The multilingual turn as a critical movement in education ...

Gabriela Sylvia Meier*

The multilingual turn as a critical movementin education: assumptions, challengesand a need for reflection

DOI 10.1515/applirev-2016-2010

Abstract: This study establishes the multilingual turn as part of a criticalmovement in education. It highlights the importance we ought to attach tohow we understand the concepts of language, the learners and languagelearning and related terms, as such assumptions determine what languageteachers and learners do in the classroom. A thematic decomposition analysisof 21 chapters, contained in two books both with phrase the multilingual turnin their title (Conteh and Meier 2014, The multilingual turn in languages educa-tion: Opportunities and challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters; May 2014a,The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education. NewYork: Routledge), confirms that new critical understandings of these conceptshave developed in recent years. While there is not total accord, my findingsshowed that authors, associated with the multilingual turn, conceive languagesas a resource for learning and as associated with status and power; the learnersas diverse multilingual and social practitioners; and learning as a multilingualsocial practice based on theoretical pluralism, consistently guided by criticalperspectives. While theoretically relatively well established, the multilingualturn faces important challenges that hamper its translation into mainstreampractice, namely popularly accepted monolingual norms and a lack of gui-dance for teachers. The findings combined with previous research inform aframework to reflect on practice, which may, in the long term, help address thechallenges identified.

Keywords: critical pedagogy, language learning, multilingualism, bilingualism,reflective practice

*Corresponding author: Gabriela Sylvia Meier, Graduate School of Education, University ofExeter, Heavitree Road Heavytree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland, E-mail: [email protected]

Applied Linguistics Review 2017; 8(1): 131–161

1 Introduction

Our assumptions about language, learners, language learning and related con-cepts determine what we do as language teachers and what we expect ourlearners to do. This article examines in what way such concepts are understoodas part of the multilingual turn (Conteh and Meier 2014; May 2014a), anddiscusses implications for theory, pedagogy, teacher education and research.

‘Turn’ is a name given to a development that has established itself, or is inthe process of establishing itself. There have been previous ‘turns’ in the fieldof second and foreign language learning. For example, Block (2003: 11) explainsthat the cognitive turn, which came about in the 1980s, occurred at “themoment in which a critical mass was reached, whereby one could begin tospeak of SLA [second language acquisition] as a respectable area of research inits own right”. Based on this, when people talk about a ‘turn’, the phenomenonthey are describing is not new but has been noticed and developed over sometime and has gained some significance. The social turn gained momentumwhen Firth and Wagner (1997) questioned cognitive understandings, emphasis-ing the social dimensions in language learning (Block 2003). This was based onthe observation of a division between those researchers who argued that secondlanguage learning occurs in the mind of the learner through individual proces-sing of information (e. g. Pienemann 2008) and of those who argued thatsecond/additional language learning, as indeed all learning, is socially con-structed and mediated above all through social interaction (e. g. Lantolf 2011).This has led to ontological differences of how we conceptualise and understandlanguage, learners and language learning (Atkinson 2011a; Myles and Mitchell2004), concepts which I in turn took as a starting points for my study. In thisarticle, I confirm that the field has developed a new turn in recent years.

The article is based on two books, which were published in 2014, both withthe phrase “the Multilingual Turn” in the title. They were conceived indepen-dently on different sides of the globe: one was edited by Stephen May (2014a) inNew Zealand and the other one by Jean Conteh and Gabriela Meier (2014) in theUK. Both books argue that there is a need to break down boundaries betweenlanguage education for so-called ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ language populations,terms that will be critiqued below. May presents research predominantly fromAnglo-Saxon/Western contexts while Conteh and Meier present research fromfive continents, including Continental Europe.

In order to synthesise the theoretical understandings that the authors,including myself, jointly establish, I used thematic analysis to examine in whatway the concepts in question, as well as related features of the multilingual turn,

132 Gabriela Sylvia Meier

are understood in these two books. Thus, the overarching research question was:in what way are language(s), learners and language learning conceptualised inthe two books?

This article is not a literature review, as it does not summarise the findingsor arguments presented in the two books. In contrast, by deconstructing dis-courses and assumptions identified in the chapters, and by thematically analys-ing these, it elaborates ontological foundations of the multilingual turn, whichcan be associated with a critical movement in education, including challenges,which inform the framework for reflection I propose below. Thus, this articlecomplements the two books, and related literature, and would be useful toanyone who is interested in expanding their understanding of the multilingualturn and where we can go from here.

In the way of a theoretical starting point, I will review how these conceptshave been understood in the past, followed by a description of the researchdesign. I then report themes identified, before, in the final section, I discussfindings, offer answers to the research question and a discussion including aframework to guide critical interrogation of theory, practice, and research.

2 Conceptualisations of language, learnersand learning in the past

Many researchers have been interested in the concepts of language, learners andlanguage learning (e. g. Atkinson 2011a; Kumaravadivelu 2005; Myles andMitchell 2004; Norton and McKinney 2011), as the understandings of theseconcepts inform teaching in the classroom. Based on this, I will provideaccounts of the different conceptualisations as well as their theoretical princi-ples, and outline respective pedagogic implications. Myles and Mitchell (2004)and Atkinson (2011b: title) provide useful and, in my view, complementaryoverviews of cognitive, socio-cultural and sociolinguistic perspectives as wellas “alternative approaches to second language acquisition” respectively. Whiledescriptions of this kind are part of many textbooks, I will look at these againand identify to what extent different understandings allow for intralingual orindeed crosslingual conceptualisations, based on Kumaravadivelu’s (2005: 187)idea of language learning through either keeping language systems separate andoperate in one only (intralingual), or through a compound bilingual, or multi-lingual, approach (crosslingual). Thus, I reviewed literature that preceded themultilingual turn, with the following aims in mind:

The multilingual turn as a critical movement 133

– Summarise the history and development of the three concepts– Establish to what extent concepts were based on intralingual or crosslingual

understandings– Summarise pedagogic implications

2.1 Language

I identified four strands of developments in the literature: cognitive, integrated,socio-critical and multimodal understandings of language, which I will discussin this order.

Structuralists understand language as discrete monolingual and separatestructures that can be studied (Saussure 1966). Based on cognitive understand-ings of language, grammar is seen as a system that can be processed by humans(Chomsky 1959; Pienemann 2008; Towell and Hawkins 1994) or as a pattern thathumans build in their mind (cf. connectionism, emergentism), and based onusage of language (Ellis 2006; Tomasello 2003). In these views, language isconceptualised largely mono- or intralingually as a stable representationalsystem that exists independent of the people who use it.

Literature suggests a new integrated/crosslingual way of looking at lan-guage started around the 1980s, based on the much cited, and at the timevisionary, interdependence hypothesis (Cummins 1979), arguing that bilingualshave an underlying integrated language proficiency rather than separate mono-lingual competencies. This hypothesis, which has since been accepted based onneuroscience and psychology research, confirmed, for example, that multilin-guals have an integrated multilingual lexicon (Kroll et al. 2013; Lowie et al. 2014)from which they draw for all communication, placing language in the minds ofusers. In sociolinguistics this is echoed by languages understood as integrated inthe form of a language repertoire (Blommaert and Backus 2011). Complexitytheorists understand language “as a complex adaptive system, which emergesbottom-up from interactions of multiple agents in speech communities” andthus as a “dynamic set of patterns emerging from use” (Larsen-Freeman2011:49) that constitutes a “system [that] is in constant flux” (50). This under-standing posits that languages are integrated in the mind, dynamic and con-structed through social interaction.

The notion of bottom-up and more socially and critically informed under-standings of language, as conceived by sociocultural and post-structural theor-ists, have had a series of followers, as language is seen as a tool forcommunication (Halliday 1985), as a dynamic tool for social action (Atkinson2011a: 146) and mediation (Lantolf 2011). Thus language is not seen as separate


from people, but constructed through a local practice (Pennycook 2010) throughwhich “relationships and identities are defined, negotiated, and resisted”(Norton and McKinney 2011: 77), as well as a practice that occurs in contactzones (Pratt 1991) where languages meet. Thus languages are no longer seen asbelonging to just one place but are seen as translocal and deterritorialised(Blommaert 2010). Whereas previously languages were thought to ‘belong’ tothe people who speak them as native speakers (Wright 2004), more recent user-based understandings of language reject the idea of ownership based on birthand propose dynamic and developmental language models, where languageownership can be acquired later in life (Canagarajah 2013; Jenkins 2006).Thus, from a critical perspective, languages and literacy are not neutral butinherently political and a site of struggle (Sarroub and Quadros 2014).

A further movement led to the understanding of language, as part of amultimodal repertoire, as an “intricate web of social meaning woven fromgrammar, intonation, gaze, gesture, head movement, bodily orientation, andadditional semiotic resources” (Atkinson 2011b: 147), and as socially constructedbased on ideology and power as “a web of interlinked socio-political andhistorical factors that shape one’s identity and voice” (Kumaravadivelu 2005:72). Dynamic systems theory makes a useful contribution by conceptualisinglanguages as crosslingual systems, including dialects, genres, registers anddiscourses, as “being patterned and structured while being open to changeand further pluralization” (Canagarajah 2013: 31).

In sum, an alternative understanding has developed over the last 35 years orso, which views languages not to exist separately from one another, nor sepa-rately from the people who use them, nor from the wider social and politicalframework, but as an integrated, crosslingual, dynamic and multimodal semio-tic system, as translocal and mobile resources owned by those who use them toengage in practice in a contact zone.

2.2 The learners

Early behaviourists conceptualised learners as empty vessels or trainablethrough external stimuli (Skinner 1957). The cognitive turn, importantly, recon-ceptualised learners as people who have a cognitive and creative capacity toprocess environmentally available input. In this view, the learner’s mind and thearchitecture of the brain constituted the main interest as part of a learningtheory (Myles and Mitchell 2004). More socially-informed conceptualisations ofthe learner (e. g. Block 2003; Firth and Wagner 1997), see learners as socialactors who construct meaning and new knowledge in social interaction with


others, based on Vygotsky’s (1978) ideas (Lantolf and Appel 1994), in interactionwith the world (Norton and McKinney 2011), as agents who “play an active rolein language development” (Larsen-Freeman 2011: 55) and in turn shape and areshaped by their environment (Atkinson 2011a; Larsen-Freeman 2011). As will beseen below, the notions of social practice, agency and environment are impor-tant to understand the multilingual turn.

The idea that individual differences (e. g. motivation, ability) can be viewedas “stable and monolithic learner traits”, which is associated with cognitiveperspectives, has been criticised (Larsen-Freeman 2011). This led to a majordeparture from behaviourist/cognitive understandings in two ways: 1) towardslearner heterogeneity and variability, emphasising “[t]he unique local particula-rities of the person as self-reflective intentional agent, inherently part of andshaping his or her own context” (Larsen-Freeman 2011, based on Ushioda), andtowards affordances and relationships. Based on this, researchers became inter-ested in “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, howthat relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the personunderstands possibilities for the future” which are associated with identity(Norton and McKinney 2011: 73), based on post-structural and critical concep-tualisations. In a review of learner conceptualisations over time, Kibler andValdés (2016) showed that learner categorisations are not neutral, and the waywe talk about learners matters. Thus, identity development is also seen as a siteof struggle, as it is socially negotiated and “constantly changing across time andspace” (Norton and McKinney 2011: 75).

More recently, theoretical pluralists have proposed socio-cognitive(Atkinson 2011a; Larsen-Freeman 2007; Zuengler and Miller 2006) and ecological(Pennycook 2004; van Lier 2004) understandings, pointing towards reconcilia-tion of theoretical perspectives. The latter sees the learners as “ecologicalorganisms” who “make decisions to deploy language resources to realize trans-actional, interpersonal, educative, self-expressive, etc. goals and the multipledimensions of self and identity, affective states, and social face” (Larsen-Freeman 2011: 58), and who “depend on [and shape] their environment tosurvive” (Atkinson 2011a: 143). Thus, according to Atkinson, mind, body andthe world are interactively connected. To conclude this section, I argue thatcrosslingual alternative views of learners have developed over time.

2.3 Language learning

Perspectives on learning are based on classical, behaviourist, cognitivist andsocial conceptualisations. Power and identity approaches have broadened the


field, proposing more holistic and complex, critical and post-structuralistunderstandings.

The classical method was based on the understanding that languages need tobe studied through the analysis and translation of texts (Cook and Singleton2014), modelled on the study of Latin or ancient Greek in Europe. Relevantpedagogic methods include the grammar-translation (see Howatt andWiddowson 2004), contrastive-analysis and error-analysis (Gass 2013) approachesthat are associated with an emphasis on the correct production of structures andform, based on detailed, crosslingual comparison between languages. Theseapproaches may seem outdated to some, but they are arguably crosslingualand empower the bilingual teacher, as an expert bilingual role model.

Behaviourist views of second or additional language learning have paral-lels with training animals through environmental stimuli (Skinner 1957).Pedagogic implications of this are that “practice makes perfect” throughreinforcement, repetition, imitation and reward (Myles and Mitchell 2004:31), which was the foundation of the largely monolingually conceived audio-lingual approach (Cook and Singleton 2014). Such approaches to learning arewhat Kumaravadivelu (2005: 90) describes as language-centred approaches,which “treat learning as a linear, additive process” that can be planned andstructured, and that is to a certain degree predictable. The task of the teacher,in this view, is “to introduce one discrete linguistic item at the time, and helpthe learner practice it” (2005: 90).

Cognitivist or psychological views of second language learning are based onthe information processing metaphor, suggesting that learners process, developpatterns and make sense of input (Davies and Elder 2004; Krashen 1985) that isprovided by the environment. In this view, learning is associated with learning-centeredness, in which learning is seen as unpredictable, and which “requiresthe creation of conditions in which learners engage in meaningful activities inclass”, and with learner-centeredness “based on the learner’s real-life languageuse in social interaction or for academic study” (Kumaravadivelu 2005: 92).Pedagogies related to this understanding of learning include communicativelanguage teaching (Howatt and Widdowson 2004), immersion education(Lasagabaster and Sierra 2007), task-based learning and teaching (Ellis 2003),and other concept-based teaching methods. This approach is usually based onmonolingual and intralingual pedagogies (Kumaravadivelu 2005), modelled onfirst language acquisition. It is often associated with the native-speaker aim forsecond language learners, and with the idea that native speakers are best placedas language models and teachers. This preference of native speakers is apractice that is particularly wide-spread in the world of English language teach-ing globally.


Socio-cultural and post-structuralist understandings assume that languagelearning is based on co-construction of meaning, focussing “on the constructionof interpersonal interactions where participants actively and dynamicallynegotiate not just textual meaning, but also their social relationships”(Kumaravadivelu 2005: 70). In this conceptualisation of learning, it is not justthe teacher that facilitates learning but also peer-learners. Socio-cultural theory,based on Vygotsky (1978), emphasises support/strategy instruction (scaffolding)so that the learners can move towards autonomous learning (self-regulation)and fulfil their potential with the help of others (zone of proximal development)(Lantolf 2011). This conceptualisation assumes that learners have differentlearning trajectories and backgrounds, and thus learn in different and unpre-dictable ways based on socio-constructivism. The role of the teacher is thereforeto assess individual needs, provide scaffolding and provide formative feedbackor dynamic assessment. As this perspective is open to the use of other lan-guages, such as the first language, to support additional language learning(Moore 2013), I argue that this pedagogy could be described as potentially butperhaps not explicitly crosslingual. Based on their understanding of languageas a social and political construct, post-structuralists (e. g. Duff and Talmy 2011;Norton and McKinney 2011) and critical educationalists (e. g. Kumaravadivelu2005) go a step further in that they not only understand learning based oninteraction, but also on the power-relations inherent in relationships of learn-ing. Teachers must therefore not only provide learners with suitable contentand conditions for learning (context), but also think about identity formationand social transformation, under the umbrella of empowering education(Kumaravadivelu 2005).

More recently, “ecological accounts of learning” that are interested in theintersection between individuals and social interaction perspectives (Larsen-Freeman 2011: 66) have found increased attention, claming that “mind, body,and world function integratively in second language acquisition” (Atkinson2011a: 143). This intersection approach, combining different perspectives, or“holistic approach” (Larsen-Freeman 2011: 67) to language development,requires locally relevant pedagogies (Kumaravadivelu 2005), positing that tea-chers should have an awareness that “language, its use, and its acquisition aremutually constitutive” (Larsen-Freeman 2011: 49). In addition to this, languagesocialisation theorists recommend that “greater attention [is paid] to L1, L2, L3,etc.” and the roles of these in particular contexts (Duff and Talmy 2011: 111).

Crosslingual pedagogic approaches are not a recent phenomenon. Some areclearly based on the cognitive paradigm: grammar-translation (Howatt andWiddowson 2004), contrastive analysis (Gass 2013), intercomprehension(Carrasco Perea 2010); and some guided by socio-constructivist, critical or plural


paradigms: plurilingualism1 (Council of Europe 2001), third-language education(Cenoz 2012), use of L1 in L2 education (Cook 2001; Scott & de la Fuente 2008),content and language integrated learning (Mehisto et al. 2008; Meyer et al.2015), translanguaging (García & Leiva 2012; Williams 2000) and translingualpractice (Canagarajah 2013).

2.4 Summary of the literature

In this section I have confirmed that new crosslingual understandings of thethree concepts have developed prior to the multilingual turn. Some theoristscontinue their work guided by cognitive and largely intralingual perspectives(e.g. Gass 2013), while others now work in a more critical multilingual or cross-lingual paradigm (e. g. Canagarajah 2013; Cenoz 2012). Furthermore, it showsthat crosslingual understandings of languages and learners are a more recentphenomenon, while crosslingual understandings of learning – and teaching –may not be new, but they have changed over time. More recent crosslingualunderstandings consider languages as dynamic in the way that they shape andare shaped by language users, and that languages are integrated in mind, bodyand world, and do not exist separate from these. They further consider languageuse and learning to be based on social practice. In the present study, I will fleshout such cross-lingual understandings by an in-depth analysis of the first twobooks (Conteh and Meier 2014; May 2014a) explicitly associated with the Englishphrase the multilingual turn.

3 The present study

In order to answer the research question introduced above, I used thematicanalysis. This is a commonly used method to identify deductive/inductive andsemantic/latent themes, and to establish and report patterns identified acrossdifferent data sets (Braun and Clarke 2006). The data sets in this case are the21 chapters in the two books (May 2014a; Conteh and Meier 2014).

My analytical approach draws in part on Stenner’s thematic decompositionmethod (1993), which “is a specifically-named form of ‘thematic’ discourseanalysis which identifies patterns (themes, stories) within data, and theorises

1 The term plurilingualism indicates personal bi/multilingual language competences as definedby the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001).


language as constitutive of meaning and meaning as social” (Braun and Clarke2006: 8). The thematic decomposition method has the aim of going beyond“neutrally identifying and labelling” themes or positions in a text, but aims to“look to what may be said to be achieved by its use”. I argue that this method isuseful to examine or deconstruct the content of the two books, to identify andquestion “subject positions” and potential “competing stories”. To this end thereare some similarities with critical discourse analysis.

With the help of NVivo 9 software, I first searched for the three maindeductive themes in the texts: language, learners and learning. The sub-themesand dimensions relevant to these concepts were established both deductively(guided by literature) and inductively (based on data rather than on predeter-mined categories). I coded relevant passages into themes (nodes) and then intosub-themes or dimensions. Findings are reported in the next section based onthe coding structure thus established (Tables 1–5).

In the way of limitations, the reader needs to be made aware that I am oneof the editors (Conteh and Meier 2014), thus positively inclined toward cross-lingual approaches. Furthermore, the analysis is limited to two books. Havingsaid this, I position my findings in the context of research published over thelast decades, thus strengthening my arguments as outlined below.

4 Findings

May’s book contains nine and Conteh and Meier’s twelve chapters. The former had12 contributing authors, and the latter 18. Some chapters were co-authored andsome authors contributed to more than one chapters in one or both books. In orderto contextualise these books and determine subject positions (Stenner 1993), Ilooked at the two unpublished book proposals that were submitted to Routledge(May 2014a) and to Multilingual Matters (Conteh and Meier 2014). Both suggest themultilingual turn to have implications for theory, pedagogy and practice, andinterestingly both identified the need for a dialogue between second and foreignlanguage education. In his proposal, May stresses the monolingual and the native-speaker bias in SLA and TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages),while Conteh and Meier invite alternative views to monolingual school practices.Both proposals suggest a critical approach: May explicitly by suggesting the needfor “an alternative, critical multilingual, approach”, and Conteh and Meier impli-citly by suggesting the need for new ways of thinking about multilingualism ineducation, in relation to equality, social justice, social cohesion, belonging andempowerment of learners and teachers.


In the following sections, I will first report themes and subthemes, andprovide examples of authors who mentioned these in one or more of thechapters, all published in 2014.

4.1 Conceptualisation of language

Interesting findings in this section report the way authors conceptualise/describe languages in different ways, how they all relate language to statusand/or power, see it as a resource, and as conceptualised multilingually. Themain themes identified (Table 1) will serve as headings, and the numbers in thetable indicate in how many chapters each dimension was mentioned. Thisformat is also applied to the following sections.

4.1.1 Description of languages

Languages were described/labelled in three different ways: where they arespoken (spatial), in which succession they are acquired (succession), or wherethey come from (origin). Spatial labels given to languages indicate where thelanguage that is being acquired/studied is spoken, such as abroad, locally or

Table 1: Conceptualisation of language.

Themes and sub-themes No of chapters

Description of languageLabels (description based on space, origin, succession)

As a resource

As literacy

As a system

As embodiment

Language and powerStatus

Power

Ownership

MultilingualismAs practice

Integrated in the mind

Alternative understandingsTowards mobile, dynamic, integrated, social, expertise-

based understandings


supra-regionally. Successional labels given to languages indicate that languagesare developed in succession: first language, second language or third language.All authors except Conteh et al. (2014a) and Li Wei (2014) refer to languages inthis way. However, some query the idea that languages are developed neatly oneafter the other (Conteh et al. 2014a; May 2014b), and argue that the developmentof language repertoires is more complex than this. Origin labels are given tolanguages in order to show what community the languages might belong to(heritage, migrant, community language) or that they were developed throughblood ties (mother tongue, native, family, ancestral language). All authorsexcept García and Kano (2014), Hu and McKay (2014) and Norton (2014) referto languages as related to their origin. Some problematise this practice(Cruickshank 2014), by arguing that simple labels (e. g. heritage language lear-ners) are not appropriate to describe the “complexity and dynamism of theyoung people’s identities”. This resonates with Blommaert’s (2010) idea oftranslocal languages, and of language ownership based on usage rather thanbirth (Canagarajah 2013; Jenkins 2006). According to my analysis, viewinglanguages as translocal is a feature of the multilingual turn. However, in thetwo books, sometimes these labels are used uncritically, perhaps because theyare embedded in the educational discourse, e. g. heritage languages in the USA,or community languages in the UK.

Language is also described as a resource, above all as a social resource. Thisis supported by all 21 chapters (see above all Blackledge et al. 2014; Canagarajah2014). Furthermore, languages are seen as a resource for learning in twelve andfor teaching in six chapters. Based on this, the languages-as-a-resource view is apronounced feature associated with the multilingual turn and is supported byAtkinson’s book (2011a) for instance. Associated with this is the idea of Englishas a particular linguistic resource that is deemed necessary for education andemployability in English-speaking as well as international contexts (Norton2014). Authors have observed developments in understanding language as amobile resource (Canagarajah 2014; Conteh et al. 2014). This means that alllanguages, including English, would be seen as mobile resources, steering awayfrom ‘native speaker’ and ‘mother tongue’ understandings, and from territorialconceptualisations of language, proposing a languages-as-deterritorialised-mobile-resource view.

Literacy is a term that is often used to describe competence to read andwrite in the official language of instruction in schools, which can be the firstlanguage for some, and a developing new language for others. Literacy ismentioned in 15 of the chapters as being related to power, as a social practiceand related to cognitive development (see above all García and Kano 2014;Norton 2014). The interest in the development of other languages beside the


school language has increased in recent years, thus encouraging a dialoguebetween previously separate disciplines (literacy, modern/foreign and secondlanguage). The chapters indicate that the development of different languagesshould not, in principle, be separated from one another (Meier 2014a; Young2014).

Interestingly, as part of the multilingual turn, languages are still – oragain – described as a system, albeit as an integrated, crosslingual, non-linear,heterogeneous, patterned and dynamic one (García and Kano 2014; May 2014b;Piccardo and Aiden 2014), consolidating important terms including linguisticrepertoire (Canagarajah 2014; Gajo 2014; García and Flores 2014; García andKano 2014) and plurilingualism (Gajo 2014; Meier 2014b; Piccardo and Aiden2014; Young 2014) to describe individual competences. This understanding isquite different to previous narrower, monolingual and arguably more limitedunderstandings (Chomsky 1959; Gass and Selinker 2008; Saussure 1966), andis supported by recent research (Atkinson 2011a; Kumaravadivelu 2005;Pennycook 2010). In fact, eight chapters confirmed that the field has developeda new understanding in this respect (Blackledge et al. 2014; May 2014b; Piccardoand Aiden 2014).

Furthermore, in the two books, languages are described as embodied andas part of a multimodal repertoire, including gestures, gaze, etc. (see above allBlock 2014). This has recently also been described by Mondada (2012) andAtkinson (2011b). I argue, that this could be understood through behaviourism,not in the way Skinner (1957) understood this, but in a more holistic way ofunderstanding languages as internalised performative activity.

4.1.2 Language and power

In the chapters I identified consistent concerns related to power. Twenty chap-ters referred to status (Blackledge et al. 2014), 16 to power (Young 2014; AuleearOwodally 2014) and four to ownership (Canagarajah 2014; Hu and McKay 2014)associated with languages. This is very much in line with critical appliedlinguistics (Pennycook 1998), and with literature related to voice and affor-dances (Kumaravadivelu 2005), as well as language socialisation and ideology(Duff and Talmy 2011). This is further linked to debates about languages per-ceived as useful or not useful (Lamb 2001; Cummins 2007). Additionally, own-ership refers to the belief that native speakers have greater legitimacy to use andteach a language than those who have acquired a language later in life, a pointto which I will return. Five of the chapters mention developments in our field toconsider languages as related to social representation, including status and


power of certain linguistic groups (Blackledge et al. 2014; Norton 2014), strength-ening a critical understanding of languages. Thus, the concern with power andideologies, or a language-as-power view is an important and consistent feature ofthe multilingual turn.

4.1.3 Multilingualism and alternative understandings

One of the main tenets of the multilingual turn based on my findings is theunderstanding of language as a multilingual and situated social practice. Thisidea is supported in 17 of the chapters (above all Auleear Owodally 2014;Blackledge et al. 2014; Canagarajah 2014; García and Flores 2014; García andKano 2014). This is an ontological departure from seeing languages as discretesystems that exist independent of the people who use them (as understood byPienemann 2008; Towell and Hawkins 1994). This language-as-multilingual-practice view, identified in the two books, is related to the view of languagesas integrated in the mind and in contact zones (Pratt 1991), as well as to dynamicsystems theory (Atkinson 2011a; Larsen-Freeman 2011), and points the way toalternative understandings of learning and pedagogy. Here, too, authors haveobserved changes in the field, namely towards understanding languages associal practice (García and Flores 2014) and towards “linguistics of contact”(Canagarajah 2014).

According to my analysis of the chapters, languages are understood asintegrated in the mind in 17 chapters (Gajo 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014).This is based on linguistic-psychological understandings, but unlike Ellis (2006)and Tomasello (2003), languages thus understood are seen as inter-related andinterdependent in the mind rather than separate. This view is also supported byrecent literature from neuroscience (Kroll et al. 2013; Lowie et al. 2014). In thisrespect, changes in the field have been confirmed in terms of increased use ofthe term plurilingualism (Gajo 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014) and languagesseen as dynamic and integrated (Gajo 2014).

4.2 Conceptualisation of the learners

Important findings discussed in this section are: labels used to describe learners;learner identities; learners as unique and complex; as agents; as language usersand multilingual practitioners; as shaped by society; and as participants in amultilingual world. Additionally, Anderson and Chung (2014) argue that the waywe understand the learner needs to be reconceptualised.


4.2.1 Description of the learners

On the one hand, authors in 11 chapters labelled learners by their background,for example by birth as “native speakers”, by country, by origin or by lan-guage background. On the other hand, learners were described as potentialbi-/multilinguals in 16 chapters, which is a potential-oriented, rather thanan essentialist, view that understands all people as potential or emergentbi-/multilinguals. This is related to the themes of ‘ownership of language’and ‘multiple identities’.

4.2.2 Learners as individuals

Authors in eleven chapters understood learners as having individual, hetero-geneous and dynamic identities (Cruickshank 2014; García and Flores 2014;Norton 2014). This is different from earlier understandings of learners astrainable (Skinner 1957) or as above all cognitive beings (Chomsky 1959). Itcould be viewed as an extension of socio-cultural understanding of peoplelearning in interaction with others (see Lantolf 2011). Interaction is associatedwith negotiation of participation and understanding yourself vis-à-vis another.This learner-with-dynamic-identity view is supported by a range of previousresearch (Freeman 1994; Norton and McKinney 2011; Wenger 1998), usingdifferent perspectives.

Table 2: Conceptualisation of the learner.


Description of learnersLabels (description based on background, origin, potential)

Learners as individualsAs unique

As agents

As having identities

As complex

Learners as (multilingual) practitionersAs language users

As multilingual practitioners

Learners in societyAs shaped by society

In a multilingual world


Eighteen chapters referred to learners as unique human beings (Canagarajah2014), with individual biographies and needs, while three referred to them ascomplex (May 2014b). This is different to previous understandings that emphasisedregularities and correlations, e. g. between learner characteristics and their learn-ing, which has been described and criticised by Larsen-Freeman (2011).Understanding the learners as complex human beings has also been confirmed tobe a recent change in our field (Block 2014; May 2014b).

Authors in thirteen chapters understand learners as agents (Anderson andChung 2014; Canagarajah 2014) who have and make choices. Socio-culturaltheory also sees learners as active participants in the learning process(Atkinson 2011a; Lantolf 2011; Larsen-Freeman 2011), and as a part of a socialpractice in a multilingual contact zone. Thus, the multilingual turn features alearner-as-a-complex agent view.

4.2.3 Learners as multilingual practitioners

Authors in ten chapters (Conteh et al. 2014a; Cruickshank 2014; Gajo 2014)understand language learners as multilingual practitioners and in 11 chapters(Leung 2014; Ortega 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014) as language users. It couldbe argued that conceptualising learners as users of their ‘new’ languages in thepresent rather than in the future is associated with the communicative turn andcognitive views of the learner, which, in the past, had often been intralinguallyconceived. However, the authors suggest a view of learners as multilingualsand users of mixed and integrated languages. To this end, some authors(May 2014b; Ortega 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014) recommend a move awayfrom pathologising language learners by focussing on deficits rather thanassets. Indeed some authors (Canagarajah 2014; May 2014b; Ortega 2014) statedthat there has been a move away from viewing learners as lacking languagecompetence, as was the case with the notions of non-native speakers, ‘inter-language’ and ‘fossilisation’ that refers to incomplete and incorrect languageuse, previously described and criticised by Jenkins (2006). This learner-as-multilingual-practitioner view is therefore an important aspect of the multilin-gual turn.

4.2.4 Learners in multilingual society

While learners are seen as agents, as discussed above, authors in 12 chaptersalso understood them as influenced by society or their social environment


(especially Auleear Owodally 2014). This could be seen as another indicator thatbehaviourism may still have some relevance, as this highlights environmentalstimulus as important in the learning process (Skinner 1957). However, based onmy findings, the environment is conceptualised as more than just stimulus, it isseen as socialising learners into social structures and thus is understood in amore ideological way (Duff and Talmy 2011). This is also associated with affor-dances (opportunities) as discussed below.

In ten of the chapters, authors mentioned that learners should be seen asexisting in the (multilingual) world (Conteh et al. 2014b; Meier 2014a), unlikeprevious understandings of learners that conceptualise learners as more inde-pendent cognitive beings (Gass and Selinker 2008). This indicates that themultilingual turn aligns with critical and ecological perspectives, seeing learnersas an integral part of a larger eco-system (Pennycook 2004; van Lier 2004).Thus, I argue that this learners-in-a-multilingual-ecosystem view is anotherimportant feature of the multilingual turn.

4.3 Conceptualisation of language learning

All authors subscribe to the critical paradigm, which, however, does not stopthem from drawing on a range of perspectives, in their moves towards multi-lingual understandings of learning (Table 3).

Table 3: Conceptualisation of language learning.


Theoretical perspectivesCritical

Complexity

Socio-cultural

Cognitive

Practice-based

Multilingual understandingsPluralistic approaches

Language-centred

Practice-based

Competence-based

Learner-centred

Alternative understandingsTheoretical changes observed (from... towards...)

Through linguistic integration

As practice


4.3.1 Theoretical perspectives

The authors in the sample refer to different perspectives, including cognitivist(Meier 2014b; Piccardo and Aiden 2014), socio-cultural (Canagarajah 2014; Contehet al. 2014a; Meier 2014b), complexity (Block 2014; Canagarajah 2014; Piccardo andAiden 2014), and all refer to critical perspectives on understanding learning. Thelatter is not surprising as the editors of both books proposed this. Nevertheless,based on my analysis, all authors endorse this perspective. While behaviourismwas not mentioned specifically, the emphasis on embodiment (developingphysiological automaticity) as well as on affordances and socialisation (as struc-tural stimulus encouraging or discouraging certain behaviour) indicates that a widerange of previous understandings of learning (behaviourism, cognitivism, socio-cultural theory, complexity and critical perspectives) arguably come together in themultilingual turn, thus incorporating, integrating and adapting previous theoreticalunderstandings. This resonates with calls for theoretical pluralism and/or reconci-liation that I observed in recent years (Larsen-Freeman 2007, Larsen-Freeman 2011;Zuengler and Miller 2006). Some authors in the chapters argue that learnerscognitively make sense of the world around them. However, there is no consensuson this. While some reject the cognitive understanding (May 2014b; Norton 2014;Block 2014), others advocate an expanded understanding to include multilingualapproaches to learning (Ortega 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014), such as intercom-prehension and language awareness, which both draw on multilingual knowledgeand repertoires. Practice- and competence-based understandings are also impor-tant notions of understanding language learning more generally and multilin-gually. The notion of competence includes linguistic, strategic and worldknowledge that can be drawn on for learning, using multilingualism as a resource,which is in line with a constructivist notion of learning. It also includes performa-tive knowledge, which is arguably connected to embodied practice that could beassociated with behaviourism, not narrowly conceived (see Skinner 1957), but in anexpanded multimodal understanding (see Block 2014). Practice- (Gajo 2014) anduser-based (Ortega 2014) understandings are learner-centred understandings, touse Kumaravadivelu’s (2005) term, as they consider how learners use their lan-guage repertoires in interaction with others in their everyday lives, which is relatedto learning through social interaction, as understood by socio-cultural theory(Lantolf 2011; Sieloff Magnan 2008). A critical understanding, or a learning-as-empowerment view, must be a determining (and expected) feature of the multi-lingual turn, as conceptualised in the two books. All authors in the sample (espe-cially Norton 2014; Li Wei 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014) are concerned in one wayor another with entitlement, justice, equality and rights, building on Pennycook(2004) and earlier writers such as Freire (1970). Others emphasise the importance of


pre-existing knowledge (Conteh et al. 2014) as suggested by advocates of funds-of-knowledge pedagogy (Gonzalez 1994; Mercado & Moll 1997) or the idea of distrib-uted knowledge (Lantolf and Poehner 2008). One of the main strands in this view,endorsed by all, is the recognition that learners have dynamic, and potentiallycomplex, identities and that they invest in their future through using and develop-ing their language repertoires.

4.3.2 Multilingual and alternative understandings

Multilingual competence based on Cummins’ interdependence hypothesisor on plurilingual competence was referred to in six chapters. There arelanguage-centred, learner-centred and practice-based multilingual conceptua-lisations. An interesting finding concerns three useful terms that are used tothink about multilingual learning: plurilingualism relating to individual exper-tise (Gajo 2014; Meier 2014b; Piccardo and Aiden 2014), translanguaging asindividual practice (García and Flores 2014; García and Kano 2014) and trans-lingual practice as social practice (Canagarajah 2014). Based on my under-standing, plurilingualism is more related to competence such as the languagerepertoire, including different languages, varieties and registers, while trans-languaging describes the way people use those repertoires to make sense of theworld, some argue in a cognitive way (Canagarajah 2014), but also in interac-tion with others referred to as translingual practice (Canagarajah 2014). Thus,there is some overlap between translanguaging and translingual practice, buttranslingual practice is more concerned with social rather than individualpractice.

The authors in the two books argue that there have been changes in ourfield relating to understanding language learning as multilingual practice(Canagarajah 2014; Gajo 2014; Leung 2014; Ortega 2014), and as based onlinguistic integration rather than separation (Blackledge et al. 2014; Block2014; García and Flores 2014; García and Kano 2014; May 2014b; Meier 2014b;Ortega 2014; Piccardo and Aiden 2014). These observations support the learning-as-a-multilingual-practice view and consolidate the findings established abovethat languages are not separate in the mind, body, school or society.

4.4 Challenges related to the multilingual turn

Some authors have explicitly referred to ‘challenges’, which is an inductivelyidentified theme. In six of the chapters, authors expressed concerns about


widespread monolingual myths, hampering wider application, and five observeda lack of support for practitioners in schools. These findings resonate withWeber’s (2014: 186) argument that there are “major pedagogical and attitudinalobstacles” in the way of implementing the more flexible multilingual educationhe proposes. Based on this, I developped two inductive themes to deepen ourunderstanding of both the attitudinal and the pedagogic challenge.

4.4.1 The attitudinal challenge

The attitudinal challenge, described by Weber (2014), has similarities with themonolingual myths that I identified as a theme (Table 4). The latter appear to bebased on misunderstandings (Young 2014; Ortega 2014), the wide-spread ideo-logically-informed monolingual norm (Ortega 2014; Canagarajah 2014),ingrained pedagogic and learning-theoretical traditions (Meier 2014a; Garcíaand Flores 2014), as well as economic/political motivations (Norton 2014;Leung 2014), including the general acceptance of language hierarchies.

There is the argument that pedagogic traditions and beliefs are largely built on amonolingual attitude, which is hard to shift (Young 2014; Ortega 2014; May2014b) – including the native-speaker myth, the language separation myth, andthe sequential acquisition myth. This shows that the attitudinal challenge hasbeen recognised but what we should do about it is less clear.

4.4.2 Pedagogic challenge

Besides identifying the lack of guidance for teachers, I also looked at pedagogicconsiderations that underlie the multilingual turn (Table 5), to better understandthe challenge at hand.

Table 4: Monolingual myths.


Monolingual mythsThe monolingual norm

Pedagogic traditions

Misunderstandings about multilingualism

Economic, political beliefs (e. g. English is enough)

Learning theory


The pedagogic considerations, featured in 12 chapters, point to power relationsinherent in society and educational institutions, and question the nature andlocation of knowledge (Anderson and Chung 2014; Canagarajah 2014).Furthermore, ten chapters refer to the need to empower stakeholders (Contehet al. 2014a; Anderson and Chung 2014), namely learners, teachers, families, andthus societies through reconceptualising knowledge, above all by recognisingthe learners’ funds of linguistic and other knowledge. Some emphasise learner-centredness (Li Wei 2014; Conteh et al. 2014a), including knowledge as dynamicand co-constructed between participants. The idea of empowerment throughdrawing on knowledge present in the classroom, identified in the chapters, isbased on a socio-constructivist funds-of-knowledge approach (see Gonzalez1994; Mercado and Moll 1997) or the idea of distributed knowledge (seeLantolf and Poehner 2008). With regard to pedagogic practice, the authorssuggest that languages (including varieties) should be integrated and drawnon for learning, and that the native-speaker goal should be revised, andreplaced) by that of plurilingual competencies or multilingualism as a goal.Kumaravadivelu’s (2005) post-method approach is deemed potentially useful(Piccardo and Aiden 2014).

Another important tenet of multilingual-turn pedagogy, manifest in the twobooks, is that teachers themselves can be seen as potential plurilingual beingswho can draw on their language repertoires and facilitate collaborative co-construction of knowledge, again in line with socio-cultural theory, ratherthan presenting the teachers as the sole person with authoritative native-speakerknowledge in the classroom. Such a reconceptualization of the teacher, calledfor by authors in seven chapters, suggest implications for teacher education(Conteh et al. 2014b; May 2014b). This could be supported through web-basedand research-informed teacher resources (see May 2014b for an example), or

Table 5: Pedagogic considerations.

Sub-themes No of chapters

Lack of teacher guidanceEducators unsure what to do

PedagogyPedagogic considerations

Empowerment of stakeholders

Multilingual approaches

Curriculum

Learner-centred approaches

Reconceptualisation of teacher role


through critical reflection on student-teachers’ own language ideologies, powerand status “so that they may become agents of change in the multilingualclassroom” (Young 2014). To this end, education could potentially challengethe monolingual norms, and already does as is evident from the two books, butperhaps not alone.

5 Discussion and conclusion

Based on my analysis, I argue that the multilingual turn can be seen as a criticaltransdisciplinarymovement, as it problematises knowledge and power relations thatare at play in education and societies more widely, as it straddles literacy, secondand foreign language learning, as well as the role of languages in content education.None of the chapters explicitly refer to critical pedagogy. Nevertheless, the findingspresented here are consistently concerned with concepts that are central to criticalpedagogy, such as the link between power and knowledge (McLaren 2013), and topedagogies, which are additionally concerned with the ways in which “socialrelationships are lived out in language” (Norton and Toohey 2004: 1). In the follow-ing, I suggest that my analysis at the centre of this article is helpful to approachattitudinal and pedagogic challenges by gaining a clearer understanding of assump-tions that underlie the multilingual turn. Addressing the lack of pedagogic guidancemore fully goes beyond the scope of this article and I refer the reader toWeber (2014),May (2014a), Conteh and Meier (2014), Cummins et al. (2006), Cummins (2007) andKumaravadivelu (2005) for further reading. Besides this, more research is urgentlyrequired to inform the development of user-friendly pedagogic guidance as part ofmore critical, crosscurricular, context-sensitive and flexiblemultilingual pedagogies.In order to add practical relevance to my findings, I present a framework forreflection in the final section

5.1 Conceptualisations associated with the multilingual turn

One of the contributions of this article is that it makes visible the ontologicalfoundations of the multilingual turn and links this to antecedent literature.At the same time this offers an answer to the research question, as follows.

In the chapters languages are conceptualised as integrated in mind, bodyand world, and above all as transnational mobile resources for learning andteaching, and as a multilingual social practice. These largely consistent findingsconfirm developments observed in the field towards an integrated view oflanguages, as previously proposed by relevant authors (Canagarajah 2013;


Jenkins 2006; Atkinson 2011b; Kumaravadivelu 2005). Language thus under-stood bridges linguistic and educational disciplines as described above.

Related to the above, learners are constructed as multilingual social practi-tioners and agents with dynamic and complex biographies and identities whoexist in a multilingual ecosystem. These findings reflect research interests devel-oped in recent years on user-based linguistics (Ortega 2014), identity (Nortonand McKinney 2011; Freeman 1994); language socialisation (Duff and Talmy2011); and ecological perspectives (van Lier 2000). In addition, user-basedlinguistics is linked to the idea of ownership of language, steering away fromnative-speaker, monolingual, and standard language norms (Jenkins 2006;Canagarajah 2013), as well as from territorial views of language (Blommaert2010). However, there is some inconsistency in the chapters in that languagebackgrounds are sometimes used to categorise learners, as part of a certaincommunity (e. g. minority or majority), while others steer clear of such categor-isations. Essentialised representations or labels are seen as problematic (Sarrouband Quadros 2014; Kibler and Valdes 2016) as this can reify certain deficitidentities. Thus the possibility view of emergent bi/multilinguals may be moreuseful, or the notion of developing linguistic repertoires.

Learning as theorised in the chapters is consistently based on the idea ofempowerment and learning as a multilingual practice, based on critical perspec-tives, possibly, at least in parts, based on editor bias but nevertheless endorsedby the 30 authors in the two books, as well as previous literature (e. g. Atkinson2011b; Cenoz 2012; Cummins 1979, 2007). Besides this, there is wide-spreadagreement that socio-cultural theory is a useful perspective to understandlearning. Indeed the latter is seen as a constituent or precursor of the multi-lingual turn (May 2014b). However, there is no unanimity, and authors in thesample argue that cognitive perspectives are either not useful, or that they needto be revised to accommodate the multilingual turn. Learning could therefore beunderstood based on theoretical pluralism. This enables researchers, whoassociate themselves with the multilingual turn, to assume different ontologicalpositions, and draw on revised forms of behaviourism and cognitivism, as wellas socio-cultural theory, complexity and ecological perspectives, guided aboveall by critical understandings. This is not necessarily a contradiction; on thecontrary the multilingual turn could be described as inclusive, proposing or atleast tolerating, plurality, unlike the previous cognitive and social turns thattended to reject previous understandings of learning. Thus, the multilingual turnmay be less divisive along theoretical, but perhaps more divisive along ideolo-gical lines, such as between those who welcome and accept more plural socie-ties, and those who may see these as a threat. In the current climate ofuncertainties, such as climate change, economic downturns, political changes,


refugee crises and terror threats, multilingualism may be seen by some as afurther destabilising force, and be one of the reasons for the perpetuation ofmonolingual and standard language norms by stakeholders in schools andsociety. To this end the thematic decomposition analysis enabled me to uncoverthe ontological foundations, the political and ideological nature of the multi-lingual turn and associated societal challenges.

5.2 A framework for critical reflection

Above, I have shown that there is an over-arching critical, and arguablyideological, theoretical perspective associated with the multilingual turn,which questions widely held assumptions about language, learners and learn-ing, as well as the nature and location of knowledge, social relationships andpower; all concepts associated with critical pedagogy (see McLaren 2013; Nortonand Toohey 2004).

Teachers, learners, parents and schools may make linguistic decisions thatare shaped by widely accepted monolingual and standard language norms andprevailing ideologies. Marxists might refer to this as false consciousness, suggest-ing unreflected acceptance of unequal power relations. In this article, I show thatdifferent ontological stances, or understandings of language, learners and learn-ing can thus lead teachers and schools to perpetuate, resist or challenge currentnorms. Whatever ontological and ideological positions educators assume, con-scious reflection of these concepts may contribute to understanding the conse-quences of these. Based on this, I invite (student) teachers, teacher educators andresearchers to reflect with their students, colleagues and/or participants on theirown local practices at societal, school, curricular and individual level and querytheir prevailing assumptions, associated consequences, such as participation,power and knowledge, and potential alternatives. The framework in Table 6,which is informed by this study and related literature, is designed to informsuch a reflection. The left-hand side of the table is loosely guided by traditional,monolingual assumptions, and the right-hand side is guided by critical, multi-lingual assumptions. However, I argue that there is no right or wrong, as mostlinguistic choices are compromises based on complex understandings that mightencompass both sides. However, being conscious of these assumptions is ofcritical importance as this may lead to different expectations, actions and powerdistributions in classrooms and society more widely.

This framework could act as a starting point to critically reflect on aparticular situation, using the concepts shown in Table 6, and examine ourunderstandings and attitudes of the potentially restrictive or emancipating effect


Table 6: Framework for critical reflection.

Languages are understood as...stable and/or dynamicstandard languages consisting of language varietiesterritorial de-territorialisedowned by NS owned by usersneutral being associated with powerhaving equal status hierarchicallinguistic systems a social practiceseparate systems integrated complex systems

Multilingualism is...to be avoided and/or a desirable goalseen as confusing for learners seen as a cognitive advantageseen as a problem for learning seen as a resource for learningseen as the exception seen as a normal condition

Learners are/have...empty vessels and/or cognitively capablecategorised as NS/NNS empowered as (emergent) bi/multilingualssingle, stable identities multiple, complex, dynamic identitieslanguage learners language users and social practitionershomogenous backgrounds diverse linguistic and life biographiesin a monolingual context in a multilingual worlda need to acquire new knowledge diverse funds of knowledge

Learning is (based on)...stimulus, response, habit formation and/or multilingual language socialisationa monolingual cognitive activity a multilingual cognitive activityan individual activity a social practicestudying one language at the time developing complex linguistic repertoiresseparate from the environment part of a complex eco-systempredictable unpredictableteacher guided autonomous, democratican intralingual/monolingual activity a crosslingual/multilingual activitydiscipline specific cross-curriculara monolingual context a multilingual contexta near-native speaker goal a bi/multilingual goal

Teachers...are language knowers and/or are language learnersdisseminate knowledge facilitate language usefocus on language learning focus on whole person in societypay little attention to local context are sensitive to local contextenforce monolingualism encourage judicious multilingualismare categorised as NS/NNS are empowered as (emergent) bi/multilingualsact as monolingual role models act as multilingual role modelshave power share power

NS: native speaker; NNS: non-native speaker.


that monolingual and multilingual approaches may have at different levels, toenable all stakeholders to engage in judicious, sensitive and conscious linguisticpractices to jointly make sense of the increasingly multilingual world, andperhaps weaken the monolingual myths in the long term. This would require,however, a reconceptualisation of teachers as multilingual role models, whomake visible their linguistic repertoires, including standard and non-standardlanguage varieties. Having said this, I would like to add a note of caution: amultilingual approach to learning and teaching does not advocate a laissez-faireattitude, where learners and teachers use any languages they like, as this mayneither be useful for learning nor empower learners (Moore 2013).

The ability to engage with others to make sense of the world and to solveproblems in a creative and multilingual way is bound to be an important skillnecessary to tackle global and local problems, and may offer an empoweringexperience, especially if the entire language repertoire, and a more holistic identity,is validated and considered a useful tool for learning and being. From this itfollows that any development of relevant multilingual pedagogies ought to bebased on joint reflections and revised understandings, and, as Pennycook (2004)points out, to consciousness raising, which is the basis of social action and change.In sum, this article shows that the multilingual turn forms part of a wider criticaland transdisciplinary movement in education. While it is relatively well theorised,its translation into practice is challenging, due to widely held monolinguallyinformed attitudes. Multi-agency work is now required to develop greater con-sciousness in mainstream practice. The framework (Table 6) is designed to con-tribute to such a process, and I would be very pleased to hear in what way and towhat effect readers use this framework in their varied practices.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Stephen May who generously pro-vided electronic copies of the chapters in his edited book and the respectivebook proposal. I am also grateful to the peer reviewers, colleagues from theLangscape group, as well as to Jean Conteh (University of Leeds), Hazel Lawson(University of Exeter) and Ralph Openshaw for their invaluable feedback onprevious versions of this article.

References

Anderson, J. & Y.-C. Chung. 2014. Transforming learning, building identities, arts-basedcreativity in the community languages classroom. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.),The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges, 278–291.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.


Atkinson, D. 2011a. A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition: How mind,body, and world work together in learning additional languages. In D. Atkinson (ed.),Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 143–166. Abingdon: Routledge.

Atkinson, D. 2011b. Alternative approaches tot second language acquisition. Abingdon:Routledge.

Auleear Owodally, A. M. 2014. Socialized into multilingualism: A case study of a Mauritianpre-school. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education:Opportunities and challenges, 17–40. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Blackledge, A., A. Creese & J. K. Takhi. 2014. Beyond multilingualism: heteroglossia in practice.In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual education,216. New York: Routledge.

Block, D. 2003. The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.

Block, D. 2014. Moving beyond “Lingualism”: Multilingual embodiment and multimodality inSLA. In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingualeducation, 54–77. New York: Routledge.

Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: University Press.Blommaert, J. & A. Backus. 2011. Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity.

Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, Paper 67.Braun, V. & V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology 3(2). 77–101.Canagarajah, A. S. 2013. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmpolitan relations.

Abindgon: Routledge.Canagarajah, A. S. 2014. Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone.

In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education,78–102. New York: Routledge.

Carrasco Perea, E. 2010. Intercompréhension(s): Repères, interrogations et perspectives. InSylvains les Moulins (ed.), Synergies Europe, 5. France: Gerflint.

Cenoz, J. 2012. Third language acquisition the encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken,NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Chomsky, N. 1959. Review of Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language Awareness 35. 26–58.Conteh, J., S. Begum & S. Riasat. 2014a. Multilingual pedagogy in primary settings: From the

margins to the mainstream. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languageseducation: Opportunities and challenges, 211–233. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Conteh, J., F. Copland & A. Creese. 2014b. Multilingual teachers’ resources in three differentcontexts: Empowering learning. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn inlanguages education: Opportunities and challenges, 158–178. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Conteh, J. & G.Meier. (eds.). 2014. The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunitiesand challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Cook, V. 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 57(2). 402–423.

Cook, V. & D. Singleton. 2014. Key topics in second language acquisition. Bristol: MultilingualMatters.

Council of Europe. 2001. The common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruickshank, K. 2014. Exploring the -lingual between Bi and mono: Young people and theirlanguages in an Australian context. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual


turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges, 41–63. Bristol: MultilingualMatters.

Cummins, J. 1979. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingualchildren. Review of Educational Research 49(1979). 222–251.

Cummins, J. 2007. Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(2). 221–240.

Cummins, J., V. Bismilla, P. Chow, S. Cohen, F. Giampapa, L. Leoni & P. Sastri. 2006. ELLstudents speak for themselves: Identity texts and literacy engagement in multilingualclassrooms. Curriculum Services Canada. Toronto.http://www.curriculum.org/secretariat/files/ELLidentityTexts.pdf (accessed 3 August 2016).

Davies, A. & C. Elder. 2004. The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Duff, P. & S. Talmy. 2011. Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition:

Social, cultural, and lingusitic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (ed.),Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 95–116. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ellis, N. C. 2006. Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED*. AILA Review19. 100–121.

Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Firth, A. & J. Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in

SLA research. Modern Language Journal 81(3). 285–300.Freeman, R. D. 1994. Language planning and identity planning: An emergent understanding.

Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 10(1). 1–20.Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.Gajo, L. 2014. From normalization to didactization of multilingualism: European and

francophone research at the crossroads between linguistics and didactics. In J. Conteh &G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities andchallenges, 113–131. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

García, O. & N. Flores. 2014. Multilingualism and common core state standards in the UnitedStates. In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingualeducation, 147–166. New York: Routledge.

García, O. & N. Kano. 2014. Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing English writingof Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn inlanguages education: Opportunities and challenges, 258–277. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

García, O. & C. Leiva. 2012. Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice.In A. Creese & A. Blackledge (eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy. Dordrecht(Netherlands): Springer.

Gass, S. & L. Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 3rd edn.New York: Routledge

Gass, S. M. 2013. Second language acquisition: An introductory course, 4th edn. New York:Routledge.

Gonzalez, N. 1994. The funds of knowledge for teaching project. Practicing Anthropology17(3). 3–6.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Howatt, A. P. R. & H. G. Widdowson. 2004. A history of English language teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Hu, G. & S. L. MCKay. 2014. Multilingualism as portrayed in a Chinese English textbook.

In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunitiesand challenges, 64–87. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.


Jenkins, J. 2006. Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of AppliedLinguistics 16(2). 137–162. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00111.x.

Kibler, A. K. & G. Valdés. 2016. Conceptualizing language learners: Socioinstitutionalmechanisms and their consequences. The Modern Language Journal 100(Supplement2016). 96–116.

Krashen, S. D. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.Kroll, J. F., J. W. Gullifer & E. Rossi. 2013. The multilingual lexicon: The cognitive and neural

basis of lexical comprehension and production in two or more languages. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics 33. 102–127.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 2005. Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. NewYork: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lamb, T. 2001. Language policy and multilingualism in the UK. Language Learning JournalSummer 23(Multilingualism and the UK). 4–12.

Lantolf, J. P. 2011. The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Socioculturaltheory, second language acquisition, and articial L2 development. In D. Atkinson(ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 24–47. Abindong:Routledge.

Lantolf, J. P. & G. Appel. 1994. Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskianapproaches to second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (eds.), Vygotskianapproaches to second language research, 1–32. Norwood, NL: Aplex.

Lantolf, J. P. & M. E. Poehner. 2008. Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages.London: Equinox.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 2007. Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second languageacquisition. Modern Language Journal 91(Focus Issue). 773–787.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 2011. A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition,48–72. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lasagabaster, D. & J. M. Sierra. 2007. Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences thansimilarities. ELT Journal 64(4). 367–375.

Leung, C. 2014. Communication and participatory involvement in linguistically diverseclassrooms. In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL andBilingual education, 123–146. New York: Routledge.

Li, W. 2014. Who’s teaching whom? Co-learning in multilingual classrooms. In S. May (ed.),The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual education, 167–190.New York: Routledge.

Lowie, W., R. Plat & K. de Bot. 2014. Pink noise in language production: A nonlinear approachto the multilingual lexicon. Ecological Psychology 26(3). 216–228.

May, S. (ed.) 2014a. The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education.New York: Routledge.

May, S. 2014b. Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn.In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education,7–31. New York: Routledge.

McLaren, P. 2013. Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In J. Soler et al. (eds.),Transforming practice: Critical issues in equity, diversity and education. Milton Keynes:Open University Press.

Mehisto, P., D. Marsh & M. J. Frigols. 2008. Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integratedlearning in Bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.


Meier, G. 2014a. Multilingualism and social cohesion: Two-way immersion education meetsdiverse needs. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languageseducation: Opportunities and challenges, 179–208. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Meier, G. 2014b. Our mother tongue is plurlingualism: An orientation framework for integratedmultilingual curricula. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languageseducation: Opportunities and challenges, 132–157. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Mercado, C. I. & L. C. Moll. 1997. The study of funds of knowledge: Collaborative research inLatino homes. CENTRO Journal of the Centre for Puerto Rican Studies IX(9). 26–42.

Meyer, O., D. Coyle, A. Halbach, K. Schuck & T. Ting. 2015. A pluriliteracies approach to contentand language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledgeconstruction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum 28(1). 41–57.

Mondada, L. 2012. The dynamics of embodied participation and language choice in multilingualmeetings. Language in Society 41(2). 213–235. doi:10.2307/41487754.

Moore, P. J. 2013. An emergent perspective on the use of the first language in theEnglish-as-a-foreign-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 97(1). 239–253.

Myles, F. & R. Mitchell. 2004. Second language learning theories. London: Hodder Education.Norton, B. 2014. Identity, literacy, and the multilingual classroom. In S. May (ed.), The

multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual education, 103–122. NewYork: Routledge.

Norton, B. & C. McKinney. 2011. An identity approach to second language acquisition.In D. Atkinson (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 73–94.Abingdon: Routledge.

Norton, B. & K. Toohey. 2004. Critical pedagogies and language learning: An introduction.In B. Norton & K. Toohey (eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning, 1–17.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ortega, L. 2014. Ways forward for a Bi/Multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (ed.), The multilingualturn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual education, 32–53. New York: Routledge.

Pennycook, A. 2004. Language policy and the ecological turn. Language Policy. 3(3). 213–239.Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a local practice. Abingdon: Routledge.Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.Piccardo, E. & J. Aiden. 2014. Plurilingualism and empathy: Beyond instrumental language

learning. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education:Opportunities and challenges, 234–257. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Pienemann, M. 2008. A brief introduction to processability theory. In J.-U. Keßler (ed.),Processability approaches to second language development and second languagelearning. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Pratt, M. L. 1991. The arts of the contact zone. Profession 91. 33–40.Saussure, F. 1966. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Sarroub, Loukia K. & Sa brina Quadros. 2014. Critical pedaogy in classroom discourse.

In Martha Bigelow & Johanna Ennser-Kananen (eds.), The Routledge handbook ofeducational linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.

Scott, V. M. & M. J. de la Fuente. 2008. What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal 92(1).100–113.

Sieloff Magnan, S. 2008. The unfulfilled promise of teaching for communicative competence:Insights from sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (eds.), Socioculturaltheory and the teaching of second languages, 349–379. London: Equinox.


Skinner, B. F. 1957. Verbal behaviour. New York: Copley Publishing Group.Stenner, P. 1993. Discoursing jealousy. In E. Burman & I. Parker (eds.), Discourse analytic

research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action, 94–132. London: Routledge.Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Towell, R. & R. Hawkins. 1994. Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological

perspective. In L. Van Lier (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning,155–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning. New York: Kluwer Academic.Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressWeber, J.-J. 2014. Flexible multilingual education: Putting children’s needs first. Bristol:

Multilingual Matters.Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Williams, C. H. 2000. Language revitalisation, policy and planning in Wales. Cardiff: University

of Wales Press.Wright, S. 2004. Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalisation.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Young, A. 2014. Looking through the language lens: Monolingual taint or plurilingual tint?.

In J. Conteh & G. Meier (eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunitiesand challenges, 89–110. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Zuengler, J & E. R. Miller. 2006. Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLAworlds? TESOL Quarterly 40(1). 35–58.


The multilingual turn as a critical movement in education ...

Documents

Transcript of The multilingual turn as a critical movement in education ...