1. Superdiverse repertoires Jan Blommaert & Ad Backus Babylon, Tilburg University

2. From competence to knowledge What is it to know a language? What is it to know a language? ‘maximal’ knowledge: fluency in multi-genres and varieties, ‘voice’ ‘maximal’ knowledge: fluency in multi-genres and varieties, ‘voice’ ‘intermediate’ knowledge: specific genres, registers, varieties ‘intermediate’ knowledge: specific genres, registers, varieties ‘temporary’ learning (age groups or e.g. via traveling) ‘temporary’ learning (age groups or e.g. via traveling) ‘minimal’ knowledge: single-word, restricted registers and functions (« sayonara », « hasta la vista »…) ‘minimal’ knowledge: single-word, restricted registers and functions (« sayonara », « hasta la vista »…) ‘recognizing’ language: attributive identity functions ‘recognizing’ language: attributive identity functions

3. All of this belongs to a repertoire: a biographical complex of functionally organised linguistic resources: repertoire as indexical biography All of this belongs to a repertoire: a biographical complex of functionally organised linguistic resources: repertoire as indexical biography And is the result of entirely different modes of acquisition And is the result of entirely different modes of acquisition From ‘encountering’ language (in informal learning environment) From ‘encountering’ language (in informal learning environment) To ‘learning’ language (in formal learning environment) To ‘learning’ language (in formal learning environment) Increasing density of ‘ephemeral’ learning processes (e.g. tourism, Facebook etc) Increasing density of ‘ephemeral’ learning processes (e.g. tourism, Facebook etc)

4. Jan’s repertoire ‘Maximum’: Dutch, English ‘Maximum’: Dutch, English ‘Intermediate’: French, German, Latin, Spanish, Swahili ‘Intermediate’: French, German, Latin, Spanish, Swahili ‘Minimal’: Japanese, Chinese, Italian, Greek, Finnish, Russian, Portuguese, a number of African languages… ‘Minimal’: Japanese, Chinese, Italian, Greek, Finnish, Russian, Portuguese, a number of African languages… ‘Recognising’: Turkish, Arabic, Korean, Northern Sami, Gaelic, Berber, Polish, Albanian, Hungarian, Czech, Serbo-Kroatian, Thai, Vietnamese, Hebrew, Yiddish, Schwytsertüütsch, several African languages… ‘Recognising’: Turkish, Arabic, Korean, Northern Sami, Gaelic, Berber, Polish, Albanian, Hungarian, Czech, Serbo-Kroatian, Thai, Vietnamese, Hebrew, Yiddish, Schwytsertüütsch, several African languages…

5. Ephemeral learning modes Ephemeral learning modes You take whatever is (cheaply) available You take whatever is (cheaply) available Assemble it into a functionally adequate variety Assemble it into a functionally adequate variety Always ‘incomplete’ and by degrees Always ‘incomplete’ and by degrees Functions: Functions: Linguistic, communicative Linguistic, communicative Indexical Indexical Emblematic Emblematic Aesthetic … Aesthetic …

6. The point... Definition of ‘language’ Definition of ‘language’ Definition of ‘competence’ Definition of ‘competence’ Understanding specific forms of diversity – not as deviation/transgression/’bad language’/wrong Understanding specific forms of diversity – not as deviation/transgression/’bad language’/wrong UG not a great basis for any of this UG not a great basis for any of this Usage-based linguistics is Usage-based linguistics is

7. My own perspective >>>>>>> Language Contact Theories Linguistic Theories 7

8. Usage-based theory about language, including language contact and change 8

9. Usage-based approach Typical approach of Cognitive Linguistics Typical approach of Cognitive Linguistics Linguistic competence is usage-based Linguistic competence is usage-based ‘ you are what you say and hear ’ ‘ you are what you say and hear ’ competence is not independent of usage competence is not independent of usage Linguistic competence is an inventory of specific and schematic units Linguistic competence is an inventory of specific and schematic units Basic aim: theory of mental representation Basic aim: theory of mental representation No different from other linguistic theories No different from other linguistic theories Language use results from cognitive processes Language use results from cognitive processes Therefore: mental representation is always part of the explanation Therefore: mental representation is always part of the explanation

10. Usage-based approach Basic hypothesis: mental representation built up on the basis of usage Basic hypothesis: mental representation built up on the basis of usage Ingredients: human cognitive skills and linguistic experience Ingredients: human cognitive skills and linguistic experience Cognitive skills: storage in memory, pattern recognition, focusing joint attention, intention reading, cooperation Cognitive skills: storage in memory, pattern recognition, focusing joint attention, intention reading, cooperation Linguistic experience (interaction): exposure (‘input’) and use (‘output’) Linguistic experience (interaction): exposure (‘input’) and use (‘output’) Competence is continuously updated; i.e. it is dynamic Competence is continuously updated; i.e. it is dynamic Repeated neuromotor routines ease processing: increasing entrenchment Repeated neuromotor routines ease processing: increasing entrenchment Competence varies between individuals, but not too much (we understand each other) Competence varies between individuals, but not too much (we understand each other) 10

11. Usage-based approach Two important characteristics: 1) no strict division between lexicon and syntax; 2) diachronic issues (as well as synchronic variation) put back in the center of linguistic theory. Historical linguistics and sociolinguistics not seen as separate disciplines anymore Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Winfried P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium, 95–195. Austin: University of Texas Press. 11

12. Entrenchment What determines degree of entrenchment?  Usage frequency (corpus frequencies) Entrenchment (online measures) Entrenchment (online measures) (e.g. Arnon, 2009; Bannard & Matthews, 2008; Bybee & Scheibman, 1999; Caldwell-Harris & Morris, 2008; Ellis & Simpson-Vlach, 2009; Tremblay, 2009) 12

13. Usage-based approach Applies: To language (Langacker, Croft, Bybee, Fillmore, Goldberg, Gries,...) To language (Langacker, Croft, Bybee, Fillmore, Goldberg, Gries,...) To many other things: fashion, trends in TV series, how to order a drink... (e.g. Bakhtin, Stockwell) To many other things: fashion, trends in TV series, how to order a drink... (e.g. Bakhtin, Stockwell) Bybee, Joan (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Stockwell, Peter (2002). Cognitive poetics. An introduction. London: Routledge. 13

14. Beyond Linguistics Memory is not just for language Memory is not just for language Usage-based approach to linguistic representation may morph into usage-based approach to knowledge representation Usage-based approach to linguistic representation may morph into usage-based approach to knowledge representation Including ‘cultural knowledge’ (the ‘brought along’ of anthropology) Including ‘cultural knowledge’ (the ‘brought along’ of anthropology) Domains would include everything that requires cognitive control Domains would include everything that requires cognitive control 14

15. Language = Cultural domain Other domains where we establish routines (* = requires communication): Fixed route to your office Fixed route to your office Order a drink in a bar * Order a drink in a bar * Establish a running route Establish a running route Dance moves * Dance moves * What to have for breakfast What to have for breakfast Where to sit in class * Where to sit in class * Crossing a street * Crossing a street * Whether or not to make stupid little jokes during a presentation * Whether or not to make stupid little jokes during a presentation * 15

16. Variation Idiolectal and group differences to be expected: Idiolectal and group differences to be expected: Linguists: metathesis, codeswitching, X-bar, usage-based model Linguists: metathesis, codeswitching, X-bar, usage-based model Mechanics : …. Mechanics : …. Linguistic competence varies from person to person Linguistic competence varies from person to person This is a consequence of: This is a consequence of: That knowledge is usage-based That knowledge is usage-based Our differing lives Our differing lives Requires synchronic and diachronic perspectives combined Requires synchronic and diachronic perspectives combined

17. Synchrony and diachrony in general linguistics Descriptive linguistics: tends to be strictly synchronic Descriptive linguistics: tends to be strictly synchronic Sociolinguistics: tends to be synchronic Sociolinguistics: tends to be synchronic If change is studied, it’s ‘change in progress’, read off from synchronic variation If change is studied, it’s ‘change in progress’, read off from synchronic variation Interactional analyses often based on agency: what is someone doing at a particular moment in time (e.g. in a particular communicative situation)? Interactional analyses often based on agency: what is someone doing at a particular moment in time (e.g. in a particular communicative situation)? Usage-based linguistics: both perspectives needed Usage-based linguistics: both perspectives needed

18. Synchrony and diachrony: change Example from Dutch Turkish: the Dutch word gedoogpartner Example from Dutch Turkish: the Dutch word gedoogpartner Interference: synchronic phenomenon: first use of the word in Turkish Interference: synchronic phenomenon: first use of the word in Turkish Continuous selection of the ‘interference’ variant: decreasing sense of cross-linguistic influence: increasing entrenchment Continuous selection of the ‘interference’ variant: decreasing sense of cross-linguistic influence: increasing entrenchment ‘Interference’ variant becomes part of the language: change in progress: any Turkish equivalent is ousted ‘Interference’ variant becomes part of the language: change in progress: any Turkish equivalent is ousted Endpoint: change (loanword) Endpoint: change (loanword)

19. Communicative factors Change results from selection in communication Change results from selection in communication Asymmetry influences communicative decisions Asymmetry influences communicative decisions Language choice Language choice Choices within interaction, within utterances Choices within interaction, within utterances Choices may be Choices may be Intentionally creative (‘proposing’ an innovation) Intentionally creative (‘proposing’ an innovation) Intentionally marked (propagating a change in progress) Intentionally marked (propagating a change in progress) Unintentionally propagating a change in progress, changing the norm without knowing it Unintentionally propagating a change in progress, changing the norm without knowing it Based on entrenchment Based on entrenchment Long-term: storage in memory Long-term: storage in memory Short-term: priming; alignment in conversation Short-term: priming; alignment in conversation

20. Propagation Language Change = change in what is unmarked (in what is the norm) Language Change = change in what is unmarked (in what is the norm) Norm/Definition of ‘language’: a structured inventory of linguistic (specific and schematic) units Norm/Definition of ‘language’: a structured inventory of linguistic (specific and schematic) units Specific units equivalent to words Specific units equivalent to words Schematic units equivalent to rules Schematic units equivalent to rules Basic hypothesis: everything is stored Basic hypothesis: everything is stored Memory traces that match current update get entrenched further Memory traces that match current update get entrenched further Disuse leads to decay: degree of entrenchment is lowered Disuse leads to decay: degree of entrenchment is lowered Challenges: Challenges: Does storage take place without conscious attention? Does storage take place without conscious attention? Every usage event is unique: when does it count as ‘the same’? Every usage event is unique: when does it count as ‘the same’?

21. Describing a norm Serious empirical problem! Serious empirical problem! Language = inventory of linguistic units in the mind of the speaker. Language = inventory of linguistic units in the mind of the speaker. Technically, one could describe one’s complete inventory, no? Technically, one could describe one’s complete inventory, no? Wrong: language is a ‘moving target’. Any complete inventory, if such were possible, would be obsolete the next second. Besides, there is no reason to privilege that one individual. Wrong: language is a ‘moving target’. Any complete inventory, if such were possible, would be obsolete the next second. Besides, there is no reason to privilege that one individual. Better to have a good theory that combines synchrony and diachrony Better to have a good theory that combines synchrony and diachrony Better to have a good theory that operates at a more cumulative level: describe the common ground (conventions) that most people (in a community) share. Better to have a good theory that operates at a more cumulative level: describe the common ground (conventions) that most people (in a community) share.

22. Why study language contact phenomena? The interesting thing about contact phenomena is that they illustrate that languages change all the time, that they are dynamic My claims: 1. Understanding change means understanding how competence or knowledge is formed (usage-based) 2. Understanding how knowledge is formed means understanding normativity 22

23. Norms and normativity Language change = Change in conventions = Change in norm Interesting thing about linguistic norms: on either side of the border of awareness (or conscious control) (Blommaert, Jan & Ad Backus 2011). Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity, Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies Paper 67) 23

24. Kinds of norms/yardsticks Individual internal norms (entrenchment) Individual internal norms (entrenchment) Cumulative shared internal norms (common ground) Cumulative shared internal norms (common ground) (Clark, Herbert 1996. Using language. Cambridge University Press) External norms (‘norm’ in the everyday sense of the word)- often codified External norms (‘norm’ in the everyday sense of the word)- often codified 24

25. What do we have norms about? Any behavior that’s under cognitive control Linguistic examples: Genre conventions (e.g. fairy tale, school/academic register, service encounters, etc. >> cf. Clark, Bakhtin, Bourdieu) Genre conventions (e.g. fairy tale, school/academic register, service encounters, etc. >> cf. Clark, Bakhtin, Bourdieu) (Briggs, Charles & Bauman, Richard (1992). Genre, intertextuality, and social power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2 (2): 131-172) Syntactic structures (jury still out?) Syntactic structures (jury still out?) Whether or not it’s okay to use particular foreign word Whether or not it’s okay to use particular foreign word Anything, really Anything, really Perhaps best source of evidence: expectancy violations, creativity, discourse about correctness 25

26. Why do we have norms? Group cohesion, culture, being normal, to belong,... 1. ‘Soft’ mechanisms 1: Coercion, Peer pressure, Accommodation, Admiring imitation, ‘just’ imitation (Eckert, Penelope (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41: 87-100) 2. ‘Hard’ mechanisms: Enforcement of standards (‘policing’) But: grey area between hard and soft But: grey area between hard and soft 26

27. What are linguistic norms like?  Many linguistic norms are adhered to automatically  They are very entrenched  Especially what’s very frequent  Deviations are more or less easily spot  Depends on how set in stone the norm is E.g. Ungrammatical word order, use of ain’t, expressions that are too formal for the situation,...  Norms can easily be brought to attention 27

28. Norms in contact situations So deviation from the norm is easy to spot So deviation from the norm is easy to spot Conscious awareness always just around the corner Conscious awareness always just around the corner Interpreted in bilingual settings as: loss/attrition, poor proficiency, influence from another language (interference) Interpreted in bilingual settings as: loss/attrition, poor proficiency, influence from another language (interference)  Negative associations cause anxiety 28

29. Judgment data Asked Dutch Turks acceptability judgments of: TR-Turkish piyano çalmak (‘hit’); and TR-Turkish piyano çalmak (‘hit’); and NL-Turkish piyano oynamak (‘play’) NL-Turkish piyano oynamak (‘play’) 29

30. Judgment data Asked Dutch Turks acceptability judgments of: TR-Turkish piyano çalmak (‘hit’); and TR-Turkish piyano çalmak (‘hit’); and NL-Turkish piyano oynamak (‘play’) NL-Turkish piyano oynamak (‘play’) And what did they say?: It should be piyano oynamak, certainly not piyano çalmak It should be piyano oynamak, certainly not piyano çalmak 30

31. Judgment data on acceptability of NL-Turkish and TR-Turkish syntactic constructions Dutch-dominant bilinguals give: lower ratings to conventional Turkish sentences, and higher ratings to unconventional sentences. 31

32. Linguistic external norms and purism Deviations trigger purism. And purism can be annoying, or harmful. Tariana: you get laughed at if you use a foreign word (Aikhenvald) Tariana: you get laughed at if you use a foreign word (Aikhenvald) Nahuatl: Hispanicized form looked at negatively; result: people hesitate to use the language, and language dies (Hill & Hill) Nahuatl: Hispanicized form looked at negatively; result: people hesitate to use the language, and language dies (Hill & Hill) But who cares anymore about French influence on English? Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hill, Jane & Kenneth Hill. 1986. Speaking Mexicano. Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 32

33. Expressions of anxiety (1) Since my Turkish is bad, I can’t express myself very well in Turkish. Some words don’t come to mind. I don’t feel comfortable when I’m talking and I get stuck. I can explain everything in Dutch better than in Turkish, that’s why I prefer to speak Dutch all the time. Backus, Ad, Derya Demirçay & Yeşim Sevinç (Forthc.) Converging evidence on contact effects on second and third generation Immigrant Turkish. To appear in Ad Backus, Carol W. Pfaff & Annette Herkenrath (eds.),Turkish in Northwestern Europe versus Turkish in Turkey. Copenhagen: Copenhagen University. 33

34. Expressions of anxiety (2) I feel comfortable while talking Dutch. I feel bad when I have to speak only Turkish, I can’t remember the words in Turkish. (Backus, Demirçay & Sevinç forthc.) 34

35. Expressions of anxiety (3) Sometimes, I try to play with my cousin’s friends there [i.e. in Turkey], and I attempt to say something but I stop. I can’t talk most of the time, because the people there know Turkish very well, but I don’t. And they mostly don’t understand what I say. And it gets worse. When I can’t explain it in Turkish, I call my mother or father and tell them in Dutch. Then, they talk to the people. That happens in Turkey often. (Backus, Demirçay & Sevinç forthc.) 35

36. What is language? No such thing as “a language”, as commonly understood. No such thing as “a language”, as commonly understood. Knowing Finnish is not the same as knowing all of Finnish Knowing Finnish is not the same as knowing all of Finnish Language is not distinct and discreetly bounded: one’s Finnish may be full of Swedish and English Language is not distinct and discreetly bounded: one’s Finnish may be full of Swedish and English Talking is a cognitive activity, and since it’s done in interaction it’s also a socio-cultural activity Talking is a cognitive activity, and since it’s done in interaction it’s also a socio-cultural activity Relies on wide inventory of resources (conventions) and abilities Relies on wide inventory of resources (conventions) and abilities Everybody talks a bit differently Everybody talks a bit differently Enough similarity safeguards communication, but it’s on a cline: all communication is ‘intercultural’ and all change is ‘contact-induced’ Enough similarity safeguards communication, but it’s on a cline: all communication is ‘intercultural’ and all change is ‘contact-induced’ Abstracting away from differences and imposing artificial boundaries gives us ‘languages’: products of socialization (equally for registers) Abstracting away from differences and imposing artificial boundaries gives us ‘languages’: products of socialization (equally for registers) But there are also built-in mechanisms that work towards similarity: accommodation, alignment, need to be understood, cooperation (from Grice to Tomasello). Result: speech communities. But there are also built-in mechanisms that work towards similarity: accommodation, alignment, need to be understood, cooperation (from Grice to Tomasello). Result: speech communities.