Negotiation of resources in everyday activities of a multilingual Berlin street market: a linguistic ethnography approach

3.1 Methodology

3.2 Data

The study is part of a larger project on “Integration of linguistic resources in highly diverse urban settings: Stretching the limits of variability”.^[6] The data for this study were collected in the scope of that project.^[7]

The data presented in this paper primarily come from

1. the LL study conducted between 2017 and 2018, where a total of 426 market signs in the whole market area (55 market stalls and their surroundings) were photographed and analysed,

2. interviews conducted with 230 customers (with an age range between 16 and 86) and 31 sellers (incl. pre- and follow-up interviews and focus group discussions),

3. transcriptions^[8] of the recordings (ca 82 h of spontaneous speech data) that were made between October and November 2017 on multiple market days at four cooperating stalls: a fruit and vegetable stall, a Turkish bread and pastry stall, a Turkish coffee stall, and a textile and utensils stall, as well as

4. a 3-month participant observation that I conducted by working as a seller at the Turkish bread and pastry stall.

3.3 The researcher

The study presented in this paper, like every ethnographic study, reflects to some extent my subjective perspective as a researcher who is well acquainted with street markets and with the dominant cultures and languages of the Maybachufer Market. I was born and raised in Turkey, with Turkish as my native language and with a weekly street market on the street where I lived. I have lived in Germany for almost nine years and speak German as a late-acquired second language, in addition to English and French, which I studied. My personal background became especially useful while collecting (and analysing) data from Turkish-speaking informants who were inclined to (and on some occasions did) refuse to give interviews in German due to linguistic insecurities. Furthermore, being a multilingual speaker acquainted with market interactions allowed me to find different common grounds with the market community and easily adapt while working as a seller at the market. I did not stand out as an outside researcher, which could otherwise hinder the observation by causing a possible change in attitude in other participants. The study and analyses thus also include, alongside the discussed theoretical background and scientific approaches, my own observations and interpretations with respect to my personal and academic background as a young sociolinguist.

4.1 Advertising

At the Maybachufer Market, the advertising is performed through different generic resources that differ in modes and channels, such as market signs and market crying. The market signs use the visual channel and display textual information regarding the kind, ingredients, origin, and price of the products. Even though they differ in shape, size, and amount of information provided, they serve to promote the product and are composed in a specific style characterised by the use of key words and short information instead of sentences (see Figures 1, 3 and 4).

Figure 1:

Turkish name of the dish with descriptive translations in German and in English.

As an interaction type, the market crying can be considered a platform/stage event (Goffman 1981: 138). The physical arrangement of the market, which separates sellers and customers, creates multiple stages where sellers perform their advertising. The only speaker in this interaction is the seller. The addressees (i.e., the customers) do not reply in a direct way in this focused interaction. With rhymes and melodic phrases, similar to jingles, repeated throughout the market day, market crying represents a specific genre that is particular to market sellers as a social group and performed for a specific goal (i.e., for advertising the products, attracting customers’ attention). As a discursive genre, market crying shares similarities with other genres such as TV/radio advertisements and singing (see Lefstein and Snell 2011: 41 for an overview of discursive genres). Such generic resources make it even more similar to stage events. Market (or street) cries are known since medieval times in Europe and were highly popular in the 18th century in urban centres, especially in London street markets (Hindley 1884; Jones 2016). Although this tradition has been kept by only a few vendors in European street markets, today market crying is still a characteristic feature of Turkish bazaars. Also known as a Turkish market, the Maybachufer Market also preserves this tradition. The resources of the market cries differ from stall to stall and generally include praising of products, announcement of discounts, calling to potential customers passing by, funny/catchy phrases, or made-up songs/rhymes about different products to attract attention.

In advertising activities, we predominantly see the use of the dominant market languages: German, Turkish, and English. When we look at the overall language use on market signs, German can be considered the local lingua franca, whereas English is seen as an international language and Turkish is the dominant heritage language at the market. German has the most semantic functions (e.g., informative, descriptive, directive, symbolic/emblematic) among the languages and is used both in product names and in secondary information, such as product descriptions, ingredients, etc. We observe that English mainly has descriptive (see Figure 1) and emblematic functions. Regarding its emblematic function, we can suggest that English is commodified due to its language prestige and is used in advertising slogans as in Figure 2 (see also Duman and Lin 2021).

Figure 2:

Commodification of English.

To find a possible link between the choice of language used on a sign and the stall type, the stalls and their signs were subdivided into the following categories: foods and drinks, fish and meat, cheese-meze-olive, fruits and vegetables, other edibles (e.g., candies, spices), textile, and others (e.g., decorative items, jewellery, advertisement signs). The findings showed that the use of a language is strongly associated with the micro-ecology of the stall. Haugen (1972: 325) defines the “language ecology” approach as “the study of interactions between any given language and its environment”. When we consider the market context as a whole, its settings create an ecology of language in which specific communicative patterns and resources are employed. Correspondingly, the stalls have specific settings which require and/or enable the use of specific resources, depending on the products they offer, which influence the stall set-ups and the specific customers they attract. Thus, the stalls constitute separate micro-ecologies within the market context and allow for different communicative practices. For instance, at the stalls mainly visited by locals (e.g., fruit and vegetable stalls), German and Turkish are preferred as the information language. The signs of stalls that primarily attract tourists (e.g., street food or jewellery stalls) are rather written in English. The preference for other languages points to market strategies, through which the speciality of the products is emphasised (e.g., geographical origin as in jamón serrano). In this way, both local and international speakers of these languages are addressed. The signs on which heritage languages are used target the local speakers of the respective languages.

The multilingualism on market signs is not limited to the separate use of different languages. Besides complete or partial translation of texts (as in Figure 1), we observe different elements from different named languages (e.g., product name in Turkish, description or ingredient in German), and creative language mixtures in the form of compounds and/or nominal phrases, which represent grammatical and graphemic integration of different linguistic resources in the respective language and point to language variations (see Figures 3 and 4). Such language mixings and variations indicate the mixed-use of linguistic resources that the sellers have access to.^[9]

Figure 3:

Turkish-German compound.

Figure 4:

Turkish-German noun phrase.

Similar to the market signs, the market cries include mostly German and Turkish, and are again especially heard at the stalls where mainly locals do their shopping. Here again, we observe the mixed-use of different linguistic resources, which is realised through code-switching, primarily between Turkish and German:

The code-switching during market crying occurs both on the sentence (as in example (1)) and word level (as in example (2)), and similar to market signs, also include mixed nominal phrases (as in “taze Brot” in example (3)) and compounds (as in Almanya-Ware in example (4)).^[10] The switching in example (2) can also be considered a switch into a possible market register. “Angebot” and “bittschön” are among the words/phrases that we often hear in market interactions regardless of the respective language of communication. “Bittschön”, in particular, is predominantly used as an attention-seeking discourse marker with different functions in different communicative situations. It generally includes an invitational function in market cries, whereas in sales conversations, it functions as a welcoming service offer, an attention-seeking marker while handing over a purchased product or money, or as a reply to accept thanks/gratitude from someone. Therefore, depending on the occasion, it can be translated as ‘come on’, ‘yes, please’, ‘here you go’, or ‘you’re welcome’.

Although it is not as prominent as German or Turkish, English can also be heard in market crying. Its use is generally limited to shorter phrases such as “It’s mango, avocado time!” or it is used as an interjection, wrapped in German market cries, which can be considered another commodification, since it does not transfer any information but is used to attract attention, cf. (5):

4.2 Sales and socialising

The sales encounters represent focused interactions in the form of a talk/conversation (Goffman 1981: 130–1) that includes different sequences, such as greeting, service offer, exchange of information/negotiations about the products and prices, product request, preparation of the product, product offer, purchasing, and farewell. These sequences show differences with respect to the micro-ecologies of different stalls and involve different resources. For instance, the preparation sequence at the bread and pastry stall (i.e., heating up the products, filling the Turkish pizza, boxing or wrapping up products) provides more time for sellers and customers to interact in comparison with other types of stalls where the products require less (if any) preparation. Such conversations include a wide range of genres, and we observe genre-shifting through the use of specific resources in different sequences. For instance, a specific accent or a lexical choice can open a new topic and turn the sales encounter into a socialising activity through small talk (see Excerpt 1). Small talk constitutes another interaction type that generally includes asking about each other’s well-being and discussing the latest news (e.g., small talk with regular customers), chitchat on a variety of themes such as the weather or current events (e.g., holidays), discussion about the products (i.e., their production process, ingredients, traditional ways of cooking/baking and consuming them), or a game of guessing the country of origin, ethnic belonging, or the first language of the interlocutor.

In contrast to market signs and market crying, which address larger customer groups by using dominant languages, the linguistic resources in sales conversations and small talk involve various languages that are used according to the context and the individual speakers. However, in sales conversations, the range of languages used is closely related to the stall type, as in market signs. The micro-ecologies determine the languages that are spoken at different stalls. For instance, the textile and utensils stall and the fruits and vegetables stall host more local customers, and we hear mostly German and heritage languages such as Arabic and Turkish in the sales conversations; whereas the coffee stall, which offers traditional Turkish coffee cooked on hot sand, has a more touristic appeal due to its authentic stall atmosphere. Thus, it is more likely to hear different languages at this stall. The micro-ecology of the Turkish bread and pastry stall involves an even wider range of languages, since the stall appeals to both locals who buy their daily bread and to tourists and other visitors who would like to try Turkish specialities.

In sales and socialising events, we generally observe a tendency and willingness to switch to the language of the interlocutors as a linguistic behaviour. The interviews with the sellers and customers showed that in sales conversations, the communication language is chosen according to:

1. assumption of a lingua franca (German or Turkish for locals, and English for tourists)

2. semiotic cues such as appearance, clothing, head scarfs (including how they are worn)

3. pre-knowledge about the language spoken by the interlocutor (e.g., regular customers)

4. simple reaction to the spoken language (including a specific accent)

5. overheard conversations in a specific language (e.g., while customers are approaching the stall), and

6. spontaneous decisions.

The language switches occur in different sequences of the sales conversations. If the seller has no previous knowledge about the customer, s/he will intuitively decide in which language s/he will start a sales conversation. In our interviews, sellers asserted that with years of experience, they had become experts on recognising customers’ ethnic origins and guessing the language they speak. If there are no specific clues, they start the conversation with German as the default.

In this sales conversation, the seller starts the conversation by saying “Hallo”, but the course of the conversation and the linguistic choices change once Customer1 starts to speak. Since the customer does not speak German, she prefers to answer in English, assuming English as the international lingua franca. The seller, then, switches to English. Since he has picked up an accent cue, which he thinks is a Spanish accent, he uses the Spanish word patata (instead of English ‘potato’). He thus accesses the linguistic resources he has at his disposal and tries to facilitate the communication. We also see that various other resources are employed to conduct the conversation, hence, the relevant activity. In sales interactions, anything displayed and/or present at the stall can be used as a resource to communicate. Multiple objects are expressed through demonstratives such as this and that and indicated through pointing. Also, the combination of verbal and non-verbal resources in line 14, where the seller asks if he should heat up the product, shows how physical settings play a role in the communication and how pointing and directing serve as indexes to co-construct the meaning in situ.

The excerpt also shows how the sales conversation becomes small talk. The fact that Customer1 uses Spanish words (see line 11) and has a Spanish accent opens a new topic and starts some small talk, in which the seller tries to guess where the customer comes from. Such socialising activities thus fill the gaps in sales encounters, especially in preparation sequences. By using Spanish words, the seller implies that he has some knowledge of Spanish and Spain and uses this knowledge for small talk with the customers (see lines 19, 24, and 26). This can be regarded as a marketing strategy to win the sympathy of customers and a sort of identity construction, which reflects the multicultural nature of the market. In this sense, such small talk can also be considered a “convivial practice”, where people get to know each other, make ‘language checks’ and use the respective linguistic elements to better address one another, and ‘enjoy and engage in casual diversities’ (cf. Cook 2021: 17; Pennycook and Otsuji 2015: 89).

The participation framework in sales conversations and small talk may involve both addressed and unaddressed recipients. Large market stalls which position customers side by side and allow sellers to offer service to multiple customers simultaneously also allow side participants and eavesdroppers to get involved in the conversations. Such involvement becomes especially practical when there is a communication problem. We see an example of such side involvement in Excerpt 1, where Customer2 intervenes in lines 16 and 18 and remarks that Customer1 speaks Spanish (instead of English), and again in line 21, where Customer2 teaches Customer1 how to say thanks in German, after she says “gracias”. At this point, the sales interaction becomes a language lesson.

Another example of the use of different linguistic and semiotic resources is given in Excerpt 2.

In the excerpt, we again see the combination of a sales conversation and small talk. Customer4 hears the seller speaking Arabic and turns to Customer3 in the hope that she will mediate between the seller and herself. At this point, a conversation starts between the customers. Customer3 recognises that Customer4 speaks Turkish and offers help to mediate between them although she does not speak Turkish. To do that, Customer3 uses simplistic German with syntactical reductions (see line 3). In line 4, Seller2 also gets involved in the conversation and expresses in German that she needs to talk to communicate even if they do not share the same language. Customer4 turns to the seller and first speaks in German but then asks for bathing suits in Turkish. We can speculate that Customer4 cannot speak German well enough to explain what she needs; therefore, she talks in Turkish and supports what she is saying by using an additional channel (i.e., hand gesture). Also, she may have expected that Seller2 would understand Turkish since Turkish is seen as a lingua franca for the spatial repertoire of the Maybachufer Market, which lies in the “Turkish district” (“türkisches Revier”) according to the statements of some interviewed customers. The seller with L1 Arabic answers in Turkish. The rest of the conversation is carried out in a mixed language, using different resources from Turkish and German. The miscommunication occurring in lines 10 and 11 is resolved again by using different modes: speech and showing a specific direction (presumably the direction where the hammam lies). This interaction shows that the speakers access all the resources they have at their disposal to conduct a successful communication, including multimodality and resources from different languages. The excerpt also constitutes excellent meta data on language use and how people of different linguistic backgrounds negotiate meaning through various resources to facilitate communication.

In the seller-customer interactions, the choices of resources are premeditated according to their threefold function: communicative, commercial, and with respect to identity constructions^[11] (see Schulte and Duman 2019; Yüksel and Duman 2021). The first goal in any conversation is to communicate. Since the market is a commercial institution, the context of such conversations includes sales purposes and commercial expectations. To conduct a successful communication, and also a successful sale, the speakers refer to resources that take part in the co-construction of identity. Sellers and customers navigate their linguistic choices according to the presumed ethnic/social belonging of their interlocutor. Evidence for this is seen in the use of specific forms of address in different languages (e.g., the use of abla, ‘elder sister’ in Turkish, in Excerpt 2). Semiotic resources such as appearance and linguistic features such as accent and lexical choices play an important role in the identification process. By acknowledging these particularities and their social meaning and taking a stance in relation to the constructed identity of the interlocutor, speakers reflect various language attitudes, solidarity, togetherness, or distinction within such a diverse urban context. By using the language of the interlocutors, commenting on their language, country of origin, or ethnic belonging, speakers not only ease the communication but also construct a multicultural and/or metroethnic identity. They present their world knowledge and acquaintance with the respective culture. People like to be spoken to in their first language and to hear nice comments on their culture or country of origin. Through the affective orientation the speakers display in discourse, they show sympathy towards the interlocutors and simultaneously try to find common ground and to gain their sympathy. Sellers use this as a marketing strategy^[12] to sell more products, but also to reflect the multicultural nature of the market. We observe a similar attitude with customers. Customers often try to use the words they know in the sellers’ first/heritage languages. For instance, if they are at the Turkish bread and pastry stall, they greet and/or thank the sellers in Turkish regardless of the main communication language during the sales conversation. They also try to learn the Turkish names of the products and some other Turkish words. Thus, we witness how the market turns into a space for learning and cultural exchange. The interest and appreciation of customers towards their language, culture, and the traditional products they sell are very welcomed by the sellers and often rewarded by a small gift or reduction in price.

In the case of interactions between/among sellers, we also see the tendency to speak the language of the interlocutors. The use of Turkish especially stands out in seller-seller conversations. However, the use and choice of resources differ in motivation. In contrast to the commercial use of languages in sales conversations and small talk between sellers and costumers, a group identity comes to the forefront when sellers speak to each other. Since they work side-by-side under challenging outdoor conditions (also at other street markets on different days) and depend on each other for their different needs (e.g., electricity connection), the seller community constitutes a “mobile neighbourhood” and a social group (market sellers as a labour group) which shows solidarity among its members, leading to convivial practices. The motivation to learn and use each other’s languages is thus related to this neighbourhood feeling and solidarity, including multiethnic solidarity. Excerpt 3 shows a greeting section from a conversation between two sellers.

This is a conversation between two sellers with different first languages, where they ask about each other’s well-being. Although they both speak German, Seller3 addresses Seller4 with an Arabic form of address habibi (‘my dear’). The use of Arabic in this conversation neither facilitates the communication nor includes a sales purpose. Since Seller4 is an Arabic speaker, Seller3 uses Arabic, and with this specific form of address, he indexes how he socially positions Seller4 (i.e., both an Arabic speaker and a dear fellow seller).

Similarly, in Excerpt 4, we see a conversation between two sellers in which the language choices differ in motivation.

After Seller5 addresses the fellow seller as “Sabuncu” (Tur. ‘soap seller’), the conversation starts in Turkish, although both speakers speak German fluently. We observe that Seller6 also uses cultural resources, such as the Turkish idiom “kolay gelsin” (≈ ‘may it be easy for you’), which is generally used when someone is working, and is therefore often heard at the market. In line 10, Seller6 switches to German, presumably to better express himself. Although the conversation could be held fully in German, Seller6 prefers to speak in Turkish since his interlocutor is a Turkish speaker. We can speculate that since Turkish is the dominant heritage language at the market, sellers tend to learn some Turkish words to communicate with customers. But the choice of Turkish as code when speaking to fellow sellers could be explained with the neighbourhood feeling and solidarity. From a language attitude perspective, we can compare the use of Turkish (or Turkish words) by non-native/non-heritage speakers of Turkish to the language use of multiethnic urban communities, whose speakers are later generations of “migrants” who grew up in multiethnic neighbourhoods and adopt respective urban vernaculars (cf. Wiese, forthcoming). Being the heritage language of the largest minority community at the market makes Turkish a local lingua franca for the spatial repertoire of the market that is accepted by other members of this multiethnic community. Such ‘language sharing’ is also an example of convivial practices in multiethnically diverse spaces (cf. Cook 2021).