Interrogating old and new assumptions around language, territory and nativeness in minority language sociolinguistics

In this colloquium we will explore new dynamics in language revitalisation studies and contemporary debates which this has generated in the field of minority language sociolinguists. The trope of a decline in diversity is common to today’s linguistic criticism. While it is often widely accepted that globalisation can be a factor in the dissolution and extinction of minority languages, this complex process does not result in language loss solely, as these languages are often taken up and used by new types of speakers, for new purposes and in new spaces. This complex reality requires critical engagement with three inter-related assumptions which have long dominated the field: (1) languages as bounded, discrete and named entities; (2) territorialised notions of language within bounded communities of place; (3) the native speaker ideal.  The colloquium will examine these key assumptions in the context of post-structuralist thinking that has taken place in the field of critical sociolinguistics more broadly. While advocating for the merits of critical sociolinguistic thinking and the new understandings this has generated, in the colloquium we will explores some of the challenges that a poststructuralist position presents for policy makers, minority language advocates and minority language speakers. The colloquium will reflect on how we as critical sociolinguists can retain a critical position without undermining this important work.

The colloquium will consist of the following:

(1) an introductory paper which sets out the background to the proposed colloquium, three context specific papers (paper (2), paper (3) and paper (4)) as well as (5) a discussant piece.

Paper 1: Interrogating old and new assumptions around language, territory and nativeness in minority language sociolinguistics: Setting the scene

Bernadette O’Rourke (University of Glasgow)

Abstract

This introductory paper to the colloquium sets the scene for the panel theme. It will begin by briefly unpacking three key assumptions which have to varying degrees shaped frameworks and conceptualisations in minority language sociolinguistics and language revitalisation studies including (1) the notion of language as a bounded, discrete and named entity; (2) territorialised notions of language within bounded communities of place; (3) the native speaker ideology. The paper will show how a re-thinking of these assumptions has moved the field away from deficit discourses and paradigms in relation to multilingualism. However, it also argues for the need to critically engage with the new vocabularies and poststructuralist conceptualisations which many of us now work (such as translanguaging, networked communities, new speakers). The paper examines the challenges that such a poststructuralist approach can present when working with policy makers and language advocates and looks at how minority language sociolinguists can retain a critical position without undermining hard-won gains and language rights of minority language speakers on the ground (see May 2017). Specifically, it explores how ethnography and participatory research methods can be used to articulate poststructuralist critique and theory (Urla 2012) in a way that is useful for the struggles that minority language speakers and advocates are facing on the ground. To illustrate this point, the paper will draw on real-world examples from a number of minority language fieldwork sites including Irish, Gaelic and Galician.

Paper 2: Learning bilingually: developing an educational research agenda to support combined acquisition and use of minoritised and dominant languages in school

Joanna McPake, Reader, Institute of Education, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Abstract

Recent developments in sociolinguistics challenge the notion that minoritised languages (MLs) at risk of disappearance need to be ‘saved’ by the creation of ‘safe spaces’ (Fishman, 1991) – notably schools – from which dominant languages must be barred. While the ‘social turn’ (Heller, 2008) proposes a shift from languages as the object of study to the experiences and practices of language users, the ‘multilingual turn’ (May 2014) asks what changes when bi- or multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, is recognised as the norm. Both turns are associated with the rise of translanguaging, as a theory of fluid and dynamic multilingualism in which the notion of distinct and bounded ‘languages’ longer seem relevant (Li Wei, 2022), but also as a pedagogical principle underpinning multilingual practices to support learning (Cenoz, 2021; Williams, 1994). These developments raise questions about current educational models designed to promote language revitalisation, typically predicated on strict principles of language separation, such as programmes in which the ML is used as the medium of instruction.

This paper develops the research agenda set out in a recently published discussion paper (McPake & Tedick, 2022) reviewing the competing claims of proponents of well-established language immersion programmes, as a means of protecting MLs, and those in favour of translanguaging pedagogies (still largely experimental), as a means of enabling students to embrace the possibilities opened up by a bilingualism encompassing an ML and a dominant language. This agenda includes (1) reviewing ways in which bilingual students’ linguistic achievements over the course of their school careers are assessed and valued; (2) identifying pedagogies that enhance bilingualism in the context of curricular learning; (3) foregrounding bilingual students’ own perspectives on their language practices, in and out of school, now and in the future and (4) dedicating greater attention to support teachers who work in bilingual education settings.

Paper 3: Political pressures vs. family legacies: New Speakers of Galician in Ourense, Spain

Luke Bishop (University of Austin-Texas)

Abstract

This paper explores how New Speakers of Galician, a language coexisting with Spanish in northwest Spain, assert their linguistic identities as they intersect with ruralness, pressures to speak standardized varieties, and dialectal variation. New Speakers are those who spoke a dominant language as their L1, yet after learning a minoritized language, consciously opt to switch to using the minoritized language in daily life (Smith-Christmas et al, 2018). The paper presents data from a matched-guise study conducted as part of ongoing fieldwork during the 2023-2024 academic year in the city of Ourense. The initial data suggests that Ourense New Speakers favor Spanish borrowings and regionalisms more than their counterparts in more metropolitan cities like the Galician capital, Santiago de Compostela.

Galician New Speaker profiles detailed by O’Rourke & Ramallo (2015) note a tendency towards linguistic purism. Conversely, Ourense participants aspired to speak “galego de toda a vida” ‘lifelong Galician’, a term utilized to designate traditional, non-standardized varieties. In working-class Ourense, province-based identity is especially strong. The results suggest that this provincial identity and its inclination towards “lifelong Galician” extends to New Speakers. In terms of Woolard (2016), Ourense New Speakers seem more inclined towards ideologies of authenticity than their cosmopolitan counterparts’ inclination towards anonymity. Regional variation among New Speakers challenges notions of uniform adherence to norm-based varieties, which is often assumed in existing literature.

Paper 4: New Indigenous languages in Australia since colonisation: some case studies

Carmel O’Shannessy (Australian National University) and Gillian Wigglesworth (University of Melbourne)

Abstract

Before colonisation of the Australian continent 440-490 traditional languages were spoken (Bowern 2023) along with additional dialects, and it was common for people to be multilingual. Two hundred-plus years later, while only twelve of the original traditional Indigenous languages continue to be learned from birth, the situation remains one of great complexity, especially in the more remote parts of the country where a high proportion of Indigenous people live. Now, the contexts of Indigenous languages across Australia can be broadly categorised into three main types of language ecology: a) where a traditional language is the main everyday language spoken and English is an L2, b) where a new contact language is the main everyday language of the speakers (e.g. a creole or a mixed language), English is an L2 and people may be renewing one or more traditional languages, or c) where a variety of English is the everyday language and people may be renewing one or more traditional languages (Angelo 2021; Angelo & Poetsch 2019; DITRDC 2020).  Within the contact language ecology we discuss the emergence and continuance of new ways of speaking, and the multilingualism of adult and child speakers (cf. O'Shannessy 2015). These ways of speaking show continuity of elements of traditional languages, and innovation, as well as language shift. They provide interesting perspectives on language variation and change.   

(5) Discussant: Stephen May (University of Auckland)