Search

In this paper, we argue that critical applied linguists must work towards the materially transformative, dialogic inclusion of marginalized voices in order to create more just social relations. We show how a spatiotemporal theorization of voice as materially situated and discursively imaginative can enable a more holistic approach to including such voices. Illustrative data come from the experiences of migrant domestic workers in Hong Kong and includes their discourses, those of their employers, and those of domestic worker-led grassroots organizations. We use these data to demonstrate how different stakeholders have unequal abilities to materialize the spatiotemporal imaginaries they voice out, how academic (re)theorizations of language may not always bring about changes to the material spatiotemporal conditions of marginalized stakeholders, and why the collective voices of marginalized groups should be taken into account alongside individual voices. Implications are discussed in terms of action-oriented work that critical applied linguists can engage in to support the inclusion of migrant domestic workers' voices in particular, and the voices of marginalized stakeholders in our field more generally.

This study responds to scholarship that has examined "folk concepts" of (non)nativeness through the lens of imagined ideals of the native speaker, by proposing a framework that integrates both ideals and habits. We operationalize these concepts by drawing from the theoretical notions of chronotope, scale, and habitus. Using data from interviews with Central Asian transnational migrants, we demonstrate how attending to both the habitual and idealized aspects of speakers' metalinguistic commentary offers a more holistic approach to the study of multilingual repertoires and speakers' social positionings in relationship to (non)nativeness. Our findings demonstrate how identification as a "(non)native" speaker may become more or less important to participants depending on whether they orient to habits or ideals. We also show that speakers' use of "discourses of habit", which emphasize their less conscious linguistic behaviors, may lead to a blurring of the lines between nativeness and non-nativeness. This in turn has implications for theories of agency as resistance to linguistic marginalization, and contributes to applied issues related to language education.

Scholars have demonstrated that small-scale relatively private family decisions about language are intertwined with parental language ideologies. Using data from the context of multilingual Central Asian families--including those living in Central Asia and those living abroad--this study employs socially situated analysis of discourse and narrative inquiry to show "how" parents invoke language ideologies in justifying their decisions about their children's education and linguistic exposure. The notion of "chronotope" is used to demonstrate how parental ideologies are embedded in "images" of space, time and moral personhood. Focusing on these "images," rather than only on language ideologies, allows an incorporation of the many social factors--both linguistic and non-linguistic--involved in bottom-up language planning, and facilitates increased attention to emic perspectives. This focus also illustrates how state discourses are internalized by participants through their understandings of morality relative to other issues such as language education.