Results and discussion

During the preliminary phase, my ethnographic record took on the form of questions in the process of constant revision, as I compared the confusing array of artefacts I had been collecting. In comparing these semiotic and linguistic artefacts (the photographs,

newspaper clippings, observations from participation), I looked to see whether

connections between them existed – and if so, how – and to find common themes. The field notes I made during this period reflected better the process of attempting to understand the context, rather than a process of data documentation.

The reflexive research helix in Figure 11 allowed me to ask more defined questions and select data of greater relevance. From another perspective this process of honing in is best illustrated as in Figure 12, modified and adapted from Spradley (1980:34). Here, the

95

process starts with what Spradley calls descriptive observations, which allow the ethnographer to survey the context, in order to grasp a broad or preliminary

understanding of the issues present. This moves through to focused observations, which begins to restrict the discursive and thematic research focus. Finally selective

observations, based on data collected during the previous phases, concentrates data collection on the discourses and themes which are of fundamental importance to the overall research project. It should be noted however that as data collection becomes more specific, attention does not cease to be given to the broader issues previously encountered. This is of fundamental importance, since whilst social processes might well appear stable over time, this does not mean they are immutable. As I was to appreciate more fully later in the research process, this paying attention to the relationships

between the general (descriptive) through to the particular (selective) over the chronological time period of research would allow a view of how social processes interacted discursively through time and space, very much in the sense of Blommaert’s (2006, 2007) sociolinguistic scales. For Blommaert, sociolinguistic scales are a way seeing the indexical relations between, for example, the local and the global, and, importantly, through time (2007:5. After Wallerstein 2000). In the context of this research, this meant seeing how nineteenth century theories on geography led to an ideological programme of making new Italian social space and which are contested today; how agreements

between Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini sought to displace the entire German-speaking population from South Tyrol; or how the decisions by the United Nations, agreed by Italian, Austrian and South Tyrolean leaders, are indexed today in discourses around education and the naming of place.

97

A clear example of how the “what” question worked for me is Monument all Vittoria, the Fascist-era war memorial which stands at the gateway from the historical centre of Bozen-Bolzano, and the part of the city developed under Fascism, was/is the concrete manifestation of the regime’s policy of Italianisation (see Chapter 5). I had collected newspaper and political discourse from the present related to the monument and which were largely concerned with positions taken towards it.

Yet it was only at a later stage of the research process that I began to “see” Monumento all Vittoria as a discourse (or aggregate of discourses) in its own right – not simply the discourses which focused on it in the present: I was then able to follow the discourse itineraries which related to language and place (and ultimately questions of spatial hegemony) in the province.

The second, “why”, question is more reflexive and perhaps of even greater peril in (any) ethnography and is in fact in two parts. Firstly, there was constant preoccupation related to research reliability and validity: was I simply seeing what I wanted to see, selecting the discourses I liked or those I felt most comfortable dealing with, and not those of greater importance in the discursive economy of Bolzano-Bozen? I sought to address this through an openness to a variety of data types, to see if/how/where discourses appeared in what might be considered different genres or discursive sites.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, an unmanageable number of discursive themes emerged from the array of data and artefacts I had been collecting. I began to annotate and categorise these data items by discursive theme. I should point out that especially at the preliminary stage, much of this was based on what I intuitively felt. As Verschueren (2012:21) notes,

98

this is common in discourse-based research in which the researcher has some

involvement. As my understanding of the context deepened, this process was refined and readjusted. It should also be noted that such separating out is somewhat artificial and runs the risk of compartmentalising themes and ignoring any connections between discourses.

Nevertheless, the process was extremely helpful. I found I could create a working thematic list of discourses which could be found across the data items I collected. Very broadly and in no particular order, the most common themes were:

1. Bilingual schools (especially extending experimentation with variants of immersion programmes);

2. Language learning in schools;

3. The trilingual University of Bolzano;

4. Language and immigration;

5. Language certification, especially the provincial bilingualism exam (Il patentino-Zweisprachigkeitprüfung);

6. Ethnic (or better linguistic) proportionality & the allocation of public sector jobs in the province;

7. The self-declaration of belonging to one of the three legally recognised ethnic (linguistically defined) groups;

8. Linguistically defined political parties and political representation;

9. Place names; and 10. Fascist monuments.

99

It was only after this broad categorisation that I could begin to address the second part of the “why am I seeing this?” question – or better: why are these discourses important in Bozen-Bolzano – with any confidence.