Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T07:05:03.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In-group marker going out: Meaning-making in a community of practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2016

Anna Strycharz-Banaś
Anna Strycharz-Banaś*
Affiliation:
Warsztat Innowacji Społecznych (NGO), Poland
*
Address for correspondence: Anna Strycharz-Banaś, Warsztat Innowacji Społecznych (NGO), Ul. Halszki 15/21, 30-611 Kraków, Polandhanu.banas@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the linguistic aspects of the formation of a community of practice (CofP) and analyses one aspect of the common repertoire that is being actively developed within the community. On the one hand, it looks at the community itself, placing emphasis on the exact practices, beliefs, and resources that can identify a group brought together at times against their will, as a CofP. On the other, this research takes under scrutiny one specific linguistic variable (Japanese negation) to show how involvement in a CofP can bring about rapid and unexpected changes in the meaning and use of a linguistic variant. (Community of practice, indexical meaning, Japanese, negation)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 45 , Issue 5 , November 2016 , pp. 665 - 684
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Bachnik, Jane (1994). Uchi/soto: Challenging our conceptualizations of self, social order and language. In Bachnik, Jane & Quinn, Charles (eds.), Situated meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self, society and language, 3–37. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Christopher (2004). Repertoires of registers: Dialect in Japanese discourse. Language and Communication 24:355–80.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, & Hall, Kira (2004). Language and identity. In Duranti, Alessandro (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology, 369–95. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2006). Communities of practice. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics, 683–85. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, & McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:461–90.Google Scholar
Geschiere, Peter (2009). The perils of belonging: Autochtony, citizenship and exclusion in Africa & Europe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heffernan, Kevin (2012). An introduction to the corpus of Kansai spoken Japanese. Journal of Policy Studies 41:157–64.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet, & Meyerhoff, Miriam (1999). The community of practice: Theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language and Society 28(2):173–83.Google Scholar
Jones, Kimberly, & Ono, Tsuyoshi (2008). Style-shifting in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
King, Brian (2014). Tracing the emergence of a community of practice: Beyond presupposition in sociolinguistic research. Language in Society 43(1):61–81.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean, & Wenger, Etienne (1992). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lebra, Takie Sugiyama (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Kazuko, & Britain, David (2003). Contact and obsolescence in a diaspora variety of Japanese: The case of Palau in Micronesia. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 44:38–75.Google Scholar
Meinhoff, Ulrike Hanna, & Galasiński, Dariusz (2008). The language of belonging. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam & Strycharz, Anna (2011). Communities of practice. In Chambers, Jack & Schilling, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 428–47. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1990). The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strycharz, Anna (2012). Variation and change in Osaka Japanese honorifics: A sociolinguistic study of dialect contact. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
SturtzSreetharan, Cindi (2008). Osaka aunties: Negotiating honorific language, gender and regionality. In Brown, Amy & Iorio, Josh (eds.), Proceedings of SALSA XVI: 2008 Texas Linguistic Forum 52:163–73.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, & Turner, John (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, William G. & Worchel, Stephen (eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33–47. Monterey, CA: Brooks & Cole.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko (1996). An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar