Chinatown by numbers

Abstract

This article explores the potential of the LL to evaluate ethnically-defined spaces. Focusing on the area referred to as 'Chinatown' in central Liverpool, it examines the relationships between space, representation, and identity. Interviews with actors and passers-by indicate that the location and definition of Chinatown are interpreted inconsistently. As the article argues, however, the LL contains useful information for locating and qualifying the ethnic space. Scrutinizing both interview data and an empirical corpus of all the texts visible in the space, the article aims to define the borders of Chinatown, and the expression of ethnic identity therein. Whilst testifying to the commodification of aesthetic ideals and symbolic imagery, the LL simultaneously reveals an in-group community representative of authentic Chineseness. Exploring the dynamics of linguistic exclusion and accommodation, the data indicate not only that the identity of Chinatown is multi-layered, but also that its borders are subjective and not definable spatially.

The Quality of Quantity

“…Barni and Bagna (2015), while presenting some of the drawbacks and challenges for quantitative techniques, argue for the potential of "balance" between the two and for viewing these approaches as "lying on a continuum" rather than diametrically opposed (14). Blackwood (2015) and Amos (2016) present similar arguments for the mindful "amalgamation" (Amos 2016: 131) or "symbiosis" (Blackwood 2015: 49) of counts and contextualization, demonstrating the feasibility and value of such combinative approaches in tracking overall distributional and diachronic patterns.…”

“…Although it has been well established that presence does not necessarily entail use in other domains (Lou 2016;Blackwood 2015;Tufi 2013;Barni and Bagna 2009), lack of descriptive statistics makes it difficult if not impossible to substantiate claims regarding dominance of one type of display over another or compare changes in and across survey areas over time (Amos 2016;Blackwood 2015;Backhaus 2007). Synchronic comparison of different research sites or different site areas is also aided by the inclusion of counts, allowing an informative overview that can be enriched by analysis of individual instances.…”

“…A New Approach to Multilingualism (Gorter 2006;Ben-Rafael et al 2006;Huebner 2006;Backhaus 2006;Cenoz and Gorter 2006) and in more recent examples including Amos's exhaustive tallying of the LL of Liverpool's Chinatown and Vandenbroucke's comparative study of English in socio-economically stratified markets in Amsterdam and Brussels (Amos 2016;Vandenbroucke 2016). In pairing quantitative notation with qualitative observation, these studies highlight the complex relationships between the presence of a language in an LL, its presentation and the varied perceptions these positionings may generate.…”

Chronotopeography

“…Initial documentation and analysis of LL dynamics involved quantitative-based methods, counting the presence of various semiotic variables on signs to discuss LL components and their relationships (Cenoz and Gorter, 2006;Landry and Bourhis, 1997). While such methods have been critiqued for potential risk of overgeneralization in the assignment of quantifiable categories (Barni and Bagna, 2010;Blommaert and Maly, 2014), current scholarship has encouraged the development of both quantitative and qualitative approaches, both separately and in tandem, to explore the complexities of LL contexts (Amos, 2016;Barni and Bagna, 2015;Blackwood, 2015;Lyons and Rodriguez, 2015).…”

“…Keeping in mind that no level of engagement with LL items is an ever-present possibility, empirical evidence would suggest that people do pay attention to signs (Landry and Bourhis 1997). Aiestaran, Cenoz and Gorter (2010) discuss the significant differences present in LL perception between individuals of different language backgrounds living in the same community; Lou (2010) discusses the intense community involvement regarding the planning and design of signs in Washington, D.C.'s Chinatown (see also Lou, 2016) and Amos (2016) uses interviews with residents to understand the relationship between individual's understanding of the demarcation of place and presence of signs in other languages. Theorizations of potential interpretations of signs have been discussed in terms of sign origins such as "top-down" for government produced signage or "bottom-up" for individuals endeavors or graffiti (Ben-Rafael et.…”