Brutt-Griffler, J., & Davies, C. E.
(Eds.). (2007). English and ethnicity.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
This compilation of studies takes on
the interaction of English with and across ethnicities. The majority of
research in this collection comprises essays that employ ethnographic
dimensions.
Parts of the volume are definitive
of their content and intent. Headings include Framework (pp. 19-106), Representation
(pp. 107-158), Contexts (pp. 159-216), and Connections (pp. 217-300) for parts
1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. An interesting feature in this collection is the
deliberate manifestation of attempts to respond to the challenges of certain
traditional assumptions and frameworks. That is to say, conceptualizations of
the notions of identity, ethnicity and language, though intricate, must be
exclusively identifiable in methods and analysis. In addition, the studies
suggest that such conceptualizations must transcend “race” and show
perspectives on current ideological struggles in different areas.
The reported dynamism in incorporating new variables is
shaping a better understanding in the field. It has been recognized in this
volume that trends on analyses considered conversation analysis, or discourse,
as some studies took a “sociolinguistic turn”. Social organization is also
considered to have links to ethnicity and language use. This has brought out ‘creative’
aspects of language use by speakers in their respective speech community and
community of practice. Sadly, studies that considered possible acculturation on
ethnicities in an English dominant, i.e., workplace, setting are unavailable.
This perspective can be justified with the globalization of English use across
borders and setting.
These developments show a dominant picture of diversity.
The editors, however, felt that diversity, of individuals and groups, does not
necessary equal to hybridity. They safely placed the volume by saying that
English “serves in many complex ways as a resource for the representation of
ethnicity as an aspect of sociocultural identity” (p.11). Furthermore, the
language in study is “simultaneously both a unifying and diversifying force”
(p. 11).
