Análisis de impacto

Superdiversity (Vertovec 2007) has presented a challenge to the traditional understanding of „repertoire‟. We currently live in an age where expanding global mobility is characterised by

37

new social formations and networking practices and we can no longer assume the existence of stable communities of practice (Busch 2011(a): 505). As a result of new networking practices, Busch (2011(a)) suggests that it is necessary to re-examine the notion of „linguistic repertoire‟, and argues for a poststructuralist approach. As she points out, the concept of verbal repertoire, as defined by Gumperz (1964), was linked to a particular speech community and provides the weapons of everyday communication (Busch 2011(a): 504). However, Gumperz notes that “it is the individual who makes the decision” about linguistic choices and these choices are not always predictable (Gumperz 1964, cited in Busch 2011(a): 504). The fact that the connection between style and language is not absolute becomes significant in current debates about language crossing and translanguaging, that is code-switching across social and ethnic boundaries (Busch 2011(a): 504). This kind of code-switching needs to be negotiated and what is of interest to researchers is not the codes people use, but how different communicative resources are used to create meaning (Rampton 2011).

These new approaches mark a shift away from structure, system and regularity, to those that acknowledge fluidity and creativity in linguistic practices (Busch 2011(a): 506). Some researchers like Otsuji and Pennycook (2009) explicitly use the concept of „repertoire‟. When discussing metrolingualism, (i.e. creative practices across borders of culture, history and politics), Otsuji and Pennycook see it as concerned with language ideologies, practices, resources and repertoires (Otsuji & Pennycook 2009: 257). Language is viewed not as an abstract system but as a collection of communicative repertoires which draws on semiotic resources and is shaped by social practice (Otsuji & Pennycook 2009: 248). Wei (2011), on the other hand, refers to repertoire implicitly. He argues that to investigate translanguaging empirically, and to analyse the creativity and criticality of multilingual practices requires a paradigm shift (Wei 2011: 1224). We need to move on from pattern-seeking approaches and focus on spontaneous, impromptu and momentary actions and performances of the individual (Wei 2011: 1224). Wei calls this “Moment Analysis” and it requires data from a number of sources, particularly from observation and recording naturally-occurring interactions (Wei 2011: 1224).

As noted earlier, these approaches outlined above mark a paradigm shift which acknowledges fluidity and creativity in linguistic practices (Busch 2011(a): 506). Busch notes that there appears to be some consensus amongst authors who investigate translanguaging that the focus of interest lies in speech and repertoire rather than treating individual languages as a set of

38

categories (Busch 2011(a): 506). Given this new orientation, Busch suggests a multimodal biographic method as a way of researching linguistic diversity (Busch 2011(a): 510). This is the approach in which a picture is also considered a mode of meaning-making in its own right, and is followed in this study. However, Busch notes that biographic portraits may not be considered an image of the linguistic repertoire as it really is, nor is it an objective reconstruction of the history of language acquisition (Busch 2011(a): 511). Selection, interpretation and evaluation take place in the visual mode as much as in the verbal mode, and representation and reconstruction do occur independently of social discourse (Busch 2011(a): 511).

Bagnoli (2009) notes that while creative tasks such as language portraits may in some cases encourage non-standard thinking which avoids clichés and ready-made answers, even visual data may be clichéd and produced in a standardized manner in the same way that words can be (Bagnoli 2009: 566). This is especially the case when the participants know each other (Bagnoli 2009: 566), as is the case with the adolescents in this study. Occasionally, it is clear that the participants have discussed their responses with their friends, but Bagnoli (2009) suggests that this could be treated as part of the data. In this study, the reading of both images and explanatory notes together provided important information on the languages which the participants spoke, how they used these languages to form their different identities and how these languages might provide meaning in their lives in future.

The participants began by completing the background questionnaire. They were then invited to select a body template for their language portraits. The images used for the language portraits was designed by Elmarie Costandius2 of Stellenbosch University‟s Visual Arts Department. Costandius presented a number of different designs, a series of figures outlined in black and a series of figures outlined in grey. Each design set had three figures, the difference being in the positioning of the arms. The grey-outline figure was selected because it presented more fluid possibilities. Having made their selection, the participants were provided with crayons and felt-tipped pens for colouring-in. Their instructions were to place the different languages they spoke in different areas of the body and to colour each language a

2 _{Costandius is one of the collaborating researchers on a current project entitled Language biographies of African}

migrants at Stellenbosch University. This thesis also forms part of this project. The images were adapted from

39

different colour. A preliminary discussion was held about the use of language and participants were invited to think about what language they dreamed in, danced in and so on. Once they had completed the drawing, participants were then asked to write explanatory notes in which they explained the choices in their drawings.