Operationalizing Linguistic Gratuity: From Principle to Practice

Abstract

Although there is a well-established tradition of social engagement in sociolinguistics, there is little explicit discussion of the rationale, methods, and procedures for implementing the principle of linguistic gratuity. What approaches to the dissemination of sociolinguistic information must be adopted with communities and with the general public when language diversity is interpreted in terms of a prescriptive, correctionist model? What venues, activities, and products are the most effective in dialect awareness programs? And how does linguistcommunity collaboration work on a practical level? We consider theoretical, methodological, and practical issues in sociolinguistic engagement and dialect awareness outreach programs based on a range of experience in a variety of local and general public venues. The approach is based on the principle that the public is inherently curious about language differences and that this intrigue can be transformed into informal and formal public education. It is further premised on evidence that language differences can be linked to legitimate historical and cultural legacies, and that positively framed presentations of language differences in sociocultural and sociohistorical contexts can effectively counter dominant, seemingly unassailable ideologies in non-confrontational ways. A variety of venues are considered in collaborative engagement, including video documentaries, oral history CDs, museum exhibits, formal curricular programs, and popular trade books on language differences. Challenges in operationalizing linguistic gratuity include working with the community; balancing community linguistic expertise and community perspectives; design and audience, and practical logistical issues.

Using Media to Teach About Language

“…One of the choices Hutcheson made that gave rise to this shift was to reduce or eliminate linguist commentary and narration whenever possible. This has occasionally given rise to criticism from those outside the community (see discussion in Wolfram et al. 2008); however, the lack of professional commentary and limited narration becomes an asset when using media in the classroom, as will be discussed later.…”

Collaborative Issues in Language Variation Documentaries

“…Furthermore, some of the issues severely test the notion of collaboration. As reported in Wolfram et al. (2008), our ventures have not been immune to disappointing failures in the collaborative process as well as some outstanding successes.…”

“…The nature of the collaborative relationships between linguistic researchers or documentarians and the community is always complicated, as they bring to the project different socialized backgrounds, diverse areas of interest and expertise, variant understandings of language and other behavioral phenomena, and goals and concerns that might be quite varied – and in some cases, in conflict. As Wolfram et al. (2008) note, a number of issues related to inclusion and participation affect this collaboration.…”

Making Pittsburghese: Communication technology, expertise, and the discursive construction of a regional dialect

“…Sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists come up against the issue of language making in a more immediately practical context when they discuss how to advocate for "endangered languages" (Hill 2002;Dorian et al 2002), think about the obligations of linguists and the role of "community expertise" in dialect education projects (Rickford 1997;Wolfram, Reaser, and Vaughn 2008), or become involved in legal proceedings having to do with language (Eades 2009;Fraser 2009). In all these contexts, language expertise is up for grabs.…”