Multilingualism/Pluricentricity

ATaleofManyCities

WorkshophostedbyResearchUnitforMultilingualismandCross-CulturalCommunication,

UniversityofMelbourne

24–25November2016

Programandabstracts

THURSDAY24November20169.00–10.00: Registration,morningtea/coffee10.00–10.30: Welcomeandintroduction:LesleyStirling,DeputyHeadofthe

SchoolofLanguagesandLinguistics&JohnHajek10.30–11.15: ZaneGoebel:Unity,diversityandthemarket:Television

representationsofmultilingualdiversityinaJakartanneighbourhood11.15–12.00: ClaudineBrohy&DorisSchüpbach:Bilingualism,multilingualismand

diglossia:AtaleoftwoSwisscities12.00–12.30: Discussionsession112.30–1.45: Lunch1.45–2.30: JaneWarren:Norwich:Acityofstrangers2.30–3.15: JohnHajek:MarvellousMelbourne:outwiththeoldandinwiththe

new?3.15-3.45: Afternoontea/coffeebreak3.45–4.30: ChloeDiskin:Language,migrationandmultilingualisminanurban

setting:ThecaseofPolishandChinesemigrantsinDublin,Ireland4.30–5.00: Discussionsession25.00-5.30: DiscussionofDay15.30-6.30: Refreshments6.30: DinnerFRIDAY25November20169.00-10.00: Arrival,morningtea/coffee10.00-10.45: RuthKircher:LanguageChoicesinMontreal:ATaleofManyTongues

inOneCity(presentationviavideolink)10.45–11.30: AnuBissoonauth:Multiculturalism&multilingualismMauritianstyle:

Port-Louis,amosaicofcultures11.30-12.00: Discussionsession312.00–1.30: Lunch1.30-2.15: SofieHenricson:Kotka–theeasternoutpostofthepluricentric

languageSwedish2.15-3.00: MarieNelson&SofieHenricson:Mariehamn,aSwedish-speaking

“capital”inFinland3.00-3.30: Afternoontea/coffeebreak3.30-4.00: Discussionsession44.00-4.45: DiscussionofDay2andpublicationplans4.45-5.00: Concludingremarks5.00-6.00: Break6.00-6.45: CarlaAmorósNegre:ReflectionsofCatalanpluricentrityinthecityof

Valencia(presentationviavideolink)6.45-7.15: Discussionsession5

PresentersandtopicsCarlaAmorósNegre,UniversityofSalamanca,SpainReflectionsofCatalanpluricentrityinthecityofValenciaAnuBissoonauth,UniversityofWollongong,AustraliaMulticulturalism&multilingualismMauritianstyle:Port-Louis,amosaicofculturesClaudineBrohy,UniversityofFribourg,Switzerland&DorisSchüpbach,UniversityofMelbourne,AustraliaBilingualism,multilingualismanddiglossia:AtaleoftwoSwisscitiesChloeDiskin,UniversityofMelbourne,AustraliaLanguage,migrationandmultilingualisminanurbansetting:ThecaseofPolishandChinesemigrantsinDublin,IrelandZaneGoebel,LaTrobeUniversity,AustraliaUnity,diversityandthemarket:TelevisionrepresentationsofmultilingualdiversityinaJakartanneighbourhoodJohnHajek,UniversityofMelbourne,AustraliaMarvellousMelbourne:outwiththeoldandinwiththenew?SofieHenricson,UniversityofTurku,FinlandKotka–theeasternoutpostofthepluricentriclanguageSwedishRuthKircher,LiverpoolHopeUniversity,UnitedKingdomLanguageChoicesinMontreal:ATaleofManyTonguesinOneCityMarieNelson,StockholmUniversity,Sweden&SofieHenricson,UniversityofTurku,FinlandMariehamn,aSwedish-speaking“capital”inFinlandJaneWarren,UniversityofMelbourne,AustraliaNorwich:AcityofstrangersDiscussants

• HeinzLeoKretzenbacher,UniversityofMelbourne,Australia• SimonMusgrave,MonashUniversity,Australia• CatrinNorrby,StockholmUniversity,SwedenandUniversityofMelbourne,

Australia

AbstractsCarlaAmorósNegre,UniversityofSalamanca,SpainReflectionsofCatalanpluricentrityinthecityofValenciaAs it iswell-known, the Catalan language extends to territories belonging to differentstates, mainly Spain (Catalonia, the Valencian Community, the Balearic Islands, theEastern strip of Aragon and Carxe region inMurcia), but also France (the Roussillonplain),Andorra,andItaly(Alghero,Sardinia).Witharound10millionspeakers(Gencat2014), Catalan is the ninthmost-spoken language in the European Union; it has soleofficialstatus inAndorraandsharesco-oficiliatywithSpanishintheabove-mentionedterritories.

This paper aims to analyse the situation and status of Catalan in the ValencianCommunity, where the Catalan-speaking population represents over 2.5 millionspeakers(AVL2008;Observatoride la llenguacatalana2014),especially inthecityofValencia. Unlike in Catalonia, where Catalan is strongly promoted and activelyencouraged all communicative domains, top-down language planning in the ValencianCommunityhasgenerally favoured theuseofSpanish insteadofCatalan in the formalsphereswiththeconsequentemphasisonthenon-dominantcharacteroftheValencianvariety(Muhr2005;Bodoque2008).

As it has already been pointed out (Martines and Montoya 2011), there exist twodifferent codifying institutions for the Catalan language, Institut d´ Estudis Catalans(IEC), founded in 1911, and the recent Acadèmia Valencia de la Llengua (AVL),establishedin2001.TheIECismorecommittedtomaintainingtheunityoftheCatalanlanguagewiththeproposalofacompositionalandpolymorphicstandardvariety(Mas2012), which is unique for thewhole Catalan-speaking area. AVL, however, demandsmore presence of the Valencian variety in the language standardisation process andworks towardsapluricentriccodification for the language.Ourmainaim is toanalysehow these two linguistic models, which Pradilla (2004) qualifies as convergent andparticularistic,respectively,arereflecteduponthelanguageoftheValencianpresssoastogainsomeinsightintothedegreeofpluricentricityachievedintheCatalancase.

ReferencesAcadèmia Valencia de la Llengua (2008): Llibre Blanc de l´ús del Valencià. València:Publicacionsdel´AcadèmiaValenciadelaLlengua.

Bodoque,A.(2008):Lapolíticalingüísticadelsgovernsvalencians(1983-2008):unestudidepolítiquespúbliques.València:UniversitatdeValència.

Observatori de la llengua catalana (2014): VII Informe sobre la situació de la llenguacatalana.

GeneralitatdeCatalunya (2014): Informedepolíticalingüística.Barcelona:GeneralitatdeCatalunya/DepartamentdeCultura.

Martines, J. andMontoya, B. (2011): “Monocentrism vs. pluricentrism in Catalan”, In:SoaresDaSilva,A.,Torres,A.,&Gonçalves,M(eds.):LínguasPluricèntricas.VariaçaoLinguística eDimensôes Sociocognitivas/Pluricentric Languages. Linguistic Variationand Sociocognitive Dimensions. Braga: Publicaçoes da Faculdade deFilosofia/UniversidadeCatólicaPortuguesa,185-195.

Mas, J.À. (2012): “Catalan as a pluricentric language: the Valencian case”, In: R.Muhr(ed.):Non-dominantvarietiesofpluricentriclanguages.Gettingthepicture.ImmemoryofMichaelClyne.Wien:PeterLang,283-300.

Muhr, R. (2005): “language attitudes and language conceptions in non dominatingvarieties of pluricentric languages”. In: R. Muhr (ed.): Standardvariationen undSprachideologieninverschiedenenSprachkulturenderWelt/StandardVariationsandLanguage Ideologies in different Language Cultures around theWorld. Wien: PeterLang,11-20.

Pradilla,M.À.(2004).Ellaberintvalencià.Bernicarlo:Onada.AnuBissoonauth,UniversityofWollongong,AustraliaMulticulturalism&multilingualismMauritianstyle:Port-Louis,amosaicofculturesThepopulationofMauritiusismulti-ethnic,fromAfrican,Indian,ChineseandEuropeanbackgrounds. According to the last population census carried out in 2011 the totalpopulation of the island was 1,2 million and two-thirds were described as Indo-Mauritian, 2% as Sino-Mauritian and almost a third as General Population (i.e.MauritiansofAfrican,mixedandEuropeandescent).Thethreemainreligionsfollowedby these ethno-linguistic groups are Hinduism, Christianity and Islam. The linguisticdiversityonthissmallislandistheresultofitscolonialhistory:Frenchoccupationinthe18thcenturyandBritish in the19thand20thcenturies.Thispresentationwill focusonPort-Louis, the economic and administrative capital, where English comes in contactwith dominant French, Creole and a variety of non-dominant Indian and Chineseancestrallanguages.Port-Louishasaveryinterestinghistoryandcomplexrelationshipwith its colonial past and independent present, and is to date an under-researchedcapitalcity.ThefirstpartofthepresentationwillgiveanoverviewofthehistoryandthelanguagesituationinMauritius.ThesecondpartwillfocusonPort-Louisanditslegacyasavibrant,superdiversecityshapedbyhistory,modernity,migrationandmultilingualand multicultural productions that offer a mixture of complex colonial and nationaldiscourses. The conclusion will examine social representations and attitudes ofMauritiansontheircapitalcity inabriefsnapshottakeninJuly2016andimplicationsfortheplannedadministrativedecentralisationofPort-Louisinthenextdecadewillbediscussed.ClaudineBrohy,UniversityofFribourg,Switzerland&DorisSchüpbach,UniversityofMelbourne,AustraliaBilingualism,multilingualismanddiglossia:AtaleoftwoSwisscitiesSwitzerland is a multilingual country with four national/official languages and manyimmigrantlanguages.However,thefournationallanguagesareusedindistinctareasofthe country. Consequently, close contacts between Swiss residents from differentlinguistic regions are rather infrequent and territorial/institutional bilingualism isrestricted to relatively few areas, notably those along the "language borders". Even

thoughthesebordersoftenrunalonggeographicboundaries, insomeinstancestownsare actually located on a language border and are thus considered bilingual.Fribourg/Freiburg -with a Francophonemajority - andBiel/Bienne -with aGerman-speaking majority - are the prime examples of French-German bilingual cities inSwitzerland.Moreover, immigrantsfromallophonebackgroundstendtosettle inurbanratherthanrural environments, so that both cities have sizeable allophoneminorities and are inrealitymultilingualratherthanbilingual.In addition to bi- and multilingualism, there is also a diglossic situation among theGermanophone communities of the two cities (as in the rest of German-speakingSwitzerland): the local SwissGermandialect is the variety spoken in all but themostformal situationswhereas the Swiss variety of Standard German is generally used inwrittendiscourseandorallyincertainformalcontexts.Ourpaper firstprovidesanoverviewof thehistoricanddemographicdevelopmentofthetwocitiesandoutlinestheirlanguagepoliciesandlegislation.IttheninvestigatestheofficialdiscoursesinBiel/BienneandFribourg/Freiburgwithregardtobilingualismandmultilingualism, thenon-official languagesand thediglossicsituation. Inparticularweexplore the interplay of official bilingualism and actual multilingualism, the roleallocatedtoandplayedbythenon-official languagesandthe influenceof thediglossicsituation. By comparing the situation in the two cities,we identify and discussmajordifferencesaswellascommonalities.ChloeDiskin,UniversityofMelbourne,AustraliaLanguage,migrationandmultilingualisminanurbansetting:ThecaseofPolishandChinesemigrantsinDublin,IrelandRecentsociolinguistic researchhasplaced increasingemphasison largeurbancentresas the lociof languagevariationandchange,particularlyasanoutcomeorreaction tomigration and globalisation (see Blommaert 2010). Large cities such as Toronto(Hoffman&Walker2010),London(Cheshireetal.2011)andStockholm(Stroud2004),amongstothers,havebeenstudiedas the focalpointof theemergenceofmultilingual‘ethnolects’,wherenewvarietiesemergeasaresultofhighdegreesoflanguagecontactbetween individuals from differing language backgrounds living in multi-layered,superdiversespaces(Vertovec2006).

However,citiessuchasDublinhavereceivedlessattention,despitethefactthatIrelandprovides a unique sociolinguistic setting, having two official languages (Irish andEnglish)andwhereoneoftheoldestcontactvarietiesofEnglish,IrishEnglish,isspoken.In addition, whereas Ireland has previously been known as a country of large-scaleoutwardmigration,ithasinrecentyearswitnessedadramaticincreaseinthenumberofmigrants:a143%increaseintheperiod2006-2012(CentralStatisticsOffice2012:7).Theoutcomesof languagecontactbetweenmigrantsand ‘native’ Irish in Irelandhavebeengivenonlylimitedattentioninthesociolinguisticliteraturetodate(butseeNestoretal2012;Nestor&Regan2015).

Thispaperdiscusses theacquisitionof IrishEnglishby41recently-arrivedPolishandChinesemigrants,who,intermsoftheircontrastingmigratorytrajectoriesanddifferingmotivationsfor‘investing’intheirlivesinIreland,offermanypointsofcomparison.Thepaper focuses on discourse-pragmatic features, examining the acquisition of morestereotypical features of Irish English, such as ‘like’ in clause-final position (see [1]below),aswellasfeaturesthathavebeenshowntobeundergoingwidespreadparalleldevelopmentcross-culturallyandcross-linguistically,suchasquotative‘like’(2).

(1) Whenhemetmefirst,hedrewmeapictureofthefamilylike.

(2) AndIwaslike"There,bottomshelfoverthere!"

Ithasbeen found that thebelief systemheldby learnersor speakersof anadditionallanguagecanhaveramifications for the ‘language identity’ that isadoptedamongnewspeakersofavariety (seeDeCosta2011;2012).Aswellasexaminingeffects thataretypically taken intoaccountwithin thesociolinguisticandsecond languageacquisitionliterature, such as speaker sex, age, proficiency in English and level of education, thispaperalso looksat the roleof language ideologies, or “setsofbeliefs about languagesandtheirspeakers”(Irvine1989:255).Takingadiscourseanalyticapproach,thispaperanalysestheinterviewdatafromthesemigrants. Themain ideologies that emergedwere that they found Irish English to benon-standard, strange, fast-pacedandat times isolatory,aswellasbeingatoddswiththeEnglishtheyacquiredwithinthe formaleducationsystemintheirhomecountries,whereBritishandAmericanEnglisharetakenaspedagogicalmodels.Moreover,manyofthemigrantswereparticularlyadeptatrecognisingthesocialstratificationofDublincity into its three main class-based varieties (see Lonergan 2013): Southside DublinEnglish (affluent), Northside Dublin English (working class), and Inner City DublinEnglish (deprived). It was found that those migrants who were more likely to havenoticedtheseclass-baseddifferenceswerealsomorelikelytojudgeIrishEnglishmoreharshly, to express avoidance-targeted views towards its use (see Diskin & Reganforthcoming), and to be less likely to have adopted certain features of the localvernacular.ReferencesBLOMMAERT,J.2010.TheSociolinguisticsofGlobalization,Cambridge,Cambridge

UniversityPress.CENTRALSTATISTICSOFFICE2012.Profile6:MigrationandDiversity.Dublin,Ireland:

StationeryOffice.CHESHIRE,J.,KERSWILL,P.,FOX,S.&TORGERSEN,E.2011.Contact,thefeaturepool

andthespeechcommunity:TheemergenceofMulticulturalLondonEnglish.JournalofSociolinguistics,15,151–196.

DECOSTA,P.2012.ConstructingSLAdifferently:thevalueofELFandlanguageideologyinanASEANcasestudy.InternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics,22,205-224.

DECOSTA,P.2011.UsinglanguageideologyandpositioningtobroadentheS.L.A.learnerbeliefslandscape:ThecaseofanE.S.L.learnerfromChina.System,39,347-358.

DISKIN,C.&REGAN,V.forthcoming.'IsthisEnglishorsomethingelse?'Theattitudesofrecently-arrivedPolishmigrantstoIrishEnglish.WorldEnglishes.

DISKIN,C.&REGAN,V.2015.MigratoryexperienceandsecondlanguageacquisitionamongPolishandChinesemigrantsinDublin,Ireland.In:FORSBERGLUNDELL,

F.&BARTNING,I.(eds.)CulturalMigrantsandOptimalLanguageAcquisition.Bristol,UK:MultilingualMatters,137–177.

HOFFMAN,M.&WALKER,J.2010.EthnolectsandtheCity:EthnicOrientationandLinguisticVariationinTorontoEnglish.LanguageVariationandChange,22,37–67.

IRVINE,J.1989.Whentalkisn'tcheap:Languageandpoliticaleconomy.AmericanEthnologist,16,248–267.

LONERGAN,J.2013.AnAcousticandperceptualstudyofDublinEnglishphonology.UnpublishedPhDthesis,UniversityCollegeDublin.

NESTOR,N.&REGAN,V.2015.ThesignificanceofageandplaceofresidenceinthepositionaldistributionofdiscourselikeinL2speech.In:AMADOR-MORENO,C.P.,MCCAFFERTY,K.&VAUGHAN,E.(eds.)PragmaticMarkersinIrishEnglish.Amsterdam;Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,408–432.

NESTOR,N.,NÍCHASAIDE,C.&REGAN,V.2012.Discourse'like'andsocialidentity:AcasestudyofPolesinIreland.In:MIGGE,B.&NÍCHIOSÁIN,M.(eds.)NewPerspectivesonIrishEnglish.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,327–353.

STROUD,C.2004.RinkebySwedishandSemibilingualisminLanguageIdeologicalDebates:ABourdieueanPerspective.JournalofSociolinguistics,8,196-214.

VERTOVEC,S.2006.TheEmergenceofSuper-DiversityinBritain.CentreonMigration,PolicyandSociety(OxfordUniversity).

ZaneGoebel,LaTrobeUniversity,AustraliaUnity,diversityandthemarket:TelevisionrepresentationsofmultilingualdiversityinaJakartanneighbourhoodIn recent years market forces have increasingly invited attention from sociolinguistsbecause these forces have helped revalue minority and ethnic languages vis-à-visnationalones(Heller,Bell,Daveluy,McLaughlin,&Noel,2015;Heller&Duchêne,2012;Heller,Pujolar,&Duchêne,2014;Kelly-Holmes&Mautner,2010;Pietikäinen&Kelly-Holmes,2013;Pietikäinen,Kelly-Holmes,Jaffe,&Coupland,2016).InIndonesiasimilarforceshavebeen inplay since theearly1990s in thedomainof televisionproduction(Goebel, 2010, 2015). In this paper I examine how these market forces have helpedredefineideologiesaboutlanguageasaunitaryphenomenontolanguageasamixedoneandhowthisrelatestoimaginariesaboutonemega-city,Jakarta.Myfocuswillbeononesoap opera (sinetron) that represents the everyday lives and language practices ofinhabitantsofa linguistically,ethnically,religiously,generationally,andclass-stratifiedurban Jakartaneighbourhood. Iwill argue that theproducersor “principle” (Goffman,1981) of these representation have tried to harness the forces of diversity tomake aprofitbywideningthepotentialprogrammingaudience.ThisisdonethroughpresentingportraitsofChinesemigrantsandtheirchildrenwhoarerepresentedasspeakingmixesofJavanese,Sundanese,Indonesian,Chinese,BetawiandEnglish,internalmigrantsfromJavanesespeakingareaswhomovebetweenIndonesian,Javanese,Betawi,andEnglish,andmultiplegenerationsoflocalethnicBetawiwhomovebetweenBetawi,Indonesian,Arabic,andEnglish.Indoingso,themarkethashelpedtoreformulateanolderlanguageideologythatrepresentedmixedlanguagepracticesascodeswitching(i.e.themovementbetweentwoseparateunitarylanguages)totherepresentationoftheuseoffragments

from multiple languages, often referred to as polylanguaging, translanguaging,metrolingualism, and enough-ness (Blommaert & Varis, 2011; Garcia & Wei, 2014;Jørgensen,Karrebæk,Madsen,&Møller,2011;Pennycook&Otsuji,2015).Inconcluding,Ipointouthowthesetypesofrepresentationsproduceimagesofandimaginariesaboutunityindiversityinthemega-city.ReferencesBlommaert,J.&Varis,P.(2011).Enoughisenough:theheuristicsofauthenticityin

superdiver-sity.WorkingPapersinUrbanLanguageandLiteracies76.Garcia,O.,&Wei,L.(2014).Translanguaging:language,bilingualismandeducation.UK:

PalgraveMacmillan.Goebel,Z.(2010).Language,migrationandidentity:neighborhoodtalkinIndonesia.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Goebel,Z.(2015).Languageandsuperdiversity:Indonesiansknowledgingathomeand

abroad.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Goffman,E.(1981).Formsoftalk.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Heller,M.,Bell,L.,Daveluy,M.,McLaughlin,M.,&Noel,H.(2015).Sustainingthenation:

themakingandmovingoflanguageandnation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Heller,M.,&Duchêne,A.(Eds.).(2012).Languageinlatecapitalism:prideandprofit.Hoboken:Routledge.

Heller,M.,Pujolar,J.,&Duchêne,A.(2014).Linguisticcommodificationintourism.JournalofSociolinguistics,18(4),539-566.

Jørgensen,J.N.,Karrebæk,M.S.,Madsen,L.M.,&Møller,J.S.(2011).Polylanguaginginsuperdiversity.Diversities,13(2),22-37.

Kelly-Holmes,H.,&Mautner,G.(Eds.).(2010).LanguageandtheMarket.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Pennycook,A.,&Otsuji,E.(2015).Metrolingualism:languageinthecity.NewYork:Routledge.

Pietikäinen,S.,&Kelly-Holmes,H.(Eds.).(2013).MultilingualismandthePeriphery.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Pietikäinen,S.,Kelly-Holmes,H.,Jaffe,A.,&Coupland,N.(2016).Sociolinguisticsfromtheperiphery:smalllanguagesinnewcircumstances.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

JohnHajek,UniversityofMelbourne,AustraliaMarvellousMelbourne:outwiththeoldandinwiththenew?Melbourne, established in 1835, was even its early days a dynamic centre ofimmigration and population growth. In one year, 1851, when gold was discoverednearby,itspopulationincreasedfrom29,000to75,000.Withintenyearstheithadmorethanhalfamillioninhabitants.Itwasforatimethewealthiestcityintheworld.Todayithasmorethan4.5mresidentsandcontinuestoincreaseinsize,withmorethanathirdof its population born overseas. In the process Melbourne’s linguistic and culturalmakeupshowssignsofongoingexpansionandcomplexificationthatmostareunaware

ofbutwhichareinmanyrespectsalsoindicativeofbroadernationalandinternationaltrends,e.g.theriseofinternationaleducation,transientmobility,etc….Melbournehasalsobeenafocusofresearchonmultilingualismandmigrationforsometime(e.g.theworkbyMichaelClyneandcolleagues,papersinSharifianandMusgrave2013).InthispaperwelookatMelbourneasacomplexdynamicorganismorstructurethatcanbeviewedandunderstoodthroughanumberof lensesat thesametime.These lensesnecessarilyintersect:(a)geographical/physical–acitythatisexpandingoutwardsandinnewdirections,aswellasrenewing/transformingexistinginternalstructuresclosetothecentre;(b) chronological – a city whose population and language profile changes over timethroughsuchthingsasageingandimmigration;

(c)demographic/human–a citywhosesocial, linguisticandculturalprofile is rapidlychanging,throughmigrationanditsdiversification,socialchange,education,etc…

Weseethatpeopleandtheirlanguagesaremovingin,throughandoutoftimeandspace–butnotinthesamewayasinthepast,asaresultofgentrification,socialclass,dateofarrival and the different types ofmigration that exist today.New languages and theircommunities no longer predictably concentrate in the inner city (expect in publichousing)butareincreasinglypushedtotheurbanedgeevenatinitialsettlement–withtheexceptionofspecificsub-classesofcommunitiesthathavebroughttheir languagesinto or near the city centre or to parts of inner and middle Melbourne that aretraditionallyestablishedmonolingualAnglo-Australian.

We also look at a small number of language-specific case studies to highlight andunderstand thedifferentdevelopmentandstatusof linguisticallydiversecommunitiesin Melbourne. In one case, for instance, we see a mismatch between physical anddemographicrealityandpopularbelief.WhilemanyofthepatternsandchangesseeninMelbourne may be seen as predictable consequences of living in a large city, closerinspectionofspecificcommunitiesalsoindicatesthattheyaretheundergoingtheirownspecificprocessesof languageshift–asa resultof transnationalprocessesunderwayelsewhere–underalocalroofoflanguagemaintenance,shiftandchangeovertime.ReferenceSharifian, F. and S. Musgrave (2013) Migration and multilingualism in Melbourne.SpecialissueofInternationalJournalofMultilingualism10(4).SofieHenricson,UniversityofTurku,FinlandKotka–theeasternoutpostofthepluricentriclanguageSwedishSwedishisapluricentriclanguage,withtwomaingeographicalcentres(Reuter,1992).Inthewesterncentre,i.e.Sweden,Swedishisthemainlanguage.Intheeasterncentre,i.e.Finland,Swedish isoneof twonational languages,spokenbyanumericalminorityconstitutingabout5%oftheentirepopulation,whilethevastmajorityofthepopulationis Finnish-speaking (Official Statistics of Finland, 2015). A majority of the 290,000

Swedish-speaking Finns live in bilingual municipalities, but there are also smallSwedish-speaking communities situated inmonolingual Finnish surroundings outsidethe traditional Swedish-speaking regions of the country. Colloquially, these SwedishcommunitiesarereferredtoasSvenskaspråköariFinland,i.e.,SwedishlanguageislandsinFinland.Thelargestandmostlong-lastingoftheseSwedishlanguageislandsaretobefoundinfourFinnishcities:Kotka,Oulu,PoriandTampere(Henricson,2013).

Inthispaper,IdiscussoneoftheseSwedishlanguageislands,namelyKotka.Today,theSwedish-speakingcommunity inKotkaconsistsofabout500 individuals,addingup tomerely 1% of the city’s population (Official Statistics of Finland, 2015). With thispercentage, theSwedish-speakingminority inKotkaconstitutes theeasternoutpostofthepluricentriclanguageSwedish.

ThepresentationconsistsofadescriptiveoverviewofthehistoryandpresentstatusoftheSwedish-speakingminorityinKotka,andanempiricalanalysisofabout12hoursofinterview data with Swedish-speaking adults from Kotka. These interviews werecollected in 2007–2008 as part of theprojectDocumenttheFinland-Swedishspeech attheSocietyofSwedishliteratureinFinland.ReferencesHenricson,Sofie,2013:Svenskaifinskmiljö.Interaktion,grammatikochflerspråkighetisamtalpåsvenskaspråköariFinland.[SwedishinFinnishsurroundings.Interaction,grammarandlanguagecontactinconversationswithinSwedishlanguageislandsinFinland].Helsinki:UniversityofHelsinki.

OfficialStatisticsofFinland,2015:Populationaccordingtolanguageandthenumberofforeignersandlandareakm2byarea1980–2015.Retrieved17June2016fromhttp://stat.fi/.

Reuter,Mikael,1992:Swedishasapluricentriclanguage.In:Clyne,Michael(ed.),Pluricentriclanguages.Differingnormsindifferentnations.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.101–116.

RuthKircher,LiverpoolHopeUniversity,UnitedKingdomLanguageChoicesinMontreal:ATaleofManyTonguesinOneCityMontreal is the urban centre of the Canadian province of Quebec. As such, the city ishomenotonly tomany francophonesbutalso to comparatively largeanglophoneandallophonecommunities(StatisticsCanada2011)–with‘allophones’beingthetermusedin the Quebec context to describe those individualswho have amother tongue otherthan French or English. These allophones are immigrants as well as individuals ofimmigrantdescent,whohavearrivedfromdiversecountriesoforiginandspeakavastvarietyofdifferentlanguages.MostnativeMontrealersarebilingual,andthemajorityofnewcomersandtheirdescendantsalso learnbothFrenchandEnglish–Frenchas it isQuebec’sonlyofficial language,andEnglishas it isthelanguageofupwardmobility inthe rest of Canada as well as the global lingua franca (Pagé and Lamarre 2010).Provincial language legislationhasbeen implementedtopromote theuseofFrench inthe public sphere, but language choices in private domains are not regulated (Oakes2005).

Thispaperpresents the findingsof anewquestionnaire-based study that investigatesthe language choices of 950 francophone, anglophone and allophoneMontrealers in awiderangeofprivateandpubliccontexts.Specifically,theparticipants’languagechoicesareinvestigatedintermsoftheirDominantLanguageConstellations–thatis,thevehiclelanguages which perform the most vital functions in speakers’ lives in multilingualenvironments(AroninandSingleton2012).ThefindingsprovidenuancedinsightsintoMontrealers’ Dominant Language Constellations, revealing how these are affected byfactors such as age, gender, educational background, type of occupation, level ofproficiency, and language attitudes. The findings also demonstrate the complexinfluencesofMontreal’ssocialhistory,ofprovinciallanguageplanning,andoftheeffectsofglobalisation.ReferencesAronin,L.andSingleton,D.(2012)Multilingualism.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Oakes,L.(2005)Frenchasthe‘commonpubliclanguage’inQuébec.InI.Lockerbie,I.

Molinaro,K.LaroseandL.Oakes:FrenchastheCommonLanguageinQuébec:History,DebatesandPositions.Quebec:ÉditionsNotabene.pp.153-194.

Pagé,M.,andLamarre,P.(2010).L’IntégrationLinguistiquedesImmigrantsauQuébec.Montreal,Canada:InstitutdeRechercheenPolitiquesPubliques.

StatisticsCanada(2011).The2011Census.<http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm?HPA>

MarieNelson,StockholmUniversity,Sweden&SofieHenricson,UniversityofTurku,FinlandMariehamn,aSwedish-speaking“capital”inFinlandThis paper highlights the city Mariehamn on the Åland Islands. Through a writtenquestionnaireandfocusgrouprecordingsweexaminethecurrentlanguagesituationinMariehamn. Mariehamn is the only town on the Swedish-speaking islands of Åland,situatedintheBalticSeabetweenSwedenandFinland.ÅlandisanautonomouspartofFinland but, contrary tomainland Finlandwhich is officially bilingual, Åland’s officiallanguage is Swedish only. In total, less than 30,000 people live on the Åland Islands.People living in Åland are very familiar with both Finland and Sweden, but stronglyidentify themselves with their own region (Allardt Ljunggren, 2008; Nelson, in press2016).ThisstudydiscussesthelanguagesituationontheÅlandIslandsandits“capital”Mariehamn in terms of language use, attitudes, and identity. The study is part of theresearch programme Interaction and variation in pluricentric languages –CommunicativepatternsinSwedenSwedishandFinlandSwedish(IVIP).Apilotquestionnaire,handedout inMariehamn inMay2015,showsthat theSwedishlanguagehasastrongpositionintheinhabitants’everydaylife,andisanimportantpartof their perceived identities (Nelson, in press 2016). To gain new insights into thelanguage situation in Mariehamn, we now complement these data with furtherquestionnairesandfocusgrouprecordings(seee.g.Krueger&Casey,2015).Duringthefocus groups, the participants discuss their experiences of linguistic practices in theireverydaylifeinMariehamn.Inourpaper,wepresenttheresultsofthisenterprise.

ReferencesAllardtLjunggren,Barbro.2008.Ålandsomspråksamhälle.SpråkochspråkligaattityderpåÅlandurettungdomsperspektiv. [TheÅland Islandsasa languageenvironment:Languages and language attitudes from an adolescent perspective]. Stockholm:StockholmUniversity.

Krueger, Richard A. & Casey, Mary Anne. 2015. Focus groups. A practical guide forappliedresearch.ThousandOaks,California:SagePublications.

Nelson, Marie. In press 2016. Swedish on the Åland Islands: A non-dominant yetdominatingvariety. In:Muhr,R., ErnestaFonyuy,K., Ibrahim,Z.,&Miller, C. (Eds.).Pluricentriclanguagesandnon-dominantvarietiesworldwide:Pluricentriclanguagesacrosscontinents–Featuresandusage.Wienetal.:PeterLangVerlag.11-23.

JaneWarren,UniversityofMelbourne,AustraliaNorwich:Acityofstrangers

Acityisaplacewherepeoplecanlearntolivewithstrangers,toenterintotheexperiencesandinterestsofunfamiliarlives.(Sennett2001)

Inaneraofsuperdiversity,particularlyinurbancontexts,itisworthwhilereflectingoncitieswhereculturalandlinguisticdiversityappearsmoremuted,at leastatfirstsightandsound.Norwich,capitalofthecountyofNorfolkintheUK,isonesuchcity.Upuntilrecently,Norfolkhasbeenstereotypedasan isolated,outlyingregion,cutoff fromtherest of the UK by its location, poor transport connections and comparative lack ofindustrialisation, its population largelymonocultural,white British. The county’s self-deprecating‘NormalforNorfolk’tagforwhatoutsidersmightconsideroddbehavioursandcustoms,anditstraditionalmottoof‘Dodifferent’,pointtoaself-awarenessofandacertainprideinitsdistinctivenessandisolationfromtherestofthecountry.AcloserlookatNorwichreveals,perhapsnotunsurprisingly,arathermorecomplexandnuancedpictureofmigrationandmobility,reconfiguringthecityatdifferenttimesandindifferentways.Inthe16thcentury,forexample,immigrantsfromtheLowCountriessettledinNorwich,andbythelate1500sDutchandFrenchspeakingimmigrantsmadeupnearly40%ofthecity’spopulation.Theywereknownas‘Strangers’–awordthatinNorwichatthetimeappliedtoanyonewhowasnotpartofthecitycommunity(Meeres2012:35).This paper will investigate how and to what extent Norwich in its past and currentconfigurationsisasiteofmultilingualismanddiversity.Itwillcompareandcontrastthecity of the16th and21st centuries, twoperiodsof transnational populationmovementthathaveshapedandareshapingthelinguisticlandscapeofthecity.ReferencesMeeres,Frank.2012.Strangers.AHistoryofNorwich’sIncomers.Norwich:Norwich

HEART.Sennett,Richard.2001.NewCapitalism,NewIsolation:AFlexibleCityofStrangers.

LeMondediplomatique.Englished.February(http://mondediplo.com/2001/02/16cities)