Rhizomatic eduscapes constitute a theoretical and methodological proposition within the sociolinguistics of literacies that reconceptualizes the ways in which learning space is mapped and made meaningful as a dynamic sociolinguistic ecosystem. In contrast to traditional approaches to linguistic landscapes, which focus primarily on the analysis of the visible semiotic resources of a given space, the rhizoanalytic approach conceptualizes learning space as a dynamic assemblage of people, languages, materialities, practices, and affects that are continuously undergoing processes of transformation (Κίτσιου, 2024; Kitsiou et al., 2025).
This theoretical proposition draws inspiration from and builds upon research traditions that seek to shift attention away from the static description of sociolinguistic realities towards the investigation of dynamic processes of meaning-making. The need for such a conceptualization of sociolinguistic reality is particularly pronounced in the case of liminal, in-between, or threshold learning spaces, such as those formed in camps, detention facilities, shelters for unaccompanied minors, refugee settlements, and similar contexts. In such settings, it is both significant and analytically productive to conceptualize the educational context as a hybrid superdiverse sociolinguistic space, in which multilingualism, power relations, and everyday interactions jointly shape an environment that is constantly changing. Within this framework, linguistic ethnography does not position the researcher as an external observer, but rather as an active member of the social assemblage itself, foregrounding knowledge as a product of participation, engagement, and co-construction (Kitsiou, 2022).
Moving beyond the boundaries of linguistic ethnography, the rhizoanalytic approach draws on Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) philosophy of the rhizome. From a rhizomatic perspective on sociolinguistic literacy research, knowledge is not organized linearly or hierarchically; rather, it emerges through multiple, open-ended, and unpredictable connections. By incorporating this philosophical perspective into sociolinguistic and literacy research, this approach proposes a shift from analysing the interaction of predefined linguistic structures towards examining processes of becoming, deterritorialization, and reterritorialization through which students, educators, languages, and spaces are continuously transformed (Κίτσιου, 2024).
This rhizomatic approach is further expanded through the conceptualization of the rhizomatic translanguaging space, described as a fluid and porous space in which sociolinguistic repertoires are not treated as fixed collections of linguistic resources but as sociolinguistic repertoires in the process of becoming (becoming repertoires), dynamically constituted and transformed through linguistic interaction. Within this framework, translanguaging practices are analysed as processes of deterritorialization and reterritorialization through which relations among languages, speakers, space, and power are continuously reconfigured. At the same time, linguistic ethnography is reconceptualized as a multi-layered analytical process in which the understanding of linguistic performances is not confined to the researcher’s on-site participation but develops through the distinction between primary translanguaging spaces (in situ), where linguistic interaction is directly experienced during literacy events, and secondary translanguaging spaces (ex situ), which emerge retrospectively through the transcription, translation, and reflexive engagement with ethnographic data. This distinction highlights the fact that the interpretation of linguistic practices constitutes a non-linear, synchronous and asynchronous process, in which new meanings, desires, resistances, and sociolinguistic negotiations become visible only through a posteriori linguistic understanding. In this way, the analysis of translanguaging practices is enriched, revealing more clearly the complexity of sociolinguistic repertoires in superdiverse educational environments (Κίτσιου & Καραντζόλα, 2026).
The concepts of translanguaging space (Wei, 2018) and the literacy chronotope (Kitsiou & Karantzola, 2022), together with the methodological approaches of rhizomatic cartography (Hagood, 2004) and rhizoanalysis (Masny, 2016), thus enable the mapping of learning as an emergent, multimodal, and spatiotemporal process. From this perspective, literacy events are conceptualized as dynamic assemblages in which linguistic practices, materialities, social relations, and affective experiences interact and jointly shape learning space (Kitsiou & Karantzola, 2022; Κίτσιου & Καρατζόλα, 2024).
In proposing the concept of rhizomatic educational linguistic landscapes to describe the learning that takes place through interactions with young people in detention, Kitsiou, Chrysikou, and Stathopoulou (2026) conceptualize educational space as a “common space” of equitable participation, collaboration, and collective knowledge production. Since this constitutes a formal educational environment, in contrast, for example, to camps or shelters for unaccompanied minors, which are associated with non-formal education, they propose the use of rhizocurrere (Pinar, 2011). By thus building bridges between non-formal and formal education through rhizocurrere, the curriculum is reconceptualized as a living, non-linear process that incorporates participants’ desires, lived experiences, linguistic repertoires, and unpredictable interactions, even within contexts of social exclusion, such as shelters for unaccompanied minors or juvenile detention facilities (Kitsiou et al., 2025).
Following Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) invitation, we experiment with these new rhizome-inspired concepts, thereby bringing Deleuzo-Guattarian philosophy into an exploratory and experimental dialogue with sociolinguistics, literacy theory, and language education. Within the Rhizomatic Eduscapes, or Rhizo-Eduscapes research project, the lens of this experimentation focuses on the application of established theoretical and analytical tools to Greek formal and non-formal educational contexts, as well as on the development of new conceptual tools that broaden the international scientific discussion surrounding educational linguistic landscapes, translanguaging, and (socio)linguistic justice (Kitsiou, 2022; Κίτσιου, 2024; Kitsiou & Karantzola, 2022, 2024; Kitsiou et al., 2025).
References:
Felix, G., & Guattari, D. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Trans. by Massumi, B.)., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Hagood, M. C. (2004). A rhizomatic cartography of adolescents, popular culture, and constructions of self. Spatializing literacy research and practice, 15, 143-160.
Kitsiou, R. (2022). Puzzle(s)/d in a hybrid sociolinguistic space: Researcher’s immersion in the everyday life of a hosting center for unaccompanied minors. In V. Mabel (Ed.), Researching Transculturally: Methodological Issues and Challenges (pp. 39–59). Cambridge Scholars Publishing: UK.
Kitsiou, R., & Karantzola, E. (2022). The Becoming “Literacy Chronotope”: Mapping Translanguaging among Unaccompanied Minors as a Rhizome. The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities, 29(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0128/cgp/v29i01/93-111
Kitsiou, R., Chrysikou, V., & Stathopoulou, C. (2025). From frozen spaces to rhizomatic eduscapes of possibility: transforming the prison classroom into a common space for youths through rhizocurrere. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2025.2604956
Κίτσιου, Ρ. (2024). Αξιοποιώντας το «ρίζωμα» στην κοινωνιογλωσσολογική και την εκπαιδευτική έρευνα. Παιδαγωγικά ρεύματα στο Αιγαίο, 13(1).
Κίτσιου, Ρ. & Καραντζόλα, Ε. (2026). Επιτέλεση «μη κανονικών» κοινωνιογλωσσικών ρεπερτορίων αραβόφωνων ασυνόδευτων ανηλίκων σε έναν ριζωματικό διαγλωσσικό χώρο. Στο Δ. Κόκκινος, Β. Κούρτη-Καζούλλη, Μ. Οικονομάκου, & Γ. Κατσαδώρος (Επιμ.), Γλωσσική ετερότητα και εκπαίδευση: Τιμώντας την Ελένη Σκούρτου (σσ. 193-206). Εργαστήριο Γλωσσολογίας, Λαογραφίας και Λογοτεχνίας, Παιδαγωγικό Τμήμα Δημοτικής Εκπαίδευσης, Πανεπιστήμιο Αιγαίου.
Κίτσιου, Ρ. & Καραντζόλα, Ε. (2024). Μια ριζωματική χαρτογραφία του διαγλωσσικού χώρου: η περίπτωση μιας γίγνεσθαι-τάξης γλωσσικού γραμματισμού αραβόφωνων ασυνόδευτων ανήλικων προσφύγων. Στο S. Tsiplakou & E. Ioannidou (Eds.), Multilingualism, Variation, Spaces of Literacy. Selected Papers from the 6th International Conference “Crossroads of Language and Cultures” (CLC6), 2-5 September 2021 (pp. 243-258). Open University of Cyprus.
Masny, D. (2016). Problematizing qualitative research: Reading a data assemblage with rhizoanalysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(8), 666–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800415617206
Pinar, W. F. (2011). The Character of Curriculum Studies: Bildung, Currere, and the Recurring Question of the Subject. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137015839
Wei, L. 2018. “Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language.” Applied Linguistics 39(1):9-30.