The Sociolinguistics of Late Modern Publics

Language on the Move is primarily concerned with linguistic resources that, in one way or another, have been or are ‘on the move’ and thus develops a profound understanding of the joys and struggles of multilingualism, which is typically conceived as an effect of migration. In contemporary society it is, however, not only worthwhile to understand multilingualism as an effect of literal movement through migration but to also study how social elites react to the increase of diversity in ever more complex public spaces (see also “Why being in one place matters for transnational language use”). In this sense, public structures of authority and hegemonic positions are also, at least metaphorically, on the move.

In mediated and digital communication, it seems today that we hear a myriad of public voices. Additionally, linguistic productions are not necessarily carefully edited and policed before they go public. One effect appears to be that formerly unmarked populations and their language practices are questioned in their position as ‘the normal people’ using ‘normal language’. They are no longer an unquestioned  hegemonic source of power. So-called ‘voices from nowhere’ (Gal & Woolard 2001) that once were able to pass themselves off as standard and neutral, find their social situatedness and privilege exposed. They have come to be seen for what they are: as being ‘from somewhere’, too.

Thus, new forms of public spaces have emerged in which the ‘normal’ is increasingly questioned. In this situation, formerly hegemonic populations adopt new discursive strategies of legitimation. To understand social and linguistic diversity, it is of paramount importance to examine such reconfigurations of social patterns and discourse relationships. This means to understand potentially new forms of establishing social hierarchies. And, as sociolinguistically minded academics, we also need to reflect on our own positions, ideologies, desires and activities in relation to societal publics and in contexts of academic publics.

How do traditional social and academic elites react to the exposure of their hitherto naturalized position of authority? What are the strategies of reproducing and legitimizing privilege employed by (formerly) hegemonic speakers? What is our role as academics and linguists in these new public spaces? Where do we tacitly (and maybe unwillingly) reproduce existing dichotomies? And what can we do in academia in practical terms to support marginalized voices in academic public spaces and beyond?

The November issue of the Journal of Sociolinguistics on ‘The Sociolinguistics of Late Modern Publics’, guest-edited by Theresa Heyd and myself is devoted to precisely these questions and brings together scholars working on discourses of legitimation of socio-political elites in different cultural contexts and, secondly, focuses on academic notions of ‘publics’ and on authority in academic publics.

Susan Gal analyses the phenomenon of the ‘piggy-backing’ of discourses of social justice and humanitarianism by right-wing politicians and develops a differentiation of discursive moves that contribute to the enregisterment of authority in current political discourse. In addition to this analysis of authoritative discursive structures, two contributions add to our understanding of late‐modern public discourse as emotional regimes. Mary Bucholtz focuses on the affective construction of white fragility in US American late‐modern publics and examines discursive strategies of fragile white affects. Ana Deumert examines how white South Africans respond to being constructed as colonizers.

Jürgen Spitzmüller changes perspective by taking a meta‐disciplinary perspective on sociolinguistics. He proposes an explicit link between the analyzed phenomenon – public space – and the analyzing sociolinguistic actor. The allure of diverse and multilingual publics may rub off upon researchers of such spaces and endowing them with an aura of creativity or even subversiveness.

Finally, Ingrid Piller demonstrates that authority, ultimately, rests on pre-textual conditions. She shows that, in academic publics, publications in languages other than English, and publications by women and/or people of color, are seen as carrying little authority. One way to accord authority to marginalized voices is to reference them.

All in all, it is the aim of ‘The Sociolinguistics of Late Modern Publics’ to start a conversation about the complex pre-textual, affective and discursive strategies employed to maintain and challenge authority in contemporary discourse. How do you enact, challenge or simply observe authority in your everyday lives?

References

Bucholtz, M. (2019). The public life of white affects. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23(5), 485-504. doi:10.1111/josl.12392 [open access]

Deumert, A. (2019). Sensational signs, authority and the public sphere: Settler colonial rhetoric in times of change. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23(5), 467-484. doi:10.1111/josl.12377

Gal, S. (2019). Making registers in politics: Circulation and ideologies of linguistic authority. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23(5), 450-466. doi:10.1111/josl.12374

Gal, S., & Woolard, K. A. (2001). Languages and publics: The making of authority. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Heyd, T., & Schneider, B. (2019). The sociolinguistics of late modern publics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23(5), 435-449. doi:10.1111/josl.12378 [open access]

Piller, I. (2019). On the conditions of authority in academic publics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23(5), 521-528. doi:10.1111/josl.12393 [unedited preprint available here]

Spitzmüller, J. (2019). Sociolinguistics going ‘wild’: The construction of auratic fields. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23(5), 505-520. doi:10.1111/josl.12383 [open access]