Closing questions

As the “dialogue” heading suggests, the papers in this section of the Journal of Sociolinguistics really have taken shape within interaction between the contributors (via email). As well as focusing on particular points raised in individual contributions, several general questions have emerged from...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of sociolinguistics 2020-02, Vol.24 (1), p.119-125
Main Authors: Rampton, Ben, Charalambous, Constadina, Jones, Rodney, Levon, Erez, Mangual Figueroa, Ariana, Zakharia, Zeena
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Interpersonal communication
Language policy
Research methodology
Securitization
Sexuality
Social relations
Sociolinguistics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:As the “dialogue” heading suggests, the papers in this section of the Journal of Sociolinguistics really have taken shape within interaction between the contributors (via email). As well as focusing on particular points raised in individual contributions, several general questions have emerged from this discussion, and three stand out:Why this now? Why should sociolinguists interested in everyday social relations want or need to talk about (in)securitization just at this point in time?So, what exactly is “(in)securitization”? The term has recurred in our discussion of different fields and topics: IR, research methodology, language policy, gender and sexuality, new media. But just how clear and consistent a concept is this?So what? What—if any—are the broader implications of (in)securitization for sociolinguists who study everyday communicative practices?We can take each of these in turn.
ISSN:1360-6441
1467-9841
DOI:10.1111/josl.12401