Search results

AbstractThis opinion piece discusses how research on language ideologies (or, for that matter, ideologies of communication in general) relates to micro/macro distinctions of both the research field and the discipline of sociolinguistics. Starting off from the thesis that both object and strand of research at stake here do not neatly fit this dichotomous distinction, the paper discusses the Fishmanian origins as well as the diverse and diverging definitions ofmicro- andmacro-sociolinguistics that ensued from Fishman's proposal, considering the different assumptions that underlie the respective variants of the distinction. The piece discusses why language ideology research locates its object, and itself as a discipline, beyond the micro/macro binarism, and how/why it embraces a more scalar, relative and reflexive approach to social and linguistic juxtaposition, ordering and ranking. To this end, the concept of 'social scales' and its uptake by language ideology research are introduced and discussed. Finally, the paper provides an opinion on what the future of sociolinguistics should be like – independently from the particular strand at stake here – and about the role of this newly launched journal (with its long history as a yearbook) as the author wishes to see it being taken.

Abstract
This paper engages with the notion of the shibboleth, an indexically loaded, usually referentially indifferent set of (ideologically constructed) minimal pairs that is used in order to mark and perform social differentiation. We argue that the shibboleth is to be considered an interpretive (metapragmatic) phenomenon that operates on different sociolinguistic scales, notably the discursive scale (ideologies of communication), the performative scale (performance and metapragmatic stance-taking), and the subjective scale (lived experience). We propose a scalar metapragmatic theory of the shibboleth as an "indexical border" that takes into account how shibboleths emerge (are enregistered) and how they depend on contextualisation (or the indexical field). As a case in point, we present analyses of biographical construals of sociolinguistic displacement in the context of remigration from German-speaking countries to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Specifically, we focus on construals of displacement that are connected with (mis-)performances of phonologically rather subtle but indexically highly salient Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian affricate shibboleths (<č/dž> and <ć/đ>).

AbstractIn recent years, the intersections between, or entanglements of, local action and translocal patterns gained renewed interest in sociolinguistics. Received distinctions such asmicro/macroorpractice/structurehave been challenged and confronted with more granular concepts such associolinguistic scales. Consequently, established disciplinary orientations such asmicro/macroorqualitative/quantitative sociolinguisticshave also been questioned: rather than one of two options, sociolinguistics is now supposed to embrace "complexity". This fundamental discussion also centrally concerns research into language ideologies. While it has always been acknowledged that language ideologies frame and shape, or manifest in, local action, they have long been construed as a translocal social order, a "macro phenomenon". In the wake of the general discussion outlined above, however, this has been challenged. Language ideologies are now increasingly located at the intersection of structure and practice, construed as structurating practices and as dynamic, scalar phenomena that emerge from, and are subjected to, ongoing local processes of social positioning and indexical enregisterment (which they reversely frame). This special issue takes up the discussion and asks where we can get to with such a complex notion of language ideologies and/as social positioning, how far we have come already, and which obstacles lie ahead. The authors address these questions from different perspectives. This introduction sets the scene, recapitulates the discussion and state of the art, and provides an outline of the issue.

Diskurs und Diskursforschung bezeichnen nicht nur zwischen den verschiedenen geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Disziplinen, sondern auch innerhalb einzelner Fächer und Forschungsrichtungen ganz Unterschiedliches. Das ist nicht nur für Neuankömmlinge im Feld der Diskursforschungen verwirrend, sondern immer wieder auch für diejenigen, die sich darin schon länger bewegen. Verschiedene Einführungen, Handbücher und Überblicksbeiträge geben hier sicherlich hilfreiche Orientierungen. Der vorliegende Band präsentiert hierzu ein anderes Vorgehen. Er wählt bewusst die Form eines Gesprächs zwischen sechs Vertretern verschiedener Disziplinen mit langjährigen Erfahrungen in der Diskursforschung, um in die unterschiedlichen theoretischen Grundlagen, in Gemeinsamkeiten und Differenzen der Konzepte, Begriffe und Methoden der Untersuchung von Diskursen einzuführen. Das mehrstimmige Gespräch erlaubt dabei eine besondere Form der Verständigung. In der Mündlichkeit kommt nicht nur eine persönlichere Argumentationsweise zum Ausdruck. Vielmehr werden auch unmittelbare Nachfragen, Einwände oder Zustimmungen im dialogischen Austausch möglich.

Protest is a ubiquitous and richly varied social phenomenon, one that finds expression not only in modern social movements and political organizations but also in grassroots initiatives, individual action, and creative works. It constitutes a distinct cultural domain, one whose symbolic content is regularly deployed by media and advertisers, among other actors. Yet within social movement scholarship, such cultural considerations have been comparatively neglected. Protest Cultures: A Companion dramatically expands the analytical perspective on protest beyond its political and sociological aspects. It combines cutting-edge synthetic essays with concise, accessible case studies on a remarkable array of protest cultures, outlining key literature and future lines of inquiry