HOME
Linguistic variation analysis is an under-explored study of participatory planning. Precedence studies may investigate linguistic elements of participatory planning in relation to the same language it is executed from, but there lacks a bridge between linguistic variations across languages and participatory planning. This proposed study probes this bridge to advance participatory planning strategies, translation considerations, and multi-linguistic appreciation in planning practices.
Introduction
The human capacity to converse is easily taken for granted in our daily routines. Yet, the ways in which we communicate differ across time (history) and space (geography). The power of communication reveals itself when observing individuals in discussions, where their ability to speak to and comprehend discourse is limited. Throughout our known history, humanity has continuously organized and reorganized itself and its surrounding environments via various phenomena (i.e. occupation, lineage, demographics, geographical features, ownership, and even legends & myths). The correlation between language and our sense of the world is powerful – the two have shaped each other for millennia.
As dispersed civilizations evolved, so did their languages and organizational structuring to meet their respective needs and pursuits. Said evolutionary process presents a “chicken and the egg” question between language and governance. How then, does language influence governance, and how does governance influence language? For the purpose of this study, the question around our chicken and egg metaphor isn’t “which comes first?”; rather, “how does the chicken produce the egg; how does this egg produce a chicken?”
This research proposes to study how values represented in participatory planning language are influenced by specific linguistic systems. Using translation considerations, this study gives specific attention to linguistic variances to investigate how values represent differently as a function of language.
The sociolinguistic proposal aspires to bridge disconnected themes between linguistics and urban and regional planning (governance). While themes in linguistics and participatory planning have been well studied in disunion, their potential union presents an attractive and much unexplored territory of study with the potential for mutual growth in knowledge for both respective disciplines.
Inspired by the works of Paulo Freire’s, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the significance of this study stems from dialogical process theory – where dialogue is respected as both a means and an end to articulate and comprehend our sense of our world (Freire 2005, 87-124). This consideration to dialogue will be explained in further detail in the conclusion. For now, it is important to note dialogue gifts everyone with the ability to vocalize and understand our respective culture.
Contents
𐎚 Building up; Relevant studies
𐎚 research structure
𐎚 conclusion
Building Up
Linguistic implications on (participatory) governance
In our digital era, it is easy to make quick work of translations with a mere copy & paste. These digital tools are efficient means of translating a big picture, but their simplicity eludes the finite values which accompany sensitivities of legal language. These linguistic sensitivities include discussions and texts which have legal repercussions; or perhaps said language is framed around unique syntax, semiotics, and cultural values. Translating language used in participatory governance cannot be reduced to simple transcriptions.
Two computer scientists, Maria Zimina and Serge Fleury, set themselves with a mission to fashion computer code to help with digital translations of complex terminologies used in the social sciences (Zimina & Fleury 2015, 325-328). Abundant examples of such abstracted terminologies exist in community engagement discourse: gentrification, community stakeholders, white flight, and the term “community engagement” itself, to name a few. Each of these terms have separate literal meanings, or they have meanings which could be interpreted differently depending on context (polysemy).
How planning processes influence language
Planning processes reciprocate power over linguistic implications. In his historical study of “the New Paradigms of Urban History,” Timothy J. Gilfoyle demonstrates how the planning of urban fantasies in the 19th – 20th centuries (White City, City Beautiful Movement, Garden Cities, etc.) reinforced elitist oppression of minority cultures. With the explosion of suburban development, began the process of transitioning once diverse urban centers into homogenous neighborhoods and districts (Gilfoyle 1998, 182-188). Geographic factionalism has linguistic implications. Linguistic heritage was lost in many of the ethnic-minority neighborhoods which were dismembered through 20th century planning practices.
Displaced communities were paternalistically herded to new ‘crafted’ communities which were structured around race and income. So, while this process contributed to a loss of ancestral languages, it simultaneously helped yield a linguistic evolution of Ebonics, slang, and regional variations, which were (and continue to be) discredited as “improper,” despite their linguistic capacities to communicate complex ideas and shape culture.
Bridging opportunity from missed opportunities
A literature review which accompanied this study revealed there to be little (if any) study of the specific correlations between linguistic differentiations and participatory planning processes. However, there are numerous studies which hint the importance in both the linguistic and planning fields.
In addition to the aforementioned examples of digital translation and historical linguistic analysis, multiple studies investigate the influence of language in the social sciences. While the literature review did not find linguistic variation examples specific to participatory planning, studies have looked at the correlations between language and urban design, from small-scale urban signage to large-scale urban layout of entire cities.
There also exists plenty of literature which examines the role of language in participatory planning. However, these studies focus on the degree of planning language and its comprehension implications for lay people; not the implications of linguistic variations.
This proposed analysis of linguistic variations will study how linguistic science (see chart) can influence participatory planning tools. In addition to translation considerations in multilingual contexts, the findings of this study may ameliorate participatory planning tools through a critique of their linguistic limitations, and through discovery of the unique “product” languages procured in differing syntax and lexicon.
Could linguistic analysis of community engagement methods help produce a more equitable process of participatory governance?
Research Methods
The methods employed in this research proposal will include comparisons and translations of community engagement methods between six (6) set languages; studying how values change between the linguistic constructions of these languages. “Value” encompasses a broad definition to include (but not to be limited to): weight of influences, negative/positive/neutral perceptions, emotional evocations, and imagery. These languages were chosen due to varying levels of similarity and difference as compared to English, and to reflect a net of historical and geographical linguistic diversities. The languages are as follows:
𐎚 English
𐎚 French
𐎚 Czech
𐎚 Arabic
𐎚 Mandarin
𐎚 Sesotho
The overarching strategy of methods will be followed in complementary style. Linguistic analysis will be applied to a sample of existing participatory governance tools (aka community engagement strategies) across cultures in each language. As findings are revealed with each analysis, other studies will build upon the discovered gaps of information and challenge findings which any one method may reveal - expansion and triangulation styles.
The methods applied for this research will hold two sets of consistent variables. These constants help maintain a balance of linguistic analysis and investigation of participatory governance tools. The first constant concerns linguistic analysis domains; the second concerns the studied participatory governance tools. These constants will be maintained to validate the studied variable, the aforementioned value.
Justification of Constants - Linguistic Analysis Domains
Linguistic fields analyze language from different angles and over many scales. The linguistics diagram complementing this text, details major linguistic domains to be investigated in this study. Each domain is in small caps (on the left); the text in normal case (randomly sorted towards the right) gives common language definition to each domain.
All domains will be studied across each of the (6) languages. The domains will be selectively determined for each participatory tool dependent on relevance to that tool.
In example:
Studies on brochure/fact sheets will not study phonetics in their written context; will study phonetics if asking people to read text aloud.
A study on idioms will not study semantics as a definition tool; rather it will address semantics as a translation mechanism.
Justification of Constants - Participatory Governance Tools
The column, participatory tools, lists several standard community engagement methods the planning industry (among many others) employs for public participation and feedback (such as workshops, town-halls, websites and many others). This list could be endless as possibilities for community engagement entail all ideas which could be imaginable to suit public participation. The chosen tools are borrowed from a comprehensive list from chapter 6 in The Planner's Use of Information: Second Edition, by Elaine Cogan (Dandekar 2003, 187-212).
Each of these tools will be applied to each of the six (6) languages. The linguistic domain to test each tool will be dependent on each participatory tool. As each of the languages are studied, there may be an engagement tool unique to a participatory strategy in a governance to said culture. In said scenarios, these newly discovered tools will be implemented across all cultures with due diligence (backtracking on a completed language study if possible).
The Methods
The table below details all research methods to be used. Please note: the 'impact' also serves justification for the method; bold text emphasizes the critical components for each method.
PLEASE SCROLL THROUGH TABLE - if you are viewing this content on a mobile or tabloid device, horizontal/landscape view may help with viewing.
Conclusion