Beyond translanguaging: fluidity and fixity in everyday language practices of multilingual Singapore

Modern Rapanui Adaptation of Spanish Elements1 Miki Makihara Abstract Rapanui is a Polynesian language spoken on Easter Island, Chile. In this paper, I focus on the linguistic adaptations that Rapanui speakers make when transferring Spanish elements into their Modern Rapanui speech. I analyze Spanish transfers and the mechanisms of adaptation at the levels of phonology, morphology, lexicon, syntax, and discourse. The discussion includes phonological adaptation; application of Rapanui bound morphemes; possessive class assignment; kin and emotion semantic fields; syntactic category crossing; the introduction of a modal construction of obligation, coordinating conjunctions, and an adverb of negation; and the use of Spanish elements as discourse markers and the indexicality they make possible. The analysis of Modern Rapanui speech presented in this paper demonstrates that mixing Spanish elements in Rapanui discourse requires that speakers hold significant tacit knowledge of the Rapanui linguistic system. Instead of looking at these Spanish transfers as evidence of Rapanui becoming contaminated by Spanish, they can be analyzed as evidence of the bilingual speakers' creative performance in Modern Rapanui speech and what extends the remarkable survival and adaptability of the Rapanui language. By considering the diachronic and synchronic variation found in Spanish transfers, the analysis also contributes toward the understanding of the process of language change, speakers' roles in it, and the ways in which linguistic variation is related to the phenomenon of language change. Most of the data I employ are taken from transcripts made from naturalistic verbal interactions among the island residents recorded during my ethnographic research in this Rapanui-Spanish bilingual island community (1993-1996). 1. Introduction. Rapanui, the Polynesian language spoken on Easter Island, Chile, presents a case of remarkable language maintenance. The island's [End Page 191] population, estimated to have been 4,000 in the 1860s, was reduced to 110 in the period of a little over a decade shortly thereafter by labor raids and the spread of disease. 2 In spite of profound social disruption and numerous contacts with outsiders since then, the Rapanui people have continued to speak Rapanui. Although Rapanui was considerably influenced through contact with other languages such as Tahitian and Spanish, it remained the dominant language for everyday means of social interaction on the island until relatively recently. During the 1960s, a community-wide language shift to Spanish began as the island was integrated into the Chilean national economy and migration from the Chilean mainland increased. Now, virtually all speakers of Rapanui are bilingual in Spanish, the national language, and many Rapanui children are growing up predominantly Spanish-speaking, with only passive knowledge of Rapanui.3 During the last few decades, the speakers have developed bilingual and syncretic styles of speaking Modern Rapanui. Today informal conversations among the Rapanui are carried out primarily in a mixture of Rapanui and Spanish varieties, and the exclusive use of Rapanui, void of Spanish mixing, is relatively rare and marked.4 Recently, however, with the increased awareness of their cultural and linguistic distinctiveness from the Chileans in the climate of an indigenous movement, the Rapanui are developing a purist linguistic ideology. They are remaking Rapanui as a public language, functionally recompartmentalizing Spanish and Rapanui, and developing a purist Rapanui register.5 Modern Rapanui is based on Old Rapanui.6 Other languages such as Spanish and Tahitian have influenced it since the late nineteenth century, but it is not a "mixed language" in the sense that the grammatical systems of two or more separate languages have interpenetrated each other. For example, Ma'a, spoken in northeastern Tanzania, is considered a mixed language. It is a Cushitic language that retains about half the vocabulary of Cushitic but has borrowed almost its entire grammar from Bantu (Thomason and Kaufman 1988).7 In contrast, grammatical or structural borrowing from Spanish into Modern Rapanui has not been extensive. Spanish borrowing is primarily at the level of vocabulary. Spanish mixing and, in particular, code [End Page 192] switching-juxtaposition of Spanish and Rapanui varieties-are primarily at the level of verbal interaction. When I refer to Modern Rapanui as a language variety, I have in mind what the Swiss linguist Fernand de Saussure would call langue 'language'. On the other hand, by bilingual and syncretic ways...

Couched within the overarching framework of translanguaging, this paper attempts to show the real-life language practices of social actors away from the dominant narratives of translanguaging in bilingual education. Predicated on the mixing and mobility of languages across time and space, the paper uses casual conversations from two multilingual spaces, a university campus, and a marketplace. Firstly, the paper shows the mixing of the English language and Bemba, a widely spoken indigenous language in Zambia while arguing that the Bemba-English translanguaged discourses provide evidence for the mobility and the disembodiment of language and locality. Secondly, the paper argues that the spread and circulation of Bemba in multiple localities should be seen as the mobility of bits and pieces -and/or resources akin to urbanity and hybridity. The paper concludes by bringing into the spotlight the dynamics of the Bemba-English translanguaged discourses in which morphemes as semiotic resources create new lexical items which destabilize expected linguistic norms and boundaries.

In multilingual Singapore, language mixing is an everyday phenomenon that can be observed in the speech of many Singaporeans, especially in informal and private settings (Bolton & Botha, 2019; Botha, 2021; Tay, 1989). Among the existing studies that have analysed language mixing in the Singaporean community, most utilise a code- switching approach (e.g. Kamwangamalu & Lee, 1991; Lee, 2003, 2019a, 2019b; Sumartono and Tan, 2018; Tay, 1989). However, the way that a code-switching approach frames mixed language practices may be rather limiting, especially in the case of language communities as diverse as Singapore. One of the key problems in applying a code-switching approach to multilingual Singaporean data is the difficulty in delineating the boundaries between two or more languages/codes/varieties, as has been highlighted in studies such as Alsagoff (2010), Leimgruber (2012), Li (2018), and Tay (1989). As an alternative approach to analysing Singaporean data, Li (2018) proposes the use of translanguaging, a concept that has garnered interest in recent years. This thesis will assess the strengths and weaknesses of both models of code-switching and translanguaging as possible approaches to analysing Singaporean speech data. As part of the data for the analysis, naturalistic conversation data was collected from 10 friendship groups each consisting of 2 to 5 Singaporean adult participants between 21-35 years old. Participants were asked to converse normally with each other for about an hour without any specific set topic, with an audio recorder placed in the room without the researcher present. Data playback sessions with some participants were also conducted as follow-up interviews to supplement the analysis. With a code-switching approach, various instances of linguistic hybridity that were present in the data made it difficult to categorise utterances into corresponding linguistic codes and varieties, which is a common premise in conventional code-switching analyses. Furthermore, some patterns of hybridity seen in the data challenges separatist notions of language, an assumption which many code-switching analyses take. On the other hand, while translanguaging proved to be a rather effective approach in addressing abovementioned linguistic hybridity, it makes the central assumption that language boundaries and ‘named languages’ are arbitrary constructs that are unrepresentative of how multilinguals communicate with each other (Garcia & Li, 2014; Otheguy, Garcia, & Reid, 2015). This was ultimately a key shortcoming of translanguaging that failed to account for instances where speakers showed an awareness or adherence to these language boundaries in their language practices. As such, both code- switching and translanguaging approaches were found to be inadequate in accounting for the complexities of Singaporean speech data, which exhibited both fluidity and fixity (Jaspers & Madsen, 2019) as important aspects of speakers’ linguistic behaviour. Fluidity and fixity were found to be intrinsically linked to and influencing each other as mutually presupposing concepts in Singaporean speech, resulting in seemingly contradicting ideologies and linguistic behaviour observed in the data. The findings from this thesis allow for a closer look into the “messier” realities of the purported intergenerational language shift from local vernaculars to English among the younger adult generation of Singaporeans (Bokhorst-Heng & Silver, 2017), and sheds light on how these individuals navigate their language choices in practice amidst an often conflicting and complex web of linguistic ideologies that are omnipresent in their everyday lives.

This qualitative study aimed to examine the embedded language ideologies within L2 Saudi students’ metaphorical texts to discover their ideological perspectives about language mixing. Using language ideology as a lens of analysis, this study examined 74 metaphorical texts written by undergraduate students to determine their language ideologies. The results revealed that the students held multiple and contradictory language ideologies about language mixing. Students’ language ideologies were found to be an orientation along a language ideological continuum with one end representing the ideology of language mixing as a resource and the other reflecting the ideology of language mixing as a challenge. Some students’ language ideologies may fall somewhere in the middle of this continuum since they expressed conflicting language ideologies, perceiving language mixing as both a valuable resource and a potential challenge. Using language ideologies as a lens to evaluate students' metaphorical texts allowed the different language ideas hidden within the three basic language ideologies to be revealed. In addition, the study found that the students employed different metaphors to conceptualize language mixing, covering a wide range of areas such as food, drinks, objects, places and activities. The findings suggested that Saudi students’ metaphors and language ideologies are intertwined and mutually influence each other. This study recommends that teachers use conceptual metaphors as a reflective tool to unveil L2 students’ perspectives on academic activities and calls for further research on conceptual metaphors and language ideologies in L2 contexts.

This chapter examines issues of language naming and language recognition practised by local Tibetans and scholars in the eastern Tibetosphere and discusses how and why Tibetans border their various speeches actively by naming them in various ways. It focuses on three cases: ‘Tibetic’, ‘logs-skad’, and ‘mixed language’ as separate instantiations of language recognition. Firstly, the term ‘Tibetic’ triggers controversy both amongst linguists and between linguists and the Tibetan community. Secondly, the use of the Tibetan term ‘logs-skad’ marks the recognition of unintelligible speeches to mainstream Tibetans. Thirdly, the label of ‘mixed language’ can be a crucial part of speakers’ identity. The chapter argues that linguists have a responsibility to balance their commitments to specifijicity with Tibetans’ practice of naming languages.

This article discusses the dynamics underlying a particular feature of South African Englishes – language mixing – and how such mixing practices and the use of English form part of the social identity of interactions between speakers in their respective social networks. The approach to this current study was adapted from Milroy's (1980) research on social networks in order to provide access to participants’ most natural use of languages. This study investigates various aspects of the multilingual language practices of speakers in South Africa and reports on the social motivations and the social contexts of language mixing in the personal lives of these speakers.

It is evident that something has been going on recently in sociolinguistics with a sudden upsurge – to the pleasure of some and the chagrin of others – of new terminology. Alongside superdiversity (Vertovec 2007; Blommaert 2010) as a new term to address the intensification of diversity, we now have translanguaging (Garcia 2009a; Blackledge and Creese 2010; Li Wei 2011) and translingual practice (Canagarajah 2013), transglossia (Garcia 2013, 2014; Sultana et al. 2015), polylingual languaging (Jorgensen 2008a,b; Moller 2008), and metrolingualism (Otsuji and Pennycook 2010; 2014), amongst others. According to Blommaert (2013; see also this volume, Chapter 11) the old “Fishmanian” framing of sociolinguistics has been profoundly questioned with this proliferation of new terms signalling “an epistemological rupture with past approaches” (p. 621). All share a desire to move away from the language of bi- or multilingualism, castigating earlier work for operating with the idea that multilingualism is the sum of several, separate languages. The first aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of these different frameworks, weighing up the different approaches and discussing their similarities and differences. All focus on contexts of multiple, mixed language use (while also trying to escape these notions of multiplicity and mixing) with an interest in talking in terms of repertoires of linguistic resources rather than bilingualism, code-mixing, or code-switching. While there are some differences between these different approaches, they have much in common. Their irruption into the world of sociolinguistics raises at least two questions: To what extent do these new terminologies reflect a changing sociolinguistic world marked by greater diversity, mobility, and language contact (as the notion of superdiversity suggests), or to what extent is this rather a shift in theory that could apply to all eras of sociolinguistic interaction? Does this signal a major paradigm shift in the way we think about languages, or is this rather a case of old wine in new bottles or, worse still, merely a case of “uncouth neologisms and dysfluent phrasings” that “don't represent an advance” (Edwards 2012: 37)? The chapter concludes by evaluating these arguments about whether there is anything new or worthwhile going on here.

In the context of multilingualism, there is still a dearth of research on the language practices of individuals and the social factors that explain their linguistic behaviour, particularly in the Singapore context. This article discusses the dynamics underlying a particular feature of vernacular Singapore speech – language mixing – and how such mixing practices form part of the social identity of the interactions between speakers in their respective social networks. The approach to this current study was adapted from Milroy’s research on social networks (Milroy, Lesley. 1989 [1980]. Language and social networks, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.) in order to provide access to subjects’ most natural use of languages – that is, their “vernacular” in the Labovian sense. This study investigates various aspects of the multilingual language practices of students in Singapore and reports on the social motivations and the social contexts of language mixing in the personal lives of these speakers in the context of other languages and language varieties.

India’s linguistic diversity is reflected in classrooms across the country, where multiple languages are used by teachers and learners to negotiate meaning and instruction – a multilingual, multicultural student body is the norm, whether in urban or rural contexts. This study documents teaching practices in English language and maths lessons in Delhi and Hyderabad, with a specific focus on language use. The findings from 104 classroom observations allow us to profile multilingual practices used in schools with different official mediums of instruction. Results reveal a predominant use of ‘language mixing’ in the classroom, in both English- and regional language-medium of instruction contexts – especially in English subject lessons. Maths lessons in regional-medium schools did not involve as much language mixing by the teachers but this was still a strong feature for learners. The data also shows differences between language use particularly when comparing English-medium schools in each city. Specifically, lessons in Delhi were characterised by absolutely no occurrences of English used on its own by the teachers (as recorded during five-minute intervals), compared to significantly greater use of English alone in Hyderabad English-medium and Telugu-medium schools. Delhi teachers appear to use a greater amount of language mixing during each lesson.

“Language use is universally social and political,” the author of this interesting and useful monograph writes. “The two goals of this book are to describe the language situation in the post-Soviet Republic of Moldova and to explain this situation as the result of complex interaction between competing linguistic and social identities. Some of the variables are historical, social, psychological, and economic, but together they contribute to a sociolinguistic dynamic that is unique to the Moldovans” (p. 47). Even with the passage of time since the book was published, Ciscel is successful in achieving these goals, and the reader will come away with a much fuller comprehension of why things evolved as they did during the first two decades of post-Soviet Moldova.Ciscel's first chapter surveys the tortuous history of what today is the Republic of Moldova, pointing out that Ottoman and Russian influences, though powerful, were never quite successful in stamping out the region's identification with the Romanians on the other side of the Prut River. On the other hand, when Moldova (or Bessarabia) became part of the Romanian state in the twentieth century through the intervention of Joseph Stalin, mismanagement and non-Romanian domination of the cities and towns of Moldova left the region poorly integrated. As a result, Moldova, in common with other imperial borderlands, is multiethnic and multilingual, and national/linguistic identities were and still are much debated and in doubt. The consequence was and is a continuing identity crisis for ethnic Romanians. Discussion of that crisis begins in Chapter 2. Romanians in Moldova, though nearly two thirds of the population (more than three quarters if Transnistria is excluded), were hopelessly divided over three key questions: (1) the relationship of their language to Romanian (is it Romanian, a dialect of Romanian, or a separate Romance language?); (2) the political status of Moldova (should it be independent but tied to Russia, independent but without any particular ties to Russia, or united with Romania?); and (3) what languages should be official in Moldova (Romanian/Moldovan only, both Romanian and Russian, or even Russian only?).The fact that the Communists dominated Moldovan politics in the first decade of the 21st century to the detriment of pro-unification Romanians owed precisely to this identity crisis. The crisis was reinforced by the 1994 constitution, which made Romanian the national language but called it Moldovan (a status that remained in effect until late 2013, when the Constitutional Court ruled that “Romanian,” as stipulated in the country's 1991 declaration of independence, had to take precedence). Whether “Moldovan” should be a separate language from Romanian, and whether “Moldovan” history and Romanian history should be seen as identical were sticking points in the sociopolitical dialogue of Moldova during the first quarter century after the end of the USSR.Chapter 3 examines the economic status of Moldova in the early 21st century, analyzes print media, and discusses the social and linguistic identities that emerged from such study. Ciscel distinguishes four identity groups in Moldovan society after the disintegration of the Soviet Union: extremely pro-Romanian, moderately pro-Romanian, moderately pro-Russian, and extremely pro-Russian. This is mirrored in his review of the press. The heart of the book deals with surveys Ciscel conducted in 2001 and 2003 and with the stories of representative students at the State University of Moldova. Although he recognizes that these samples are not extensive enough to achieve statistical validity, Ciscel compensates for this by mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches. In the end, this “triangulation” provides some degree of validation for his findings, showing how language identities interacted in early post-Soviet Moldova and how these were affected by social identity.Ciscel argues that most Moldovans are pragmatic moderates. This might bode well for the future, but, on the other hand, both the extremely pro-Romanian and the extremely pro-Russian groups are in many ways still irreconcilable. The Romanians have the numbers, but the Russophones have the power and status to prevent the Romanians from achieving all of their goals. In Chapter 4, Ciscel writes, “If history and politics reflect the elite competition among divergent social identity categories, the attitudes, beliefs, and rankings are the currency in which their values are negotiated among both the elite and common actors in the identity market of daily national life” (p. 95). A major emphasis of the chapter is a survey of these values and attitudes.This is followed by a chapter that measures multilingual proficiency in his survey/interview samples. His research shows, among other things, that Russian influence in the region persisted into the 21st century in both status and language practice; social identities in the Republic of Moldova are dynamic in character while socially constructed; language plays the most prominent role in post-Soviet debate and in the priorities of individuals; the country's social identity crisis—in which Western or Romanian identity is seen as clashing with an Eastern or Moldovan/Russian identity—is related to economics; and the past continues to be prologue despite the end of empire in the region.Ciscel believes that the future of language issues in Moldova is “neither fantastic nor bleak. Neither the nostalgic, relatively pro-Russian policies of the Communist party nor the idealistic, pro-Romanian challenges from the minority Christian Democrats seem to spark much enthusiasm among the majority of Moldovans. Although the Moldovan national identity seems to have consolidated into a reality, the meaning of this identity will remain uncertain as long as it rests on the foundation of an uncertain linguistic identity, which is far from resolution” (p. 144).The future prospects for the Republic of Moldova appear brighter now than when Ciscel was writing. He foresaw two possibilities: one in which a “Moldovan identity” triumphs; and one in which a Romanian identity wins out. In the former case, Russian domination would continue. In the latter case, Russophones would have to shift to a Romanian bilingualism that they had long resisted.There is little to quibble with in this study, even if it needs updating after some fourteen years. Ciscel is forthcoming about weaknesses in his approach, fair in his analysis, and modest about his conclusions. In the wake of the Communists’ downfall after the 2014 election, the country's situation has changed considerably, but Ciscel's analysis stands as a valuable overview of Moldova's first two decades. His analysis of the linguistic debates and identity in the Republic of Moldova during that period offers a reliable and illuminating perspective.

This paper investigates the role turn-taking has in structuring language mixing practices in bilingual conversation. Previous research has observed that bilinguals prefer maintaining each other’s language usage e.g. Auer (1984: 28-29) ‘preference for same language talk.’ The present paper tests this hypothesis by exploring the language mixing patterns in the bilingual Cabo Verdean Creole (Kriolu)-English community in Boston. Two research questions drive the investigation: 1) How are bilinguals influencing each other’s language practices in an interactional context? 2) Are there observable contextual factors conditioning these interactional language practices? Four bilingual Kriolu-English conversations totaling 1.5 hours were analyzed focusing on the languages used at points of alternation between speaker turns. A quantitative analysis calculated the rate at which speakers maintained each other’s languages. Subsequently, a qualitative analysis explored possible contextual factors conditioning language change or maintenance. Results of the quantitative analysis show speakers have a broad preference for maintaining each other’s languages and the qualitative analysis supports that changing languages can be interactionally motivated.

This research provides an insight into how deficit perspectives about everyday language practices can be challenged and offers possibilities for both enhancing classroom teaching and learning and building on students’ everyday language skills and experiences in service of learning. In this study, nine teachers and 105 students in grades 5, 6, 7 and 8 collaboratively explored students’ everyday language practices, skills and experiences. As co-researchers and ethnographers of their own language practices, these students who spoke 31 different languages and dialects and engaged in wide ranging multimodal activity were given the opportunity to explicitly recognise and use their ‘repertoires of linguistic practice’ (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003) as tools for thinking and acting in their study of English Language Arts. Teachers used this knowledge to design National English curriculum linked lessons and activities. Qualitative analysis reveals positive influences on classroom culture, student identity and confidence and a very noticeable shift in teachers’ expectations of their students’ abilities.

Obsolescence: Uncovering Values in Technology Use

The article explores the stereotyping of the Ukrainian language as one of the factors contributing to the deformation of the linguistic environment. The relevance of the study stems from the need for a deeper understanding of the phenomena that influence the language behavior of modern Ukrainians, shape their linguistic consciousness, and determine communicative practices. The main focus is on the analysis of widespread stereotypes about the Ukrainian language in mass consciousness, their origins, and their impact on language identity, information and communicative security, and the ecology of the language environment. The article outlines ecolinguistic approaches to studying the linguistic environment, which consider language as an integral part of the information ecosystem of society. The analysis of common stereotypes about the Ukrainian language includes such widespread perceptions as beliefs about the instability of language norms; the conviction that the Ukrainian language has an artificial or mixed origin; prejudices regarding the widespread use of “surzhyk” (mixed language); and everyday myths about the “borrowed” or “simplified” nature of the language. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of a sociolinguistic survey, which confirmed the wide presence of such prejudices among Ukrainians. The study shows that these stereotypes are often reinforced both by historical traumas (colonial past, Russification, language repressions) and by modern ideological narratives aimed at lowering the status of the Ukrainian language. At the same time, everyday communication practices, the lack of systematic language education, and a simplified attitude toward language norms play a significant role in reproducing language stereotypes. The article argues that the stereotyping of the Ukrainian language is one of the factors of information and communicative toxicity, which leads to the distortion of linguistic consciousness, linguistic insecurity, and the devaluation of the Ukrainian language’s prestige in society.This phenomenon is identified as a factor that complicates the formation of a sustainable language environment and requires systematic efforts to overcome it.

In this chapter, we explore the language use of people who speak Finnish as one language and either Swedish, Estonian, or English as another. The analysis concentrates on mixed compound nouns, that is, complex nouns which have one part in Finnish and the other in another language. We discuss how these instances of language mixing reflect the everyday life and discourse practices of the participants and how languages can sometimes be mixed for no detectable reason at all.