Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Journal of the Sociology of Language

Founded by Fishman, Joshua A.

Ed. by Duchêne, Alexandre / Coulmas, Florian

CiteScore 2018: 1.10

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.062
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.933

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 2018, Issue 254


Transcending networks’ boundaries: losses and displacements at the contact zone between English and Hebrew

Efrat EilamORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6076-6487 / Julianne Lynch
Published Online: 2018-09-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-0039


This conceptual article applies a theoretical-linguistic analysis for examining the socio-cultural-historical networks that gave rise to two distinct forms of out-of-school education. One form is practiced in western English speaking cultures and termed “informal education”. The other form is practiced in Israel and termed “complementary education”. The process of examination applies the theoretical lens of Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) to analyse how social- historical-cultural-political processes have interacted to produce “complementary education” in Israel. This is followed by analysis of the bi-lingual translation processes that take place at the contact-zone (Pratt, M. L. 1991. Arts of the contact zone. Profession, ofession, 33–40. Modern Language Association Publishers.) between the two languages. The ANT analysis revealed a network consisting of a unique educational model that closely aligns with Ivan (Illich, I. 1971. Deschooling society. New York, USA: Harper and Row.) model presented in his seminal book Deschooling society. The examination also revealed that over time, the Anglophone term “informal education” displaced the Hebrew term “complementary education”, yet the network itself with its unique model continues to thrive. Examination of the contact zone between English and Hebrew found a strong Anglophone dominance, which permits only unidirectional translation from English to Hebrew. The discussion argues for developing post-monolingual research which provides opportunities for bi-directional translation processes to take place, thus eliminating losses of valuable knowledge at both sides of the contact zone.

Keywords: bi-lingual contact-zone; cross-linguistic knowledge development; informal education; out-of-school education; Actor-Network–Theory; complementary education


  • ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2011. Australian Social Trends, ABS cat. no. 4102.0. Canberra: ABS. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features40Mar+2011 (accessed 10 June 2017).

  • Akena, F. A. 2012. Critical analysis of the production of western knowledge and its implications for indigenous knowledge and decolonization. Journal of Black Studies XX(X). 1–21. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Artzi, I. & N. Mendel-Levi 2015. Informal Education in the local municipalities and in nationwide spread. Prepared as background information for the first evaluation meeting of the expert committee on informal education. The National Israeli Academy for Sciences, the Initiative for Applied Research in Education.Google Scholar

  • Eilam, E. Bigger, W.S. Sadler, K. Barry, F. & Bielik, T. 2016. Universities Conducting STEM Outreach: A Conceptual Framework. Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eilam, E. Bigger, W.S. Sadler, K. Barry, F. & Bielik, T. 2016. Universities Conducting STEM Outreach: A Conceptual Framework. Higher Education Quarterly 70(4). 419–448. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Becker, A. L. 1988. Language in particular: A lecture. In D. Tannen (ed.), Linguistics in context, 17–36. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

  • Brown, S. D. 2002. Michel Serres: Science, translation and the logic of the parasite. Theory, Culture and Society 19(3). 1–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc bay. In J. Law (ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? vol. Sociological review monograph, 196–233. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

  • Callon, M. 1991. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Callon, M. & B. Latour. 1981. Unscrewing the big leviathan: How actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. D. K.-C. & A. V. Cicourel (eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of Micro- and Macro- sociologies, 277–303. Boston, Mass: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

  • Callon, M. & B. Latour. 1992. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to collins and yearley. In A. Pickering (ed.), Science as practice and culture, 343–368. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

  • Campus-Teva at Tel-Aviv University. http://campusteva.tau.ac.il/ (accessed 18 August 2016).

  • Cohen, A. O. 1999. The informal education. In fifty years to the education system in Israel. Israel: Jerusalem [in Hebrew].Google Scholar

  • Creese, A., T Barac, A. Bhatt, A. Blackledge, S. Hamid, Li Wei, et al. 2008. Investigating multilingual- ism in complementary schools in four communities. Final Report to ESRC RES-000-23-1180. Birming- ham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

  • Creese, A. & A. Blackledge. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94(1). 103–115.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cressman, D. 2009. A brief overview of actor-network theory: punctualization, heterogeneous engineering and translation. ACT Lab/Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology (CPROST), School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. [online] URL: http://blogs.sfu.ca/departments/cprost/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/0901.pdf.

  • DeStefano, J. & A. M. Schuh Moore. 2010. The roles of non-state providers in ten complementary education programmes. Development in Practice 20(4/5). 511–526.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dierking, L.D., J.H. Falk, L. Rennie, D. Anderson & K. Ellenbogen. 2003. Policy statement of the “Informal Science Education” Ad Hoc committee. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(2). 108–111.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eton, Y. & M. Chen. 1975. Leadership. In Y. Meyuhas (ed.), Complementary education, 169–145. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education and Culture.Google Scholar

  • Fallik, O., S. Rosenfeld & B. Eylon. 2013. School and out of-school science: A model for bridging the gap. Studies in Science Education 49(1). 69–91.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frankenstein, K. 1975. On the training of instructors in the group education. In Y. Meyuhas (ed.), Complementary education, 139–135. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education and Culture.Google Scholar

  • García, O. & W. A. Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Husher, K. 2010. Building an evaluation framework for Australian science and maths outreach programs in schools. Newcastle Australia: The University of Newcastle PhD.Google Scholar

  • Illich, I. 1971. Deschooling society. New York, USA: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

  • Kahana, R. 2007. Youth and the informal code: Youth movements in the twentieth century and postmodern youth sources. Israel: Jerusalem.Google Scholar

  • Kahana, R. & R. Rapoport. 1997. The origins of postmodern youth: Informal youth movements in comparative perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co.Google Scholar

  • Kalivensky, H. 2008. From complementary education to informal education for all. Mifne 58. 33–38. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar

  • Knesset Centre of Research and Information. 2002. The program Noar Shocher Mada. Prepared for the chair of the committee for education and culture, Zebulon Orlev. Israeli: Knesset, 11 June 2002 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar

  • Knesset Centre of Research and Information. 2011. The rate of student drop out from the formal education system. Israeli: Knesset, 22 November 2011 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar

  • Knesset Eighteenth, fourth session. 2012. Protocol 679. The Committee for Education Culture and Sports. Monday, 23 July 2012 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar

  • Knesset, Centre of Research and Information. 2012. Governmental involvement in providing complementary frameworks and informal education to youth: Comparative exploration. Written by Itai Weisblai. Israel: Jerusalem: Knesset Publications, 20 June 2000 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar

  • Lam, Z. 1975. Complementary education as a mechanism for changing institutionalized education. In Y. Meyuhas (ed.), Complementary Education, 44–38. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education and Culture. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar

  • Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar

  • Law, J. 2007. Actor network theory and material semiotics. Retrieved from http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf. (accessed 24 May 2017).

  • Law, J. & S. Singleton. 2005. Object lessons. Organization 12(3). 331–355.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Local Municipalities Law (Director of the Youth Unit and Students and Youth Council). 2011. Authorized by the Knesset on the 24th of Adar 5771 (30 March 2011); The bill and explanatory notes were published in the Government Bill—561, of the day (31 January 2011). 410. http://www.knesset.gov.il/privatelaw/data/18/3/561_3_1.rtf (accessed 24 May 2017) [In Hebrew].

  • Maingueneau, D. 2015. Monolingualism and creativity. Mètode Science Studies Journal-Annual Review 6. 115–119.Google Scholar

  • Mandel-Levy, N. & I. Artzi 2016. Informal education for children, teenagers and youth in Israel: Testimonies from the field and a learning process summary, project report. Jerusalem: The Initiative for Applied Education Research, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar

  • National Research Council (NRC). 2009. Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, D.C: National Research Council, National Academies Press.Google Scholar

  • Piller, I. & Y. Yildiz. 2013. Beyond the mother tongue: The postmonolingual condition. New York: Fordham University Press xi, 306., Book Reviews. Language in Society 42(4). 463–466.Google Scholar

  • Pratt, M. L. 1991. Arts of the contact zone. Profession, Ofession, 33–40. Modern Language Association Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Radder, H. 1992. Normative reflexions on constructivist approaches to science and technology. Social Studies of Science 22(1). 141–173.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ruitenberg, C. 2009. Distance and defamiliarisation: Translation as philosophical method. Journal of Philosophy of Education 43(3). 421–435.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sadler, K. Eilam, E. Bigger, W. S. & Barry, F. 2018. University-led STEM outreach programs: purposes, impacts, stakeholder needs and institutional support at nine Australian universities. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3). 586–599. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schwartz, S. E. O. & G. G. Noam 2009. Informal science learning in after school settings: A natural fit? Commissioned paper for the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. Washington, DC.Google Scholar

  • Scope, Y. 2013. Initial study: Increased teachers’ drop-out following OFEK Chadash Reform. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/education/.premium-1.2038399.

  • Shohamy- Goldberg, E. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London and New York: Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar

  • Singh, M. 2010. Connecting intellectual projects in China and Australia: Bradley’s international student-migrants, Bourdieu and productive ignorance. Australian Journal of Education 54(1). 31–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Singh, M. 2011. Learning from China to internationalise Australian research education: Pedagogies of intellectual equality and ‘optimal ignorance’ of ERA journal rankings. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 48(4). 355–365.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Singh, M. 2016, 9th–10th June 2016. Next-generation researchers’ theorising global mobility education. Paper presented at the paper presented at the symposium for re-valuing service learning and outward-bound mobility experiences through University institutionalisation of twenty-first century educational practices. Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar

  • Singh, M. 2017. Post-monolingual research methodology: Multilingual researchers democratizing theorizing and doctoral education. Education Sciences 7(28). doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stocklmayer, S. M., J., Léonie, L. J. Rennie & J. K. Gilbert. 2010. The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education 46. 1–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tynjälä, P. 2008. Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review 3. 130–154.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vidislavsky, M. 2012. Reforms in the education systems. Review. Israel Government. Ministry of Education, The Pedagogical Administration, Department of Primary Education. Jerusalem: Israel [in Hebrew].Google Scholar

  • Werquin, P. 2010 Recognition of Non-Formal and Informal Learning: Country Practices. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. February, 2010.Google Scholar

  • Yildiz, Y. 2011. In the postmonolingual condition: Karin Sander’s wordsearch and Yoko Tawada’s wordplay. Transit. Escholarship University of California 7(1). 1–20.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-09-25

Published in Print: 2018-10-25

Citation Information: International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Volume 2018, Issue 254, Pages 185–204, ISSN (Online) 1613-3668, ISSN (Print) 0165-2516, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-0039.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in