In the past two to three decennia the study of multilingualism has not only expanded but also been reconceptualised, often linked to ‘new’ approaches and theories about the concept of language, i.e. what constitutes a language. The latter has given rise to a discourse about language that focuses on fluidity rather than separateness, leading to concepts and terms such as translanguaging, crosslingual, interlinguality and languaging, among others. With regard to the former – expansion of the field – the subject of linguistic landscapes is an important one (e.g. Landry & Bourhis 1997; Gorter 2006).
The study of linguistic landscapes involves the visual documentation of multilingualism in public domains and spaces such as on street signs, official and/or public notices, billboards, announcements, advertising material, shop signs, etc. The visual documentation of multilingualism (or its absence) enhances our view and understanding of linguistic diversity and its complexity beyond the private sphere. When studied diachronically, it also provides a good insight into linguistic changes, i.e. which languages appear and disappear from the landscape, as well as attitudinal changes towards public multilingualism, i.e. tolerance vs intolerance.
To my knowledge, an important and relevant aspect of public multilingualism that has not yet received much attention is the documentation of multilingual soundscapes in public spaces, e.g. on the street, on public transport, in waiting rooms, at the market, in shops and ‘eating’ places. Given the centrality of the study of sound and oral language in linguistic research, it is perhaps surprising that soundscapes have not yet received the attention that linguistic landscapes have in documenting linguistic diversity. The methodological complexity surrounding collecting data about soundscapes is undoubtedly a reason: there are many technical, ethical, and indeed linguistic issues that ‘hamper’ collection. Equipment to record and extract linguistic sounds from a multitude of sounds and noises in public places needs to be quite sophisticated. There are the ethical issues of recording voices surreptitiously (seeking individual consent is not possible or practical). Of course, then there is the question of being able to identify all the languages, although that is of lesser concern given the more recent developments of language recognition software and access to linguistic colleagues able to identify the languages. Despite these obstacles I decided to undertake some pilot studies to delve into this fascinating area of research.
My first foray into documenting multilingual soundscapes has been limited to ethnographic observations in two multilingual cities – Melbourne (Australia) and Antwerp (Belgium) – the former my current place of residence, and the latter my birthplace and hometown. Although I was fully aware of the significant differences between the two cities regarding linguistic diversity, mobility and policies, I was interested in discovering patterns of multilingual use in a variety of public places (as mentioned above).
I chose city-based public transport as my first setting for observation, in particular tram rides whose routes would cover both inner and outer suburbs. In both cities such routes move through sectors with different population profiles, in socioeconomic as well as ethnolinguistic terms. My observations took place during two times of the day: mid-morning and mid-afternoon. They were chosen to capture different types of travellers: the mid-morning rides had a majority of elderly people going shopping or going to appointments as well as younger women with babies and preschool children. In mid-afternoon the tram rides captured students leaving school as well as (mainly manual) workers after their shift. While it will be important to observe also early morning and evening rides, my first observations of these reveal that during these times passengers did not engage in much verbal communication either to each other or through e-interactions. In this brief report I can only provide first impressions of the observations during multiple tram rides in these two cities. Importantly, they should be seen ONLY as starting points for further exploration rather than as findings. Below, I summarise the more interesting observations that are shared in both cities as well as those that are remarkably different.
SIMILARITIES
The dominance of the smartphone for oral interaction. While younger age groups tended to interact almost exclusively via smartphone, often using video calls, elderly people were also often heard to talk on their phones. The younger generation used the smartphone to engage in social interaction with friends, family, etc. These conversations were often quite lengthy, even lasting the entire journey. As many used head or earphones, it was often not possible to hear the receiver’s language. Older people’s interactions tended to be more transactional, e.g., ringing about meetings and appointments, instructions to children. They were also much shorter. When people travelled together, face to face communication was quite prominent, especially among older generations.
Translanguaging or code switching as the dominant linguistic practice. With the exception of (quite) elderly people, almost all interactions heard involved significant amounts of code-switching. The patterns among younger generations tended to be between their ‘home’ language and the dominant language(s) (mostly the official languages of the country). Many middle-aged people displayed code switching patterns that involved various languages, especially in Antwerp among the Sub-Saharan Africans, who switch between French, Lingala, sometimes Swahili, Dutch and English or some other combination.
In Melbourne, this pattern was seldom observed except among some Vietnamese who switched between Vietnamese, Cantonese, English and sometimes French.
DIFFERENCES
The palette of languages heard in both cities was quite different as could be expected given their very different migration histories, linguistic environment and language policies.
In Antwerp the languages heard regularly on these tram rides included Polish, Turkish, various varieties of Arabic, Tamazight (Berber languages), Cantonese and Mandarin, English and French. Regarding the latter two languages I focused primarily on conversations in which they were used as a lingua franca. For example, two African men using a mixture of French and English to communicate or a Russian woman using English to ask the tram driver about a tram stop. Although Antwerp has a large Jewish community, Yiddish and/or Hebrew were not often heard, except in the section of the tram route that went through the Jewish neighbourhood.
In Melbourne the main languages heard were Punjabi, Hindi, Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Arabic and Spanish. Most of these languages are also mentioned in the Australian Census as being the top languages spoken in Melbourne/Victoria.
Age and language use: The most remarkable difference in relation to age occurs in the school-aged population, i.e. both primary and secondary level students. While I frequently heard such students using a mixture of Arabic/Dutch, Turkish/Dutch or even Polish/Dutch in Antwerp, this was never heard in the Australian context. Of course, there may be many reasons for this stark difference such as the generation to which they belong (1st, 2nd or 3rd), the ethnolinguistic make-up of the students travelling together, the school and home environment, etc. However, the few conversations that I had with some of these students in Antwerp and Melbourne did also reveal the importance of attitudinal differences among them. In Antwerp, students saw their language use (code switching) as a normal way of speaking in public both to students of their own or other ethnolinguistic backgrounds. They saw the exclusive use of Dutch (the dominant and official language) as pertaining to the school setting or for interactions with ‘Belgian’ authorities, but not for daily use in the community with their friends, irrespective of their linguistic background.
In Melbourne, on the other hand, similar-aged students mentioned that their community language was a home language to be used (sometimes reluctantly) in the home to parents and grandparents but was to be avoided among friends or school mates, even if they belong to the same ethnic group. The reactions of the latter group have been observed for decades in English-dominant societies with large migrant populations and do not have changed much despite changes in language policies and attitudes towards linguistic diversity. It is clearly worthwhile to examine this further.
Finally, although the documentation of multilingual soundscapes faces many hurdles, I believe it is a worthwhile task, especially from a diachronic perspective. With the growing availability of sophisticated archives that can store ‘histories’ of sounds/languages – disappearing sounds, emerging sounds, changing sounds – it would be an asset to add soundscapes to this.
References
Landry, R. & Bourhis, R. (1997) Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an empirical study. Journal of language and social psychology Vol 16: 23-49.
Gorter, D. (ed.) (2006) Linguistic landscape: A new approach to the study of multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Anne Pauwels, PhD, FASSA is Emeritus Professor of Sociolinguistics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, United Kingdom and Honorary Professorial Fellow, The University of Melbourne, Australia. She can be contacted on ap62@soas.ac.uk
