
more challenging.
It is clt'ar fi-orn these comments that my 'point of view' was largely informed by my ex-
perience of formal eduution and the teaching of mathematics, and mucb kss informed by
any insight into the students' backgrounds. 'Tbis tendency is in part explained hy the goals
of the project: its addrcssivity. That is, the project was oriented to undcrsunding students'
participation in second-language mathematics classrooms. As such, I largely accepted the
broad goals of mathematics education. even 1f the research I have described may lead me to
question certain aspects of its organisation.
fndexicality
In one of his discussions ofheteroglossia, Bakhtin mentions the stratification oflanguage:
At any given moment of its evolution. language 1s stratified not only into lingL1istic
dialects m the stnct sense of the wore! I... ] but also [...) into l:rngt1c1ges tb,1t are
socio-idcologic1l: Lmguages of soci,11 groups, 'professional' and languages,
langu:iges of generations and so fortb.
(Bakhtin, 1981, pp. 271-272)
Bakhtin's point is that heteroglossia is not simply what Holguist (2002, p. 89) calls "a
cacophony of voices" but is organised - and not in a neutral way. The stratification Bakhtin
refers to, however, is a consequence of its indexicality and the centripetal and centrifu-
gal forces inherent in all language use. Ways of talking index discourses. sooal groups,
identities, worldvinvs and so on, but withm these always heteroglossic discourses, some
utterances conform more to an ideal(ised) form, .rnd so are more valued. Simihrly, any
utterance may index particular social groups and tbcir place in stratified social structures
(Silverstein, 2003).
In any particular context, the use ofa particular language is indexic:d (Blommaert, 2010).
In the UK, a few years ago, a Gerrnan car-maker used the advertising slogan "vorsprung
durch technik", presumably in the hope that the use of German would index a supposed
Germanic worldview of efficiency and quality manufactnring. In this example, this choice
of language is indexically significant. Blommacrt, in his study of indexicality and language
diversity, ,1rguc'. that indexicality is also stratified:
Ordered index1calities operate within large stratified complexes in which some forms
of semiosis arc systemically perceived as valuable. others as less valu~iblc and some are
not ta ken into <1ccount at all, while .111 .me ,ubject to rules of access aud regulations as
to circulation. That means tl-ut such systemic patterns of indexicality arc also systemic
278
patterns of authority, of control and evaluation, and hence of inclusion and exclusion by
real or perceived others.
(Blommaert, 2010, p. 38)
This idea should not be taken to mean that ordering and stratification are monolithic; or-
derings change constantly. They are also related to the stratification of so that an
exami11:1tion of mdexicality provides one valuable analytic tool with which to explore the
production of wider social structures in local Lmguage practices ,md vice versa. This ap-
proach is particularly useful for exploring how, for example, marginalisation is produced in
and 1·eflected m interaction. Mayb.in (2Ul3, p 394) shows how school children's voices are
"institutionally configured, dialogically emergent, and appropriated from adults, peers and
texts of various kinds" and, as such, shape who they can be. Their voices thus often index the
forces that shape what they are able to say, through reference to, for example, school rules,
curriculum requirements or parental expectations.
Blackledge et al. (2014) include a focus on indexicality in their analysis of interaction
during a lesson in a Punjabi complementary school in the UK. They show how the discus-
sion, involvmg three students, draws on Punjabi, English and Hindi, and Latin vocabulary,
as well as various accents and styles. ln their analysis, Blackledge et al. rnade the following
point, with respect to the students' reference to Latin vocabulary:
For these young people, some linguistic signs were indexically linked to their beliefs
about, and practices of, educational achievement. Vlc also saw students insisting on
norms of standardization and correctness [... ] norms enregistered through years of
schooling, in which questions have answers and answers shall be given.
(Blackle~'?e et al., 2014, p. 211)
The point is that indexing these norms positions students within wider social structures.
Much as it provides a tool for analysis, rndexicality is also apparent in the utterances of
researchers. The research text generally indexes particular academic discourses, fix example.
In this chapter, the writing explicitly indexes linguistic ethnography, but also does so implic-
itly, through choice of phrasing, refr-rences, topics and so on. Research texts display a kind of
double-indexicality, derived from the intrinsic doublc-voiccdness of ethnographic writing,
in which utterances are reuttered as transcripts or as quotations from interaction, from field
notes, or from other research texts.
For example, Rampton (1995) shows bow the phenomenon oflanguage crossing in par-
ticular situations indexes particular social groups and identities, as well as the relatiom be-
tween thern. lie reports one occasion duriog hi, fieldwork in which a student from a British
Panjabi background addresses him:
Extract 11.7
I was standing behind the snack bar. Ishfaq (Pa M 15) came into the club soon after it opened
and in our first exchange of the evening, he came up to me at the counter and said in a strong
Panjabi accent: 'Ben Rampton can I help you.' Though it was me doing the serving, I
sustained the joke and asked for 20;, Mojos (chews). Then in his ordinary voice be placed an
order for 10 Refreshers - is this a party I asked, etc. [fieldnotes]
(Rampton, 1995, p. 78)
279
Richard Barwell
Rampton discm,n how Ishfaq's switcl1 to stylised Asian English (SAE) indexo the rela-
tion between van um social categories, including 'Asian \vho doesn't speak vernacul:i r English
[SAE]' and Rarnplon's own social status (Rampton, 1995, p. 79) (although Rrn1ptc,n does
not use the term 'index' in his analysis). Ramplcrn's analysis relies on similar infrrences to
those used bv the participants, his own position rdlex1vdy reflected in an .rcknowledgement
that he "generally felt uncomfortable when addressed in SAE" (Rampton, 1995, p. 80). That
is, Rampton is able to recognise SAE through his ethnographic cxpenence in the school.
Within the text of Rampton's book, this extract from his field notes does indexic1l
work in a sirnilar way to the situation 1t describes. As readers, the field note and Rampton\
subsequent analysis relies on indexical inferences through which we can interpret the situa-
tion (a school snack b;ir), the exchange bet ween Tsh Liq and Ben, and the nature of a 'strong
Panjabi accent'. Thi, indexical inferencing 1s evc_•n strnnger when reading the lengthy tran-
script sequence, rncluded in the book.
Such d.1ta extract,, however, also do index ical wnrk ,1t a second level. The presentatinn of
the accouur ,is an cxtr;1ct, the label at the end it is from field notes and the neutral
descriptive tone all index a certain way of domg research that is likely to be tamiliar to other
ethnographers and qualitative researchers. Rampton's subsequent analysis of the episode in-
dudes extensive additional references to the episode linked to theoretical concepts, such as
Coffman's work in the opening of encounters. There is, therefore, a double-indcxicality in
the use of data examples in ethnographic writing, in which the s:ime extract indexes both the
kinds of social structure relevant iu the onginal encounter, and aspects ofa researcher discourse
and identity, rnvnlvrng technical aspects or the re,e,trch process and theorcucal concepts from
the literatrnT. [t ,cerm likely that in oper,iting at the latter level, researchers establish their
academic identity and position themselves with respect to academic social ,tructure,.
In analysis of data from. my own study, I h,1ve ,hown bow word problems students
in relation to particular versions of Canadiau--ncss, particular forms of mathematical cxpbnation
and m.athernatical ways of constming the world (Barwell, 2015). I argued that the text of the word
problem about a tulip festival indexes a general school mathematical discourse, an assessment chs-
cou rse, the word problem genre and some aspects of Canadian identity, and these discourses all
have accompanying worldvicws (what Bakhtin refers to as ideologies). There is a particular way
to read the world using mathematics, to read the world when doing a word problem and so on.
In the transcript of the students' encounter vv1th this text, I show how the students are
produced ,rs unf:m11lL1r with these discourses; their utterances index different <hscourses,
such as Cree identity, or else index classroorn discourses, but in a less urnt,Hy way. That
is, within school mctthematics discourse, heteroglossia means that there is variation, which
includes the ,tuclent< utterances as they work on the tulip festival problem, Bnt when these
uttcnnces do not conform well enough to the unitary ideal of niathematical language, they
are likely, over time and over multiple interactions, to be revoiced, corrected, reworked and
so on, by the teacher. Blommaert (2010) refers to these socialismg instances as scale-jumping
Slembrouck and Vandenbroucke, tbis volume). Indeed, I quoted an example of this
process, in which I worked with a student on formulating an account of how he calculated
the solution Lo tht: tulip problem in order Lo 'show hi, 1,;ork':
RB: so (.) that's :1 good beginning (.) but you neecl to explain like the calculatjon, that you
did (.) vou need to s,1y what kind of calrnhtinm ynu did
CURTIS: times
RB: yup but precisely what did you times what did you add
CUR TIS: I t.imesed seven (.) times seven O six times (.)
280
RB: right right

CURTIS: seven plus that's it
RB: so like when you worked out for purple
CURTIS: I did five times five
RB: uhum
CURTIS: plus one
RB: right so I would write purple and then exactly what you just said
(From Barwell, 2015)
I am very much guiding Curtis here to conform to standard ways of explaining a problem
solution as I understand it from my background as a mathematics teacher. In my analysis,
I point out, amongst other things, my use of the word 'need' that indexes these expected
forms. This example again illustrates the double-voicedness of ethnographic writing implied
by Quantz and O'Connor (1988). Curtis speaks, but I am the author. I have combined voices
from his classroom to say something myself. My inclusion of the first line of the transcript
indexes expected mathematical ways of talking, but also, in interaction with my surrounding
text, indexes scale-jumping, centripetal forces and the like, and hence particular academic
discourses, such as those of sociolinguistics and linguistic ethnography.
lntertextuality
Intertextuality refers to the chains of reference arising between utterances. From a Bakh-
tinian perspective, all language use is intertextual (Todorov, 1984). Although Bakhtin never
seems to have used the word, the intertextual basis for his thinking about language use can
be seen throughout his work, including in the following remarks:
There are no 'neutral' words and forms - words and forms that can belong to 'no one';
language has been completely taken over, shot through with intentions and accents. For
any individual consciousness living in it, language is not an abstract system of normative
forms but rather a concrete heteroglot conception of the world. All words have the 'taste'
of a profession, a genre, a tendency, a party, a particular work, a particular person, a gen-
eration, an age group, the day and hour. Each word tastes of the context and contexts in
which it has lived its socially charged life; all words and forms are populated by intentions.
(Bakhtin, 1981, p. 293)
The idea of the 'taste' of different discourses implies that any utterance is connected to
previous utterances, and relies on such connections to make meaning. Thus, all utterances
are linked in a kind of web of voices. This intertextuality is linked to alterity: using language
means using others' words. Intertextuality is an inherent part of every utterance in which the
voice of the speaker encounters, dialogically, the voices of others.
Intertextuality has a particular, more specific role in ethnography, including (perhaps
especially) in linguistic ethnography, as in other human sciences: such work involves entering
into dialogue with texts (Todorov, 1984, p. 63). In ethnography, these texts include:
• academic texts (e.g. research reports, theoretical writings, conference papers);

• participants' texts (e.g. their own writings and productions; in education, they might
include children's work, teachers' planning documents, curriculum documents);
• our research texts (e.g. field notes, transcripts, photos, recordings).
281
Richard Barwell
As with tbc rcbt('d dimensions of reflexrvitv and inckxicality, ethnographers ent,1;age with
intertextuality ac least at two levels: they ob,crvc it and examine it in their c1naly,es, :ind they
deploy it in their
Busch's illustrates well how these Lwo ofintertextualitv arise in lmguistic
ethnograpl11c research. The focus of her study is on the heteroglossic nature of .rn ,rclivity in a
language-diverse Amtnan primary school class, 111 which students regularly wrote, illustrated
and made small booklets to contribute to an ever-expanding 'LitLle Books Library'. Busch (2014)
presents an analysis of one such booklet, prepared by a student called Nemanja, and contains a
story about an elephant and a mouse. Nemanja first wrote the text of the booklet in Serbian,
and then in a first draft German version. The teacher reformulated the German version and it
was typed up alongside .\ typed version of the Serbi,m text. Nemanja illustr.1ted the story with
a series of clr,m ings. Brnch 's analysis exammes the din'rsity in the use oflanguages, cfocourses
and voices ,1pparcnt m the story, both in th<: written \\ onb and in the accompauyiug 1m.ages.
Although mtcrtextuality is not a centrJl focus llfher analysis, it is nevct the less apparent in
several ways. She shcms, for example, ho,v Ncrnanp's narrative draws on common fe,1tures
of the fairy tale genre, while the choice of characters relates to a genre ofJoke common in
Austria and in the Balkans. Busch also delicately discusses the 'contextualisation' (i.e, an as-
pect ofintertextuality) ofNemanja's variou_s drawings of the elephant in the story, She shmvs
how variations in the depiction of the elephant's head relate to the emotional tenor of the
story at different points, Busch also traces different versions of the text of the story, high-
lighting features ofNemanja's initial German version, such as its mixture of relatively formal
and relatively infrmn,1I words and phrases. This \ers1on succeeds the Serbi,rn versrnn ,md is
then the b,Ns fi,r the tecicher-assisted version. Busch notes how Serbian is ,111 '.1lien word' for
the teacher, and prcsunuhly, aspects of Gcnmn ,ire r.lther alien to Nemanja. Finally, Busch
explicitly points out the mtertextual place ofNern,rnja's story within a chain of other similar
booklets produced d1ildren in the class. His booklet is, in part, a response Lo the preceding
corpus of Little Books and is 111 dialogue with them.
Busch's (2014) report of her research is also intertextual in its construction, Her own text
includes a discussion ofliterature relating to heteroglossia, thus engaging and refracting other
academic texts. It also includes JD account of the research site, presumably based in part on
documentation from the school and/or her own records of field visits. Busch's report of her
analysis includes cstrc1Cls Crom research texts, which are themselves derived fiorn panic1pants'
own producuons: notablv, it includes images showing the illustrations oC Nernanj,\'s booklet
and one page of,vrittcn text. She also include, v.nious quotations from Nenunja's text, or else
translatiom of text into English (since the chapter appears in an Engfoh-language
publication). Hence, the second layer ofintertextualitv is clearly operating in parallel,, 1th the
first. That is, Busch draws on many of the same textual resources to construct her account of
her analysis as the participants used in the original classroom activity, For example, she repro-
duces and discusses the links between various versions ofNeniarlja's story, including Serbian
and German versions, She also adds an English version. The Serbian and German versions
,vere, of course, the original texts produced by Nemanja. Busch weaves these same texts to-
gether, along with Engli1h versions and connections to theoretical concepts and the work of
other researcher,. Intcrtcxtuality is therefore cin import,mt aspect of Busch's uwn text.
The focm of much of my own analy11s o[ data from the ESL mathenL1t1cs class is on
mathematiul J11(:',rning-making. In one detailed analysis, I examined the 111tntcxtual
processes through whtch two students make, scn.1e uC:1 ,vord problem about tinw 1one1. [ trace
how they come up with a solution and then write out a solution, and show how, in the pro-
cess, the word problem text mediates the prevailing language tensions between heteroglo3sia
282
and language ideologies (Barwell, 2017). For example, students' utterances are shaped by the
requirement to speak in English and to produce written responses in English, with its asso-
ciated ideology of correct orthography. In the following short extract, two students from the
class are working on the following problem, which Curtis begins by reading out:
CURTIS: the two thousand four grey cup was played in ottawa (.) ontario (.) the game began
at six PM it was (.) shown live on television across canada (.) the B C lions were on the
team playing (.) what time did fans
BEN: one
CURTIS: uh?
BEN: one (.) one
CURTIS: one of the teams playing (.) what time did fans in (.) nanaimo? british columbia?
have to turn on their televisions to (.) watch the game
RB: do you understand the problem?
CURTIS: yeah
(From Barwell, 2017, pp. 126-127)
Although this extract is quite short, it illustrates some of the intertextuality present in the
two students' work on the problem. Reading out the problem involves Curtis voicing the
words of the problem and inflecting them with his own meanings and accents. In fact, his
reading is in Cree-accented English, which arises from the use of English as the language
of instruction and of the textbook. Curtis is, in some sense, reading out 'alien' words, as
indicated by the uncertainty with which some words are uttered and the frequent pauses.
The two students' subsequent discussion involved restating parts of the problem, as well as
referring to a time zone map of Canada shown on another page in the textbook and then,
under guidance, the development of a written solution. In my analysis, I show how their
interaction involves several 'others', including the textbook, each other, me and a generalised
other to whom their written solution is addressed, leading to the following claims:
My analysis shows that both the production and consumption of mathematical texts
involves a complex intertextuality and an ongoing encounter with an intertwined set of
'others'. [... ] all tend towards a particular form of schooled mathematical English, and the
texts present particular versions of school, of children and of Canadian life. Curtis and
Ben must live in response to these texts, in which they may not entirely see themselves.
As such, they are themselves positioned as 'other' within their mathematics class.
(Barwell, 2017, p. 135)
Just as Curtis and Ben are making links between different texts, as well as with previous work
in their mathematics class, so I am making links between those same texts as I observed the
two students' intertextual meaning-making. My work as a researcher involved recording the
interaction, collecting digital photos of the two students' work, writing up field notes after the
visit to their class and so on. It also involved the development of an ongoing relationship with
the class and with these two students. My analysis is a form ofintertextual meaning-making,
in which I read through field notes and transcripts, examined the students' work and drew on
Bakhtinian theory and linguistic ethnography research texts to make connections between
texts. This analysis entailed my engagement with others' words, which I cannot fully inter-
. pret. My report of this analysis includes extended sequences from transcripts, versions of the
textbook problems and quotations from the students' solutions which I present alongside a
283
Richard Barwell
discussion of the concept of intertextuality drawing on quotations from Bakhtin and other
autbors. My ovvn work as an ethnographer, then, is highly intertextual.
Discussion, conclusions and further directions

In this chapter, I have provided an overview of linguistic etbnography research in
language-diverse classrooms and I have discussed three methodologic1l tensions in this
research: reflexivity, 1ndexicality and intertextuJlity. I have pointed ouc in pnticular, how
indexicality and rntcrtextuality are features of participants' meaning··making, but also of
researchers' meaning-making. While, on reflection, perhaps not very surprising, this point
has some important consequences.
First, it underlines how ethnographic research texts are, as Quantz and O'Connor (1988)
long ago pointed, authored. It is not possible to present our research 'neutrally' or 'objectively',
for this research has thinking, meaning-rn;1king authors: us. Second, all linguistic ethnographic
writing has a double-voiced quality (really, a multiple-voiced quality) that is perhaps stronger
in such work than in everyday language practices (Todorov, 1984). Clearly, double-voicedness
does arise 1ll i11teraction and appean to be important in things like the production of
aspects ofidrntity (Maybin, 2005). I argue, hov,encr, that ethnographic texts rely fundamentally
on this double v01ccdness, and a related douhlc-index1l'ality and double-intertextuality, in order
to be wh:1t they are. Much like novels, then, c'thnographic writing about langLuge diversity in
classroom settings is profoundly heterogloss1c: it l<.:Jturn diverse voices (indnding the research-
er's authorial voice and the participants), discourses (including academic discourses and those of
the classroom) and languages (includrng those of the classroom, and of the research text).
\Vhat might my observations mean for the future of linguistic ethnographic research
in language-diverse classrooms? Should we write ethnography like novels:> They seem to
share similar features, including the incorporation of multiple voices that interact within
the text :rnd ,vith the authoritative authori,1\ voice. Should we write ethnography as novels?
Such an approach might allow us to capture more hon1estly some of the ridmes, of ev<='ryday
classroom beteroglo,sia. Whatever genre \Ve choose. what responsibilities llo v,e Juve ro the
participants wli( ,se voices we expropriate to produce our ethnographic texts;
As research on the diverse nature oflanguage diversity continues to exp,mcl. language-
diverse classrooms will remain an important site for linguistic ethnographic research. Class-
rooms are fascinating sites of collision between languages, identities and ideologies, between
the micro and the macro. An increasing variety of contexts are now being investigated,
including post-colonial and Indigenous contexts (see Saxena & Martin-Jones, 2013). There
is also a need for more research that includes disciplinary discourses, such as mathem,itics,
science, history and the arts. While this work does exi,t in other domains 0L1pplicd linguistics
research, it ha, yet to develop in linguistic ethnographic studies.
Further reading
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multili11g11,Ilirn1: A mtic,11 perspective. London, UK: Continuum.
(This book describes an exemplary multi-site team ethnography of complementary (heritage
language) schools in the UK.)
Busch, B. (2014). Building on heteroglossia and heterogeneity: The experience of a multilingual
classroom. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as pMrtice and pedagogy (pp. 21~40).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. (This chapter unpacks the key concept ofheteroglossia and
illustrates it with fascinating examples involving migrant children in Austrian classrooms.)
Rampton. I3. (1995). Crossing: Language and ctlmi,ity c1111ong adolescents. Harlow, UK: Longman.
(This dassic 1tudy look\ at adolescent language practice, in multiracial urban schools in London.)
284
Related topics
Heteroglossia; Reflexivity; Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation; Style and stylisation; Scale.
References
Bailey. B. (2007). Heteroglossia and boundanes. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bili11g11alism: A sucial approach
(pp. 257-274). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bakl1tin, M.M. (l9tl1). The dialogic im<1ein<1tion.· Four essays. (Ed., M. Holquist; Trans. C. Emerson and
M. Holquist) ..Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Barwell, R. (2014). Centripetal and centrifug:il bnguage forces in one elern.entary school second
language nntbcmatics classroom, LD,'1, 46(6), 911-922.
Barwell, R. (2015). Heteroglossia. indexicality and marginalisation in a second language mathematics
classroom. Paper presented llf the annual meetin,q of the British Association for Applied Linguistics,
Cambridge, UK, Septernber.
Barwell, R. (2017). Mathematical texts, alterity and the expropriation of mathematical discourse in
second language mathematics classrooms. In J. Langman & H. Hansen-Thomas (Eds.), Discourse
analytic perspectives on STEJ\1 ed11c<1tion: Exploring interaction and learning in the nmltilingul11 cfossro0tn
(pp. 119-1:38). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). 1\[11ltiling1wlism: A critical perspective. London, UK: Continuum.
Blackledge. A., & Creese, A. (Eds.) Heteroglossia as practice aud pe,L,g,:,;:y Dordrecht, The
Netherland,,: Springer.
Blackledge, A., Creese, A., & Takhi,J.K. (2014). Beyond multilingualism: Hetcroglossia in practice. In
S. J'Aay (Ed.), The multilingual turn: J111plic,1tio11s SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 191-215).
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics ofglobaliz,1tion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Dil'ersities, 13(2), 1-21.
Budach, G. (2013). From language choice to mode choice: How :ntefacts impact on language nse and
meaning making in a bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 27(4), 329-342.
Busch, B. (2014). Building on heteroglossia and heterogeneity: The experience of a multilingual
classroom. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as praclicc and ped,;gogy (pp. 21-40).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Creese, A. (2005). 'fo1chercollaboration and talk in 11111/tilingu,1/ classrooms. Clevedon, UK: Multdingual Matters.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heller, M., & Martin-Jones, M. (Eds.) (2001). Vi)i,cs of authority: Edu,ation ,md lingu,:stic difference.
Westport. CT: Ablex.
Holquist, i'vl. (2002). Dialo2is111 (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Martin-Jones, M. (1995). Code-switching in the classroom: Two decades of research. In L. Milroy &
P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching
(pp. 90-111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maybin, J. (2005). Children's voices: 'J,,lk, knowledge and identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
Maybin, J. (2013). Towards a sociocultural understanding of children';, voice. Language and Ed1m1tion,
27(5), 383-397
Mavbin, J.. & Tu sting, K. (2013). Linguistic ethnography. In J. Simpson R.()utled~e handbook of
,1pplied lir1puistics (pp. 515-528). Abingclon, UK.: Routledge.
Ortega, L. (2014). \\1ays forward for a bi/mu.ltil.ingual tum in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual
iurn: l111p/ic,1tiom _for SLA, TESOL and billny11,il cd11c,ition (pp. 32-53). New York: Routledge.
Quantz, R..A .. <', O'Connor, T.W. (1'!88). \Voting critical ethnography: Dialogue, rnultivoicedness,
and c:irnival in cultural texts. Education,il 38(1), 95-109.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urb,w school. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Saxena, M., & Martin-Jones, M. (2013). Multilingual resources in classroom interaction: Ethnographic
and discourse analytic perspectives. Language and Education, 27(4), 285-297.
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language S Comn11mi-
catio11, 23(3--4), 193-229.
Todornv. T. (1 ()i,4) Mikhail Bakhtin: Tfi,, dialolicc1/ principle (trans. W. Godzich). Manchester, UK:
Manchester University Press,
285
21
Elite multilingualism
Introduction
Multilingualism is ubiquiLous. We encounter multilingual practices from early childhood
contexts, via schools, to higher education to workpLt,·cs, the media and the public sphere.
Globalisation, supcrcli,ersity, intensified tramnational population flows, changing ,ocio-
political comtellations and economic systems have shifted perceptions from multi-
lingualism as ,1 problem to treating it as a rnource (Ruiz, 1984) which provides added value
and serves as a marker of distinction (Bourdieu, Jq84J. At the heart of globalis::ition are
discursive struggles over positioning and repos1t10ning ofl::inguages and actors as a result of
the changing conditions of production and consumption of goods, services and identities.
Within these complex constellations, language and communication skills have regained cur-
rency..More strikingly, a growing language-centred elitenes, has materialised that attaches
greater and lesser value to different shapes and grades of multilingualism, and treats some
types of nm ltilingu,1 lism as more equal than others. Such evaluations have shaped educa-
tional biliiigual programmes (Garcia, 2009), the nature oflanguage work processe, (Heller &
Duchene, 2016), "1ccess to services and the labour market, and the complex identities of
language learners ;ind users. In contemporary L11nn, not all people are multilrngual fc,r the
same reasons. R,ither, multilingualism has heen rendered an object of pnv1kge and prestige
for some whilst creating vulnerability and inJustices in access to eliteness for others under
particular socio-economic conditions.
What then are elites and eliteness? These concepts have been defined in different ways
across sociological, educational and applied linguistic scholarship (see the "Historical per-
spectives" section for a fuller review). What we share here in this chapter is an understanding
of dites and eliteness as discursive and agentive, so grounded in the discourses and social
practices of people. following Thurlow and Javvorski (2017, p. 244), eliteness is "sonwthing
people do, 11,;t somcthm:c>: they necessarily b,1vc ur ,uc''. Crucially, they go 011 to argue, it is
"the semilltic ,n1d com1m111icative resource:, hy which people differentiate tbcmsclYes and by
which they access symbolic-material resources tor shnnng up status, privilege aud power".
Inspired by Bourdicu's accounts oflanguagc, capit,1] ,111d distinction (l 9x2), ,tml drawing
on Darakos and Selleck (2019), we define elite multilingualism as "a phenomenon that brings
286
social and/or material capital, a sense ofbelonging, prestige, excellence, privilege, and access
through the use of specific linguistic resources for certain social groups and individuals"
(p. 362). In this sense, elite multilingualism positions language as an access code to a distinct
perceived or aspired elite way ofliving and being. Whilst we will further contextualise this
concept from various angles, we would like to emphasise that our aims here in this chapter
are to situate research on language and elites/eliteness in the context oflinguistic ethnogra-
phy. Whilst we introduce elite multilingualism as a new label, we believe that the label per se
is less important than the range of concepts it makes possible to think through and deal with.
Elite multilingualism offers us new lines of thinking about how language connects to other
forces of social life - an agenda that is shared by linguistic ethnography (Snell et al., 2015).
The chapter is structured as follows. First, we provide a historical overview of'elites' and
'elite multilingualism' by reviewing how different scholars have talked about these phenom-
ena in different contexts and points in time. Subsequently, we turn to critical issues that,
we argue, nurture the (re)production of elite multilingualism, such as the commodification
of language, ideologies, choice and hierarchies. Then, there will be a discussion of selected
studies that offer an understanding of various elite sites and current understandings of 'elite
multilingualism'. We also highlight two case studies that trace eliteness in terms of multilin-
gual language trainers in Austria and bilingual language education in Wales. We then chart
the implications of elite multilingualism and raise the central question of'who wins and who
loses' in the claims over access to linguistic resources. The final section will summarise key
points and highlight future directions for research at the crossroads of multilingualism and
eliteness through a linguistic-ethnographic lens.
A specific interest in elites emerged in the fields of sociology, social theory and political
theory in the early 20th century. Scholars were mainly interested in the interrelationship
of power, held by institutions and individuals, and the political and national systems of the
ruling class (Maxwell, 2015). Within the sociology of education, there has been a thriving
interest in elite education and its link to social hierarchies and power structures at a national
and global level (Howard & Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2010; Khan, 2012; Maxwell, 2015; van
Zanten, 2018). Most of this research is inspired by Bourdieu's (1982, 1991) sociological focus
on language, capital and differentiation, to address the key question of what constitutes elites
and social class and who controls the value and distribution of resources.
Since there are different entry points to defining elites, Sonntag (2003) offers a useful
avenue from a political science perspective: to consider elites as something that is not mono-
lithic and static but multifaceted and dynamic. There are different overlapping clusters of
elites (political, economic, cultural and linguistic) that mobilise different types of capitals
to acquire and retain their elite status (Sonntag, 2003, p. 8). Thurlow and Jaworski (2017)
orient their work towards elite discourse and mobility and define elite identities as not only
material or actual but also ideological and aspirational. If we follow Bourdieu's practice and
resource-centred approach, then we can argue that
a eliteness is linked to beliefs and ideologies, power and influence;

b elites inherently involve classifications and hierarchisation;
c elites are formed through social contact, i.e. they are a (self)defined and perceived social
group of individuals who share a common range of characteristics based on perceived
superiority and patterns of inclusion and exclusion (Barakos & Selleck, 2019).
287
In the earlier literature on elite bilingualism, eliteness is ofreu depicted m somewhat con-
tradictory and mundane binary terms. There is, for example, a common distinction between
'elite' and 'folk' bilingualism that has been prominent. Paulston (1978) uses the term 'elite
bilinguals' to refer to individtuls who become multilingual through free choice, most com-
monly as a result of schooling. Folk bilingualism, often treated as a condition of ethnic rni-
nonties, a ,iluation where individnab involuntarily learn a new language Cor survival
and resulting Cium rnigntion (see also Butler & H,tku,a, 2004). Such a distinction is often
premised 011 the ,mumption that an elite brlinguJlism rs unproblematic for Lhe ,peaker, since
it is driven by intentional choice (RydenvakL 20 IS. p. 214).
De MeJia (2002) dcfi nes 'elite bilingu,Lfom · fi·orn a 1nore critical, power basrd perspective
as a type ofb1lmgual1sm that "represents a defi.mte advantage, socially and economically" for
people who choose to learn more than one language because of their "lifestyle, employment
opportunities, or education" (De Mejia, 2002, p. 41). De Mejia (2002) and Guerrero (2010)
also di,cuss an array of neighbouring terms that are circulating, such as 'additive bilingual-
ism', 'voluntary bilingualism', 'privileged bilingualism', 'prestigious bilingualism', 'optional
bilingualism' and 'enrichment bilingualism'. To a greater or lesser extent. these terms rest
on a notion of 'choice· lhat enables people: to bn orne bilingual from a pos1t1on of privilege
and power later ,focnssion of the notion of \:hoice · in Section 3). However, :is Guerrero
(2010) argues, elite bilingualism is not a n1lunt:uy phenomenon in 11011-EuropeM1, less de-
veloped counLncs such ;1s China, South Africa ,md Colombia, where "children are 'forced'
by circumstancc·s l0 receive instruction in Enghli" ('.'U10, p. 174) to e1uble upward social
mobility.
Paulston's (1978, p. 35) binary distinction and understanding that elite bilingualism is
without problems cornparrd to folk bilingualism is limited and ignores the complexities,
nuances, privileges and precarities of all multilinguals involved. Furthermore, definitions
are ahvays the product of specific mornents of time and place. In the 21st century. critical
language scholars have ,larted to address the current complexities of globalis,1tion; inlerna-
tionalisation; the erosion of nation states; Lhe rise ot' neo-liberalism and migration; and what
this means for education and work. With these processes intemifying, scholars
have begun to articuhLe their concerns over the lmguistic and social consequence, of global
English and other dominant languages, the rnc1eased cusmopolitan celebration of (linguistic)
diversity and the preservation of endangered and minority languages at the same time.
J1spers (2009) speaks of two diflerrnt types of multilingualism to depict the paradox of
valurng some types of language (varieties) and language users more than others: a prestige
(or 'pure') multilingualism vs. a plebeian (or 'impure') rnultilingualisrn. Whilst these two
tenns are also binary, Jaspers depicts the shades and gradb or nmltilingualisrn, its hierarchies
and social conditions: from highly educaLed, mohik, transnational individtuls 111 command
of mostly \X/<:slern European, high status. global languages learned fon11;1lly to less privi-
leged, oftrn working-,lass, urban, minority. migrant communiLies \\'hose linguistic
repertoires ;ire much more varied, often le,1rned rn IC'Ss formal school a similar
distinction. see Blommaert, 2011). Simihrly. ,rnd Themistocleom's (2U18) work is
another important example of public discourses on multilingualism and its intersection with
eliteness. Thry investigate mainstream media representations and people's lay beliefs of mul-
tilingualism through an allitude survey and a corpus-based discourse analysis ofBritish press.
Essentially, their findings reinforce the prevalence of an 'elite multilingualism' -- the term
they use to capture a type of multilingualism "which values prestigious languages, formal ed-
ucation and qu,1litic.1tion, and which devctlues or excludes languages spoh.eu by 1111migrants"
Qaworska & The111istuckous, 2018, p. 21).
288
In eliteness and langu,1ge, Heller's critical sociolinguistic :ind ethnographic

work has been influential in examining the role oflanguage in the construction of social dif-
ference ,rnd soci<1l inequality (Heller, 2i)l 1). Her work highlights the transfonncitions of the
nation state, languc1ge ideologies abuut bilingualism and linguistic pranice, in the context of
a globalised new economy. In her \"iOrk on the commodification ofbilinguahsm in Canada,
Heller (2002, p. 49) discusses a bilingual elite that has emerged and 1s capable of dealing with
monolingual anglophones in powerful positions equally as well as with more marginalised
'working class' bilinguals. Here, she specifically contrasts the term 'elite bilingualism', which
captures the dominance of "standard and monolingual forms and practices largely acquired
through literacy" (Heller 2002, p. 49), with a 'working-class bilingualism' that draws on
rnixed--hnguage fc)rms and mostly OLllly ,ic:guired practices.
In Lenns of' eliteness in the world Uay and Wagner (2007) capLure the linguistic
situation of professionals in the inlcrn:1tional marketplace. With the term 'bilmgual pro-
fessional', they de,cribe the communicative competencies and practices or transient work-
ers who voluntarily migrate for profrssional purposes to improve their vvork-life chances
(Day and Wagner 2007, p. 381). Garmlo (2017) describes the work and multilingualism of
elite humanitarian transnational professionals who mobilise their own 'cosmopolitan cap1-
tal' (a type of cultural capital that involves solidarity, openness and certain linguistic com-
petences) to achieve and maintain an elite trajectory and status. Relatedly, Thurlow and
Jaworski (2012, 2014) explore elite status and luxury travel in an era of global mobility. They
trace the ways marketers and conunercial agents use visual, spatial, material and linguistic
resources to perfr,rm eliteness and the \1,,ys 'luxury labour' gets v1s1bilised and invisibilised
(Thurlow&: J1worski, 2014).
Based on this review, we build on our definition of elite rnultilingualtsrn as a discursive,
ideological, emotive and soe1;1lly constructed phenomenon. Elite multilingualism is
also grounded in banal conceptualis,itions of language as bounded, homogenous, commod-
1fiable and measurable entities, along with mundane understandings of language as a vehicle
of access to valued resources. Elite multilingualism may be a material or economic status
quo. Yet, whilst income or wealth privilege may constitute one aspect of eliteness, it does nol
paint the full picture. Elite multilingualism may also be an aspiration and an ideology that
ordinary people buy into.
In the next section, we will deb,ite the conditions, processes, intluenccs and constraints
that enable elite multilingualism and allow for its (re)production across various sites.

We first take a step back to address the processes by which rnmcthing or someone is con-
structed and legitimated as an 'elite'. We often characterise today's world as globalised and
interconnected in order to "account for a multiplicity of processes and practices, namely an
increase in quantity and rapidity of the circulation of people, identities, imaginaoom and
products across borders" (Da Silva et al., 2007, p. 183). In recent years, the term 'cornmod-
ificat1on' h,i, entered the sociolinguistic lexicon_ used varyingly to rdc'r to language being
treated as "an ohJective skill, acqmred aud po:,',essed, that affords status, recognition legit-
imacy, and ultimately material remuner:nion, to those who possess 1t" (Ulock, 2017, p. 6).
This is uut in itself new; Bourdieu's chssicd conceptualisation of Linguistic c1pital (1982,
1991) posits language as a set of attributes that a person can accumulate rn order to establish
. or improve their social position (Eckert, 1989). More recently, Hogan Brun (2017) talks
of 'linguanomics' to assert that languages can have a "market-value" (2017, p. xii) and that
289
bnguage competency can be discussed in terms of"assets" (2017, p. xii). These 'attributes' or
'assets' arc available to be exchanged in the 'marketplace' of social interaction.
That said, language itself has no tangible value. The commodification oflanguage relies
on and is shaped by people's "beliefs about language" and their "rationalization or justifi-
cation of perceived language structure and use" (Silverstein 1979, p. 193), their language
ideologie,. Irvine (1')89) argued that ways of ,peaking are not always "merely an index of
some independently generated social differenti.Hton'' (p.255) but may indeed social dif-
ferentiation. Language ideologies, therefore. phv ;J "crucial mediating factor'' (Irvine, 1989,
p. 255) in the link between the language and the economy, insofar as belief\ people have
about language are inseparable from other denwnts of their lives and their social experiences.
Blackledge, in arguing that "ideologies oflanguage are ... not about language alone, but are
always socially situated and tied to questions of identity and power in societies" (Blackledge,
2000, p. 27), draws on notions of inequality. Heller picks up on this suggesting that language
ideologies are "discourses in which processes of attribution of value to linguistic forms and
practices are inscribed, along with the processes of construction of social difference and social
inequality within which they are associated" (Heller, 2007, p. 15). The socic1llv positioned
and contest.ible ruture oflanguage ideologies means that they contribute to incqu.dity and
social hierarchisation, ,rnd they are thus .ibuut .issertiug the relationship between bnguage
and power and social structure. The notion of rncqu;ility and social difference is salient to the
notion of t'Jiteness, as discussed here, in that eliteness can be used as a lens thrnugh which to
view cert;1i11 linguistic contexts as well as the lived experiences of peopk active within these
contexts, how people frame their understanding of linguistic varieties and the difference
amongst them (see below for further discussion of methodological concerns).
So iflanguage itself has no tangible benefit, what then is happening? Gal (1989) argues, "be-
cause linguistic practices provide access to material resources, they become resources in their own
right" (p. 353). In other words, the 'value' of a linguistic variety is dependent on its standing in
a linguistic marketplace and its ability to give access to desired positions in the labour 111:1rket.
If we accept th;it languages are, at least for some people, commodified, then it follows that
sociolinguistic hierarchies may emerge; languages, if seen as commodities, become valued and
ordered accordingly. Consequently, decisiom are made based on the perceiYed usefulness of a
language, ,vhether understood in terms of pr.1gmatic or commercial currency or their value as a
symbolic resource. This hierarchisation results in a "paradoxical situation of valuing some types
oflanguages and language users more than others" (Barakos & Selleck, 2019, p. 368). Muth and
Del Percio (2018) have suggested that changing "market demands result in shifting values oflin-
guistic repertoires" (Muth & Del Percio, 2018, p. 33); thus, the hierarchy for elite multilingualism
is constantly shifting, faster than institutional and legal frameworks, and is context-dependent
(see Hornsby, 2()19, on the multiple stratificatiom ancl authenticities ofBreton speaker-hood).
The hierarchisation 1, not limited to the of hnguages (as bounded ,trnctures) but can
also, as Sharma (2018) notes, be evident in a desire to become more competent (or to acquire
certain competencies) in linguistic codes, to improve fluency levels (see also Barakos, 2018 for
similar aspir;ttions in adult language trainrng). In this sense, commodification of language and
hierarchisation operate in tandem and underpin the notion of eliteness/elite multilingualism.

Although critical ethnographic research on multilingualis1n as a site of unequal encoun-
ters and social is abundant, explicit ,vork on elite multilinguc1ltsrn a, ,1 t,)rce per-
petuating ,oci;i] rncquities has only rect'ntly bt'en gaining currency. The complexities of
290
today's multilingual requirements and aspirations call for other perspectives that generate
new research questions and that address "the other end of the class spectrum" (Howard &
Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2010; Thurlow &Jaworski, 2017). In what follows, we will review
some current contributions and research areas for elite multilingualism, mainly concentrat-
ing on eliteness in education and eliteness in economic and social life.
Eliteness in education
When languages and language users come to be treated as economic commodities, ap-
proaches to language education change. Changes are twofold; first, they can be seen in the
"choices made by institutions in allocating resources" (Hogan-Brun, 2017, p. 120), and sec-
ond, changes are evidenced by those choices made by individuals (or on behalf ofindividuals)
"for learning particular languages (or not)" (Hogan-Brun, 2017, p. 120). To exemplify one
discourse-ethnographic case study from the field of education, Selleck (under review) tracked
the relative value of both Welsh and English in order to understand what linguistic variet-
ies were capitalised by students at two secondary schools in Wales and for what purpose. It
was demonstrated that students make multiple associations between language, education and
employment and invest in a variety of strategies to secure resources for themselves. Selleck
establishes that the choice to learn Welsh is largely one of "aspiration and enhancement, of
recognizing the value of Welsh in a linguistic marketplace and investing in language learning
for this reason" (Selleck, under review). Students (or their parents) invest in Welsh as a skill,
like any other, something that they perceive has a value and that they hope will give (or be-
lieve has given) them a competitive edge in their life beyond compulsory education. In this
sense, she suggests that Welsh-medium education has "become associated with an exclusive
group of people" (Selleck, under review) with a new bourgeoisie, a "Welsh-speaking elite"
(Aitchison & Carter, 1997, p. 357), emerging. On the other hand, students also position
English as a form of linguistic capital, a means of escape from parochialism and a demon-
stration of having embraced the 'modern' way of life. Students, whilst agreeing about the
'advantages' of individual bilingualism, question the relative merits of different routes to
bilingualism (i.e. English- or Welsh-medium education).
Education has always been an institution that provides (or limits) access to "valued sym-
bolic resources, such as bilingualism" (De Mejia, 2002, p. 37). Preece (2019) argues, for
example, that Anglophone higher education acts as a gatekeeper of eliteness and stratifies
linguistic diversity. In this sense, education is "a powerful means through which to push
through various policy aims and aspirations as well as the norms, values and power of the
socially 'elite"' (Selleck, under review) and through this process, certain varieties ofianguage
(and therefore certain individuals) are given more legitimacy (Gal, 1989). For this reason,
educational establishments can be viewed as linguistic marketplaces. Parents, in making a
"planned and purposeful" (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998, p. 15) decision to opt into a bilingual/
multilingual education, are recognising (or perceiving) that certain languages represent a de-
finitive advantage, socially and economically, and in choosing a school for their child, believe
that they will gain access to power by "committing ... (them) to particular media of instruc-
tion and ways oflearning languages" (Martin-Jones & Heller, 1996, p. 129). Middle-class and
upper-middle-class parents are increasingly aware of the transnational scope of optimising
schooling and career trajectories for their children (Weenink, 2008; Doherty et al., 2009).
We start to see a shift towards the "marketisation oflanguage education and education in
. general" (Selleck, under review) and as a result of this, language learners become positioned
as, subjected to and treated as consumers, and are therefore required to 'choose' certain codes
291
over others. Selleck (under review) has argued tlut the ideology of choice is "a reflection of
the market-clnven demand for certain types of educatiou and is inextricably liaknL ideolog-
ically at least. lo comumerism". Paquet and Lcvas,cur (2019) and Cod6 ;ind Sunyul (2019)
portray people qmtc: literally 'buying into' hy 'choosing' to acquire one or more
'prestigiou,· and/or language varieties .rnd in this sense align with McGruarty
(2006) who suggests that "effective and socially just language policies must recognise the
moral, as well as material aspects of education" (p. 3).
Rydcnvald (2015) explores, via a sociolinguistic survey. reported language use and lan-
guage attitudes of Third Culture Kids (TCK), the children of expatriates and transmigrants,
an elite and privileged set of individuals from "upwardly mobile middle-class backgrounds"
(De MeJfa. 20U2, p. 31!3) who frequently study on dice or prestig10us, bilinguJl cducition
programmn (De Mtjia, 2002; Garcia, 2009). The research suggests that wlulst the multilin-
gualism of tbi, group of elite teenagers could be concluded to be uncomplicated (Riker &
Prys Jones, j()(J~). lacking the struggle often attached to many multilingual groups of teenag-
ers (De M<:'Jia, 2(){ the "drawback seems to be the marginal use of the local m,~ori,y lan-
guage" (Rydenvald, 2015, p. 226) which could be an asset to their multilingualism. Whilst
this paper is an important contribution and something we will return to later, there are obvi-
ous methodological limitations to the research, not least because the 'on the ground' reality
cmnot he fully appreciated via a survey which does not easily allow for the complexities of
lived experiences amongst these mobile mdividuals. What, fix example, does reported mar-
ginal use of the loci] m,~ority language mean in terms of their actual practices'
The ethnugL1phic work ofRelaiio-Pastor ,rnd Fern,mdez-Barrera (2U1'J) focusses on an
elite school tn Cc1st1lla-La Mancha, Spain. They sought to understand how the scliuul had
come to rely on native speakers of Engl1sb a, guarantors of education,1! el 1uw1. distinc-
tiveness and linguistic prestige in the highly commodified market ofEngfoh. The analysis
brings to the fore how the inclusion of English n,itive teachers in a bilmguc1l programme
has had an immediate effecl on the current English-medium teaching practices, resulting
Ill asymmetrical partnerships between content and native English teachers and causing
tensions and dilemmas amongst teachers participating in the bilingual programme. In

another ethnographic study, Code> and Sunyol (2019) demonstrate the ways in which an
international school in Barcelona identifies the learning of Mandarin Chinese as a dis-
tinction pracuce, with Englishisation clearly no longer sufficing to pro,.-idc an elite educa-
tion. In doing so. these contributions add a politic1l economic approach lo their analysis,
drawing on the three processes developed hy Del Percio et al. (2017) to understand the
valuation of languages 1nd their speakers~ the production, distribution and consm11ption
of resources.
Eliteness and economic and social life

To exemplify one discourse ethnographic case study from the field of economic life, Barcikos
(2018) dnalysed the discourses, ideologies and practices of multilingual, mobile language
trainers working l<:Jr an elite institution of cdncc1tion an Austrian language :rnd intcrcul-
tural comnnmicttion hu:,iness. In this work, ,he pusit1uns the language tramer ,1s neo-liheral
language workers, 1.e. someone who needs to .1Ct rncreasingly "adaptable, to certifi-
cation and ,Yl10 cu1bodics entrepreneurial values" iHarakus, 2018, p. 3), She: used ,1 discourse-
ethnograpb IC apprn,tcli. grounded in institutio1l al <cth nography and critic.il di" ,>ur,e studies,
to capture the tr3:1ectories of these multilingual language workers, the routine nature of their
work, i.e. teaching exclusive language and intercultural communication courses to business
292
clients, and ask what it mean$ for then, to 1vork with language as a re,ource for securing their
job, and as the object and product of then work,
Findings show that these trainers get caught up between rather elite and precarious work-
ing conditions. \Vhile the trainers value their language work under the banner of flexi-
bility and freedom, the non-linear, non-pcnnanent, largely umnonitored and unregulated
working hours and pay confirm that their language work is earned out under conditions
of increasing uncertainty, and feelings of insecurity. Barakos's study also shows that despite
the institutional diversity ethos, adult language learning and teaching is imbued with ref-
erence models, processes of evaluation, classification and legitimation. Native speakerism is
a pervasive ideology that permeates the work of the trainers and the institution's marketing
and staffing approach. Certain 'language desires' and affective stances arc imtilled for using
non-native trainers for teaching gramnur and native speakers for teaching 1nore advanced
and 'authentrc' communication skills. Such practices reproduce the essentialist strengths and
weaknesses of tbc native and non-tLlt1ve srwaker self as regimes of truth and commodify
native speakerne,s as authentic and elite capital that can be sold on the education market.

It was established above that a chain of commodification emerges~ a ripple effect. As people
start to treat language as a skill, it follows that people start to build hierarchies; they start to
order the languages and the users of those Lrnguages and, in turn. institutions start to cater
for the aspuatinnal desires of a social ,md lingmstic elite.
Elite mult11ingualism contributes to uncqrul power relations not least because the success
of a few relates to the failure of n1am (1--lmvard & Gaztambide-Fernandez, 2010). Selleck
(under review) argues that a sense of elitencSs "shifts the power to the already more pow-
erful in , and existing linguistic regimes are "simply reinfrnced ;md re-created"
(Kelly-Holmes & Pietibincn, 2013, p. 224). In this sense, language is the medium through
which the elite regulates the periphery. This has a palpable effect on various social actors.
De Costa (2019) suggests that "elite multilingualism can hurt teachers, pedagogically and
professionally" (p. 456), arguing that teachers are deskillcd and their linguistic knowledge
is devalued. Rydenvald (2015) alleges that the apparent free choice afforded to the TCK
docs not result in multilingualism more superfluous and less complicated than that of other
multilingual teenage groups but that the multilingualism of TCK mdividuals has implica-
tions not only for the teenagers' own lives but also for social, migration.al and educational
aspects. In other vvords, the social and educational elite still have perceived liniitations (albeit
relative to other less privileged individuals). We can thus argue that in this age of globali-
sation and linguistic commodification, nobody is exempt from the hierarchisation and the
marginalisation that comes hand in hand with it. Tare and Tare (2015) go one step further in
suggesting that it is these elite international schools that are "transnational spaces of agonist
social class-making" (2014, p. 34); they are causing a change or a shift in "national, cultural
and economic affinities" (2014, p. 36) and often emerge as sites of struggle, where "numerous
historical ancl oocial factors ... collide and produce moments of disjnncturc" (2(114, p. 42).
But these intnnsic arguments seem to miss the moral perspective: what about the import-
ant connection between language and culture and language and identity) Calhoun (2007,
p. 2S6) raises the possibility that the reific.ition of elite individuals comes at a high price and
argue, that it can eclipse local and national identities, and De Costa (2U 19) suggests that,
under more adverse circumstances, elite multilingualism can potentially erase minority and
community languages all together.
293
And what arc the challenges for the elites themselves? Fhte rnultilinguals strive for exec]_
lt:nce and perfection; there is ,rn aspiration for broader and 'better' linguistic competency but
Flett et al. (2016) argue that the pressure inherent in perfectionism is a hindrance to language
learning and contributes to language learning anxiety not least because of the social com-
parisons that are frequently made (Ommundsen, 2001). There seems to be a marked shift
away from the linguistic repertoire literature associated with discussions oftranslanguaging
(Garcia & Li Wei, 2014; although Jaspers Jx) reminds us that "authorities and translan.
guaging scholars are gencrallv agreed that language is key for pupils' success at school and
for reducing social inequality~ it is only the type oflanguage they disagree over" (p.5)). We
appear to no longer be discussing competency in terms of flexibility and creativity but instead
as a skill-based. regimented construction th,ll c,m be acquired should you have the resources
to do so. Tlrn leads us, as linguistic ethnographers and sociolinguists, back to discussing
language learn 1ng in terms of separate bounded codes, ideologies of standard.uess and purity.
Structured forces that nurture eliteness don't appear to allow for the sociolinguistic ideal (to
put the translanguaging and repertoire approach into operation). So where does this leave us
today? We can keep prodwing work on translanguaging bm how do we build a bridge with
eliteness? Or perhaps we do not need to) Jaspers (2018), rn critiquing the translanguaging
movement, suggests that we are living in tin1es of "dilenrmas'' in that "societies adhenrig
to liberal, enlightened principles value linguistic separation and diversity" (Jaspers, 2018,
pp. 8 Perhaps then, it is for us, as academics, to recognise that once agarn, there is a
gulf between our own ide,1listic approaches ,md debates and the reality "on the ground"
(Hornberger & IIult, 2008, p. 285) where stuclents will continue to "be evaluated for theu
skills in a monolingual, academic type oflanguage" (Jaspers, 2018, p. 9) ,ind ,,·here educ,1t1on
will continue to be a ''social credentialing system" (Jaspers, 2018, p. 5) that whether fairly,
or unfairly, works Lo distinguish learners by ability. In sum, irrespective of which ideological
position one adopts (an ideology of flexible or separate bi/multilingualism (Blackledge &
Creese, the fact rernains that educatrnn will continue to "make new \Vinners replace.
or join, old winners" (Jaspers 2018, p. 9). hut winners alwavs require losers.
Future directions
Current scholarship has to explore the dialogic ways in which eliteness and multi-
lingualism mutually shape wavs ofthinkmg c1nd being. Through mainly discourse-analytic,
sociological and ethnographic explorations, emergent work has taken up critical sociolin-
guistic angles to detail the ways that language serves as an access code to a local. national
or globally perceived elite (way oflife). Yet we still need to grasp a fuller understanding of
the ways that eliteness is interlocked with issues of social class. race, ethnicity, religion and
gender. Linguistic ethnogrc1phy has much to contribute conceptually, methodologically and
empirically to a systematic investigation oflanguagc, elites and intersectionality. Examining
eliteness through a linguistic ethnographic approach strengthens the link between the micro
and the m.acro, "the small to the large, the varied to the routine, the individual to the social,
the creative to the constraining, and the historical to the present" (Copland & Creese, 2()15,
p. 26). Such an approach 1s ,1ho grounded rn interdisciplinaritv Indeed, :is we have shown 111
this chapter, rnuch of the scholarly work has been shaped by interdisciplrnarity, drawing on
political theory, sociology and education studies. Future detailed accounts on elite multilin-
gualisrn arc needed that cross over to neighbouring disciplines.
Future resnrch should ,1lso consider the a,pirational ,md affective dimension of eliteness
:md language, and pay attention to people-, desires and anxieties across the social spectrum.
294
The currcm aflcctive turn in the social ,cicncn and humanities (Clough & Halley, 2007;
McElhinny, has started to engage: ,vith the connection of emotion ,md the body to
reason c1nd pas,ion. Yet more subst;mlne work 1s needed on the centrality of language and
emotion in S<1cial life. Ultimately, research on eliteness and language still neecb to grapple
with the question of how (and by whorn) elite, and elite multilingualism are n1;1de and, more
importantly, how they can be unmade to achieve a more equitable society and linguistically
Jess marginalised speakers. Such reflexive questions lead us back to our own positions as
academic knowledge producers. We are in a po,verfi.il position to decide and choose what
aspects of language in society vve want to examine and understand, and what to ignore at
different moments of time. There is a need to cultivate greater reflexivity and criticality in
times where the gc1p between privilege and precarity is widening in all :ispects 01·,ocial life~
including We need to be more c1ware that academia plays an instrumental role
in nurturing new elites, some of whom then proceed with steering the powerfol political,
economic, media and educational la of· our world. Choosing elites and eliteness as
a window into the ways that linguistic and social hierarchies, diflerence and inequities are
created and persist is one way of doing cntical research on pressing language and social issues
th at matter.
Further reading
Barakris. E.. &: Selleck, C (Eds.) (2019). Elite multilingualism: Discourses. practices, and debates.
Spffi,zl .Issue uf}ournal ef iviultilingual ,md Jfultic11/t1n,J/ Development. (The collection oLnticles in this
spcci;d issue conceptually and empiricallv \'iith the concept of elite multilingualism and its
diverse m:milestations in different educational and social settings.)
De McJia, AM. (2002). Power, prestige, c1nd International perspeaiFes 011 elite hilingual education.
Clevedon: M.ultilingual Matters Ltd. (This ,crninal book is one of the first to explicitly deal with
the formation, dispersion and types of elite bilingual educational provision in maJority and mi-
nority contexts, with a specific focus on South American countries.)
Related topics
Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation; Discourse analysis: Sooal class.
References
Aitchi,on, J. & Carter, H. (1997). Language reproduction: Reflections on the Welsh example. Area,
29(4), 357 .. )1,(i_
Baker, C, & Prys-Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopaedia of bilinprn/£sm ,md hilin;;ual education. Clevedon:
Barakos, E. (2018). Multilingual language trainers as language workers: A discourse-ethnographi.c
investigation. Lan~uage and Interwltural Communication, 19(2), 184-200. doi:10.1080/14708477.201
8.1487971
B,uakos, E., & Selleck, C (2019). Elite multilingualism: Discourses, practices, and debates. Journ,11 of
lvfulrili11.rH,d ,md :vfulticultuml DetJelop1nent, 40(5), 36J .. 374.
Blackledge,/'\. (2U0U). Monolingual idco]()gic, iu multilingual states: Langu,ige. bc:ge1mrny and social
justice in \X/cstan liberal democraci,.',. n_,111dio., de Sociolingiifstica, 1(2), 25-·+5.
Blackledge. A.., &. Creese, A. (2010). J"\II11/tili11g11,ilis111. /i ,ritical perspective. Lonclon: C:ont.inuum.
Block, D. (2017). \Vhat on earth is c,,rnmodification'? In S. llreidbacb. L Kuster, &
B. Schmcnk Sloganizatians in cduc,ition discourse. Bristol: Multilingml i\htters.
Blonumcrt, J (2011). The long language-ideological debate in Belgium. J,111r11c1/ ,if Multicultural
Discourses, 6(3), 241 .. 256.
J:lourdieu, P. (1991). Lc1ng1w,~c and sy,nbolic power (1st ed} Carn.bridge: Polity Press.
295
Bourdieu, P. (l 982). Ce quc parler t1eut dire. Paris: Fay,ird.

Bourdieu, P. (l'ii-14). Distinction: A social critique _i11dpe111c11t ,if taste. London: Routledge.
Butler, Y., & Hakuta. K .. (2004). Bilingualism ;ind second language acquisition. In T Bhatia &
W. Ritchi (.Eds.), Tl,e lw1dbook of bilingualisn1 (pp. I 14 144). Oxford: Blackwe!I Publishint\
Calhoun, C. (2007). Social solidarity as a problem for cosmopolitan democracy. In S. Denhabib,
I. Shapiro, & IJ. Pertranovic (Eds.), Identities, ,111d allegiances (pp. 2S2-302t Cambridge:
Clough, P, & Halley,]. (2007). The turn: Theorizing the social. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Cod6, E., & Sunyol, A. (201')). "A plus for our students": The construction of Mandarin Chinese as
an elite language in an international school in Barcelona. Journal of Multili11gual and M.ulticultural
Developrnent, 40(5), 436-452.
Copland, JC., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic ethnography: Collecting, ,malysing ,md presentinJ; data. London:
SAGE.
Da Silva E., McLu1ghlin M .. & Richards, M. (:'1107). Bilingualism and the globalized 11e,°' economy:
The comnwdific,1tion oflanguage and identity. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism· .:1 so,i,,/ c1pproach
(pp. 183-206). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Day, D., & Wagner, _J. (2007). Bilingual professionals. In P. f\uer & Li Wei (Eds.), Ho11dboo/.: o(muliilin-
gualism and 1nult1ii11g11,1/ ,ol!lmunication (pp. 391---W4). Berlin: De Gruyter.
De Costa, P. (2019). Commentary: Elite multilingualism, at1ect and neoliberalism. In Journal of JWulti-
Lingua/ and Multicultural Deuelopment,40(5), 453-460.
De Mejia, A.M. (2002). Power, prest(~e, ,md bilingualism: International perspertiues on elite bi/inRual education.
Cleveclon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Del Pecio, A., Flubacher, M., & Duchene, A. (2017). Language and political economy. In 0. Garcia,
N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of and society (pp. 55-77). Oxford:
Doherty, C., Mu. l .. & Sbidd, P. (2009). Planning mobile futures: The border artistry oflntcrnational
baccalaureate diploma choosers. British Jou111c1/ of Sonology of Education, 30(6), 757- 77 l.
Eckert, P. (1989). The \vhok women: Sex and gcnd<"r differences in variation. V1ri,I1ion and
Change, 1(1), 245- 267.
Flett, G., Hewitt, P., Su, C., & Flett, K. (2016). Perfectionisn1 in language learners: Review. concep-
tualization, and re com mcndations for teachers and school psychologists. Canc1di,m Jo1trn,d o} School
Psychology, 31, 75-101.
Gal, S. (1989). Language and political economy. Annual Reuiew of.:1nt/1ropology, 18, 345-367.
Garcia, 0. (2009). Bilingual edwatiM1 in the 21st Century: A global perspeai1,c. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Publishing.
Garcia. 0., & Li Wei, (2014). Transl<1Y(fuaging. language, bilingualism ,md cduc,ttion. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Garrido, M. (2017). Multilingualism and cosmopolitanism in the construction of a humanitarian elite.
Social Semiotics, 27(J), 359-369. doi:10.1080/10.'\50330.2017.1301800
Guerrero, C. (:'010). Elite vs. folk bilingualism: The mismatch between theories and eduutiorul and
social co111litiom. HOH'. A Colombian Joumd/jc,r Tcocliers afEnglislz, 17(1), 165-179.
Heller, M. (2002). Globalization and the commodification of bilingualism in Canada. In D. Block &
D. Cameron (Ed,.), ClobiJlization and language (pp. 47-63). London: Rout.ledge.
Heller, M. (2007). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilin};ualism: A social <1p-
1mi11ch (pp. 1-24). Basingstoke: PC1lgrave Macmillan.
Heller, M. (2011). Paths to post-n,ztionalism: A critical etlmosmphy of languase @d identity. New York:
Heller, M., & Duchene, A. (2016). Treating language as an economic resource: Discourse, data, de-
bates. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Socio/ing1tistics: Theoretical debates (pp. 139-156). New York: Cambridge
Universitv Press.
Hogan-Brun. G. (2017). Unyuanomics: What is tl,e ofrnultilingualism. Lonclon: Bloomsbury.
Hornberger. N .. & Hult, F. (2008). Ecological '°'"h""·'o,~ education policy. In B. Spolsky & F. Hult
(Eds.), Tiu· /1,111d/,,,vl: ,,{educational linguistics !pp. 280 2'16). Malden, MA: Blackwt>ll.
Hornsby, N. (2Cll'J Positions and stances in the hier:,rcbiz;ition of Breton speakerhood. _fo1tmal ,:f Multi-
lingual and Multi:11/rur,il Det1elopment, 40(5), 39::'-4<).,
Howard, A., & Gaztarnb1de-Ferna11dez, R. (2010). Educ<1ting elites: Class pri1,ile2c and educational aduan-
taxe. lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
296
Irvine, J. (1989). When talk isn't cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist, 16(2),
248-267.
Jaspers, J. (2009). Inleiding [Introduction]. In]. Jaspers (Ed.), De klank van de stad: Stedelijke meertaligheid
en interculturele cotmnunicatie [The sound of the city: Urban multilingualism and intercultural communication}
(pp. 7-32). Antwerp: Acco.
Jaspers, J. (2018). The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language and Communication, 58, 1-10.
Jaworska, S., & Themistocleous, C. (2018). Public discourses on multilingualism in the UK: Triangu-
lating a corpus study with a sociolinguistic attitude survey. Language in Society, 47(1), 57-88.
Kelly-Holmes, H., & Pietikainen, S. (2013). The peripheral multilingualism lens: A fruitful and chal-
lenging way forward. In S. Pietikainen & H. Kelly-Holmes (Eds.), Multilingualism and the periphery
(pp. 222-229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khan, S. (2012). The sociology of elites. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 361-377.
Martin-Jones, M., & Heller, M. (1996). Introduction to the special issue on education in multilingual
settings. Discourse, identities and power. Linguistics and Education, 8, 3-16.
Maxwell, C. (2015) 'Elites': Some questions for a new research agenda. In A. Van Zanten, S. Ball, & B.
Darchy-Koechlin (Eds.), Elites, pri11ilege and excellence: The national and global redefinition of educational
adt1antage (pp. 15-28). London: Routledge.
McElhinny, B. (2010). The audacity of affect: Gender, race, and history in linguistic accounts oflegit-
imacy and belonging. AnnHal Review ofAnthropology, 39(1), 309-328.
McGroarty, M. (2006). Neoliberal collusion or strategic simultaneity? On multiple rationales for lan-
guage in education policies. Language Policy, 5, 3-13.
Muth, S., & Del Percio, A. (2018). Policing for commodification: Turning communicative resources
into commodities. LangHage Policy, 17, 129-135.
Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Students' implicit theories of ability in physical education classes: The in-
fluence of motivational aspects of the learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 4,
139-158.
Paquet, R., & Levasseur, C. (2019). When bilingualism isn't enough: Perspectives of new speakers of
French on multilingualism in Montreal. joHrnal of MHltilingual and MHltimltHral Det1elopment, 40(5),
375-391.
Paulston, C. (1978). Education in a bi/multilingual setting. International Review of EdHcation, 24(3),
309-328.
Preece, S. (2019). Elite bilingual identities in higher education in the Anglophone world: The strati-
fication oflinguistic diversity and reproduction of socio-economic inequalities in the multilingual
student population. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(5), 404-420.
Relaiio-Pastor, A.M., & Fernandez-Barrera, A. (2019) The 'native speaker effects' in the construction
of elite bilingual education in Castilla-La Mancha: Tensions and dilemmas. Journal of MHltilingual
and Multicultural Development, 40(5), 421-435.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABEJournal, 8,15-34.
Rydenvald, M. (2015). Elite bilingualism? Language use among multilingual teenagers of Swedish
background in European schools and international schools in Europe. Journal of Research in Interna-
tional Education, 14(3), 213-227.
Selleck, C. (under review). Global. ambitions and local identities: New speakers' access to linguistic
markets and resources.
Sharma, B. (2018). English and discourses of commodification among tourism workers in the
Himalayas. JOHrnal of Sociolinguistics, 22(1), 77-99.
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P.R Clyne, W.F. Hanks, & C.L.
Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on lingHistic units and levels (pp. 193-247). Chicago, IL:
Chicago Linguistics Society.
Snell, J., Shaw, S., & Copland, F. (Eds.) (2015). LingHistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations.
Sonntag, S. (2003). The local politics of Global English: Case studies in linguistic globalization. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Tare, P., & Tare, A. (2015). Elite international schools in the Global South: Transnational space, class
relationalities and the 'middling' international schoolteacher. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
36(1), 34-52.
Thurlow, C., &Jaworski, A. (2012). "Elite mobilities: The semiotic landscapes ofluxury and privilege.
· Social Semiotics, 22(5), 487-516.
297
Thurlow, C., &Jnvorski, A.. (2014). Visible-invisible: The sooal se.miotics oflabour in luxury tourism.
In T. Birtdrncll & J Caletrio (Eck), Elite mo/,il/tie, (pp. 176-1'1)). London: Routledge.
Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A.. (2017). Introducing elite discourse: Tbc rhetorics of status, privilege, and
power. s,,ci,zl Semiotics, 27(3), 243-254.
Van Zanten, A.. (2018). Elites in education. London: Routledge.
Weenink, D. (2008). Cosmopolitanism as a form of capital: Parents preparing their children for a
globalized world. Sociology, 42(6), 1089-110(,
298
22
Lingua franca scenarios
Janus Mortensen
Introduction and key concepts

This chapter concerns research into lingua franc a scenarios, highlighting the communicative
complexity oflingua franc:i interaction and the value of adopting an ethnographic approach
in studying lingua franca settings. Historically, the term 'lingua franca' refers to a pidgin
called Lingua Franca, ,vhich is commonly believed to have developed as a contact language
in the Mediterranean region, where it was in use until the second half of the 19th century
(Schuchardt, 1909; Cremona, 1998; Nolan, 2005; Operstein, 2018). In contemporary us-
age of the term, any language may function as a 'lingua franca' ,vhen it is employed as a
shared rncans of communication bet,veen who do not have a rnmmon first language
(Sarnarin, 1 Thus, when French. JUSt to rnention an example, is med in international
diplonucy by speakers who have different first languages, it is employed as a lingua franca.
English is probably the most widely used contemporary lingua franca, but it is by no means
the only language that is used in this function on a regular basis and at a large scale. Other
widespread lingua francas include Arabic, German, Hindi, Malay, Putonghua, Russian,
Swahili, Wolof and many others (see e.g. contributions in McGroarty (2006)). Latin is an
example of a highly influential historical lingua franca (Haberland, 2009), and Esperanto is
an example of a language deliberately constructed ,vith a view to facilitate communication
bet,veu1 of different nationalities spukers of different languages). This chapter
is not concerned \vith the historical Franca or any one particular .language used as
a lingua franca, although English, for reasons to be explained below, features prominently.
Inste,1d, the aims to offer an mtroduction t0 the more general notion of lingua franca
language src11'1rios and a selection of the research areas that it can be related to.
A language scenario can be thought of as the sum of linguistic resources available in a
given communicative encounter between two or more speakers by virtue of their individual
language repertoires (Mortensen, 2013). In the Italian tradition of commedia dell'arte, a sce-
nario forms the basic framework for the improvised performance of a play on stage (Henke,
2002). In much the same way, a language scenario can be said to provide the linguistic
starting point from which communicative encounters may unfold in everyday life. Though
"the boumLnies of the concept are fuzzy, a lingua franc1 scenario is qualitatively
299
Janus Mortensen
different from scenarios where interlocutors m:1y rely on a shared first hr1guage. c1nd
as the chapter illustratt:s. this difference has proven to be ,1 fruitful one for scholars interested
in understanding rhc ,c,cL1l and linguistic processes of human interaction.
In recent ye,1rs. rese,irch into the use of English ,1s ,1 1ingua franca has become a vibrant
area of studv. \Vlut w,1s barely a distinct field 1:) vears ,1gn 1s now a dynamic :uea of research,
with its own journal (Touma/ of English as a Lingua Franca), book series (Developments in English
as a linsua franra, de Gruyter) and lundbook (Jenkins et al., 2018). The widespread use of
English in lingua franca scenarios has been examined from many disciplinary perspectives.
providing new angles on everything from English language leaching (ELI) (Jenkins, 200();
Seidlhofer. 2004; Dewey, 2012), social inleraction and the pragmatics of communication in
lingua franci ,ccn ,irios (Firth, 1996; House-, to the study of language variatiun ,111d
change (Maunncn. 2U12; Filppula et al., 2017). Bc,:,rnsc of the sheer amount of research
published with rcfrrcncc l<.l English, the followrng outline often refers to English. Howt'ver,
as mentioned above. the topics under discussion ;ire. in pnnciple,. relevant fur <1// lingu,1 franca
scenarios, and I encourage the reader, whenever possible, to consider how the raised
belo,v may be related to contexts where other l:mguagcs are used as lingua fr,1ncas.
The scholarly interest in lingua frauca interaction has a long history in sociolinguistics and
related fields. though the lingua franca aspect has not always been an explicit or focal con-
cern. In this section. I illmtrate how some oflhc themes \vhich are currently ht'ing ,1Lldrc·,sed
in research reLitcd to linµ;ua franca scenarios have in nuny cases been foresliadowed - more
or less explicitly -- in work within interaction,11 sociolinguistics, applied lingui,;tics (ELT in
particular) and interJctionally oriented approaches lo pragmatics.
Within the tradition of interactional (Gumperz, 1')82: Gmnperz &
Cook-Gumperz, 2012; and see Rampton, this volume), many studies have been concerned
with 'intcrcultural' encounters in institutional settings where English or other languages are
used to facilitate interaction between speakers of different first languages. A central interest
in tliis body of work is to explore how understanding is achievt'd in inlercultural encounters
and how and why miscommunication ,xcurs. This interest is also widespread in contempo-
rary research on lingua franca interaction, a11d nuny of the findings reported in the literature
on interaction:il sociolinguistics in the latter half of the 2Uth century may be ,aid to preGgure
some of the work d1c1t L1ter came to prominence in the field of ELF studies. Thu.,, in J study
of intercultural encolmters in public service centres 1n the British Midlands, Gumpcrz and
Roberts (19'>1) fi,und tbal misunderstandings may arise if speakers map their non-English-
based 'rhetorical strategies' onto English. This suggests that the communicative challenges
faced by speakers in lingua franca scenarios may relate more to what Hymes (1972) calls
'norms of interaction' and 'norm:, oC interpretation' than the liteql meaning oflexical items
and grammatical constructions. This finding which was also reported early on by research-
ers working within the framework of conversation analysis on data where Spanish was used
as a lingua Cra11c1 (Jordan & Fuller, 1975) corninues to be of interest in studies oClingua
franca scenarios. as wdl as recent research within the viradigm ofinteractiu1ul sociolinguis-
tics itself (sec e.g. Robert, et al., 2014).
Moving on Lo the reLitionship between c1pplied linguistics and linguc1 frcinca sccmrios
inevitably takes us to the literature on English um-l ,is ,t lingua franca (ELF). The study of
ELF variably referred to as the use of 'English as an international language', 'English as
an auxiliary language' or 'English as an international auxiliary language' - has been the
300
object of increasing scholarly attention since the 1970s (see e.g. Smith, 1976; Knapp, 1987).
Widdowson (2018) points out that the interest can in fact be traced even further back, but
it is arguably not till the beginning of the new millennium that we begin to see the (early)
contours of a distinct research field. Jenkins's (2000) work on the phonology of 'English as
an international language' was a seminal study which appeared in close proximity to equally
influential works by Seidlhofer (2001), Mauranen (2003) and House (2003). In insisting on
conceptualising 'ELF speakers as language users in their own right' rather than (deficient)
learners of English (Seidlhofer, 2001, p. 137), these scholars aligned with ongoing reorien-
tations in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) towards a more 'emic' and contex-
tualised view of language competence (Firth & Wagner, 1997), and introduced new ways
of thinking about English and ELT. What had formerly been treated as 'errors' of English
language learners were now re-conceptualised as potential 'innovations' of language users
whose language use should be measured against standards of communicative effectiveness,
rather than 'native speaker' norms of correctness (Seidlhofer, 2004).
Another early strand of research on English used as a lingua franca has been concerned
with the pragmatic strategies that speakers in ELF scenarios employ to facilitate effective
communication. Starting with Firth's (1996) study of recorded telephone conversations
between Danish export managers and their international clients, conversational analytic
approaches have played an important role in this connection (see also Firth, 1990; Wagner &
Firth, 1997). Firth argues that the interlocutors in his data perform extensive interactional
work to make their talk appear 'normal', despite the fact that their use of English deviates
from what might be expected from a 'standard' perspective. One of the central strategies
the participants use to achieve a sense of interactional 'normality' is what Firth refers to
as the 'let-it-pass procedure': faced with problems of understanding related to pronuncia-
tion, speakers simply let the "unknown or unclear action, word or utterance 'pass' on the
(common-sense) assumption that it will either become clear or redundant as talk progresses"
(Firth, 1996, p. 243). In other words, rather than focussing on linguistic form and formal
'errors' in their interlocutors' speech, speakers will adopt a flexible interactional stance and
focus on the message that is being conveyed.
The let-it-pass procedure has been found to be widespread in lingua franca interaction
(see e.g. Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Deterding, 2013), and this has led to the suggestion that this
interactional strategy might be seen as a characteristic or typical feature of ELF interaction
(see e.g. Jenkins et al., 2011, p. 293; Murray, 2012, p. 321). However, as Firth points out,
while the 'procedure would appear to be a commonly-deployed resource in lingua franca
interactions, [it] is by no means unique to such interactions' (Firth, 1996, p. 243). Following
Garfinkel (1967, pp. 21-22; 1972, p. 314), the let-it-pass procedure may be seen as one of
several 'ad hoc-ing' procedures that people generally use to make sense of the world around
them. Nevertheless, while there may be nothing specifically unique about the communicative
strategies that speakers adopt when they use English as a lingua franca, the work of Firth and
others clearly illustrates that lingua franca interaction may be a particularly useful data type
to explore in the study of human interaction, because participants in lingua franca encounters
tend to display pragmatic strategies in more salient ways than in other contexts, making them
easier for the analyst to observe (see also e.g. Kirkpatrick, 2007; Bjorkman, 2011b).

Much of the work that has been conducted within the field of ELF studies since Jenkins's
(2000) influential early work has explicitly or implicitly been positioned in opposition to
301
Janus Mortensen
traditional to ELT. As dtscussecl e:irlier, schobrs have :irgucd that speakers vvho
use as a .lingt1J franc:1 should he considered language users rather than
'"""'·'"'"·c learners. This line has led to the that pedagogical
principles in ELT should be reconsidered, rnovmg towards a less rigid perception of 'stan--
cL1.rd' with communicatrvc cffr:ctivcness and mutual 1ntclli-
gihilitv rather than to 'native speaker' norms as (Scidlhofrr. 2011;
sec also House. 2002; 1.\;1yyurt & Akcan, 2015). Unmrpnsrngly, this has led to criticmn from
oriented scholars and practitioners involved in the teaching of English as
;1 (EFL). Some argue that there is, i11 no gre,1t difference hetwt-en an
ELF approach and 1nore traditional approaches since 'EFL leads to ELF' (Swan, 2012, p. 388),
while others argue that an ELF ,1pproach to language is practically tmtenable 111 the
cLissroom (Maley.
A crucial point of contention in the debate about ELF and teaching is whether
ELF can be :,e,·n as a 'variety' ur 'norni' that cin be turned into a model of teaching. While
fi.,r how to tc1ch 'the pronunciation of English as a lingu,1 franca' do exist
and whlle book have heen written about the of/
m English as a lingua franca Dewey, 2012, pp. 47-1\0; Bjorkman, 20U; Ranta,
2018), the consensm which lus over the course of the past decade seems to be that
ELF un in fact not be described as ;1 ofEngJish, ;md hence cannot be thought of ;15 a
traditioml model te;1ching either. This situation 1neans tlut the notion of 'ELF'
leaves rnauy practitioners at an impasse. If 'ELF is not a variety, but rather a label for a vir-
tu,illy infinite nurnher present and future scenarios clnracterised by a high
oflinguistic and cornrnuniotive variability, then this poses distinct challenge
for langt1;1ge teachers. As Wnght and Zheng point out, '·,vc can that com1m1nica-
uon 1s cn:ativity, but [... ] ho\v do we teach this behaviour in the classroom?·• (20m,
p. The point here i, that teaching - which ,vould foll01v naturally front
adopting a franca perspective - is different from teaching bnguage--as-system, which
1s the focus in many traditional approaches to language ln this sense, questions
arising from lingua franca studies can be said to highlight more general ch,illenges involved
in language teaching, much like the account of the let-it-pass procedure in ELF interaction
can be seen c1s a way to describe more generally phenomena in human mteraction.
The argurnent that users of English as a lingua franu slwuld be seen as ef11cient language
users rather than deficient lec1rners has been backed up by research showing that interaction
in lingua franca scenarios is ofren communicatively 'successful' and characterised by a rel-
atively low frequency of (overt) misunder,tandings (see e.g. Meierkonl, l 996;
Mauranen, 2006). Indeed, witli inspiration from Firth\ account of the let-it pass procedme
and related vvork on the intcractional practices of in ELF scennios. early scholar-
ship found that ELF intcnctwns arc 'often ... consensu,-orientecl. and mutually
supportive' (Seidlhofr,r, 2001. p. 113; see ;1]so House, 20 I However. research has also shown
that not all lingua franca encounters arc equally harmonious, ,md not aJl ELF intcractants
arc equallv supportive and bcmgn e.g. House. 1999; 2012, 2018; Kappa, 2016).
T'he crucial point here is tlut language use and interacL1011 al styles more broadly are influ-
enced by a r;inge of contextual variables (just as styles are also themselves,
cf. Mortemen & Coupland, 2()18, and see Jasper, and van Hoof, this The fact that
ELF encounters take 1n fr,inca sce11.n1os only amounts to one out of
several such \•·ariJblcs (1'v1ortcnsen, So, when Elf encounters have often been found
to be characterised nrntual support and con,ensus-sceki ng behaviour, thi:, is rnore likely
to be an dicct of the type of encounters .ind that have been studied, such ;is busrncss
302
encounters and cla,sroom settings, rather than the fact that they constitute lingua franca sce-
narios (which Seidlhofer also notes early on, cf. Seidlhofer, 2001, p. 143). This underlines the
value of ethnographic approaches to lingua franca scenario research, providing a perspective
on interactional data which attempts to take account of such multiple variables and factors
(see Mortensen, 2013 for a discussion of the usefulness ofHymes's (1972) SPEAKING mne-
monic in this connection). Once again, we may note that by study mg lingua franca scenarios,
researchers may come to identify certain processes which are of general interest to the study
oflanguage and social life, quite simply because they are amplified in such scenarios, com-
pared to Ll language scen:irios.
The efforts that have been put into legitimising users of English as a lingua franca, and the
emphasis that researchers have ofren placed on the successful mture of ELF encountero, may
obscure some of the problems involved in the widespread use ofEnglish as a purported 'global'
language. While a lingua franca might (from a somewhat nai"ve position) be perceived as a
'neutral' medium of interaction, several researchers have pointed out th;tt English is anything
but neutral (Phillipson, 1992; Grin, 2018: Ricento, 2018). According to the view represented
by these authors. the contemporary dominance of English in transnational doniains such as
business, science and higher education can be seen as the result of historical processes char-
acterised by social and linguistic hegemony 'inseparable from issues of power' (Grin, 2018,
p. 264). Rcconceptualising the vvidespread use of· English as 'English as a lingua franca' does
not, in their view, change the fact that the current dominance of English as a 'global' lingua
franca perpetuates deep•-seated social and linguistic inequalities and global power asyrnrne-
tries. In fact, the notion of 'English as a lingua franca' m,1y actively contribute to the problem
by naturalising rather than prohlematising the status of English as 'the' global language.
In a sirnilar vein, it may be argued that the idea that speakers who use a lingua franca ha-
bitually and professionally should be seen as successful language users, rather than deficient
language learners, runs the risk of simplifying often very complex relatiomhips between
language and identity. Research that focusses on langu,1ge attitudes and ideology in lingua
franca contexts has found that speakers may exhibit mixed attitudes towards their use of a
lingua franca, which shows the value and .importance of considering speakers' cmic perspec-
tives in understanding these settings. In a small-scale intervievv-based study of students at an
international BA programme in Denmark, Mortensen and Fabricius (2014) found that the
students interviewed valued communicitive effectiveness higher than a particular English
accent. This would apparently lend support to the idea that these speakers should not be
evaluated·· and did not ev,1luate themselves - against a ·native' speaker yardstick. However,
the same students were also found to take up stances that indicated an affiliation with stan-
dard language ideologies that favoured 'native' ways of speaking English. Similar findings
have been reported in a number of other contexts (Wang, 2013: Karab~, 2015: McKenzie &
Gilmore, 2017; Baird & Baird, 2018), suggesting that the habitual and successful practice
of using a language as a lingua franca does not necessarily mean that speakers relinquish all
orientation to perceived standard language norms (cf. Smit, 2011), p. 58). It also suggests that
the practice of using a lingua franca may, for some speakers, involve problems related to self-
expression, even if they do not see themselves as language learners (Harder, 1980). As Preisler
(2014) has shown, this may lead to problems in handling professional identity and authority,
for instance in the context of higher educ1tion where English is increasingly being used ;1s a
medium of instruction outside English-speaking countries. Issues related co the relationship
between language and (professional) identity may also arise in the eye of the beholder. In a
Lnge-scale questionnairc·-based study of,tudents' evaluation oflecturers in English-medium
classes at a Danish University, Jensen et al. (2013) found that there was a statistical 'effect of
303
Janus Mortensen
perceived English skill, on perceived generJl lecturing competence and vice versa' (2013,
p. 101), suggesting that language attitudes might - L11rly or not play a role in th.e evaluation
of profession.ii compc;teun:.
Current research areas

In a world characterised by widespread transnational mobility of people, goods and ideas,
lingua franca scenarios are ubiquitous, :md can, in principle, be studied in any conceivable
context. In practice, however, research into the use of English (and other languages) as a lin-
gua franca has overwhelmingly focussed on educational settings and workplaces, though there:
are obviously excepticnb (see e.g. Lindstedt, 201U; Pietibinen, 2014). In the fr,llowing, I will
review some ma111 Jreas of these research strands, with an crnphasis on studies th:it incorporate
ethnographic elements (for a broader review of re:;e,,rch 111to ELF, see Jenkins et 2U J 1).
The increctscd use oC English as lingua franc:i al urnvcr,ities and education:,] institutiom in
Europe and heyond h.1, attr;1cted considerable attention for more than a decade now (Haberland
et al., 2008; Preisler et al., 2011; Bjorkman, 2011a; Haberlmd et al., 2013; Dimova ct al., 21115).
Smit (2010) and Kalocsai (2013) have conducted particularly interesting studies of educational
settings where English is used as a lingua franca. What makes these studies specifically valuable
is that they adopt a longitudinal perspective on the use ofEnglish as a lingua franca in 'commu-
nities of practice' (Lave & Wenger, 1991), combining ethnographic data of various kinds with
a close analysis of naturally occurring interaction. Smit focusses on classroom discourse at an
English-medium two-year hotel management programme in Vienna, while Kaloc,,ll focusses on
the community ofErc1smm (,tudy-abroad) studenl:., n the Hungarian university town ofSzeged.
By following the ,tnclent, over an extended period of lune. interviewing them and recording
their interaction, the aullmrs are able to document how shared linguistic, interactJonal and social
practices devdop in the two groups, and how a sense of c"mmunity is established over time.
Other studies focussing on the use of English in higher education and university inter-
nation:ilisation have focussed on issues of language ideology and policy (see e.g. Bji:irkrnan,
2014: Hultgren et al., 2014; Mortensen. 2014), indicating that the introduction of a (new)
acadermc lingua franca is something that has implications far beyond specific interactional
encounters. It is, in fact, part of a development that 'pushes' the estahli,bed sociolinguistic
order, creating ripples at many different level, (Morten,en, forthcoming). Another aspect
which is also 'in the mix' but only occasion:1lly given central attention is that English 1s not
the only possible lingua fr.mca involved in university internationalisation, not. even in con-
texts where English is the nominal lingua frauc1 Borghetti & Beaven, 2017; Smit, 2018).
For examples of the role of Swedish in the Swecbb context, see e.g. Soderlundh (2012) and
Salo (2015); for the role ofJapanese as a lingua franca in Japan, see Ikeda and Bysouth (2013);
for a detailed study oflanguage choice (English vs German) in a Danish exam context, see
Nevile and Wagner (2011), and see Van der Walt (2013) for a broader view of the potential
of - and challenges involved in -· multilingual higher education with examples from a range
of geographical and national settings, including South Africa.
Turning to studies of \vorkplaces where English Js med as a lingua franca. the work of
Cogo (2012. 20 I 6) and Lonsmann (2011, 201 -+) 111.1y serve as examples (though there ,lfe
many more, ,ee c .g. Eluenreich, 2010). In then srudic,. Cogo and L0nsni,11m both focus
on the complex ,ociolinguistic reality of workplace'., that. in the face of increased !111gmstic
diversity, brought ,1boul ;,s ,1 consequence ofincrc,N.-d rntcrnationalisation, have adopted im-
plicit or explicit language policie,, nominating English as the corporate language. However,
what tlwy both find echoing findings fron, university settings - is that the 'reality on the
304
ground' is much more complex. English may be the nominal lingua franc1 in many (though
far from all) contexts, but it inevitably enters into a close interplay with other langu;_iges pres-
ent in the setting. \Vhat this suggests, very clearly, is that the study of ELF is the study
of multilingual settings. This point has increasingly come to the fore in the study of ELF,
leading scholars to reconsider the relationship between English and other languages in ELF
intera.ction Qenkins, 2015), turning interest more towards aspects of the entirety oflinguistic
resources available ma lingua franca scenario and less towards English per se.
Main research methods and approaches to analysis

Depending on research interests, lingua franca scenarios can be approached from a number of
different perspectives and by means of a range of methods. In ELF studies, corpus linguistic
methods have been useful HJ illustrating how English, as a language system, 1s mcreasingly
being "shaped by non-native speakers' (Mau.rcmrn, 2012; see also .Mauranen, 2016 for an
overview of corpus approaches in ELF studies). However, as the outline of research areas
above has illustrated, sevcq] other methods have also been employed in the study oflingua
franc:1 scenarios. ]'vlany researchers have been engaged in the analysis of social interaction,
focussing on data from a range of different settings. Conversation analysis has played a cen-
tral part in chis endeavour (cf. the work of Firth discussed above, but also work by Kaur,
Pietibinen and others, e.g. Kaur, 2012; Pietibinen, 201 but researchers have also em-
ployed more gencr:il discourse-analytical approaches. In some of the earlier work within the
literature, studies of interaction relied on quasi-experimental data like role plays (Bae, 2002;
Leszny£ik, 2004), but this practice largely seems to have gone out of fashion.
As illustrated by the work of Kalocsai, Smit and L011rn1ann discussed above (and rn.any
others), several researchers have taken an ethnographic approach to the study oflingua franca
contexts (without necessarily discussing them under this label), using ethnographic inter-
views and participant observation, often combined with a close analysis of ;ll1dio or video
recordings of naturally occurring interaction. Kraft's (2017) study of multilingual construc-
tion sites in Norway is a good example ofa setting where English is not the dominant lingua
franca. Drawing on ethnographic field notes, audio and video recordings, interviews, docu--
ments and more, Kraft is able to show how transient Polish workers who master Norwegian
are seen as particularly valuable workers because they can fill a role as 'language brokers'
in the construction site, mediating benveen the Norwegian-speaking management and the
Polish-speaking einployees (see also Lonsmann & Kraft, 2018).

Perhaps the most prominent implicat10n for practice ernergmg from the study of lingua
franca scenarios concerns language teaching. As discussed above in Section 4, the realisation
that learners of English are first and Coremost likely to be ming the language in lingua fr,mc1
scenarios raises 111;1ny questions: How does one teach 'English as a lingua franca'' Can a lan-
guage actually be taught as a lingua franca? Should notions of 'standard language norms' be
completely disbanded, or do they still have a role to play' And so on. ELF researchers have
been discussing these questions for some time and have produced a number of answers
e.g. Kohn, 2011; Seidlhofer, 2011; Bayyurt & Akcan, 2015; Grazzi, 2018), but perhaps the
most valuable insight to take from the research field at present would be the questions tbem-
~elvcs, and the opportunities they prO\ ide for reflection on established ,md recei-ved practices
oflangu.1ge teachmg - and Lrnguage learning.
305
Janus rv1ortensen
and planning is another are;1 ,vhcrc research into hngu;1 franca scenarios
processes they arc charactnised hy 1n:ry pL1y an irnportc1nt role. ln
universities as ,veil as ruultiu.itional Lbcrc 1s a vv· belief.that t.he use of
English as a (i·anca is an obvious ,vay to ensure rnccessful internationalisaLion. While
the research on the use in lingua frc111ca sccnnios rnav to some extent support this
idea the research has illustrated that are uften successful in their
comnwmc1t1ve the av:lllabk research also shows that it is not JS simple .ls that e.g.
Lornmann &. Ivlortensen, Lingua franc1 scenarios arc ckfinnion - characterised
by lmguimc and ctdtur:il and English (or any other as the
dominating franca does not rn any subst,u1t1al w.1y ,lcldrcs, the cb,1llenges that may
arise frum this complcxitv in terms of links between and successful communi-
cation. and po,ver and :ind identity. Linguistic <cthnographies oflingua
franca scen,uios can LIS with accounts which loute 111teractional data clearly within
such social complexities ,rnd can help rn move towards them better.
Future directions
to future directiorn, I will limit myself to two areas that I sec as particularly
for research into franca scenarios. Srnit notes that
when a group oC mutual strangen use J.S their lingua fr,rnu they bring diverse
linguistic and cultural with then1. So. cornmunication can only rely in
part on ,hared role in the mc,ming-making
proCC\S 15 fie and -inLrinsic
conventions ctnd patterns.
2010, p. 8)
In making this point, Smit identifies a property which is Cundame11L1l to virtually all lingua
franca scenarios. Became participants in lingua fi:anca encounters come from different linguis-
llc and cultural backgrounds llifferent . 20U6. 2012) they cnmot
from the outset expect robe Jble to rely on shared lingrnstic and social norms. These nonns
Ltrgcly have to be developed in silli. This basic condition may involve significant challenges for
participanLs, who will h:ive to invest reLuivdv more \vork' in ach1c,ving con1n1on ground. For
precisely this reason, lingua fi-:rnca scenarios offer part1cularlv rich opportunities to study the
,·1nr:1;,:c11cc of social and linguistic norms. In this conncctiotL several researchers ,sho luve been
mtercsted in the of ELF have corne to consider the tram1ent nature oflingua fr,tnc1 scc-
11,1110s parucuhrlv salrc11t (Hazel, 21)17; Mortensen, 2017: Pitz!, 21118). All social configurations
arc in smnc sense characterised but in franca sceiurius, the transient nature
of social .irr:mgenrents is often cnh,1nccd. This means that the study oflingu,1 franc a scenarios
examples of tr;insient social con may be a vv,1y for u, to get ,1
handle on how to observe social and linguistic norms 'in Lhe , in an inLerphy between
local from this potential, it
seems obvious that lllore longitudmal
the lim's of the work of Smit
The
h,1s illu.,LrJtecL tlie ,nnounL of research ,n1 scenarios ,vhcrc is used ,1s a lingua
franca is disproportionally high lo the study of scenarios where Mizer bngu;1ges
arc used as lingua franc.is. Tb1s 10 not because other Jre nut used in this
306
capacity (as I ment10ned at the beginning of the chapter) but reflects the current ideological
doni.inance of English in many settings, including academia_ Detailed, longitudinal linguis-
tic ethnographic studies of scemrios where languages other than English are used as the
dominant lingua franc, would open new important perspectives on our understandmg of
the processes involved in lingua franca communication and bring much-needed linguistic
diversity to a field of research which is currently dominated by a understandable,
but nevertheless quite unsatisfactorv, fon1, on English.
Acknowledgements
Work on tins chJpter has been supported by The Danish Council for Independent Research
Humanities through grant no. 6107-00351, Trcmsient 1vfultili1(r;ucil Communities and the Forma-
tion l?{ Soda/ and Linguistic Norms (2016-2019)_ See www_tmc.ku.dk for further info_ I would
like to thank Hartmut: Haberland, Dorte Lonsmann and Karin Tusting for insightful and
helpful comments for the first version of the chapter. Any remaining shortcomings remain
my sole responsibility.
Further reading
Dervin, F. (Ed.) (20 JU). Lingua francas: Lt vehicuLrnte linguistique pour v,vrc, travaillcr et etudier
(Lngiques SocialcsJ. Paris: L'Harmatun. (This edited volume, which features chapters in English as
well as French, widens the perspective on the study of linguJ franca scenarios by introducing the
reader to a number of different languages used as lingua francas [including Esperanto, Romanian
and Swedish] in a range of social settings and geographical contexts [including Tunisia, France and
Malaysia).)
Kalocsai, K. (2013). Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca, A Study of Students in a
Central European Context (Developments in English as a Lingua Franca 4). De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.
(This is an example of a longitndi n;il study of an emergent commt1nil y of practice in
which the use of English as a lingua franc1 is :t cl'.ntral resource not only for communication, but
also for individual and collective idt'ntity creation. The study combines ethnographic data with
detailed analyses ,)f social interaction grounded in the tradition of conversation analysi,.)
L0ns1nann, D., ':ipencer, H., & HaberLmd, H. (2017)_ Transience. Special issue of Journal of
Linguistic 1Jntliropo!ogy 27(3). doi:10.1111/joh.l:?lhS. (The articles in d1i1 ';pecial i,suc use inter-
actional and ethnographic data from, a variety of contexts [including higher education, multi-
national companies and theatre rehearsals] to investigate the emergence of social and linguistic
norms in settings characterised by transience. The contributions highlight the importance of
paying attention to aspects of temporality and linguacultural diversity in the study of lingna
franca scenarios_)
Related topics
Interactional sociolinguistics; Discours(· analysis: Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation;
Micro-analysis of spoken interaction; IVJ.ixing methods? Linguistic ethnography and language vari-
ation; J\cademic writing.
References
Bae, JH- (2002). Discourse strategies solving trouble in German lingua franca communication_ In K_
Knapp & C- Meierkord (Eds-), Linguafmnca communication (PP- 195 216)- Frankfi-1rt am Main: Peter
Lang.
Baird, R., & Baird, M. (2018). English as alingna franca: Changing "attitudes." lnJJenkins, W. Baker, &
M Dewey (fah.). The Routledge ha11,/i,,,ol, ,,f as a lingua ftanca 531-543). Abingdon:
Routledge_
307
)anus Mortensen
Bayyurt, Y., &. Akcan. S. (2(115). Current perspeclif!cs 011 for English a.s a ling11i1.fra1i<<1. Berlin and
Boston: De Cruytcr Mouton.
Bjorkman, B. (Fd .) (201 laj. English as a lingua fr.mu. J011rn,1/ ,,(Pragmatics, 43(4). [Special ls,uc on the
pragmatic, of English as ,l lingua franca in the international university].
Bjorkman, B. (2Cl1 lb). Pragnutic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: \l\.'ays of achieving
communicative effectiveness? Journal of Prag111,1tic,, 43(4). 95Ci-964.
Bjorkman, B. (2013). Grammar of English as a lingua franca. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia
of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bjorkman, B. (2014). Language ideology or language practice? An analysis of language policy docu-
ments at Swedish universities. Ililfitilin,,;:1.ia. 33(3-4). 335-363.
Borghetti, C., & Beaven, A. (2017). Lingua francas and learning mobility: Reflections on students'
attitudes and beliefs towards language learning and use. Internation,zl Journal of Applied Lin?,uistics,
27(1), 221 241.
Cogo, A. (2012). ELr and super-diversity: A case srndy of El. F multilingual practices from ~ business
context.Journ,zl uf Englis/1 <1s a Lingua Franca, 1(2). 287-313.
Cogo, A. (20U,). Visibility md absence: Ideologies oC "diversity" in BELF. In Jvl.-L. Pitz! & R.
Osimk-Tc:iscLdc (Eds.). E11glish as a linguafri111c·,1: Perspeaiucs ,md prospects: Contril!l1tio11·: in /1()Jl(J11Y of
Barbara Seicll/1ofer (pp. 39-48). Berlin: Mouton de Cruvier.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, 1\1. (2012). Andysing English as a lin?,uafranca: A c01pus-driven inuestigation. London:
Continuum.
Crcrnom, J. (1998). Lingua franca. In G. Price (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the l,m,1<u,~1es of Europe (pp. 309-312).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Deterding, D. (2013). MisundeL,tcmdings in Et1glish as a linguaji-anca, an of ELF interactions in South-
East Asi<1 (Developments in English as a Lingua Franca 1). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Dewey, M. (2012). 'fowards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of En-
glish as a Li11gu,1 F1,111c<1, 1(1), 141-170.
Dimova, S., !Jultgren, i\.K., & Jensen, C. (2015) . .c11ylish-u1crliu,n instruction in Eurnpe,111 H((lier Educa-
tion. Berlin: De Gruy ter Mouton.
Ehrenreich, S. (2010). Engli,h as a business lingna frcincd in a German multinational corporation:
Meeting the challenge. T/1eJoumal of Busine,s Co11u111!/1fr,lli,JJ1, 47(4), 408-431.
Filppula, M., Klenwla, .J., Mauranen, A., & Vetchinnikov;i, S. (2017). Changing Enxlish. gfol.1cd and local
persperti1·es. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Firth, A. (1990). 'Lingua franca' negotiations: Towards an interactional approach. World Englishes, 9(3),
269~280.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On 'lingua franca' English and conver-
sation analysis. Journal of Pr,12rn,1tics, 26(2), 237-259.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in
SLA research. The :'vf,,du11 LmguageJournal, 81(3), 285-300.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Ellglnvood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (1972). Remarks on ethnomethodology. lnj.J Cumperz & D. Hymes (Eels.), Di1ecrions
in socioling11is1ic., (pp. 301-:\24). New York: Holt. R inch,1rt and Winston.
Grazzi, E. (21JJ8). 'J),1/em1ries of change in English tec1rlling: An ELF-aware Trento:
Tangram.
Grin, F. (2018). On some fashionable terms in multilingualism research: Critical assessment and
implications for language policy. Jn P.A. Kraus & F. Grin (Eds.), The of multilingualism
(pp. 247-274). Amsterdam: John Bcnjamins.
Gumper:c, J.J. (1982). Discourse stratexies. Carnhridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz,J.J., & Cook-Gumperz,J. (2012). lnteractional sociolinguistics: Perspectives on intercultural
communication. In C.B. Pauhton, S.F. Kiesling, & .E.S. Rangel (Eds.), The handbook of interwltural
discourse a11d ,,,11111111nicr1ti,1 11 (pp. 63-76). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Gumperz, JJ.. & Robens, ( (1991). Understandin3 in intcro1ltural encounters. In J. Blommctert &
J. Verschucn:n ( Eels.), l',·ax!Jlatics ofintercultural ,111d i11tema1io11ul communication (pp. 51-90). A1mten1dm:
John Benjamins.
Haberland, H. (2009). English - The language of RASK. Internationalt sp1og og
kommunikci1i,,11. 30. 17-4'i.
Haberland, H., Lonsmann, D., & Preisler, B. (Eds.) (2013). Langu,1ge alternation, lan,,;:ui1?,e choice and lan-
guage encounter in international tertidry educmion. Dordrecht: Springer.
308
Habedand, H., Mortensen,]., Fabricins, A., Preisler, B., Risager, K., & Kj;:erbeck, S. (Eds.) (2008). Higher
Education in the global village. Roskilde: Roskilde University, Department of Culture and Identity.
Harder, P (1980). Discourse as self-expression - On the reduced personality of the second-language
leJrncr. Applied L111suistics, I (3), 262-270.
Hazel, S. (2017). Mapping the langscape-developing multilingual norms in a transient project com-
munity.Journ,11 of Linguistic Anthropology. 27(3), 308-325.
Henke, R. (2002). l'erfimnance .J11.d literature in the commedi,1 dcll'arte. C.1mhridge: Cambridge University Press.
House, J. (1999). Nlimnderstanding in intcrcultur:d communication: Interactions in English as a
lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. [n C. Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and learning
English as a global language: Native and non-native perspectives (pp. 73-·-89). Tiibingen: Stauffenburg
Verlag.
House, .J. (2002). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In K. Knapp &
C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingiw franca communication (pp. 245-267). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinluistics, 7(4),
556-578.
House, J. (2012). Pragmatics oflingua franca interaction. The eruyclo11edia efApplied Linguistics. Oxford:
Black well.
Hultgren, A.K., Gregersen, F., & Thogersen,J. (Eds.) (2014). English in Nordic uniuersities: Ideologies and
prilctfres. Amstcrda m: John Benjamins.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the mteraction oflangnage and social life. InJ.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes
(Eds.), Directions in sociolingui_,tics (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ikeda, K., & Bysouth, D. (2013). Japanese and English as lingua francas: Language choices for inter-
national students in contemporary Japan In H. Haberland, D. Lonsmann, & B. Preisler (Eds.),
Lall.~1wge alternation. langu,1~c c/1oice and lanc5,uage enro1111ter in international terti,1ry education (pp. 31-52).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of Ett~lish as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English dlld multilingualism in English ,ts :1 lingua franca. Englishes
in Practice, 2(3), -+9-85.
Jenkins,]., Baker, W., & Dewey, M. (Eds.) (2018). The .Routledge ha111/boolc <if English as a linguafranca.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Jenkins, J., Cogo, /\., & Dewey, M. (2011). R.eview of developments in research into English as a lingua
franca. Languogr '/!'aching, 44(3), 281,'\15.
Jenks, C. (2018)_ Uncooperative lingua franca encounters. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.),
The Routle1rzc handbook of English <1s a linguafranrn (pp. 279-291). Abingdon: Routledge.
Jenks, CJ. (2012). Doing being reprehensive: Some interactional features of English as a lingua franca
in a chat room. Applied Li11,~11istics, 33(4), 386-405.
Jensen, C., Denver, L., Mees, l.M., & Werther, C. (2013). Students' attitudes to lecturers' English in
English-medium higher education in Denmark. Nordi<:Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 87-112.
Jordan, B., & Fuller, N. (1975). On the non-fatal nature of trouble: Sense--making and trouble-
managing in lingua franca ulk. Semioti(,z, 13(1), 11-32.
Kalocsai, K. (2013). Communities of practice and Eng/is Ii as a lingua frarLC,1: /J study of students in a Central
European context. Berlin: De Gruytcr Mouton.
Kappa, K. (2016). Exploring solidarity and consensus in English as lingua franca interactions. ]01u1utl
of Pr<1~111atics, 95, J6-33.
Karaka~, A. (2015). Orientations towards English among English-medium instruction students.
Englishes in Pmctice, 2(1), 1-38.
Kaur, J. (2012). Saying it again: Enhancing darity in English as a lingua franca (ELF) talk through
self-repetition. Text & Talk, 32(5), 593-613.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). The communicative strategies of ASEAN speakers of English as a lingua franca.
In D. Prescott, A. Kirkpatrick, A. Hashim, & I. Martin (Eds.), English in Southe,1.,t Asia: fictrieties,
literacies and litcriltuies (pp. l H,--136). Ncvvcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Knapp, K. (1987). English as an international lingua franca and the teaching ofinterc1illllral commu-
nication. In W. Lorscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), PerspectiFes on languqr;e in peifomwiff (pp. 1022-1039).
T,ibingen: Narr.
Kohn, K. (2011). English as a Ii ngua franca and the Standard English 1.ni,understanding. In A. De Houwer &
· A. Wihon (Eds.), /llLA Applied Linguistics Series (Vol. 8, pp. 71 -'.14). Amstercbm: John Benjamins.
309
Janus Mortensen
Kraft, K. (2017). (>mtrurtinx migrant workers: Mttlti/i11g11,i/i,111 ,1nd communication in the t1,1r1sn.<1tio11,1/ r,,n-
struction. site. Ph f) di"ertation. University of 0.slo.
Lave,J., & Wenger, E. (l 9<>1). Situated learning: Legifi111,1rc pc1ip/1rr,i/ participation. Cambridge: Cambriclge
University Press.
Lesznyak, A. (200·+). Conunill1ication in English as ,111 i11t,·rnatio11,il linguafranca: An exrfor,itory ec1se study.
Norderstedt: Books un Demand.
Lindstedt, J. (2010). Esperanto as a family language. In F. Dervin (Ed.), Ling1w ji-,mrns: La uelucularite
linguistiquc pour i,iure, traFailler ct etudier (Log1qnes Sociales) (pp. 69~80). Paris: L'Harmattan.
Lonsmann, D. (2011). English ,zs ,1 co1por<1fe langu,,ge: Language choice and fonguage ideologies in an interna-
tional company in Denm<1rk. PhD dissertation. Roskilde University.
Lonsm:11111, D. (201-+). Linguistic diversity in the international workplace: Language ideologies and
processes of exclusion. i'viultilin,,zu,1 - ]omn,il of Cross-Cultural and Interlang1rnge Communication,
JJ(l-2), 89 l I h.
L0nsmann, D .. & Kr:ilt, K. (21118). Language in bluc-colbr workplaces. In B. Vine (Ed.), Hmdhc>ok of
lang1wge in the 11:orkpl,w· (pp. 138-149). Abingd,.rn: Rou1ledgc.
L0nsmann, D .. & l\,lortc-nse11, J. (2018). Language policy ,rncl social change: A critical examination of
the implementation of ,w },nglish-only languag,, in a Danish company. L,IIJ.<!tlil_<!C in Society,
47(3), 435-•l:i6
Maley, A. (2010). The reality ofEIL and the myth of ELL In C. Gagliardi & A. Maley (Ed,.), EJL,
ELF, :,;lobal English: Te,lChing ,znd learning issues (pp. 25~44). Bern: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Qu<1rterly,
37(3), 5n 527.
Maurancn, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca commu-
nication. h/./ern<Jtiona/Journ,il of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123·-150.
Maurancn, A. (2012). Exploring ELF /l.c,1.demic English shaped by 11on-nati1,e speakers. Cambridge:
Cambridge Un ivcr.sity Press.
Mauranen, A. (2()h,). ELF corpora: Design, dit!Jcullles ,,nd triumphs. In M.-L. Pitzl & R.
Osimk-Teasdalc (Eds), En~lish as a linguafra11cc1: Per,pcrtil'cs ,md prospects: Contribution, i11 IH>1101tr of
B<1rbara Seidlhofi-1 (pp 19-29). Berlin: Mouton de Grnyt<"r.
McGroarty, M. (fa!.) (2006). Special issue: Lingua fr,rnc1 L1nguages. ,1.nnual Review of ."lppliecl Li11guis-
tics, 26, 155 ·1(',').
McKenzie, R..M., & Gilmore, A. (2017). "The people who are out of 'right' English": Japanese uni-
versity students' social evaluations of English language diversity and the internationalisation of
Japanese higher education. Iniernation,d]oumal of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 152 -175.
Meierkord, C. (1996). Englisch als 1vfedium dcr interkulturellen Komn1.unikation, Untersuchungen zum n.011-
natii>c-lnon-n<1ti11e-speaker-Disknr.,. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Mortensen, J. (forthcoming). Beyond language change: ELF and the study oLociolinguistic change.
In A. MaurJncn &- S. Vctc:hinnikova (Eds.), Lwg11age The impact of English as ,1 li11g1,c1_fiw1.ca.
Cambridge: C1mbridge University Press.
Mortensen, J. (201.o). Notes un the use of Englisl1 as a lingua fr:mca as an object of ,tudy. }vllrnal of
English as a Li11g1w r:r,mw, 2(1), 25-46.
Mortensen, J. (201•1). lan:,;uage policy from below: Language choice in student project groups in a
multilingual university sctting.Jo11rrwl of Multi/i11gu,i/ ,wd ,U,,/ticultural Developmellr, 35(4), 425~442.
Mortensen, J. (2017). Transient multilingual communities as a field of investigation: Challenges and
opportunities. ]oum,,l of Linguisti, /J.ntftropolugy, 27(3), 271-288.
Mortensen,]., & Coupland, N. (2018). Style and styling. lnJan-Ola Ostman &JefVerschueren (Eds.),
Handbvok of pragmatics (pp. 201-220). Amsterdam: John Benjarnins.
Mortensen, J, & Fabricius, A.H. (2014). Language ideologies in Danish higher education: Exploring
student perspectives. In A.K. Hultgren, F. Gregersen, & J. Thogersen (Eds.), English in Nordic uni-
versities: Idevlu<;ic., ,111rl pl<lcti,cs (pp. 193-223). Amstcrd:rn1: John Benjamins.
Murray, N. (2U11). English as a lingua franca and tlw ,frvelopment of pragmatic competence. ELT
Journal, 66(5), Yl8-:l2<,.
Nevile, M., & \X/agner, J. (2011). Language choice ,11](\ p:1rtint1ation: Two practices for switching
languages in institutioml interaction. In G. Pallotti & J W<1gner (Eds.), L2 learni11y ,is
Con.versatio11-,111,ilytic perspcctiues (pp. 213-238). t lo11olu lu: University of Hawai'i, Nauunal Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Nolan,]. (2015). Lingua franca-- a not so simple pidgin. SOAS ivorkin,;; P,1pers in Linguistics, 17, 99-111.
310
Operstein, N. (2018). Lingua francJ between pidginiz;ition and koineization.]011rna/ of Pid.1in and Creole
Languages, 33(2), 307-361.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic in1perialis111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pietikainen, K.S. (2014). ELF couples and automatic code-switching. Journ,,/ of Enii.,h as a Lingua
Franc", 3(1), l-26.
Pitz!, M.-L. (2018). Transient intemational groups (TIGs): Exploring the group and development di-
mension ofELF.Journ,,I of English as a Li11g11a Franca, 7(1), 25-58.
Preisler, B. (2014). lcctunng in one's first language or in English as a lingua fornca: The communica-
tion of authenticity. Acta Linguist/ca Hafniensi(I. 46(2), 218-242.
Preisler, B .. Klitg:ird, I., & Fabricim, r'\.H. (Eds.) (2011). Lang11age and le<1rning i11 the intcr11,1tional uniuer-
sity: Fmm English unifonnil)' to di1•,·1s·ity and l1ybridiry Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ranta, E. (2018). Grammar in ELF. In]. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routle~?e handbook
of English as a ling11afra11rn (pp. 244-254). Abingdrm: Routledge.
R_icento, ·r. (201h). The promise and pitfalls of global Engfob. In P.A Kraus & F. Grin (Eds.), Studies
in World La11gu<1ge Problems (Vol. 6, pp. 201-222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ris:tger, K. (200ri). Lang11,(~I' and rulture: Globalflows and loecil complexity. Clevcdon: Channel View
Publications.
Risager, K. (2012). Lingnaculture. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics
(pp. lxvii-lxxv). Oxford: Blackwell.
Roberts, C., Atkins, S., & Hc1wthome, K. (2014). Perf<.,nnana:Jcc1tures in clinical skills asses.1111mt: Linguistic
and cultural fartors in the membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners examination. London:
King's College Lnndon with The Univenity ofNottingh,un.
SJli.i, L. (2015). The ling1mtic sense of placement: Habitus and the entextualization of translingual
practices in Swedish academia. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(4), 511-534.
Sarnarin, W J. (1987). Lingua franca. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar. & K. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics:
/:In inter11atior1al handboolc of the science of language and society~• Soziolinguistik : Ei11 intern<1tionales Hand-
buch zur Wissensch,zft uon Spmdlf und Gesellsch,zft (pp. 371-374). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Schuchardt, H. (1909). Die Lingua Franca. Zeitschr{ftj,ir Romanische Philologic, 33(4), 441 461.
Seidlhofer, B. (200l'I. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for :i description ofEnglish as a lingua franca.
Intematiorwl Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 133-158.
Seidlhofor, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Amu.,al Re,,ieu: of
Applied Linguistic,, 24, 209-239.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a linguafranca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smit, U. (201.0). English as a lingua franca in higltcr education: A longitudin,,J srudy of classroom discourse.
Berlin: De Grnyter Mouton.
Smit, U. (2018). Beyond monolingualism in higher education: A language policy account. Inf. Jenkins,
W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua fnmca (pp. 387-399).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Smith, L.E. (1976). English as an international auxiliary language. RELC]ournal, 7(2), 3842.
Si:.idcrlundh, H. (2012). Global policies and local norms: Sociolinguistic awareness and language choice
at an international uni,,ersity. Iutcr11ation,,/_fournal ,,f the Soci,,loi;y of Language, 216, 87--109.
Swan, M. (2012). ELF and EFL: A.re they really different? Journal ,,f English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2),
379-389.
Van der \Valt, C. (2013). ,\Iultili11g111il Higher Education: Beyond English medi11111 orient<1tions. Bristol:
Multilingual Ivbtters.
Wagner, J., & Firth, A. (1997). Commumcation strategies at ,vork. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman
(Eds.), C,1-nmw1it,1tion s1r,1tcgies: Aycl101in,~1Ji.,tfr and sodolinguisl ic perspecti11es (pp. 323-34-1). Abingdon:
Routkdge.
Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the pronunciation of English as <1 lingtl<l jl'anca. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wang, Y. (2013). Non-confiirmity to ENL norms: A perspective from Chinese English mers.]ourn,11
,,f En:slish as ,1 Lingua Franca, 2(2), 255-282.
Widdowson. H. (:'018). Historical pnspectives on Elf. In]. Jenkins. W. Baker, & M Dewey (Eds.),
The Rowled,ge h,111dbook o(Englislt c1s a Li11R11,1 Fra111<t (pp. 101-11.2). !\bingdon: Routledge.
Wright, S., & Zbeng, L. (2018). Language as system and language as dialogic creativity: The difficulties
of teaching English as a lingua franca in dw class1 oorn. InJ. Jenkins, \V. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.),
The Row/edge li.c111dbook of Cnglish <1s a ling11,1fmnca 50r,-517). Abingdon: R.outledge.
311
23
Faith communities
Vally Lytra
Introduction
It's S.05 on ;1 hright and crisp Tncscby 1m1rr1ing. \Vhni I enter the ·rcmpk .I arn irnnwdi-
atcly struck by how busy it is even the 'J !us jmt ,.ipened ih doors. f:w1ili,,,
arc coniing into the Sonie cl!ildreu :ln' ch-e:,sed in their school uniforms and it
looks like are visiting the Temple on tl1c·ir way to s,hool. I ,,:c a nwther with her
little girl - around 2 years old. The little one w;mts to nrn ahead bm her n1urn is holding
her tight the hand. [hey walk up to the shrine of Ganesh. They cirde the shrine J.
nurn her of tin1es. I also see .1 father with a school age in school luuform. They are
,t:rnd111g slightly to the side of one of the m1alkr shrines on the left of the entr:mce to
the ·rcmplc. The father touches his son\ he,1d and dabs red ash on bis fr)rebead. The boy
tJUietly follo1Ns his father as he stops to pray at each shrine. The movcrn.ents of the Luber
and son arc almost in unison as though have performed these routines together time
and
Lytra. /icld 11a1Tcllii,e rcp,mcd ill Lvtra ct 2016, p. 141)
The short excerpt of Temple worship from one ofmy early visits to the Sri }Vlurugan cfcrnple
1s illmtr:1tive of the of f:1ith in the lives of rnany Rritid1-burn Sri Lankan T:nnil
Hiudu/Saiva children ,md then families in Newham, one of the most linguistically
and culturally diverse boroughs in East London. Through children acquire
;1 wealth of linguistic and cultural resources, ,ind ,1esthetic ,rnd historical and
cultivate agc-appropri,1te emotional re,ponses and emhodied as they strive to
become rnernber, nf the faith community. In this obsc:rn·, practise and per·
fiinn devutional acts parents, ,1llcl other rnen1bers of the faith
community who ,1cL a, n1ediators to the children's soc1.dis,1t1on :md learning. In the
Ternpk vvorship mJy be religious education cbsses, which chi!
drcn attend on where they learn to listen tc. recite, mcrnorise and f-lucntly
,rnd devotioru1 hymns in arcluic forms ofliter,rte T1rnil. As children
progress m theu: start to develop an understanding of the history of
the hvmns wd the stones about the ]iyes ot- the s,1ints who cre.1tcd then1, and the
312
Faith communities
meanings of religious concepts and their significance to their daily worship in present-day
London (Lytra et al., 2016). On auspicious holidays, children may partake in highly scripted
religious music, dance and drama performances, usually performed in front of large audi-
ences. At home, their faith learning may be sustained through family viewings of religious
films and engagement with siblings in spontaneous and fluid, faith-inspired, story-telling
and play activities using Lego blocks and other everyday objects (e.g. in playing "Temple")
(Gregory et al., 2013; Gregory et al., 2015).
Faith underpins the everyday experiences of many children and adults. It has been viewed
as an important source of support, comfort and hope, as they navigate the challenges and
opportunities of a globalised world and participate in multilingual, multicultural, multieth-
nic and multifaith societies. This is especially true for individuals and communities new to
a country, or facing hardship and discrimination. For instance, the role of the Black Church
in fostering resilience and inspiring educational effort and persistence for African American
youth in the US has been well documented (McMillon & Edwards, 2000; Haight, 2002;
Barrett, 2010; Peele-Eady, 2011, 2016). For some Latino children and their families in the
US, religion has been an important source of spiritual and material support to resist the rac-
ism and marginalisation many face in their daily lives (Baquedano-L6pez & Ochs, 2002; Ek,
2005; Volk, 2016). Some faith communities are majority, while others are minority religions
that have been formed at different historical periods as a consequence of migration, trade,
colonialism, slavery or religious persecution. However, empirical studies of faith communi-
ties and their role in children and adults' learning, socialisation and personal and collective
identification have hitherto received limited scholarly attention (see Rosowsky, 2015 for an
overview and the collection of studies in Lytra et al., 2016a).
Faith is often perceived as a very private, deeply personal matter. Consequently, research
undertaken with faith communities may be considered to be "intrusive, insensitive, or even
disrespectful" (Gregory et al., 2012, p. 197). Moreover, it is often anchored in the belief that
only if one is a member of the faith community can one truly understand the religious rituals
and sacred texts (Sarroub, 2005; Fader, 2009; see further discussion in Main research methods
section, below). These widely held perceptions have been heightened by the secularisation
of social life and the compartmentalisation of the secular and the religious, the public and
private spheres, in many contemporary societies around the world. At the same time, there
is a growing recognition of what Baquedano-L6pez and Ochs (2002, p. 175) have referred to
as the "entanglement" of the secular and the religious, pointing to the existence of more po-
rous and fluid boundaries. Despite changes in the religious landscape, faith is an important
driving force in contemporary societies (Report of the Commission of Religion and Belief
in British Public Life, 2015). In the current climate of political, social and religious tensions,
religious persecution is becoming an increasing "global problem" and religious discrimina-
tion "a ubiquitous fact of life irrespective of people's creed" (Fox, 2015). In Europe, faith·
communities, especially minority ones, are often at the centre of debates over individual
and collective rights, difference and social justice (Equinet, 2011). Examples such as the ban
of ostensible religious symbols in state schools in France in 2004 or the Swiss referendum
on the ban of construction of new minarets in mosques in 2009 have fuelled controversy
about the place of religion in public life in general and in state schools in particular. This
is reinforced by mainstream media portrayals that tend to stereotype or misrepresent the
experiences of members of minority faith communities and privilege dominant narratives
of majority faith communities. Rather than ignoring or dismissing faith in contemporary
sC>cieties, I would argue that it is important to engage with research that seeks to understand
the role of diverse faith contexts in the development of children and adults' identities, belief
313
Vally Lytra
systems, languages and cultural traditions. This c1 ll for sustained dialogue cm cnntrihnte
to discussions on how multicultural, pluralistic soctettes are to be envisioned and created.
To this end, rn this clupter, I present and discuss an emergent body of rcscJrch that has
viewed faith a, an esseuti,iJ part of culture, a complex and multifaceted cultural prc1ct1ce that
is embedded in spc,cific local and global contexts and is passed down from one generation to
the next, providmg children and adults with membership and a sense of belonging. In this
respect, becoming a member of the faith community does not only involve acquiring the
necessary language and literacy-oriented skills to decode, recite, listen and respond to, chant
or sing sacred texts in order to partake in religious ritual but also new ways of being, acting
and seeing the world through religious frames of understanding, interpretation and belong-
ing (Heath, 1'.!83; Street, 1'>84; Gregory & \Villiams, 2()11(); also see studies in Gregory et al.,
2004; Lytra et ,1], 21ll6c1J.
In the ensuing sn:tions, first I trace the intndisciplinary antecedents of this emergent
scholarship, drawing on \\ork in social psyc:bology, ctnrhropology and liter,icy smdies. Then,
I review studies on faith communities, which highlight the importance of faith ,1s a situated
cultural practice embedded in rich ethnograpluc descnptions of diverse faith contexts, in-
cluding religious education classes, religious and faith-inspired schools, homes and places of
worship and other community settings. It is important to stress here that the purpose oftbese
descriptions is not to reproduce or reinforce stereotypes, nor to represent faith communities
and the practices described as homogeneous, static and unchanging over time and space and
across generations. Rather. these accounts seek to demonstrate how an analytical focus on
situated lan,2;uage and literacy practices can shed light on how distinct faith communities
have developed, acLtpted c1nd transformed as a result of institutional as well as broader social,
political and historical forces. Even though many of the,e studies share theories and methods
with scholanhip in linguistic ethnography, to ,hte, linguistic ethnography has nor been used
as a theoretical and methodological approach to the study of faith communities (witb the
notable exceptions of Sagoo, 20 I6 and Volk, 2016). Yet, if the aim oflinguistic ethnography
is to uncover how language and social life mutually shape one another in specific situated
cultural practices (Rampton et al., 2004), then, I would argue, it is important to interrogate
how the study of faith as a cultural practice can contribute to linguistic ethnography. I briefly
discms rnain research methods med and the implications of research with faith communities
for teaching and leJming rn schools and classrooms and conclude this chapter \Vith areas for
future research.
Maybin and lusting (201 l) describe linguistic ethnography as "a broad area of shared interests
rather than a distinctly bounded field", drawing on a range of theories :md methods (see also
Creese, 2008; Shaw et al., 2015). In a similar vein, early investigations of faith as a situated
cultural practice have been inspired by work in social psychology, anthropology and literacy
studies, particularly the New Literacy Studies approach. The latter has also been closely associ-
ated with the devdopmcut oflinguistic ethnography (M,1-y-bin & Tusting, 201 J; :dso Rampton
et al., 2004, ;incl sec Gillen ;md Ho, this volume). Farly studies challenged traditional concep-
tualisations as a set of technical skills and foregrounded the intertwining of the cog-
nitive with the sociaL cultural, historical and ideological dimensions oflanguagc and literacy
learning and ,oci;1lis;1tiou through faith. They also Lmguage and literacy re,t'ard1ers to
look beyond formal schooling models of literacy to literacies in everyday life, including reli-
gious education classes, places of worship and children's homes. Three ethnographic studies
314
Faith communities
by Scribner and Cole (1981), Street (1984) md Heath (1983) have been especiallv influential
in paving the way for subsequent research. Combining anthropological fieldwork with exper-
imental psychological methods, social psychologists Scribner and Cole (1981) examined the
interconnection between cognition and literacy development in the Vai, a tradit1onal society
living in North-western Liberia. They observed how the Vai became literate in one or more
writing systems which had broadly speaking distinct functions although their boundaries in
everyday use were ofren blurred: the indigenous Vai phonetic script used locaJly in daily com-
munication, Qu'ranic Arabic for religious purposes and English, the official script used nation-
ally in political, educational and econonuc institutions (Scribner & Cok 1981, pp. 62 63).
In particular, they investigated how children and young adults acquired Qu'ranic literacy in
mulLi-age Qu'ranic schoob through the recitation and memorisation of Qu'ranic verses. The
niaiority learned to recite and wnte out verses without understanding the language. Few who
completed the Qu'ran were able to proceed to advanced studies, vvhich included learning
Arabic as a language and studying hiamic theology andjun,prudence (Scribner & Cole, 1981,
p. 63). The authors demonstrated the social, cultural, religious and economic consequences of
developing Qu'ranic literacy, arguing that "becoming literate in the Arabic langu:1ge means
becoming rntegratcd into a dose-knit but territorially extended social network, which fuses
religious beliefs, fraternal self-help, trade and economic relationships with opportunities for
continuing education" (Scribner & Cole, 1981, p. 63).
This account links closely to the study of anthropologist Brian Street (1984) on "mak-
tab" literacy (Islamic school liter,icy) in a rural village in North- East Iran during the 1970s.
Street's ethnographic fieldwork led him to propose an "ideological" model ofliteracy wlnch
understood literacy as a social practice that is infosed by particular conceptions of knowledge
that privilege certain meanings and interpretations ofliteracy over others. This model oflit-
eracy he contrasted with an "autonomous" model, which saw literacy as a set of neutral skills
and competences. Street observed a wide range of complex literacy practices involved in the
development of "maktab" literacy:
while some ]e;irned to simply recognise the words on the page as a sort of mnemonic for
stimulating recitation of passages, many learnt to read in Arabic and Farsi and used their
skills to read other texts than the Koran. Some developed skills in interpretation and
argument, and some learnt to elaborc1te on basic thernes and to express their 'meaning in
various forms'. A few learnt the rudiments of writing.
(Street, 1984, p. 152)
An important finding of Street's study was the transferability of specific literacy skills con-
nected to "rnaktab" literacy in the acquisition of ne\N literacy practices, such as the adaptation
of"maktab" literacy for the development of"commercial" literacy that was associated with
the economic growth of early 1970s Iran.
The importance of faith in shaping cluldren's apprenticeship into the different linguis-
tic and cultural practices of their respective communities is illustrated in Heath's (1983)
comparative ethnography of children's early language socnlisation. In ''Ways with Words",
she documented how children growing up in two communities, Roadville (white working
class) and Trackton (black working class), in the South-Eastern United States km1ed to use
language 1n different ways at home and iu the community, including the foncLunentalist
Protestant Church and the Black Church, respectively. Heath demonstrated how features of
vocabulary, narratives, songs and interaction patterns children learned in Church or through
listening to Biblical parables and Church-related stories became intertwined with children's
315
Vally Lytra
everyday talk and verbal activiries at home. In one example, two and a half year old Lem
from the Trackton commumty constructed a story-poem in response to the distant ringing
of a church bell (Heath, 1983, p. 170). Lern\ story resembled :1 poem in terms uf imagery
and prosody, which he performed while swaying back and forth. Echoing his participation
in weekly church services with his family, the structure and delivery of his story-poem
combined fo1tures from religious language (rhyming, repetition) and mudes of discourse
("ull-and-rc:spome") with an outline of a sequence of events. In the Road ville community,
story-telling 1vas understood as ''true to the facts of an evf'nt., and adults saw story-telling
as didactic in nature (Heath, 1983, p. 186). For instance, the use of a Scriptural quotation in
a story had the purpose of reproducing and reinforcing expected norms of behaviour of all
community members.
Both exa1nples of story-telling highlighted the impact of c:hurch-rehted literacies on
early language sooalisation but also foregroundf"d the mismatch between the language and
literacy practices, experiencf's and expectations of the two non-mainstream commumties and
those of the mainstream school. Heath's study sought to counter deficit perspectives that tend
Lo associate childrrn from wcffking-class and ethnically diverse backgrounds with academic
failure and represent the young cluldren and tl1f'ir families a, a,:tive, creative and agentive
rncaning-makcn in their own nght. More broadly, the aforementioned studies f'mphasised
the intertwining oflanguage and literacy practices associated with faith with broader reper-
toires of everyday social and cultural practices, and the breadth and scope of faith as a force
for Icaming, socialisation and belonging for individuals and comrnunities.

Despite tl1f' seminal studies presented in the previous section, the study of faith as a cultural
practice is still a peripheral topic in the academic literature. Ethnographically informed stud-
ies of faith as a cultural practice have mainly been concerned with children ,rnd adolescents
livmg and learning m bilingual/multilingual seuings across d1ver,e faith contexts. including
religious education classes, rehg10us and faith-inspired schools, homes, places of worship
and other community settings. It is noteworthy to mention here that the boundaries of
these settings are by no nwans sealed. Rather, faith contexts are understood as linked, per-
meable and dynamic, bridging hoine, school and community. where language and literacy
rnuurces, spiritual and moral beliefs, values and dispositions alongside strong expectations
ofh1gh standards and achievement travel across spaces and shape faith learning and learning
more generally (Lytra et al., 2016b). In one such study, Kenner et al. (2016) illustrate how
Ghanaian Pentecostal and Bangladeshi Muslim faith communities take a holistic approach
to children's le;u~ning by guiding them in develuping language and literacy skills that can
transfer in their mainstream education, At the same> time, they fcister resilience to overcome
adversity, racism and low cxpectal!ons about their educational aduevement in Lhe wider so-
ciety. As thf' authors describe children's participation and uptake ofleadership roles in com-
munal worship during Children's Day, a special celebration in the Pentecostal Church, they
show how children of different :1gf's recited vnses of varying and cotnplexity they had
memorised from the Bible and performed action songs. All d11ldren were construcLed as sue
cessfol learners by being applauded and encouraged througb chf'er, and spoken responses by
the congrf'gation. The collective blessing that followed served to celebrate their achievement
and unite thf' children and their families with the faith community. A sim.ilar holistic vision
of children's educational devclnpn1ent and achinement was evidenced in Sagoo's (201fi)
of the Ntshbm Nursery proJect in Birmingham, in central England. Inspired by Sikh
316
Faith communities
religious heritage, the nursery sought to fuse values, practices and identities from the chil-
dren's different worlds of home, school and faith communities.
Faith learning has an additional moral and spiritual dimension that distinguishes its pur-
pose from learning in other contexts: the knowledge, competences and performances learned
and perfected over time are the means to partake in religious ritual in the context of the
faith community with the purpose of ultimately building a relationship with a higher and
eternal being (Gregory et al., 2012; Lytra et al., 2016b). In the remainder of the section, key
threads running through studies of faith as cultural practice are discussed. These themes may
be relevant to linguistic ethnographers interested in the wealth oflinguistic, cultural, social,
scriptal and embodied resources, competences and practices, situated in specific times and
locales, that children and adolescents weave into their faith learning as well as the complex-
ities, contradictions and tensions involved in achieving membership in their respective faith
communities. The studies discussed are underpinned by a strengths' perspective on children's
and adolescents' multilingual, multiscriptal and multisemiotic resources, highlighting the
heterogeneity of their trajectories, repertoires and identities while simultaneously attending
to the broader social, cultural and institutional processes involved in meaning-making and
identity formation. In this sense, they allow for the bridging between the micro level of the
individual and the macro level of the social order.
A common theme has been the way in which faith learning is inextricably linked with
children's moral and spiritual development and influences the construction of a shared
identity and a shared past invoked through language. Baquedano-L6pez (2008) explored
the linguistic, interactional and textual resources a Sunday school teacher and her students
made use of as the latter learned to recite a prayer in a "doctrina" class which is part of a
Spanish-medium Catholic religious instruction programme for Mexican immigrant children
in the US. Her study illustrated how through the reading activity, the faith teacher and the
students engaged in "a ritualization process that focusses and constructs the text as sacred"
(Baquedano-L6pez, 2008, p. 581). At the same time, she corrected her students' utterances
during the reading activity reinforcing the ideological orientation of the Mexican Catholic
Church and faith classes regarding the importance of sustaining and developing Spanish pro-
ficiency in a diasporic context. In her analysis of the religious narrative of"Nuestra Senora de
Guadalupe" (Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patron saint of Mexico), Baquedano-L6pez (2000)
demonstrated how the Sunday school teacher instructed students to construct and interpret
the narrative in culturally appropriate ways: by combining the use of Spanish with factual
(historical, geographical and moral) knowledge of the narrative. She argued (2000, p. 450)
that the narrative tellings served "to narrate being Mexican, locating themselves across a
distal colonial past in Mexico and their immediate postcolonial present as immigrants in
Los Angeles". Uniting faith members' past, present and future and fostering a transnational
identity also emerged amongst central American and Mexican youth in a Spanish-medium
Pentecostal Church where young people were urged to construct their individual and collec-
tive identities following 'el camino' (God's path) (Ek, 2005, p. 77).
Other studies have probed into the language interrelationship between liturgical, minority
and majority languages, written and vernacular forms. Moore (2008) examined the appren-
ticeship to Qur'anic literacy amongst the Fulbe in Northern Cameroon. Similar to Scribner
and Cole's (1981) findings amongst the Vai, the study highlighted how students developed
varying competences in memorising, reciting, reading and writing verses in Qur'anic Arabic
without explanation of the meaning of the sacred text. For the Fulfulbe children as well as
for many other children learning Qur'anic literacy around the world, Qur'anic Arabic is not
their native language nor is it a language spoken in the local community. As a result, the faith
317
Vally Lytra
teacher relied on the inccnveaving ofQur'anic Arabic and fulfulbe alongside the use of other
semiotic resources (posturt\ pointing, gaze) to impart the religious knowledge as wdl as
teach children proper spiritual and moral conduct 1see als" Moore, 2013). (2l!l3,
p. 67) discusses ditlerellt interweaving of in his comparative study of children
]earning to read ;1 classical" that is the litu I Lmguage of their faith community
across three faith settrngs, a Jewish Cheder, a Sikh Gurdwara and a Muslim Mosque in the
UK. His study highlighted the enduring importance and resilience of liturgical languages
(Biblical Hebrew, Classical Punjabi and Qu'ranic Arabic) across the three settings and the
symbolic and aesthetic values attributed to learning to read a liturgical language closely tied
to the children's developing religious identities. In fact, the pre-eminence given to liturgical
languages by faith com1nunities may in fact deter the transmission of other ancestral lan-
guages across in a diasporic setting 1lto,o\vsky, 2008).
As these studies have illustrated, in each faith settrng, the language interreL1Liombip is
different. Moreover, language practices are sh:1ped bv hierarchies ofkno,dedge aud rank-
ings of language, circulating locally, in the l:tttb setllllf',, as well as by long so-
cietal discourses ,md language policies (BaqunLrno -L6pez and Ochs, 200:Z; Lider, 2009;
Auleear Odowally & Unjore, 2013). Beliefs about languages link the linguistic with the
social, the moral with the political and as such, they can never be taken as "natural", "trans-
parent" or "neutral". A case in point is the study by Auleear Odowally and Unjore (2013).
The authors conducted a series of interviews with participants in two Mauritian Sunni
Ivluslim Madrassahs, including several faith teachers. in a period of transition when written
Kreol (the domniant home language and loc-.1! lrnglu franca) was being introduced as an
optional mainstream primary school subject. The authors argued that while l~1iLh teachers
in particular cm ployed both oral and written f<.irrns uf I<. reol, amongst othn as a
medium ofreligicn1s instruction to teach children the main principles ofisLun, simul-
taneously undermined its importance. Influenced by official and popular hehefs about the
low status of Kreol as a non-standard variety, faith teachers ultimately aspired to shift the
written medium of instruction in 1\iladrassahs to French, The latter was perceived as a more
prestigious language, affording educational and professional mobility in a fast-developing
postcolonial state.
A common feature of many studies is th,1t they go beyond an exclusive focus on language
to examine the broader relationships between language and other communicative nwcbli-
ties, including gesture, body posture and image ;Vi well a, Lhe materiality ,rnd ted1nological
dimensions of these practices. As Fader (2009, p. 6) eloquently puts it in her study of girls'
multilingual soci:1lisation practices in a Hamlic (a nonliberal) Jewish religious com-
munity in Brooklyn, New York, "beliefs about interact with beliefs ,1bout the hudy
and material culture in specific historical and cultural ways.'' For instance, in the Hasidic
elementary school where she conducted her fieldwork, young girls learned to recite loslm
koydcsh prayers (in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic) accurately and fluently alongside
the appropriate external displays of affect and sincere intention:, through sanctioned bodily
movements and positions seen as preparing the young girls to become pious Jewish women.
Studies in home have also investig:1tecl how children make sense oC their faith,
drawing on a wide range uflinguistic, cultur.11. :1cstheuc embodied and sociai re:,ources and
practices. In ct al. (2013), the authc,r, c:,plorcd how children from four faith com-
munities (P<,li,h Catholic, Ghanaian Pentecost-LL Rrngladeshi Muslim and Tan1il Hindu/
Saiva) in London faith with other ad1vil1c, 111 thl:'ir everyday worlds. They showed
how children combmed, created and recreated different narratives, using different lan-
guages alongside music, dance and play to make sense of faith in their everyday lives. In one
318
Faith communities
n;irrative, seven-year-old Tanja created an irnaginative story bringing together chJracters,

plots and descriptions from different cultural traditions, namely popular fairy tales and films
in English and tales of Hindu Gods and religious films in rl'Jrnil passed down from previous
generations. Volk (2016) examined how six-ye;1r-old Benny engaged in a syncret1c event, a
home worship/Bible reading/reading lesson with the expert mediation of his Puerto Rican
grandmother, both member~ of a Pentecostal Spanish-speaking Church in the US. Through
the colLiborative and fluid co-construction of reading the text, retelling the events and the
meaning of the Bible story, Benny was able to develop his emergent bilingual and biliterate
skills and represented himself as a successful reader, while attending to the moral message
of the Bible story, the importance of obedience. Building on the afrirementioned work by
Heath (1983), these studies use a syncretic literacies lens to show ''ways in which cultural
threads from diverse sources are interwoven into a single interactional fabric and enJCted in
daily routines" by children ,md their families (Gregory et al.. 2013, p. 345). They also show
how the negotiation and cunstruction of religious belonging intersect with the development
of other identity categories linked to gender, ethnicity, race, youth/popular culture or that
of a successful learner/reader.
Investigating the meaning-making resources and practict:s involved in becommg a com-
petent member of the faith community has drawn attention to how children and young
people may align themselves with or disaffiliate themselves from the social and cultural
expectations, norm.s, values ;ind behaviours of the faith community. Tusting (2015) explores
the role of writing 111 a Fint Communion Preparation class in a RonJd.n Catholic parish in
the north of England. Sbe shows bow through processes of recontextualisation the children
were invited to ,,rite themselves in the texts they produced by encouraging e,ich child to
draw on their pc:rsonal experiences and circumst:mces in unique ,vays. As Tusting (20L'i,
p. 248) remarks,
the role of writing in these sessions was not to construel Catholic identity as allegiance to
the Church as an institut10n, or as assenting to a particular set ofbeliefa. Instead, children
were writing new ways of seeing themselves, as a special individual, ,vith a particular
role to play in their comrnunities, and the responsibiliLy to make active choices.
Studies also emphasise moments or tension involved in the forrnation and negotiation of
religious belonging and the construction or children's identities in relation to their fami-
lies, fnends and faith community members, locally and tramlocally. Flumsey's (2016) study
focusses on the mterrehted cultunl practices of a sanct10ned conung-of-age ritual called
Rumspringa in Pennsylvania Dutch: adult baptism and entering the Amish community, and
shunmng as a cons,:quence ofleaving the faith community. Through these fi1ith practices,
adolescents can decide whether or not to participate in the Arnish co1nmunity. She observes
that such practices are not exclusive to the Amish community but "are rnirrored in faith
comnm nities all over the ,.vorld" as Lhcir purpose is "to tnai ntain group cohesion and to p:iss
on the l1teracy knowledge between generations of community menibers" (I(umsey, 2()1 C,,
p. 57). In another study, Auleear Owodally (2016, p, 162) describes how her nine year-old
daughter Hali mah navigated what she referred to as a "mixed faith situation" of attending a
private Roman Catholic ,chool while being exposed to Islamic religions practices and dis-
courses at home ,rncl in the madrassah, in Mauritius. Her participation in a school musical
play ofJoseph produced such moments of tension which she sought to address by strategically
comp:tttmentalising her dilferent sonal identitic's :ind keeprng the social worlds uCthe school
and the madrass:1h separate as she strove to become a Maunti:m Muslim.
319
Vally Lytra
These studies reflect d broad constructionist approach to identilles, emphasising multiplic-

fluidity and fragmentation. Identities are viewed as rdationaL and performed
1n pcrfr)nnances ;incl social bduviours in and nuanced ways (Gee, 2000).
They provide a vvindovv into the mtcrphy between mdiv1du:ds' agency to negotiate, resist
and transform sdfand other ascriptions and the broader sc,cietal discourses that rn.ay constrc1in
or them & Blackledge, 2004). At the same time they ;m apparent
contradiction between the n°searchcrs' theoretical orientations towards identities as negoti-
ated and discursively constructed and hmN parents, eduution teachers and religious
leaders may often essentialise or romanticise children's identities (Baqnedano-Lc>pcz ex
Ochs, 21J02: Souza, 2016: Lytrd et ,d,, Taken together, these studies illustrate that
faith com1m1mties create supportive spaces fr,r children's learmng and identity construction
but that learning to participate m faith communities nDy be with conflict, tension
and contrachnion as children le,irn tu navigate different soci,1] worlds.

Studies of faith as a cultural practice have mainly drawn on ethnographic methodologies
that seek to interpret the cluldren's faith practices and pnfonn:mces f"i.-om an emic or par~
ticipant:.' perspective while attending to the researchers' theoretical orientations and posi-
tiornngs (the etic rerspective) (Hammersley&. Atkinson. A common feature of many
of these studies 1s the researchers' sustained engagement with the fa 1th community, often
over several yean and across multiple sites homes, education classes, places
of worship). In this seme, they both a longitudlJlal and a contemporary account of
faith as are co-cunstructed \vith the participants and are situated in local and
global context:,.
Researchers working in diverse faith settings have cntically reflected on how they built
relationships in the field as well as how they negotiated their identities. In particular, schol-
ars have considered the clifficultin in conducting research when one is not a member of the
faith con11nunity. In her ethnography of Yerneni-Arnerican female high school students,
Sanoub p, 17) comments on hO\v her mixed ethnicity and 11011-rdigious stance \Vere
sometimes seen as a problem by her participants: "the underlying assumption among my
infimnants was that I would not underst;rnd them if I was not rt'ally Muslim. as they were.
As an outsider I could ncNcr capture their reality." Other scholars have indicated that being
a rnember of the fi1ith cornmunity is an import;mt criterion for acceptance as a researcher
(Rosov.-sky, 2008; Rurmey, These reflectiom highlight how the researchers' biogra-
phies, histories and identities in±cnm the research process and how participants' voices are
represented ,md kno\vledgc is constructed and legitn11ised. ·rhcy also demonstrate some of
the constramts involved in doing research .,pecifically with frllth communities where faith is
cornidcred a very pnvate part of Jifo
Researching with children r,iises additional challenges to researcher positionality, knowl-
building and representation due lo the imbalance between the adult researcher and the
child participant. In this respect, researchers need to move beyond adult- centric perspectives
of children',-, practices, beliefs c1.nd identities to ensure that hear thc children's voices and
include them in their research narrallves. Tn add1uon, they need to devell)p child-friendly
methodologies that provide children vvith tools that allmv them to represent their knowl-
edgt'.. :ind intcrpret;itiom in ways that arc meaningful to them (Lytra ct ;ii.,
Yv1th children and young people in diverse fi1ith h;1ve used a
number of strategies to address these Eve and colleagues worked with
320
Faith communities
a multilingual, multicultural and nmltifaith research team, developing reflexive practices in

team ethnography and encouraging members of the faith community to participate in data
collection and analysis (Gregory et al., 2012). Some researchers have relied on cultural insid-
ers and engaged in member checking (Volk, 2016), while others have used autoethnography
(Auleear Odowally, 2016; Rumsey, 2016) to develop more polyphonic representations.
As far as methods of cbtd collection and analysis are concerned, there is a broadening
of range associated with a conceptual shift to visual and multin1odal research methods
(Martin-Jones and Martin, 2017, and see Bezemer, this volume). To engage the active partic-
ipation of children in the research process, participant observations, interviews. photography.
audio and video recordings rn.ay be enhanced hy children's text-making, such as mind maps
(Kenner et al., 2016) and scrapbooks (Lytra et al., 2016, 2017). Methods of data analysis attend
to the interplay of multilingual, multimodal and embodied resources (Baquedano-L6pez,
2008; Fader, 2009; Aulee:ir Odowally, 2016; Rumsey, 2016).

For researchers doing linguistic ethnography in educational settings, the studies of faith corn-
nmnities presented in the chapter highlight the rich and complex multilingual, multiscriptal
and multimodal practices that exist beyond schools and the children and young people's
ability to draw upon and syncretise this wealth of meaning-making resources from diverse
faith settings to support their faith learning and develop their faith identities. 'fhus, the study
of children's and adolescents' languages, literacies and identities in faith settings is crucial
not only for understanding the selves they bring into the classroom but also how their faith
identities may affect their learning and achievement in school. Consequently, they raise two
important questions: How might the knowledge gained from diverse faith settings transform
classroom pedagogies? How might it help teachers create more equitahle practices? These
questiuns become all the more pertinent as dominant social and educational discourses in
many contemporary societies frequently trivialise, marginalise or render problematic learn-
ing in and through faith, particularly in rel:ition to school literacies (Gregory et al., 2004;
Genishi & Dyson, 2009; Davila, 2015; Lytra et al., 2016b).
Inspired by her own unique religious and cultural upbringing rendered invisible at school,
Davila (2015) investigated a group of pre-service elementary teachers' responses towards
integrating a children's book like "In My Family/En M.i Familia" (1996) by Mexican-
American author Carmen Lomas Garza in their future English language arts classroon1s
and discussing its religious content and significance with their foture students. Her anal-
ysis indicated that most teachers expressed a willingness to use the children's book to raise
awareness of Hispanic/Latino heritage in the US in general amongst their future students.
However, few would engage with the culturally relevant religious content of the book.
Davila's findings offered insights into ongoing concerns in the US about how cultural and
religion,; illiteracy particularly towards the trad.itions of non-mainstream comrnunities 1.nay
in fact reinforce othering narratives :rnd further marginalise these communities. Instead,
she advocated for the need of religious neutrality in schools viewed as preparing pre-service
teachers "to be inclusive of different religious perspectives whenever relevant" and "cultivate
children's cultural/religious literacies in becomrng citizens of a pluralistic society'' (Davila,
2015, p. 78). To date. studies that have explored how children might leverage their religious
knowledge and experience to mpport school learning and the understanding, interpretation
a.nd production of secular texts remain very fow (Reyes, 2()09; Skerrett, 201.3; Damico &
Hall, 2014; Machado et al. 2017).
321
Vally Lytra
Future directions
The intensific:1tion of tramnat:iun:il population flows ;1crnss the globe Grey and Piller,
this volurne) hx, brought :Lbout sigmfieant social, cultural :rnd de1nographic includ-
ing tremendous cl1:u1ges in the landscape (Report of the Conuni,sion of Religion
and Bdiefin British Public Life, The,e ,hanges have propelled researchers working
with faith cunununiti,"; to focus on complex diversities ,wd muhil itics questioning domirunt,
hounded and fixed of faith cornnmnitics ..l\s the stud.Jes discussed in this
chapter attest to, the rd:1tionship between cthrnuty, and faith re111.Jins strong fi:ir
many foith cmnuwnities worldwide (Souza, 21)16): how tlus relationship might have dcvd--
opcd and changed across gcneratiom and geographical spKcs aud vvithin faith raises
nnv questions :1bout the con,tit11tion of soci;d groups ;md the and construction
of cultur;il and uicrnbcrship (Muore, 2(111; Rosmvskv, 2008, 2013). Mv own obser--
v:itions and discussions with others about the clunging 1ncrnbership of faith communities in
LLusannc, Switzerland, point to the constitution ofincrcasingly nrnltilingual aud rnulticthnic
congregations where integration into the society scuns to emerge as a conipelling
f:ictor for participation in the' loc.il (t'rench-mediurn) Ro1nan Cc1tholtc Church (Anita Auer,
personal
l\l[oreovcr, the research focus hc1,: been prirn,irily on those who rennin within the {i,lds of
the faith community: a lot less attention has been on those who or who fail lo
sUy. A case in point 1s (2016) discu"1on oflhose who choose to alienate themselves
from the l\nfr,h Church. and the of shunning which relationships between a
pcnon ,vho has left the Church after Joming it or has been excommunicated fr,r not abiding to
the Arnish way oflifr. ln :mutbcr study, Fader (2014) ex;tJnrne, the me oflhe Internet ,rnd m
particular the hlogging practices oLt group of nonlibeul Jews who used their posts to challenge
their own faith c-ommunit1es, drawing on varieties of English and Yiddish and tbnr orthogra-
phies 111 'ways. Through the on-line spaces they created, "these auony1nou,ly
posted critiques uf nun liberal Jewish lite, explored secular knowledge, met each other online
and offline to socialize, and cxpenmcntcd with in multiple
I\1dcr's study and those of others ;1ttcst to the prcnnincnce of new comnitinica-
tion in bith setting, studies in Roso,-vsky, 201 F:1ith conununity mem-
bers can virtually attend a religious service and partake in prayer and other religious rituals
and ccrernomes (Jacobs, l(osowsky, 2017b). They can cdso share their faith experi-
encn through soci,il network mg sites, hke E1cdiook blngs (Lieber, 2010)
and Internet discussion fr,rums, and on--lme video sharing platforms (Peuronen, In so
doing, they create virtual spaces for sdf expression and the n1 lt1vation of social rdations that
transceud face-to-fact: encounters and physical encounteTS. cons,_,lidate rnemberslup
and attract new rnembers. Peuroncn's Ill f<.-JCu,ses on a community of
Christian lifestyle sports enthusiasts in Finland and looks at through linguistic, snniotic
and ,liscursive practice,, they negotiate rnernberolnp and position themselves and others 1ll
rcL1tion to their Christ1an/ev,111gdistic mission and the sno1\board111g culture both on line
and in face-to-face conversations in snowboarding camps. These studies at the intersection of
religion and digital n1cd1a h,1vc pointed to new wc1ys of thinking about bow Ciith cominum-
tics arc constituted and imagined, ;l!ld how the boumbries between secular and sacred space,
arc ncgoti,1tcd and redefined both on line and off-line. They have also raised important
qiw,tions about the nlt'diation of religious experience and its authenticitv and appropriate-
ness, emphasising the deployrnent of :i ,vHle range of li and other sem iotrc
resources clcross contexts and medu.
322
Faith communities
Further reading
Lytra, V., Volk, D., &. E. Gregory. (Eds.) (2016) . ."i,wig<1ting la11g11<({fes, literacies and identities: Religion in
yo,mg lives. New York: Routledge. (This edited collection investigates how children and adolescents
leverage rich and complex multilingual, multiscriptal and multimodal practices associated with re-
ligion to perform their religious subjectivities, in homes, religious education classes, faith-inspired
schools and places of worship across a range of religious communities.)
Rosowsky, A. (21l0t:). Heavenly readings: Litwgical litn,1cy in a tnultilinxual context. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters. (This ethnographic study examines the literacy practices associated with Islam of a mul-
tilingual Muslim community in the UK and how these practices have come to shape community
members' individual and collective identities in a diasporic context.)
Skerrett, A. (201.3). Religiom .literacies in a secular liter:icy classroom. Read1IIR Research Q,wterly, 49(2),
233--250. (In ttm article, the author explores how a language arts teacher recruited the students'
religious literacies for understanding and analysing secular texts and producing academic writing
in a US classroom.)
Related topics
Mu]timodality; Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation: Ethics; Colbborauve ethnography;
Language diversity in classroom settings; Youtb language.
References
Auleear Odowally, M., & Unjore, S. (2013). Kreol at school. A case study of Mauritian Muslims' lan-
guage and literacy ideologies. Journal ,f Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(3). 213-230.
Aulecar Odowally, M. (2016). Joseph .... Yousouf Changing narnes, navig.1ting. Spaces. articulating
identities. In V. Lytra, D. Vok, & E. Crcgory (Eds.), Nav(f?<1ti11l languages, literacies and identities: Re-
ligion in young liues (pp. 161-75). New York: Routledge.
Baquedano-L6pez, P. (2000). Narrating community in doctrina classes. N,m·,ui1,e Inquiry, 10(2),
429-452.
Baquedano-L6pez, P. (200t:). The pragnutics of reading prayers: Learning the Act of Contrition in
Spanish-based religious education classes (doctrina). Text & Ti1lk! 28(5), 581--602.
Baquedano-L6pez, P., & Ochs, E. (2002). The politics of language and parish storytelling: Nucstra Se-
nora de Guadalupe takes on 'English only'. In P. Linell & K. Aromson (Eds.), Selves and 110/ces: Goftina11,
T,-iuckc1 and di,ih:guc (pp. 173 -191). Sweden: Linhiping University, Studies in Communication.
Barrett B. (2010). Religion and habitus: Exploring the relationship between religious involvement and
educational outcomes and orientations among urban African American students. Urban Education,
45(4). 448-4'!7
Creese, A. (2008). Lmguistic ethnography. In K.A. Kmg & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
language mu/ education (2nd ed., Vol. 10): Research methods in language and education (pp. 229-241). New
York: Springer.
Darn.ico, JS., & Hall, T. (2014). The cross and the lynching tree: Exploring religion and race in the
ekmentary cb.,sroom. Language Arts, 92(3), 187-198.
Davila, D. (2015). #Who needs diverse books': Preservice teachers and religious neutrality with chi) ...
dren's literature. Research in the Teaching of English, 50(1), 60-83.
Ek, L. (2005). St,1ying on God's path. Socialising Latino immigrant youth to a Christian Pentecostc1!
identity in Soutl1ern California. In A.C. Zantella (Ed.), Buildlug on strrn,,th. Langud~e and liter,1cy in
Latino families ,md conmwnities (pp. 77-92). New York: Teachers College Press.
Equinet. (2011). Equality law in practice. /l question ofjaith: Reli,gion ctnd belief in Europe. Brussels, Belgium:
Equinet.
Fader,/\. (2009). ;Wltzvahgirls· Bringing 11p the nextgcnemtion o{H,1.,idic]ews in Brooklyn. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Umversity Press.
Fader, A. (2014). The nrnltilingualJewish blogosphere. Religion and its publics. The immanent frame,
SSRC. Available from http//blogss;rc.org/tif/2()14/09/16/thc- multilingual-jewioh-blogospberc/
blogosphere/
323
Vally Lytra
Fox, J. (2015, August JJ). Equal opportunuv persecution is a global problem_

F,)rc{~n J\qiL1blc from v,Tww
Gee, Jl'. (2000). Identity ,1s an ,malvtic lens for research in cduc:ition. Rc,•icw in
25, 99-125
Geui,hi, C., & Dyson A.H. (2009). C/1ildrcn.
York: foachers Press.
Gregory, E., long, S., & Volk, D. (Eds.) (2004). ;\Lmy 'r,n111_~ clii/drcn /e,1n1inx with
pc11s ,111d co1111111111itics. New York: F:1lmer.
Crcgorv, E., Lvtr;1, V., Choudhury, Ii., ILmkuberan, A., Kwapong, A.,,\: WoocllunL M. (2013). Syn--
cret:is1n as a creativt: Jct of mind: The narratives of children frollJ frn1r faith comrnunitics in London.
_!011111<1/ of'L,11/y Clrild/wod Lircrd<.)', U(J), 322-317.
c;regory, £.. Lytr,1, V, & Ilankuberan, A. (2015). Divine g,m1c:s and ritu;ils: How Tai.nil SJiv,1/.H.indu
siblings learn faith through play. Intc111,rtio1udT011mc1/ 4(1), (,') 1n.
Crcgorv, E., Lvtro1. V, Ilankuberan, A., Choudhury, 1--L, & -V:i,1odham, M. (2012). Tr,111slati11g faith:
Field narr,1tives :is a HWJJJ\ of 111 colbborative research. Jwern,llion,il _Joum,i/
of (J1wlitati1'c ,\[ctf",d,. -U(3), 196 213.
Cregory, 1." & \Vil.li;uns, A... (2()00). C'ity likracic.< Ledrnirig tli rct1tf dcrci_<s ,1.!cncr11tions !ind cultures, London:
Routledge
Haight, \\'_L (201.C). dn/drrn ,if clwrclr.· /) Cambridge:
University Press.
Hammersley, i'vL ,'c J\tkinson, P. (2007). i11 Praoicc (3rd ed.). New York: Taylor
and Fr:11Ki,.
Heath, S.B. (l'/8.3). H';1ys 1uit/1 1uou/s: Ld11y11.rgc. .rnd 11'ori: in con11111u11tics ,uid 1/.rssr,,,,111s.
UK: Umversilv Press.
Jambs, S. (2007). Virtuallv sacred: The of cyber-rituaJs in online spaces.
G111mn1111i,11io11, 12(3). IJ0'.3-1121.
Kc:nner, C., Kwapong, A-, Choudhury, H., 8.: [Z.uby. NL (21)16). chi.ldren's learner identi--
tics through faith: Charuian Pentecostal and fhngladc,,hi ML1slim conununitics in London. In V.
Lytra, D. Vok. & r:. Cregory (Eds.), ;,;111Jig<1ting hti:rc1cies ,wd idcutitics: in pn111y liues
(pp. 213--22(,). New York:
Lieber, A. (20!0). A ,,irtu:.tl Viibcr,l11ll: and the blurring and printe ,rn10ng Ortho-
\;von1c1.1.. 72(6), 62:\--637.
Lytra, V, Cregory, E., & Ilankuberan, i\. (201fi)_ Children's representation•; of the Temple in text and
talk in a Tarnil 1-IindLiiSaiva faith commuuity in Lonclun. In V. Lytr,1, D. Vok, & E. Gregory (Eds.),
;'Vau(~i1titzg "'""""'c,, litcr..-icics and idcn1itics: in you1-J,_\ h11es. J:-Jt'\V ··fork: l(outledge.
Lvtra. V., (~regory, E., & Ilankuberan, A. (2017). Researching children's lileracv practices and iden-
tities in faith settings: Mu]timodal tc,t making and talk about text as resourcE'S for knowledge
building. In M. J\llartin-Jones & D. fvlart,n (Eds.), · Critical c1nd
pcrspecti11cs (pp. 215-228). Abingdon: Routledge.
Lytr.1, \r., \ 1olk, D., &. Crcgory, E. (Eds.) (2Cil6:1). l\\1uZ1z<ttinx liteh1cies t111d identities: iu
yowrg fi,,es_ New York: Routledge.
Lytra, V., Volk, D., & Cregory, E. (2016b). Introduction. In V. Lytra, D. Volk, & L Cregory (Eds.),
}\T({1'(1,Jllti11_g ,mw,1,10,·, litcv(1tics und idetrtiric>s: in yo1wz;,,: h11cs J-----l7). New· '.{orlc f-Z..ontledge.
fVladiado, E., A.. R., 8, \Vondhnd, R. (201T). lived life through a colored lens:
Culturally sustaining poetry in an urban literacy dassruum. L111;~11,(1c ,lns, 94(6), ~,67-.380.
MartmJones, M., & ,\;brtin, D. (Eds.) (2Ul7) C:ri/1(,i/ ,md per-
spcctiucs 215-228). Routledge.
Maybin. J, 8. Justing. K. (2011)- Lingnistic In _I. Simpson (Ed-). li,mdbook cf
liu!;uisrirs 229---24'1). London:
McMillon_ CT, I:, Edw:mls, P_/\_ (21i00). \Vhy docs Joshu11 'hate' school. but love Sunday SchooF
Lu1,~u,1gc Art_,, 78(2), 111-1'.'ll_
l\.loorc, I .C. (2U08). text_ and talk in l\hrou,1 fulbc Qur',wic Tex! [o 7;,lk, 28(5),
645-665.
l'vloore. L.C. (2011). Moving ,1crnss literacies_ alld
28g·--297.
,1\'1oorc. L.C. (201 '.3). Qur'anic school sermons a, a site tor sacred and second socia.liscttion _
_/011111,il o(.:\•Jultili11l11cil ,wd AJulti,1.,lt11rc1/ Dcud,,pu1c111, _14(5). '145--15~.
324
Faith communities
J';,v]enko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.) (2004). Nepo,i,1tion of idcntit£es in 11ndtilingu,il contexts. Clevedon:
Multilingual lvlall.ers.
Peele-Eady. T (2011). Constructing membership identity through languJge and social interaction:
The case of African American d1ildre11 at faith Missionary Bapti1t Church. /·lnthro1Niogy & T:d,tea-
tion Q11,11terly, 42(1), 54-75.
Peele-Eady. T. (2016). "The Responsive Reading'' and reading responsively: Language, literacy and
African American student learning in the Black Church. In V. Lytra, D. Volk. & E. Cregory (Eels.),
[s/ai1ig<1ti11g l,mg11<1gcs, liter,,cics ,md idrntitie,: Reli,~ion in young liucs (pp. 8S-109). New York: Routledge.
Peuronen, S. (2017). Lmr:uage, Jhtrtidp<1tion and SJNCes of identification: The con,·tructio11 ,?f socio-ideologiwl
meanin(:s in a Cliri,,tian style sports comnwniry. PhD UisserL1tion. University ofJyvaskyla.Jyvjskyla
Studies in Humanities, 30S.
Rampton, B., Tusting, K., Maybin, J, Barwell, R., Creese, A., & Lytra, V (2004). UK Linguistic
Ethnography: A Discus,ion Paper. Available frolll http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organis,1tions/
lingethnidocumcnts/discL1Ssion_p;iper_jan_05.pdf
Report of the Commission of I~eligion and Belief in British Public Life. (2015). Liuing with difference.
Conw,unity, di,,c,sity and the conu11M1 good. Cambridge: The '\X/oolflnstitute.
[(eyes, C. (2U09). El Libro de Recucrdos (Book of Memories) A Latina student·, exploDtion of the self
and religion in public school. Reseincl, in the Tea,:hing of Eiiglish, 43(3), 263-285.
Rosowsky, A. (2008). Heauenly readin,~s: Litur(fral liter,uy in a r1111ltilingual context. Ckvedon: Multilingual
Matters
Rosowsky, A. (2013). Faith, phonics and identity: Reading in faith complementary schools. Literacy,
47(2), 67-78.
Rosowsky. /\. (2015). Faith literacies. In K. P:ihl &J Rowsell !Eds.), The Routledr;e handbook '!/literacy
studies (pp. 169-182). London: Routledge.
Rosowsky, A. (Ed.) (2017a). Faith ,md language in digital spares. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
R.osowsky, /\. (2017b). Virtual allegiance: Online "baya'a" tmictices within a worldwide Sufi Order.
In A. Rosowsky (Ed.), Faith and l,m/;u,;ge practices in d(~ital spaces (pp. 209-233). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
R.umsey, S. (2010). faith in action: Heritage literacy as a synchronisc1lion of belief, word and deed.
Liter,icy, 44(3), 137-143.
Rumsey, S. (2016). Coming of age: Amish heritage literacy practices of R.wnspringa, adult baptism,
and shunning. In V. Lytra, D. Vok, & E. Gregory (Eds.), ,V,,,,igating lcmguages, literacies and identities:
Religion in young lit'es (pp. 56-68). New York: Routledge.
Sagoo, G .K. (2016). J\.idkin.~ and sh,zping the first Nishkam nursery: A linguistic ethnograpl,ic study of a British
Sikh prujectfor chilclhood. PhD The,.is, Umvcrsity of Birmingham.
Sarroub, L. (2005). All Americ,m Yemeni _girls: Bein,(: J\iluslim in a puhlic school. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Scribner, S., & Cok, M. (1 ')81 ). Unp.1ckaging literacv. In M. brr Whiteman (Ed.), Writing.· The nature,
de11elopment and tea,:hiny of written cot1ummication (pp. 57-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shaw, S., Copland, F., & Snell, J (2015). An introduction to linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary
explorations. In J Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Cop.I.and (Eds.), Linguistic rtlmograpl,y: JnterdisojJlinary
,,uions (pp. 1-D). Palgrave Advances in I .anguage and Linguistics, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Skerrett, A. (2013). Religious literacies in a secular literacy classroom. Reading Researc/1 Quarterly, 49(2),
233-250.
Street, BV (1984). Literacy 111 ilzeory New York: Cambridge University Press.
Souza, A. (2016). Language and faith encounters: Bridging language-ethnicity and language-religion
studies. foternario11al Journal of M1dtilingu,:di.,m, 13(1 ). 134-148.
Souza, A (2U17). Lrci·book: A mediun1. for the .language planmng of migrant clmrche,. In/\. Rosowsky
(Ed.), Faith and lanpu11ge pmcticcs in digital spaces (pp. 45-67). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Tusting, K. (2015). I am a pe,icemaker: Writing as a space for rE'contextualising children's .identitv in a
Catholic First Conununi,m preparation cuurse. fVrif!en C,i111111tmicati,m, 32(3), 227-25.l.
Volk, D. (2016). Home worship service/Bible reading/reading lesson: Syncrctic teacbmg and learning
in a Puerto Rican family. In V Lytra, .P. Vok, & L Gregory (Eds.), N,W((<1t1ns langu,zges, litcr.1cies
,md idc11iities: Religion in y,,,mg liffs (pp. 21-33). Nnv York: Routledge.
325
24
Policy
Introduction
This chapter is about policy and policy analysis. The meaning of policy varies :tccording
to the perspective adopted. I'or those viorking in linguistic ethnography, 'policy' might be
thought of.is a set and actions (or· that have some broad purpose (rather
than, say, a discrete decision or programme administt:red at one moment in time) (Hajcr &
\~lagenaar, 2003; Shaw, Ami policy analysis involves attention to the sooal actions, in-
teract1om, values and processes that contribute to the meaning ofpoliey (Edelman,
1985; Ya now & Schwartz--Shea. This focus on social action stands in stark contrast to
the dominant vinv of policy as a fonnal, rational process that can bt' planned in advance.
It is vital f;::,r any researcher or rei1cx1ve practitioner who is active or interested in linguis-
tic ethnography to appreciate the tension bet\veen these different appro:Khes. Our chapter
therefore opens with a historical ovcrvie\v of dt'bates about the 'best' way to conceptualise
pohcy. Honing in on an interpretive approach we then: describe how, where and why lin-
guistic and ethnographic perspectives have been brought to bear on issues of policy; present
an overview of current vvork in linguistic ethnography that takes policy as a prime analytic
interest; and consider relevant rnethorlological frameworks that align vvith (but have not tra--
ditionally been comiderecl under the umbrella of) linguistic ethnography. We pay particular
attention to interpretive analysis, an emerging field which recognises the importance
of di,course, nicaning-rnakmg, interpretation and the of social practiL:es in
devising ,rnd in e1ucting policy.
Our aim is to a solid introduction to sites and situations and v·vays of under-
standing and studying thern frurn a linguistic ethnography perspective. In the second part
of our chapteL we focus on health and rncial policy and draY\' on worked examples from
our ovvn work in the UK - on the role of think t,111ks in shaping health policy, and the
role ufloc:il government in shaping re,ent policy on the - to illustrate cu nent
contributions to policy research from tho,e workmg in linguistic ethnography and the krnd
of methods and approaches to analvsis that :ire cn1ployed. \,Ve conclude by the
rel,v:ince of linguistic ethnography for future directions in pohcv research ,md encourage
reader, to thrnk differentlv about the question. \vlut is data''.
326
Policy
Historical perspectives, critical issues and debates

The way in which we conceive of policy is the crux of much historical and contemporary de-
bate. Harold Lasswell (1951) set out a grand vision of policy studies geared to dealing with the
complexities of modern government and corporatism, laying out a framework for the devel-
opment of policy science and the training of 'policy experts' capable ofbringing what he saw
as the necessary knowledge to the decision-making process. His vision was of an interdis-
ciplinary enterprise. However, most policy inquiry has since been permeated with a strong
empirical identity that is heavily indebted to systems analysis and microeconomics. Scholars
have tended to align themselves with an instrumental approach, grounded in positivism, that
situates individuals and institutions within a rational choice framework. What follows is a
dominant tendency to see policy as somehow separate from politics, and policymaking as a
linear process involving problem identification, collection of data on alternative solutions
and selection of the alternative that best resolves the problem (Fischer, 2003; Wagenaar,
2011). Such an approach focusses on the instrumental goals that people seek to achieve (e.g.
influencing specific policies); assumes that policy actors generate objective, policy-relevant
knowledge in a void and tends to adopt quasi-experimental designs and quantitative methods
to evaluate the goals of policy programmes.
More pluralist and incremental approaches to policy and policymaking have also devel-
oped, reflecting an interest in processes ofinteraction and negotiation and requiring a different
conceptualisation of policy and alternative methods of inquiry (see, for instance, Pressman &
Wildavksy's, 1973 account ofhow centrally planned policy to promote economic development
failed in the face of local implementation processes that, they argued, necessarily involved
adaptation and learning). However, it is only since the 1990s that a post-positivist approach to
policy studies has begun to evolve that rejects any notion that public policy intervention should
be seen as a discovery process which uncovers 'real' social problems that require state interven-
tion. This is an interpretive approach that recognises policy as discourse in which both prob-
lems and solutions are constructed (Bacchi, 2000) and which is negotiated and renegotiated in
the social practices and daily encounters ofadministrators, planners, regulators, teachers, social
workers and other street level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980; Wagenaar, 2011).
To give an example from our own research: working in an interpretive tradition has
meant understanding the role of think tanks in health policy (the focus of Sara's research) in
terms of social practice - focussing on how think tanks actively engage with a social situation
and how that situation is framed and enacted by participants. Rather than getting caught up
in what health policy should or should not include (often under the banner of abstract values
such as 'efficiency'), such an approach embraces the variability of think tanks and refocusses
analysis on how health policy is enacted. This approach recognises the centrality of human
interaction; engages with what practitioners actually do; focusses on meaning-making and
contextuality rather than measurement and involves developing practical wisdom rather than
law-like explanations (Yanow, 2000; Wagenaar, 2011; Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2014).

So how does linguistic ethnography fit into these debates about policy and policy analysis?
The short answer is that there is a considerable amount of work in linguistic ethnography
that appears relevant to policy, but far less that takes policy or policymaking as its prime ana-
lytic focus. Given the relatively short time span in which linguistic ethnography has evolved
(Snell et al., 2015), some concerns and approaches have received more attention than others.
327
Ju short, policy smd1e, l1ave yet to fi-:ature strongly in lingm,tic ethnography, and linguistic
ethnography has yet to feature strongly in studies of public
,1mples of research in vvhich linguistic and ethnographic h;,ve been brought to
bear on issues as we describe below. Thew fields of research have tended to evolve
separ:itely. at least in part due to individual scholars· histories and the development of disci--
plinary communities. 'vi/c seek to widen those discipJrnary boundaries by providing readers
with a flavour of recent linguistic and eth nograph1c contributions with a particular focus on
health and soci;1l policy (the focm of our own We then comider whether and how
these bodtes of work rnight together he· taken up under the rubric ethnography.
Policy ethnography
The policy literature is dominated by research assessing the procnscs of policy de-
velopment, ofren fi.lcussing on the differences between intent am! outcorncs. 'J'bcrc is far less
that n:plorcs the details of m;1cro development or of rnicro implcmentat10n, nor the
counections between them. The field of poltcy edmography (Griffiths&. Hughes. a11ns
for close c.:·unnnatJon of these details. Broadly influenced by earlier svork from scholars such
as Wildavsky or Lipsky (whu deliberately focm,cd on the proce'5 of in1plernenting policy
and those fi·ont-linc adrnirmtratur:, it (Pressnnn & W1hLiv,,ky. 1973; Wildavsk y,
1979; Lipsky, 1 policy
atcd in the everyday work of ,treet kvd bureaucrats onl servants who transbte policy
and bas researchers to frlcus more on the people,
places. and artef:1ch involved m nnplementing on the front
line oflocal service delivery. Dy a single to ob
serve the vv:1ys in which policy unfolds. work in this field has }1elp,,d to reveal the processes
involved in formulating. developing, understanding and implementmg policy.
Studies at the micro level have proJi ferated in recent years. but these also look upv.rards to
shed hght on and deepen understanding of processes at the n1:1cro lcvd. fix mstance,
the work of Sdnnidt (2000) that fc.>cusses on the drive to m,1ke English the ofiicial language
in the US. Whilst l11s policy ethnography led him to focus on the minuticK of everyday lite,
his a1nlysis came to see the policy debates he observed there as disputes about issues of na-
tional and group identity.
There has been a considerable amount of policy ethnography across disciplines, covering
diverse topics from environmental politics (HaJer. to the use of evidence in policy-
m,1 king 20JJ). Much of this work might be thought of ;1:, under the um-
brella of interpretive policy analysis, a field of mqrn ry that homes 111 on 'the vvork of policy'
(Colcbatch, 2006) and attends to matters of representation through language, text and sym.bol
in the co11stitution ofs()cial Jifr, (Y:rno\v, However, \Vhil:,t we \Nclcorne the im.port;nice
of language and discourse as a commou interest amongst scholars \vorkmg tn interpretive
,malysis. Vv"C have at ti111es been finstratcd by a lack of detailed n11cro-analys1s. For in -
sta11cc, whibt ULmy IPA h:1ndbooks outline the linguistic turn in policy stuclies and political
snence. they tend to hold back from undertaking ur \.,nth micro-level lrnguistic
Hcinrichsmcier, this volume).
Policy-as-discourse
'There has been a recent discursive turn HJ policy studies (1-facchi, 2()(1(); Sh:1w. repre-
sentJ ng an explicit at tern pt tc, move the· focus of policy lx1snl work to the construction
328
Policy
of social problems and the meanings attached to them. Discursively based policy inquiry
adopts a range of positions, from treating discourses as frames or conceptual frameworks for
seeing the world (Schon & Rein, 1995) - and therefore treating policy discourses as variables
that can be subject to empirical testing - through to more interpretive approaches in which
discourse is not simply a measure of social relations but is constitutive of them (Fischer &
Forrester, 1993; Bacchi, 2000; Fischer, 2003).
Such a diverse area of research draws together writers interested in different areas, for in-
stance affirmative action (Bacchi, 2004) or environmental politics (Ockwell & Rydin, 2005),
and adopts approaches that involve identifying and analysing policy discourse, political sym-
bols, policy storylines, discourse coalitions, the interplay of ideologies and power relations,
policy rhetoric and argumentation. What ties this group of researchers together is the com-
mitment to examining and explaining how language is used in all of these different contexts
in order to reveal aspects of social and political processes that were previously obscured or
misunderstood (Shaw, 2010). Through this lens, understanding policy-as-discourse not only
enables appreciation of the role of policy actors and the dynamics of policy processes, but also
allows for "the possibility for devising new modes of communication to achieve normatively
better policy outcomes" (Ockwell & Rydin, 2005, p. 4). This focus on addressing social
wrongs and possible ways of mitigating them is a characteristic of much discourse analysis
(Bacchi, 2000; Fairclough, 2010).
Linguistic ethnography and policy

The above sections have outlined a growing body of interpretive inquiry into policy and
policymaking. However, to date those concerned with the broad areas of policy ethnography
and policy-as-discourse have tended to be situated in different (albeit overlapping) camps.
The result is an apparent policy void in linguistic ethnography (Shaw & Russell, 2015). To
our knowledge there are currently few researchers who take public policy as a prime analytic
focus and incorporate linguistic ethnography into their policy analysis (although there are
many who are interested in policy within their research programmes and the relevance of
their emerging findings for policymakers). Likewise, few researchers explore the interface
between the detailed nuance of evolving social interaction at the micro and/or meso-level
and the broader institutional and socio-political contexts within which interactions are sit-
uated (what some might call transcontextual analysis). Nor are there many who engage in
close analysis of linguistic and ethnographic data as an integral part of their interpretive
policy analysis. Having said that? there are pockets of inquiry that are starting to fill this void
(though not all self-identify as doing linguistic ethnography), such as work on 'the rational-
ity of rationing in healthcare' (Russell et al., 2014) or the construction of language policy
(Hornberger, 2002).
We now draw on concrete examples from two research studies to highlight the kinds of
methods and analytic processes that those working in linguistic ethnography might employ
in attempting to further address this policy void. Our intention is to open up the debate
about what kinds of work can be done, how and why.

Interpretive approaches (including linguistic ethnography) draw on analytic methods that
bring the practices and voices of 'actors on the ground' (Yanow & Shea-Schwartz, 2014,
p. 259) to the fore, along with the language, objects and acts that make up policy (Yanow,
329
Tobie 24. l Overview of the two research studies
Title Rotionole Study Doto collection Further reading
Study 1 The role of think tanks Few studies have How do think tanks Collective case Autoethnography of Sara's Shaw and
in shaping health explored the work of frame and represent their study of four think experience of in a Russell (2015).
policy. think tanks in public work when they seek to tanks that had think tank. Shaw, Russell,
policy, Those that shape health policy? And undertaken work Informal interviews in each Parsons &
do tend to present how do they account that was relevant site, followed by 10 in-depth Greenhalgh
them as a source of for and manage their to a programme narrative interviews with (2015),
'independent' decisions7 of NHS reforms in purposively selected senior
evidence, England, think tank representatives,
30 documents, including
overarching strategy,
governing document, and
work relevant to current NHS
reforms.
Study 2 Recontextualising the Understanding the What discourses Longitudinal, 15 documents, including Eyre (2014).
-from role and influence are drawn on in a mix of local internal/
central imaginaries to of local government official government embedded case public and national policy
local realities. in translating documentation relating study, with one documents.
government's to the goals of the central case (a 90 hours of observation
imagined future imagined local council) and (as a 'peripheral observer',
society into a local How are discourses two embedded Addler and Adler 1994)
reality for communities representing the units (two of key forums and events
and residents. imagined big society 'localism' pilot during development and
recontextualised at a projects). implementation of localism
local level? pilots.
30 interviews with (where
possible) the same
participants at three points
during the study.
Policy
2000; Russell et al., 2014). Listening to these voices helps to reveal the importance of people
and, consequently, of values in the processes of negotiating (and renegotiating) policy. A
variety of methods continue to evolve to enable this, generally and in the specific context of
policy inquiry. In this section, we focus on four issues of concern to policy analysts working
in linguistic ethnography. We describe two studies that we have undertaken (Table 24.1),
teasing out the ethnographic and linguistic methods adopted, the rationale for their use and
the ways in which we have combined them to enable a detailed examination of social and
political life. Descriptions are necessarily brief and we guide readers to other published work
for further detail.
Policy analysis requires close analysis of dispersed micro-level policy

practices as well as the broader architectures of policy
Linguistic ethnography has been heavily influenced by research on literacy, ethnicity and
identity, classroom discourse and language teaching. It aims to use discourse analytic tools in
creative ways to extend our understanding of the role language plays in social life (Snell et al.,
2015). Little attention has yet been given to how public policy is formulated, negotiated and
(to a lesser extent) enacted. This kind ofpolicy analysis - informed by linguistic ethnography-
involves close analysis of dispersed micro-level policy practices as well as the broader archi-
tectures of policy. It necessarily involves collecting and analysing data that reflect something
about the nature of policy and politics. Whereas studies in linguistic ethnography often focus
on extended sections of text and social interaction, it is not always desirable or feasible to find
that in policy. We tend to find 'policy' not in a single recording of a meeting or observation,
but in fragments across a range of documents and interactions. Take Study 1 (Table 24.1) in
which Sara drew on data from autoethnography, interviews and documents. Her focus on
different sources of data provided a rich picture of the context, people, artefacts, activities,
ideas and values that make up think tanks' work in relation to health policy. No one extended
section of text provided the basis for the detailed analysis subsequently undertaken.
Similarly, take Study 2 (Table 24.1) in which Laura developed an empirically based cri-
tique of'the big society' via exploration of the potential incompatibilities between successive
governments' imagined big society and the lived experience of society in one local author-
ity. Given that the concept of 'big society' is an intersubjectively constructed phenomenon,
it cannot be directly observed 'as policy' but instead involves using a variety of methods
(Table 24.1) to explore how it is assembled, understood, negotiated and practised. In brief,
this involved understanding the vision for the big society as set out in a range of central gov-
ernment policy documentation and speeches; appreciating the mediating role of local gov-
ernment through analysis of documents, commissioning activities and announcements; and
exploring representations and recontextualisations of 'the big society' through observation·
of meetings and events, collection of internal local authority documentation and interviews.
Together, these data enabled Laura to examine in detail the various moments in time through
which the big society was imagined, reimagined and recontextualised as it moved from
conception at a central government level, through interpretation and mediation at a local
government level, and realisation (or not) at a community level.
This wide-ranging approach to generating data enabled Laura to closely examine, in par-
ticular, the role oflocal authorities in mediating the vision of a big society. Linguistic analysis
(e.g. of documents) helped to understand how local government bodies were represented as
a_ compliant and mediating force, a necessary level through which power needed to pass in
order to reach communities. Their role was broadly represented as an enabling one: freed
331
from central govnnrnent c·ontrol, local government ;1ctor, were envisaged as accountable to
local people .tncl workmg on their behalf to /ix 'broken Britain'. Analysis of ethnographic
data, in combination -with interviews and local documents, challenged this 'imagined role'
oflocal government a, an enabling and empowering organisation through which po,ver must
necessarily p;m 011 its way to communities and local people. This vision was not borne out in
local officials' development oflocalism during the research project: despite making an mitial
commitment to devolve services and budgets to a local level, in reality, local government
officials were reluctant to devolve power to other local government tiers, let alone to local
communities. Far from being a collectively compliant and mediating tier of government,
local government was revealed as obstructive, ultimately contributing to the failure to realise
the imagined society.
In both st urlies, a mix of data enabled a mLmcc'd and interpretive analysis of the complex
and messy realities of policy development through the various scales and context, of gov-
ernment. It a!so allowed us to zoom in on the micro-level interactions tlut contribute to
policy work (and undertake detailed analysis of language. see below), whilst simultaneously
zooming out to take a helicopter view of the overall architectures that come together to
make up policy.
Ethnographic methods are central but direct

observation is not always feasible
Ethnographic methods \Vere central in both of our studies and are useful fin the kinds of
policy inquiry that we do. which seeks to explore the 1/fc,mings of particular policies ancl po-
litical practices. concept> or processes to situational acton (Yarrow & Schwartz-Shea, 2014).
Such methods help to illuminate wide-ranging issues of political concern (e.g. how policy-
makers think about the decisions they make or hovv organisational administrators implement
national policies). Case studies provide a vital means of exploring policy issues in depth and
combining ethnographic with linguistic approaches. For instance, in Study 2, the multiple
embeclclecl case study design, fusing the features of case study research and ethnographic
methods within an interpretive and discursive framework, enabled Laura to observe, in situ,
the various processes and practices of policymaking in three tiers of local government and
connect this with wider government initiatives. HoweYer, such methodological fixi often
bring restrictions in terms of access to policy worlds.
Given the ways in which policy works (e.g. the often rapid speed in which policy evolves),
and the lack of ready access to 'back-stage' policy vrnrlcls (Shaw et al., 2013), it i, not c1hvays
feasible or desmlblc to do ;111 in-depth multi-year ethnographic study. Hence, in contrast to
traditional ethnography that is defined largely by the researcher's prolonged immersion in
a single geographical locale and a focus on the everyday lives of the people present there,
contemporary policy analysts often use interpretive ethnography (Denzin, 1997) a flexible
methodology that can accommodate the various places, people, objects and predicaments
that make up contemporary policy and politics and our relationships with it. In some cases,
as with the me of autotctb nography in Study 2 which generated a natural record of events as
they unfolded in the course of Sara's work \vitlnn a think tank, this might involve adopting
new or alternative apprnacl-1es. Such approaches do not diminish the value ofpolicv inquiry,
but provide,\ much-m:eckd way in to being part ufthe process ofinteractrng. thinking and
relating in policy worlds. For instance, alternative acces, routes (e.g. routes that skirt around
the political hierarchy) might generate stories from front-line workers that give more nu--
anced and detailed accounts of policy development.
332
Policy
In sum, there are often limitations to observing and studying communication as a way of
knowing about policy. This means that, for policy inquiry at least, methods used in linguistic
ethnography tend to be characterised as much by absences as presences (e.g. not being able
to directly observe Board meetings in the think tanks study). As we set out above, this often
(but not always) necessitates a variety of corresponding data - interviews, policy documents,
archival documents. artefacts, media 1naterials ;1nd more in order to explore processes that
are not always ;1ccessible through observation.
The importance of 'studying up'

Those doing the work of policy inquiry need to have an interest m --- even an overt
commitment to - understanding the processes by means of which power and responsibil-
ity arc exercised. For policy analysts, this might involve focussing on regional, national
or transnational policies - and the role of states, corporate entities and other networks
in negotiating these - and how such policies are interpreted and are (or are not) put into
practice. Writing in the 1970s, Nadn (1972) urged us to home in on the .most powerful
strata of society, and to flip anthropology her discipline - on its head. "What if", she
asked, "anthropologists were to study the colonizers rather than the colonised, the culture
of power rather than the culture of the powerless, the culture of affluence rather than the
culture ofpoverq,)" (1972. p. 289).
Of course, the kinds of question asked in policy inquiry (sec Table 24.1 for examples) are
what guide researchers to focus on power and responsibility or the culture of affluence. Those
interested in studying public policy need to frarne their questions with this in mind. As ,vith
any interpretive research, social and political theory also has an import;rnt role to ph1y. In both
of our studies, data analysis and theory development were simultaneous - "the one shaping
the other in a dialectical manner" (Wagenaar, 2011, p. 247). But what is relevant theory in
policy im1uiry? And how does it inform the process of analysing and interpreting data?
In Study 1, readers will recall that we drew on data from autoethnography, interviews and
documents. Early analysis (using corpus :malysis, sec Shaw et al., 2015) revealed how think
tank ideas and v;ilnes appeared to be tJlked about in different ways and in different contexts
for instance in thmk tanks' formal publications or actor/ accounts of their work - and that
this process needed to be managed by think tanks through a range of neutralising strategies.
To make sense of emerging analysis, Sua introduced two sensitising concepts - 'front-scige'
and 'b;ick-stage' healthcare planning and 'sacred' and 'profane' language (Degeling, 1996;
following Goffman, 1959). Using these concepts to guide analysis drew her to exam.ine the
more public and private settings in which health policy takes place, and (much as we did at
the stcut of this chapter) to distinguish between the theory of policymaking with its lan-
guage of o~jectivity and rationality -- from accounts of bu-w things work in practice. As is
usual in linguistic ethnography (though unusual in studies of public policy), we now turn
to an extract from Study 1 to illustrate this process. The extract is from an interview with a
senior executive at one of the participatmg think tanks, discussing what has enabled them to
influence evolving NHS reforms:
I have come to realise that writing it down actually docs matter a great deal. oddly.
Why do you think that is?
So, I think it gives you the authority. And in a lot of the process, well, people either
want something to go, you kno,v. in a lot of these processes they v;ant so1nc:thing to go
b,1ck to - why are you doing this;,', 'm response to .. .' - and with ;1 kind of, a kind of audit
333
trail.. .. There's a sort of seemliness to that process. So I think, I think it\ very difficult
actually to influence vvithout the sort of, without h;1vmg the written analysis Lo umlcrpm
it, which you hdve published. And actmlly. of cour,e. in the parliamentary discus,ions
where our \vork w;i:, quoted, they don't quote a convcr<,ation they've h,id with you. they
quote what you've written ... And that discourse is a very important part of this. Now
what is really helpful is combining that wntmg with the explaining personally. And also
the wanning people up to the fact that you're going to write, and in many cases 1 had prior
conversations with people about how 1 was going to word this - sought their advice on
[specific reforms]. And I changed some of the wording to, having reflected on their advice.
Okay, almost framing of what you were going to say?
Yes. So l iterated. So I did, I didn't, I didn't do things quite so sequentially ... I guess
the engagemcnt with people was a two-way process where I was trymg to inflrn.:,Hce
them, but I wc1s also t,1k1ng their advice. So thal vvh,tl we would say was capable ofhe1ng
more inthwnu,1I.
OK. And vuu tell that process worked very well with what came out ,ll the end ofit?
Yes. Because l mean I think what we recommended then was things Ll1at, you know,
and that is a classic Civil Service, you know, kind of: 'So ifI change that word here, will
you sign up to that? Right, I'll check that with that person there'. And 'if we do that,
can you live with that'' 'Yes, check that back.'
(This extract was ori,i[inally published in Shaw et al. (2015)
The vicwfrom nowhere? How think tanks work to shape
health policy, i11 Critical Policy Studies ,111d is rcpri11ted /Jy
permission of the publis/1er n;,y/or D Francis Ltd, ww1u. ta11dfimlinc.com))
This interviewee the importance of lclrmaJ \vritten accounts in providing legit-

imacy and weight to think tanks' arguments ",vriting it clown actually does matter a
great deal'', "it gives you the authority"). They also talk about how this gives them a citable
source of ideas that decision-makers arc able to draw on ("they quote what you've written",
"a kind of audit trail", "having the written analysis to underpin it") and how that's useful, for
imtance, "in the parliamentary discu,sions". The production of formal front-stage accounts
111volves, they say, an interactive process ("a two-way process", "combining that writing with
the explaining personally", "warming people up'") which establishes com,non ground be-
tween think onk actors and decision-maker,, ('\:b;rnged some of the wording". '"reflected
on their advice") and ernhles them to work together back--stage to co-produce accounts of
NHS reforms ("So ,(I change that word here. w1ll you sign up to that?"). This production
of written accounts was visible (to varying degrees) m the activities of each of tbe Cour think
tanks in Study 1.
J\iloving beyond this extract to focus un the wider data ,et: think tanks' formal accounts
of their vvork - like the formal written accounts that this interviewee refers to - mirrored the
sacred language of policy and planning, drawing on modernist conceptions of health policy
that describe the policy process as informed problem-solving in which a problem is identi-
fied, data collected and analysed, and evidence provided to policymakers on whid1 they can
then base decision,. l 11 their front-stage accounts. th rn k t.rnks emphasised a set of tcchmcal
skills and activities 'experimental intervention"), ,vhich informed exacting 'research .tnd
policy analysis', \vhich then fed into policy.
By employmg such s:icn-d planning discoune think tanks pub] icly deferred
to values such as techmcal rationality and obJectiv1ty and established a sense of commonality
with healthcare planners and decision-makers. This reinforced think tanks' self-presentation as
334
Policy
independent organisations, and situated them as legitimate advisors on the problems of NHS
reform.
Smdying up and engaging with relevant social theory enabled Sara to foreground policy
and planning as the objects of study, theorise them (particularly appreciating the ways in
which policy practices rarely take place in single defined spaces) and then connect with rel-
evant sensitising concepts to guide analysis. Findings revealed how, on the one hand, cbink
tanks' deference to sacred planning discourse :signalled to decision-makers that they knew
about and adhered to the rules of the game front-stage. On the other, this enabled them to
identify and interact with decision-makers back stage, and to speak about and practise plan-
ning in ways that gave more explicit recognition to its political dimensions.
Focussing on political language as a social practice

As Murray Edelman wrote back in l 985: "political language is political reality" (p. 10). Whc1t
he meant is that political language is key in creating the social practices that make up public
policy. It is the meaning that is created through political language (according to Edelman, :,
crucial element of any political move for adv,tntage) that helps to construct beliefs about the
significance of events or problems, legitimise certain public policies or encourage people to
support or resist particular courses of action. What follows is that much analysis of public
policy needs to include an understanding of political language and how it is used in different
contexts. Doing so can help to reveal how policy 1s negotiated and renegotiated in the social
practices and discourses of politicians, planners and street-level bureaucrats.
This focus on political bnguage dnd social practices might involve, for instance, focmsing
on the ways in which 'being ratio1ul' is negotiated in decisions about local healthcare pro-
vision (Russell et al., 2014). In Study 2, Laura adapted critical discourse analysis to inform
her analysis of the processes by which decentralisation of power was imagined by central
government and the representations of local people and cornmunities as the intended recip-
ients of that power. Her focus on discourse was a way of understanding how people, groups
and organisations involved in political reforms (in this case decentralisation) organise and are
organised through their use oflanguage.
We have already outlined how policy is made up of dispersed practices and that eth-
nographic observation of the evolution of a specific policy is often neither desirable nor
feasible. In Study 2, it was political texts speeches, manifestos, parliamentary paper,
that were of particular interest in understanding the architecture of evolving policy and
the language and practices that make it. Laura wanted to find out whether, in framing
and introducing decentralisation reforms in the context of the big society, the Conser-
vative Party and Coalition Government at the time Ind given any consideration to the
complexities of how po\ver could be successfully devolved to local people and communi-
ties. By focussing on government texts (February 2009 to December 2010), she was able
to tdkc a close look at references to the concept of decentralisation and examine hcnv
the process of decentralising power was represented as an imagrned social practice. Ta kc
the follo,ving extract from a Conservative Party paper outlining a new programme of
decentralisation and strategy to shift power away from the state and back to local people:
Tlrn is a different vision ofBritain, one where power 1s sh a.red and communities arc once
again trusted to be in charge of their own destinies.
(Co11trol Shifi:: Returning Powa to Local Communities,
Cowcrvativc Party, 2009: 2)
335
This cxcoct a "different visiu11" oCBritain and surnmJ rist's the part that conunu-.
nitit:s were thought to play in the imagined big The brevity of the text combined
\\•Ith the limited use of conceals the invoh,ed in the processes
of decentrafoation. For insLance, the between communities ,u1cl diffrrenL tiers of
government is the extract excludes reference to local or central government
and cffr:ctivcly the institutions fron1 ,vhich the pmYer 1nust be shared. This is .in1port--
ant because power cannot just 'be shared' - 1t must be shared /ly sot1llc'<'llf'- in this case central
governrnent and loci! government - and vet the text fails to identify actors or processes in-
volved. The term "power is shaffd" is abstracted (van Leemvcn, 2008) with no detail given
as to ho,v po,vcr wiU be by whoru or even what LhaL pcm er will be. This ovc'rsimpli-
ficatwn alludes to the lundover ofa concrete Jnd idemiii,1ble ilem far from
the \1pp,1rent Eyre, The concept
with no diHercntic1tion in terms of fiH example, re-
as willing and able
recipients of power.
Further of contextual data from local government level allowed Laura to explore
the tension between the by the Consen-ative Party (that over-
sirupli fiecl and that used bv offto,ils at the loci! govern1nent level (tb:1t distin-
guished com1m111ities in terms of those th,1.t were active ,rnd Jble and those that were Lickrng
in social or m some way '·chalk and cheese", as one otlicial put
This stark contrast between the oversirnplified representation of comnnrnities at national and
the barriers to ,my redistribution of power
and to mJbng the vision for J

Earlier, \NC dre,;v attenoon to a policv What fi_,llows from
this is that there rernains considerable frn- researchers and reflexive
to undertake h.irther e1npiric,l and practical work
focussed on how public policy is formulated, and enacted. In terms of practice --- in
the sense of linguistic ,vith policy as primary focus there is much tbat \Ve
could focus on. Given space limitations, we simply want r.o enniurage researchen to think
differently about 'what is data''.
'fo date, the ideal in has often been to fcJcTIS 011 extended
sections of observed for ill',tance. classroon.1 ,\ focus
on public policy is the primary object of study requires a \Vider understanding of data,
one that is grom1<kd in theories of that the dispersed nature of policy
and policymaking nid givn to those in lin ethnography to
seek out the ditlcrent spaces and placn rn ·which policies evolve and the ki l\ds of data
enierging from these. and a rnix of data that: reflects the dispersed
nature ofpolicv \vill enable a rich and m1;.1ncecl u11dent;111ding of the and messy
real.itics of development through the various scdes and contexts of government.
the processes of in public aucl the ways in vvhich
istic dltnographen engaging with
kinds of linguisoc analysis grounded in rhetoriecd or argurnenta-
tiun, see Russdl ct al.. 2014 and Shaw ct 2015 for that appear to have been
sHk-lined to date.
336
Policy
Future directions
There is clearly an opportunity for those employing linguistic ethnography to extend their
work to the fields of public policy and to develop a more detailed understanding of the pro-
cesses whereby power and responsibility are exercised and the practices and people involved.
We strongly encourage them to do so. It is an area where technical and empiricist methods
(e.g. cost-effectiveness analysis) have dominated. These approaches are often not feasible
or relevant to strategic policy and decision-making, especially in the context of wicked
problems (e.g. the use of technology to augment or prolong lives), which are complex, mul-
tifaceted and often raise ethical and moral issues. Those who are prepared to embrace pub-
lic policy as a primary object of study in linguistic ethnography (or take up the mantle of
linguistic ethnography in their studies of public policy) can explicitly embrace the political
realities in which such wicked problems are grounded, and incorporate questions regarding
the construction of policy and the role oflanguage, values and emotions.
There is an argument for bringing linguistic ethnography and interpretive policy anal-
ysis closer. Whilst both are emerging and diverse fields they embody theoretical and
methodological work, and, together, might allow for a productive relationship across
interpretive methodologies, political theories and public policies. Such a combination
offers a means of analysing policy qualitatively, in a political context, and accounting
for social processes and interactions, and for a more holistic understanding of how and
why public policies evolve, how political language and socio-political processes configure
environments like schools or hospitals and how local meanings of policy are constructed
and evolve over time.
Linguistic ethnography and interpretive studies ofpublic policy both have an interest in the
potential links between research and practical intervention (Bacchi, 2000; Snell et al., 2015).
This echoes a more generalised call for increased democratic deliberation and co-creation
of policy relevant knowledge, to which we hope that linguistic ethnography will actively
contribute in the future. Attending to the linguistic resources by which the socio-political
realm is (re)produced and providing contextualised accounts of policy processes might help
decision-makers to look in different ways at the nature of the social problems they are to ad-
dress and open up further possibilities for social change (Bacchi, 2000; Yanow, 2000; Fischer,
2003). And moving towards more collaborative working with decision-makers and publics
to jointly problematise public policy might ease the process by means of which a range of
political values can be translated into changes in society.
Further reading
Shaw, S.E., & Russell, J. (2015). Narrating healthcare planning: The influence of linguistic ethnog-
raphy. In J. Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic ethnography: Interdisciplinary explorations.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (This chapter sets out the contribution oflinguistic ethnography
to recent work on think tanks, using worked analysis oflanguage and interaction to demonstrate
how linguistic ethnography has informed the research. It includes a section on bringing linguistic
ethnography and interpretive policy analysis together.)
Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action. Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. New York: M.E.
Sharpe. (This book offers a valuable insight into the field of interpretive policy analysis, setting out
the role that interpretation plays in policy analysis, the relevance of diverse theoretical perspectives
and the need to examine practice, meaning and dialogue.)
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2014). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the inter-
preti11e tum. New York: M.E. Sharpe. (This book focusses on interpretive methods in the context
337
of policy ,llHlysts. \VJ1ilst not primarily focu,scd on Jnalysing language and discourse, it offns a
comprehemi,·e discussion of a range of interpretive metl1ods that acknowledge the importance of
social interaction.)
Related topics
The ethnographic interview; Ethics; Collaborative ethnography; Scale.
References
Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get ns) Discourse: Studies in
the Cultural Politic, o(Ed11c,1tion, 21(1), 45-57.
Bacchi, C. (2004). Policy ,md discourse: Challenging the construction of affirmative ,1ct1011 as prefer-
ential treatme11t. _[011111,,/ a/European Public Poliq, I 1(1). 12S-146.
Colebatch, H. (201.l(i). What work makes policy) Pc,/icy Science, .19, 309-321.
Degeling, P. (1 lJWi). Health planning as context-dependent Lm,,uage play. Internati011,1/_Jo11md/ ,f He,ilth
Planning a11d tVfon,1ge111ent, 11, 101-117.
Denzin, N.K. (1997). InterpretiJJe ethnography: Ethnogrc1phic practices for the 21st Century. London: Sage.
Edelman, M. (1985). Political langmge and political reality. Policy Science, 18(1), 10-19.
Eyre, L. (2014). Recontextualising the h(~ society: From centf<ll im,isinaries to focal 're,ilities'. Unpublished doc-
toral thesis, Anglia Ruskin University. Available from http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/700695/.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse m1<1lysis: T/1e critical study of language. Edinburgh: Pearson Edu-
cation Limited.
Fischer, F. (2003). R,fr-u11i11g public policy: Discursi1•e and deliberative pMctice. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Fischer, F., & h)rcster, J (Ed.1.) (1993). The arg11111en1,1tive tum in policy analysis and London:
Duke University Press.
Goffman, E. (l9'i9). Prcsawition of self in everyday New York: Anchor.
Griffiths, L., & Hughes, L. (2000). Talking contra els and t.ikmg care: Managers and profossiorw ls 111 the
British National I Iealth Service internal marht. Soci,il Seim.cc & Medicine, 51(2), 2Cl'J ·222.
Hajer, M.A. (2005). Coalitions, practices and meaning in environmental politics - from acid rain
to BSE. [n D. Howarth & J. Toriing (Eds.), Discourse theory in E11rope,m politics (pp. 297-315).
H:ijcr, M., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.) (2003). Deliberatii>e policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hornberger, N. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of bilitcracy: An ecological
approach. Lm1g11dge Policy, 1(1), 27-51.
Lasswell, H. (1951). The policy orientation. In H. Lasswell & D. Lerner (Eds,)_ T/1e p,,/iry scirnces
(pp. 3-14). Stanfrm!, Ci\: Stanford University Press
Lipsky, M. (1980). Stm:t-hwl bureaucracy: Dilemt11,rs of 1/,e indi/!idu11l in public services. Nc\v York: Russell
Sage Found,1tion.
Nader, L. (1972). Up tbc anthropologist - Perspectives gained from studying up. In D. Hymes (Ed,),
Reilwenting @thropolo_gy (pp. 284-311). New York: Pantheon Books.
Ockwell, D.G., & Rydin, Y. (2005). Analysing dominant policy perspectives The role of discourse
analysis. In J. Lovett & D. Ockwell (Eds.), A handbook of erwironment,1' m,rnagement (pp. 168-197).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pressman, JI.., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expertations in Wcuhington are dashed
in Oaklrmd, or why it's amazing tliat Jcderizl programs work at all. Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Russell, J., Swinglehur,t, D .. & Greenhalgh, T. (2014). 'Co,rnetic boob jobs' or evidence-based breast
surgery: An intE'rpretivc policy analysis of the rationing of 'low value' treatments in the English
National Hc;ilth Service. HMC Health SerJJices Rcs,wd1, 1,1• 413.
Schmidt, R. (2()()0). L.1nguc1gc policy & identity in tlu: US. Philadelphia, PA: Templeton University
Press.
Schon, D., & Rein, M. (1995). Fr,m1e ref/.ection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies.
London: Basic Books.
338
Policy
Shaw, S.E. (2010). Reaching the parts that other theories and methods can't reach? How and why a
policy-ds-discourse approach can inform health-related policy. Health, 14(2), 196 212.
Shaw, S.E., & Russell, J (2015). Narrating healthcare planning: The influence of linguistic eth-
nography. In S..E. Shaw, J. Snell, & F. Copland, Li11guistir Plhnog,aphy: Interdisciplin11ry explor,1tions.
Shaw, S.E., Russell, J, Parsons, W., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015). The view from nowhere? How think
tanks work to shape health policy. Critic,rl Policy Studies, 9(1), 58-77.
Snell,]., Sbaw, S.E., & Copland, F. (2015). Li11guisticeth11ography: lnterdi_,r:ipllnaryc:xplorations. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Stevens, A. (2011). Telling policy stories: An ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy-
making in the UK. ]ourr1r1/ of Social Policy, 40(2), 237-255
Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and prczctice: New tools j(ir criticcZl discourse at1ti!ysis. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wagenaar, H. (2011). Mei11I111g in ortion. Interpretation a11d dialogue in policy anrdysis. New York: M.E.
Sharpe.
Wildavsky, A. (1979). Spc,d:ing truth to power: The c1rr and of policy analysis. Boston, MA: Little
rlrown.
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. London: Sage.
Yanow, D., & Schv,:J1tz-Shc:1, P. (2014). Interpretation ,md method: Empiric,1l rese,m-/1 methods ,md the i11ter-
preti11r tum. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
339
25
Sign languages
Lynn Hou and Annelies Kusters
Introduction: linguistic ethnography and sign languages

This chapter focusses on the interpretive value of contemporary linguistic ethnography (LE)
for studying sign Lrngmges, as used in visual c1 nd tact1 le 111tcractions with deJL1ml dcsi f-blind
people and thur interlocutors.
First, we discuss what constitutes LE in the context of sign languages. Second, \Ve re-
view some recent work th.it has taken an ethnogr,tphic approach to langu:igc. including
signed commumcrtiun .1mong deaf, deaf-blind and hearing people in familial, educational
and comnrnnity settings in urban and rural contexts. (Note: our usage of "deaf'· and "deaf-
blind" people is intended to refer to all deaf and deaf-blind people without imposing any es-
;,entialist :1ssumptions or situating them into a predominantly Western context. We adopt the
appropriate terminology when discussing a particular work.) We show how linguistic ethno-
graphic studies have expanded and enriched our understandings of how new sign languages
emerge, how people ;require sign languages. hovv peopk negotiate comrnunicatioo with
varying degree, of :icce" to the environment and how thcJ.r experiences oft bese situations
are represented in metalinguistic discourse (including in explicitly articulated language ide-
ologies). These analyse, highlight the importance of semiotic, interactional ;ind social fr:11ne-
works for expandrng many core concepts that arc foundational in sign language linguistics.
ln this chapter, we explore LE as an approach for enhancing these frameworks and, as such,
contribute to our understanding of what the approach can do for tbe study of sign languages.
LE is a theoretical and methodological approach that views hnguage as a culturally and
sonally constituted and situated practice (Creese, 2008). Since LE is not a field, discipline or
framework, but rather an umbrella term that refers to the combination of ethnographic, socio
linguistic and applied linguistics methods drawn from many fields and disciplines. researchers
bring different theoretical assumptions and foci to their work. The researchers comlltute .m
interdisciplimry group: they come from diverse h,1ckgrounds, spanning social and linguistic
anthropology, educ:1t1on. applied and theoretical l111gmstics, and sociolinguistics. Lmgui,tic
fieldwork in sign langmgcs is often carried out with the goc1l oflanguage documentation ,md
description (Nrt, 2() 15) but researchers have ,1l,o focus,ed on language emergence, language
learning and socialisation, and language choices and language ideologies. Some researchers
340
Sign languages
have actively fostered or supported the processes of sign language maintenance or emergence
in the process of their research (Edwards, 2014; Snoddon, 2016). In what follows, we cite
people engaged in what we consider to be LE, as well as works and debates that linguistic
ethnographers draw on and contribute to. We highlight the interpretive powers of LE and
the utility of ethnographic methods for challenging essentialist views of the social lives and
language practices of deaf people.

In this chapter, we mainly engage with recent works that constitute examples of LE.
Such works result from long-term fieldwork in which researchers know or learn the sign
language(s) they are investigating, do participant observation and regularly interact with
people in their language(s). Video recording interactions is essential to many of these
works. Some researchers also conduct linguistic elicitation tasks. Researchers doing LE
have worked with research assistants, typically deaf, deaf-blind, protactile and hearing
signers. Some research teams (Cooper & Nguy8n, 2015; Kusters et al., 2016; Cooper &
Tran Thuy Tien, 2017) have documented in detail how they communicated and worked
together when doing LE as multilingual teams of deaf and hearing people originating from
the global North and South.
To annotate and analyse sign language data, many researchers have worked with ELAN,
a multi-media annotation tool for creating time-aligned transcripts (Crasborn et al., 2006).
Some researchers have also used qualitative data analysis software to analyse written and/or
spoken translations of interviews in sign languages. They may also annotate and transcribe
them directly using contextual glosses in English or in another written language, though
there are no standard transcription and writing systems for sign languages.
Terms and classifications: sociolinguistic contexts of signing

Many scholars have organised different forms of signing on a developmental dine in this
way: homesign - communal/rural/family homesign - village/rural/shared sign language -
national/urban sign language (Meir et al., 2010; Zeshan & de Vos, 2012). There is usually
the construction of an ideological break between sign and/or gesture as 'system', and 'sign
language'. While we do not adhere to this ideological break nor to the ideology of a develop-
mental dine, we find it useful to look at how different forms of signing are produced in dif-
ferent language ecologies. It is through LE that researchers have been able to reach a deeper
understanding of these forms of signing and their sociolinguistic contexts, often through
emic perspectives of deaf signers themselves. LE has also challenged the very classifications
discussed below, although we do refer to specific and/or collections of instances when refer-
ring to a particular work, adopting that scholar's choice of terminology.
National, urban sign languages mostly, but not always, emerged in the contexts of schools
for deaf children. Some of them are believed to have evolved from homesign variants, sign
languages developed in large deaf families, 'village' sign languages such as Martha's Vineyard
SL (Poole Nash, 2015) and/or elements from other national sign languages (Kegl et al., 1999).
Sometimes, a national sign language that has emerged in one country has been imported into
another country (e.g. by teachers or missionaries) and has since then evolved. National, urban
sign languages are used in large deaf communities, often concentrated in cities and/or spread
· over large geographical areas. In many cases, these sign languages have been institutionalised,
341
e.g. they are mr-d in ,chnols to teach deaf children through direct instruction or through
interpreters. Historiolly, in many countric,, a et·:rtain degree of sign language spreading
and standarcli,auon has occurred through com-lets b1ctween pupils/teachers from di1-fr.rent
schools, teacher of teachers for deaf children and of sign language teacher,. ,llld
the use of sign 1n the media. Yet, in most: countries with a national s1g11 language,
there may be regional variants of the language. A recent documented case is Black Amencan
SL (ASL). a constellation ofASL varieties that emerged in segregated residential schools for
African-American deaf children in the southern U.S. (McCaskill et al., 2011).
Villctgc, rural, or shared sign lc111guc1ges (different terms for roughly the same phenomenon)
are used in small, often rural communities which exhibit a relatively high rate of hereditary
deafness, often hisher Lhan the rate found in populations. The sust.1ined prnencc of
hereditary de.1fi1cs, and community-wide sou,il inter:;cLion between deaf and he,inng people
have led to the c1nergencc, spread and maintenan,:e ofs1gn languages (Nyst. 2U12: Zcshan &
de Vos, 2012). Hvst (21)12) coined the term "shared 11sn languages", which is b:1,nl on
Kisch's (2008) term "shared signing communities·· to highlight that the pracLice or sign mg
is widely sharecl bet,vecn deaf and hearing resident:, throughout such comrnunitil'S. Zcsb,in
and de Vos (2012) used the term "rural sign languages" based on their observation that the
majority of these sign languages emerged in rural communities, whereas Nonaka (2009) used
"indigenous/village" sign languages.
Homes{'-fll (abo hotne sign) emerges in the context of comnrnnication of deaf people who are
not exposed to a sign language with their families (Keg! et al., 1999). The term 'homesign'
was initially mined by Susan Goldin-MeadO\v for rcfi:'rring to the gesture sy1te1111 invented
by deaf children vvbo ,Nert: not exposed to a ec1nventioml sign language. Nyst et c1l. (2012,
p. 268) emphasised thc1t the Lenn 'homesign' li,tS been u,ed Lo describe two distinct phenom-
ena. One pertain, Lo "deaf children growing up 111 environments with no cxpo,ure to
a conventional ,1gn following orali\t educat 1on,il advice". The other to the
signing practices of deaf persons in rural areas where gesturing/signing is considered to be the
natural way for communicating with deaf people and where an extensive conventional body
of geslllres is in use. Concentrating on West Africa, Nyst et al. (2012) coined the term 'rural
homesign' for the latter phenomenon. Zeshan (2011) proposed the term 'communal homesign'
ror similar contexts, although she did not identify which langLtages exemplify this term.
Different rese:uchcrs have categorised sin1iLn l:ing11c1ge practices either ,ts 'gcsLure',
'homesign' or . Such practices 011L1m ing e1tl1er reinforce or challenge distinct
scholarly ideologies about vvhat constitutes and not language. For example, Nyst
et al. (2012, p. 2tl9) suggested that rural homes1gn constitutes (sign) langud.\J.e r:ither th:111 a
(homesign) S)'Stc111. since ·'rural home sign vaneues rneet the criteria of a) a conmnmity of
u,ers, and b) transmission across generations", implying that non-rural homesign may not
constitute sign language. Similarly, Dramon et al. (1999) used 'sign language' and 'signing'
rather than 'gesturing' when writing about 'isolated' deaf people's (rural/communal home)
signing with hearing people in rur,tl areas in Bali, arguing that sign language is a natural part
of the linguistic mosaic in the area. Furthermore, some smaller village sign languages are
perhaps more adcqu:1tely deKribed as 'constellations or· family sign language,' (Hou. 201<, -
see below), while ()ther village sign language, arc multigcnerational, broadly med through-
out the commLrnity. In r<:"sponse to Nyst et ,ii. (:Zill Z.e,han and de Vos ,uggcsted
that the existins t,1 :,.unomy of sign languages crn he Jleshed out by further ,on,eplualisrng
the in-betwern JJT:l, bcL \\ cen homesign and fullY sign languages. Yet tbcy do not
question the linear construction of the taxonomy, leaving the ideology of a developmental
dine of manual comnmmcation implicit.
342
Sign languages
The developmental basis of such class1ficat1ons of sign languages has been questioned by
several scholars. Nyst (2012, p. 566) criticised the assumptions of situating sign bnguage
types on developmental dines:
There is an ultimate stage of sign language developrnent, a sort of'super sign language'.
(.. .)
2 All langmges in the world wi1J eventually move towards the ultin1ate stage of de-
velopn1eut 1f given the opportunitv.
3 There Jo ,1 hierarchy amongst sign types as to which sign b,1s advanced
n1ore on the developmental clille.
Hou (2016, p. 17) resisted situating San Juan Quiahije Chatino Sign Language (Mexico),
which she called "a constellation of family sign languages", in the extant taxonomy of clas-
sifications: "The typological diversity of sign languages suggests that mapping simple corre-
spondences between a sign language, their language ecology, and structure may overlook and
underestimate the actual and potential diversity of sign languages and signing communities."
Similarly, l!l her research on signing .in rural Nepal, Green (2014a) resisted to clas-
sify 'natural , a term used to refer Lo the type of signing/gesturing that many non-signing
hearrng people can use and understand.
In tl1e cases stud,ed by Kusters (2UlhJ, Hou (2016) and Green (2014a), there is no strongly
and broJdly conventionalised body of as 1, the case for some village sign languages, yet
people engage in signed communication and experience more or less limitations to these
forms of communication. We surm.ise that these cases may represent typical deaf-hearing
gestural/signed communication in much of the Global South. By its focus on naturally oc-
curring deaf-deaf and deaf-hearing communication in different sociolinguistic contexts,
LE has thus expanded and ennched our understanding of the actual ditJersity of these com--
municat1ve practices and embedded their invc,t1gation firmly within their sociolinguistic
and sociocultural contexts. In addition, LE ha, identified otJerlaps bet,veen different ways of
comrnunicating m,mually (e.g. homcsign, village sign, gestures), which led som_c authors to
quest1011 or challenge the utility and credib1Lity of rigid scholarly categories of ''types" and
contintmm-based models of signed cornn1 u n 1caLion.
Research areas
Language learning and socialisation

Many rcsean:hcrs have investigated acquisition in deaf children with an em-
phasis ou the structural properties of languages. Researchers who have taken an LE
approach tu deaf children have language socialisation processes that support
and/or ill h1h1t these processes. This is ,i nee_ worldwide, the majority ofde;if children
are born to parents who have !lo oCintergenerational deafr1ess and most likely
no knowledge of a conventional sign language. The deaf children cannot fully access the
spoken languages of their fa_milies and the surrounding speech communities and thus cannot
folly participate in the spoken language socialisation environment the same way hearing
children do (Erting & Kuntze, 2008). Family is usually the first and m,~jor site of language
socialisation where children absorb their family's language(s) through social interaction and
are sociali:,ed tG b,,come competent n1embers oftl1eir family and the surrounding communi-
ties (()cb & Sclneffelin, 1994).
343
School, on the other hand, is considered a secondarv site of language socialisation

for children, where they continue using their family's language or ,d1ere they learn an-
other langucigc to interact: with other children and their teachers and become competent
members of new comrnumties (Ochs&. Sch1effeli11, 1994). For many deaf children, hy
contrast, school can be the crucial site of ,ocialisalion, where they are exposed
to a conventional sign usually the national, urban variety. sometimes fi:>r the
first time. through other deaf children, adults, teachers and nth er comrnunity members.
School is also vvhere many deaf children learn to become competent signer:, and members
of a local deaf comnrnnity as wdl as learning the norms, customs and rules of social life
(LeMaster, 2003; Senghas, Polich, Peer-to-peer tr,msmission of a conven-
tional sign language is n1ort, common than parent-to-child (Erling&. Kuntze, 2008). In
other cases, deaf children do not attend a school for the deaf and learn the language
by with other deaf people at deaf clubs and social events catered by and fi.>r
In manv countries, the decline of schools for the de,1fhas led to ;rn increase in the sarne
students enrolled in rnamstrcarn schools (Padden &. Humphries, The dcclme has
been bolstered by an increase in usage of hearing assistive technology such as hearing
aid, and. cochlear implants (Padden&. Humphries, ConSt'lJUently, more and more
children arc not attending schools for the deaf and thus do not experience so-
cialisation through sign language with other deaf people. In other cases, deaf schools have
not trad1tionally used a natur;il sign language ,1s the primary means of instruction for deaf
children; as one exan1plc, Japanese SL rs used in deaf schools in Japan (fJayashi &.
Tobin, 2015).
In Norway, deaf children have a right to a education in Norwegian and
Norwegian SL; ""'" ..'''",__,. only one out of four state schools for the deaf is still in operation.
The three others have either shut clo-wn or merged with municipality schools (Hjulstad, 2017).
This has led to the development of a new rnodel of de1f education wherein deaf pupils meet
physically for a few weeks at the remaming deaf' school and receive in Norwegian
SL through distance education by videoconferencing while attending their local mainstrearn
schuob frx rr10st of the ac1demic ye;1r. Hjulstad (2017) conducted a micro--cthnography of the
embodied participation of students and teachers in classroom activities through sign language
conversation in this video,mediated environment.
There are niany cases where deaf people, as adults, start attending formal education
offered in a sign Lmguage, such as at Gallaudet University (a liberal arts university for
deaf ,md hard--of--hearing people in Washington, DC), or through courses taught by other
deaf adults, oftnt offncd by NGOs. The courses tend to focus on textual literacy, sign
language instruction and/or vocational training. Anthropologists hdve documented the
transitions of deaf adults originating from rural regions vv·ho move ro urhan regions and
attend such courses, such ,rs in India, Nep,11 and Cambodia (Hoffmann-Dillow:iy, 2011;
Green, 2014,1; Friedner, 2015; 1\!loriart y Harrelson, 111 sonic casn. such courses arc
offrrccl in rural regions (Green, 2014a). Friedner (2015) docurnented how deaf people in
urban lndia cn:culatc in spaces such as courses, NGOs, vrnrkplaces, churches
and deaf clubs in order to le,tnl Indian Lmguagc and various subjects, such as En-
glish, computer skills, vocational skills. business man;1gement ;1nd Bible stories through
Indian Sign Language. The ,1bove--mcntioned authors documented how orientmg to-
wards other de;tfadults who are fluent 0L1 national sign language can often trans-
late to a profound change for deaCpeople in terms ofLmguage use. langu;1ge identity ;rnd
personhood.
344
Sign languages
Emerging sign languages

Emerging sign languages is a category that overlaps with both urban/national and rural/
village SLs. The term emerging sign languages was originally designated to refer to the
identification of a new sign language created by a sequence of cohorts of deaf children in an
educational institution (Senghas & Coppola, 2001) or in a rural signing community with-
out any prior exposure to an existing sign language (Meir et al., 2010; Zeshan & de Vos,
2012). The term was later extended to refer to the divergence of a new sign language from
an existing one. For instance, Edwards (2014) documented how in Seattle (U.S.), a new sign
language emerged from sustained interactions of deaf-blind people. In the past, deaf-blind
people used Visual American Sign Language (the name used by Edwards to denote the ASL
used by sighted people) but when deaf-blind started interacting with each other in 'the prot-
actile movement', Tactile ASL, a new language (rather than a new variant of ASL), emerged.
Nicaraguan SL and Al-Sayyid Bedouin SL (ABSL) are considered exemplars of emerging
sign languages, because researchers could still document some of the earlier stages of the de-
velopment of these languages. It is not clear how and when a language is no longer deemed
emerging or new; this appears to depend on the scholar's perspective.
In generative linguistics and psychological sciences, scholars see emerging sign languages
as an opportunity to observe how a language occurs de novo and how it changes over time.
Scholars make precise and extensive comparisons of 'gesture', 'homesign' and 'sign', often
through extensive elicitation methods in staged contexts. By contrast, in linguistic anthro-
pology, scholars study emerging sign languages from an ethnographic approach to understand
how language emerges through spontaneous interactions of deaf, deaf-blind and hearing
people over time in their everyday lives, considering emic perspectives on such language
practices without prescribing to pre-existing scholarly categories of manual communication.
There is a greater emphasis on how signers use their language(s) and think about them than
just on the structure of the language itself.
Hou (2016) conducted an ethnographic study of an emerging sign language and its com-
munity of users in an indigenous Mesoamerican (Chatino) municipality, San Juan Quiahije,
Oaxaca, Mexico. The sign language referred to herein is San Juan Quiahije Chatino SL
(SJQCSL), which was designated by Hou (2016) for the scholarly purposes of language doc-
umentation. She argued that the language is best characterised as a constellation of family
sign language varieties, because the language originated in separate residences of deaf people
and their families, or signing families, but may have converged in some families. The signing
families perceive their signing to be different in some aspects, which is supported by linguistic
analysis of the variation in their signing. At the same time, they live in the same area and have
some recurring interactions with one another and perceive their signing as mutually intelligible
to the extent that they can understand each other with some effort. These observations suggest
that the social conditions for some languages emerge in families of deaf people; this has also
been documented for the case studies of ABSL (Kisch, 2012), Algerian Jewish SL (Lanesman &
Meir, 2012), Ban Khor SL (BKSL) (Nonaka, 2009) and Mardin SL (Zeshan & Dikyuva, 2013).
Just as LE has shed light on the actual diversity of communication systems in sociolinguis-
tic and sociocultural contexts, it has also shown how there is no universal and static devel-
opmental trajectory for the emergence of sign languages and their communities of signers.
Rather, new sign languages are dynamic products that emerged amongst various interactions
of deaf, deaf-blind and hearing interactants. LE offers the potential to expand and enrich our
understanding of the circumstances in which sign languages emerge and how those circum-
stances shape the developmental trajectory of the languages.
345
Lynn Hou and Annelies KustPrs
Language contact multilingualism and semiotic repertoires

Deaf people\ lives arc plur;d in tcrn1s of their use of and written
and even other semiotic rernurce, (Adan1, 2012; Quinto-Pozos & Adam, 2Cll
Language contact, thus, is the norm in the of deaf people. In many parts
of the world, sign bngu;1gcs exist in ;1 dwcrse where deaf people Cll·-
counter different spoken ,tt borne. school .ind other Many de1f people thus
know how to spe,1k ,111d/or ,Nntc one or more spoken Lrnguages, and/or one or more
One example is the transnational borders of the U.S. where .Engfr'11 and Span-
ish :rre frequently use,L .rnd rnany de;1f people use both ASL :ind fvlcxicin Sign L:1nguage,
1ll addition to these spoken (Quinto-Pozos. In recent decades, bnguagc
contacts through transnational connections have been made possible by new
technologies such as social mcdi:1 and ,iffordabJc though intern;itional dc,1f interac-
tions have been documented .,t le,1st since the 1'lth century (friedner & Kusters, Such
communical!ve tools and 1ncrt':1sed rnobility JJlow de,1f peopk to learn other bnguage,
or cornmunicatc rn lntnn:itional (IS), \vhich have arisen in the contact between dc:1f
signers of diflt'rent iinguistic backgrounds.
Tapio and Quinto--Pozos and Ad.nu discussed hmv not only deaf sign-
ers live along many languages, but a !so how they V\ith them in diffcrem nJodalities.
Many studio f;xussed on hO\v deploy an array of sc1n10llc resources from multiple
languages, which represents language contact wit.Inn and across com1TJU1llCation mocL:di.
ties. Stud 1es show three general Lypes, contact: contact, sign~wnung
contact and Quinto--Pozos & Acbrn, 2Cll5, for an These
contact types mvolve or wh1ch pertain, to thc practice ofswrtching
between and/or mixing at least Lwo hnguages (Qurnto-Pozos & Acbn1, 201
Signed language and spoken language contact

This generally refers to contact between some clement of a signed language and another of
:1spoken langu,ige. One chssic example is rnoutlung, or the voiceless articubtion that orig-·
inates from pan of or vvhole wc,rds in the ;nnbient spoken language, such as English, while
signing in British SL (BSL) (Boyes Braem & Sutton-·Spence, 2001: Venneerbergen et al.,
Deaf signers do not rnouth a \\cord (either partially or wholly) in correspondence ,vith
every sign, but rather mouth certa.i n words that a re cle:trly vJsiblc and h,ive pragm;iti,: fimc-
tions in discourse. Mouthing also can occur as a cross-linguistic srr;,tegy in other non-related
L1ngu:igcs sudr as when a person mouths an English word while simultaneously producing a
Finnish SL (FmSL) with the sa1ne rr1c1ning
Signed language-writing contact

This pertains to contact between a signed language and the vnitten svstem of the a.rnbient
spukeu language. One cLi:,sic exarnplc is fingcrspelling, the manual production ofa handshapc
that corresponch to the written systen1 (Quinto-Pozos & Achm, 201 Fingcrspdling was
originally invented as an cducat101ul tool for dcafcluldren. While fingerspdling is rtcgarded as
a product of contact between the written ,ystem of the ambient spoken language and the signed
Lmguage, in srnne (smh as ASL and BSL), it is re3ardcd to be p:i.rt of
sign langu,1gc grarnm,H. Not ,,l] sign Ji;ive tiuger,pelling. Deafsigners ,vho use a sign
that h,ts fingcrspclling vary in their proficiency in the written it,clf
346
Sign languages
Sign language-sign language contact

This pertains to contact between at least tvm sign languages through code-switch·
code-•xnixing amongst deaf signers ,vho knovv at least two sign languages (()uinto-Pozos,
2009; Zeshan & Panda, 2015). An example of such contact is producing a sequence of synon-
yn10us signs for one concept such as producing the ASL sign for 'tomato' and then producing
the Mexican SL sign for the same concept (Quinto-Pozos, 2009). Not all deaf signers exhibit
balanced proficiency in all sign languages they use, as some are only taught in schools and
others are used at home (Ad;im, 2012; Kisch, 2012).
A similar phenomenon of language contact has becn observed for ABSL. Kisch
grouped deaf A BSL signers into different social generations based on their schooling expe-
riences and exposure to Israeli SL (ISL), the national, urban language of the deaf in Israel.
First- and second-generation signers received minimal frirmal education and had mininial
exposure to other sign languages through sporadic contact with other deaf people. By con-
trast, many tlurd-generation signers received consistent formal education with systematic
exposure to ISL, and have had more sustained contact with deaf Israelis. Third-generation
signers learned ISL in school and v;nicd in their signing proficiency; some did not contrnue
using ISL upon graduat1011 and used ABSL a, their primary sign language. Others became
fully bilingual in ABSL and ISL; some preferred to use ISL for communicating amongst
thernscJves. The fourth-generation signers, representing the current youngest generation of
signers, were exposed to ISL in different schoob; some also received more training to dc:-
velop spoken Arabic language skills. Kisch's LE study of the local sociolinguistic ecology of
deaf ABSL signers reveals how the dynamics of language contact with signed and spoken
languages change rapidly within one generation of signers and across generations of signns.
Another strand of LE mvestigation exanunes signing practices that surface in c:ncounters
between unacquainted signers in which they have different sign language backgrounds and
may not share a common language that they arc both fluent in. These signers use IS, the
name given to such cross-signing practices (Zeshan, 2015) hut also to more institutionafoed
versions that are used during conferences organised by the World Federation of the Deaf.
As with gesture and homesign, the question v.;hether IS constitutes :i language or not has
been the topic of debate. IS has been called a system (Rosenstock, 2008), a pidgin (Supa lla &
Webb, 1995; McKee & Napier, 2002) and a lingua franca (Hansen, 2015). Authors have
foregrounded that the shared, standardised vocabulary ofIS is small and that there is a related
high use oficonicity (e.g. depiction ofa referent by its 1magistic characteristtcs) in its struc-
ture (Rosenstock, 2008). Green (2014b, 2015) documented how the use ofIS during inter-
national gatherings (e.g. presentations, meetings, restaurant visits) is based on the notion that
deaf people should communicate directly even when it involves significant eff,)rt. She docu-
mented how deaf peopk engage in informal interpreting ,wd in re-signing other's utterances
during international deaf gatherings, thus negotiating between the value of communicating
directly with signers across linguistic differences and achieving mutual understanding. In her
ethnography 1n Turkey, ilkba~aran (2015) pointed out th,1t deaf Turkish people who can use
IS are typically privileged deaf people who are fluent in Turkish SL, living in large cities and
having international deaf contacts.
Signers can utilise specific combinations oC multiple semiotic resources in signing prac-
tices in multiple different ways. A wHkspread e.,ample of combining resources is the practice
of chaining: for example, pointing at a written word or fingerspelling it and then signing
it, in order to disambiguate the meaning of the signed utterance or to highlight equiva-
· 1ence (Humphncs & MacDougall, 1999; Bagga-Gupta, 2000; Tapio, 2013; llolmstriinr &
347
Lynn Hou and Ann0lies l<usters
Schcinstrom, 2017). Variation in the use of difl:erent resources appears to be particular to the
individual's background and experiences, the social environment and to the signed, spoken
and written language(s) used. Kusters (2017a) studied gesture-based interactions between
deaf and hearing customers, sellers, baristas, waiters and ticket officers in Mumbai. The
interactants produced mouthings or spoken words from different languages (such as Hindi,
Marathi, English, Guj;1L1ti). as well as writing in those l.rngnages, rapidly switching between
gestures and and between mouthing, in different languages; they when
they switch, but also engage in chaining. A deaf-blrncl participant in this study made
use of visible and tacuk gesturing including pointing .1t ;1ud tapping on obycts (to indic1te
them), used emblematic gestures and traced the ot'ohjects on the hand of his interloc-
utor. He also wrote with hi, finger on his int<"rlu, uton' hands (and they wrote on l11s hand),
occasionally wrote on paper and used a pre-neated booklet with English names of spices,
repre:,ented in Braille and Roman scripts and Marathi (Kusters, 2017b).
The LE approach to investig;iting the varied multilingual practices of signers highlights a
critical issue when considering multilingualism of deaf signers: the theme of access to and in-
corporation of semiotic resources that enable such practices (Kusters et al., 2017: Holmstrom
& Schi:instri:irn, 2r117: Robin-;on, 2017). There is ,1 continumg need to assert sign as
genuine langu:1ges and to lobby for sign language (De Meulder, 2015). The cont11rned
existence of m.rny sJgn languages is severe!, partly due to coupling statt'~of-
the-art hearing with an excluoive focus on ,poken language anjuisiliUJL hut
also because of the attrition of bilingual schools for the deaf as spaces for the emergence and
transmission of sign languages.
Language shift and endangerment

Tho, vit,1 lity of a sign language depends 011 a constellation of factors, which has been recently
explained thrnugh the lens of LE. Ethnographic rescuch 011 endangered sign languages has
largely fact.med on the village, rural and shared since they are vulner:1bk to lan-
guage endangenuem. They are languages with ,1 disproportionately small number of deaf
users, often appecmug and disappearing within .1 Jew geu\"rations (Nonaka, 2009; Ze,km &
de Vos, 2012). One wdl-docurnented ethnographic account of this phenomenon 1s l3KSL
(Nonaka, 2012, 2014). Based on the careful investigation of TIKSL, Nonaka argued that a
cornplcxiL y of interlocking causes for language shift and endangerment contributes to lan-
guage ,hift and endangermeot al the macro and micro levels: demographic, economic and
social changes, and heightened contact with the national sign language and its users that
lead t0 tlw changes in local language attitudes, ideologies and socialisation of deaf signers
and their inkract:mts. Nonaka (2014) suggested that conuct with Thai Sign LrngLuge, the
national sign of'Thailand and the Thai D<"cl Ccommunity is the biggest Cl)lltributor
to the language shift and endangerment ofBKSL.
Linguistic ethnographers, however, have shown tlut Lrnguage shift does noL lcc1d Lo im-
mediate language enclangennent. Nonaka (200'J) that in small signing communities,
hearing signers are the "keepers" of the endangered village sign Lrngu,1ge because they have
no incentive to learn the national sign language and deaf signers accommo,fate them by using
their village sign language. Moreover, not all endangered sign languages are of the village,
rural, shared varieties. Hofer (2017) discussed how governmental and institutional pressure
to school young deaf Tibetans in Chinese SL (CSL) threatens the vitality of Lhasa Tibetan SL
(TibSL). TibSL i, ;1 n ,:nwrging urban sign language used by deafTibetans in l lusa, the c,1pi ta!
of a state do111i1uted hy tl1<" People's Republic of Chio a (PRC). Although many deafTibSL
348
Sign languages
users exhibit positive attitudes cowards their language, m:my who use CSL, the national sign
language of PRC, instead ofTibSL are unaware of the value ofTibSL as the language of deaf
Tibetans and/or have internahsed the negative attitudes and ideologies about minority and
majority sign languages.
Whereas the vitality of village, rural, shared sign languages can be threatened by sus-
tained language contact with national, urb:rn languages, the vitality of the latter can
also be threatened. Studies of this topic have been relatively scant 11 ith the exception of the
female vari,rnt of'lrish SL (LeM.aster, The underlying causes ofendangenncnt of those
languages arc complex and locally sittutcd, from an ethnographic perspective, but
a few linguists have made some corn inon ohscrvat ions. One obvious factor is the sustained
existence of deaf people. When a given population of deaf people dwindles, their language
dwindles. Johnston (2004) examined different types of census data and forecasted that the
factors of improved medicine, genetic science and increases m mainstreaming and cochlear
implantation of deaf children would negatively impact the vitality of Australian SL (Auslan).
McKee (2017) took a similar approach to assess the vitality of New Zealand SL (NZSL),
examining census data and conducting surveys, and observed the development of many fac-
tors paralld to those echoed by Johnston She noticed clear declines in rncmbership
in deaf org;misations and clubs, and enrolment 1n deaf schools that would foster the usage
of NZSL. This tr:rnslates to a decreased intergenerational and peer-t,>-pccr transmission of
NZSL, vvh ich produced a smaller mnnber oC younger deafNZSL At the same time,
the smaller nmnber of younger signers was Inversely correlated with increased ,md earlier
cochlear implantation in deaf children and parental focus on exclusive spoken speech.
The observations ofJohnston (2004) and McKee (2017) appear to be supported by recent
school-based ethnographic research about language learning and socialisation in deaf chil-
dren. For example, Holmstri:im et al. (2015) investigated how deaf Swedish children with
cochlear implants are socialised to participate in exclusive spoken language enviromnents
without any usage of Swedish SL (SSL) in mainstream schools. The cochlear implant tech-
nology 'enables' these children to participate in oral communication, but at the same time,
the exclusion of SSL and the minimal usage of Ep-reading and other visual ;,ids 'disable'
them. l'vlorcover, the language socialis:Jtion of deaf children as users of a spoken language
rather than mers as a signed language or even biruodal, bilingual tisers reveals a hegemonic
language ideology about spoken languages. The irony is that many urban, national 5ign
languages are enjoying institutional or legal recognition (De Meulder, 2015), and yet they
are also endangered by the shift Lo exclusive use of spoken languages. Future LE studies can
investigate how language shift and endangerment occur through the socialisation of younger
generations of deaf children as primary speakers instead of signers and how language ideolo-
gies contribute to the socialisation proce5'eS.
Critical issues and debates: language ideologies

LangL1;1ge are part and parcel oC ho,v pcuple think about and cxpcricm:c commu-
nication and understanding in everyday life. Sign language ideologies encompass a vast array
01 notions such as treating sign languages as embodied, fi.111-fkdged languages in their right
or as bounded communication systerns. The notions also pertain to the form, function and
status of signed languages in relation to other signed languages, spoken languages and written
languages, and the me of multimodal and multilingual repertoires. Work on sign language
ideologic·s is currt'ntly growing rapidly a forthcoming book Kusters et al., pro-
visionally called "Sign language ideologies in pr:Ktice").
349
LE has contributed to the srndy of language ideologies because it studies how ideologies
emerge in, are expressed in and ,tre related to p,trticular contexts uf practices, In
other words, implicitly or explicitly, everyday language practices also involve ideas about
those practices. Lmgt1c1gc ideologies can w1cldy diflir across contexts. people and groups and
they are ofren open tcJr as they can obscure or contradict language practices in
situ. LE offers us the potential to capture and analys,: such complexities by treatrng the study
oflanguage practices and Lmguage as indistinguish;1 bk.
Snciddon docunwnted the process of creating a sign course fix hearing
parents of deaf cbildren in Can:ida ancl ,malysed the reachers' language of what
constituted ·correct ASL' by promotrng Canadian vaneties of ASL or instructing parents to
use signs that arc perceived as ASL rather than signs that ;11-e as English-based.
A nurnbcr of authors kive investigated ideologies :ibout the relationship between differ-
ent sign languages. Moges 2015h) documented the process of ·dcmissionization' in
Ernrca: removing signs from Fm SL from Eritrcan SL (EriSL), because of a longing to be able
to culturally identify with their language. Other authors have reported that the foreign
sign language st1ch as ASL is regarded as ,1 higher status language, such as in Hausahnd in
Nigeria (Schmaling, or a more beautiful such as in Vietnam (Cooper, 2ll15).
In the shared signing commumty of Ad.m10robc, Kusters found that deaf people say
that Adarnorobe Sign Language is 'b;trd' (which is a source of pride r,ttber than concern),
and that AcbSL is more pleas,rnt to u,e, and more expressive (and therefore more clear) than
Ghanaian Sign Language.
In the case stndy of the San .Juan Quiahije signing connnunity, the families refer
to their language as 'nuking krnds', a literal translation from their spoken language, Chatino
(Hou, Tlus local term does not distinguish , 'home sign' and 'sign' nor docs it
distinguish the production of co-speech gestures by people fi-0111 de1f people's
ing. Sirnil:irly, deaf p,'.ople do not distinguish these in their signing. At the same
tune, hearing people regard their spoken language, Chatino, to be distinct from the national
spoken language of Mexico, Spanish ;md even take pride in spe1king it.
Sirni1arly, during the ,1bove-mentioned research pro1ect on gestures in Mumbai, Kusters
and Sahasrabudhe (2018) investigated local perspectives on the difference between gesture
and sign. l'vlost of their participants collapsed gesture and vvithin the same master cat-
egory of 'signing' (ix. gesturing is and were not overtly con1rnitted to the con-
sideration whether it is '(sign) language' or not. Green's (2014a) exploration of natural sign
confirmed this also. By adopting local1y authored terms 'natural 111 her scholarly
analysis, Green took an analytic perspective that does not focus on this question. In .Mun1-
bai, where the use of gestures limits deaf people (such as in the classroom with non-signing
teachers, or in court without interpreters), deaf participants foe] that the contrast with sign
language and its affordances is gre,tt. Where gesturing does not linnt them, or not as much
(such as in customer interactions), but rather enables them to communicate one--on-one ,1-ith
a wide range of non-signing hearing peopJc in life, they might feel it is the same as
(Kusters &. Sahasrabudhe, 2018).
The ideologies about rhe affordances and limitations of' gesture-based comrnunicatiou
very nrnch correspond with Green's (2014a, p. characterisation of the a!fordanccs of nat--
ural As mentioned above, in classifications of different kinds of signing, gesture-based
communication (or natural etc.) is not rncludccL or placed 'in-between' or regarded
as 'ad hoc' comnnrnication, wlulc Hou's, Kustcrs's and Green's studies have showed that
they ,uc not cxperienced as such: it's all Smnc academic ideologies on
forms of gesturrng and them on lixed contmua or in cla-;sifications, bave
350
Sign languages
de-localised fluid language practices; simplified and essentialised their difference; or made
distinctions where language users typically do not experience such distinctions.
LE can shed light on the complex interplay oflanguage practices and language ideologies;
and on how language practices do or do not seem to be reflected in language ideologies, and
the other way around. Furthermore, LE is itself driven by language ideologies, and creates
prime spaces of understanding, and engaging in, the encounter between academic and local
language ideologies (Kusters & Sahasrabudhe, 2018).
Future directions
The introduction and incorporation of video technology and the ease of international travel
have led to the creation of new communicative spaces and practices. For example, nowadays,
deaf signers can transcend space and time zones by communicating face-to-face through the
Internet. Keating and Mirus (2003) investigated how deaf ASL signers from deaf families
adjust their bodies and their language to accommodate each other. The usage of the web
camera means that signers can only view three-dimensional signs in a two-dimensional
virtual space, which is constrained by the smaller visual field of the camera, compared to the
larger visual field of human eyes. Thus, ASL signers develop novel ways of communicative
competence: they reorganise and reorient themselves by moving their hands to the centre of
the web camera, increasing their repetition of signs, slowing down their signing and chang-
ing their pointing signs for clarity. Deaf parents socialise their young deaf children to acquire
communicative competence through the use of video technologies. The availability of video
technologies has also transformed deaf education (see Hjulstad, 2017, for an overview). Fur-
ther advances in mobile video technologies such as FaceTime on iPhones, WhatsApp videos,
and the production of signed videos that are shared via YouTube and Facebook with reac-
tions often in written language, emojis and/or pictures, have produced more communicative
spaces and practices, which await future LE investigation.
Conclusion: contributions and implications

Contemporary research on sign languages through the lens of LE has enriched and enhanced
our understanding in the following respects. LE has shown how language learning and the
socialisation of deaf children and adults as signers occur (or do not occur) through chang-
ing communicative spaces and practices such as mainstream schools and video-mediated
technologies. LE has challenged existing classifications of sign languages and foregrounded
the complexity of signed practices in various social contexts and in relation to language
socialisation, emergence and endangerment processes. It also has given us insight into how
language practices and language ideologies are interrelated or contradictory. LE enables us to
investigate fluid local language practices and local language ideologies, accounting for their
range of affordances and how they are experienced. More importantly, LE has enabled a new
generation of researchers to elevate the study of sign languages to an unprecedented research
paradigm by investigating them situated in local language practices and ideologies through
various epistemological frameworks.
Acknowledgements
_Our heartfelt thanks go out to Mara Green, Terra Edwards and Karin Tusting, who com-
mented on earlier versions of this text.
351
further readings
Kusters, A., De iVleulder, M .. & O'Brien, D. (Eds.) (2017). hi11ol'd/ions in Deef Studic.1.· The n1/e of Deaf
scholars. Oxford: Oxfo1d University Press. (ThJs is a tirst one-of-a-kind volume, edited and contIJb-
uted by a divose pool of deaf social scientists (includmg scholars who do linguistic ethnography),
who discuss .ltow cle,1 f onto fogy is central to one\ research. pusitionality and framework.)
Kusters, A., Green, iv\., Moriarty-Harrelson, E., & Snod,lon, K. (Eds.) (forthcoming). S(,;11 l,111lu,1ge
ideologies in pr,1ctice. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter & Ishara Press. (This book contains chapters that
discuss ideologies on sign languages in relatwn to other sign languages, spoken languages and writ-
ten languetges, and ideologies on the use of multimodal and multilingual repertoires.)
Related topics
Sociolinguistic ctl111ograpl1ies of globalisation; i'vlultimocblit v: Participant observation: Ref1c, ivity;
Language divcrsitv in ch»room settings.
References
Adam. R. (2012). Language contact and borrowmg. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign
.dn intern,lfional handbrok (pp. 84J~862). Berlin: Mouton de Gruytcr.
Bagga-Gupta, S. (2000). Visual language environments: Exploring everyday life and literacies in
Swedish Deaf bilingual schools. Visual Anthropology Reuiew, 15, 95--120.
Boyes Braem, P., & Sutton-Spence, R. (2001). The hands ,ire the /mid of the mo11tlz: The mouth as ,uticufotor
i11 s1g11 f,mg11,u;es. Hamburg: Sigmun.
Branson,]., Miller, D., & !Vbrs.~a, I.G. (1999). Sign l811guc1ges as natural part of the linguistic 111ma1c:
The impact ,,fDeafpeople on discourse forms in North IL1li. lndonesia. In E. Winston (Ld.), St,>-
rytelling and "'"''Cnilfio11: Dis((lurse in Decif con11n1111itics. W,1shington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Cooper, A. (20J:,1. S.igned language sovereignties i 11 Vi~t N,1m: Deaf community respon;c" to ASL-
based tourism. l 11 M. Frieclner & A. Kusters (Eds.). It's ,1 sf/I all world: Internatio11,il Dcd( spaces a11d
encounters (pp 8~\~lJ4). W,1sliington, DC: Gallaudet UntversitY Press.
Cooper. A.C., & Nguy~n, T.T.T. (2015). Signed language community-researcher collaboration in Vi~t
Nam: Challenging language ideologies, creating social change. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25,
105-127.
Cooper. A.C., & Tran Thuy Tien, N. (20'17). Composing with signed and written languages, our pro-
cess. C0mprsition Studies, 45(1), J.:3--18.
Crc1sborn, 0., Sloetjes, H., Auer, E .. & \Vittenburg, P. (2006). Com.hining video and numeric data
in the analysis ofsign languages within the ELA N annotation software. In Proceeding LRFC: 2006
Workshop on R.cp1csrntalio11 f, Processing of Sign Lmgu"gcs (pp 82-87).
Creese, A. (200;-,). Linguistic ethnography. In K.A King c'-, N.H. Hornberger (Eds.). J]11,yrlopcdic1 ,f
language and rducatio11 (2nd ed., pp, 229-241)- New York: Springer Press.
De Meulder, M. (2015 ). '[ he kgal recognition of sign langu:iges. S(gn Language Studies, 15(4). 490---506.
de Vos, C., & Zesban, U. (2012). Introduction: Demognpbic, sociocultural, and linguistic variation
across rural signing communities. In U. Zeshan & c_ De Vos (Eds.), Si,:n l,mguages in llillage commu-
nities: ,4/lthropolo<',!ica/ and Linguistir Insf,:lits (pp. 2-23). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton & lsbara Press.
Edwards, T. (2014). Language en-1r~1;rnre in rhc Seattle Dec1fBlind community. Doctoral dissertation, Uni-
ver<;ity of California, Berkeley.
Erting, CJ, & Knntze, M. (2008). Language "ocialization in Deaf communities. In P.A. Duff& N.H.
Hornberger (Eds.), .Encyclopedi11 oflang11,,ge m1d education (2nd ed., pp. 287-300). New York: Springer
Press.
Friedner, M, (20 IS). l'<duinl Dc,if worlds in urban Iwlic1. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Friedner, M., & I<ustcrs. A. (bds.) (2015). It's a sm,1/1 wo,ld: Intn·11ational Deaf spaces and c11c,111ntcrs, \'X/Jsh-
ington, DC: Calhudct University Press.
Green, E.M. (20 I ·la). The nature of signs: Nepal's local sign, and the pro,luction ofcum-
municative soci.tlity. (PhD dissertation.) Universit> ol Calitmnia, Berkeley.
Green, E.M. (211 _l I b). Building the tower of Babel: l nternational '.iign, linguistic commensuration, and
moral orientation. Language in s,,ciety, 43, 1 21.
352
Si9n languages
Green, E.M. (2015). One language, or maybe two: Direct communication, understanding, and infor--
mal interpreting in international Deaf encounters. In M. Friedner & A. Kusters (Eds.), It's a .wnall
world: International Deaf spaces ,md encounters (pp. 70-82). \Vashington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.
Hansen, M. (2015). What is International Sign? The linguistic status of a visual transborder communi-
cation mode. In R. Rosenstock & J. Napier (Eds.), Intcrn,ltional S(,;:n: Linguistic, usage and status issues
(pp. 15--32). Washington, DC: GalLmdet University Press.
Hayashi, A.,<', Tobin,]. (2015). Contesting visions at a Japanese school for the Deaf .1nthropology &
Ed1!C,1ti,111 Q11c1rtcrly, 46(4), 1548-1492.
Hjulstad.J. (2(r17). Embodied participation in the semiotic ecology of a visu.1lly-orieutcd virtual class-
room. PhD dissertation, Norwegian Umversity of Science and Technology.
Hofer, T. (2017). Is Lhasa Tibetan sign l:mguagE' emerging, endangered, or both) hziern,itional]ournal of
the Sociology of Lcmg,"{l;C, 2017(245), l-33.
Hoffmann-Dilloway, E. (2011). Lending a hand: Competence through cooperation in Nepal's Deaf
Associations. Lcmgu,we in Society, 40(3), 285-306.
Holmstrom, I., Bagga-Gupta, S., & Jonsson, R. (2015). Communicating and hand(ling) technologies.
Everyday life in educational settings where pupils with cochlear implants are mainstreamed. Jo11rn<1/
of Linguistic Anthropolon, 25, 256-284.
Holmstrom, I.. & Schfinstriim, K. (2017). Deaflecturers' translanguaging in a Higher Education set-
ting. A nrn!tJmodal multilingual perspective . .•~pplicd Linguistics Revieu•, 9(1), 88 -111.
Hou, L.Y.-S. (20lf,). "Making hands": Family sign languages in the San Juan Quiah1je community.
PhD diw-rtation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Humphries, T, & 1\lacDougall, F. (1.999). and other links. Making connections between
American Sign Language and English in two types of school settings. Visudl Aniltropology Review,
2, 8!-94.
ilkba~aran, D. (2015). Social media practices of Deaf youth in Turkey: Emerging mobilities and lan-
guage choices. In M. Friedner & A.. Kusters (Eds.), It's a snwll world: International Deaf spaces ,md
encounters (pp. 112---124). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Johnston, T. (2004). W(h)ither the Deaf community? Population, genetics, and the future of Australian
Sign Language. Americ,111 Annals of the Deaf, 148(5), 358-375.
Keating, E., & Mirus, G. (2003). American Sign Language in virtual space: Interactions between Deaf
users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact ofteclmology on language prac-
tices. L111p11,1ge i11 Society, 32(5), 693·-714.
Keg!, J., Senghas, A., & Coppola, M. (J')'J9). Crc.1tion through contact: Sign language emergence and
change in Nicaragua. In M. DeGr:itf (Ed.), Language creation ,md change: Cre-
,md development (pp. 179-~238). C::1mbridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kisch. S. (2008). '"Deaf discourse": The social co11>trnction of Deafness in a Bedouin community.
Medical Anthropology, 27, 283··313.
Kisch, S. (2012). Demarcating generations of signers in the dynamic sociolinguistic landscape of a
shared sign language: The case of the Al-Sayyid Bedouin. In lJ. Zeshan & C. de Vos (Eds.), S(~n
languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic (pp. 87-126). Berlin: De Grnyter
Mouton & Ishara Press.
Kusters, A. (2014). Language ideologies in the shared signing community of Adamorobe. La11g1w2e in
Sociciy, 43(2), L'l<l-158.
Kusters, .A. ('.W17ce). Gesture-based customer interactions: Deaf and hearing Mumbaikars' multimodal
and practices. Internati,>n <1/Jo11r11<1/ of Jlultilingualism, 14(3), 28.'\----302.
Kustcrs, A. (2017b). "Our hands must be connected" Visible gestures, tactile gestures and objects in
interactions fraturing a Deafblind customer in Mumbai. Social Semiotic,, 27(4), 394-410.
Kusters, A , Green, M., Moriarty-Harrelson, E., ,'.:. Snoddon, K. (Eds.) nc,,n-,rn,u Sign language
ideologies in practice. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter & Ishara Press.
Kusters, A., & Sahasrabudhe, S. (2018). Language ideologies 011 the difference between gesture and
sign. Language & Conununication, 60, 44-63.
Kmters, A., Sahasrabudhe, S., & Gopalakrishnan, A. (2016). A reflexive report on filmmaking within
a linguistic ethnography with Deaf and hearing people in Mumbai. 16-4. MMG Working Paper.
Kusters, A., Spotti, M., Swanwick, R., & Tapio, E. (2017). Beyond languages, beyond modalities:
Tramforming the study ofsemiotic Inft'rnational]oumal ofM,iltiliugu,zlism, 14(3), 219-232.
· Ladd, P. (20(U). (.indcrstanding Deaf cult11rc In suzrtl, o( T>eafhood. Clevedon Mu!tilingu;1l i'vlatters.
353
Lanesman, S., & Meir, I. (201.2). The survival of Algerian Jewish sign language alongside lsr;ieli sign
language in Israel. In U. Zeshan & C. de Vos (Eds.), S(i;II languq~es in vilfoge conummities: Anrhropolo,g-
ir,d c111d ling11is1fr insights (pp. 153-179). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton & bhara Press.
LeMaster, B. (2003). School language a11cl shifts in Irish Deaf identity. In L.F. Monaghan (Ed.), M,my
ways to be Deaf Intw1,1tional u<1riation in Deaf communities (pp. 1.55~-173). Washington, DC: GaI!audet
University Press.
LeMastcr, B. (2!i0ti). Langmge contraction, revitaliz,1tion, and Irish women. Jour11c,/ o( Linguist/( /ln-
tlmipology, /(;(2), 211-228.
i\llcCaskill, C., Lucas, C., Bayley, R., & Hill, J. (2011). The hidden treczsure of Bfock ASL: Its history and
structure. \Vashington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
McKee. R. (201/). Assessing the vitality of New Zealand sign language. Sign lan,1;11tl,:c studies, 17(3),
322-·362.
McKee, R., & Napier,J. (2002). Interpreting into International Sign pidgin: An analysis. Language[;,
Linguistics, 5(1), 27-54.
Meir, I., Sandler, w·., Padden, C., & Aronofl; M. (21.1 JO). Emerging sign languages. l n i'vl. Marsclurk &
P Spencer (Eck), Oxford h,mdbool: ,:f Deaf Studies, langu,,(e, and eduwrion (pp. 267-280). Oxfrird:
Oxford UniH:rsity Press.
Moges, R.T. (2015a). Resistance is not futile: Language planning and demissionization of Eritrean
sign language. In A.C. Cc,oper & KK Rashid (Eds.), Citi-:-n1J1ip, polirirs. difference: Perspecti1,cs.fi,>m
,,,/,-Saharan fonguc1~c communitic.s (pp. 64--80). Washington, DC: Callaudet University Press.
Moges, R.T. (2015b). Challenging sign language lineages and geographies: Tbe case of Eritrean, Finn-
ish, and Swedish sign languages. In M. Friedner & A. Kusters (Eds.), It's a snwll world: International
Deaf spaces and encounters (pp. 83-94). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Mori;irty Harrelson, E. (201A). Regimes of mobilities: Deafclevdopment. NGOs and Deaf tourism in
Cambodia. PhD dissertation, Arnencrn University.
Nonaka, A.M. (2009). Estimating size, scope. and membership of the speech/sign communities of
undocumented indigenous/village sign languages: The Ban Khor case study. Language & Commu-
11iu1tion, 29, 2 IO 229.
Non:1ka. A.M. (2012). Language ecological change in Ban Khor, Th:iiiand: An ethnographic c1se
study of village language endangerment. In U. Zeshan & C. de Vos (Eds.), Sign languages In
village communities: Anthropological and insights (pp. 277···313). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton &
Ishara Press.
Nonaka, A.M. (2014). (Almost) everyone here spoke Han Khor sign language - until they started using
TSL: Language shifr and endangerment ofa Thai village sign language. La11gu,1ge & Co,nnumication,
38, 54-72.
Nyst, V. (2015). Sign language fieldwork. In E. Orfanidou, B. Woll, & C. Morgan (J::ds.), Resea,ch
methods in s,;~n fonguage studies: Apr<uti,alguide (pp. 107-122). Chichester:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nyst, V., Sylla, K., & Magassouba, M. (2012). Deaf signers in Doucntza, a rural area in Mali. In U.
Zeshan & C. de Vos (Eds.), Sign langua2es in uillage comnwnitie:;: /l1tthropololical and lin,iu1sti1 insights
(pp. 251-276). Berlin: De Cruyter Mouton & Ishara Press.
Nyst, V.A.S. (2f)l2). Shared sign langu,1ges. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. \Voll (Eds.), S('?n Lmyuuge:
An international handbook (pp. 552-574). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B.B. (1994). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental
stories and their implications. In B.C. Blount (Ed.), Langu"se, culture. ,,nd sooet)' (pp. 470-512).
Prospect Heights, IL: \\'er, eland Press. Inc.
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (2005). Inside Deaf culture. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
Polich, L. (2005). Tlze emeigence o( the Deaf cotmnunity in Niwragua: ''IVith sign you can learn so
,w1d1". Washir1gton, DC: Callaud,·t University Press.
Poole Nash, J.C. (201.5). l\hrtha's Vineyard Sign Language. In J. Bakken Jipsen, G.A.M. De Clcrck,
S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W.B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign LangU,f'!CS of the world: A comp,!Yatiue h,mdbook (pp.
607--627). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton & lshara Press.
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2009). Code-switching between sign languages. In B. Bullock &.f. Toribio (Eds.),
7hl' handbook ,if ,ode-switcl,ing (pp. 221 237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quinto-Pozos, D., & Adam, R.. (2015). Sign languages in contact. In A.. Schembri & C. Lucas (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and Deaf communities (pp. 29-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, K. (2017). Conscious artistic translangnaging onstage. Applied Linguistic:., Rwiew (online,
ahead of pnnt).
354
Sign lancJuages
Rosenstock, R. (2008). The role oficonicity ;n International '.:,ign. Si~n Langu,1ge Studies. 8(2), 131 ·· 159.
Schmaling, C. (200'.i). A for apple: The irnpact of Western education and ASL on the Deaf community
in Kano State, Northern Nigeria. In L. Monaghan, C. Schmaling, K. Nakamura, & C.H. Turner
(Eds.), Many uMys to be Deaf: Internation,tl !'<Uiation 111 De,1f u,mmu11i11cs (pp. :l02-31U). Washiugton,
DC: Cd.laudet University Press.
Senghas, A., & Coppola, M. (2001.). Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language
acquired a spati:1] granun:rr. Psyc/10/ogical S(ience, I 2, 323 328.
Scnghas, RJ. (2003). New ways to be Deaf in Nicaragua: Changes in language, personhood, and
community. In L. Monaghan, C. Schmaling, K. Nakamura, & G.H. 1\uner (Eds.), 1\ifany ways to
be De<1/: Internmional v,1ri,1rion in Deaf co111111111·tities (pp. 260<'.82). \Va,hingto11, DC: C:tl!audct Uni-
versity Press.
Snoddon, K. (201.6). Whose ASL counts? Linguistic prescriptivism and challenges in the context of
parent sign language curriculum development. liuernaticl/lr1I ]ourn,1/ ,if Bilin~u,il Educ,Jlion and Hilin-
xuali.'ln, 1-12.
Snpalla, T., & Webb, R. (1995). The grammar oflnternational Sign: A new look at pidgin languages. In
K. Ennnorey & JS. Reilly (Eds.), Lang,,,(~c. gesture ,ind sp,1(c (pp. :n.}-352). Hillsdale:, NJ: E,Jbaum.
Swanwick, R., Wright, S. & Salter,J (2016). lnvestigatingDcafchildren's plmal and diverse use of sign
and spoken languages in a super diverse context. Applied Lin2uistics Rwiew, 7(2), 117-147.
Tapio, E. (2013). A nexus analysis of English in the everyday life of hnSL signers: A rnultimodal view
on ivtnaction PhD di,.sertation, University of Oulu.
Tapio, E. (2014). The marginalisation of finely tuned semiotic practices and misunderstandings in re-
lation to (signed) languages and deafne" Multin10d,J/ Co1111mmicatio11.. 3, '131 142.
Vcrmeerhcrgen, Ivl., Leeson, L., & Crasborn, 0. Simult,meity in sf,gned ,,m,n1.,,r11•,- Form andfunc-
tion. Amsterdam: John Benja1nins.
Zeshan, U. (2011). Village sign languages: A comuientary. In G. Matlmr & D.J. Napoli (Eds.), Deaf
around the world: The imp,1ct ofl,111yuage (pp. 221-230). Oxford: Oxford Unive1sity Press.
Zeshan, U. (2015). 'Making meaning': Communication between sign language mers without a shared
language. Cogniti,,e Li11g11istics, 26. 211-26(!.
Zeshan, U., & Dikyuva, H. /2013) Documentation of endangered sign la11gu:1ges: The case of Mardin
Sign Language. In .M.C. Jones and S. Ogilvie (Eds.), Keeping /,my11,t?eS aliPe: Donunentation, pedayr.\gy
and revitalization (pp. 29-41). Cambridge: Cambridge Unincrsity Press.
Zcshan, U., & de Vos, C. (Eds.) (2012). St~n lunguagcs in vill.;'!c communities: Antlzropolosiuil and /Jnpuistic
insi,«hts. Berlin: Ishara Press.
Zeshan, U., & Panda, S. (2015). Two languages at hand: Codc-wvitching in bilingual Deaf signers. Sign
Langu,zpe &· Lln_(!uistics, l 8(2), 90--1 Jl.
355
26
Academic writing
Kathrin Kaufhold and Karin Tusting
Introduction
The study of academic writing draws on a range of perspectives and methodological ap-
proaches, including corpus, discourse and genre analysis. This chapter focusses on linguistic
ethnographic research in this area. We will outline both ethnographies of academic writing
and work influenced by an ethnographic approach from a range of intellectual traditions,
some located within linguistic ethnography and others which have characteristics of the
approach, even if they do not explicitly orient towards it. We include in the chapter studies
both of university students and of professional academic staff.
We begin by outlining the perspectives which have historically influenced ethnographic
studies of academic writing, the most prominent of which are the sociology of scientific
knowledge (SSK), the ethnography of communication, new rhetoric and literacy studies. We
move on to explore research methods, particularly the challenges of participant-observation
in this area and how researchers have engaged with text. We summarise current contribu-
tions and research areas, looking at research with both students and staff. We draw out critical
issues and debates; identify implications for practice, particularly in relation to support and
training; and outline some future directions.
Historical perspectives and core influences

Ethnographic studies of academic writing can be related to several historical influences, in-
cluding SSK; the new rhetoric tradition in the US; Swales's (1998) 'textographic' approach;
Canagarajah's (2002) analysis of geopolitical inequalities and the academic literacies perspec-
tive which emerged from literacy studies (Gillen and Ho, this volume). This section traces
these developments and their influence on ethnographic approaches to studying academic
writing.
SSK has used ethnography to explore academic life and writing. It can be traced back to
Latour and Woolgar's (1986) and Knorr-Cetina's (1981) influential anthropological studies
on the social construction of scientific knowledge. These scholars investigated scientific lab-
oratory cultures, including the construction of scientific reports and articles. While writing
356
Academic writing
itself was of secondary interest, their demonstration of the contingent nature of what comes
to count as noticeable and publishable facts had an enormous influence on studies in aca-
demic writing.
Another significant area is the ethnography of communication (Hymes, 1964) which in-
terprets speaking and writing in relation to the norms and expectations of the contexts in
which they are situated. The new rhetoric scholar McCarthy (1987) drew on this theory
when investigating how students develop their understanding of what counts as appropriate
writing. She followed one participant over three years and collected data through observa-
tions, interviews, think-aloud protocols and text analysis. Her results demonstrate the social
situatedness of (often unarticulated) writing norms.
Informed by socio-cognitive theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and situated learning theory
(Lave & Wenger, 1991), other North American composition scholars explored the devel-
opment of disciplinary genre knowledge, highlighting the importance of context. While
mainly describing their research as case studies, ethnographic elements are evident in their
long-term engagement with their participants and use of a range of data sources, such as
repeated interviews, analysis of sequences of students' texts and institutional documents and
classroom observations. Key studies in this tradition are Berkenkotter and Huckin's (1995)
study on a writer's genre knowledge development; Freedman and Adam's (1996) study
on students' transition from writing for university to professional writing; and Casanave's
(1998) study of four bilingual scholars negotiating their scholarly identities between their
socialisation during their graduate studies in the US and on their return to Japan as ju-
nior academics. By taking into account socio-historical and institutional contexts, student
and professional writing came to be seen as part of complex multimodal genre systems
(Bazerman & Russell, 2003).
This work revealed that the production of texts is entwined with other semiotic activities,
such as discussing these texts, and that academic writing activities relate to activities associ-
ated with other domains, such as home or profession. For example, Prior (1997) investigated
the 'literate activity' of a group of students completing their coursework for an American
Studies module in the context of their prior academic experiences and the lecturer's instruc-
tions and expectations. His ethnographic study combined classroom observations and audio
recordings, text-based interviews with the lecturer and some of the students, as well as a stu-
dent writing log. It shows how the students' literate activity (re)produces the field of Amer-
ican Studies in different ways, as an assembly of people, artefacts, practices and institutions.
An early example of ethnographic research focussing on writing programmes is Atkinson
and Ramanathan (1995), who charted the different expectations, activities and intellectual
roots in a composition programme for students who spoke English as their first language, and
a language programme for learners of English, at one university. They argued that the differ-
ent ways the two programmes were conceptualised and taught might disadvantage students
who were learning English when joining mainstream programmes.
Another ethnographically influenced approach can be seen in Swales's (1998) 'textog-
raphy' of the writing in three different sites - a computer centre, a botany herbarium and .
an English Language Institute - in one university building. While Swales rejects the label
ethnography in the original edition, McCarty and Swales (2017, p. 562) describe textogra-
phy as '"ethnography lite' - but with a twist". The twist refers to Swales's explicit focus on
the texts and their production by academics, seen as belonging to a disciplinary community
constituted by writing. With its textual emphasis, textography is akin to discourse ana-
lytic approaches. However, additional interviews and long-term observations incorporate
357
contextual and situated clements. On this b;1sis, in the gu('st introduction to Sw;ilcs's anniver-
sary edition, Cillcn (2018) interprets as a cuntributJon to hngu1st1c ethnography
(p. xiii).
Global academ i,1 is characterised by 1m mense inequalities between countries, regions
and ,vhich marufrst m differential ;1ccess to and :,cienufic resources.
Canag;1raph 's oC Lhe lnghlighted such in-
equaht1es, panicularly around the publication of academic rn 1n an
English-dominant global enviromnent. He provided a ,tark account of his o,vn
of the difficulties of carry mg out acidernic writing work in resource-poor environment,,,
which led hm1 to reflect further on the systemic cxdmion of scholars lll rnmlar places from
global pubhslrnig. He drew on auto-ethnographic reflections and on handvvritten field notes,
adopting p:1rticipant-observation to collect extensive data on the practices of his
colleagues ,it the Univcnitv ofJa1Tna in Sri Liuka. of his O\Vll ,incl ex-
penences supports a trenchant critique of the publishing sy,ten1 which has framed the
srudy ofll1c ,Nritmg of multilingual particularly fron1 periphery countries. since th,it
point. Canagarc1jah connects the local conditions of writing to the global practices of knowl-
edge production and distnbuLJon and thus theorises and significantly extends understanding,,
of writing· fr>r public1tlon research.
The most sustained uptake and development of JlJ the ,tudy nf
;ic;l(kn1ic writing is in the field of ac1dernic liter;icies. ,dfiliated with literacy stuclies (Lea &
Street, 1 Writing in this tLtdition is as cultural social practlce. While textual
analysis 1s important, the f~xus 1s on textually mediated practices (Lillis & Scott, that
is. understanding literacy practices as the cultural ways in which people value, use and pro-
duce texr, (B,uton & Hamilton, Etlmugraphic approaches enable ,1 'thick description'
of these tcxtuaUy mediated practices. for imtancc, in her scniina 1 Ivanic ob-
served pbccs of ,vriting and conducted repeated interviews with \'\Titers around their text,,
and their histories. She also analvsed students' iterations of drafts and exanllners'
freed back, informed by critical discourse ,l!ul ysis and systemic functional linguistics. Based
on her research, Ivanic developed ,1 nmlti-dimensional rnodd of wntcr identity ,vhich lus
been highly influential across ac1dernic rese;irch.
Lea and Street (1998) highlighted the connection between writing and student learning
on the one side and inst1tut1onal power relations on the other. Their study was conducted
at two un1venities and mcluded rnterviews ·with students, lecturers and learning supporters;
classroom observatiom; samples of student ,,vnting and feedback; ,rnd handouts on essay
\vriting. Like J\1cC:1rthy (l ')87), Lea and Street observed ditforences between academic writ-
ing situated in ditfrrcnt univer,ity course,. Their study the gaps between students'
and lecturers' assumptions ahout what const:Jtutes appropriate In the same tradi-
tion. Lillis (2001) explored the influence of students' desires and purposes on their writing.
'These academic literacies studin ckscrihcd academic vvritmg as acts of identity and critically
examtnt'd tht'. institutional nonn, aud pmver structure, HJ which wriling 1s produced and
cvalu;itccL

Eth nngr;1phies of ,1c1den11c writmg practices di.cit rncthodologicd challenges. Particip;mt-
ohserv,ltion JS oflen pusitioned as the method in edrnograph1c work (Papen, th1s
volume). However, ll 1s not straightfr,rward to conceptualise participant-observation when
studying acadcrnic writmg. Academic writing takes place 1n rn:my sites, across extended
358
Academic writing
periods, interwoven with other activities. Prior and Shipka's (2003) account of the 'chrono-
topic lamination' of academic writing provides insights into how and where writing takes
place. When their participants drew representations of how they wrote, one produced a
diagram representing a 15-week process, with significant moments happening in a library,
in a coffee shop, at home in front of the TV and at a hospital, as well as physically writing
at a cornputcr. To directly observe in all such settings, and to truly participate in
someone\ writing process, seems very difficult.
Prior :me! Shipka's student participants wen: working across a time sp:m ot- 15-week se-
mesters. The tin1escales of writing f,:,r ac1dnnic staff are longer and moJ-c cornplex, making
partinpant-obscrvation even more diffirnlt. Lillis and Curry's (2010) insightful ethnography
of multilingual scholars addressed this by engaging in a long-term longitudinal study, meet-
ing with 50 participants and following the progress of their texts towards publication over an
eight-year time span. However, this degree of commitment in time and relationship is rarely
one which researchers (or participants) arc able to make.
Such challenges have been addressed by developing approaches which, rather than at-
tempting generalised participant-observation within a more or less bounded community,
use practices around the production of specific texts as their point of focus. Work
in acadernic literacies, led particularly by Lillis and colleagues, has developed the approach
of'text oriented ethnography'. This involves the collection of written texts at various stages
of drafting, and the production of ethnographic data including particularly talking with the
writers around those texts, gaining an understanding of their emic perspective. Interviewers
use literacy history interviews, text histories including the examination of drafts at different
points in time to understand the trajectories of texts towards publication and text-based in-
terviews in which writer, are invited to comment on aspects of their writing processes (sec
Lillis & Curry, 2006). This enables researchers to tnck the production of texts over time
and, through a close analysis, both of interviews and of texts at different stages of drafting,
to undcrst;rnd how people's social practices and writing processes have shaped the eventual
public text.
Lillis (2008) goes beyond this tu argue tint ethnography can be used in academic writing
research not simply as a method (using talk around texts to consider writers' per,pectives), or
as a methodology (collecting multiple data sets and being involved in the context over time),
but also as a resource for what she calls, following Blommaert (2007), 'deep theorizing', re-
conceptualising the ontological distinction assumed to exist between 'text' and 'context' in the
notion of writing practice. Lillis argues that by drawing on theoretical tools developed within
linguistic ethnography, particularly notions of indexicality and orientation, we can develop a
better understanding of the connections between the semiotic m.eans of academic writing and
the socio-historical and political context, focmsing on issues like how values are signalled in
writing, and how writers and readers orient to what is written. Building on this perspective,
Lillis and Tuck (2016) call for ethnography to be adopted as an epistemological approach which
informs rest'Jrch clesign, interpretation and theorising around academic ,n-iting research.

The interest in ethnography continues to rise amongst academic writing scholars and prac-
titioners across research traditions, leading Paltridge et al. (2016) to claim that "we are wit-
nessing an 'ethnographic turn' in academic writing studies" (p. 30). This section introduces
. current contributions in this area, first in rcLition to students' writing and then academics'
professional writtng.
359
Student writing
Curre11t research into student writing revolves predominantly around the devclopmcnr of
discLpline-spccific expertise, resourco student> dnw on and rcpnrposc rn their acadcrnic
and risk-tak-
of developing the
writing of one student in two ,lisciplincs his tmdergraduate srndy ancl ;i fter grad-
uation, u,ing classroom observ:Hions, interviews, of iterations of coursework drc1fi:s
and comments by d1sciplrnary experts and evaluators. In her ,rn,dysis, she cipplied a model
of kr10,vlcdgc dornains that and lin-
elcmems needed to
dirnensio1b th,tt net:cl tn be consi,Lred 111
model further on graduate students
of rm1lti-di1nemion,1l genre about text
patterns. subject rnatter, the process of
Her study unckriines that courses in English fr,r Jcadcrnic purposes (Fl\.P) are
but one part of this development. Drn:,en-·Hanunouda presents the discipEnary iden-
forn1,1tion of one student of to hi, doctoral stnd.ic:s. Tu
this case study. she u,ecl 'situaLed genre , cornbining ,; genre analysis of
published liddwork reports and related texts, such ,is field notes, drawings and lecture notes;
,1 study of the l11stoncal development of fieldwork practices in the discipline; observation of
disciplinarv text-based interview:, and interviews 011 becoming a The

underslandmg thereby achieved allowed her to tr:1ce and interpret the student's de
velopment of fieldwork rcpons throughout his
of six years. The study identified the student's
reports, embodied k J.ncl
discoursal patterm.
Other studies have started from th,: resources students to their writing and traced
how they mobilise and repurpose previous or co-occurring l11encv R.oozen
(2010) applied process-oriented interviews over a period of 12 months with a student to
re enact how she repurposed aspects of extra- such as design-
ing visuaJ patterns, \vhen cmnpleting her a'5ignmenl. R.oozen
as a rnultimodal endeavour involving embod1ed, mediated, and se1niotic
practices (Prior, 1 His study d<:n10nstrat<:s hO\v semiotic practices are
students
role or curriculum values applied Hl pro-
to \Yhat extent disability activists were able to draw on
cornbined ob,ervations of
chssroorn activities ancl curricu !urn phnnrng over four years, interviews with lecturers ,rnd a
student, and of students' examiners' comments and course documenta-
cind """'"'"J'-" v,1!11es that in-
Huence what counls as v,il1d ,1ml under wk1L circumstances.
Kaufhold con1bmed the of students' agency, inslltuttonal cond1twns and
the role of non-aciclemic domains for in master's thesis
wriLing. She traced how <r. rr1:H1agernent student fron1
dlifrrent di,c1plines. nat10nal educat1,1n systerns and dornc1ir1'. she,i light on how
the student made sense of his literacies as part of cultural affiliated ,vllh distinct
360
Academic writing
domains, and the importance of a 'fit' between the student's and his supervisors' entrepre-
neurial values related to the thesis.
Ever since Ivanic's (1998) study on writing as an act of identity, the development of stt1-
dent identities through their writing has been a central research theme. More recent studies
include Leki (2007) who followed the literacy experiences of four bilingual international
undergradLtate students over five years ,mcl ch ,irted their identity development withm the
ideologrcal context of their institutiun. Salter Dvorak (2014) constdcrcd the role of course
design ,rnd corn pared two students' expcri.euccs of being inducted into nuslcr's thesis writing
in a second la11g1uge. Her results dernonstratcd bow course design creates power relations
between, and 1denttties of, students and tutors s\Lich can, in turn, facilitate or binder student
writing development.
Current research on student writing also reflects changes in what counts as academic disci-
pline and possibilities for risk-taking in academic writing. For instance, Starfield et al. (2014)
investigated new forms of doctoral thesis writing in the visual and performing arts where
the students produce a creative piece as well as a written text. To understand the motivations
behind the textual elernent, they conducted a texlography combining ethnographic methods
(interviews, document analysis, observatrnns and surveys) and text Developing an
understanding of the context of writing ;llld perceptions of the texts hy wnters and assessors
enabled the researchers to extend the concepwali.sation of text, incorporating a reading of
the creatJve part of the thesis.
Paxton 14) critically examined genre restrictions and risk taking m master's
students' research proposal writing. Her data include interviews with two students, class-
room observation, analyses of the students' coursework and research proposals, the supervi-
sors' and her own comments as writing teacher on these text'>. Paxton suggests that taking the
risk of including 'non-traditional' elements like personal narratives in academic genres can
be fruitful for meaning-making. Linking her finding:; to prott,ssional academic writing, she
calls f<)r a wider ,1cceptance of hybrid genres to recognise the diversity of scholars.
This in style is exemplified in recent research on gender ,md academic writing.
Preece (2018) reveals the impact of gender and class on the teaching and learning of academic
writing. And Mc Mullan (2018) focusso on the role of creating nevv intellectual and actual
spaces for women developing their new 1dent1t1es as research students. These scholars include
critical reflections on their own practices as writers, teachers and researchers. Their work
thus illustrates how ethnography is more than a method to describe contexts of writing and
constitutes an intellectual approach that can challenge perceived norms.
The rapid development of online-mediated communication and its implications for teach
ing and learning at university has emerged as another research strand. An early example is
Goodfellow et aL (2003), exploring the tension between traditional modes of assessment
and onli11e colbborative learning in two postgraduate courses. Their virtual ethnography
entails observations of online interactions in the nvo courses conceptualised as internet com-
mu111L1es, ;1 series of email interviews ,vith 1ndiv1dual students and an Jnalysis of student
assignn1rnt-,. The study highlights the increased rhetorical complex1tv io online-mediated
learning and the need to adapt assessment processes. More recently, studies have included
socio-material perspectives to investigate relations between students' literacies, technological
affordances and universities' engagement with digital technologies. Gourlay and Oliver's
(2018) year-long study focussed on postgraduates' digital literacy practices in their indepefr-
dent study time and related these to current discourses in HE such as enhancing the student
experience ,md sluclent engagement. Based un developments in SSK, highlight the need
to consider characteristics of Lhe technology, the affordances of which can shape
361
students' knowledge construction. Considering both analogue and digital tools, Simpson and
Archer (2U18) investigated the use of tools and software in civil engineering courses and their
applic:ition in student proJecrs. Their (autu-)cthnographic study incorporcttes Simpson's two-
year participation in a civil engineering course, interviews with six other studeuts and the
analysis of course notes rnd textbooks. The study exposes the role of the design of the tools
and their embeddedncss in discipli11,1ry epistemologies. It demonstrates that understanding
the tools and their potential for meaning-making is an embndied process, .md an i ntegnl part
of becoming an engineer.
Academic staff
While the majority of current work rn this are,1 focusses on students ,ind their academic writ-
ing development, a, the histurical overview ;1 bove shov,:s there is also an important strand of
research focussing on the writing of academic staff Work in this field can be divided into
work locmsing spc·cifically on rt'search ,md scholarly writmg, whether on disciplinary and
genre identity or on broader issues like sy,temic pJtterns of inequality, and \vork which Jp-
proaches writing from a broader perspective as part of an analysis of the working conditions
:rnd lives of academics.
In academic literacies, Lillis and Curry's (2010) long-term study ofmultilingu:11 scholJrs,
introduced above, adds weight to a critical account of the global academic publishing system.
\Vorking closely with Sil scholars in four periphery countries over eight years, doing detailed
text-ethnographic work, Lillis and Curry were able to develop an insider understanding of
the issues facing multilingual schoLirs in an English-dominant publishing world, such as the
impact of evaluation systems connected to publishing in English-medium international jour-
nals, the role of Anglophone brokers in text production and the textual ideologies evident in
peer review letters.
Lillis and Curry's text history method has been highly influential. For instance, Hynninen
(2018) uses a similar approach in a study of research writing in computer sci<cnce to explore
how digital tools are used in the process of networked production of a research paper. She
focusses particularly on collaborative writing within the research group, showing how the
authors resisted some of the potcntic1l of the collaborative tools tl1ey sverc using for synchro-
nous collabontion, preferring to write in par,1llel. and uncovering the importance of digical
media, particularly Twitter, both during and after the writing of the paper.
Gentil .md Seror (2014) use what they desnibe as a 'dialogical self-case study design' to
reflect on their own bilingual writing ,md public:ition practices as francophone Canadian
scholars in French-minority contexts. While they do not identify their work as auto-
ethnograplty, their adaptation of Lillis and Curry's approach, combined with written autobi-
ographies and analysis of their publishing records and institutional documents, their explicit
adoption of a reflexive and dialogic stance, and their use of theoretical concepts taken from
the social approach LO literacy, connect them clearly to this tradition" They situate their prac-
tices in rd:ition to the ,ocic1l conditions .111d Lmguage policies of their ditfenng institutional
environments, showing the importance of their context, and particularly their networks and
the institmional systems of rewards and regulation in enabling them to maintain, or not,
biliterctcy in French and English in their academic publications.
The other main area of work which studies academic writing eth nogr:1phically takes as its
starting point not scholarly texts and their practices of production, but academic workplace
experi,·nccs an,l practices more broadly. Thi, includes the ,mall strand nf ethnographic HE
research mentioned above, some of which develops a focus on academi,: writing. Much of
362
Academic writing
this takes an auto-ethnographic stance, like Tummons's (2017) reflections on hovv written
communication between members of a research team using information and communica-
tion technology shaped their discunive co--construction of the fields and frameworks they
were working in. D.wie-Kessler (2017), reflecting on her own ethnographic action research
in a college writing classroom, argues that ethnography cau be used as a tool in professional
development for teachers of writing. Bocking (2005) is an auto-ethnographic account of the
journal peer review process.
Nygaard\ (2()15) analysis of how academics juggle pressures around research procluc-
tivitv at the Peace Rese:irch Imtitute in Oslo has an ;mto -ethnographic element, in that
she is researching her own work environment and drawing on her observations as :1 pr.1cti-
tioner, but she also uses semi-structured and informal mtcrviews and a questionnaire with
19 researchers. She is able thuebv to develop a model of research productivity which draws
together individu,11 aspects ofidentit 1 with institutional characteristics ufthe perceived envi-
ronmenc showing how researchers negot1aLe their perceptions of institutional requirements
and power relationships, and their personal go;1ls and identities, m different ways. Nygaard
highlights how such negotiations shape the different levels of productivity measured in in-
stitutional metrics, and underlines tlut the importance of subjective individual experience is
often overlooked.
Tuck's (2016, 2018) ethnographic research with 14 staff in six universities focussed 1m the
lived experience of academic staff in supportmg and developing student vvriting. She identi-
fied conflicting discourses around student writing support, with a dominant 'skills' discourse
contrasting vvith a more implicit \vriting as d1scipl111ary meaning- making' discourse. She
identifies the subsequent margin.1lisation of writing support (Tuck, 201 <i), and Lhe problem
atic way in which writing support is gendered by being associated with a feminised ethics of
care (Tuck, 2018).
Le-a and Stierer's (200<J, 2011) study oflecturers' everyday writing focusses on the profes-
sional life-cycle of workplace documents. While interview-based, they dncribe this work
as 'ethnographic-style', with the influence of ethnogr,1phy cle,ir in their responsiveness to
the practices of each individual, Lheir adoption of a 'talk around text' rnethodology, their
artent1on to contextualised texts and practices, and their location of the participants in social
and historical contexts. By adopting thi, hol.istic perspective, they \vere able to identify the
enormous range and comple>.ity of texts which academic, engage with in their everyday
workplace practices.
The Working Lives project (Cornall et al., 2014), a qualitative study of academics' work-
ing lives, used interviews and focus groups as its main method but was informed by ethno-
graphic and auto-ethnographic theories ,ind perspectives in making particip,rnts' experiences
the central focus of the research. \Vhile the focus uf the study was everyday working practices
rather than writing per se, the- research is rich in insights about writing. given its centrality
to academics' working lives. Cornall and Salisbury (2012) focus on the 'everyday and un-
seen working' that char,1cterises academics' working days. They identify ;1 compuhive and
'hyperprofessional' cipproach. working extended hours in the office, at home .111d through
weekends, to cope with increased workloads and pressures. They highlight the time taken
Llp by often-111visible writing practices around email, meta-logistical planning and managing
technology, and how such epbernerJ I tasks get in the way of focussed, concentrated wnting,
)ositionecl in contrast as the 'real work'.
Tusting et al. (2019) explore hmv cbngcs in tht> HE context including managerialism,
1igitisation and massification are affecting academic,' writing practices of all kinds. They
idopted an e-thnographic perspective in committing to longer-term engagement with core
363
Kathrin Kaufhold and Karin lusting
participants and seeking an emic understanding of their perspectives, although the main data
set was repeated interviews supplemented by focussed screen-in-screen recording of writing
processes, rather than participant-observation. They identify many similar concerns to those
of Gornall and Salisbury (2012), including the extended hours spent writing both at home
and at work and the distinction made between the work positioned as 'real' (usually scholarly
research-related writing) and other kinds of writing which get in the way, while also high-
lighting writing-specific issues such as the tension between managerialist and disciplinary
expectations about genres of writing, the challenges of the new genres associated with social
media and the importance of relationships in collaborative writing and learning.

The research discussed above is intertwined with and influenced by work from a range of
traditions, including EAP, the new rhetoric, and science and technology studies. Some of
this work adopts similar methods to linguistic ethnography but is located within different
theoretical paradigms. Other work draws on the theoretical resources and perspectives of
ethnography, for instance in highlighting the emic-perspective of participants rather than fo-
cussing exclusively on text analysis, but does not use participant-observation. It can therefore
be hard to delineate the boundaries around linguistic ethnographic approaches in this area.
For instance, the field ofEAP has for some time investigated the genres and discourses of
writing associated with different disciplinary communities. While much early work in this
area draws primarily on texts, focussing particularly on the characteristics of specific genres
(Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993), as Bhatia (2004) argues, the field has moved theoretically from
initial conceptualisations of discourse in terms of text and genre, through to understanding
discourse primarily in terms of professional and social practice. Associated with this devel-
opment has been a methodological shift to incorporating more attention to writers' prac-
tices, primarily through drawing on interview data focussing on texts and text production
(see, for instance, Hyland, 2000; Kuteeva & McGrath, 2015). For example, Perez-Llantada's
(2012) study of scientific discourse and the rhetoric of globalisation is located theoretically
in rhetorical and genre-based analysis, but combines a textual and corpus-based analysis of
textual and stylistic patterns with ethnographic work with scholars, shaped by an academic
literacies perspective. Paltridge et al. (2016) extend the argument for adopting ethnographic
approaches, particularly textography and auto-ethnography, to academic writing research.
Scholars in education and in the humanities have also addressed similar questions. Murray
(2014) has developed a social process model approach to academic writing which shares a
focus on practices, structures, discourses around writing and communities, drawing on re-
search with academics who participated in writing retreats and consultations. Sword (2017)
draws on interviews with 100 successful writers to pull together general recommendations
about writing practices, with her findings identifying 'habits' adopted by successful writers -
which could, using different theoretical language, be described as 'writing practices'.
However, while these different approaches to studying academic writing can all inform
one another, in terms of critical debates in the field, we still do need to maintain a clear
understanding of what linguistic ethnography specifically offers for our understanding of
academic writing, as Lillis (2008) argues. Ethnography offers a particular theoretical per-
spective which connects the micro-events of academic writing and the emic perspectives
of participants with broader social and structural conditions. Ethnography observes what is
there, through immersion in the context over time, as far as possible avoiding pre-judging
what 'should' be happening. Both theoretically and methodologically, these perspectives can
364
Academic writing
support the development of principled resistance to dornin:rnt discourses around ,,Titing,

particuL1rly the 'skills' discourse around student writing and the 'managerialist/production'
model within which scholarly writing is often positioned.
There are two dangers to consider here. The first is using the term 'ethnography' without
understanding key tenets ('fan ethnographic perspective, as outlined above. However. to
balance this. thcTe is also another danger: that of rcifying the demands of what can be called
ethnography to such an extent that it becomes impossible to draw on this approach without
really extensive full-time engagement in the field. Under the constraints of academic fund-
mg and research systems, this is possible for few researchers beyond the PhD. Tt is import.mt
neverthdes, thJt academic writing studies should be able to draw on an ethnographic ap-
pro,1eh, because of the importance of the ethnogr.1phic critique in this area, particularly in
connecting individuals' practices and experiences to wider structural and global processes.
The extent to which one can carry out work which i:, ·ethnographically-inforrned' has been
extensively discussed; much (though not all) of the work referred to above characterises itself
111 tbis wa,.. Maintaining .1 pmition of critical reflexivity as understandings are developed
(Patino-Santos, this volume) c.111 serve as a protection both against over-stating tbe ethno-
graphic nature of research. and against minimising the significance of work by positioning
it 'merely' as a ca:,e study.

The implications of drawing on ethnographic approaches in academic writing research are
connected to teachmg mterventions and to critical GLlls for trnnsfr;nnation in the acaderny.
Since ethnographic research has highlighted the importance of epistemological and contextual
factors as well as the heterogeneity of aodemic writing. scholars have :,uggested the implernen""
tation of ethnographic methods in pedagogic interventions where students research the con-
texts and processes of their own writing (Tohm et al., 2006; Blom1naert et al., 2007). They also
highlight the need to integrate litency teaching in curriculum design of degree programmes
rather than providing stand-alone \vriting courses (Lea, 2004; Paxton & Firth, 2014).
Scholars ,iffiliated with ;icademic literacies, especially, have challenged traditional essayist
writing at universities and called for transformative pedagogies that probe student-led ,vays
or meaning-making for learning (Lillis et al., 2015). The 'talk ,iround text' research 111ethod
and the ensuing insights in students' reflections on their texts highlight the potential role of
:1 dicilogic pedagogy for student writing (Kaufhold, 2015)" In turn, this has implications for
teacher, reflecting on their own assumptions about writing and pedagogy, as indicated in
some reflexive parts of the researchers' publications (Paxton, 2014),
Ethnographic research on writing for publication highlights the role of the socio-political
,:on text of publishing and the networked nature of writing. Researchers have therefore called
for consider,1tions of tlwse factors in pedagogic interventions. Cnrry and Lillis (2013) pro-
vide a comprehensive gmde especially for researchers in non-Anglophone countries, which
cl iscusses these issues.
Future directions
It is important that we continue to address the central questions raised by the work in this
ch,1pter. Many of these relate to the impact of inequalities in ,1ccess to economic, epLstemic
and lingui,tic resource, in the academic sphere·. For inst,mce, what does the dominance of
English me,m r"or academic knowledge production' What knowledge do we lose if academic
365
work not from the 'Anglophone centre' is not pubfohed or read? There is an ,ict ive dd,atc
around the impact ,,f the unequal relationships bct,Yccn ,.lifferent language, in university
settings (Canag.ir,ljab 20lS), which can be informed by cnntinuing ethnographic anaJyscs
of the realities of this situmon which build on Lillis and CL1rry's (2010 and llthers) \Nork.
Further work could address the transnational or multilingual scholars. sinnlarly
to the way people have studied the transnational trajectories of migrants (Rounsaville, 2014),
and the increasing demands for writing in multiple languages for different audiences in re-
search publications and outreach activities.
Other key questions relate to the changing nature of the academic workplace, under-
standing hovv the increasingly managerialist nature of the contemporary university (Deem
et al., 2007) is shaping the writing choices ofb()th statl and students. New roles and respo!l-
sibilities emerge fr,r ~ic:ackrni,·s. associated with new genres that need to be masLered quickly
and an increased vvorkload. In a strategically oriented managerialist cnv1 ronment,
academics need tu cunst:rntly produce representcitions of th<c1.nselves and their w,,rk which
highlight success. Studies of how people take up and bun such new genres (e.g. Solin's 2018
analysis of the tensions bet ween factual and pwmotJorul discourses in the teaduug portJcilio
genre) will help us to better understand their impact.
Finally, the profound transformations of patterns of communication and writing which
have been associated with digital technologies continue to provide new possibilities for ac-
ademic writing as well as new expectatiom, with some (Weller, 2011) arguing that this has
changed the nature of scholarship. Many of the new genres and accountability representa-
tions associated with the managerialist universitv ,ne 111.1(k possible by new corntnumcltions
technologies, inclu,ling virtual learning environments aml complex spreadsheets ,rnd (bta·
bases. Access to scbohrly resources for writing rnch as onlme journals makes it pos,ible fc.1r
writers - students and acackmic staff - to draw CHI <lll 1mn1ense range of schoLirship from
across many fields, potenti,11lv enriching our u11dersLrndings m interdisciplinary \qys but ,lt
the same time hearing risks of superfici,1lit y and information overload. The continued rise of
Lhe importance of social media provides additional pressure for academics and student writers
to produce public representations of themselves and their work on new platforms, engaging
with new audiences on different time frames. Ethnographic work with academic writers
will support our understanding or the impact of these changes, both in people's lives and in
relation to the kind, otknowledge which academic work produces.
Further reading
Lillis, TM. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology ,tml deep theorising: Closing the gap be-
tween text and context in academic writing research. Hlntten Corrummirc1tia11, 25(3), 353-388. (Dis~
cusses and theorises the use of ethnographic Jpproaches in academic writing research from an
Jcadcmic literacies perspective.)
Lillis, TM., & Curry, MJ. (2010). Awdemic writing in aslob,1/ context: The politics ofpublishing
i11 E12glish. London: Routledge. (A rnajor ethnographic research study exploring academics' writing
across Europe.)
Paltridge, B., Starficld, S., & Tirdy, C.M. (2016) persp,·ctives on academic 11'riting, Oxford:
Oxford Univcr·;iry Press (A comprehensive oven·ic\\ ofcrhnographic methods and .1pproachc, in
research on aodcmic -.vriting.)
Related topics
Literacy studies; Participant-observation and field notes; Ethnographic interviews.
366
Academic writing
References
Atkinson. D., & Ramanath:rn. V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison ofLl and
L2 university writ:ing/langu,ige programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 539-SC,8.
Barton,])., & Hamillon, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Bnton, M. Hamilton, & .R. Ivanic (Eds.),
Situated litrn.1cies (pp. 7-15). London and New York: Routledge.
Bazerman, C., & Russell, D.R.. (2003). Ff/riling selves. writing s,,ricties: R.ese<1rch from artivity perspcrtiues
Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
Beaufort, A. (2007). ColleRC 1vriting and /Jcyo11d: A ncwframeworh·Jor university writin,g instruction. Logan:
Utah State University Press.
Derkenkotter, C .. & Huckin. T.N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplin,uy cormnunic<Ltion: Cognitionlwl-
turclp,0wer. Hilhchle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assuciates, Inc.
Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysi11g grnre: Lcwg11,1,~c use in proji-ssional settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). fVotlds of written discourse: A genre-based 1;h•w. London and New York, Continuum.
Blommaert, J. (2007). On scope and depth in linguistic ethnography. Journ,zl of SociolinQuistics, '11(5).
682-688.
Blonm1,wrt,J., Street, B., & ·turner,]. Academic literacie, - What Ji ave we achieved and where
to from here? Jourmd of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 137-148.
Bocking, S. (2005). 'Gatekeeper or helpful counseP Practices and perceptions in academic peer re-
view. Jn A. M<>ndey & DJ Young (Eds.), Auto-ethnograp!tirs: The anr/1101'0/ogy of <1ec1dcmic pMciiccs
(pp. 67-79). Petnborough: Broadview Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). A 2eopolitics of ,zcademir uniting. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practices as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond
struct11ralist orientations. Applied Li11,;;uisrics, 39. .31-.,4.
Casanavc, C.P. (l'J98). Transitions: The balancing act ufbilingual ctcademics.Jourrw1 o(Scc,md Language
Writing, 7(2), 175--203.
Cooper, L. (201.1). Activists within the academy: The role of prior experience in ac1Ltlt learners' acquisi-
tion ofpostgr;1du,1te litencies in a postctpartheid South African university. Adult Educc1tion Quarterly,
6/(l), f0-56.
Curry, MJ., & Lillis, T.M. (2013). A sdzoidr's xuide to getting published in English Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Davic-.Kessler,J. (2017). Ethnography a•; subject, ethnography as object: Experimenting with research
in ,1 college writing classroom. In Fl. H.opson. W Rodick. & A. Kaul (Eds.), ,Vew directions in
cducatiorl<zl ethnography: Shifts, prov/ems, and reconstruction (pp. 19.3-21.2). Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Ltd.
Deem, R ., Hillyard, S., & Recd, M. Knowlcd~c, higher cd11ccrtion, and rhc new nwn<1,\'Crialism: The
clw11ging nian,1gc111cnt of UK 11nit1ersities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Drcssen-Hanunouda, D. (2014). Place and space as shapers of disciplinary identity: The role ofindex-
icality in the emergence of disciplinary writing expertise. In J. Bamford, F. Poppy, & D. Mazzi
(Eds.). Space, and the di,rnrsive constmction ofidrnrity (pp. 71 106). Bern: Peter Lmg.
Freedman, A., & !\dam, C. (1'!96). Learning to write professionally: "Situated learning" and the
transition from university to professional discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Conununication,
10(4), 395-427.
Gentil, c;, & Seror. J (2014). Cmada has two oflici,1I language,. - or does it) Case studies ofCanadirn
scholars' langmgc choices :me! practices m disseminating kuo,vledge . .Journ,1[ of E11,~lis!1 for Aw,lcl!lic
Purposes, 13(1), 17-.30. doi:10.101(,/j.jeap.201.3.10.005
Gillen, J. (2018). Rcreadmg other floors, other voices. In J. Swales (Ed.), Otherfioors, other uoices: A
textoq_raphy of,1 '111,111 univcrsiry buildinl (T,1·entieth ,11111iuersary edn.) (pp. ix-xv). Ann !\rb,,r: Uniw:rsity
of J\.-lichigan Press.
Goodtdlow, R., Jvlorgan, ,IVJ., Lea, M., ,c.;_ Pettit, J. (2003). Students' writing in tbe virtual university:
!\n investigation into the relation between online discussion and writing for assessment on two
M.asters courses In I. Snyder & C. Be,1vis (Eds.), D,1i11g liter,uy online: Tc,1d1ing, learning ,md playi11g i11
an c/c,rronic w,1 rld (pp. 25--44,1. New York: Hampton Press.
Gorn:dl,] ,., Cook, C., Daunton, L., Salisbury, J., i,: Thomas, B. (2014). Acc1dnnic working lives: Experi-
ence, pmcticc ,md change. London: Bloomsbury.
c_;ornall. L., & Salisbury,]. (2012). Con1pulsive working, 'hyperprofrssional ity' and the u nscen pleasures
ofac1demic work. Higher D/11,ation Q1wtcrly, 66(2), 1]5-154 doi: 10.111 l ij 1468-2273.2012.00'il 2."
367
Gourlay, L., & Oliver, M. (2018) Swdcnt engagement in the digital 1111iuersity: Socionutrrial assemblages.
London: Routledge.
llyland, K. (201)0). Distiplinary discourses: Social interc1c·tions in academic writfrw Harlow: Long1nan.
Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropol,~~ist,
66(6), 1-34.
Hynninen, N. (2018). Impact of digital tools on the research writing process: A case study of collabo-
rative writing in cornputer science. Discourse, Context & Media, 24, lli-223.
lvanic, R. (1998). !Vriling and idenriry: T/,e discoursal co11struction of identity in <1cademic wrili11g. Amsterdam:
John Benjarnins.
Johns, A.M., Bawarshi, A., Coe, R.M., Hyland, K. Paltridge, B., Reiff, M.J., & Tardy, C. (2006).
Crossing the boundaries of genre studies: Commentaries by experts. Journal of Second Lmguage
Writing, 15, 234-249.
Kaufhold, K. (2Cll5). Making sense ot- my thesis: fVlastn's level thesis writing as constellation of joint
activities. In TM. Lillis, K. Harrington, M.R. Lea, & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Working ll'ith oc,idemic liter-
(1(/es: Case stlfdics towards transfon111ztit:1 practice (pp. 87--95). West l,afayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Kaufl10ld, K. (2017). Tracing interacting literacy practices in master's dissertation writing. London
Review of Education, 15(1), 73-84.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manuf:rcture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist ,md contextual nature
of science. New York: Pergamon Press.
Kutccva, M., & McGrath, L. (2015). The theoretical research article :is" reflection of disciplinary prac--
tices: The crsc of pure mathematics. Applied Li11~11i,1ics. 36, 215-235.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laborwory life: The construction ofscientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Lave,J., & VVenger, E. (1991). Situ,ited learning: Legitimate peripher,1/ participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lea, fVl.R. (2004). Ac1demic liteLtcics: A pedagogy for course design. Smdics in Higher Ld11Cc1tion, 29(6),
7l9-756.
Lea, M.R., & Stierer, B. (2009). Lecturers' everyday writing as prol<''ssional practice m the university
as workplace: New insights into academic identities. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 417--428.
doi:10.1080/03075070902771952
Lea, M.R., & Stierer, B. (2011). Changing academic identities in changing academic workpbces'.
Learning from academics' everyday professional writing practice,;. Tiaching in Hi,[her Education.
16(6), 605-616. doi10.1080/1Ti62517.2011.560380
Lea, M.R., & Street, BV (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic I itcracies ap-·
proach. Srudies in H(,;zher brlucation, 23(2), 157-172. doi:l0.1080/03075079812331380364
Leki, I. (2007). Undergraduates in a second Challenges and complexities of academic literacy
ment. New York: Routledge.
Lillis, T.M. (200 I). Suuient writin)!: ,iccc.,s, regulation. dc.,ire. London: R ot1t ledge.
Lillis, T.M. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and "deep theorizing": Closing the gap
between text and context in academic writing research. fVrittcn Cmmmmication. 25(3), 353-388.
doi:10.1177/0741088308319229
Lillis, T.M., & Curry, MJ (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars. Hlritten
Conununirntion, 23(1), 3-35. doi:10.1177 /0741088305283754
Lill is, T.M., & Curry, M.J. (2010). Ac,ulonic writing in ,.1 global context.· The politics and practices ofpublishing
in English. Londun: Routledge.
Lillis, T.M., & Scott. fvl. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: lssues of epistemology, ideol-
ogy and strategy.Journal ,!_/Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5-32. doi:10.1558/japl.v4il.5
Lillis, TM., Harrington, K., Lea, M.R., & Mitchell, S. (2015). WorkinJ; with academic literacies: C1se
studies to1.11<1rds transformati11C prcictice. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Lillis, T.M., & Tuck,J. (2016). Academic literacies. ln K Hyland & P Sh:nv (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of English for ,1udemic purposes. London: Routledge.
McCarthy, L.P. A stranger in strange lands: A college student writing across the curriculum.
Research in the Teaching of English, 21(3), 233-265.
McCarty, R., & Swales,JM. (2017). The chronological change and generic effects ma university her-
barium: A textography revisited. Discoune Studies, 19(5), 561-580.
368
Academic writing
McMullan, J. (2018). Becoming a researcher: Re-inventing writing spaces. Journal ef English for Aca-
demic Purposes, 32, 21-31. doi:10.1016/jjeap.2018.03.005
Murray, R. (2014). Writing in social spaces: A social processes approach to academic writing. London: Society
for Research into Higher Education.
Nygaard, L.P. (2015). Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies framework for investigating
research productivity. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 519-532. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.105
8351
Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., & Tardy, C.M. (2016) Ethnographic perspectives on academic writing. Oxford:
Paxton, M. (2014). Genre: A pigeonhole or a pigeon? Case studies of the dilemmas posed by the
writing of academic research proposals. In L. Thesen & L. Cooper (Eds.), Risk in academic writing:
Postgrad14ate students, their teachers and the making ef knowledge (pp. 148-165). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Paxton, M., & Firth, V. (2014). Implications of academic literacies research for knowledge making and
curriculum design. Higher Education, 67, 171-182. doi:10.1007%2Fs10734-013-9675-z
Perez-Llantada, C. (2012). Scientific discourse and the rhetoric efglobalization: The impact ef culture and lan-
guage. London: Continuum International.
Preece, S. (2018). Identity work in the academic writing classroom: Where gender meets social class.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 32, 9-20.
Prior, P. (1997). Literate activity and disciplinarity: The heterogeneous (re)production of American
Studies around a graduate seminar. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 275-295. doi:10.1207/s15327
884mca0404_5
Prior, P. (1998). Writingldisciplinarity: A sociohistoric account <if literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Prior, P.A., & Shipka, J. (2003). Chronotopic lamination: tracing the contours ofliterate activity. In
C. Bazerman & D.R. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves I writing societies: Research from an activity perspective
(pp. 180-238). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse, Colorado State University.
Roozen, K. (2010). Tracing trajectories of practice: Repurposing in one student's developing disci-
plinary writing practices. Written Communication, 27, 318-354. doi:10.1177/0741088310373529
Rounsaville, A. (2014). Situating transnational genre knowledge: A genre trajectory analysis of one
student's personal and academic writing. Written Communication, 31(3), 332-364. doi:10.1177/
0741088314537599
Salter-Dvorak, H. (2014). "I've never done a dissertation before, please help me": Accommodating
12 students into anglophone academia through course design. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(8),
847-8~9.
Simpson, Z., & Archer, A. (2018). Semiotic technologies: A case study of discipline-based practices and
pedagogy. Social Semiotics. doi:10.1080/10350330.2018.1487263
Solin, A. (2018). Writing in the context of unstable norms: Teaching portfolios as a genre of academic
recruitment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, doi:10.1111/ijal.12213
Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., & Ravelli, L. (2014). Researching academic writing: What textography af-
fords. In]. Huisman & M. Tight (Ed.), Theory and method in Higher Education research II (pp.103-120).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Swales, J.M. (1998 [2018]). Other floors, other voices: A textography ef a small university building. Mahwah,
NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sword, H. (2017). Air & light & time & space: How successful academics write. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Tardy, C. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette: Parlor Press.
Tuck, J. (2016). "That ain't going to get you a professorship": Discourses of writing and the positioning
of academics' work with student writers in UK higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(9),
1612-1626. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.999320
Tuck, J. (2018). 'Tm nobody's Mum in this university": The gendering of work around student
writing in UK higher education. Journal ef English for Academic Purposes, 32, 32-41. doi:10.1016/j.
jeap.2018.03.006
369
Tummons, J. (2017). !CL and the lnternet as a framework Jnd field in ethnographic research . .·lrt<1
Paedagogica Vilne11,id, !9, 1:',2-- 14'.l.
Justing, K., McCulloch, ::;., Bhatt, l., Hamilton, M., & Barton, D. (2019). Academics writinJ: Tlic cly-
narnics of knowle4,:e rre,ztion. London: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L.S. (197~)- ,Wiild iii society: The development ,,f /1(,,l1n psyd10h\((ical processes. Cambridge. tvl/\:
Harvard University Pre".
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technoh:~y is traniformi112, ,c/wlarly practice. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing PLC.
370
Index
AAE see African American English (AAE) Austin, J. 30, 262

AAVE see African American Vernacular English autoethnography 331-3, 362-4
(AAVE) "autonomous" model 43, 315
Abdi, K. 194
academic literacies 356, 358, 359, 362, 364, 365 BAAL see British Association for Applied
academic writing: academic staff, writing Linguistics (BAAL)
of362-4; chronotopic lamination of359; 'back-stage' policy 332
ethnographic studies of 356, 358; geopolitics Backus, A. 105
of 358; heterogeneity of 365; micro-events Bailey, B. 98
of364; resource-poor environments 358; Bakhtin, M. 97, 99-100, 112, 117, 215, 276,
semiotic activities 357, 359; social process 278,281
model approach 364; student writing 360-2; Ball, K. 24
teaching and learning of 361 banal cosmopolitanism 63
act ofidentity 111 banal nationalism 63
actor-network theory (ANT) 49, 236 Bangladeshi Muslim faith communities 316
Adamorobe Sign Language 350 Baquedano-L6pez, P. 313,317
Adam,R. 346 Barad, K. 49
'ad hoc-ing' procedures 301 Barakos, E. 286, 292, 293
adjacency pairs 173 Barton, D. 32, 41, 43, 47
African American English (AAE) 115-18 Basso, K. 50
African American Vernacular English Baym, N. 230
(AAVE) 261 Beaufort, A. 360
Agha, A. 114, 118, 121, 263 Belgium 72; Antwerp study 89; bilingualism
algorithmic activism 232 in 74; marriage fraud investigations in 77-80
Alsagoff, L. 58 Bell, A. 111
Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL) Bell, N.D. 267
345,347 Beneito-Montagut, R. 234
Althusser, L. 262 Besnier, N. 49-50
Amager project, in Copenhagen 232-3, 235 Bezemer,J. 127, 144, 145, 148-51, 207-9
American Sign Language (ASL) 345-6, 351 Bhatia, V.K. 364
Amish community 319 Bible story 319
Anderson, B. 31, 59 'big society' 326, 331, 335, 336
Androutsopoulos,J. 116,230,232 bilingual education 291, 344
Anglophone higher education acts 291 bilingualism: in Belgium 74; in Canada 275,
ANT see actor-network theory (ANT) 289; commodification of289; elite 288, 289;
Antwerp, linguistic practices in 89 folk 288
Appadurai, A. 54, 59, 75 'bilingual professional' 289
Archer, A. 362 bilingual programme 292
architectures of policy 331-2 Billig, M. 63, 267
Arman, H. 268 biological citizenship 78
Atkinson, P. 162 Birmingham-based research 102-5
Auer, P. 14, 22 Black American Sign Language (ASL) 342
Auleear Odowally, M. 318 Blackledge, A. 209, 218, 276, 277, 279, 290
371
Index
Blake, W. 127 Chun, E. 117-18, 267

Block, D. 91-3 church related stories .\J 5-16
Blonnnaert, .J. 98, 100, lOJ, 105, I U6, 215, Cicourel, A. 1.'i8, 159, 215
234,278,280,359 classroom interaction 204, 221 4, 274
Blot, R. 32 class stratification 85, 88, 89
Bo,1s, F. 3, 142 Clemente, I. 19, 172
Bocking, S. J63 CUL sec Content and Lang11age Integrated
body posture 132, 1'6 Learning
Borchgrevink, A. 160 Clinton . K. 44
border-crossing 76-80 Coca-C>ila 64
Bourdieu, P. 31, 85, 214, 215, 286, 287, 289 'cockney' style/stylisation 87-9, 115
branding and langLtcige com modification 63-4 code-switching 98, .H6-7; concept of274;
Brandt, D. 44 Gumperz's work on 21, 23; metaphorical
Bramon, J. 342 and situational l8
Bresler. L. 1'0:C:. 209 Cod6, E. 292
Briggs, C. 158, 159, 172 Cogo, A. 304
British Associatio11 Cor Applied Lrnguistics Cole, \11. 42, 31.'i, 317
(BAAL) 1--2, 185, 188, 195 Coles, R. 147
Brown. G. 29 collaborative ethnography: applications 199:
Brussels, bilingualism. in 71 Bezcmcr's work on 207-8; collaburating
Bucholt7, M. 3, 18, 19, J 15-16 partners 200; Collins's work on 206-7;
Bud,ich. G. 5. 275 Ceipland's work 201,; definition of
'burnouts' 85-6, 111 198, 199; clialogic collaboration 200;
Busch, B. 274, 282 ethnography of connnunication 201;
Butler. J. 261 examples 204 8; future directions in
Bysouth, D. 304 209-10; implicit collaboration 198;
interdisciplin;iry colbborat1on 21i 1· nature
CA see conversation analysis (CA) and dimensiom of201; and non-academic
Calhoun, C. 293 stakeholders 209; principles to guide
call centre work practice 61-2 ethnographers 199; researcher positionality
Campbell, A. 230 202-4; Rock's work on 205-6; Van Hout's
Campbell, D. ,o work on 205
Canada: bilingualism in 275, 289; second- Collins, J. 32, 76
language mathematics classrooms in 275, Collins, S 148. 149, .211(,
277,278 com111.cdia dcll'arte, Italian tradition of299
Canaganjah, S. 98, 356 "commercial" literacv 315
Candlin, C.N. 214. 215 commodification 289: in branding 1,3-4;
Carney, T 92 of consumables 64; in tourism 64; of
Carter, R. 12 wearables 63
Cartier, C. 55 communication accommodation theory 111.
case study/studies 132 communicative competence 3,111,128,351
Castells. M. 65 communities of practice (CoPs) 85-6, 163,
category-bound attributes/activities (CBAs) 174 246,304
CDA sec critical discourse analysis (CDA) c01nmunity-w idc social interaction -342
Central High, R.. ampton's ethnography 87-9 computer-mediated communication 230-1
central languages 57 computer-mecfoted cfocourse 232
Cerwonka, /\. 202 consent forms 186, 107
Chakrabarty, D. 267 "constellation of farnily sign languages" 343
Charalambous. C. 115,267 constructivist ethics l ')4-5
Cheek,]. 31 contact zones 61, 78
Chen. X. 61 contemporary urban \Trnacuhr (CCV) 89, 122,
Chicago School of Sociology 142 260,264-8
China ,ee People\ Republic of China (PRC) Content and Language Integrated Learning
Chin,1 Uaily !CD) 61 (CLfL) 273, 275
Chinese Sign Language (CSL) 348 context 16, 75, 103-~ 171,215,231,216,245
Cho,J. 62 contextcd conversation analysis 19
Chomsky, N. 170 contextualisation 15-16, 119,282
372
Index
conversation analysis (CA) 18··19, 29, 30, 127, decentralisation/decentralise 335, 336
162, 168-9; adjacency pairs 173; audio/video De Costa, l'. 293
recordings of'naturally occurring' talk 169; De Fina, A 5, 160, 172, 234
context 171: emergence of 1(,9, 17U; older 'dcixi,', linguistic notion of113
identities' interaction 174--'J: preference Delamont, S. 1fi2
organisation 173-4; "pure CA" 170: structural Deleuze, G. 23
aspects of 170; tcchnologv:al developments Del Percio, A. 290, 292
l80; tools of179 De Mejia, A M. 288
Cooper, L. 3(,0 Denmark, youth linguistic styles 89
Copenhagen, Am ago project ju 232-·.\ 235 Denzin, N. 154, 157
Copenhagen school, Madsen's ethnography 89 Derrida, JJ. 262
Copland, 1°. 2, 149, 193, 206, 214, 217, 234 dialect(s) 98-9; standard and 121: usage 114;
corpus-based cliscuurse analysis 288 Welsh 113, 120
corpus-based genre ,1J1alysi1 360 'dialogical self-case study design' 362
corpus linguistic methods 3115 di:ilogic discourse 9'J
co-understanding 145 Di,ilogues with Etlinaxr,iphy (Blommaer t) 215
Coupland, N. 19, 86, 87, 113, 116, 117, 120, 121 digital affordanccs 232
covert research 188 digital anthropology 229
Cree-;iccented English 283 digital communicatrnn 47, 65, 106, 163, 229,
Crc·cse, A. 5, 146, 19\ 209. 211,217,218, 233,235,236,266
234.275-7 digital environments 6, 231, 234"· 6
critical discourse analysis (CDA) 3, 31, 60, 335 digital ethnography 6, 229-30; algorithn11c
critical ethnography 5, 199, 290 activism 232: Arnager project 232--3, 235;
cross-cultural ethics 194, 195 computer-mediated communication 230-1;
'crossing', Rampton's work on 112 context in 231; cultural production by
'Crosstalk. 2.0' 22 digital media 234, 235; discour,e-centrcd
Crosstalk programme 17, 20 online ethnography 232; foture directions in
Crystal, D. 57 236-7: Gangnam Style, research on 234, 235:
cullllr,11 anthropology 30 linguistic ethnography of Electronic Patieut
cultural relativism 159 Records 233; log data 232; multimodal
cultural semantic 88 ,·omm1mication 234; netspeak 231; online
Curry, MJ. 359, 362, 365 6 identity and virtual community 2.30; 'on
Cutler, C. ll8 the hoof' interviews 234; shadowing 234:
CUV see contemporary urban vernacular (CUV) technological determinism 2"'10, 232; time-
cyberspace 230 shifted methods 235
digital infrastructure 233
Davie-Kessler, J. 363 digital media 65, 211, 234, 235
Davies, J. 47 digital platform 47, 231
Davila, D. 321 digital storytelling 46-7
Day, D. 289 digital surveillance 23, 24
"dead scientist test" 162 digital technologies 45, 48, 233, 360, 361, 366
deaf-blind people: emblematic gesturc·s 348; DiJck, J. van 24, 231
em.erging sign languages 345; interactiom of Dillon, M.. 30
345; Visual American Sign Langu;1ge (ASL) cliscipline/disciplmary/extradiscipli11ary 360,
345 361-4, .366
deaf people: bi lingual educ,nion, legal right to discourse analysis 4; contributions 32""•3; critical
344; communication of 342; community discourse analysis 31, 60; critical issues and
wide social intt>raction 342; deaf ednc,1tion debatC'.s 33-5; Foucuildi,m JO, 31; Gee's view
model 344; deat~hearing communication on 46: historical perspectives and definitions
343; educational tool for 346; emerging sign 28-32; and language use 28-32; and linguistic
languages 345; fast-Lmguage acqmsition ethnography 33-5; linguistics and 15; multi-
in 343; gesturc-bsed intnactions 348; level model for 31; multimoda] 33; recording
and hard-of-bc·aring people 344; fanguag<' ,mcl tnnscription practices 35-()
contact 346: language socialisation 344. 349; disc:oursc""centrcd online ethnography 2.32
multilingualism of 348; signing practices of discourse ethics 194, 195
342; sign language teacher, 342 discourse-ethnographic case study 291
De Be:.rngrande, R.-i\. :,9 discourse theory 31
373
Index
discursive psychology 33 Fnglish for academic purposes (EAP)

'discursive turn' in policy studies 328-9 360,364
Djonov, E. 2.06 English language teachmg (ELT) 300
"doctrina" class 317 English as a lingua franca (ELF) 300-2, 305
dogmatic teaching 225 enrcgisterment 114, 233
dogmatism: in classroom practices 221-3; epistemological reflexivity 34, 276
definition of 220 '·epistenwlogical site" 267
Doran, M. 260 EPR see electronic patient record (EPR)
Doty, R. 30 erasure of diversity 56
double-indexicality 279, 280, 284 Erickson, F. 4, 16, 126
double-voiced discourse 103 Ericson, R. 24
double-voiced quality 279-81, 284 Entrean Sign Language (EriSL) 350
double -voicing 112: uni-directional 117, 118; ESL nurhematics class 282
vari-directional 117 Esperanto 299
Dray, S. 6, 242, 24.3, 24G-9, 251 ethical ,ipproval 190-1
Dressen-Hammonda, D. 360 ethical clashes 194
Dressler. \V. 29 ethical decision-n1:1king 192
Drew, P. 16, 171 ethical issues 5, 195
Drumrrwnd, R.. 6, 242-3. 246-8, 251, 252 ethically important mo111ents 191-2
'dual society' 23 ethical trainmg 195
Duca,JV. 44 ethics 184; constructivist 194--5; critical
Duchene, A. 62, 98 iss'ues and debates 190-2; cross-cultural
Duft: P 194 194: in digital domains 193; discourse 194,
Dumolyn,J. .30 19:i; future directions 195-6; historical
Duranti, A. 3, 30, 40, 156, 160 perspectives 183-9; macro- and micro-
ethics 193; sensitivity to 191; traditional
Eckert, P. 85-6, 111, 114. 119 concerns of 193: see ,dso medical ethics
ecological validity 215 ethics creep 190
economic commodities 291 ethnographer's internal dialogue 147
economic life, field of292-3 ethnographic interviews: conception of 154-5;
Edelman, M. 335 critical issues and debates 157-62: digital
educational bilingual programmes 286 communication 1.63; future directions in 164;
educational ethnography, Hammersley's work 150 historical perspectives 156-7; interviewer-
Edwards, T. 345 informant relationship 16O-l; intervie,ver's
electronic patient record (EPR) 148; linguistic role 158-9; interview types 156; language
ethnography of233 practices/ideologies 163; legitimacy of
ELF see English as a lingua franc:i (ELF) interviewing 162; reflexivity 163; see also
elite bilingualism 288, 289 interview(ing)
elite humanitarian transnational professionals 289 ethnographic methods 110, 111, 172, 205,
elite mulLilingualism: binary distinction and 244, 332-3
understanding 288; critical ethnographic ethnographic observation 80, 84, 149, 243,
research 290-3: critiul issues and debates 251,265,335
289-90; definition of286--7, 289; elite ethnographic writing, double-voicedness of
and folk bilingualism 288, 2i\9; historical 279 81, 284
perspectives 287-9; overlapping clusters of Ethnography, Lmxuage & Conmumication (ELC)
287; "planned and purposefo 1" decision 291: 2, 195, 215
practice, implications for 293-4; prestige 11s. ethnography of communication 4, 201, 357
plebeian 288; prevalence of 288 'Nhnography of speaking' approach 3
ELT see English language teaching (ELT) ethnomethodology 30, 162
ernic perspeclive 1, 65-6, 87, 156, 159, 2ll6. 303, "cthnoscapcs'' 75
341,345,359,364 European Union, migration policies 76
English 55; in China's schools 58-9: evalu.itive behaviour 114--15
commodification 6:3-4; competencies 62; Evanoff, R.J. 194
expanding circle 57-8: globalisation 57--8, everyday languaging 265-6
65; hyper-central 57; inner circle 57; mobility Explorations in Ethnography, Langu,1ge and
(.,2-3; outer circle 57; social history of 71: in Co111111uniration 2
tounsm 62 extra-disciplinary literacy practices 360
374
Index
Fabricius, A.H. 303 construction of59-61; economic 61-3;

Facebook 47, 73, 119, 233, 322, 351 English 57-8, 65; flows of 54, 55, 59; heart
faceless bureaucracy 191 of 286, 288; history of55-6; linguistic 54,
Fader, A. 322 55, 57, 58; social 65; see also language-and-
Fairclough, N. 30, 31, 60, 70 globalisation research
faith communities 313-14; formation and global linguistic hierarchies 56-9
negotiation of314-16; historical perspectives glocalisation 70, 72
314-16; issues and debates 316-20; practice, Goffman, E. 24, 30, 116, 214, 280
implications for 321; research methods 320-1 Golder, B. 30
Fanschel, D. 29 Goldin-Meadow, S. 342
Fernandez-Barrera, A. 292 Goodfellow, R. 361
field notes 244-5; annotations of 147; critical Goodwin, C. 30, 33, 125, 136
issues and debates 149-50; participant Goodwin, M.H. 19
observation and 141; practical and ethical Cornall, L. 363, 364
issues 146; as private texts 146; reading mode Gourlay, L. 236, 361
146; representation 141; as shared documents governmentality, Foucault's not.ion of 23, 24
146; working with 147; writing mode 146 Graff, H.J. 48
Finnish Sign Language (FinSL) sign 346 Greek-Cypriot adolescents 267
first pair part (FPP), in conversation analysis 173 Green,E.M. 343,347,350
'first paradigm' oflinguistic anthropology 3 Gregory, E. 318, 320-1
Firth, A. 301 Grey, A. 59, 63
Flett, G. 294 Guerrero, C. 288
folk bilingualism 288 'Guidelines on good practice in applied
Fontana, A. 155 linguistics' 185
Fook,J. 30 Guillemin, M. 191
Foucauldian discourse analysis 30, 31 Gumperzian IS see interactional sociolinguistics (IS)
Foucault, M. 20, 30, 31, 260; governmentality Gumperz,J. 3, 4, 13-24, 30, 201, 273, 300
23,24 Gutierrez, K.D. 45
Frey,J. 155 Gutshall Rucker, T. 49
Friedner, M. 344
Habermas, J. 194
Gal, S. 4, 290 Haggerty, K. 24
Ganga, D. 161 Hall, K. 3, 18, 19
Gao, S. 62 Hall, N. 41
Gardner, S. 4 Hamilton, M. 43, 47
Garfinkel, H. 170, 301 Hammersley, M. 150, 151, 154
Garrido, M. 289 Harvey, D. 31, 74
Garza, C.L. 321 Harweg, R. 29
gaze 132-6 Hatim, B. 32
Gee,J. 31, 45 health care planning: back stage 332, 333; front
Geertz, C. 126 stage 333-6; health policy 326, 327, 331, 333
gendered interviews 156 Heath, C. 33, 315, 319
'general theory of verbal communication' 15, 19 Heath, S.B. 42, 43
Centi!, G. 362 Heller, M. 4, 61, 98, 184, 190, 216, 289, 290
gesture-based interactions, deaf people 348, 350 Heritage, J. 16, 171
gestures 132-6 Herod, A. 71-3, 75, 81
Ghanaian Pentecostal faith communities 316 Hess, D. 159
Giampapa, F. 217 heteroglossia 5, 216, 274-5, 278, 280; Bakhtin's
Giddens, A. 31 notion of 97, 99-100; critical issues and
Giles, H. 111 debates 98-100; future directions of106;
Gillam, L. 191 historical perspectives 97-8; implications
Gillen,J. 4 105-6; 'superdiversity' 100; Translation and
Globalese 63 Translanguaging project 101-5
global genre norms 60 Heyl, B. 154
global identity 60 Hill, J. 156
globalisation 70, 71, 74, 75; advertising 59, 63-4; Hill, K. 156
cultural 62; definition of 54, 59; discursive Hine, C. 233-5
375
Index
hip hop styles 116 interlocutors 15, 87, 109

Hjulstad, J. 344 international deafinteractions 346
Hofer, T. 348 International Sign (IS) 346
Hogan-Brun, G. 289 interpretative repertoire 32
Holdgaard, R. 30 interpretive applied linguistics 3
Holmstrom, I. 349 interpretive ethnography 332
Holquist, M. 278 interpretive policy analysis 326, 328, 329, 337
homesign (home sign) 342 intersectional approach 93
Hou, L.Y.-S. 343, 345 intersectionality oflinguistic hierarchies 58
Hou, M. 234 intertextuality 215, 281-4
House, J. 301 interview(ing) 154, 331-3; de-humanisation of
Howarth, D. 31 161; digital communication 163; ethics of161;
Hu, G. 58 future directions in 164; gendered 156; group
Hull, G.A. 46 interview 220-1, 221; interviewer-informant
Hutchins, E. 49 relationship 160-1; interviewer's role 158-9;
hybrid identities 65 knowledge collection/construction process
Hymes, D. 3, 4, 13, 30, 66, 101, 156, 201, 204, 158; legitimacy of 162; positivist framework
214,215,300 157, 158; postructuralist 156; qualitative 156,
Hynninen, N. 362 157, 162; reflexivity 163; semi-structured
hyper-central languages 57 155_-6, 163; sociolinguistic 243; structured
155; taxonomies of158; triangulation 163;
identity/ies 171, 358, 360-3; categories 245-6; unstructured 156; 'walk alongs' 163
construction 4, 65, 217, 320 interaction 174-9 intrinsic double-voicedness 279
"ideological becoming" 262 Iran, Street's fieldwork 43
"ideological" model ofliteracy 315 Irvine,]. 120, 290
ideology/ideological 115, 120, 121 IS see interactional sociolinguistics (IS)
Ikeda, K. 304 Islamic theology 315
ilkba~aran, D. 347 Israeli M. 204, 208, 210
imagined communities 59, 60 Israeli Sign Language (ISL) 347
impact, definition of192 Ivanic, R. 358, 361
imperial expansion 55
indexical field 114 Jacquemet, M. 22
indexicality 7, 97-9, 278-81; see also social Jaspers,]. 89, 115, 117, 118, 267, 288, 294
indexicality Jaworska, S. 288
indexical meanings 119 Jaworski, A. 19, 60, 63, 286, 287, 289
indigenous Native American groups 3 Jefferson, G. 169
inferencing 15 Jenkins,]. 301
informed consent 185 Jensen, C. 303
'integrated', Madsen's notion of89 'jocks' 85-6, 111
interactional behaviour 30 Johnstone, B. 114
interactional sequence 32 Johnston, T. 349
interactional sociolinguistics (IS) 2-4, 13-14, Jones, R. 231
29-30; challenges 17-20; code-switching 21, Jonsson, R. 265
23; contextualisation 15-16; conversation J0rgensen, J.N. 265
analysis 18-19; future directions 22-4;
'general theory of verbal communication' 15, Kachru, B.B. 57
19; historical background 14-15; inferencing Kachru's model oflinguistic hierarchy 57-8
15; intensive analysis of recorded interaction Kalocsai, K. 303, 305, 306
17; intercultural communication 22; linguistic Kaufhold, K. 360
anthropology 18-19; practical interventions Keating, E. 351
beyond the academy 20-1; tradition of300 Keesing, R. 160
interaction ritual 116 Kendon, A. 33
intercultural communication 292; banal Kenner, C. 316
nationalism in 63; Gumperz's own work Kintsch, W. 29
14, 21, 22 Kisch, S. 342, 347
interdisciplinarity 8, 65, 201, 226, 236, 294 Kneebone, R. 193
interdisciplinary collaboration 201 Knorr-Cetina, K. 356
376
Index
knowledge production 8, 213 "learn to talk" style 42

Kotsinas, A.B. 261 lecturing 109, 110
Kraft, K. 305 Lee, C. 47
Kress, G. 126, 127 Leeuwen, T. van 126, 236
Kubanyiova, M. 191-2 LEF see Linguistic Ethnography Forum (LEF)
Kuby, C.R. 49 Lefebvre, H. 73
Kumaravadivelu, B. 61 Lefstein, A. 204, 208, 210
Kusters, A. 343, 348, 350 legitimacy of interviewing 162
Kvale, S. 158 Leibold, J. 65
Leith, D. 71
LA see linguistic anthropology (LA) Leki, I. 361
Labov, W. 29, 84-5, 91, 110, 111, 114, 157, 261 Lemke,]. 74
Laclau, E. 31 Leont'ev, A.N. 42
Lamoureux, S. 217 Le Page, R. 111
language analysis for the determination of origin let-it-pass procedure 301
(LADO) 22 Levasseur, C. 292
language-and-globalisation research 54-5; Lillis, T.M. 358, 359, 362, 364-6
commodification and consumption 63-4; Lincoln, Y. 154, 157
digital communication 65; future directions lingua franca 55, 74, 299; vs. applied linguistics
65-6; globalisation as discursive construction 300; ethnographic approaches, value of303;
59-61; historical perspectives 55-6; language historical perspectives 300-1; issues and
work 61-3; linguistic hierarchies 56-9 debates 301-4; practice, implications for
'language brokers' 305
305-6; research methods and approaches 305;
language-centred eliteness 286
transnational mobility 304-5; see also English
language commodification and consumption 63-4 as a lingua franca (ELF)
language crossing 89, 279 linguistic analysis 46, 86, 193, 331
language-diverse classrooms 6; and classroom linguistic anthropologists 4, 113
settings 274; conceptualisation of274; linguistic anthropology (LA) 3, 13, 30; and
critical issues and debates 275-84; diversity, interactional sociolinguistics 18-19
studies of274; heteroglossia, nature and linguistic capital, conceptualisation of289
role of274-5; historical perspectives 273-4; linguistic competence 160, 289
language practices 273; language vs. learning linguistic diversity 55, 56, 98, 99
274; linguistic ethnography research 275, linguistic/educational inequality 58
284; Nemanja's case 282; youth culture and linguistic ethnography (LE) 273; definition
education 274
of 1; discourse analysis and 33-5; history
language genres 60 ofl-2; literacy studies and 40-1, 46; and
language ideologies 7, 22, 217, 264-5, 289, multimodality 126; publications 2; scales in
290, 349-51
76; theoretical influences and antecedents 2-4
language policies 57, 306 Linguistic Ethnography Forum (LEF) 2, 185,
language practices 59-60, 163, 242, 261, 273, 195,196
274,318,342 linguistic hierarchies 56-9
language pyramid 57 linguistic ideologization 263
language socialisation 6, 42 linguistic imperialism 57
language standardisation 55 linguistic landscape 60, 62, 64, 128, 163
language stratification 99 linguistic practices 259, 265-6
language use 46, 59, 65, 77, 89, 99, 106, 115, linguistic repertoires 103, 110, 294
118, 233, 266, 281, 302; discourse analysis linguistic sabotage 267
28-33; in performative perspective 30; linguistics of community 112
social-actional view on 29, 30 linguistics of contact 112
language work 61-3 'linguistic turn' 30
Larsen-Freeman, D. 33
linguistic variable 110, 119; social indexicality
Lassiter, L.E. 199 of114
Lasswell, H. 327 linguistic variation 110-12
Latin vocabulary 279 linguistic variety, 'value' of290
Latour, B. 41, 44, 46, 356 Lipsky, M. 328
Lea, M.R. 363 Lising, L. 61
'learner Danish' 114 literacy apprenticeship 42
377
Index
49 rncmbership cHegor12c1tion :malysis (MCA)

liteo,-y events 42, 43 168-9; aud10/v1dco rec:o1 din gs of 'naturallv
literacy mvth 42 occurring' talk lfi<l: c1ncrgcncc of 1(,9, 171):
literacy 41 3_ 48,358,360,361 structLtral aspects of 170:
studies 3; comnbutions ·+5: critiul 180: tools of 179
issues and debates 43-5; ,kfinitions ,1(1-1; meuco1nme11tarv 215. 218
clcrnand of 47: rese:uch 45 --7: future meta-linguistic discourses 56
directions ~8--50: historical perspecti vcs ll-J: n:HionaJ .isru 71
impcllls for 4L tl--4; tor practrcc reile,\iYity 213, 217- 218;
47-8: and '"'"·~---,-- 41)-1, 4(,: ch:dlengcs with 216: clcJ,nitwn of2ll
rnain research tnethods H,--7: multimodal 111.icro arulysJs i ntcraction ·t 6()- ;,so~
transcription n1ethod 4(,--7: research areas 45; iliso conversation analysis (CA):
social mcdi,1 research 47 mcml•crship czitcgorization analysis (fvlCA)
literacy 44 m ic rn-level 331 2
literate activity '\57 ,nigr:,tion: EU polin un 76---7: nc1ni;ige 76-80
'Little Bm.1ks Library' 2:C:2 IVliL:mi_ T M 265
Liyanage_ L 98 /\Jilk K /\, 47
"local nnsculinc order" 2C,4 Milrov, J l:'i7
1vlirchandani. K- 62
longitudinal Mims, G, ,l'51
Lonsrn:mn, D, 30°L _-ins Mi.shlt·L E.(;, 161
Q, 115-16 "mixed faith situation" 319
Ln\vic. ICH. 1f,O of methods 241;
Luff; P. 33 242--4; datc1 coJlection .methods 244--7:
'luxury Jabour' 289 implications 253; integrity of 245:
Lyons IvL 41 rnc-thodological shift 245; recent studies using
244-,'i: UrBfn-lD project 241-2, 24_~--53;
JvlcCard1y, L - [>, 35:-; v,1ri,1tionis1: and ethnographic rcscnch
McDonald's, traditiorn 241-2
IVlcCroarty. lvL 292 MM multimocblit y (MM)
McKee, R. 349 workers
IvLtckcnzic, J 193 292-J: trainers vvork. 292
lVIcivl ulJan, J 361 mob1lit1 38, 62-3
1vladm1, LM, 89, 99, 116. D2, D3, 263, 266 Mock (Mock Ebonics, iVlock Spanish,
Makoni. S. 98 Mock Asian) 117
"maktab" literacy 315 mode 2 research 225
/vt1linowski, B- 142, 156, 158, 160 MOt'.rllLllJ,lVL l'J
Ivfalkki, LH_ 202 ,\-1ogcs, R _T 351!
lvL1ndarin 55, 36. SS_ 59: 62 65, 292
7 Mollcr,J,S, 2-1:C\
rnargiruJi~:1tion 279
"m:irket-value" 289
marriage fr;tud invcslig:ations_ in Belgium 77-80 iVloort·, /\, 73
Martin-Jones, J\·1- 4 Moore, E. 317
[\-Llryns, K. 179 Mortensen, J, 303
Mas0rL I- 32 MOS:\[C Centre for Research on
I\1a5Scy, D X I 2. 4_ 2uJ
rnat:hc111atics cducatlon 277, 278 motivational rck,,,rn,ics 214 -1 S
Mauranen, A. 301 Moutfr, C .C\J
Mauritian Muslim 319 Mullaney, TS_ 56
J 33-5, 202-3, 273, 279, 3] 4 rnult, dimemi01ul genre -360
iVlead, IVJ. J56, 150 rnulti ethnic C()!Tl!Tlllllitv, in UK :ns
98, 126, 127, 218 classrooms 2. 274
mediated discourse 236 22, SC,, f,U, 74, 106:
medical ethics: anonyn1itv lS7, 188; ,1utonomy dtstincr,on and 288: critical
1(17: bcndicrnce 185: 1 8; ,,tlmographic rc'S\"Jn-h 2'10-:,; criucal issues
t~1irncss and 189; inforn1cd co11scnt cllld dcb:1tcs 289--')U: definition of:28(,-7,
185; ju:stice JS(); right to 1,vithdtJ\:V 108 28'!: elite ,md folk bil 288, 28'.l;
378
Index
ethnographic research 011 4; historical onlinc idc·ntitit's 65, 230

perspectives 287-9; new sociolinguistics online interpersoml communication 234
of 4: overlapping clusters of 287: "pbnned online-mcdiatcd comrnunication 361
,md purposeful" decision 291; practice, online sociality 23
implications !or 293-4; practice, 219;
prevalence of 288; sociolmguistic study Pahl, K. 45
of97-8 Palazzo, C. 195
111ult1lingual scholars 358, 359, 362, 366 Paltndgc, B. 359, 364
multi-medi,, annotation tool :,41 Paquet, R., 292
multimodal analysis 106, 128 p<1role 28
multi.1nodal conununication 234 participant observation: accc,s and acccptabi lity
multimodal discourse analym 33 144: audio- and video-recordings 143,
multi modality (MM) 125; after-school tuition 149; co-understanding 143; critical issues
centre l-">0-5; chopstick wrapper 128-30; and debates 149-50; definition of 143;
classroom research 128; cunceptualisation :md ethnogr..1phy Hl; 'field' settings 143;
of 136; critical issues and debates 126-7; future research 150; historical perspectives
historical perspectives 125-6; ,md linguistic 142; literacy teaching 14J--4; long-term
ethnography 126; lrnguistic landscape 120; involvement m 148, 150; parameters of
'looking beyond speech' 130-5; 'looking 145; real-world issue 148; reflexivity 142,
beyond writing' 120-30; meaning-m.aking 143, 145, 149; selective use of150; 'threats'
126, 127, 136; semiotic work 126--7; to 150; topic-oriented ethnogrctphics 147:
transcriptiom 131-2, 135- 6; upper bndy, transcontextual analysis 148; see also field notes
gesture and gaze 132-6 Paulston, C. 288
mult.imodal transcription 46--7, Ul-2, 135-6 Paxton, M.. 361
Muth, S, 290 Pelletier, C. 193
Pennycook, A. 98, 231
Nader, L. 333 People's Republic of China (PRC) 55, 56,
nation;1l standard language 5fi 348-9; English education in 58; Mandarin 56,
national, urban sign languages 341-2 58, 59, 65; Yangshuo's linguistic landscape 62;
native and non-native speaker 293 Zhuang minority language 58-9
"native languages" 160 Perez-Llantada. C 364
native speakcrisrn 293 Perez-Mibns, M. 22,216,217
Al-Natour, R. 161 'performative turn' 262
'naturally occurring' talk 11>') peripheral languages 57
Naxi minority language 62 Peuroncn, S, 322
Nelson, M.L 4f, Phillipson, R, 57
netspeak 231 Piller, L 56
New Literacy Studies 40, 41, 314; ste also play-acting communication 267
literacy studies policy: analysis 326-9, 3-31-2, 337; analytic
'new ,ocioli n.guistics' 19 methods 32'): as discourse 328-9; discursive
New York study 110 turn in policy studies 328-9; documents 331,
New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) 349 333; ethnography 328; linguistic ethnography
Nonaka, A.. M. 342, 348 329; policy void 329, 336; process 329, 334,
'non-standard' ways of speaking'!., 3.'7; stuclies 327-9
Norreby, TR 233, 268 political language 335-6
"Nucstra 2,ci,ora de Guadalupe" ·l17 political science 287
Nygaard, L.P. 363 Pomerantz, A. 267
Nyst, V. 342, 3,u 'posh, m-le/styfoation 87-')_ 115
positionality 74--5
c\bserver's pc1radox 111 post hoc reconstructions 172
'observing the observer' 145 posthumanism 49, 236
Ochs, E, 120, 31'.\ post-positivist approach 327
O'Connor, T.W, 276, 281, 284 postructuralist interviews 156
older identities 174-9 posts,ructuralist approach 1r,o
Oliver, M, 361 'post-variatrnnist' students ofstyle 121
O'Neill, K.L. 62 Potter, Jonathan 162
'one·-nation one-language' ideology 56 power 329, 331-3, 335-7
379
Index
Pmvesland, P. 111 Roman Catholic school 319

practice and resource-centred approach 287-8 Roozen, K, 360
practice-oriented approach 26L 262, 264 R.ose, N. 21
practice theories 16, 246 Rosowsky, A. 318
PR.C sec People's Repub.lic of China (PRC) R.oss, H.A. :i8
Preece, S. 291, 361 Rowsell, J. 45
preference org:misation l7 3-4 Roy, C 32
Preisler, B. 303 Rumsey, S. 319, 322
prestige us. plebeian multilingualism 288 Rmnspringa 319
Prior, P.A 357, 359 "rural sign languages" 342
process-oriented research perspectives 32 Rydenvald, f\1. 292, 293
Prus. R.. 160 Rymes, B. 4, 218
Purcell-Gates. V. 44. 45. 49
Sacks, H. 169, 170
qualitative data an,1lysis software 341 SAE see stylised Asian English (SAE)
qualitative interviews 156, 162; "interpretive Sagoo, G.K. 316
turn" 157 Sahasrabudhc, S. 350
Quantz, R.A. 276, 281, 284 Salisbury, J. 363, 364
Quinto-Pozos. D. 346 Salo, L. 304
Quist, P. 261, 263 Salter-Dvorak, H. 361
Qu'ranic literacy 315, 317 San Juan Quiah~e Chatino Sign Language
(SJQCSL) 343, 345
race discrimination 17, 20 San Juan QniahiJe signing community 350
ndio presenters, stylisation 111, 113, 115, 120-1 Sarangi, S. 214, 215
Rampton, E 4, 33. 86-8, 100, 101, 106, 112-13. Sarroub, L. .320
115,116,118,121,122,169,203,217, 2.36, scalar reasoning 73
237,244,260,261,275,279 scale 4; 'the body' 75-(,, 81; border-crossing,
Rapley, T.J. 162 linguistic ethnographic account of76-80; as
'rational choice' frame,vork 327 'category of analysis us. practice' 73; concept
Received Promtnciation 114 of7U-3; future directions 80-1; geographical
reflexive-linguistic approach 193 73; Herod's notion of71-3, 75, 8L in
rellcxivity 111, 19.3, 276--8; definition of linguistic ethnography 76; as space/time
159, 213-14; in ethnographic research 7.3-5; spatial turn 70-3; "three shifts" 72;
219--25; future directions 225-6; historical Wallersteinean perspective 73
perspectives 214-15; interviews 163; scaled narratives 73
methodological 213, 214, 216-18; negotiation Scheglotl E.A. 171, 220
216, 217; in participant observation 142, 143, Scherer, A.G. 195
145, 149; politics ofi(kntity 217; positioning Schmicll, R 328
in research 213, 217; practices 225; chool culture: classroom interaction 222. 223;
relationality and 216-17; and team research complexities in fieldwork 219; dogmatism
217-18; 'voices' 216-18 221; dogmatism-resistance dynamics 222-3
Relafio-Pastor, A.M. 217, 292 school-based ethnographic research 349
relationality 216-17 scientific knowledge (SSK) 356, 361
"religious classical" language 318 'scient.ific' knowledge tradition 24:',
religious concepts 313 Scollon, R., 23, 126, 156
reported speech 10:J-4 Scollon, S. 126, 156
reporting context 103-4 Scott, J.C. 56
researcher neutrality 159 Scott, S. 161
researcher positionality 66, 202-4 Scribner, C. 315
researcher's subjectivity 213,214 Scribner, S. 42, 317
ResearchGate website 236 second language acquisition (SU\) 301
Researcl,ins i\lu/tilinlttalisnz In Research Practice 2 second pair part (SPP), in conversation
'rhetorical strategies' 300 analysis 173
Roadville community 316 'second par:rdigm· ofli.nguisti,: anthropology 3
Roberts, C. 14, 20, 22, 300 second wave of variationist studies 111. 119
Robertson, R, 70 Scidlhofor, B. 30 l
Rock. F, 205, 209 self-conscious speech 118
380
Index
Selleck, C. 286, 291-3 social media 72, 233, 366; and digital
semiotic processes/systems 15, 16, 18. 98 communication 266; multi.lingual
semi-structured interviews 155·-6, 163 practices in 97
semitising concepts 333, 335 social media platforms 23, 47
Seror, J. 362 social medi;1 research 47
service and knowledge economy 61-2 social. network 116
"shared sign languages" 342 social practice 326 8, 335-6
Sharma, B. 290 social semiotic model 127, 236
Sharma, D. 244 social technical studies 49
Shaw,J. 30 socio-comrnunicatnre networks 16
Shaw, S. 2, 217 sociocultural approaches 3-4
Sheppard, E. 74-5 socrncultural linguistics t::-:
Shipka, J 359 socio-economic conditions 2S6
signing in British Sign Language (BSL) 346 sociolinguistic advocacy 92
sign languages: contact, multilingualism and sociolinguistic change 121
setniotic repertoires 346; e111erging sign sociolingui,tic cthnographies of
languages 345: language ideologies 349-51; globalisation 54-66
language learning and socialisation 343-4; socioJingnislic interviews 111. 243
language shift and endangerment 348-9; and sociolinguistics 13, 16-18: see also interactional
linguistic ethnography 340-1; main research sociolinguistics (IS); variationist
methods 341: signed language-writing contact sociolinguistics
346; sign language-sign language contact sociologv of education 287
347-8; sociolinguistic contexts of341-3; and Siiderlundh, H. 304
spoken language contact 346; theoretical and Song, Y. 60
methodological approach 340; typological Sonntag, S. 287
diversity of 343 South Korea, case study of 62
"silly talk" 267 spatial envelopes 73
Silverstein, M. 18, 100 spatio--tcmporal complexes of scaling 7.l
Simpson, P. 32 SPEAKING-project 30
Simpson, Z. 362 speech act theory 29, 30
situated cognition 49 Spradley, J.P, 159, 161
'situated genre analysis' 360 Stoehr, A. 116, 232-4, 266
SLA see second language acquisition (SLA) stances 113, 120
Slembrouck, S. 4, 34, 76 standard (language) 114, '120, 121
Smit, U 303, 305, 306 Starfiel<l. S. 361
Snell,]. 2, 5, 119, 120, 217 stereotypes 118; racial 117
Snoddnn, K. 350 Stierer, Fl. 363
social and educatioml elite 293 Strathern, A. 1(,0
social and political theory 333 Streer, B. 32, 42-3, 315
social categorisation 105 street level bureaucracy/bureaucrat 327. 328, 335
social class 5, 84, 93-4; critical debates and structural variety approach 261
implications for practice 91--3; Eckert's structured interviews 155
ethnography 85-6; future directions 93; srndent voice, in c!:issroorns 274
historical perspectives 84-6; 'jock, and student writing 360-2
'burnouts' 85-6; Labovian tradition 84; studying up. importance of333-5
M.adsen's analyses 8'); main research methods style and stylisation 5, 87-9; African American
87: 'Murrayfidd Primary' l's. 'Ironstone English 115-18; audience design 111, 116,
Primary' 90, 90111; 'posh' and 'cockney' 1l7; Rtkhtin's notion of112; communication
87-9; possessive 111e and cla" position 90: accommodation theory 111; concept of
Rampton's ethnography 87-9; stylisation and 109-10; contE'n1por:1ry urban vernacnlar
87-·9; variationist studies 84 -6; workmg-class 122; contextualisation 119: critical issues
children's language 90-l and debates 116-18; as distinctiveness 120;
social credentialing system 294 double-voicing 112; effects of 117 18;
social d1ffcrenti,1tion 87 88. 290 evaluative behaviour 114-15; exemplary styles
social indexicality 113, 114 1U9; foture directions 121··2; bip hop styles
sociahsat1on processes 42, 114, 343 116; historical perspectives 110-13; linguistic
social meanings 98 variation 110--12; local uses of120; in
381
Index
music J.16; observer's paradox 111; in onlme topic-oriented ethnographies 147

environments 116; performance 111, 113, Torfing, J. 31
115-16, 121: 'post-variatiomst' students of 'total linguistic fact' 100--1, 118
style 121; radio presenters 111, 113, 115, 120- tourism: commodification in 64; language
1; Rarnpton's work 011 112-U, 115; 'real life' practices h2
linguistic styles 115; Received Pronunciation Trackton community 316
114; refl.exi ve understamlin 6 of 121--2; social transcontexttr1l an.dysis 148
indexicality 113-14; of Standard Dutch 115; transcription(s) 247; conventions 250;
standards and di,dects 121; Stylised Asian multunod.il 46 7, 131-2, 1Yi-6
English 113, 117; variat10nist studies 111-12, translanguaging 100
119; Vv'elsh study l13, 120 7i,rnslation and Tra11slang11,i~ing project (TLA.NG)
style selection 110 101-5, 225
style shifts 110-12 tunslingual strategics 60
stylised Asian English (SAE) 113, 117, 280 travelogues 61
stylisers' beh;,viour l 14-15 triangubtion 163
stylistic variat10n 110 Tuck,]. 359,363
'substantive theory' 18 Tummons,]. 363
Sunyol, A. 292 Turkey 76
super-central la.nguages 57 Tuskegee medical experiment 185-'>
'superdiverse subjectivities' 105 Tusting, K. 33-5, 202 3, 273, 314, 319, 363
supcrdivcrsity 100 Twitchin,John 17
surveillance, digital 236
Svendsen, B.A 261, 263 UK, lin,c:uisti, eth1Jogra.phy in 2, 33
de Swaan, A. 57 UNESCO, literacy definition 43
Swales,J.M. 356-8 Unjore, S. 318
Swedish Sign Lmguage (SSL) 3,19 unstructured interviews 156
Swinglehur;t, D. 148, 179, 233, 235 Ur/,an Ilriti.<I, English and ldenti1y (UrBEn-ID)
Sword. H. 364 project: data collection methods 247; identity
Swyngedouw, E. 72 and practices 245-6; Pl<-U Learning Centres
srtematic speech 118 241; th-stopping and musical practices 247-
53; tr,mscription practices 247; variationist
'talk around text' research method 363, 365 and ethnographic tools 241-2
Tapio, E. 346 urban youth styles, study of 260, 2(,2, 26.5
Tue, A. 293 US: linguistic anthropology in 3; sociocultural
Tare, P. 293 linguists in 3
Tardy, C. 360 Usenet newsgroup•,, 230
TCK see Third Culture Kids (TCK)
teacher training, feedback sessions in 206 Vai phonetic script 315
teaching language-as-system 302 Vandenbroucke, M. 4, 72
team ethnography 19'i, 217 Van der Walt, C. 304
technological determinism 230, 232 Van Dijk, TA. 29
text analysis 22, 46, 364 Van Hoof. S. J 15
'text lingui sties' 29 Van Hout, T. 205, 233, 235
'tcxtographic' ;cpproach 3'36 vJriationism/vari:itionisr rese;rrch (first, second
textography 357, 359, 361, 364 and third wave of) 111-12, 119
text oriemed ethnographv 359 variationist linguistics 2,12
Thai Sign Language 348 variationist sociolinguistio 19; class in 84-6
Themistodeo11s, C. 288 V,uis, P. 98
think tanks 326, 327, 331, 333-5 ventriloquation 218
Third Culture Kid,, (TCK) 292, 293 Vermeerbergcn, M. 346
'third paradigm' oflinguistic anthropology 3 vernacular 110, 111, 115, 120
third Wdve of variationist studies 111-12. 119. 246 vernacular literacies 41
Thomson, P. 147 village, rural/shared sign languages 342, 343
Thurlow, C. 60. 28(,, 287, 289 Visual American Sign LJllguage 345
Tibetan Sign Language (TibSL) 348-9 visual and multimodal research methods 321
Ti/burg A1pers in Culture Studies 2. 215 'voices' 7, 21<,--18; cacophony of27R
time-shifted ethnography 235 Volk, D. J19
382
Index
Volosinov, V. 10:l, l U4 practices 363

de Vos, C. 342 \Vortlum, S. 4, 74
Vygotsky, LS. 42 S 302
Wadensjo. C 32 Ying, H. 62
Wagner, J. JCJ8, 2U9, 2◊9 Yangsbuo's linguistic landscape 62
Welsh-medium education 291 Young, A. 160
"Welsh-speaking elite" 291 youth culture and education 274
Welsh study on stylisation 113, 120 youth language style: definitions of 259-61:
Werlich, E. 29 ethnification and gendering 263--4;
Wernick, A. 31 ethnographic studies of 6; global flows
Wetherell, M. 31, :34 266--7; historical perspectives 261-2; labels,
Whyte, W. F. 142 prohlem of262-3; language ideologies 264-5;
wicked proble1m 337 linguistic practices 259, 265--(,; structural
Widdowson. H. 301 variety approach 261; url.i;m nn1ltilingml
Wildavsky, A. '>2il environments 265
Woolard, K.A. 4, 243 Yuk, C. 29
Woolgar, S. 156
working-class bilingualism 289 zero-sum language ideology 62
working-class children's language 90-1, 93, 148 Zeshan, U 342
Working Lives project 363 Zheng, L. 302
!+,,rking Papers in Urban Lan:;1111ge m1.d Litcrc1cies Zhou, M. 58
2, 215 Zhuang minority language 58-9
383
1
li!llllll!lliilli illlllli!l:i:l:111111111111111111111111111111111111111
~* 90100310102543
Taylor & Francis eBooks

· tay!orfran( . . ( r •
for eBooks fr
11:11 i rancis
wiih incrE>c,,seci func ,11,d an improved user
e><perience m rnE•c•t tiw of our custon1e1 s.
I ,ur11aniries, Social Sci(:111\i' rechnologv, Engini::,er,ng.

and Medi:.c,i '1'<, 1,.l, 1, J global networ •··
1 0 : ; id authors.
TA'YLOR & FRANCIS EBOIJKS OFFERS:
REQUEST A FREE TRIAL

. support@taylorfrands.com
"This handbook documents, in rigorous and compelling detail, the different strands of
theory and method that have been incorporated into the unique intellectual commons
known as Linguistic Ethno~raphy. As well as being an immensely good read, this volume
constitutes a major new resource for all researchers concerned with the ethnographic study
of language in contemporary social life."
Marilyn Martin-Jones, University of Birmingham, UK
'This is an importanttext on the rich history as well as infinite applications of Linguistic

Ethnography with simply the best collection of scholars in the fiel.d. A 'must-read' for all
past, present and future scholars invested in the important work of Linguistic Ethnography."
Allyson Jule, Trinity Western University, Canada
The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography provides an accessible, authoritative

and comprehensive overview of this growing body of research, combining ethnographic
approaches with dose attention to language use.- This handbook illustrates the richness and
potentialof linguistic ethnography to provide detailed understandings of situated patterns of
language use while. connecting these patterns clearly to broader social structures.
Including a general introduction to linguistic ethnography and 25 state-of-the-art chapters
from expert international scholars, the handbook is divided into three sections. Chapters
cover historical, empirical, methodological and theoretical contributions to the field, and
new approaches and developments.
This handbook is key reading for those studying linguistic ethnography, qualitative research
methods, sociolinguistics and educational linguistics within English Language, Applied
Linguistics, Education and Anthropology.
Karin Tusting is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Linguistics and English Language,
Lancaster University. Her research has in recent years focussed on the literacies .of the
workplace, with a particular interest in issues of audit and accountability.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE/ APPLIED LINGUISTICS/ EDUCATION AND ANTHROPOLOGY
Cover image: © Getty Images
ISBN 978-1-138-93816-8
I~ ~?io~:!;n~~~up
www.routledge.com
l/111111111 N/1111111111111 /I
9 781138 938168
an inforrila business

The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography by Karin Tusting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography by Karin Tusting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Routledge Handbook

The Routledge Handbook of language Revitalization

The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Theory and Second language

The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice

The Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to Young learners

The Routledge Handbook of Second language Research in Classroom

The Routledge Handbook of language in Conflict

The Routledge Handbook of English language Teacher Education

The Routledge Handbook of linguistic Ethnography

For a full fot of titles in this series, please visit WW\N.routledge.corn/series/RHAL

Edited by Karin Tusting

ISBN 97S-1--Ll8-938J(, -8 (hbk)

Printed and bound in Great Britain by

List o_ffi,gures XIV

List o_f talJ/cs xv

List <f contributors XV!l

5 Sociolinguistic ethnographies of globalisation 54

The body as a taken-for-granted scale 75

9 Style and stylisation 109

Further reading 122

11 Participant observation and field notes 14]

lntroduction and definitions 141

12 The ethnographic interview 154

13 Micro-analysis of spoken interaction 168

15 Collaborative ethnography 198

Critical issues ,md debates 215

17 Digital approache, in linguistic etlmography 229

18 Mixmg method:,? Linguistic ethnography and language variation 241

·19 Youth hmguage 259

Critical issues and debates 262

20 Language diversity in classroom settings 273

21 Elite multilingualism 286

22 Lingua fr;rnca scenarios 299

23 Faith communities 312

24- Policy 326

25 Sign languages 340

26 Academic \11,-riting 356

Current contributions and research areas 359

5.1 Duwntown Nanning. C:nangxi Zhuangzu i\utonomous Reg10n,

18.1 Distribution of variants of'th' across all pupils 248

Elisabeth Barakos is Lecturer m Applied Linguistics ,it Aston University, Birmingham,

Adrian Blackledge is Professor of Soc10linguistics in the Faculty of Social Sciences al the

Fiona Copland is Professor of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Language, (TESOL)

Rob Drummond is Reader in Lingui,tics at Manchester Metropolitan University and Head

Lynn Hou is an Assistant Professor in the Linguistics Department at the University of

Mingyi Hou is a Lecturer in Online Culture at Tilburg University's Department of Culture

Jurgen Jaspers is Associate Professor in Dutch Linguistics at the Universite Libre de

Kathrin Kaufhold is Assistant Professor in the Department ofEnglish, Stockholm University.

Annelies Kusters is Assistant Professor in Sign Language and Intercultural Research at

Vally Lytra is Reader in Languages in Education in the Department of Educational Studies

Tommaso M. Milani is Professor of Multilingualism at the University of Gothenburg. He

Adriana Patino-Santos, Assoo:tte Professor at the Department ofModon Languages and

Charlotte Selleck is a Senior Lecturer in Linguistics at the University of the West of

Stef Slembrouck is a Senior Professor in English Linguistics at Ghent University. He

Mieke Vandenbroucke is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Chent University. After defend-

History of linguistic ethnography

Theoretical influences and antecedents

it attaches little significance to the metalinguistic comrnentary on interaction provided by

Practical interventions beyond the academy

Current contributions and research areas

small-scale techniques of coordination [widely diffused throughout society] [which] or-

At the opposile end, IS strnhes of interacllonal conduct tllned to the ·eavesdropper' in

Historical perspectives and key definitions:

English tr:lllshtiun: "'Spoken publH . oratory which develops a particu.Lir topic."