Oportunidades de negocio para la empresa española

This sub-section discusses the specific question of a dynamic and generative linguistic habitus which follows the social trajectory of an immigrant agent (first- or second-generation) across different socio-historical structural conditions which are characterised by linguistic heterogeneity. The present sub-section emphasizes the integrity of the linguistic habitus, even when it pertains to a multilingual agent.

The field of Translation Studies, most specifically that of the sociology of translation poses the question of how the concept of habitus responds to the reality of multilingualism. Recently, the concept of habitus has become a popular analytical tool in this discipline (see, for example, Simeoni 1998; Sela-Sheffy 2005; Inghilleri 2003; 2005; Woolf 2007; Woolf and Fukari 2007; Vorderobermeier 2014). However, it is particularly Meylaerts (2008; 2010a; 2010b) who has explored the relationship of the habitus of the translator and multilingualism. Relying on Lahire’s (2001; 2003; 2004) critique of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus as deterministic, static and one-directional, which therefore fails to account for multiplicity and variation, Meylaerts (2008) employs Lahire’s notion of “plural and dynamic (intercultural) habituses”. With this tool, the author aims to show that “intercultural actors … and translatorship can be redefined in terms of habitus, as an individuation of collective normative schemes related to the translator’s personal history, to the collective histories of the target and

source fields, and to the intersections of the cultures concerned” (Meylaerts 2008, p. 91). Although her approach is very close to Bourdieu’s own conceptualization of habitus in terms of his focus on the social trajectory of the individual agent, the history of fields within which such habitus is developed as well as the power relations present within and among those fields, Meylaerts’ (2008) own terminology and understanding of the Bourdieusian concept of habitus renders her ideas significantly different from what she seems to intend. Apart from the critique of habitus as deterministic, Meylaerts (2008, p. 94) argues that attempts to use this concept in Translation Studies “have laid bare its mono-cultural character, too much linked with structures and actors that refer to national societies only”. In her own attempt, Meylaerts (2008, p. 94) offers what she calls “a much needed correction to Bourdieu’s theory which is still more national than intercultural in nature”. Thus, she argues that the notion of “intercultural, dynamic and plural habituses” “can turn the concept into an intercultural construct for less homogenous situations”. Although the attempt to question the suitability of this concept for heterogenous practices is valid, her interpretation seems to be limited from the very beginning. If applied to the concept of linguistic habitus, the idea of ‘multiple habituses’ shows not only a misunderstanding of the concept in relation to the linguistic market and capital (as discussed in section 2.2.1.1), but it also reproduces exactly what it wants to avoid – by understanding the linguistic habitus as multiple habituses, she reproduces the idea of a bounded, homogenous national unity defined by monoculture and monolingualism. Moreover, in a way, Meylaerts’ reading is akin to the dualistic fallacy criticized by Noble (2013). If Meylaert’s interpretation of the habitus is put against the entire Bourdieusian model, the only result that can be obtained is an agent endowed with an array of habituses that get multiplied with each contact with a field/market. Thus, this interpretation ignores the continuously developing, dynamic nature of the Bourdieusian concept of habitus which gets activated only in relation with a field.

A completely different approach to multilingualism that can throw some light on the integrity of the linguistic habitus is the sociolinguistic notion of verbal or linguistic repertoires68 (Gumperz 1964). Briefly, Gumperz’s study (1964) is a comparative exploration of interactions in two villages, one located in India and one in Norway. Both speech communities are defined by a situation where a local dialect and the Standard language (in Gumperz’s words) are present. From Gumperz’s (1964, pp. 137-138) perspective, an individual’s verbal repertoire “contains all the accepted ways of formulating messages”, forming a whole with set rules for each potential interaction. In Gumperz’s (1964, p. 140) words, “whenever several languages or dialects appear regularly as weapons of language choice, they form a behavioural whole, regardless of grammatical distinctness, and must be considered constitutive varieties of the same verbal repertoire”. In a sense, this definition of the

verbal repertoire is akin to the reading of the linguistic habitus postulated so far, in regard to its wholeness (see 2.2.2.2). Gumperz (1964, p. 149) suggests that variation in the production of utterances is linked to two types of interaction: transactional and personal, auguring Fishman’s notion of diglossia. It must be stressed that in spite of the crucial aspect of wholeness of the linguistic repertoire suggested by Gumperz (1964), the disregard for power relations, the focus on language as an object, and the issue of synchronicity which haunt the discipline of linguistics represent major drawbacks. Because of this, the notion of linguistic repertoire lacks depth.

In spite of the critiques of the two approaches presented in this section, both of them are useful in understanding the linguistic habitus of a multilingual agent. On the one hand, it can only be understood as a whole (similar to Gumperz’s approach) and in relation to the history of the agent’s contact with multiple linguistic markets. More specifically, Meylaerts’ (2008) concern with how the notion of habitus (albeit, plural) can reveal how the power relations within and among different fields influence translation practices is highly important. At a later stage Meylaerts (2010a) nuances her question and explores how the translatorial habitus functions within ‘diglossic societies’ “characterised by socio-linguistic conflicts between the translator’s working languages” (p. 3). While she draws on sometimes incompatible sociolinguistic notions and Bourdieusian ones, Meylaerts’ (2010a) inquiry is definitely relevant in underlining that the habitus of multilingual translators is characterised by an internalization of the “broader linguistic and cultural hierarchies” as well as the “conflict” between the two languages, implying here the power relations that are at stake within and between the different linguistic markets constituted within a single social space (in this case, Belgium).

I argue that the notion of submarket introduced as an extension to the Bourdieusian model in section 2.2.3 allows for a more nuanced interpretation of the issues raised by Meylaerts (2010a) when exploring the phenomenon of multilingualism. In conjunction with an understanding of the linguistic habitus as generative (see 2.2.2.2) and as a whole, the notion of submarket allows for a nuanced exploration of the linguistic trajectory of an agent within highly heterogeneous social structures, underscoring the power relations within and, most importantly, among the multiple linguistic markets that the agent is part of. Consequently, the phenomenon of multilingualism can be redefined; the Bourdieusian-derived model enables a shift from the focus on multiple languages understood as fixed codes to an individual’s linguistic habitus - an integral and generative set of dispositions which develops and functions according to the socio-historically constructed conditions and power relations within and, crucially, among multiple linguistic markets/submarkets. In light of

this definition, the notion of ‘multilingual linguistic practices’ refers to the array of possible products of such a linguistic habitus.

2.2.6.

Bourdieu and second-generation multilingual immigrants in Cardiff

This final section discusses how the Bourdieusian conceptual tools are applied in this study. As explained in Chapter 1, the context of Cardiff as the capital of Wales is characterized by two official languages, English and Welsh. While substantial research has been carried out with reference to the two languages and the relationship between them, there is little research with respect to the linguistic practices of second-generation multilingual immigrant agents in this context. The present study aims to explore the conditions under which the second generation can produce multilingual linguistic practices, with a primary focus on linguistic practices with non-autochthonous minority languages. In light of the literature review (see 2.1), Bourdieu’s conceptual tools have been deemed appropriate for this enterprise due to a number of reasons.

First, given its conceptual tools and its methodological relationalism, the Bourdieusian theoretical model can account for the production of linguistic practices by shifting away from a synchronic micro-analysis of linguistic practices and focusing instead on the socio-historically embedded processes which lead to the construction of relatively unified linguistic markets, the legitimacy of certain modes of expression, and the development of a linguistic habitus which responds to such conditions. Second, by not taking ‘language’ as natural, bounded, homogenous, and intrinsically linked with the nation-state, but rather focusing on a diachronic and relational approach to the conditions under which such ‘language’ has been constructed as legitimate against all other means of expression, Bourdieu’s conceptual tools may account for the power relations which lead to the differentiated attribution of value to certain ‘languages’ and their reproduction in certain contexts. Third, this is a model that does not offer a simple vision of either total mechanistic domination of speakers, or their total, conscious freedom to produce certain linguistic practices. Instead, it offers a relational perspective which throws light on a complex process where structure and agency are embedded and cannot be separated.

It must be highlighted that much too often the simple model of linguistic production and circulation has been conflated with Bourdieu’s application of the model and analysis of the immanent conditions of the linguistic market of France (e.g. Woolard 1985; Haeri 1997; Swigart 2000; Stroud 2002). This universalized interpretation (Blommaert 1997) of Bourdieu’s account of historically- ingrained processes has led numerous researchers to conclude that the model itself is fundamentally flawed. Instead, I argue that Bourdieu’s model offers a compelling vision of the relationship between

language and society and, most importantly, powerful instruments of analysis of the immanent conditions under which certain linguistic practices gain value and legitimacy. As each context we analyse is different, these conditions and the research findings are also going to be different. Also, sometimes the model and its conceptual instruments may have to be extended or partially adapted in order to account for specific socio-historical conditions. So far I have tried to show that in order to account for the production of multilingual practices in a context where a relatively unified linguistic market prevails, it may be useful to introduce the notion of ‘linguistic submarket’ in order to understand how illegitimate practices are produced and validated (see 2.2.3).

In light of the proposed extension of the Bourdieusian model, when trying to explore the possibilities of production and reproduction of linguistic practices of second-generation multilingual immigrant agents with non-autochthonous minority languages in the context of Cardiff, the focus is laid on the relationship between the linguistic habitus of the interviewees and the linguistic markets and submarkets according to which their habitus has developed and functions. In Bourdieu’s words (TLP, p. 56), practices can “only be accounted for by relating the social conditions in which the habitus that generated them was constituted to the social conditions in which it was implemented” (TLP, p. 56).

In the present thesis, the linguistic habitus of agents becomes one of the central matters of inquiry, due to it representing the main principle of production of linguistic practices. According to Wacquant (2014, p. 6),

habitus is a standing invitation to investigate the social constitution of the agent. It is not an answer to the conundrum of action – lately rephrased by invoking the equally enigmatic category of “agency” – but a question or, better yet, an empirical prompt: an arrow pointing to the need to methodically historicize the concrete agent embedded in a concrete situation by reconstituting the set of durable and transposable dispositions that sculpt and steer her thoughts, feelings and conducts.

Thus, Wacquant (2014, p. 6) suggests that in order to be able to account for the production of certain practices, it is necessary to trace back, to reconstruct the social trajectory of that agent which leads to the development of their (linguistic) habitus. Similarly, Grenfell (2011c, p. 222) argues that

it is clearly necessary to look more into the biographical elements, habitus, of language users, the way they interact with local site features, fields, how the local site is configured and the way it links with broader social structures, including the social, political and economic … it is not enough to search for social meaning in the words themselves. At the same time, linguistic data from ethnographic and biographical studies are too often taken as ends in themselves in their richness as a source of generating local grounded theories. What is needed is a clear focus on the logics of practice of individual language use and its surrounding networks, especially the way fields interconnect and re- express particular dominant forms.

Following this suggestion, the present research project employs empirical data from 13 linguistic biographies collected in the form of semi-structured life history interviews between 2012 and 2015. While Grenfell decries above the use of biographical studies due to their content having been used as an end in itself, I argue that when this methodological tool is employed within the Bourdieusian theoretical model, it can throw light on most of the issues raised by Grenfell himself (2011c, p. 222). As will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Bourdieu’s own article entitled The Biographical Illusion(2000)69 (henceforth TBI) offers constructive indications on how to approach such data. The main argument of the article is that a biographical approach where the researcher tries to offer a linear, regular and coherent life-history is “nearly as absurd as trying to make sense of a subway route without taking into account the network structure, that is the matrix of objective relations between the different stations” (TBI, p. 302). In other words, the author argues for an approach where the trajectory of an agent is understood in relation to the social space, and to the structure of distribution of capital pertinent to specific fields of the social space.

This means that in order to account for the development of the linguistic habitus of an agent, the social conditions under which it was generated and where it functions also need to be taken into consideration. The full picture of the process of production of linguistic practices can be unravelled only when the linguistic practices of the agent are correlated with these aspects. This implies that before starting to explore the development of the linguistic habitus of the interviewees, it is necessary to identify whether the context of Cardiff has a relatively unified linguistic market and, if so, which language is recognised as legitimate. Given the specific status of Wales as an officially bilingual country pertaining to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this question becomes particularly relevant. In order to provide a relevant answer, a diachronic approach is needed, taking into consideration the question of the economic and social conditions of the constitution of such a market in which the “definition of the legitimate and the illegitimate language is established and imposed” (LSP, p. 44). It is only after the question of what is legitimate and illegitimate within this market that the question of the production and reproduction of illegitimate practices of second-generation multilingual immigrant agents can be asked and answered. It is in relation to such a relatively unified linguistic market that the possibility of linguistic submarkets can be posed. Thus, the following chapter explores this question of the constitution of a relatively unified linguistic market of Cardiff.