Abstract
In this paper, I am reviewing autoethnographic method in translanguaging research. I tell a story that is based on a casual and unplanned encounter with Omphile, a seven year old boy with whom I interacted using communicative practices that confirmed the suppositions of translanguaging theory but also challenged the methods that support empirical observations of translanguaging research–in equal measure. The paper signposts the promises that autoethnographic approaches hold for researching naturalistic human communication in ways that side step the language and methods of the positivist tradition. I argue that in the same way that contemporary sociolinguistics theorisations remind us about how communication is not limited to determinate languages or codes, research does not have to be limited to controlled, systematic scientific methods. The framework of autoethnography reviewed in this article is one example of a praxis that is antimethodological and, thus in line with many of the anti-foundational premises of translanguaging theory.
Highlights
Scholars of sociolinguistics and allied disciplines have made quite commendable theoretical and conceptual progress when it comes to challenging linguistic normativity and those frameworks that have crystallised into some kind of traditional orthodoxy in language research
By the 1990s the cacophony of voices following this line of critique had grown, with Lachman Khubchandani (1997) proposing what he called “plurality of consciousness” and “communication ethos”, which are about consideration of how individual language users have “dayto-day, moment-to-moment successes that make language transactive, functional and Ndlovhu Omphile and his soccer ball alive” (Khubchandani, 1997: 14)
How realistic is it for new philosophies of language to claim they are pushing scholarship forward in a new direction when their theoretical suppositions are supported by data generated through conventional research methods? How do we do ethnographic social science research in ways that allow us to capture the complex relations between society and communication resources? In other words, can we really claim to be theorising in unconventional ways when our methodologies remain conventional? I address these questions by narrating and analysing a story that is based on my casual and unplanned encounter with Omphile, a seven year old boy whose communicative practices prompted me to think more critically about widely used methods in social science research
Summary
I am reviewing autoethnographic method in translanguaging research. I tell a story that is based on a casual and unplanned encounter with Omphile, a seven year old boy with whom I interacted using communicative practices that confirmed the suppositions of translanguaging theory and challenged the methods that support empirical observations of translanguaging research–in equal measure. The paper signposts the promises that autoethnographic approaches hold for researching naturalistic human communication in ways that side step the language and methods of the positivist tradition. I argue that in the same way that contemporary sociolinguistics theorisations remind us about how communication is not limited to determinate languages or codes, research does not have to be limited to controlled, systematic scientific methods.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Multilingual Margins: A journal of multilingualism from the periphery
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
