Volume 36, Issue 1-2

This essay reviews some of the changes engendered by the digital turn in language attitudes and language behaviour. It compares the current nexus of technology and language with that of print capitalism and examines the dimensions of digital society that have been affected particularly strongly, paying special attention to social practices, Bourdieu’s notion of “legitimate language”, legal issues, and our general understanding of how language works. It concludes by proposing a new research agenda in the form of a list of topics that sociolinguistics should address in the future, in particular the role of language institutions in cyberspace, the future of multilingualism, and a reinterpretation of Bourdieu’s notion of “legitimate language”. The paper is intended as a contribution to the ongoing and increasingly urgent discussion about the nexus of cyberspace, deliberative democracy, and multilingualism.

In this article, I reflect on the future of macro-sociolinguistic research from a global-south perspective. I discuss the role that activism has played in scholarly work, and how such activism was hampered by persistent ideologies of ‘thingification’; that is, ideologies that created languages and nations as ‘objects’ (to be managed and controlled by states and local/national/global elites). I ground the history of such discourses in colonialism-capitalism. I further explore the global and local regimes of language that were created through the dehumanizing violence of colonialism-capitalism, as well as the alternative futures that have been imagined by all those who resisted – and continue to resist – this violence. I conclude with some thoughts on temporalities, on the different relationships with, and to, time and the urgency of the present.

The paper aims at identifying common features in various fields of sociolinguistic research which would help rationalize methodological procedures and increase their efficiency. To this end, the paper discusses Language Management Theory, which focuses on the metalinguistic activities or behavior toward language of various social actors. Such metalinguistic activities represent a common denominator interconnecting seemingly heterogeneous fields of sociolinguistic research. The paper considers the possibilities of connecting such fields in various research areas. These include processes of language standardization and destandardization, the establishment of pluricentric standards, language attitudes research, the conceptualization of descriptive versus prescriptive linguistics, gender-related issues, language law, the management of multilingualism, and efforts aimed at strengthening the status of a language in a state or international organization. The discussion focuses on phenomena of agency, processes of the behavior toward language, the interconnection of the micro and macro levels of these processes, and the need to take socio-cultural, communicative as well as linguistic dimensions into consideration. Such a synthetic perspective would help generate and answer new fruitful research questions.

Our interest should always be aroused when scholars reject the testable approaches that have underwritten scientific development since the seventeenth century. Academic excursions in the arts and humanities need not adhere to scientific benchmarks, of course, and discussions relevant to science that are presented there need not always be subject to rigorous examination. When investigations move into social-science territory, however, more focused attention is called for. Since the scholars discussed in this paper clearly think of themselves as social scientists , it is quite legitimate to subject their investigations to scientific scrutiny and logical analysis. This article briefly describes contemporary investigations and research paradigms characterized by unnecessary neologisms, flatulent jargon, fuzzy thinking, and unconvincing arguments about the discovery of new territory in well-ploughed ground.

The various collections of language biographies starting in the 1990s have given rise to a new field of investigation in sociolinguistics. The interest in the very individual, autobiographical viewpoint on languages in speakers’ own repertoires offers new insights for macrosociolinguistic research. These detailed corpora also provide data for microanalytical investigations into the specificity of autobiographical narrations, i.e. how speakers construe their language repertoires in the narrative interview setting. This contribution seeks to depict how the interest in LB emerged and subsequently describes the most important developments in LB research, which to date is still limited to the European arena. Since the field is still growing and is in need of formalization, this overview must remain incomplete. Finally, the contribution warns of pitfalls and highlights some fields where LB has provided important input, from language didactics to neurolinguistic studies.

This paper addresses some of the challenges to mainstream research in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) thrown up by “critical perspectives”, which encompass contributions from postmodern theory as well as recent developments in the range of specialties known as “critical studies”. Since these challenges influence substantial tracts of scholarly discourse about linguistic diversity as well as about social and political responses to this diversity, it is useful to take stock of the corresponding claims and assess their import for language policy and planning (LPP) as a field of inquiry. Based on this examination, I argue that unless one is willing to buy uncritically into the problematic epistemological tenets of critical perspectives, their usefulness remains limited and is confined to heuristic side effects. The latter concern, in the main, a deeper treatment of the tension between language politics and language policy.

Digital media have become a mainstream source of data for sociolinguistics, reflecting the ubiquity of such media and the centrality of their role in people’s everyday speech as well as changed attitudes towards what constitutes a valid object of study in sociolinguistics. As our personal and professional reality becomes more technologized, there is, however, an urgent need to engage with a deeper understanding of the current and evolving digital economy underpinning this reality in order to assess critically the data that we now encounter. Trends such as personalization, securitization, and hierarchization, for example, mean that the sociolinguistic data we encounter are increasingly shaped by users’ digital identities. In the current digital economy, language is a key tool for steering, recording, and tracking these identities, for example, in the form of algorithms; however, the sociolinguistic dimension to these processes has not yet been explored fully. As well as more integrated approaches to studying digital sociolinguistic data, our increasingly technologized reality demands that we build algorithmic reflexivity into our teaching and our research.

While language policy and planning studies are a separate research field in sociolinguistics, they must develop in line with empirical and theoretical findings presented in the other branches of sociolinguistics. The distinctiveness of language policy and planning research lies in its interest in language management, while language practices and language attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies are also objects of study in sociolinguistics in general, as well as in other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Language policy and planning studies benefit from work carried out in other research traditions, and this relationship can be mutually beneficial if there is mutual will to exchange ideas, models and approaches. The position argued for in the present contribution is that it can be wise for language policy and planning researchers to take Spolsky’s work on language policy still further, particularly his fundamental assumption that language policy has three interrelated yet independent components, namely language practices, language beliefs, and language management. In doing so, language policy and planning studies can be sure to be at once firmly rooted in a wider research context, while their distinctiveness as a separate sub-field of sociolinguistics is underscored.

Superdiversity is a key term that has taken hold in macro sociolinguistic commentary over the last decade. It has been used to explore the increasing linguistic diversity, particularly in major urban centres in the West, brought about by changing patterns of migration and transmigration. Within sociolinguistics, this has led to an increasing focus on the complex multilingualism that can now be found in diverse urban contexts. The focus on multilingualism that superdiversity brings is a welcome, albeit belated, recognition of the normalcy of mutilingualism, thus challenging the inherent monolingualism still underpinning much language policy, pedagogy, and practice. However, the rise of superdiversity as a theoretical framework has also led to an increasingly deconstructivist view of languages by its proponents – questioning and/or rejecting distinctions between so called named languages, particularly national languages, while also critiquing standard language registers. In this commentary, I outline the benefits that superdiversity has brought to sociolinguistics over the last decade but also highlight, and critique, its explanatory limits. The latter include, among others, its ahistoricity, its almost exclusive focus on migrants in urban contexts, its dimissal of non-urban, often Indigenous, language contexts, and its rejection of language rights and standard language varieties.

“Identity” as an operating variable and/or explanatory concept continues to pervade sociolinguistic scholarship. This article reflects on and discusses the continuing dominance of post-structural and social constructionist accounts of identity and debates whether recent work has led to an “unrestrained embracing of speaker agency” (Bell 2017: 592) with a comparative neglect of social structure, or whether this work is contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between local meaning-making practices and macro-socio(linguistic) processes, and thereby challenging extant binaries in sociolinguistics, in particular: the treatment of stability versus fluidity, agency versus structure and the traditional dichotomy between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics. Reflecting on historical developments and recent trends, it outlines the significant contribution of theoretical models and empirical studies to sociolinguistics, whilst noting obvious gaps, e.g. insufficient studies of the Global South. It is argued that recent work is contributing to a sociolinguistics which foregrounds and problematises the concept of “context” and the contingency of difference and belonging. The paper also argues that recent identity scholarship opens up opportunities for cross-disciplinary projects, drawing on the combined expertise of sociolinguistics, cognitive sociologists and psycholinguists to explain inter alia such phenomena as fluidity and variation in speaker/community attitudes and practices.

Due to the long history of mutual language contact, Slavic languages have had a considerable influence on German and attitudes towards multilingualism in Austria. With regard to the multilingual setting in the Habsburg state and its repercussions to this day, this article outlines the basic assumptions, the methodological toolkit as well as the main general findings of the special research programme “German in Austria. Variation – Contact – Perception”, especially its task cluster on language contact. The opinion paper concludes with an overview of the methodological lessons learnt and the possible implications for further sociolinguistic research in historical contexts.

Following the publication of William Stokoe’s Sign Language Structure in 1960, there was a proliferation of linguistic research addressing different aspects of sign languages. The emergence of this research had implications not only for linguistics as an academic discipline, but also for the deaf community itself. One area in which the study of sign languages and the growing activism of deaf communities overlapped in powerful ways was in calls for the official recognition of sign languages – that is, with respect to status planning. In addition to status planning, there have also been clear examples of corpus planning, acquisition planning, and prestige planning with respect to sign languages. Although efforts to engage in language planning for sign languages, and to develop and implement language policies for such languages, share many characteristics with language planning targeting spoken languages, in other ways they are quite distinctive. In this article, an overview of language planning and policy for sign languages is provided, followed by discussions of the linguistic human rights of sign language users and the role of language policies for sign languages in efforts to ensure civil rights for deaf individuals and communities.

After more than half a century, sociolinguistic research on language maintenance and shift has developed in different directions depending on the type of speech community it focuses on. The similarities between “indigenous” as autochthonous and “migrant” as allochthonous languages undergoing shift have often been overlooked and the two have been treated differently. Such a division not only reflects a much-debated dichotomy between “old” and “new” minorities in political and legal scholarship, but is also linked to different legal and institutional treatments of such minorities and their languages. However, at a time when the mobilities paradigm has become an integral aspect of sociolinguistic scholarship, there is a need to rethink the way in which sociolinguists have come to terms with migration so far, including a highly problematic and artificial separation of different types of linguistic community based on perceived migrational status. Such a rethink is needed in order to be able to provide more contextualized analyses of locally specific sociolinguistic realities, which can rarely be determined on the basis of widely assumed categorizations. 

This contribution provides an overview of macrosociolinguistic approaches to the study of language contact, with a focus on contact languages. It addresses the current state of the art and future of the field. It also reflects on the global inequalities of power in the study of contact languages and the ways in which research on contact languages can serve as a model for North-South cooperation. Studies on contact languages and their histories of formation show how power and prestige are tightly connected to demographic factors and the political, economic, and ideological frameworks that mold language structures. They also inform us about the mechanisms that seemingly exert an influence on the correlations between structural and extra-linguistic factors. New areas of comparative inquiry with large datasets, new methods and varied contexts continue to diversify and further our understanding of the macrosociolinguistics of contact. These advances require a dialogue with other focus areas of sociolinguistics and a critical, self-reflective approach to the epistemological basis of the field.

This 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 of micro- and macro-sociolinguistic s 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.

Research on language standardization witnessed remarkable progress over the past two decades. Building on the strong foundations laid by Einar Haugen, the scholarly canon on the topic was renewed, while also addressing a number of shortcomings of earlier theory building. As historical sociolinguistics gained momentum, standardization history faced the challenge of including ‘voices from below’ as they appeared in new and socially inclusive corpora of egodocuments from the past centuries. This implied an increased focus on the formerly overlooked role and presence of non-standard varieties, but also on the ideological driving factors behind many standardization efforts. The article makes a case for specific and ongoing attention to the implementation phase of standardization measures, as well as for the study of language conflicts from times past to help prevent imminent geopolitical struggles (or, for worse, to inform our understanding of these conflicts in the near future).

A closer interdisciplinary engagement by geographers, ethnographers and sociolinguists has resulted in new thematic issues being investigated and more sophisticated methodological approaches being adopted. The development of advanced IT and AI capabilities, particularly the wider adoption of Geographical Information Systems (GIS), has opened up new means of exploring and representing aspects of human behaviour. Of particular note is the appreciation by sociolinguistics of the various spatial perspectives currently being utilised in sub-disciplines such as studies of the interactions within metropolitan multilingual contexts, linguistic landscapes, new speaker research and applied language policy. This paper calls for a greater mutual reciprocity and syncretic interpretation of several key issues and promising methodologies. It also indicates how sociolinguists can contribute to significant societal debates on language policy and planning as part of social planning.