Researching Language in Superdiverse Urban Contexts. Группа авторов
spoken (arrived at largely through counting the languages spoken as mother tongues amongst school children, or self-reporting in national censuses) might be one such source (see, for example, National Statistics Census 2011). However, we should be cautious of ‘official statistics’ which at times reflect the underlying ideologies of those that collect them (see Duchêne & Humbert, 2018). In Chapter 3 of this volume Gaiser and Matras describe a much more nuanced and holistic method of collating statistical data on languages that has been developed in Manchester. Exploring the city’s history of migration and settlement and plotting where this is found in the city might be another (see, for example, Kushner & Knox, 1999; Patterson, 1970, on migration to Southampton). Reviewing other scholarly publications on the subject is necessarily a starting point (for Southampton, see, for example, Cadier, 2013; Cadier & Mar-Molinero, 2012, 2014). And from a more empirical perspective, examining the linguistic and audio landscapes, as well as acting as participant observers, are increasingly favoured methods to build a picture of local multilingualism. These sources would reveal, in contrast to the original extract, an abundance of different languages and an increasing mixing and translanguaging (see below for discussion of this term) among their speakers.
Interviewing policymakers and educators and studying official documents can also explain how a city’s local government sees and reacts to language. When asked what Southampton’s language policy is, different answers from its local government officers and politicians have been given at different points in time, no doubt reflecting contrasting party political regimes, both locally and nationally. In 2010 Southampton City Council drew up an Accessible Communications Position Paper which in terms of translation and interpreting services clearly signalled the need to focus on all Southampton residents learning English.1 This document stated,
… we will NOT [emphasis in original] pro-actively translate informa-tion into community languages. The exception to this is where there is a clear requirement to do so, in view of the specific nature of the information or the intended audience. This position does not negate our commitment to respond to customer requests for information in another language … (Southampton City Council, 2010)
After a lengthy section giving the reasons for not proactively translating council documents, the Position document states,
In addition; the council recognises that translation of information is not a substitute for learning English. The council is committed to working with partners in the city to improve English skills in all communities, through the provision of English as a second language (ESOL) classes and other opportunities. This approach will help to build cohesion and integration of communities in Southampton. (Southampton City Council, 2010)
This ideology was still clearly articulated in 2012, when the then Leader of Southampton City Council remarked:
We made a conscious decision not to publish [documents] in other languages. Promotion of the English language is the key to everything, to better employment, social enrichment. It’s the key to the identity of the UK; it’s the bedrock of our culture. (public communication)
This Herderian idea of one nation-one language (see, for example, Barnard, 1969), as well as endorsing dominant language monolingualism, present also in the opening extract, is certainly not unique to Southampton. In Southampton this sentiment has been somewhat softened and nuanced since the publication of the Position document in 2010 by different political regimes and policies. Nonetheless, a recent reply from a Southampton City Council officer about language policy started with references to the availability of translation and interpreting services for those who do not speak English. Such services are offered purely as support for access to and integration into the public life of the city through English; no such services are available in the other direction for monolingual English speakers to understand the mother tongues of many of their co-residents. Nor would the city’s local government officers, politicians or, indeed, the majority of the city’s educators, even consider the need or desirability of offering services of the latter sort. There are of course also strong financial considerations that motivate what services might be made available, but I would argue that the English-as-integration belief overwhelmingly underpins any local (and national) language policies.
Understanding the language ideologies, attitudes and policies held and practised by a city’s population is of course as important to the research into multilingualism as any collecting of data and statistics, which as already noted, can indeed be affected by the former. For example, it might be argued by those who promote English-as-integration beliefs that monolingual ideologies indicate that there is a need to control language(s), from which it follows, in the strongest interpretation, that multilingualism and those who speak other languages need to be controlled, if not excluded. This cameo of Southampton – often cited as the typical average UK medium-sized city – demonstrates how essential it is for researchers of urban multilingualism to ensure they are employing the most appropriate methods to fully see and hear the environment they are examining, including the need to leave expectations and preconceptions behind as they understand the linguistic attitudes, performances and repertoires through which they wander. As an insider to Southampton’s linguistic environment I have sought to be aware of this need to distance myself from any preconceptions and to engage as researcher with the researched and respect the importance of that relationship (see Cadier & Mar-Molinero, 2014). This awareness and relationship are also underpinning much of the volume edited by Gardner and Martin-Jones (2012), whose focus is more generally on contemporary multilingualism, not specifically superdiverse cities. In their introduction they highlight the need for:
reflection (…) on the role of researchers as socially-situated actors, with their own biographies and subjectivities, within the research process and on the fluid and negotiated nature of the researcher-researched relationships that are formed in and out of the field. (Martin-Jones & Gardner, 2012: 1)
Key Concepts in Urban Superdiverse Mutlilingualism
The research in this volume examines examples of multilingualism in the context of contemporary superdiversity (see below for discussion of this term) in environments that have been and are being transformed by transnational migration. It explores language in urban contexts: the city as a site for experimentation and creativity in language practices. This involves considering theoretical frameworks and appropriate methodologies to examine such practices. Before moving to the specific case studies and critical discussions in the following chapters, some consideration here is given to recurring concepts that underpin the research throughout this volume. Most of these concepts have been widely analysed in the literature by scholars working in the areas, but my aim here is to navigate amongst these discussions to present interpretations that align with the approach we share as authors in this volume. The studies here build on and reference the growing and important literature already available in the area of multilingualism in the city, and related transnational migration, superdiversity and globalisation processes (for example, Blackwood & Tufi, 2015; Block, 2006; Blommaert, 2013; Extra & Yağmur, 2004; Gardner & Martin- Jones, 2012; Gogolin et al., 2013; Holmes et al., 2013; Horner & Weber, 2017; King & Carson, 2016; Mac Giolla Chríost, 2007; Martin-Jones & Martin, 2017; Shohamy et al., 2010; Smakman & Heinrich, 2017; Stevenson, 2017; Yağmur & Extra, 2011).
In the sections below I will consider what we discover the ‘city’ to be in our research and its relationship with language, a term itself which will also be problematised in the context of current so-called superdiversity. I will examine ways of identifying and describing linguistic practices in contemporary superdiverse urban environments and explore the language ideologies that underpin these and the policies that can impact on them. Finally, I will consider the methodological approach that lies at the heart of this volume, exploring how the contributors in this volume examine the range of methods available to them to research this linguistic environment, and how we reflect on our research methods. Throughout, I will thread through examples from my own research in the city of Southampton.
Language and the City
The city is a discourse and this discourse is truly a language: the city speaks to its inhabitants, we speak our city, the city where