Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T18:03:07.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interplay of language ideologies and contextual cues in multilingual interactions: Language choice and code-switching in European Union institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2012

Ruth Wodak ,
Michał Krzyżanowski  and
Bernhard Forchtner
Ruth Wodak
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, County South, Lancaster LA1 4YL, [email protected]
Michał Krzyżanowski
Affiliation:
School of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, [email protected]
Bernhard Forchtner
Affiliation:
Institute of Social Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät III, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes multilingual practices in interactions inside European Union (EU) institutions. On the basis of our fieldwork conducted in EU organizational spaces throughout 2009, we explore different types of communication in order to illustrate how Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and officials at the European Commission practice and perform multilingualism in their everyday work. In our theoretical and methodological framework, we draw on existent sociolinguistic ethnographical research into organizations and interactions, and integrate a multilevel (macro) contextual and sequential (micro) analysis of manifold data (observations, field notes, recordings of official and semi-official meetings, interviews, etc.). In this way, a continuum of context-dependent multilingual practices becomes apparent, which are characterized by different patterns of language choice and which serve a range of both manifest and latent functions. By applying the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), the intricacies of the increasingly complex phenomenon of multilingualism in transnational-organizational spaces, which are frequently characterized by diverse power-related and other asymmetries of communication, can be adequately coped with. (Code-switching, multilingualism, power, institutional spaces, European Union, ethnography, discourse-historical approach, critical discourse studies)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 157 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abélès, Marc (1992). La vie quotidienne au Parlement Européen. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Abélès, Marc (2000). Virtual Europe. In Bellier, Irène & Wilson, Thomas M. (eds.), An anthropology of the European Union, 31–53. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Abélès, Marc, Bellier, Irène, & McDonald, Maryon (1993). An anthropological approach to the European Commission. Brussels: The European Commission.Google Scholar
Alvarez-Cáccamo, Celso (1998). From ‘switching code’ to ‘code-switching’: Toward a reconceptualization of communicative codes. In Auer, Peter (ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity, 29–50. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich (2006). Language conflicts in the European Union. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16(3):319–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, & Widdicombe, Susan (eds.) (1998). Identities in talk. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter (1998). Introduction: Bilingual conversation revisited. In Auer, Peter (ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity, 1–24. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter (2010). Code-switching/mixing. In Wodak, Ruth, Johnstone, Barbara, & Kerswill, Paul E. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics, 460–78. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, & Wei, Li (2007). Introduction: Monolingualism as a problem? Multilingualism as a problem? In Auer, Peter & Wei, Li (eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication, 1–14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In Speech genres and other late essays, 60–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, & Harris, Sandra J. (1997). Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellier, Irène (2000). A Europeanized Elite? An anthropology of European Commission officials. Yearbook of European Studies 14:135–56.Google Scholar
Bellier, Irène, & Wilson, Thomas M. (eds.) (2000). An anthropology of the European Union. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blackledge, Adrian, & Creese, Angela (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Blom, Jan-Petter, & Gumperz, John J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-switching in Norway. Language & Communication 21:23–36.Google Scholar
Boden, Deirdre (1994). The business of talk. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Born, Joachim, & Schütte, Wilfried (1996). Eurotexte. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brewer, John D. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Charlotte Aull (1999). Reflexive ethnography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duchêne, Alexandre (2008). Ideologies across nations: The construction of linguistic minorities at the United Nations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2000). Rules of procedure of the European Commission. Official Journal of the European Communities L 308/26 of 08/12/2000.Google Scholar
European Council (1958). Regulation No. 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community. Official Journal of the European Communities 17, 06/10/1958.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2004). Rules of procedure of the European Parliament. 16th July 2004. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2006). Code of conduct on multilingualism adopted by the bureau, 0409/2006. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman, & Wodak, Ruth (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In Dijk, Teun van (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 2, 258–84. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fishman, Joshua (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when? Linguistique 2:67–88.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan (2010). Linguistic regimes and European diversity. Keynote lecture delivered at the conference “New Challenges for Multilingualism in Europe” 2010. Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobo, Giampietro (2008). Doing ethnography. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammersely, Martyn (1992). What's wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hardy, Cynthia, & Philips, Nelson (2004). Discourse and power. In Grant, David, Hardy, Cynthia, Oswick, Clifford, & Putnam, Linda (eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational discourse, 299–316. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heller, Monica (1988). Introduction. In Heller, Monica (ed.), Code-switching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives, 1–24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heller, Monica (1995). Code-switching and the politics of language. In Wei, Li (ed.) (2007), The bilingualism reader 2nd edition, 163–176. London: Routledge,Google Scholar
Heller, Monica (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heller, Monica (2001). Critique and sociolinguistic analysis of discourse. Critique of Anthropology 21(2):117–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Monica (2003). Discourse and interaction. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah, & Hamilton, Heidi E. (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 250–64. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heller, Monica (2007a). Distributed knowledge, distributed power: A sociolinguistic structuration. Text & Talk 27(5–7):633–53.Google Scholar
Heller, Monica (2007b). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In Heller, Monica (ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach, 1–22. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1992). Women's talk in public contexts. Discourse & Society 3/ 1:31–150.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janets, & Stubbe, Michael (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Holzscheiter, Anna (2005). Power of discourse and power in discourse: An investigation of transformation and exclusion in the global discourse of childhood. Berlin: Free University of Berlin dissertation.Google Scholar
Iedema, Rick; Degeling, Pieter; Braithwaite, Jeffrey; & White, Les (2003). “It's an interesting conversation I'm hearing”: The doctor as manager. Organization Studies 25:15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia (ed.) (2010). Parliaments under scrutiny. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara (2008). Studying identity and agency: CDA, interactional sociolinguistics, narrative analysis, grounded theory. In Johnstone, Barbara & Eisenhart, Christopher (eds.), Rhetoric in detail: Discourse analysis of rhetorical text and talk, 141–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał (2010). The discursive construction of European identities: A multilevel approach to discourse and identity in the transforming European Union. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał (2011). Political communication, institutional cultures, and linearities of organisational practice: A discourse-ethnographic approach to institutional change in the European Union. Critical Discourse Studies 8(4):281–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał (2012). (Mis)communicating Europe? On deficiencies and challenges in political and institutional communication in the European Union. In Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara (ed.), Intercultural communication past and present, 185–213. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał, & Oberhuber, Florian (2007). (Un)doing Europe: Discourses and practices of negotiating the EU Constitution. Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał, & Wodak, Ruth (2010). Hegemonic multilingualism in/of the EU institutions: An inside-outside perspective on the European language policies and practices. In Hülmbauer, Cornelia, Vetter, Eva, & Bühringer, Heike (eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit aus der Perspektive zweier EU-Projekte: DYLAN Meets LINEE, 115–35. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał, & Forchtner, Bernhard (2009). Multilingualism in the EU institutions – Working paper 4. Report for the DYLAN Project. Lancaster: Department of Linguistics, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Kwon, Winston; Clarke, Ian; & Wodak, Ruth (2009). Organizational decision-making, discourse, and power: Integrating across contexts and scales. Discourse & Communication 3(3):273–302.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., & Rose, David (2008). Genre relations. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Menz, Florian (1999). Self-organisation, equivocality, and decision-making in organisations. Discourse and Society 10(1):101–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9(2):194–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumby, Dennis (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology and domination. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter; Weiss, Gilbert; & Wodak, Ruth (2000). European Union discourses on un/employment: An interdisciplinary approach to employment policy-making and organizational change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol, & Bolonya, Agnes (2001). Calculating speakers: Codeswitching in a rational choice model. Language in Society 30:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nic Craith, Máiréad (2006). Europe and the politics of languages: Citizens, migrants, outsiders. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, Robert (2003). English only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rampton, Ben; Tusting, Karin; & Maybin, Janet (eds.) (2007). Linguistic ethnography: Links, problems and possibilities. Special issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(5).Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, & Wodak, Ruth (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, & Wodak, Ruth (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 87–121. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant, & Roberts, Celia (1999). Talk, work and the institutional order: Discourse in medical, medication and management settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shore, Cris (2000). Building Europe: The cultural politics of European integration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stubbe, MariaLane, Chris; Hilder, Jo; Vine, Elaine; Vine, Bernadette; Marra, Meredith; Holmes, Janet; & Weatherall, Ann (2003). Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction. Discourse Studies 5:351–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, John (1990). Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Els, Theo (2005). Multilingualism in the European Union. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(3):263–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vine, Bernadette (2004). Getting things done at work: The discourse of power in workplace interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth (2000). From conflict to consensus? The co-construction of a policy paper. In Muntigl, Peter, Weiss, Gilbert, & Wodak, Ruth (eds.), European Union discourses on un/employment, 73–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth (2008). Introduction. In Wodak, Ruth & Krzyżanowski, Michał (eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences, 1–29. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, & Krzyżanowski, Michał (2011). Language in political institutions of multilingual states and the European Union. In Kortmann, Bernd & Auwera, Johann van der (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe, 625–41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, & Meyer, Michael (2009a). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 1–33. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Meyer, Michael (eds.) (2009b). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Kwon;, Winston & Clarke, Ian (2011). ‘Getting people on board’: Discursive leadership for consensus building in team meetings. Discourse and Society 22(5):592–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar