Browsing by Author "Pretorius, Charne"
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemThe discursive construction of Goldfields residence : an assemblage of change agents, an apartheid chronotope and a convivial multiculture(Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2020-03) Pretorius, Charne; Oostendorp, Marcelyn; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of General Linguistics.ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Documenting readers’ responses to linguistic landscapes (LLs) is a common field of enquiry in linguistic landscape studies (LLS) (cf. Garvin, 2010; Lou, 2009; Malinowski, 2009). However, these studies have predominantly served to determine the LL for the participants and have drawn their attention to multilingual signage in an attempt to uncover the singular intention behind a sign. Given that meaning is “radically indeterminate” (Pennycook, 2017:279), it seems futile to continue following an approach of this kind. Bock and Stroud (2018:24) suggest an alternative whereby one collects a “force field” of meanings and readings of the LL. This thesis aims to rise to this “provocative challenge” (Malinowski, 2018:224) by focusing on individual interpretations of the LL. In order to give prominence to participants’ experiences of the LL (Tuan, 1977), methods such as the participatory photograph interview (Kolb, 2008) are implemented. The specific place under investigation in this thesis comprises the communal areas of Goldfields Residence at Stellenbosch University (SU), South Africa (SA) ‒ the first residence designated for coloured students and first mixed-gender university housing. Through embracing multiple interpretations of the LL of Goldfields Residence, it is possible to observe the complex ways in which the LL endows the chosen space with meaning, thereby discursively constructing it into a particular place (Lou, 2007:174; Tuan, 1977:6). Apart from myself, the participants included two postgraduate linguistics students and six Goldfields residents. The reader will experience the discursive construction of Goldfields in three parts, each from a different perspective. In each part, the participants assume ‘an expert role’ (Kolb, 2008), taking responsibility for determining what constitutes the LL and subsequently for analysing what they had identified in order to enable them to share their perspective of the discursive construction of Goldfields. Interestingly, participants identified very few linguistic items as part of the LL but rather foregrounded the architecture, the furniture and those areas in the residence hall in which interactions customarily take place. In a process akin to grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), I was led to Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of ‘chronotope’ and Gilroy’s (2006b) construct of ‘convivial multiculture’ in describing the complex discursive construction of the residence hall. The findings suggest that spaces of spoken language interactions and objects often communicate more meaning to participants than do written language in place. This finding adds to a growing body of research that foregrounds people in place in LLS. In addition, the study offers food for thought for language policy makers by expanding the approach to include verbal understandings of place instead of focusing on public signage. It would seem that creating environments in which people are able both to have dialogue and to engage with one another is just as important as deciding on which particular languages to use.