{"title":"Sociolinguistic context matters: Exploring differences in contextual linguistic diversity in South Africa and England","authors":"Mandy Wigdorowitz, A. Pérez, I. Tsimpli","doi":"10.1080/19313152.2022.2069416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Individual reports of language history, use, and proficiency are generally considered sufficient for language profiling. Yet, these variables alone neglect the contribution of contextual linguistic diversity to one’s overall language repertoire. In this study we used the Contextual Linguistic Profile Questionnaire to evaluate whether there is a difference in contextual linguistic diversity between participants across the linguistically dissimilar contexts of South Africa and England. We further assessed whether self-reported lingualism status groups (monolinguals, bilinguals, multilinguals) scored differently on contextual linguistic diversity to evaluate the utility and uniformity of categorical labels across varying contexts, and investigated how codeswitching and socio-economic status contributed to these effects. Our results demonstrated that contextual linguistic diversity differs between nations: South Africans score higher, promotion of multilingualism is dependent on socio-economic status only in England, lingualism status is not contextually comparable when measured categorically, and codeswitching accounts for linguistic features of South Africans.","PeriodicalId":46090,"journal":{"name":"International Multilingual Research Journal","volume":"16 1","pages":"345 - 364"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Multilingual Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2022.2069416","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
ABSTRACT Individual reports of language history, use, and proficiency are generally considered sufficient for language profiling. Yet, these variables alone neglect the contribution of contextual linguistic diversity to one’s overall language repertoire. In this study we used the Contextual Linguistic Profile Questionnaire to evaluate whether there is a difference in contextual linguistic diversity between participants across the linguistically dissimilar contexts of South Africa and England. We further assessed whether self-reported lingualism status groups (monolinguals, bilinguals, multilinguals) scored differently on contextual linguistic diversity to evaluate the utility and uniformity of categorical labels across varying contexts, and investigated how codeswitching and socio-economic status contributed to these effects. Our results demonstrated that contextual linguistic diversity differs between nations: South Africans score higher, promotion of multilingualism is dependent on socio-economic status only in England, lingualism status is not contextually comparable when measured categorically, and codeswitching accounts for linguistic features of South Africans.
期刊介绍:
The International Multilingual Research Journal (IMRJ) invites scholarly contributions with strong interdisciplinary perspectives to understand and promote bi/multilingualism, bi/multi-literacy, and linguistic democracy. The journal’s focus is on these topics as related to languages other than English as well as dialectal variations of English. It has three thematic emphases: the intersection of language and culture, the dialectics of the local and global, and comparative models within and across contexts. IMRJ is committed to promoting equity, access, and social justice in education, and to offering accessible research and policy analyses to better inform scholars, educators, students, and policy makers. IMRJ is particularly interested in scholarship grounded in interdisciplinary frameworks that offer insights from linguistics, applied linguistics, education, globalization and immigration studies, cultural psychology, linguistic and psychological anthropology, sociolinguistics, literacy studies, post-colonial studies, critical race theory, and critical theory and pedagogy. It seeks theoretical and empirical scholarship with implications for research, policy, and practice. Submissions of research articles based on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods are encouraged. The journal includes book reviews and two occasional sections: Perspectives and Research Notes. Perspectives allows for informed debate and exchanges on current issues and hot topics related to bi/multilingualism, bi/multi-literacy, and linguistic democracy from research, practice, and policy perspectives. Research Notes are shorter submissions that provide updates on major research projects and trends in the field.