Cover not available
Article published In:
Literacies in Contact
Edited by Manuela Böhm and Constanze Weth
[Written Language & Literacy 23:2] 2020
► pp. 133–153

Literacies in contact

Forms, functions, and practices

| University of Luxembourg
| Karlsruhe University of Education
| University of Cologne
Research on language contact has so far mainly focused on oral situations, although standardization and language ideologies always have an important influence on multilingualism in both its written and its spoken form. This raises the question of which theoretical models are most suitable for the description of written language contact. The present paper recalls linguistic investigations of written language. Some research on multilingual writing shares concepts with research on oral language contacts, always adapting them for writing. Other research develops new concepts for investigating multilingual writing. Within the framework of research on multilingualism, some concepts approach language contact as a question of systematic interactions between linguistic systems (e.g. borrowing, code-switching, graphematic matrix, schriftdenken), other concepts envisage language contact as a multilingual practice (e.g. translanguaging, multimodal analysis, biliteracy). Written language contact is an especially fruitful field of study for pointing out major differences between these two research traditions and for bridging them.
Keywords: language contact, writing systems, writing practices, code-switching in writing, graphematic matrix, schriftdenken, translanguaging, multimodal analysis, biliteracy, biscriptality
Article outline
  • 1.The influence of writing in the perception of language
  • 2.Essentials of the linguistic investigation of writing
    • 2.1Standardization
    • 2.2Written language ideologies
  • 3.Multilingual writing as an object of investigation
    • 3.1Borrowing
    • 3.2Code-switching and translanguaging
    • 3.3Multimodal analysis
    • 3.4Biliteracy
    • 3.5Graphematic matrix
    • 3.6Schriftdenken
    • 3.7Biscriptality
  • 4.The meeting of two strands of research on multilingual writing
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00037.wet
References (79)
References
Adams, James Noel. (2003). Bilingualism and the Latin language. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos & Mathilde Hennig (eds.) (2010). Nähe und Distanz im Kontext variationslinguistischer Forschung. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Agha, Asif. (2003). The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23(3–4): 231–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, Rizwan. (2011). Urdu in Devanagari: Shifting orthographic practices and Muslim identity in Delhi. Language in Society 40(3): 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Revised and extended edition, London: Verso.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. (2013a). Code-switching in computer-mediated communication. In Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, 667–694. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism 19(2): 185–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angermeyer, Philipp S. (2005). Spelling bilingualism: Script choice in Russian American classified ads and signage. Language & Society 34(4), 493–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Bilingualism meets digraphia: Script alternation and script hybridity in Russian–American writing and beyond. In Mark Sebba, Shahrzad Mahootian & Carla Jonsson (eds.), Language mixing and code-switching in writing: Approaches to mixed-language written discourse, 255–272. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. (1988). A conversation analytic approach to code-switching and transfer. In Monica Heller (ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives, 187–213. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1998). Introduction: Bilingual Conversation revisited. In Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity, 1–24. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blom, Jan-Petter & John J. Gumperz. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Northern Norway. In John J. Gumperz & Del Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 407–434. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. (1927). Literate and illiterate speech. American Speech 2(10): 432–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Böhm, Manuela. (2018). The tyranny of orthography: Multilingualism and Frenchification at primary schools in late-nineteenth-century France. In Constanze Weth & Kasper Juffermans (eds.), Tyranny of writing: Ideologies of the written word, 63–80. London etc.: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Böhm, Manuela & Joachim Gessinger. (2003). Schriftwechsel. OBST (= Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie) 661: 11–48.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre & Jean-Claude Passeron. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Brandt, Carmen. (2016). Hindi-Urdu. In Daniel Bunčić et al., Biscriptality: A sociolinguistic typology, 149–158. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bunčić, Daniel. (2016). Biscriptality: A sociolinguistic typology. Edited by Daniel Bunčić, Sandra L. Lippert, Achim Rabus. With contributions by Anastasia Antipova, Carmen Brandt, Ekaterina Kislova, Henning Klöter, Alexandra von Lieven, Sandra L. Lippert, Helma Pasch, Achim Rabus, Jürgen Spitzmüller, Constanze Weth. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
. (2020). Jan Hus und die Traditionslinien europäischer diakritischer Zeichen. In Klaus Bochmann (ed.), Sprechen und Schreiben: Schriftsysteme und ihre linguistischen, kulturellen und politischen Dimensionen (Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historischen Klasse, vol. 84, issue 6), 52–68. Stuttgart, Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Burke, Peter. (2004). Languages and communities in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, Suresh. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal 951: 401–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, James. (1996). Socialization to text: Structure and contradiction in schooled literacy. In Michael Silverstein & Greg Urban (eds.), Natural histories of discourse, 203–228. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. (2003). Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2013). Writing and society: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana & Kristin Vold Lexander. (2013). Texting Africa: Writing as performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(4): 522–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feilke, Helmut & Mathilde Hennig (eds.) (2016). Zur Karriere von “Nähe” und “Distanz”: Rezeption und Diskussion des Koch-Oesterreicher-Modells. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. (1959). Diglossia. Word 151: 325–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara & Maria Selig. (2016). Early evidence and sources. In Adam Ledgeway & Maiden Martin (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 24–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Ofelia. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
García, Ofelia, Angel M. Y. Lin & Stephen May (eds.) (2017). Bilingual and multilingual education. 3rd edn. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Ofelia & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hölkeskamp, Karl-Joachim. (1999). Schiedsrichter, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im archaischen Griechenland. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Hornberger, Nancy H. (1990). Creating successful learning contexts for bilingual literacy. Teachers College Record 92(2): 212–229.Google Scholar
(2004). The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator: Educational linguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7(2–3): 155–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, Matthias, Ulrike Vogl & Olivier Moliner (eds.) (2012). Standard languages and multilingualism in European history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabatek, Johannes. (2005). Die bolognesische Renaissance und der Ausbau romanischer Sprachen: Juristische Diskurstraditionen und Sprachentwicklung in Südfrankreich und Spanien im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kloss, Heinz. (1967). “Abstand Languages” and “Ausbau Languages.” Anthropological Linguistics 9(7): 29–41.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. (1985). Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 361: 15–43.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, David Michael. (1997). Keeping Foucault and Derrida in sight: Panopticism and the politics of subversion. In David Michael Levin (ed.), Sites of Vision: The discursive construction of sight in the history of philoso-phy, 397–466. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Peer. (2005). The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maas, Utz. (2008). Sprache und Sprachen in der Migrationsgesellschaft: Die schriftkulturelle Dimension. Göttingen: V & R Unipress.Google Scholar
. (2010). Literat und orat: Grundbegriffe der Analyse geschriebener und gesprochener Sprache. Grazer Linguistische Studien 731: 21–150.Google Scholar
Maas, Utz & Ulrich Mehlem. (2003). Schriftkulturelle Ressourcen und Barrieren bei marokkanischen Kindern in Deutschland. Osnabrück: IMIS Universität Osnabrück.Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. (1999). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardization. 3rd edn. [1st edn. 1985]. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley & Peter Muysken (eds.) (1995). One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin. (2015). Writing systems as modular objects: Proposals for theory design in grapholinguistics. Open Linguistics 1(1): 708–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ong, Walter. (1986). Writing is a technology that restructures thought. In Gerd Baumann (ed.), The written word: Literacy in transition, 23–50. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo, Ofelia García & Wallis Reid. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6(3): 281–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, Charles A. & Rebecca Sandak. (2000). Reading optimally builds on spoken language: Implications for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 5(1): 32–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Towards a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18(7–8): 581–618.Google Scholar
Rampton, Ben. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adoloscents. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Riehl, Claudia Maria. (2005). Code-switching in bilinguals: Impacts of mental processes and language awareness. In James Cohen, Kara T. McAlister, Kellie Rolstad & Jeff MacSwan (eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 1945–1959. Somerville (MA): Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Schendl, Herbert. (2001). Code-switching in medieval English poetry. In Dieter Kastovsky & Arthur Mettinger (eds.), Language contact in the history of English, 305–335. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Christoph & Yazgül Şimşek. (2010). Die Entwicklung der Kategorie Wort im türkisch-deutsch bilingualen Schrifterwerb in Deutschland. IMIS Beiträge 371: 55–79.Google Scholar
Schulte, Michael. (2012). Pragmatic runic literacy in Scandinavia c. 800–1300: with a particular focus on the Bryggen material. In Kristel Zilmer & Judith Jesch (eds.), Epigraphic literacy and Christian identity: Modes of written discourse in the newly Christian European north, 155–182. Turnhout: Brepols. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sebba, Mark. (2007). Spelling and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Multilingualism in written discourse: An approach to the analysis of multilingual texts. Journal of Bilingualism 17(1): 97–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selig, Maria. (1997). Zu den Anfängen der altokzitanischen Urkundenschriftlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 27(4): 24–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spitzmüller, Jürgen & Daniel Bunčić (2016). German: blackletter and roman. In Daniel Bunčić et al., Biscriptality: A sociolinguistic typology, 282–300. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Spurkland, Terje. (2005). Norwegian runes and runic inscriptions. Transl. Betsy van der Hoek. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. [First published in 2001 as I begynnelsen var fuþark, Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.]Google Scholar
Street, Brian V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, Carol Bloomquist. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th edition: National norming and Performance Standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 5(4): 337–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N[ikolaj] S[ergeevič]. (1954). Altkirchenslavische Grammatik: Schrift-, Laut- und Formensystem. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Vaugelas, Claude Favre de. (2009). Remarques sur la langue françoise: Edition critique avec introduction et notes par Zygmunt Marzys. Genève: Librairie Droz. [First edition 1647: Remarques sur la langue françoise, utiles à ceux qui veulent bien parler et bien escrire. Paris: Camusat et Le Petit.]Google Scholar
Wagner, Daniel A. (1994). Literacy in a global perspective: The year 2000 and beyond. In Ludo Verhoeven (ed.), Functional literacy. Theoretical issues and educational implications, vol. 11, 473–483. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). What happened to literacy? Historical and conceptual perspectives on literacy in UNESCO. International Journal of Educational Development 31(3): 319–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weth, Constanze. (2015). Orthographic competence among multilingual school children: Writing Moroccan Arabic in France. International Journal of Multilingualism 12(2): 196–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2016). Bilinguisme et bilittéracie. In Christine Hélot & Jürgen Erfurt (eds.), L’éducation bilingue en France: Politiques linguistiques, modèles et pratiques, 565–577. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
Witten, Ilana B. & Eric I. Knudsen. (2005). Why seeing is believing: Merging auditory and visual worlds. Neuron 48(3): 489–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A. (1998). Simultaneity and bivalency as strategies in bilingualism. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8(1): 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Roger. (1993). Complex monolingualism in Early Romance. In William J. Ashby, Marianne Mithun & Giorgio Perissinotto (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on Romance languages: Selected papers from the XXI Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Santa Barbara, February 21–24, 1991, 377–388. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2016). Latin and Romance in the medieval period: A sociophilological approach. In Adam Ledgeway & Maiden Martin (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 14–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar