Heteroglossia and boundaries

University of Massachusetts - Amherst From the SelectedWorks of Benjamin Bailey January 2007 Heteroglossia and boundaries Contact Start Your Own Notify Me Author SelectedWorks of New Work Available at: http://works.bepress.com/benjamin_bailey/55  I!III 12 heteroglossia and boundaries ____________｢ｾ･ｮｬｍｫﾥ＠ processes of linguistic and social distinction Language is the primary semiotic tool for representing and negotiating social reality, and it is thus at the centre of social and political life. Among its myriad II social and political functions is to position speakers relative to a wide variety of phenomena including co-present interlocutors, the activities in which speakers are engaged, and various dimensions of the wider world, including IIII social identity categories and their relative value. To speak is thus to position oneself in the social world, i.e. to engage in identity practices (d. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985). All language provides linguistic and discursive forms rich in social connotations for the negotiation of identity. Monolingual individuals exploit II' II I various registers, accents, sociolects, word choices, etc. for the omnipresent tasks of positioning themselves and others within social categories and the larger social world. Members of bilingual communities typically have an I1II expanded set of linguistic resources for these ongoing social negotiations II,I and often a broader range of relevant social categories to enact or contest. On the linguistic level, they can draw forms from two languages as well as hybrid forms resulting from language contact. On the social and cultural level, many straddle social and cultural boundaries and are familiar with relatively diverse cultural frameworks for interpreting and evaluating the world and positioning themselves and others within it. I In this chapter, I use the notion of heteroglossia (Bakhtin 1981) as a conceptual entree to social meanings of bilingual speechl and related identity negotiations. Heteroglossia addresses (a) the simultaneous use of different kinds jl of forms or signs, and (b) the tensions and conflicts among those signs, based on the sociohistorical associations they carry with them (d. Ivanov 2001). The first part of this definition of heteroglossia subsumes formal definitions of II bilingualism (as the coexistence of two linguistic systems) or code-switching (as the alternation of codes within a single speech exchange) (Gumperz 1982; 257  )'> /1 identity practices heteroglossia and boundaries 259 11('11('1 I(IKK) , Wllik IlclL'rogloss ia denotes the use of different kinds of forms The same semiotics of distinction involved in social boundary work can be (II ｜ｬｩｾ ｬ ｜＠ 111l' 1\'1'111 dol's Ilot refer, particularly, to the 'distinct languages' that applied to ways of speaking (ct. Irvine 2001 on 'style'). Ways of speaking are ,11( ' ()I1I1I1(1If1y see ll as constituting bilingualism. To the contrary, Bakhtin constituted as distinct through contrast, rather than through any inherent ( ()Ii I\ 'd 111\' l{lI ss i;1I1 lerm raznorechie to referto intra-language varieties within I characteristics, just as identities are constituted through boundary marking /{I1 ,\ \ !.III , v.l rivlil's with competing social and political implications, and the processes (or lack thereof). As is the case with identity categories, what counts 1( ' 1111 i.\ .\(l/llL' liIIiCS translated as 'the social diversity of speech types' rather II11 as a socially meaningful opposition among linguistic forms is subjective, 111.111 ' II vlcrog loss ia'. The fact that heteroglossia encompasses both mono. shifting, and ideologically infused. To a linguist whose perspective privileges ,)fld IIll1ll ilingu al forms allows a level of theorizing about the social nature formal categories, for example, any bilingual speech may be highly salient 0 1 1;lll guage that is not possible within the confines of a focus on code- \wl lcilill g. because of the alternation of two codes, thus constituting a distinctive style. To the monolingual majorities in the US and most of Western Europe, mono- Whilc code-switching research commonly treats the distinctiveness of lingualism is an emblem of citizenship and belonging, and any language codcs as a given, from a phenomenological perspective, languages or codes alternation is an exercise in distinctiveness. To a bilingual child of international G ill only be understood as distinct objects to the extent to which they are migrants, however, code-switching in intragroup peer interaction may not I rca ted as such by social actors. From the socially-infused perspective of commonly be perceived by members as very distinct from speaking to such hctcroglossia, judgements about what counts as 'different kinds of forms or peers without alternation. signs' are based on the way social actors appear to distinguish among forms, rather than analysts' a priori claims. These subjective processes of differentiation are linked to power, and in relatively stable social and linguistic situations, the social and linguistic III The second part of the definition of heteroglossia captures the inherent categories favoured by dominant groups come to be seen as natural through political and sociohistorical associations of any linguistic form, i.e. its processes of hegemony or symbolic domination (Bourdieu 1991; Heller 111 '11 indexical meanings (Peirce 1955), or social connotations. These indexical 1995). In the United States, for example, White, English monolinguals are meanings, or historical voices, are not explicit or static, but rather must be the dominant group, both economically and politically. This economic and interpreted on the basis of constellations of forms in particular interactional political power is extended, via symbolic domination, to broader standards for and sociohistorical contexts. Such meanings are thus shifting, subjective and negotiated. social evaluation. Even though the majority of historical immigrants to the US have not been English-speaking, and even though the country is increasingly I1II1 I approach identity in similarly processual terms. Following Barth's (1969) Latino and non-White, being a monolingual Anglophone, speaking a variety of seminal work on ethnic groups, I approach identity as constituted through Standard English, and being White constitute one as an unmarked American. I the boundaries that groups construct between themselves, rather than the Highly naturalized categories of race, language and national identity thus characteristics of group members. The term 'identity' comes from Latin, idem, merge in the popular mind into an essentialized unity. I meaning 'the same', and identities are constituted by SOCially counting as Social change, through migration, can serve to denaturalize and 'the same' as others or counting as 'different' from others. This formulation problematize boundaries and essentialized unities. Bilingual children of IIIII foregrounds the subjective, social reality of individual actors, in that it is their international labour migrants, for example, problematize boundaries through judgements and activities, rather than static characteristics of individuals, that straddling linguistic and social worlds in their language and identity practices serve to constitute categories. Social identity is a function of two subjective (Auer 1984; Poplack 1988; Gal 1988; Zentella 1997; Bailey 2002) . Similarly, processes: 'self-ascription' - how one defines oneself - and 'ascription by II in urban, postcolonial contexts in Africa, migration has blurred traditional others' - how others define one (Barth 1969: 13). These processes of ascription social boundaries and associations of particular identities with particular ways are not based on the objective sums of differences or similarities among of speaking (Myers-Scotton 1993). Code-switching in such contexts is often groups: 'some cultural features are used by the actors as signals and emblems IIIII frequent, intra-sentential, and unmarked in intragroup peer interactions, of differences, others are ignored, and in some relationships radical differences serving as a form of unmarked, discourse contextualization or serving no are played down and denied' (ibid: 14). All individuals have multiple char- IIII identifiable function at all. By failing to treat two or more languages as a acteristics and allegiances, so it is the situational and selective highlighting meaningful opposition in certain contexts, such social actors effectively erase of commonalties and differences that is characteristic of identity groupings the boundary that constitutes the two languages as distinct. This calls into (Moerman 1965). Analysis of identity thus revolves around the questions of question the very foundation of bilingualism as a rubric or perspective for how, when and why individuals count as members of particular groups. SOCially-oriented research on language.  260 identity practices 261 heteroglossia and boundaries Children or immigrant s also undermine naturalized language-race-nation Language is popularly understood as denotation, in which words stand un iti es hy (a) assert ing or enacting identities that cross-cut received categories for, or represent, things or ideas. The function of language is seen as the in ways t hat ex pose and co ntrovert the assumptions on which the categories communication of propositional information, as in a conduit metaphor are ha sed, and (h) bringing with them social classification systems that (Reddy 1979), and the maximally efficient transfer of such information is were do minant in th e countries of origin but that contradict host country seen as 'good communication'. This folk theory of language, communication ca tegories (Bailey 2001). In the United States, for example, the categories and efficiency is intertwined with living in capitalist, industrialized, bureau- Bla c K <Jnd White have been a central organizing principle of society for cratized, widely literate societies, which privilege certain types of productivity cel1turies, but many post-1965 immigrants from Latin America and Asia do and efficiency. Social functioning of language is seen as epiphenomenal in 11 0 t lit ne,ltly into these categories. Latinos from the Caribbean, in particular, this folk model, except when social variation is perceived as impairing the Iii I hridge lh e categories Black and White in ways that undermine the popular efficient transmission of propositional information. Ameri ca n notion of Black and White as representing unbridgeable distance. This folk understanding is layered with hegemoniC ideologies that privilege ｾ ｵ ｣ ｨ＠ immigrants not only bridge such categories in terms of phenotype, they language varieties that are associated with powerful and privileged groups in !IIIII also maintain understandings of themselves as essentially Latino or Spanish, society. These varieties are seen as being 'accentless' and 'correct', and ideal th ereby countering the primacy of phenotype-symbolized race in US social for 'good', i.e. propositionally efficient, communication. Divergences from claSSification. This problematizing of essentialized boundaries can occur in this ideal standard - whether associated with class, ethnicity/race, or region any situation in which the macro-social categories in countries of origin, _ are considered marked and less desirable. In the United States, for example, the result of speCific histories of social relationships, do not match those in varieties of English that are associated with written language and the speech destination countries (Mittelberg and Waters 1992). of educated, middle- and upper-class White Americans in the Midwest (Lippi- In this chapter, I first contrast popular and formal linguistic approaches to Green 1997; Silverstein 1996) are identified as normal and desirable, even by language with more heteroglossic, social ones to contextualize the historical speakers whose speech does not approach these varieties. privileging and constitution of code-switching as a discrete object of study. I Formal linguistics also treats the social and political functioning of language then briefly review research on code-switching in order to introduce the type as marginal, approaching language as a semiotic system in and of itself. The of code-switching - code-switching as a discourse mode (Poplack 1980) - that primary interest is in relationships among elements of this system, abstracted particularly problematizes assumptions of difference in bilingual talk. A short from any actual uses or instances of language. The boundaries of the system segment of bilingual speech from Dominican American peer group interaction are implicitly taken to be the boundaries of the language, an idealization is presented to highlight the utility of the notion of heteroglossia relative to a that is not necessarily compared to actual speech, which mayor may not be narrower focus on code-switching, in analysing identity negotiations in talk. bilingual (see Auer, this volume). Linguists generally focus on meanings that Finally, I argue that code-switching and bilingualism might best be approached remain stable across time, speakers and contexts - i.e. denotational meanings as social constructions, as is common with identity categories. The social _ and pay relatively little attention to actual use of language, i.e. social action. constructionist perspective affords analytical insights while recognizing the In taking a formal, synchronic approach to language, formal linguists thus I''II power of the on-the-ground hegemonic social reality that bilingual speakers neglect relationships between linguistic forms and the social and political I face in societies with monolingual language ideologies. worlds that are described and negotiated through those forms. Both folk and formal linguistic models of language may reflect more general popular and linguistic approaches to language cognitive predispositions. Silverstein (2001), for example, has shown that awareness of pragmatic function of language is closely tied to the degree Among the intertwined reasons for the distinctive salience of bilingualism to which forms are referential, segmentable and context-reflecting. Thus, in Western societies are a) the naturalization of monolingualism in the people can articulate form-meaning relationships relatively well when ongOing nation-building projects begun in Europe during the last several the relationship is referential; when the forms are segmentable (as are II centuries, and b) the referentialist nature of modern, Western language morphemes) rather than scalar (as is pitch); and when the forms refer to some ideologies, both popular and academic. As the historical development of pre-existing phenomenon or situation rather than establishing it through language-nation ideologies is explicitly discussed in Part One of this volume, the act of speaking. The popular notion of language as a system of discrete I briefly review contemporary popular language ideologies and epistemology (segmentable) symbols for describing (referentially and context-reflecting) a in formal linguistics. pre-existing world, as well as the linguistic emphasis on form, may be partly a 1'1  / (, identity practices heteroglossia and boundaries 263 1\'\ 1ill , )1 I Ill' I.I ( I I It <I I ｾｏ ｩｬ ＠･ dim ensions of language are simply more accessible 10 ("11.\ \ 111 11 ' :IW:lrCIl CSS Ifl an others. form. From these perspectives, language is never a neutral instrument of pure reference, as actual speech always occurs in a social context, which is never "'" II II IInlll iI popu Iii r perspective of language-as-denotation and a linguistic IH '1',' 1II '\ II v(' 0 1 la nguage-as-synchronic-system, code-switching represents an neutral or ahistorical. Talk and texts thus need to be understood in terms of past and ongoing social and political negotiations of which they are a part, ,c1 11' 1 I" III II l. Frolll Ihe linguistic point of view, itinvolves the overlapping of two 'y' II 'III.\ II I:I[ arc 1/ priori conceptualized as distinct and discrete. From a popular not as forms in isolation: vivw, II :qllK'ars redundant and irrational. If language is an instrumental vvll ic k (II propositional information, then why use more than one language, The living utterances ... cannot fail to brush up against thousands of living dialogic threats, woven by socio-ideological consciousness around the given 1111 il',\S :J lin guistic deficiency prevents one from making utterances entirely III O ll l' language (Woolard 2004: 75; Meeuwis and Blommaert 1998: 78)?2 object of an utterance; it cannot fail to become an active participant in ( ;()ti l'-s witched speech also diverges radically from the ideological ideal way social dialogue. After all, the utterances arises out of this dialogue as a continuation of it and as a rejoinder to it - it does not approach the object of spcak ing, which is monolingual and shows no effects of language contact such as phonological effects of other languages (l.e. 'foreign accent') . from the sidelines. (Bakhtin 1981: 276-7) Th e popular and linguistic perspectives that monolingual speech is normal Non-referential indexical meanings are linked to history just as Bakhtinian and natural subtly inform code-switching research even in more socially and voices are. Such indexical form-meaning relationships arise from historical politically oriented disciplines such as anthropology. Researchers in linguistic usages by speakers in particular social positions. It is through recurrent anthropology and related disciplines regularly attend to bilingual speech in connections between a social phenomenon or context and a linguistic form ways that they do not necessarily attend to monolingual speech. The driving that non-referential indexical meanings are constituted to begin with (Peirce q uestion of much anthropological code-switching research, 'Why do they 1955). Particular phonetic patterns index a speaker's regional origins, for do that?' is not put with equal force to the myriad other things speakers do in talk that are not bilingual. By casting bilingual speech as a marked form example, only through associations with actual speakers and their talk. The emphasis on the inherent political dimension of all talk separates the that calls for explanation of a type that monolingual speech does not, such Bakhtinian notion of heteroglossia from many sociolinguistic approaches research implicitly reproduces the folk and linguistic beliefs of monolingual speech as the natural form (Woolard 2004: 75). to language variation, in which correlations between forms and categories of speakers is the focus, rather than the sociohistorical connotations or voices of the forms . In US correlational sociolinguistics (d., e.g. Rickford heteroglossic and anthropological approaches to language and Eckert 2001), social categories have been treated as given, i.e. pre-existing any interaction, and the agency of individuals and the role of ideology in In contrast to formal and folk-models of language, heteroglossia takes as its starting point the social and pragmatic functioning of language: ' ... verbal language use has been downplayed, or even denied (d., e.g. Labov 1979: 328). discourse is a social phenomenon - social through its entire range and in Emphasizing the political and historical dimensions of language also stands each and every of its factors, from the sound image to the furthest reaches in stark contrast to formal linguistics, of course, which takes a synchronic of abstract meaning' (Bakhtin 1981: 259). The notion of heteroglossia is approach to language and meaning. While indexicality and Bakhtinian heteroglossia encourage social and thus congruous with traditions in anthropology of approaching language as political readings of language and interaction, they are very difficult to opera- essentially social, e.g. 'the main function of language is not to express thought, tionalize. Indexicality, for example, has been described in relatively concise not to duplicate mental processes, but rather to play an active pragmatic part theoretical terms, but it encompasses a very large range of phenomena. Non- in human behaviour' (Malinowski 1965: v2: 7) . This orientation does not deny the referential, or denotational, function of language, but conceptual- referential indexical forms are highly varied, ranging from phonetic features, izes reference as merely on e pragmatic function among many in a system to word choice, to visual features, to other stylistiC dimensions of talk. The that is intrinsically pragmatic (Silverstein 1976: 20) . nature of indexical objects and the spatial and temporal distance between the indexical form and its object can also vary greatly (Silverstein 1992). The Bakhtinian notion of heteroglossia overlaps in Significant ways with the While the scope of this semiotic dimension of talk makes it an attractive area semiotic and linguistic anthropological notion of non-referential indexicality for theorizing, it is difficult to make such theory operational because of the as developed by Peirce (1955) and Silverstein (1976). Both are types of inter- social, contextual and individual specificity of form-meaning relationships textuality, in which meanings of forms depend on past usages and associations of those forms rather than the arbitrary referential meaning carried by the in the indexical mode (Hanks 2001: 120). IIIII  ｉ ｾ＠ 264 identity practices 265 heteroglossia and boundaries code-switching research: from degeneracy, did not generate metaphorical meanings. Auer (1984, 1988, 1995, 1998) to metaphorical strategy, to local discourse pioneered an influential and ongoing tradition of work that linked such contextualization, to no identifiable function socially unmarked code-switching to the omnipresent local exigencies of coordinating interaction. In this conversational management, or discourse Research Oil social functions and meanings of code-switching since the contextualizing, mode, switches do not necessarily co-occur with external IlJSOs h,IS repeatedly shifted in emphasis. Many language analysts through changes in the context (situational switches) or effect significant shifts in till' I%Os, including those focusing on bilingualism (e.g. Weinreich 1953: sociocultural framework (metaphorical switches). Individual switches instead II!II 73) trea ted (intra-sentential) code-switching as linguistic interference, with serve local contextualization functions. In such unmarked discourse conte x- COllllota lions of linguistic, social or cognitive deficit. This orientation simply tualization switching, conventionalized associations between particular codes mirrors the dominant Western language ideology of monolingual speech and social worlds are at least partially suspended by participants (although as Ilormal and code-switching as a mixed-up jumble that reflects speakers' not necessarily by co-present overhearers). Shifts in codes function as signals ,[ inability to speak properly. that there is a concurrent shift in speech activity - e.g. to a repair sequence or Starting in the early 1970s, John Gumperz (Blom and Gumperz 1972; to a rhetorical question - but not necessarily in sociocultural framework. The Gumperz 1982) led research that countered this orientation, presenting code- act of alternation itself, rather than the direction of the shift, is the important switching as a form of skilled performance through which individual social dimension for discourse contextualization. This use of code-switching as a actors could communicate various social and pragmatic meanings. Rather tool for local discourse management has been documented by numerous than representing a linguistic deficit or degeneration, code-switching was researchers, often with disparate labels. Zentella (1997) refers to such switching presented as complex, systematic and socially strategic behaviour. in terms of 'conversational strategies', 'in the head communicational factors', Gumperz's (Blom and Gumperz 1972) early formulation focused on two and, following Goffman (1979), 'footing'. Myers-Scotton (1993) calls this functions of switches. Situational switches were made in response to changing 'code switching as the unmarked choice', and Gumperz (1982) subsumes it I' Situations, e.g. the need to accommodate to co-present speakers in one under a larger category of 'conversational code switching'. language or another. Metaphorical switches were more SOCially indexical. By In these contexts of unmarked code-switching among peers, it is not always Iii , partially violating an expected situation-code correlation, some aspect of possible to ascribe any function to a particular switch. In a corpus of 1,685 meaning (parallel to a Bakhtinian voice) associated with the switched-into switches among young New York Puerto Rican girls, for example, Zentella language is brought into the conversation. In such metaphorical switching, (1997: 101) assigns fewer than half of the switches to specific conversational then, changes in language effect changes in context and social roles, without strategies, or functions, because most of the individual switches do not have apparent prior changes in the physical or outward context. a clear, analytically defensible function and do not co-occur with particular At one level this formulation tends toward an essentialized linking of interactional patterns. Similarly, Meeuwis and Blommaert (1998: 76) find language, identity and sociocultural worlds. It is only when there are relatively that multilingual talk among Zairians in Belgium can represent 'one code in conventionalized aSSOCiations between language and social meanings that its own right', and that the insistence on two distinct languages as the frame switches generate metaphorical meanings. Empirical research has shown that of reference for this form of speech is not helpful in terms of interpreting it. such metaphorical meanings are most often generated in situations where Such work fundamentally challenges the taken-for-granted distinctiveness of codes are relatively compartmentalized (e.g. Kroskrity 1993) or politically the languages used in code-switching and the taken-for-granted distinctive- charged (e.g. Heller 1992) and have strong 'we' vs. 'they' associations (see ness of code-switching as a communicative phenomenon. also Maehlum 1996 for a critique of Blom and Gumperz's original work) . Key to such research have been methods and epistemologies associated More generally, empirical work shows that analysts' ideologies of languages with conversation analysis and with anthropology. Conversation analysiS, as discrete systems are only sometimes consonant with the ideologies to which shaped Auer's seminal work, insists on empirical, electronically which speakers appear to orient when talking. The empirical variation in recorded data. This insistence, in conjunction with the availability of portable ideologies to which speakers demonstrably orient illustrates the shortcomings II electronic recording devices by the late 1970s, is one reason for the increased of privileging the formal category of code-switching. A more socially oriented documentation of unmarked, frequent and intrasentential code-switching. perspective, such as heteroglossia, can better account for this variation across This type of code-switching is most common in informal, intragroup peer social and historical contexts. interaction, and portable recording devices allowed taping in the natural Beginning in the early 1980s, many researchers began documenting settings where this type of talk spontaneously occurs. Recordings - and code-switching that was not done in response to changes in situation and resultant transcripts - made such switching patterns impossible to ignore.  267 heteroglossia and boundaries ) (I() Identity pra cti ces heteroglossia can encompass socially meaningful forms in both bilingual and ( '0111'1'1\,111. III ,\ II. II y\1\ 1I11'lltods also Ii mi t the effects of individual subjectivity monolingual talk; (b) it can account for the multiple meanings and readings , IIIIi .1\\1 11111,1 1011\ I' Y Ilrl',\ ni hi ng very narrow bases for explanation and of forms that are possible, depending on one's subject position; and (c) it ,1I1;1I 1I1l'liI.lII(III : 111l' .lIlalysl can invoke only those social constellations that II ill 'll, 1\ 11101\ III\,I I Iselves demonstrably treat as meaningful in the interaction. can connect historical power hierarchies to the meanings and valences of W Iii it' IIIi \ \ .II I kad loa ustere analyses that are limited in scope to formal particular forms in the here-and-now. \ 1111 \ III r\,\ (l l ('o llVersation, the rigour of the method has encouraged more ､ＨＧｉｾｬｩｫ＠ l'iaillls aiJout social meanings within code-switching research. [OS #2 12:26:40) Isabella (came to the US around age 7) and Janelle (US- IlIl l'rluel/ tors publicly display, and continuously update for each other, their born) are sitting on steps outside of the main school building at the end (lilgoillg understandings of talk. Implied in each turn is an understanding, of their lunch period. Isabella has returned from eating lunch at a diner or uptake, of the prior turn. Thus, the turn 'Fine' in response to the turn, near the school, and she has been describing the turkey club sandwich and 'ilow are you?' displays a particular understanding of that prior turn. Because cheeseburger she had just eaten.] I interlocutors must make these negotiations visible to each other to achieve iI degree of intersubjectivity, analysts can 'look over their shoulders' to gain Janelle: Only with that turkey thingee Ilya yo estoy /lena. ['I'm already il a window onto the understandings that interlocutors themselves display full'] II or these processes (ct. Heritage and Atkinson 1984: 11). If individuals do IITwo dollars and fifty cent. Isabella: not treat code switches in their interlocutors' prior turns as socially loaded, Janelle: That's good. That's like a meal at IIBurger King. metaphorical actions, the analyst has no empirical basis for arguing that such IIThat's better than going to Isabella switches encode significant metaphorical meanings, even though the analyst Burger King, you know what I'm saying? And you got a Whopper, maya priori assume that they do. french fries, and a drink. And the french fries cost a dollar over A parallel methodological orientation in anthropology also contributes to there . efforts to see past popular and formal linguistic ideologies. The fieldworker Janelle: For real? consciously works to bracket cultural assumptions and understand subjects' Isabella: Sf, sf c6mo no? ['Yes, really.'] worlds through members' categories, i.e., from an emic or native's pOint Janelle: Mirale el ombligo. Miralo. Se Ie ve, ya se 10 tap6. «looking at a passerby)) of view. The active suspension of commonsense assumptions helps one to ['Look at her belly button. Look. You can see it, she already covered partially overcome the omnipresent social science problem of subjectivity, it.'] e.g., to see meanings of code-SWitching as a code-switching subject might (.5) see them. Isabella: Seguro porque se 10 ensefi6. ['She must have showed it.'] «la ughing)) heteroglossia and identity in a bilingual segment of talk (1.5) Isabella: But it's slamming, though, oh my God, mad ['a lot of'] turkey she To illustrate h eteroglossia and its application to issues of identity, I present puts in there. a segment of transcript below that documents a few moments of bilingual That's one thing 11-, I love the way como 1- ['how th-'] the American talk between two Dominican American high school students in an everyday Janelle: be doing sandwich, they be rocking ['are excellent']' them things, interaction during a break at school. The two students, Janelle and Isabella, yo, they put everything up in there, yo. define themselves, and are defined by others, in multiple ways. Janelle was US-born and raised, and therefore a citizen, and had been to the Dominican Isabella: De pla:ne, de pla:ne. «an airplane passes overhead)) Republic only once, as a baby. She identified herself as Spanish or Dominican, The notion of code-switching is less useful in analysing this interaction but outsiders frequently took her to be Black American until they heard her than the broader and socially-infused concept of h eteroglossia. Janelle and speaking Spanish. Isabella, who came to the United States at age 7, identified Isabella code switch into Spanish several times in this segment, but none of herself as Dominican or Spanish, and was occaSionally seen by outsiders as the switches generates any obvious metaphorical meanings. One switch into Black American or Cape Verdean American. Spanish _ M[rale eL omb/igo ... - functions to hide the meanings of their talk The socia lly based construct of heteroglossia has several advantages over from a non-Span ish-speaker passerby about whom they are talking, but it is the narrower and formally defined construct of code-switching as a means not obvious what social functions, if any, are served by the other switches. to understanding social identity negotiations in this talk. Specifically, (a) I I  268 identity practices heteroglossia and boundaries 269 While such ｳｷ ｩｴ ｣ｨ･ｾ＠ arc loca lly unmarked, the concept of heteroglossia elision of syllable final /s/ (e.g. in e(s)toy), for example, are characteristic of affords attenlion to mcanings in a larger sociopolitical field. Janelle and Caribbean Spanish, particularly Dominican and lower class varieties (Lipski Isabel la 's switches arc lou dly unmarked in terms of identity negotiations, but 1994). Word order used by Isabella - mad turkey she puts in there - suggests frequent swi tching as a discourse mode is always socially marked in a wider the influence of Spanish discourse patterns on her English. She preposes the US society in whi ch being a monolingual English speaker is an ideological direct object of the verb in this segment in what has been called fronting, focal defilult agaillst whi ch difference or distinctiveness is constructed (Urciuoli object construction (Silva-Corvalan 1983: 135), or focus-movement (Prince 1(96). The perspective of heteroglossia allows one to distinguish between local 1981). These heteroglossic forms in both English and Spanish - whether III I fUllct ions of particular code switches and the functions in the larger socio- at the phonological, lexical, grammatical or discourse level - index social polit ical fl cld of identity formation in ways that a more formal perspective of histories, circumstances and identities in ways that a binary perspective of codc-switch in g does not (cf. Myers-Scotton 1993: 149; Zentella 1997: 101). code-switching commonly neglects. !III Mea n ings of code-switching are contested in this larger SOCiopolitical field . A further strength of heteroglossia as a perspective is that it directs the Various nativist English-only groups, for example, have sponsored legislation analyst to historical social relations, rather than just details of surface form, to to criminalize the use of languages other than English in many contexts, interpret language meanings. Each of the locally unmarked linguistic features inclucling school, government and workplace. They portray such language I1II1 enumerated above, for example, draws its meaning from contrast with an alternation as undermining American unity, citizenship and decency. Many implicit field of alternate forms, the relative valences of which are a function academics of the last 25 years, in contrast, have treated such code-switching of historical power relations. Code-switching and other language contact as a discourse mode which can be seen as a form of resistance to dominant features are meaningful only in contrast to monolingual speech. Caribbean II I discourses of unquestioning assimilation (Gal 1988: 259), or as a means of Spanish phonology is meaningful in contrast to Mexican, South American constructing a positive self in a political and economic context that disparages and peninsular varieties, particularly Castilian. African American English is II immigrant phenotypes, language, class status and ethnic origins (Zentella meaningful in contrast to varieties associated with White Americans, and the 1997: 13). The ways in which these meanings vary depending on one's subject youth vocabulary contrasts with the vocabulary of adult speakers. position - speaker, nativist American, or socially oriented language analyst In each case, the meaningful opposition is between an unmarked form - illustrate the subjective and social construction of heteroglossic meanings associated with groups historically or currently in power (monolingual that is characteristic of talk more generally. I Americans; speakers of Castilian varieties of Spanish; White Americans; and I The focus in code-switching research on constellations of linguistic features adults) and marked forms that index lower pOSitions in social hierarchies. that are officially authorized as codes or languages, e.g. 'English' or 'Spanish', Meaningful oppositions arise in this instance not on the basis of formal can contribute to neglect of the diversity of socially indexical linguistic distance among forms, but on the basis of historical power differentials resources within cocles. The English that Isabella and Janelle use in the with which particular forms are associated. The perspective of heteroglossia exchange above, for example, includes prescriptivist standard American explicitly bridges the linguistic and the sociohistorical, enriching analysis English forms, non-standard vernacular forms, lexical forms associated of human interaction. with African American English, and grammatical forms that Occur only in The variety and juxtaposition of linguistic resources by Janelle and Isabella African American English . Their talk also includes an explicitly intertextual in the above exchange reflect their negotiations of social boundaries and reference to popular culture: Isabella's De pla:ne, de pla:ne as she observes a meanings. Their alternation of English and Spanish and contact forms diminish plane passing overhead. This utterance represents an example of Bakhtinian a linguistic boundary that others have created. Their ongoing use of forms double-voicing, in which words are spoken as if they are to be understood (e.g. code-SWitching, African American English, and Dominican phonology) as being in quotation marks. Her utterance is an intertextual reference to that are disparaged by dominant groups suggests resistance to hegemoniC the words spoken by actor Herve Villechaize at the opening of each episode belief systems regarding language. Maintenance of non-prestige forms can of the television show Fantasy Is/and, which premiered on US television serve as a vehicle of resistance to disparaging discourses on language, race in 1977. Villechaize spoke these words with strong second-language and identity from dominant groups in society and reproduce local solidarity. phonology as de plane, de plane, and the phrase entered the popular culture Their use of forms associated with urban African American youth, particularly vocabulary of many Americans, who still use it to verbally mark the passing Janelle's use of African American English syntax, suggests both longer-term of airplanes overhead. contact with African Americans and identification with African American Their Spanish similarly indexes particular linguistic histories. Their experiences. Janelle's use of the term 'American' to refer to a group that is pronunciation of word-initial y as an affricate /d3 / (e.g. in ya yo), and their implicitly distinct from her suggests (although she is US-born and a US citizen)  270 identity practices heteroglossia and boundaries 271 that sh e id entifi es herself with reference to another nation-state or in terms code-switching as a social construction of ra cial/ethni c categories in which she doesn't count as 'American'.3 The ｪｵｸｴ｡ｰｯｾｩｮ＠ of diverse linguistic elements in single utterances, e.g. I love the While the notion that identity categories such as race or ethnicity are socially way COII/O 1- til e A lll eriCiln be doing sandwich reflects social negotiations and a constructed is now an academic commonplace, bilingualism, as both a social real i tyin wh ich neither linguistic practices nor social identities fit into popular and analytical category, is not generally seen as a social construction. stati c, unitary ca tegories of language and identity. There are fundamental parallels, however, in the social and political processes It is tcmpting to label Isabella and Janelle's identities and ways of speaking through which difference is constructed among social identity categories and as 'hybrid', ' mix ed' or 'syncretic', but I argue against the analytical use of among the linguistic forms that count as bilingual talk. Both, for example, are su c h te rm s here because they so easily express and reproduce dominant popularly seen as having self-evident, empirical bases, and both form parts id co logi es of essentialism. The term 'hybridity' is only meaningful against of the highly naturalized assumption of a language-race-nation unity. In a ba ckdrop of essentialism that analysts generally claim to have rejected. both cases, however, the conceptualizations, salience and social significance While many postcolonial theorists use the term to refer to novel cultural of the categories are a function of social and political processes rather than forms with roots in seemingly disparate experiences, others struggle with the inherent, or essential characteristics of members of the categories. The fact terms. Critics argue that 'hybridity', like popular folk-terms such as 'diversity', that bilingual speech draws both popular and academic attention may tell us 'multicultural', 'heterogeneous' and 'pluralism', can all pay lip service to relatively little about the nature of code-switching, and relatively more about certain types of social difference, while implicitly reinforcing the political and popular and academic language ideologies of Western nation-states. economic boundaries that constitute those groups as different and unequal Conceptualizing bilingual speech as a social construction does not (Hutnyk 2005; Young 1995; Chow 1998). minimize its on-the-ground social implications. An example from Social In labelling a system as syncretic, an analyst highlights the discrete heritage identity categories can help make this clear: the fact that Black-White race of individual components of a system and suggests some incommensurability in the United States is a social construction, for example, does not make race of those parts. Since all social systems are a function of multiple influences and an illusion or socially insignificant (Omi and Winant 1994). Race has been, histories, what counts as a relevant opposition within a system is a contested, and remains, a central organizing principle in the United States and a way subjective and shifting question. As with the term 'hybridity', 'syncretism' of representing, rationalizing and reproducing tremendous social inequality. carries with it connotations of pure and coherent anterior systems. Beliefs or Approaching race as a social construction, however, allows one to see that practices are most often termed syncretic when they violate Western analysts' race is not about essential biological difference (which is how race is popularly implicit assumptions of purity and inherent discreteness. construed) but about social history. What is socially Significant about race is In anthropology, for example, the term 'syncretic' has often been used a distinctively violent history of coercion and inequality, not details of hair to describe the religious practices of the Afro-Caribbean, as if European texture, skin shade or other morphological features. The social constructionist , Catholicism and African religious beliefs and practices were each pure and perspective directs attention to the political and historical processes through fundamentally different. When Christianity includes pagan practices such which race has been constituted and given such significance in the US. ｾ＠ as celebration of evergreen trees around the time of the Winter solstice, Similarly, approaching monolingualism and bilingualism as socially however, it is not seen as syncretic. Linguistically, English is not commonly constructed does not change their social force at the level of lived experience, I seen as a hybrid, or creole language, despite the readily apparent effects of but it does show that this social force is not a function of formal, or inherent Norman French on the language(s) of Britain from the period following the linguistic differences among what count as languages. If bilingual talk is an Norman Conquest in 1066. Languages, or language change, that develop from especially meaningful mode of speaking, it is not the nature of the forms that European colonization of other parts of the world, in contrast, are typically make it so but rather particular social and political histories. seen as hybrid or creole, e.g. Jamaican creole or Haitian creole. Whether Studying bilingual talk can be a route to understanding social boundary Work one counts two aspects of a system as discrete and not-entirely-compatible, not because of the formal nature of bilingual talk, but because all talk is SOCial and therefore syncretic, depends on one's subject position and historical and political. In contexts such as Western societies where code-SWitching has power relations rather than the nature of the forms or systems in and of been made to count as particularly socially meaningful, insights into identity themselves. While analysts can use these terms as parts of projects that are not negotiations can come from attention to the social and political processes that essentializing (e.g. Hill and Hill 1986), these words are intertextual, carrying have made monolingual-versus-bilingual speech a meaningful opposition. with them connotations of usage in essentializing projects. Analytical constructs that are based on form, such as code-switching, or that imply anterior, pure essences, such as hybridity, divert attention from the social  272 identity practices heteroglossia and boundaries 273 and poli[i ca l nature o f language, behaviour and meaning. More processual Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power (G. Raymond and M. Adamson, trans.) . and socia ll y-i n fu sed co nstructs such as heteroglossia and indexicality better Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. direc t attent ion to the irreducibly sociohistorical and ideological bases of Chow, R. (1998). Ethics After Idealism: TheOly-Culture-Ethnicity-Reading. Bloomington, language Illcan i ngs and identity construction. Heteroglossia and indexicality IN: University of Indiana Press. Gal, S. (1988). The political economy of code choice. [n M. Heller (ed.), Codeswitching: arc fund a mentally about intertextuality, the ways that talk in the here-and- Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, pp. 245-64. Berlin, New York and now draws meanings from past instances of talk. Such terms encourage us to Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. in [erpre[ the mea nings of talk in terms of the social worlds, past and present, Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica 25: 1-29. of which words are part-and-parcel, rather than in terms of formal systems, Gumperz, j.j. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge such as codes, that can veil actual speakers, uses and contexts. University Press. Hanks, W. (2001). Indexicality. In A. Duranti (ed.), Key Terms in Language and Culture, pp. 119-21. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. notes Heller, M. (1988). Introduction. In M. Heller (ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and 1. In this chapter I use the terms 'bilingualism', 'bilingual speech' and 'code-switching' Sociolinguistic Perspectives, pp. 1-24. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. interchangeably. My interest in bilingualism here is only in its instantiation in - - (1992). The politics of code-switching and language choice. In e. Eastman (ed.), speech, not as a state or capability. Codeswitching, pp. 123-42. Cleveland and Avon: Multilingual Matters. 2. This language ideology is also reflected in commonly expressed folk explanations - - (1995). Language choice, social institutions, and symbolic domination. Language for code-switching: 'they/we switch because they/we don't know the word in the in Society 24(3): 373-406. other language'; 'they/we switch so that person X can understand better'; and 'they Heritage, Land ].M. Atkinson (1984). Introduction . In j.M. Atkinson and]. Heritage III switched to hide what they were saying from person Y'. (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 1-15. Cambridge: 3. In everyday Dominican American usage, the term 'American' (or americano) refers University of Cambridge Press. to 'White American' (cf. UrciuoIi 1996 among New York Puerto Ricans). United Hill, ].H., and K. Hill (1986). Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Ill: States-born Dominican Americans such as Janelle identify themselves as 'American' Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. in some contexts, e.g. in referring to citizenship or the passport they have, but Hutnyk, j. (2005). Hybridity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(1): 79-102. they identify 'what they are' as Dominican/Spanish/Hispanic. These categories are Irvine, j.T. (2001). 'Style' as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic dif- mutually exclusive from the category White/American in local terms. ferentiation. In P. Eckert and J.R. Rickford (eds), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, pp. 21-43. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Ivanov, V. (2001). Heteroglossia. In A. Duranti (ed.), Key Terms in Language and Culture, references pp. 95-7. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual Conversation. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kroskrity, P. V. (1993). Language, History, and Identity: Ethnolinguistic Studies of the Arizona - - (1988). A conversation analytic approach to codeswitching and transfer. In M. Tewa. Tucson: UniverSity of Arizona Press. Heller (ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, pp. 187-213. Labov, W. (1979). Locating the frontier between social and psychological factors in New York: Mouton de Gruyter. linguistic variation. In Wong (ed.), lndividllal Differences in Language Ability and - - (1995). The pragmatics of code-switching: A sequential approach. In L. Milroy Language Behavior, pp. 327-40 . New York: Academic Press. and P. Muysken (ed .), One Speaket; Two Languages: CroSS-disciplinary Perspectives on Le Page, R.B., and A. Tabouret-Keller (1985). Acts ofIdentity: Creole-based Approaches to Code-Switching, pp. 115-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. - - (ed.) (1998). Code-Switching in Conversation: Langllage, Interaction and Identity. Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in London and New York: Routledge. the United States. London and New York: Routledge. Bailey, B. (2001). Dominican-American ethnic!racial identities and United States social Lipski, j.M. (1994). Latin American Spanish. London and New York: Longman. categories . International Migration Review 35(3): 677-708 . Maehlum, B. (1996). Codeswitching in Hemnesberget - Myth or reality? Tournai of - - (2002) . Language, Race, and Negotiation of Identity: A Study ofDominicnn Americans. Pragmatics 25(6): 749-61. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub. Malinowski, B. (1965). Coral Gardens and their Magic. Bloomington: Indiana University Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (M. Holquist, trans.). Austin: Press. UniverSity of Texas Press. Meeuwis, M., and J. Blommaert (1998) . A monolectal view of code-switching: Layered Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and BOllndaries: The Social code-switching among Zairians in Belgium . In P. Auer (ed.), Code-Switching in Organization of Culture Difference, pp. 9-38. Boston: Little Brown and Co. Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity, pp. 76-98. London and New York: Blom, J.P., and j.J. Gumperz (1972) . Code-switching in Norway. In j. Gumperz and Routledge. D. Hymes (ed.), Directions in Sociolinguistics, pp. 407-34. New York: Holt, Rinehart Mittelberg, D., and M.e. Waters (1992). The process of ethnogenesis among Haitian and and Winston. Israeli immigrants in the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies 15(3): 412-35. E 274 identity practices Moerman , M. (1965). Ethnic ide ntification in a complex civilization. American Anthro- /lolosist 67: 12 15- 30. Mye rs-Scot ton , C. (1993). Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ollli, M., and II. Winant (1994). Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to til(' 1990s (2nd eeln). New York: Routledge. I'circe, C.S. (1955). I,ogic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In]. Buchler (ed.), Philosophical ｗｲｩｴｬｳＮｾ＠ o(l'circc, pp. 98-119. New York: Dover Publications. I'op lack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en Espanol towa rd a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18(7-8): 581-618. - - ( 1988). Contrasting patterns of codeswitching in two communities. In M. Heller (cd.), Cudeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, vol. 48, pp. 215-44 . Ile rlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Ii Prince, E. (1981). Topicalization, focus-movement and Yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics SOciety, 249-64. Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. [n A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 284-384. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rickford, l.R., and P. Eckert (2001). Introduction. In P. Eckert and ].R. Rickford (eds), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, pp. 1-18. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silva-Corvalan, C. (1983). On the interaction of word order and intonation: Some OV constructions in Spanish. In F. Klein-Andreu (ed.), Discourse Perspectives on Syntax , pp. 117-40. New York: Academic Press, Inc. Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In K.H. Basso and H.A. Selby (eds), Meaning in Anthropology, pp. 11-56. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. - - (1992). The indeterminancy of contextualization: When is enough enough? In P. Auer and A. DiLuzio (eds), The Contexualization ofLanguage, pp. 55-76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. - - (1996). Monoglot 'standard' in America. In D.L. Brenneis and R.K.S. Macaulay (eds), The Matrix of Language: Contempormy Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 284-306. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. - - (2001). The limits of awareness. [n A. Duranti (ed.), Lingllistic Anthropology: A Reader, pp. 382-401. Malden, MA and Oxford : Blackwell Publishers. Urciuoli, B. (1996) . Exposing Prejudice: Puerto Rican Experiences of Language, Race, and Class. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Weinreich, U. (1953). Langllage in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: The linguistics Circle of New York. Woolard, K.A. (2004). Codeswitching. In A. Duranti (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 73-94. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Young, R. (1995). Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Cultllre and Race. London: Routledge. Zentella, A.C. (1997). Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell.