Text 2-4. Polylingualism, multilingualism, plurilingualism

(Based on the Toolkit for Transnational Communication in Europe. Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism. University of Copenhagen, 2011)

Polylingualism

The concepts of monolingualism, bilingualism, and multilingualism build on the notion of languages as separate sets of features which can be distinguished from each other and counted. In bilingualism speakers know two such languages, i.e. they have acces to and competence in using two different sets of linguistic features in interaction.

However, over the past decades sociolinguistics has criticized the traditional concept of languages as separate and separable sets of features. The idea of separate languages as bounded systems of specific linguistic features belonging together and excluding other linguistic features is found to be insufficient to capture the reality of language use, at least in late modern superdiverse societies (Vertovec 2010), and perhaps altogether. Instead the concepts of languages as separable entities are seen as sociocultural constructions which certainly are important, but rarely represent real-life language use.

This has led to several new concepts of the relationship between people and languages, and to different terminology with respect to behavior which involves features associated with different languages. Where the multilingualism perspective views people's competences and behaviors in terms of "how many languages" they know and use, recently the understanding has developed that people will also use features associated with languages of which they know very little (Rampton 1995, Otsuji & Pennycook 2009, Jørgensen et al. 2011).

Bailey comments on this in his "heteroglossic" approach to language. Approaching monolingualism and bilingualism as socially constructed does not change their social force at the level of lived experience, but it does show that this social force is not a function of formal, or inherent linguistic differences among what counts as languages (Bailey 2007).

Different terms have been used for the practices through which speakers employ features associated with different languages, in particular several different languages, some of which the speakers do not know very well. For instance, Otsuji & Pennycook use the term metrolingualism, and Jørgensen et al. 2011 use the term polylingualism. The view of language use is the same, namely that there are no linguistic restrictions on what can be combined in real-life language production, but there are social restrictions which are related to political and ideologically motivated norms.

Linguistic behavior is often regimented by ideological norms of language use, in particular ideas of "pure" language, so-called monolingualism norms which prescribe the restricted use of features only belonging to "one" languge at a time (Jørgensen 2010). In real life people regularly use features associated with different languages, however, and such behavior (so-called code-switching) has been the object of intense study in sociolinguistics. The behaviors have been regimented by the multilingualism norm.

The monolingualism norm. Persons with access to more than one language should be sure to master one of them before getting involved with the other.

The (double or) multiple monolingualism norm. Persons who command two or more languages should at any one time use only one language, and they should use each in a way that does not differ from monolingual usage.

The integrated (bi- or) multilingualism norm. Persons who command two languages are encouraged to employ their full linguistic competence in two or more different languages at any given time adjusted to the needs and the possibilities of the conversation, including the linguistic skills of the interlocutors.

The polylingualism norm. Language users employ whatever linguistic features are at their disposal to achieve their communicative aims as best they can, regardless of how well they know the involved languages; this entails that the language users may know - and use - the fact that some of the features are perceived by some speakers as not belonging together.

The term polylingualism refers to a view of language based on features. Languages in this view are sociocultural constructions. Speakers use features and not "languages". At times this will entail using features side by side which are associated with different languages. Furthermore, it involves the possible use of features not generally considered to belong to a language to which the speaker has access, i.e. a language the speaker does not "know". This does not mean that all speakers can use all language – speakers are restricted by sociocultural norms of language behavior, by dynamics of power, ideology, and by different access to resources. In a range of situations, however, they will use features "belonging to different languages", even when they only know very few items from some of these "languages".

Multilingualism The notion of multilingualism is commonly taken to refer to the knowledge and use of two and more languages in the individual and in society at large. No clear distinction is made in this context between bilingualism and multilingualism since the focus is not restricted to two languages.

One reason for this vagueness can be seen in that research on bilingualism has traditionally focused upon two languages while, at the same time, also including the study of more than two languages, which were seen through a bilingual lens, however. It was only in the 1980es with increasing globalization and growing multiculturalism in society that multilingualism gained momentum, which eventually led to expanding the binary paradigm of bilingualism through rethinking language, culture and identity in more dynamic and flexible terms.

The traditional understanding of languages as distinctly identifiable entities came to be seriously questioned and critics argued that conceiving of bi- and multilingualism simply as a collective container of separate parallel monolingualisms could no longer be maintained (cf. Martin-Jones 2007). In recent publications, bilingualism is often taken to include multilingualism (cf. Wei 2010) or multilingualism is in turn used to include bilingualism (cf. Pavlenko 2005). Alternatively, both terms are used in conjunction to indicate the distinctiveness and yet similarity of bi- and multilingualism.

Over the last two decades, the issue of multilingualism has come to be assigned increasing political importance. This holds true for the European context, and particularly for the European Union. Here, the requirements of advancing Europeanization and the move towards upholding European cultural and linguistic diversity resulted in a conception of multilingualism as a political strategy which would ensure the Union's cultural and economic integration into a transnational community. The ideology of diversity suggested that a transnational community necessitates a pluralistic language regime based upon the principle of equality, which allows for democratic participation while at the same time forming the ground for a common European identity.

Recent studies on the major principles that actually guide the central assumptions concerning multilingualism in Europe reveal that the foundations of the concept are debatable since there is a wide-spread tendency to conceptualize multilingualism as a simple addition of the various languages, i.e. preferably the big national languages, while a great many languages stemming from regional minorities and recent immigration are neglected in this conception.

At the same time, assumptions of this kind imply a severe blending of language, identity and culture which, again, suggests that the languages are connected to homogeneous speech communities, identities and cultures. This, however, leaves little room for the dynamic realizations of the connections between culture, identity and language as they appear to be currently conditioned by Europeanization, globalization and migration within the late-modern European society. Needless to say, the nation-state ideology still continues to prevail in these assumptions and that the step towards multilingualism beyond the nation-state has as yet not been taken.

Another critical point is that multilingualism is put to the service of contradicting interests such as linguistic equality and the respect of human rights on the one hand, and market-based capitalization of languages on the other. The principle of equality of languages implies that all speakers should have the right to use their languages, suggesting that minorities have an equal share within the European diversity framework. At the same time, multilingualism as an economic capital appears to be essentially restricted to a few powerful languages which are to ensure mobility, market efficiency and competitiveness. The multiple linguistic resources of the minorities, and particularly the immigrant minorities, in turn, are largely silenced in this conception.

Examples of this kind show that to date the meaning of 'multilingualism' remains vague and leaves scope for conflicting and inconsistent interpretations on how to shape a pluralistic regime in Europe. Moreover, they indicate that managing linguistic diversity in terms of 'multilingualism' appears to experience great difficulty in adapting to minorities and to newly emerging patterns of migration.

Plurilingualism

Plurilingualism is another concept of the relationship between people and languages. Similarly to polylingualism it refuses the idea of languages as separate and separable linguistic entities. Like the term multilingualism, plurilingualism has been used for individual and societal phenomena as well, although it has a clear focus on the individual dimension of languages since it is sometimes even understood as individual (as opposed to societal) multilingualism.

The development of plurilingualism is interpreted in different ways:

• It may be interpreted as one of the terminological consequences of the European Union's enhanced emphasis on multilingual education (e.g. Jessner 2008).

• Others consider the use of plurilingualism as a terminological choice characteristic of Francophone research, whereas Anglophone researchers tend not to differentiate terminologically between societal and individual multilingualism (e.g. Kemp 2009, De Cillia 2008).

• Most frequently, plurilingualism has become associated with the Council of Europe's language policy, see chapter 1.3 of the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages is very clear about the integrative and intercultural nature of plurilingualism in conceiving of plurilingual competence as a complex competence which is fed by all linguistic knowledge as well as by the linguistic and cultural experiences of the individual.

• In this conceptualization, the components relating to the single languages are not to be seen as being stored separately, but rather as parts of the plurilingual and pluricultural competence. Despite the Council's focus on plurilingualism, there is no clear division between the EU using multilingualism (and hence suggesting an additive framework) and the Council of Europe's plurilingualism. To give an example, the term "multilingualism" may even imply that the conceptual basis of plurilingualism is at stake, which is the case in some of the European Union's language policy documents (e.g. COM 2003).

If one starts out from the conceptualization of plurilingualism mentioned above and goes beyond the terminological debate, one can follow that "plurilingual" which is frequently associated with "pluricultural" competence implies paradigmatic changes at various levels:

• A holistic, multiple, dynamic, and individual vision replaces a segmented vision of language skills.

• The focus is on disequilibrium and partial competence rather than on balance of skills.

• The importance of circulations, mediations and passages between languages and cultures are highlighted instead of separateness (see Coste & Moore 2009).

It seems that these changes are most evident in the domain of multilingual education and that in this domain a new theoretical frame is actually emerging which more or less explicitly integrates plurilingualism. To give an example, Garcia's typology of bilingual education opens up new perspectives on multilingual education in this sense: She assumes that monoglossic ideologies do not cover the actual linguistic complexity, which cannot be seen through a traditional "diglossic lens" (García 2009).

In her view heteroglossic ideologies differ from the monoglossic ones in so far as they start out from multilingualism and go beyond the conception of two separate autonomous languages that prevails in additive or subtractive bilingualism models (both pertaining to the monoglossic ideologies). Within the heteroglossic ideologies she develops the recursive and dynamic theoretical framework. The latter, which she explicitly relates to the Council of Europe's concept of plurilingualism, is seen as the most appropriate model for multilingual education. The link to polylingualism and translanguaging is more than obvious:

"If we focus then not on separate languages as we have done in the past, but on the bilingual or multilingual discourse practices that we need and that are readily observable in bilingual classrooms, we can see that bilingual arrangements that build on translanguaging, (...), is indeed the only way to build the plurilingual abilities that we will need in the future" (García 2009: 297).

Instruction: Explication of facts and details given in the text. Factual or detail questions ask about explicit facts and details given in the passage. To answer factual questions, you have to locate and identify the information that the question asks about. Negative questions ask you to determine which of the choices is not given in the passage. These questions contain the words NOT, EXCEPT, or LEAST. Scanning questions ask you to find where in the passage some particular information or transition is located. They are easy to identify: the answers are usually found in the line of the text. If you are not sure from your first reading where to look for specific answers, use the following scanning techniques.

• Focus on one or two key words as you read the stem of each question. Lock these words in your mind.

• Scan the passage looking for the key words or their synonyms. Look only for these words. Do NOT try to read every word of the passage.

• It may help to focus your attention. Don't reread the passage completely—just look for key words.

• When you find the key words in the passage, carefully read the sentence in which they occur. You may have to read the sentence preceding or following that sentence as well.

• Compare the information you read with possible answer choices.

The order of facts or details in the text almost always follows the order in which ideas are presented in the passage. In other words, the opening information you need will usually come near the beginning of the passage; the next factual information will follow that, and so on. Knowing this should help you locate the information you need. Correct definitions of details are seldom the same, word for word, as information in the passage; they often contain synonyms and use different grammatical structures.

Factual Questions

What did Vertovec observe while studying modern superdiverse societies?

• (A) Bounded systems of specific linguistic features in separate languages.

• (B) Languages are separate sets of features which can be distinguished from each other and counted.

• (C) People use features associated with languages of which they know very little.

What terms have been used for the practices through which speakers employ features associated with different languages?

What ideological norms of language use is linguistic behavior often regimented by?

What does the term polylingualism refer to?

Where in the passage does the author first discuss "pluricultural" competence?

Where in the passage does the author specifically stress that multilingualism serves contradicting interests?

In what paragraph does the author first mention the ideology of diversity?

Scanning questions

Scanning questions are usually easy to answer. Use the same techniques for scanning given about detail questions. For each question, locate that part of the passage in which the answer will probably be found, and write it out. Don't worry about answering the question itself, only about finding the information. Do these scanning questions as fast as you can.

Sample Questions

• Is there another concept of the relationship between people and languages.?

• What is the term for using in real life features associated with different languages?

• What has plurilingualism become associated with?

Negative questions

Negative questions often take more time to answer than other questions. Therefore, you may want to guess and come back to these questions if you have time. Scan the passage to find the answers that ARE correct or ARE mentioned in the passage. Sometimes the three distractors NOT, EXCEPT, or LEAST are clustered in one or two sentences; sometimes they are scattered throughout the passage. The correct answer, of course, is the one that does not appear.

Sample Questions

According to the passage, only one of the following is true: The development of plurilingualism is interpreted in different ways. (A) It may be interpreted as one of the terminological consequences of the European Union's enhanced emphasis on multilingual education. (B) Most evident paradigmatic changes at various levels of multilingual education. (C) The principle of equality of languages. Which choice is true?

Unit 2-5. LANGUAGES BEYOND BOUNDARIES

Guidelines for extensive reading of ESP texts

The students' main task is reading, but writing summaries is valuable not only to provide a means for teachers to check comprehension, but because the writing of summaries improves comprehension. In addition, this practice helps students improve their writing ability. Another task that can be adapted for extensive reading is the "standard exercise," a set of open-ended questions that can be designed to suit most texts available to students in a course. Students also have some responsibility for determining the appropriateness and comprehensibility of the texts they are reading. One means of doing this is checking dictionary use: too much necessary use shows that the text is too difficult. Too much unnecessary use shows that the student's approach is not appropriate for extensive reading. In any case, a poor or inappropriate text is not the disaster it can help in a translation or skills-building course because in the extensive reading procedure reading is individualized: if a text proves to ' be uninteresting or too difficult, the student simply abandons it for another. In other words, readability or comprehensibility is an element of the course rather than a precondition, and is determined by the techniques of this procedure.

Text 2-5. LANGUAGES BEYOND BOUNDARIES

(Based on Virginie Mamadouh’s article in the Toolkit for Transnational Communication in Europe. Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism. University of Copenhagen, 2011)