Plurilingual Practices Research Articles

Diversity and multilingual challenges in academic settings

ABSTRACTHigher Education is caught between internationalization on the one hand and the quest for local support by fostering local practices on the other. The clash between uniformity-standardization and localization-specialization manifests itself in every university trying to adopt internationalization strategies. How can universities manage this tension? Is diversity considered beneficial or a barrier to the internationalization process? The aim of this paper is to explore under what conditions a multilingual academic and scientific program helps to create an inclusive environment in academic settings to cope with international mobility and language diversity. The paper will discuss concepts of multilingual education upon which universities can draw. An analysis of multilingual policies will shed light on the ways they shape and create favorable conditions for the construction and transmission of knowledge in an internationalized academic context. The results drawn from the experts’ perspectives on language policy and from the analysis of plurilingual practices in the process of knowledge construction, where hybridity is associated with multimodality, point towards a balance to be found between the use of an English lingua academica and the plurilingual academic and scientific cultures.

Translingual practices and monoglot policy aspirations: a case study of Pakistan’s plurilingual classrooms

ABSTRACTCurrent research in multilingual countries supports local languages and recognizes plurilingual practices as a proficiency (e.g. Luxembourg and Nordic countries in Europe, Bolivia, Argentina, and Columbia in South America). Yet linguistically diverse and multilingual regions, such as Pakistan, continue to be challenged by monoglot language policies dominated by English. Replacing Urdu and the regional languages in education, Pakistan’s latest national education policy mandates professional and higher education in English. This paper using a multilingual theoretical framework that studies empirical data from the linguistic landscape and local classrooms illuminates unique language contact zones and plurilingualism as a competence. It also exhibits inconsistencies between the policy aspirations and people’s dispositions towards linguistic (im)purity and hybridity. The findings from the paper indicate the need of orientations to a language-in-education policy that does not isolate languages, but which accommodates plurilingual repertoires and a metalinguistic awareness.

Drawing the plurilingual self: how children portray their plurilingual resources

AbstractSocial representations have a deep impact on how societal multilingualism, individual plurilingualism, and plurisemiotic resources are described, reported, and accepted. Traditionally, two perceptions of the relationship between languages in plurilingual minds have been prevalent: the juxtaposed and the interdependent representation. A third perspective has recently emerged, reporting more dynamic and plurisemiotic communicative practices. We will analyze the most frequent patterns children use to represent their linguistic resources through visual narratives and how these representations fit into those perspectives. Our analysis evinces the dominance of more traditional representations of plurilingual resources as the sum of features from several clearly separated languages. However, some productions already point out at more supple and flexible possibilities of arranging linguistic resources. Finally, we provide some clues about the development of linguistic curricula designed for plurilingual children engaged in Heritage Language classes, and we discuss epistemological issues regarding the analysis of multimodal plurilingualism and complex plurilingual practices.

Is science really English monoglot?

This article presents a study of a multilingual research park at the University of Barcelona (Catalonia), where administrative staff, researchers and other members interact in a variety of languages. Focusing on the use of Catalan, Spanish, and English the study investigates whether all scientific tasks are carried out in English (the monoglot hypothesis regarding scientific language practices) or they are carried out in different languages depending on several variables (interlocutors, domains, etc.). An online questionnaire was sent to all members of the university research staff, and their responses provide evidence that English is the scientific lingua franca of the scientific park, but this does not mean that English has become the default language of the institution, but rather that the institution functions essentially on the basis of trilingualism. Two main factors can be singled out when trying to explain the organization of this plurilingual practice: the professional role of the PCB (Parc Cientific de Barcelona) staff, and the type of communicative activity, the latter being strongly influenced by the intended addressee. A cluster analysis of the research staff at the institution shows that there are four sociolinguistic profiles of researchers depending on their proficiency in different languages and their geographic origin. The final section argues that the processes of language change do not occur in a compact but rather in a domain-by-domain manner, according to complex balances that depend on the composition of each linguistic ecosystem.

Language Choice Among Peers in Project-Based Learning: A Hong Kong Case Study of English Language Learners’ Plurilingual Practices in Out-of-Class Computer-Mediated Communication

Recently there has been considerable interest in the role of first language use in second/foreign language learning, especially where students share a common first language. However, most research has focused on in-class interaction between teachers and learners. Much less attention has been given to students’ out-of-class practices, for example, in collaborative project-based learning. To fill this gap, the article tracks the out-of-class activities of 16 students (four project groups) involved in project work on a course in English for science students at an English-medium university in Hong Kong. An analysis of students’ computer-mediated interactions (Facebook, WhatsApp and email) shows that these interactions are plurilingual, with students drawing on English, Chinese and mixed code to different extents as they go about their project work. Different languages are used strategically: whereas L2 is used more in the construction of the final project product, L1 is used more to promote group cohesion. The findings suggest that, in plurilingual contexts like Hong Kong, it is necessary to develop an English language pedagogy that acknowledges the need for the constructive but judicious use of translanguaging and plurilingual practices as students are engaged in L2-focused (e.g. EAP) project-based group work.

Switching codes in the plurilingual classroom

The English as a foreign language classroom is a plurilingual setting par excellence since it involves at least two languages. However, plurilingual practices such as code-switching and translation have been consistently discouraged in formal learning contexts, based on the belief that keeping languages compartmentalized helps learning, and allowing the simultaneous presence of two (or more) languages favours interference (negative transfer), a lack of learner interest in using the foreign language(s), or a reduction in foreign language exposure. Two specific plurilingual learning strategies will be described here. Pedagogically Based Code-switching and Translation for Other Learning Contexts are means to advance communicative development through language in action (noticing, understanding, using, and monitoring), based chiefly on the notions of ‘translanguaging’ and ‘multi-competence’. We present a rationale for an informed use of code-switching and translation along with tasks that can be easily included in the foreign language syllabus, and reference is made to ongoing research to identify further connections between the two classroom strategies.

Nota de la editora

Blah blah

Language revitalisation from the ground up: promoting Yucatec Maya on Facebook

This paper looks at current grassroots efforts to revitalise Yucatec Maya, an indigenous language of Mexico, in social media and more specifically on Facebook. In contrast to the limitations of institutional language promotion, the inclusion of Maya on Facebook shows the possibilities that social networks offer not only for actual use of minoritised languages but also for advocacy and activism, particularly among indigenous youth. The concept of heteroglossia is also introduced to explain the plurilingual practices of youngsters in Yucatán based on their increasingly complex linguistic repertoire. The main argument is that grassroots initiatives of language revitalisation that focus on local contexts, horizontal linguistic practices, and speakers as final agents are particularly significant in a country with deeply entrenched vertical and often tokenistic policies aimed at the promotion of indigenous languages and cultures.

Plurilingual Pedagogical Practices in a Policy‐Constrained Context: A Northern Ugandan Case Study

Uganda is a linguistically diverse nation where plurilingualism is common. Its language education policy dictates that, except in large urban areas, one local language be selected as the medium of instruction (MoI), to Primary 3, transitioning to English MoI, in Primary 4. Yet, as Ramanathan and Morgan () argue, “the practice of policy encourages us, as researchers and teachers, to read between and behind the lines (cf. Cooke, ), to interpret the ambiguities and gaps … that open up moments and spaces for transformative pedagogical interventions” (p. 448). The purpose of this study, conducted in Uganda with five Primary 4 teachers and their coordinator, was to explore such possibilities. It asks: How do subject‐area primary teachers in northern Uganda use local linguistic and multimodal cultural resources as plurilingual pedagogical tools to enhance students' learning in English MoI/TESOL classrooms? What are the challenges and constraints in employing locally available linguistic and multimodal cultural resources to become plurilingual pedagogical tools in English MoI/TESOL primary school classrooms? Three themes emerged: the teachers' exploratory plurilingual practices, students as plurilingual peer tutors, and integrated multimodal and plurilingual instruction. Challenges related to the larger educational cultural context and to local school and classroom conditions are also discussed.

Plurilingual teaching and learning practices in ‘internationalised’ university lectures

This article explores how participants in ‘internationalised’ university lectures draw on the different plurilingual (and multimodal) resources available to them in accomplishing teaching and learning activities. The data are from lectures that took place in four different technology subjects at two Catalan universities. Two aspects of the corpus are focused on in the analysis. On the one hand, what is referred to as a plurilingual multimodal design of the lectures studied is presented. On the other, some ways in which the recurrent emergence of code-switching in the corpus may be considered a resource for the construction of disciplinary knowledge are sketched out. In this regard, the analysis focuses on three features: the management of participation, the management of comprehension and attention and the management of complexity. The practices studied in the article offer empirical insights into how internationalisation of universities in Catalonia and elsewhere – and in particular the teaching of subjects in a second language – can be achieved in harmony with existing plurilingualism and ensuring complexity of disciplinary content teaching and learning.

Plurilingualism, linguistic representations and multiple identities: crossing the frontiers

This article is concerned with the conditions and stakes of building competence in multiple languages in learners who, due to their language biographies or the educational system, are studying in prestigious institutional school environments, such as the French–German schools of Buc (Versailles), Freiburg (Breisgau) and Saarbrücken (Saarland). In particular, the research examines the reciprocal interactions between social representations of bi/plurilingualism and contexts of acquisition as the students integrate themselves within these institutional settings. We reviewed the conditions in which the data collected lead us to conclude or to infer changes in learners’ representations related to the languages and their language-learning experiences as well as their accumulation of knowledge. First, based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis of data elicited in the form of questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, we aimed to define the concept of plurilingual competence, which is heterogeneous in nature. This competence exists on two levels: first, on the macrolinguistic level, from the perspective of the organisation of curriculum and of individual trajectories of learning and, second, on the microlinguistic level, in its discursive and interactional reality in the learners’ plurilingual language practices. With this aim, the study began by investigating the content and the discursive processes of the development of representations by considering the dynamics of their structural and argumentative components. During the next stage, we analysed (using speech analysis tools) discursive practices such as language activities, which are situated in the interaction and contribute to the development and mutual construction of representations of plurilingualism. The study used tools of content and discourse analysis for didactic purposes. We have tried to reveal how the complex plurilingual language repertoire of French–German learners takes shape, through typological profiles and examining the constituent components of representations of identity and plurilingualism. Finally, in an active research mode, we suggest possibilities for future research on the didactics of plurilingualism and ways to rethink ‘multilingualism’.

Introduction: Presentation of the Forum

In the sciences we are accustomed to making a distinction between fundamental research, aiming at a deeper understanding of the world and the creation of new knowledge, without asking for immediate application, and 'oriented' research aiming at the elaboration of practicable solutions to burning problems. The same distinction holds true for humanities and social sciences. The DYLAN research project, which will be presented by its coordinator, Anne- Claude Berthoud in the next section, belongs clearly to the second category. The European continent, characterised by an important linguistic diversity, is seeking a new linguistic regime that will enable it to face the challenges of the globalised world of the twenty-first century. Will this regime follow the pathway offered by nation-states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who normally choose one, and only one, 'national language' to solve their problems of communication? Or is it more efficient, in economic and symbolic terms, to cope with the linguistic diversity by choosing multilingual solutions? What might be the costs and benefits of one or the other solution? This is by no means an academic question only. Important investments by European institutions, by companies and by educational systems, depend on the results of such an assessment. In addition, the answers to these questions will not be clear-cut. Thus the overarching aim of this project was to show if, in what way and under what conditions multilingualism can be an asset for companies, institutions, bodies and educational systems in Europe.This does not mean, of course, that the researchers have been asked to - or would have been able to - work out recommendations or kinds of recipes to be applied by stakeholders. Moreover, what we are doing here is not simply 'disseminating' results. Not only was the research, in its greater part, based on ethnographic methods, characterised by a constant dialogue between the researchers and their 'fields'; when it comes to the presentation of the results in this final stage of the project, their significance and validity must be discussed with the stakeholders, or better: confirmed by the stakeholders. At the best, solutions to the 'burning questions' will then have to be elaborated together - if not inside the 'terrains' only.It happens that two of the 19 research teams of DYLAN, based at the Universities of Strasbourg and Basel respectively, operate in the Upper Rhine Region and investigate, using partly different methodologies, the language management measures, the representations of pluri- or multilingualism as captured in discourse, and the monolingual or plurilingual practices observed in companies working in this region. Both teams need and seek a dialogue with their stakeholders, and because the latter are partly the same, the idea emerged to organise a common workshop in order to present initial results and to discuss them with company representatives, decision-makers at the regional level and colleagues from academia. The fact that the contact between German, Alemannic and French varieties - to which we have to add, today, English as the worldwide lingua franca - is experienced differently in the metropolitan regions of Strasbourg and Basel respectively can contribute to a better understanding of how specific contextual factors contribute to the ways in which linguistic diversity is managed in the trinational Upper Rhine region. …

Language Ideologies and Policies: Multilingualism and Education

AbstractEducating multilingual students is a great challenge for both teachers and parents in a society in which English is the medium of schooling and of wider communication. Top‐down language policies often overpower teachers’ individual intentions and practices. In this paper, we point out that language ideologies in ‘commonsense’ beliefs and political orientations, rather than pedagogical considerations or research evidence, motivate language policies. We particularly discuss the language ideologies of standardization and monolingualism that underlie bilingual education and English‐only policies in the U.S. and how these policies conflict with the reality of multilingual students’ linguistic and identity practices. We also examine research on bilingual, bidialectal, and plurilingual practices in which multiple languages or varieties within a language co‐exist and are used creatively by speakers for significant social and pragmatic functions, and we highlight the critical gap between top‐down language policies and such ground‐level plurilingualism. Teachers’ knowledge of such plurilingual practices by their students and their deeper understanding of and critical perspective toward language policies can empower them to negotiate top‐down language polices in their classrooms in order to facilitate language and literacy development among their multilingual students.

Pedagogies and Practices in Multilingual Classrooms: Singularities in Pluralities

Bilingual classrooms most often have strict language arrangements about when and who should speak what language to whom. This practice responds to diglossic arrangements and models of bilingualism developed in the 20th century. However, in the 21st century, heteroglossic bilingual conceptualizations are needed in which the complex discursive practices of multilingual students, their translanguagings, are used in sense‐making and in tending to the singularities in the pluralities that make up multilingual classrooms today. Examining the case of a network of U.S. secondary schools for newcomer immigrants, the International High Schools, this article looks at how students’ plurilingual abilities are built through seven principles that support dynamic plurilingual practices in instruction—heterogeneity, collaboration, learner‐centeredness, language and content integration, language use from students up, experiential learning, and local autonomy and responsibility. As a result, students become not only more knowledgeable and academically successful but also more confident users of academic English, better at translanguaging, and more plurilingual‐proficient. The article presents translanguaging in education as the constant adaptation of linguistic resources in the service of meaning‐making and in tending to the singularities in the pluralities that make up multilingual classrooms today.

Plurilingual competence, styles and variation

The paper explores plurilingual competence in respect to language proficiency, language education and pluri- and multilingualism. The notion of communicative competence was introduced by Hymes (1972) as a reaction to chomskyan view of language as an autonomous system. Hymes’ notion of communicative competence originally included plurilingualism. The concept of communicative competence was quickly adopted to applied linguistics but the idea of a linguistic repertoire consist-ing of the competencies of linguistic varieties was not imported to SLA or language testing. The Hymesian perspective to plurilingualism as an essential dimension of communicative competence was revived in the Common European Framework (CEFR). However, the practice of applying the CEFR has mostly neglected the dimension on plurilingualism and plurilingual competence. The focus in the use of the CEFR has been on the different areas of language skills within one single language at a time, while the application of plurilingual practices has gained very little attention. The Hymesian notion of communicative competence has lived on in the sociolinguistic research tradition, especially within interactional sociolinguistics. The present paper relates the notion of plurilingual competence to its hymesian origin, to recent trends in plurilingual and pluricultural education, and to the sociolinguistic study of style and linguistic variation in multilingual communities. The article uses Finnish L2 data to show how plurilingual competence is used as an interactional resource. From the perspective of language learning, plurilingual compe-tence enables speakers with different linguistic backgrounds to use their shared linguistic repertoire in order to ensure smooth interaction and achieve mutual understanding

Urban plurilingualism: Language practices, policies, and ideologies in Chicago

Plurilingual language practices in Chicago are examined using the notions of linguistic markets and language ideologies. Plurilingualism encompasses bi/multilingualism and bidialectalism, or both, in dynamic use. Chicago always was and is plurilingual; traders speaking Haitian Creole, French, and English confronted speakers of indigenous Checagou languages in the late 18th century, and the enormous 19th century migration brought German and other European languages. 20th century migration brought Asian and other world languages and, notably, Spanish. Ethnographic research in homes, workplaces, schools, and religious organizations illustrates vibrant contemporary plurilingualism. Both historical and contemporary plurilingualism are embedded in a larger context of competing language ideologies that explain the persistence of plurilingual practices and the ambivalent history of official language policy in Illinois. Although dominant ideologies valorize a monoglot standard English, plurilingual practices evidence a persistent valuing of non-(standard) English language. For example, the official language policy of the Chicago Public Schools promotes (standard) English at the expense of students’ community languages, whereas the grass-roots Multilingual Chicago Initiative promotes Chicago's plurilingualism. Dominant ideologies that link a codified “standard” with modernity, clarity and rationality and vernacular varieties with lack of education and irrationality explain the former, whereas local linguistic markets explain the latter.

Beyond fear and loathing in SG

This paper considers the real mother tongues of Singapore, namely the Chinese ‘dialects’ and Singlish, the linguistic varieties which, respectively, arrived with the original immigrants to the rapidly developing British colony, and evolved in the dynamic multilingual ecology over the decades. Curiously these mother tongues have been regarded with fear and treated with loathing in the official language policies and accompanying prestige planning that have been developed and executed in Singapore since independence, being actively denigrated and discouraged in official discourse, viewed as not having a place in the globalization goals of the nation. Looking beyond the official line and census figures, actual linguistic practices of the community of speakers testify to the vitality of these varieties, in spite of the official sanctions; moreover, in spite of itself, the government does in fact allow itself the use of these mother tongues when certain contexts call for it. This paper suggests that an enlightened consideration of native ‘dialects’ and nativized Singlish and the plurilingual practices in which they are used, as well as of the question of intelligibility, must point policy makers in directions where fears are assuaged and spaces made for the natural existence and evolution of such varieties in multilingual ecologies.

Plurilingual conversations among bilingual adolescents

Turkish–Danish grade school students use not only their L1 and their L2 in group conversation. A number of additional varieties are represented by token one-word loans or by whole utterances. Among these varieties are English, French, and German at the high-prestige school-subject end of the range, and a stylized, stereotypical immigrant Danish reflecting the accented Danish of Middle East immigrants at the low-prestige end of the range. In their conversations, the adolescents not only use these varieties in keeping with the evaluations ascribed to them in school and in society in general, but also to signal ironic distance to certain varieties and, by implication, to adult norms of language use. The present paper uses group conversations from the Køge Project to illustrate how the young Turkish–Danish bilinguals draw on shared knowledge of societal evaluations in their plurilingual practice and also how they distance themselves from these evaluations. Such activity involves not only ‘crossing’ in Rampton's terms and ‘double voicing’ in Bakhtin's, but also explicit references and discussions. The paper concludes that it makes little sense to distinguish between ‘monolinguals’ and ‘bilinguals’ or, for that matter, ‘multilinguals’ in this context, as the patterns of language use with reference to general norms and evaluations are the same for all language users.