Legitimizing multilingual practices in the classroom: the role of the ‘practiced language policy’

Florence Bonacina-Pugh

doi:10.1080/13670050.2017.1372359

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis paper revisits the notion of ‘legitimate language’ [e.g. Bourdieu 1977. “The Economics of Linguistic Exchange.” Social Science Information 16 (6): 645–668] as it relates to multilingualism in educational contexts. Since Heller [1996. “Legitimate Language in a Multilingual School.” Linguistics and Education 8: 139–157] developed the notion of ‘legitimate language’ to encompass issues of language choice, there has been a consensus that a legitimate language is a language that is appropriate in a given situation. However, a crucial issue remains to be addressed, namely that of knowing what benchmark do classroom participants use to know when a language is appropriate, that is, legitimate or not. To address this issue, this paper takes as an example the case of an induction classroom for newly-arrived immigrant children in France where multiple languages have been observed. A Conversation Analysis of a set of audio-recorded interactions reveals that whilst languages other than French are not legitimised by top-down language policies and ideologies held at the societal and institutional levels, they are nevertheless seen as legitimate according to the local ‘practiced language policy’ [Bonacina-Pugh 2012. “Researching ‘Practiced Language Policies’: Insights from Conversation Analysis.” Language Policy 11 (3): 213–234]. This paper thus argues for a multi-layered understanding of legitimacy and shows how in the classroom under study, and possibly in other multilingual classrooms, practiced language policies play a key role in the legitimisation of multilingual language practices.

Highlights

A natural starting point when reflecting on the concept of ‘legitimate language’ is to return to the work of Bourdieu (e.g. 1977, 1991) for whom a legitimate language is: Uttered by a legitimate speaker, i.e. by the appropriate person, as opposed to the impostor; it is uttered in a legitimate situation, i.e. on the appropriate market and addressed to legitimate receivers; it is formulated in the legitimate phonological and syntactic forms, except when transgressing these norms is part of the legitimate definition of the legitimate producer. (Bourdieu 1977, 650)
I take the case of an induction classroom for newly-arrived immigrant children in France, where multilingual practices are seen as legitimate despite the fact that only French is legitimised by top-down language policies and ideologies
English and Romanian are not legitimised because Miss Lo and the pupils orient to the top-down language policies and surrounding ideologies but rather because they orient to a norm of language alternation acts according to which languages other than French become legitimate when they are licensed by the teacher

Summary

Introduction

A natural starting point when reflecting on the concept of ‘legitimate language’ is to return to the work of Bourdieu (e.g. 1977, 1991) for whom a legitimate language is: Uttered by a legitimate speaker, i.e. by the appropriate person, as opposed to the impostor (religious language/ priest, poetry/poet, etc.); it is uttered in a legitimate situation, i.e. on the appropriate market (as opposed to insane discourse, e.g. a surrealist poem read in the Stock Exchange) and addressed to legitimate receivers; it is formulated in the legitimate phonological and syntactic forms (what linguists call grammaticalness), except when transgressing these norms is part of the legitimate definition of the legitimate producer. (Bourdieu 1977, 650). As Reagan (2016) among others argue, the legitimacy of a language has no linguistic foundations – that is, to put it that no language can be said to be linguistically superior or inferior to another – some languages continue to be legitimised whilst others are not and that for political, economic and ideological reasons so that speakers of a legitimate language remain in power whilst speakers of nonlegitimate languages remain marginalised In this initial and fundamental understanding of the concept of ‘legitimate language’, emphasis is given, as can be seen in the quote above, on ‘legitimate phonological and syntactic forms’ (Bourdieu 1977, 650, my emphasis). At the level of the educational system, the language policy is strictly monolingual as evidenced by the Code de l’Education where it is stated that French should be the only medium of instruction: The language of teaching, exams, entrance examinations, as well as theses and dissertations in public and private education institutions is French, except for the teaching of foreign and regional languages and cultures or, when teachers are visiting professors or foreign guests. (Code de l’Education, Article L-121-3: II, my translation)

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion