Journal of Language, Identity & Education Contesting ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library] On: 08 September 2014, At: 14:57 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Language, Identity & Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlie20

Contesting Metronormativity: Exploring Indigenous Language Dynamism Across the Urban-Rural Divide Stephen May

a

a

University of Auckland Published online: 05 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Stephen May (2014) Contesting Metronormativity: Exploring Indigenous Language Dynamism Across the Urban-Rural Divide, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 13:4, 229-235, DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2014.939036 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2014.939036

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 13: 229–235, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1534-8458 print / 1532-7701 online DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2014.939036

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 14:57 08 September 2014

INTRODUCTION

Contesting Metronormativity: Exploring Indigenous Language Dynamism Across the Urban-Rural Divide Stephen May University of Auckland

Cities have always had a certain cache, a certain fascination—especially, large urban conurbations. They are the first (and often only) port of call for most migrants who see within them the greatest opportunity for employment; scope for upward social mobility; and/ or access to wider social, cultural, and economic networks. Irrespective of whether this actually ever proves to be the case, since cities are riven with stark inequalities and related social, cultural, linguistic, and economic hierarchies (Goldsmith & Blakely, 2010; Gugler, 2004; Musterd & Ostendorf, 2013), the pull and influence of cities remains strong. Indeed, for the first time, more people across the world are now living in cities than in the countryside (Davis, 2004; Green & Corbett, 2013a, 2013b; Schafft & Youngblood Jackson, 2010). This longstanding fascination with, and privileging of, cities—which has been aptly termed by Green (2013, p. 19) as metronormativity—has also been evident in a wide range of academic fields, not least our own. In sociolinguistics, for example, we are currently seeing what I have elsewhere termed the multilingual turn (May, 2014a, 2014b). The multilingual turn comprises a (renewed)1 focus on the multilingual speaker, rather than the monolingual speaker, as the norm for language learning and teaching (see also Conteh & Meier, 2014; García, 2009). In addition, it involves an examination of the contexts in which such multilingual speakers live and “language.” These contexts are shaped by the current conditions of late modernity, not least the rise of globalization2 and related, rapidly increasing, patterns of transmigration. As a result, 1I

use the term “renewed” deliberately here since, as I argue elsewhere, the recency of this turn towards multilingualism, at least in Western sociolinguistics, disguises the fact that non-Western scholars have long advocated the importance of examining multilingual speakers and their multilingual repertoires (see May, 2011, 2014c). 2 In a still-central text, Held et al. (1999), describe this era of globalization thus: “Globalization can be taken to refer to those spatiotemporal processes of change which underpin a transformation in the organization of human affairs by linking together expanding human activity across regions and continents” (p. 15). Correspondence should be sent to Stephen May, Te Puna Wananga, Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Symonds Street, Auckland 1150, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]


230

MAY

we have seen in recent years an exponential diversification worldwide of national populations— particularly, in cities, where transnational migrants most often reside—a phenomenon perhaps best encapsulated by Vertovec’s (2007) term superdiversity. The earlier use of language as a verb also highlights a key concern of this recent sociolinguistic work: to challenge and deconstruct bounded, unitary, and reified conceptions of “languages”; related notions of “native speaker” and “mother tongue”; and, by extension, distinct “speech communities” (see, e.g., Blommaert, 2010; Heller, 2011; Makoni & Pennycook, 2007, 2012; Pennycook, 2010). In their stead, individual multilingual repertoires in late modernity are posited as dynamic, intermeshed, and fluid, much like the urban environments in which they are supposedly formed, shaped, and used. Such repertoires have been described by Makoni and Pennycook (2012), for example, as “lingua franca multilingualism,” where “languages are so deeply intertwined and fused into each other that the level of fluidity renders it difficult to determine any boundaries that may indicate that there are different languages involved” (p. 447). Other comparable terms include Canagarajah’s (2011) codemeshing, Creese et al.’s (2011) flexible bilingualism, García’s (2009) translanguaging, Jørgensen’s (2008) polylingual languaging, Pennycook’s (2010) metrolingualism, and Rampton’s (2011) contemporary urban vernaculars, to name but a few. Alongside these various reconceptualizations are proffered more dynamic and fluid understandings of “language” as “voice” (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007, 2012), as “social practice” (Heller, 2007), and as a related “sociolinguistics of mobile resources” (Blommaert, 2010). Blommaert’s notion of mobile resources, for example, highlights how individuals actively employ multiple language varieties, not so much (any more) in relation to established/ distinct speech communities but rather as part of their “indexical biographies,” which invariably shift and change over time (Blommaert, 2010; see also Blommaert & Backus, 2011, 2013). In all these various manifestations of the multilingual turn, we are seeing the rehabilitation of parole at the expense of langue (de Saussure, 1974). Relatedly, we are witnessing a rejection of structural explanations of language, which so dominated the sociolinguistics of the last century, in favour of ethnographic examinations of languaging in urban contexts in this current one. The latter are shaped, in turn, by factors such as locatedness and scale (Blommaert, 2010), and flow and circulation (Heller, 2011) in an increasingly globalized world. As Makoni and Pennycook (2012) summarize it in their discussion of the notion of metrolingualism, the aim of this new, critical, urban sociolinguistics is to describe the ways in which people of different and mixed backgrounds use, play with and negotiate identities through language; it does not assume connections between language, culture, ethnicity, nationality, or geography, but rather seeks to explore how such relations are produced, resisted, defied, or rearranged. (p. 449)

These developments are to be broadly welcomed (see May, 2014a)—except in one regard. The growing preoccupation with individual multilingual urban repertoires has also led to an unnecessary bifurcation of urban-rural language and literacy practices. As we have seen, the former is specifically associated with dynamic growth and interfusion. In contrast, the latter is presented at times as ossified and static, based in turn, or so the story goes, on essentialized understandings of language and identity (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007). Indigenous peoples, and their language revitalization efforts, have been a particular target of critique here, as has related advocacy of Indigenous “mother tongue” education (see, e.g., Edwards, 2001, 2010; Makoni 2012). In so


CONTESTING METRONORMATIVITY

231

doing, Indigenous peoples’ desire to maintain and/ or revitalize their language(s) is also taken as a (willful) rejection of modernist social, cultural, and economic engagement (see, e.g., Barry, 2001; Waldron, 1995), wrapped up in the rhetoric and politics of linguistic primordialism. This kind of linguistic juxtaposition—urban as modern and progressive, rural as antediluvian, disconnected, and regressive—reflects a wider, long-standing urban-rural dichotomization (Andersson et al., 2009; Champion & Hugo, 2004). I have discussed the problems with this broad rejectionist position on Indigenous language revitalization at length elsewhere in relation to Makoni’s (2012) trenchant critique of Indigenous language education initiatives in Africa (May 2012a). Suffice it to say here that it understates, even ignores, the complex dynamism that is (still) clearly evident in many Indigenous language contexts. This dynamism is illustrated by a number of key dialectics, including the interaction of local and global language ecologies (Canagarajah, 2005), elsewhere explored as translocal language and literacy practices (Brandt & Clinton, 2002); the overlaps and fissures among different generations of speakers (McCarty, Romero, & Zepeda, 2006a, 2006b); and the simultaneity of transmigration and rootedness (Levitt & Glick-Schiller, 2008; Warriner & Wyman, 2013). These dialectics, in turn, are situated within, and expand upon, a long history of colonization for many Indigenous peoples that has included regular displacement and/ or forced migration and significant social, cultural, economic, and linguistic inequalities alongside complex and evolving multilingual interactions with their colonizers over time (Canagarajah & Liyanage, 2012). As Patrick (2012) observes, for example, the multilingual practices in which Indigenous communities engaged in early contact situations with their colonizers, often in remote and rural contexts, “included the use of multilingual interpreters, lingua francas and trade jargons, and [bilingual] mixed languages” (p. 35; see also Patrick & Budach, this volume). Ironically, it is these same attributes that are now ascribed to “new” urban language varieties. More recently, Indigenous language dynamism includes their (re)instantiation into key public language domains, such as education, from which they have been previously excluded (May, 2012b; McCarty, 2013); the multiple, complex language uses of Indigenous language speakers across rural and urban contexts (Patrick, 2012; Pietikäinen, 2010; Pietikäinen et al., 2008); and a growing engagement, particularly among younger generations of indigenous language speakers, with new technologies (Eisenlohr, 2004; Galla, 2009; Srinivasan, 2006). All of this suggests that the limits of a metrocentric, or metronormative approach to the analysis of (Indigenous) languages and literacies need urgently to be addressed. So too the corollary of an urban-rural linguistic divide has to be deconstructed. This accords with recent related work on rural literacies, championed by the likes of Donehower, Hogg, & Schell (2007, 2011); Green (2013); and Green and Corbett (2013a, 2013b). Green (2013), for example, highlights the challenges of such a task in specific relation to rural literacies: Rurality appears to be something of a blindspot, then . . . Yet clearly there are populations and territories outside and beyond the metropolis, and in most countries. Are these simply part of the whole, to be subsumed within it? Or is there, rather, a significant form of difference in play here, and correspondingly, a complex geo-identity, locally, regionally, nationally, and globally? This suggests another way of thinking about literacy, with literacies to be (re)conceived in terms of multiplicity, traced and mapped in their spatial distribution and referenced to different places, always relative to a socio-spatial hierarchy. Such a move reintroduces considerations of power, specifically in relation to difference, and compels a reassessment of the matter of “context” in literacy research. (p. 26)


232

MAY

This is what this special issue aims to accomplish with respect to Indigenous language practices. The articles herein will focus specifically on the dynamic multilingual repertoires of Indigenous peoples and the complex urban-rural dialectics that attend their ongoing development (and/ or reclamation) within wider Indigenous language revitalization contexts. These ongoing revitalization contexts highlight, in turn, the historical and contextual situatedness of Indigenous languages vis-à-vis other language varieties; the recursive influence of colonization and revitalization on the use (or not) of Indigenous language varieties in particular language domains; and how revitalization efforts are impacting on changing perceptions, and use of, these language varieties, including with regard to new media. The special issue thus aims to complement—and, where necessary, critique—accounts of urban multilingualism, deconstructing, in so doing, the dichotomization of the urban and rural contexts too often attendant upon them. Indigenous peoples, along with everyone else, are affected by the conditions of late modernity, as are their language usage(s) in and across rural and urban contexts. Likewise, advocacy of the retention of Indigenous languages, as I have argued at length elsewhere (May 2012a, 2012b), does not necessarily presuppose an essentialized understanding of the language-identity link, nor a retreat into the equivalent of a bucolic, antediluvian, rural (Indigenous) romanticism epitomized in the traditional urban-rural divide. Indeed, as the articles that follow demonstrate, quite the opposite pertains. In their article, Donna Patrick and Gabriele Budach explore how a group of cross-generational Inuit women in an Inuit literacy center program in the Canadian city of Ottawa continue to develop their dynamic use of Inuit language and knowledge. These uses encompass a range of semiotic resources—including objects and language—that involve retracing the migrational trajectories of Inuit between cities and between non-urban communities, particularly those in their Arctic “homelands.” As Patrick and Budach argue, an exploration of these Indigenous artifactual literacies highlights the irrelevance of the urban-rural divide and the ongoing significance of translocal literacy practices. Multilingual oracy is a key to this process of complex transcontextual meaning making, which simultaneously traverses both the spatiotemporal and the cross-generational aspects of the group’s language practices. Teresa McCarty focuses on Native American youth language practices in the United States to likewise deconstruct the urban-rural divide. She foregrounds, instead, the concept of sociolinguistic borderlands (spatial, temporal, and ideological spaces of sociolinguistic hybridity and diversity) as a lens into the grounded realities of language in the lives of contemporary U.S. Native American youth. Drawing on 4 ethnographic vignettes, McCarty outlines the dynamic linguistic ecologies apparent in the language practices of these Indigenous youth as they negotiate, cross, and occupy sociolinguistic borderlands. She argues, in conclusion, for a reconsideration of their language practices as a basis for reconceptualizing the possibilities for Indigenous-language reclamation and youth self-empowerment within language policy. Kendall King and Mary Hermes examine a variety of language-learning approaches apparent among urban and rural Ojibwe communities in the United States, as well as the ideologies of language endangerment that drive and sustain them. Drawing from collaborative language revitalization work with teachers, learners, and community leaders, King and Hermes outline how these approaches to language learning relate to cultural identities and place-based notions of authenticity, as well as to current findings in the field of second language acquisition. They profile 2 speakers who have learned Ojibwe successfully as adults to illustrate how their success was possible largely because they were able to engage with the Ojibwe language in interactive ways



233

that run counter to common language-learning approaches. They conclude by arguing that for Indigenous language revitalization efforts, and individual learners, to experience higher levels of success, greater attention needs to be paid to how ideologies of endangerment impact language learning approaches. Finally, Nancy Hornberger examines in depth the trajectory of one Quechua-speaking indigenous bilingual educator, Neri Mamani. Hornberger highlights how, over her life, and particularly through her development as teacher, teacher educator, researcher, and advocate for Indigenous identity and language revitalization, Mamani has traversed from the rural highland communities of southern Peru across urban, periurban, and rural spaces. Hornberger argues that Mamani and her peers recognize, valorize, and study the multiple and mobile linguistic, cultural, and intercultural resources at play in their own and others’ professional practices around bilingual intercultural education. This, in turn, enables them to co-construct an Indigenous identity in ways that challenge deep-seated social inequalities in their Andean world. Mamani’s experiences, writ large, highlight the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the rural-urban divide for Indigenous peoples, reinforcing the wider theme of this special issue.

REFERENCES Andersson, K., Eklund, E., Lehtola, M., & Salmi, P. (Eds.). (2009). Beyond the rural-urban divide: Cross-continental perspectives on the differentiated countryside and its regulation. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 14. Bradford, UK: Emerald. doi:10.1108/ S1057-1922(2009)0000014019 Barry, B. (2001). Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2011) Repertoires revisited: “Knowing language” in superdiversity. (Working Paper in Urban Language and Literacies No. 67). Kings College, London. Retrieved from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/ departments/education/research/ldc/publications/workingpapers/67.pdf Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2013). Superdiverse repertoires and the individual. In I. de Saint-Georges & J.-J. Weber (Eds.), Multilingualism and modality: Current challenges for educational studies (pp. 11–32). New York, NY: Springer. Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337–356. Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Canagarajah, A. S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95, 401–417. Canagarajah, A. S., & Liyanage, I. (2012). Lessons from pre-colonial multilingualism. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 49–65). London, UK: Routledge. Champion, A., & Hugo, G. (Eds.). (2004). New forms of urbanization: Beyond the urban-rural dichotomy. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (Eds.). (2014). The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Creese, A., Blackledge, A., Barac, T., Bhatt, A., Hamid S., Wei, L., . . . Yagcioglu, D. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1196–1208. Davis, M. (2004). Planet of slums: Urban involution and the informal proletariat. New Left Review, 26, 5–34. De Saussure, F. (1974). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). London, UK: Fontana. Donehower, K., Hogg, C., & Schell, E. (2007). Rural literacies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.


234

MAY

Donehower, K., Hogg, C., & Schell, E. (Eds.). (2011). Reclaiming the rural: Essays on literacy, rhetoric, and pedagogy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Edwards, J. (2001). The ecology of language revival. Current Issues in Language Planning, 2, 231–241. Edwards, J. (2010). Minority languages and group identity: Cases and categories. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Eisenlohr, P. (2004). Language revitalization and new technologies. Cultures of electronic mediation and the refiguring of communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 21–45. Galla, C. (2009). Indigenous language revitalization and technology: From tradition to contemporary domains. In J. Reyhner & L. Lockard (Eds.), Indigenous language revitalization: Encouragement, guidance and lessons learned (pp. 167–182). Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University Press. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Goldsmith, W., & Blakely, E. (2010). Separate societies: Poverty and inequality in US cities (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Green, B. (2013). Literacy, rurality, education: A partial mapping. In B. Green & R. Corbett (Eds.). Rethinking rural literacies: Transnational perspectives (pp. 14–34). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Green, B., & Corbett, R. (Eds.). (2013a). Rethinking rural literacies: Transnational perspectives. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Green, B., & Corbett, R. (2013b). Rural education and literacies: An introduction. In B. Green & R. Corbett (Eds.). Rethinking rural literacies: Transnational perspectives (pp. 1–13). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Gugler, J. (Ed.). (2004). World cities beyond the west: Globalization, development and inequality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Heller, M. (2007). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 1–22). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Heller, M. (2011). Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jørgensen, J. N. (2008). Poly-lingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(3), 161–176. Levitt, P., & Glick Schiller, N. (2008). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society. In S. Khagram & P. Levitt (Eds.), The transnational studies reader: Intersections and innovations (pp. 284–294). New York, NY: Routledge. Makoni, S. (2012). Language and human rights discourses: Lessons from the African experience. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(1), 1–20. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In S. Makoni and A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 1–41). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2012). Disinventing multilingualism: From monological multilingualism to multilingua francas. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 439–453). New York, NY: Routledge. May, S. (2011). The disciplinary constraints of SLA and TESOL: Additive bilingualism and second language acquisition, teaching and learning. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 233–247. May, S. (2012a). Contesting hegemonic and monolithic constructions of language rights “discourse.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(1), 21–27. May, S. (2012b). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. May. S. (Ed.). (2014a). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education. New York, NY: Routledge. May, S. (2014b). Introducing the “multilingual turn.” In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Routledge. May, S. (2014c). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction and the multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 7–31). New York, NY: Routledge. McCarty, T. L. (2013). Language planning and policy in Native America: History, theory praxis. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.



235

McCarty, T., Romero, M., & Zepeda, O. (2006a). Reimagining multilingual America: Lessons from Native American youth. In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. Torres-Guzman (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and glocalization (pp. 91–110). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. McCarty, T., Romero-Little, M., & Zepeda, O. (2006b). Native American youth discourses on language shift and retention: Ideological cross-currents and their implications for language planning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(5), 659–677. Musterd, S., & Ostendorf, W. (Eds.). Urban segregation and the welfare state: Inequality and exclusion in western cities. New York, NY: Routledge. Patrick, D. (2012). Indigenous contexts. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook on multilingualism (pp. 29–48). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Pietikäinen, S. (2010). Sámi language mobility: Scales and discourses of multilingualism in a polycentric environment. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 79–109. Pietikäinen, S., Alanen, R., Dufva, H., Kalaja, P., Leppänen, S., & Pitkänen-Huhta, A. (2008). Languaging in Ultima Thule: Multilingualism in the life of a Sámi boy. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(2), 79–99. Rampton, B. (2011). From “multi-ethnic adolescent heteroglossia” to “contemporary urban vernaculars.” Language & Communication, 31, 276–294. Schafft, K., & Youngblood Jackson, A. (2010). Introduction: Rural education for the twenty-first century. In K. Schafft & A. Youngblood Jackson (Eds.), Rural education for the twenty-first century: Literacy, place and community in a globalizing world (pp. 1–13). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Srinivasan, R. (2006). Indigenous, ethnic and cultural articulations of new media. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(4), 497–518. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. Waldron, J. (1995). Minority cultures and the cosmopolitan alternative. In W. Kymlicka (Ed.), The Rights of Minority Cultures (pp. 93–119). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Warriner, D. S., & Wyman, L. T. (2013). Experiences of simultaneity in complex linguistic ecologies: Implications for theory, method, and practices. International Multilingual Research Journal, 7(1), 1–14.