This article was downloaded by: [Larissa Aronin]On: 16 April 2012, At: 10:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of MultilingualismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmjm20

The material culture ofmultilingualism: moving beyond thelinguistic landscapeLarissa Aronin a & Muiris Ó Laoire ba Graduate Studies Faculty, Oranim Academic College ofEducation, Tivon, Israelb International Centre for Language Revitalization, AucklandUniversity of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Available online: 16 Apr 2012

To cite this article: Larissa Aronin & Muiris Ó Laoire (2012): The material culture ofmultilingualism: moving beyond the linguistic landscape, International Journal of Multilingualism,DOI:10.1080/14790718.2012.679734

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2012.679734

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The material culture of multilingualism: moving beyond the linguisticlandscape

Larissa Aronina* and Muiris O Laoireb

aGraduate Studies Faculty, Oranim Academic College of Education, Tivon, Israel; bInternationalCentre for Language Revitalization, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

(Received 29 July 2011; final version received 21 March 2012)

Not all the constituents of societal or individual multilingualism (speaker,language, context and environment) have been researched equally to date.Multilingualism studies up to this juncture have theorised environment mostlyas milieu, conceptualised usually in terms of people, i.e. community, family, schoolpopulations. Heretofore, the material culture of multilingualism has remainedlargely unresearched. This is surprising, since the environment of multilinguals isreplete with material artefacts and objects (including technologically-enabledmaterialities) that represent their past and present real-life realities and whichboth reflect and influence languages and change language-related practices.Complementing present approaches to understanding the ecology of the multi-lingual environment in linguistic landscape research, this theoretical paperdemonstrates that a study of materiality as a representation of its users is ofconsiderable benefit to research approaches to multilingualism.

Keywords: multilingualism; material culture; linguistically-defined object;linguistic landscape

Introduction

In recent times, research on multilingualism has not only been concerned with

purely linguistic matters, but it has also encompassed new areas of research that

have cast new light both on the phenomena of societal and individual multi-

lingualism and have opened up new avenues of understanding (Aronin & Singleton,

2012). In this paper, we argue that a deliberate focus on the study of materialities

(artefacts, objects and spaces) can contribute significantly to the investigation of

multilingualism. Notably, as we will show in this chapter, material culture manifests

social reality and social change with tangible clarity that often is inaccessible in

studies of all other aspects of multilingualism. This chapter thus underlines the

need to expand the present epistemological paradigms of multilingual landscape

research to include a focus on materialities that are linked with the ways of life in

multilingual homes, places of works and socialisation and time-spaces of wider

society.

Our aim is to focus attention on material culture that goes beyond and transcends

the linguistic landscape. Here we:

*Corresponding author. Email: larisa@research.haifa.ac.il

International Journal of Multilingualism

2012, 1�11, iFirst article

ISSN 1479-0718 print/ISSN 1747-7530 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2012.679734

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

(1) outline the essentials of material culture research;

(2) demonstrate how research into the material culture of multilingualism

extends the present epistemological paradigms of multilingual landscape

research and contributes to research of multilingualism.

A rationale for research into the material culture of multilingualism has been laid in

the two introductory works (Aronin & O Laoire, 2007, 2012). In the following

section, we will give a brief review of these and develop our theory one-step further.

Not all of the three principal components of multilingualism, i.e. speaker,

language and environment, have been researched to the same extent. Up to now

research on the environment in which multilinguals find themselves has focused

almost entirely on the dynamics of inter-relationship with other people, i.e. within a

community, family, school and a specific population. Such research has been useful

in explaining commonly occurring phenomena in the lives of multilinguals, i.e.

language shift, language attrition and language acquisition. However, this research

has excluded a focus on how multilinguals interact with both their immediate and

distant physical and material environments. This seems to us a big omission since we

live amidst materialities, which permeate human existence and accompany useverywhere from birth until the end of our lives. Material culture modifies our

existence to a considerable effect.

The new research direction on Linguistic Landscape seemed to fill this gap at

least to an extent. So far, research in the linguistic landscape has concerned itself in

the main, but not exclusively so, with language in public spaces. Thus studies have

emerged in recent years that focus on the texts of language displayed, for example, on

shop windows, commercial signs, posters and official notices etc. An increasing

number of researchers have scrutinised these texts in various cities around the world

where the cultural, socio-economic and political circumstances vary considerably

(e.g. Gorter, 2006). One of the key findings, of course, is that multilingualism turns

out to be an important dimension of the linguistic landscape in almost all these

contexts. Studies of the linguistic landscape up to now have been concerned not only

with describing and analysing the language of public text, but it has also been a

prism through which the phenomena of multilingualism can be studied. The

importance of English as a global language, made visible through its dominant

and ubiquitous presence in the linguistic landscape, has been highlighted through

this research, as has the status of particular languages that appear in public space. Ithas also prompted debate on issues and questions around regionalisation and

localisation (Gorter, 2006, p. 82), policy and terminology. One important ingredient

in the research to date has been the question of society. What does the linguistic

landscape tell us about the society/community which hosts the landscape? The

landscape on computer screens has also been included since this is shared by society

in general. Thus multiple perspectives have been brought to bear on language in the

public space, i.e. linguistic, sociological and sociolinguistic. No doubt, linguistic

landscape studies opened up a potential of insight and collected a valuable database

of facts. Studies to date have inevitably confronted at some point the connection of

linguistic landscape to the traditions and events of both early and late history.

Coupland and Garrett (2010) in their linguistic landscape study went beyond the

commonly used analysis of public space texts arguing that ‘we have to go beyond the

documentation of ‘‘which languages are used where’’’ (Coupland & Garrett, 2010, p.

31). In their account of Welsh language and culture as displayed in public spaces in

2 L. Aronin and M. O Laoire

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

Patagonia, they developed and deployed a qualitative, frame-analytic method which

allowed them to trace, demonstrate and explain the changes from the mid-nineteenth

century in the Welsh colony in Patagonia to the current situation in this location

influenced by the global transformations. They broadened their focus to includemultimodal aspects and discursive frames which embrace the fundamental identity

markers in minority language contexts rooted in the past, such as festivals, folkloric

rituals and traditions (e.g. the Welsh Eisteddfod, Eisteddfod Genedlaethol Cymru).

The objects of interest would include domestic utensils, national costumes, street

signs, oral narratives, dance etc.

By drawing attention to the importance of exploring the material culture of

multilingualism, it is possible to unveil yet another aspect and layer of multi-

lingualism and acquire a database of solid tangible evidence on it.

What is the material culture of multilingualism?

In simple words, material culture is the core and ineluctable constituent of human

life. Material culture is the realm of physical items, produced by humans as well as

events and spaces interconnected by and with local and global mentality, culture,

tradition and social life. The objects (or artefacts) include everyday life objects such

as food and utensils, furniture and pieces of art, weapons and medical devices,medications, books and clay tablets of the past, pens and carpenter tools,

monuments and buildings.

The study of material culture has its origins in disciplines linked with the study of

history. It has received much attention from archaeologists, historical geographers

and recently from ethnographers. Developments in information and communication

technologies have also resulted in more investigative studies of materialities. The

value and potential of materialities are being recognised more and more, not only for

their symbolic and culture-specific value, but also as being important socialparameters in themselves (cf. Rathje & Cullen, 1992). Material culture study is the

study of artefacts and objects as well as landscapes, cityscapes, roadscapes, villages,

localities, dwellings, private households and collective homes, public spaces and ways

of their organisation and use. Researchers in material culture scrutinise the qualities

of artefacts, the use and production of objects and compare them. Close attention

is paid to the position of investigated artefacts in space and how they are located in

relation to each other (e.g. left, right, on top of the other, etc.). The artefacts are

often compared with each other, interpretations are offered as to modes of use (whenthey are jettisoned or preserved), and the study of human interaction with material is

included in the methodology. Rituals and events are also included in the purview of

material culture studies where materialities are seen as a reflection of identity,

individual and group values: ideas, morals, ethics and standards.

Notably with the advent of globalisation not only has the number and scope of

objects used by the humans increased exponentially, but a new set of material objects,

conditions and new contemporary events and rituals have been developed. A new set

of materialities such as TV, computers, emailing, Internet, newspapers, and textinghave appeared that are recognisably related to societal shifts caused by globalisation.

No wonder that the interest in material culture solely from the historical viewpoint,

as a discipline interested in extant objects from previous epochs in order to

understand the past, is gradually turning to the present, especially the brand of

studies influenced by the writings of Claude Levi-Strauss and Michel Foucault.

International Journal of Multilingualism 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

The multiple definitions of material culture suggest the idea of alliance,

belonging, association, grouping of people and collective visions of culture, custom

and order in connection with the objects (see e.g. Deetz, 1977, p. 10; Lawn &

Grosvenor, 2005, p. 7; Marshall, 1981, p. 17). Such definitions point to a common

premise in the existence of interaction, interrelationship between objects and beliefs,

objects and ways of life, objects and human behaviour, objects and identity. Bronner

(1985) explicitly equated material culture with interaction. He wrote:

A craft, a house, a food that comes from one’s hands or heart, one’s shared experiencewith other people in a community, one’s learned ideas and symbols, visibly connectspersons and groups to society and to material reality around them. That interaction ismaterial culture [. . .] It is inherently personal and social, mental and physical. It is art,architecture, food, clothing and furnishing. But more so, it is the weave of these objectsin the everyday lives of individuals and communities (Bronner, 1985, p. 129, emphasisadded)

Material culture of multilingualism comprises materialities relating to multilingual

way of existence, whether by individuals or by societies. Since multilingualism is the

current linguistic dispensation under which most of the world population lives

(Aronin & Singleton, 2008), material culture of multilingualism is seen to have

relevance worldwide. Especially considering the recent global shifts, the expansion

and transformations in material culture inventory, material culture exploration is

increasingly (and may be paradoxically in effect) much more about people than is

seen on the surface. Thus it can contribute all the more to the domain of

multilingualism that is concerned with individuals and groups using and sharing

different languages.

Singling out the material culture of multilingualism for the purposes of study of

individuals and languages in contemporary societies must be accompanied by a

delineation of its distinctive framework and agenda. In a multilingual society,

material culture is a specific blend of materialities, originating from many cultures

which constitute a multilingual society. They may be shared by sub-communities of

the bigger community or society or indeed may indicate the differences between

them. Firstly, we believe that the primary focus of material culture of multilingualism

studies should be chiefly on the present, although the historical dimension as stated

earlier is of interest too. Secondly, the spotlight of investigation should be on the use

and meaning of artefacts, on how objects function for people in multilingual society,

rather than in how people design and produce artefacts. Due to contemporarytechnological developments, a considerable part of the interest of researchers in

material culture of multilingualism will obviously lie in the domain of technology,

that is, technology-generated artefacts, events and spaces, such as CDs, cable TV,

telephones. Taking into consideration that sound is also material, a variety of

materialities are also of interest. Among these are multilingual sound productions,

such as audio recorders where one chooses the language to listen to explanations of

exhibitions, and voicemail in organisations (here is the menu for your call, for

Russian � press one, for Hebrew press two, for English press three) and museum

multilingual guide devices.

If we wish to pursue this new direction of research in multilingualism, we first

have to identify the exact subjects of interest. In other words, which artefacts are to

be considered multilingual? Which objects are relevant to multilingual investigation,

i.e. those which meaningfully (for an individual or for a society) relate to more than

4 L. Aronin and M. O Laoire

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

one language? Such objects may have different degrees of languages actually

represented in them as we will see later, but the relationship between verbal and

material ingredients is crucial in them. Human perception of artefacts of multilingual

material culture blends their ‘thing’ properties such as form, size, material they are

made of, and function with the language constituent.

The objects and phenomena relevant to multilingualism have been identified as

follows (Aronin & O Laoire, 2007, 2012):

(1) Certainly, those with texts, sentences, letters, hieroglyphs and various scripts

inscribed, carved, images with adjacent writings. Therefore stamps, books,

and other published production, such as billboards and paper ads in public

places, on billboards inside dwellings, as well as spaces, dwellings, cityscapes,

and even human bodies are all considered.

Let us take as an illustration a ruble, the unit of currency in the former Soviet Union.

It is a classic example in this case; since unlike other multilingual currencies, the ruble

of the Soviet times contained inscriptions in as many as 15 titular languages of the

former USSR.

The verbal part of this everyday material object contains words in 15 languages

(Russian on top in a big font and of the indigenous languages of the 14 republics of

the former Soviet Union below). If you read the text in several languages ‘just as a

text’, it makes no sense apart from the fact that it is really interesting to know how

the phrase ‘a hundred rubles’ is translated into Uzbek, Kirghiz, Ukrainian or

Latvian. The three-dimensionality of the banknote, however, thin it is, its pragmatic

economic function, unequivocally places it into the category of things rather than

just texts, and, as such, this banknote object bears significantly different functions

other than a textual one not ‘burdened’ with material dimension. The unity of

material and language constituents in this banknote are clear as the words on the

banknote make sense only when regarded and taken together with the material on

which they are inscribed as a single entity. The banknote itself loses its specificity

without these words. It is also easy to trace the historical and societal changes with

the help of this kind of material culture objects, if we compare the aforementioned

artefact with the contemporary banknotes circulating in the geographically same

location of Russian Federation, and with other world currencies.

(2) An object does not have to contain inscriptions in two or more languages to

be considered multilingual. The environment of an object containing objects

with other languages within the same situation or in a meaningful physical or

emotional proximity as well as sounds of other languages (which are material

too) has to be taken into consideration in judging the object as multilingual.

For an object to be ‘multilingual’ one (or two or more) language(s) may be

actually present in it, provided the environment contains yet anotherdominant language. The same point is applicable, of course, to the bilingual

objects, and ‘more-lingual’ objects which may have an inscription in one

language coupled with the environment of the other language(s).

Consider the choice of medications and creams in two different households in the

same social milieu in Israel (official languages Hebrew and Arabic). The representa-

tives of families using these material culture objects study in the same class at the

International Journal of Multilingualism 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

college. Figure 1a is provided by a multilingual whose mother tongue is Russian and

whose other languages actively used in everyday life are Hebrew and English; the

medication labels contain English, Latin, Hebrew and Russian. Figure 1b is provided

by a multilingual of mixed Arabic and Czech origin using Arabic as a mother tongue

and Hebrew and English on a daily basis; the tubes are inscribed in Czech, English

and Hebrew.

The individual differences in the cultural and linguistic reality of each household

and family, their uniqueness and specificity are clear when we compare these two

pictures.

(3) Objects which do not have anything written or inscribed in or on them may

also come within the purview of research on multilingualism. The following

example comes from an individual of mixed Czech and Arab origin living in

Israel and studying English as her future profession. The family maintains

both cultures � Arab and Czech. ‘There was one thing that has no wordswritten on it, or heard from it, but I can think of it, only in Czech because it is

totally connected to the Czech culture and traditions: ‘‘Vanocni cokruvi’’

(Christmas cookies’). (Figure 2, Ameenah Hilow 2011). All the three kinds of

material objects display the unity of material and language constituents. It is

also clear that the objects are in a mutual interrelationship with social

arrangements and demonstrate them in a physical form.

To embrace the understanding of what can be considered to be a material culture

object and which properties it possesses, we proposed to term such an object as ‘a

language-defined object’. We put forward the definition of a language-defined object

‘as a meaningful wholeness of material and verbal components considered as a

representation of its user or users, exclusively in relation to its linguistic environ-

ment’. (Aronin & O Laoire, 2007; 2012).

Figure 1. (a and b) Medications and creams used in two multilingual households in Israel.Source: Field work task Oranim Academic College of Education.Medications, Polina Lednichenko; Creams, Ameena Hilow.

6 L. Aronin and M. O Laoire

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

Defining the main directions and priorities

Research on material culture can be performed in various related disciplines in

multilingualism such as sociolinguistics, linguistic landscape, didactics, pedagogy,

applied linguistics and psycholinguistics. It will merge with the existing investiga-

tions on text authenticity, teaching aids, classroom culture and extent of

acculturation. The first step would be a descriptive study of objects; this, in turn,

informs subsequent phases which are analysis, classification and comparative

studies.

The avenues of interest suggested here include:

(1) language-defined materialities and their classifications: ranging from the less

tangible to the more tangible, from sound, air waves, to stone carvings,

buildings, the human body, the Internet or virtual materiality.

(2) multilingual material culture in dwellings: including private households and

public places such as schools, community halls, universities.(3) multilingual material culture of places. These would embrace cityscapes,

roadscapes, villages, localities, linguistic landscapes.

(4) multilingual urban environments. Particularly extensive multilingual visibility

in cityscapes.

(5) material culture of learning dealing with artefacts and places of learning and

teaching, such as class material culture, the ‘authentic’ texts and vocabulary,

learning aids, etc.

(6) studies on historical perspectives might be interested in detecting the changesin the artifacts and objects used at various time periods as well as the

attitudes to the presence or absence of these changes.

(7) attitudes to the facts of presence or absence of multilingual language-defined

materialities, in places, dwellings or during processes.

(8) interpretation of individual and collective identities, including beliefs,

attitudes and identity as reflected via material objects and proxemics.

Figure 2. Vanocni cokruvi [Christmas cookies].

International Journal of Multilingualism 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

(9) examination of the relationship between the language and material ingre-

dients in multilingual material culture artefacts.

Material culture of multilingualism as evidence

Use of material culture data in studies of multilingualism has the specific potential of

this new domain of study of contemporary people and societies. In line with other

domains of knowledge, the materialities of multilingualism can be of use to

researchers as evidence and tools for measurement. In fact, their potential as a

research tool seems to be extraordinary. Materialities meet the need of multi-

lingualism studies in ‘solid’, unambiguous evidence. In addition to the traditional

‘soft data’ used in sociolinguistic research, mostly based on self-reports, question-naires, interviews, recollections and surveys, material objects and artefacts, being

part of everyday experience, will probe deeper into everyday life. Multilingualism

certainly poses challenges for researchers. It is well-known for its elusiveness and

complexity. In these circumstances, being aware only of the presence or absence of

certain multilingual materialities gives valuable insights into the character of

multilingualism in particular settings. Of course, the analysis of material culture,

like the analysis of all other data, depends to a considerable extent on interpretation,

perception and theoretical frameworks of the researcher. Nevertheless, materialculture seems sometimes to be a more reliable source of evidence than other sources.

Linguistically defined objects always represent culture and in this sense they

represent not only multilingualism but also multiculturalism. But linguistically

defined objects differ from other cultural objects in that they include the linguistic

component. It dispels doubts about how an object belongs exclusively to any culture

we might try to define. The linguistic component not only adds to the quality of

the object, but it also transforms and defines its nature. Words or signs in the

linguistically defined object make it more focused, exact and specific than any merecultural object. What is written or inscribed as well as they way it is written or

inscribed on a linguistically defined object bears specific meaning.

Awareness of the ‘language-defined’ material objects will also help us to

distinguish between multilingualism in various countries with more precision.

Interpretation of evidence, also in connection with other data, is beneficial, as

artefacts are recognised as ‘. . . a mirror of culture, a code from which the researcher

can infer beliefs, attitudes, and values’ (Bronner, 1985, p. 131) to which we may add

economic and political needs. The material objects reflect not only interests andneeds, but also skill sets, wider community ideologies, the individual’s assumptions,

beliefs, and habitual behaviours. The things we surround ourselves with and use daily

or, by contrast, items we use only for holidays, or only within the family but not with

guests or vice versa, may immediately display our inward selves to the outside world.

It is common knowledge that the traditional measurements of multilingualism are

to a large extent approximate and often problematic to administer. Notoriously, the

estimates in the sociolinguistic aspect of multilingualism, such as data on the number

of multilingual countries, multilingual people and languages used and mastered by anindividual, are extremely approximate and ‘too’ positivistic. In applied linguistics,

exact quantification is simply impossible when looking into biliteracy and multi-

literacy, automaticity, ease and fluency in two or more languages, levels of mastery of

a language, etc. Other phenomena are equally not clear-cut and unsuitable for precise

measurements. In such circumstances material culture measurements, however,

8 L. Aronin and M. O Laoire

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

imperfect they may be, are an important addition to research methodologies, thereby

reducing and diminishing uncertainties. Measurement is particularly welcome in the

study of the linguistic landscape to extract essential information components from the

voluminous database of photographs collected from many parts of the world. This

could include, for example, counting and comparing the numbers of multilingual

objects in an apartment or quantifying how many object of various categories are

found in a particular context, say in a monastery, e.g. 300 books, 4 glasses with

inscriptions, 10 embroideries in three languages, etc.

How can we approach more exact measurement? Measurement may entail

registering the occurrences and the mode of use of objects relevant to multilingualism

noting the degree of involvement of particular multilingual objects in a certain place,

or usage within a time period in an individual’s or group’s life. These variables are

measurable in principle in their capacity for objectified human feelings, customs and

ideas and speak volumes to the interested researcher. By way of example, we may

discuss the pilot studies in material culture by the multilingual students of the M.Ed.

programme at Oranim Academic College. The students are not novices in teaching

and they consciously build their home environment, see after the education of their

children and confidently navigate their way through the mixture of cultures,

traditions and global influences. Acting as researchers in materialities of multi-

lingualism the students were surprised to discover that their homes and lives contain

so many linguistically defined objects. According to their feelings and reports, the

objects are repositories of family and personal narratives for them. Another discovery

they make is the de facto state of things concerning the role of languages and their

corresponding cultures, which they obviously misjudged before referring to the

material culture method of research. The crude and simple procedure of identifying

and counting the linguistically defined objects in their homes has led the student-

researchers to realise the place of English language and culture as well as other

languages and cultures in their lives and to make conclusions, such as the following:

After collecting artifacts, I now realize that material culture gives a voice to languageand culture. Although so much of the life we care about takes place at home, this privatespace surrounds us with so much culture that we are usually unaware of it. Byinterpreting culture through an analysis of artifacts it lead to quite different kinds ofinformation. First I now understand that the relationship of behavior to the materialworld is far from passive. Artifacts are active voices which present our attitudes andbehavior.

Consciously or unconsciously various cultures are brought into our lives. In a sense theypossess our homes. I found that although my husband and I thought we wereencouraging Arab culture, it was quite the opposite. I found many artifacts from theEnglish, Russian and Jewish cultures. It is amazing how analysis of artifacts has givenme an insight into my family’s attitude towards the world.Amel Dabbab: January 2010, Fieldwork report on material culture

Such a testimony to rethinking one’s long-term assumptions about one’s actual

multilingual lifestyle and results of efforts regarding the multilingual reality

prompted this particular young multilingual researcher to say: ‘It is powerful to

make statements with artifacts’. The notion of ‘density of artifacts’ can be of

practical help. The potential of mapping, comparing the density of same or similar

forms in certain localities, seems promising in ‘having one’s finger on the pulse’ of

multilingualism and understanding variation across space and change in time.

International Journal of Multilingualism 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

The research direction of material culture of multilingualism is waiting for creative

ideas; the field is excitingly fresh for forthcoming researchers. An example of one of

the researcher’s students (referred earlier in this chapter) comes to mind here. After

being introduced to this sub-field of multilingualism these student came up with avariety of classifications of multilingual objects and locations of interest: different

zones of one’s house or apartment such as a study, a dining room, a nursery room; a

school and a class, a library and a car, the corridors of a college. Simple counting of

linguistically-defined objects in one’s multilingual house revealed a reality somewhat

different from what the family members thought they were constructing.

One can also research the ways that material culture objects or events are used.

Materialities are used in a variety of modes: rarely, never, often. Some are

manipulated, moved and staged upfront while others are forgotten or hidden andyet others are not used but kept as memories. Studying consumption patterns of

multilingualism may also bring understanding of how cultures become blended and

‘attached’ to languages in materialities. Thus, insights can be gleaned from materials

in such physical contexts and permutations into multilingual identity and multi-

lingual community shared mindsets. Languages are too emotionally charged for

people and the traditional way of eliciting information about the use of languages

from people- questionnaires and interviews does not seem to be ultimately objective.

Beyond the linguistic landscape

As mentioned in previous sections, it follows that material culture studies can and

should expand far beyond the present research scope of Linguistic Landscape. Thereare a number of reasons for this. Virtually all the physical world surroundings

contain linguistically defined and linguistically marked objects and events, which are

the products of and exist in particular time and space. The scope of materialities

study exceeds the linguistic landscape format, since material culture objects are

found both in private homes and governmental offices, albeit in areas both open and

closed to the public. The objects as considered in this chapter are not limited to

boards, advertisements and posters, but include furniture and private possessions,

cosmetics and medications, architectural complexes and separate buildings, roadsand regions. Material culture also includes events and time-spaces which are not

limited to streets and public boards. Physical environment includes not obviously

tangible phenomena such as sound waves and smells, organisations decisions in

events and procedures involving ordering in time. Materialities, in fact, cover the

existence as a whole, be it the existence of an individual or a community. A very

important consideration for going beyond linguistic landscape is the fact that

material culture studies have a solid and time proven theoretical foundation in

sociology and ethnology studies. It fits multilingualism studies very well on the onehand, and, on the other hand, it employs and adapts the theories of material culture

for the phenomena of multilingualism. In its turn, research into material culture of

multilingualism will enrich and propel theories on society, culture and global shifts.

Conclusion

In this paper we continue to argue for additional avenue in multilingualism studies,

that of material culture. We advocate focusing on the study of contemporary

artefacts, objects and spaces including those related to the new technologies,

10 L. Aronin and M. O Laoire

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12

language and written and aural productions. To define a multilingual material

culture item, we propose the term ‘language-defined objects/artifacts’. A language-

defined object is understood as a meaningful wholeness of its material and verbal

components considered as a representation of its user or users, exclusively in relationto its linguistic environment. Material culture studies can contribute to investigation

of multilingualism in the following ways:

(1) serve as being essentially representative evidence;

(2) offer additional opportunities of measurement;

(3) provide new vistas for insights and approaches beyond the traditional ones.

Complementing present approaches to the understanding of the ecology of themultilingual environment in linguistic landscape research, a study of materiality as a

representation of its users may be of considerable benefit in all kinds of language

situations. Finally, a focus on the material culture underlines need to understand the

changing interface of multilingual interactions and environments.

References

Aronin, L., & O Laoire, M. (2007, September). The material culture of multilingualism. Paperpresented at the 5th International Conference on Third Language Acquisition andMultilingualism, University of Sterling, Scotland, UK

Aronin, L., & O Laoire, M. (2012). The material culture of multilingualism. In D. Gorter,H.F. Marten & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape(pp. 299�318). Basingstroke: Palgrave-MacMillan

Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2008). Multilingualism as a new linguistic dispensation.International journal of multilingualism, 5(1), 1�16.

Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2012). Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Bronner, S.J. (1985). Visible proofs: Material culture study in American folkloristics. In

T.J. Schlereth (Ed.), Material culture: A research guide (pp. 127�153). Lawrence, KS:University Press of Kansas.

Coupland, N., & Garrett, P. (2010). Linguistic landscapes, discursive frames and metaculturalperformance: The case of Welsh Patagonia. In L. Aronin &. D. Singleton (Guest eds.),Special Issue The Diversity of Multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage, 205, 7�36

Dabbab, A. (2010). Field work report on material culture. Unpublished manuscript, OranimAcademic College of Education, Israel.

Deetz, J. (1977). Material culture and archaeology � What’s the difference? In L. Ferguson(Ed.), Historical archaeology and the importance of material things (pp. 9�12).Columbia, SC: Special Publication Series 2, Society for Historical Archaeology.

Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Hilow, A. (2011). Field work task. Unpublished document. Oranim Academic College ofEducation, Israel.

Lawn, M., & Grosvenor, J. (Eds.). (2005). Materialities of schooling: Design, technology,objects, routines. Oxford: Symposium Books.

Marshall, H. (1981). Folk architecture in Little Dixie: A regional culture in Missouri. Columbia,MO: University of Missouri Press.

Rathje, W.L., & Cullen, M. (1992). Rubbish!: The archaeology of garbage. New York, NY:Harper Collins.

International Journal of Multilingualism 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lar

issa

Aro

nin]

at 1

0:35

16

Apr

il 20

12