Pennycook, Alastair and Otsuji, Emi (2015): Metrolingualism. Language in the City. Routledge: London/New York, 205 pages

This is an exciting book. It introduces a new way of thinking about language contact, and a new way of exploring the realities of language in urban life. It is written with enthusiasm for the dynamism of city life in the diverse cities of Sydney and Tokyo. It is somewhat marred by repetition, however, and feels like an accumulation of research notes rather than a fully prepared work of scholarship. Part of this disorder is voluntary, however, as the aim of the project is to highlight the very process of research, not only in terms of the discussions and reflections of the researchers as they visit the shops, cafés, construction sites, markets and restaurants that are their research sites – but also in terms of the large number of sources which are quoted throughout the book. It is perhaps best to think of this book as a collection of notebooks and sketches – as a resource, then, for further work. The aim of the book is clear and frequently repeated. In response to the increasing discomfort of sociolinguists with notions like bilingualism, multilingualism and code-switching – notions that point to the transgression of language norms while at the same time maintaining the premise of a norm, a single unitary bounded language – the authors focus rather on the ‘ordinary’ multilangaging activities of the city. Shifting the focus away from relations between languages, or from how different languages are deployed in particular domains (demolinguistic mapping), or from how the individual is a container of various languages (p. 16), they propose a view of everyday language use in urban space which they call metrolingualism. This is a ‘non-count’ approach to diversity, opposed to the ‘mindset’ of monolingualism. Polyglossia (or transglossia, or a host of other trans terms which have been mobilized for the last decades) is understood as a normal language practice, not a deviant one. Central to the perspective is that these languages are deployed in specific contexts of urban space, and are implicated in activities germane to those spaces: languages emerge in the interrelationship between multitasking and linguistic resources, the intricate patterning of movement, activity and semiotic resources. As the authors explain: “[…] Language does not just happen against an urban backdrop, it is part of the city, the barber shop, the market garden, the networks of buying and selling. […] Language activities produce time and space” (p. 33). The book is rich in variations and adumbrations of these themes: the ordinariness of language mixing, the imbrication of language and the urban setting, the creativity of speakers, the common rhythms of language and city life. Three main notions are introduced: metrolingual multitasking, spatial repertoires and metrolingua francas. Lest the mood be considered too celebratory, one chapter focuses on the frictions caused by multilingualism and by the constraints imposed on language use. “Social spaces are shaped by speech, by what can and cannot be said in particular venues, by how things are said and by the way they are heard” (p. 85). But generally speaking, the mood of the book is upbeat. Part of the emphasis on ‘ordinary’ language comes with the choice of sites like markets, restaurants, etc. and its populations of ‘ordinary’ people – the workers who make these sites function. This focus adds political clout to the idea of metrolingualism. At the same time, however, the authors ask a pertinent question: why is multilingualism not a value, why is it not valued? (p. 169). I was surprised not to see any references to the pioneering work of Louis-Jean Calvet on urban sociolinguistics and particularly marketplaces. And the editors …