4001 PLENARY SPEECHES it avowedly refers to(Pennycook 2007:chapter 4).As Blommaert(2005:232)notes,'[t]he performance of identity is not a matter of articulating one identity,but of the mobilization of whole of identity features converted into complex and subtle moment-to-moment In sum,an ecological lens enables us to view multilingual transactions carried out in multilingual settings not only as the negotiation of meanings across turns at talk nor as the joint achievement of common communicative goals mediated by semiotic affordances like language.tripe or corn flour.but as the enactment.re-enactment.or even stvlized enactment s the replay of cultural m se,rather than only learni or using these languages,the protagonists in these data signal to each other which symbolic world they identify with at the time of the utterance.As complexity theorist Katherine Hayles notes,a qualitative analysis of conversational data such as these has much in common with literary analysis (Hayles 1990.1991 cited in Byrne 1997:4). 4.Symbolic competence An ecological analysis of the data above reveals a much greater degree of symbolic action than is usually acc isition and use.Social actors in multilingual settings,even if they are non-native sp nguages they use,seemt activate more than a communicative competence that would enable them to communicat accurately,effectively and appropriately with one another.They seem to display a particularly acute ability to play with various linguistic codes and with the various spatial and temporal resonances of these codes.I have called this competence'symbolic competence'(Kramsch 90061 Symbolic c lity not only to approxima r oneself and used.Such an ability is reminiscent of Bourdieu's notion of sens bratigue.exercised by a habitus that structures the very field it is structured by in its quest for symbolic survival (Bourdieu 2000).Here,however,we are dealing with a multilingual sens pratique that multiplie the possibilities of meaning offered by the various codes in p sence.In today's global and migratory world,distinction might not come so much from the mastery of one or several linguistic systems as much as it comes from 'the multilingual ability to operate between languages'(MLA 2007).Because it depends on the other players in the game,we should talk of a'distributed'symbolic competence,which operates in four different ways. 4.1 Subjectivity or subject-positioning In the data above,speakers take on subject positions regarding the symbolic power of this vs. that language,the respective social values of Maya,Chinese,Spanish and English.Subject positioning has to do less with the calculations of rational actors than with multilinguals' heightened awareness of the embodied nature of language and the sedimented emotion w 2018 at 16:55:52,subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,400 PLENARY SPEECHES it avowedly refers to (Pennycook 2007: chapter 4). As Blommaert (2005: 232) notes,‘[t]he performance of identity is not a matter of articulating one identity, but of the mobilization of a whole repertoire of identity features converted into complex and subtle moment-to-moment speaking positions’ (emphasis in the original). In sum, an ecological lens enables us to view multilingual transactions carried out in multilingual settings not only as the negotiation of meanings across turns at talk nor as the joint achievement of common communicative goals mediated by semiotic affordances like language, tripe or corn flour, but as the enactment, re-enactment, or even stylized enactment of past language practices, the replay of cultural memory, and the rehearsal of potential identities. By performing English, Maya, Spanish or Chinese, rather than only learning or using these languages, the protagonists in these data signal to each other which symbolic world they identify with at the time of the utterance. As complexity theorist Katherine Hayles notes, a qualitative analysis of conversational data such as these has much in common with literary analysis (Hayles 1990, 1991 cited in Byrne 1997: 4). 4. Symbolic competence An ecological analysis of the data above reveals a much greater degree of symbolic action than is usually accounted for in the study of language acquisition and use. Social actors in multilingual settings, even if they are non-native speakers of the languages they use, seem to activate more than a communicative competence that would enable them to communicate accurately, effectively and appropriately with one another. They seem to display a particularly acute ability to play with various linguistic codes and with the various spatial and temporal resonances of these codes. I have called this competence ‘symbolic competence’ (Kramsch 2006). Symbolic competence is the ability not only to approximate or appropriate for oneself someone else’s language, but to shape the very context in which the language is learned and used. Such an ability is reminiscent of Bourdieu’s notion of sens pratique, exercised by a habitus that structures the very field it is structured by in its quest for symbolic survival (Bourdieu 2000). Here, however, we are dealing with a multilingual sens pratique that multiplies the possibilities of meaning offered by the various codes in presence. In today’s global and migratory world, distinction might not come so much from the mastery of one or several linguistic systems as much as it comes from ‘the multilingual ability to operate between languages’ (MLA 2007). Because it depends on the other players in the game, we should talk of a ‘distributed’ symbolic competence, which operates in four different ways. 4.1 Subjectivity or subject-positioning In the data above, speakers take on subject positions regarding the symbolic power of this vs. that language, the respective social values of Maya, Chinese, Spanish and English. Subject positioning has to do less with the calculations of rational actors than with multilinguals’ heightened awareness of the embodied nature of language and the sedimented emotions https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005065 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 01 Nov 2018 at 16:55:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at