Multisensory discourse resources : decolonizing ethnographic research practices

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Multisensory discourse resources : decolonizing ethnographic research practices © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published version Boivin, Nettie Boivin, N. (2023). Multisensory discourse resources : decolonizing ethnographic research practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 44(6), 526-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1841215 2023 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20 Multisensory discourse resources: decolonizing ethnographic research practices Nettie Boivin To cite this article: Nettie Boivin (2020): Multisensory discourse resources: decolonizing ethnographic research practices, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1841215 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1841215 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 19 Nov 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 60 View related articles View Crossmark data Multisensory discourse resources: decolonizing ethnographic research practices Nettie Boivin Department of Language and Communication Studies, Jyvaskyla University, Jyvaskyla, Finland ABSTRACT Researchers have attempted to address the intersection of multisensory and multimodal discourse practices from an interactional perspective. This study argues for the value of experiential, non-interactional multisensory discourse resources and proposes a conceptual framework of multisensory discourse resources to bridge visual and family language ideology ethnography. A year-long ethnographic case study of three Nepalese families (immigrant and transmigrant), consisting of 150 h of observational data triangulated with qualitative interviews, posed two questions: (1) How do transnational families, in the homescape, use multisensory discourse resources to provide cultural, national, religious, and ethnic identity framing? (2) How can transnational migrant and multilingual family language researchers ethically collect and analyse multisensory discourse resources as qualitative data? The findings highlight experiential multisensory discourse resources as threads of identity in the home that have yet to be fully recognised as research evidence by family language ideology and visual ethnography researchers. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 6 July 2020 Accepted 16 October 2020 KEYWORDS Multisensory discourse; transnational; decolonising ethnography Multisensory discourse resources: overlooked evidence Recently, there has been much discourse around the notion of conceptualising multisensory practices across the fields of sociolinguistics, family language, and cultural and visual ethnography (Pennycook 2018). These new studies are an important expansion into the field of multisensory research, mostly from the perspective of the fixed interactional process (Dicks 2014; Pink 2011). However, for ethnographers who investigate the language ideology of multilingual transnational families in the homescape (Boivin 2020; Tompkins 2001), evidence and data in the form of sensory discourse (taste, smell, sight, sound, and touch) are often overlooked. The homescape allows the choice of which picture they display in a certain room, the smell of certain foods, the sound of particular oral religious or cultural practices, and the touch of certain beads hanging on a wrist are all parts of the discourse families and individuals use during particular seasonal moments (Boivin 2020). The homescape extends from the notion of linguistic landscape. However, it highlights a privacy, sense memory and identity framing (to be unpacked later) not always available in LL. This study will examine these multisensory discourse resources as data in the home that is overlooked. Moreover, in the pursuit of decolonising research, the aim of balancing all modes inherent in communication rather than valuing language over other modes is a progressive step (Pennycook © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. CONTACT Nettie Boivin nettie.l.boivin@jyu.fiDepartment of Language and Communication Studies, Jyvaskyla University, Athenaeum, Building A, Seminaarinkatu 15 PO Box 35, Jyvaskyla, Finland, FI-40014 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1841215 2018). Investigating the modes, artefacts, and semiotic resources that highlight knowledge, values, and cultural practices are important in the fields of ethnography and family language ideology (Canagarajah 2006). They can be viewed as threads of the webs of meaning (Geertz 1973) and the unconscious patterning of behaviour (Sapir 1929) that connect families to past and present social communities. The aims of this study are twofold. The first aim is to define and examine multisensory discourse resources. The second aim is to clarify how multidisciplinary ethnographic research teams can apply multisensory discourse resources as data when they examine transnational multilingual identity framing. Hence, the study investigates two questions: (1) How do transnational families, in the homescape, use multisensory discourse resources to provide cultural, national, religious, and ethnic identity framing? (2) How can transnational migrant and multilingual family language researchers ethically collect and analyse multisensory discourse resources as qualitative data? Multisensory discourse resources in the privacy of the homescape provides subversive agency for families framing their cultural, ethnic, religious, and national identity. Researchers should be aware that institutional laws, regulations, and policies do not restrict the homescape as space; therefore, we must use this evidence. Often these resources do not have a direct cognitive mediation but rather an unconscious emotional mediation. Family members walk past certain objects daily without thinking about them. Instead, they experience them through bodily exposure or sense memory, which expands the notion that ‘the patterned interplay of semiotic modes is used strategically to project a certain reality’(Van Leeuwen 2008, 21). These are not interactional practices but sense memories stored and utilised during ideology and identity framing. I am viewing the non-interactional aspects of the study that are unconsciously and emotionally utilised to represent one’s identity not construct as stated. Unlike Goffman (1981), who is viewing framing in a performative light also his notion connects to theatrical performance within a frame. I am highlighting the non-interactional multisensory discourse as providing positive and negative emotional sense memory. As these discourses are experiential and connected to sense memory, one might argue that they are peripheral. Thus, for families, time and seasons play a role in when, why, and which identities are framed through multisensory discourse resources in the homescape (Boivin 2020). Multisensory discourse resources can be categorised into two types: interactional and experiential. Interactional multisensory discourse resources contain a social interaction component such as participation whereas experiential multisensory discourse resources involve no direct semiosis (Pennycook 2018). I define experiential resources as multisensory modes, objects, and artefacts one is consciously/unconsciously exposed to. Experiential multisensory discourse resources do not include a component of social interaction but are peripheral to a person’s sense memory, for example, when hearing holiday music or smell of incense during parental prayer (Boivin 2016). However, even if experiential multisensory discourse resources are on the periphery, they are nonetheless central to ones’identity framing (to be unpack later). Within experiential and interactional categories, there are further types: every day and ritualized (Boivin 2020). Everyday multisensory resources are the sights of clothing and decorations (some are ethnic, globalised, religious, or cultural), the smells of food and incense, the daily sounds of rhythmic actions during food preparation, the feel of material, and home décor that is connected to one’s ethnic, cultural, national, or religious identity (Naidu 2014). In contrast, ritualised multisensory resources occur during celebrations, events, holidays, and special occasions. The person is involved in a special, ritualised celebration of cultural practices by cooking, discussing how to decorate, and so on. I also distinguish between the smell of incense used for daily prayer and the smell of special incense used for celebrations, as those within a community know the difference (Boivin 2020). Yet, even setting aside the multisensory discourse resources that are on display every day, one still experiences these resources during seasonal times (Boivin 2020). Therefore, even the occasionally multisensory discourse resources framed in the homescape are an important sense memory moment. The sense memory that overtime we frame who we are within the privacy of a homescape. This article argues for using overlooked 2N. BOIVIN multisensory discourse resources in the homescape as ethnographic observation data for triangulating findings of identity framing. What follows, therefore, builds on Hall’s discussion of identities as framed by ‘two axes or vectors, simultaneously operative: the vector of similarity and continuity (historical past); and the vector of difference and rupture (present discontinuity)’(Hall 2000, 226). I choose the term identity framing rather than the term construction. The latter implies linguistic interaction, but families often unintentionally or unconsciously use multisensory discourse resources to present their various public and private identities. For example, in the homescape, actions such as the making of an ethnic dish can be both experiential and interactional; watching, smelling, and hearing the preparation of the dish is experiential, whereas hearing a historical narrative regarding the importance of the cultural food practice is interactional. It is important to note that sense memories from families’ every day and ritualised exposure to experiential resources are often overlooked during ethnographic observational fieldwork. However, these can be important, as they create sense memories that play a role in the framing of cultural, ethnic, religious, and national identity (Howes 2005). For researchers, multisensory discourse resources can highlight ideological beliefs framing one’s language and identity. Why does one choose to eat, wear, smell, or listen to certain items? How do these every day and ritualised choices create, add value to, or layer one’s sense of historical, present, and future identity? I argue that ethnographic observations of multisensory discourse resources should take place over time rather than at a fixed moment. Multisensory discourse resources can be viewed as seasonal (Christmas, Ramadan, Deepavali, Chinese New Year, and Hanukkah). For example, roast pork, beef, or chicken cooked at Christmas smell different than when they are cooked at other times of the year; the intersections of particular smells with the Christmas season are not national, religious, community, cultural, or ethnic but family-specific. Although these multisensory discourse resources are available at other times, the combination of Christmas clothing, decorations, food, ornaments, objects, music, and movies intersect to create a cultural discourse framing a family’s identity (Pennycook and Otsuji 2014). This article expands the present discussion around multisensory discourse ethnographers (Pink 2011), social semioticians (Pennycook 2018), and sociologists (Dicks 2014) have attempted to bridge the fields of social semiotics, multimodality with sense ethnography. I propose is an applied one. In the next section, I will consider the parts of the new term before discussing how to utilise the discourse for data collection and analysis. Multisensory There are several factors in the rationale for choosing the term multisensory. Some sociolinguists view multimodal and multisensory as interchangeable. However, for this study, I position the term multimodality within Kress’sdefinition of mode as ‘socially made and culturally available material-semiotic resources for representation’(Kress 2013, 19). The choice of the term is centred on the notion that multimodality is inherently multisensory but that multisensory experience is not always inherent in multimodality, as visual experiences (for example) may lack smell or taste. Moreover, in the field of visual ethnography, some researchers have argued for the importance of visual rhetoric (Danesi 2017). Therefore, the term multisensory rather than multimodal will be used, as it is move away from the power in linguistic interactional primacy to highlight other forms of discourse utilise artefacts assures as sensory literacies and resources. As researchers are arguing to decolonise research and less dependent on language and more open to multisensory analysis. They have argued that an emergent focus on sensory literacies brings ‘power, place and the body’(Hua, Otsuji and Pennycook 2017) into conversation with the focus on spatial and material concerns. This article focuses on sensory discourse as identity framing rather than the semiotic process of meaning-making. Hua, Otsuji, and Pennycook (2017) have argued to expand research to include multisensory analysis stating ‘It is not just the relations between text and image, visual and aural semiotics that matter, but also other domains of the sensory realm: touch, taste and smell’(386). JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3 I am presenting evidence for overlooked non-interactional data on the periphery needed to be included. This will be unpacked in the next section, discussing multisensory resources only as interactional overlooks visual (and other sensory) aspects not tied to linguistically or semiotic mediated interaction. Thus, in using the term multisensory rather than multimodal, the emphasis is on sensory semiotics as aspects of discourse. Examples in the data occurred when observing the families watching DVDs, listening to the radio connected to a multimodal perspective. However, expanding from this were moments observed at parties, community, religious celebrations, family practices and events, where music drifts in the background intersecting smells of oils, incense, food. These moments were peripheral but imprinted repeated emotional, sense memories separate from interactional linguistic interactions. However, these non-interactional moments can triangulating with other linguistic discourse evidence. Therefore, this study’s use of multisensory is in line with Merleau-Ponty’s(1962) theorisation of the subject–body relation, perceiving the mind as in a lived space. Multisensory is defined as encompassing both experiential and interactional discourse resources, which also contain sensory information that is viewed across modalities. Researchers must understand that meaning is often made over time and through sense memory connected to identity rather than through a fixed interactional cognitive process (Dicks 2014). Discourse The second part of the term is discourse. The rationale for using this word is an attempt to reach out to ethnographers across a variety of fields. The desire for a greater multidisciplinary perspective in ethnography is due to ‘interest in the multi-semiotic complexity of the representations we produce and see around us’(ledema 2003, 33). Previous research used the term multisensory semiotics. However, while semiotics is a useful concept, many visual ethnographers have expressed discomfort with it, as it does not adequately express sensory modes of communication. Moreover, discourse is not always expressed linguistically but rather the emotional connection to a past historical memory. Therefore, this article prefers the term discourse, which functions as an umbrella term that will enable a wider variety of researchers to engage with multisensory discourse resources (Boivin 2020). Furthermore, one of the aims of using this term is to address the methodological impulse to reach beyond verbal language (Dicks 2014). Multisensory discourse is regarded by social semioticians as a non-verbal domain of meaning, whereas sense ethnographers regard them as perceptions that originate in the self’s subjective being-in-the-world (Dicks 2014). The article argues for researchers to incorporate new materialism in the practices to facilitate decolonising of research. As Pennycook (2018) stated: the idea of semiotic assemblages …acknowledges that multisensory, multimodal and multilingual resources that converge …are worthy of our study if we are to overcome the narrowness of the humanist conception of language. (p.70) Therefore, for ethnographers from various fields, multisensory discourse is a term for discussing the smells, tastes, sights, or sounds of food and other cultural practices. Resources The final part of the term, resources, was chosen over the terms repertories or practices. Objects have meaning in their cultural environments: furniture, clothing, and food can be said to have meaning because of their social making, the purposes of their making, and the regularity of their use in social life (Kress 2009). The term practices imply action and thus excludes peripheral and experiential multisensory discourse. The term repertories refer to shared meaning (Pennycook and Otsuji 2014), which is not relevant in this context. Dicks (2014)stated that multisensory practices are resources. Viewing multisensory discourse as a resource offers a more decolonising approach that can cover both interactional and experiential resources. Emotional sense memory, which is 4N. BOIVIN connected more strongly to the process of identity framing rather than viewing interactional moments. Shared interactions are not irrelevant for this context however the study focuses on the overlooked multisensory discourse resources. Moreover, this study argues these are moments of interactions and the research has yet to view the peripheral moments of emotional sense memory that overtime frames and represents ones’identity. Furthermore, resources convey an emotional sense memory rather than a cognitive understanding. For example, a katana knife is a mediated object for cutting or ritual killing. Yet, when I lived in Japan, the knife became a multisensory resource in my home. The sight, sound, and touch of its handle conveyed a historical family pride. Therefore, it was a multisensory discourse resource that the family used not for its action but its historical emotional affect. Therefore, the term resources reflect how people feel about the multisensory flow that they use to frame their identity, ideology, and beliefs as it connects over time to emotional sense memory. Methodology & analysis The data in the present study originated from intensive ethnographic observations during 150 h of home visits over one year. The ethnographic research was conducted in the north of the United Kingdom (UK) with three Nepalese families. Nepal is a multilingual country where the population is predominantly Buddhists and Hindus. The Gorkhas are a military unit from Nepal that has served the British army for over 250 years. However, they are marginalised by UK visa regulations; considered as migrants by the UK government, they are forced to move every three years. Two of the families who participated in this study came from the Gorkha army. The father of one family (CSF 1) has retired from active duty and works outside the barracks in the army’s technical services. The father of a second Gorkha family (CSF 2) is an active army service member. The father of the third family (CSF 3) is an immigrant from a professional background. Both parents work in professional jobs after completing postgraduate education in the UK. Each family has two children. The parents of CSF 1 and 3 are friends, as they are practising Hindus and their children are the same ages and attend the same schools. They spend their free time together and celebrate special holidays together. CSF 1 and CSF 2 come from the same region in Nepal but speak different dialects and have different religions. CSF 2 are Buddhists, and the children in the family are younger. All three families were observed for one year in their homes and the community, and all family members participated voluntarily. The ethnographic relationship with the three families enabled a derived etic approach in which ‘the researcher adapts ways of questioning, observing, and interpreting to fit the perspective of the participants’(Rogoff2003, 30). The data collection included observation of foods eaten, the celebration of ethnic and religious holidays, and exposure to traditional clothing, religious clothing, and/or ethnic décor. There are three components to my epistemological positionality which allow me to form relationships with the three case study families. I am a single mother of a transmigrant bi-racial Asian child and a grandchild of a marginalised Chinese grandfather who experienced the restrictive Canadian immigration policies. I had personal experience of living and teaching in rural Nepal at the time when there was a critical language policy debate in the country. This enabled me to speak to families about living there (Boivin 2016). The data from observations, conceptual field notes, and interviews were used to assess types and frequency in the areas of language maintenance, social language, literacy practices, and the language ideology of immigrant and migrant Nepalese families. Patterns emerged over time, as I had daily contact with the participants, even on weekends and holidays. As a result, I realised that a multisensory categorisation needed to be constructed to make better use of both interactional and experiential data. The data analysis, which took the form of multimodal discourse analysis integrated with Pink’s(2011) multisensory social semiotic analysis, used conceptual memos, field observation, and interview transcripts that were categorised and analysed. JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 5 As Table 1 illustrates, within the homescape there are multisensory discourse resources. In the analysis in this study, the research data were categorised by sense, type, identity (cultural, ethnic, religious, national, transnational, and global), framing (why the data are being presented), and research practice (how the data were analysed). Table 1 shows the types of data collected during homespace observations and is constructed into multisensory modalities that are experiential and connected with emotional memory. Modalities are categorised according to the senses (auditory, visual, tactile, smell, and taste) and then further categorised into types. Resources experienced daily or weekly are termed continual, and those occurring on special occasions are temporary. Auditory senses consist of three types: live (L) modality, where exposure occurs in person (for example, hearing chanting); recorded (R) modality, which is experienced as pre-recorded but without a visual component (for example, on the radio); and multimodal (M) modality, which can be either live or recorded and contains visual and auditory modes (for example, Nepalese drama serials). There are six visual sense types, including colour (C), which plays an important role with particular meanings in Asian culture. Artefacts (A) include decorations, lights, candles, and religious, cultural, and ethnic artefacts around the homescape. The distinction between 2D objects and artefacts (such as photographs) and 3D objects and artefacts are based on conversations with the participants that highlighted how multisensory resources create a stronger emotional connection. Multimodal visual sense resources include watching videos, television, movies, and live performances. The fifth type is familial visual exposure (F), which is divided into two types: 2D monosensory familial exposure (MoF) includes seeing a family member wearing traditional, religious, or cultural clothing, and multisensory familial exposure (MuF) includes sound, smell, and touch in addition to visual images. Taste is classed as multisensory only, as it is impossible to view someone tasting food. Smell has two categories: monosensory (Mo) exposure, such as the smell of incense Table 1. Multisensory discourse resources data analysis. Type of experience Everyday Ritualised Space Time Auditory L–daily chanting R–radio holiday music M–rhythmic slapping when making roti L–hearing music at celebrations R–audio of special music M–sights, sounds, smells, music at a festival or event family individual shared public private continual intermittent ritual random Visual C–vivid colourful home artefacts, symbols displayed daily A–cultural, ethnic, and religious home decorations and artefacts 2D –photos 3D –multimodal videos F–photographs of family or paintings and decorations created by family members MoF (monosensory) and MuF (multisensory) C–lights and decorations at celebrations A–special items, artefacts for holidays celebrations 2D –photos 3D –multimodal items F–clothing worn by the family for traditional practices MoF and MuF Touch Mo –the daily feeling of certain foods, home objects, clothing Mu –daily feeling, smelling, seeing, and hearing during the making of food, sitting on cushions Mo –a feeling of traditional decorations, and artefacts, clothes worn during celebrations Mu –sitting on cushions, feeling, smelling, hearing, seeing the fabric during holidays Smell Mo –daily smells of burning incense, spices, food Mu –daily smells, sights, tastes, sound, and touch Mo –smells of incense, food, cultural celebrations Mu –smells, sights, tastes, sounds, and a touch of foods and spices at cultural celebrations Taste daily eating, smelling, seeing, touching, and hearing ethnic, religious foods, spices, and snacks eating, smelling, hearing, seeing, and touching certain foods, drinks, snacks, candy, and desserts during holidays 6N. BOIVIN after chanting, and multisensory (Mu) exposure, such as the smells of spices and food that can also involve sights, sounds, tastes, and touch. Likewise, touch has monosensory and multisensory categories: monosensory touch discourse would be the feel of clothing, whereas, the multisensory discourse would be the feeling of the fabric plus the sight of the colour. Multisensory discourse resources were continual (daily or regular), intermittent (no specified time), ritual (seasonal celebrations), and random (no planned timing). The other category that was assessed was space. Multisensory discourse resources included spaces that were for family use, individuals’use (the prayer corner), shared use (bathrooms for more than one person), public use (the back yard and community spaces), and private use (bedrooms). It should be noted that in Asian culture the notion of children having bedroom privacy is not as prevalent as in Western families. Findings Multisensory discourse resources: Identities During observations, researchers should consider not only multisensory categories but also multisensory types of identities, how the families frame these identities (purposefully, consciously, unconsciously, historically, or in terms of the future, some of which may overlap), and how the data is obtained (clarification, observation, or triangulation). Researchers can apply the framework when they enter a homescape. Their observation may focus not on a single form of practice but on the entire homescape as a space that threads identity through different types of multisensory discourse resources presentation: (1) cultural, ethnic, religious, or national (or a mixture of these), (2) transnational, and (3) globalised (Boivin 2020). When investigating, it became apparent that multisensory discourse resources included everyday practices, such as discussions around or during the daily eating of culturally similar food (general Asian) but not ethnically specific Asian food in the homescape. This general multisensory food discourse resource is connected to the participants’ cultural identity framing, whereas particular ethnic food is connected to their ethnic identity framing. The preparation and eating of special foods on religious occasions evidenced religious identity framing. Finally, during an extended visit to the UK by grandparents, CSF 1 and CSF 3 were experientially exposed to seeing the grandparents wearing ethnic hats and skirts. The patterns in the cloth of these garments are not part of a general or national costume but specific to an ethnic region. Therefore, this was an example of multisensory discourse resources as ethnic identity; as such, it was an unconscious framing by the grandparents that highlighted historical discourse. An example of global identity framing was the exposure of CSF 3 to seeing, smelling, and touching decorations for a Christmas tree placed next to the Hindu prayer corner. Using Tables 1 and 2we can see example application in Table 3. Despite being extremely devout Hindus, the family chose to display a Christmas tree; the children had convinced the parents to take part in this cultural practice. The tree was positioned in the family’s front room, which is used for public visits, and the smell of the tree was thus a globalised identity framing. Therefore, researchers should discover what, how, and why identities are being framed that change seasonally, spatially, and overtime; as such, their meanings shift continually. Often, if observations occur at a particular time in a families, community religious, ethnic or cultural practices there are strict rules to time and space. In the Muslim or Jewish religion, objects must be covered and the timing of prayers is imperative. Therefore, as occurred in the Buddhist Ghurkha family home I viewed no praying at the altar. This was due to death by a relative which caused the praying to be prohibited. In terms of the families’language maintenance and literacy practices, this study found that all of the children were motivated in language learning because of exposure, even peripherally, to multisensory discourse resources (Boivin 2016). Even if they are not maintaining oral discourse in the home exposure to multimodal semiotic discourse facilitates later motivation in language learning. JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 7 than making inferences. With globalisation, multiculturalism, transnational, migration, diversity, and translanguaging practices, we need new concepts to encompass evidence in the homescape previously overlooked. Providing equal weight to non-linguistic multisensory discourse enables us to decolonise ethnographic research practices. Consequently, ethnographers and sociolinguists must not assume that all discourse is social, cultural, or political but recognise that it can be transnational or globalised. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). ORCID Nettie Boivin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9021-2936 References Bell, D. S. 2003.“Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology, and National Identity.”The British Journal of Sociology 54 (1): 63–81. Boivin. 2013.Language, Literacy and Identity Practices Influencing Acculturation in Immigrant/Migrant Nepalese Families: An Ethnographic study (Doctoral dissertation, University of York). Boivin. 2020.“Homescape: Agentic Space for Transmigrant Families Multisensory Discourse of Identity.”Linguistic Landscape Journal. Boivin, N. 2016.“Multiliteracies of Transnational and Immigrant pre-Teens: Meditating Intercultural Meaning.” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 45 (6): 470–486. Brewer, J. D. 2000.Ethnography. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Bucholtz, M., and K. Hall. 2016.“Embodied Sociolinguistics.”In Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates, edited by N. Coupland, 173–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canagarajah, S. 2006.“Ethnographic Methods in Language Policy.”In An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, edited by T. Ricento, 153–169. Oxford: Blackwell. Curenton, S. M., M. J. Craig, and N. Flanigan. 2008.“Use of Decontextualized Talk Across Story Contexts: How Oral Storytelling and Emergent Reading Can Scaffold Children’s Development.”Early Education and Development 19 (1): 161–187. Danesi, M. 2017.“Emoji in Advertising.”International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric (IJSVR) 1 (2): 1–12. Dicks, B. 2014.“Action, Experience, Communication: Three Methodological Paradigms for Researching Multimodal and Multisensory Settings.”Qualitative Research 14 (6): 656–674. Edwards, S. 2009.Ghurkhas in Blandford, Equality Report, Dorset Race Equality Council, Dorset UK. Geertz, C. 1973.The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press. Hall, S. 2000.“Cultural Identity and Diaspora.”In Diaspora and Visual Culture: Representing Africans and Jews, edited by N. Mirzoeff,35–47. Abingdon: Routledge. Haller, W., and P. Landolt. 2005.“The Transnational Dimensions of Identity Formation: Adult Children of Immigrants in Miami.”Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (6): 1182–1214. Harris, M. 2007.“Introduction: Ways of Knowing.”In Ways of Knowing: New Approaches in the Anthropology of Experience and Learning, edited by M. Harris. Oxford: Berghahn. Howes, D., ed. 2005.Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader. Oxford: Berg. Hua, Z., E. Otsuji, and A. Pennycook. 2017.“Multilingual, Multisensory and Multimodal Repertoires in Corner Shops, Streets and Markets: Introduction.”Social Semiotics 27: 383–393. Ingold, T. 2000.The Perception of the Environment. London: Routledge. Jetten, J., and M. J. Wohl. 2012.“The Past as a Determinant of the Present: Historical Continuity, Collective Angst, and Opposition to Immigration.”European Journal of Social Psychology 42 (4): 442–450. Kress, G. 2009.Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge. Kress, G. 2013.“Recognizing Learning: a Perspective from a Social Semiotic Theory of Multimodality.”In Multilingualism and Multimodality, edited by I. de Saint-Georges and J.-J. Weber, 119–140. Rotterdam: Sense. ledema, R. 2003.“Multimodality, Resemiotization: Extending the Analysis of Discourse as Multi-Semiotic Practice.” Visual Communication 2 (1): 29–57. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962.Phenomenology of Perception (trans. C. Smith). London: Routledge. 14 N. BOIVIN Naidu, M. 2014.“Transnationalised Memories among Migrants: How “Indigenous”Food Can Bring Home Closer.” The Anthropologist 17 (2): 333–340. Ochs, E., and B. B. Schieffelin. 2011.“The Theory of Language Socialization.”In The Handbook of Language Socialization, edited by A. Duranti, E. Ochs, and B. B. Schieffelin, 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell. Pennycook, A. 2018.Posthumanist Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge-Taylor Francis. Pennycook, A., and E. Otsuji. 2014.“Metrolingual Multitasking and Spatial Repertoires: “Pizza mo two Minutes Coming”.”Journal of Sociolinguistics 18 (2): 161–184. Pink, S. 2011.“Multimodality, Multisensoriality and Ethnographic Knowing: Social Semiotics and the Phenomenology of Perception.”Qualitative Research 11 (3): 261–276. Rogoff,B.2003.The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sapir, E. 1929.“The Unconscious Patterning of Behavior in Society.”In The Unconscious: A Symposium, edited by C. M. Child, K. Koffka, J. E. Anderson, J. B. Watson, E. Sapir, and W. I. Thomas, et al., 114–142. New York: Knopf. Schwartz, S. J. 2005.“A new Identity for Identity Research: Recommendations for Expanding and Refocusing the Identity Literature.”Journal of Adolescent Research 20 (3): 293–308. Tajfel, H. 1978.“Social Categorization, Social Identity and Social Comparison.”In Differentiation Between Social Groups, edited by H. Tajfel, 97–126. San Diego: Academic Press. Tompkins, J. 2001.““Homescapes”and Identity Reformations in Australian Multicultural Drama.”Theatre Research International 26 (1): 47–59. Van Leeuwen, T. 2008.Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 15