■ Dorte Lønsmann ■ Spencer Hazel

Department of Management, Society and School of Education, Communication and

Communication Language Sciences
Copenhagen Business School Newcastle University
[email protected] [email protected]
■ Hartmut Haberland
Department of Communication and Arts
Roskilde University
[email protected]

Introduction to Special Issue on

Transience: Emerging Norms of
Language Use
In this introduction to the special issue, the concept of transience is introduced as a theoretical
perspective and as an object of research. The perspective of transience foregrounds the
temporality of norm formation, located within the practices of people on the move. The
introduction suggests that it is beneficial to apply the concept of transience in order to
understand processes of norm development, including those pertaining to language choice
and language socialization. Working from an understanding that communities form and
dissolve, we claim that it is useful to look at these processes, as it is in the process of
communities coming into being that norms emerge. Transience, in spite of being ubiquitous,
is not always salient for members or analysts, but to identify, fixate and theorize it as an object
of study in linguistic anthropology invites new ways of conceptualizing the interdependence
of language and social structure. [transience, multilingualism, workplace interaction,
norm negotiation, norm development]

A
key characteristic of contemporary society is the movement of people across
national borders, as migrants or refugees, as tourists, or as employees of
international companies. This mobility results in people coming into contact
with new groups and cultures. Their challenge is often seen as that of learning how to
assimilate into these new cultures, be they national, organizational or other
subcultures, where part of fitting in is learning how to communicate in these new
contexts. However, often the question is not simply that of how newcomers come to
conform to the cultural practices of a stable community. Rather, in these conditions of
transience, social configurations are continuously being formed and reformed, as
members join and leave again to join new configurations. Under these conditions,
many social actors are faced with a need to adapt to new patterns of social conduct,
while norms of interaction are being negotiated.
The transience we describe here is not new, but we would argue that the degree
to which people move in and out of such social configurations is. We regard
transience therefore as a phenomenon in the real world, the impact of which is often
experienced by people in their everyday lives, e.g., when joining a new virtual
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Vol. 27, Issue 3, pp. 264–270, ISSN 1055-1360, EISSN 1548-1395. Copyright
© 2017 American Anthropological Association. DOI: 10.1111/jola.12168.

264
 15481395, 2017, 3, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12168 by Universite Libre De Bruxelles, Wiley Online Library on [13/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Introduction: Transience 265

project team at work or trying to fit into a new transnational student community.

Transience is also a perspective that can aid linguistic anthropologists trying to
understand current social configurations and the negotiation of communicative
norms in such dynamic settings. Renan (1882:7) claimed that nations are built on a
collective process of forgetting: “l’oubli, et je dirai m^eme l’erreur historique, sont
un facteur essentiel de la creation d’une nation.”1 In the same way, we could say
that stable language communities are “imagined” in the sense of Anderson (1983).
The perception of these communities as “stable” by members and researchers alike
disregards their origins and historical trajectories. As a perspective, transience
focuses on these trajectories, capturing the experiences of both core and marginal
members, examining those on their way in or on their way out as well as new
social units in the process of their forming. Transience, in spite of being
ubiquitous, is not always salient for members or for analysts. However, identifying
and theorizing transience as an object of study invites new ways of conceptual-
izing the interdependence of language and social structure by training a lens on
processes of social formation as well as on the “coming into and out of being” that
characterizes both individual experiences and social formations. Hence, the aim of
this special issue is to introduce transience both as a research object and as a
theoretical perspective.
The articles in this special issue all share a focus both on specific data and on the
way that transience can be studied. All articles presented here focus on emerging
norms of language conduct in multilingual and transnational workplaces. While the
scope of transience studies has the potential to be much broader than this, we have
adopted this particular focus here because the inherent diversity and heterogeneity in
these settings make the challenges and processes related to transience that much
clearer.

Transience as a theoretical perspective, transience as an object of study

Much socially informed language research is premised on identifying stability in
communicative practices, on being able to provide descriptions of recurrences,
patterns of use, and trends, often through orientations to or deviation from culturally
established ways of conducting social life. In contrast to this, contributors to the
current issue are interested in considering transience in the human social endeavour.
In other words, focus is on how communities and norms come into being.
Adopting transience as a theoretical lens allows for a combined focus on time and
space, both the temporality of social configurations (transience) and the movement of
agents (transients). Whereas snapshots of particular communities and social
activities, for example in Wieder’s (1974) ethnomethodological study of the halfway
house for paroled narcotics addicts, may provide detailed accounts of a relatively
stable present, what is often left unexamined is the temporality along which the
observed phenomena emerge, and ultimately disappear, or are transmuted into
subsequent forms. The participants too are treated as resident rather than transitory; as
people who reside in the site of research, rather than as people who pass through or
temporarily stop there. This special issue aims to foreground the temporality of norm
formation, located within the practices between people on the move, somewhere along
a timeline that has a beginning and an end. Norms emerge, gain (some) stability, and
finally may disappear or are transformed into something else. Even norms that have
remained in place for decades or centuries (e.g., gender norms) may change and as
such show themselves to be temporally limited.
What we set out to do by adopting this perspective in our studies of social
configurations and interactions, norm formation and nascent indexical processes is to
identify the transience embedded in social life. Our objects of study are not treated as
given, but as in a state of flux, emergent, in a state of being negotiated and shaped, of
becoming stabilized (or not) or of losing traction and giving way to subsequent
constitutions of social orderliness.
 15481395, 2017, 3, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12168 by Universite Libre De Bruxelles, Wiley Online Library on [13/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
266 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Those social configurations, though sometimes more enduring than fashions and
fads, may also come and go. Social organizations are worked up in situ by fluctuating
constellations of members who mutually socialize one another into patterns of
conduct deemed normatively appropriate to the social order being enacted. They
may vary in life-span from the imagined communities of nation-states and military
and administrative societal endeavors such as continental and global empires to the
fleeting interactions between strangers whose paths momentarily intersect in a
backwater of some foreign land to participate in a social configuration constituted
and disbanded in the time-span of a shared afternoon (for discussion, see Lemke
2000). In discussing Goffman’s (1961) work on relatively more short-term social
configurations, Blommaert (2017:8, italics in original) describes these “brief moments
of tight but temporary and ephemeral groupness as aggregations of people sharing
just the rules of the encounters.” Blommaert (2017) emphasizes that people are never
solely members of a single social grouping, but rather participate in a range of
communities, each of which may have a different level of stability and temporal
scope. It follows that within each of these communities, members organize
themselves into aggregations with shared normative expectations.
The people populating these social configurations can themselves be characterized
as variably transient—people “passing through”—thereby emphasizing the relative
temporality of the individual’s presence and participation in the enactment of social
order. Drawing on Garfinkel’s (1996, following Durkheim) discussion of the idea of
“lived immortal, ordinary society,” individuals enter already existing social config-
urations in the same way we merge into an already existing traffic flow on a freeway,
taking part in its orderliness. Equally we leave the freeway again later, without
the traffic flow ceasing to exist as a consequence. Our contribution to the lived
production of social orderliness is always temporary (albeit of a temporariness that
can last as long as a lifetime). It is in our transient engagement in social configurations
with relevant others that social order is produced, but it is there also that we
ourselves are constituted as cultural members (Berger and Luckman 1966:61).
With cross-border movement having become one of the defining characteristics of
our time, it is to be expected that it is now that transience presents itself as a fruitful
perspective to explore. In the wake of such changes to our social worlds, new objects of
study emerge. Although far from being a new phenomenon, the increased prevalence
of transience throughout our social lives means that it can now be observed as a social
condition, both for transitory as well as sedentary individuals, as it impacts how they
experience their social world. So whereas transience has previously held little in the
way of interest during the relatively brief history of linguistic anthropology, the
upsurge in transnational and transcultural mobility makes it a relevant topic to take
on now. As noted by Garrett and Baquedano-L opez (2002) in the context of language
socialization, older notions of community have become problematic because certain
kinds of social and geographic boundaries, e.g., nation-states, race and nationality,
have diminishing relevance in today’s world. Instead researchers need a way of
dealing with the challenges represented by studying groups and communities that
transcend these traditional borders, including transnational social phenomena. We
suggest that a focus on transience will provide such a way.

Socialization and norm negotiation

In conditions of transience, social configurations continuously change as participants
join and leave again to participate in new configurations. One consequence of this
fluidity is that shared norms cannot be assumed to be in place. It follows that norm
negotiation and norm development are basic conditions of living or working in a
transient social space. In the traditional view of language socialization, norms are
assumed to be relatively stable with new members being inducted into the existing
norms of a culture or community through interaction with more established members,
e.g., parents or coworkers. In transient social configurations such as the transient
 15481395, 2017, 3, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12168 by Universite Libre De Bruxelles, Wiley Online Library on [13/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Introduction: Transience 267

multilingual communities described by Mortensen (this issue), there may not be stable
norms for newcomers to be socialized into. Instead, these are settings where “diversity
is the norm, and where distinctions between newcomers and hosts continually
change” (Goebel 2010:203). Consequently, the socialization process is not only
continuous, but multidirectional. As Lønsmann (this issue) shows, in transient settings
the introduction of a new member into the group is not only an occasion for the passing
on of existing norms, but also for the construction and implementation of new norms.
Even under conditions of transience and fluidity, however, history matters and
existing structures matter. While participants in transient settings “do not share the
same trajectories of socialization” (Goebel 2010:223), everyone brings along their own
personal history and experience. Along with the setting and the activity, these
heterogeneous histories and competences influence the processes of norm negotiation
and norm recognition (see Hazel this issue, Millar this issue). One way that such
histories influence norm negotiation is in the recontextualization of existing semiotic
registers in new settings (Goebel 2010). Another is in the way that existing language
competences influence norms of language choice, as shown, e.g., by Moore (this issue).

A new “super”-fad?
This is a time for fads, as Reyes (2014) has pointed out in her article on the adoption
of “super-new-big” perspectives and terminology in linguistic anthropology.
Vertovec (2007) came with a modest proposal to look at multiethnic communities
like certain London boroughs with the view that they are not just diverse, but display
a second-order diversity, something that has been called a “diversity of diversities” in
several disciplines. He coined the term “super-diversity” for what he found, and the
term has gone rampant ever since in studies of linguistic diversity. One argument
levelled against the usefulness of the concept is that superdiversity is not really as
new or groundbreaking as the proponents of the term would have us think (Pavlenko
in press). This “diversity of diversities” has characterized linguistic communities
elsewhere for a long time (one can take the Indian subcontinent as an example), but
what is new is that the increased globality (Beck 2000; Haberland 2009) in migration
and spread of languages has brought superdiversity not just to London, but to Great
Britain and the rest of Europe, creating the impression (in Europe) that we are
witnessing something new on a global scale. However, as Reyes (2014) argues, the
world has not become more diverse or superdiverse; instead researchers have simply
started focusing more on these particular patterns of diversity.
What we are proposing in this special issue could, of course, also be taken to be
a new fad, but we are advancing a more modest proposal than the proponents of
superdiversity. Although we think that transience is a useful concept in analyzing
particular sociolinguistic processes in contemporary contexts, we do not claim that
it is a new phenomenon. By taking up the concept of transience introduced by
Goebel (2010), de Sapio (2013), and Mortensen (2013), we do not argue that the
world has necessarily become more transient. Rather, we suggest that it is beneficial
to apply the concept of transience in order to understand the inherent flux and
instability in the ways that communities form, evolve and eventually change into
new constellations. Some of these communities might never develop a set of stable
mutual assumptions between their members; others may develop orderliness in
their interactions, if only to help them through their “management of ignorance”
(Blommaert and Rampton 2011:7). Sharedness is never total, as Hannerz points out;
there is a temporal dimension to diversity: “Rather than concentrating on what is
persistent, we must ask, furthermore, how variations in temporality are built into
cultural process” (Hannerz 1992:46). Even though we do not exactly know what
others expect of us and how they understand our actions, verbal and otherwise, we
rarely find ourselves completely out of our depth, since practices can emerge (and
vanish) rather rapidly, yet be established along the lines of social norms from other
social configurations.
 15481395, 2017, 3, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12168 by Universite Libre De Bruxelles, Wiley Online Library on [13/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
268 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Transience and multilingualism

Where studies of multilingualism up until the end of the twentieth century tended to
focus on relatively stable patterns of language choice and language alternation in
relatively stable speech communities, since then researchers of multilingualism have
increasingly turned their attention to the use of diverse linguistic resources in (often)
urban settings and smaller communities of practice. The shift away from a sole focus
on bilingualism and toward a focus on repertoires of linguistic resources is very visible
in the large number of empirical investigations and theoretical discussions as well as
in the large number of terms coined to capture this new orientation. From language
crossing (Rampton 1995, 1999) to metrolingual practice (Otsuji and Pennycook 2013),
polylingual languaging (Jørgensen 2008), translanguaging (Garcıa 2009; Garcıa and
Li 2014), and trans-idiomatic practice (Jacquemet 2005), these newer perspectives
emphasize the influence of global flows of migration and communication on
language use. However, even while these twenty-first-century perspectives on
multilingualism share a view of linguistic norms and ideologies as negotiated in
interaction, they do not typically focus on how these norms come into being, and
how the fluid and changing conditions of contemporary life impact these processes of
norm formation. In contrast, the present special issue aims to bring this focus on the
role of transience for the emergence of social and linguistic norms to the field of
multilingualism studies.
There is no direct connection between transience and multilingualism; transience
and linguistic diversity are not always and necessarily experienced in the same
contexts. All the authors in the issue specialize in the study of multilingual workplaces
and first came together for a workshop on language in the transnational workplace.2
While we did not set out to study transience, ideas about transience emerged from this
common focus. Subsequently, our ideas about transience have also been challenged by
studying these settings. How does one recognize it? How does one capture processes of
change? Which methodological approaches best allow for claims of norm development
to be supported, and which do not? The purpose of this special issue is to gather
together data and analyses to further develop and explore the notion of transience. The
multilingual workplace is the empirical focus of the studies included here, which cover
international corporations, international universities and an international theatre
company. Furthermore, we would argue that the inherent cultural and linguistic
diversity in these multilingual and transnational workplaces makes for an ideal site to
study norms of language use as they emerge in interaction.
The work in this special issue is positioned in the overlapping space between
interactional sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, in particular with respect to
notions of community, indexicality, norm development, language choice and language
ideologies. The empirical studies also draw on a range of research paradigms and
theories, including interactional studies, plurilingualism, language socialization and
language ideologies. We see this heterogeneity as a strength of the special issue as it
allows us to explore our core topic—transience—from several angles.
The first article by Mortensen introduces the notion of transient multilingual
communities as a new field of investigation for linguistic anthropology and
sociolinguistics. Mortensen argues that by focusing on the empirical phenomenon
of transient communities, we can contribute to the paradigm interested in sociolin-
guistic change (Coupland 2014) where focus is not just on linguistic changes, but also
on changing relationships between language and society. Mortensen outlines the
notion of transient multilingual communities and their three defining characteristics:
They are emergent, activity-based and linguistically and culturally heterogeneous.
Using examples from his work on language choice and language ideologies in
international higher education, Mortensen clarifies how the transience of such
settings influences the negotiation of norms for language choice as well as the
negotiation of language attitudes and language ideologies.
 15481395, 2017, 3, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12168 by Universite Libre De Bruxelles, Wiley Online Library on [13/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Introduction: Transience 269

Moore’s article takes us to a multilingual university in Catalonia, looking at how

the internationalization of higher education creates a transient setting in which
language choice needs to be negotiated, sometimes on the spot. Moore highlights
how participants mobilize their plurilingual competences to achieve intercompre-
hension, and the analysis shows how norms are negotiated in interaction. In
particular, Moore reveals how participants construct the use of a plurilingual
medium as preferable to instantaneous interpretation or English as a lingua franca.
By focusing on the simultaneous use of intercomprehensible Spanish, Catalan,
French, and Italian used as resources in receptive multilingualism, Moore also
emphasizes that internationalization of higher education does not necessarily lead to
more English, but could also promote increased linguistic diversity in practice.
Millar’s article is based on interview data from three Danish multinational
companies. Her study focuses on corporate sociolinguistic economies of English,
including the individual sociolinguistic economies of employees. The article explores
the values given to multilingual communicative practices, particularly communica-
tion accommodation practices. While the ideology of English as the natural lingua
franca has a strong position in these companies, Millar’s study also shows how the
perceived value of English fluctuates as it is contingent on contexts, tasks and
communicative goals. The study finds that the position of English in the sociolin-
guistic economies of these international companies can be linked with transient
conditions both because English is seen as a language that is useful for international
communication across settings and because English is seen as a stabilizing force in
settings characterized by fluidity and mobility. As such the study emphasizes the link
between transient conditions and the language ideology of English as the natural
lingua franca in the corporate world.
Like Millar, Lønsmann’s article also focuses on an organizational context where
language choice and language socialization are linked with the strategic goals of
the organization. Lønsmann describes a particular strategic intervention in a
corporate company in Denmark. Whereas newcomers are commonly socialized
into the stable language norms and practices of the community they enter into,
here members of staff with limited or no Danish proficiency are deliberately
introduced into the workplace in order to occasion an increased use of English
among the Danish workforce. The underlying rationale is to encourage staff to
adopt a “global mindset,” and it is change, rather than stability that constitutes the
end goal. The study reports on how newcomers are used as catalysts for change,
as long-term employees are induced to adopt new language practices, while at the
same time newcomers themselves are socialized into the norms, values and
practices of the existing workplace culture. The article also problematizes the role
of the catalyst as on the one hand a relatively high-status position in the
workplace, but on the other, an exposed position which entails risks of exclusion
and marginalization.
The final article of the special issue is set in a multilingual workplace in the world
of arts. Based on longitudinal audiovisual recordings of the rehearsals of one theater
company ensemble, Hazel focuses on the theater ensemble as a transient project
community. Introducing the notion of “langscaping,” i.e., members’ exploring each
other’s linguistic repertoires and sociocultural histories, Hazel investigates how
linguistic practices in the ensemble develop over time. From the initial informal
language policy focusing on English, the participants develop a preference for using
an expanded set of linguistic resources, allowing members to draw on their wider
language repertoires. Hazel’s analysis highlights how language choice becomes not
only increasingly multilingual and complex, but also less stabilized, rather than
evidencing increased stability over time.
The issue is wound up by an epilogue by Jo Angouri. Here, she draws together
thematic strands from across the studies, in order to evaluate the path taken, while
offering a discussion of where this work takes us, and what directions to explore in
the future.
 15481395, 2017, 3, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jola.12168 by Universite Libre De Bruxelles, Wiley Online Library on [13/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
270 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Notes
1. [Oblivion, and I would even say historical error, is an essential factor in the creation of a
nation.]
2. At the 2013 Language and Super-Diversity conference at the University of Jyv€ askyl€
a,
Finland.

References
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Beck, Ulrich. 2000. What Is Globalization? Oxford: Polity Press [in German, 1997].
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. London: Allen
Lane.
Blommaert, Jan. 2017. “Society through the Lens of Language: A New Look at Social groups
and Integration.” Tilburg Papers in Cultural Studies, 178. Tilburg: Tilburg University.
Blommaert, Jan, and Ben Rampton. 2011. “Language and Superdiversity.” Diversities 13(2): 1–
21.
Coupland, Nikolas. 2014. “Sociolinguistic Change, Vernacularization and Broadcast British
Media: Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change.” In Mediatization and Sociolinguistic
Change, edited by Jannis Androutsopoulos, 67–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
de Sapio, Joseph. 2013. “Transient Communities: Travel, Knowledge, and the Victorian
Railway Carriage, 1840-90.” Mobilities 8(2): 201–219.
Garcıa, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA,
and Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Garcıa, Ofelia, and Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1996. “Ethnomethodology’s Program.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59(1): 5–
21.
Garrett, Paul B., and Patricia Baquedano-L opez. 2002. “Language Socialization: Reproduction
and Continuity, Transformation and Change.” Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 339–361.
Goebel, Zane. 2010. “Identity and Social Conduct in a Transient Multilingual Setting.” Language
in Society 39(2): 203–240.
Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. New York: Bobbs-
Merrill.
Haberland, Hartmut. 2009. “English – The Language of Globalism?” Rask: International Journal
of Language and Communication 30: 17–45.
Hannerz, Ulf. 1992. Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Jacquemet, Marco. 2005. “Transidiomatic Practices: Language and Power in the Age of
Globalization.” Language & Communication 25(3): 257–277.
Jørgensen, Jens Norman. 2008. “Polylingual Languaging around and among Children and
Adolescents.” International Journal of Multilingualism 5(3): 161–176.
Lemke, Jay L. 2000. “Across the Scales of Time: Artifacts, Activities, and Meanings in Ecosocial
Systems.” Mind, Culture and Activity 7(4): 273–290.
Mortensen, Janus. 2013. “Notes on English Used as a Lingua Franca as an Object of Study.”
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1): 25–46.
Otsuji, Emi, and Alastair Pennycook. 2013. “Unremarkable Hybridities and Metrolingual
Practices.” In The Global-Local Interface and Hybridity: Exploring Language and Identity, edited
by Rani Rubdy and Lubna Alsagoff, 83–99. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, Aneta. In press. “Superdiversity and why it isn’t: Reflections on terminological
innovation and academic branding.” In Sloganizations in Language Education Discourse, edited
by Stephan Breidbach, Lutz K€ uster, and Barbara Schmenk. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Identity among Adolescents. London: Longman.
———. 1999. “Crossing.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1–2): 54–56.
Renan, Ernest. 1892. Qu’est-ce qu’une nation? [What is a nation?] Paris: Calmann Levy.
Reyes, Angela. 2014. “Linguistic Anthropology in 2013: Super–New–Big.” American Anthro-
pologist 116(2): 366–378.
Vertovec, Stephen. 2007. “Super-Diversity and Its Implications.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(6):
1024–1054.
Wieder, D. Lawrence. 1974. “Telling the Code.” In Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings, edited
by Roy Turner, 144–172. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.