project map: linguistic anthroplogy, subotica
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Project Map: Linguistic Anthroplogy, Subotica
1/6
Project MapAndrew HodgesIntroduction Nov 14
Producing and contesting the 'national order of things': tracing how language
standardisation processes and 'state effects' configure (non)users near the
Serbian/Croatian border
Introduction
This project is a study of actions and practices through which subjects in Serbia come to identify
themselves with and position themselves with respect to a Croatian national tradition and
identity. The locus of the research is a primary school classroom as a key site in which such aprocess takes place, whilst the nexus of practice (Scollon and Scollon 2007) can be traced backto one particular action - the introduction of teaching in Croatian in certain schools in and around
Subotica, Serbia. By examining the historical trajectories and circumstances which gave rise to
this action, and through carefully considering ethnographically the consequences of this actionthrough classroom ethnography, this project hopes to cast light on the effects of this action on the
life courses and identifications made by those affected by it. This project therefore draws
extensively on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in one of the schools and surrounding areas
where such teaching was implemented, as well as on the state policy and academic linguistic
debates which resulted in the teaching being implemented and the form such implementation
took.
This is neither a study of cultural transmission in the classroom, nor of educational cultures. It
does not focus on elaborating cultural difference nor the problems that 'culture' creates for
students when engaging with the Croatian curriculum, or symbolic boundary work studentsengage in whilst constructing a national identity. This study, following Kuper's (1999) critique,avoids the analytical use of the culture concept, reserving its use as a noun for when it becameparticularly important for people with whom I spoke in the field. It therefore diverges from
Durantis (1997, 2) understanding of linguistic anthropology as the study of language as acultural resource and speaking as a cultural practice. Instead I prefer an understanding oflinguistic anthropology as the impact of language, linguistics and language policy on social life. More concisely, rather than elaborating linguistic dimensions of cultural difference, this study
examines the social and political dimensions surrounding the tension between a prescriptivismarising from narrow and often unfair conceptions of social inclusion and exclusion, and desires
and needs for at least some standardisation (Edwards 2009, 215).
In addition to possible linguistic effects on students' learning literacy skills, the action placed at
the centre of this study certainly had social and political effects on those living in Subotica as
well; as Davis (2012, 61) noted, 'schools have long been considered key sites for the construction
and negotiation of linguistic hegemonies'. The nature and extent of both linguistic and social
effectscategories this study asserts are fundamentally different kinds - will be considered,emphasising that language policy does not take place in a political vacuum and that extra-
-
8/10/2019 Project Map: Linguistic Anthroplogy, Subotica
2/6
linguistic aspects of the context in which the decision to introduce teaching in Croatian took
place deserve urgent consideration. Possible linguistic effects will be examined through an
elicitation survey, examining the extent to which students have acquired standard Croatian
syntactic structures (Chomsky 2002). The social and political effects will be examined through
ethnographic fieldwork. Finally, whilst this study may be understood as linguistic anthropology,
it does not consider language in isolation from other social processes, notably the political
economy of the field context. As linguistic anthropologists such as James Costa have argued,
describing a social setting in term of 'speakers', 'signs' and 'language attitudes' draws attention
away away from a focus on historically changing social processes and of actors with particular
social, political and economic positions and strategies. This is important as:
Framing sociocultural issues in linguistic terms has a double effect: while it allows
otherwise socially condemned voices (Lafont 1971) to be heard on a national and
international scale, it also masks many other social issues at play; it also often serves to
reproduce structures of inequality both between and within social and cultural groups(Costa 2013, 318)
Whilst many of the recent changes to the Croatian standard have been motivated by a concern for
creating a new symbolic rather than communicative space, as the linguist kiljan (2000)observed, a sole focus on symbolic boundary construction (see Cohen 1985), draws attention
away from the political-economic changes and violence that have accompanied such processes.
The most interesting questions emerge, I assert, at the boundary between symbolic and other
dimensions. I therefore ask, under what political conditions do particular symbolic concerns
come to predominate? To what extent and in what ways is the classroom a privileged site for the
production of symbolic mythico-history? And perhaps most importantly, how have circulatingdiscourses and academic debate concerning language policy and standardisation, alongside
related political concerns, impacted on the ground, particular in the everyday life-worlds of those
living near boundaries, such as is the case in Subotica?
In the first chapterI situate this study with respect to US, UK and South-Eastern European
linguistic anthropological traditions, also discussing anthropological perspectives on cognitive
psychological approaches to the study of language acquisition and critical thinking, as well as
classroom ethnography. In the second chapterI focus on the specific anthropological concepts I
employ in my analysis. These are national mythico-history (Malkki 1995); state effects (Trouillot
2001); a focus on practices (Bourdieu 1990)especially standardising practices; discursivehegemonies (Roseberry 1994) and nexus analysis (Scollon and Scollon 2007). In the third
chapter I critically discuss a number of linguistic anthropological concepts, notably definitions
of a language/dialect, speech community, ethnolinguistic vitality, language prestige and the
category of the native speaker. In contrast to the concepts discussed in the second chapter, I
expect the majority of these concepts to have some currency in the context in which I am
working. Concomitantly, there is more of a focus on carefully defining the vocabulary I use in
-
8/10/2019 Project Map: Linguistic Anthroplogy, Subotica
3/6
order to avoid making reifications of concepts such as community, native speaker and alanguagee.g. the English language which I find problematic, and of which there is noconsensus amongst linguists concerning their use. My decisions concerning the use (or not) of
such concepts, and when discarding them, finding suitable replacements, clearly positions me in
the field and Itherefore take some time to explain their relevance. In the fourth chapterImove to consider language ideologies (Woolard and Schieffelin 1994) in Croatia and Serbia in
the post-Yugoslav context, focusing on language endangerment and linguistic purism, as well as
public debate, outlining the arguments of Babi, Katii, Peti-Stanti, Kordi and Kapovi, aswell as situating my argumentswhich are closest to Kapovis, within this literature. Toconclude, in the fifth I describe the fieldwork planin detail, with sections included on the
Croatian and Bunjevac minorities in Serbia, teaching in Croatian in Serbia, practical detailsconcerning the nexus analysis methodology, a researcher timetable, research questions, ethical
issues and researcher self-positioning.
-
8/10/2019 Project Map: Linguistic Anthroplogy, Subotica
4/6
Contents
Introduction 2
(i) Linguistics and Social Anthropology 4
(ii)US Linguistic Anthropology 6
(iii)UK and South-Eastern European Linguistic Anthropology 7
(iv)Cognitive Approaches to Language Acquisition 8
(v)Classroom ethnography and the anthropology of education 11
Chapter two: Social Anthropological toolkit 13
(i) Mythico-historical imaginaries 13
(ii) State effects in circulating discourses 16
(iii) State effects in the classroom: standardising practices 17
(iv) Discursive hegemonies 21
(v) Nexus analysis 21
Chapter three: Linguistic anthropological toolkit 22
(i)Languages, dialects and standards 22
(ii)the native speaker or proficient language user? 23
-
8/10/2019 Project Map: Linguistic Anthroplogy, Subotica
5/6
(iii)Language and speech communities, communicative and symbolic spaces 25
(iv) Language prestige and status 26
(v) The linguistic marketplace 27
(vi) Linguistic and Learner Attitudes 28
(vii) Linguistic landscape and semiotic ecosystem 29
Chapter four: Language ideologies and minority rights discourses in Croatia and Serbia
30
(i)Language standardisation in the post-Yugoslav context 30
(ii)Language ideologies: language endangerment and linguistic purism 32
(iii) Language policy, minority rights and the 'liberal' state 39
(iv)Public debate over language and its connection with language ideologies 41
(a)Babi 41
(b)Katii 41
(c)Peti-Stanti42
(d)Kordi 44
(e)Kapovi 46
Chapter five: Entering the field 61
-
8/10/2019 Project Map: Linguistic Anthroplogy, Subotica
6/6
(i) Croats and Bunjevci in Vojvodina 61
(ii) Teaching in Croatian in Serbia 68
(iii) Fieldwork: Introduction 71
(iv) Methodology: nexus analysis 71
(v) Researcher Self-positioning 73
(vi) Timetable 74
(vii) Research Questions 75
(viii) Interview Questions 75
Bibliography 75