There is already found marriage between linguistics and sociology in such sociological methodology as ethnomethodology, which considers not only routine practises, but ordinary, daily language. If there will appear more daily life research of celebrities', ordinary or marginal groups, certainly, more marriages between linguistics and sociology will appear.

I suppose we could consider Linguistics as a subfield of Sociology anyways, i.e., as a field which is concerned with the representation and organisation of linguistic knowledge in the minds of people who live in societies. I don't see how a complete description of language could be achieved that does not take into account the fact that people live (and communicate) in social groups.

Such collaboration will hold a bright future as new cultures and sub cultures emerge amongst the millennials, the so called digital natives and the analysis of linguistics phenomenon within such digital communication microcosms will require inter disciplinary theoretical underpinnings and frameworks not just from sociology but other relevant fields like psychology, psycholinguistics, culture etc.

In our publications, we often cite Fairclough (linguist) and Foucault (sociologists) , especially when we write about the hegemony of certain linguistic codes and proliferation of social relations in various domains. The former is interested in analysing discourse critically (text and context) whereas the latter researched dynamics of power and social change (often expressed semiotically through discourse and action). Fairclough deals with issues of power asymmetries, manipulation, exploitation, and structural inequities as seen in the media, social institutions and education. Foucault addresses relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used to exert control on social institutions and people. I believe there is a thin line separating the two. But I find it difficult to isolate the separating line itself.

The collaboration seems rather efficient especially when and if the feedback of the audience or social impact of the research is of prime importance as it might be in code-switching studies ot movie title adaptation.

It's also important for modern discourse studies as a piece of media linguistics.

It is especially true, Elena, in the context of multimodality and multiliteracies in higher education and society. Hybridisation, translanguaging and the switching between codes do not only provide for epistemologies, but contributes to ontologies of our students in Africa. so the being of students (subjectivities) is very much important as their intellectual development (i.e. the development of declarative and procedural knowledge).

Thank yoyu, dear colleague, Thembinkosi Mtonjeni.

Tha fact is that I'm teaching at the RUDN UNiversity a few subjects concerning general linguistics in the multinational classrooms for two decades. And I do share your opinion that the ontology opf students is really inmportant especially when you have to find some balance in discussions and the students in the classroom come from various eathnic communities. So their background (in the field of both epystemology and ontolody) hardly ever coinside but might have something in common/ This is, in my opinion, the possibility to reach understanding, firstly, i the classroom