Volume 37, Issue 1 -

This paper investigates code-switching and script-switching in medieval documents from the Cairo Geniza, written in Judaeo-Arabic (Arabic in Hebrew script), Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic. Legal documents regularly show a macaronic style of Judaeo-Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew, while in letters code-switching from Judaeo-Arabic to Hebrew is tied in with various socio-linguistic circumstances and indicates how markedly Jewish the sort of text is. Merchants in particular employed a style of writing devoid of Hebrew elements, whereas community dignitaries are much more prone to mixing of Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic (and Arabic), although the degree of mixing also depends on a number of other factors, such as on the individual education. Analyses show great variation within the repertoire of single authors, as shown on the example of Daniel b. ʿAzariah, according to the purpose of the correspondence, with religious affairs attracting the highest Hebrew content, whereas letters pertaining to trade exhibit the lowest Hebrew content. Script-switching between Hebrew and Arabic may be prompted by convenience of individual writers, or occur as an idiosyncratic quirk, but reveal the close familiarity of the writer with both alphabets.

This paper focuses on how different historical stages of socio-economic development in Brussels are played out on the ground over time in one particular inner-city neighbourhood, the Quartier Dansaert. In particular, I document the history of this neighbourhood and how urban change and gentrification have impacted the outlook of multilingualism and the development of multilingual discourses and language hierarchies in its material and semiotic landscape over time. By using the rich history of multilingualism in the Quartier Dansaert as a case-study, I argue in favour of more historically-sensitive and longitudinal approaches to social and, in particular, linguistic change as played out in urban landscape.

“Cunt” is currently one of the most offensive words in the English language and is usually censored in the English press and media. The present study looks firstly at differences between 1159 first (L1) and 1165 foreign (LX) users of English in their perceived understanding of the word, its perceived offensiveness and their self-reported frequency of use. Secondly, it considers the relationships between the dependent variables and a number of psychological, sociobiographical and linguistic profile variables. The findings suggest that LX users are less sure about the exact meaning of the word, underestimate its offensiveness and use it less frequently than L1 users. Links between understanding of the word and its perceived offensiveness vary for L1 and LX users. High levels of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Psychoticism were linked to more frequent use of the word, as were lower levels of education, a younger age, being a male and working in a swearing-rich environment for both L1 and LX users. Variation in the group of LX users was linked to age of onset of acquisition of English, context of acquisition, self-reported oral proficiency, frequency of use of English and having lived in an English-speaking environment.

This article explores the construction and shifting of “expert” and “novice” roles between and within two languages (Japanese and English). Taking a language socialization perspective while drawing upon insights from conversation analysis on epistemics in interaction, it analyzes seven hours of audio recordings of dinnertime talk in a Japanese-speaking immigrant family with a university-aged adult daughter living together in Australia. The analysis identifies several key communicative practices, such as word definitions and repair, which participants deploy in displaying epistemic stances that constitute the self and family members as possessing relatively more or less knowledge and expertise (epistemic status) with respect to these two languages. The findings reveal the dynamics of language socialization in a bilingual/immigrant setting in which the relative roles of expert and novice emerge, shift, and are negotiated in interaction. In conclusion, the findings are discussed in relation to language expertise, power and hierarchy, agency and bidirectional language socialization.