‘No, we don't mix languages’: Ideological power and the chronotopic organization of ethnolinguistic identities

Abstract

In this study we address ethnolinguistic identity using Bakhtin's (1981) notion of chronotope. Taking an ethnographic approach to linguistic data from Azerbaijani and Uzbek communities, we trace the impact of various chronotopes on our participants’ acts of ethnolinguistic identification. Building on Blommaert & De Fina (2017), we illustrate how ethnolinguistic identification is an outcome of the interaction between multiple levels of large- and small-scale chronotopes. Furthermore, we argue that chronotopes differ in terms of their power, depending on the ideological force behind them. We demonstrate how power differentials between chronotopes can account for certain interactional and linguistic patterns in conversation. The power inherent in chronotopes that link nationhood with specific languages makes the notions of discrete languages and static identities ‘real’ for our participants. Therefore, discussions of language and identity as flexible and socially constructed, we argue, must not obscure the power of these notions in shaping the perceptions of sociolinguistic subjects. (Chronotope, ethnolinguistic identity, power, Uzbek, Azeri/Azerbaijani, nationalism, language mixing, language ideology)*

Recalling the bidonvilles of Paris: Historicity and Authority Among Transnational Migrants in Later Life

“…Among sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists, the concept has been applied in creative and fruitful ways to the analysis of language use in interaction and the narratives that emerge within it—in particular, in settings of migration and diaspora (Agha ; De Fina and Georgakopoulou ; Dick , ; Divita ; Eisenlohr ; Georgakopoulou ; Koven 2013a, 2013b; Lempert and Perrino ; Perrino , ; Schiffrin ; Wirtz ; Woolard ). A recent strand of thinking has considered how acts of identification—whether personal, political, or ethnolinguistic—are “chronotopically grounded” (Blommaert :97), enabled by the strategic invocation of spatiotemporal frameworks that are intelligible within certain cultural and historical settings (Blommaert and De Fina ; Karimzad ; Karimzad and Catedral ; Woolard ). In their comparative study of conversations among Azerbaijani and Uzbek migrant communities in the United States, for example, Karimzad and Catedral (:90) draw on the notion of “chronotopic identities” (Blommaert and De Fina ) to illustrate the varying power and “ideological force” of space‐time configurations that emerge as their informants negotiate different forms of ethnolinguistic personhood.…”

“…A recent strand of thinking has considered how acts of identification—whether personal, political, or ethnolinguistic—are “chronotopically grounded” (Blommaert :97), enabled by the strategic invocation of spatiotemporal frameworks that are intelligible within certain cultural and historical settings (Blommaert and De Fina ; Karimzad ; Karimzad and Catedral ; Woolard ). In their comparative study of conversations among Azerbaijani and Uzbek migrant communities in the United States, for example, Karimzad and Catedral (:90) draw on the notion of “chronotopic identities” (Blommaert and De Fina ) to illustrate the varying power and “ideological force” of space‐time configurations that emerge as their informants negotiate different forms of ethnolinguistic personhood. Here, I focus less on the role of chronotopes in processes of subjective identification than on their deployment in communal efforts at creating historical meaning.…”

Mobile (Dis)connection: New Technology and Rechronotopized Images of the Homeland

“…But we are so much in minority.” The construction of us here is then followed by a construction of them . In particular, while Erfan characterizes this “middle space” as something that is “obviously…a culture in and of itself,” the power inherent in the ideologies related to ethnonational and ethnolinguistic identities (Karimzad and Catedral ) leads to his characterization of transnational identities as “fallen between the cracks”: yani demil lær ki sænin culture ‐ in var. Diyil lær sæn æz inja rande æz unja manda‐san “ they don't say that you have a culture, they say you have fallen between the cracks.” Using the deictic they toward the end of line 10, which can be said to refer to both American and Iranian nonmigrants—or anyone who has not experienced migration—Erfan differentiates his transnational identity from that of nonmigrants and further points out that “we are somewhere in the middle.” This “third space” identity Erfan identifies himself with is evident not only in his construction of us vs. them as well as his meta‐commentary, but also in his patterns of code‐switching (Bhatt ).…”

“…. .a culture in and of itself," the power inherent in the ideologies related to ethnonational and ethnolinguistic identities (Karimzad and Catedral 2018) leads to his characterization of transnational identities as "fallen between the cracks": yani demillaer ki saenin culture-in var. Diyillaer saen aez inja rande aez unja manda-san "they don't say that you have a culture, they say you have fallen between the cracks."…”

Linguistic Anthropology in 2018: Signifying Movement

“…By locating language at the center of ongoing tension in the construct of the nation‐state, these works historicize how ideologies of race, ethnonationalism, and identity continue to shape and interact with discursive practices on the ground. Additional examples include Evers's () study of the French state's top‐down efforts to transform Marseille's Muslim youth into secular, class‐conscious citizens through instruction in Modern Standard Arabic; Tamtomo's () research on nationalist ideologies that regiment Indonesian youths’ linguistic resources and practices through organizational activities at school; Taylor‐Neu's () critique of how a popular Inuit throat singer's performances become a subject of discourses of “reconciliation” that understand indigeneity in terms of a liberal‐democratic conception of language; and Karimzad and Catedral's () analysis of how diasporic Azerbaijanis and Uzbeks in the United States chronotopically reference ethnonationalist ideologies of language and identity in their everyday interaction. In addition, Heller and McElhinny's () grand account of the history of linguistics critically evaluates how ideologies of the nation‐state and imperialism powerfully conditioned the growth of the discipline throughout periods of colonialism and the Cold War, and seeks insights for alternative imaginations of language from noncenter perspectives that have been neglected in the academic canon.…”