REPÚBLICA ARGENTINA
3. CAPÍTULO TERCERO: SERVICIOS INCLUIDOS - VIAJES AL EXTERIOR
Data collected for the project also included some fictional and non-fictional literature, printed and online media resources, documentary and feature movies produced by, for or about Russian-speaking migrants in the UK and other countries (a list of used resources is available in Appendix 5). In addition, virtual
ethnography was carried out on forums, chats, blogs and social network groups of Russian-speaking migrants residing both in North-East England and in the UK at large (Internet sites are listed in Appendix 6). Another important source of information is the stock of over 80 interviews stored in the Oxford Archive of Russian Life History. Conducted in 2007-2008 with Russian-speaking migrants in London and other places in Southern England, these provided a crucial starting point for my own research in the region of North-East England (more information on the database is available in Appendix 7). All of these three sources were
incorporated into my research design as supplementary methods, used mostly to contextualise particular points from my own fieldwork and interviews with migrants. They also seemed especially relevant at the preliminary stages of research as sources of first-hand information about the way Russian-speakers perceived their migrant experiences, most importantly, in linguistic terms.
Analytically, my intention was to apply the same two-fold perspective to deal with the texts I gathered – as sources of information on language discourses among the group (‘speaking about the language(s)’) and as documents of written speech (‘speaking in the language(s)’). In this respect, this material helped me to restore the variety of contexts in which judgements about language and narrating migrant experiences were presented – from the interviews (unprepared,
spontaneous, oral performance) to participant observation (the ‘natural’
environment of everyday speech acts and interactions) towards texts performed by professionals or amateurs for a target audiences (written, planned
72
performances aimed at addressees) and online communication and blog writing (due to specific language norms, Internet communication is usually placed between the normative written and spontaneous oral speech).
Due to a relatively low number of Russian-speaking migrants in the region, I expanded the scope of my search to the UK in general, with some occasional
references to other contexts (mostly the USA and Germany), especially in the case of ‘professional migrant’ writers. I also tried to connect these methods with my main ones in the way I recruited my informants – for example, some interviewees were found through Russian-language forums and social networks, and a few of my respondents recommended particular websites or blogs they frequented. To align methods in chronological terms, I referred to materials printed (posted) within the timeframe of my main fieldwork, starting from December 2012 to March 2014 (with a few later references).
Using virtual ethnography as a means of capturing ‘meaningful practices through the shared understandings which render ... a contribution to a [group] as a form of social action’ (Hine 2000: 11) poses additional ethical considerations. Whereas most Internet communication is considered public due to its free availability, personal posts on blogs or in private discussions in virtual
communities are a sensitive area of analysis. My approach was to avoid using any material which could not be accessed freely, without the special permission of the author. The only exception to this was my access to some social network groups which had a ‘closed group’ status and therefore required a granted access to join. Most of them were locally based and therefore primary to my research interest, so I applied to become a member and was approved by the administration who, in most cases, were already familiar with my project and status of researcher. I also opted for analysing more general communications rather than private discussions, while still providing anonymity to users I quoted or referred to.
2.7. Conclusions
The importance of language as a sociocultural factor which shapes Russian-
speaking migrants’ experiences of individual life paths and practices of community leads towards a re-definition of key concepts. Shifting my focus from the actual usage of languages towards making judgements and forming attitudes about them,
73
I address the area of folk theories of language which seems particularly relevant for capturing the composition of language ideologies and discourses acquired at different stages of life. In order to grasp both set language attitudes and
expectations and their impact within one’s biography, I define two dimensions of material. The first one includes discussion of general questions concerning languages and their speakers’ images, while the second deals with practices of narrativisation in which one’s migrant trajectory is presented in the light of their language practices (conceptualised as a ‘linguistic biography’).
The communicative functions of a language are always tightly connected to its symbolic value and social connotations. This study focuses on two levels of interpretation: the way language attributes influence an individual’s
(self)identification as a speaker of particular language and provide the means for presenting this identity to others; and the process of making associations and building communities on the basis of shared language in a foreign-speaking
environment. I understand both of these as social practices which are constructive (in the sense that they are involved in the making of one’s identity or networks), presentational (i.e. performed to make an effect on the audience), and interactive (constantly re-defined through contacts with others – their actions, perceptions and feedback).
But to explore the links made by migrants between their linguistic background and their migrant present, a larger context of the new host
environment needs to be included in the picture. Moreover, the concrete regional setting of the North East that I focus on empirically, which has a distinctive cultural, sociolinguistic and economic profile, needs also to be considered as part of the broader context of the UK and its latest tendencies of in-country migration. Such contextualisation proves relevant, first and foremost, at the institutional level of dealing with the current migration and cultural implications that it entails. How Russian-speaking migration is placed within a larger diversity of migrant
communities in the region depends on the way it is perceived in the broader national context, as well as in its relation to other, more numerous or traditional migrant communities of the region.
Another way the broader context of migration studies plays its role at a local level is the emerging academic tradition of dealing with contemporary
74
migration. It presents current composite structures of urban environments as ‘superdiverse’. This term is used not only in the sense of great variation in their places of origins, cultural backgrounds, economic practices or linguistic profiles, but also in the way these large volumes of migrants transform environments around them. Languages are argued to present too rigid a structure to survive this high-mobility pattern and cease to exist as definite repertoires for multilingual migrants. Instead, they use linguistic resources – genres, styles, registers – which have different origins, and are ascribed different symbolic values and different practical, instrumental purposes. In the case of North-East England, the
environment is hardly becoming ‘superdiverse’ in its full sense, but the fact of being part of the larger UK space with London as its centre has its effect on the way current migration in the region is perceived both by the migrants and by the locals.
75