Band 42, Heft 4

This paper examines the determinant factors motivating language choice in churches in coastal Accra, an area characterized by a high degree of urbanization and multilingualism. As this region is also ethnically Gã, we survey the attitudes of Gã congregants to the use of other languages in their churches, bearing in mind the pressure faced by Gã from the more dominant vehicular languages, Akan and English. Data was obtained via participant observation, questionnaires and interviews. Using domain analysis, we show that language choice in the church domain is guided by the diametric principles of inclusiveness and church expansion on the one hand, and the conservation of a homogeneous socio-cultural identity on the other. Multilingual churches espouse the former while monolingual churches prize the latter. Gã congregants in churches that make extensive use of Akan and English report feeling satisfied with the language choices in their churches as they see these lingua francas as necessary for reaching out to the wider community. Although in other spheres of life there is irritation among Gã natives about the diminishing role of their language, in the church domain, this is readily tolerated for the greater good of advancing the church’s work.

This paper discusses how persons of multicultural backgrounds describe in interviews their everyday experiences when using Finnish. The focus is on categories of linguistic (non)belonging described in interview interactions. The data consist of 23 single and pair interviews of 33 informants in total and come from two interview datasets. Data are analyzed discursively, taking into account positions and identities constructed in interviews. First, the study concentrates on descriptions where the informants’ interlocutors (particularly customer service persons) switched to English and the interviewees assumed reasons for it. Secondly, the recounted experiences where multiculturals have received comments on their Finnish language use are examined. According to the informants, language choices and evaluations arise from the perception of difference by the interactant. When language choice is discussed, categorizations of the informants as non-Finnish speakers arise. When the focus is on received comments, the informants discuss the categorizations of non-nativeness and origins. The informants position themselves in relation to these categories: They discuss the motivations and conditions for them. The study takes a closer look at how, in the interviews, there is space to criticize linguistic practices contrary to many everyday situations. The study brings to light the informants’ interpretations of switching language and commenting on one’s language as well as underlying ideologies of these situations, thereby also bringing about the possibility for change. The descriptions are multilevel, and we discuss how the categories of identification are constructed and how they are perceived in the interviews.

The proficiency in vernacular has long been a methodological ethos pervasive among field researchers and—despite new dynamics of fieldwork—still overshadows discussions related to collaboration with translators and interpreters, which are either marginalized or hidden within the category of a ‘research assistant’. The purpose of this study is to take a step beyond anecdotal evidence and explore trends in language proficiency and use of translation services among US based field researchers who had conducted international or domestic studies in an area where a language other than English was present. We conducted the largest-to-date survey on the subject and analyzed 913 responses from faculty at sociology and anthropology programs in the United States. We documented their global fieldwork activity and found only limited proficiency in field languages accompanied by a proliferation of reliance on translators and interpreters, not matching any methodological discussion present in the textbooks and other scholarly sources. We indicate disparities in the use of vernacular and translation services in the post-colonial societies and point out related ethical and methodological concerns. Furthermore, we analyze the researchers’ decision-making processes and their general perspectives on the importance of vernacular’s knowledge and opinions on the admissibility of translators in the fieldwork.

This paper highlights a current phenomenon reported from preschools placed in multilingual areas in Sweden, namely that some preschoolers with mutually different language backgrounds sometimes use English as lingua franca instead of Swedish during play. The data stems from a study of language environments in Swedish preschools situated in both monolingual and multilingual areas. The analyses reveal that many children are influenced by the English language in both areas, but to a much greater extent in multilingual areas. An interesting situation arises when the majority language of society, which is also the language of education and lingua franca of the preschool, acquires a less prevailing role in children’s accomplishment of everyday practices. Data show that the participating children are exposed to and speak English to a varying extent. They learn and teach each other English, and speak English in an array of pragmatic purposes; to position themselves in the social hierarchies of the preschool group, to create meaning within their shared peer culture and for the purpose of exclusion of intruders. English is also used as a secret language of friendship.

This research examines the Thai and English translation equivalents of Northern Khmer ethnobotanical terms and the corresponding translation strategies, along with the translators’ reflections on their role as language revitalisation agents. The ultimate purpose of this translation effort is to provide a knowledge base for Northern Khmer learners and an English conversation textbook for local Thai and Northern Khmer students, as well as preserve traditional botanical information. The cultural-specific items that pose translation problems are traditional medicine-related terms, tastes, and parts of the plant. For Northern Khmer to Thai, the most frequently employed translation strategies are literal translation and cultural substitution, and for Thai to English, a combination of literal translation and paraphrasing. Besides the geographical, linguistic and cultural distance between the three languages, translators as agents with their language ability and willingness are crucial elements for Northern Khmer revitalisation. At the same time, the effort to undertake the process tends to be fully realised at the community level. Volunteer translators’ intention to devote their translations to educational resources for local students has a substantial impact on translation strategies. The translators’ self-concept is also enhanced by their prior involvement in the preserving botanical wisdom project and subsequent translation process, during which they reflect on language pairs and strengthen their knowledge of dialect as a by-product.

During the past decade, the field of family language policy has broadened its scope and turned its attention to diverse family configurations in versatile sociolinguistic contexts. The current study contributes to this endeavor by focusing on two single-parent families who live in Finland and who strive to support Russian as a family language. Applying nexus analysis as an epistemological stance and as an analytical lens, the study takes an emic perspective on family language policy. Furthermore, it examines how family language policy is manifested and negotiated during mother–child play and what discourses shape it. The findings reveal two contrasting ways in which family language policy is manifested and negotiated in the families. Confident family language policy in one of the families is informed by the mother’s historical body (i.e., prior experience of raising children bilingually), while in the other family, discourse in place represented by divergent language ideologies plays a significant role in shaping family language policy and is connected with hesitant decisions about language use in the family.