The autoethnographic framework reviewed in this article is an example of a practice that is anti-methodological and thus consistent with many of the anti-foundational premises of translanguaging theory. In addition, the central themes of the analysis are consistent with debates around reflexivity in ethnomethodology (Watson 2005, Colombo 2003, Czyzewski 1994) and approaches to conversation analysis that illuminate fundamental aspects of human sociality that lie in talk (Mazeland 2006, Heritage 5, Atkinson 19). Heritage 1984). As I sat on the chair, I saw this little boy coming from the other end of the campus kicking a soccer ball and seemingly unbothered by the few cars that drove by.
The football game itself was in many ways a form of language; an integral part of the discourse and practice of communication in natural settings. Therefore, the rise of the translingual school of thought is a welcome development, not because it is a novelty. The universalizing tendencies of the conventional scientific method are routinely imposed on all societies (including those in the global South) without proper consideration of contextual details.
The second assumption is that of reading from the center – the construction of a social world read through the eyes of the metropolis rather than through an analysis of the action of the metropolis in the rest. That we must develop "research counter-practices" relevant to the agenda of disrupting the current hegemonic rules of the research game. The author of an autoethnographic research report usually writes in the first person style, thus making himself an integral part of the research object.
I see these criticisms as biased in the sense that they evaluate the utility of autoethnography using the standards of the experimental scientific method.
Commentaries on Omphile and his Soccer Ball: Colonialism, Methodology,
Translanguaging Research
Nana Aba Appiah Amfo University of Ghana
Alan Carneiro
Autoethnography, which allows for an involvement of the readers in a personal narrative of the author, is consistent with oral narrative traditions of many African cultures. Despite the advantages of autoethnography presented so clearly by the story of Omphile and his soccer ball, the author seems to be unaware of the limitations and disadvantages of autoethnography. In the absence of note-taking or recording, the truth of the narrative, as in many autoethnographic narratives, becomes the prerogative of the author.
In the case of sociolinguistic research, the complexities of linguistic research typically arise from the reality of inequality. However, I think it is important to carefully consider what level of personal disclosure or exposure of the other person to include in my writing. And then there's the point of all this, the purpose of the author's proposals.
This worries me because the idea of 'a theory' assumes that multilingualism (in the guise of another name) in one part of the world is the same as in another. It is a position that is out of step with the rejection of the way that Indigenous (Kusch Smith, 1999) or Southern (Connell, 2007) theory and expertise (in this case of multilingualism) are appropriated in Northern discourses, repackaged and sold back in the south (Heugh, 2017). It seems to me that there is something that gets in the way of clarity, something that contributes to the apparent success and danger of.
The argument in the article against the hegemony of the scientific paradigm in current linguistic research is well founded and of great current relevance. The author of the article seems to be making a similar argument, justifiable and relevant in the eyes of this reader. That said, I have no problem with Ndhlovu's claim that “the emergence of the translingual school of thought is a welcome development because it is a novelty.
Positionality and autoreflexivity of the researcher's role in the interaction. autoethnography ii) Metalinguistic commentary and moment analysis for the analysis of translanguaging iii) Unintentional colonization by sidelining ethical considerations. A methodological argument in favor of autoethnography should be one that is robust to the different positionalities of the researcher. The rest of the interactions continue in isiZulu with some commonly used elements of English.
Autoethnography, in the applied approach reported in the paper, powerful as it is, does not allow for such metalinguistic commentary of interaction. But, as Mignolo also argues, this "situation" is often obscured by the fiction of the "detached observer."
Can the Other be Heard? Response to Commentaries on ‘Omphile and his Soccer
I welcome the invitation to the right of reply offered to me by the journal Multilingual Margins; and I thank all nine discussants who shared their thoughts on my paper "Omphile and his soccer ball: Colonialism, methodology, research and language translation". Eight of the nine discussants (Kathleen Heugh, Alan Carneiro, Manuel Guissemo, Kanavillil Rajagopalan, Zannie Bock, Lynn Mario T. Mendezes de Sousa, Nana Aba Appiah Amfo, and Torun Reite) provided what I consider to be balanced critiques that emphasize both strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Instead, he raised numerous objections that are presented in a somewhat confrontational tone that is fundamentally at odds with the views offered by all the other discussants.
The first is a rejoinder that builds on and incorporates the critical points raised by the eight discussants, who generally interact with each other. I then conclude with a brief section that reiterates my initial invitation to engage in dialectical conversations about how best to conduct social science research projects in ways that are consistent with the very contemporary anti-colonial, anti-foundational, and transformative agenda that is becoming pushed by decolonial and other like-minded scholars. In addition to confirming the motives and arguments I make, almost all eight reviewers noted some limitations - of one form or another - which are to be expected.
Most of the points raised are comments that further clarify some of my propositions that had not been fully explained; for which I am grateful.
Ball’
By Finex Ndhlovu
As Heugh (this issue) warns, the idea of a theory of translation “would return us to assumptions of the universality of knowledge and reason. A careful revision of the terminology we use to characterize translational and other allied approaches is called for, as a way to avoid obscure debates. As a member of my university's Human Research Ethics Committee, I should have had this aspect of the research at the forefront of my thinking when writing the paper, and I thank all three readers for drawing it to my attention.
But this is part of the national guidelines and local institutional requirements to conduct research with human subjects in an ethically acceptable manner. The fourth and final point I would like to address in this section concerns the researcher's gender discourse and positionality, which is evident from Torun Reite's review. I would have been surprised if this were the case, because I did not intend to be doctrinaire in my claims – although I am pleased that eight out of the nine commenters agreed with the general thrust of my thesis.
This is against the background of the dominance of Euro-modernist epistemologies that make general claims of universal relevance while turning a blind eye to the fact that they are only a part. Therefore, assessing the paper through Euro-modernist epistemology (as Don Kulick has done) misses the whole point of the argument. Part of our task is to engage with the historical debates surrounding the colonial origins of mainstream scientific methods in the context of the Global South.
We live in a very exciting era in the world of knowledge, precisely because we live in a systemic crisis that forces us to reopen the fundamental epistemological questions and look at structural reorganizations of the world of knowledge. Third, in his dismissal of the story that motivated me to write the article and the prognosis I offer for methodological innovations, Kulick (i) says that the seven-line recollection of my interaction with Omphile is far too small and unimportant to read get something meaningful out of it; and (ii). The narrative power and characteristic of autoethnography are reminiscent of the time-tested method by which members of many Africans share their identities.
Small data sets like the story I tell in the paper encourage us to pay specific attention to the small details of everyday life that may hold the potential to develop or question grand theories (Strathern, 2004: xx). It seems that Kulick, in his defense of the conventional Euro-modernist tradition of research, wants scholars of the Global South (and their communities) to be content to be providers of raw data (as evidenced by his lifelong anthropological work among Southern communities ) and not producers of new and alternative theoretical frameworks. This is a classic contradiction of the highest order - and yet not entirely surprising, as it reflects the colonial habitus of which it is a part.
Family Language Policy ten years on: A critical approach to family multilingualism
By Rafael Lomeu Gomes
Number 2
ARTICLES
