“…Surely one of the pathbreaking aspects of Labov’s work was his attention to the critical role of the observer—the way that the same sociolinguistic moment could be understood as evidence of logic and creativity or as a demonstration of incompetence. White Kenyans’ videos of “amazing toddlers” who speak indigenous languages are viewed by some as underwhelming (McIntosh, 2018); discourses that seem to be only about language or space for some point unambiguously for others to ethnonational and racializing subject positions (Dick & Arnold, 2018; Nichols & Wortham, 2018). What counts as an index of class is thus not only a matter of the degree to which that category is locally salient, but the fact that indexical meanings are not fixed—oppositions on the linguistic plane, like “yes” vs. “yeah,” can get associated with oppositions in register at one moment, but with oppositions of class and race at another, in line with the political discourses of the times (Flores, Lewis, & Phuong, 2018).…”
Section: Indexicality and Perceiving Subjectsmentioning
This paper contrasts different approaches taken in research on language and race vs. language and class. It looks at the timescales, units of analysis, and phenomena that have drawn scholars’ attention, and considers how each subfield approaches the study of language and inequality.
본고는 언어와 인종주의 연구, 언어와 사회계층 연구의 두 분야에서 쓰이는 다양한 이론적 접근들을 비교·분석 한다. 본고는 기존연구들에서 쓰여진 시공간적 접근방법, 연구분석 단위와 분석방법 및 연구 현상을 면밀하게 검토하며 이러한 이론적 접근들을 언어와 사회 불평등 연구분야에 어떻게 적용시킬 수 있는지 알아본다.
“…Surely one of the pathbreaking aspects of Labov’s work was his attention to the critical role of the observer—the way that the same sociolinguistic moment could be understood as evidence of logic and creativity or as a demonstration of incompetence. White Kenyans’ videos of “amazing toddlers” who speak indigenous languages are viewed by some as underwhelming (McIntosh, 2018); discourses that seem to be only about language or space for some point unambiguously for others to ethnonational and racializing subject positions (Dick & Arnold, 2018; Nichols & Wortham, 2018). What counts as an index of class is thus not only a matter of the degree to which that category is locally salient, but the fact that indexical meanings are not fixed—oppositions on the linguistic plane, like “yes” vs. “yeah,” can get associated with oppositions in register at one moment, but with oppositions of class and race at another, in line with the political discourses of the times (Flores, Lewis, & Phuong, 2018).…”
Section: Indexicality and Perceiving Subjectsmentioning
This paper contrasts different approaches taken in research on language and race vs. language and class. It looks at the timescales, units of analysis, and phenomena that have drawn scholars’ attention, and considers how each subfield approaches the study of language and inequality.
본고는 언어와 인종주의 연구, 언어와 사회계층 연구의 두 분야에서 쓰이는 다양한 이론적 접근들을 비교·분석 한다. 본고는 기존연구들에서 쓰여진 시공간적 접근방법, 연구분석 단위와 분석방법 및 연구 현상을 면밀하게 검토하며 이러한 이론적 접근들을 언어와 사회 불평등 연구분야에 어떻게 적용시킬 수 있는지 알아본다.
“…But at the same time, an equally large number of studies emphasize the agency of people on the move (De Fina ; Leone‐Pizzighella and Rymes ). Dick and Arnold (), for instance, discuss how their Salvadoran and Mexican research participants talking about migration to the United States appropriate the dominant trope of the North/South distinction to enact relations of morality and intimacy, thereby rescaling and reframing such spatial distinctions to negotiate and complicate the way they are positioned in state‐sponsored migration discourse.…”
Section: Itineraries Of People In Time and Spacementioning
Using the keyword movement, this essay reviews linguistic anthropological research that appeared in 2018 (November 2017 to October 2018) to highlight how linguistic anthropology continues and extends the discipline's traditional focus on the deep embeddedness of language in the dynamism of sociocultural practice.Based on an overview of works on (1) itineraries of people, (2) tensions with the nation-state, (3) shifts in the political economy, (4) digital communicative practices, (5) metasemiotic chains of interdiscursivity, and (6) movements of
“…These youth have become part of the transnational economies of their extended families, finding work and participating in the sending of remittances upon which their families in El Salvador rely for survival. The inequality that characterizes international relations between the United States and El Salvador is echoed within families (Dick and Arnold 2018) in the sustained economic asymmetries between migrant bread-winners and their non-migrant, financially dependent kin.…”
Section: Prompting In Transnational Salvadoran Familiesmentioning
Recent scholarship on language use has developed a resurgent interest in the complex interrelationship of language and materiality; given its longstanding investigation of both non-verbal communication and political economy, language socialization research is well-positioned to make important contributions to this investigation of language materiality. This paper advances such a project by demonstrating how the discursive processes of language socialization make the material affectively meaningful. Through an exploration of prompting interactions in cross-border conversations within transnational Salvadoran families, the paper elucidates how processes of material-affective semiosis produce subject positions that are made normative for some individuals, in this case, differentiating between migrant and non-migrant kin. Drawing out the role of materiality in such processes thus reveals how language socialization functions as a scale-making resource that turns the inequalities of transnational migration into constitutive features of family life.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.