Volume 12, Issue 3 - Special Issue: Scaling practices in language encounters; Guest Editors: Massimiliano Spotti and Jaspal Naveel Singh

In this commentary, I offer a review of how sociolinguistic scales featured in the development of my own work over the past decade. Scales, I explain, were always indispensable as an imaginative concept allowing a reimagination of sociolinguistic facts, but the concept of scales was never sufficient to adequately address this reimagined reality. I illustrate this point by means of an account of how scales helped me address three fundamental problems: the problem of meaning, that of situatedness, and that of indexicality.

Drawing on the notion of sociolinguistic scaling, the present contribution argues for an understanding of an asylum-seeking centre as a unit of inquiry in which sociolinguistic repertoires are played out during intercultural communicative encounters. The contribution shows how the centre’s spaces encapsulate time- and space-bound interactional regimes and language hierarchies. Taken as such, the different rooms that make up the centre, e. g. the office, the activity room and the corridor, all may seem neutral spaces where the daily lives of people unfold. However, each of these spaces invites, allows and dismisses various interactional sociolinguistic regimes that lead to micro-practices of inclusion and exclusion. The article concludes with a consideration on whether the homogeneous category ‘newly arrived migrant in need of civic integration’ authored by many governments across Europe, should not be re-evaluated, in light of the affordances of sociolinguistic scaling and digital literacy potentials that each of these newly arrived individuals have in stock in their repertoires.

In this paper we analyse data from nursing handover meetings in terms of the interplay of different voices that operate at different interactional and institutional scales. We suggest, firstly, that the handover is not a single bounded event, as suggested in previous literature, but rather a gradual moving in and out of focus of a particular discourse activity; and, secondly, that while different phases within the handover as an extended event are characterised by voices operating at a specific scale, there are continuous movements between scales in each phase. This leads us to suggest two categories of rescaling as an activity: translational rescalings , as the handover shifts between phases and from one scale to another, and digressive scales , in which the scale of interaction that typifies a specific phase is temporarily interrupted by another. We illustrate how both these categories serve important revoicing functions and, on the basis of this analysis, extend the use of scales theory in interactional linguistics through the addition of dynamic systems theory and a-curve distributions, in which 20% of token types predominate, while the remainder, or tail, perform essential complementary activities that over time can open up space for gradual shifts in the characteristics and overall function of the activity itself.

This paper examines the different ways that professional experts and everyday language users engage in scaling practices to claim authority when they talk about multilingual practices and the social significance they assign to them. Specifically, we compare sociolinguists’ use of the term translanguaging to describe multilingual and multimodal practices to the diverse observations of amateur online commentators, or citizen sociolinguists . Our analysis focuses on commentary on cross-linguistic communicative practices in Wales, or “things Welsh people say.” We ultimately argue that by calling practices “translanguaging” and defaulting to scaled-up interpretations of multilingual communication, sociolinguists are increasingly missing out on analyses of how the social meaning of (cross)linguistic practices accrues and evolves within specific communities over time. By contrast, the fine-grained perceptions of “citizen sociolinguists” as they discuss their own communicative practices in context may have something unique and underexamined to offer us as researchers of communicative diversity.

Overstandin occurs when languagers upscale their reading positions to rescale the meanings of texts or signs according to their own intentions. While understanding is an important faculty for languagers and a central analytical category for applied linguistics research, it cannot fully grasp agency and creativity in complex languaging in postcolonial worlds. By focusing on processes of overstandin, this article shows how languagers assume an upscaled reading position from which they find opportunities to attack the form and function of a text/sign. Thereby they can destabilise the indexical equilibrium of a sign and show up the ambivalence of language. Understanding often erases this ambivalence. For this reason, the exposure of ambivalence through overstandin can be emancipative, especially in postcolonial thinking. I further argue that overstandin is emphasised in the dream-state – both conceptualised as a state of relative unconscious experiencing and a wish, desire, aspiration for an emancipated future. In the dream-state the signifier stands over the signified. Such processes of overstandin pose challenges to applied linguistics, which continues to rely on wake-state understanding as a central analytical category for its gaze and its methods and thereby reproduces hegemonic knowledge-power structures that have been put in place during Enlightenment, colonialism and current global modernities. This article suggests that an account of processes of overstandin as an agentive meaning-making of the epistemic hinterlands of the postcolonial, could rehabilitate ambivalence as an anthropological category for our discipline. My detour via dream-states is merely a rhetoric of the argument presented here and it should not be assumed that I suggest that applied linguists have to turn to mysticism or dream analysis in order to account for overstandin, scaling and indexical ambivalence. The oneiric rhetoric itself is an overstandin, which aims to challenge common-sense empiricism in our discipline.

This paper opens with a problematisation of the notion of real-time in discourse analysis – dissected, as it is, as if time unfolded in a linear and regular procession at the speed of speech. To illustrate this point, the author combines Hasan’s concept of “relevant context” with Bakhtin’s notion of the chronotope to provide an analysis of Sorley MacLean’s poem Hallaig , with its deep-rootedness in space and its dissolution of time. The remainder of the paper is dedicated to following the poem’s metamorphoses and trajectory as it intertwines with Bartlett’s own life and family history, creating a layered simultaneity of meanings orienting to multiple semio-historic centres. In this way the author ( pers. comm. ) “sets out to illustrate in theory, text analysis and (self-)history the trajectories taken by texts as they cross through time and space; their interconnectedness with social systems at different scales; and the manner in which they are revoiced in order to enhance their legitimacy before the diverse audiences they encounter on their migratory paths.” In this process, Bartlett relates his own story to the socioeconomic concerns of the Hebridean island where his father was raised, and to dialogues between local communities and national and external policy-makers – so echoing Denzin’s call (2014. Interpretive Autoethnography (2nd Edition) . Los Angeles: Sage: vii) to “develop a methodology that allows us examine how the private troubles of individuals are connected to public issues and to public responses to these troubles”. Bartlett presents his data through a range of legitimation strategies and voicing techniques, creating transgressive texts that question received notions of identity, authorship, legitimacy and authenticity in academia, the portals of power, and the routines of daily life. The current Abstract is one such example. As with the author’s closing caveat on the potential dangers of self-revelation, offered, no doubt, as a flimsy justification for the extensive focus in the paper on his own life as a chronotope, I leave it for the individual reader to decide if Bartlett’s approach is ultimately ludic or simply ludicrous.