Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2023, Page 171

which seems to be in conflict with your overall theoretical framework of polylan-
guaging. Based on this, I would like you to elaborate a bit on:
Why you have chosen this term?
And maybe; could you think of other existing terminology that could better
describe the (communicative) functions of these features?

Vanessa Isenmann:
I agree that independent features mainly fulfill a communicative function.
But I would argue that all linguistic features have a communicative function
in some sense. The term independent features accounts for the fact that I con-
sider these features to be “independent” of any language system. They can
be implemented and used within any language system. Another term for
them could have been “universal” features. Also, I do not think that the term
conflicts with the notion of polylanguaging. As I have pointed out before,
polylanguaging does not abandon the idea of languages altogether. It allows
us to associate features with certain languages. But as “independent” cannot
be associated with any language, I think the term independent feature does in
fact emphasize the idea behind polylanguaging, namely that speakers make
use of whatever features they have at their disposal to achieve their commu-
nicative goals.

3.3 Analytical points and results
In this section I discuss some of the analytical points and results of Vanessa’s dis-
sertation. Firstly, I address the findings related to the link between language
choice, audience and identity. In this quote, Vanessa (p. 178) sums up the differ-
ent linguistic strategies for audience design observed in the data:
On the one hand, users address Icelandic and non-Icelandic contacts simul-
taneously by sharing the same contribution both in Icelandic and another
language. On the other hand, informants may alternate between Icelandic
and non-Icelandic audiences by sharing some posts in Icelandic but other
posts in another language […] In short, the qualitative analysis presented in
this chapter demonstrates that audience plays a key role regarding users’ dig-
ital practices and linguistic choices.
As far as I understand this (and the analysis of language choice), Vanessa estab-
lishes a rather direct link between language choice and the linguistic background
of the audience. That is, English is used to reach a global English-speaking audi-
ence and Icelandic is used to reach a local Icelandic-speaking audience. This way
of connecting linguistic resources and national identity appears a bit too simplis-
Comments and discussion points from the second opponent 171